SELF
STUDY
REPORT
Submitted
to:
Council
on
Education
for
Public
Health
Submitted
by:
Master
of
Public
Health
Program
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
Claremont
Graduate
University
Blank
page
Claremont
Graduate
University
(CGU)
Master
of
Public
Health
(MPH)
Program
180
East
Via
Verde,
Ste.
100
San
Dimas,
California
91773
Phone
(909)
607‐6729
Fax
(909)
592‐8411
Website
www.cgu.edu/scgh
Contact:
Darleen
Peterson,
PhD,
MPH,
MA,
MCHES
Assistant
Professor
&
Associate
Dean
of
Academic
Affairs
MPH
Program
Director
Email:
darleen.peterson@cgu.edu
Final
Draft
Submitted
August
2011
Blank
page
Table
of
Contents
MPH
RESOURCE
FILE
................................................................................................................................
xi
INTRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................................
1
CRITERION
1.0
THE
PUBLIC
HEALTH
PROGRAM
...........................................................................................
3
Criterion
1.1.
Mission,
Goals
and
Objectives
..........................................................................................
5
Mission
Statement
...............................................................................................................................
5
Goal
Statements
..................................................................................................................................
7
Objectives
............................................................................................................................................
8
Development
.....................................................................................................................................
14
Determination
of
Values
Definition
...................................................................................................
16
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
18
Criterion
1.2.
Evaluation
and
Planning
..................................................................................................
19
Evaluation
Procedures
and
Planning
Processes
.................................................................................
19
Use
of
Evaluation
Results
..................................................................................................................
23
Outcome
Measures
and
Target
Levels
..............................................................................................
24
Assessments
of
Strengths
and
Weaknesses
......................................................................................
29
Responses
to
Last
Accreditation
Report
............................................................................................
29
Development
of
the
Self‐Study
Document
........................................................................................
29
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
30
Criterion
1.3.
Institutional
Environment
...............................................................................................
31
History
and
Tradition
.........................................................................................................................
31
Organizational
Chart
of
the
University
..............................................................................................
33
Lines
of
Accountability
.......................................................................................................................
34
Collaborative
Program
.......................................................................................................................
46
Formal
Written
Agreement
for
Collaborative
Program
.....................................................................
46
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
46
Criterion
1.4.
Organization
and
Administration
....................................................................................
49
Organizational
Chart
of
the
Program
.................................................................................................
49
Roles
and
Responsibilities
..................................................................................................................
50
Coordination,
Cooperation
and
Collaboration
..................................................................................
50
Commitment
to
Fair
and
Ethical
Dealings
.........................................................................................
51
Student
Grievances
and
Complaints
..................................................................................................
52
Page
i
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
52
Criterion
1.5.
Governance
....................................................................................................................
55
Program
Administration
....................................................................................................................
55
Policy
Documents
..............................................................................................................................
59
List
of
Standing
and
Ad
hoc
Committees
...........................................................................................
59
Faculty
Memberships
and
Committees
.............................................................................................
62
Student
Roles
in
Governance
.............................................................................................................
63
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
65
Criterion
1.6.
Resources
........................................................................................................................
67
Budget
Process
..................................................................................................................................
67
Program
Budget
Statement
...............................................................................................................
68
Collaborative
Program
.......................................................................................................................
69
Core
Faculty
.......................................................................................................................................
69
Faculty,
Students,
and
Student/Faculty
Ratios
..................................................................................
71
Other
Personnel
.................................................................................................................................
72
Space
..................................................................................................................................................
73
Laboratory
Space
and
Special
Equipment
.........................................................................................
74
Computer
Facilities
............................................................................................................................
74
Library/Information
Resources
..........................................................................................................
75
Community
Resources
.......................................................................................................................
76
In‐Kind
Academic
Contributions
........................................................................................................
79
Outcome
Measures
...........................................................................................................................
82
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
82
CRITERION
2.0
INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS
.............................................................................................
85
Criterion
2.1.
Master
of
Public
Health
Degree
......................................................................................
87
Instructional
Matrix
...........................................................................................................................
87
University
Bulletin
.............................................................................................................................
88
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
89
Criterion
2.2.
Program
Length
..............................................................................................................
91
Definition
of
Credit
............................................................................................................................
91
Minimum
Degree
Requirements
.......................................................................................................
91
Awarding
of
Degrees
.........................................................................................................................
92
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
92
Page
ii
Criterion
2.3.
Public
Health
Core
Knowledge
........................................................................................
93
Assurance
of
Core
Knowledge
...........................................................................................................
93
Assessment
of
Criterion
.....................................................................................................................
95
Criterion
2.4.
Practical
Skills
..................................................................................................................
97
Practice
Placement
Policies
and
Procedures
.....................................................................................
97
Practice
Placement
Experiences
......................................................................................................
102
Student
Waivers
..............................................................................................................................
103
Resident
Summary
...........................................................................................................................
103
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
103
Criterion
2.5.
Culminating
Experience
................................................................................................
105
Overview
..........................................................................................................................................
105
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
108
Criterion
2.6.
Required
Competencies
................................................................................................
111
Core
Public
Health
Competencies
...................................................................................................
111
Description
of
Learning
Experiences
...............................................................................................
112
Competencies
by
Specialty
Areas
....................................................................................................
114
Competency
Development
..............................................................................................................
115
Modification
of
Competencies
........................................................................................................
116
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
117
Criterion
2.7.
Assessment
Procedures
................................................................................................
119
Assessment
Methodology
...............................................................................................................
119
Student
Achievement
Outcomes
.....................................................................................................
123
Outcome
Measures
.........................................................................................................................
124
Destination
of
Graduates
.................................................................................................................
125
Certification
of
Professional
Competencies
.....................................................................................
126
Assessments
of
Alumni
and
Employers
of
Graduates
.....................................................................
126
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
126
Criterion
2.8.
Academic
Degrees
.........................................................................................................
127
Academic
Degree
Programs
and
Areas
of
Specialization
................................................................
127
Evidence
of
Public
Health
Orientation
.............................................................................................
127
Culminating
Experience
...................................................................................................................
127
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
127
Criterion
2.9.
Doctoral
Degrees
..........................................................................................................
129
Page
iii
Instructional
Matrix
.........................................................................................................................
129
Student
Data
....................................................................................................................................
129
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
129
Criterion
2.10.
Joint
Degrees
...............................................................................................................
131
Identification
of
Degrees
.................................................................................................................
131
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
134
Criterion
2.11.
Distance
Education
or
Executive
Degree
Programs
....................................................
135
Identification
of
Degrees
.................................................................................................................
135
Description
of
Models/Methods
.....................................................................................................
135
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
135
CRITERION
3.0
CREATION,
APPLICATION
AND
ADVANCEMENT
OF
KNOWLEDGE
...................................
137
Criterion
3.1.
Research
........................................................................................................................
139
University
Research
Activities
..........................................................................................................
139
Community‐Based
Research
Activities
............................................................................................
142
Core
Faculty
Research
Activities
......................................................................................................
144
Determining
of
Success
of
Research
Activities
................................................................................
149
Student
Involvement
in
Research
....................................................................................................
151
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
156
Criterion
3.2.
Service
...........................................................................................................................
157
Faculty
Service
Activities:
Policies,
Procedures
and
Practices
.........................................................
157
Listing
of
Current
Service
Activities
.................................................................................................
158
Measures
of
Evaluating
Effectiveness
of
Service
Efforts
.................................................................
165
Student
Involvement
in
Service
.......................................................................................................
165
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
171
Criterion
3.3.
Workforce
Development
..............................................................................................
173
Continuing
Education
Activities
.......................................................................................................
173
Certificate
Programs
........................................................................................................................
177
Continuing
Education
Programs
Offered
.........................................................................................
178
Program
Collaborators
.....................................................................................................................
180
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
180
CRITERION
4.0
FACULTY,
STAFF
AND
STUDENTS
.....................................................................................
183
Criterion
4.1.
Faculty
Qualifications
....................................................................................................
185
Faculty
Matrix
..................................................................................................................................
185
Page
iv
Adjunct
Faculty
................................................................................................................................
201
Faculty
Integration
of
the
Practice
Community
...............................................................................
203
Faculty
Outcome
Measures
.............................................................................................................
204
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
205
Criterion
4.2.
Faculty
Policies
and
Procedures
....................................................................................
207
Faculty
Handbook
............................................................................................................................
207
Faculty
Development
.......................................................................................................................
207
Procedures
for
Evaluation
of
Faculty
...............................................................................................
208
Student
Course
Evaluation
Process
.................................................................................................
210
Value
of
Community
Service
Activities
............................................................................................
212
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
212
Criterion
4.3.
Faculty
and
Staff
Diversity
............................................................................................
213
Faculty
Demographic
Data
...............................................................................................................
213
Staff
Demographic
Data
...................................................................................................................
214
Equal
Opportunity
Policies
..............................................................................................................
214
Recruitment
and
Retention
Efforts
..................................................................................................
216
Diverse
Environment
.......................................................................................................................
217
Diversity
Outcome
Measures
..........................................................................................................
223
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
223
Criterion
4.4.
Student
Recruitment
and
Admissions
...........................................................................
225
Recruitment
Policies
........................................................................................................................
225
Admission
Policies
...........................................................................................................................
226
Recruitment
Materials
.....................................................................................................................
227
MPH
Applicants,
Acceptances
and
Enrollments
..............................................................................
228
Enrollment
Information
...................................................................................................................
229
Identification
of
Outcome
Measures
...............................................................................................
229
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
230
Criterion
4.5.
Student
Diversity
...........................................................................................................
231
Policy
and
Procedures
.....................................................................................................................
231
Diversity
Recruitment
Efforts
..........................................................................................................
231
Evaluation
of
Recruitment
Efforts
to
Achieve
a
Diverse
Student
Body
...........................................
236
Student
Demographic
Data
.............................................................................................................
236
Student
Diversity
Outcome
Measures
.............................................................................................
237
Page
v
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
237
Criterion
4.6.
Advising
and
Career
Counseling
....................................................................................
239
Academic
Advising
...........................................................................................................................
239
Student
Grievance
Procedures
........................................................................................................
241
Satisfaction
with
Advising
................................................................................................................
241
Assessment
of
Criterion
...................................................................................................................
242
Page
vi
List
of
Tables
and
Figures
Figure
1.1.a.
Map
of
the
Inland
Empire
and
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
areas
..........................................
5
Table
1.1.a.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Instructional
Goals
..................................................
9
Table
1.1.b.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Research
Goals
......................................................
12
Table
1.1.c.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Service
Goals
.........................................................
13
Table
1.2.a.
MPH
Program
Evaluation
Procedures
...........................................................................
19
Table
1.2.c.(1).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Evaluation
and
Planning
.....................................
25
Table
1.2.c.(2).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Instructional
Programs
.......................................
25
Table
1.2.c.(3).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Research
.............................................................
26
Table
1.2.c.(4).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Service
................................................................
26
Table
1.2.c.(5).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Faculty
................................................................
27
Table
1.2.c.(6).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Students
..............................................................
28
Table
1.2.c.(7).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Resources
...........................................................
29
Figure
1.3.b
Organization
Chart
of
the
University
............................................................................
33
Figure
1.4.a.
Organizational
Chart
of
the
Program
............................................................................
49
Table
1.5.c.(1).
Current
MPH
Program
Steering
Committee
.................................................................
59
Table
1.5.c.(2).
Current
MPH
Program
Curriculum
Committee
.............................................................
60
Table
1.5.c.(3).
Current
MPH
Program
Admissions
&
Recruitment
Committee
....................................
61
Table
1.5.c.(4).
Current
MPH
Program
Advisory
Committee
.................................................................
61
Table
1.5.c.(5).
Current
MPH
Program
Accreditation/Self
Study
Committee
........................................
62
Table
1.5.d.
Current
MPH
Program
Faculty
Membership
on
University
&
School
Committees1
.................................................................................................................
62
Table
1.6.a.
Gross
and
Net
Tuition
Revenues
...................................................................................
68
Table
1.6.b.
Sources
of
Funds
and
Expenditures
by
Major
Category,
Fiscal
Years
2009‐
2012
..............................................................................................................................
69
Table
1.6.d.(1).
Headcount
of
Core
Faculty
by
Concentration
..............................................................
70
Table
1.6.d.(2).
Headcount
of
Adjunct
Faculty
by
Concentration
..........................................................
71
Table
1.6.e.
Faculty,
Students
and
Student/Faculty
Ratios
by
Department
or
Specialty
Area
...............................................................................................................................
71
Table
1.6.f.
MPH
Program
Administration
.......................................................................................
73
Table
1.6.g.
Space
Available
for
the
MPH
Program
..........................................................................
73
Table
1.6.k.(1).
Participation
Faculty
in
Summer
Global
Health
Workshop
...........................................
77
Page
vii
Table
1.6.k.(2).
Community
Resources
Available
for
Research
..............................................................
78
Table
1.6.k.(3).
Community
Resources
Available
for
Service
.................................................................
78
Table
1.6.l.(1).
In‐kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
‐‐
Guest
Speakers
for
MPH
Courses
..........................................................................................................................
79
Table
1.6.l.(2).
In‐kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
‐‐
Guest
Speakers
for
SCGH
Global
Health
Seminar
Series
and
Annual
Symposium
.................................................
80
Table
1.6.m.
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Resources
...........................................................
82
Table
2.1.a.
Instructional
Matrix
–
Degree/Specialization
...............................................................
87
Table
2.1.b.
MPH
Curriculum
by
Concentration
...............................................................................
88
Table
2.2.a.
Summary
of
Credit
and
Contact
Hours
.........................................................................
91
Table
2.2.c.
Summary
of
Substitutions
to
MPH
Requirements
.......................................................
92
Table
2.3.a.
Required
Courses
Addressing
Public
Health
Core
Knowledge
Areas
for
the
MPH
Degree
..................................................................................................................
93
Table
2.4.a.
Internship
Organizations
&
Preceptors
.........................................................................
99
Table
2.4.b.
Internship
Placements
2010‐2011
..............................................................................
102
Table
2.4.c.
Partial
Waivers
of
the
Practice
Experience
.................................................................
103
Figure
2.5.a.(1).
Grading
Rubric
for
Portfolio
........................................................................................
107
Figure
2.5.a.(2).
Grading
Rubric
for
Final
Paper
....................................................................................
107
Table
2.6.a.
MPH
Core
Competencies,
adopted
from
Council
of
Linkages
Between
Academia
and
Public
Health
Practice,
2009
................................................................
111
Table
2.6.b.
Learning
Experiences
and
MPH
Competencies
...........................................................
112
Table
2.6.c.
Competencies
by
Specialty
Area,
adopted
from
NCHEC
&
ASPH
................................
114
Table
2.7.a.
MPH
Data
Streams
......................................................................................................
119
Table
2.7.b.(1).
Outcome
Measures
Used
to
Evaluate
Student
Achievement
.....................................
123
Table
2.7.b.(2).
Distributions
of
Cumulative
GPAs.
Target:
At
Least
90%
............................................
124
Table
2.7.c.(1).
Students
in
MPH
Degree
By
Cohorts
Entering
Between
2009‐2010
and
2011‐2012
...................................................................................................................
125
Table
2.7.c.(2).
Destination
of
Graduates
by
Employment
Type,
2010‐2011
......................................
125
Table
2.10.a.(1).
Summary
of
Substitutions
of
MBA
Courses
to
MPH
Requirements
............................
132
Table
2.10.a.(2).
Summary
of
Substitutions
of
MA
Courses
to
MPH
Requirements
..............................
133
Table
2.10.a.(3).
Summary
of
Substitutions
of
Master’s
Degree
Courses
to
MPH
Requirements
..............................................................................................................
134
Table
3.1.b.
Current
Faculty
Community‐Based
Research
Activities,
2009‐2011
...........................
142
Page
viii
Table
3.1.c.
Research
Activity
of
Core
Faculty
from
2009‐2011
.....................................................
145
Table
3.1.d.(1).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Research
...........................................................
149
Table
3.1.d.(2).
MPH
Faculty
Peer
Reviewed
Publications
...................................................................
150
Table
3.1.d.(3).
MPH
Faculty
Presentations
.........................................................................................
150
Table
3.1.e.
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Research
..................................................
152
Table
3.2.b.
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
................................................................................
159
Table
3.2.c.
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Service
..............................................................
165
Table
3.2.d.(1).
Community
Service
Activities
Conducted
by
the
MPH
Student
Association
..............
166
Table
3.2.d.(2).
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Service
.....................................................
168
Table
3.3.a.
SCGH
Agency
Affiliations
............................................................................................
174
Table
3.3.c.
Continuing
Education
Sessions
Sponsored
by
the
CGU
MPH
Program
.......................
179
Table
4.1.a.
Summary
of
Core
Faculty
Experience
in
Public
Health
...............................................
186
Table
4.2.a.
Current
Core
Faculty
Supporting
Degree
Offerings
of
School
or
Program
by
Department/Specialty
Area
........................................................................................
200
Table
4.1.b.
Current
Other
Faculty
Used
to
Support
Teaching
Program
(Adjunct,
Part‐
Time,
Secondary,
etc.)
.................................................................................................
202
Table
4.1.d.
Measures
Assessing
Qualifications
of
Faculty
Complement
.......................................
204
Table
4.2.c.
Faculty
Teaching
Assignments
in
the
MPH
Program
...................................................
209
Table
4.2.d.
Summary
of
MPH
Course
Ratings
...............................................................................
211
Table
4.3.a.
Summary
Demographic
Data
for
Current
Core
and
Other
Faculty
.............................
213
Table
4.3.b.
Summary
Demographic
Data
for
Staff
........................................................................
214
Table
4.3.f.
Outcome
Measures
for
Achieving
Diverse
Faculty
Complement
................................
223
Table
4.4.b.
Student
Rating
of
Admissions
Process
at
CGU
............................................................
227
Table
4.4.d.
Quantitative
Information
on
Applicants,
Acceptances,
and
Enrollments
by
Program
Area
..............................................................................................................
228
Table
4.4.e.
Students
Enrolled
in
Each
Degree
Program
by
Area
of
Specialization
........................
229
Table
4.4.f.
MPH
Program
Admission
Outcome
Measures
............................................................
229
Table
4.5.b.(1).
Summary
of
Recruitment
Events
Attended*
..............................................................
232
Table
4.5.b.(2).
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Support
.............................................................................
234
Table
4.5.c.(1).
Demographic
Characteristics
of
Student
Body
...........................................................
236
Table
4.5.d.
Measures
Assessing
a
Demographically
Diverse
Student
Body
..................................
237
Table
4.6.b.
Summary
of
Grievances
Submitted
by
Students
.........................................................
241
Page
ix
Blank
page
Page
x
MPH
RESOURCE
FILE
Criterion
1.0
THE
PUBLIC
HEALTH
PROGRAM
Criterion
1.1.
Mission,
Goals
and
Objectives
1.1.d.
CGU
Strategic
Plan
1.1.d.
SCGH
Strategic
Plan
1.5.d.
MPH
Student
Handbook
Criterion
1.2.
Evaluation
and
Planning
1.2.a.
Student
Entrance
Survey
1.2.a.
Student
Exit
Survey
1.2.a.
Current
Student
Survey
1.2.a.
Focus
Group
Report
1.2.a.
Alumni
Survey
1.2.a.
Faculty
Survey
1.2.a.
Employer
Survey
Criterion
1.3.
Institutional
Environment
1.5.b.
Institutional
Handbook
1.5.b.
Staff
Handbook
1.5.b.
Affirmative
Action
Hiring
Procedures
1.5.b.
Policies
&
Procedures
Manual
Criterion
1.4.
Organization
and
Administration
1.4.d.
Statement
of
Student
Rights
and
Responsibilities
1.4.d.
Guidelines
for
Approval
of
Human
Subjects
1.4.e.
Summary
of
Student
Grievances
Criterion
1.5.
Governance
1.5.a.
Committee
Agendas
and
Minutes
1.5.a.
Staff
Resumes
1.5.a.
SCGH
Budgets
1.5.e.
Student
Association
Bylaws
1.5.e.
Graduate
Student
Council
Bylaws
Page
xi
Criterion
1.6.
Resources
1.6.j.
List
of
public
health
holdings
(Journals)
1.6.k.
Formal
agreements
for
Community
Resources
for
Research
1.6.l.
Formal
Agreements
for
In‐Kind
Academic
Contributions
(Cisco)
Criterion
2.0
INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS
Criterion
2.1.
Master
of
Public
Health
Degree
2.1.b.
University
Bulletin
2.1.b.
Course
Description
2.1.b.
Course
Schedules
Criterion
2.2.
Program
Length
2.2.d.
Course
Substitutions
with
Transfer
Coursework
Criterion
2.3.
Public
Health
Core
Knowledge
2.3.a.
Directed
Research
Contracts
Criterion
2.4.
Practical
Skills
2.4.a.
MPH
Internship
Handbook
and
Forms
2.4.a.
Affiliation
Agreements
for
Student
Placement
2.4.a.
Student
Learning
Contracts
2.4.a.
Preceptor
Evaluation
of
Student
Performance
2.4.a.
Sample
Posters
2.4.a.
Completed
Grading
Rubrics
for
Poster
Presentation
2.4.a.
Student
Internship
Binders
2.4.a.
Student
Waiver
Applications
&
Summary
of
Committee
Decisions
Criterion
2.5.
Culminating
Experience
2.5.a.
Completed
Rubrics
for
MPH
Capstone
Project
2.5.a.
Sample
Capstone
Projects
Criterion
2.6.
Required
Competencies
2.1.b.
MPH
Course
Syllabi
Page
xii
Criterion
2.7.
Assessment
Procedures
2.7.a.
Student
Performance
Assessment
Results
and
Action
Plan
Criterion
2.8.
Academic
Degrees
Criterion
2.9.
Doctoral
Degrees
Criterion
2.10.
Joint
Degrees
2.10.a.
Copies
of
Dual
Degree
Proposals
Criterion
2.11.
Distance
Education
or
Executive
Degree
Programs
Criterion
3.0
CREATION,
APPLICATION
AND
ADVANCEMENT
OF
KNOWLEDGE
Criterion
3.1.
Research
Criterion
3.2.
Service
Criterion
3.3.
Workforce
Development
3.3.a.
Copies
of
Event
Materials
3.3.a.
Continuing
Education
Survey
&
Results
Criterion
4.0.
FACULTY,
STAFF
AND
STUDENTS
Criterion
4.1.
Faculty
Qualifications
4.1.a.
Faculty
CVs
by
Concentration
Criterion
4.2.
Faculty
Policies
and
Procedures
4.2.d.
Teaching
Evaluations
Criterion
4.3
Faculty
and
Staff
Diversity
Criterion
4.4.
Student
Recruitment
and
Admissions
4.4.a.
Recruitment
Plan
4.4.a.
Annual
Recruitment
Report
4.4.b.
Admissions
Reviewer
Form
Page
xiii
4.4.b.
Admission
Letters
(Program
&
University)
4.4.c.
Promotional
Materials
Criterion
4.5.
Student
Diversity
Criterion
4.6.
Advising
and
Career
Counseling
4.6.a.
Student
Counseling
Sheets
Page
xiv
ACRONYMS
AA
AACSB
AADC
ABE
ACB
ALDP
APHA
APPEAL
APT
ASC
CBPR
CCDL
CDC
CD‐RW
CE
CEPH
CGH
CGU
CHES
CIP
CORC
CME
CSU
CTRS
FEC
FTE
FTEF
GMAT
GPA
GRE
GSC
HC
HPEE
IRB
LM
MA
MBA
MCAT
MGT
MPH
MPHSA
MS
NBPHE
NCDs
NCHEC
Asian
American
Association
of
Advance
Collegiate
Schools
of
Business
Affirmative
Action
and
Diversity
Committee
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Academic
Computing
Building
Alcohol,
Liver,
and
Pancreatic
Diseases
American
Public
Health
Association
Asian
Pacific
Partners
for
Empowerment,
Advocacy
and
Leadership
Appointments,
Promotions
and
Tenure
Committee
Academic
Standards
Committee
Community‐Based
Participatory
Research
Claremont
Colleges
Digital
Library
Center
for
Disease
Control
Compact
Disc
–
ReWritable
Continuing
Education
Council
on
Education
for
Public
Health
Community
&
Global
Health
Claremont
Graduate
University
Certified
Health
Education
Specialist
Certification
in
Public
Health
Children’s
Obesity
Research
Center
Continuing
Medical
Education
California
State
University
Cisco
TelePresence
Recording
Server
Faculty
Executive
Committee
Full
Time
Equivalent
Full
Time
Equivalent
Faculty
Graduate
Management
Admission
Test
Grade
Point
Average
Graduate
Record
Examination
Graduate
Student
Council
Head
Count
Health
Promotion,
Education
and
Evaluation
Institute
Review
Board
Leadership
&
Management
Master
of
Art
Master
of
Business
Administration
Medical
College
Admission
Test
Management
Master
of
Public
Health
Master
of
Public
Health
Student
Association
Master
of
Science
National
Board
of
Public
Health
Examiners
Non‐Communicable
Diseases
National
Commission
for
Health
Education
Credentialing,
Inc.
Page
xv
NCI
NIAAA
NHPI
NIH
OIT
PC
PhD
PI
PRGHF
SBOS
SCGH
SEI
SFR
SISAT
TBD
TDNY
TOEFL
UCLA
UCSD
USC
WASC
WFS
WINCART
National
Cancer
Institute
National
Institute
for
Alcohol
Abuse
&
Alcoholism
Native
Hawaiian
and
Pacific
Islander
National
Institute
of
Health
Office
of
Information
Technology
Personal
Computer
Doctor
of
Philosophy
Principal
Investigator
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
School
of
Behavioral
and
Organizational
Sciences
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
Social
Enterprise
Intervention
Student/Faculty
Ratio
School
of
Information
Systems
and
Technology
To
Be
Determined
Transdisciplinary
Test
of
English
as
a
Foreign
Language
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles
University
of
California,
San
Diego
University
of
Southern
California
Western
Association
of
Schools
and
Colleges
Web
File
Services
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
Page
xvi
Master
of
Public
Health
Program
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
Claremont
Graduate
University
INTRODUCTION
Claremont
Graduate
University
(CGU)
was
founded
in
1925,
the
second
institution
of
the
seven‐member
consortium
of
The
Claremont
Colleges
(Pomona,
Scripps,
Claremont
McKenna,
Harvey
Mudd,
Pitzer,
Keck
Graduate
Institute
and
Claremont
Graduate
University).
From
its
first
graduate
program
in
education,
CGU
has
grown
to
a
comprehensive
university
devoted
entirely
to
graduate
study,
offering
research
and
professional
degree
programs
in
28
fields.
CGU
has
achieved
a
reputation
for
excellence
in
the
arts,
education,
the
humanities,
religion,
the
social
sciences,
management,
mathematics
and
information
sciences.
Approximately
2000
students
are
enrolled
in
graduate
programs
on
a
full‐
or
part‐time
basis.
The
full
CGU
faculty
includes
112
members
who
hold
primary
responsibility
for
instruction,
advising
and
faculty
governance,
and
approximately
90
adjunct
instructors.
In
addition,
more
than
250
faculty
members
at
the
other
Claremont
Colleges
participate
in
CGU
programs
by
teaching
or
serving
on
examination
committees.
CGU
announced
the
formation
of
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
(SCGH),
the
ninth
school
in
the
university.
The
new
School
addresses
twenty‐first
century
threats
such
as
accelerated
shifts
in
global
populations,
as
well
as
spikes
in
preventable
health‐related
problems.
Building
on
professors
coming
to
CGU
from
the
University
of
Southern
California’s
celebrated
Institute
for
Disease
Prevention
and
Health
Promotion
Research,
the
new
School
focuses
on
such
topics
as
addiction,
the
world‐wide
obesity
epidemic,
and
how
research
findings
in
prevention
science
can
be
translated
into
better
policies
and
practice.
The
new
School
is
strategically
aligned
with
the
University’s
renowned
transdisciplinary
curriculum
and
research
focus.
It
creates
important
synergies
with
many
research
activities
at
CGU,
and
creates
new
partnerships
within
the
University,
especially
with
its
Schools
of
Information
Systems
and
Technology
(SISAT),
Behavioral
and
Organizational
Sciences
(SBOS),
and
the
Drucker
School
of
Management
(Drucker),
and
the
Keck
Graduate
Institute
of
Applied
Life
Sciences
(Keck).
In
July
2008,
faculty
members
from
the
newly
established
SCGH
began
working
to
develop
an
innovative
Master
of
Public
Health
Program
(MPH)
in
Community
and
Global
Health.
With
strong
support
from
the
University,
they
developed
a
curriculum
based
upon
a
community
approach
to
prevention
that
considers
social,
cultural,
environmental,
and
public
policy
influences
on
health,
from
the
pre‐natal
period
to
late
adulthood,
including
the
profound
negative
influences
of
impoverished
community
environments
such
as
those
found
in
some
Hispanic/Latino,
Native
American,
and
other
economically
disadvantaged
populations.
The
MPH
Program
was
the
first
graduate
degree
offered
through
the
SCGH
at
CGU.
The
mission
the
MPH
program
is
to
prepare
professionals
to
play
leadership
roles
in
promoting
global
public
health
through
improved
research,
practice,
policy‐making,
and
system
response.
The
program
provides
contemporary
leadership,
education,
research,
and
service
in
public
health,
regionally,
nationally,
and
internationally
by
combining
broad
public
health
foundation
with
specific
training
in
three
specialty
areas:
(1)
health
promotion,
education
&
evaluation,
(2)
applied
biostatistics
&
epidemiology,
and
(3)
leadership
&
management.
The
MPH
program
was
approved
by
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustees
in
October
2008,
and
the
program's
first
class
of
14
students
began
their
course
of
study
in
August
of
2009.
The
first
graduate
was
awarded
the
MPH
degree
in
December
of
2010.
Page
1
Blank
page
Page
2
CRITERION
1.0
THE
PUBLIC
HEALTH
PROGRAM
Page
3
Blank
page
Page
4
Criterion
1.1.
Mission,
Goals
and
Objectives
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
practices.
1.1.a.
A
clear
and
concise
mission
statement
for
the
program
as
a
whole.
Mission
Statement
The
mission
of
the
MPH
program
at
Claremont
Graduate
University
(CGU)
is
to
prepare
professionals
to
play
leadership
roles
in
promoting
global
public
health
through
improved
research,
practice,
policy‐making,
and
system
response.
The
program
provides
contemporary
leadership,
education,
research,
and
service
in
public
health,
regionally,
nationally,
and
internationally
by
combining
a
broad
public
health
foundation
with
specific
training
in
three
specialty
areas.
The
MPH
program
represents
a
valuable
link
between
the
University
and
the
community
by
assessing
and
addressing
specific
public
health
issues
in
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
of
Los
Angeles
County
and
the
Inland
Empire.
Both
areas
have
diverse
populations
and
particular
academic
and
health
needs
which
are
constantly
changing.
The
city
of
Claremont
and
CGU,
although
part
of
Los
Angeles
County,
sit
on
the
border
between
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
of
Los
Angeles
County
and
the
Inland
Empire,
making
it
a
suitable
institution
to
service
the
academic
and
public
health
needs
of
the
Inland
Empire
and
neighboring
areas.
Figure
1.1.a.
Map
of
the
Inland
Empire
and
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
areas
The
Inland
Empire
is
a
region
in
Southern
California
situated
directly
east
of
Los
Angeles
County,
north
of
San
Diego/Imperial
County
and
west
of
the
state
of
Arizona
and
Nevada.
Covering
approximately
27,000
Page
5
square
miles,
the
Inland
Empire
is
home
to
approximately
four
million
people
in
the
region
that
is
primarily
Riverside
and
San
Bernardino
Counties.
In
addition,
our
global
scope
focuses
on
the
health
of
the
people
of
the
Pacific
Rim,
including
the
western
states
of
the
U.S.,
the
Pacific
Islands,
and
east
and
south
Asia.
According
to
the
U.S.
Census,
the
population
of
the
Inland
Empire
grew
by
26.5%
from
2000
to
2008
and
about
40%
of
the
population
consists
of
non‐Hispanic
whites,
44%
Hispanics,
22%
foreign
born
residents
and
less
than
1%
Native
Americans.
Native
American/American
Indian
populations
such
as
the
Cahuilla,
Serrano,
Luiseno,
Chemuhuevi
as
well
as
many
other
California
Indian
tribes
face
several
health
problems
such
as
those
related
to
diabetes
and
nutrition.
Located
in
eastern
Riverside
County
is
the
Morongo
Indian
Reservation
which
is
home
to
the
largest
Indian
Health
Services
clinic
in
the
United
States.
In
fact,
the
Riverside‐San
Bernardino
Indian
Health
Services
serves
over
25,000
Native
Americans/American
Indians
since
its
establishment
in
1968.
Similar
health
issues
affect
the
general
population
living
in
this
region.
In
2006,
the
Center
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
reported
that
33%
of
the
people
living
in
the
San
Bernardino
area
were
considered
overweight
and
31%
were
considered
obese.
Forbes
Magazine
identifies
the
area
as
the
fourth
“fattest”
area
in
the
United
States.
In
terms
of
education
and
employment,
the
Inland
Empire
is
home
to
many
low‐
tech
and
lower
waged
service
jobs
which
correlate
with
the
lower
educational
attainment
of
individuals
living
in
the
area
(e.g.
24%
of
the
population
have
a
college
degree
or
higher).
Crime
rates
in
the
area
are
near
or
over
double
the
national
average.
Increasing
ethnic
diversity
due
to
immigration
has
increased
the
rate
of
hate
crimes
by
20%.
Due
to
lower
costs
of
land
prices
when
compared
to
neighboring
counties,
the
Inland
Empire
has
also
seen
an
increase
in
manufacturing
companies,
housing
and
retail
developments
which
brings
with
it
more
employment
opportunities,
increase
earnings
and
homeownership.
Coupled
with
this
phenomenon
is
an
expansion
of
freeways
and
increased
traffic
congestion
which
have
compromised
the
air
and
water
quality
of
the
region.
The
recent
economic
crisis
that
hit
the
nation
in
recent
years
also
caused
economic
problems
in
this
already
struggling
region.
In
2010,
RealtyTrac,
a
real
estate
tracking
firm
lists
the
Inland
Empire
as
having
the
sixth
highest
foreclosure
rate
in
the
nation
which
translates
to
about
1
in
41
homes
being
in
some
stage
of
foreclosure.
However,
despite
the
struggling
economy
and
health
problems
that
exist
the
Inland
Empire
is
home
to
multiple
national,
state
and
local
parks
–
San
Bernardino
National
Forest
to
the
north
and
east
and
Cleveland
National
Forest
to
the
south
and
west.
These
recreational
facilities,
green
spaces
and
low
population
density
make
it
an
ideal
location
for
promoting
health
campaigns
such
as
interventions
related
to
nutrition
and
physical
activity.
The
San
Gabriel
Valley
is
another
diverse
area
located
near
the
University.
Situated
in
Los
Angeles
County
and
covering
about
200
square
miles,
it
lies
east
of
the
city
of
Los
Angeles,
north
of
the
Puente
Hills,
south
of
the
San
Gabriel
Mountains
and
west
of
the
Inland
Empire.
It
is
one
of
the
most
ethnically
diverse
areas
in
the
nation
with
large
proportions
of
different
ethnic
groups
residing
in
the
31
cities
and
5
unincorporated
areas.
Of
the
2
million
residences,
approximately
44%
are
Latino,
27%
Caucasian,
25%
Asian
and
Pacific
Islanders
and
4%
African
American.
Although
a
relatively
low
portion
of
the
population,
the
African
American
communities
in
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
area
are
long
established
communities
in
mainly
the
cities
of
Alta
Dena
and
Pasadena.
English
is
the
most
common
language
followed
by
Chinese
and
Spanish
but
a
sizeable
group
of
Tagalog,
Korean,
Arabic,
Armenian
and
Japanese
speakers
also
live
in
the
area.
Data
from
the
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Health
reveal
that
obesity
is
a
major
health
concern
in
the
San
Gabriel
Valley.
Obesity
rates
among
adults
rose
from
14.1%
in
1997
to
22.2%
in
2007
and
the
same
trends
are
seen
in
children.
Other
health
concerns
in
the
area
include
hypertension,
high
cholesterol
and
diabetes
which
have
risen
over
the
last
decade.
About
16%
of
adults
reported
binge
drinking
(i.e.
5
or
more
alcoholic
drinks
at
one
time)
and
13%
are
current
smokers.
Page
6
The
economic
status
of
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
is
as
diverse
as
the
ethnic
groups
that
make
up
the
area.
Household
income
of
residents
in
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
range
widely.
The
highest
median
household
income
is
in
San
Marino
with
$117,267
per
year
while
El
Monte
had
a
median
household
income
of
$32,439.
Approximately
13%
of
residents
in
the
area
have
household
incomes
less
than
100%
of
the
Federal
Poverty
Level.
In
1990,
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
Economic
Partnership,
a
collaboration
of
private
business,
local
governments,
higher
education
institutions
and
non‐profit
organizations,
was
established
to
advocate
public
policy,
market
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
and
provide
professional
business
assistance
all
of
which
would
further
develop
and
improve
the
ever
changing
economic
needs
of
the
area
and
its
residents.
Compared
to
other
areas
in
Southern
California,
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
is
viewed
as
a
relatively
safe
place
to
live
by
its
residents.
Close
to
88%
of
adults
believe
their
area
is
safe
and
that
their
children
can
easily
access
safe
parks
and
recreational
areas.
However,
the
crime
index
in
some
cities
within
the
San
Gabriel
Valley
is
relatively
high
compared
to
the
national
averages
(e.g.
the
city
of
San
Gabriel
with
an
index
of
34
indicating
that
the
city
is
safer
than
34%
of
the
cities
in
the
U.S.,
Alta
Dena
with
18
and
Pasadena
with
20).
1.1.b.
One
or
more
goal
statements
for
each
major
function
by
which
the
program
intends
to
attains
its
mission,
including
instruction,
research
and
service.
Goal
Statements
The
new
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
at
Claremont
Graduate
University
is
uniquely
situated
at
the
border
of
Los
Angeles
County,
the
Inland
Empire,
a
region
of
communities
in
transition.
The
distinctive
challenges
faced
by
these
communities
are
reflected
in
patterns
found
globally:
The
growth
of
major
desert
cities
and
urban
sprawl,
the
public
health
needs
of
rural
and
urban
tribal
populations
in
Southern
California,
akin
to
those
of
indigenous
peoples
in
Asia
and
Latin
America,
and
the
difficulties
faced
by
populations
in
communities
confronted
with
rapid
growth,
rising
chronic
disease,
environmental
degradation,
health
and
economic
disparities,
public
health
emergencies,
and
entry
into
a
global
economy.
Assessing
and
addressing
the
unique
health
challenges
of
these
communities
in
transition
serves
as
a
major
theme
guiding
our
programs
of
research,
service,
education,
including
the
MPH
program,
at
the
new
School.
MPH
faculty,
staff
and
students
work
in
partnership
with
communities,
tribes,
and
the
public
and
private
sectors
to
focus
on
issues
confronting
these
communities,
building
on
their
strengths,
developing
leadership
skills
and
increasing
their
capacity
to
respond
to
rapidly
evolving
public
health
problems.
Students
gain
knowledge
in
the
emerging
trends
in
global
health
while
also
honing
the
skills
necessary
to
be
eligible
for
jobs
that
employ
the
majority
of
graduates
in
public
health.
The
three
major
functions
of
the
program
involve
instruction,
research
and
service
in
public
health.
There
are
seven
goal
statements
within
these
three
areas.
INSTRUCTION:
The
first
priority
as
faculty
and
staff
of
the
MPH
program
is
the
education
of
our
students
through
the
development
of
innovative
classroom
techniques
and
exploring
new
fields
of
scholarly
investigation.
The
curriculum
is
designed
to
prepare
public
health
leaders
to
assess
community
needs
of
populations,
design,
implement,
and
evaluate
health
promotion
programs
to
diverse
populations.
Instructional
goals
include:
Goal
1:
To
educate
interested
individuals
for
professional
careers
in
public
health
through
the
development
of
an
MPH
program
that
prepares
them
to
assess
community
needs
of
populations,
design,
implement,
and
evaluate
health
promotion
programs
to
diverse
populations.
Page
7
Goal
2:
To
provide
an
environment
conducive
to
student
learning
and
professional
development.
Goal
3:
To
prepare
graduates
to
practice
successfully
in
diverse
public
health/social
service
settings
or
to
pursue
advanced
professional/academic
training.
Goal
4:
To
recruit
a
qualified
and
diverse
student
body.
RESEARCH:
Research
of
the
highest
quality
by
our
faculty
and
students
is
fundamental
to
our
mission.
Research
and
teaching
are
inextricably
intertwined
such
that
faculty
do
more
than
teach
other
people’s
work,
but
actively
contributor
to
what
is
taught,
thought,
and
practiced.
Research
goals
include:
Goal
5:
To
conduct
research
that
contributes
to
the
identification,
management,
and
resolution
of
public
health
problems
locally
and
globally.
SERVICE:
The
MPH
program
strives
to
improve
the
health
status
of
individuals
through
community
efforts.
As
a
community‐practice
oriented
degree,
the
program
encourages
students
and
faculty
to
participate
in
community
service
through
research,
consultation
and
volunteerism.
Service
goals
include:
Goal
6:
To
encourage
faculty
and
students
to
actively
engage
in
service
leadership
activities.
Goal
7:
To
improve
the
skill
set
of
the
local
public
health
workforce
so
it
may
address
issues
characteristic
of
the
region.
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.
Objectives
Each
program
goal
identified
above
contains
measurable
objectives.
Performance
concerning
the
achievement
of
these
objectives
since
the
program’s
inception
is
illustrated
in
tables
1.1,
a‐c
below.
Page
8
Table
1.1.a.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Instructional
Goals
Objectives
with
Outcome
Measures
Target/Desired
Proposed
Measure/
Data
Source
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
Outcome
&
Timing
of
Data
Collection
Goal
1:
To
educate
qualified
individuals
for
professional
careers
in
public
health
through
the
development
of
an
MPH
program
that
prepares
them
to
assess
community
needs
of
populations,
design,
implement,
and
evaluate
health
promotion
programs
to
diverse
populations.
1:
Achieve
an
overall
mean
rating
of
4.30
for
course
evaluations
each
year
Mean
of
4.30
every
Course
evaluations
(Every
semester)
4.45
4.79
(1.00=poor
to
5.00=excellent).
year
Met
Met
2.
At
least
90%
of
students
will
meet
all
MPH
program
competencies
upon
90%
of
students
Capstone
course
(Every
semester)
N/A
Fall:
100%
graduation.
Student
Exit
Survey
(Upon
graduation)
Spring:
100%
Summer:
TBD
Met
3.
At
least
one
MPH
courses
will
utilize
some
form
of
distance
learning
1
course
Syllabi
audit
(Every
semester)
Fall:
1
Fall:
1
technology
each
semester.
Spring:
1
Spring:
1
Summer:
1
Summer:
1
Met
Met
4:
Develop
interdisciplinary
learning
opportunities
by
cross
listing
at
least
1
course
Schedule
of
Classes
(Every
semester)
Fall:
0
Fall:
1
one
course
a
semester.
Spring:
1
Spring:
0
Summer:
0
Summer:
0
Partially
Met
Partially
Met
5.
Increase
collaboration
between
Schools
at
CGU
by
offering
at
least
two
2
Dual
degrees
or
1
CGU
Bulletin
(Annually)
1
Dual
degree
2
Dual
dual
degrees
or
an
additional
MPH
concentration
by
2013.
MPH
concentration
&
1
degrees
concentration
Met
Met
Goal
2:
To
provide
an
environment
conducive
to
student
learning
and
professional
development.
1.
Provide
financial
support
for
education
by
offering
at
least
a
20%
tuition
20%
tuition
SCGH
Budget
Review(Annually)
Fall:
20%
Fall:
20%
discount
for
all
eligible
MPH
students.
discount
for
all
Spring:
20%
Spring:
20%
eligible
students
Summer:
20%
Summer:
25%
Met
Met
2.
Half
of
core
faculty
will
provide
opportunities
for
student
involvement
in
50%
of
core
faculty
Faculty
survey
(Every
year)
50%
60%
research
per
year.
Met
Met
Page
9
Table
1.1.a.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Instructional
Goals
Objectives
with
Outcome
Measures
Target/Desired
Outcome
Payment
of
1
training
per
semester
Proposed
Measure/
Data
Source
&
Timing
of
Data
Collection
SCGH
Budget
Review(Annually)
2009‐2010
3.
In
an
attempt
to
better
service
the
students,
the
program
will
provide
Fall:
1
funds
for
MPH
administration
to
attend
at
least
one
professional
training
Spring:
0
opportunity
per
semester.
Summer:
2
Partially
Met
4.
The
School
will
make
annual
donations
to
fund
student
graduation
Annual
SCGH
Budget
Review
(Annually)
N/A
reception/banquet.
contribution
5.
Provide
annual
financial
support
for
at
least
three
MPH
students
to
Free
lodging
&
SCGH
Budget
Review(Annually)
N/A
attend
the
American
Public
Health
Association
Annual
Meeting
&
Expo.
conference
registration
6.
Strengthen
field
placement
opportunities
by
increasing
the
number
of
5
new
sites
each
Internship
affiliations
agreements
(Every
6
affiliated
sites
by
5
each
year.
year
semester)
Met
7.
Create
an
environment
where
a
diverse
campus
community
can
thrive
by
2
co‐sponsored
Event
programs
(Annually)
4
co‐sponsoring
two
campus‐wide
events
addressing
multicultural
issues
events
Met
every
year.
Goal
3:
To
prepare
graduates
to
practice
successfully
in
diverse
public
health/social
service
settings
or
to
pursue
advanced
professional/academic
training.
1.
Maintain
a
cumulative
attrition
rate
of
10%
or
less
among
those
students
10%
or
less
Withdrawal
survey
(Every
semester)
6.25%
who
matriculate
per
year.
attrition
rate
Met
2.
Ninety
percent
of
students
will
have
a
cumulative
GPA
of
3.0
every
90%
of
students
Student
cumulative
GPAs
(Every
semester)
Fall:
100%
semester.
Spring:
100%
Summer:
83%
Partially
Met
3.
Maintain
a
90%
graduation
rate
every
semester.
90%
of
students
List
of
graduates
presented
by
the
registrar
N/A
(Every
spring)
4.
Ninety
percent
of
eligible
students/graduates
will
pass
the
CHES
exam
on
90%
of
eligible
Exit
survey
(Every
semester)
N/A
the
first
attempt.
students/graduates
Alumni
survey
(Annually)
5.
Eighty
percent
of
graduates
will
pass
the
CPH
exam
on
the
first
attempt.
80%
of
graduates
Alumni
survey
(Annually)
N/A
6.
Ninety
percent
of
graduates
will
obtain
employment
in
public
health
or
90%
of
graduates
Alumni
survey
(Annually)
N/A
matriculate
into
an
academic/professional
degree
program
within
one‐year
of
graduation.
7.
One
hundred
percent
of
students
will
receive
a
performance
rating
of
at
100%
of
students
Internship
supervisor
evaluation
survey
(Every
N/A
least
4.0
from
their
internship
supervisors
(1=below
expectation,
semester)
3=satisfactory,
5=beyond
satisfactory).
Page
10
2010‐2011
Fall:
3
Spring:
0
Summer:
2
Partially
Met
Spring:
Yes
Met
3
Met
12
Met
2
Met
0%
Met
Fall:
88%
Spring:
92%
Summer:
TBD
Partially
Met
N/A
0%
2
Not
Met N/A
N/A
100%
Met
Table
1.1.a.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Instructional
Goals
Objectives
with
Outcome
Measures
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
N/A
100%
Met
Weekly
comparison
report
(Every
semester)
6
Met
25
Met
N/A
8
Met
30
Met
N/A
3
La
Verne
graduates
Weekly
comparison
report
(Every
semester)
N/A
N/A
2
dual
degree
students
25%
discount
for
all
McNair
Scholars
50%
minority
student
Weekly
comparison
report
(Every
semester)
1
Not
Met
100%
Met
Fall:
46%
Spring:
100%
Partially
Met
Fall:
85%
Spring:
100%
Met
14%
Met
N/A
9
Met
100%
Met
Fall:
66%
Spring:
100%
Met
Fall:
75%
Spring:
75%
Met
18%
Met
100%
Met
8.
Ninety
percent
of
students
will
receive
a
preparedness
rating
of
“very
prepared”
from
their
internship
supervisors.
.
Goal
4:
Recruit
a
qualified
and
diverse
student
body.
1.
Attend
a
minimum
of
5
recruitment
events
targeting
minority
students
each
year.
2.
Attend
at
least
20
student
recruitment
events
each
year.
3.
Enroll
at
least
three
MPH
students
from
the
accelerated
program
bachelors/MPH
program
offered
at
the
Claremont
Colleges
each
year
beginning
fall
2011.
4.
Enroll
at
least
three
MPH
students
each
year
from
the
undergraduate
major
in
Community
Health
offered
by
the
University
of
La
Verne
beginning
2
fall
2012. 5.
Enroll
at
least
two
dual
degree
students
in
the
MPH
program
per
year.
6.
Offer
McNair
Scholars
at
least
a
25%
tuition
discount.
7.
At
least
50%
of
students
accepted
into
each
cohort
are
minority
students.
8.
At
least
50%
of
students
accepted
into
each
cohort
are
women.
9.
At
least
10%
of
students
accepted
into
each
cohort
are
from
outside
the
U.S.
10.
Offer
a
university
minority
fellowship
to
a
100%
of
eligible
returning
minority
students
each
year.
Target/Desired
Outcome
90%
of
students
Proposed
Measure/
Data
Source
&
Timing
of
Data
Collection
Internship
supervisor
evaluation
survey
(Every
semester)
5
events
per
year
Audit
of
recruitment
report
(Annually)
20
events
per
year
Audit
of
recruitment
report
(Annually)
3
accelerated
students
per
year
SCGH
Budget
Review(Annually)
Audit
of
recruitment
report
(Annually)
50%
female
students
Audit
of
recruitment
report
(Annually)
10%
international
students
100%
of
students
Audit
of
recruitment
report
(Annually)
1
Financial
Aid
reporting
forms
(Annually)
This
is
based
upon
the
time
limit
to
complete
as
master’s
degree
which
is
5
years.
The
program
has
only
been
in
existence
for
two
years,
which
accounts
for
the
low
graduation
rate.
Pending
approval
of
and
enactment
of
a
formal
articulation
agreement
with
an
undergraduate
college.
La
Verne
is
a
federally
recognized
Hispanic
serving
institution
of
higher
learning.
Proposed
agreement
with
University
of
La
Verne
and
CGU
would
allow
La
Verne
graduates
from
the
Community
Health
undergraduate
major
to
apply
16
units
of
graduate
coursework
to
the
MPH
degree
offered
at
CGU.
3
One
student
took
the
exam
in
April
2011
and
was
7
points
short
of
passing.
She
plans
to
re‐take
the
exam
again
in
10/11.
2
Page
11
Table
1.1.b.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Research
Goals
Objectives
with
Outcome
Measures
Target/Desired
Outcome
Proposed
Measure/
Data
Source
&
Timing
of
Data
Collection
Goal
1:
To
conduct
research
that
contributes
to
the
identification,
management,
and
resolution
of
global
public
health
problems.
1:
Seventy‐five
percent
of
core
faculty
will
have
funded
research
annually.
75%
of
core
Faculty
reports
(Annually)
faculty
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
2.
Twenty‐five
percent
of
core
faculty
will
conduct
funded
research
projects
25%
of
core
Faculty
reports
(Annually)
that
address
public
health
problems
in
minority
populations.
faculty
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
3.
Seventy‐five
percent
of
core
faculty
will
publish
at
least
one
peer‐reviewed
75%
of
core
Faculty
reports
(Annually)
article
annually.
faculty
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
4.
Fifty
percent
of
core
faculty
will
conduct
at
least
one
presentation
at
a
50%
of
core
Faculty
reports
(Annually)
professional
meeting
annually.
faculty
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
5.
Fifty
percent
of
core
faculty
will
publish
in
a
public
health
journal
annually.
50%
of
core
Faculty
reports
(Annually)
faculty
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
6.
Core
faculty
will
maintain
at
least
two
collaborative
research
projects
2
projects
per
List
of
Awarded
Grants
(Annually)
annually.
core
faculty
7.
At
least
two
students
will
present
research
projects
at
professional
2
students
Student
Survey
(Each
semester)
conferences
per
year.
8.
Fifty
percent
of
core
faculty
will
have
MPH
students
working
with
them
as
50%
of
core
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
graduate
assistants,
student
workers,
student
interns
or
on
directed
research
faculty
projects
each
year.
Page
12
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
80%
Met
40%
Met
90%
Met
88%
Met
33%
Met
90%
Met
90%
Met
70%
Met
15
Met
3
Met
50%
Met
80%
Met
70%
Met
13
Met
3
Met
67%
Met
Table
1.1.c.
Measurable
Objectives
Relating
to
Service
Goals
Objectives
with
Outcome
Measures
Target/Desired
Outcome
Goal
1:
Encourage
faculty
and
students
to
actively
engage
in
service
and
leadership
activities.
1.
At
least
50%
percent
of
all
faculty
will
serve
on
panels/boards
or
provide
50%
of
all
technical
assistance
to
community
based
agencies
faculty
2.
At
least
50%
of
core
faculty
will
maintain
an
active
membership
on
50%
of
core
University
committees
faculty
3.
At
least
50%
of
core
faculty
will
maintain
an
active
membership
on
School
50%
of
core
committees
faculty
4.
At
least
25%
of
core
faculty
will
serve
as
grant
reviewers.
25%
of
core
faculty
5.At
least
50%
of
all
faculty
will
serve
as
manuscript
reviewers
50%
of
all
faculty
6.
At
least
75%
of
core
faculty
will
have
active
membership
in
community,
75%
of
all
national
or
international
professional
associations.
faculty
7.
At
least
two
courses
a
semester
will
provide
student
service
opportunities.
2
courses
8.
The
MPH
Student
association
will
coordinate/participate
in
two
community
service
events
per
year.
9.
Support
at
least
one
student
appointment
on
MPH
program
committees
each
year.
10.
At
least
two
MPH
students
will
participate
in
faculty
service
activities
each
year.
11.
At
least
50%
of
students
will
participate
in
service
activities
2
events
1
student
per
committee
2
students
50%
of
students
Proposed
Measure/
Data
Source
&
Timing
of
Data
Collection
Faculty
reports
(Annually);
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Faculty
reports
(Annually);
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Faculty
reports
(Annually);
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Faculty
reports
(Annually);
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Faculty
reports
(Annually);
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Faculty
reports
(Annually);
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Syllabi
audit
(Every
semester)
Student
association
meeting
minutes
(Every
semester)
Committee
rosters
(Every
semester)
MPH
Faculty
survey
(Annually)
Current
MPH
Student
Survey
(Annually)
Goal
2:
Improve
the
skill
set
of
the
local
public
health
workforce
so
it
may
address
health
issues
characteristic
of
the
region.
1.
Conduct
a
needs
assessment
at
least
every
three
years
to
determine
Survey
every
Community
needs
assessment
survey
(Every
current
and
emerging
needs
of
the
public
health
workforce.
three
years
three
years)
2.
Provide
at
least
one
annual
training
opportunity
that
will
reach
local
public
1
training
per
Training
attendance
sheets
(Annually)
health
professionals.
year
3.
When
applicable,
all
trainings
will
provide
continuing
education
units
for
100%
of
Single
event
provider
report
to
NCECH
(Annually)
health
educators
(CHES).
trainings
4.
Enroll
at
least
5
CHES
participants
in
continuing
education
programs
per
5
CHES
Training
attendance
sheets
(Annually)
year.
participants
Page
13
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
73%
Met
40%
Not
Met
70%
Met
50%
Met
50%
Met
100%
Met
2
Met
5
Met
1
Met
7
Met
93%
Met
63%
Met
60%
Met
70%
Met
50%
Met
50%
Met
100%
Met
2
Met
3
Met
1
Met
5
Met
72%
Met
N/A
2
Met
2
Met
5
Met
1
Met
2
Met
3
Met
8
Met
1.1.d.
A
description
of
the
manner
in
which
mission,
goals
and
objectives
are
developed,
monitored
and
periodically
reviewed
and
the
manner
in
which
they
are
made
available
to
the
public.
Development
The
MPH
program
mission
statement,
goals
and
objectives
were
developed
during
the
summer
of
2008
by
the
Dean,
Andy
Johnson,
and
the
MPH
Program
Director,
Darleen
Peterson,
following
discussion
with
the
faculty.
The
MPH
program
proposal
was
submitted
to
the
CGU
Academic
Standards
Committee
in
early
September
2008.
The
mission
statement,
goals
and
objectives
were
then
finalized
at
a
faculty
retreat
in
the
fall
of
2008.
Throughout
the
process,
the
faculty
had
the
opportunity
to
guide
the
framework,
discuss
and
determine
the
mission
and
goals
of
the
program.
A
number
of
people
outside
of
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
and
CGU
were
also
involved
in
shaping
the
mission
of
the
MPH
program.
Most
continue
to
be
involved
actively.
Among
these
are
the
members
of
the
SCGH
Board
of
Advisors
that
include:
 Robert
Tranquada,
MD,
Founding
Chair
of
the
USC
Department
of
Community
and
Public
Health
(now
the
departments
of
Preventive
Medicine
and
Family
Medicine,
and
former
Chancellor
and
Dean
of
the
University
of
Massachusetts
Medical
Center,
and
former
Dean
of
the
USC
School
of
Medicine.
 Lester
Breslow,
MD,
PhD,
former
Dean
of
the
School
of
Public
Health,
UCLA,
Former
Director,
California
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
 John
(Jack)
Farquhar,
M.D.,
Professor
of
Medicine
and
Health
Research
and
Policy,
Founder
of
the
Stanford
Prevention
Research
Center.
 Jonathan
Fielding,
M.D.,
M.P.H.,
M.A.,
M.B.A.,
Director,
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Public
Health,
Professor
of
Health
Services
and
Pediatrics,
and
Co‐Director
of
the
UCLA
Center
for
Healthier
Children,
Families,
and
Communities,
and
former
Director,
Massachusetts
Department
of
Health.
 Stephen
P.
Fortmann,
M.D.
Assistant
Program
Director,
Science
Programs
Department
and
Senior
Investigator,
at
the
Center
for
Health
Research,
Northwest
Kaiser
Foundation
Hospitals.
Former
Professor
and
Director,
Stanford
Prevention
Research
Center.
 Jessie
Gruman,
Ph.D.,
Founder
and
president
of
the
Center
for
Advancing
Health,
an
independent,
nonpartisan,
Washington‐based
policy
institute
funded
by
the
Annenberg
Foundation,
the
W.K.
Kellogg
Foundation
and
other
foundations.
 David
Heymann,
M.D.,
Chairman
of
the
Board
of
the
UK
Health
Protection
Agency,
Assistant
Director‐General
‐
Health
Security
and
Environment
Representative
of
the
Director‐General
for
Polio
Eradication;
former
Director
of
the
Communicable
Diseases
Program,
World
Health
Organization.
 Howard
Kahn,
M.P.A,
CEO
of
L.A.
Care
Health
Plan;
Was
Founding
CEO
of
California
Wellness
Foundation
and
Health
Plan
of
San
Mateo.
 Alexandra
Levine,
M.D.,
Chief
Medical
Officer,
City
of
Hope;
Recent
Distinguished
Professor
of
Medicine,
chair
of
the
Division
of
Hematology,
Keck
School
of
Medicine,
USC;
former
medical
director
of
USC/Norris
Cancer
Hospital.
 Liming
Lee,
M.D.,
M.P.H.
Vice
President
of
Peking
Union
Medical
College
and
School
of
Public
Health:
Was
founding
Director
of
the
China
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention.
 Russell
Luepker,
M.D.,
M.S.,
Mayo
Professor
of
Public
Health
and
former
Chair
of
Epidemiology,
University
of
Minnesota.
Page
14






Mario
Molina,
M.D.,
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Molina
Healthcare,
Inc.,
the
largest
provider
of
health
management
services
for
Medicaid
patients
in
the
U.S.
Pekka
Puska,
M.D.,
Ph.D.,
M.Pol.Sc.,
Director
General
of
the
National
Public
Health
and
Welfare
Institute
of
Finland:
former
Director
of
Non‐communicable
Diseases
Program,
World
Health
Organization.
Walter
B.
Rose,
M.B.A.,
Former
member
of
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustees
and
former
Co‐Chair
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
at
Children’s
Hospital
Los
Angeles.
Bill
Ruh,
Director
of
Technology
at
GE
Global
Research
and
former
Vice
President
World
Wide
Technology
Practices
Solutions
and
Services
Cisco
Systems,
Inc
Paul
Torrens,
M.D.,Professor
of
Health
Services
at
UCLA
and
founder
of
the
UCLA
Executive
MPH
Program.
Arthur
Lawrence
Ulene,
M.D.,
Former
board‐certified
obstetrician‐gynecologist
whose
interest
in
the
educational
needs
of
patients
led
him
to
the
use
of
mass
media
for
the
delivery
of
health‐
related
information.
The
Board
of
Advisors
meets
at
least
once
yearly
to
consult
on
the
development
of
the
School
and
the
MPH
program.
Individual
members
consult
on
a
more
frequent
basis
as
needed.
Dr.
Tranquada,
Chair,
meets
with
Dean
Johnson
one
or
more
times
a
month.
The
BOA
has
been
critical
in
helping
define
and
focus
the
objectives
of
the
School
and
the
MPH
program,
especially
in
regarding
our
personalized
approach
to
community
public
health
and
our
global
programs.
Various
members
have
played
critical
roles
in
identifying
and
gaining
us
access
to
high
need
populations
in
the
southern
California
and
Pacific
Rim
regions,
and
linking
us
with
other
academic,
public
health,
biomedical,
and
private
sector
institutions
with
shared
population
health
interests.
Others
who
have
played
important
roles
in
shaping
our
programs
each
from
his/her
own
area
of
expertise
and
influence
include:
 Leslie
Bernstein,
PhD,
Professor
and
Director
of
the
Department
of
Cancer
Etiology
in
the
Division
of
Population
Sciences
at
the
City
of
Hope
National
Medical
Center
 Smita
Bhatia,
MD,
MPH,
Professor
and
Chair,
Population
Sciences,
City
of
Hope
Medical
Center
 Wen
Ta
Chiu,
MD,
Minister
of
Health,
Taiwan
and
former
Dean,
Taipei
Medical
University
and
School
of
Public
Health
 Eric,
Frykman,
MD,
MPH,
Director,
Riverside
Department
of
Health,.
 Michael
Owens,
MD,
MPH,
San
Diego
Regional
Medical
Director
‐
Molina
Healthcare
of
California
 Alonzo
Plough,
PhD,
MPH,
Director,
Emergency
Preparedness
and
Response
Program,
County
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Public
Health,
and
former
Director,
King
County
(Washington),
Department
of
Health.
 Krishna
Poudel,
PhD,
MPH,
Assistant
Professor
Department
of
Global
Health,
Graduate
School
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of
Tokyo
 Sheryl
Tyson,
PhD,
RN,
PMHCNS‐BC,
Professor
and
Associate
Dean,
School
of
Nursing,
Asuza
Pacific
University
In
addition
to
consulting
on
our
programs,
several
of
these
hold
adjunct
faculty
appointments
at
SCGH
and
are
available
to
mentor
students
in
their
research
and
field
work.
A
number
of
others,
especially
members
of
the
Asia
Pacific
Academic
Consortium
for
Public
Health,
have
consulted
with
us
on
the
feasibility
of
an
executive
master’s
program
in
Global
Public
Health
Leadership
Page
15
and
Management
to
be
developed
with
the
CGU
Drucker
School
of
Management
and
targeted
to
public
health
manpower
needs
of
nations
in
south
and
east
Asia.
We
have
drawn
extensively
from
the
expertise
of
a
wide
array
of
public
health
colleagues
both
regionally
and
globally
to
help
us
identify
our
distinctive
niche
in
public
health
so
as
to
most
effectively
address
the
population
health
and
health
manpower
needs
of
the
regions
we
serve.
Monitoring
and
Review
The
mission,
goals
and
objectives
are
monitored
through
multiple
vehicles
including:
(1)
the
annual
“Visioning
Meeting”
of
the
SCGH
Advisory
Board;
(2)
the
annual
faculty
retreat;
(3)
recommendations
provided
by
CEPH;
and
(4)
formulation/review
of
the
SCGH
Strategic
Plan.
The
goals
and
objectives
were
revised
at
the
beginning
of
the
fall
2010
semester
to
reflect
issues
addressed
in
the
CEPH
accreditation
orientation
attended
by
the
Program
Director
in
July
of
2010.
Approval
was
granted
by
the
Faculty
Steering
Committee.
Further
modifications
were
then
made
as
a
result
of
the
CEPH
consultation
held
in
December
of
2010.
The
mission,
goal
and
objectives
underwent
further
refinement
as
the
strategic
plan
of
the
School
was
revisited.
Faculty
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
objectives
of
the
program
mirrored
those
put
forth
for
the
School’s
strategic
plan.
The
goals
and
objectives
are
also
referenced
during
the
annual
“Visioning
Meetings”
of
the
SCGH
Advisory
Board
where
members
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
these
goals
and
objectives.
The
program’s
goals
and
objectives
were
selected,
in
large
part,
due
to
the
newness
of
the
program
and
the
School.
As
such,
many
are
process‐oriented
in
nature.
As
the
program
matures
and
the
infrastructure
for
the
School
is
established,
the
goals
and
objectives
will
again
be
assessed
and
revised
to
reflect
a
more
long‐term,
impact‐oriented
focus.
Dissemination
The
MPH
program
mission,
goals
and
objectives
are
continuously
referenced
and
used
to
guide
the
development
of
the
curriculum
and
programmatic
decisions
concerning
continuing
education
offerings
and
recruitment
strategies,
for
example.
They
are
incorporated
into
program
promotional
materials
(handbook,
brochures
and
flyers)
and
are
disseminated
externally
via
those
vehicles.
They
are
posted
on
the
MPH
website
so
that
prospective
students
are
introduced
to
them
when
first
learning
of
the
program.
The
MPH
website
is
used
extensively
for
external
and
internal
communications
and
so
the
mission,
goals
and
objectives
are
continuously
shared
with
external
and
internal
publics.
Our
faculty
has
embraced
the
guiding
principles
of
the
MPH
program
and
they
refer
to
them
in
their
interactions
with
other
faculty,
students
and
the
public.
1.1.e.
A
statement
of
values
that
guide
the
program,
with
a
description
of
how
the
values
are
determined
and
operationalized.
Determination
of
Values
Definition
Consistent
with
the
program’s
mission,
goals
and
objectives,
the
MPH
program
seeks
to
implement
core
values
in
ways
that
enhance
the
health
and
well‐being
of
all
residents
in
the
San
Gabriel
Valley/Inland
Empire
and
relevant
Asia
Pacific
communities,
especially
the
most
vulnerable
segments
of
California
and
the
region’s
most
at‐risk
and
underserved
populations.
Program
values,
described
below,
are
communicated
to
students
at
their
new
student
orientation,
to
SCGH
faculty
at
the
annual
retreat,
and
to
community
partners
and
prospective
students
on
our
website.
Program
values
are
consistent
with
CGU
expectations
and
values
for
students
and
faculty,
as
reflected
in
their
respective
handbooks.
Page
16
The
values
guiding
the
program
were
determined
in
a
manner
similar
to
the
mission,
goal
and
objective
statements
for
the
program,
incorporating
feedback
from
major
stakeholders.
The
core
values
are
expressed
in
program
offerings,
community
collaborations
and
service,
faculty
research,
student
recruitment
and
documents
pertaining
to
student
conduct.
Values
and
their
Operationalization
Transdisciplinarity:
Faculty
work
collaboratively
and
across
traditional
disciplines
on
a
common
set
of
questions
and
issues,
while
drawing
on
their
own
individual
disciplinary
training.
CGU
houses
a
Transdisciplinary
Studies
Program
offering
courses
in
seminar
and
lecture/discussion
format
that
combine
scholarship
and
methodologies
from
a
range
of
disciplines,
thereby
creating
an
enriched
pedagogical
and
research
environment
for
students
and
faculty.
Current
transdisciplinary
courses
taken
by
MPH
students
are
TNDY
403e:
“Working
Across
Cultures”
and
CGH
310:
Foundations
of
Global
Health:
An
Interdisciplinary
Approach.
Diversity:
Many
of
the
research
and
outreach
activities
of
program
focus
on
diversity,
poverty,
and
the
challenges
of
understanding
and
tolerance.
Understanding
the
contributions
of
culture
to
health
behaviors
is
paramount
to
health
promotion.
This
value
is
reflected
in
the
development
of
MPH
courses,
most
notably,
CGH
317:
Ethics,
Human
Rights,
and
Cultural
Diversity.
The
impact
of
globalization
is
a
theme
that
unifies
the
curriculum
as
a
whole.
The
program
collaborates
with
organizations
formed
to
address
the
most
pressing
health
problems
affecting
under‐served,
minority
populations.
These
collaborations
often
result
in
the
development
of
continuing
education
activities
that
benefit
the
local
public
health
workforce,
as
well
as
members
of
diverse
communities.
Securing
a
diverse
program
administration
and
student
body
is
a
priority.
Student
recruitment
events
promoting
diversity
in
graduate
education
are
routinely
attended
by
program
administration.
Collaboration
for
Community
Action:
Developing
partnerships
between
the
MPH
program
and
community
agencies
dedicated
to
strengthening
the
relationship
between
theory
and
practice
contributes
to
community
health
goals
locally
and
abroad.
Research
and
service
activities
are
strengthened
by
formally
recognized
agreements
with
universities,
community‐based
agencies,
and
health
care/research
organizations.
Relevance
and
Participation:
"Starting
where
the
people
are"
with
felt
needs
and
concerns,
and
working
with
both
individual
and
community
needs
and
assets
translates
into
involving
the
communities
in
the
identification
of
pressing
health
issues,
available
resources,
and
capacity
for
change.
This
value
guides
the
faculty
as
they
conduct
various
community
based
participatory
research
projects,
both
here
and
in
developing
countries
abroad.
Integrity:
The
importance
of
integrity,
and
responsibility
and
ethical
conduct
in
all
academic
activities,
striving
to
offer
and
model
honesty,
dependability,
trust,
and
leadership
is
the
basis
of
the
conduct
of
members
of
the
MPH
student
association
as
well
as
the
student
population
at
large.
These
values
are
also
referenced
in
the
Association
Bylaws
and
MPH
student
handbook.
Page
17
1.1.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
program
embraces
a
clear
and
concise
mission
that
is
consistent
with
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
program.
 The
mission,
goals
and
objectives
support
the
core
values
used
to
guide
the
program.
 Program
objectives
are
specific,
measurable,
achievable
and
realistic
given
the
newness
of
the
program.
 The
mission,
goals,
objectives
and
values
are
widely
available
to
program
constituents.
 Core
values
are
routinely
expressed
within
program
operations.
Challenges
 The
objectives
are
largely
process
oriented
due
to
the
newness
of
the
program.
 Some
data
points
are
not
yet
available,
making
the
determination
of
overall
progress
towards
meeting
these
objectives
not
possible.
Page
18
Criterion
1.2.
Evaluation
and
Planning
The
program
shall
have
an
explicit
process
for
evaluating
and
monitoring
its
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.
1.2.a.
Description
of
the
evaluation
procedures
and
planning
processes
used
by
the
program,
including
an
explanation
of
how
constituent
groups
are
involved
in
these
processes.
Evaluation
Procedures
and
Planning
Processes
The
MPH
Program
conducts
both
formative
and
summative
evaluation
activities.
Formative
evaluation
assesses
institutional
development
with
the
purpose
of
improving
implementations
or
procedures.
Summative
evaluation
assesses
the
overall
impact
of
the
program.
Taken
together,
both
methods
provide
considerable
insight
concerning
overall
program
performance
against
stated
objectives.
Specific
methods
used
to
systematically
gather
data
can
be
employed
in
both
categories
of
evaluation.
Table
1.2.a
illustrates
the
types
of
methods
employed,
desired
data,
timing
of
evaluation
procedures,
and
involvement
by
program
constituents.
The
program
evaluation
plan
includes
a
total
of
eight
formative
evaluation
methods,
nine
summative
evaluation
methods
and
42
data
points.
Data
collection
involves
the
efforts
of
many
program
constituents,
including
current
students,
alumni,
program
faculty
and
staff,
community
members,
institutional
officers,
internship
supervisors,
and
employers.
Table
1.2.a.
MPH
Program
Evaluation
Procedures
Method
1.
Student
Entrance
Survey
2.
Student
Exit
Survey
3.
Syllabi
Audit
4.
Course
Evaluations
5.
Budget
Review
6.
Current
Student
Survey
7.
Student
focus
group
8.
Student
Recruitment
Report
Audit
Data
Collected
Timing
Formative
Evaluation
Activities
1.
Satisfaction
with
admissions
process
August,
January
2.
Student
enrollment
numbers
3.
Average
incoming
GPA
4.
Average
incoming
GRE
score
5.
Student
diversity
6.
Program
satisfaction
December,
May
7.
Incidences
of
Interdisciplinary
teaching
Every
semester
8.
Use
of
distance
learning
technology
9.
Measurable
learning
objectives
10.
MPH
competencies
11.
Faculty
teaching
ability
December,
May,
August
12.
Institutional
expenses
per
student
After
July
1
13.
Annual
research
dollars
14.
Student
support
15.
Governance
roles
August
16.
Service
activities
17.
Research
activities
18.
Program
satisfaction
May
19.
Number
and
type
of
recruitment
July
events
attended
Page
19
Constituents
Involved
Students
Students
Program
Staff
Students
Program
Staff
Students
Students
Program
Staff
Table
1.2.a.
MPH
Program
Evaluation
Procedures
Method
1.
Student
Exit
Survey
2.
Institutional
Reports
3.
Alumni
Survey
4.
Faculty
Survey
5.
Continuing
Education
Event
Evaluation
Survey
6.
Internship
Skill
Assessment
Survey
7.
Employer
Survey
8.
Capstone
course
9.
Certification
exams
Data
Collected
Timing
Summative
Evaluation
Activities
20.
Mastery
of
MPH
student
competencies
December,
May,
August
21.
Cumulative
GPAs
Every
semester
22.
Graduation
rates
23.
Attrition
rates
24.
Job
placement
rates
Every
fall
25.
Program
satisfaction
26.
Mastery
of
MPH
student
competencies
27.
Pass
rate
of
national
examination
28.
Courses
taught
January
and
August
29.
Student
supervision
30.
Grant
awards
31.
Publications
32.
Presentations
33.
Service
activities
34.
Awards
&
honors
35.
Degrees
earned,
appointment
type,
rank
36.
Faculty
diversity
37.
Participant
numbers
Varies
38.
Participant
satisfaction
39.
Observations
of
students
in
practice
December,
May,
August
40.
Preparation
of
graduates
Varies
41.
Mastery
of
MPH
student
competencies
December,
May,
August
42.
Mastery
of
public
health/health
Twice
a
year
education
competencies
Constituents
Involved
Students
Institutional
officers
Alumni
Institutional
officers;
Program
Staff;
Faculty
Community
members
Internship
Supervisors
Employers
Students;
Faculty
Credentialing
Agency
Assessment
Procedures
Measuring
program
performance
is
assessed
through
a
multitude
of
methods
as
indicated
in
table
1.2.a.
Details
regarding
the
processes
used
to
gather
the
program’s
performance
data
are
described
below
along
with
performance
indicators/criteria
for
success
(“targets”).
Cumulative
GPA
In
order
to
successfully
progress
through
the
program,
all
students
are
expected
to
maintain
a
minimum
grade
point
average
of
3.00
in
all
coursework
with
no
more
than
two
incomplete
courses
at
any
time.
Failure
to
maintain
the
applicable
minimum
standard
will
result
in
the
student
being
placed
on
academic
probation
for
the
following
semester.
Students
are
placed
on
probation
who
do
not
met
the
minimum
standard.
Target:
90%
of
students
will
achieve
a
cumulative
GPA
of
3.0
every
semester.
Capstone
Seminar
The
MPH
Program
does
not
have
a
thesis
option;
rather
students
register
for
CGH
307:
Public
Health
Capstone
in
their
final
semester
of
the
program.
The
capstone
seminar
pulls
together
the
training
students
have
received
in
all
their
prior
coursework
and
field
experience
and
it
provides
the
opportunity
Page
20
to
round
out
the
development
of
the
full
set
of
competencies
viewed
as
essential
for
masters‐prepared
graduates
in
public
health.
The
requirements,
which
include
a
portfolio
and
final
paper,
provide
students
with
a
means
of
self‐assessment,
indicating
how
core
and
concentration‐specific
competencies
were
achieved,
through
master’s
courses
and
fieldwork,
community
service,
and
paid
work
experience.
The
assignments
are
graded
by
a
faculty
committee
with
a
standard
rubric.
Target:
95%
of
students
pass
the
Capstone
seminar
on
the
first
attempt
Syllabi
Audit
The
Program
Manager
conducts
a
syllabi
audit
to
assess
various
outcomes,
including
incidences
of
interdisciplinary
teaching,
use
of
distance
learning
technology,
and
match
of
student
competencies
with
measurable
learning
objectives
and
evaluative
techniques.
Target:
2
courses
with
interdisciplinary
teaching
per
year;
1
course
featuring
distance
learning
technology
per
year;
and
100%
of
syllabi
will
have
measurable
student
learning
objectives
and
competencies.
Budget
Review
Sometime
after
the
beginning
of
the
fiscal
year
(July
1),
outcome
measures
from
the
previous
year
are
assessed,
including
institutional
expenses,
annual
research
dollars,
and
student
awards.
Targets:
Institutional
expenses
per
FTE
student
of
at
least
$539,
annual
research
dollars
of
at
least
$3
million,
every
eligible
student
receiving
a
20%
tuition
award.
Internship
Skill
Assessment
(Preceptor
Survey)
The
preceptor
survey
is
included
in
the
internship
handbook
which
is
distributed
to
all
internship
supervisors.
The
survey
requests
feedback
on
the
student’s
job
performance
and
competencies.
Students
receiving
ratings
on
several
criteria:
interpersonal
skills,
supervisory
skills,
personal
attributes
and
skills.
Preceptors
are
asked
to
give
an
overall
rating
for
the
student’s
performance.
The
evaluation
uses
a
five‐point
Likert‐scale
(5=beyond
expectation,
1=below
expectation).
Preceptors
are
also
asked
to
rate
the
student’s
preparedness
to
undertake
the
activities
asked
of
them
during
the
course
of
their
internship.
Target:
100%
of
students
will
receive
a
performance
rating
of
at
least
4.0
from
their
preceptors.
Ninety
percent
of
students
will
receive
a
preparedness
rating
of
“very
prepared”
from
their
internship
supervisors.
Examinations
and
Tests
Upon
graduation,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
sit
for
two
types
of
certifications
exams.
The
National
Commission
for
Health
Education
Credentialing
(NCHEC)
offers
the
Certified
Health
Education
Specialist
(CHES)
exam,
a
competency‐based
test
that
measures
the
possession,
application
and
interpretation
of
knowledge
related
to
the
Seven
Areas
of
Responsibilities:
a
comprehensive
set
of
Competencies
and
Sub‐competencies
defining
the
role
of
an
entry‐level
health
educator.
Only
students
in
the
health
promotion,
education
and
evaluation
concentration
are
eligible
to
sit
for
the
exam.
As
of
2008,
The
National
Board
of
Public
Health
Examiners
(NBPHE)
offers
a
certification
in
public
health
(CIP).
The
purpose
of
which
is
to
ensure
that
students
and
graduates
from
schools
and
programs
of
public
health
accredited
by
the
Council
on
Education
for
Public
Health
(CEPH)
have
mastered
the
knowledge
and
skills
relevant
to
contemporary
public
health.
The
exam
is
rooted
in
the
five
basic
core
competencies
of
public
health
to
reflect
the
nature
of
the
field.
Only
graduates
of
a
CEPH
accredited
program
are
eligible
to
sit
for
the
exam.
This
data
point
will
be
tracked
if
the
program
receives
CEPH
accreditation.
Target:
80%
of
students
will
pass
the
certifications
exams
on
the
first
attempt.
Page
21
Student
Exit
Survey
The
exit
interview
is
required
of
students
upon
graduation.
The
survey
is
available
online
by
Survey
Monkey.
This
survey
assesses
students’
confidence
regarding
mastery
of
MPH
core
and
concentration
competencies;
overall
satisfaction
with
the
program
and
curriculum;
and
strengths/weakness
of
the
program;
and
skills
still
needed.
Target:
90%
of
graduates
will
report
mastery
of
MPH
competencies.
Alumni
Survey
This
survey
will
be
sent
annually
via
e‐mail
to
all
MPH
graduates
from
the
preceding
12
months
and
again
every
two
years,
with
all
responses
collected
using
Survey
Monkey.
The
survey
is
comprised
of
four
sections:
demographics,
prior
degrees,
employment,
and
recommendations
(i.e.,
curriculum,
program
operations,
etc).
Target:
80%
of
graduates
will
report
job
placement
rates
within
12
months.
Employer
Survey
This
survey
will
be
sent
to
employers
of
MPH
graduates
approximately
three
months
after
receipt
of
the
alumni
survey.
Three
months
should
be
a
sufficient
amount
of
time
to
come
to
know
the
employees
capacity
for
performance.
The
survey
asks
that
the
employers
provide
an
overall
rating
of
the
employee’s
preparedness,
and
provide
general
strengths
and
weakness
of
the
program.
Target:
80%
percent
of
employers
will
provide
a
preparedness
rating
of
“very
prepared”
for
their
employees.
Current
Student
Survey
Students
complete
an
inventory
of
research
and
service
related
activities.
Targets:
Each
year:
25%
of
students
maintain
governance
roles
at
the
program
or
school
level;
at
least
two
students
present
at
a
professional
conference;
two
students
participate
in
faculty
service
activities;
50%
of
students
engage
in
service
activities
Student
Entrance
Survey
All
incoming
students
complete
a
survey
that
assesses
their
satisfaction
with
the
admissions
process.
Target:
90%
of
students
will
rate
their
experience
with
the
admissions
process
at
CGU
as
“satisfied”
or
“delighted.”
Faculty
Survey
In
addition
to
school
internal
review
of
all
faculty
every
year,
the
University
(Provost’s
office)
conducts
an
independent
review
of
faculty
progress
listed
in
an
annual
report
which
all
faculty
must
submit.
The
annual
report
includes
a
list
of
all
contributions
to
research,
service,
teaching,
and
mentoring
within
the
last
year.
The
MPH
Program
also
disseminates
an
annual
survey
to
core
and
adjunct
faculty
to
assess
various
outcomes
pertaining
to
research
and
service.
Targets:
100%
response
rate
Student
Focus
Group
At
the
end
of
the
spring
semester,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
a
focus
group
moderated
by
an
outside
agency.
The
overarching
objective
of
the
process
is
to
learn
about
the
attitudes
and
perceptions
of
students
enrolled
in
the
MPH
program.
Five
main
areas
of
interest
include:
 What
aspects
of
the
MPH
program
do
you
like/are
pleased
with?
 What
areas
need
improvement?
Page
22
 What
is
unique
about
the
program?
 Has
the
program
staff
(administrator
and
faculty)
been
responsive
to
your
needs?
 Would
you
recommend
the
MPH
program
to
others
(why
and
why
not)?
Target:
80%
of
students
would
recommend
the
MPH
program
to
others.
Institutional
Data
The
Office
of
Institutional
Research
at
CGU
provides
data
on
various
student
outcomes.
To
assess
student
learning
outcomes,
the
program
specifically
tracks
student
grades,
admissions
data,
time
to
graduation
and
attrition
rates.
The
program
director
uses
a
degree
counseling
sheet
to
monitor
student
progress.
Targets:
80%
of
students
will
graduate
within
two
years.
Maintain
a
less
than
10%
attrition
rate.
Continuing
Education
Evaluation
Survey
At
the
conclusion
of
every
continuing
education
event,
participants
receive
a
survey
that
assesses:
(1)
how
well
the
learning
objectives
were
met:
(2)
speaker
performance
and
impact;
and
(3)
satisfaction
with
event
logistics.
Results
are
communicated
to
the
National
Commission
of
Health
Education
Credentialing
(NCHEC)
and
discussed
among
program
administration.
Note:
A
report
summarizing
the
participants’
evaluation
of
the
event
is
required
for
those
events
that
provide
continuing
education
hours
for
health
educators.
The
MPH
program
serves
as
a
provider
of
these
units.
Target:
Fifty
percent
of
participants
attending
MPH
sponsored
continuing
events
rate
the
conference
as
having
their
learning
needs
as
“very
well
met.”
Audit
of
Student
Recruitment
Report
The
SCGH
Recruiter
will
provide
an
end‐of‐year
report
on
the
number
of
recruitment
events
attended
and
effectiveness
of
various
strategies.
Targets:
Attendance
at
least
20
events
per
year
and
a
minimum
of
five
targeting
minority
students.
1.2.b.
Description
of
how
the
results
of
evaluation
and
planning
are
regularly
used
to
enhance
the
quality
of
programs
and
activities.
Use
of
Evaluation
Results
The
evaluation
processes
used
by
the
MPH
program
enable
program
faculty,
staff,
students
and
community
partners
to
enhance
program
operations
and
student
learning.
Results
are
funneled
to
the
faculty
at
large
and
specific
MPH
Program
Committees.
Faculty
meetings,
held
bi‐monthly,
maintain
regular
discussions
of
program
functioning.
Program
leadership
routinely
adopts
recommendations
expressed
in
these
meetings.
Program
committees
are
scheduled
to
meet
annually
to
evaluate
areas
that
pertain
to
their
charge;
targets
that
are
not
met
are
accompanied
by
an
action
plan.
Continual
program
improvement
is
a
result
of
the
following
procedures:
• Syllabi
audits
each
semester
to
ensure
the
student
learning
outcomes
are
measurable
• Audit
of
recruitment
report
• Audit
of
School
budget
• Review
of
surveys
and
focus
group
results
• Faculty
review
of
assessments
each
semester
to
ensure
they
are
effectively
measure
learning
at
the
course
level
(grades
as
a
measure)
• Review
of
all
measures
of
all
student
learning
outcomes
that
are
related
to
the
curriculum
Page
23
Determine
areas
of
successes
and
challenges
Develop
a
plan
to
improve
in
challenge
areas
The
results
of
these
evaluative
measures
are
regularly
used
to
enhance
the
quality
of
the
program.
For
example,
the
results
of
course
evaluations
are
compiled
and
reviewed
by
the
MPH
program
director.
These
evaluations
can
impact
subsequent
teaching
assignments,
sequencing
of
course
offerings,
or
specific
teaching
strategies.
In
the
event
of
lower
than
average
scores,
MPH
teaching
faculty
are
counseled.
Course
content
or
evaluative
criteria
may
also
be
revised
in
the
light
of
student
comments.
Student
surveys,
particularly
the
exit
and
alumni
provide
important
information
concerning
student
satisfaction
with
program
curriculum,
attainment
of
competencies,
and
overall
program
operations.
This
data
is
used
by
the
program
director
to
identify
new
content
areas
and
methods
to
improve
student
services.
Focus
groups,
planned
by
the
student
association
and
facilitated
by
an
outside
agency,
offer
another
mechanism
by
which
students
communicate
their
level
of
satisfaction
with
program
operations
and
the
academic
offerings.
Both
students
and
internship
preceptors
complete
evaluation
surveys.
Preceptors
rate
the
level
of
student
preparation
and
performance
at
conclusion
of
the
400‐hour
field
training
requirement.
The
survey
is
forwarded
to
the
program
director,
who
also
teaches
the
Internship
course.
Information
concerning
areas
of
strength
and
improvement
can
inform
MPH
student
competencies.
Similarly,
students
rate
their
experience
and
identify
specific
courses
that
were
instrumental
in
preparing
them
for
the
types
of
tasks
they
undertook
in
their
field
training
experience.
In
addition,
students
comment
on
courses
or
content
areas
that
would
have
been
helpful
had
they
been
offered
in
the
curriculum.
New
course
offerings
can
be
instituted
based
upon
student
assessment.
The
Curriculum
Committee
meets
annually
for
assessment
and
evaluation
of
offerings,
both
in
terms
of
areas
of
dual
degree
options,
MPH
specializations,
teaching
schedules,
and
specific
courses
and
study‐
practice
options.
Recommendations
from
this
committee
can
result
in
modifications
to
all
areas
mentioned
above.
For
example,
a
change
in
marketing
strategies
may
result
when
a
particular
area
of
emphasis
or
course
continues
to
experience
low
enrollment.
SCGH
is
committed
to
continuous
improvement
of
the
MPH
program
through
the
conduct
of
a
systematic
assessment
process.
Students
choose
to
attend
CGU
because
of
the
highly
personalized
educational
experience,
informed
by
high‐quality
research,
and
closely‐connected
to
practice.
Because
we
are
researchers,
we
value
what
systematically‐collected
evidence
can
reveal.
Our
use
of
this
multi‐
pronged
assessment
approach
indicates
our
dedication
to
our
program
constituents,
which
includes
faculty,
staff,
students
and
community
partners.
1.2.c.
Identification
of
outcome
measures
that
the
program
uses
to
monitor
its
effectiveness
in
meetings
its
mission,
goals
and
objectives.
Target
levels
should
be
defined
and
data
regarding
program’s
performance
must
be
provided
for
each
of
the
three
years.
Outcome
Measures
and
Target
Levels
The
MPH
program
establishes
and
monitors
outcome
measures
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
meeting
the
mission,
goals
and
objectives.
While
many
of
these
outcomes
have
been
previously
identified
with
regards
to
the
program
functions
of
instruction,
research
and
service;
additional
outcomes
concerning
program
inputs
and
outputs
are
monitored
as
well.
Selected
target
levels
are
defined
for
the
following
criterion:
evaluation
and
planning
[table
1.2.c.(1)],
instructional
programs
[Table
1.2.c.(2)],
research
[Table
1.2.c.(3)],
service
(Table
1.2.c.(4)],
faculty
[Table
1.2.c.(5)],
students
[Table
1.2.c.(6)],
and
resources
[Table
1.2.c.(7)].
Data
that
speak
to
the
program’s
performance
for
the
selected
indicators
are
provided
for
each
of
the
last
two
years.
•
•
Page
24
Criterion
1.2:
Evaluation
and
Planning
The
CGU
MPH
program
continuously
monitors
faculty,
student,
and
staff
performance.
Procedures
are
in
place
to
handle
grievances
and
to
make
adjustments
to
faculty,
staff,
and
student
activities
based
on
performance.
Concerns
communicated
to
the
student
association
or
program
director/manager
are
immediately
addressed
either
through
established
Program
or
University
procedures
or
via
ad‐hoc
processes,
whichever
is
most
appropriate.
The
program
hoped
to
meet
the
targets
of
75%
of
the
selected
outcome
measures.
This
goal
was
met
in
the
both
academic
years.
Some
of
the
outcomes
have
yet
to
be
realized
due
to
a
lack
of
data.
Table
1.2.c.(1).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Evaluation
and
Planning
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
of
outcome
measures
met
or
exceeded
2.
Response
rates
to
student
entrance
survey
3.
Response
to
student
exit
survey
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
38
75
40
75
16
100
17
100
N/A
N/A
2
100
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
48
94
49
92
Met
Met
16
100
17
100
Met
Met
N/A
N/A
2
100
Met
Criterion
2.0‐2.11:
Instructional
Programs
The
instructional
programs
are
the
strength
of
the
MPH
program.
The
program
attracts
high
caliber
applicants
who
enroll
and
complete
the
program.
Students
arrive
with
high
GPAs
and
maintain
them
during
the
tenure
in
the
program.
Public
health
competencies
are
covered
in
the
courses
and
students
report
being
satisfied
with
their
instruction.
Attrition
rates
are
low
in
the
first
year,
and
no
students
withdrew
in
the
second.
Faculty
strive
to
integrate
various
forms
of
technology
to
enhance
student
learning.
Table
1.2.c.(2).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Instructional
Programs
Outcome
Measures
1.
Average
GPA
(all
concentrations)
Target
Level
3.3
Health
Education,
Promotion
&
Evaluation
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Leadership
&
Management
2.
Graduation
rates
80%
3.
Job
placement
rates
4.
Attrition
rates
90%
10%
5.
Incidences
of
interdisciplinary
teaching
(cross
listing
courses)
2
6.
Incidences
of
courses
utilizing
distance
learning
technology
1
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
3.75
3.71
Met
Met
3.60
3.53
3.87
3.76
3.77
3.83
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.25%
0%
Met
Met
1
2
Not
Met
Met
1
2
Met
Met
Criterion
3.1:
Research
CGU
faculty
are
extremely
productive
researchers.
Faculty
are
successful
obtaining
NIH
grants
and
publishing
their
research
in
the
leading
public
health
journals.
All
core
faculty
hold
doctoral
degrees
and
the
research
consist
of
transdisciplinary
applied
public
health
research
in
which
community‐based
and
Page
25
substance
use/obesity
prevention
programs
are
designed,
implemented,
and
evaluated.
Experiences
from
this
research
contribute
to
the
classroom
lectures
and
projects,
and
students
learn
first‐hand
the
scientific
basis
of
public
health.
Table
1.2.c.(3).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Research
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
of
grants
Target
Level
15
2.
Annual
dollar
amount
of
grants
3,000,000
3.
Number
of
NIH
funded
grants
5
4.
Number
of
community
based/applied
research
projects
5
5.
Number
of
peer‐reviewed
publications
for
core
faculty
20
6.
Number
of
peer‐reviewed
publications
for
adjunct
faculty
5
8.
Number
of
core
faculty
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
20
9.
Number
of
adjunct
faculty
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
5
10.
Number
of
core
faculty
who
supervise
students
on
research
projects
11.
Number
of
collaborative
research
projects
7
12.
Number
of
student
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
2
5
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
20
21
Met
Met
5,435,433
4,952,890
Met
Met
17
17
Met
Met
15
13
Met
Met
49
61
Met
Met
6
8
Met
Met
29
28
Met
Met
10
11
Met
Met
16
20
Met
Met
15
13
Met
Met
2
2
Met
Met
Criterion
3.2‐3.3:
Service
Students
and
faculty
are
highly
engaged
in
service
activities
that
benefit
local
communities
and
national
organizations.
Faculty
are
rewarded
for
service
activities
and
maintain
strong
linkages
with
community
based
organizations
in
order
to
conduct
their
applied
public
health
research.
Service
activities
are
built
into
the
MPH
curriculum
in
various
ways.
Table
1.2.c.(4).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Service
Outcome
Measures
1.
Percentage
of
student
internships
that
include
service
activities
Target
Level
75%
1
2.
Feedback
on
observations
of
students
in
practice 4.0
3.Percent
of
all
faculty
who
serve
on
panel/boards
or
provide
technical
assistance
to
community
based
agencies
4.Percent
of
core
faculty
who
serve
as
grant
reviewers
50%
5.Percent
of
all
faculty
who
serve
as
manuscript
reviewers
50%
Page
26
25%
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
100%
100%
Met
Met
N/A
5.0
Met
73%
63%
Met
Met
50%
50%
Met
Met
50%
50%
Met
Met
Table
1.2.c.(4).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Service
Outcome
Measures
6.Percent
of
core
faculty
with
active
memberships
in
community,
national
or
international
professional
associations
7.
Number
of
students
who
participate
in
faculty
service
activities
each
year
8.
Percent
of
students
engaging
in
service
activities
Target
Level
75%
2
50%
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
100%
100%
Met
Met
7
6
Met
Met
93%
72%
Met
Met
1Mean
performance
score
given
by
student
preceptors
at
the
conclusion
of
their
internship
(1=below
expectation,
3=satisfactory,
5=beyond
expectation)
Criterion
4.0‐4.3:
Faculty
CGU
has
a
highly
qualified
faculty
in
the
core
areas
of
public
health.
The
faculty
are
nationally
recognized
in
their
areas
and
integrate
public
health
teaching
and
service
into
their
research.
Most
faculty
teach
one
or
at
most
two
courses
and
obtain
research
funding
to
support
the
rest
of
their
salary.
This
creates
an
entrepreneurial
environment
in
which
faculty
actively
compete
to
maintain
their
prominence
as
public
health
researchers.
The
faculty
could
be
more
diverse
in
terms
of
gender
and
ethnicity.
Currently,
there
is
a
dearth
of
Hispanic/Latino
faculty.
Table
1.2.c.(5).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Faculty
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
and
percent
of
faculty
with
doctoral
degrees
2.
Number
and
percentage
of
female
faculty
3.Number
and
percentage
of
ethnic/minority
faculty
4.
Number
and
percent
of
tenured/tenured
track
faculty
5.
Number
and
percent
of
faculty
with
the
rank
of
Associate
Professor
or
higher
6.
Overall
mean
value
of
4.30
for
course
evaluations
7.
Number
and
percent
of
all
faculty
involved
in
service
activities
8.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
presentations
at
professional
meetings
9.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
with
funded
research
10.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
with
peer‐
reviewed
publications
11.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
who
supervise
students
on
research
projects*
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
15
100
16
100
6
40
6
40
6
40
6
40
7.5
50
8
50
7.5
50
8
50
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
11.25
75
12
75
8
80
8
80
7.5
75
7.5
75
8
50
8
50
7.5
50
7.5
50
Page
27
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
15
100
15
94%
Met
Not
Met
5
33
5
31
Not
Met
Not
Met
6
40
4
25
Met
Not
Met
8
80
7
70
Met
Met
8
80
8
80
Met
Met
4.45
4.79
Met
Met
13
87
15
88
Met
Met
9
90
8
80
Met
Met
90
90
9
9
Met
Met
9
90
8
80
Met
Met
5
50
6
60
Met
Met
Criterion
4.0‐4.3:
Students
Academic
performance
among
MPH
students
is
good.
Students
are
exceeding
the
target
level
for
GPAs.
Applicant
GRE
scores
for
enrollees
are
slightly
below
the
minimum.
The
level
of
student
diversity
for
enrollees
is
acceptable.
Students
are
involved
in
program
operations
as
evidenced
by
their
participation
in
program
committees.
Table
1.2.c.(6).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Students
Outcome
Measures
1.
Average
Incoming
GPA
Applicants
Target
Level
3.00
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
3.29
3.07
Met
Met
3.29
3.07
Met
Met
3.32
3.03
Met
Met
Acceptances
Enrollees
2.
Average
GRE
scores
(combined
verbal/quantitative)
1000
Applicants
1044
Met
1044
Met
947
Not
Met
Acceptances
Enrollees
3.
Ethnic
diversity
Applicants
50%
1034
Met
1034
Met
965
Not
Met
36%
Not
Met
36%
Not
Met
57%
Met
Acceptances
Enrollees
4.
Gender
diversity
Applicants
50%
Acceptances
Enrollees
5.
Percent
of
students
in
MPH
program
governance
roles
25%
65%
Met
65%
Met
71%
Met
82%
Met
82%
Met
86%
Met
45%
Met
79%
Met
79%
Met
71%
Met
40%
Met
Criterion
4.0‐4.3:
Resources
The
program
active
research
agenda
and
numerous
funded
projects
provide
extraordinary
opportunities
and
benefits
to
the
MPH
program.
The
faculty
to
student
ratio
is
very
low,
providing
significant
faculty
attention
and
support
to
students.
All
eligible
students
receive
at
least
a
20%
tuition
discount.
The
number
of
agencies
available
for
internship
placements
continues
to
grow.
Page
28
Table
1.2.c.(7).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Resources
Outcome
Measures
1.
Student/Faculty
Ratio
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
8:1
8:1
2.
Annual
Research
Dollars/FTE
faculty
$300,000:1
$300,000:1
100%
100%
5
10
3.
Percent
of
eligible
students
supported
financially
4.
Number
of
agencies
available
for
student
placement
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
1:1
2:1
Met
Met
679,429:1
679,429:1
Met
Met
100%
100%
Met
Met
5
12
Met
Met
1.2.d.
An
analytical
self‐study
document
that
provides
a
qualitative
and
quantitative
assessment
of
how
the
program
achieves
its
mission,
goals
and
objectives
and
meets
all
accreditation
criteria,
including
a
candid
assessment
of
strengths
and
weaknesses
in
terms
of
the
program’s
performance
against
the
accreditation
criteria.
Assessments
of
Strengths
and
Weaknesses
This
self‐study
document
provides
an
assessment
of
all
levels
of
program
functioning,
the
creation
of
which
can
be
attributed
to
dedicated
efforts
of
program
administration,
faculty
and
constituents.
This
document
provides
data
on
the
CGU
MPH
Program’s
progress
at
achieving
its
goals
and
objectives
over
the
past
two
years
of
program
operation.
Each
section
concludes
with
an
assessment
of
strengths,
challenges
and
future
plans,
if
appropriate.
1.2.e.
An
analysis
of
the
program’s
responses
to
recommendations
in
the
last
accreditation
report.
Responses
to
Last
Accreditation
Report
Not
applicable
1.2.f.
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,
teaching
faculty,
students,
alumni
and
representatives
of
the
public
health
community.
Development
of
the
Self‐Study
Document
The
self‐study
and
accreditation
process
has
been
a
high
program
priority,
one
that
is
an
ongoing
and
valuable
effort
over
the
long‐term.
The
initial
planning
for
this
self‐study
began
in
January
of
2010,
two
months
after
our
applicant
status
was
approved
by
CEPH.
Specific
actions
taken
for
the
development
of
the
self‐study
document
include:
 An
MPH
Accreditation/Self‐study
committee
was
established
and
has
met
to
oversee
this
process
and
discuss
the
completion
of
various
tasks
and
achievement
of
milestones
(January
2010).
 A
part‐time
consultant
was
hired
to
assist
with
data
collection
and
analysis
(June
2010).
 The
overall
strategy
and
timeline
for
the
development
of
the
self‐study
document
was
presented
and
discussed
at
the
summer
faculty
retreat
(June
2010).
 A
consultation
with
CEPH
staff
was
held
to
present
and
obtain
feedback
on
preliminary
data
Page
29

(December
2010).
Several
program
constituents
were
surveyed
during
the
development
of
the
document,
including
faculty,
staff,
current
and
former
students,
and
community
members
(February
–
July
2011).
Opportunities
for
Input
by
Program
Constituents
In
addition
to
data
provided
by
program
constituents,
opportunities
for
comments
on
the
draft
have
been
solicited.
Copies
of
the
document
draft
were
made
widely
available
for
public
review
and
input.
Specific
details
concerning
this
process
include:
 To
reach
the
general
public
health
community,
a
section
on
accreditation
was
created
on
the
MPH
program
website.
The
page
features
an
explanation
of
the
accreditation
process,
a
link
to
the
draft
document,
and
a
statement
encouraging
public
comment.
 Hard
copies
of
the
draft
were
sent
to
the
faculty,
institutional
officers
(President
&
Provost),
and
program
staff.
 An
e‐mail
with
the
attached
document
was
sent
to
all
students
(former,
current
and
incoming)
inviting
them
to
review
the
document
and
provide
their
input.
Instances
of
comments/edits
were
sent
via
e‐mail
to
the
program
director
(standalone
or
embedded
in
the
draft
document).
Edits
were
incorporated
in
the
final
draft
of
the
document.
All
program
constituents
were
made
aware
that
comments
may
be
sent
directly
to
CEPH
at
least
30
days
prior
to
the
site
visit.
1.2.g.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths:
 The
program
has
a
diverse
set
of
indicators
used
to
monitor
program
operations
related
to
instruction,
research,
and
service.
 The
indicators
are
appropriate
ones
for
each
domain
and
audience
and
are
used
interactively
by
the
directors
to
influence
program
operations
on
a
daily
basis.
 The
program
has
developed
a
broad‐based,
integrated
plan
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
program
performance
with
regards
to
stated
objectives.
Challenges:
 Due
to
the
life
of
the
program,
data
is
not
yet
available
for
some
outcomes
(e.g.,
employer
preparedness
rating,
job
placement
rate).
 Like
all
organizations,
we
are
continuously
challenged
to
acquire
the
data
necessary
to
ensure
that
it
is
used
appropriately
in
decision‐making.
Page
30
Criterion
1.3.
Institutional
Environment
The
program
shall
be
an
integral
part
of
an
accredited
institution
of
higher
learning.
1.3.a.
A
brief
description
of
the
institution
in
which
the
program
is
located,
along
with
the
names
of
accrediting
bodies
(other
than
CEPH)
to
which
the
institution
responds.
History
and
Tradition
Claremont
Graduate
University
is
a
research‐extensive
and
graduate‐only
institution
with
85
years
of
history.
Located
in
Claremont,
California
and
as
part
of
the
Claremont
Colleges,
CGU
was
founded
on
the
premise
that
education
thrives
where
students,
faculty,
and
business
and
civil
societies
engage
in
scholarship
and
research
on
a
level
that
encourages
broad‐ranging
conversation.
CGU’s
first
president,
James
Blaisdell,
envisioned
“great
conversation”
as
the
center
of
the
University
in
the
belief
that
“out
of
the
talk
of
college
life
springs
everything
else.”
The
University
thrives
on
a
tradition
that
values
inquiry
and
research
across
the
disciplines,
addressing
significant
societal
issues
with
academic
rigor.
Academic
Organization
Claremont
Graduate
University
consists
of
nine
schools
and
one
independent
department
that
function
in
an
increasingly
transdisciplinary
mode,
including
Arts
and
Humanities,
Behavioral
and
Organizational
Sciences,
Community
and
Global
Health,
Educational
Studies,
Information
Systems
and
Technology,
Management,
Mathematical
Sciences,
Religion,
Politics
and
Economics,
and
the
Department
of
Botany.
The
University
serves
masters
and
doctoral
students
in
more
than
20
fields
across
nine
schools.
Of
the
2,262
students
enrolled
at
CGU,
1,114
are
full‐time,
440
are
part‐time,
and
708
students
are
enrolled
in
doctoral
study
programs
working
on
their
dissertations.
The
male
and
female
populations
are
about
equal
and
the
international
students,
drawn
from
53
countries,
make
up
about
16%
of
the
student
body.
About
19%
of
the
students
are
African
American
or
Latina/Latinos.
In
comparison
to
the
nationwide
statistics,
the
percentages
of
minority
students
receiving
doctoral
degrees
are
high
at
CGU.
In
a
recent
NSF
survey,
11.9%
of
doctorate
recipients
at
CGU
were
Asian,
10.9%
were
African
American,
and
8.9%
were
Hispanic.
The
national
averages
are
8.3%,
6.6%,
and
5.8%
for
the
three
groups,
respectively.
Graduates
of
CGU
are
part
of
a
worldwide
network
of
some
18,000
alumni/alumnae.
They
include
university
presidents,
members
of
the
U.S.
Congress,
U.S
Presidential
Advisors,
MacArthur
Fellows,
Heads
of
major
corporations,
artists,
researchers,
educators,
and
high‐ranking
government
officials.
Many
of
the
alumni/alumnae
manage
major
research
institutions
and
populate
university
faculties.
The
institution
has
approximately
170
staff
and
131
faculty
members,
much
augmented
by
the
faculty
at
the
other
six
campuses
of
The
Claremont
Colleges
Consortium.
The
CGU
faculty
members
include
internationally
renowned
scholars,
many
of
whom
are
from
diverse
ethnic
backgrounds.
About
34%
of
the
faculty
is
female
and
13%
are
foreign
born.
About
20%
of
the
faculty
are
faculty
of
color
(African
American:
4%;
Latino/Latina
American:
5%;
and
Asian
American:
11%).
For
the
core
faculty,
95%
have
a
PhD
degree.
Claremont
Graduate
University
is
part
of
The
Claremont
University
Consortium
(CUC)
that
consists
of
five
undergraduate
and
two
graduate
universities.
Pomona
College
(established
in
1887)
was
followed
by
the
founding
of
Claremont
Graduate
University
(1925),
the
Claremont
University
Consortium
(1925),
Scripps
College
(1926),
Claremont
McKenna
College
(1946),
Harvey
Mudd
College
(1955),
Pitzer
College
(1963),
and
the
Keck
Graduate
Institute
of
Applied
Life
Sciences
(1997).
The
consortium
model,
unique
Page
31
in
the
United
States,
provides
numerous
resources
for
CGU
students.
With
6,300
students,
about
1,074
faculty
members,
1,682
staff
members,
assets
totaling
$2.1
billion,
223
buildings
and
595
acres
of
land,
which
includes
260
acres
of
undeveloped
area,
the
Consortium
offers
a
remarkable
wealth
and
breadth
of
resources
and
opportunity.
The
Claremont
University
Consortium
is
the
central
coordinating
and
support
organization
for
the
seven
institutions.
CUC
has
302
employees
and
a
well‐managed
budget
of
more
than
$38
million
to
assist
the
member
colleges
and
universities,
delivering
academic,
student,
and
institutional
support
services
such
as
campus
safety,
interfaith
chaplains,
bookstores,
student
centers,
minority
affairs
centers,
payroll
and
accounting,
real
estate
and
housing,
risk
management,
and
health
and
wellness.
The
two
libraries
which
are
part
of
the
Claremont
University
Consortium
hold
over
two
million
volumes
and
subscribe
to
a
vast
array
of
electronic
resources.
The
Consortium
helps
with
founding
new
institutions
and
promoting
cooperation
among
the
members.
The
Claremont
Colleges
consortium
model
enables
students
to
cross‐register
in
over
2,500
courses
throughout
the
member
institutions.
CGU
works
closely
with
other
members
of
the
Consortium
in
serving
the
needs
of
our
students.
Currently,
CGU
has
210
CGU
extended
faculty
members
among
Pomona,
Scripps,
Claremont
McKenna,
Pitzer,
and
Keck
Graduate
Institute.
In
addition,
CGU
also
collaborates
with
the
Claremont
School
of
Theology
in
the
study
of
religions.
Faculty
at
the
other
campuses
of
the
Consortium
have
actively
participated
in
teaching
at
CGU,
grading
students’
qualifying
exams,
and
serving
on
dissertation
committees.
CGU
has
funded
a
large
number
of
such
activities
through
a
variety
of
CGU’s
resources
including
the
investment
income
from
the
BLAIS
Foundation
endowment
designated
to
the
collaboration
between
CGU
and
other
members
of
the
Consortium,
and
amounting
to
over
$300,000
annually.
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
CGU
announced
the
formation
of
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
(SCGH),
the
ninth
school
in
the
University
in
the
summer
of
2008.
In
that
same
year,
the
New
Ventures
Committee
of
the
Claremont
Universities
Consortium
chose
and
the
seven
presidents
endorsed
SCGH
as
the
latest
“New
Venture”
of
the
collective
universities,
making
SCGH
the
first
New
Venture
of
the
colleges
since
the
Keck
Graduate
Institute
in
1997.
The
new
School
addresses
twenty‐first
century
threats
to
population
health
such
as
accelerated
shifts
in
global
populations,
as
well
as
spikes
in
preventable
health‐related
problems.
Building
on
professors
coming
to
CGU
from
the
University
of
Southern
California’s
celebrated
Institute
for
Disease
Prevention
and
Health
Promotion
Research,
the
new
School
focuses
on
such
topics
as
addiction,
the
world‐wide
obesity
epidemic,
and
how
research
findings
in
prevention
science
can
be
translated
into
better
policies
and
practice.
The
new
School
is
strategically
aligned
with
the
university’s
pioneering
transdisciplinary
curriculum
and
research
focus.
It
creates
important
synergies
with
many
research
activities
at
CGU,
and
creates
new
partnerships
within
the
university,
especially
with
its
Schools
of
Information
Systems
and
Technology
(SISAT),
Behavioral
and
Organizational
Sciences
(SBOS),
the
Drucker
School
of
Management
(Drucker),
and
the
Keck
Graduate
Institute
of
Applied
Life
Sciences
(Keck).
The
CGU
MPH
program
resides
in
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
(SCGH).
The
School
supports
nine
full‐time
faculty
which
includes
three
Associate
Deans
(Administration,
Faculty
and
Academic
Affairs)
and
two
academic
program
directors
(MPH
and
PhD
in
Health
Promotion
Sciences).
Accrediting
Bodies
Claremont
Graduate
University
was
last
reaffirmed
for
WASC
(Western
Association
of
Schools
and
Colleges)
accreditation
in
June,
2002
and
holds
the
prestigious
classification
of
Doctoral
Research
University
–
Extensive,
granted
by
the
Carnegie
Foundation
for
the
Advancement
of
Teaching.
In
2006
Page
32
CGU
embarked
on
the
development
of
a
new
Institutional
Proposal
that
will
be
submitted
to
WASC
in
May,
2010.
The
Drucker
School
of
Management
is
fully
accredited
by
the
Association
to
Advance
Collegiate
Schools
of
Business
(AACSB).
The
AACSB
is
a
not‐for‐profit
corporation
of
educational
institutions,
corporations,
and
other
organizations
devoted
to
the
promotion
and
improvement
of
higher
education
in
business
administration
and
management.
In
April
2008,
the
Drucker
School
received
a
Reaffirmation
of
its
AACSB
Accreditation.
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.
Organizational
Chart
of
the
University
Figure
1.3.b
Organization
Chart
of
the
University
Board of Trustees
President
Deborah Freund
O8(#.1$)'!I#(*;('.!T),%.#&,'9!
0-(*.1,-!>#4(),G(',$)!OA(#'!
!
"#$%$&'!()*!+,-.!"#.&,*.)'!
/$#!0-(*.1,-!0//(,#&!
2,!3.)4!
!
U0&!$/!D();(#9!VWXXY!
0*1,),&'#(',%.!0&&,&'()'!
O(#$8!:;'.#!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
".'.#!3@!5#;-K.#!L!
=(&('$&A,!B'$!I#(*;('.!
!
:-A$$8!$/!=()(4.1.)'!
! !
0-(*.1,-!5.()!
C,*.K,!2(1(H(K,!
!
!
!
".'.#!3@!5#;-K.#!L!
!
=(&('$&A,!B'$!I#(*;('.!
:-A$$8!$/!=()(4.1.)'!
! !
0*1,),&'#(',%.!5.()!
!
J.&8,.!M.4#,''$!
!
!
!
!
F="!0-(*.1,-!
!
"#$4#(1&!
0&&'@!5,#.-'$#!
!
D(-K..!F)48.&!
!
!
=E0L3F!
"#$4#(1&!
!
0&&'@!5,#.-'$#!
M$8(!<()'(!
!
!
!
0*1,&&,$)&!Z!
?.-#;,',)4!
5,#.-'$#!
E#()*$)!6;-K!
F\'.#)(8!Z!
08;1),!0//(,#&!
5,#.-'$#!
:-$''!E.)'$)!
!
!
+,-.!"#$%$&'!!
5,#.-'$#!$/!?.&.(#-A!
5.()!I.#&'.,)!
!
+,-.!"#$%$&'!!
5,#.-'$#!$/!
6#()&*,&-,78,)(#9!
:';*,.&!
<.)*9!=(#',)!
!
+,-.!"#$%$&'!
5.()!$/!:';*.)'&!
>7.)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
:-A$$8!$/!
F*;-(',$)(8!
:';*,.&!
5.()!
=(#4(#.'!I#$4()!
!
6.(-A.#!
F*;-(',$)!
5,#.-'$#[!!
O;##,-;8;1!L!
?.&.(#-A!
5.J(-9!I()8.9!
!
6.(-A.#!
F*;-(',$)!
5,#.-'$#[!!
0*%()-.1.)'!L!
0*1,)!
J,&(!J$$7!
!
:'$).!J,P#(#9!!
5,#.-'$#!
O(#$89)!0)4;&!
:-A$$8!$/!E.A(%,$#(8!
()*!>#4(),G(',$)(8!
:-,.)-.&!
5.()!
:-A$$8!$/!
=('A.1(',-(8!
:-,.)-.&!
5.()!
D$A)!0)4;&!
!
:'.H(#'!5$)(8*&$)!
!
!
0&&$-,('.!
5.()!
N('A9!
".G*.K!
O$17;'(',$)(8!
()*!:9&'.1&!
E,$8$49!
5,#.-'$#!
08,!M(*,1!
!
!
C;1()!
?.&$;#-.&!
5.&,4)!
5,#.-'$#!
N(',.!F(#!
O$17;'(',$)(8!
:-,.)-.!
5,#.-'$#!
>7.)!
!
!
F\'.#)(8!
0//(,#&!
D$A)!
J(+.88.!
!
F)4,)..#,)4!
()*!B)*;&'#,(8!
0778,.*!
=('A.1(',-&!
5,#.-'$#!
F88,&!
O;1P.#P('-A!
!
!
C,4A.#!F*!
0P&'#(-'&!
5,#.-'$#!
=,K.!6(;&-A.-K!
!
F\'.#)(8!0//(,#&!
5,#.-'$#!
5.),&.!
6A$17&$)!
:-A$$8!$/!"$8,',-&!
()*!F-$)$1,-&!
5.()!
D.()!:-A#$.*.8!
:-A$$8!$/!0#'&!
()*!C;1(),',.&!
5.()!
D().'!3(##.88!E#$*,.!
!
!
F-$)$1,-&!
OA(,#!
"(;8!Q(K!
!
"#$4#(1!
5,#.-'$#!
J,&(!I#,//,'A!
!
"$8,',-&!()*!
"$8,-9!
OA(,#!
D.)),/.#!
=.#$88(!
!
!
!
:-A$$8!$/!
O$11;),'9!()*!
I8$P(8!C.(8'A!
5.()!
0)*9!D$A)&$)!
!
0778,.*!
<$1.)S&!
:';*,.&!
"#$4#(1!
5,#.-'$#!
J,)*(!".#K,)&!
0&&$-,('.!
5.()!
5.)),&!
6#,),*(*!
!
!
!
:-A$$8!$/!
B)/$#1(',$)!
:9&'.1&!()*!
6.-A)$8$49!
5.()!
6.##9!?9()!
!
5,#.-'$#!
F\'.#)(8!
0//(,#&!
=(''!C;''.#!
!
!
O;8';#(8!:';*,.&!
OA(,#!
C.)#9!N#,7&!
F)48,&A!OA(,#!
J$#,!0)).!3.##.88!
!
!
C,&'$#9!OA(,#!
?$P.#'!5(H,*$//!
!
:-A$$8!$/!
?.8,4,$)!
5.()!
0)&.81!=,)!
0#'!OA(,#!
5(%,*!"(4.8!
!!
"#$4#(1!
5,#.-'$#!
:()*#(!
:.91$;#!
3,)()-,(8!
F)4,)..#,)4!
O$R5,#.-'$#&!
C.)#9!:-A.88A$#)!
D,1!=,88&!
=;&,-!OA(,#!
?$P.#'!Q(77;88(!
!
"A,8$&$7A9!OA(,#!
"('#,-,(!F(&'$)!
!
0#'!
=()(4.1.)'!
5,#.-'$#!
J(;#(!Q;-K.#!
!
:';*.)'!J,/.!
5,#.-'$#!
=.8,)*(!=$.#&!
!
!
0&&,&'()'!"#$%$&'!
?@!:-$''!:,17&$)!
Page
33
B)*.7.)*.)'!5.7(#'1.)'&!
()*!"#$4#(1&!
E$'()9!
5,#.-'$#!$/!?.&.(#-A!
OA(,#!
J;-,)*(!?@!=-5(*.!
!
0/#,-()(!:';*,.&!
O.#',/,-('.!
OA(,#!
J,)*(!".#K,)&!
!
1.3.c.
A
description
of
the
university
practices
regarding:
(1)
lines
of
accountability,
including
access
to
higher‐level
university
officials;
(2)
prerogatives
extended
to
academic
units
regarding
names,
titles
and
internal
organization;
(3)
budgeting
and
resource
allocation,
including
budget
negotiations,
indirect
cost
recoveries,
distribution
of
tuition
and
fees,
and
support
for
fundraising;
(4)
personnel
recruitment,
selection
and
advancement,
including
faculty
and
staff;
and
(5)
academic
standards
and
policies,
including
establishment
and
oversight
of
curricula
Lines
of
Accountability
CGU’s
academic
hierarchy
is
as
follows:
the
faculty
are
accountable
to
the
Dean
of
their
School,
who
reports
to
the
Provost
and
Vice
President
of
Academic
Affairs,
who
reports
to
the
President,
who
reports
to
the
Board
of
Trustees.
Two
independent
Departments,
Botany
and
Africana
Studies
report
directly
to
the
Provost
and
Vice
President
of
Academic
Affairs.
Under
the
Provost,
are
three
Vice
Provosts
(Director
of
Research,
Transdisciplinary
Studies,
Student
Services
–
now
vacant‐‐)
along
with
one
Assistant
Vice
Provost
(WASC
Accreditation,
Liaison
Officer).
Prerogatives
Extended
to
Academic
Units
Regarding
Names,
Titles
and
Internal
Organization
Names,
titles
and
organization
are
determined
by
the
Dean
of
each
School,
but
do
require
approval
by
the
Provost.
Upon
the
establishment
of
SCGH,
the
Dean
received
approval
for
three
Associate
Deans
for
Academics,
Administration
and
Faculty
Affairs.
Budgeting
and
Resource
Allocation
Budget
Negotiations
Each
School
prepares
and
submits
a
budget
request/recommendations
via
administrative
channels
when
requested
by
the
Senior
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Administration
and
Provost
to
do
so.
The
Provost
&
Executive
Vice
President
for
Academic
Affairs
has
the
final
responsibility
and
authority
in
determining
specification
of
request
for
the
final
budget
request,
as
well
as
related
requests.
Only
the
Provost
has
the
authority
to
authorize
additional
faculty
FTE
and
works
in
conjunction
with
the
Senior
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Administration
in
order
to
make
sure
there
are
enough
funds
to
cover
such
a
request.
The
Dean
shall
involve
other
administrators
as
appropriate
in
the
budget
building
and
resource
request
activities
within
the
School.
The
Dean
of
the
School
has
the
responsibility
and
authority
to
work
with
the
Provost
and
Office
of
Finance
and
Administration
in
determining
final
budget
and
other
allocations
for
each
fiscal
year,
once
final
figures
become
known.
The
Dean
shall
take
into
account
the
recommendations
emanating
from
the
academic
programs
regarding
the
budget,
the
mission,
and
long
range
plans
accepted
by
the
faculty.
Similar
principles
of
decision
making
apply
in
the
case
of
allocation
of
other
resources,
such
as
new
faculty
FTE,
year‐end
monies
and
special
requirements
for
equipment,
travel,
or
student
recruitment.
Indirect
Cost
Recoveries
At
CGU,
indirect
cost
recovery
is
used
to
fund
the
following
activities:
faculty
research,
laboratory
start‐
up
costs,
and
administrative
costs
related
to
research
(administrative
support,
compliance,
and
sponsored
programs
staff).
The
Federal
Indirect
Cost
rate
is
negotiated
periodically
by
the
Office
of
the
Senior
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Administration.
The
currently
negotiated
Federal
indirect
cost
rate
is
32.3%
modified
total
direct
cost
base.
That
rate
also
applies
to
non‐federal
extramural
funding.
Should
a
foundation
or
other
party
specify
a
lower
rate,
however,
the
PI
must
submit
a
formal
written
policy
from
that
institution
or
Page
34
business
defining
the
allowable
indirect
cost
rate.
The
appropriate
indirect
cost
rate
is
applied
to
all
eligible
expenses
on
the
grant.
Currently,
all
schools
receive
100%
of
the
indirect
cost
that
they
produce.
Distribution
of
Tuition
and
Rees
Registration
fees
and
tuition
levels
are
set
by
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustees.
They
approve
registration
fees
a
portion
of
which
supports
capital
improvements,
general
improvements,
and
student
access
(financial
aid).
Student
fees
also
help
to
offset
a
portion
of
the
operation
costs
from
various
non‐academic
student
services,
such
as
student
government.
The
remaining
revenue
is
authorized
for
the
University
to
address
specific
issues.
Registration
fees
are
payable
upon
commencement
of
each
semester.
A
payment
installment
plan
is
available.
Tuition
varies
by
full‐time
and
part‐time
status.
The
standard
tuition
fees
for
the
2010‐2011
academic
year
include
$1554
per
unit
(1‐11
units),
$17,874
per
semester
(12
units),
and
$24,090
(16
units).
Miscellaneous
student
fees
in
the
operating
budget
include:
 Student
Services
Fee
($165
per
semester).
This
fee
is
required
of
all
students
(except
those
in
Executive
Management)
which
helps
offset
a
small
portion
of
the
operating
costs
from
the
various
nonacademic
student
services,
which
are
provided
by
the
University.
It
is
nonrefundable.
 Technology
Fee
($50
per
semester).
This
fee
is
required
of
all
students
for
technology
improvements,
collaboration
enhancements,
and
increased
IT
support
for
all.
It
is
nonrefundable.
 Continuous
Registration
Fee
($1025
after
master’s
coursework).
The
fee
for
continuous
registration
is
to
be
paid
by
all
master’s
degree
students
not
enrolled
in
a
credit
course
in
a
given
term.
Payment
of
the
fee
is
mandatory
until
all
requirements
for
the
master’s
degree
have
been
met,
including
submission
of
the
approved
thesis
or
critique
and
payment
of
binding
fees.
This
applies
equally
to
students
not
in
residence
and
must
be
paid
at
the
regular
registration
time
to
avoid
the
Late
Registration
Fee.
 Late
Registration
Fee
($165)
 Reinstatement
Fee
($2050)
At
CGU,
100%
of
the
tuition
generated
by
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
is
returned
back
to
the
unit
for
use
as
part
of
the
operating
budget
for
the
School,
which
is
mostly
comprised
of
the
graduate
program
in
public
health.
Tuition
is
returned
back
to
the
School
three
times
a
year
after
the
drop/add
period
has
passed
and
pursuant
to
CGU
policy,
the
student
should
have
either
paid
their
full
tuition
bill
and/or
made
arrangements
to
pay
via
a
loan
servicer.
Any
fees
(above
tuition)
charged
are
not
returned
back
to
the
unit
and
are
used
centrally
for
the
purpose
intended
(e.g.,
Technology
fee
is
used
to
upgrade
the
computer
network,
purchase
new
computers
for
labs,
upgrade
software,
etc.).
These
fees
benefit
all
CGU
students
as
a
whole.
Support
for
Fundraising
The
mission
of
the
Office
of
Advancement
is
to
promote
the
University
and
serve
its
many
constituents,
including
students,
faculty,
staff,
and
alumnae/alumni.
The
Office
of
Advancement
operates
under
three
guiding
principles
of
excellence,
service
and
creativity.
Through
effective
fundraising,
communications,
planned
giving
and
alumnae/alumni
services,
they
promote
partnerships,
build
relationships,
and
secure
Page
35
resources.
Their
efforts
advance
the
mission
of
the
university,
sustain
the
work
of
its
faculty,
support
the
success
of
its
students,
and
enhance
its
ongoing
relationship
with
alumnae/alumni.
In
1989,
The
Office
of
Advancement
adopted
a
policy
that
affirmed
that
institutional
fundraising
is
a
centrally
coordinated
function
with
a
set
of
operational
principles
as
stated
below.
 The
Office
of
Advancement
is
an
institutional
support
service
whose
primary
objective
is
to
design,
organize,
and
implement
an
institutional
relations
program
to
secure
maximum
gift
support
for
Claremont
Graduate
University.
 The
Office
of
Advancement
focuses
its
efforts
on
the
procurement
of
funds.
Decisions
relative
to
the
expenditure
of
those
funds
will
be
made
by
the
Provost
and
Vice
President
for
Academic
Affairs,
and
the
Vice
President
for
Finance
in
conjunction
with
the
school
deans
or,
when
applicable,
the
department
or
program
chair
and
in
accordance
with
the
University's
budget.
 In
support
of
this
objective,
the
Advancement
Office
will
assign
a
development
officer
to
each
academic
school.
That
individual
will
work
with
the
school
dean
to
design
and
implement
a
fundraising
effort
for
the
school
to
support
and
enhance
its
academic
goals
and
objectives.
 A
gift
account
will
be
established
for
each
school.
Unless
otherwise
designated,
all
gifts
from
alumni
will
be
applied
to
his/her
school
account.
 The
expenditure
of
all
gift
income
will
be
accounted
for
in
the
central
budgeting
process‐‐
either
through
institutional
operating
or
capital
budgets.
Advancement
efforts
conducted
on
behalf
the
School
are
the
responsibility
of
a
centrally
funded
Advancement
Officer
and
the
school’s
Board
of
Advisors
in
collaboration
with
the
Dean.
Personnel
Recruitment,
Selection
and
Advancement
of
Faculty
and
Staff
Recruitment
and
Selection
of
Faculty
The
first
step
in
recruitment
is
to
determine
School
needs.
This
step
is
coordinated
by
the
Dean.
Each
academic
program
is
consulted
about
teaching
needs,
research
areas
needing
strengthening,
and
compatibility
with
School
directions.
Faculty
jointly
determine
the
type
of
position
required
during
one
or
more
School
meetings.
A
letter
of
intent
to
the
Provost
is
written
by
the
Dean,
reflecting
the
recommendation
of
all
faculty.
The
letter
is
reviewed
by
the
school’s
faculty
affairs
committee
(constituted
by
all
tenured
faculty
members).
This
letter
outlines
the
type
of
faculty
position
desired
(e.g.,
rank
and
track),
research,
teaching,
and/or
administrative
areas
of
focus.
Before
the
letter
of
intent
is
sent
to
the
Provost,
the
school
must
have
must
have
a
current
Faculty
Executive
Committee
(FEC)‐approved
diversity
component
of
its
strategic
plan
on
file.
The
FEC
is
a
university‐level
faculty
committee
responsible
for
many
university
decisions.
The
School’s
current
strategic
plan
was
approved
during
fall
2010.
After
the
letter
of
intent
is
sent
to
the
Provost,
the
following
steps
take
place
as
mandated
by
the
University:
1.
Provost
authorization.
The
Provost
must
authorize
the
search.
Page
36
2.
Notification
of
AADC
of
search:
Once
a
search
is
authorized,
the
Provost,
in
consultation
with
the
School
Dean
(or
equivalent),
appoints
a
search
committee,
designates
a
chair
of
the
search
committee,
and
notifies
the
chair
of
the
Affirmative
Action
and
Diversity
Committee
(AADC)
that
a
search
is
about
to
begin.
The
AADC
is
a
standing
university‐level
committee.
3.
Provision
of
information
by
AADC
to
search
chair:
The
AADC
chair
meets
collectively
with
all
of
the
chairs
of
approved
searches
and
discusses
with
them
the
impact
of
diversity,
where
the
University
is
achieving
it,
and
how
diversity
benefits
the
University
strategically
and
academically.
At
that
time,
all
search
committees
will
be
provided
with
the
“Guidelines
for
Diversity
Procedures
in
the
Faculty
Search
Process,”
the
relevant
forms
to
which
it
refers,
and
a
list
of
places
where
the
job
might
be
publicized
in
order
to
reach
a
diverse
set
of
possible
applicants.
4.
Appointment
of
AADC
liaison
to
search:
The
AADC
chair,
in
consultation
with
members
of
the
AADC,
assigns
a
member
from
its
ranks
to
serve
as
a
liaison
to
provide
assistance
in
achieving
an
all‐inclusive
search.
The
liaison
can
function
as
an
ex
officio
member
of
a
search
committee.
The
chair
of
the
AADC
informs
the
search
chair,
the
Dean
and
the
Provost
who
that
member
is.
5.
Approval
of
position
description,
advertisement
and
search
plan:
The
entire
AADC,
the
chair
of
the
search
committee,
and
the
Provost,
or
her/his
designee,
will
discuss
the
position
description,
the
draft
advertisements
for
the
position,
the
search
plan
and
review
the
diversity
guidelines
and
forms.
The
AADC
will
provide
advice
and
assistance
to
foster
the
achievement
of
CGU’s
diversity
goals.
Once
all
parties
are
satisfied
that
the
position
description,
the
advertisements
for
the
position
and
the
search
plan
do
strongly
foster
those
goals,
the
AADC
liaison,
search
committee
chair,
Provost
and
AADC
Chair
must
sign‐off
on
a
specific
form
(Form
A,
Approval
of
Position
Description,
Advertisement
and
Search
Plan).
6.
Provost
“publication”
of
the
position
description/advertisement:
The
Provost’s
Office
will
“publish”
the
advertisement
in
the
Chronicle
of
Higher
Education
and
post
it
on
CGU’s
web
site.
The
position
description/advertisement
will
be
published
elsewhere
in
accord
with
the
search
plan.
7.
Involvement
of
the
AADC
approval
of
the
long
short
list
or
short
list:
The
search
committee
chair
will
invite
the
AADC
liaison
to
attend
all
meetings
of
the
search
committee.
The
search
committee
chair
will
meet
with
AADC
and
present
the
long
short
list
of
potential
finalists
or
the
short‐list
of
finalists
if
no
long
short
list
is
constructed,
and
the
list
of
finalists.
The
search
committee
chair
and
the
AADC
chair,
after
meeting
with
the
AADC,
must
sign
off
on
Form
B
(Approval
of
Summary
of
Applicants,
Short‐list,
and
Finalists)
prior
to
the
dispatch
of
invitations
to
the
finalists
for
on‐campus
interviews.
8.
Involvement
of
the
AADC
liaison
in
on‐campus
visits
and
her/his
approval
of
the
conduct
of
the
search
process
relevant
to
the
promotion
of
diversity:
The
AADC
liaison
will
be
informed
of,
and
involved
in,
the
on‐campus
visits
of
the
finalists.
The
AADC
Chair
must
sign‐off
on
Form
C
(Approval
of
Choice)
before
the
recommendation
is
made
to
the
Provost
to
initiate
an
offer
of
employment.
9.
Procedure
for
resolving
disagreements
between
the
AADC
and
the
search
committee:
If
the
AADC
determines
that
the
search
is
not
being
undertaken
in
accord
with
the
objectives
of
this
policy,
it
will
not
sign‐off
on
Form
A,
B,
or
C.
The
liaison
must
suggest
corrective
action
to
the
chair
of
the
search
committee
immediately.
If
the
corrective
action
is
unacceptable
to
the
chair
of
the
search
committee,
then
the
Provost
will
decide
under
what
conditions
the
search
should
proceed.
Page
37
10.
Makeup
of
Search
Committee:
Under
normal
conditions,
Deans
will
not
serve
as
chairs
of
search
committees
as
conflict
of
interest,
too
much
authority
upon
a
search,
and
undue
pressure
upon
certain
faculty
could
arise
from
that
situation.
Since
the
Provost
forms
and
approves
the
search
committee
and
designates
the
chair,
the
Provost
determines
whether
the
conditions
constitute
unusual
circumstances.
Unusual
circumstances
could
include
such
things
as:
lack
of
enough
people
in
the
department
of
the
relevant
rank
to
chair
the
search,
the
Dean
is
the
only
specialist
in
the
area
to
guide
such
a
search,
or
the
Dean’s
status
in
the
field
would
garner
more
qualified
and
diverse
candidates
if
they
were
to
chair
it.
SCGH
has
developed
the
following
steps
for
a
faculty
search,
which
is
currently
underway.
(1) A
job
announcement
will
be
posted
for
at
least
one
month
in
each
of
the
following
outlets,
pending
budgetary
approval
for
this
expense.
(A
copy
of
the
current
announcement
is
available
onsite
in
the
resource
file.)
Some
postings
will
likely
last
several
months
and
will
be
extended
as
necessary.
There
is
no
formal
deadline
for
applications.
The
announcement
indicates
that
the
position
will
remain
open
until
filled.
Three
main
outlets
are
pursued:
(1)
general
academic
outlets:
the
Chronicle
of
Higher
Education
and
Southern
California
Higher
Education
Recruitment
Consortium;
(2)
those
focusing
on
diversity:
Diverse
Issues
in
Higher
Education,
Women
in
Higher
Education,
Insight
into
Diversity,
and
the
Journal
of
Health
Care
for
the
Poor
and
Underserved;
and
(3)
outlets
focusing
on
public
health
and
related
fields:
American
Public
Health
Association,
Professional
Association
listservs
(e.g.,
Society
for
Behavioral
Medicine
(SBM),
Society
for
Research
on
Nicotine
and
Tobacco
(SRNT),
American
Cancer
Society
(ACS),
Society
for
Prevention
Research,
The
Obesity
Society,
American
Alliance
for
Health,
Physical
Education,
Recreation
and
Dance).
In
many
of
these
sources,
applicants
can
enter
in
a
search
term,
such
as
“diversity,”
and
find
advertisements
that
place
an
emphasis
on
this
issue.
(2) The
announcement
is
distributed
to
directors
and
relevant
co‐investigators
at
twenty‐five
national
research
centers,
which
conduct
health
disparities
research
funded
by
the
National
Cancer
Institute.
(Note:
Drs.
Paula
Palmer
and
Dennis
Trinidad,
search
committee
members,
have
ongoing
contacts
with
each
of
these
centers.)
The
advertisement
is
distributed
to
other
health
disparities
networks,
such
as
the
Tobacco
Research
Network
on
Disparities,
the
Disparities
Network
of
Society
of
Research
on
Nicotine
and
Tobacco,
and
the
Ethnic
Minority
&
Multicultural
Health
Special
Interest
Group
of
Society
of
Behavioral
Medicine.
Individuals
within
such
networks
frequently
have
contacts
with
potential
candidates
who
have
diverse
backgrounds
and
are
interested
in
decreasing
health
disparities
based
on
ethnicity
or
other
characteristics.
Distribution
at
additional
NIH
center
and
research
networks
is
considered.
(3) Search
committee
members
email
a
personal
note
and
advertisement
to
the
professional
contacts
in
academia,
making
certain
to
include
all
potential
candidates,
paying
particular
emphasis
on
increasing
School
diversity
by
reach
out
to
minorities,
women
and
other
under‐
represented
or
under‐served
populations
based
on
ethnicity,
socio‐economic
status,
gender,
international
status
or
sexual
orientation.
All
School
faculty
members
are
encouraged
to
do
the
same.
(4) All
faculty
are
encouraged
to
network
with
colleagues
at
conferences
and
other
meetings,
inquire
about
faculty
who
might
be
interested
in
the
position,
distribute
a
flyer
with
the
announcement
for
the
position
when
appropriate.
Page
38
(5) Search
committee
members
attend
relevant
talks
at
conferences,
attempting
to
identify
diverse
and
qualified
candidates.
Other
faculty
contacts
within
and
outside
the
School
are
encouraged
to
do
the
same.
(6) The
search
committee
engages
in
a
variety
of
additional
activities
that
follow
leads
obtained
from
the
preceding
sources,
their
contact,
or
potential
candidates
themselves.
These
activities
include
phone
calls,
emails,
and
follow
up‐letters
as
appropriate.
Each
faculty
member
records
their
contacts
on
a
spreadsheet
and
forwards
them
to
the
chair
of
the
committee.
(7) Postings
and
all
other
efforts
detailed
above
are
extended
as
necessary
to
make
certain
sufficient
applications
are
obtained
and
that
a
diverse
pool
of
candidates
has
been
achieved.
Advancement
of
Faculty
The
factors
considered
in
promotion,
renewal,
retention,
and
tenure
decisions
of
MPH
faculty
vary
greatly
depending
on
the
particular
position
and
track.
This
is
especially
the
case
for
non‐tenure
track
positions.
These
positions
range
from
those
with
primarily
high‐level
administrative
duties,
to
those
with
primarily
research
or
teaching
duties,
to
those
with
a
mixture
of
each
of
these
activities.
Individuals
primarily
assigned
to
one
set
of
duties
are
not
held
accountable
for
other
duties
beyond
their
job
description
in
their
offer
letter.
There
is
some
correspondence
between
duties
and
specific
faculty
title,
as
follows:
Tenure
track
and
tenured
faculty:
This
category
of
faculty
is
required
to
engage
in
research,
teaching,
and
service.
Decisions
for
promotions
and
tenure
are
based
on
each
of
these
elements.
Tenure
track
faculty
may
vary
in
their
obligations
depending
on
School
needs
and
research
funds.
Some
may
primarily
teach,
but
still
must
engage
in
research
and
service.
Others
may
primarily
conduct
research,
but
still
teach
on
occasion
and
must
engage
in
service.
Others
also
carry
an
administrative
role,
requiring
a
substantial
service
component.
Criteria
for
promotion
and
tenure
within
the
School
are
individualized
and
balanced
with
School
needs,
given
the
range
of
obligations.
Nonetheless,
tenure
decisions
require
a
substantial
amount
of
scholarly
achievement.
Tenure
at
the
associate
level
requires
at
least
25
peer
reviewed
publications,
preferably
a
greater
number,
with
at
least
several
1st
authored
publications,
but
preferably
10
or
more.
The
scholarly
effort
should
have
a
national
impact.
Those
with
substantial
service
or
teaching
obligations
may
receive
tenure
at
the
lower
publication
levels
within
these
ranges,
whereas
those
who
primarily
conduct
research
are
expected
to
perform
at
the
higher
ranges.
Factors
such
as
start‐up
time
at
early
phases
of
grants,
numerous
grant
submissions,
or
extensive
service
advancing
public
health,
and
extensive
mentoring,
are
mitigating
factors.
Again,
decisions
are
highly
individualized,
within
a
certain
range
of
expectations
and
fit
to
School
needs.
Promotion
to
full
professor
normally
requires
evidence
of
40
or
more
peer‐reviewed
publications,
international
scholarly
impact,
substantial
leadership
in
service
roles,
and
high
quality
teaching,
revealed
on
teaching
evaluations.
Again,
the
balance
of
obligations
and
productivity
can
be
highly
individualized,
because
some
individuals
may
have
quite
substantial
leadership
or
service
obligations
at
the
School
and
University.
In
addition,
full
professors
are
reviewed
every
5
years
by
the
School
and
the
University.
Research
productivity,
teaching
evaluations,
and
service
are
thoroughly
evaluated.
Term
faculty:
This
category
of
faculty
is
designated
as
“research
faculty”,
at
ranks
of
assistant,
associate,
or
full
professor,
and
are
expected
to
primarily
engage
in
research,
though
a
minimal
amount
of
service
is
expected.
They
cannot
be
legally
required
to
engage
in
more
than
minimal
service
because
they
are
funded
entirely
from
research
grants,
usually
NIH.
Thus,
renewal
and
promotion
decisions
must
be
Page
39
based
mostly
on
research
productivity.
In
addition
to
scholarly
and
grant
productivity,
the
principal
investigator
of
the
grant
supporting
the
faculty
member
is
consulted
about
productivity
particular
to
funded
projects.
Decisions
must
be
highly
individualized.
For
example,
a
research
faculty
member
may
have
a
lull
in
publications
the
year
before
their
term
must
be
renewed.
Although
this
is
a
critical
time
for
demonstrating
publication
production,
there
are
circumstances
when
such
faculty
may
have
been
fully
engaged
in
research
activities
that
do
not
yet
provide
time
for
publication.
These
may
include
start‐up
times
on
new
grants,
extensive
preparation
for
novel
grant
submissions,
data
analysis,
or
other
activities.
The
case
for
renewals
and
promotions
are
made
by
the
School
in
consultation
with
the
principal
investigator
of
funded
projects.
The
School
must
demonstrate
to
a
University
committee
(Appointments,
Promotions,
and
Tenure
Committee;
APT)
that
the
faculty
member
was
productive
in
ways
important
to
the
funded
research
projects,
school,
and
scholarly
area.
Research
faculty
may
engage
in
some
minimal
contractual
teaching
on
a
term‐by‐term
basis
at
their
option,
if
teaching
opportunities
are
available.
However,
their
term
appointments
are
not
reviewed
on
the
basis
of
teaching.
Their
teaching
is
reviewed
only
in
terms
of
renewal
of
any
teaching
contract
they
may
hold
to
teach
a
particular
term
and
year.
Typically,
research
faculty
teach
only
one
course
per
year.
Term
faculty
with
the
title
“Professor
of
Practice”,
at
ranks
of
assistant,
associate,
or
full
professor,
engage
in
activities
particularly
tailored
to
School
needs.
Usually
the
title
at
SCGH
is
restricted
to
high‐
level
administrative
roles
or
a
mixture
of
teaching
and
administration
that
does
not
include
substantial
research.
Individuals
with
this
title
are
judged
entirely
based
on
the
fulfillment
of
job
responsibilities
assigned
by
the
School,
outlined
in
the
offer
letter,
which
can
be
any
mixture
of
teaching
and
administration.
Although
some
involvement
in
research
is
encouraged,
it
is
not
a
typical
obligation
and
is
not
a
major
factor
in
renewal
or
promotion.
The
university
APT
committee
reviews
renewals
of
appointments
in
terms
of
School
criteria.
Non‐tenured
track:
Faculty
who
are
hired
on
a
specific
term
of
appointment
(non‐tenure
track)
but
take
on
regular
faculty
duties
carry
regular
faculty
titles
of
assistant,
associate
or
full
professor.
For
renewal
and
promotion
with
this
regular
term
faculty
track,
these
individuals
are
held
to
essentially
the
same
criteria
as
are
tenure
track
and
tenured
faculty,
with
some
consideration
regarding
unique
fit
to
School
needs.
The
balance
of
research,
teaching,
and
service
is
taken
into
consideration,
just
as
outlined
for
tenure‐track
faculty
above.
Such
faculty
members
are
encouraged
to
apply
for
suitable
tenure
track
positions,
when
such
positions
become
available
in
an
open‐search.
However,
the
candidates
must
be
treated
like
any
other
candidate
in
the
application
process.
Adjunct
faculty:
Non‐CGU
faculty
are
a
very
special
case.
Adjunct
faculty
normally
have
a
primary
position
at
another
University
or
health
care
service
or
other
relevant
agency.
The
faculty
affairs
committee
at
SCGH
normally
allows
adjunct
faculty
to
retain
the
rank
they
maintain
at
their
primary
institution.
If
their
primary
institution
is
non‐academic,
then
their
rank
is
roughly
equivalent
to
their
non‐academic
title.
For
example,
the
chief
officer
of
Molina
health
care
was
nominated
at
the
full
professor
level,
as
adjunct
professor.
Criteria
for
promotion
are
roughly
equivalent
to
those
for
tenure
track
faculty
described
above,
with
some
exceptions
for
outstanding
service,
teaching,
or
particularly
unique
and
valuable
contributions.
Additional
specific
procedures
for
retention,
promotion,
and
tenure
are
comprehensive
and
lengthy
and
are
mandated
by
the
university.
These
procedures
are
detailed
in
the
university
“APT
Rules”
within
the
Institutional
Handbook.
Some
general
characteristics
of
these
university
procedures
are
outlined
below.
Page
40
Procedures
vary
depending
on
track,
that
is,
whether
faculty
are
tenure
track/tenured,
term
faculty
(with
a
specific
renewable
term
from
1
to
5
years),
or
contractual
(adjunct
faculty).
Within
the
term
faculty
track,
procedures
vary
on
the
specific
classification
of
term
faculty,
as
outlined
in
the
APT
Rules.
Specific
classifications
of
term
faculty
can
include
many
different
designations,
outlined
in
the
APT
Rules.
However,
SCGH
currently
uses
only
the
following
designations
of
faculty
other
than
tenure
track,
which
have
already
been
discussed
in
terms
of
SCGH
policy:
a.
Term
faculty,
with
obligations
similar
to
tenured
or
tenure
track
faculty
(e.g.,
research,
service,
and
teaching)
b.
Research
faculty,
who
are
not
obligated
to
teach
but
are
funded
solely
on
research
grants.
This
designation
is
a
specific
type
of
term
faculty
position.
c.
Professors
of
practice,
focusing
primarily
on
service
and/or
teaching.
Again,
this
is
a
specific
type
of
term
faculty
position.
d.
Adjunct
faculty,
focusing
on
contractual
(term
by
term)
teaching
or
a
minimum
amount
of
service
or
research.
Although
SCGH
policies
have
already
been
outlined,
and
more
extensive
procedures
for
review
of
tenure
track,
tenured,
and
term
faculty
are
outlined
in
the
APT
Rules,
major
differences
across
track
are
outlined
below:
a.
Term
faculty
must
be
reviewed
before
the
end
of
their
designated
term,
which
may
range
from
1
to
5
years.
SCGH
has
so
far
only
recruited
term
faculty
for
renewable
terms.
At
this
time,
the
Provost
appoints
a
“nominating
committee”
from
the
school
to
review
the
candidate.
At
SCGH
this
is
typically
the
faculty
affairs
committee,
including
the
Dean.
The
nominating
committee
reviews
term
faculty
on
research,
teaching,
and
service,
similar
to
the
guidelines
for
tenure
track
faculty
outlined
in
the
APT
(Appointment,
Promotions,
and
Tenure)
rules.
The
university‐level
APT
committee
reads
the
nominating
committee’s
evaluation
and
considers
other
documents
submitted
in
the
candidate’s
dossier.
Term
faculty
may
then
be
appointed
to
another
1
to
5
year
renewable
term.
Many
additional
details
are
provided
in
the
APT
Rules.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
APT
Rules
from
the
university
are
somewhat
inconsistent
with
the
realities
of
evaluation
from
the
APT.
The
APT
rules
clearly
indicate
that
term
faculty
are
to
be
evaluated
according
to
School
criteria.
However,
the
APT
committee
chooses
to
evaluate
candidates
in
terms
of
teaching,
research,
and
service,
similar
to
the
evaluation
of
tenure
track
faculty.
Thus,
the
School
has
changed
its
own
criteria
to
be
in
accord
with
these
realities,
while
being
fair
to
all
faculty
members.
Term
faculty
without
job
responsibilities
in
all
three
domains
are
initially
hired
under
one
of
the
other
term
faculty
designations
below.
b.
Research
faculty
and
professors
of
practice
are
subjected
to
the
same
term
restrictions
and
general
evaluation
process,
except
for
some
differences
already
discussed.
Although
retention
procedures
in
terms
of
School
and
University
criteria
are
outlined
in
the
APT
Rules,
the
other
side
of
retention
concerns
the
welfare
and
satisfaction
of
faculty
members.
SCGH
conducts
an
annual
consultation
for
MPH
faculty,
which
provides
a
formal
avenue
for
faculty
members
to
provide
input
to
the
School.
This
is
a
bi‐directional
consultation
with
an
open
discussion
about
individual
faculty
needs
as
well
as
school
perceptions
of
faculty
member
progress.
Details
about
this
annual
consultation
Page
41
are
provided
in
section
4.2
(b)
in
terms
of
faculty
development
and
in
sections
4.2
(c)
in
terms
of
annual
faculty
evaluation.
In
addition
to
the
annual
consultation,
faculty
members
in
all
classifications
and
ranks
are
encouraged
to
speak
openly
about
concerns
and
recommendations
at
faculty
meetings
or
individual
meetings
with
the
Dean
or
with
the
chair
of
the
faculty
affairs
committee
(presently,
the
associate
dean
for
faculty
affairs).
Further,
the
Dean
and/or
the
chair
of
the
faculty
affairs
committee
seeks
out
individual
faculty
members
for
an
individual
meeting
if
they
imply
less
obviously
that
they
may
have
concerns
regarding
their
appointment
or
any
related
school
issues.
Although
this
is
an
informal
procedure,
it
has
proven
useful.
Finally,
an
annual
(and
usually
more
frequent)
budgetary
review
confirms
funding
availability
for
faculty
depending
on
research
funds.
If
fund
projections
look
limited
in
the
future,
other
funding
opportunities
are
vigorously
explored,
such
as
encouragement
of
grant
submission
and
more
extensive
collaboration,
transfer
to
other
grants,
and
teaching
opportunities.
Recruitment
and
Selection
of
Staff
The
University
has
established
a
review
process
to
monitor
and
document
the
institution’s
commitment
to
Affirmative
Action
to
all
staff
employment.
The
process
of
Affirmative
Action
seeks
to
reach
the
largest
and
most
diverse
pool
of
individuals,
to
encourage
them
to
apply
for
positions,
and
to
ensure
equitable
treatment
in
obtaining
information
about
and
evaluating
their
qualifications.
The
following
section
describes
the
implementation
of
the
CGU
Affirmative
Action
process
for
staff
employment.
This
process
pertains
to
the
recruitment
for
all
regular
staff
positions
of
half
time
or
greater.
Each
Senior
Officer
is
responsible
for
ensuring
that
these
procedures
are
followed
in
his/her
areas
of
responsibility.
If
the
department
head/supervisor
believes
it
is
in
the
University’s
best
interest
to
waive
the
affirmative
action
recruitment
requirements,
or
a
normal
search
strategy,
he/she
must
prepare
a
written
request
and
submit
it,
through
his/her
Senior
Officer,
to
the
President,
who,
in
consultation
with
the
Affirmative
Action
Officer
(AAO),
will
evaluate
the
request.
The
department
head/supervisor
must
receive
written
approval
form
the
President.
If
the
request
is
not
approved,
recruitment
or
a
normal
search
strategy
must
proceed.
The
MPH
program
adopts
the
hiring
procedures
dictated
by
the
University
as
described
below.
Procedures
for
Hourly
and
Salaried
Employees
(Non‐exempt,
Grades
A‐H)
and
Salaried
Employee
(Exempt,
Grades
1‐4)
include
the
following:
1.
The
Employment
Requisition
Form
and
Job
Description
are
produced
by
the
hiring
department
with
the
appropriate
department
head/supervisor
signature.
(It
is
assumed
that
the
department
has
discussed
the
job
description
and
qualifications
and
has
determined
that
the
position
is
necessary).
2.
The
Employment
Requisition
Form
and
Job
Description
are
sent
to
CGU
Human
Resources
for
approval
and
processing.
a.
The
CGU
Human
Resources
Office
provides
the
department
head/supervisor
with
an
Affirmative
Action
information
packet
and
blank
Compliance
Report.
Page
42
b.
CGU
Human
Resources
recommends
advertising
and
recruitment
strategies,
and
a
sufficient
time
frame
for
recruitment.
CGU
Human
Resources
will
place
the
ads
if
requested
by
the
hiring
department
or
the
hiring
department
may
place
the
ads.
Advertising
expenses
are
borne
by
the
hiring
department.
c.
All
positions
must
be
open
for
at
least
five
working
days
to
allow
interested
applicants
time
to
apply.
d.
CGU
Human
Resources
will
process
incoming
applications
and
resumes.
3.
CGU
Human
Resources
sends
applications
and
resumes
to
the
department
head/supervisor
for
review.
a.
At
least
two
applicants
must
be
interviewed
for
each
position.
b.
The
department
head/supervisor
completes
the
Confidential
Interview
Report
Form
attached
to
each
application.
(Even
for
those
whose
applications
are
only
reviewed
on
paper.
c.
When
the
hiring
department
comes
to
agreement
on
an
applicant,
the
Associate
VP
for
Human
Resources
must
review
the
three
top
candidates
to
insure
the
hiring
process
has
met
all
requirements.
An
offer
to
the
finalist
cannot
be
made
until
the
candidate
has
been
approved
by
his/her
Senior
Officer,
Human
Resources,
and
has
gone
through
a
background
check.
d.
Within
two
weeks,
the
hiring
department
returns
the
completed
and
signed
Affirmative
Action
Compliance
Report
and
applications
(with
attached
Confidential
Interview
Report
Forms)
to
the
CGU
Human
Resources
Office.
e.
The
hiring
department
must
notify
all
unsuccessful
interviewed
candidates.
The
hiring
department
will
notify
the
successful
applicant.
The
CGU
Human
Resources
office
will
prepare
the
offer
letter.
Procedures
for
Salaried
Employees
(Exempt,
Grade
5
and
above)
1.
The
department
head/supervisor
establishes
a
search
strategy
and
job
description,
with
assistance
from
CGU
Human
Resources
and
campus
committees,
as
appropriate.
2.
The
department
head/supervisor
submits
an
Employment
Requisition
Form,
Job
Description,
and
suggested
Search
Committee
and
Chair
to
appropriate
Senior
Officer
for
approval.
3.
With
approval,
the
department
head/supervisor
sends
the
Employment
Requisition
Form
to
the
CGU
Human
Resources
Office
for
review
and
processing.
a.
CGU
Human
Resources
provides
the
Chair
of
the
Search
Committee
with
an
Affirmative
Action
information
packet
and
blank
Compliance
Report.
b.
After
consultation
with
the
Search
Committee
Chair,
CGU
Human
Resources
advertises
the
position
in
a
variety
of
locations
designed
to
attract
a
diverse
applicant
pool.
The
advertising
expense
is
borne
by
the
hiring
department.
Page
43
4.
The
Search
Committee
reviews
applications
and
completes
the
Confidential
Interview
Report
Form
for
each
applicant.
a.
At
least
two
applicants
must
be
interviewed
for
each
position.
b.
When
the
Search
Committee
comes
to
agreement
on
an
applicant,
the
Associate
VP
for
Human
Resources
must
review
the
three
top
candidates
to
insure
the
hiring
process
has
met
all
requirements.
An
offer
to
the
finalist
cannot
be
made
until
the
candidate
has
been
approved
by
his/her
Senior
Officer,
Human
Resources,
and
has
gone
through
a
background
check.
c.
Within
two
weeks,
the
Committee
Chair
returns
the
completed
and
signed
Affirmative
Action
Compliance
Report
and
applications
(with
attached
Confidential
Interview
Report
Forms)
to
CGU
Human
Resources
Office.
d.
The
hiring
department
must
notify
all
unsuccessful
interviewed
candidates.
The
hiring
department
will
notify
the
successful
applicant.
The
CGU
Human
Resources
office
will
prepare
the
offer
letter.
Advancement
of
Staff
Supervisors
review
employees’
job
performance
in
accordance
with
the
specific
policies
and
procedures
of
CGU.
The
MPH
program
has
executed
these
procedures
for
the
promotion/advancement
of
staff.
Introductory
Review
Period:
New
employees
serve
an
Introductory
Review
Period.
At
the
conclusion
of
this
period,
certain
benefits,
and
access
to
certain
personnel‐related
procedures
become
available
(i.e.,
sick
leave).
Staff
also
will
receive
an
Introductory
Performance
Review
whereby
the
supervisor
will
provide
feedback
about
performance
in
the
new
position.
Performance
Evaluations:
Performance
evaluations
at
CGU
take
place
annually.
These
evaluations
are
a
two‐way
communication
process
during
which
goals
are
set
and
job
requirements
are
defined
or
redefined.
Supervisors
inform
the
staff
member
of
work
performance
strengths
and
offer
suggestions
for
improvement
and
development
of
job‐related
skills.
As
part
of
this
evaluation
process,
staff
are
asked
to
self‐evaluate
their
own
performance
and
suggest
goals
and
objectives.
Periodic
Faculty
Participation
in
the
Review
of
Senior
Administrators:
Senior
administrators
of
Claremont
Graduate
University
(Provost
and
Vice
President
for
Academic
Affairs,
Vice
President
for
Finance
and
Treasurer,
Vice
President
for
Advancement)
are
appointed
by
the
Board
of
Trustees
upon
the
recommendation
of
the
President.
Their
performance
is
reviewed
annually
by
the
President.
In
addition,
the
CGU
faculty
recommends
that
the
Faculty
Executive
Committee
appoint
faculty
teams
to
review
the
performance
of
the
senior
administrators
on
an
annual
basis.
Such
reviews
of
at
least
one
senior
administrator
will
be
conducted
each
academic
year.
Periodic
faculty
participation
in
the
review
of
CGU
senior
administrators
aims
to
inform
the
faculty
and
the
President
of
the
faculty's
view
of
the
performance
of
senior
administrators.
Faculty
participation
in
each
review
is
intended
to
help
assess
the
administrator's
success
in
fulfilling
the
responsibilities
outlined
in
the
administrator's
job
description
and
other
relevant
activities
and
to
suggest
ways
in
which
these
responsibilities
might
more
effectively
be
fulfilled.
The
Faculty
Executive
Committee
(FEC)
designates
a
three‐member
task
committee
of
the
faculty
to
prepare
each
review
for
transmittal
to
the
President.
With
input
from
and
agreement
of
the
President,
the
task
committee
prepares
a
statement
of
the
specific
objectives
of
the
review
and
methods
to
be
used
for
gathering
faculty
views.
The
administrator
under
review
has
an
opportunity
to
Page
44
comment
on
these
objectives
and
achievements
during
the
period
under
review.
This
statement
is
distributed
to
the
CGU
faculty
before
or
at
the
same
time
that
the
task
committee
conducts
its
review.
After
conducting
its
review,
the
task
faculty
committee
submits
a
draft
of
its
report
to
the
chair
of
the
FEC
and
the
administrator(s)
under
review
for
the
purpose
of
correcting
factual
errors.
Each
task
committee's
final
report
is
submitted
to
the
FEC
Chair,
the
CGU
President,
and
the
administrator
under
review.
The
FEC
Chair
meets
with
the
President
in
May
to
discuss
the
results
of
annual
reviews.
In
addition,
the
FEC
Chair
prepares
a
summary
of
the
report
for
the
CGU
faculty.
The
President
reports
results
of
administrative
reviews
annually
to
the
Board
of
Trustees,
as
appropriate.
The
deliberations
and
findings
of
the
task
committee
are
strictly
confidential,
except
as
provided
in
the
previous
items.
Promotion:
A
supervisor
wishing
to
advance
an
internal
employee
to
a
new
position
must
submit
a
new
job
description
and
a
justification
to
the
Director
of
Human
Resources.
If
accepted,
the
Director
works
with
the
Finance
department
to
determine
a
salary
based
upon
the
proposed
job
title.
Academic
Standards
and
Policies,
Including
Establishment
and
Oversight
of
Curricula
Standards
and
Policies
The
CGU
Institutional
Handbook
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1479.asp)
outlines
the
following
academic
policies
and
procedures:
 Academic
Honesty
&
Procedures
for
Violation
of
Standards
of
Academic
Honesty
 Decennial
Reviews
 Making
Changes
in
Academic
Departments
 New
Programs
 Financial
Consideration
for
New
Programs
 Criteria
for
Reviewing
Institutes
 Collective
Dialogue
 Expectations
of
Academic
Departments
 Guidelines
for
Non‐degree
Programs
 Guidelines
for
Dual
Degree
Programs
 Dissertation
Committee
Membership
 Summer
Session
 Awarding
of
Degrees
 Guidelines
for
Awarding
Honorary
Degrees
 Guidelines
for
the
Selection
of
Commencement
Speakers
 Travel
Policy
 Tuition
Policy
Establishment
and
Oversight
of
Curricula
The
MPH
Program
Steering
and
Curriculum
Committees
are
responsible
for
the
establishment
and
oversight
of
curriculum.
Should
both
committees
approve
modifications
to
the
MPH
curriculum,
the
Program
Director
submits
an
application
to
the
appropriate
University
Committees.
Gaining
approval
of
changes
in
CGU
academic
departments
requires
approval
by
the
two
faculty
committee,
the
faculty
at
large,
the
Provost
the
CGU
Board.
Four
categories
of
proposed
changes
are
considered.
A
proposal
must
move
through
all
steps
before
it
can
be
advertised
or
considered
approved
by
CGU.
Approval
for
a
new
degree:
After
consultation
with
all
current
faculty
who
will
participate
in
the
proposed
program,
the
governing
committee
for
the
school
or
unaffiliated
department
submits
the
Page
45
proposal
simultaneously
to
the
chair
of
Faculty
Executive
Committee
(FEC)
and
the
Provost
and
Vice
President
of
Academic
Affairs
(Provost).
Schools
will
submit
to
the
FEC
Chair
proposals
in
the
fall
semester
by
September
15th
and
in
the
Spring
Semester
by
February
1st.
The
FEC
requests
the
Academic
Standards
Committee
(ASC)
to
review
the
proposal
for
academic
integrity.
To
inform
its
review
of
academic
integrity,
the
ASC
requests
the
budget
Planning
and
Review
Committee,
minus
the
Provost,
to
review
the
proposal
for
financial
feasibility
and
to
submit
its
findings
to
ASC.
The
ASC
submits
an
evaluation
of
the
proposal
and
a
recommendation
to
the
FEC.
The
FEC
submits
the
proposal
and
a
recommendation
to
the
full
CGU
faculty
for
approval.
If
the
CGU
faculty
approves
the
proposal,
it
is
then
submitted
to
the
Provost
for
approval.
If
approved
by
the
Provost,
it
is
submitted
to
the
Board
of
Trustees.
New
collaborative
concentration
between
two
academic
programs,
existing
degree:
After
consultation
with
all
current
faculty
members
who
will
participate
in
the
proposed
program,
the
governing
committee
for
the
school
or
unaffiliated
department
submits
the
proposal
simultaneously
to
the
chair
of
the
FEC
and
the
Provost.
The
FEC
evaluates
the
proposal
and
approves
or
disapproves.
If
the
FEC
approves
the
proposal,
it
is
submitted
to
the
Provost
for
approval.
New
concentration
within
an
existing
degree
program:
After
consultation
with
all
current
faculty
members
who
will
participate
in
the
proposed
program,
the
governing
committee
for
school
or
department
submits
the
proposal
simultaneously
to
the
chair
of
the
FEC
and
the
Provost.
The
chair
of
the
FEC
evaluates
the
proposal
and
may
approve
the
proposal
or
bring
it
to
the
FEC
for
approval.
If
the
FEC
approves
the
proposal,
it
is
submitted
to
the
Provost
for
approval.
Change
in
requirement,
examination
procedures
within
a
program:
The
governing
committee
of
the
school
or
unaffiliated
department,
in
consultation
with
all
current
faculty
members
who
participate
in
the
program
or
concentration,
may
change
requirements
or
procedures
within
the
constraints
of
CGU
requirements.
1.3.d.
If
a
collaborative
program,
descriptions
of
all
participating
institutions
and
delineation
of
their
relationships
to
the
program
Collaborative
Program
Not
applicable.
1.3.e.
If
a
collaborative
program,
a
copy
of
the
formal
written
agreement
that
establishes
the
rights
and
obligations
of
the
participating
universities.
Formal
Written
Agreement
for
Collaborative
Program
Not
applicable.
1.3.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths:
 The
MPH
program
is
part
of
an
established
University
that
is
fully
accredited.
Page
46


The
SCGH
MPH
program
is
a
fully
integrated
program
within
the
University
and
contributes
to
the
University’s
mission.
The
MPH
program
abides
by
University
and
School
policies,
procedures
and
ethics
in
recruitment,
hiring
and
admissions
practices.
Challenges:
 The
creation
of
the
SCGH
and
the
MPH
program
occurred
during
a
time
of
severe
economic
downturn.
A
hiring
freeze
for
faculty
and
staff
was
enacted
for
2009‐2010
–
unless
positions
were
grant‐funded.
All
merit
and
cost
of
living
increases
were
cancelled
for
2009
and
2010,
but
reinstated
as
of
fiscal
year
2011.
 The
currently
negotiated
Federal
indirect
cost
rate
of
32.3%
is
extremely
low.
 The
advancement
of
faculty
highly
variable
depending
on
the
track
and
on
the
specific
job
obligations.
Page
47
Blank
page
Page
48
Criterion
1.4.
Organization
and
Administration
The
program
shall
provide
an
organizational
setting
conducive
to
teaching
and
learning,
research
and
service.
The
organizational
setting
shall
facilitate
interdisciplinary
communication,
cooperation
and
collaboration.
The
organizational
structure
shall
effectively
support
the
work
of
the
program’s
constituents.
1.4.a.
One
or
more
organizational
charts
showing
the
administrative
organization
of
the
program,
indicating
relationships
among
its
component
offices
or
other
administrative
units
and
its
relationship
to
higher‐level
departments,
schools
and
divisions.
Organizational
Chart
of
the
Program
Figure
1.4.a.
Organizational
Chart
of
the
Program
Page
49
1.4.b.
Description
of
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
major
units
in
the
organizational
chart.
Roles
and
Responsibilities
The
Master
of
Public
Health
Program
is
under
the
Dean
of
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health.
The
Provost
reports
to
the
University
President,
who
receives
direction
from
the
University’s
Board
of
Trustees.
The
MPH
Program
consists
of
a
Program
Director,
nine
core
faculty,
and
three
administrative
staff,
including
the
Program
Manager,
a
Recruiter,
and
a
Grants
Manager,
and
one
part‐time
consultant.
While
the
Steering
Committee,
comprised
of
the
Dean,
Program
Director,
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs,
and
Associate
Deans
of
Research,
Faculty
Affairs
and
Administration,
provides
general
oversight
of
all
major
program
components,
the
other
committees
are
involved
in
various
aspects
of
program
planning,
implementation
and
assessment.
C.
Anderson
Johnson,
PhD
is
the
Dean
of
the
School
of
Community
&
Global
Health,
where
the
MPH
program
resides.
In
this
role
he
reports
to
the
Provost,
Jacob
Adams.
He
provides
oversight
and
direction
to
the
MPH
Director,
Darleen
Peterson,
PhD,
MPH,
MCHES.
Policy
advisement
is
provided
by
the
MPH
Program
Steering
Committee,
which
is
composed
of
SCGH
faculty.
Other
MPH
program
committees,
namely,
the
Community
Advisory
(with
representatives
from
key
community
agencies),
Curriculum,
Recruitment
and
Admissions,
and
Accreditation/Self
Study
provide
additional
oversight
of
program
operations.
The
MPH
program
director,
Dr.
Darleen
Peterson,
reports
directly
to
Dean
Dr.
Andy
Johnson.
She
develops
and
implements
program
policies
in
accordance
with
University
procedures
for
maintaining
curriculum
integrity
and
adherence
to
WASC
accreditation
standards.
In
addition,
she
meets
regularly
with
students
to
advise
them
on
planning
their
educational
objectives,
making
progress
towards
their
degree,
selecting
internship
placements,
and
assessing
the
viability
of
post‐graduation
options.
The
MPH
Concentration
Directors,
Drs.
Susan
Ames
(Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation),
Dennis
Trinidad
(Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology),
and
Paula
Palmer
(Leadership
&
Management)
consult
with
Dr.
Darleen
Peterson
regarding
program
evaluation
procedures,
continuing
education
offerings,
course
scheduling,
internship
program,
and
the
capstone
requirement.
Chris
Quinn,
MBA
carries
out
student
recruitment
activities,
including
overseeing
website
development/maintenance.
The
program
manager,
Maggie
Hawkins,
MPH,
CHES
coordinates
the
admissions
process,
attends
to
a
host
of
student
affairs
related
tasks,
and
assists
with
the
internship
program.
Dr.
Patty
Kwan
serves
as
a
temporary,
part‐time
accreditation
consultant.
1.4.c.
Description
of
the
manner
in
which
interdisciplinary
coordination,
cooperation
and
collaboration
are
supported.
Coordination,
Cooperation
and
Collaboration
Collaboration
in
teaching
and
training
of
students
is
vibrant
among
CGU’s
Schools.
For
example,
the
Peter
F.
Drucker
and
Masatoshi
Ito
Graduate
School
of
Management
partners
with
the
School
of
Arts
and
Humanities
to
offer
an
MA
program
in
Art
Management.
The
Schools
of
Mathematical
Sciences
and
of
Management
jointly
supervise
an
MS
program
in
Financial
Engineering.
The
School
of
Politics
and
Economics
and
the
School
of
Religion
have
recently
created
a
joint
MA
degree
in
Religion
and
American
Politics.
SCGH
has
collaborated
with
the
Drucker
School
to
establish
a
dual
MBA/MPH
degree,
the
School
of
Organizational
and
Behavioral
Science
to
develop
a
dual
MA
(applied
psychology)/MPH,
and
the
School
of
Information
Systems
and
Technology
to
provide
a
Concentration
in
Health
Informatics
within
the
MPH
program.
(Currently,
this
concentration
has
been
put
on
hold).
Page
50
CGU
is
also
well‐positioned
in
the
promotion
of
faculty
research.
The
BLAIS
Foundation
has
provided
$80,000
to
$100,000
as
seed
money
to
support
the
joint
research
between
CGU
faculty
and
faculty
of
other
campuses
in
the
Consortium
since
2006.
The
faculty
receive
various
intramural
research
grants
annually.
The
Office
of
Research
gives
a
high
priority
to
faculty
development
in
the
research
area
by
providing
workshops
on
research
conduct
and
promoting
research
across
disciplines.
Moreover,
to
encourage
sponsored
research
and
the
development
of
academic
research
infrastructure,
CGU
returns
all
indirect
costs
(overhead)
received
on
grants
directly
to
the
Schools,
where
Deans
and
Professors
may
reinvest
these
funds
in
research
enterprises.
The
University
has
a
clear
focus
on
applied
research
that
has
important
social
and
human
values.
In
pursuing
this
interest,
the
Strategic
Planning
Committee
began
in
2006
to
define
overall
strategic
directions
plus
specifically
desired
initiatives
to
increase
the
levels
of
research
collaboration
between
faculty
of
the
Schools
at
CGU
and
other
members
of
the
Claremont
Consortium;
increase
the
levels
of
funding
that
support
graduate
student
research;
and
expand
and
establish
major
new
research
institutes
to
address
important
societal
issues.
As
mentioned
above,
our
research
capacity
has
been
strengthened
through
staffing
of
the
Office
of
Research
and
Sponsored
Programs
and
the
Office
of
Business
and
Administration,
intramural
grants
geared
toward
faculty
and
student
research,
enhanced
functions
of
the
IRB,
and
other
measures
the
University
has
taken.
1.4.d.
Identification
of
written
policies
that
are
illustrative
of
the
program’s
commitment
to
fair
and
ethical
dealings.
Commitment
to
Fair
and
Ethical
Dealings
As
part
of
the
Claremont
Graduate
University,
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
faculty
and
staff
to
represent
the
overall
commitment
to
fair
and
ethical
dealings
to
the
students,
staff,
and
human
subjects.
These
principles
are
stated
in
the
CGU
Institutional
Handbook
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1479.asp)
and
the
Statement
of
Student
Rights
and
Responsibilities
within
the
University
Bulletin
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/8207.asp),
and
in
our
Guidelines
for
Approval
of
Human
Subjects
research
by
the
Institutional
Review
Board
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1075.asp).
Each
faculty
member
at
CGU
is
expected
to
be
familiar
with
the
guidelines
laid
out
in
these
documents
relevant
to
their
teaching,
research
and
service
commitments.
In
addition,
as
representatives
of
the
Claremont
Graduate
University,
program
faculty
and
staff
comply
with
all
laws
prohibiting
discrimination
against
students
or
applicants
on
the
basis
of
race,
color,
religion,
gender,
national
origin,
age,
disability,
sexual
orientation
or
status
as
a
disabled
veteran.
An
otherwise
qualified
individual
shall
not
be
excluded
from
admission,
employment
or
participation
in
educational
programs
and
activities
solely
by
reason
of
his/her
disability
or
medical
condition.
This
policy
applies
to
all
personnel
actions
such
as
recruiting,
hiring,
promotion,
compensation,
benefits,
transfers,
layoffs,
return
from
layoff,
training,
education,
tuition
assistance
and
other
programs.
The
Claremont
Graduate
University
is
committed
to
conducting
its
research
involving
human
subjects
under
rigorous
ethical
principles.
The
Institutional
Review
Board
(IRB)
at
the
Claremont
Graduate
University
is
empowered
to
review
all
research
proposals,
funded
or
not,
which
are
conducted
by
the
faculty,
staff,
graduate
or
undergraduate
students
which
involve
the
use
of
human
subjects.
The
IRB
has
been
established
to
comply
with
existing
regulations
of
the
federal
government,
which
has
issued
a
Federal
Policy
for
the
Protection
of
Human
Rights
(45
CFR
46)
on
June
18,
1991.
The
University
has
also
agreed
to
adhere
to
the
statements
of
ethical
principles
as
described
in
The
Belmont
Report:
Ethical
Principles
and
Guidelines
for
the
Human
Subjects
of
Research
and
the
Report
of
the
National
Page
51
Commission
for
the
Protection
of
Human
Subjects
of
Biomedical
and
Behavioral
Research
(April
18,
1979).
The
IRB
is
required
to
assure
that:
a. Research
methods
are
appropriate
to
the
objectives
of
the
research;
b. Research
methods
are
the
safest,
consistent
with
sound
research
design;
c. Risks
are
justified
in
terms
of
related
benefits
to
the
subjects;
d. Subjects'
privacy
is
protected;
e. Subjects
participate
willingly
and
knowingly
to
the
extent
possible;
and
research
projects
are
monitored
by
the
IRBs.
Instruction
on
the
historical
background,
principles,
and
regulations
that
govern
the
protection
of
human
research
participants
is
important
for
understanding
IRB
activities
and
meeting
ethical
standards
in
the
conduct
of
research
that
involves
human
participants.
Online
training
in
this
domain,
including
certification
that
training
has
been
completed
successfully,
may
be
obtained
at
the
following
web
site:
http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php)
CGU
employee
(faculty,
staff,
and
volunteer)
is
responsible
for
completing
the
required
harassment
prevention
courses
every
two
years
and
remaining
current
on
related
CGU
policies
and
procedures.
These
values
are
communicated
to
MPH
students
during
orientation
and
incorporated
into
core
MPH
courses
when
appropriate.
These
various
policies
and
manuals
reflect
the
commitment
by
the
program
and
the
University
to
fair
and
ethical
dealings.
1.4.e.
Description
of
the
manner
in
which
student
grievances
and
complaints
are
addressed,
including
the
number
of
grievance
and
complaints
filed
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Student
Grievances
and
Complaints
Students
have
many
mechanisms
by
which
they
can
communicate
their
concerns:
direct
communication
with
the
program
director,
program
surveys
(e.g.,
exit
interviews)
and
focus
groups.
It
is
common
for
students
to
first
approach
the
program
manager
or
director
directly
with
any
concerns
they
may
have.
Most
often
the
complaint
or
grievance
will
involve
an
instructor’s
grading
practice.
Upon
the
student’s
request,
the
program
director
will
work
with
both
the
student
and
faculty
to
resolve
the
issue.
Within
the
last
two
years,
there
have
been
three
formal
grievance
filed
on
behalf
of
MPH
students.
1.4.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths:
 The
program
has
developed
an
organizational
structure
that
is
functional
and
efficient
at
meeting
program
goals.
 The
training
of
our
faculty
indicates
its
interdisciplinary
spirit
and
achievements.
There
is
a
genuine
commitment
within
the
program
and
throughout
the
School
to
foster
interdisciplinary
work
as
a
way
to
meet
our
mission
and
goals,
and
to
strengthen
our
achievements.
 A
copy
of
the
Student’s
Rights
and
Responsibilities
is
kept
on
file
in
the
MPH
Program
administrative
office
and
is
available
on‐line.
 Any
research
involving
the
faculty
and/or
students
are
first
submitted
to
the
Institutional
Review
Board
for
approval.
Page
52



Each
member
of
the
Claremont
Consortium
has
the
right
to
organize
and
maintain
his/her
own
personal
life
and
behavior,
so
long
as
it
does
not
violate
the
law
or
agreements
voluntarily
entered
into
and
does
not
interfere
with
the
rights
of
others
or
the
educational
process.
Each
member
has
the
right
to
identify
himself/herself
as
a
member
of
the
campus
but
has
a
concurrent
obligation
not
to
speak
or
act
on
behalf
of
the
institution
without
authorization.
Every
member
of
the
academic
community
shall
enjoy
the
rights
of
free
speech,
peaceful
assembly
and
the
right
of
petition.
In
addition,
the
Claremont
Graduate
University
complies
with
all
laws
prohibiting
discrimination
against
students
or
applicants
on
the
basis
of
race,
color,
religion,
gender,
national
origin,
age,
disability,
sexual
orientation
or
status
as
a
disabled
veteran.
Page
53
Blank
page
Page
54
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
conduct
of
program
evaluation
procedures,
policy‐setting
and
decision‐
making.
1.5.a.
Description
of
the
program’s
administration,
governance
and
committee
structure
and
processes,
particularly
as
the
affect:
Program
Administration
Overall
Structure
The
Master
of
Public
Health
(MPH)
program
is
housed
in
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
(SCGH)
and
is
supported
by
its
own
organizational
structure
that
was
approved
by
the
Provost
in
2008.
As
of
fall
2010,
the
program
supports
three
areas
of
concentration
or
tracks:
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation,
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology,
and
Leadership
and
Management.
Each
concentration
is
headed
by
members
of
the
faculty
who
serve
as
concentration
directors.
The
program
is
supported
by
five
committees,
composed
of
faculty
members
and
public
health
professionals
from
outside
the
University.
Faculty
Direction
and
Leadership
Dr.
C.
Anderson
Johnson
serves
as
the
Dean
of
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
that
houses
and
administers
the
MPH
program.
Dr.
Darleen
Peterson
serves
as
the
Program
Director,
and
regularly
consults
with
the
directors
of
each
of
the
four
concentrations:
Health
Promotion,
Education
and
Evaluation
(Dr.
Susan
Ames),
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology,
(Dr.
Dennis
Trinidad),
and
Leadership
&
Management
(Dr.
Paula
Palmer)
in
addition
with
the
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs
(Dr.
Paula
Palmer).
Under
the
Dean
are
three
Associates
Deans
for
Academic
Affairs
(Dr.
Darleen
Peterson),
Administration
(Dr.
Dennis
Trinidad),
Faculty
Affairs
(Dr.
Alan
Stacy),
and
Research
(Vacant).
Program
Committees
There
are
five
committees
within
the
MPH
program:
Steering,
Curriculum,
Admissions
and
Recruitment,
Community
Advisory,
and
Self‐
Study/Accreditation.
Opportunities
for
student
input
are
evident.
Student
representation
exists
on
all
MPH
program
committees.
In
collaboration
with
the
Steering
Committee
and
Concentration
Directors,
the
MPH
Program
Director
develops
program
policy,
provides
strategic
plans,
program
oversight,
and
committee
agendas
while
also
supporting
other
governing
and
administrative
bodies
at
CGU.
Final
recommendations
for
curriculum
and
policies
are
recommended
by
two
University
Committees:
the
Academic
Standards
Committee
(ASC),
and
the
Faculty
Executive
Committee
(FEC),
and
then
voted
upon
by
the
CGU
faculty
at
large.
The
Provost
makes
recommendations
to
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustee,
who
serves
as
the
final
authority
on
academic
policy
and
curriculum
decisions.
Program
Staff
The
program
supports
a
faculty
director
and
three
part‐time
staff
members.
Dr.
Peterson,
the
Program
Director,
has
direct
responsibility
for
program
design
and
assessment,
policy
development,
personnel
administration,
public
relations,
student
advising,
internship
and
capstone
experiences,
and
accreditation.
Maggie
Hawkins,
the
Program
Manager,
assists
with
internship
placements,
maintenance
Page
55
of
student
records,
degree
progress,
admissions
and
graduation.
She
also
maintains
currency
with
University
and
program
curricula,
practices,
policies
and
procedures
as
well
as
providing
clarification
of
these
policies
to
faculty,
administrators
and
students.
She
responds
to
inquiries
from
students
or
staff
regarding
established
procedures
relating
to
degree
requirements,
diplomas
and
exceptions
to
academic
policy.
Chris
Quinn
directs
the
program’s
recruitment
program.
Arturo
Rodriguez
assists
with
budget
development
and
grants
management.
Staff
resumes
are
available
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Planning
Academic
Initial
plans
for
the
MPH
program
were
developed
through
a
Steering
Committee,
the
Directors
described
above,
recommendations
from
Community
Advisory
Groups,
and
the
MPH
Program
Director.
The
proposed
curriculum
was
recommended
for
approval
by
the
Academic
Standards
Committee
(ASC)
in
early
September
of
2008.
The
program
was
officially
approved
by
the
Provost
and
CGU
Board
of
Trustees
in
late
October
of
2008.
The
first
students
were
admitted
in
the
fall
of
2009.
Since
that
time,
members
of
the
MPH
administration
have
held
numerous
meetings
with
MPH
Committees,
faculty,
students,
university
administrators
and
community
representatives
to
help
mold
and
improve
the
program.
New
concentrations
and
dual
degree
programs
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Provost
on
several
occasions.
It
has
been
a
rapid,
extensive,
and
exciting
process
of
review
and
growth.
Planned
changes
regarding
curriculum,
program
concentrations,
and
off‐site
study
programs
require
the
approval
of
the
Provost,
who
acts
on
the
recommendations
of
the
ASC,
Faculty
Executive
Committee
(FEC)
and
the
faculty
at
large.
Financial
Planning
for
budgets
and
administration
are
overseen
by
the
Associate
Dean
for
Administration
in
collaboration
with
Arturo
Rodriguez,
School’s
Budget
Director,
and
with
advisement
from
the
Dean
and
MPH
Program
Director.
Once
approved,
the
School
budget
is
included
in
the
University
macro
budget
and
presented
to
the
CGU
Board
of
Directors
Finance
Committee.
The
Committee
meets
four
times
a
year
(April
being
the
meeting
where
they
discuss
the
budget)
and
recommends
changes
and/or
moves
that
the
University
budget
be
approved
by
the
full
Board
of
Directors.
The
full
Board
also
meets
four
times
a
year
about
one
month
after
the
Finance
Committee
meeting.
The
final
CGU
budget
is
usually
approved
in
the
full
Board’s
May
meeting.
Once
the
budget
is
approved,
it
is
entered
into
the
University
accounting
system
by
July
1
of
every
year.
Budget
and
Resource
Allocation
The
MPH
program
began
in
the
University
fiscal
year
2008‐2009.
While
the
program
becomes
more
viable
through
increased
FTEs,
most
of
the
support
for
the
program
came
from
CGU
sources
as
well
as
research
indirect
costs
returned
to
the
School.
In
the
three
years
that
the
School
has
been
admitting
students,
FTE
has
grown
to
a
point
where
it
produces
a
considerable
amount
of
tuition
revenue
to
the
point
where
it
will
surpass
indirect
costs
as
the
main
source
of
revenue
for
the
School.
Subsequent
budgets
are
highly
dependent
on
FTE
estimates
and
the
associated
revenue
from
those
FTEs.
Currently,
the
School
has
~25
FTEs
with
about
8
FTEs
admitted
annually.
Given
the
growth
projections
of
both
the
School
(as
it
pertains
to
new
faculty
members)
as
well
as
admissions,
we
estimate
that
the
MPH
program
will
be
at
full
capacity
at
approximately
100
FTEs.
The
total
FTEs
for
the
School
will
not
exceed
150.
Dean,
Andy
Johnson
and
Associate
Deans,
Darleen
Peterson
and
Dennis
Trinidad,
and
Budget
Director,
Arturo
Rodriguez
review
the
MPH
program
budget
yearly
and
advise
on
various
issues
such
as
program
Page
56
growth
and
needs
(e.g.,
teaching,
administrative
support,
classroom
space,
etc.),
review
budget
expenditures,
and
budget
accordingly
in
order
to
ensure
all
activities
run
smoothly.
Student
Recruitment,
Admission
and
Awarding
of
Degrees
Student
Recruitment
GU’s
Central
Office
of
Administration
supports
a
Recruiter
assigned
to
SCGH.
With
guidance
from
the
Dean
and
the
MPH
Program
Director,
the
Recruiter
formulates
a
yearly
student
recruitment
plan
involving
opportunities
for
interpersonal
contact
and
web‐based
methods.
An
end
of
year
report
is
presented
to
the
MPH
Admissions
and
Recruitment
committee.
Admissions
Admissions
are
handled
in
CGU’s
central
administration.
The
MPH
program
manager
is
responsible
for
distributing
the
applications
to
members
of
the
admissions
committee.
The
admissions
committee
is
composed
of
three
faculty
members,
inclusive
of
the
program
director.
Every
student
application
is
reviewed
by
two
members
of
the
admissions
committee.
Awarding
of
Degrees
Students
who
successfully
complete
all
program
requirements
are
awarded
the
Master
of
Public
Health
degree
by
the
University.
Degrees
are
awarded
three
times
a
year
(September,
January
and
May)
although
the
ceremony
takes
place
only
in
May.
CGU
faculty
approves
the
September
list
at
the
first
faculty
meeting
of
the
academic
year.
Students
submit
a
Degree
Intent
form
to
the
Program
Director.
The
form
is
signed
by
the
both
the
Director
and
the
Dean
and
then
submitted
to
the
Registrar
for
processing.
Faculty
Recruitment,
Retention,
Promotion
and
Tenure
Faculty
rrecruitment
is
a
responsibility
of
the
School’s
Faculty
Search
Committee
which
is
appointed
by
the
Provost.
Retention,
promotion
and
tenure
decisions
are
made
at
the
School
level
and
approved
by
the
University’s
Appointment
and
Promotions
Committee
and
the
Provost.
Academic
Standards
and
Policies
CGU
maintains
very
high
academic
standards
and
policies,
which
are
outlined
in
the
Institutional
Handbook.
The
MPH
program
is
governed
by
these
policies
and
procedures
concerning
the
following
topics:
 Academic
Honesty
&
Procedures
for
Violation
of
Standards
of
Academic
Honesty
 Decennial
Reviews
 Making
Changes
in
Academic
Departments
 New
Programs
 Financial
Considerations
for
New
Programs
 Criteria
for
Reviewing
Institutes
 Collective
Dialogue
 Expectations
of
Academic
Departments
 Guidelines
for
Non
Degree
Programs
 Guidelines
for
Dual
Degrees
 Dissertation
Committee
Membership
 Summer
Session
Page
57





Awarding
Degrees
Guidelines
for
Awarding
Honorary
Degrees
Guidelines
for
the
Selection
of
Commencement
Speakers
Travel
Policy
Tuition
Policy
Research
and
Service
Expectations
and
Policies
Research
and
service
expectations
are
expressed
in
the
offer
letter
prepared
by
the
Provost
with
input
from
the
School’s
Dean.
Research
Policies
Both
research
and
term
faculty
are
expected
to
engage
in
the
following
scholarly
activities.
Publications.
All
faculty
will
author
or
co‐author
at
least
one
article
per
year
in
a
peer‐reviewed
journal
and
submit
at
least
one
manuscript
to
a
peer‐reviewed
journal.
This
is
the
minimum
expectation
but
more
is
encouraged.
Exceptions
include
faculty
whose
offer
letter
does
not
designate
research
responsibilities
(e.g.,
some
positions
as
Professor
of
Practice;
adjunct
faculty
positions).
Nevertheless,
even
faculty
with
extensive
service
roles
are
encouraged
to
participate
in
some
research
when
time
permits.
Extramural
support.
All
faculty
will
serve
as
principal
investigator
(PI)
or
co‐investigator
(Co‐I)
of
at
least
one
extramural
grant
or
apply
for
at
least
one
extramural
grant
per
year.
All
faculty
are
strongly
encouraged
to
service
or
apply
as
PI
routinely
or,
if
junior
faculty,
conduct
research
that
will
facilitate
an
eventual
role
as
PI.
A
center
or
program
project
research
project
or
core
counts
as
an
independent
grant
for
these
purposes.
Conference
presentations.
All
faculty
will
present
their
research
in
at
least
one
major
national
or
international
conference
per
year.
Service
Policies
All
faculty
are
expected
to
engage
in
service
for
the
University
and
community.
Faculty
reviews
take
into
account
service
as
an
obligatory
component.
Service
is
reviewed
during
the
annual
consultation,
at
renewals
of
term
appointments,
during
promotion
to
tenure,
and
during
5‐year
reviews
of
full
professors.
Faculty
can
be
denied
renewal
of
appointments
or
tenure
if
service
is
not
sufficient.
Some
examples
of
service
domains
are:
 Develop
and
implement
innovative,
evidence‐based
public
health
policies
and
programs
in
partnership
with
communities
both
locally
and
globally.
 Serve
scholarly
and
professional
organizations,
for
example,
as
members
of
journal
editorial
boards
or
grant
peer
review
panels,
and
in
leadership
roles
in
professional
associations.
 Serve
the
university,
for
example,
as
members
or
leaders
of
key
academic
committees
or
as
external
members
on
graduate
student
thesis
or
dissertation
committees
in
other
CGU
schools.
 Serve
local
or
global
communities,
for
example,
as
volunteers
on
advisory
boards
or
public
speakers,
or
as
organizers
of
pro
bono
or
inexpensive
health
education
activities.
Page
58
1.5.b.
A
copy
of
the
constitution,
bylaws
or
other
policy
documents
that
determines
the
rights
and
obligations
of
administrators,
faculty
and
students
in
governance
of
the
program.
Policy
Documents
The
MPH
program
is
governed
by
the
policies
and
procedures
of
the
University
as
articulated
in
the
following
documents:
 Institutional
Handbook:
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1479.asp
 Staff
Handbook:
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/4254.asp
 Affirmative
Action
Hiring
process:
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5695.asp
 Policies
&
Procedures
Manual:
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1318.asp
Individuals
who
become
students
at
CGU
are
guaranteed
specific
rights
and,
in
turn,
are
expected
to
adhere
to
certain
responsibilities
in
their
relationship
to
the
University.
Policies
and
procedures
are
published
in
the
CGU
website,
in
the
CGU
Bulletin
(http://bulletin.cgu.edu)
and
in
individual
School
publications.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
rights
and
responsibilities
that
arise
therefrom
are
determined
and
intended
not
only
to
ensure
institutional
efficiency,
but
also
to
comply
with
federal,
state,
accreditation,
and
other
regulations.
All
new
and
continuing
students
are
expected
to
be
cognizant
of
and
abide
by
the
interrelated
rights
and
responsibilities.
The
MPH
program
distributes
its
own
Student
Handbook
at
the
new
student
orientation
each
semester
which
incorporates
many
of
the
policies
and
procedures
referenced
above.
The
Handbook
is
also
available
on
the
program’s
website
and
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
1.5.c.
A
list
of
standing
and
important
ad
hoc
committees,
with
a
statement
of
charge
and
composition.
List
of
Standing
and
Ad
hoc
Committees
To
provide
guidance
to
the
MPH
program
and
ensure
that
the
students
experience
a
quality
program
that
meets
the
standards
of
the
various
accrediting
bodies,
students,
faculty,
staff
and
lead
members
of
the
public
health
practitioner
community
serve
on
the
following
committees.
Meeting
minutes
are
available
on
the
on‐site
resource
file.
The
MPH
Steering
Committee
is
comprised
of
SCGH
faculty
and
a
current
student.
This
committee
provides
oversight,
vision,
and
planning
and
policy
development
of
the
MPH
program.
The
Steering
Committee
meets
bi‐weekly,
and
on
an
as‐needed
basis.
Members
are
listed
in
Table
1.5.c.(1)
below.
Table
1.5.c.(1).
Current
MPH
Program
Steering
Committee
Member
Susan
Ames
Jerry
Grenard
Larry
Gruder
Andy
Johnson
(Chair)
Yvonne
Oliveras‐Moldonado
Paula
Palmer
Darleen
Peterson
Position
SCGH
Associate
Professor
SCGH
Assistant
Professor
SCGH
Adjunct
Professor
SCGH
Professor;
Dean
MPH
Student
SCGH
Associate
Professor;
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs
SCGH
Assistant
Professor;
MPH
Program
Director;
Associate
Dean
for
Academic
Affairs
Page
59
Table
1.5.c.(1).
Current
MPH
Program
Steering
Committee
Member
Kim
Reynolds
Alan
Stacy
Paul
Torrens
Position
SCGH
Professor
SCGH
Professor;
Associate
Dean
for
Faculty
Affairs
SCGH
Adjunct
Professor
Dennis
Trinidad
SCGH
Associate
Professor;
Associate
Dean
for
Administration
Bin
Xie
SCGH
Associate
Professor
The
MPH
Curriculum
Committee
provides
direction,
oversight,
and
assessment
of
the
MPH
curriculum.
It
is
responsible
for
ensuring
that
the
program
meets
the
curriculum
requirements
of
the
University
for
graduate
programs,
the
Council
of
Education
for
Public
Health,
and
the
MPH
competencies
and
values
of
the
MPH
program
are
realized.
It
meets
annually
during
the
summer.
Committee
members
include
program
administration,
concentration
directors
and
a
student.
Table
1.5.c.(2).
Current
MPH
Program
Curriculum
Committee
Member
Susan
Ames
Larry
Gruder
Maggie
Hawkins
Patty
Kwan
Kimberly
Morales
Johnson
Paula
Palmer
Darleen
Peterson
(Chair)
Dennis
Trinidad
Position
SCGH
Associate
Professor;
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs;
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
Concentration
Representative
SCGH
Adjunct
Professor
MPH
Program
Manager
SCGH
Adjunct
Faculty,
MPH
Program
Accreditation
Consultant
MPH
Student
Associate
Professor;
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs;
Leadership
&
Management
Concentration
Representative
SCGH
Assistant
Professor;
MPH
Program
Director;
Associate
Dean
for
Academic
Affairs
SCGH
Associate
Professor;
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Concentration
Representative
The
Admissions
and
Recruitment
Committee
meets
bi‐weekly
and
establishes
criteria
and
procedures
for
student
recruitment
and
admissions,
reviews
all
applications,
and
determines
who
will
be
admitted.
This
group
is
charged
with
maintaining
the
student
body's
high
quality
by
implementing
the
criteria
set
forth
by
the
University
and
the
committee
when
selecting
candidates
for
the
program.
In
addition,
it
is
the
committee’s
responsibility
to
identify
various
opportunities
for
program
staff
to
participate
in
activities
for
recruiting
students
into
the
program.
Page
60
Table
1.5.c.(3).
Current
MPH
Program
Admissions
&
Recruitment
Committee
Member
Maggie
Hawkins
Bree
Hemingway
Andy
Johnson
Chris
Quinn
(Chair)
Paula
Palmer
Darleen
Peterson
Dennis
Trinidad
Position
MPH
Program
Manager
MPH
Student
SCGH
Dean
SCGH
Recruiter
SCGH
Associate
Professor;
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs;
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
Concentration
Representative
SCGH
Assistant
Professor;
MPH
Program
Director;
Associate
Dean
for
Academic
Affairs
SCGH
Associate
Professor;
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Concentration
Representative
The
Community
Advisory
Committee
provides
recommendations
for
student
competencies,
recruitment,
internships,
research,
and
evaluation,
as
well
as
serve
as
a
liaison
with
community‐based
organizations.
It
meets
once
each
year.
Members
also
serve
as
the
Advisory
Board
for
SCGH.
Members
are
listed
in
table
1.5.c.(4).
Table
1.5.c.(4).
Current
MPH
Program
Advisory
Committee
Member
Lester
Breslow
Jonathon
Fielding
John
Farquhar
Stephen
Fortmann
Deborah
Freund
Larry
Gruder
Jessie
Gruman
David
Heymann
Jeanette
Hughes
Howard
Kahn
Liming
Lee
Alexandra
Levine
Russell
Luepker
J.
Mario
Molina
Pekka
Puska
Walter
Rose
Position
Professor
Emeritus
&
Former
Dean
of
the
UCLA
School
of
Public
Health;
Former
Director
of
the
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services
Director,
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services
Professor
of
Medicine
&
Health
Research
&
Policy
&
Founder
of
the
Prevention
Research
Institute,
Stanford
University
School
of
Medicine
Assistant
Program
Director
&
Science
Programs
Department
Senior
Investigator
at
the
Center
for
Health
Research,
Northwest
Kaiser
Foundation
Hospitals
SCGH
Professor;
CGU
President
SCGH
Adjunct
Professor
Founder
&
President,
W.K.
Kellogg
Foundation
Assistant
Director
General
of
Health
Security
&
Environment
for
the
World
Health
Organization
MPH
Student
CEO
of
L.A.
Care
Health
Plan
Vice
President
of
Peking
Union
Medical
College;
Former
Director
of
the
China
CDC
Chief
Medical
Officer
of
the
City
of
Hope
Mayo
Professor
of
Public
Health
President
&
CEO
of
Molina
Healthcare
Inc.
Director
General
of
the
National
Public
Health
Institute
of
Finland;
Former
Director
of
Non‐communicable
Diseases
Program,
World
Health
Organization
Former
member
of
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustees;
former
Co‐Chair
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
at
Children’s
Hospital
Los
Angeles.
Page
61
Table
1.5.c.(4).
Current
MPH
Program
Advisory
Committee
Member
Bill
Ruh
Robert
Tranquada
(Chair)
Paul
Torrens
Position
Vice
President,
World
Wide
Technology
Practices
Solutions
and
Services
Cisco
Systems,
Inc.
Professor
Emeritus
&
Former
Dean
of
the
USC
School
of
Medicine
SCGH
Adjunct
Professor
&
UCLA
Professor
Arthur
Ulene
Former
board‐certified
obstetrician‐gynecologist
&
Medical
Correspondent
The
Self‐Study/Accreditation
Committee
provides
direction,
oversight,
and
assessment
of
the
CEPH
accreditation
criteria
and
composition
of
the
self‐study
document.
Members
include
program
administration
and
student
representatives
as
listed
in
table
1.5.c.(5)
below.
The
committee
meets
as
needed.
Table
1.5.c.(5).
Current
MPH
Program
Accreditation/Self
Study
Committee
Member
Maggie
Hawkins
Andy
Johnson
Patty
Kwan
Chris
Quinn
Arturo
Rodriguez
Darleen
Peterson
(Chair)
Nathanael
Napolitano
Position
MPH
Program
Manager
SCGH
Dean
SCGH
Adjunct
Faculty
&
Consultant
SCGH
Recruiter
SCGH/CGU
Contract
and
Grants
SCGH
Assistant
Professor;
MPH
Program
Director;
Associate
Dean
for
Academic
Affairs
MPH
Program
Representative
1.5.d.
Identification
of
program
faculty
who
hold
membership
on
university
committees,
through
which
faculty
contribute
to
the
activities
of
the
university.
Faculty
Memberships
and
Committees
Faculty
with
full‐time
CGU
appointment
serve
on
School
and
University
committees.
Some
are
standing
committees
while
others
are
ad‐hoc.
Faculty
membership
on
University
Committees
was
low
in
2009‐
2010
due
to
the
recent
establishment
of
the
SCGH.
Table
1.5.d
lists
faculty
membership
on
University
Committees
and
School
Committees.
Service
to
the
university
is
high:
faculty
served
on
a
total
of
29
committees
in
2009‐2010
and
36
in
2010‐2011.
Table
1.5.d.
Current
MPH
Program
Faculty
Membership
on
University
&
School
Committees1
CGU
Faculty
Member
Susan
Ames
Jerry
Grenard
Andy
Johnson
Committee
Affirmative
Action
&
Diversity
Events
Planning
Finance
Space
Planning
Faculty
Search
Commencement
Deans
Council
Development
Faculty
Executive
Page
62
Type
University
School
School
School
School
University
University
School
University
2009‐2010
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
2010‐2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table
1.5.d.
Current
MPH
Program
Faculty
Membership
on
University
&
School
Committees1
CGU
Faculty
Member
Andy
Johnson
(con’t)
Paula
Palmer
Kim
Reynolds
Darleen
Peterson
Jason
Siegel
Alan
Stacy
Dennis
Trinidad
Bin
Xie
TOTALS
Committee
Information
Technology
Strategic
Planning
Website
&
Technology
Development
Institutional
Review
Board
Strategic
Planning
Website
&
Technology
Faculty
Executive
Finance
Development
Events
Planning
Faculty
Search
Nominations
&
Elections
Space
Planning
Strategic
Planning
Student
Recruitment
Website
&
Technology
‐‐
Appointment,
Promotions
&
Tenure
Faculty
Search
Finance
CGU
Excellence
CGU
Research
CUC
Health
Benefits
Events
Planning
Faculty
Executive
Faculty
Search
Finance
Space
Planning
Strategic
Planning
Student
Recruitment
‐‐
Type
University
School
School
School
University
School
School
University
School
School
School
School
University
School
School
University
‐‐
University
School
School
University
University
University
School
University
School
School
School
School
University
‐‐
2009‐2010
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
X
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
29
2010‐2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
36
1
Excludes
membership
on
specific
academic
program
committees.
1.5.e.
Description
of
student
roles
in
governance,
including
any
formal
student
organizations,
and
student
roles
in
evaluation
of
program
functioning.
Student
Roles
in
Governance
MPH
students
serve
key
roles
in
the
governance
of
the
program
through
participation
in
formal
student
organizations
and
membership
on
MPH
program
committees.
Student
Associations
The
SCGH
Student
Association
(SCGH‐SA)
was
created
by
MPH
students
and
recognized
by
the
University
as
a
formal
student
organization
in
the
fall
of
2009.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
SCGH‐SA
is
to
provide
a
resource
for
the
students
in
the
MPH
and
PhD
programs
at
CGU
in
an
effort
to
further
the
Page
63
academic,
professional
competence
and
dedication
of
individuals
in
the
discipline
of
public
health.
The
objectives
that
guide
the
activities
of
the
Association
include:










Encourage
scientific
research
opportunities
Facilitate
communication
between
individuals,
agencies,
and
governmental
jurisdictions
through
the
exchange
of
practices
and
philosophies
Provide
community
service
and
health
awareness.
Support
academic
achievement
Develop
methods,
materials,
and
programs
to
support
student
achievement
Raise
professionalism
and
professional
conduct
Adhere
to
a
strong
code
of
ethics
Assist
in
the
professional
preparation
of
graduate
students
and
faculty
at
SCGH
Encourage
outstanding
individuals
to
enter
the
public
health
field
Support
research
autonomy
and
professional
opportunities
for
the
public
health
profession
All
MPH
students
are
members
of
the
organization
which
meets
monthly
to
discuss
current
needs
of
the
student
body,
community
service
activities,
and
student
social
events.
The
Student
Association
is
governed
by
a
set
of
bylaws
and
board
of
officers.
The
program
director
serves
as
the
faculty
advisor.
The
program
manager
also
maintains
an
active
role.
The
Board
meets
bi‐weekly.
The
activities
of
the
Student
Association
to
date
are
largely
service
related
and
are
presented
in
Table
3.2d
(1).
The
majority
of
the
activities
of
the
association
since
the
submission
of
the
initial
draft
of
the
self‐study
document
involved
the
organizing
of
various
events
dedicated
to
raising
funds
for
the
students
participating
in
this
summer’s
internship
program
in
Sri
Lanka.
The
student
association
started
off
with
a
fundraiser
at
Daphne’s
Greek
Café
where
they
received
25%
of
all
sales
that
day.
They
also
had
fundraisers
at
other
local
restaurants:
Applebee’s,
Chili’s,
Acapulco
and
Chevy’s.
Their
four
biggest
fundraisers
included
two
Silent
Auctions,
one
on
the
CGU
campus
and
one
at
Aston
Martin,
a
bake
sale
during
finals
and
wine
tasting
at
Wine
Styles.
The
silent
auctions
brought
in
exquisite
jewelry,
original
paintings,
exclusive
vacation
to
locations
like
Hawaii,
adventure
packages
such
as
sky
diving
and
hot
air
balloon
trips
and
beautifully
created
wine
baskets.
Aston
Martin
also
provided
us
with
two
rental
cars
to
auction
off.
Wine
tasting
brought
out
students
and
professors
to
enjoy
an
evening
of
appetizers
and
wine
where
they
sold
raffle
tickets
to
win
various
wine
baskets.
The
Graduate
Student
Council
(GSC)
at
CGU
is
concerned
with
promoting
the
welfare
and
concerns
of
the
graduate
student
body
and
communicating
with
CGU
faculty
and
administration
on
behalf
of
the
graduate
students.
They
sponsor
social
and
cultural
events
throughout
the
entire
year
to
help
improve
the
quality
of
life
for
graduate
students.
The
GSC
consists
of
four
elected
officers,
and
representatives
and
delegates
who
are
elected,
appointed
or
volunteer
from
various
academic
programs
and
departments.
Representatives
and
Delegates
from
each
of
CGU's
schools
serve
on
the
GSC
to
present
ideas
and
concerns
of
the
students
from
their
respective
schools.
Through
this
collective
effort,
the
GSC
strives
to
accomplish
its
mission
to
better
understand
and
address
the
needs
of
the
diverse
graduate
student
population
at
CGU.
Each
School
has
two
representatives
on
the
GSC.
In
addition,
each
School
has
a
number
of
delegates
determined
in
proportion
to
the
total
student
population
of
the
School
as
stipulated
in
the
constitution.
CGU
School
Representatives
have
the
authority
to
vote
on
all
council
issues,
including
elections,
constitutional
amendments
and
proposals.
CGU
School
Delegates
have
the
authority
to
vote
on
council
issues
relating
to
student
body
considerations
and
organizational
funding
opportunities,
excluding
elections,
constitutional
amendments
and
proposals.
All
members
of
the
GSC
Page
64
must
be
currently
enrolled
in
a
degree
program
in
the
School
they
represent.
The
GSC
is
governed
by
a
constitution.
The
development
of
bylaws
is
currently
underway.
Evaluation
of
Program
Functioning
There
are
many
opportunities
for
students
to
evaluate
program
functioning:
(1)
membership
on
MPH
program
committees;
(2)
program
surveys;
(3)
focus
groups;
(4)
course
evaluations
and
(5)
advisement
meetings.
Program
Committees
Members
of
the
Student
Association
are
invited
to
participate
in
meetings
of
the
Community
Advisory,
Steering,
Curriculum,
Admissions
&
Recruitment
and
Accreditation/Self‐Study
committees.
At
least
one
student
representative
from
the
student
body
is
present
at
all
MPH
meetings
and
serves
as
a
liaison
between
the
student
body
and
the
committee.
During
the
meetings,
the
student
representative
is
asked
to
comment
about
current
student
needs
(i.e.
both
academic
needs
and
non‐academic
needs
such
as
facilities
and
computer
set‐ups)
and
provide
feedback
to
the
student
body.
Board
members
of
the
SCGH‐
SA
are
encouraged
to
volunteer
for
a
two‐year
term.
Program
Surveys
Student
surveys,
particularly
the
exit
and
alumni
provide
important
information
concerning
student
satisfaction
with
program
curriculum,
attainment
of
competencies,
and
overall
operations.
This
data
is
used
by
the
program
director
to
identify
new
content
areas
and
methods
to
improve
student
services.
At
orientation,
new
students
complete
a
survey
assessing
their
satisfaction
with
the
admissions
process.
Student
Focus
Group
An
annual
focus
group
is
planned
by
program
staff
and
facilitated
by
an
outside
agency,
offering
a
qualitative
method
by
which
students
can
evaluate
program
operations
and
academic
offerings.
Course
Evaluations
The
results
of
course
evaluations,
completed
by
the
students
are
compiled
and
reviewed
by
the
MPH
program
director.
These
evaluations
can
impact
subsequent
teaching
assignments,
sequencing
of
course
offerings,
or
specific
teaching
strategies.
In
the
event
of
lower
than
average
scores,
MPH
teaching
faculty
are
counseled.
Course
content
or
evaluative
criteria
may
also
be
revised
in
the
light
of
student
comments.
The
Curriculum
Committee
reviews
all
course
evaluations.
Advisement
Meetings
Students
meet
with
the
program
director
each
semester
to
discuss
course
selection,
internship
options,
and
post‐graduation
plans.
At
these
meetings,
students
are
free
to
discuss
issues
of
concern.
Valuable
information
concerning
satisfaction
with
program
operations
is
gleaned
through
these
regular
one‐on‐
one
meetings.
1.5.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
standing
committees
of
the
MPH
program
have
been
a
tremendous
asset
to
the
program
by
guiding
program
decision‐making
and
generating
support
within
and
outside
the
School
and
Page
65





University.
Responsibilities
have
been
established
for
each
committee
and
current
MPH
students
are
recruited
to
serve
on
each
committee,
providing
a
formal
vehicle
for
student
feedback
to
the
program.
Policies,
procedures,
and
opportunities
for
faculty
recruitment,
retention,
and
promotion
are
well
established
at
the
University
and
School
levels.
MPH
faculty
are
active
both
internally
and
throughout
the
University
in
key
decision‐making
and
policy
planning
levels.
Students
have
their
own
formal
organizations
which
serve
as
liaisons
between
the
student
body
and
various
groups
within
the
University.
Students
are
present
at
each
MPH
committee
meetings,
new
student
orientations,
information
sessions
and
recruitment
events.
Student
representation
serves
to
provide
the
program
with
in‐
depth
information
and
first‐hand
experience
regarding
student
needs
and
issues.
A
multitude
of
vehicles
exist
whereby
students
can
provide
evaluations
of
program
functioning.
Challenges
 In
the
early
stages
of
the
program,
committee
deliberations
were
carried
out
by
the
faculty
as
a
whole
in
the
twice
monthly
faculty
meetings.
 The
composition
of
the
Community
Advisory
Committee
may
need
to
be
altered
to
include
more
members
of
the
local
public
health
community.
 Faculty
membership
on
University
committee
was
low
in
the
2009‐2010,
but
has
increased
significantly
in
the
2010‐2011
academic
year,
giving
SCGH
a
greater
voice
in
University
operations.
 The
small
number
of
faculty
at
SCGH
and
CGU
as
a
whole
result
in
a
heavy
committee
membership
burden
for
the
typical
faculty.
This
has
been
identified
as
a
major
problem
for
University
as
well
as
CGU
governance.
 Currently,
there
is
no
MPH
student
serving
on
the
University’s
Graduate
Student
Council.
The
student
association
plans
to
nominate
two
students
for
the
2011‐2012
academic
year
to
represent
the
needs
of
our
students.
Page
66
Criterion
1.6.
Resources
The
program
shall
have
resources
adequate
to
fulfill
its
stated
mission
and
goals,
and
its
instructional,
research
and
service
objectives.
1.6.a.
Description
of
the
budgetary
and
allocation
processes,
sufficient
to
understand
all
sources
of
funds
that
support
the
teaching,
research
and
services
activities
of
the
program.
This
should
include
discussion
about
legislative
appropriations,
formulas
for
funds
distribution,
tuition
generation
and
retention
gifts,
grants
and
contracts,
indirect
cost
recovery,
taxes
and
levies
imposed
by
the
university
or
other
entity
within
the
university,
and
other
policies
that
impact
on
resources
available
to
the
program
Budget
Process
The
budget
process
at
the
University
begins
February
of
each
year.
Each
school
is
expected
to
provide
a
balanced
budget
(pursuant
to
previously
stated
goals)
along
with
income
projections
from
tuition,
gifts
and
indirect
costs,
to
the
Office
of
the
Senior
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Administration
for
the
following
fiscal
year.
School
Budget
Director
Arturo
Rodriguez
requests
FTE
estimates
from
Chris
Quinn,
SCGH
Recruiter,
Associate
Dean
and
Program
Director
Darleen
Peterson,
and
Program
Manager
Margaret
Hawkins
in
order
to
determine
tuition
income.
Rodriguez
also
meets
with
School
Dean
Andy
Johnson
and
Associate
Dean
Dennis
Trinidad
in
order
to
estimate
any
gift
income
as
well
as
indirect
cost
return
income.
Finally,
Rodriguez
requests
grant
coverage
estimates
from
faculty
investigators
and
their
project
managers.
With
the
information
at
hand,
a
School
budget
is
created
and
provided
to
the
Dean
and
Associate
Dean
for
their
input
and
eventual
approval.
Once
approved,
the
School
budget
is
included
in
the
University
macro
budget
and
presented
to
the
CGU
Board
of
Directors
Finance
Committee.
The
Committee
meets
4
times
a
year
(April
being
the
meeting
where
they
discuss
the
budget)
and
recommends
changes
and/or
moves
that
the
University
budget
be
approved
by
the
full
Board
of
Directors.
The
full
Board
also
meets
four
times
a
year
about
one
month
after
the
Finance
Committee
meeting.
The
final
CGU
budget
is
usually
approved
in
the
full
Board’s
May
meeting.
Once
the
budget
is
approved,
it
is
entered
into
the
University
accounting
system
by
July
1
of
every
year.
Budget
Director
Rodriguez
and
Associate
Dean
Trinidad
meet
on
a
weekly
basis
in
order
to
discuss
budget
matters.
At
the
close
of
every
month,
Rodriguez
provides
the
Dean
and
Associate
Dean
a
reconciled
statement
of
the
account
along
with
budget
projections
through
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year.
As
needed,
the
Dean
and
Associate
Dean
meet
with
the
Vice
President
of
Finance
and
Administration,
Dean
Calvo,
in
order
to
discuss
budget
matters.
Table
1.6.a.
illustrates
the
tuition
revenues
earned
by
University,
and
in
turn,
the
School
from
the
MPH
program.
All
tuition
earned
by
the
School
(minus
any
tuition
discount)
is
allocated
back
to
the
School
as
income.
At
this
point,
the
graduate
program
in
Public
Health
(hereinafter,
"the
program")
does
not
have
a
budget
of
its
own,
although
it
is
not
totally
out
of
the
question.
The
program
derives
its
necessary
funding
from
the
overall
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
budget.
It
is
a
future
goal
to
have
a
separate
budget
for
the
program
at
which
time
the
Program
Director
will
have
the
responsibility
of
meeting
with
the
Budget
Director
(Mr.
Rodriguez)
on
a
yearly
basis
and
ensure
that
1)
all
core
faculty
teaching
in
the
program
are
adequately
compensated
for
their
time,
2)
all
adjunct
faculty
are
properly
compensated
as
well,
3)
the
program
administration
has
the
appropriate
personnel
and
resources
to
run
Page
67
the
program
effectively,
and
4)
that
there
are
enough
funds
to
meet
any
student
needs
that
may
arise
during
the
course
of
the
fiscal
year.
The
process
of
ensuring
that
the
program
has
its
own
budget
is
at
least
two
years
away.
During
this
time,
all
expenses
for
the
program,
including
adjuncts,
faculty,
administration
and
other
expenses
are
budgeted
as
part
of
the
overall
School
of
community
and
Global
Health
Budget
and
is
under
the
constant
review
of
the
School
Dean,
Associate
Dean
for
Administration,
Associate
Dean
for
Academic
Affairs
and
the
Budget
Director.
Table
1.6.a.
Gross
and
Net
Tuition
Revenues
Tuition
Revenues
SCGH
Fiscal
Year
2009‐2010
Revenues
SCGH
Fiscal
Year
2010‐2011
Revenues
SCGH
Fiscal
Year
2011‐2012
Projected
Revenues
GROSS
TUITION
$394,680
$889,630
$1,376,260
Less
financial
aid
$71,753
$210,869
$344,065
$322,927
$678,761
$1,032,195
NET
TUITION
1.6.b.
Clearly
formulated
program
budget
statement,
showing
sources
of
all
available
funds
and
expenditures
by
major
categories,
since
the
last
accreditation
visit
or
for
the
last
3
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
categories
and
explain
the
basis
of
the
estimate.
See
CEPH
Data
Template
A
Program
Budget
Statement
Annual
revenue
budgets
are
based
on
the
following
criteria;
(1)
FTE
counts
as
estimated
by
both
the
MPH
Program
Director
as
well
as
the
CGU
Central
Student
Affairs
Office,
(2)
Indirect
cost
estimates
as
determined
by
the
SCGH
Dean,
Associate
Dean
and
School
Budget
Director,
(3)
Gift
income
estimates
per
the
CGU
office
of
advancement.
Expense
budgets
are
based
on
regular
School
administrative
operations,
as
well
as
number
of
courses
being
taught
in
that
particular
fiscal
year.
Both
budgets
are
combined
in
order
to
produce
one
viable
School
budget
that
covers
all
essential
operations.
Currently,
there
is
no
separate
account
that
is
specific
to
the
MPH
program.
As
the
School
grows,
there
may
be
a
separate
account
with
its
own
revenue
stream
(mainly
tuition)
that
will
be
specifically
dedicated
to
the
teaching
program
at
SCGH.
As
of
right
now,
all
School
functions
are
in
one
account
(211‐2112200)
and
that
account
supports
all
School
expenditures,
which
include
salary
(faculty
and
professional
staff),
student
wages
(graduate
student
TAs),
materials
and
services
(office
supplies,
faculty
and
student
recruiting
costs,
graduation
costs,
etc.),
travel,
telecommunications,
and
other
miscellaneous
costs.
School
budget
Director
Rodriguez
is
primarily
responsible
for
the
maintenance
of
the
overall
budget
and
as
the
School
grows,
he
will
continue
to
be
responsible
for
any
specific
accounts
that
may
be
created
to
differentiate
the
teaching
program
from
the
other
School
functions.
Documentation
that
supports
the
expenditures
by
university
fiscal
year
in
table
1.6.b
are
available
in
the
administrative
offices.
Since
the
School's
inception
in
2008,
it
was
understood
by
CGU
administration
and
its
Board
that
the
School
would
be
in
"startup
mode"
for
the
duration
of
5‐7
years
depending
on
factors
such
as
FTE
growth
and
grant
production.
Given
the
'startup
mode",
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
expenditures
to
be
Page
68
higher
than
revenues
during
this
time.
Budget
Director
Rodriguez,
in
conjunction
with
Dean
Johnson
and
Associate
Dean
Trinidad,
presented
a
7‐year
strategic
budget
plan
to
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustees
in
May
2010.
The
strategic
plan
contains
reasonable
projections
for
FTE
growth
as
well
as
grant
production
over
the
next
seven
years.
Along
with
careful
stewardship
of
the
funds,
the
SCGH
will
have
a
positive
operating
continuous
balance
by
June
2017
at
the
latest,
or
sooner
depending
on
FTE
growth,
etc.
This
plan
has
been
approved
by
the
CGU
Board
of
Trustees.
Table
1.6.b.
Sources
of
Funds
and
Expenditures
by
Major
Category,
Fiscal
Years
2009­2012
Source
of
Funds
Tuition
&
Fees
Indirect
Cost
Recovery
Gifts
Total
Expenditures
Faculty
Salaries
&
Benefits
Staff
Salaries
&
Benefits
Operations
Travel
Student
Support
Adjuncts
Total
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
2011‐2012*
322,927
716,717
4,600
1,044,244
678,761
828,590
2,600
1,509,951
529,329
596,817
607,351
34,926
71,753
50,896
1,891,072
453,028
732,696
645,196
34,119
210,869
81,913
2,157,821
938,385
1,490,520
2,000
2,430,905
558,006
761,959
608,587
29,470
312,795
132,500
2,403,317
*Projections
for
fiscal
year
2011‐2012
SCGH’s
strong
research
base
and
numerous
funded
projects
provide
extraordinary
opportunities
and
benefits
to
the
MPH
program.
These
include:
(1)
primary
means
of
salary
support
for
research
faculty
enabling
them
to
teach
in
the
MPH
program;
(2)
theoretical
and
applied
training
provided
by
leading
experts
in
many
facets
of
global
health,
public
health,
epidemiology,
health
behavior,
health
promotion,
and
cognitive
neuroscience;
and
(3)
various
opportunities
for
MPH
students.
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
accompanied
by
a
description
of
how
tuition
and
other
income
is
shared,
including
indirect
cost
returns
for
research
generated
by
public
health
program
faculty
Collaborative
Program
Not
applicable.
1.6.d.
A
concise
statement
or
chart
concerning
the
number
(headcount)
of
core
faculty
employed
by
the
program
as
of
fall
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Core
Faculty
Core
faculty
provide
instruction,
administrative
support
to
the
program,
student
mentorship/advisement,
conduct
and
supervision
of
research,
and
periodic
colloquia
in
the
MPH
program.
Table
1.6.d.(1)
below
lists
core
faculty
members
who
contribute
to
the
MPH
program.
The
program
has
maintained
a
total
of
10
core
faculty
for
the
first
two
academic
years
with
at
least
three
per
Page
69
concentration.
Effective
the
fall
2011
semester,
Paul
Torrens,
a
former
adjunct
faculty
member,
was
hired
as
a
full‐time
CGU
faculty
member.
Table
1.6.d.(1).
Headcount
of
Core
Faculty
by
Concentration
Specialization
Name
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
1
Evaluation Susan
Ames
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Rank
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
2011‐2012
Associate
X
X
X
Kim
Reynolds
Full
X
X
X
Alan
Stacy
Full
X
X
X
Assistant
Assistant
Associate
X
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Full
X
‐‐
‐‐
Bin
Xie
Associate
X
X
X
Andy
Johnson
Paula
Palmer
Full
Associate
X
X
X
X
X
X
Darleen
Peterson
Assistant
X
X
X
Full
‐‐
‐‐
X
10
10
11
Jerry
Grenard
2
Jason
Siegel Dennis
Trinidad
3
Jennifer
Unger Leadership
&
Management
4
Paul
Torrens Total
Faculty
Count
Classes
Taught
CGH
300
CGH
390
CGH
308
CGH
390
CGH
300
CGH
390
CGH
390
CGH
313
CGH
302
CGH
390
CGH
302
CGH
390
CGH
301
CGH
390
CGH
390
CGH
310
CGH
317
CGH
318
CGH
390
CGH
306
CGH
307
CGH
303
CGH
316
1
A
faculty
position
has
been
approved
starting
July
1,
2011,
and
we
are
actively
soliciting
applicants
at
the
Associate
level
or
above
for
this
concentration.
2
Primary
appointment
is
with
the
School
of
Behavioral
&
Organizational
Sciences.
3
Resigned
as
of
summer
2010.
4
Hired
as
of
fall
2011.
Adjunct
faculty
teach
courses
and
provide
limited
student
mentorship,
and
administrative
assistance
to
the
MPH
program.
In
addition
to
the
core
faculty,
the
program
has
maintained
a
total
of
3
adjunct
faculty
for
the
2009‐2010
academic
year,
6
for
the
2010‐2011
academic
year
and
4
for
fall
2011‐2012.
Page
70
Table
1.6.d.(2).
Headcount
of
Adjunct
Faculty
by
Concentration
Specialization
Name
Rank
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
2011‐2012
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Michael
Harnar
Patty
Kwan
Assistant
Assistant
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
X
Johanna
Hardin
Made’
Wenten
Lin
Xiao
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
Leadership
&
Management
Charles
Gruder
James
Howatt
Michael
Owens
Paul
Torrens
Professor
Professor
Associate
Professor
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
3
6
4
Total
Adjunct
Faculty
Count
Classes
Taught
CGH
309
CGH
311
CGH
309
CGH
301
CGH
312
CGH
301
CGH
312
CGH
305
CGH
304
CGH
304
CGH
303
CGH
316
1.6.e.
Table
showing
faculty,
students,
and
student/faculty
ratios,
organized
by
specialty
area,
for
each
of
the
last
three
years
(See
CEPH
Data
Template
B):
(1)
Headcount
of
primary
faculty
who
support
the
teaching
programs;
(2)
FTE
conversion
of
faculty
based
on
%
time
or
salary
support
devoted
to
the
instructional
programs;
(3)
Headcount
of
other
faculty
involved
in
the
teaching
programs
(adjunct,
part‐time,
secondary
appointments);
(4)
FTE
conversion
of
other
faculty
based
on
estimate
of
%
time
commitment;
(5)
Total
headcount
of
core
faculty
plus
other
faculty;
(6)
Total
FTE
of
core
and
other
faculty;
(7)
Headcount
of
students
in
department
or
program
area;
(8)
FTE
conversion
of
students,
based
on
9
or
more
credits
per
semester
as
full‐time;
and
(9)
Student
FTE
divided
by
regular
faculty
FTE
and
(10)
Student
FTE
divided
by
total
faculty
FTE,
including
other.
Faculty,
Students,
and
Student/Faculty
Ratios
Table
1.6.e.
Faculty,
Students
and
Student/Faculty
Ratios
by
Department
or
Specialty
Area
HC
Core
Faculty
MPH/HPEE
1.Ames
2.Reynolds
3.Stacy
MPH/ABE
1.Grenard
2.Trinidad
3.Xie
4.
Unger
MPH/LM
1.Johnson
2.Palmer
3.Peterson
FTEF
Core
HC
Other
Faculty
1
1
1
1.Kwan
1.Wenten
.50
1
1
1
.75
1
1
1.Torrens
2.Owens
FTEF
Total
Total
HC
FTE
SFR
by
Other
Faculty
FTEF
Students
Students
Core
HC
FTEF
2009‐2010
.50
4
3.50
7
7.25
2.42:1
.25
.25
.25
SFR
by
Total
FTEF
2.07:1
5
3.75
2
1.50
1:2.33
1:2.50
5
3.25
6
7.63
2.78:1
2.35:1
Page
71
Table
1.6.e.
Faculty,
Students
and
Student/Faculty
Ratios
by
Department
or
Specialty
Area
HC
Core
Faculty
FTEF
Core
HC
Other
Faculty
FTEF
Total
Total
HC
FTE
Other
Faculty
FTEF
Students
Students
HC
2010‐2011
.75
5
4
15
17.38
.25
SFR
by
Core
FTEF
SFR
by
Total
FTEF
5.79:1
4.34:1
MPH/HPEE
1.Ames
2.Reynolds
3.Stacy
MPH/ABE
1.Grenard
2.Trinidad
3.Xie
4.Siegel
MPH/LM
1.Johnson
2.Palmer
3.Peterson
1
1
1
1.Kwan
2.
Harnar
.50
1
1
.25
.75
1
1
1.
Hardin
.25
5
3
6
6.25
2.27:1
2.08:1
1.Gruder
2.Torrens
3.
Howatt
.25
.50
.25
6
3.75
11
12.75
4.63:1
3.40:1
MPH/HPEE
1.Ames
2.Reynolds
3.Stacy
MPH/ABE
1.Grenard
2.Siegel
3.Trinidad
4.Xie
MPH/LM
1.Johnson
2.Palmer
3.Peterson
4.Torrens
1
1
1
.50
.50
1
1
.75
1
1
1
1.
Kwan
1
4
16
17.13
5.71:1
4.28:1
1.
Xiao
.50
4
3.50
9
7.50
2.50:1
2.14:1
1.Gruder
2.Howatt
.25
.25
6
4.25
11
13.75
3.67:1
3.24:1
Fall
2011
4
Key:
HC
=
Head
Count
Core
=
full‐time
faculty
who
support
the
teaching
programs
FTE
=
Full‐time‐equivalent
FTEF
=
Full‐time‐equivalent
faculty
Other
=
adjunct,
part‐time
and
secondary
faculty
Total
=
Core
+
Other
SFR
=
Student/Faculty
Ratio
Faculty
FTE
was
calculated
according
to
the
following
allocations:
 Teaching:
25%
(4
unit
course,
including
directed
research
sections)
 Research:
50%
 Administration:
anywhere
from
10‐50%,
including
service
as
SCGH
leadership
(e.g.,
Program
Directors,
Dean,
Associate
Deans),
participation
on
MPH
program
committees,
evaluation
of
culminating
experiences,
and
accreditation
consulting.
 Academic
advising:
15%
Student
FTE
was
calculated
using
the
University
standard
(8
units
qualifies
as
full‐time
student
status).
1.6.f.
A
concise
statement
or
chart
concerning
the
availability
of
other
personnel
(administration
and
staff).
Other
Personnel
Table
1.6.f
below
lists
the
core
administrative
staff
for
the
MPH
program,
their
roles,
dedicated
percent
of
time,
and
primary
responsibilities.
The
program
director
is
a
core
CGU
faculty
member
and
is
not
Page
72
included
in
table
1.6.f.
Dr.
Peterson
is
responsible
for
design
and
assessment,
policy
development,
program
representation,
student
advisement
&
degree
progress,
teaching
internship
&
capstone
courses,
career
counseling,
accreditation,
oversight
of
field
training
requirement
and
student
recruitment,
continuing
education,
staffing,
and
serves
as
the
faculty
advisor
for
the
SCGH‐SA.
Table
1.6.f.
MPH
Program
Administration
Name
Role
Percent
Primary
Responsibilities
Time
80%
Committee
meetings,
admissions,
student
association,
maintains
student
records
,
program
inquiries,
day‐to‐day
office
administration,
continuing
education,
field
training
counseling,
course
scheduling
and
evaluation,
event
planning
(orientation,
graduation)
70%
Student
recruitment
Margaret
Hawkins,
MPH,
CHES
Program
Manager
Chris
Quinn,
MBA
Recruiter*
Patty
Kwan,
PhD,
MPH,
CHES
Consultant
50%
Accreditation,
program
assessment
Arturo
Rodriguez,
MPH,
PhD
(c)
Director
of
Contracts
&
Grants*
20%
Budget
development
in
conjunction
with
program
director,
expenditure
reviews,
monthly
financial
forecasts
and
variance
reports,
grants
management
220%
Total:
4
*Employees
of
CGU
Central
Administration
and
are
not
reflected
in
MPH
program
budget.
1.6.g.
A
concise
statement
or
chart
concerning
amount
of
space
available
to
the
program
by
purpose
(offices,
classrooms,
common
space
for
student
use,
etc.)
and
location.
Space
SCGH
maintains
administrative
offices
in
an
office
park
like
setting
in
the
neighboring
city
of
San
Dimas,
approximately
15
miles
from
the
CGU
campus.
Students
have
access
to
two
conference
rooms,
and
a
common
area/breakroom.
MPH
students
that
serve
as
research
assistants
or
student
workers
on
faculty
sponsored
research
project
may
share
an
office
or
have
workspace
in
a
cubicle.
The
MPH
program
maintains
an
office
on
the
CGU
campus,
located
in
the
basement
of
Harper
Hall.
Classes
are
held
in
various
buildings
across
campus.
The
location
of
classes
is
determined
every
semester
by
the
registrar’s
office.
The
MPH
program
maintains
a
total
of
10,497
square
footage
of
space.
Table
1.6.g.
Location
San
Dimas
Administrative
Offices
CGU
Campus
Space
Available
for
the
MPH
Program
Building/Room
Academic
Computing
Building
Harper
22a
Harper
E
B‐4
Varies
Purpose
Conference
Room
Common
Areas:
Kitchen
&
Break
room
Workstations
Faculty
Offices
Computer
Lab
MPH
Program
Office
MPH
Recruitment
Office
Instructional
Space
Total
Space
Square
Footage
1809
1130
1061
2785
3247
191
274
Varies
10,497
Page
73
1.6.h.
A
concise
statement
or
floor
plan
concerning
laboratory
space,
including
quantity
and
special
features
or
special
equipment.
Laboratory
Space
and
Special
Equipment
Not
applicable.
1.6.i.
A
concise
statement
concerning
the
amount,
location
and
types
of
computer
facilities
and
resources
for
students,
faculty,
administration
and
staff.
Computer
Facilities
E‐Mail
Services
All
faculty
and
staff
members
are
provided
an
e‐mail
account.
E‐mail
accounts
are
usually
created
at
the
same
time
as
the
network
account.
MS
Outlook
is
CGU’s
preferred
email
client.
Wireless
Access
CGU
offers
wireless
access
in
all
centrally
managed
classrooms.
Help
Desk
The
Help
Desk
is
typically
the
central
point
of
communication
for
the
Office
of
Information
Technology
with
the
exception
of
Audio
Visual
(AV)
requests.
The
Help
Desk
is
staffed
24/7
via
a
call
center
located
in
Orlando,
FL.
Computer
Labs
Students
may
work
on
CGU
computers
in
Academic
Computing
Building
Rooms
111
&
113,
Humanities
Resource
Center,
the
Quantitative
Analysis
Lab
and
in
the
Burkle
lab.
ACB
111
and
ACB
113
Hours:
8
a.m.
—
11
p.m.,
Mon.
—
Fri.
8
a.m.
—
7
p.m.,
Sat.
10
a.m.
—
10
p.m.
Sun.
Burkle
Lab:
Burkle
18
Hours:
8
a.m.
—
10
p.m.,
Mon.
—
Fri.
8
a.m.—
6
p.m.,
Sat.
Humanities
Lab:
Humanities
Resource
Center
Hours:
8
a.m.
—
5
p.m.
,
Mon.
—
Fri.
Quantitative
Analysis
Lab:
Harper
8
Hours:
8
a.m.
—
10
p.m.
,
Mon.
—
Fri.
8
a.m.—
6
p.m.,
Sat.
Each
PC
has
the
Microsoft
Office
Suite,
FrontPage,
Internet
access,
floppy
drive,
and
CD
RW
drives
and
a
variety
of
other
applications.
Students
may
also
bring
in
their
laptops
and
plug
into
the
CGU
network
from
these
and
other
labs.
Students
must
have
a
CGU
network
account
(i.e.
be
enrolled)
to
gain
access
to
any
machine
in
the
computer
labs.
Page
74
Web
File
Services
WFS
is
an
online
service
that
allows
users
to
store
and
share
files
with
specified
individuals
or
groups,
host
web
pages
and
even
stream
video.
Users
may
access
these
files
from
any
location
on
the
Internet,
students
need
not
be
physically
on
campus
to
use
WFS.
Academic
Computing
Services
Sakai
is
CGU’s
learning
management
system.
A
Sakai
site
is
automatically
created
for
each
course.
Instructors
can
upload
course
materials
as
early
as
six
weeks
before
the
beginning
of
each
semester.
Elluminate
Live!
is
available
to
all
faculty
and
staff.
This
software
connects
via
the
computer
with
microphone
and
web
camera
allowing
students
to
participate
in
class
from
distance.
With
Elluminate
Plan
enables
instructors
to
organize,
script,
and
package
content
and
activities
before
the
real‐time
session,
enabling
instructors
to
plan
content
and
interactions
ahead
of
time.
Then
during
the
Elluminate
Live!
session,
faculty
can
trigger
each
action,
like
starting
the
recording,
advancing
to
the
next
slide,
creating
breakout
rooms,
loading
and
presenting
a
quiz,
or
playing
a
multimedia
file,
with
a
single
click
of
the
next
button.
Elluminate
Publish!
allows
instructors
to
create
standalone
recordings
or
industry‐
standard
video
files
from
Elluminate
Live!
Session
recordings
can
be
stored
on
a
computer,
LMS,
website,
or
CD
ROM.
Students
may
playback
the
video
files
on
their
iPods
or
view
the
standalone
recordings
even
when
not
connected
to
the
Internet.
The
Office
of
Information
Technology
(OIT)
offers
a
complete
course
consultation,
allowing
faculty
to
take
their
existing
on‐campus
course
and
convert
it
to
the
online
environment.
Faculty
can
use
the
web
to
enhance
a
campus‐based
course,
to
develop
a
“hybrid”
course
that
combines
campus‐based
and
online
instruction.
OIT
staff
assists
faculty
to
analyze
their
needs,
create
and
manage
initial
content,
and
provide
them
with
an
understanding
of
the
best
approaches
to
online
instruction
(i.e.,
appropriate
pedagogy.
Open
labs
are
available
on
weekly
basis
for
help
in
course
development.
Faculty
and
staff
development
is
available
through
workshops
on
the
use
of
SAKAI
(the
course
management
system
used
at
CGU),
instructional
design
techniques
and
the
effective
use
of
technology
to
enhance
learning
online
and
in
the
classroom).
1.6.j.
A
concise
statement
library/information
resources
available
for
program
use,
including
description
of
library
capabilities
in
providing
digital
(electronic)
content,
access
mechanisms
and
guidance
in
using
them,
and
document
delivery
services.
Library/Information
Resources
Students
in
public
health
most
frequently
access
resources
found
in
the
Honnold/Mudd
library,
located
on
the
campus
of
the
Claremont
Colleges.
The
library's
general
collections
in
the
arts,
humanities,
sciences,
and
social
sciences
include
nearly
2
million
volumes.
The
library
also
has
extensive
holdings
of
journals,
magazines
and
newspapers,
providing
access
to
articles
in
over
70,000
periodicals.
Electronic
holdings
The
library's
large
collection
of
electronic
resources
provides
ready
access
to
a
wide
variety
of
bibliographic,
full‐text
and
multimedia
information.
From
the
library
web
site,
it
is
possible
to
search
Blais,
the
online
catalog,
or
any
of
hundreds
of
databases
including
services
such
as
Lexis‐Nexis
Academic
and
ISI
Web
of
Science.
Other
resources
include
electronic
books
and
journals,
such
as
the
ACM
Digital
Library
and
Congressional
Quarterly
Library.
The
Claremont
Colleges
Digital
Library
(CCDL)
provides
access
to
a
growing
number
of
digital
collections
from
The
Colleges
as
well
as
from
library
Special
Collections.
Digital
collections
such
as
Early
English
Books
Online
and
North
American
Women's
Page
75
Letters
&
Diaries
make
available
thousands
of
additional
primary
source
materials
Sherlock
is
a
"discovery"
tool
that
searches
across
many
of
the
library's
resources,
including
local
databases
such
as
Blais
and
CCDL,
as
well
as
most
of
the
library's
subscription
full‐text
content.
Most
electronic
resources
are
accessible
to
students,
faculty
and
staff
of
The
Claremont
Colleges
in
their
dorms,
labs,
offices
and
homes,
as
well
as
in
the
library.
A
list
of
public
health
related
holdings
is
available
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Access
mechanisms
and
support
The
library
offers
Interlibrary
Loan
service
and
maintains
partnerships
which
provide
access
to
books,
articles,
and
other
materials
not
held
in
our
collections.
These
partnerships
include
LINK+
and
the
Center
for
Research
Libraries
in
Chicago.
Library
research
instruction
and
workshops
for
classes
and
other
groups,
as
well
as
individual
appointments
for
instruction
and
research
assistance,
may
be
scheduled
in
the
library
or
on
campus.
Most
library
research
classes
and
workshops
are
held
in
the
Keck
Learning
Room,
Honnold/Mudd's
smart,
hands‐on
teaching
facility.
Honnold‐Mudd
Library
has
four
group
study
rooms
for
use
by
students
and
study
carrels
for
individual
study.
Document
delivery
Interlibrary
Loan
(ILL)
allows
students
to
request
articles
that
are
not
available
in
the
Libraries
either
as
online
full‐text
or
in
paper.
They
may
also
use
ILL
to
request
a
book
if
it
is
not
owned
by
any
LINK+
libraries.
LINK+
allows
students
to
request
a
book
from
another
library
when
the
Libraries
do
not
own
the
book
and
also
when
our
copy
is
checked
out.
Photocopy
Service
including
scanning
and
delivery
to
desktop
is
available.
1.6.k.
A
concise
statement
describing
community
resources
available
for
instruction,
research
and
service,
indicating
those
where
formal
agreements
exist.
Community
Resources
Instruction
As
part
of
the
course
requirements
for
Theoretical
Foundations
of
Health
Promotion
&
Education
(CGH
300)
students
are
required
to
visit
a
health
promotion
program
in
Southern
California
and
present
their
findings
to
their
classmates.
This
activity
is
designed
to:
(1)
build
awareness
of
the
public
health
promotion
infrastructure
in
Southern
California
(either
Inland
Empire
or
Los
Angeles
area)
and
(2)
illustrate
the
ways
in
which
theory
is
translated
into
practice.
It
can
also
help
establish
networks
for
possible
volunteer
work,
internships
and
employment.
Below
is
a
list
of
community
agencies
visited
by
MPH
students.
 City
of
Hope
(CARE:
Childhood
Cancer
Survivorship)
 County
of
San
Bernardino
Department
of
Public
Health
 Community
Health
Systems,
Inc.
 East
Valley
Community
Health
Center,
Inc.
 Health
Education
Outreach
(CUC
Resource
Center)
 Homeboy
Industries
 Livable
Community
Health
Partnership
 Network
for
a
Healthy
California
 Planned
Parenthood
of
San
Bernardino
 Riverside
County
Department
of
Mental
Health
(Early
Childhood
Initiative,
Preschool
0‐5)
 Tranny
Rockstar
Project/Children's
Hospital
Los
Angeles
Page
76
 Village
Network
Africa
(VINA)
Five
MPH
and
two
PhD
students
participated
in
a
special
summer
workshop
made
available
in
2011.
This
opportunity
was
made
possible
through
the
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
(PRGHF),
a
grant
from
the
NIH
Fogarty
International
Center.
Dr.
Paula
Palmer
serves
as
the
Principal
Investigator.
This
summer’s
program
is
a
joint
venture
between
SCGH
and
the
University
of
Colombo,
addressing
issues
pertaining
to
global
health
issues
in
Sri
Lanka
.
Table
1.6.k.(1)
illustrates
the
participating
faculty
who
donated
their
time:
Table
1.6.k.(1).
Participation
Faculty
in
Summer
Global
Health
Workshop
Speaker
Saroj
Jayasinghe
Title
Consultant
Physician
and
Senior
Lecturer
Indika
Karunathilake
Director,
Medical
Education
Development
&
Research
Centre
Faculty
of
Medicine
Isurujith
Liyanage
Gominda
Ponnamperuma
Upeksha
Samarakoon
L.
D.
J.
Upul
Senarath
Pandula
Siribaddana
Kremlin
Wickramasinghe
Thambithurai
Sritharan
Lecturer
in
Medical
Education
Medical
Intern
Senior
Lecturer/
Consultant
Community
Physician
Lecturer
in
Medical
Education
Researcher,
British
Heart
Foundation
Health
Promotion
Research
Group
Senior
Lecturer
Affiliation
Department
of
Clinical
Medicine,
University
of
Colombo
University
of
Colombo
University
of
Colombo
University
of
Colombo
University
of
Colombo
University
of
Colombo
Postgraduate
Institute
of
Medicine,
Colombo
Department
of
Public
Health,
University
of
Oxford
Research
Expertise
Social
determinants
of
health,
NCDs,
neuroscience,
disaster
management
and
ethics
Technology
and
education;
overseeing
development
of
the
logistics
of
the
summer
program
Non‐communicable
diseases
(NCDs)
and
tobacco
control
Technology,
NCDs,
and
training
Medical
training
maternal
and
child
health
and
community
medicine
(public
health)
Technology
and
training
NCDs
and
social
determinants
of
health
Department
of
Mathematics
and
biostatistics
Mathematics
Eastern
University,
Sri
Lanka
Research
Many
SCGH
faculty
engage
in
community‐based
research
activities
as
evidenced
in
table
1.6.k.(2).
Core
faculty
members
maintain
formal
research
agreements
with
the
research
partners
identified
below.
These
agencies
provide
community‐based
research
opportunities
for
MPH
students.
Page
77
Table
1.6.k.(2).
Community
Resources
Available
for
Research
Community
Based
Research
Project
AAPEAL
Research
and
Data
Subcommittee
on
tobacco
research
for
Asian‐Pacific
Islanders
SCGH
Faculty
Investigators
Paula
Palmer
China
Seven
Cities
Study
Andy
Johnson,
Paula
Palmer,
Bin
Xie
Determinants
of
Cigarette
Smoking
and
Smokeless
Tobacco
Use
Among
Young
Adult
South
Asians
Dual
Processes
in
HIV
Risk
Behavior
in
Drug
Abusers
Enhancing
Homeless
Youths'
Engagement
and
Retention
in
Vocational
Training
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
Andy
Johnson,
Paula
Palmer,
Bin
Xie
Alan
Stacy,
Susan
Ames,
Jerry
Grenard
Bin
Xie
Andy
Johnson,
Paula
Palmer,
Bin
Xie
Participating
Agencies
Guam
Communications
Network
Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership
Samoan
National
Nurses
Association
Tongan
Community
Service
Center
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities
China
CDCs
(Wuhan,
Chengdu,
Hangzhou,
Qingdao,
Harbin,
Shenyang)
Health
Bureaus
Health
Education
Institutes
Chinese
Ministry
for
Health
Peking
University
SAATH*
California
Diversion
Intervention
Foundation
University
of
Southern
California
My
Friend’s
Place
Guam
Communications
Network
Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership
Samoan
National
Nurses
Association
Tongan
Community
Service
Center
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities
*SAATH,
a
Los
Angeles‐based
non‐profit
organization
that
uses
research
and
outreach
to
assist
South
Asians.
Service
All
MPH
students
are
required
to
complete
a
400‐hour
internship
in
a
public
health
agency.
Table
1.6.k.(3)
illustrates
those
agencies
for
which
the
MPH
program
has
established
formal
agreements
for
student
placements
as
other
service
activities.
These
agencies
serve
diverse
populations.
Table
1.6.k.(3).
Community
Resources
Available
for
Service
Agency
AIDS
Project
Los
Angeles
Bonita
Unified
School
District
Bureau
of
Health
Promotion,
Department
of
Health
Center
for
Community
Action
&
Environmental
Justice
Claremont
University
Consortium,
Student
Health
&
Counseling
Services,
Health
Education
Outreach
Clinicas
de
Salud
del
Pueblo
Inc.
City
of
Hope,
Population
Sciences
Council
of
Community
Clinics
Foothill
AIDS
Project
Molina
HealthCare
Orange
County
API
Community
Alliance
Parents
Anonymous
Inc.
Planned
Parenthood
Page
78
Location
Los
Angeles,
CA
La
Verne,
CA
Shin‐Jung
City,
Taipei,
Taiwan
Riverside,
CA
Claremont,
CA
El
Centro,
CA
Duarte,
CA
San
Diego,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Long
Beach,
CA
Orange,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Orange
&
San
Bernardino,
CA
Table
1.6.k.(3).
Community
Resources
Available
for
Service
Agency
Prototypes,
Women’s
Center
Reach
Out
Riverside,
San
Bernardino
County
Indian
Health
Inc.
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities
University
of
California,
Riverside,
Human
Resources
Wellness
Program
Vista
Community
Clinic
1.6.l.
Location
Pomona,
CA
Upland,
CA
Beaumont,
CA
San
Diego,
CA
Riverside,
CA
Vista,
CA
A
concise
statement
of
the
amount
and
source
of
“in‐kind”
academic
contributions
available
for
instruction,
research
and
service,
indicating
where
formal
agreements
exist.
In‐Kind
Academic
Contributions
Instruction
Through
a
collaboration
initiated
by
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health,
Cisco
Systems,
Inc.
has
agreed
to
loan
a
TelePresence
Recording
Server
(CTRS)
package
valued
at
$35,000
that
will
allow
personnel
to:
 Create
high
definition
video
and
audio
recordings
 Store
recordings
on
the
CTRS
 Share
recordings
with
others
for
viewing
 Make
recordings
public
so
that
anyone
with
access
to
the
CTRS
can
view
them
 Play
back
recordings
on
a
TelePresence
endpoint
system
 Play
back
recordings
with
a
standard
browser‐based
player
 Download
recordings
for
editing
and
distribution
to
the
public
The
formal
agreement
for
this
equipment
is
expected
was
finalized
in
July
of
2011.
Combined
with
expert
consultations
provided
by
Cisco
personnel,
these
tools
will
develop
the
school’s
ability
to
deliver
high‐quality
distance
learning
educational
content
and
will
serve
as
a
springboard
for
the
incorporation
of
advanced
synchronous
learning
tools
like
Cisco
TelePresence.
SCGH
engages
members
of
the
public
health
community
to
provide
guest
lectures
in
SCGH
courses,
the
monthly
Global
Health
Seminar
Series,
and
the
annual
Global
Health
Symposium.
Table
1.6.l.(1)
illustrates
guest
lectures
given
in
MPH
courses.
Table
1.6.l.(1).
In­kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
­­
Guest
Speakers
for
MPH
Courses
Course
CGH
304:
Environmental
&
Occupational
Health
Guest
Speaker
Made’
Wenten,
PhD,
MPH
Title
&
Affiliation
Epidemiologist
Amilyn
Pharmaceuticals
Penny
Newman,
MS
Founder
Center
for
Community
Action
&
Environmental
Justice
Doctoral
Candidate
CGU
Leslie
Fierro,
MPH
Page
79
Topic
“Exposure
to
Environmental
Tobacco
Smoke
&
Respiratory
Illness”
“Environmental
Justice
&
The
Stringfellow
Acid
Pits”
“Environmental
Public
Health
Surveillance”
Table
1.6.l.(1).
In­kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
­­
Guest
Speakers
for
MPH
Courses
Course
CGH
305:
Seminar
in
Grant
Writing
CGH
311:
Curriculum
&
Materials
Development
Guest
Speaker
Barbara
A.
Schillo,
PhD
Title
&
Affiliation
Vice
President
ClearWay
Minnesota
Gaylene
Gunning
CGH
318:
Management
of
Global
Public
Health
Programs
Larry
Collins
Health
Educator
USC
Institute
for
Prevention
Research
Chief
Los
Angeles
Fire
Department
Director
of
Operations
World
Vision
International
Board
Member
Wired
International
Keith
Buck
Suellen
Crano
Topic
“Research
Funding
for
Projects
to
Reduce
the
Harm
Tobacco
Causes
the
People
of
Minnesota”
“Project
Towards
No
Drugs”
“Disaster
Response
and
Recovery”
“NGOs
in
Developing
Nations”
“Technology
in
Developing
Nations”
Table
1.6.l.(2).
lists
individuals
who
have
given
talks
in
the
Global
Health
events.
Both
are
attended
by
the
Claremont
College
community
and
those
affiliated
with
outside
agencies.
Table
1.6.l.(2).
In­kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
­­
Guest
Speakers
for
SCGH
Global
Health
Seminar
Series
and
Annual
Symposium
Date
4/9/2009
Guest
Speaker
Gaithri
Fernando,
Ph.D
Greg
Dewey,
Ph.D.
Janet
Clinton,
Ph.D
Deborah
Lieberman
Deborah
Burke,
Ph.D.
Lin
Xiao,
Ph.D
5/7/2010
Z.
Sweedyk,
Ph.D
University
of
Southern
California
Harvey
Mudd
College
Ann
Stromberg,
Ph.D
Pitzer
College
Liming
Lee,
MD
Chinese
Academy
of
Medical
Science/Peking
Union
Medical
College
Cisco
Systems
Inc
Molina
Healthcare
Willam
Ruh
Mario
Molina,
MD
Affiliation
Global
Health
Symposium
Visiting
Scholar,
Pomona
College
Provost,
Keck
Graduate
Institute
University
of
Auckland,
Visiting
Scholar
at
CGU
Post
baccalaureate
Urban
Fellow,
Center
for
California
Cultural
and
Social
Issues,
Pitzer
College
Pomona
College
Page
80
Seminar
Title
“Impact
of
Disaster‐Related
and
Daily
Stressors
on
Youth
in
Sri
Lanka”
“Challenges
of
Drug
Development
for
Stratified
Medicine”
“Program
Evaluation
and
Public
Health
Initiatives
for
Pacific
Peoples”
“Social
Justice
and
Community
Work
in
the
Inland
Empire”
“The
Aging
Mind:
Stability
and
Change
in
Memory
and
Language”
“Affective
Decision‐making
Predictive
of
Adolescent
Addictive
Behavior”
“Educational
Games”
“Global
Health/Study
Abroad
Training
for
Undergraduates”
“Chronic
Disease
in
China”
“Innovative
Technologies
for
Health”
“Transformative
Telemedicine
Pilot
for
Underserved
and
Underinsured
Communities”
Table
1.6.l.(2).
In­kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
­­
Guest
Speakers
for
SCGH
Global
Health
Seminar
Series
and
Annual
Symposium
Date
Guest
Speaker
Tom
Horan,
PhD
1/20/2009
Greg
Gray,
MD,
MPH
2/18/2009
Michael
Reibel,
PhD
3/2/2009
Heather
Berlin,
PhD,
MPH
3/4/2009
Kiki
C.
Nocella,
PhD,
MHA
California
State
Polytechnic
University,
Pomona
Mount
Sinai
School
of
Medicine
Believe
Health,
LLC
5/12/2009
Michael
Goran,
PhD
USC
School
of
Medicine
6/9/2009
Annemie
Ploeger,
PhD
Amsterdam
University
8/26/2009
Rich
Rende,
PhD
Brown
Medical
School
12/14/2009
Norbert
Semmer,
PhD
2/8/2010
Jay
Maddock,
PhD
6/7/2010
Sandra
Jones,
PhD
Affiliation
Kay
Center
for
E‐Health
Research
Global
Health
Seminar
Series
University
of
Iowa
University
of
Bern,
Switzerland
University
of
Hawaii
at
Manoa
University
of
Wollongong
in
Australia
11/18/2010
Paul
Torrens,
MD,
MPH
UCLA
School
of
Public
Health
12/6/2010
American
University
of
Complementary
Medicine
Parla
Jayagopal,
BAMS,
MD
12/13/2010
Karen
Belkic,
PhD
1/24/2011
Mashi
Rahmani,
CEO
1/31/2011
Shu‐Hong
Zhu,
PhD
3/23/2011
Hans
Jeppesen,
MD,
MBA
Seminar
Title
“E‐Health”
Karolinska
Institute,
Stockholm
CEO
of
MMC,
Inc.,
a
pioneer
in
Human
Resources
servicing
healthcare
University
of
California,
San
Diego,
School
of
Medicine
University
of
Minnesota,
School
of
Medicine
Page
81
“Zoonotic
(animal
borne)
Diseases:
Their
Importance
and
Neglect”
"Clusters
and
Context
in
the
Classification
of
Neighborhoods"
"The
Prefrontal
Cortex,
Impulse
Control,
and
Emotion
Regulation"
"Community
Based
Participatory
Research
and
the
Adoption
of
Health
Information
Technology:
A
Case
Study"
"Diet
and
Exercise
Interventions
for
Obesity
and
Metabolic
Health
in
Minority
Youth
"
"The
Evolutionary
Background
of
Psychological
Disorders:
A
View
from
Evolutionary
Developmental
Biology"
“Expanding
Family‐Based
Interventions
Aimed
at
Adolescent
Drinkers:
A
Behavioral
Genetic
Perspective”
“Coordination
and
Communications
in
Medical
Emergency
Teams:
Conceptual
Basis
and
Results
of
an
Interdisciplinary
Research
Program”
“Using
Momentary
Ecological
Analysis
to
Measure
Health
Behaviors”
"Alcopops
and
Alcopolicies:
Research
into
Commercial
Influences
on
Young
People's
Drinking"
“Health
Care
Reform:
What
It
Is
and
What
It
Isn’t”
“Introduction
to
Ayurvedic
Concepts
of
Prevention
and
Health
Promotion:
It’s
Scientific
Basis”
“The
Cultural
Context
of
Screening
for
Early
Detection
of
Breast
Cancer”
“How
to
Remedy
the
Ills
of
the
World
of
Management
and
the
Global
Economy”
“A
Population
for
Smoking
Cessation
and
Its
Implications
for
Global
Tobacco
Control”
“U.S.
costs
and
quality
measures
relative
to
other
wealthy
Table
1.6.l.(2).
In­kind
Academic
Contributions
for
Instruction
­­
Guest
Speakers
for
SCGH
Global
Health
Seminar
Series
and
Annual
Symposium
Date
Guest
Speaker
3/28/2011
Michael
Cousineau,
DrPH
4/27/2011
Krishna
Poudel,
PhD
Affiliation
USC
School
of
Medicine
University
of
Tokyo
Seminar
Title
democracies”
“Uninsured
health
services
in
Los
Angeles
County”
“HIV
and
migrants
in
western
Nepal”
Research
In
combination
with
a
series
of
online
SharePoint
and
Moodle‐based
collaboration
environments
established
by
the
Technology
Advancement
Core
at
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health,
this
equipment
will
also
be
used
to
coordinate
the
logistics
and
training
efforts
of
several
multi‐site
research
projects
led
by
Dr.
Paula
Palmer
including:
 The
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
(R25‐TW007751)
 Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
(U54‐CA153458)
 Tobacco
Use
Determinants
Among
South
Asian
Young
Adults
(19BT‐0041)
This
process
will
include
the
delivery
of
video‐based
modules
to
Pacific
Islander
and
South
Asian
communities
at
various
domestic
and
international
locations.
See
Technology
Advancement
Core
(http://www.technologyadvancementcore.com/health/)
for
more
information.
1.6.m.
Identification
of
outcome
measures
by
which
the
program
may
judge
the
adequacy
of
its
resources,
along
with
data
regarding
the
programs
performance
against
those
measures
over
the
last
three
years.
As
a
minimum,
the
program
must
provide
data
on
institutional
expenditures
per
full‐time‐equivalent
student,
research
dollars
per
full‐time‐equivalent
faculty
and
extramural
funding
(service
or
training)
as
a
percent
of
the
total
budget.
Outcome
Measures
Table
1.6.m.
below
furnishes
several
outcome
measures
by
which
the
MPH
program
may
assess
the
adequacy
of
its
resources.
Table
1.6.m.
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Resources
Outcome
Measures
1.
Student/Faculty
Ratio
2.
Annual
Research
Dollars/FTE
faculty
3.
Percent
of
students
supported
financially
4.Agencies
available
for
student
placement
Target
Level
8:1
$300,000:1
100%
5
each
year
2009‐2010
1:1
679,429:1
100%
5
1.6.n.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
The
criterion
is
met.
Page
82
Performance
2010‐2011
2:1
588,707:1
100%
12
2011
to
date
3:1
550,321:1
100%
12
Strengths
 All
tuition,
minus
the
discount,
is
fed
into
the
program
budget.
No
additional
taxes
are
taken
out,
allowing
the
program
to
utilize
these
funds
for
program
operations.
 Salary
for
the
recruiter
and
grants
manager
is
supported
by
the
University
not
the
program.
 The
number
of
internship
sites
available
for
student
placement
continues
to
rise.
 The
program
is
fortunate
to
have
substantial
“in‐kind”
services,
benefiting
instruction
and
research
opportunities.
 SCGH’s
strong
research
base
and
numerous
funded
projects
provide
extraordinary
opportunities
and
benefits
to
the
MPH
program.
 Students
are
free
to
take
courses
at
any
of
the
seven
Claremont
Colleges/Universities
 Computer
and
library
facilities
meet
the
needs
of
the
students.
 Faculty
to
student
ratio
is
very
low,
allowing
for
a
great
deal
of
personalized
attention.
 Faculty
are
extremely
productive
and
secure
an
impressive
amount
of
funding.
 All
students
receive
at
least
a
20%
tuition
discount.
Challenges
 The
program
could
benefit
significantly
from
additional
full‐time
staff.
Currently,
there
is
only
one
80%
program
administrator
and
a
70%
recruiter.
The
consultant
was
hired
only
for
the
duration
of
the
development
of
the
self‐study
document
and
the
conduct
of
the
site
visit.
 The
number
of
faculty
will
need
to
grow
and
a
search
is
currently
under
way
for
one
tenure
track
faculty
 SCGH
is
currently
looking
into
securing
a
permanent
space
closer
to
the
CGU
and
7C
campuses.
A
well
situated
site
has
been
tentatively
identified.
Page
83
Blank
page
Page
84
CRITERION
2.0
INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS
Page
85
Blank
page
Page
86
Criterion
2.1.
Master
of
Public
Health
Degree
The
program
shall
offer
instructional
programs
reflecting
its
stated
mission
and
goals
leading
to
the
Master
of
Public
Health
(MPH)
or
equivalent
professional
masters
degree.
The
program
may
offer
a
generalist
MPH
degree
or
an
MPH
with
areas
of
specialization.
The
program,
depending
upon
how
it
defines
the
unit
of
accreditation,
may
offer
other
degrees,
professional
and
academic,
if
consistent
with
its
mission
and
resources.
2.1.a.
Instructional
matrix
(Data
Template
C)
presenting
all
of
the
program’s
degree
programs
and
areas
of
specialization,
including
undergraduate,
masters
and
doctoral
degrees,
as
appropriate.
If
multiple
areas
of
specialization
are
available,
these
should
be
included.
The
matrix
should
distinguish
between
professional
and
academic
degrees
and
identify
any
programs
that
are
offered
in
distance
learning
or
other
formats.
Non‐degree
programs,
such
as
certificates
or
continuing
education,
should
not
be
included
in
the
matrix.
Instructional
Matrix
The
MPH
program
offers
one
single
professional
degree:
the
Master
of
Public
Health
as
illustrated
in
Table
2.1.a.
The
program
provides
an
opportunity
for
students
to
specialize
in
one
of
three
concentrations:
(1)
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation;
(2)
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology;
and
(3)
Leadership
&
Management.
All
concentrations
reflect
fundamentals
of
global
health
along
with
concentration
specific
competencies
students
are
expected
to
master.
SCGH
has
established
a
number
of
dual
degree
programs
with
various
schools
within
CGU
and
the
Colleges
within
the
Claremont
Consortium.
The
MBA/MPH
program
is
jointly
administered
with
the
Drucker
School
of
Management
(Drucker);
the
MA
(Applied
Psychology)/MPH
is
jointly
administered
with
the
School
of
Behavioral
&
Organizational
Sciences
(SBOS).
The
Bachelors/MPH
program
offers
qualified
students
from
the
undergraduate
Claremont
Colleges
the
opportunity
to
work
simultaneously
toward
their
undergraduate
degree
in
any
major
along
with
the
MPH
degree.
SCGH
has
a
research
PhD
program
in
Health
Promotion
Science,
but
this
is
not
part
of
the
offerings
for
which
we
seek
accreditation.
Table
2.1.a.
Instructional
Matrix
–
Degree/Specialization
Bachelors
Degrees
Masters
Degrees
MPH
–
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
MPH
–
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
MPH
–
Leadership
&
Management
Doctoral
Degrees
Joint
Degrees
MPH/MBA
MPH/MA
(Applied
Psychology)
Bachelor’s/MPH
Academic
Professional
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
Page
87
N/A
2.1.b.
The
bulletin
or
other
official
publication,
which
describes
all
curricula
offered
by
the
program.
If
the
university
does
not
publish
a
bulletin
or
other
official
publication,
the
program
must
provide
for
each
degree
and
area
of
specialization
identified
in
the
instructional
matrix
a
printed
description
of
the
curriculum,
including
a
list
of
required
courses
and
their
course
descriptions.
University
Bulletin
A
copy
of
the
university’s
Bulletin
which
illustrates
the
MPH
program
curriculum
is
available
in
the
on‐
site
resource
file.
The
requirements
for
the
degree,
including
the
available
concentrations
are
identified
below.
Course
descriptions
are
available
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Table
2.1.b.
MPH
Curriculum
by
Concentration
Core
Requirements
for
the
MPH
Degree
Course
Number
Course
Title
CGH
300
Theoretical
Foundations
in
Health
Promotion
&
Education
CGH
301
Biostatistics
CGH
302
Epidemiology
CGH
303
Health
Services
in
the
US
and
Abroad
CGH
304
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health
CGH
305
Seminar
in
Grant
Writing
&
Proposal
Development
CGH
306
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health
CGH
307
Public
Health
Capstone
Concentration
1:
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
Course
Number
Course
Title
CGH
308
Foundations
of
Program
Planning
CGH
309
Monitoring
&
Evaluation
of
Global
Public
Health
Programs
CGH
310
Global
Health:
An
Interdisciplinary
Approach
CGH
311
Curriculum
&
Materials
Development
One
additional
graduate
level
course
Concentration
2:
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Course
Number
Course
Title
CGH
312
Data
Analysis
(SAS)
CGH
313
Research
Methods
CGH
314
Emerging
Chronic
&
Infectious
Diseases
Worldwide
CGH
315
Introduction
to
Clinical
Trials
One
additional
graduate
level
course
Concentration
3:
Leadership
&
Management
Course
Number
Course
Title
CGH
316
Public
Health
Leadership
for
the
21st
Century
CGH
317
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Cultural
Diversity
CGH
318
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
CGH
319
Current
Issues
in
Global
Public
Health
One
additional
graduate
level
course
Page
88
28
units
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
16
units
4
4
4
4
4
units
16
units
4
4
4
4
4
units
16
units
4
4
4
4
4
2.1.c.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
program
curriculum
offers
a
wide
range
of
courses
and
features
training
in
the
fundamental
principles
of
global
health
along
with
traditional
areas
of
specialty
in
public
health.
 The
addition
of
an
elective
requirement
allows
students
to
tailor
their
course
of
study
to
meet
their
individual
needs.
Page
89
Blank
page
Page
90
Criterion
2.2.
Program
Length
An
MPH
degree
program
or
equivalent
professional
masters
degree
must
be
at
least
42
semester
credit
units
in
length.
2.2.a.
Definition
of
a
credit
with
regard
to
classroom/contact
hours.
Definition
of
Credit
Credit
hours
refer
to
the
units
or
credits
earned
by
a
student
for
the
successful
completion
of
a
course
at
CGU.
These
are
the
units
recorded
on
the
student's
official
transcript
and
the
same
units
that
are
counted
toward
degree
requirements
or
qualifications
for
certificates.
The
standard
for
credit
hours
is
set
by
federal
regulations
governing
eligibility
for
and
the
disbursement
of
financial
aid.
34
CFR
Section
668.2
refers
to
12
semester
hours
for
institutions
that
measure
progress
in
credit
hours
and
use
a
standard
semester
term.
Standards
are
essentially
the
same
for
graduate
and
undergraduate
education
since
the
two
are
differentiated
by
the
level
of
study
and
not
the
number
of
hours
devoted
to
study.
For
CGU
courses,
a
single
unit
or
credit
is
determined
by
10.5
hours
of
direct
instructor
contact
in
a
classroom
activity
per
unit.
When
creating
and
scheduling
courses,
programs
ensure
that
scheduled
class
meeting
times
meet
or
exceed
the
following
requirements
based
upon
the
10.5
hours
per
unit
rule.
A
standard
semester
at
CGU
is
16
weeks
in
the
fall
and
spring.
Table
2.2.a.
Summary
of
Credit
and
Contact
Hours
Units
Earned
by
the
Course
Hours
of
Class
Meetings
Minutes
of
Class
Meetings
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
10.5
21.0
31.5
42.0
630
1260
1890
2520
MPH
courses
are
4
units
with
the
exception
of
two
courses:
CGH
305:
Grant
Writing
and
Proposal
Development
and
CGH
307:
Public
Health
Capstone.
CGH
305
meets
every
other
week
and
CGH
307
is
conducted
in
an
independent
study
format.
2.2.b.
Information
about
the
minimum
degree
requirements
for
all
professional
degree
curricula
shown
in
the
instructional
matrix.
If
the
program
or
university
uses
a
unit
of
academic
credit
or
an
academic
term
different
than
the
standard
semester
or
quarter,
this
should
be
explained
and
an
equivalency
presented
in
a
table
or
narrative.
Minimum
Degree
Requirements
The
MPH
program
requirements
are
listed
in
section
2.1.b.
In
order
to
graduate,
students
must
complete
a
minimum
of
48
semester
units,
which
includes
a
4‐unit
internship
and
a
2‐unit
capstone
requirement.
From
the
time
of
a
student’s
first
enrollment
at
CGU,
they
are
permitted
five
years
to
complete
a
master’s
degree.
The
MPH
program
is
designed
to
be
completed
in
two
years
of
full‐time
study.
Both
full
and
part‐time
study
is
permitted.
Page
91
2.2.c.
Information
about
the
number
of
MPH
degrees
awarded
for
less
than
42
semester
credit
units,
or
equivalent,
over
each
of
the
last
three
years.
A
summary
of
the
reasons
should
be
included.
Awarding
of
Degrees
The
program
maintains
two
professional
dual
degree
programs:
MBA/MPH
and
MA
(Applied
Psychology)/MPH.
The
MPH
program
has
admitted
a
limited
number
of
CGU
undergraduate
students
to
pursue
the
MPH
degree
while
completing
a
bachelor’s
degree.
Accelerated
degree
students
must
fulfill
all
the
requirements
for
both
the
bachelor’s
degree
and
the
master’s
degree;
however,
a
maximum
of
16
units
of
the
course
units
for
the
master’s
degree
may
overlap
with
course
units
for
the
bachelor’s
degree.
In
one
instance,
the
number
of
MPH
units
has
been
reduced
(48
units
to
36
units)
due
to
double
counting
of
courses
in
the
MBA/MPH
program.
Table
2.2.c
illustrates
the
summary
of
substitutions
to
MPH
coursework
along
with
the
MPH
competencies
addressed
in
the
substituted
courses.
Any
substitutions/transfer
of
coursework
that
replace
MPH
requirements
is
logged
for
every
student
and
is
available
in
the
onsite
resource
file.
All
syllabi
for
such
courses
are
available
on‐site.
Table
2.2.c.
Summary
of
Substitutions
to
MPH
Requirements
MPH
Requirement
Course
#
Title
CGH
301
Biostatistics
CGH
317
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Cultural
Diversity
CGH
318
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
Replacement
Course
Course
#
Title
MGT
306
Quantitative
Methods
MGT
315
Ethical
Leadership
&
Management
MPH
Competency
Addressed
MPH
HPEE
ABE
LM
4,5,6,9
6,8,11,1
2,13
MGT
345
3,8,
10
Organizational
Behavior/Organizational
Theory
2,3,9,10
Key:
MPH:
MPH
core
courses
HPEE:
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
ABE:
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
LM:
Leadership
&
Management
2.2.d.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 At
48
units,
the
stand‐alone
MPH
program
exceeds
the
minimum
number
of
semester
units
required.
 Any
modifications
to
the
MPH
program
requirements
(i.e.,
course
substitutions
or
transfers)
are
recorded
and
justified
based
upon
alignment
with
MPH
competencies.
Page
92
Criterion
2.3.
Public
Health
Core
Knowledge
All
professional
degree
students
must
demonstrate
an
understanding
of
the
public
health
core
knowledge.
2.3.a.
Identification
of
the
means
by
which
the
program
assures
that
all
professional
degree
students
have
a
broad
understanding
of
the
areas
of
knowledge
basic
to
public
health.
If
this
means
is
common
across
the
program,
it
need
be
described
only
once.
If
it
varies
by
degree
or
specialty
area,
sufficient
information
must
be
provided
to
assess
compliance
by
each.
Assurance
of
Core
Knowledge
All
MPH
students
are
required
to
take
the
same
five
core
courses
in
addition
to
courses
of
their
selected
concentration.
The
core
MPH
courses
comprise
20
of
the
48
units
required
for
the
program.
Identification
of
the
means
by
which
the
program
ensures
that
all
students
have
fundamental
competence
in
the
areas
of
knowledge
basic
to
public
health
is
illustrated
in
table
2.3.a
below.
Table
2.3.a.
Required
Courses
Addressing
Public
Health
Core
Knowledge
Areas
for
the
MPH
Degree
Core
Knowledge
Areas
Biostatistics
Course
Course
Title
Number
CGH
301
Biostatistics
Epidemiology
CGH
302
Epidemiology
Environmental
Health
Sciences
CGH
304
Environmental
&
Occupational
Health
Course
Description
Units
Students
are
trained
in
the
most
commonly
used
statistical
methods
in
clinical
and
experimental
research.
Students
learn
to
select
the
most
appropriate
data
analytic
methods;
how
to
apply
these
methods
to
actual
data;
and
how
to
read
and
interpret
computer
output
from
commonly
used
statistical
packages.
In
addition,
the
students
learn
to
read,
critique
and
interpret
statistical
concepts
in
the
health
science
literature.
This
course
provides
an
overview
of
the
causes,
distribution,
and
control
of
disease
in
populations.
Students
are
provided
with
the
skills
and
knowledge
to
investigate
the
epidemiology
of
a
specific
disease
or
other
health‐related
phenomenon
and
to
critically
evaluate
population‐based
research
studies
designed
to
test
health‐related
hypotheses.
This
course
provides
a
broad
overview
of
the
field
of
environmental
and
occupational
health,
developing
a
public
health
approach
to
understanding
and
preventing
disease
and
disability.
Students
apply
the
principles
of
the
biological
impact
pathway
and
environmental
epidemiology
to
environmental
and
occupational
health
issues.
Students
analyze
the
exposure‐disease
continuums
and
disease
prevention.
Emphasis
is
placed
on
learning
and
using
concepts
related
to
the
sources
and
behavioral
determinants
of
exposure,
the
social
behavioral,
Physiological
and
genetic
basis
of
sensitivity,
and
dose‐response
relationships.
4
Page
93
4
4
Table
2.3.a.
Required
Courses
Addressing
Public
Health
Core
Knowledge
Areas
for
the
MPH
Degree
Core
Knowledge
Areas
Social
&
Behavioral
Sciences
Course
Course
Title
Number
CGH
300
Theoretical
Foundations
of
Health
Education
&
Promotion
Health
Services
Administration
CGH
303
Health
Services
in
the
U.S.
and
Abroad
Course
Description
Units
This
course
provides
an
opportunity
for
students
to
explore
the
theoretical
issues
and
current
methodologies
related
to
understanding
and
influencing
health
behavior
change
in
diverse
populations.
The
course
will
focus
on
the
social
and
behavioral
determinants
of
health
on
the
individual,
interpersonal,
community,
institutional
and
policy
levels.
The
course
features
guest
appearances
by
representatives
from
community‐based
organizations
who
relate
course
material
to
current
challenges
in
public
health
practice.
This
course
examines
the
health
care
delivery
system
to
understand
contemporary
issues
affecting
the
health
of
the
American
and
International
public
and
the
institutions
that
provide
health
services
and
protect
health.
The
course
includes
the
historical
development
of
various
health
care
systems,
determinants
of
health
and
health
care
utilization,
the
role
of
health
care
providers,
health
policy
and
politics,
health
care
financing,
public
health,
and
the
interactions
of
various
components
of
the
systems.
The
class
emphasizes
how
institutions
within
the
health
care
delivery
system
affect
public
health
including
planning,
organization,
administration,
evaluation
and
policy
analysis.
4
In
addition
to
acquiring
knowledge
basic
to
public
health,
all
students
are
required
to
take
a
grant
writing
seminar
(CGH
305),
Supervised
field
training
experience
(CGH
306),
and
a
public
health
capstone
course
(CGH
307)
for
a
total
of
8
additional
units.
MPH
faculty
use
a
multitude
of
educational
methods
to
ensure
that
students
master
the
MPH
core
competencies
emphasized
in
these
areas:
lecture,
class
discussion,
small‐group
discussion,
case
studies,
guest
speakers,
written
individual
and
group
projects,
analysis,
presentations,
final
exams,
research
papers,
and
community
field
work.
These
diverse
methods
of
assessment
allow
MPH
program
faculty
to
train
students
in
the
many
methods
of
communication
and
work
required
in
a
public
health
career.
It
also
allows
students
who
may
struggle
with
one
form
of
assessment
to
excel
in
another.
Importantly,
it
provides
a
range
of
methods
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
its
students.
Naturally,
different
courses
lend
themselves
to
different
assessment
methods,
with
some
courses
preferring
one
type
to
another.
In
addition
to
completing
required
and
elective
coursework,
many
MPH
students
elect
to
participate
in
faculty
research
projects,
either
as
a
paid
research
assistant
or
by
enrolling
in
a
directed
research
section
(CGH
390)
supervised
by
a
faculty
member.
These
opportunities
provide
for
close
personal
mentoring
between
faculty
and
students,
establishing
trusting
and
educational
experiences
for
students
where
they
further
explore
and
appreciate
public
health
theory
and
methods.
A
directed
research
course
may
be
used
for
an
elective
or
concentration
course.
To
enroll
in
a
section
of
directed
research,
students
must
complete
the
University’s
enrollment
form
and
a
learning
contract,
approved
by
the
instructor
and
MPH
program
director.
Copies
of
student
research
contracts
are
available
on
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Page
94
4
Core
public
health
courses
are
taught
by
a
mix
of
CGU
faculty
and
qualified
professionals
(adjuncts)
employed
in
various
settings
involving
public
health
research
and
practice.
2.3.b.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 Coursework
in
the
general
public
health
areas
are
included
within
the
curriculum,
and
are
required
of
all
MPH
students,
regardless
of
area
of
specialization.
 Multiple
learning
experiences
are
employed
and
the
opportunity
for
students
to
engage
in
faculty
research
projects
allows
for
substantial
integration
of
theory
and
practice.
 All
substitutions
to
MPH
coursework
are
logged
and
justified
by
alignment
of
MPH
student
competencies.
Challenges
 Dual
degree
students
in
the
MBA/MPH
or
MA/MPH
programs
may
substitute
general
statistics
courses
for
the
biostatistics
requirement;
however,
the
content
of
these
courses
is
found
to
adequately
address
MPH
competencies
within
this
core
area
of
public
health.
 Syllabi
for
the
general
statistic
courses
that
are
approved
to
substitute
for
the
Biostatistics
course
are
available
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Page
95
Blank
page
Page
96
Criterion
2.4.
Practical
Skills
All
professional
degree
students
must
develop
skills
in
basic
public
health
concepts
and
demonstrate
the
application
of
these
concepts
through
a
practice
experience
that
is
relevant
to
the
students’
areas
of
specialization.
2.4.a.
Description
of
the
program’s
policies
and
procedures
regarding
practice
placements,
including
selection
of
sites,
methods
for
approving
preceptors,
approaches
for
faculty
supervision
of
students,
names
of
evaluating
practice
placement
sites,
preceptor
qualifications
and
criteria
for
waiving
the
experience.
Practice
Placement
Policies
and
Procedures
An
integral
part
of
the
MPH
program
is
the
internship,
a
structured
and
supervised
field
training
experience
with
an
approved
agency
for
which
students
receive
academic
credit.
As
a
working
partnership
between
students
and
public
health
agencies,
the
field
training
experience
offers
students
a
rotation
through
an
area
of
public
health
practice
in
a
county,
state,
federal
or
community‐based
agency.
The
goal
of
the
internship
is
to
further
students’
practical
experience
while
enhancing
the
work
of
public
health.
Through
field
training
hours
and
associated
course
requirements,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
an
integration
of
coursework
into
a
real‐world
setting,
preparing
them
for
professional
careers
in
public
health.
All
students
are
required
to
complete
a
supervised
internship
in
a
setting
involving
public
health
practice
(e.g.,
community‐based
organizations;
clinical
and
school
based
settings;
federal,
state,
local
public
health
agencies).
Learning
opportunities
available
through
participating
agencies
include
health
assessment,
program
design,
intervention,
evaluation,
policy
and
advocacy,
data
management
and
analysis,
and
community
organization.
Starting
summer
2011,
eligible
students
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
a
global
public
health
internship
made
possible
through
the
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
(PRGHF),
funded
by
the
Fogarty
International
Center,
National
Institutes
of
Health.
The
PRGHF
is
a
consortium
of
22
academic
and
public
health
institutions
in
the
U.S.,
India,
China,
Sri
Lanka,
Bangladesh,
and
Thailand
that
brings
together
public
health
experts,
who
collectively
inform
the
development
of
curricula
for
academic
and
public
health
settings
that
present
global
health
challenges,
offer
potential
solutions
and
highlight
success
stories.
In
addition,
the
PRGHF
promotes
the
use
of
communication
technology
for
the
dissemination
of
its
curricula
to
its
global
partners
and
hard
to
reach
communities.
Dr.
Paula
Palmer,
Principal
Investigator
of
the
PRGHF
and
Director
of
Global
Programs
at
SCGH
serves
as
the
primary
preceptor.
Dr.
Indika
Karunathilake,
Director
of
Medical
Education,
University
of
Colombo
and
Thambithurai
Sritharan,
and
faculty
at
Eastern
University
Batticaloa,
are
responsible
for
hosting
interns
in
Sri
Lanka
and
arranging
site
visits
at
various
hospitals
and
community
public
health
clinics
and
interviews
and
discussions
with
public
health
leaders
and
staff
in
various
tiers
of
the
health
system.
The
internship
takes
place
both
in
the
U.S.
and
Sri
Lanka.
For
example,
during
the
course
of
the
internship,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
learn
firsthand
about
the
health
system
of
Sri
Lanka,
how
public
health
services
are
delivered,
the
challenges
that
the
current
system
faces
and
lessons
that
may
be
applicable
to
public
health
policy
and
practice
in
other
developing
and
developed
nations.
Internship
activities
will
include:
Part
1
(U.S./Sri
Lanka)
–
an
analysis
of
the
Sri
Lankan
public
health
system,
Part
2
(Sri
Lanka)
–
institution,
clinic,
and
community
site
visits;
interviews
and
discussions
with
Page
97
public
health
leaders
and
staff,
and
field
observations
and
Part
3
(U.S.)
‐
the
development
of
a
multimedia
case
study‐training
module
on
public
health
in
Sri
Lanka
for
distribution
to
PRGHF
partnering
institutions.
The
internship
requirement
can
be
completed
in
any
semester,
but
students
must
have
a
strong
preparation
in
core
public
health
knowledge
as
well
as
that
characteristic
of
their
area
of
specialization.
That
is,
to
be
eligible
to
enroll
in
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health
(CGH
306),
students
must
have
completed
all
coursework
(exclusively
of
the
general
elective
requirement)
or
be
in
their
final
semester
of
degree
completion.
This
ensures
that
students
are
adequately
prepared
to
assume
the
duties
required
of
their
placement.
In
doing
so,
both
the
student
and
the
agency
receive
the
maximum
benefit
from
this
experience.
No
complete
waivers
of
these
requirements
are
given.
In
some
instances,
due
to
documented
prior
public
health
experience,
the
hours
may
be
reduced
from
400
to
200.
More
elaboration
regarding
the
waiver
criteria
and
procedures
is
included
in
section
2.4.c.
Once
students
have
met
the
eligibility
criteria,
they
complete
a
Student
Interest
form
and
schedule
an
appointment
with
the
MPH
program
manager
to
discuss
strategies
for
securing
a
placement.
This
form
assists
the
manager
in
guiding
students
to
appropriate
placements
and
determines
a
schedule
for
registration.
Upon
selection
of
an
internship
site,
the
preceptor
(if
new
to
the
internship
program)
receives
a
welcoming
letter
and
packet
which
includes
the
internship
handbook
with
affiliation
forms
(available
onsite)
and
copy
of
the
field
training
syllabus.
Prior
to
placement,
the
student
attends
an
orientation
session
(held
every
semester)
where
the
program
director
(course
instructor)
goes
over
the
forms
to
be
completed
and
the
requirements
of
the
course.
Requirements
of
the
course
include:
• Verification
of
400
work
hours
by
the
student’s
supervisor
• Submission
of
an
Internship
Learning
Contract
which
includes
a
scope
of
work
and
completed
MPH
competency
inventory.
The
contract
is
approved
by
the
preceptor,
program
director
and
student
and
must
be
submitted
prior
to
the
attainment
of
100
hours
for
a
400
hour
internship
and
50
hours
for
a
200
hour
internship
• Reflective
journals
(1
for
every
100
hours
worked)
• Poster
presentation
to
faculty,
staff,
students
and
preceptors
that
chronicles
their
experience
• Self
evaluation
of
the
internship
Once
all
documents
have
been
submitted,
the
program
director
gives
a
mark
of
“S”,
which
includes
satisfactory
completion
of
these
requirements.
Students
must
receive
a
grade
of
a
“B”
or
better
to
receive
a
satisfactory
mark.
Selection
of
Sites
and
Approval
of
Preceptors
Site
assignments
are
made
in
collaboration
with
the
facility,
the
MPH
program
manager
and
director,
and
are
based
on
the
student’s
specific
field
of
study
(Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation,
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology,
and
Leadership
&
Management.
Internship
sites
may
be
considered
by
CGU
faculty/staff
who
invites
them
to
apply
for
participation,
or
the
site
may
contact
CGU
directly.
Local,
national
and
international
sites
are
considered.
The
program
also
encourages
applications
from
current
and
former
employers
of
MPH
students.
It
is
the
policy
of
the
program
to
allow
students
to
conduct
their
internship
at
their
regular
place
of
employment
as
long
as
two
conditions
are
met:
(1)
the
assignment
is
above
and
beyond
the
student’s
regular
work
commitment
and
(2)
the
tasks
relate
to
the
attainment
of
MPH
competencies.
Page
98
To
qualify
as
a
field
training
site,
the
agency
must
possess
sufficient
interest
and
resources
to
accommodate
a
student,
which
includes
a
commitment
to
the
following
conditions:
 Offer
a
comprehensive
range
of
public
health
experiences
with
exposure
to
diverse
populations
and
systems
(if
appropriate)
that
relate
to
core
public
health
activities
as
well
as
specialty
areas
supported
by
the
program;
 Provide
a
setting
where
the
student
and
field
supervisor
can
work
collaboratively
to
create
a
positive
learning
experience,
and
adequate
resources
for
students
to
complete
the
required
work;
and
 Assign
a
qualified
employee
to
serve
as
the
student’s
field
supervisor.
This
is
an
individual
that
possesses
any
of
the
following
academic
credentials:
MPH,
PhD
(Public
Health)
or
DrPH.
Individuals
who
work
in
public
health
and
have
related
graduate
degrees
(MD,
DO,
RN,
NP,
MSW,
MEd),
or
the
equivalent
professional
preparation
as
deemed
by
the
program
director
is
considered.
Interested
agencies
must
submit
an
Agency
Application,
and
a
contractual
agreement
known
as
the
Internship
Affiliation
Agreement,
along
with
a
resume
of
the
proposed
supervisor
to
verify
his/her
qualifications.
Internship
placements
within
the
Claremont
University
Consortium
must
meet
the
same
standards
as
outside
agencies,
but
are
not
required
to
submit
the
contractual
legal
agreement.
In
addition
to
outside
agencies,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
work
with
a
SCGH
faculty
member
to
complete
the
supervised
field
training
requirement.
Typical
activities
include
assistance
with
intervention
design,
implementation,
or
evaluation,
study
coordination,
data
management/analysis,
and
community
outreach.
The
program
director
works
with
the
faculty
member
to
ensure
that
each
student’s
work/research
is
focused
within
his/her
concentration.
Once
the
agency
paperwork
is
received
and
approved
by
the
program
director,
the
site
is
included
among
those
available
for
student
placement.
The
student
may
only
begin
the
field
placement
once
all
documentation
is
on
file;
this
includes
a
waiver,
Student
Legal
Form,
and
proof
of
health
insurance
to
be
completed
by
the
student.
If
the
internship
is
to
take
place
abroad,
a
second
waiver,
Release
for
International
Travel,
is
required.
At
this
time,
CGU
currently
maintains
approximately
30
sites
who
have
expressed
interest
in
student
placements.
A
listing
of
affiliated
sites
available
for
immediate
student
placement
is
provided
in
table
2.4.a.
Agencies
in
the
process
of
submitting
the
required
paperwork
are
denoted.
Table
2.4.a.
Internship
Organizations
&
Preceptors
Agency
Alternative
and
Complementary
Medicine
Inc*
AIDS
Project
Los
Angeles
Asuza
Neighborhood
Wellness
Center*
Bonita
Unified
School
District*
Bureau
of
Health
Promotion,
Department
of
Health
California
Family
Health
Council*
Location
Laguna
Niguel,
CA
Supervisor
Ali
Meschi,
PhD,
CNC
Specialty
Area
HPEE,
LM
Los
Angeles,
CA
Azusa,
CA
La
Verne,
CA
Shin‐Jung
City,
Taipei,
Taiwan
Los
Angeles,
CA
Miguel
Chion,
MD,
MPH
Julia
Pusztai,
MN,
RNC
Deborah
Croan,
RN,
MA
Po‐Tswen
Yu,
MS
HPEE
HPEE
ABE,
HPEE
HPEE
Laurel
Beyrer,
MPH
HPEE,
LM
Page
99
Table
2.4.a.
Internship
Organizations
&
Preceptors
Agency
Center
for
Community
Action
&
Environmental
Justice*
Claremont
University
Consortium,
Student
Health
&
Counseling
Services,
Health
Education
Outreach
Clinicas
de
Salud
del
Pueblo
Inc.
City
of
Claremont
City
of
Hope,
Population
Sciences*
Council
of
Community
Clinics
Empowering
Pacific
Islander
Communities*
Foothill
AIDS
Project
Hidden
Harvest*
Integrated
Disease
Modeling*
Kansas
City
Health
Department*
Orange
County
Health
Care
Agency*
Orange
County
API
Community
Alliance*
Parents
Anonymous
®
Inc.
Pasadena
Health
Department,
Health
Promotion
&
Policy
Development
Division*
Planned
Parenthood*
Prototypes,
Women’s
Center*
Reach
Out
Red
Cross*
Riverside,
San
Bernardino
County
Indian
Health
Inc.
Samoan
National
Nurses
Association*
San
Bernardino
Healthy
Communities*
Services
Center
for
Independent
Living*
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities*
University
of
California,
Riverside,
Human
Resources
Wellness
Program*
Vista
Community
Clinic
University
of
Western
Cape
Location
Riverside,
CA
Supervisor
Penny
Newman
Specialty
Area
ABE,
HPEE,
LM
Claremont,
CA
Jennifer
Barroll,
MPH,
CHES
HPEE,
LM
Brawley,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Duarte,
CA
San
Diego,
CA
Los
Angeles,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Coachella,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Kansas
City,
MO
Orange,
CA
Orange,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Pasadena,
CA
Joanne
Bell,
MBA
Mercedes
Santoro,
MS
Smita
Bhatia,
MD,
MPH
Gary
Rotto,
MSW,
MA
Jonathon
Tupule,
MPH
Mike
Maher,
RN
Christy
Porter,
ED
Joseph
Lyons,
MD
Frank
Thompson,
MS
Mozhgan
Mofidi,
PhD
Jacqueline
Tran,
PhD
Meryl
Levine
Joy
Guihama,
MPH
HPEE,
LM
LM
ABE
HPEE
LM
ABE,
HPEE
HPEE.
LM
HPEE,
ABE,
LM
HPEE,
LM
HPEE,
LM
HPEE,
LM
HPEE,
LM
HPEE
HPEE,
LM
Orange
&
San
Bernardino,
CA
Pomona,
CA
Upland,
CA
Claremont,
CA
Beaumont,
CA
Robert
Armenta
Jr.,
MPA
ABE,
HPEE,
LM
April
Wilson,
RAS
Diana
Fox,
ED
Mike
Conley,
CEO
Kendall
Shumway,
DPM
HPEE
HPEE,
LM
HPEE,
LM
HPEE,
LM
Torrance,
CA
San
Bernardino,
CA
Claremont,
CA
San
Diego,
CA
Dorothy
Vaivao,
RN
Evelyn
Trevino,
MS
Lee
Nattress,
PhD
Margaret
Iwanaga‐
Penrose,
PhD
Julie
Chobdee,
MPH
ABE,
HPEE,
LM
ABE,
HPEE
HPEE,
LM
ABE,HPEE,
LM
Barbara
Mannino,
CEO
Patricia
Struthers,
PhD
ABE,
HPEE
LM
Riverside,
CA
Vista,
CA
Belville,
Cape
Town,
South
Africa
HPEE
*In
process.
Approaches
for
Faculty
Supervision
of
Students
The
program
director
is
responsible
for
the
general
oversight
of
the
internship
requirement
and
accompanying
course,
which
includes
the
supervision
of
students
and
site
preceptors.
In
addition
to
receiving
an
overall
evaluation
with
regards
to
the
course
requirements,
each
student’s
performance
is
assessed
by
their
preceptor
through
the
submission
of
an
evaluative
report
at
the
conclusion
of
the
placement.
The
purpose
of
this
evaluation
is
to:
(1)
assess
completion
of
their
project
objectives
identified
in
the
scope
of
work
which
is
part
of
the
Student
Learning
Contract;
and
(2)
assess
attainment
of
MPH
competencies
identified
in
the
competency
inventory,
which
is
a
second
component
of
the
Student
Learning
Contract;
and
(3)
provide
recommendations
concerning
any
further
professional
development
activities
designed
to
strengthen
mastery
of
MPH
competencies
and/or
suggest
avenues
Page
100
for
personal
growth.
Each
student
is
assessed
on
various
criteria
relating
to
professionalism
and
receives
an
overall
rating
of
job
performance.
This
rating
is
recorded
for
evidence
of
meeting
an
objective
relating
to
the
program’s
instructional
goals.
It
is
expected
that
100%
of
students
will
receive
a
performance
rating
of
at
least
4.0
from
their
internship
supervisors
(1=below
expectation,
3‐satisfactory,
5=beyond
expectation).
Evaluation
of
participating
agencies
is
performed
through
individual
student
interviews
with
the
program
director
and/or
manager
and
a
written
evaluation
required
as
part
of
the
course.
Waiver
Policy
for
the
Practice
Experience
The
MPH
practicum
requires
400
hours
of
supervised
field
training
in
a
public
health
“agency”
and
completion
of
other
assignments
as
required
in
the
accompanying
seminar
course
(CGH
306).
There
are
no
complete
waivers
of
this
requirement;
however,
the
total
number
of
supervised
field
training
hours
may
be
reduced
to
200.
Partial
waivers
are
granted
rarely,
at
the
discretion
of
a
faculty
review
committee,
based
on
evidence
that
the
prior
experience
was
closely
related
to
the
competencies
of
the
student’s
degree
program,
and
sufficient
time
of
exposure.
Students
who
wish
to
apply
for
a
waiver
should
be
able
to
document
prior
experience
that
is
comparable
to
the
professional
experience
usually
obtained
through
a
public
health
internship.
All
students,
regardless
of
prior
experience,
are
encouraged
to
fulfill
the
entire
MPH
internship
requirement,
as
additional
training
will
benefit
them.
Waiver
applications
are
only
considered
if
a
student
can
verify
three
years
of
continuous,
paid,
public
health
employment
prior
to
enrollment
in
the
MPH
program.
Waivers
are
granted
for
relevant
public
health
experience
as
evidenced
by
involvement
in
activities
such
as:
• Assessing,
monitoring,
or
conducting
surveillance
of
health
conditions
or
delivery
of
services
in
a
population;
• Establishing
public
health
objectives
and
priorities;
• Conducting
basic
or
applied
research
on
population‐based
health
problems
including
the
behavioral,
biological
or
environmental
risk
factors;
or
• Designing,
implementing
and/or
evaluating
policies
and/or
intervention
strategies/programs.
Previous
clinical
work
experience
involving
individual
patient
care
or
health
facility
administration
is
not
considered
relevant
public
health
experience.
Requests
for
a
partial
waiver
of
hours
are
considered
and
approved
on
an
individual
basis.
Once
eligibility
has
been
established,
the
procedures
for
requesting
a
waiver
involve
the
submission
of
an
Internship
Waiver
form
and
2‐3
page
(single‐spaced)
narrative
describing
relevant
public
health
work
experience.
Students
must
address
the
each
of
the
following
sections:
• Description
of
specific
duties
performed;
• Discussion
of
the
impact
or
relevance
of
the
experience
to
public
health,
highlighting
knowledge,
theories
and
concepts
covered
in
MPH
coursework;
• Identification
and
explanation
of
competencies
gained
in
the
previous
work
experience
(must
reference
core
MPH
and
concentration
specific
competencies);
and
• List
a
reference/contact
person
(preferably
a
supervisor)
who
can
verify
employment
with
the
agency.
Page
101
Waivers
are
submitted
to
the
MPH
program
manager
at
least
one
month
prior
to
registration
in
CGH
306.
Incomplete
narratives
are
not
reviewed.
Once
received,
a
committee
comprised
of
two
MPH
faculty
members
–
exclusive
of
the
program
director
–
reviews
the
form
and
renders
a
decision.
Committee
members
record
their
decision
(i.e.,
approval
or
deny)
along
with
a
rationale.
The
form
is
retained
in
the
student’s
file.
A
letter
detailing
the
committee’s
decision
is
sent
to
the
student
–
usually
within
three
weeks
of
submission.
Decisions
of
the
panel
are
final.
2.4.b.
Identification
of
agencies
and
preceptors
used
for
formal
practice
placement
experiences
for
students,
by
specialty
area
over
the
last
two
years.
Practice
Placement
Experiences
Table
2.4.b
displays
the
agencies
and
preceptors
used
for
student
internships
by
specialty
area
for
the
past
two
years.
Table
2.4.b.
Internship
Placements
2010­2011
Specialty
Student
Area
HPEE
Liesl
Nydegger
Cindy
Lin
LM
Semester
Agency,
Location
Preceptor,
Title
Fall
2010
AIDS
Project
Los
Angeles
Los
Angeles,
CA
Spring
2011
Bureau
of
Health
Promotion
Department
of
Health
Shin‐Jung
City,
Taipei,
Taiwan
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
(PRGHF)
Sri
Lanka
Planned
Parenthood
San
Bernardino,
CA
University
of
Western
Cape
Bellville,
Cape
Town,
South
Africa
Azusa
Neighborhood
Wellness
Center
Azusa,
CA
Foothill
AIDS
Project
Claremont,
CA
Foothill
AIDS
Project
Claremont,
CA
Riverside,
San
Bernardino
County
Indian
Health
Inc.
Beaumont,
CA
USC
University
Center
for
Excellence
in
Developmental
Disabilities
Los
Angeles,
CA
Miguel
Chion,
MD,
MPH
Program
Manager,
Capacity
Building
Program
Po‐Tswen
Yu,
MS
Director
of
Health
Education
Central
Paula
Palmer,
PhD
Principal
Investigator
of
PRGHF
Robert
Armenta
Jr,
MPA
VP
of
Community
Affairs
Patricia
Struthers,
PhD
Professor
Julia
Pusztai,
MN,
RNC
Director
Mike
Maher,
RN
Medical
Case
Manager
Mike
Maher,
RN
Medical
Case
Manager
Kendall
Shumway,
DPM
Program
Director,
Diabetes
Services
Cary
Kreutzer,
MPH,
RD
Community
Education
Director
Paula
Palmer,
PhD
Principal
Investigator
of
PRGHF
Bree
Hemingway
Summer
2011
Doriane
Adjibi
Fall
2011
Malika
Tobias
Fall
2011
Diana
Rudulph
Fall
2011
Mary
Mengedoth‐
Brennan
Brian
Hedgeman
Fall
2010
Kimberly
Johnson
Spring
2011
Spring
2011
Yvonne
Oliveras‐
Maldonaldo
Fall
2011
Nathanael
Napolitano
Summer
2011
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
Sri
Lanka
Page
102
Los
Angeles
County
provides
a
natural
laboratory
for
learning
given
its
size
and
population
diversity.
International
collaborations
secured
by
MPH
program
faculty
provide
outstanding
internship
opportunities
in
global
health
as
described
above.
The
MPH
internship
sites
reflect
this
diversity,
providing
opportunities
to
work
with
government
public
health
agencies,
community
based
agencies,
community
clinics
and
university
settings.
Program
faculty
and
staff
continuously
search
for
additional
placement
sites,
and
frequently
these
emerge
as
students
begin
their
own
search.
If
a
student
locates
a
site
that
is
not
currently
affiliated
with
the
MPH
program,
every
effort
is
made
to
secure
such
an
arrangement
whether
the
site
is
local
or
international.
2.4.c.
Data
on
the
number
of
students
receiving
a
waiver
of
the
practice
experience
for
each
of
the
last
two
years.
Student
Waivers
No
complete
waivers
of
the
practice
experience
are
granted.
Table
2.4c
summarizes
the
two
waiver
requests
received
to
date.
Copies
of
the
waiver
forms
are
available
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Table
2.4.c.
Partial
Waivers
of
the
Practice
Experience
Student
Concentration
Walter
Johnson
LM
Diana
Rudulph
ABEE
TOTAL
2009‐2010
Approved
Denied
0
0
2010‐2011
Approved
Denied
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
2
0
2.4.d.
Data
on
the
number
of
preventive
medicine,
occupational
medicine,
aerospace
medicine,
and
public
health
and
general
preventive
medicine
residents
completing
the
academic
program
for
each
of
the
last
three
years,
along
with
information
on
their
practicum
rotations.
Resident
Summary
Not
applicable.
2.4.e.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
program
supports
a
well‐planned,
supervised
and
evaluated
practice
experience.
 The
program
has
well
defined
learning
objectives,
procedures
and
criteria
for
evaluation
of
the
practice
experience.
 Site
qualifications
are
carefully
assessed
and
student
preceptors
are
well
matched
to
reflect
activities
appropriate
to
their
concentration.
 Individual
waivers
are
based
on
a
well‐defined
criterion.
 The
program
is
sensitive
to
the
constraints
of
students,
thereby
allowing
placements
at
the
student’s
regular
place
of
employment,
under
certain
conditions.
 Students
have
the
opportunity
to
complete
their
practice
experience
abroad
with
the
supervision
of
a
SCGH
faculty
member,
who
also
serves
as
the
Director
of
Global
Health
Programs.
Page
103
Challenges
&
Future
plans
 The
program
continues
to
recruit
additional
student
placements.
 The
variety
of
placements
should
be
increased,
securing
sites
at
the
state,
national
and
international
levels.
 New
avenues
are
being
explored
to
integrate
distance
learning
technology
when
utilizing
international
sites
for
student
placement.
Page
104
Criterion
2.5.
Culminating
Experience
All
professional
degree
programs
identified
in
the
instructional
matrix
shall
assure
that
each
student
demonstrates
skills
and
integration
of
knowledge
through
a
culminating
experience.
2.5.a.
Identification
of
the
culminating
experience
required
for
each
degree
program.
If
this
is
common
across
the
program’s
professional
degree
programs,
it
need
be
described
only
once.
If
it
varies
by
degree
or
specialty
area,
sufficient
information
must
be
provided
to
assess
compliance
by
each.
Overview
A
capstone
seminar
serves
as
the
culminating
experience
for
the
MPH
degree.
Students
enroll
in
Public
Health
Capstone
(CGH
307)
in
their
last
semester
prior
to
graduation.
The
course
draws
on
students’
prior
training
in
the
five
core
areas
of
public
health
(i.e.,
Social
and
Behavioral
Science,
Biostatistics,
Epidemiology,
Health
Services
and
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health),
their
additional
required
course
work
in
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation,
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology,
and
Leadership
and
Management)
and
their
“real
world”
experience
gained
through
their
internship.
More
than
just
providing
a
review
of
the
MPH
curriculum;
however,
the
capstone
seminar
is
designed
to
challenge
students
to
reflect
and
integrate
their
training
and
experience
with
the
goal
of
developing
their
own
individual
point
of
view
regarding
the
role
of
public
health
in
contributing
to
the
improvement
of
the
health
and
well‐being
of
populations
in
the
United
States,
as
well
as
abroad.
Objectives
Because
the
capstone
seminar
integrates
training
students
have
received
in
prior
coursework
and
the
field
experience,
it
provides
the
opportunity
to
round
out
the
development
of
the
full
set
of
competencies
viewed
as
essential
for
masters‐prepared
graduates
in
public
health.
The
course
is
structured
to
accomplish
four
objectives:
1. Provide
students
with
a
means
of
self‐assessment,
indicating
how
core
and
concentration‐
specific
competencies
were
achieved,
through
master’s
courses
and
fieldwork,
community
service,
and
paid
work
experience
2. Demonstrate
to
the
graduate
faculty
that
students
have
attained
a
basic
knowledge
base
and
skill
set
within
the
core
public
health
areas
3. To
assess
the
curriculum’s
effectiveness
in
providing
students
with
the
opportunities
necessary
to
become
competent
in
the
core
public
health
areas
and
in
specialized
areas
4. Offer
a
means
whereby
students
can
market
themselves
to
potential
employers,
showcasing
their
professional
development,
accomplishments
and
abilities.
Requirements
The
practice
experience
is
linked
closely
with
the
requirements
of
culminating
experience.
Students
complete
two
major
assignments
within
the
capstone
seminar.
The
first
is
a
portfolio,
which
is
a
compendium
of
documents
that
demonstrate
accomplishments
during
the
program.
It
contains
a
collection
of
work
that
exhibits
students’
efforts,
progress,
achievements,
reflections
and
self‐
assessment
in
one
or
more
areas.
The
portfolio
tracks
and
collects
in
one
location
many
of
the
materials
produced
during
the
master’s
coursework,
including
academic,
professional
and
service
accomplishments
(i.e.,
course
projects,
reports,
presentations,
publications
and
other
samples
of
work)
that
demonstrate
mastery
of
the
MPH
core
and
concentration
specific
competencies.
Thus,
the
portfolio
Page
105
ties
together
courses,
fieldwork,
volunteer,
and
paid
work
experience
with
specific
core
competencies
of
the
MPH
program.
The
second
assignment
requires
an
analytic
paper
based
upon
one
substantive
project
undertaken
as
part
of
the
supervised
field
training
experience.
The
final
paper
provides
another
opportunity
for
the
student
to
identify
the
manner
in
which
core
and
concentration
specific
competencies
were
mastered.
Specifically,
students
are
asked
to
produce
a
15‐page
double
spaced
paper
that
describes
the
following:
1. Background
of
the
Public
Health
Issue
Addressed
a. Summary
of
critical
literature
(at
least
5
sources
must
be
cited)
b. Rationale/need
for
the
project
c. Relationship
to
theories/concepts
presented
in
MPH
coursework
d. Objectives
of
the
project
or
specific
aims
2. Description
of
Methods
Used
to
Address
the
Public
Health
Issue
a. Hypotheses
b. Identification
of
methods
used
(e.g.,
needs
assessment,
policy
analysis,
epidemiological
analysis,
financial
management,
program
planning,
evaluation,
curriculum
development,
etc)
c. Justification
of
methods
used
d. Stakeholder
involvement
3. Results
of
the
Project
a. Specify
relationship
to
objectives,
specific
aims
of
hypotheses
b. Appropriate
use
of
tables,
charts
and
other
graphics
c. Interpretation
of
results
4. Discussion
of
the
Results
a. Explanation
of
results
b. Relationship
of
this
project
to
the
overall
internship
experience
c. Implications
of
results
to
the
practice
and
research
in
the
larger
field
of
public
health
d. Lessons
learned
from
this
project/recommendations
for
future
projects
e. Core
and
concentration
competencies
strengthen
by
this
project
Assessment
The
requirements
are
graded
by
the
program
director
who
also
serves
as
the
course
instructor.
The
portfolio
and
paper
are
weighted
equally.
Students
are
given
a
grade
of
Satisfactory
(S)
or
Unsatisfactory
(U)
for
the
course.
Quality
of
work
must
reflect
a
“B”
or
better
(80%
out
of
100%)
to
receive
a
satisfactory
mark.
Both
the
portfolio
and
final
paper
are
graded
with
a
standard
rubric.
Samples
of
completed
rubrics
are
available
on‐site
in
the
resource
file.
Grading
rubrics
for
the
portfolio
and
final
paper
are
described
below.
Portfolio
Faculty
score
the
portfolio
according
to
the
provided
standards,
by
placing
a
score
for
each
criterion
in
the
“Score”
column
(3=effective,
2=acceptable,
1=unsatisfactory).
Space
in
the
“Comments”
column
denotes
specific
items
for
praise
or
improvement.
There
are
four
criterion
dimensions
with
three
levels
of
performance
as
illustrated
in
figure
2.5a
(1).
To
pass
the
final
paper
portion,
students
must
receive
a
minimum
score
of
“acceptable”
on
each
of
the
four
criterion
for
a
minimum
score
of
8.
Page
106
Figure
2.5.a.(1).
Grading
Rubric
for
Portfolio
Criterion
Dimension
____Quality
of
Content
LEVEL
(3)
Effective
(2)
Acceptable
Addresses
all
Addresses
most
requirements
requirements
completely
and
completely
and
thoughtfully
thoughtfully
____Content
Choice
Samples
shows
student
Samples
shows
some
progress
towards
student
progress
meeting
competencies
towards
meeting
competencies
____Organization/Presentation
Very
few
grammar
and
Some
grammar
and
punctuation
errors;
punctuation
errors;
layout
is
easy
to
layout
is
sometimes
navigate
confusing
to
navigate
____Personal
Reflection
Accurate
evaluation
of
Somewhat
superficial
experience
in
terms
of
evaluation
of
strengths
and
experience
in
terms
of
weaknesses
strengths
and
weaknesses
____
Total
Score
Use
the
space
below
for
additional
comments.
(1)
Unsatisfactory
Addresses
few
requirements
completely
and
thoughtfully
Random
selection
choice
Several
grammar
and
punctuation
errors;
layout
is
difficult
to
navigate
Lackluster
interest
in
experience
Comments
Final
Paper
Similar
to
the
portfolio,
faculty
score
the
final
paper
according
to
the
provided
standards,
by
placing
a
score
for
each
criterion
in
the
“Score”
column
(3=effective,
2=acceptable,
1=unsatisfactory).
Space
in
the
“Comments”
column
denotes
specific
items
for
praise
or
improvement.
There
are
four
criterion
dimensions
with
a
range
of
three
to
five
aspects
to
each
and
three
levels
of
performance
as
illustrated
in
figure
2.5a
(2).
To
pass
the
final
paper
portion,
students
must
receive
a
minimum
score
of
“acceptable”
on
each
of
the
four
criterions
for
a
minimum
score
of
8.
Figure
2.5.a.(2).
Grading
Rubric
for
Final
Paper
Criterion
Aspect
Dimension
____Organization
Overall
logical
organization
Ideas
connected
Transitions
clear
____Scholarship
Introductions
&
Conclusions
Related
Public
Health
Issue
&
Hypothesis
Connected
Assertions
Supported
LEVEL
(2)
Acceptable
(3)
Effective
__Highly
logical
__Generally
logical
__Linked
__Tightly
linked
__Smooth
and
highly
effective
transitions
__Highly
effective
to
the
whole
__Clear
&
effective
__Insightfully
linked
to
the
state
of
the
field
__Insightfully
supported
by
evidence
__Linked
to
the
state
of
the
field
__Well
related
to
the
whole
__Supported
by
evidence
Page
107
Comments
(1)
Unsatisfactory
__Frequently
not
logical
__Not
consistently
linked
__Some
unclear
&
ineffective
__Vaguely
or
unrelated
to
the
whole
__Not
well
placed
in
context
of
the
state
of
the
field
__Lacking
evidence
Figure
2.5.a.(2).
Grading
Rubric
for
Final
Paper
Criterion
Dimension
____Data
Presentation
(3)
Effective
Interpretations
of
Findings
Objective
Incorporates
Relevant
Course
Concepts
__Insightfully
supported
by
evidence
__Fully
acknowledged
&
integrated
with
results
__Effectively
represents
findings
__Highly
effective
choices
__Extremely
clear
&
self‐explanatory
__Highly
effective
Data
selection
effective
Data
format
effective
____Style
&
Mechanics
____
Total
Score
LEVEL
(2)
Acceptable
Aspect
Data
Presentations
clear
Sentence
structure
effective
Punctuation,
spelling,
grammar
Paragraphs
logical
&
connected
__Free
of
errors
__Highly
logical
Comments
(1)
Unsatisfactory
__Objective
__Subjective
__Some
parts
are
acknowledged
&
integrated
with
results
__Partially
represents
findings
__Generally
appropriate
choices
__Somewhat
clear
__Generally
effective
__Minimal
errors
__Course
concepts
are
largely
ignored
or
misinterpreted
__Does
not
accurately
represent
findings
__Inappropriate
choices
__Generally
difficult
to
follow
__Highly
ineffective
__Several
errors
__Generally
logical
__Ideas
and
statements
are
often
disorganized
__Inconsistent
__Verbose
Journal
style
__Highly
__Consistent
guidelines
consistent
consistent
Overall
writing
concise
__Highly
concise
__Fairly
concise
Use
the
space
below
for
additional
comments.
Beginning
spring
2011,
the
capstone
requirements
will
be
graded
by
a
committee
comprised
of
the
program
director
and
faculty
who
possess
expertise
in
the
concentrations
supported
by
the
program.
Should
the
committee
find
that
a
student
does
not
demonstrate
satisfactory
mastery
of
the
competencies,
the
student
will
be
given
an
incomplete
grade
until
a
remedial
plan
recommended
by
the
committee
has
been
completed.
The
assumption
is
that
once
a
student
successfully
passes
both
parts
of
the
capstone
requirement
that
the
learning
objectives
of
the
course
are
met.
2.5.b.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
program
has
developed
a
capstone
seminar
that
serves
as
the
culminating
experience
for
all
MPH
students.
 The
portfolio
and
analytic
paper
required
within
the
capstone
seminar
are
appropriate
in
that
they
require
a
student
to
synthesize
and
integrate
knowledge
of
public
health
theory
and
practice
gained
in
coursework,
field
work,
and
community
service.
 The
requirements
of
the
capstone
course
are
sufficient
to
demonstrate
to
students’
mastery
of
the
competencies.
Page
108

The
capstone
assignments
are
now
evaluated
by
a
committee
with
the
appropriate
faculty
expertise.
Challenges
 The
program
director
served
as
the
sole
evaluator
for
the
first
MPH
student
enrolled
in
the
course.
 The
capstone
committee
must
devise
viable
remedial
plans
in
the
event
they
are
needed.
Page
109
Blank
page
Page
110
Criterion
2.6.
Required
Competencies
For
each
degree
program
and
area
of
specialization
within
each
program
identified
in
the
instructional
matrix,
there
shall
be
clearly
stated
competencies
that
guide
the
development
of
educational
programs.
2.6.a.
Identification
of
core
public
health
competencies
that
all
MPH
or
equivalent
professional
masters
degree
students
are
expected
to
achieve
through
their
courses
of
study
Core
Public
Health
Competencies
Core
competencies
to
be
mastered
by
all
MPH
students
are
listed
in
table
2.6.a.
Table
2.6.a.
MPH
Core
Competencies,
adopted
from
Council
of
Linkages
Between
Academia
and
Public
Health
Practice,
2009
By
graduation,
all
students
should
be
able
to:
ID
#
Domain(Skills)
MPH
1
Analytic
/Assessment
MPH
2
MPH
3
Policy
Development/Program
Planning
Communication
MPH
4
Cultural
Competency
MPH
5
Community
Dimensions
of
Practice
MPH
6
Basic
Public
Health
Sciences
MPH
7
MPH
8
Financial
Planning/Management
MPH
9
MPH
10
Leadership
&
Systems
Thinking
Learning
Outcome
Assess
the
health
status
of
populations
and
their
related
determinants
of
health
and
illness
(e.g.,
factors
contributing
to
health
promotion
and
disease
prevention,
availability
and
use
of
health
services).
Develop
a
plan
to
implement
policy
and
programs.
Communicate
in
writing
and
orally,
in
person,
and
through
electronic
means
with
linguistic
and
cultural
proficiency.
Consider
the
role
of
cultural,
social
and
behavioral
factors
in
the
accessibility,
availability,
acceptability
and
delivery
of
public
health
services.
Describe
the
role
of
governmental
and
non‐governmental
organizations
in
the
delivery
of
community
health
services
Apply
the
basic
public
health
sciences
(including,
but
not
limited
to
biostatistics,
epidemiology,
environmental
health
sciences,
health
services
administration,
and
social
and
behavioral
health
sciences)
to
public
health
policies
and
programs.
Conduct
a
comprehensive
review
of
scientific
evidence
related
to
a
public
health
issue,
concern
or
intervention.
Interpret
the
organizational
structures,
functions,
and
authorities
of
local,
state,
and
federal
public
health
agencies
for
public
health
program
management
Prepare
proposals
for
funding
from
external
sources.
Incorporate
ethical
standards
of
practice
as
the
basis
of
all
interactions
with
organizations,
communities
and
individuals
2.6.b.
A
matrix
that
identifies
the
learning
experiences
by
which
the
core
public
health
competencies
are
met.
If
this
is
common
across
the
program,
a
single
matrix
will
suffice.
If
it
varies
by
degree
or
specialty
area
identified
in
the
instructional
matrix
will
suffice.
If
it
varies
by
degree
or
specialty
area,
sufficient
information
must
be
provided
to
assess
compliance
by
each.
Page
111
Description
of
Learning
Experiences
A
diverse
set
of
learning
experiences
are
employed
to
assist
students
in
meeting
core
public
health
competencies
and
those
specified
within
each
specialty
area.
These
include
readings,
oral
presentations,
written
papers,
critical
discussions
(in
class
or
online),
field
experiences,
case
studies,
portfolios,
examinations,
and
journals/blogging.
Table
2.6.b
identifies
elements
of
the
MPH
curriculum
that
utilize
these
learning
experiences
and
their
expected
competencies.
Table
2.6.b.
Learning
Experiences
and
MPH
Competencies
Type
of
Learning
Experience
Readings
Oral
Presentations
Course
MPH
HPEE
ABE
LM
CGH
300
CGH
301
CGH
302
1,3,4,7,10
1,6
1,3,6,7
2,3,5,6,7
4
CGH
303
CGH
304
1,3,4,5,7,8,9
1,3,6,7,9
4
CGH
305
CGH
308
CGH
309
CGH
310
3,4,6,7,9
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
1,3,4,6,7
1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,2,3,5,6,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,
10
1,2,3,7,8,9,
10
9,10
7,10
4,5,7,9,10
CGH
311
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
CGH
312
3,6
4
CGH
313
CGH
314
1,3,4,6,7
1,3,6,7
1,4
4
CGH
315
1,3,6,7
4
CGH
316
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,
10
1,5,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,
10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,
10
1
CGH
317
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
2,3,7
CGH
318
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
2,5,7
9
CGH
319
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
5
9
CGH
300
CGH
302
CGH
304
CGH
306
CGH
308
CGH
309
CGH
310
CGH
311
CGH
313
3,4,7,10
3,7
3,7
2,7
4
4
1,2,5,7,9,10
1,2,7,9,10
3,4,7,8,10
3,4,7
3,4,7,10
3,4,7,8,10
3,4,7
1,2,3,5,6,7
2,4,7
2,4,7
4
Page
112
4,11
4,6,12
6
1,3,
4,5,6,9,10,12
1,2,4,6,10,11
13
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,11,12
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,11,12
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,12
2,3,4,6,10,11
12
7
5,7,9,10
1,5,7,9,10
4
6
4,5
4
Table
2.6.b.
Learning
Experiences
and
MPH
Competencies
Type
of
Learning
Experience
Written
Papers
Critical
Discussion
(In‐class
or
electronic)
Field
Experiences
Examinations
Course
CGH
314
CGH
319
CGH
300
CGH
302
CGH
303
CGH
304
CGH
305
CGH
307
CGH
308
CGH
309
CGH
310
CGH
311
CGH
313
CGH
319
CGH
300
CGH
303
CGH
304
CGH
305
CGH
308
CGH
309
CGH
310
CGH
311
CGH
314
CGH
315
CGH
316
CGH
317
CGH
318
CGH
319
CGH
306
CGH
300
CGH
301
CGH
302
CGH
304
CGH
308
CGH
312
CGH
313
CGH
314
CGH
315
CGH
316
MPH
HPEE
ABE
LM
3,7
4
1,2,5,7,9,10
3,4,7,8,10
9
4
1,3,4,7,10
2,3,7
1,3,6,7
4
1,2,3,5,7,9,
10
1,3,4,5,7,8,9
1,3,4,5,7,8,9
4
1,2,3,7,9,10
3,4,6,7,9
1,2,3,4,7
9,10
4,10
Varies
based
on
the
internship
location,
but
at
a
minimum
incorporates
at
least
3
MPH
core
and
2
concentration
competencies.
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
7,10
4
1,3,4,6,7
1,2,3,4,7
7,9,10
1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
4,5,10
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,7
4,10
1,3,4,6,7
1,4
1,5,7,9,10
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
9
4
1,3
7
1,3
1,3
1,2,3,7,9,10
3
7
9,10
10
1,3
1,2,3,4,5,7
7,10
4
1,3
7
7,9,10
6
1,3
4,10
1,3
7
4,10
1,3
1,2,3,7,9,10
1,3
1,2,3,7,9,10
1,3
7
1
4,10
1,3
7
4,10
1,3
7
4,10
3
9
4
Varies
based
on
the
internship
location,
but
at
a
minimum
incorporates
at
least
3
MPH
core
and
2
concentration
competencies.
1,3,4
5
1,6
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,3,6
4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,1
0
1,3,6,7
4
1,2,3,7,8,9,
10
1,3,4,6,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
7,10
4
3,6
4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,1
0
1,3,4,6,7
1,4
1,5,6,7,9,10
1,3,6,7
4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,1
0
1,3,6,7
4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,1
0
1,3,4,6,7
1,4,5
1
1,2,3,4,10,11
12
Page
113
Table
2.6.b.
Learning
Experiences
and
MPH
Competencies
Type
of
Learning
Experience
Course
MPH
HPEE
ABE
CGH
317
1,3,4,6,7
CGH
318
Case
Studies
Portfolio
Journals/Blogs
CGH
300
CGH
303
CGH
308
CGH
310
CGH
319
CGH
307
CGH
306
CGH
310
LM
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,11,12
1,3,4,6
5
1,2,3,
4,5,6,7,8,9,10
,11,13
1,3,4,7,10
2,7
1,3,4,5,8,9
1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
7,10
4
1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
1,4,5,9
2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
9
3,
4
All
MPH
and
concentration
specific
competencies
are
addressed.
Varies
based
on
the
internship
location,
but
at
a
minimum
incorporates
at
least
3
MPH
core
and
2
concentration
competencies.
3,8
3,4,5
2.6.c.
Identification
of
a
set
of
competencies
for
each
specialty
area
identified
in
the
instructional
matrix,
including
professional
and
academic
degree
curricula.
Competencies
by
Specialty
Areas
The
set
of
competencies
for
each
concentration
are
listed
below.
Table
2.6.c.
Competencies
by
Specialty
Area,
adopted
from
NCHEC
&
ASPH
By
graduation,
students
should
be
able
to:
Specialty
Area
ID
#
Learning
Outcomes
Health
Promotion,
HPEE
1
Assess
individual
and
community
needs
for
health
education.
Education
&
HPEE
2
Plan
health
education
strategies,
interventions
and
programs.
Evaluation
HPEE
3
Implement
health
education
strategies,
interventions
and
programs.
HPEE
4
Conduct
evaluation
and
research
related
to
health
education.
HPEE
5
Administer
health
education
strategies,
interventions
and
programs.
HPEE
6
Serve
as
a
health
education
research
person.
HPEE
7
Communicate
and
advocate
for
health
and
health
education.
Applied
Biostatistics
ABE
1
Describe
the
roles
that
epidemiology
and
biostatistics
serve
in
the
discipline
&
Epidemiology
of
public
health,
and
be
able
to
describe
a
public
health
problem
in
terms
of
magnitude,
people,
time,
and
place.
ABE
2
Apply
proper
terminology
and
definitions
used
in
biostatistics
and
epidemiology
ABE
3
Identify
key
sources
of
data
for
biostatistical
and
epidemiologic
studies.
ABE
4
Apply
appropriate
measurement
scales,
concepts
of
probability,
random
variation,
and
commonly
used
statistical
probability
distributions.
ABE
5
Apply
descriptive
techniques
and
commonly
used
inferential
statistical
methods
to
summarize
public
health
data.
ABE
6
Describe
preferred
methodological
alternatives
to
commonly
used
statistical
methods
when
assumptions
are
not
met.
ABE
7
Explain
the
importance
of
biostatistics
and
epidemiology
for
informing
scientific,
ethical,
economic
and
political
discussion
of
health
issues.
ABE
8
Comprehend
ethical
and
legal
principles
pertaining
to
the
collection,
maintenance,
use
and
dissemination
of
data
and
other
epidemiological
information.
Page
114
Table
2.6.c.
Competencies
by
Specialty
Area,
adopted
from
NCHEC
&
ASPH
By
graduation,
students
should
be
able
to:
Specialty
Area
ID
#
Learning
Outcomes
ABE
9
Interpret,
articulate,
and
critique
results
of
statistical
and
epidemiological
analyses
found
in
public
health
studies.
ABE
10
Develop
written
and
oral
presentation
based
on
epidemiological
students
and
statistical
analyses
for
both
public
health
professionals
and
educated
lay
audiences,
and
prepare
manuscripts
for
the
peer‐reviewed
literature.
Leadership
&
LM
1
Describe
the
attributes
of
leadership
in
public
health.
Management
LM
2
Describe
alternative
strategies
for
collaboration
and
partnership
among
organizations,
focused
on
public
health
goals.
LM
3
Demonstrate
team
building,
negotiation,
and
conflict
management
skills.
LM
4
Articulate
an
achievable
mission,
set
of
core
values,
and
vision.
LM
5
Engage
in
dialogue
and
learning
from
others
to
advance
public
health
goals.
LM
6
Demonstrate
transparency,
integrity,
and
honesty
in
all
actions.
LM
7
Use
collaborative
methods
for
achieving
organizational
and
community
health
goals.
LM
8
Apply
social
justice
and
human
rights
principles
when
addressing
community
needs.
LM
9
Develop
strategies
to
motivate
others
for
collaborative
problem
solving,
decision‐making,
and
evaluation.
LM
10
Apply
the
principles
of
program
planning,
development,
budgeting,
management
and
evaluation
in
organizational
and
community
initiatives.
LM
11
Apply
quality
and
performance
improvement
concepts
to
address
organizational
performance
issue.
LM
12
Apply
"systems
thinking"
for
resolving
organizational
problems.
LM
13
Demonstrate
leadership
skills
for
building
partnerships.
2.6.d.
A
description
of
the
manner
in
which
competencies
are
developed,
used
and
made
available
to
students.
Competency
Development
The
manner
in
which
the
competencies
were
developed
is
illustrated
in
the
following
steps.
The
program
director
consulted
with
various
stakeholders
to
develop
the
overall
program
mission,
goals
and
objectives.
Relevant
stakeholders
included
students
and
graduates
and
employers/preceptors
of
graduates
from
the
former
MPH
program
under
her
administration,
CGU
faculty/administration
and
information
contained
in
relevant
reports
were
also
consulted.
For
example,
the
Annual
Report
of
the
Association
of
Schools
of
Public
Health
compiles
aggregate
data
on
applications,
new
enrollments,
students
and
graduates
in
each
school
of
public
health.
The
overall
program
focus
and
selection
of
concentrations
was
based
in
part
on
this
analysis
of
trends
in
public
health
education.
The
program
director,
with
approval
from
the
faculty,
developed
both
the
core
and
concentration
competencies
from
a
list
provided
by
recognized
public
health
organizations.
Core
public
health
competencies
to
be
mastered
by
students
upon
graduation
from
the
MPH
program
were
taken
from
“Core
Competencies
for
Public
Health
Officials”
(Council
of
Linkages
Between
Academia
and
Public
Health
Practice,
2009).
The
competencies
are
divided
into
eight
domains.
The
competencies
selected
in
the
relevant
theme
areas
are
reflective
of
the
specific
mission,
goals
and
objectives
of
the
MPH
program.
While
the
core
competencies
represent
basic
public
health
knowledge,
they
may
not
contain
many
skills
that
are
necessary
for
the
performance
of
certain
jobs
within
various
practice
settings.
Thus,
concentration
competencies
were
taken
from
sources
that
specify
discipline
specific
outcomes.
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
concentration
competencies
were
taken
from
“Areas
of
Responsibilities
for
Page
115
Health
Educators”
(National
Commission
on
Health
Education
Credentialing,
2010).
Competencies
for
the
other
three
concentrations
were
taken
from
“Master’s
Degree
in
Public
Health
Core
Competency
Development
Project”
(Association
of
Schools
of
Public
Health,
2007).
Competency
Use
Competencies
provide
the
foundation
for
program
development
and
assessment.
Once
established,
the
program
offerings
are
selected
based
upon
content
areas
and
necessary
skills.
Within
each
course,
the
competencies
drive
the
development
of
specific
learning
objectives
and
their
defined
assessments.
In
addition
to
course
offerings,
other
practice‐based
experiential
learning
opportunities,
such
as
the
internship
and
capstone
seminar,
were
developed.
Availability
of
Competencies
Competencies
are
made
available
to
current
and
prospective
students
via
many
vehicles.
They
are
featured
on
the
program
website,
in
the
MPH
student
handbook,
and
on
course
syllabi.
A
portion
of
the
new
MPH
student
orientation
is
devoted
to
a
discussion
of
competencies
including:
(1)
definition
of
competencies;
(2)
explanation
of
core
versus
concentration
competencies;
(3)
origins
of
competency
development
in
general
(i.e.,
underlying
values)
and
to
the
MPH
program
specifically
(i.e.,
consideration
of
the
program’s
mission);
(4)
how
they
are
referenced
throughout
the
program;
and
(5)
methods
of
assessment.
2.6.e.
A
description
of
the
manner
in
which
the
program
periodically
assess
the
changing
needs
of
public
health
practice
and
uses
this
information
to
establish
the
competencies
for
its
educational
programs.
Modification
of
Competencies
The
program
has
a
process
for
review
and
modification
of
competencies
which
includes
the
following
activities:
 Meetings
of
the
MPH
faculty
and
program
committees.
The
program
director
conducts
an
annual
syllabi
audit
to
ensure
competencies
for
each
course
are
listed,
measurable
objectives
are
specified,
and
appropriate
assessment
procedures
are
used.
Gaps
are
discussed
and
a
plan
to
improve
in
challenge
areas
is
presented
in
the
annual
meeting
of
the
curriculum
committee.
 Performance
by
students
in
the
internship
and
capstone
seminars.
Evaluations
by
students
and
internship
preceptors
provide
insight
on
the
level
of
preparedness.
Similarly,
mastery
of
student
competencies
during
the
capstone
course
may
expose
deficiencies
in
the
program
curriculum.
Modifications
of
the
competencies
and
related
learning
objectives
may
be
warranted.
 Feedback
provided
from
surveys,
focus
groups
and
advisement
sessions.
Students
routinely
provide
opinions
concerning
the
relevance
of
course
content
and
the
values
of
selected
assessment
methods.
These
opinions
are
summarized
and
discussed
at
faculty
and
program
committee
meetings.
An
employer
survey
has
been
drafted
and
will
be
distributed
once
a
sufficient
mass
of
alumni
are
reached.
 Regular
monitoring
of
competency
sets
developed
by
organizations.
Being
mindful
of
current
practices
in
the
field
will
identify
what
new
competencies
or
variations
of
thereof
have
been
added.
One
way
in
which
this
is
accomplished
is
through
the
participation
in
continuing
education
activities.
The
program
director
regularly
attends
continuing
education
events
to
maintain
the
MCHES
Page
116
certification.
At
these
seminars/workshops,
she
exposed
to
current
trends
in
public
health
research
and
practice.
Attendance
at
these
events
encourages
a
periodic
assessment
of
the
curriculum
to
be
certain
it
is
keeping
up
with
growing
trends
in
the
field.
2.6.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
competencies
are
based
upon
widely
recognized
standards
of
practice
and
are
reflective
of
the
program
mission,
goals
and
objectives.
 The
competencies
are
linked
with
student
learning
objectives
and
specific
learning
opportunities.
 The
competencies
are
widely
available
and
referenced
through
the
program.
 Many
methods
are
available
that
allow
for
input
on
the
competencies
from
program
constituents,
including
faculty,
students
(current
and
former)
and
internship
supervisors.
 There
is
a
plan
in
place
to
monitor
the
relevance
and
timeliness
of
the
competencies
to
ensure
that
they
are
reflective
of
trends
in
the
field.
Challenges
 A
survey
of
employers
of
graduates
cannot
be
conducted
as
this
time
due
to
the
limited
number
of
alumni.
Page
117
Blank
page
Page
118
Criterion
2.7.
Assessment
Procedures
There
shall
be
procedures
for
assessing
and
documenting
the
extent
to
which
each
student
has
demonstrated
competence
in
the
required
areas
of
performance.
2.7.a.
Description
of
the
procedures
used
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
student
progress
in
achieving
the
expected
competencies.
Assessment
Methodology
The
MPH
Program
utilizes
both
direct
and
indirect
methods
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
student
progress
in
achieving
the
expected
competencies.
Direct
assessors
of
learning
specifically
evaluate
the
competence
of
students
in
the
program
while
indirect
assessors
are
concerned
with
student’s
experiences,
opinions
or
perceptions,
rather
than
specific
knowledge
or
skill
attainment.
Both
methods
provide
insight
concerning
overall
student
progress.
Specific
tools
used
to
systematically
monitor
the
student
performance
in
the
program,
along
with
a
schedule
for
data
collection,
are
presented
below.
Table
2.7.a.
MPH
Data
Streams
Assessment
Method
Performance
Based
Examinations
&
Tests
Surveys
Data
Tool
Collected
Direct
Assessment
Methods
Capstone
Course
with
portfolio
and
Every
semester
written
paper
Performance
appraisal
of
poster
Every
semester
presentation
Skill
assessment
by
internship
preceptor
Cumulative
GPA
National
certification
exams
in
public
health*
and
health
education
End
of
every
semester
Semester
Bi‐annually
Indirect
Assessment
Methods
Student
Exit
Survey
End
of
every
semester
Alumni
Survey
Annually,
every
fall
Responsible
Party
Capstone
committee
Program
Director,
faculty
and
students
present
at
poster
presentation
session
Internship
preceptor
&
program
director
Course
Instructors
National
Board
for
Public
Health
Examiners
&
National
Commission
for
Health
Education
Credentialing
Program
Manager
Program
Manager
Employer
Survey
Annually,
every
fall
Program
Manager
Focus
Group**
Current
Student
Focus
Group
Contracted
moderator
Institutional
Data
Graduation
rates/time
to
graduation,
grades
Job
Placement
rates
Annually,
every
spring
End
of
every
semester
Annually
End
of
every
semester
Student’s
self
reflection
of
their
learning
Reflective
journals
(internship
course)
Institutional
Research
Officer
Program
Manager
Program
Director
*This
data
point
will
be
tracked
if
the
program
attains
accreditation
by
CEPH.
**Not
conducted
in
spring
2011
due
to
lack
of
funds.
Assessment
Procedures
Student’s
progress
in
achieving
the
learning
outcomes
is
monitored
through
several
means,
including
cumulative
grade
point
average
(GPA),
the
internship
experience,
the
capstone
seminar,
course
Page
119
evaluations,
student
focus
group,
interviews,
national
certification
exams,
and
surveys
(i.e.,
exit,
alumni,
preceptor,
employee,
and
faculty).
Details
regarding
the
processes
used
to
gather
the
program’s
performance
data
are
described
below.
Performance
indicators/criteria
for
success
(“targets”)
by
which
the
faculty
will
evaluate
the
students’
performance
on
each
measures
is
specified.
Cumulative
GPA
In
order
to
successfully
progress
through
the
program,
all
students
are
expected
to
maintain
a
minimum
grade
point
average
of
3.000
in
all
coursework
with
no
more
than
two
incomplete
courses
at
any
time.
Failure
to
maintain
the
applicable
minimum
standard
will
result
in
the
student
being
placed
on
academic
probation
for
the
following
semester.
Students
are
placed
on
probation
who
does
not
meet
the
minimum
standard.
Any
student
on
probation
for
more
than
two
semesters
may
be
subject
to
dismissal.
Target:
90%
of
students
will
achieve
a
cumulative
GPA
of
3.0
every
semester.
Capstone
Seminar
Students
register
for
CGH
307:
Public
Health
Capstone
in
their
final
semester
of
the
program.
The
capstone
seminar
pulls
together
the
training
students
have
received
in
all
their
prior
coursework
and
field
experience
and
it
provides
the
opportunity
to
round
out
the
development
of
the
full
set
of
competencies
viewed
as
essential
for
masters‐prepared
graduates
in
public
health.
The
requirements,
which
include
a
portfolio
and
final
paper,
provide
students
with
a
means
of
self‐assessment,
indicating
how
core
and
concentration‐specific
competencies
were
achieved,
through
master’s
courses
and
fieldwork,
community
service,
and
paid
work
experience.
The
assignments
are
graded
by
a
faculty
committee
using
a
standard
rubric.
Target:
95%
of
students
pass
the
Capstone
seminar
on
the
first
attempt
Oral
Presentations
Students
have
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
attainment
of
student
learning
objectives
through
presentations
in
MPH
courses.
Students
have
the
unique
opportunity
to
participate
in
a
poster
presentation
session
while
enrolled
in
CGH
306:
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health.
Like
a
scientific
session,
students
devise
a
poster
describing
various
aspects
of
their
internship
experience,
present
the
material,
and
field
questions
from
attendees.
Faculty,
staff
and
other
students
grade
the
presentation
using
a
standard
rubric.
The
evaluation
uses
a
three‐point
Likert‐scale
(3=effective,
2=acceptable;
1=unsatisfactory).
Target:
90%
of
students
will
receive
a
grade
of
“acceptable”
from
the
Program
Director/Course
Instructor
on
the
oral
poster
presentations
as
evidenced
by
a
standardized
rubric.
Internship
Skill
Assessment
(Preceptor
Survey)
The
preceptor
survey
is
included
in
the
internship
handbook
which
is
distributed
to
all
internship
supervisors.
The
survey
requests
feedback
on
the
student’s
job
performance
and
competencies.
Students
receive
ratings
on
several
criteria:
interpersonal
skills,
supervisory
skills,
personal
attributes
and
skills.
Preceptors
are
asked
to
give
an
overall
rating
for
the
student’s
performance.
The
evaluation
uses
a
five‐point
Likert‐scale
(5=beyond
expectation,
1=below
expectation).
Preceptors
are
also
asked
to
rate
the
student’s
preparedness
to
undertake
the
activities
asked
of
them
during
the
course
of
their
internship.
Target:
100%
of
students
will
receive
a
performance
rating
of
at
least
4.0
from
their
preceptors.
Ninety
percent
of
students
will
receive
a
preparedness
rating
of
“very
prepared”
from
their
internship
supervisors.
Page
120
Examinations
and
Tests
Upon
graduation,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
sit
for
two
types
of
certifications
exams.
The
National
Commission
for
Health
Education
Credentialing
(NCHEC)
offers
the
Certified
Health
Education
Specialist
(CHES)
exam,
a
competency‐based
test
that
measures
the
possession,
application
and
interpretation
of
knowledge
related
to
the
Seven
Areas
of
Responsibilities:
a
comprehensive
set
of
Competencies
and
Sub‐competencies
defining
the
role
of
an
entry‐level
health
educator.
Only
students
in
the
health
promotion,
education
and
evaluation
concentration
are
eligible
to
sit
for
the
exam.
As
of
2008,
The
National
Board
of
Public
Health
Examiners
(NBPHE)
offers
a
certification
in
public
health
(CIP).
The
purpose
of
the
exam
is
to
ensure
that
students
and
graduates
from
schools
and
programs
of
public
health
accredited
by
the
Council
on
Education
for
Public
Health
(CEPH)
have
mastered
the
knowledge
and
skills
relevant
to
contemporary
public
health.
The
exam
is
rooted
in
the
five
basic
core
competencies
of
public
health
to
reflect
the
nature
of
the
field.
Only
graduates
of
a
CEPH
accredited
program
are
eligible
to
sit
for
the
exam.
This
data
point
will
be
tracked
should
the
program
receive
CEPH
accreditation.
Target:
80%
of
students
will
pass
the
certifications
exams
on
the
first
attempt.
Student
Exit
Survey
The
exit
interview
is
required
of
all
students
upon
graduation.
The
survey
is
available
online
by
Survey
Monkey.
This
survey
assesses
students’
confidence
regarding
mastery
of
MPH
core
and
concentration
competencies;
overall
satisfaction
with
the
program
and
curriculum;
and
strengths/weakness
of
the
program;
and
skills
still
needed.
Target:
90%
of
graduates
will
report
mastery
of
MPH
competencies.
Alumni
Survey
This
survey
will
be
sent
annually
via
e‐mail
to
all
MPH
graduates
from
the
preceding
12
months,
with
all
responses
collected
using
Survey
Monkey.
The
survey
is
comprised
of
four
sections:
demographics,
prior
degrees,
employment,
and
recommendations
(i.e.,
curriculum,
program
operations,
etc).
Target:
80%
of
graduates
will
report
job
placement
rates
within
12
months.
Employer
Survey
This
survey
will
be
sent
to
employers
of
MPH
graduates
approximately
three
months
after
receipt
of
the
alumni
survey.
Three
months
should
be
a
sufficient
amount
of
time
to
come
to
know
the
employees
capacity
for
performance.
The
survey
asks
that
the
employers
provide
an
overall
rating
of
the
employee’s
preparedness,
and
provide
general
strengths
and
weakness
of
the
program.
Target:
80%
percent
of
employers
will
provide
a
preparedness
rating
of
“very
prepared”
for
their
employees.
Student
Focus
Group
At
the
end
of
the
spring
semester,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
a
focus
group
moderated
by
an
outside
agency.
The
overarching
objective
of
the
process
is
to
learn
about
the
attitudes
and
perceptions
of
students
enrolled
in
the
MPH
program.
Five
main
areas
of
interest
include:
 What
aspects
of
the
MPH
program
do
you
like/are
pleased
with?
 What
areas
need
improvement?
 What
is
unique
about
the
program?
 Has
the
program
staff
(administrator
and
faculty)
been
responsive
to
your
needs?
 Would
you
recommend
the
MPH
program
to
others
(why
and
why
not)?
Target:
80%
of
students
would
recommend
the
MPH
program
to
others.
Page
121
Institutional
Data
The
Office
of
Institutional
Research
at
CGU
provides
data
on
various
student
outcomes.
To
assess
student
learning
outcomes,
the
program
specifically
tracks
student
grades,
time
to
graduation
and
graduation
rates.
The
program
director
uses
a
degree
counseling
sheet
to
monitor
student
progress.
Targets:
90%
of
students
will
graduate
within
the
five
year
time
limit
for
master’s
degrees
at
CGU.
Student’s
Self
Reflection
of
their
Learning
Documenting
the
field
training
experience
through
journaling
provides
an
opportunity
for
reflection
in
action.
Students
complete
four
journals,
one
for
every
100
hours
worked.
Students
comment
on
the
specific
activities
they
conduct
and
provide
reflective
observations
on
obstacles
encountered,
successes
and
overall
performance.
Upon
conclusion
of
the
field
training
hours,
students
will
compose
a
reflective
evaluation
to
assess
their
experience
and
achievement
of
project
objectives
and
MPH
student
competencies.
Target:
80%
of
students
will
report
achievement
of
selected
competencies
through
the
field
training
experience.
Data
Review
&
Program
Adjustments
The
evaluation
processes
used
by
the
MPH
program
enable
program
faculty,
staff,
students
and
community
partners
to
enhance
program
operations
and
student
learning.
Results
are
funneled
to
the
faculty
at
large
and
specific
MPH
Program
Committees.
Faculty
meetings
held
bi‐monthly,
maintain
regular
discussions
of
program
functioning.
Program
leadership
routinely
adopts
recommendations
expressed
in
these
meetings.
Program
committees
met
annually
to
evaluate
areas
that
pertain
to
their
charge;
targets
that
are
not
met
are
accompanied
by
an
action
plan.
Continual
curriculum
improvement
is
a
result
of
the
following
procedures:
• Syllabi
audits
each
semester
to
ensure
the
student
learning
outcomes
(competencies)
for
each
course
are
listed
• Faculty
review
of
assessments
each
semester
to
ensure
they
are
effectively
measuring
learning
at
the
course
level
• Review
of
all
measures
of
all
student
learning
outcomes
that
are
related
to
the
curriculum
• Determination
of
areas
of
successes
and
challenges
• Development
of
a
plan
to
improve
in
challenge
areas
The
results
of
these
evaluative
measures
are
regularly
used
to
initiate
program
adjustments.
For
example,
the
results
of
course
evaluations,
completed
by
the
students
are
compiled
and
reviewed
by
the
MPH
program
director
and
the
Dean.
These
evaluations
can
impact
subsequent
teaching
assignments,
sequencing
of
course
offerings,
or
specific
teaching
strategies.
In
the
event
of
lower
than
average
scores,
MPH
teaching
faculty
are
counseled.
Course
content
or
evaluative
criteria
may
also
be
revised
in
the
light
of
student
comments.
These
evaluations
become
a
part
of
the
material
presented
by
the
faculty
candidate
for
promotion
and
tenure.
Student
surveys,
particularly
the
exit
and
alumni
provide
important
information
concerning
student
satisfaction
with
program
curriculum,
attainment
of
competencies,
and
overall
operations.
This
data
is
used
by
the
program
director
to
identify
new
content
areas
and
methods
to
improve
student
services.
Focus
groups,
planned
by
program
staff
and
facilitated
by
an
outside
agency,
offer
another
mechanism
by
which
students
communicate
their
level
of
satisfaction
with
program
operations
and
the
academic
offerings.
Both
students
and
preceptors
complete
an
internship
evaluation.
Preceptors
rate
the
level
of
student
preparation
and
performance
at
Page
122
conclusion
of
the
400‐hour
field
training
requirement.
The
survey
is
forwarded
to
the
program
director,
who
also
teaches
the
Internship
course.
Information
concerning
areas
of
strength
and
improvement
can
inform
MPH
student
competencies.
Similarly,
students
rate
their
experience
and
identify
specific
courses
that
were
instrumental
in
preparing
them
for
the
types
of
tasks
they
undertook
in
their
field
training
experience.
In
addition,
students
comment
on
courses
or
content
areas
that
would
have
been
helpful
had
they
been
offered
in
the
curriculum.
New
course
offerings
can
be
instituted
based
upon
student
assessment.
The
Curriculum
Committee
meets
annually
for
assessment
and
evaluation
of
offerings,
both
in
terms
of
areas
of
dual
degree
options,
MPH
specializations,
teaching
schedules,
and
specific
courses
and
study‐practice
options.
Recommendations
from
this
committee
can
result
in
modifications
to
all
areas
mentioned
above.
For
example,
a
change
in
marketing
strategies
may
result
when
a
particular
area
of
emphasis
or
course
continues
to
experience
low
enrollment.
2.7.b.
Identification
of
outcomes
that
serve
as
measures
by
which
the
program
will
evaluate
student
achievement
in
each
degree
program,
and
presentation
of
data
assessing
the
programs
performance
against
those
measures
of
the
last
two
years.
Student
Achievement
Outcomes
Specific
outcome
measures
referenced
in
criterion
2.7.a.
are
listed
in
table
2.7.b.(1),
along
with
performance
data
for
the
last
two
academic
years.
Table
2.7.b.(1).
Outcome
Measures
Used
to
Evaluate
Student
Achievement
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative
GPA
of
3.0
95%
2009‐2010
100%
Met
N/A
95%
N/A
100%
N/A
80%
N/A
Self‐reported
level
of
mastery
of
competencies
(student
exit
survey)
90%
100%
Met
2010‐2011
90%
Met
100%
Met
100%
Met
100%
Met
0%
Not
Met
100%
Met
Job
Placement
within
12
months
(alumni
survey)
Employer
preparedness
rating
of
graduates
(employer
survey)
Degree
completion
rate
80%
N/A
N/A
90%
N/A
N/A
80%
N/A
N/A
Achievement
of
selected
MPH
competencies
through
field
experience
80%
N/A
100%
Met
Pass
rate
for
the
capstone
course
on
the
first
attempt
Rating
of
“acceptable”
for
the
poster
presentation
Performance
rating
from
internship
skill
assessment
(preceptor
evaluation
survey)
Pass
rate
on
CHES
exam
Target
90%
Page
123
Comments
Summer
capstone
due
date
is
8/22/11
Summer
presentation
is
scheduled
for
8/22/11
Summer
surveys
are
due
8/22/11
Student
will
re‐take
exam
in
10/11
Summer
2011
exit
survey
is
scheduled
for
8/25/11
First
alumni
survey
is
scheduled
for
12/11
First
employers
survey
is
scheduled
for
3/12
Based
upon
a
5‐year
degree
completion
schedule
Summer
semester
evaluations
are
due
8/22/11
Distributions
for
cumulative
GPAs
are
presented
in
table
2.7.b
(2).
With
the
exception
of
spring
2011
students
in
the
Health
promotion,
Education
and
Evaluation
concentration,
this
outcome
measure
is
met.
Table
2.7.b.(2).
Distributions
of
Cumulative
GPAs.
Target:
At
Least
90%
Semester
Total
Students
Number
of
Students
with
3.0
Cumulative
GPA
Percentage
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
Fall
2009
5
Spring
2010
7
Summer
2010
7
5
7
7
100%
100%
100%
Fall
2010
12
11
92%
Spring
2011
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Fall
2009
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
Leadership
&
Management
Fall
2009
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
15
13
87%
2
2
2
5
6
2
2
2
5
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7
7
7
9
10
7
7
7
9
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
2.7.c.
If
the
outcome
measures
selected
by
the
program
do
not
include
degree
completion
rates
and
job
placement
experience,
then
data
for
these
two
additional
indicators
must
be
provided,
including
experiential
data
for
each
of
the
three
years.
If
degree
completion
rates,
in
the
normal
time
period
for
degree
completion,
are
less
than
80%,
an
explanation
must
be
provided.
If
job
placement
within
12
months
following
award
of
the
degree,
is
less
than
80%
of
the
graduates,
an
explanation
must
be
provided.
Outcome
Measures
Degree
Completion
Rates
Table
2.7.c.(1)
illustrates
degree
completion
rates.
The
current
degree
completion
rate
is
43.75%.
This
is
below
the
80%
target
as
students
have
five
years
in
which
to
complete
the
MPH
degree.
The
program
has
only
been
in
existence
for
two
years.
Page
124
Table
2.7.c.(1).
Students
in
MPH
Degree
By
Cohorts
Entering
Between
2009­2010
and
2011­2012
MPH
Students
by
Entering
Cohort
Cohort
of
Students
2009‐2010
#
students
entered
#
students
withdrew,
dropped,
etc.
#
students
graduated
Cumulative
graduation
rate
(%)
Cumulative
attrition
rate
(%)
2010‐2011
#
students
continuing
at
the
beginning
#
students
withdrew,
dropped,
etc.
#
students
graduated
Cumulative
graduation
rate
(%)
Cumulative
attrition
rate
(%)
2011‐2012
#
students
continuing
at
the
beginning
#
students
withdrew,
dropped,
etc.
#
students
graduated
Cumulative
graduation
rate
(%)
Cumulative
attrition
rate
(%)
2009‐2010
16
1
0
0
6.25%
15
0
7
43.75%
6.25%
8
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2010‐2011
17
0
0
0.00%
0.00%
17
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2011‐2012
11
1
TBD
TBD
TBD
Job
Placement
Experience
The
MPH
exit
survey
is
used
to
collect
job
placement
data
from
recent
graduates.
One
student
who
graduated
in
December
2010
indicates
that
she
is
in
the
process
of
seeking
employment
as
referenced
in
Table
2.7.c.(2).
The
one
student
who
graduated
in
spring
2011
is
enrolled
in
graduate
degree
program.
Three
of
the
summer
2011
graduates
are
now
doctoral
students
at
SCGH.
The
other
summer
2011
graduate
is
seeking
employment.
Table
2.7.c.(2).
Destination
of
Graduates
by
Employment
Type,
2010­2011
Employed
Continuing
education/training
(not
employed)
Actively
seeking
employment
Not
seeking
employment
(not
employed
and
not
continuing
education/training,
by
choice)
Unknown
Total
4
3
0
0
7
2.7.d.
A
table
showing
the
destination
of
graduates
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
The
table
must
include
at
least
the
number
and
percentages
of
graduates
by
program
area
each
year
going
to
(1)
government
(state,
local,
federal),
(2)
nonprofit
organization,
(3)
hospital
or
health
care
delivery
facility,
(4)
private
practice,
(5)
university
or
research
institute,
(6)
proprietary
organization
(industry,
pharmaceutical
company,
consulting),
(7)
further
education,
(8)
non‐
health
related
employment,
or
(9)
not
employed.
Destination
of
Graduates
See
table
2.7.c.(2).
Page
125
2.7.e.
In
public
health
fields
where
there
is
certification
of
professional
competence,
data
on
the
performance
of
the
program’s
graduates
on
these
national
examinations
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Certification
of
Professional
Competencies
The
CGU
program
does
not
require
students
to
sit
for
any
certifying
examinations.
CGU
students/graduates
are
not
yet
eligible
to
take
the
Certified
in
Public
Health
exam.
One
current
student
took
the
Certified
Health
Education
Specialist
exam
in
April
2011.
She
was
seven
points
away
from
passing
the
exam
and
plans
to
re‐take
it
in
October
2011.
Thus,
program’s
certification
exam
pass
rate
is
0%.
2.7.f.
Data
describing
results
from
periodic
assessments
of
alumni
and
employees
of
graduates
regarding
the
ability
of
the
program’s
graduates
to
effectively
perform
the
competencies
in
a
practice
setting.
Assessments
of
Alumni
and
Employers
of
Graduates
No
data
is
available
at
this
time.
The
first
alumni
survey
is
scheduled
for
December
2011,
one
year
after
the
first
graduate
of
the
program.
2.7.g.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
program
has
developed
a
broad‐based,
integrated
plan
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
student
progress
in
achieving
the
expected
competencies.
 Data
collection
methods
and
tools
featured
in
the
assessment
plan
are
diverse
and
robust.
 Data
are
collected,
reviewed,
and
evaluated
in
a
systematic
way.
 All
data
collection
tools
have
been
developed
and
a
schedule
for
dissemination
has
been
established.
Challenges
 Data
is
not
yet
available
for
some
outcomes
(e.g.,
employer
preparedness
rating,
job
placement
rate).
 No
focus
group
data
was
available
for
the
2010‐2011
academic
year
due
to
budget
constraints.
Page
126
Criterion
2.8.
Academic
Degrees
If
the
program
also
offers
curricula
for
academic
degrees,
then
students
pursuing
them
shall
obtain
a
broad
introduction
to
public
health,
as
well
as
an
understanding
about
how
their
discipline‐based
specialization
contributes
to
achieving
the
goals
of
public
health.
2.8.a.
Identification
of
all
academic
degree
programs,
by
degree
and
area
of
specialization.
The
instructional
matrix
may
be
referenced
for
this
purpose.
Academic
Degree
Programs
and
Areas
of
Specialization
Not
applicable.
2.8.b.
Identification
of
the
means
by
which
the
program
assures
that
students
in
research
curricula
acquire
a
public
health
orientation.
If
this
means
is
common
across
the
program,
it
need
be
described
only
once.
It
if
varies
by
degree
or
specialty
area,
sufficient
information
must
be
provided
to
assess
compliance
by
each.
Evidence
of
Public
Health
Orientation
Not
applicable.
2.8.c.
Identification
of
the
culmination
experience
required
for
each
academic
degree
program.
If
this
is
common
across
the
program’s
academic
degree
program,
it
need
be
described
only
once.
If
it
varies
by
degree
or
specialty
area,
sufficient
information
must
be
provided
to
assess
compliance
by
each.
Culminating
Experience
Not
applicable.
2.8.d.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
Not
applicable.
Page
127
Blank
page
Page
128
Criterion
2.9.
Doctoral
Degrees
The
program
may
offer
doctoral
degree
programs.
If
consistent
with
its
mission
and
resources.
2.9.a.
Identification
of
all
doctoral
program
offered
by
the
program
by
degree
and
specialization.
The
instructional
matrix
may
be
referenced
for
this
purpose.
Instructional
Matrix
Not
applicable.
2.9.b.
Data
on
the
number
of
active
students
in
each
doctoral
degree
program
as
well
as
applications,
acceptances,
enrollments
and
graduates
for
the
last
three
years.
Student
Data
Not
applicable.
2.9.c.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
Not
applicable.
Page
129
Blank
page
Page
130
Criterion
2.10.
Joint
Degrees
If
the
program
offers
joint
degree
programs,
the
required
curriculum
for
the
professional
public
health
degree
shall
be
equivalent
to
that
required
for
a
separate
public
health
degree.
2.10.a.
Identification
of
joint
degree
programs
offered
by
the
program
and
a
description
of
the
requirements
for
each.
Identification
of
Degrees
Currently,
there
are
four
joint
degree
programs,
both
formal
and
individual,
available
to
qualified
and
interested
students.
Up
to
16
units
of
course
sharing
is
permitted.
Only
those
courses
that
address
MPH
competencies
are
substituted
for
MPH
requirements.
Competency
analyses
was
conducted
by
first
reviewing
the
course
syllabus
of
the
required
course
and
that
of
the
proposed
substituted
course.
Comparisons
were
then
made
between
the
two
syllabi
in
terms
of
student
learning
objectives,
course
content,
and
the
range
of
learning
opportunities.
Since
the
competencies
of
each
MPH
course
has
already
been
determined
and
used
as
the
standard
(see
Table
2.6b
and
2.6c),
the
side‐by‐side
comparison
between
the
two
courses
allowed
the
program
to
identify
competencies
which
were
consistent
between
the
required
and
substituted
course.
If
overlap
existed
between
the
competencies,
the
course
was
considered
an
adequate
substitution.
MPH
competencies
addressed
in
the
substituted
courses
were
recorded
for
each
dual
degree
student.
A
brief
description
of
each
program
is
provided,
along
with
a
competency
based
analysis
illustrating
specific
incidences
of
course
sharing.
Accelerated
Bachelor’s/MPH
(4+1)
This
program
offers
qualified
students
from
the
undergraduate
Claremont
Colleges
the
special
opportunity
to
work
simultaneously
toward
completion
of
their
undergraduate
degree
requirements
and
a
Master
of
Public
Health
(MPH)
degree.
Students
usually
apply
to
the
MPH
program
in
their
junior
year
and
can
take
graduate
units
in
their
senior
year
towards
the
requirements
for
the
MPH
degree.
Applicants
must
obtain
approval
of
their
undergraduate
advisor
and
the
MPH
program
director
and
are
admitted
under
provisional
status
until
the
undergraduate
degree
is
earned.
Depending
upon
the
undergraduate
major,
a
maximum
of
16
units
may
be
applied
to
both
undergraduate
and
graduate
degrees.
The
units
accepted
for
both
degrees
must
be
equivalent
to
a
B
or
better.
MBA
(Masters
of
Business
Administration)/MPH
The
Peter
L.
Drucker
and
Masatoshi
Ito
Graduate
School
of
Management
(Drucker)
along
with
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
(SCGH)
of
Claremont
Graduate
University
admitted
students
in
fall
2009
to
a
dual
degree
program
in
business
administration
and
public
health
aimed
to
provide
leadership
development
and
management
training
for
public
health
systems,
organizations
and
individuals.
Students
complete
a
6
semester
(full‐time),
76‐credit
hour
program,
requiring
56
units
of
core
courses,
16
units
of
concentration
courses,
and
4
units
of
elective
coursework.
Specific
program
components
include:
 Fifteen
core
courses
which
cover
the
core
student
competencies
and
provide
a
foundation
for
further
coursework
in
a
chosen
concentration
 Choice
of
five
concentrations
in
the
MBA
program,
with
at
least
12
units
of
coursework
required
or
the
choice
of
one
concentration
in
the
MPH
program
(Leadership
and
Management),
with
at
least
16
units
of
required
coursework
 Choice
of
elective
courses
within
both
programs
Page
131
Table
2.10.a.(1).
below
illustrates
“course
sharing”
that
allows
courses
from
the
MBA
degree
that
replaces
courses
that
would
otherwise
be
required
of
the
MPH
degree
with
a
concentration
in
leadership
and
management.
Table
2.10.a.(1).
Student
Jane
Castanares
Stefan
Gonzalez
Summary
of
Substitutions
of
MBA
Courses
to
MPH
Requirements
MPH
Requirement
Course
#
Title
CGH
301
Biostatistics
CGH
316
Public
Health
Leadership
CGH
317
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Cultural
Diversity
MBA
Replacement
Courses
Course
#
Title
MGT
306
Quantitative
Methods
MGT
488
Self‐Management
CGH
318
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
Biostatistics
Public
Health
Leadership
MGT
360
Applied
Operational
Methods
MGT
306
MGT
353
Current
Issues
in
Global
Public
Health
Biostatistics
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Cultural
Diversity
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
Biostatistics
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
MGT
375
CGH
301
CGH
316
CGH
319
Mary
Mengedoth‐
Brennan
CGH
301
CGH
317
CGH
318
Christopher
Oakley
CGH
301
CGH
318
Yvonne
Oliveras‐
Maldonado
CGH
318
MGT
315
1,2,4,6,
8,9,10
Quantitative
Methods
The
Nonprofit
Leader:
st
21 Century
Challenges
&
Opportunities
Global
Supply
Change
Management
2,3,5,8,
10
4,5,6,9
2,3,7,8,10,
13
2,3,4,5,
8
2,3,4,6,10,
11,12
MGT
306
MGT
315
Quantitative
Methods
Ethical
Leadership/
Effective
Management
4,5,6,9
6,8,11,12,1
3
MGT
345
Organizational
Behavior
/
Organizational
Theory
3,8,10
2,3,9,10
MGT
306
MGT
345
Quantitative
Methods
Organizational
Behavior
/
Organizational
Theory
3,8,10
4,5,6,9
2,3,9,10
MGT
353
The
Nonprofit
Leader:
st
21 Century
Challenges
&
Opportunities
2,3,5,8,
10
2,3,7,8,10,
13
MGT
398
Ethical
Leadership/
Effective
Management
Independent
Study
MPH
Competencies
Addressed
MPH
ABE
LM
4,5,6,9
10
3,6,9,13
6,8,11,12,1
3
2,4,6,7,10,
13
7,9,10,11,1
2,13
MA
(Applied
Psychology)/MPH
The
School
of
Behavioral
and
Organizational
Science
(SBOS)
along
with
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
(SCGH)
formally
admitted
students
in
fall
2011
to
a
dual
degree
program
in
psychology
(health
behavior
&
evaluation)
and
public
health
(health
promotion,
education
&
evaluation
and
applied
biostatistics
&
epidemiology)
that
combines
theoretical
and
applied
population‐based
research
about
Page
132
behavioral
risk
factors
and
the
efficacy
of
behavioral
interventions
to
improve
health
outcomes
among
diverse
populations.
Graduates
of
the
MA/MPH
dual
degree
program
will
acquire
a
broad
perspective
of
health‐relevant
behaviors,
as
well
as
program
development,
evaluation
and
research
skills
that
are
applicable
in
a
wide
range
of
settings.
Students
complete
a
5
semester
(full‐time,
16
units
or
less
per
semester),
64‐unit
program.
Specific
program
components
include:
 Twenty
one
courses
in
applied
psychology
and
public
health
that
satisfy
the
core
requirements
 Choice
of
one
concentration
in
the
MA
program,
(Health
Behavior
Research)
and
one
concentration
in
the
MPH
program
(Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation)
 Choice
of
elective
courses
within
both
programs
As
of
fall
2011,
one
dual
MA/MPH
student
is
enrolled.
Table
2.10.a.(2)
below
illustrates
“course
sharing”
that
allows
courses
from
the
MA
degree
that
replaces
courses
that
would
otherwise
be
required
of
the
MPH
degree
with
a
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation.
Table
2.10.a.(2).
Student
Jessica
Jackson
Summary
of
Substitutions
of
MA
Courses
to
MPH
Requirements
MPH
Requirement
Course
#
Title
CGH
300
Theoretical
Foundations
in
Health
Education
&
Promotion
CGH
308
Foundations
of
Program
Planning
MA
Replacement
Courses
Course
#
Title
PSYCH
339
Survey
of
Health
Behavior
Theory
MPH
Competencies
Addressed
MPH
HPEE
ABE
1,3,7,10
2,3,5,6,
7
PSYCH
350v
1,3,4,6,
7
CGH
301
PSYCH
308a
1,2,3,4,
5,6,7,8,
9,10
1,6
1,6
3,6,7
2,5,7
3,4,5,6,7,
9
1,2,3,5,6,
7,9
5,7,9
Biostatistics
PSYCH
308a
CGH
309
Monitoring
&
Evaluation
of
Global
Public
Health
Programs
PSYCH
354b
Health
Behavior
Program
Development
ANOVA
Intermediate
Statistics
Evaluation
Procedures
Individual
Dual
Masters
Degrees
There
are
two
types
of
dual‐degree
programs,
formal
and
individual.
Formal
programs
are
programs
whose
requirements
are
explicitly
agreed
upon
and
formalized
between
two
departments,
such
as
the
MBA/MPH
described
above.
Individual
programs
are
programs
initiated
by
individual
students
according
to
their
special
needs.
Students
interested
in
individualized
dual‐degree
programs
must,
with
the
recommendation
of
their
respective
advisors,
submit
their
proposals
specifying
their
purpose,
minimum
unit
requirements,
and
number
of
transferable
units
in
each
area
to
the
executive
committees
of
the
respective
departments
for
approval.
The
student
will
submit
a
signed
change
in
degree
form
and
dual
degree
approval
form
to
the
Registrar.
Two
students
elected
to
complete
a
dual
MA
(Applied
Psychology)/MPH
degree
prior
to
the
approval
of
the
formal
program.
Currently,
there
a
total
of
four
dual
degree
students:
two
from
the
School
of
Organizational
and
Behavioral
Sciences
(MA/MPH),
and
two
from
Drucker
(MS
in
Management/MPH)
and
Executive
MBA/MPH).
Page
133
Table
2.10.a.(3).
below
illustrates
“course
sharing”
that
allows
courses
from
the
other
master’s
degrees
that
replace
courses
that
would
otherwise
be
required
of
the
MPH
degree.
Courses
substituted
for
MPH
coursework
are
justified
by
a
competency
mapping
procedure
conducted
by
the
accreditation
consultant
and
the
program
director.
Table
2.10.a.(3).
Summary
of
Substitutions
of
Master’s
Degree
Courses
to
MPH
Requirements
Student
MPH
Requirements
Course
#
Title
Joseph
Garbanzos
CGH
316
Public
Health
(MSM/MPH)
Leadership
CGH
318
Management
of
Global
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
Replacement
Courses
Course
#
Title
MGT
711
Lessons
in
Leadership
MGT
635a
Self
&
Shared
Leadership
MGT
515
Organizational
Behavior
MGT
633
Team
Leadership
MPH
Competencies
Addressed
MPH
HPEE
ABE
LM
2,4,8
1,2,3,7,9,
10,11,12
8
1,2,3,7,9,
10,11,12
2.10.b.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 CGU
offers
opportunities
for
students
to
complete
a
public
health
degree
along
with
a
second
separate
degree
program.
 Course
sharing
that
allows
courses
from
the
non‐public
health
degree
are
identified
and
supported
by
a
competency
based
analysis.
Weaknesses
 While
a
few
students
have
been
accepted
to
the
Bachelor’s/MPH
accelerated
degree
program,
none
has
yet
completed
the
program.
Page
134
Criterion
2.11.
Distance
Education
or
Executive
Degree
Programs
If
the
program
offers
degree
programs
using
formats
or
methods
other
than
students
attending
regular
on‐site
course
sessions
spread
over
a
standard
term,
these
programs
must
be
1)
be
consistent
with
the
mission
of
the
program
and
with
the
program’s
established
area
of
expertise;
2)
be
guided
by
clearly
articulated
student
learning
outcomes
that
are
rigorously
evaluated;
3)
be
subject
to
the
same
quality
control
processes
that
other
degree
programs
in
the
program
and
university
are,
and
4)
provide
planned
and
evaluated
learning
experiences
which
take
into
consideration
and
are
responsive
to
the
characteristics
and
needs
of
adult
learners.
If
the
program
offers
distance
education
or
executive
degree
programs,
it
must
provide
needed
support
for
these
programs,
including
administrative,
travel,
communication
and
student
services.
The
program
must
have
an
ongoing
program
to
evaluate
the
academic
effectiveness
of
the
format,
to
assess
teaching
and
learning
methodologies
and
to
systematically
use
this
information
to
stimulate
program
improvements.
2.11.a.
Identification
of
all
degree
programs
that
are
offered
in
a
format
other
than
regular,
on‐site
course
sessions
spread
over
a
standard
terms,
including
those
offered
in
full
or
in
part
through
distance
education
in
which
the
instructor
and
student
are
separated
in
time
or
place
or
both.
The
instructional
matrix
may
be
referenced
for
this
purpose.
Identification
of
Degrees
Not
applicable.
2.11.b.
Description
of
the
distance
education
or
executive
degree
programs,
including
an
explanation
of
the
model
or
methods
used,
the
program’s
rationale
for
offering
these
programs,
the
manner
in
which
it
provides
necessary
administrative
and
student
support
services,
the
manner
in
which
it
monitors
the
academic
rigor
of
the
programs
and
their
equivalence
(or
comparability)
to
other
degree
programs
offered
by
the
program,
and
the
manner
in
which
it
evaluates
the
educational
outcomes,
as
well
as
the
format
and
methodologies.
Description
of
Models/Methods
Not
applicable.
2.11.c.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
Not
applicable
Page
135
Blank
page
.
Page
136
CRITERION
3.0
CREATION,
APPLICATION
AND
ADVANCEMENT
OF
KNOWLEDGE
Page
137
Blank
page
Page
138
Criterion
3.1.
Research
The
program
shall
pursue
an
active
research
program,
consistent
with
its
mission,
through
which
its
faculty
and
students
contribute
to
the
knowledge
base
of
the
public
health
disciplines,
including
research
directed
at
improving
the
practice
of
public
health.
3.1.a.
A
description
of
the
program’s
research
activities,
including
policies,
procedures
and
practices
that
support
research
and
scholarly
activities.
University
Research
Activities
Research
and
scholarly
activity
at
CGU
is
high,
with
the
University
generating
a
prodigious
intellectual
footprint
relative
to
its
size.
Members
of
the
CGU
faculty
produce
and
apply
knowledge
across
all
of
the
scholarly
disciplines
represented
in
its
schools
and
departments,
collaborate
with
colleagues
around
the
globe,
and
actively
mentor
students
on
research
projects.
External
funding
such
as
federal
research
grants,
foundation
grants,
and
public
and
private
contracts
supports
much
of
this
work.
During
the
2009
fiscal
year,
one
quarter
of
CGU
faculty
received
new
awards
for
sponsored
projects
valued
at
$15
million.
The
scale
and
scope
of
research
activities
and
external
dollars
have
recently
expanded
and
it
continues
to
grow
across
the
University.
From
Fiscal
Year
2001
to
Fiscal
Year
2008,
the
Office
of
Research
submitted
$152
million
in
proposals
and
accepted
$41
million
in
awards.
In
2009
alone,
the
new
awards
amounted
to
$14
million
after
SCGH
was
established.
In
Fiscal
Year
2010,
as
of
April,
$24
million
in
new
awards
were
received.
By
comparison,
the
new
awards
stood
at
$5
million
in
2002
when
the
University
completed
reaffirmation
of
accreditation.
University
Policies
and
Procedures
The
Office
of
Research
and
Sponsored
Programs
(ORSP)
provides
faculty
with
the
following
guidelines:
 Policy
Statement
on
Conflict
of
Interest
and
Conflict
of
Commitment
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1853.asp)
 Grants
Post
Awards
Policy
and
Procedures
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/2083.asp)
 Policy
Statement
on
Intellectual
Property
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1854.asp)
 Policy
Statement
on
Scientific
Misconduct
(http://www.cgu.edu/include/handbook/Alleged%20Misconduct%20Research.pdf)
 Institutional
Review
Board
Procedures
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1202.asp)
 Policy
Statement
on
Inventions,
Patents
&
Copyrights
(http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1854.asp)
University
Practices
“Research
That
Matters”
describes
a
second
major
institutional
commitment
at
CGU,
a
commitment
to
the
creation
by
students
and
faculty
of
applied
research
knowledge
that
has
a
significant
impact
not
only
within
the
academy
but
in
the
societies
beyond
campus
gates—research
that
is
directly
applicable
to
practical
issues
and
problems
such
as
the
peaceful
resolution
of
religious
and
political
conflict,
building
more
effective
democratic
governance
institutions,
evaluating
and
improving
health
and
human
services
programs
and
infrastructure,
improving
individual
satisfaction
with
work
and
family,
and
numerous
other
subjects.
Since
the
2002
reaffirmation
of
the
WASC
accreditation,
CGU
has
established
new
Page
139
policies
on
copyright
and
other
intellectual
property,
extended
the
reach
of
its
IRB
coverage
across
student
dissertations
and
added
two
sister
institutions
among
the
Claremont
Colleges
to
its
coverage,
initiated
a
program
of
internal
grants
(the
BLAIS
Challenge
Fund)
focused
on
research
training
and
development,
and
added
a
full‐time
Vice
Provost
for
Research
to
help
professors
collaborate
with
other
universities,
obtain
government
research
grants
and
contracts,
and
facilitate
various
needs
of
research
including
compliance
with
evolving
government
policy.
CGU
is
also
well‐positioned
in
the
promotion
of
faculty
research.
The
Office
of
Research
and
Sponsored
Programs
(ORSP)
has
two
principal
functions:
(1)
to
support
CGU
faculty
in
preparing
and
submitting
grants
and
contracts
for
extramural
funding
and
(2)
to
support
the
CGU
Institutional
Review
Board,
which
has
oversight
responsibility
for
protection
of
participants
in
faculty
and
student
research
projects.
The
Office
of
Research
gives
a
high
priority
to
faculty
development
in
the
research
area
by
providing
workshops
on
research
conduct
and
promoting
research
across
disciplines.
The
Strategic
Planning
Committee
began
in
2006
to
define
overall
strategic
directions
plus
specifically
desired
initiatives
to
increase
the
levels
of
research
collaboration
between
faculty
of
the
Schools
at
CGU
and
other
members
of
the
Claremont
Consortium;
increase
funding
to
support
graduate
student
research;
and
expand
and
establish
major
new
research
institutes
to
address
important
societal
issues.
As
mentioned
above,
CGU’s
research
capacity
has
been
strengthened
through
staffing
of
the
Office
of
Research
and
Sponsored
Programs
and
the
Office
of
Business
and
Administration;
intramural
grants
geared
toward
faculty
and
student
research,
and
enhanced
functions
of
the
IRB.
SCGH
Research
Activities
The
focus
of
research
conducted
by
SCGH
faculty
includes
the
health
and
wellbeing
of
native
peoples
in
targeted
regions
as
well
as
people
in
transition
within
and
across
national
boundaries.
Faculty
strive
to:
 Develop
and
implement
evidence‐based,
practical
solutions
to
public
health
problems;
 Make
important
and
innovative
contributions
to
the
scientific
literature
in
health
promotion
and
prevention
neuroscience
from
cutting‐edge,
transdisciplinary
research
on
chronic
(non‐
communicable)
diseases;
 Develop
research
programs
focusing
on
neurocognitive,
genetic,
social,
and
environmental
determinants
of
health
behavior
and
promotion
of
healthful
individual
lifestyles
and
communities;
 Develop
and
implement
evidence‐based,
practical
solutions
to
public
health
problems;
 Maintain
a
sufficient
level
of
extramural
support
for
research;
and
 Disseminate
the
results
of
research
in
peer‐reviewed,
scholarly
publications
and
at
regional,
national,
and
international
conferences.
The
School
also
has
longer
term
goals
that
are
evolving
into
policies
and
practices
for
encouraging
various
integrative
research
activities.
Examples
of
these
goals
involve:
 Creating
a
partnership
of
leading
academic,
private
sector
business,
non‐governmental
organizations,
and
government
agencies
in
the
U.S.
and
abroad
for
translating
evidence‐based
prevention
science
to
the
benefit
of
populations
in
targeted
regions;
 Promoting
synergistic,
inter‐institutional,
transdisciplinary
science
that
brings
about
improved
health
outcomes;
and
 Developing
prevention
program
and
policy
initiatives
for
widespread
and
targeted
dissemination
 Providing
student
funding
and
study
opportunities
in
the
private
and
public
sector
as
well
as
collaborating
academic
intuitions
in
the
U.S.
and
abroad.
Page
140
Policies
and
Procedures
at
SCGH
School
policies,
procedures,
and
practices
follow
University
and
NIH
guidelines.
At
the
School
level,
these
procedures
focus
on
investigators’
roles
and
responsibilities
as
described
below.
Principal
investigator
(PI).
All
faculty
members,
except
adjunct
faculty,
are
eligible
to
serve
as
principal
investigators
on
projects
to
be
funded
by
the
National
Institutes
of
Health
or
any
other
governmental
agency
or
foundation.
The
PI
is
responsible
for
all
aspects
of
funded
projects
including
scientific,
budgetary,
administrative,
ethical,
and
regulatory
oversight
of
the
project.
The
School
and
University
monitors
and
assists
the
PI
in
this
function,
especially
with
respect
to
budgetary,
regulatory,
ethical,
and
administrative
(e.g.,
human
resources)
issues.
PIs
are
encouraged
to
actively
mentor
junior
faculty
in
Co‐
I
roles
in
grant
writing
and
research
activities.
Co‐Investigator
(Co‐I).
All
faculty
members,
with
no
exclusions,
are
eligible
to
serve
as
Co‐PI
on
projects.
Faculty
in
the
Co‐I
role
are
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
PI.
Junior
faculty
in
Co‐I
roles
are
encouraged
to
assist
PIs
in
writing
grant
proposals
so
that
they
can
obtain
valuable
grant
writing
experience.
We
have
found
that
such
experience
often
leads
junior
Co‐I
investigators
to
transition
to
independent
research
and
PI
roles.
Joint
PI.
Investigators
have
the
option
of
a
joint
PI
arrangement,
in
which
two
or
more
faculty
members
share
ultimate
responsibilities
for
a
research
proposal
and
project.
One
individual
is
assigned
primary
budgetary
responsibilities,
in
accord
with
university
requirements.
It
is
expected
that
such
arrangements
will
have
a
strong
substantive
and
logistical
basis,
as
revealed
in
the
investigators
joint
PI
plan
usually
required
in
submissions
of
proposals
for
funding.
All
research
proposals
are
reviewed
by
the
University’s
Institutional
Review
Board
(IRB).
The
school
and
university
encourage
investigators
to
be
proactive
with
the
IRB
and
receive
consultation
in
advance
of
submitting
applications
for
research.
The
school
strictly
adheres
to
NIH
policies
regarding
the
protection
of
human
subjects
and
IRB
approval
and
notification.
SCGH
Practices
The
SCGH
fosters
collaborative
research
activities
within
School
and
across
School
and
University
boundaries.
In
order
to
develop
new
integrations
across
diverse
fields
relevant
to
public
health,
investigators
are
encouraged
to
seek
out
collaborators
with
complementary
areas
of
expertise
in
order
to
broaden
the
range
of
research
issues
addressed
and
breadth
of
the
school.
Such
collaborative
activities
may
involve
joint
PI
arrangements
within
School,
across
Schools,
or
across
institutions.
Collaborative
arrangements
are
not
normally
limited
by
region
or
national
origin.
However,
in
some
instances,
governmental
regulations
restrict
certain
funding
to
a
small
number
of
other
countries
designated
by
the
Department
of
State.
The
school
complies
with
governmental
restrictions.
The
involvement
of
students
is
encouraged
at
all
levels
of
research.
Whenever
possible,
PIs
are
encouraged
to
hire
SCGH
students
(MPH
and
PhD)
as
research
assistants
and
to
engage
them
in
activities
that
will
help
them
pursue
their
educational
goals
and
eventual
careers.
PIs
are
also
encouraged
to
write
in
student
salary
and
at
least
partial
tuition
support
into
research
grant
proposals.
Page
141
3.1.b.
A
description
of
current
community‐based
research
activities
and/or
those
undertaken
in
collaboration
with
health
agencies
and
community
based
organizations.
Formal
research
agreements
with
such
agencies
should
be
identified.
Community‐Based
Research
Activities
A
number
of
SCGH
faculty
engage
in
community‐based
research
activities
as
evidenced
in
table
3.1.b.
The
faculty
maintain
formal
research
agreements
with
these
research
partners.
These
agencies
provide
research
opportunities
for
MPH
students.
Table
3.1.b.
Current
Faculty
Community­Based
Research
Activities,
2009­2011
Project
Name
AAPEAL
Research
and
Data
Subcommittee
on
tobacco
research
for
Asian‐Pacific
Islanders
Investigators
Paula
Palmer
China
Seven
Cities
Study
Andy
Johnson,
Paula
Palmer,
Bin
Xie
Determinants
of
Cigarette
Smoking
and
Smokeless
Tobacco
Use
Among
Young
Adult
South
Asians
Dual
Processes
in
HIV
Risk
Behavior
in
Drug
Abusers
Enhancing
Homeless
Youths'
Engagement
and
Retention
in
Vocational
Training
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
Paula
Palmer,
Bin
Xie
Alan
Stacy,
Susan
Ames,
Jerry
Grenard
Bin
Xie
Andy
Johnson,
Paula
Palmer,
Bin
Xie
Participating
Agencies
Guam
Communications
Network
Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership
Samoan
National
Nurses
Association
Tongan
Community
Service
Center
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities
China
CDCs
(Wuhan,
Chengdu,
Hangzhou,
Qingdao,
Harbin,
Shenyang)
Health
Bureaus
Health
Education
Institutes
Chinese
Ministry
for
Health
Peking
University
SAATH*
California
Diversion
Intervention
Foundation
University
of
Southern
California
My
Friend’s
Place
Guam
Communications
Network
Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership
Samoan
National
Nurses
Association
Tongan
Community
Service
Center
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities
*SAATH,
a
Los
Angeles‐based
non‐profit
organization
that
uses
research
and
outreach
to
assist
South
Asians
Dr.
Palmer
works
with
the
Asian
Pacific
Partners
for
Empowerment,
Advocacy,
and
Leadership
(AAPEAL),
a
national
organization
working
towards
social
justice
and
a
tobacco‐free
Asian
American,
Native
Hawaiian
and
Pacific
Islander
(AA
and
NHPI
community).
Specifically,
she
participates
on
the
Research
and
Data
Subcommittee
on
tobacco
research
for
Asian‐Pacific
Islanders,
with
the
purpose
of
building
capacity
and
developing
leadership
roles
for
tobacco
control
efforts
in
Asian‐Pacific
Islander
communities,
APPEAL
works
in
the
areas
of
cessation,
legislative
policy
and
secondhand
smoke
reduction,
social
justice,
and
research.
Participation
on
this
subcommittee
involves
the
discussion
of
critical
issues
related
to
their
respective
topics,
monitor
recent
advances,
trends,
threats
or
policy
opportunities,
and
identify
key
materials
(including
in‐language)
and
resources
(e.g.
journal
articles)
to
help
address
their
subcommittee
focus.
She
provides
APPEAL
with
input
and
direction
for
developing
promising
practices
in
a
variety
of
tobacco
control
areas.
Page
142
Drs.
Johnson,
Palmer
and
Xie
participate
in
the
China
Seven
Cities
Study
which
investigates
the
impact
of
rapidly
changing
economic
and
social
conditions
on
health
behaviors,
risks,
and
outcomes
as
China
evolves
into
a
market
economy.
Launched
in
2001
and
carried
out
in
seven
of
China’s
largest
urban
areas,
the
study
unites
U.S.
researchers
with
Chinese
public
health
leaders
and
academics.
The
participating
seven
cities,
which
span
much
of
the
geographic,
economic,
and
cultural
diversity
of
China,
are
Harbin
and
Shenyang
in
the
northeast,
Wuhan
in
the
center,
Chengdu
and
Kunming
in
the
west‐
southwest,
and
Hangzhou
and
Qingdao
in
the
economically
developed
coastal
regions.
Collaborating
in
the
study
consortium
are
the
Claremont
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health;
the
Health
Bureaus,
Centers
for
Disease
Control,
and
Health
Education
Institutes
in
the
seven
cities;
the
Chinese
Ministry
of
Health,
China
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention;
Peking
University;
and
universities
in
each
of
the
seven
participating
cities.
Drs.
Palmer
&
Xie
collaborate
with
SAATH,
a
Los
Angeles‐based
non‐profit
organization
that
uses
research
and
outreach
to
assist
South
Asians
(Indians,
Sri
Lankans,
Bangladeshis,
Nepalis,
and
Pakistanis
afflicted
with
cancer.
“Determinants
of
Cigarette
Smoking
and
Smokeless
Tobacco
Use
among
Young
Adult
Southeast
Asians”
involves
community‐academic
collaboration
studies
of
smoked
and
smokeless
tobacco
use
among
immigrant
Bangladeshi,
Indian,
Nepali,
and
Pakistani
young
adults.
Utilizing
in‐depth
interviews,
focus
groups,
surveys,
and
real
time
data
collection
using
cell
phones,
they
identify
the
cultural,
social,
environmental,
and
intrapersonal
factors
that
impact
smoking
and
quitting
behaviors
among
our
SA
participants.
Findings
are
disseminated
to
Southeast
Asian
communities
through
community
meetings,
webinars
and
other
web‐based
distribution
methods
and
to
external
audiences
through
scientific
meetings
and
publications.
In
the
study
of
Dual
Processes
in
HIV
Risk
Behavior
in
Drug
Abusers
Drs.
Ames
and
Stacy
investigate
two
independent,
but
potentially
interacting
systems
or
processes
that
govern
risky
decisions:
an
autonomous,
implicit
or
automatic
system
and
a
more
reflective
or
deliberate
system
in
a
population
at
known
risk
for
the
transmission
of
HIV:
adult
non‐injection
drug
users.
Participants
are
those
seeking
treatment
through
outpatient
treatment
provided
by
the
California
Diversion
Intervention
Foundation.
The
project
conducts
refinements
of
assessments
and
initial
evaluations
of
alternative
models
in
an
efficient
cross‐sectional
study
and
comprehensive
evaluation
of
alternative
hypotheses
in
a
four‐wave
intensive
prospective
study.
An
evaluation
of
these
alternatives
is
critical
for
improvements
in
interventions
in
this
population,
because
the
findings
address
fundamental
processes
that
are
seldom
acknowledged
in
traditional
intervention
efforts.
Dr.
Xie
collaborates
with
the
University
of
Southern
California’s
School
of
Social
Work
and
My
Friend’s
Place,
the
largest
and
most
frequently
visited
drop‐in
resource
center
for
homeless
youth
in
Southern
California.
in
a
research
project
geared
towards
Enhancing
Homeless
Youth’s
Engagement
and
Retention
in
Vocational
Training
This
project
is
to
enhance
the
engagement
and
retention
of
homeless
youth
with
mental
illness
in
Social
Enterprise
Intervention
(SEI),
a
vocational
intervention
integrated
with
clinical
services,
specifically
designed
for
street
youth
with
mental
illness,
high‐risk
behaviors
and
limited
service
engagement.
The
SEI
seeks
to
improve
homeless
youths’
engagement
and
retention
in
vocational
and
mental
health
services,
and
increase
their
social
support
and
life
satisfaction
through
peer
mentoring,
job
training,
clinical
services
and
harm‐reduction
strategies.
Ultimately,
the
SEI
seeks
to
enhance
their
mental
health,
functional
status
and
service
utilization
as
well
as
decrease
their
street‐
survival
behaviors
and
substance
abuse.
Page
143
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
(WINCART)
is
a
community‐academic
partnership
in
Southern
California.
Participants
include
Guam
Communications
Network,
Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership,
Samoan
National
Nurses
Association,
Tongan
Community
Service
Center,
Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities.
Drs.
Johnson,
Palmer
&
Xie
lead
two
research
programs
that
address
cancer
health
disparities
among
Pacific
Islander
populations
as
described
below.
Technology
&
Smoking
Cessation
for
Late
Adolescent/Young
Adult
Pacific
Islanders
Utilizing
a
community‐based
participatory
research
(CBPR)
model,
community
members
and
academic
researchers
use
their
collective
expertise
to
investigate
how
culture,
social
and
environmental
cues,
intrapersonal
and
neurocognitive
characteristics
impact
smoking
and
quitting
behaviors
among
late
adolescent
and
early
adult
PIs
to
inform
the
development
of
a
theory‐based,
culturally‐attuned,
multi‐
component
smoking
cessation
intervention.
Knowledge,
Attitudes
and
Beliefs
on
Biospecimen
Research
among
Pacific
Islanders
Utilizing
a
community‐based
participatory
research
(CBPR)
model,
this
study
initiates
a
dialogue
among
PI
community
members
regarding
their
decision
making
processes
around
participation
in
biomedical
research,
in
particular,
the
collection,
use,
and
storage
of
bio
specimens.
Findings
from
this
qualitative
study
provide
a
pan
Pacific
Islander
perspective
from
Marshallese,
Native
Hawaiian,
Samoan,
Chamorro,
and
Tongan
communities
in
Southern
California
that
will
inform
health
care
providers,
researchers,
and
policy
makers
on
the
conduct
of
future
research
and
intervention
practices
with
Pacific
Islander
populations.
Formal
research
agreements
with
each
of
these
agencies
exist.
3.1.c.
A
list
of
current
research
activity
of
all
primary
and
secondary
faculty
identified
in
4.1.a
and
4.1.b,
including
amount
and
source
of
funds,
for
each
of
the
three
years.
This
data
must
be
presented
in
table
format
and
include
at
least
the
following:
(1)
principal
investigator;
(2)
project
name;
(3)
period
of
funding;
(4)
source
of
funding;
(5)
amount
of
total
award;
(6)
amount
of
current
year’s
award;
(g)
whether
research
is
community
based,
and
(h)
whether
research
provides
for
student
involvement.
Only
research
funding
should
be
reported
here;
extramural
funding
for
service
or
training
grants
should
be
reported
elsewhere.
CEPH
Data
Template
E
Core
Faculty
Research
Activities
There
is
considerable
additional
research
conducted
within
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
which
contributes
substantially
to
the
MPH
program.
Table
3.1.c.
illustrates
the
volume
and
variety
of
research
activities
that
present
a
rich
intellectual
environment
for
the
MPH
program.
Further,
most
if
not
all
of
these
projects
seek
to
discover
new
information
that
will
benefit
the
health
of
individuals
locally
and
nationally.
Secondary
faculty
do
not
have
any
funded
research
activities.
Page
144
Table
3.1.c.
Research
Activity
of
Core
Faculty
from
2009­2011
Project
Name
Functional
Imaging
of
Implicit
Marijuana
Associations
during
IAT
Performance
Imaging
Implicit
Alcohol
Associations
on
Indirect
Tests
of
Associations
Diffusing
Sun
Safe
Policies
and
Environments
to
Schools
Extending
Knowledge
of
Trail
Use
Among
Urban
Planners,
Parks
and
Recreation
Officials
and
Community
Organizers
Obesity
Prevention
Tailored
for
Health
II
Habitual
&
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Dual
Processes
in
HIV
Risk
Behavior
in
Drug
Abusers
Principal
Investigator
&
Department
or
Concentration*
Susan
Ames
–
SCGH/HPEE
Funding
Source
Funding
Period
Start/End
Amount
Total
Award
Amount
2009‐2010
Amount
2010‐2011
Community‐
Based
Y/N
Student
Participation
Y/N
National
Institute
on
Drug
Abuse
/
NIH
National
Institute
on
Alcohol
Abuse
and
Alcoholism
Klein
Buendel,
Inc./NIH‐NCI
7/1/09‐
3/30/11
226,321.00
226,321.00
0
N
Y
8/1/09‐
7/31/11
406,758.00
220,255.00
186,503.00
N
Y
134,628.00
0
Y
Y
7,543.00
Kim
Reynolds
–
SCGH/HPEE
Robert
Wood
Johnson
Foundation
12/15/08‐
6/14/11
100,000.00
79,983.00
10,017.00
Y
N
Kim
Reynolds
–
SCGH/HPEE
Kim
Reynolds
–
SCGH/HPEE
HHS/NIH/National
Cancer
Institute
NIH/National
Heart,
Lung
&
Blood
Institute
5/13/09‐
2/29/12
9/30/09‐
6/30/14
2,451,613.57
5,465,606.00
1,226,045.57
1,100,000.00
611,684.00
N
Y
1,125,231.00
N
Y
Alan
Stacy
–
SCGH/HPEE
National
Institute
On
Drug
Abuse/NIH
9/10/08‐
2/28/13
3,145,060.00
632,219.00
558,223.00
N
Y
Susan
Ames
–
SCGH/HPEE
Kim
Reynolds
–
SCGH/HPEE
Page
145
9/1/08‐
6/30/11
Table
3.1.c.
Research
Activity
of
Core
Faculty
from
2009­2011
Project
Name
Funding
Period
Start/End
Amount
Total
Award
NIH/National
Institute
on
Drug
Abuse
9/15/09‐
7/31/13
2,440,221.00
594,720.00
Dennis
Trinidad‐
SCGH/ABE
American
Cancer
Society
7/1/08‐
6/30/12
630,722.00
Obesity
and
Psychosocial
Adjustment
During
Adolescence
Bin
Xie
–
SCGH/ABE
Engaging
Homeless
Youth
in
Vocational
Training
Stressful
Life
Events,
Genetic
Variants
and
Obesity
in
Chinese
Adolescents
Bin
Xie
–
SCGH/ABE
NIH/Eunice
Kennedy
Shriver
National
Institute
of
Child
Health
&
Human
Development
USC/Dept
of
Health
&
Human
Services
NIH/National
Institute
of
Diabetes
and
Digestive
and
Kidney
Diseases
National
Cancer
Institute/NIH
Teenage
Stimulant
Use:
Neurally
Plausible
Spontaneous
and
Protective
Processes
Parenting
to
Prevent
Cancer
Risk
Behaviors
in
Filipino
Adolescents
Principal
Investigator
&
Department
or
Concentration*
Alan
Stacy
–
SCGH/HPEE
Bin
Xie
–
SCGH/ABE
Genes,
Environment,
&
Andy
Johnson
–
Tobacco
Use
Across
SCGH/LM
Cultures
Funding
Source
Page
146
Community‐
Based
Y/N
Student
Participation
Y/N
591.434.00
N
Y
144,206.00
145,131.00
N
N
6/1/09‐
5/31/12
142,234.00
72,624.00
72,603.00
N
Y
9/18/09‐
4/30/12
32,950.00
10,768.00
22,182.00
Y
N
5/1/10‐
4/30/12
405,809.00
179,212.00
226,597
N
N
9/15/08‐
7/31/11
2,086,963.00
0
N
N
Amount
2009‐2010
758,974.00
Amount
2010‐2011
Table
3.1.c.
Research
Activity
of
Core
Faculty
from
2009­2011
Project
Name
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Control
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
–
Supplement
Determinants
of
Tobacco
Use
Among
Young
Adult
South
Asians
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
(WINCART2)‐
Administrative
Core
(WINCART2)‐Research
Core
Principal
Investigator
&
Department
or
Concentration*
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
Funding
Period
Start/End
Amount
Total
Award
NIH/CSU
Fullerton
Auxiliary
Services
Corporation
NIH
Fogarty
International
Center
NIH
Fogarty
International
Center
Regents
of
the
University
of
California,
TRDRP
7/1/09‐
9/30/10
74,027.00
9/1/09‐
8/31/10
9/1/09‐
8/31/11
7/1/2010‐
6/30/2012
733.00
733.00
107,803.00
107,803.00
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
NIH/NCI/CSU
Fullerton
Auxiliary
Services
Corporation
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
NIH/NCI/CSU
Fullerton
Auxiliary
Services
Corporation
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
Funding
Source
Page
147
Amount
2009‐2010
Amount
2010‐2011
74,027.00
Community‐
Based
Y/N
Student
Participation
Y/N
0
Y
Y
0
Y
Y
0
N
Y
160,295.00
0
79,646.00
N
N
9/2/2010‐
8/31/11
29,200.00
0
29,200.00
Y
N
9/2/2010‐
8/31/11
179,893.00
0
179,893.00
Y
Y
Table
3.1.c.
Research
Activity
of
Core
Faculty
from
2009­2011
Project
Name
(WINCART2)‐Training
Core
Principal
Investigator
&
Department
or
Concentration*
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
(WINCART2)‐Pilot
Project
Paula
Palmer
–
SCGH/LM
Getting
it
Right
at
Ramona
Smoking
Cessation
Across
Ethnic
Groups
in
the
U.S.
Darleen
Peterson‐
SCGH/LM
Dennis
Trinidad‐
SCGH/ABE
Funding
Source
Funding
Period
Start/End
Amount
Total
Award
NIH/NCI/CSU
Fullerton
Auxiliary
Services
Corporation
NIH/NCI/CSU
Fullerton
Auxiliary
Services
Corporation
Youth
Service
America
NIH/NCI
9/2/2010‐
8/31/11
14,850.00
0
9/2/2010‐
8/31/11
29,217.00
03/01/11‐
02/28/12
1/1/11‐
12/31/12
Page
148
Amount
2009‐2010
Amount
2010‐2011
Community‐
Based
Y/N
Student
Participation
Y/N
14,850.00
Y
N
0
29,217.00
Y
N
500.00
0
500.00
Y
Y
148,583.00
0
78,250.00
N
N
3.1.d.
Identification
of
measures
by
which
the
program
may
evaluate
the
success
of
its
research
activities,
along
with
data
regarding
the
programs
performance
against
those
measures
over
the
last
two
years.
For
examples,
programs
may
track
dollar
amounts
of
research
funding,
significance
of
findings
(e.g.,
citation
references),
extent
of
research
translation
(e.g.,
adoption
policy
or
statute),
dissemination
(e.g.,
publications
in
peer‐reviewed
publications,
presentations
at
professional
meetings),
and
other
indicators.
Determining
of
Success
of
Research
Activities
Table
3.1.d.(1).
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Research
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
of
grants
Target
Level
15
2.
Annual
dollar
amount
of
grants
3,000,000
3.
Number
of
NIH
funded
grants
5
4.
Number
of
community
based/applied
research
projects
5
5.
Number
of
peer‐reviewed
publications
for
core
faculty
20
6.
Number
of
peer‐reviewed
publications
for
adjunct
faculty
5
7.
Number
of
core
faculty
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
20
8.
Number
of
adjunct
faculty
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
5
9.
Number
of
core
faculty
who
supervise
students
on
research
projects
10.
Number
of
collaborative
research
projects
7
11.
Number
of
student
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
2
5
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
20
18
Met
Met
5,435,433
4,120,949
Met
Met
17
15
Met
Met
15
13
Met
Met
49
62
Met
Met
6
8
Met
Met
29
28
Met
Met
10
11
Met
Met
16
20
Met
Met
15
13
Met
Met
2
2
Met
Met
Our
main
measures
of
research
success
are
the
number
of
and
dollar
amount
of
grants,
including
NIH
grants,
number
of
community
based
research
projects
and
collaborative
research
projects,
and
number
of
faculty
peer
reviewed
research
publications
and
presentations
at
scientific
meetings.
Student
participation
in
research
also
serves
as
an
important
outcome.
An
enumeration
of
MPH
peer‐reviewed
publications
is
presented
in
table
3.1.d.(2).
The
faculty
produced
a
total
of
139
peer‐reviewed
publications
over
the
last
two
years.
Core
faculty
peer
reviewed
publications
amount
to
45
(2009‐2010)
and
62
(2010‐2011)
for
a
grand
total
of
107;
nearly
half
of
these
publications
(70)
are
within
public
health
journals.
As
expected,
the
number
of
peer
reviewed
publications
by
adjunct
faculty
is
significantly
less
–
a
total
of
6
in
2009‐2011
and
8
in
2010‐2011.
Seventy‐one
percent
are
published
in
public
health
journals.
Page
149
Table
3.1.d.(2).
MPH
Faculty
Peer
Reviewed
Publications
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
4
2
9
4
7
0
‐‐
4
2
8
5
45
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
6
55
3
5
7
10
5
0
8
4
4
16
15
62
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
8
85
Susan
Ames
Jerry
Grenard
Andy
Johnson
Paula
Palmer
Kim
Reynolds
Darleen
Peterson
1
Jason
Siegel Alan
Stacy
Dennis
Trinidad
Bin
Xie
2
Jennifer
Unger Total
Core
Faculty
Larry
Gruder
Michael
Harner
Johanna
Hardin
James
Howatt
Patty
Kwan
Michael
Owens
Paul
Torrens
Made’
Wenten
Total
Adjunct
Faculty
TOTAL
FACULTY
PUBLICATIONS
1
2
Total
Number
of
Publications
7
7
16
14
12
0
12
8
5
24
20
107
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
10
14
139
Total
Number
of
Publications
in
Public
Health
Journals
3
3
11
13
9
0
0
0
2
11
18
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
80
Became
core
faculty
in
2010‐2011.
Resigned
in
summer
2010.
Faculty
also
maintain
high
levels
of
presentations
at
scientific
meetings
to
disseminate
research
findings
and
participate
in
scholarly
debate.
A
total
of
76
presentations
were
made
by
program
faculty
over
the
last
two
years.
Core
faculty
presentations
amount
to
27
(2009‐2010)
and
28
(2010‐2011)
for
a
grand
total
of
55.
Adjunct
faculty
presentations
amount
to
10
(2009‐2010)
and
11
(2010‐2011)
for
a
grant
total
of
21.
Many
professors
attend
the
annual
APHA
meeting
but
also
meetings
specific
to
their
areas
of
specialization
such
as
the
Society
for
Prevention
Research,
the
Society
for
Behavioral
Medicine,
or
the
American
Academy
for
Health
Behavior.
Table
3.1.d.(3).
MPH
Faculty
Presentations
Susan
Ames
Jerry
Grenard
Andy
Johnson
Paula
Palmer
Kim
Reynolds
Darleen
Peterson
1
Jason
Siegel Alan
Stacy
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
2
2
4
7
1
0
‐‐
1
1
1
2
3
1
0
11
2
Page
150
Total
Number
of
Presentations
3
3
6
10
2
0
11
3
Table
3.1.d.(3).
MPH
Faculty
Presentations
2009‐2010
Total
Number
of
Presentations
Dennis
Trinidad
2
3
5
Bin
Xie
4
4
8
2
Jennifer
Unger 4
‐‐
4
Total
Core
Faculty
27
28
55
Larry
Gruder
0
0
0
Michael
Harner
0
3
3
Johanna
Hardin
1
1
2
James
Howatt
6
5
11
Patty
Kwan
0
0
0
Michael
Owens
0
0
0
Paul
Torrens
0
0
0
Made’
Wenten
3
2
5
Total
Adjunct
Faculty
10
11
21
TOTAL
FACULTY
PRESENTATIONS
37
39
76
1
2
2010‐2011
Became
core
faculty
in
2010‐2011.
Resigned
in
summer
2010.
3.1.e.
A
description
of
student
involvement
in
research.
Student
Involvement
in
Research
CGU
is
committed
to
promoting
graduate
student
research.
A
current
priority
for
every
faculty
proposal
for
sponsored
research
is
the
inclusion
of
graduate
research
assistant
stipends,
including
tuition
remission
to
the
extent
allowable
and
feasible
within
budget
constraints.
There
are
several
programs
of
direct
internal
support
for
graduate
student
research
that
are
undergoing
major
expansion:
annual
competitive
doctoral
dissertation
awards,
including
awards
specifically
for
transdisciplinary
theses,
and
research
assistantships
for
working
specifically
with
intercollegiate
adjunct
faculty.
The
Minority
Mentor
Program
at
CGU
sponsors
an
annual
student
research
conference
and
the
university
provides
administrative
and
intellectual
support
to
graduate
students
applying
for
a
variety
of
external
awards
CGU's
Student
Research
Conference
and
Art
Exhibition
is
hosted
by
the
Office
of
Student
Life
&
Diversity.
The
aim
of
the
coordinators
of
this
conference
is
to
provide
students
the
opportunity
to
practice
presenting
for
professional
conferences
as
well
as
provide
a
forum
in
which
to
share
their
research
among
peers
and
faculty
for
constructive
feedback.
The
conference
schedule
typically
includes
an
art
exhibition
from
CGU
artists,
approximately
five
sessions,
a
keynote
speaker,
discussion
panels,
and
a
lunch.
Two
MPH
students
presented
in
the
2011
conference.
Student
involvement
in
research
is
highly
valued;
thus,
there
are
multiple
opportunities
for
MPH
students
to
become
involved
in
research
activities
as
they
progress
through
the
program.
They
can
participate
through
their
internships,
directed
research
sections,
or
become
student
workers
or
research
assistants
on
faculty
sponsored
projects.
All
students
may
approach
faculty
to
work
on
publications
underway
or
planned.
Several
large
public
health
datasets
exist
for
students
interested
in
conducting
secondary
data
analysis
with
faculty
guidance.
SCGH
promotes
research
through
its
seminar
series.
The
Global
Health
Seminar
series,
offered
monthly,
features
a
1.5
hour
presentation
by
CGU
faculty
and
researchers
from
around
the
world.
The
Global
Page
151
Health
Symposium,
offered
annually,
is
a
half‐day
affair
with
several
presentations
surrounding
a
particular
theme.
Students
are
heavily
involved
in
these
series,
whether
it
be
planning,
attending
or
presenting
their
own
research.
Two
MPH
students
were
accepted
into
this
year’s
Minority
Training
Program
in
Cancer
Control
Research,
a
joint
program
of
the
University
of
California,
San
Francisco
Helen
Diller
Family
Comprehensive
Cancer
Center
and
the
UCLA
School
of
Public
Health.
The
goal
of
the
program
is
to
encourage
minority
students
to
pursue
doctoral
programs
that
focus
on
cancer
research.
The
program
was
designed
to
enhance
students
(1)
understanding
of
the
power
of
research
to
affect
change;
(2)
awareness
of
the
strengths
and
limitations
of
research
methods,
theory
and
interventions
in
eliminating
health
disparities;
(3)
interest
in
cancer
control
research,
from
surveillance
to
epidemiology,
individual
behavior
change,
health
services,
and
policy
research;
and
(4)
research,
networking,
information
seeking
skills,
motivation,
and
ability
to
successfully
apply
to
a
doctoral
program.
Students
participate
in
three
components:
“Careers
in
Cancer
Control
Research”
Summer
Institute
A
five‐day
Summer
Institute
designed
to
showcase
the
opportunities
and
need
for
minority
researchers
in
cancer
control.
Through
the
institute,
20‐25
students
will
acquire
the
motivation,
skills,
and
resources
needed
to
apply
to
a
doctoral
program.
Attending
faculty
include
role
models
and
leaders
in
research
from
around
the
country.
Student
Internships
Students
and
graduates
who
participate
in
the
Summer
Institute
can
apply
for
paid
internships.
Qualified
interns
will
be
matched
to
a
program
and
mentor
according
to
their
academic
focus
and
personal
interests.
Doctoral
Application
Support
Awards
Summer
Institute
participants
who
wish
to
pursue
a
doctorate
are
eligible
to
apply
for
awards
up
to
$2,000
to
cover
the
cost
of
doctoral
program
applications,
testing,
and
campus
visits.
Table
3.1.e
provides
a
description
of
the
types
of
research
projects
and
activities
MPH
students
have
participated
in
for
the
past
two
years.
There
were
17
incidences
of
student
research
activities
for
2009‐
2010
and
32
for
2010‐2011.
Table
3.1.e.
Student
Paris
Adkins‐
Jackson
Lyzette
Blanco
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Research
Type
of
Project
Name
Involvement
Directed
Tailored
Health
Research
Behavior
Messages
1
Traineeship
MTPCCR Research
Assistant
Directed
Research
Obesity
Prevention
Tailored
for
Health
II
Emerging
Chronic
&
Infectious
Diseases
Faculty
Activities
Supervisor(s)
Jerry
Development
of
tailored
Grenard
health
electronic
messages
UCLA
Training
in
advanced
epidemiology
&
research
tools
Kim
Tailoring
newsletters
Reynolds
Bin
Xie
Data
analysis
Page
152
2009‐
2010
‐‐
2010‐
2011
X
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
Table
3.1.e.
Student
Jane
Castanares
Amy
Custer
Leticia
Dominguez
Robert
Garcia
Brian
Hedgeman
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Research
Type
of
Project
Name
Involvement
Student
Dual
Processes
in
Worker
HIV
Risk
Behavior
in
Drug
Abusers
Research
Habitual
&
Assistant
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Student
Habitual
&
Worker
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
SCGH
Staff
Dual
Processes
in
HIV
Risk
Behavior
in
Drug
Abusers
SCGH
Staff
Functional
Imaging
of
Implicit
Marijuana
Associations
during
IAT
Performance
Student
Habitual
&
Worker
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Student
Obesity
Prevention
Worker
Tailored
for
Health
II
Student
Habitual
and
Worker
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
1
Traineeship
MTPCCR Directed
Research
Student
Worker
Bree
Hemingway
Directed
Research
Global
Public
Health
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Social
Justice
Habitual
&
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Building
Collaborative
Public
Health
Networks
in
China
Faculty
Activities
Supervisor(s)
Alan
Stacy
Health
education;
data
collection
2009‐
2010
‐‐
2010‐
2011
X
Kim
Reynolds
Staff
training,
focus
group
facilitator,
MOP
writing
_
X
Kim
Reynolds
Field
activities
coordinator
‐‐
X
Alan
Stacy
Project
Manager
X
X
Susan
Ames
Project
Manager
X
X
Data
collection
X
X
Data
Collection
‐‐
X
Team
Leader,
Telephone
Recruitment
X
X
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
Kim
Reynolds
Kim
Reynolds
UCLA
Training
in
advanced
epidemiology
&
research
tools
Paula
Palmer
Literature
Review;
analysis
of
case
studies
Kim
Reynolds
Data
Collection
Paula
Palmer
Literature
search;
manuscript
writing
Page
153
Table
3.1.e.
Student
Jeanette
Hughes
Kimberly
Johnson
Walter
D.
Johnson
Cindy
Lin
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Research
Type
of
Project
Name
Involvement
Research
Habitual
&
Assistant
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Research
Obesity
Prevention
Assistant
Tailored
for
Health
II
Student
Habitual
&
Worker
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Student
Habitual
&
Worker
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Directed
Ethics
Human
Rights
Research
and
Cultural
Considerations
in
Public
Health
Research
Physical
Activity
and
Assistant
Sun
Safety
Cigarette
Smoking
as
Co‐Author
Associated
with
Unhealthy
Patterns
of
Food
Consumption,
Physical
Activity,
and
Alcohol
Drinking
in
Chinese
Male
Adults:
China
Seven
Cities
Study
Research
Assistant
Directed
Research
Madaiko
Miller
Nathanael
Napolitano
Directed
Research
Research
Assistant
Faculty
Activities
Supervisor(s)
Kim
Subject
recruitment
Reynolds
2009‐
2010
‐‐
2010‐
2011
X
Accelerometer
Tracking,
Data
Entry
Data
collection
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
Coordinator
of
Field
Activities
X
‐‐
Paula
Palmer
Literature
Review;
analysis
of
case
studies
‐‐
X
Kim
Literature
Review
Reynolds
Paula
Palmer
Literature
Review,
wrote
introduction
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
X
X
Kim
Reynolds
Kim
Reynolds
Obesity
and
Bin
Xie
Literature
review
Psychosocial
Adjustment
during
Adolescence
Assessing
&
Paula
Palmer
Research
and
curriculum
Developing
Materials
development
for
Smoking
Cessation
for
Young
Adult
Pacific
Islanders
Emerging
Chronic
&
Bin
Xie
Literature
review
Infectious
Disease
Imaging
Implicit
Susan
Ames
Subject
recruitment
Alcohol
Associations
on
Indirect
Tests
of
Associations
Page
154
Table
3.1.e.
Student
Daniel
Nuyujukian
Liesl
Nydegger
Yvonne
Oliveras‐
Maldonado
Sabrina
Rossetti
Diana
Rudulph
Malaika
Tobias
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Research
Type
of
Project
Name
Involvement
Directed
Ethics
Human
Rights
Research
and
Cultural
Considerations
in
Public
Health
Research
Functional
Imaging
Assistant
of
Implicit
Marijuana
Associations
during
IAT
Performance
Student
Dual
Processes
in
Worker
HIV
Risk
Behavior
Research
Dual
Processes
in
Assistant
HIV
Risk
Behavior
Directed
Assessing
&
Research
Developing
Materials
for
Tailored
Smoking
Cessation
Interventions
Directed
Global
Public
Health
Research
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Social
Justice
Research
Obesity
Prevention
Assistant
Tailored
for
Health
II
Habitual
&
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Diffusing
Sun
Safe
Policies
and
Environments
to
Schools
Directed
Research
Methods
of
Research
an
Adolescent
Obesity
Study
Directed
Park
&
Mets
Research
Research
Habitual
&
Assistant
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
Directed
Overweight
Status:
Research
Weight
Perception,
Management
Goals
and
Practices
Among
Female
Chinese
College
Students
Faculty
Activities
Supervisor(s)
Paula
Palmer
Literature
Review;
analysis
of
case
studies
2009‐
2010
‐‐
2010‐
2011
X
Susan
Ames
Subject
recruitment
X
‐‐
Alan
Stacy
Data
collection
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
X
Paula
Palmer
Literature
Review;
analysis
of
case
studies
‐‐
X
Kim
Reynolds
Data
Entry,
Data
Tracking,
MOP
writing
Data
Entry,
Data
Tracking,
MOP
writing
‐‐
X
X
X
Data
Collection
X
‐‐
Susan
Ames
Survey
design
‐‐
X
Kim
Reynolds
Kim
Reynolds
Literature
Review
‐‐
X
Literature
Review,
intervention
development,
focus
group
moderator
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
Alan
Stacy
Data
collection
and
health
education
Paula
Palmer
Curriculum
development
Paula
Palmer
Literature
review;
manuscript
development
Page
155
Table
3.1.e.
Student
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Research
Type
of
Project
Name
Involvement
Student
Habitual
&
Worker
Neurocognitive
Processes
in
Adolescent
Obesity
Prevention
TOTAL
STUDENT
RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES
1
Faculty
Activities
Supervisor(s)
Kim
Writing
and
editing
MoP
Reynolds
2009‐
2010
‐‐
2010‐
2011
X
17
32
Minority
Training
Program
for
Cancer
Control
Research
offered
through
UCLA
&
UCSF
3.1.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 Research
activity
and
experience
in
the
CGU
MPH
program
is
extensive
as
demonstrated
by
the
extraordinary
volume
of
research
funding,
the
supportive
policies
and
resources
within
the
University,
and
by
student
opportunities
to
be
involved
in
research.
 Through
their
involvement
in
the
many
research
projects
at
the
Institute,
students
are
exposed
to
various
research
methodology,
thereby
developing
an
appreciation
for
transdisciplinary
research.
 Core
MPH
faculty
have
maintain
an
impressive
amount
of
publications
and
presentations.
 Both
the
University
and
the
School
sponsor
events
to
highlight
student
research.
Students
are
also
encouraged
to
apply
for
research
opportunities
outside
of
CGU.
Challenges
 Not
all
faculty
projects
provide
tuition
remission
for
research
assistants.
Page
156
Criterion
3.2.
Service
The
program
shall
pursue
an
active
service
program,
consistent
with
its
mission,
through
which
faculty
and
students
contribute
to
the
advancement
of
public
health
practice,
including
continuing
education.
3.2.a.
A
description
of
the
programs
service
activities,
including
policies,
procedures
and
practices
that
support
service.
If
the
program
has
formal
contracts
or
agreements
with
external
agencies,
these
should
be
noted.
Faculty
Service
Activities:
Policies,
Procedures
and
Practices
The
CGU
MPH
program
was
created
in
part
to
address
community
needs
to
enable
graduates
to
create,
implement
and
evaluate
community‐based
health
promotion
programs.
The
mission
of
the
CGU
MPH
program
embodies
a
commitment
to
community
service
to
achieve
public
health
goals.
As
stated
under
section
1.5.a,
all
faculty
are
required
to
participate
in
University
and
community
service.
The
policy
is
to
maintain
this
obligatory
requirement
while
being
flexible
about
the
domain
of
service
as
long
as
both
University
and
community
service
is
clearly
demonstrated.
The
following
domains
of
service
receive
focus
at
the
School,
as
also
outlined
in
section
1.5.a.
 Develop
and
implement
innovative,
evidence‐based
public
health
policies
and
programs
in
partnership
with
communities
both
locally
and
globally.
 Serve
scholarly
and
professional
organizations,
for
example,
as
members
of
journal
editorial
boards
or
grant
peer
review
panels,
and
in
leadership
roles
in
professional
associations.
 Serve
the
university,
for
example,
as
members
or
leaders
of
key
academic
committees
or
as
external
members
on
graduate
student
thesis
or
dissertation
committees
in
other
CGU
Schools.
 Serve
local
or
global
communities,
for
example,
as
volunteers
on
advisory
boards
or
public
speakers,
or
as
organizers
of
pro
bono
or
inexpensive
health
education
activities.
University
service
can
include
but
is
not
limited
to
active
membership
on
one
or
more
of
the
following
standing
committees:
 Faculty
Executive
Committee
 Strategic
Planning
Committee
 Institutional
Review
Board
 Faculty
Research
Committee
 Affirmative
Action
&
Diversity
Committee
 Appointment,
Promotion
and
Tenure
Committee
 Grievance
Committee
 Commencement
Committee
The
School
actively
maintains
a
list
of
community
agencies,
clinics,
and
other
health
care
organizations
that
are
of
known
need
or
suitability
for
service
activities.
In
many
instances,
faculty
find
additional
needs
for
community
service
related
to
their
own
area
of
expertise.
The
MPH
program
has
formal
contracts
with
numerous
agencies,
including
local
health
departments,
school
districts
and
City
of
Hope,
which
is
a
comprehensive
cancer
center,
and
community‐based
organizations
serving
racial/ethnic
communities.
Currently,
formal
agreements
are
on
file
with
22
agencies
that
support
internship
experiences
for
MPH
students.
These
agreements
are
available
on‐site
in
the
resource
file.
Page
157
Student
Service
Activities:
Policies,
Procedures
and
Practices
All
students
are
encouraged
to
participate
in
community
service
individually
and/or
within
the
Student
Associations.
Other
service
opportunities
are
available
through
course
assignments
or
faculty
service
activities.
The
MPH
Student
Association
regularly
participates
in
service‐related
activities
as
part
of
their
mission.
A
description
of
service
activities
conducted
by
the
Student
Association
is
provided
in
Table
3.2.d.(1).
Service
also
occurs
as
part
of
course
assignments
and
requirements.
In
this
type
of
service,
students
are
required
to
visit
organizations
and
learn
about
them.
Students
are
then
required
to
contribute
to
the
mission
of
the
organization.
For
example,
in
CGH
300:
Theoretical
Foundations
of
Health
Education
and
Promotion.
Students
are
required
to
identify
an
organization,
contact
the
organization
or
agency
staff,
and
interview
the
director
or
other
appropriate
agency
personnel.
Students
then
provide
an
assessment
of
the
agency’s
activities
and
goals
and
provide
feedback
to
the
organization
about
how
they
might
improve
their
performance.
Of
course
these
assessments
are
compiled
with
extensive
involvement
and
participation
of
agency
staff
and
are
designed
to
be
helpful,
never
critical.
Typically
the
assessments
help
the
organization
formalize
their
theoretical
frameworks
and
models
for
their
activities,
a
process
many
organizations
appreciate
but
do
not
have
the
time
for.
Other
classes,
such
as
CGH
306:
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health
has
service
components
such
that
students
learn
public
health
by
being
actively
engaged
in
service
delivery
projects.
Some
field
assignments
may
involve
direct
contact
with
clients
such
providing
dietary
counseling
to
those
infected
with
HIV.
Other
projects
may
be
removed
from
direct
client
contact
but
still
consist
of
public
health
actions
that
benefit
those
residing
in
local
communities
as
well
as
other
countries.
Evidence
of
participation
in
and
reflection
of
two
service
related
activities
is
part
of
the
portfolio
assignment
required
in
CGH
307:
Public
Health
Capstone.
3.2.b.
A
list
of
the
program’s
current
service
activities,
including
identification
of
the
community
groups
and
nature
of
the
activity,
over
the
last
three
years.
Listing
of
Current
Service
Activities
Table
3.2.b
was
created
to
represent
the
current
community
service
commitments
in
place
through
the
activities
of
all
MPH
faculty.
These
activities
provide
opportunities
for
both
enhancing
community
health,
as
well
as
for
students
to
gain
practice
in
community
settings.
Faculty
engaged
in
a
total
of
70
service
activities
in
2009‐2010
and
80
in
2010‐2011.
Many
of
these
activities
involved
consultation,
members
of
associations,
and
reviewers
of
grants
and
manuscripts.
Faculty
involved
students
in
consultation,
committee
work
and
coordination
of
health
education
activities.
Page
158
Table
3.2.b.
Faculty
Member
Susan
Ames
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
Role
Organization
Member
National
Institute
on
Drug
Abuse
American
Psychological
Association
American
Psychological
Society
Research
Society
on
Alcoholism
Journal
of
Consulting
and
Clinical
Psychology
Nicotine
&
Tobacco
Research
California
Journal
of
Health
Promotion
Prevention
Science
Psychological
Bulletin
Associate
Editor:
Frontiers
in
Psychopathology
American
Psychological
Association
Association
of
Psychological
Science
Society
for
Personality
&
Social
Psychology
Health
Psychology
Health
Psychology
Addiction
Addictive
Behaviors
Nicotine
&
Tobacco
Research
Keck
Graduate
Institute
Member
Member
Member
Ad
Hoc
Reviewer
Editor
Jerry
Grenard
Member
Member
Member
Advisor
Ad
Hoc
Reviewer
Andy
Johnson
Advisor
Consultant
Ad
Hoc
Reviewer
Local,
State
National
Core
Faculty
National
California
Department
of
Health
Services
Nicotine
&
Tobacco
Research
Page
159
Project/Activities
Student
Involvement
2009‐
2010
2010‐
2011
‐‐
X
X
National
Neuroscience
Imaging
Grant
Review
Committee
Member
‐‐
X
X
National
National
National
Member
Member
Manuscript
review
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
National
State
Manuscript
review
Manuscript
review
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
National
Manuscript
review
‐‐
X
X
National
Associate
editor
‐‐
X
X
National
Member
‐‐
X
X
National
Member
‐‐
X
X
National
Member
‐‐
‐‐
X
International
National
National
National
National
Local
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
State
Abstract
review
Manuscript
review
Manuscript
review
Manuscript
review
Manuscript
review
Board
of
Advisors,
Orphan
Drug
Center
Consultation
‐‐
X
X
National
Manuscript
review
‐‐
X
X
Table
3.2.b.
Faculty
Member
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
Role
Organization
Advisor
Monitoring
the
Future,
University
of
Michigan
Wuhan,
China
China
Seven
Cities
Studies
(Public
Health),
Chengdu
Center
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention,
Chengdu
CHINA
School
of
Public
Health,
University
of
Minnesota
North
Karelia
Heart
Disease
Prevention
Program,
National
Public
Health
Institute
of
Finland
Asian
Pacific
Academic
Consortium
for
Public
Health
Regional
Office
of
the
Asia‐
Pacific
Academic
Consortium
for
Public
Health
(APACPH)
American
Public
Health
Association
American
Psychological
Association
Asia‐Pacific
Academic
Consortium
for
Public
Health
Advisor
Advisor
Advisor
Member
Member
Director
Paula
Palmer
Member
Member
Chair,
Program
Committee;
Advisor,
Early
Career
Network
Sub‐committee
member
Local,
State
National
National
Asian
Pacific
Partners
for
Empowerment,
Advocacy
and
Leadership
(APPEAL)
Page
160
Project/Activities
Student
Involvement
‐‐
2009‐
2010
X
2010‐
2011
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
International
International
Member,
Scientific
Board
of
Advisors
Advisor
in
Health
and
Education
Advisor
in
Health
and
Education
National
Consultation
‐‐
X
X
International
Scientific
Advisory
Board
‐‐
X
X
International
Planning
committee
‐‐
X
X
Local
Board
of
Directors
‐‐
X
X
National
Member
‐‐
X
X
National
Member
‐‐
X
X
International
Planning
and
implementation
of
various
program
X
X
X
National
Contribute
to
social
justice
and
a
tobacco‐free
Asian
American,
Native
Hawaiian
and
Pacific
Islander
(AA
and
NHPI)
advocacy
and
research
issues
X
X
X
Table
3.2.b.
Faculty
Member
Kim
Reynolds
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
Role
Organization
Local,
State
National
National/
International
Reviewer
National
Institutes
of
Health,
both
National
Cancer
Institute
and
Fogarty
International
Center
Consultant
Center
for
Disease
Control
Wuhan,
China
Consultant
Center
for
Disease
Control
Chengdu,
China
Consultant
Center
for
Disease
Control
Hangzhou,
China
Consultant
Center
for
Disease
Control
Shenyang,
China
Consultant
Health
Education
Institute
Kunming,
China
Consultant
Center
for
Disease
Control
Qingdao
China
Consultant
Center
for
Disease
Control
Harbin,
China
Consultant
Asia‐Pacific
Academic
Consortium
for
Public
Health,
Early
Career
Network
Member/Reviewer
American
Public
Health
Association
Member
Society
of
Behavioral
Medicine
Member
Behavioral
Research
in
Diabetes
Group
Exchange
(BRIDGE)
Consultant
Dairy
Council
of
California
Page
161
Project/Activities
Review
grant
applications
Student
Involvement
‐‐
2009‐
2010
X
2010‐
2011
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
Non‐communicable
diseases
X
X
X
International
X
‐‐
X
National
Consultation
with
public
health
students
and
early
career
professionals
Membership
and
abstract
review
‐‐
X
X
National
Membership
‐‐
X
X
National
Membership
‐‐
X
‐‐
State
Consult
on
development
and
evaluation
of
nutrition
intervention
‐‐
X
X
Table
3.2.b.
Faculty
Member
Darleen
Peterson
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
Role
2009‐
2010
X
2010‐
2011
X
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
X
National
Serve
as
the
instructor
for
internship
course
Assemble
&
deliver
meals
for
Pasadena
Homeless
Shelter
Membership
‐‐
X
X
National
Membership
‐‐
X
X
State
Member,
Assessment
&
Competencies
subcommittees
‐‐
‐‐
X
Consultation
Consultation
Consultation/Board
Member
Touro
University
‐‐
California
Charles
R.
Drew
University
Community
Scholarship
Foundation
of
La
Canada
Flintridge
La
Canada
Chamber
of
Commerce
&
Community
Association
La
Canada
High
School
Local
Local
Local
La
Canada
Junior
Women’s
Club
American
Public
Health
Association
Society
for
Public
Health
Education
California
Public
Health
Alliance
for
Workforce
Excellence
Local
Member
Member
Member
Member
Student
Involvement
‐‐
Research
Tested
Intervention
Programs
(RTIP)
Consultation
Alan
Stacy
Local,
State
National
National
Consultant
Consultation
Jason
Siegel
Organization
Local
Local
Project/Activities
Review
Intervention
Programs
For
Possible
Inclusion
in
the
RTIP
Archive
and
on
Cancer
Control
Planet
MPH
Accreditation
WASC
Accreditation
Devise
scholarship
application
forms
and
conduct
applicant
review;
Serve
as
secretary
Establish
and
oversee
high
school
student
internship
program
Member
National
Society
for
Experiential
Education
National
Membership
‐‐
‐‐
X
Board
Member
YMCA
of
the
Foothills
Local
Membership
‐‐
‐‐
X
National
Membership
‐‐
X
X
Consultation
American
Psychological
Association
Cancer
Center
of
Hawaii
State
‐‐
X
X
Member
Member
Coordinator
American
Psychological
Society
Psychonomic
Society
Alternative
Action
Programs
National
National
Local
Self‐control
processes
in
adolescents
Membership
Membership
Health
education
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Member
Page
162
Table
3.2.b.
Faculty
Member
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
Role
Coordinator
Coordinator
Paul
Torrens
Consulting
Editor
Board
Member
Board
Member
Member
Member
Member
Dennis
Trinidad
Co‐Chair
&
Executive
Advisory
Committee
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Bin
Xie
Member
Reviewer
Member
Organization
California
Diversion
Intervention
Foundation
Pomona
Community
Crisis
Center
Frontiers
in
Psychopathology
SCAN
Foundation
St.
John’s
Hospital
Santa
Monica
Partners‐in
Care
Foundation
Dynamic
Health
Systems
California
Technology
Assessment
Forum
Society
for
Research
on
Nicotine
and
Tobacco:
Health
Disparities
Committee
ClearWay
Minnesota
Project/Activities
Health
education
Student
Involvement
X
2009‐
2010
X
2010‐
2011
X
Local
Health
education
X
X
X
National
Local
Local
Editor
Membership
Membership
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
Local
Local
State
Membership
Membership
Membership
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
National
Increase
diversity
in
membership
&
research
agenda;
review
scholarship
grants
Chair
grant
review
panel
on
smoking
cessation
Review
grant
proposals
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
National
Membership
‐‐
X
X
National
Membership
‐‐
X
X
National
National
Membership
Grant
reviews
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
X
National
Grant
review
special
emphasis
panel
of
childhood
obesity
prevention
and
treatment
‐‐
‐‐
X
State
National
Institutes
of
Health
Special
Emphasis
Panel/Scientific
Review
Group
American
Public
Health
Association
Society
for
Research
on
Nicotine
and
Tobacco
Society
of
Behavioral
Medicine
Center
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
National
Lung,
Heart,
and
Blood
Institute
Page
163
Local,
State
National
Local
National
Table
3.2.b.
Faculty
Member
Adjunct
Faculty
Larry
Gruder
Current
Faculty
Service
Activities
Role
Organization
Local,
State
National
Project/Activities
Student
Involvement
2009‐
2010
2010‐
2011
Member
Clear
Way
Minnesota
Research
Funding
and
Advisory
Panel
Office
on
Smoking
and
Health,
Centers
for
Disease
Control,
U.S.
Public
Health
Service
American
Cancer
Society,
California
Division
Molina
Behavioral
Health
Citizens
Committee
for
Environmental
Justice
Claremont
Graduate
University
Society
for
Neuroscience
(SFN)
International
Positive
Psychology
Association
(IPPA)
The
Journal
of
Early
Adolescence
Addiction
Psychological
Medicine
State
Membership
‐‐
X
X
National
Tobacco
Work
Group,
Healthy
People
2000
and
2010
‐‐
X
X
State
Membership
‐‐
X
X
State
State
Advisory
Committee
Member
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
X
Local
National
National
MPH
Accreditation
Member
Member
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
National
Manuscript
Review
‐‐
‐‐
X
National
National
Manuscript
Review
Manuscript
Review
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
70
‐‐
‐‐
80
Member
Member
James
Howatt
Patty
Kwan
Lin
Xiao
Member
Member
Consultation
Member
Member
Ad
Hoc
Reviewer
Ad
Hoc
Reviewer
Ad
Hoc
Reviewer
TOTAL
FACULTY
SERVICE
ACTIVITIES
Page
164
3.2.c.
Identification
of
the
measures
by
which
the
program
may
evaluate
the
success
of
its
service
efforts,
along
with
data
regarding
the
program’s
performance
against
those
measures
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Measures
of
Evaluating
Effectiveness
of
Service
Efforts
Table
3.2c
indicates
that
service
indicators
are
largely
met.
Both
faculty
and
students
are
sufficiently
engaged
in
service
activities.
Planned
opportunities
for
the
involvement
of
students
in
community‐based
service
activities
are
in
place.
Students
become
involved
in
service
through
course
requirements,
the
student
association
and
faculty
pursuits.
The
percentage
of
faculty
with
formal
service
related
agreements
with
community
organizations/public
health
agencies
has
not
been
met.
Faculty
will
be
encouraged
to
develop
additional
formal
agreements
with
such
agencies
to
conduct
service
activities.
Volunteer
work
with
agencies
that
provide
services
to
underserved
populations
will
be
strongly
encouraged.
Table
3.2.c.
Measures
of
Program
Performance:
Service
Outcome
Measures
1.
Percentage
of
student
internships
that
include
service
activities
Target
Level
75%
4
2.
Feedback
on
observations
of
students
in
practice 4.0
3.Percent
of
all
faculty
who
serve
on
panel/boards
or
provide
technical
assistance
to
community
based
agencies
4.Percent
of
core
faculty
who
serve
as
grant
reviewers
50%
5.Percent
of
all
faculty
who
serve
as
manuscript
reviewers
50%
6.Percent
of
core
faculty
with
active
memberships
in
community,
national
or
international
professional
associations
7.
Number
of
students
who
participate
in
faculty
service
activities
each
year
8.
Percent
of
students
engaging
in
service
activities
75%
25%
2
50%
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
100%
100%
Met
Met
N/A
5.0
Met
73%
63%
Met
Met
50%
50%
Met
Met
50%
50%
Met
Met
100%
100%
Met
Met
7
6
Met
Met
93%
72%
Met
Met
3.2.d.
A
description
of
student
involvement
in
service.
Student
Involvement
in
Service
The
MPH
Student
Association
(MaPHSA)
conducts
community
service
activities
throughout
the
year.
Involvement
in
service
activities
varies
from
year
to
year
and
also
according
the
various
different
student
organizations
that
exist
at
the
University.
Service
activities
detailed
in
Table
3.2.d.(1)
are
performed
by
the
organization
representing
current
MPH
students.
Page
165
Table
3.2.d.(1).
Community
Service
Activities
Conducted
by
the
MPH
Student
Association
Dates
Service
Organization
Description
2009‐2010
10/10/2009
Costanoan
Rumsen
Native
American
5K‐
A
5k
Run/Walk
to
benefit
the
Pitzer
Costanoan
Rumsen
Wellness
Center
by
raising
awareness
and
funds.
11/17/2009
Graduate
Student
Council
(GSC)
A
Thanksgiving
celebration
at
Thanksgiving
Potluck
CGU
for
students
and
local
community
members.
1/1/2010
SCGH/SA
Cesar
Chavez
Blood
Drive
Challenge
4/30‐
5/1/2010
The
American
Cancer
Society
Relay
for
Life‐
Pitzer
Campus
MigrantStudents.org
organizes
the
blood
drive
nationally.
Celebrates
the
lives
of
people
who
have
battled
cancer,
remember
loved
ones
lost,
and
raise
fund
to
fight
the
disease.
4/28‐
Remote
Area
Medical
Clinic‐
Los
Angeles
The
RAMLA
Free
Clinic
brings
5/2/2010
medical,
dental
and
vision
care
to
underserved
populations.
2010‐2011
10/10/2010
Ontario
Health
fair:
West
End
Attendees
received
free
flu
Community
Health
&
Wellness
Fair
shots,
fingerprinting
for
children,
immunizations
for
children
and
health
screenings.
10/24‐
The
Modern
House
Call
for
Women‐
This
event
provided
women
25/2010
CSULB
with
free
medical,
dental,
vision
and
financial
services.
2/7‐
Health
Mentor
Program‐
Ramona
Middle
A
series
of
5
classes
that
3/28/2010
School‐
Youth
Service
America
Grant
teach
middle
school
students
about
nutrition,
physical
fitness
and
body
image.
Student
Contributions
Participated
in
the
event
and
assisted
with
organizing
and
advertising.
Collaborating
with
the
GSC
in
the
planning,
preparation
and
hosting
of
this
event;
donated
food
items,
Collaborated
with
the
American
Red
Cross
to
host
the
blood
drive;
advertised
event
to
community
members.
Registered
a
team
to
participate
in
the
relay;
raised
funds.
Provided
services
to
community
members
by
escorting
patients
to
care
providers.
Assisted
with
providing
services
to
attendees.
Assisted
with
providing
services
to
attendees.
Taught
classes.
Community
service
activities
conducted
by
individual
students
are
listed
in
Table
3.2.d.(2)
below.
A
total
of
37
incidences
of
service
activities
were
conducted
in
2009‐2010
and
55
in
2010‐2011.
Activities
consisted
of
service
to
the
program,
university
or
their
surrounding
community.
Interesting
to
note
is
the
many
students
who
have
contributed
to
the
“Getting
It
Right
in
Ramona
Program”
sponsored
by
the
Bonita
Unified
School
District.
In
2011,
MPH
students
received
a
grant
to
create
an
afternoon
nutrition
and
fitness
program
for
students
at
Ramona
Middle
School.
As
the
total
award
was
only
$500,
the
program
has
relied
heavily
on
volunteer
hours
from
the
Student
Association
and
well
as
interested
MPH
students.
Page
166
In
addition,
volunteer
activities
are
supported
by
the
program
by
communicating
the
availability
of
service
activities,
and
supporting
and
facilitating
student
participation.
There
are
numerous
opportunities
for
volunteering
locally
in
a
wide
array
of
public
health
activities.
Typically
one
a
few
students
has
a
particular
interest
area
and
he/she/they
spearhead
the
activity.
The
CGU
MPH
program
communicates
this
activity
to
other
students
encouraging
them
to
participate.
Often
these
activities
occur
on
a
regular
basis.
For
example,
students
have
been
involved
helping
serve
food
at
local
homeless
shelters
and
this
occurred
every
Sunday
night.
Other
activities
occur
only
once
or
infrequently.
For
example,
an
AIDS
walk
or
breast
cancer
run.
Again,
the
program
widely
publicizes
these
activities
and
encourages
student
participation.
Page
167
Table
3.2.d.(2).
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Service
Student
Doriane
Adjibi
Debra
Adkins‐Hedgeman
Paris
Adkins‐Jackson
Belinda
Campos
Jane
Castanares
Alyssa
De
Santiago
Rebecca
Fernandez
Bree
Hemingway
Jeanette
Hughes
Kimberly
Johnson
Organization
Name
Activities
Parents
Anonymous
Helpline
Shangrali
Hospice
Kommah
Seray
Inflammatory
Breast
Cancer
Foundation
Cancer
Support
Community‐Benjamin
Center
Voices
for
Action
Charles
R.
Drew
University
Kaiser
Permanente
Educational
Outreach
Department
“Change
Starts
With
Me
Program”
Bonita
Unified
School
District/
(Ramona
Middle
School)
Bonita
Unified
School
District/
(Ramona
Middle
School)
Project
Sister
Family
Services
College
Club
Remote
Area
Medical
Clinic
Planned
Parenthood
Orange
&
San
Bernardino
Counties
Young
Women’s
Health
Conference
American
Red
Cross
SCGH/MPH
Student
Association
Graduate
Student
Council
Bonita
Unified
School
District/
(Ramona
Middle
School)
MPH
Program
Recruitment
and
Admissions
Committee
SCGH
Student
Association
Bonita
Unified
School
District/
(Ramona
Middle
School)
Page
168
2009‐
2010
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
2010‐
2011
X
X
X
Curriculum
Development
&
Workshop
Trainer
(English
and
Spanish)
Teacher
for
afterschool
health
&
fitness
program
Teacher
for
afterschool
health
&
fitness
program
Sexual
assault
victim's
advocate
Workshop
leader
Volunteer,
medical
area
Volunteer
&
Steering
Committee
Member
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
X
General
Volunteer
Vice
President
SCGH
Representative
Coordinator
for
afterschool
health
&
fitness
program
Student
member
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
Events
Coordinator
Teacher
for
afterschool
health
&
fitness
program
X
‐‐
X
X
Advocate
General
Volunteer
Newsletter,
Editor‐In‐Chief
Workshop
Facilitator
&
Front
desk
staff
General
Volunteer
Assisted
with
continuing
education
event
Mentor
Mother/Daughter
Program
X
X
X
X
Table
3.2.d.(2).
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Service
Student
Walter
D.
Johnson
Cevadne
Lee
Cindy
Lin
Shanna
Livermore
Katherine
Miller
Nathanael
Napolitano
Organization
Name
Activities
CGU
Minority
Mentor
Program
Los
Angeles
County
Native
American
Indian
Commission
California
Wellness
Foundation
SCGH
Student
Association
Board
of
Directors
Board
of
Directors
Board
of
Directors
Board
of
Directors
Board
of
Directors
Board
of
Directors
Peer
mentor
Commissioner
Panelist
on
Indigenous
Peoples
Secretary
Angel
View
Crippled
Children’s
Foundation
Association
of
International
Medical
Societies
Uncommon
Good
Trauma
Resource
Institute
Montessori
Redlands
Finance
Committee,
Alumni
Association,
Loma
Linda
University
School
of
Medicine
General
Volunteer
Assisted
with
services/activities
Team
member
Secretary
Nutrition
consultant
to
afterschool
health
&
fitness
program
Secretary
Secretary
Participant
President
Co‐President
President
President
Co‐President
Founder
Volunteer
Volunteer
Volunteer
President
Volunteer,
medical
area
Southeast
Asian
Community
Alliance
Cesar
Chavez
Blood
Drive
Challenge
American
Cancer
Society
Relay
for
Life
SCGH
Student
Association
Bonita
Unified
School
District/
(Ramona
Middle
School)
SCGH/MPH
Student
Association
CGU
Graduate
Student
Council
CGU
Wellness
Club
CGU
Graduate
Student
Council
CGU
Wellness
Club
Herbivores
Club
Zero
Waste
Club
SBOS
Peer
Mentoring
Program
Lifting
Women
Out
of
Poverty
Global
Medical
Brigades
Health
Careers
Organization
Kyrie
Catholic
Student
Fellowship
SCGH/MPH
Student
Association
Remote
Area
Medical
Clinic
Page
169
2009‐
2010
‐‐
X
2010‐
2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
‐
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
Table
3.2.d.(2).
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Involvement
in
Service
Student
Daniel
Nuyujukian
Liesl
Nydegger
Yvonne
Oliveras‐
Moldonado
Sabrina
Rosetti
Diana
Rudulph
Organization
Name
Activities
2010‐
2011
X
X
Event
planning
Team
Leader
Organizer
SCGH
Student
Representative
Director/Member
Task
force
member
for
the
Public
Schools
Project
X
X
X
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
X
Student
member
General
Volunteer
Membership
Committee
Co‐Chair
‐‐
X
X
X
‐‐
X
Assisted
with
continuing
education
event
‐‐
X
‐‐
X
Treasurer
‐‐
X
Vice
President
Volunteer/walking
coordinator
Program
Director
General
Volunteer
X
X
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
X
X
X
General
Volunteer
‐‐
37
X
55
Graduate
Student
Council
MPH
Program
Self
Study/
Accreditation
Committee
Cesar
Chavez
Blood
Drive
Challenge
American
Cancer
Society
Relay
for
Life
SCGH
Global
Health
Seminar
Lecture
Series
CGU
Budget
and
Finance
Committee
Casa
Heiwa
and
Angelina
Mentorship
Program
Planned
Parenthood
Orange
and
San
Bernardino
Counties
MPH
Continuing
Education
Committee
Remote
Area
Medicine
(RAM)
Clinic
American
Public
Health
Association
Student
Assembly
Charles
R.
Drew
University
SCGH
Representative
Student
Representative
Bonita
Unified
School
District/(Ramona
Middle
School)
SCGH
Student
Association
Teacher
for
afterschool
health
&
fitness
program
SCGH
Student
Association
Neighborhood
Wellness
Center
Kids
on
the
Move
and
Girls
on
the
Move
Malaika
Tobias
Planned
Parenthood
Orange
&
San
Bernardino
Counties
Young
Women’s
Health
Conference
RAM
Clinic
TOTAL
STUDENT
SERVICE
ACTIVITIES
2009‐
2010
X
X
Page
170
3.2.e.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 Faculty
and
students
are
committed
to
community
service
as
an
integral
part
of
the
public
health
profession.
 Appointments
and
promotion
consider
service
activities
in
faculty
review
and
it
is
accorded
the
same
merit
as
research
and
teaching.
 Evidence
indicates
that
the
CGU
MPH
program
creates
an
environment
that
values
and
facilitates
service
and
there
is
evidence
that
both
faculty
and
students
engage
in
considerable
service
activities.
Page
171
Blank
page
Page
172
Criterion
3.3.
Workforce
Development
The
program
engages
in
activities
that
support
the
professional
development
of
the
public
health
workforce.
3.3.a.
Description
of
the
program’s
continuing
education
activities,
including
policies,
needs
assessment,
procedures,
practices,
and
evaluation
that
support
continuing
education
and
workforce
development
strategies.
Continuing
Education
Activities
The
MPH
program
has
developed
a
program
of
continuing
education
and
a
program
infrastructure
designed
to
respond
to
emerging
and
ongoing
training
needs
of
public
health
professionals
in
the
greater
Los
Angeles
region.
Policies
The
MPH
program
goals
and
objectives
were
established
to
provide
a
plan
to
provide
targets
for
providing
for
continuing
education
activities
designed
to
benefit
the
local
public
health
workforce.
These
are:
1. Conduct
a
needs
assessment
at
least
every
three
years
to
determine
current
and
emerging
needs
of
the
public
health
workforce.
2.
Provide
at
least
one
training
annually
that
will
reach
local
public
health
professionals.
3.
Provide
continuing
education
contact
hours
for
health
educators,
when
appropriate.
4.
Enroll
at
least
five
certified
health
education
specialists
in
continuing
education
programs
per
year.
These
objectives
establish
the
program’s
policy
of
delivering
continuing
education
annually
to
the
surrounding
public
health
community
in
order
to
meet
their
identified
training
needs.
It
is
also
part
of
the
program’s
mission
to
focus
on
the
specific
needs
of
diverse
populations.
Needs
Assessment
The
MPH
program
staff
distributed
an
initial
workforce
needs
assessment
in
spring
2009
through
a
mailing
list
developed
from
faculty
community
contacts
as
well
as
information
from
the
Rainbow
Directory
of
non‐profit
human
service
agencies.
Due
to
a
very
low
response
rate,
the
survey
was
revised
and
redistributed
in
the
spring
of
2011.
Distribution
was
through
list
serves
for
Health
Network
California;
Inland
Empire
Increasing
Diversity
in
the
Health
Professions
Coalition;
current
SCGH
MPH
internship
sites
and
community
partners,
and
the
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research,
and
Training
(WINCART)
partners.
Approximately
50
organizations
in
the
Southern
California
region
received
the
13‐item
survey
which
was
either
disseminated
online
via
Survey
Monkey
or
in
person
via
a
paper‐and‐pencil
questionnaire
format.
Organizations
were
asked
to
identify
workforce
development
needs,
including
accessibility
and
affordability
of
continuing
education
training
and
programs.
With
an
approximate
response
rate
of
10%,
results
demonstrated
an
overall
interest
in
SCGH
providing
continuing
education
opportunities.
A
majority
of
the
respondents
were
health
educators
(61.4%)
from
community
based
organizations
located
in
San
Bernardino
and
Los
Angeles
counties,
areas
which
the
Claremont
Colleges
predominately
serve.
The
top
five
areas
in
which
respondents
wanted
to
receive
additional
training
was
cultural
competency
(i.e.
76%);
community
needs
assessment
(71.9%);
program
Page
173
evaluation
(65.6%);
grant
writing
(53.1%);
and
prevention/cessation
of
alcohol,
tobacco
and
drug
use
(46.9%).
Over
80%
of
the
respondents
preferred
weekday
trainings
at
either
at
SCGH
or
their
workplace.
SCGH
intends
to
continue
to
survey
local
partners.
This
information
will
be
used
by
the
program
and
its
collaborators
to
determine
future
workshop
and
training
topics
as
well
as
a
continuing
education
schedule
tailored
to
meet
the
local
workforce
needs.
Procedures
and
Practices
The
first
step
towards
creating
a
structured
program
to
address
workforce
development
needs
is
to
take
stock
of
our
agency
affiliations.
The
MPH
Program
has
several
agency
affiliations
that
aid
in
the
discovery
of
continuing
education
needs
of
the
local
practice
community
and
to
make
our
program
a
more
visible
resource
for
the
organizations
of
the
surrounding
area.
These
affiliations
are
identified
below.
These
affiliations
are
listed
in
table
3.3a.
In
addition,
The
MPH
program
has
initiated
a
partnership
with
other
area
MPH
programs,
namely
the
University
of
Southern
California
and
Charles
R.
Drew
University,
to
co‐sponsor
trainings
that
might
interest
members
of
their
local
public
health
workforce.
Table
3.3.a.
SCGH
Agency
Affiliations
Program
Designee
Maggie
Hawkins,
MPH
Program
Manager
Darleen
Peterson,
MPH
Program
Director
Alan
Stacy,
Core
MPH
Faculty
Michael
Owen,
Adjunct
MPH
Faculty
Paula
Palmer,
Core
MPH
Faculty
Paul
Torrens,
Adjunct
MPH
Faculty
Agency
Affiliation
Inland
Coalition
for
Advancing
Diversity
in
the
Health
Professions
Rainbow
Pride
Youth
Alliance
Center
for
Community
Action
&
Environmental
Justice
Planned
Parenthood
of
Orange
&
San
Bernardino
Counties
Riverside
County
Mental
Health
National
Youth
Action
Coalition
Bonita
Unified
School
District
Urban
Public
Health
Program,
Charles
R.
Drew
University
MPH
Program,
University
of
Southern
California
MPH
Program,
California
State
University,
Northridge
MPH
Program,
Touro
University,
California
California
Public
Health
Alliance
for
Workforce
Excellence
Delta
Sigma
Theta,
Inc.,
Farwest
Region
California
Diversion
Intervention
Foundation
Pomona
Community
Crisis
Center
San
Ysidro
Health
Center
Council
Connections
Health
Network
Racial
&
Ethnic
Approaches
to
Community
Health
(REACH)
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research,
and
Training
(WINCART)
UCLA
School
of
Public
Health
Second,
educational
topics
and
audiences
are
prioritized
as
a
result
of
discussions
of
our
community
partners.
Needs
are
also
identified
through
participation
in
collaborative
networks,
meetings
with
public
health
organizations
and
alumni,
and
specific
requests
for
training.
The
educational
events
listed
in
table
3.3c
were
a
result
of
these
affiliations.
Origins
of
these
events
are
detailed
below
as
well
as
a
description
of
contributions
made
by
the
MPH
program.
Page
174
“Health
Effects
of
Alcohol:
What
Your
Clients
Need
to
Know”
Funded
in
1999
by
the
National
Institute
on
Alcohol
Abuse
and
Alcoholism
(NIAAA),
the
Southern
California
Research
Center
for
Alcoholic
Liver
and
Pancreatic
Diseases
(ALPD) and
Cirrhosis
is
a
collaborative
effort
among
scientific
experts
in
the
study
of
alcoholic
liver
and
pancreatic
diseases
in
the
Southern
California
area.
Key
Center
researchers
who
are
affiliated
with
this
study
are
with
academic
institutions
such
as
the
University
of
Southern
California
(USC),
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles
(UCLA),
University
of
California,
San
Diego
(UCSD),
Harbor‐UCLA
Medical
Center,
and
the
Department
of
Veterans
Affairs.
The
Southern
California
Research
Center
for
ALPD
and
Cirrhosis
at
the
USC
Keck
School
of
Medicine
conducted
a
study
which
found
certain
subgroups
at
risk
for
alcohol
consumption,
liver
and
pancreatic
diseases.
The
presentation
of
these
seminars
is
based
on
a
presumption
that
an
update
on
alcohol
consumption
and
liver
and
pancreatic
diseases
can
be
useful
to
health
care
educators
and
providers.
This
is
a
reoccurring
event;
the
first
was
offered
in
July
of
2008.
The
MPH
Program
at
USC
is
a
member
of
the
planning
committee.
As
the
Assistant
Director
of
the
USC
MPH
program,
Dr.
Peterson
was
a
member
of
that
committee.
The
committee
re‐contacted
her
upon
her
arrival
at
CGU
and
requested
that
she
assist
with
future
events.
The
CGU
MPH
program
then
became
a
co‐sponsored
the
4‐
3‐09
and
10‐22‐10
events.
The
MPH
program’s
role
in
these
events
included
the
submission
of
applications
for
continuing
education
credits;
assistance
with
registration
on
the
day
of
the
event;
and
the
analysis
and
reporting
of
evaluation
data.
“Childhood
Obesity:
Genes,
Brains
&
Behavior”
As
a
collaborative
effort
between
USC
and
Children’s
Hospital
of
Los
Angeles,
The
Childhood
Obesity
Research
Center
(CORC)
at
the
University
of
Southern
California
facilitates
research
interaction
across
the
University,
its
affiliates
and
beyond.
CORC
hosts
an
annual
symposium,
an
event
conceived
as
a
forum
to
increase
interactions
among
researchers
and
practitioners
who
address
childhood
obesity
prevention
and
treatment.
It
is
CORC’s
belief
that
the
issue
of
childhood
obesity
is
a
multifaceted
one,
which
can
only
be
solved
by
approaching
the
problem
from
all
angles.
To
that
effect,
topics
covered
in
these
symposiums
range
from
obesity’s
related
conditions,
including
fatty
liver
disease
and
sleep
apnea;
to
novel
interventions
for
prevention
and
treatment;
to
the
effect
of
televised
food
advertising
on
children.
The
goal
is
to
provide
an
environment
at
USC
that
will
maximize
interactions,
support
research
infrastructure
and
create
new
research
opportunities
in
an
effort
to
understand,
treat
and
prevent
childhood
obesity
and
its
related
conditions
The
program
“Childhood
Obesity:
Genes,
Brains
and
Behavior”
offered
on
4‐17‐09
reflects
this
cross‐discipline
effort
as
participants
heard
from
basic
scientists
work
in
animal
models,
clinical
scientists
working
with
patients,
and
behavioral
scientists
working
in
communities
in
intervention
efforts.
Again,
CGU
co‐sponsorship
of
this
event
was
a
result
of
Dr.
Peterson’s
previous
participation
while
at
USC
MPH
Program.
CGU
MPH
program’s
role
in
these
events
included
the
submission
of
applications
for
continuing
education
credits;
assistance
with
registration
on
the
day
of
the
event;
and
the
analysis
and
reporting
of
evaluation
data.
“Annual
Global
Health
Symposium”
SCGH
and
its
NIH‐funded
Fogarty
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
sponsors
an
annual
symposium,
providing
a
forum
for
the
presentation
and
discussion
of
ongoing
global
health
research
and
training
activities
across
the
Claremont
College
Community.
The
day‐long
symposium,
which
is
sponsored
in
part,
by
the
MPH
program,
provides
an
opportunity
for
discussion
leading
to
cross‐college
collaborations
to
generate
future
solutions
to
improve
health
and
well‐being
for
communities
worldwide.
Specific
objectives
for
the
symposium
include:


Present
trends
and
emerging
issues
associated
with
economic
transition
and
lifestyle
Share
recent
findings
in
prevention
research
and
practice
Page
175



Inform
public
health
practice
Present
innovative
models
of
training
Facilitate
interdisciplinary
cross‐college
collaborations
The
Annual
Global
Health
Symposium
attracts
interested
stakeholders
from
around
the
region
and
the
world,
which
is
essential
for
the
implementation
of
innovative
technologies
that
are
being
developed
for
health
promotion,
research,
and
education.
The
2010
event
was
titled
“Global
Challenges
for
the
21st
Century:
The
Epidemic
of
Chronic
Disease
from
East
to
West.”
The
symposium
focused
on
the
pandemic
of
non‐communicable
chronic
diseases
–
such
as
those
caused
by
obesity,
smoking,
and
unhealthy
environments
–
and
innovative
solutions
to
their
prevention
and
control.
Discussing
the
scope
of
the
problem
and
nature
of
prevention
and
control
was
keynote
speaker
Liming
Lee,
vice
president
of
Chinese
Academy
of
Medical
Science/Peking
Union
Medical
College.
The
focus
of
this
event
was
to
discover
ways
to
use
new,
emerging
technologies
that
connect
people
at
all
levels
–
people
with
the
communications
technology,
people
with
the
communications
systems,
people
who
are
public‐health
practitioners
and
public‐health
educators.
The
MPH
program
faculty,
administration
and
students
are
involved
in
all
levels
of
planning
and
execution
of
the
event,
including
securing
speakers,
giving
presentations,
managing
event
logistics
and
evaluation.
Videos
of
the
entire
conference
are
available
online
through
CGU’s
iTunes
University
page.
“Women
&
Girls
HIV/AIDS/STI
Awareness
Day:
Facing
Our
Fears
–
Women
&
Girls
Taking
Action
in
the
Fight
Against
HIV/AIDS”
The
goals
and
objectives
of
Delta
Sigma
Theta
Sorority,
Inc.’s
Farwest
Region’s
“Know
Your
Status:
Get
Tested!
is
to
educate
and
facilitate
lifestyle
changes
for
the
physical,
mental,
and
spiritual
well‐being
of
its
members
and
the
communities
served.
The
goal
of
the
"Know
Your
Status:
Get
Tested!”
is
to
provide
HIV/AIDS
education,
risk
reduction
strategies
and
a
community
mobilization
initiatives
targeting
sexually
active
at
risk
African
American
females
aged
13
to
24
residing
in
the
Farwest
Region
(Alaska,
Arizona,
California,
Hawaii,
Idaho,
Nevada,
Oregon,
Utah,
Washington,
Okinawa,
Tokyo,
and
the
Republic
of
Korea).
Members
of
the
Los
Angeles
chapter,
along
with
faculty
from
the
Charles
R.
Drew
University
of
Medicine
&
Science
in
South
Los
Angeles
and
the
CGU
MPH
program
sponsored
an
event
dedicated
to:




Identifying
the
incidence
and
prevalence
of
HIV/AIDS
among
inner
city
African
American
communities
Describing
the
cultural,
economic
and
educational
challenges
that
impact
the
sexual
choices
of
African
American
women
in
the
inner
city
Identifying
challenges
and
opportunities
for
sustainable
actions
to
address
HIV/AIDS
among
African
American
women
Developing
culturally
appropriate
communication
Approaches,
Messages,
and
Tools
in
HIV/AIDS
Prevention
Interventions
Aimed
at
African
American
Women
CGU
MPH
program
faculty,
staff
and
students
were
involved
in
program
promotion,
securing
approval
for
continuing
education
units
for
health
educator,
on‐site
registration,
and
program
evaluation.
“Community
Engagement
Colloquia
Series:
A
Social
Justice
Model
for
Eliminating
Racial/Ethnic
Minority
Health
Disparities”
The
Black
Community
Health
Task
Force,
the
Urban
Public
Health
Program,
Charles
R.
Drew
University
of
Medicine
&
Science
and
Accelerating
Excellence
in
Translational
Medical
Science
have
organized
a
quarterly
colloquia
series
that
integrates
conversations
around
social
justice
and
health…in
hopes
of
health
justice.
Given
Charles
Drew
University’s
vested
interest
in
transforming
the
health
in
South
Los
Page
176
Angeles,
the
goal
of
this
colloquia
is
to
discuss
the
impact
of
social
inequalities
on
the
health
lifespan
of
individuals,
and
educate
health
leaders
on
the
complexity
of
maintaining
and
achieving
good
health
at
all
ages
and
how
good
health
is
not
separate
from
the
social
inequalities
but
instead
integral
to
it.
A
secondary
goal
of
this
series
is
to
inspire
the
participants
to
see
themselves
not
only
as
practitioners
or
researchers,
but
instead,
to
see
themselves
as
community
members
whose
pursuit
of
healthier
communities
goes
beyond
education,
clinic,
and
lab
and
instead
takes
shape
and
finds
heart
through
their
championship
of
social
justice.
The
planning
team
invited
the
CGU
MPH
program
to
become
a
sponsor
of
the
series.
Although
the
program
was
not
involved
at
the
planning
stages,
faculty
and
students
were
involved
in
the
application
for
continuing
education
units,
assistance
on
the
day
of
the
event
and
program
evaluation.
“Native
Hawaiian
and
Pacific
Islander
Youth
Health
&
Fitness
Day”
In
an
effort
to
improve
the
health
outcomes
of
the
Native
Hawaiian
and
Asian
and
Pacific
Islander
(NHPI)
population,
the
following
groups
came
together
to
host
a
half
day
conference
devoted
to
addressing
lifestyle
factors
that
predispose
this
population
to
obesity
and
strategies
to
mitigate
the
complications.
The
conference
features
the
Lead
Commissioners
from
the
White
House
Initiative
on
Asian
Americans
and
Pacific
Islanders
‐‐
The
President’s
Advisory
Commission
on
Asian
Americans
and
Pacific
Islanders,
California
Commission
on
Asian
and
Pacific
Islander
American
Affairs,
and
Commissioner
Hines
Ward
of
the
Pittsburgh
Steelers.
This
event
targeted
the
NHPI
communities
in
Southern
California,
home
to
the
largest
population
of
NHPIs
outside
of
Hawaii.
This
event
is
part
of
a
larger
effort
initiated
by
these
and
other
organizations
which
aim
to
coordinate
outreach
efforts
with
NHPI
churches
and
other
cultural/community
centers
to
educate
members
of
this
community,
health
educators
and
health
care
providers
regarding
this
epidemic.
MPH
Program
participation
in
this
event
was
made
possible
by
Dr.
Paula
Palmer’s
involvement
with
WINCART.
She
serves
as
one
of
the
Principle
Investigators
of
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research,
and
Training,
a
Community
Network
Program
funded
by
the
National
Cancer
Institute
to
promote
cancer
education,
research
and
training
among
Pacific
Islanders
in
Southern
California.
WINCART
is
comprised
of
six
community
based
organizations
and
researchers
from
four
universities
with
the
goal
of
reducing
disparities
in
cancer
incidence
and
mortality
among
Chamorro,
Marshallese,
Native
Hawaiian,
Samoan,
Tongan,
and
other
Pacific
Islanders.
Founded
in
2005,
the
network
uses
community‐based
participatory
research
partnerships
between
researchers
in
communities
and
universities
to
promote
community
capacity
building
and
prevention
education,
cancer
screening,
early
diagnosis,
quality
treatment
and
survivorship.
MPH
faculty,
administration
and
students
were
involved
in
the
application
for
continuing
education
units,
assistance
on
the
day
of
the
event
and
program
evaluation.
Evaluation
Evaluations
of
continuing
education
events
are
conducted
at
the
conclusion
of
each
training
session.
Items
assessed
include:
(1)
extent
to
which
the
learning
objectives
were
met;
(2)
extent
to
which
the
event
met
participant
learning
needs;
(3)
aspects
of
speaker
performance;
and
(4)
satisfaction
with
program
logistics.
The
evaluation
form
at
each
event
includes
a
question
asking
participants
about
their
preferences
for
future
training
events.
Summaries
of
program
evaluations
are
available
on‐site
in
the
resource
file.
3.3.b.
Description
of
certificate
programs
or
other
non‐degree
offerings
of
the
program,
including
enrollment
data
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Certificate
Programs
Not
applicable.
Page
177
3.3.c.
A
list
of
continuing
education
programs
offered
by
the
program,
including
number
of
students
served,
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Those
that
are
offered
in
a
distance
learning
format
should
be
identified.
Continuing
Education
Programs
Offered
Several
continuing
education
programs
have
been
provided
in
the
past
three
years,
in
response
to
needs
expressed
by
our
collaborative
partners.
The
continuing
education
programs
sponsored
by
the
CGU
MPH
Program
are
presented
in
Table
3.3.c.
All
sessions
were
delivered
in
person.
As
previously
discussed,
The
CGH
MPH
program
participated
in
various
capacities
of
these
sessions,
including
the
planning
and
execution
of
these
events;
the
submission
of
applications
for
continuing
education
credits;
and
the
analysis
and
reporting
of
evaluation
data.
All
sessions
were
made
possible
by
the
active
involvement
of
MPH
program
faculty,
administration
and
students.
Page
178
Table
3.3.c.
Continuing
Education
Sessions
Sponsored
by
the
CGU
MPH
Program
Session
Title,
Location
&
Date
1.
Southern
California
Research
Center
for
the
ALPD
and
Cirrhosis
2.
County
of
Los
Angeles
3.
Department
of
Public
Health
Commission
on
Alcoholism
4.
The
Institute
for
Continuing
Education
for
Nurses
5.
Networks
of
Promoters
and
Community
Health
Workers
6.
LA
Care
Health
Plan
7.
USC
MPH
Program
1.
Children’s
Hospital,
Los
Angeles
2.
USC
MPH
Program
3.
Transdisciplinary
Research
on
Eurgenetics
and
Cancer
Centers
4.
National
Cancer
Institute
5.
Keck
School
of
Medicine
of
USC
1.
National
Institutes
of
Health
–
Fogarty
International
Center
2.
Keck
School
of
Medicine
of
USC
136
Contact
Hours
3
120
6
CHES
150
6
N/A
1.
National
Institutes
of
Health
–
Fogarty
International
Center
200
6
N/A
106
3
CHES
CME
49
3
CHES
Native
Hawaiian
and
Pacific
Islander
Youth
Health
&
Fitness
Day
Los
Angeles,
CA
(4‐2‐11)
1.
Southern
California
Research
Center
for
the
ALPD
and
Cirrhosis
2.
County
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Public
Health
Commission
on
Alcoholism
3.
The
Institute
for
Continuing
Education
for
Nurses
Networks
of
Promotores
and
Community
Health
Workers
4.
LA
Care
Health
Plan
5.
USC
MPH
Program
1.
Delta
Sigma
Theta
Sorority
Inc.
Farwest
Region:
Know
Your
Status—
Get
Tested!
2.
Delta
Research
and
Educational
Foundation
3.
Urban
Public
Health
Program,
Charles
R.
Drew
University
of
Medicine
&
Science
4.
Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services,
Office
of
Women’s
Health
1.
President’s
Advisory
Commission
on
Asian
Americans
&
Pacific
Islanders
2.
California
Commission
on
Asians
&
Pacific
Islanders
1,500
1.5
CHES
Community
Engagement
Colloquia
Series:
A
Social
Justice
Model
for
Eliminating
Racial/Ethnic
Minority
Health
Disparities
Los
Angeles,
CA
(6‐18‐11)
1.Black
Community
Health
Task
Force
2
Urban
Public
Health
Program,
Charles
R.
Drew
University
of
Medicine
&
Science
3.Accelerating
Excellence
in
Translational
Medical
Science
62
1.5
CHES
Health
Effects
of
Alcohol:
What
Your
Clients
Need
to
Know
Alhambra,
CA
(4‐3‐09)
Childhood
Obesity:
Genes,
Brains
&
Behavior
Los
Angeles,
CA
(4‐17‐09)
st
Global
Health
for
the
21 Century
–
Global
Health
Symposium
Los
Angeles,
CA
(4‐17‐09)
st
Global
Health
Challenges
for
the
21
nd
Century
–
2 Annual
Global
Health
Symposium
Claremont,
CA
(5‐7‐10)
Health
Effects
of
Alcohol:
What
Your
Clients
Need
to
Know
Alhambra,
CA
(10‐22‐10)
Women
&
Girls
HIV/AIDS/STI
Awareness
Day:
Facing
Our
Fears
–
Women
&
Girls
Taking
Action
in
the
Fight
Against
HIV/AIDS
Los
Angeles,
CA
(3‐10‐11)
Co‐Sponsors
Page
179
Attendees
CE
Units
CHES
CME
Summary
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
continuing
education
activities
conducted
by
the
CGU
MPH
program
within
the
last
two
years.
 Total
number
of
events
=
8
 Total
number
of
contact
hours
=
30
 Total
number
of
attendees
=
2323
 Types
of
attendees
included
health
educators,
lay
outreach
workers,
physicians,
health
and
social
service
providers,
and
general
public
health
practitioners;
 Continuing
education
credit
was
offered
at
6
of
the
8
events
(75%).
 Types
of
continuing
education
units
provided
included
CHES
(health
educators),
CME
(physicians)
and
others
(not
listed).
 Total
number
of
continuing
education
units
for
health
educators
=18
3.3.d.
A
list
of
other
educational
institutions
or
public
health
practice
organizations,
if
any,
with
which
the
program
collaborates
to
offer
continuing
education.
Program
Collaborators
In
addition
to
other
departments
and
research
centers
at
CGU,
we
have
developed
collaborative
relationships
with
several
institutions
and
organizations
to
broaden
our
reach
for
continuing
education
and
to
avoid
duplication
of
events.
These
organizations
include
the
following
with
whom
we
have
invited
a
partnership
to
offer
a
continuing
education
session
in
the
past
two
years:
 Southern
California
Research
Center
for
the
ALPD
and
Cirrhosis
 County
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Public
Health,
Commission
on
Alcoholism
 Networks
of
Promotores
and
Community
Health
Workers
 LA
Care
Health
Plan
 Children’s
Hospital,
Los
Angeles
 University
of
Southern
California
Master
of
Public
Health
Program
 Transdisciplinary
Research
on
Eurgenetics
and
Cancer
Centers
 National
Cancer
Institute
 Keck
School
of
Medicine
of
the
University
of
Southern
California
 National
Institutes
of
Health
–
Fogarty
International
Center
 Delta
Sigma
Theta
Sorority
Inc.
Farwest
Region:
Know
Your
Status—Get
Tested!
 Delta
Research
and
Educational
Foundation
 Urban
Public
Health
Program,
Charles
R.
Drew
University
of
Medicine
&
Science
 Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services,
Office
of
Women’s
Health
 President’s
Advisory
Commission
on
Asian
Americans
&
Pacific
Islanders
 California
Commission
on
Asians
&
Pacific
Islanders
 Black
Community
Health
Task
Force
 Accelerating
Excellence
in
Translational
Sciences
 Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research,
and
Training
3.3.e.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met
with
commentary.
Page
180
Strengths
 The
CGU
MPH
program
has
a
continuing
education
goal
to
provide
technical
and
programmatic
support
to
public
health
organizations
in
the
greater
Los
Angeles
area
in
order
to
assist
agencies
in
meeting
the
needs
of
their
service
populations.
 Educational
sessions
have
targeted
the
needs
of
diverse
populations.
 Outcome
measures
are
identified
and
monitored.
 Despite
minimal
program
staffing,
the
MPH
program
has
co‐sponsored
a
total
of
eight
events.
 The
program
has
developed
collaborative
partnerships
to
assist
with
the
delivery
of
continuing
education
programs.
Challenges
and
Future
Plans
 Currently,
the
majority
of
the
topics
identified
for
continuing
education
events
are
a
result
of
needs
identified
by
collaborate
partners.
A
community
assessment
survey
has
been
disseminated
to
gauge
felt
needs
of
the
public
health
workforce.
These
results
will
better
direct
the
selection
of
future
topics
and
audiences.
 The
program
seeks
to
establish
a
more
formal
infrastructure
to
support
workforce
development
activities.
A
continuing
education
committee
will
be
established.
Page
181
Blank
page
Page
182
CRITERION
4.0
FACULTY,
STAFF
AND
STUDENTS
Page
183
Blank
page
Page
184
Criterion
4.1.
Faculty
Qualifications
The
program
shall
have
clearly
defined
faculty
which,
by
virtue
of
its
distribution,
multidisciplinary
nature,
educational
preparation,
research
and
teaching
competence,
and
practice
experience,
is
able
to
fully
support
the
programs
mission,
goals
and
objectives.
4.1.a.
A
table
showing
primary
faculty
who
the
degree
programs
offered
by
the
program.
It
should
present
data
effective
at
the
beginning
of
the
academic
year
in
which
the
self
study
is
submitted
to
CEPH
and
should
be
updated
at
the
beginning
of
the
site
visit.
This
information
must
be
presented
in
table
format
and
include
at
least
the
following:
(1)
name,
(2)
title/academic
rank,
(3)
FTE
or
%
time,
(4)
tenure
status
or
classification,
(5)
gender,
(6)
race,
(7)
graduate
degrees
earned,
(8)
current
teaching
areas,
(9)
current
research
interests,
and
(10)
current
and
past
public
health
practice
activities.
CEPH
Data
Template
F.
Faculty
Matrix
The
CGU
MPH
faculty
is
a
highly
qualified,
interdisciplinary,
and
cohesive
group
of
scholars
committed
to
excellence
in
teaching
and
research.
The
faculty
has
a
rich
history
of
teaching
in
public
health
(at
USC,
Minnesota,
University
of
Illinois‐Chicago,
UCLA,
and
CGU),
collaborative
research,
and
an
excellent
reputation
for
its
academic
training
program.
The
establishment
of
an
MPH
training
program
within
SCGH
takes
advantage
of
these
talents
and
resources.
The
faculty
is
diverse,
but
maintains
plans
to
hire
new
faculty
that
reflect
the
communities
surrounding
CGU.
We
acknowledge
this
as
a
challenge
and
have
endeavored
to
address
it,
recognizing
that
this
is
an
issue
that
has
plagued
other
institutions.
Faculty
generally
teach
one
to
two
courses
per
year
with
the
remainder
of
their
effort
devoted
to
research.
With
this
environment,
there
is
sufficient
faculty
to
teach
the
courses
needed
for
the
program.
It
is
anticipated
that
additional
courses
may
be
offered
as
the
program
grows
providing
there
are
more
teaching
opportunities
for
interested
faculty
and
the
hiring
of
new
faculty.
Current
core
faculty
include
four
Professors,
five
Associate
Professors
and
two
Assistant
Professors.
Faculty
Training
and
Experience
Of
the
11
core
faculty,
six
(55%)
possess
an
educational
background
in
public
health
(e.g.,
Master
of
Public
Health,
Master
of
Science
in
Biostatistics/Epidemiology,
PhD
in
Health
Behavior
Research).
All
have
degrees
in
the
core
areas
of
public
health:
health
behavior
(45%),
biostatistics
(18%)
and
health
administration
(10%).
Several
others
have
certificates,
post‐doctoral
training,
and/or
extensive
leadership
experience
in
core
areas.
Faculty
experience
corresponding
to
the
programmatic
disciplines
in
which
they
are
assigned
is
detailed
below.
Collectively,
the
faculty
have
years
of
teaching,
mentoring,
research
and
professional
experience
relevant
to
public
health.
All
faculty
teach
courses
and/or
provide
guest
lecturers
and
mentor
students
in
the
concentration
in
which
they
are
assigned.
Faculty
experience
in
public
health
is
summarized
in
table
4.1.a.
Page
185
Table
4.1.a.
Summary
of
Core
Faculty
Experience
in
Public
Health
Faculty
&
Concentration
Susan
Ames
(HPEE)
Jerry
Grenard
(ABE)
Andy
Johnson
(LM)
Degrees
PhD,
Preventive
Medicine
(emphasis
in
Health
Behavior
Research);
MA,
Psychology
PhD,
Preventive
Medicine
(emphasis
in
Health
Behavior
Research);
MA,
Psychology
PhD,
Social
Psychology
(emphasis
in
Neurocognitive
Science
&
Health
Behavior)
Paula
Palmer
(LM)
PhD,
Psychology
(emphasis
in
Clinical‐Health
Psychology)
Darleen
Peterson
(LM)
PhD,
Preventive
Medicine
(emphasis
in
Health
Behavior
Research);
MPH
(emphasis
in
Community
Health
Education);
MA
(emphasis
in
Health
Communication)
PhD,
MA,
Social
Psychology
Kim
Reynolds
(HPEE)
Jason
Siegel
(ABE)
PhD,
Educational
Psychology;
MA,
Communications
Alan
Stacy
(HPEE)
PhD,
MA,
Social
&
Personality
Psychology
Additional
Public
Health
Training/Experience
‐‐‐
Teaching
Experience
10
years:
USC,
CGU
Publications
in
Public
Health
Journals
Some
Post‐doctoral
Scholar
(UCLA/Rand
Corporation)
1
year:
CGU
Certificate,
Health
Services
&
Policy
(University
of
Michigan);
Postdoctoral
Training
in
Epidemiology
(University
of
Minnesota)
36
years:
University
of
Minnesota,
USC,
CGU
12
years:
USC
&
CGU
Extensive
12
years:
USC
&
CGU
Some
19
years:
University
of
Alabama,
USC,
CGU
7
years:
CGU
Extensive
16
years:
UC
Riverside,
UCLA,
USC,
CGU
Extensive
Certificate
in
Advanced
Program
Management
(USC
Marshall
School
of
Business);
Consultant
to
Maternal
and
Child
Health
Division,
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Health
Services
Master
Certified
Health
Education
Specialist;
MPH
Program
Director,
Assistant
Director
&
Manager;
Public
Health
Accreditation
Consultant;
Program
Evaluator
for
California
Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services
Postdoctoral
Fellowship
in
Cardiovascular
Disease
Prevention
(Stanford);
Training
Program
on
Epidemiology
&
Prevention
of
Cardiovascular
Diseases
(Council
on
Epidemiology
of
American
Heart
Association)
Senior
Research
Associate,
Institute
of
Organizational
and
Program
Evaluation
Research;
Senior
Research
Specialist,
Health
Communication
Research
Office,
Arizona
Cancer
Center;
Researcher,
Health
Psychology
&
Prevention
Institute
Postdoctoral
Fellowships
in
Public
Health
(University
of
Washington
&
USC);
Consultant
for
Cancer
Research
Center
of
Hawaii
Page
186
Some
Some
Some
Table
4.1.a.
Summary
of
Core
Faculty
Experience
in
Public
Health
Faculty
&
Concentration
Degrees
Paul
Torrens
(LM)
MD,
MPH
(emphasis
in
Health
Services)
Dennis
Trinidad
(ABE)
PhD,
Preventive
Medicine
(emphasis
in
Health
Behavior
Research);
MPH
(emphasis
in
Biostatistics/Epidemiology)
MD;
PhD,
Preventive
Medicine
(emphasis
in
Health
Behavior
Research);
MS
(Biostatistics);
MS
(Nutritional
Science)
Bin
Xie
(ABE)
Additional
Public
Health
Training/Experience
Teaching
Experience
Professor
of
Health
Services
at
UCLA
School
of
Public
Health
(39
years);
Consultant
for
Health
Affairs,
Governor’s
Office,
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
&
Office
of
the
President,
University
of
California
Community
Health
Outreach
Worker
for
Seattle‐King
County
Department
of
Public
Health;
Post‐doctoral
fellowship
in
Cancer
Prevention
&
Control
(UC
San
Diego);
Research
Scientist
for
UC
San
Diego
Cancer
Center
Summer
Institute
on
Longitudinal
Methods
(Penn
State
University
&
National
Institute
on
Drug
Abuse);
Summer
Institute
on
Longitudinal
Research
(UCLA
Center
for
Advancing
Longitudinal
Drug
Abuse
Research)
39
years:
UCLA,
CGU
Page
187
7
years:
UC
San
Diego,
USC,
CGU
4
years,
USC,
CGU
Publications
in
Public
Health
Journals
Extensive
Extensive
Some
Additional
detail
concerning
core
faculty
teaching,
research
and
professional
experience
in
public
health
is
listed
below.
Note:
Evidence
of
public
health
research
is
limited
to
the
last
10
years.
Additional
experience
can
be
found
in
faculty
CV’s
which
are
available
on‐site
in
the
resource
room.
‐‐Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
Concentration
Faculty‐‐
Susan
Ames,
PhD
(Concentration
Director)
Courses
taught:
Theoretical
Foundations
in
Health
Promotion
&
Education;
Health
Behavior
Research
Methods;
Issues
in
the
Prevention
and
Cessation
of
Substance
Abuse
Research:
Ames,
S.L.,
Zogg,
J.B.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2002).
Implicit
cognition,
sensation
seeking,
marijuana
use,
and
driving
behavior
among
drug
offenders.
Personality
and
Individual
Differences,
33(7),
1055‐1072.
Stacy,
A.W.,
Ames,
S.L.
&
Knowlton,
B.
(2004).
Neurologically
plausible
distinctions
in
cognition
relevant
to
drug
abuse
etiology
and
prevention.
Substance
Use
and
Misuse
39,
1571‐1623.
Ames,
S.L.,
Sussman,
S.,
Dent,
C.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2005).
Implicit
cognition
and
dissociative
experiences
as
predictors
of
adolescent
substance
use.
American
Journal
of
Drug
and
Alcohol
Abuse,
31(1),
129‐162.
Stacy,
A.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Ullman,
J.B.,
Zogg,
J.B.
&
Leigh,
B.C.
(2006).
Spontaneous
Cognition
and
HIV
Risk
Behavior.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behavior,
20(2),
196‐206.
Grenard,
J.L.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Pentz,
M.A.
&
Sussman,
S.Y.
(2006)
Motivational
Interviewing
with
Adolescents
and
Young
Adults
for
Drug‐Related
Problems
International
Journal
of
Adolescent
Medicine
and
Health,
18(1),
53‐67.
Ames,
S.L.
&
McBride,
C.
(2006).
Translating
genetics,
cognitive
science
and
other
basic
science
research
findings
into
applications
for
prevention
of
substance
use.
Evaluation
and
the
Health
Professions,
29
(3),
277‐301.
Grenard,
G.L.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Wiers,
R.,
Thush,
C.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
&
Sussman,
S.
(2007).
Brief
intervention
for
substance
use
among
at‐
risk
adolescents:
A
pilot
study.
Journal
of
Adolescent
Health
40,
188‐191.
Sussman,
S.,
Skara,
S.
&
Ames,
SL.
(2008).
Substance
abuse
among
adolescents.
Substance
Use
and
Misuse,
12,1802‐1828.
Leigh,
B.C.,
Ames,
S.L.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2008).
Alcohol,
drugs,
and
condom
use
among
drug
offenders:
An
event‐based
analysis,
Drug
and
Alcohol
Dependence,
93/1‐2,
38‐42.
Thush,
C.,
Wiers,
R.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Sussman,
S.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2008).
The
interactions
between
implicit
and
explicit
cognition
and
working
memory
capacity
in
the
prediction
of
alcohol
use
in
at‐risk
adolescents,
Drug
and
Alcohol
Dependence,
94,
116‐124.
Grenard,
J.L.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Wiers,
R.,
Thush,
C.,
Sussman,
S.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2008).
Working
memory
capacity
moderates
the
predictive
effects
of
drug‐related
associations
on
substance
use.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behaviors,
22(3),
426‐432.
Wiers,
R.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Hoffmann,
W.,
Krank,
M.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2010).
Impulsivity,
impulsive
and
reflective
processes
and
the
development
of
alcohol
use
and
misuse
in
adolescents
and
young
adults.
Frontiers
in
Psychopathology,
(1),
1‐12.
Sussman,
S.
&
Ames,
S.L.
(2008).
Drug
abuse:
concepts,
prevention
and
cessation.
Cambridge
University
Press,
New
York.
Sussman,
S.,
&
Ames,
S.L.
(2002).
Addiction
and
Habituation.
In
L.
Breslow,
Encyclopedia
of
Public
Health.
(pp.
19‐21).
New
York,
Macmillan
Reference
USA.
Sussman,
S.,
Nezami,
E.,
Pokhrel,
P.
&
Ames,
S.L.
(2007).
Motivation
in
health
behavior
research
and
practice.
In
P.
O’Neal,
Ed.
(pp.
5‐15).
Motivation
in
health
behavior
research
.
Nova
Science
Publishers,
Inc.
Hauppauge,
NY
11788.
Stacy,
A.
W.,
Ames,
S.
L.,
Wiers,
R.
W.,
&
Krank,
M.
(2010).
Associative
memory
in
appetitive
behavior:
Framework
and
relevance
to
epidemiology
and
prevention.
In
L.
M.
Scheier
(Ed.).
(pp165‐182).
Handbook
of
Drug
Use
Etiology.
APA
Books:
Washington,
DC.
2010
Surgeon
General's
Report
on
Young
People
and
Tobacco
Use.
Chapter
4.
Etiology
(in
press).
Sussman,
S.
(Editor),
Ames,
S.L.,
Unger,
J.,
Lessov‐Schlagger,
C.,
Ennett,
S.
Professional
Positions:
Dr.
Ames
worked
in
a
Drug
and
Alcohol
Treatment
Center
for
ten
years
as
a
Psychological
Assistant.
For
three
years,
she
served
as
a
columnist
for
a
lifestyle
magazine
for
adolescents,
addressing
issues
of
drug
use
and
abuse,
and
diet
and
exercise.
It
is
distributed
to
Los
Angeles
unified
high
schools.
Page
188
Kim
Reynolds,
PhD
Courses
Taught:
Health
Communications:
Theory
and
Practice;
Behavioral
Science
and
Health:
An
Overview;
School‐based
Intervention
Research;
Advanced
Theory
and
Practice
in
Behavioral
Science;
Health
Communications
Research;
Introduction
to
Health
Promotion
and
Disease
Prevention;
Intervention
Approaches
for
Health
Promotion
and
Disease
Prevention;
Seminar
in
Health
Promotion
and
Disease
Prevention;
Foundations
of
Program
Planning;
Advanced
Theoretical
Foundations
Research:
Glasgow
RE,
McKay
HG,
Piette
JD,
Reynolds
KD,
The
RE‐AIM
framework
for
evaluating
interventions:
What
can
it
tell
us
about
approaches
to
chronic
illness
management.
Patient
Education
and
Counseling
44:119‐127,
2001.
Reynolds
KD,
Yaroch
A,
Franklin
FA,
Maloy
J.
Testing
mediating
variables
in
a
school‐based
nutrition
intervention
program.
Health
Psychology
21:51‐60,
2002.
Reynolds,
KD,
Bishop,
DB,
Chou,
C‐P,
Xie,
B,
Nebeling,
L,
Perry,
CL.
Contrasting
Mediating
Variables
in
Two
5‐A‐Day
Nutrition
Intervention
Programs.
Preventive
Medicine
39:
882‐893,
2004.
Unger
JB,
Reynolds
KD,
Shakib
S,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Sun
P,
Johnson
CA.
Acculturation,
physical
activity
and
fast‐food
consumption
among
Asian‐American
and
Hispanic
Adolescents.
Journal
of
Community
Health
29
(6):
467‐481,
2004.
Goran
MI,
Reynolds
KD.
Interactive
multimedia
for
promoting
physical
activity
(IMPACT)
in
children.
Obesity
Research
13(4):762‐771,
2005.
Yaroch
AL,
Reynolds
KD,
Buller
DB,
Maloy
JA,
Geno
CR.
Validity
of
a
sun
safety
diary
using
UV
monitors
in
middle
school
children.
Health
Education
&
Behavior
33(3):340‐351,
2006.
Buller
DB,
Reynolds
KD,
Yaroch
A,
Cutter
GR,
Hines
JM,
Geno
CR,
Maloy
JA,
Brown
M,
Woodall
WG,
Grandpre
J.
Effects
of
the
Sunny
Days,
Healthy
Ways
Curriculum
on
Students
in
Grades
6‐8.
American
Journal
of
Preventive
Medicine
30:13‐22,
2006.
Xie
B,
Chou
CP,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Reynolds
KD,
Clark
F,
Palmer
PH,
Gallaher
P,
Sun
P,
Guo
Q,
Johnson
CA.
Weight
Perception,
Academic
Performance,
and
Psychological
Factors
in
Chinese
Adolescents.
American
Journal
of
Health
Behavior
30(2):115‐124,
2006.
Buller
DB,
Buller
MK,
Reynolds
KD.
A
survey
of
sun
protection
education
and
policy
in
secondary
schools.
Journal
of
the
American
Academy
of
Dermatology
54:427‐432,
2006.
Reynolds
KD,
Spruijt‐Metz
D.
Translational
Research
for
Childhood
Obesity
Prevention.
Evaluation
&
the
Health
Professions
29(2):219‐245,
2006.
Xie
B,
Chou
CP,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Reynolds
KD,
Clark
F,
Palmer
PH,
Gallaher
P,
Sun
P,
Guo
Q,
Johnson
CA.
Weight
Perception
and
Weight‐Related
Socio‐Cultural
and
Behavioral
Factors
in
Chinese
Adolescents.
Preventive
Medicine.
42(3):229‐234,
2006.
Belansky
ES,
Romaniello
C,
Morin
C,
Uyeki
T,
Sawyer
R,
Scarbro
S,
Auld
G,
Crane
L,
Reynolds
KD,
Hamman
R,
Marshall
J.
Adapting
and
implementing
a
long‐term
nutrition
and
physical
activity
curriculum
to
a
rural,
low‐income,
biethnic
community.
Journal
of
Nutrition
Education
and
Behavior
38(2):106‐113,
2006.
Reynolds
KD,
Buller
DB,
Yaroch
AL,
Maloy
J,
Cutter
G.
Mediation
of
a
school
based
skin
cancer
prevention
program.
Health
Psychology
25(5):616‐625,
2006.
Johnson
CA,
Xie
B,
Koprowski
C,
Reynolds
KD,
Gallaher
P,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Palmer
P,
Sun
P,
Guo
Q.
Socio‐demographic
and
cultural
comparison
of
overweight
and
obesity
risk
and
prevalence
in
adolescents
in
Southern
California
and
Wuhan,
China.
Jurnal
of
Adolescent
Health
39(6):925e1‐925e8,
2006.
Cullen
KW,
Hartstein
J,
Reynolds
KD,
Vu
M,
Resnicow
K,
Greene
N,
White
MA.
Improving
the
School
Food
Environment:
Results
from
a
Pilot
Study
in
Middle
Schools.
Journal
of
the
American
Dietetic
Association
107:484‐489,
2007
Reynolds
KD,
Wolch
J,
Byrne
J,
Chou
CP,
Feng
G,
Weaver
S,
Jerrett
M.
Trail
Characteristics
as
Correlates
of
Urban
Trail
Use.
American
Journal
of
Health
Promotion
21(4):335‐345,
2007.
Xie
B,
Chou
CP,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Reynolds
KD,
Clark
F,
Palmer
PH,
Gallaher
P,
Sun
P,
Quo
Q,
Johnson
CA.
Socio‐demographic
and
economic
correlates
of
overweight
status
in
Chinese
adolescents.
American
Journal
of
Health
Behavior
31(4):339‐352,
2007.
Andreeva
VA,
Reynolds
KD,
Buller
DB,
Chih‐Ping
C,
Yaroch
AL.
Concurrent
psychosocial
predictors
of
sun
safety
among
middle
school
children.
Journal
of
School
Health
78(7):374‐378,
2008.
Reynolds
KD,
Buller
DB,
Yaroch
AL,
Maloy
J,
Geno
C,
Cutter
G.
Effects
of
Program
Exposure
and
Engagement
with
Tailored
Prevention
Communication
on
Sun
Protection
by
Young
Adolescents.
Journal
of
Health
Communication
13(7):619‐
636,
2008.
Andreeva
VA,
Unger
JB,
Yaroch
AL,
Cockburn
MG,
Baezconde‐Garbanati
L,
Reynolds
KD.
Language
acculturation
and
sun‐safe
practices
among
Latinos
American
Journal
of
Public
Health
99(4);734‐741,
2009.
Page
189
Dunton
G,
Kaplan
S,
Wolch
J,
Jerrett
M,
Reynolds
KD.
Physical
environmental
correlates
of
childhood
obesity:
A
systematic
review.
Obesity
Reviews
10(4);393‐402,
2009.
Dunton
GF,
Wolch
J,
Chou
CP,
Jerrett
M,
Reynolds
KD.
Rasons
for
Urban
Trail
Use
Predict
Trail‐Related
Physical
Activity
Journal
of
Physical
Activity
&
Health
6:426‐434,
2009.
Andreeva
VA,
Yaroch
AL,
Unger
JB,
Cockburn
MG,
Rueda
R,
Reynolds
KD.
Moderated
mediation
regarding
the
sun‐safe
behaviors
of
U.S.
Latinos
Journal
of
Immigrant
and
Minority
Health
Published
online:
November
25,
2009
Wolch
J,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Jerrett
M,
Byrne
J,
Jerrett
M,
Chou
CP,
Tatalovich
Z,
Wang
L,
Weaver
S,
Wang
L,
Fulton
W,
Reynolds
KD.
Proximity
and
Perceived
Safety
as
Determinants
of
Urban
Trail
Use:
Findings
from
a
Three‐City
Study
Environment
and
Planning
A
42(1):57‐79,
2010.
Jerrett
M,
McConnell
R,
Chang
RCC,
Wolch
J,
Reynolds
KD,
Lurman
F,
Gilliland
F,
Berhane
K.
Automobile
traffic
around
the
home
and
attained
body
mass
index:
A
longitudinal
cohort
study
of
children
aged
10‐18
Year.
Preventive
Medicine
50(1):S50‐S58,
2010.
Dunton
GF,
Cousineau
MR,
Reynolds
KD.
The
intersection
of
public
policy
and
health
behavior
theory
in
the
physical
activity
arena.
Journal
of
Physical
Activity
and
Health
7(1):S91‐S98,2010.
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Wolch
J,
Jerrett
M,
Byrne
J,
Hseih
S,
Ranell
M,
Xie
B,
Wang
L,
Chou
CP,
Reynolds
KD.
Development,
reliability
and
validity
of
an
urban
trail
use
survey.
American
Journal
of
Health
Promotion
25(1):2‐11,
2010.
Xie
B,
Chou
CP,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Reynolds
KD,
Palmer
PH,
Gallaher
P,
Sun
P,
Guo
Q,
Johnson
CA
Longitudinal
analysis
of
weight
perception
and
psychological
factors
in
Chinese
adolescents.
American
Journal
of
Health
Behavior
35(1):92‐104,
2011.
Andreeva
VA,
Cockburn
MG,
Yaroch
AL,
Unger
JB,
Rueda
R,
Reynolds
KD.
Preliminary
evidence
for
mediation
of
the
association
between
acculturation
and
sun‐safe
behaviors.
Archives
of
Dermatology
147(7):814‐819,
2011.
Wolch
J,
Michael
J,
Reynolds
K,
McConnell
R,
Chang
R,
Dahmann
N,
Brady
K,
Gilliland
F,
Su
J,
Berhane
K.
Childhood
obesity
and
proximity
to
urban
parks
and
recreational
resources:
A
longitudinal
cohort
study.
Health
and
Place
17:207‐214,
2011.
Buller
DB,
Reynolds
KD,
Ashley
JL,
Buller
MK,
Kane
IL,
Stabell
CL,
Massie
KL,
Liu
X,
Cutter
GR.
Results
of
Randomized
Trial
to
Motivate
Public
School
Districts
to
Adopt
Sun
Protection
Policies
American
Journal
of
Prevention
Medicine
(in
press).
Reynolds
KD,
Kratt
PP,
Winders
S,
Waterbor
JW,
Shuster
JL,
Gardner
M,
Harrison
RA.
Cancer
Prevention
and
Control.
In:
Reynolds
KD,
Baranowski
T,
Bishop
DB,
Gregson
J,
Nicklas
TA.
5
a
Day
behavior
change
research
in
children
and
adolescents.
In:
Stables
G,
Heimendinger,
eds.
5
a
Day
for
Better
Health
Monograph.
Washington,
DC:
NIH
Publication
#01‐5019,
September
2001.
Reynolds
KD,
Klepp
KI,
Yaroch
A.
The
ecological
approach
to
nutrition
intervention.
In:
Gibney
M,
Arab
L,
eds.
Public
Health
Nutrition,
Oxford,
UK:
Blackwell
Scientific
Limited,
2005.
Gordon‐Larsen
P,
Reynolds
KD:
Built
environment
and
physical
activity.
In:
Goran
MI,
editor.
Handbook
of
Pediatric
Obesity:
Epidemiology,
Etiology
and
Prevention.
Boca
Raton,
Florida:
Taylor
&
Francis,
2006.
Reynolds
KD,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Unger
J.
Health
behavior
research
and
intervention.
In
Wallace
RB,
editor.
Maxcy‐Rosenau‐Last‐
Wallace
Public
Health
and
Preventive
Medicine
15th
edition,
2008.
Alan
Stacy,
PhD
Courses
Taught:
Theoretical
Foundations
in
Health
Promotion
&
Education;
Health
Behavior
Research
Methods
Research:
Dent,
C.W.,
Sussman,
S.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
Project
towards
no
drug
abuse:
Generalizability
to
a
general
high
school
sample.
Prev.
Med.:
Int.
J.
Prac.
&
Theory.
32(6),
514‐520,
2001.
Dent,
C.W.,
Sussman,
S.,
McCullar,
W.J.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
Drug
abuse
prevention
among
youth
at
comprehensive
high
schools.
Prev.
Med.,
32,
514‐520,
2001.
Stacy,
A.W.,
&
Ames,
S.
L.
Implicit
Cognition
Theory
in
Drug
Use
and
Driving
under
the
Influence
Interventions.
In
S.
Sussman
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
program
development
in
health
behavior
research
and
practice.
SAGE:
Thousand
Oaks,
CA,
2001.
Sussman,
S.,
Dent,
C.W.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
Project
Towards
No
Drug
Abuse:
A
review
of
the
findings
and
future
directions.
Am.
J.
Health
Behav.,
26(5),
354‐365,
2002.
Stacy,
A.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
&
Leigh,
B.C.
An
implicit
cognition
assessment
approach
to
relapse,
secondary
prevention,
and
media
effects.
Cog.
&
Behav.
Prac.,
11,
139‐149,
2004.
Stacy,
A.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
&
Knowlton,
B.
Neurologically
plausible
distinctions
in
cognition
relevant
to
drug
use
etiology
and
prevention.
Sub.
Use
Misuse,
39,
1571‐1623,
2004.
Stacy,
A.W.,
Zogg,
J.B.,
Unger,
J.
B.,
&
Dent,
C.
W.
Exposure
to
televised
alcohol
ads
and
subsequent
adolescent
alcohol
use.
Amer.
J.
Health
Beh,
28,
498‐509,
2004.
Sussman,
S.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
Johnson,
C.
A.,
Pentz,
M.
A.,
Robertson,
E.
A
Transdisciplinary
Focus
on
Drug
Abuse
Prevention:
An
Introduction.
Sub.
Use
Misuse,
39,
1441‐1456,
2004
Page
190
Stacy,
A.
W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Ullman,
J.B.,
Zogg,
J.B.,
&
Leigh,
B.C.
Spontaneous
cognition
and
HIV
risk
behavior.
Psych
Addict.
Beh.,20,196‐206,
2006.
Grenard,
J.L.,
Ames,
S.
L.
Wiers,
R.
W.,
Thush,
C.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
&
Sussman,
S.
Brief
intervention
for
substance
use
among
at‐risk
adolescents:
A
pilot
study.
J.
of
Adoles.
Health,
40,
188‐191,
2007.
Valente,
T.
W.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
Unger,
J.
B.,
Okamota,
J.,
&
Sussman,
S.
Peer
acceleration:
Effects
of
a
social
network
tailored
substance
abuse
prevention
program
among
high‐risk
adolescents.
Addiction,
102,
1804‐1815,
2007.
Thush,
C.,
Wiers,
R.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Sussman,
S.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2007).
Apples
and
oranges?
Comparing
implicit
measures
of
alcohol‐related
cognition
predicting
alcohol
use
in
at‐risk
adolescents.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behaviors.
587‐591.
Leigh,
B.
C.,
Ames,
S.
L.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
Alcohol,
drugs,
and
condom
use
among
drug
offenders:
an
event‐based
analysis.
Drug
Alcohol
Depend,
93(1‐2),
38‐42,
2008.
Thrush,
C.,
Wiers,
R.
W.,
Ames,
S.
L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Sussman,
S.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
The
interactions
between
implicit
and
explicit
cognition
and
working
memory
capacity
in
the
prediction
of
alcohol
us
in
at‐risk
adolescents.
Drug
Alcohol
Depend.,
94(1‐3),116‐124,
2008.
Xiao,
L.,
Bechara,
A.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
Palmer,
P.,
Wei,
Y.,
Jia,
Y.,
Fu,
X.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Affective
decision‐making
predictive
of
adolescents’
drinking
behaviors.
Journal
of
the
International
Neuropsychological
Society,
15,
547‐557,
2009.
Thush,
C
,
Wiers,
R.W.
,
Moerbeek,
M.,
Ames,
S.
L.
,
Grenard,
J.
L.
,
Sussman,
S.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
The
influence
of
Motivational
Interviewing
on
explicit
and
implicit
alcohol‐related
cognition
and
alcohol
use
in
at‐risk
adolescents.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behavior,
23(1),
146‐151,
2009.
Stacy,
A.W.,
&
Wiers,
R.
W.
Implicit
cognition
and
addiction.
A
tool
for
explaining
paradoxical
behavior.
Annual
Review
of
Clinical
Psychology,
6,
551‐575,
2010.
Wiers,
R.W.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Hoffmann,
W.,
Krank,
M.
&
Stacy,
A.W.
Impulsivity,
impulsive
and
reflective
processes
and
the
development
of
alcohol
use
and
misuse
in
adolescents
and
young
adults.
Frontiers
in
Psychopathology,
1,
1‐12,
2010.
Stacy,
A.W.,
Ames,
S.
L..,
Wiers,
R.
W.,
&
Krank,
M.
D.
Associative
memory
in
appetitive
behavior:
Framework
and
relevance
to
epidemiology
and
prevention.
In
L.
M.
Scheier
(Ed.).
Handbook
of
Drug
Use
Etiology:
Theory,
Methods,
and
Empirical
Findings.
APA
Books:
Washington,
DC.,
2010.
Professional
Experience:
Dr.
Stacy
applies
findings
from
basic
research
on
cognitive
neuroscience
and
memory
to
health
behavior,
including
alcohol,
tobacco,
methamphetamine,
and
other
drug
use,
HIV
risk
behavior,
and
dietary
habits.
He
was
one
of
the
first
researchers
to
apply
basic
research
on
implicit
and
automatic
processing
to
health
behavior.
He
has
been
principal
investigator
of
a
large
NIH
P50
research
center
and
NIH‐funded
RO1
projects
applying
this
approach
to
diverse
populations
of
high‐risk
adolescents,
adult
drug
offenders,
and
college
students.
He
also
has
applied
the
approach
to
the
study
of
media
effects.
His
most
recent
research
evaluates
neurocognitive
dual‐process
models
of
health
behavior.
He
also
collaborates
on
research
investigating
the
neural
basis
of
links
among
associative
memory,
executive
processes,
and
health
behavior.
His
intervention
research
has
included
roles
as
co‐Principal
investigator
on
large
tobacco
and
drug
abuse
prevention
trials
(NCI
and
NIDA),
a
role
as
director
on
the
previously
mentioned
center,
and
co‐investigator
on
a
recent
UO1
diet
intervention
center.
Taken
together,
he
has
served
major
roles
(PI,
Co‐PI,
Co‐I)
on
15,
mostly
large
health
research
(NIH)
projects.
He
has
taught
research
methods
in
preventive
medicine
for
10
years
(USC)
and
now
teaches
theories
of
health
behavior
at
CGU.
He
has
published
more
than
100
peer‐reviewed
articles
and
two
books.
Many
of
his
early
publications
focused
on
tests
of
traditional
theories
of
health
behavior
and
evaluations
of
competing
models,
making
him
well
suited
for
teaching
Theories
of
Health
Behavior
in
public
health.
His
most
recent
major
publication
(Stacy
&
Wiers,
2010)
was
published
in
the
Annual
Review
of
Clinical
Psychology,
and
focuses
on
translating
findings
from
basic
neuro‐cognitive
research
to
understanding
addiction.
One
of
his
recent
chapters
focuses
on
applying
this
research
to
prevention.
(Stacy
et
al.,
2010).
His
most
recent
grant
application
applies
this
work
to
an
HIV
prevention
intervention.
‐‐Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
Concentration
Faculty‐‐
Dennis
Trinidad,
PhD,
MPH
(Concentration
Director)
Courses
Taught:
Family
&
Preventive
Medicine
Achieving
Health
Behavior
Change
&
Seminar
in
Health
Behavior;
Epidemiology;
Introduction
to
Health
Promotion
&
Disease
Prevention
Page
191
Research:
Trinidad
DR,
Pérez‐Stable
EJ,
Emery
SL,
White
MM,
Messer
K.
A
nationwide
analysis
of
US
racial/ethnic
disparities
in
smoking
behaviors,
cessation
and
related
factors.
American
Journal
of
Public
Health.
2011;101(4):699‐706.
Trinidad
DR,
Pérez‐Stable
EJ,
Messer
K,
White
MM,
Pierce
JP.
Menthol
cigarettes
and
smoking
cessation
among
racial/ethnic
groups
in
the
U.S.
Addiction.
2010;105(Suppl.
1):84‐94.
Trinidad
DR,
Pérez‐Stable
EJ,
Emery
SL,
White
MM,
Grana
RA,
Messer
K.
Intermittent
and
light
smoking
across
race/ethnic
groups
in
the
United
States.
Nicotine
and
Tobacco
Research.
2009;11(2):203‐10.
Myers
MG,
Doran
NM,
Trinidad
DR,
Klonoff
EA,
Wall
TL.
A
prospective
study
of
cigarette
smoking
initiation
during
college:
Chinese
and
Korean
American
students.
Health
Psychology.
2009;28(4):448‐56.
Trinidad
DR,
Gilpin
EA,
Messer
K,
Pierce
JP.
Trends
in
smoking
among
Hispanic
women
in
California:
Relationship
to
English
language
use.
American
Journal
of
Preventive
Medicine.
2006;31(3):257‐60.
Messer
K,
Pierce
JP,
Zhu
SH,
Hartman
A,
Trinidad
DR,
Al‐Delaimy
WK,
Gilpin
EA.
The
California
Tobacco
Control
Program’s
effect
on
adult
smokers:
(1)
Smoking
cessation.
Tobacco
Control.
2007;16:85‐90.
Al‐Delaimy
WK,
Pierce
JP,
Messer
K,
White
MM,
Trinidad
DR,
Gilpin
EA.
The
California
Tobacco
Control
Program’s
effect
on
adult
smokers:
(2)
Daily
cigarette
consumption
levels.
Tobacco
Control.
2007;16:91‐5.
Trinidad
DR,
Messer
K,
Gilpin
EA,
Al‐Delaimy,
White
MM,
Pierce
JP.
The
California
Tobacco
Control
Program’s
effect
on
adult
smokers:
(3)
Similar
effects
for
African
Americans
across
states.
Tobacco
Control.
2007;16:96‐100.
West
JH,
Romero
RA,
Trinidad
DR.
Adolescent
receptivity
to
tobacco
marketing
across
race/ethnic
groups
in
California.
American
Journal
of
Preventive
Medicine.
2007;33(2):121‐3.
Messer
K,
Trinidad
DR,
Al‐Delaimy
WK,
Pierce
JP.
Smoking
cessation
rates
in
the
United
States:
a
comparison
of
young
adult
and
older
smokers.
American
Journal
of
Public
Health.
2008;98(2):317‐22.
Romero
RA,
Messer
K,
West
JH,
White
MM,
Trinidad
DR.
Smoking
trends
among
Filipino
adults
in
California,
1990‐2005.
Preventive
Medicine.
2008;46(4):336‐9.
Jerry
Grenard,
PhD,
MS,
MA
Courses
Taught:
Advanced
Research
Methods
Research:
Grenard,
J.L.,
Guo,
Q.,
Jasuja,
G.K.,
Unger,
J.,
Chou,
C.P.,
Gallaher,
P.E.,
Sun,
P.,
Palmer,
P.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
(2006).
Influences
affecting
adolescent
smoking
in
China.
Nicotine
&
Tobacco
Research,
8(2)
245‐255.
PMID:
16766417
Grenard,
J.L.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Pentz,
M.A.,
&
Sussman,
S.Y.
(2006)
Motivational
interviewing
with
adolescents
and
young
adults
for
drug‐related
problems.
International
Journal
of
Adolescent
Medicine
and
Health,
18(1)
53‐67.
PMID:
16639859
Werch,
C.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Burnett,
J.,
Watkins,
J.A.,
Ames,
S.
&
Jobli,
E.
(2006)
Translation
as
a
function
of
modality:
The
potential
of
brief
interventions.
Evaluation
and
the
Health
Professions,
29(1)
89‐125.
PMID:
16510881
Grenard,
J.L.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Thush,
C.,
Sussman,
S.,
Wiers,
R.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2007)
Brief
intervention
for
substance
use
among
at‐
risk
adolescents:
A
pilot
study.
Journal
of
Adolescent
Health,
40:
188‐191.
PMID:
17259065
Ames,
S.L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Thush,
C.,
Sussman,
S.,Wiers,
R.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2007)
Comparison
of
indirect
assessments
of
marijuana‐related
associations
among
at‐risk
adolescents.
Experimental
and
Clinical
Psychopharmacology,
15(2)
204‐
218.
PMID:
17469944
Thush,
C.,
Wiers,
R.W.,
Ames,
S.
L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Sussman,
S.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2007).
Apples
and
Oranges?
Comparing
Indirect
Measures
of
Alcohol‐Related
Cognition
Predicting
Alcohol
Use
in
At‐Risk
Adolescents.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behaviors,
21(4)
587‐591.
PMID:
18072843
Thush,
C.,
Wiers,
R.W.,
Ames,
S.
L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Sussman,
S.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2008).
The
interactions
between
implicit
and
explicit
cognition
and
working
memory
capacity
in
the
prediction
of
alcohol
use
in
at‐risk
adolescents.
Drug
and
Alcohol
Dependence,
94:
116‐124.
PMID:
18155856
Grenard,
J.L.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Thush,
C.,
Sussman,
S.,
Wiers,
R.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2008)
Working
memory
capacity
moderates
the
predictive
effects
of
drug‐related
associations
on
substance
use.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behaviors,
22(3):
426‐432.
PMID:
18778136
Thush,
C.,
Wiers,
R.W.,
Moerbeek,
M.,
Ames,
S.
L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Sussman,
S.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2009)
The
Influence
of
Motivational
Interviewing
on
Explicit
and
Implicit
Alcohol‐Related
Cognition
and
Alcohol
Use
in
At‐Risk
Adolescents.
Psychology
of
Addictive
Behaviors
23(1):
146‐151.
PMID:
19290699
Xiao,
L.,
Bechara,
A.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
Palmer,
P.,
Wei,
Y.,
Jia,
Y.,
Fu,
X.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
(2009).
Affective
decision‐
making
predictive
of
adolescents’
drinking
behaviors.
Journal
of
the
International
Neuropsychological
Society,
15(4):
547‐557.
Page
192
Scheier,
L.
M.,
&
Grenard,
J.L.
(2010)
Influence
of
a
nation‐wide
social
marketing
campaign
on
adolescent
drug
use.
Journal
of
Health
Communications
International
Perspectives,
15(3):
240‐271.
PMID:
20432107
Black
DS,
Grenard
JL,
Sussman
S,
Rohrbach
LA.
(2010).
The
influence
of
school‐based
natural
mentoring
relationships
on
school
attachment
and
subsequent
adolescent
risk
behaviors.
Health
Education
Research,
25(5),
892‐902.
PMID:
20675354
Krank,
M.D.,
Ames,
S.L.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Schoenfeld,
T.,
&
Stacy,
A.W.
(2010).
Paradoxical
effects
of
alcohol
information
on
alcohol
outcome
expectancies.
Clinical
and
Experimental
Research,
34(7):
1193‐1200.
PMID:
20477773
Grenard,
J.L.,
Uy,
V.,
Pagan,
J.,
&
Frosch,
D.L.
(2010).
Do
direct‐to‐consumer
advertisements
of
prescription
drugs
facilitate
informed
decision‐making?
Seniors
perceptions
of
current
ad
formats.
Patient
Education
and
Counseling.
Published
online
1
November
2010.
PMID:
21044826
Gellad,
W.F.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
&
Marcum,
Z.A.
(2011).
A
Systematic
Review
of
Barriers
to
Medication
Adherence
in
the
Elderly:
Looking
Beyond
Cost
and
Regimen
Complexity.
American
Journal
of
Geriatric
Pharmacotherapy,
9(1):
11‐23.
PMID:
21459305.
Professional
Experience:
Dr.
Grenard
has
extensive
training
in
biostatistics
and
health
behavior
research.
His
research
interests
include
design
and
evaluation
of
prevention
and
intervention
programs
for
substance
use
among
adolescents.
His
work
applies
statistical
tools
such
as
Item
Response
Theory
and
Structural
Equation
Modeling
techniques
to
develop
assessment
instruments
and
evaluate
outcomes
for
health
behavior
programs
implementing
these
types
of
components.
Jason
Siegel,
PhD,
MA
Courses
taught:
Learning
in
Schools;
Marketing
Research
Methods;
Marketing
Research
Statistics;
Psychological
Research
Methods;
Research
Methods
in
Public
Health;
Survey
Research
Methods;
Grant
Writing;
Adolescent
Health;
Health
Intervention
Program
Development.
Research:
Siegel,
J.T.
(in
press).
Dying
for
romance:
Risk
taking
as
purposive
behavior.
Psychology,
Health
and
Medicine.
Alvaro,
E.A.,
Siegel,
J.T.,
Pace‐Jones,
S.
(in
press).
Increasing
organ
donor
registration
rates
by
providing
an
Immediate
and
Complete
Registration
Opportunity:
An
experimental
assessment
of
the
IIFF
Model.
Psychology,
Health
and
Medicine.
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro.
E.A.,
Crano,
W.D.,
Lienneman,
B.,
Hohman,
Z.,
O’Brien,
E.
K.
(in
press).Increasing
social
support
for
depressed
individuals:
A
cross‐cultural
assessment
of
an
affect‐expectancy
approach.
Journal
of
Health
Communication.
Hogg.,
M.A.,
Siegel,
J.T.,
Hohman,
Z.
(in
press).
Groups
can
jeopardize
your
health:
Identifying
with
un‐healthy
groups
to
reduce
self‐uncertainty.
Self
and
Identity.
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.A.,
Hohman,
Z.A.,
Mauer,
D.
(in
press).
“Can
you
spare
an
organ?”
Exploring
Hispanic
Americans’
willingness
to
discuss
living
organ
donation
with
loved
ones.
Health
Communication.
Lewandowski,
J.A.,
Rosenberg,
B.D.,
Parks,
M.J.,
Siegel,
J.T.
(in
press).
The
effect
of
informal
social
support:
Face‐to‐Face
versus
computer‐mediated
communication.
Computers
in
Human
Behavior.
Sperry,
K.
&
Siegel,
J.T.
(in
press).
Attribution
theory's
day
in
court:
The
mediating
role
of
sympathy
on
the
relationship
between
rape
blame
and
victim.
Legal
and
Criminological
Psychology.
Alvaro,
E.A.,
Siegel,
J.T.,
Crano,
W.D.,
&
Dominick,
A.
(2010).
A
mass
mediated
intervention
on
Hispanic
organ
donation.
Journal
of
Health
Communication,
15,
374‐387
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.A.,
Crano,
W.D.,
Gonzalez,
A.,
Tang,
J.
(2010).
Passive‐positive
organ
donor
registration
behavior:
A
mixed
method
assessment
of
the
IIFF
Model.
Psychology,
Health
and
Medicine,
15,
198‐209.
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.M.,
Patel,
N.,
Crano,
W.D.
(2009)
“”…you
would
probably
want
to
do
it.
Cause
that’s
what
made
them
popular”:
Exploring
perceptions
of
inhalant
utility
among
young
adolescent
non‐users
and
occasional
users.
Substance
Use
and
Misuse,
44,
597‐615.
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.A.
(2010).
Understanding
Organ
Donation:
Applied
Behavioral
Science
Perspectives.
Malden,
MA:
Wiley‐
Blackwell.
Professional
Experience
Dr.
Siegel
has
delivered
several
professional
workshops
on
the
conduct
of
evaluation
research.
These
series
are
listed
below.
Page
193
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.A.
(2010).
Writing
Effective
Items
for
Survey
Research
and
Evaluation
Studies.
Skill‐building
workshop.
To
be
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Evaluation
Association,
San
Antonio,
Texas.
Siegel,
J.T.
&
Alvaro,
E.M.
(2010).
Media
Campaign
Evaluation.
CDC‐Office
on
Smoking
and
Health
Evaluation
Net‐Conference
Webinar.
Siegel,
J.T.
(2010).
Creating
Effective
Surveys
for
Applied
Research.
Workshop
conducted
at
Claremont
Graduate
University’s
Annual
Professional
Development
Workshop
Series:
Evaluation
and
Applied
Research
Methods.
Alvaro,
E.A.,
Siegel,
J.T.
(2010).
Media
Campaigns:
Measurement
and
Evaluation.
Invited
presentation
at
the
CDC
Evaluation
Workshop
Series,
Atlanta,
Georgia,
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.A.
(2009).
Evaluating
Media
Campaigns:
Methods
and
Measures.
Skill‐building
workshop.
Presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Evaluation
Association,
Orlando,
Florida,
USA.
Siegel,
J.T.
(2009).
Creating
Effective
Surveys
for
Applied
Research.
Workshop
conducted
at
Claremont
Graduate
University’s
Annual
Professional
Development
Workshop
Series:
Evaluation
and
Applied
Research
Methods.
Siegel,
J.T.,
Alvaro,
E.A.
(2008).
Quasi‐Experimental
Research
Designs.
Skill‐building
workshop.
Presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Evaluation
Association,
Denver,
Colorado,
USA.
Siegel,
J.T.
(2008).
Creating
Effective
Surveys
for
Applied
Research.
Workshop
conducted
at
Claremont
Graduate
University’s
Annual
Professional
Development
Workshop
Series:
Evaluation
and
Applied
Research
Methods.
Bin
Xie
Courses
Taught:
Biostatistics;
Advanced
Statistical
Methods,
Introductory
Statistics
for
Social
Work
Research;
Longitudinal
Data
Analysis:
Theory
and
Application.
Research:
Xie
B,
Chou
C,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Reynolds
K,
Palmer
P,
Wu
Q,
Gallaher
P,
Johnson
CA.
Longitudinal
Analysis
of
Weight
Perception
and
Psychological
Factors
in
Chinese
Adolescents.
American
Journal
of
Health
Behavior
2011;35(1):92‐104.
Ell
K,
Katon
W,
Xie
B,
Lee
P,
Kapetanovic
S,
Guterman
J,
Chou
C.
Collaborative
Care
Management
of
Major
Depression
among
Low‐Income
Predominantly
Hispanics
with
Diabetes:
A
Randomized
Controlled
Trial.
Diabetes
Care
2010;
33(4):
706‐
13.
Wang
Y,
Jahns
L,
Tussing‐
Humphreys
L,
Xie
B,
Rockett
H,
Liang
H,
Johnson
L.
Dietary
Intake
Patterns
of
Low‐Income
Urban
African
American
Adolescents.
Journal
of
the
American
Dietetic
Association
2010;
110:1340‐1345.
Xie
B,
Palmer
HP,
Pang
Z,
Sun
P,
Johnson
CA.
Environmental
Tobacco
Use
and
Metabolic
Syndrome
in
Chinese
Adults.
Nicotine
&
Tobacco
Research
2010;
12(3):
198‐206.
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Wolch
J,
Jerrett
M,
Byrne
J,
Hsieh
S,
Myles
R,
Xie
B,
Wang
L,
Chou
C,
Reynolds
KD.
Development,
Reliability
and
Validity
of
an
Urban
Trail
Use
Survey.
American
Journal
of
Health
Promotion
2010;
25(1):2‐11.
Ell
K,
Xie
B,
Lee
P.
Reply
to
"The
Impact
of
Collaborative
Care
Management
of
Depression
among
Patients
with
Cancer"
by
Kevin
J
Patel
and
Francesca
Dwamena.
Journal
of
Clinical
Oncology
2009;
27(10):1730.
Ell
K,
Xie
B,
Wells
A,
Nedjat‐Haim
F,
Lee
P,
Vourlekis
B.
Economic
Stress
among
Low‐Income
Women
with
Cancer:
Effects
on
Quality
of
Life.
Cancer
2008;
112:616‐25.
Johnson
CA,
Palmer
PH,
Chou
C‐P,
Pang
Z,
Zhou
D,
Dong
L,
Xiang
H,
Yang
P,
Xu
H,
Wang
J,
Fu
X,
Guo
Q,
Sun
P,
Ma
H,
Gallaher
PE,
Xie
B,
Lee
L,
Fang
T,
Unger
JB.
Tobacco
use
among
youth
and
adults
in
Mainland
China:
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study.
Public
Health
2006;120:1156‐1169.
Xie
B,
Chou
C,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Reynolds
K,
Palmer
PH,
Gallaher
P,
Sun
P,
Qian
G,
Johnson
CA.
Weight
Perceptions
and
Weight‐
related
Socio‐cultural
and
Behavioral
Factors
in
Chinese
Adolescents.
Preventive
Medicine
2006;42(3):229‐34.
Xie
B,
Chou
C,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Liu
C,
Xia
J,
Gong
J,
Li
Y,
Johnson
CA.
Effects
of
Perceived
Peer
Isolation
and
Social
Support
availability
on
the
Relationship
between
Relative
Body
Mass
Index
and
Depressive
Symptoms.
International
Journal
of
Obesity
2005;
29:
1137‐1143.
Xie
B,
Liu
C,
Chou
C,
Xia
J,
Spruijt‐Metz
D,
Gong
J,
Li
Y,
Wang
H,
Johnson
CA.
Weight
perception
and
psychological
factors
in
Chinese
adolescents.
J
Adolescent
Health
2003;
33(3):202‐210.
Afghani
A,
Xie
B,
Wiswell
RA,
Gong
J,
Li
Y,
Johnson
CA.
Bone
Mass
of
Asian
Adolescents
in
China:
the
Influence
of
Physical
Activity
and
Cigarette
Smoking.
Medicine
&
Science
in
Sports
&
Exercise
2003;
35(5):
720‐729.
Professional
Positions:
As
an
Assistant
Research
Professor
at
the
University
of
Southern
California,
Dr.
Xie
served
as
the
Principle
Investigator
on
a
project
involving
a
prospective
analysis
of
obesity
and
depressive
symptoms
in
Asian
and
Hispanic
Page
194
adolescents
funded
by
the
Larson
Endowment
for
Innovative
Research
and
Teaching,
as
well
as
Co‐Investigator
and
Biostatistician
on
seven
NIH‐funded
projects:
 Randomized
clinical
trials
to
test
effectiveness
of
health
services
quality
improvement
intervention
among
diabetic
patients
with
major
depression
 Enhanced
geriatric
depression
treatment
in
adult
day
health
care
 Investigation
of
psychosocial
and
cognitive
risk
factors
of
young
men
who
have
sex
with
men,
 Analysis
of
maintenance
treatment
subgroups
in
Schizophrenia
 Assessment
of
sociocultural
factors
in
psychosocial
rehabilitation,
 Testing
efficacy
of
randomized
clinical
trial
of
a
depression
care
model
for
Latinos
with
cancer
 Investigation
of
genetics,
environment
and
tobacco
use
across
cultures.
He
also
served
as
Co‐Investigator
on
two
projects
funded
by
California
Healthcare
Foundation
and
Robert
Wood
Johnson
Foundation
on
improving
care
for
low‐income
patients
with
depression
and
congestive
heart
failure,
and
evaluating
a
pilot
randomized
controlled
trial
to
study
depression‐specific
treatments
for
patients
seeking
care
within
a
public
emergency
department.
As
an
Adjunct
Assistant
Professor
at
Penn
State
University,
he
initiated
and
maintained
collaborations
on
development
and
implementation
of
a
research
project
with
national
secondary
data,
and
served
as
a
Principle
Investigator
on
a
NIH‐funded
project
analyzing
obesity
and
psychosocial
adjustment
during
adolescence.
As
Assistant
Research
Scientist
at
Chinese
Academy
of
Preventive
Medicine
he
served
as
a
Co‐
Investigator
on
projects
investigating
a
randomized
controlled
trial
of
calcium
supplementation
on
bone
mass
among
postmenopausal
women,
and
conducted
a
survey
on
nutrition
knowledge,
attitudes
and
practices
in
three
major
cities
in
China.
‐‐Leadership
&
Management
Concentration
Faculty‐‐
Paula
Palmer,
PhD
(Current
Concentration
Director)
Courses
Taught:
Health
Behaviors
of
Pacific
Rim
Populations;
Introduction
to
Health
Promotion,
Disease
Prevention;
Culture
and
Health:
An
International
Perspective
;
Public
Health
in
China;
Natural
&
Man‐Made
Disasters;
Global
Public
Health
Approaches
to
Disasters
and
Complex
Humanitarian
Emergencies;
Global
Perspectives
on
Maternal
and
Child
Health;
Foundations
of
Global
Health:
An
Interdisciplinary
Perspective;
Ethics
Human
Rights
and
Cultural
Diversity;
Management
of
International
Programs
and
Organizations.
Research:
Ratliff‐Schaub,
K.,
Hunt,
C.E.,
Crowell,
D,
Golub,
H.,
Smok‐Pearsall,
Palmer,
P.,
Schafer,
S.C.,
Bak,
S,
Cantey‐Kiser,
O’Bell,
R.,
&
CHIME
Study
Group.
Relationship
between
infant
sleep
position
and
motor
development
in
preterm
infants.
J
Dev
Behav
Pediatr,
22(5),
293‐299,
2001.
Unger,
J.B.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Teran,
L.,
Huang,
T.,
Hoffman,
B.R.,
&
Palmer,
P.
Cultural
values
and
substance
use
in
a
multiethnic
sample
of
California
adolescents.
Addiction
Research
&
Theory,
10(3),
257‐279,
2002.
Unger,
J.B.,
Cruz,
T.,
Shakib,
S.,
Mock,
J.,
Shields,
A.,
Baezconde‐Garbanati,
L.,
Palmer,
P.,
Cruz,
J.D.,
Edsall,
E.W.,
Gritz,
E.R.,
Glynn,
T.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Exploring
the
culturalcontext
of
tobacco
use:
A
transdisciplinary
framework.
Nicotine
Tob
Res,
5(Suppl.
1),
S101‐117,
2003.
Johnson,
C.A.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Chou,
C.P.,
Pang,
Z.,
Zhou,
D.,
Dong,
L.,
Xiang,
H.,
Yang,
P.,
Xu,
H.,
Wang,
Z.,
Fu,
X.,
Guo,
Q.,
Sun,
P.,
Ma,
H.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Xie,
B.,
Lee,
L.,
Fang,
T.,
&
Unger,
J.B.
Tobacco
use
among
youth
and
adults
in
mainland
China:
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study.
Public
Health,
120(12),
1156‐1169,
2006.
Tanjasiri
SP,
Tran
J,
Palmer
PH,
Foo
MA,
Hanneman
M,
Lee
C,
Sablan‐Santos
L,
Sripipatana
A.
Developing
a
Community‐Based
Collaboration
to
Reduce
Cancer
Health
Disparities
among
Pacific
Islanders
in
California.
Pacific
Health
Dialog,
14(1):
119‐127,
2007.
Johnson,
C.A.,
Cen,
S.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Palmer,
P.
H.,
Xiao,
L.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Unger,
J.
B.Why
smoking
prevention
programs
sometimes
fail.
Does
effectiveness
depend
on
socio‐cultural
context
and
individual
characteristics?
Cancer
Epidemiology,
Biomarkers
and
Prevention,
16(6):
1043‐1049,
2007.
Unger,
J.B.,
Palmer,
P.
H.,
Johnson,
C.A.
Tobacco
and
alcohol
etiology,
prevention,
and
policy
in
the
Pacific
Rim:
Lessons
learned
and
directions
for
future
use.
Nicotine
and
Tobacco
Research,
9
Suppl
3:443‐5,
2007.
Page
195
Tanjasiri,
S.
P.,
Tran,
J.
H.,
Palmer,
P.
H.,
Valente,
T.
W.
Network
analysis
of
an
organizational
collaboration
for
Pacific
Islander
cancer
control.
Journal
of
Healthcare
for
the
Poor
and
Underserved,
18(4
Suppl):184‐96,
2007.
Xie
B,
Palmer
PH,
Pang
Z,
Sun
P,
Duan
H,
Johnson
CA.
Environmental
tobacco
use
and
indicators
of
metabolic
syndrome
in
Chinese
adults.
Nicotine
Tob
Res.
Mar;12(3):198‐206.
2010.
PMCID:
PMC282509
Valente
T,
Fujimoto,
K,
Palmer,
P,
Tanjasiri,
SP.
A
Network
Assessment
of
Community‐Based
Participatory
Research:
Linking
Communities
and
Universities
to
Reduce
Cancer
Disparities.
Am
J
Public
Health,
2010;100
1319‐1325.
Siyan,
Y,
Poudel,
K,
Yasouka,
J,
Palmer,
PH,
Yi,
S,
Jimba
M.
Role
of
risk
and
protective
factors
in
risky
sexual
behavior
among
high
school
students
in
Cambodia.
BMC
Public
Health,
2010
Aug
12;10(1):477.
PMCID:
PMC2928204
Palmer
PH,
Xie
B,
Lee
L,
Hemingway
B,
Chou
CP,
Johnson
CA.
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study
(CSCS)
Consortium:
Adapting
evidence
based
prevention
science
from
west
to
east.
Translational
Behavioral
Medicine:
Practice,
Policy
and
Research.
DOI:
10.1007/s13142‐011‐0036‐0
In
press.
Professional
Positions:
In
addition
to
teaching
and
conducting
research,
Dr.
Palmer
has
had
over
30
years
of
leadership
and
management
experience,
first
in
the
private
(business)
sector
and
since
1994
in
academia
and
research.
She
has
had
management
and
leadership
responsibilities
for
large,
multi‐site
domestic
and
international
research
and
training
programs,
in
addition
to
leadership
roles
in
academia.
In
1997‐98,
she
received
a
Certificate
in
Advanced
Program
Management
from
the
University
of
Southern
California,
Marshall
School
of
Business.
In
terms
of
direct
public
agency
experience,
Dr.
Palmer
has
worked
with
both
the
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Health
Services
and
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
in
China
at
the
national
and
municipal
levels.
She
has
had
considerable
experience
in
project
management,
team
building,
strategic
planning,
conflict
resolution,
budgeting,
communication
technology
for
public
health,
working
with
culturally
diverse
populations
(in
agencies
and
communities),
fundraising,
and
grant
writing.
Andy
Johnson,
PhD
Courses
Taught:
Health
Behavior;
Social
Psychology
of
Health
Care;
Social
Psychology
and
Behavioral
Aspectsof
Cardiovascular
Disease;
Research
Methods
in
Behavioral
Medicine;
Theories
of
Prevention;
Media
&
the
Social
Services;
Introduction
to
Health
Promotion
&
Disease
Prevention
Research:
Chen,
X.,
Li,
Y.,
Unger,
J.B.,
Gong,
J.,
Johnson,
C.A.,
&
Guo,
Q.
Hazard
of
smoking
initiation
by
age
among
adolescents
in
Wuhan,
China.
Prev
Med,
32(5):
437‐445,
2001.
Unger,
J.
B.,
Li,
Y.,
Chen,
X.,
Jiang,
X.,
Azen,
S.,
Guo,
Q.,
Tan,
S.,
Gong,
J.,
Sun,
P.,
Liu,
C.,
Chou,
C.‐P.,
Zheng,
H.
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Adolescent
smoking
in
Wuhan,
China:
Baseline
data
from
the
Wuhan
smoking
prevention
trial.
Am
J
Prev
Med,
21(3),
162‐169,
2001.
Rohrbach,
L.A.,
Unger,
J.B.,
Howard‐Pitney,
B.,
Dent,
C.W.,
Amman,
H.K.,
Cruz,
T.,
Fishbein,
B.,
Ribisl,
K.,
Norman,
G.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Independent
evaluation
of
the
California
tobacco
control
program:
Relationship
between
program
exposure
and
outcomes,
1996‐1998.
Am
J
Public
Health,
92,
975‐983,
2002.
Unger,
J.
B.,
Li,
Y.,
Shakib,
S.,
Rohrbach,
L.
A.,
Chen,
X.,
Guo,
Q.,
Chou,
C‐P.,
Shan,
J.,
Azen,
S.,
Zheng,
H.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Peer
influences
and
access
to
cigarettes
as
correlates
of
adolescent
smoking:
A
cross‐cultural
comparison
of
Wuhan,
China
and
California.
J
Prev
Med,
34,
476‐484,
2002.
Chen,
X.,
Li,
G.,
Unger,
J.
B.,
Liu,
X.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Secular
trends
of
adolescent
never
smokers
from
1990
to
1999
in
California:
An
age‐period‐cohort
analysis.
Am
J
Public
Health,
93(12),
2099‐2104,
2003.
Chen,
X.,
Li,
G.,
Unger,
J.
B.,
Liu,
X.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Strategies
on
peer‐led
tobacco
prevention
programs
in
schools.
Am
J
Public
Health,
93(11),
1837‐1843,
2003.
Unger,
J.B.,
Chou,
C‐P.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Cen,
S.,
Lichtman,
K.,
Azen,
S.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Project
FLAVOR:
One‐year
outcomes
of
a
multicultural,
school‐based
smoking
prevention
curriculum
for
adolescents.
Am
J
Public
Health,
94(2),
263‐265,
2004.
Valente,
T.W.,
Hoffman,
B.R.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Lichtman,
K.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Social
networks
and
peer
education
[Letter
to
the
editor]
Am
J
Public
Health,
94(8),
1293‐1294,
2004.
Johnson,
C.A.,
Unger,
J.B.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Cen,
S.,
Gallaher,
P.,
&
Chou,
C‐P.
Smoking
prevention
for
ethnically
diverse
adolescents:
Two‐year
outcomes
of
a
multicultural,
school‐based
smoking
prevention
curriculum
in
Southern
California.
Prev
Med,
(40),
842‐852,
2005.
Islam,
S.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Influence
of
known
psychosocial
smoking
risk
factors
on
Egyptian
adolescents’
cigarette
smoking
behavior.
Health
Promot
Int,
20(2):
135‐145,
2005.
Page
196
Sussman,
S.,
Unger,
J.,
Rohrbach,
L.A.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
School‐based
smoking
prevention
research.
J
Adolesc
Health,
37,
4‐5,
2005.
Valente,
T.W.,
Unger,
J.B.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Do
popular
students
smoke?
The
association
between
popularity
and
smoking
among
middle
school
students.
J
Adolesc
Health,
37,
323‐329,
2005.
Chou,
C.P.,
Li,
Y.,
Unger,
J.B.,
Xia,
J.,
Sun,
P.,
Guo,
Q.,
Shakib,
S.,
Gong,
J.,
Xie,
B.,
Liu,
C.,
Azen,
S.,
Shan,
J.,
Ma,
H.,
Palmer,
P.,
Gallaher,
P.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
A
randomized
intervention
of
smoking
for
adolescents
in
urban
Wuhan,
China.
Prev
Med,
42(4),
280‐5,
2006.
Johnson,
C.A.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Chou,
C‐P.,
Pang,
Z.,
Zhou,
D.,
Dong,
L.,
Xiang,
H.,
Yang,
P.,
Xu,
H.,
Wang,
J.,
Fu,
X.,
Guo,
Q.,
Sun,
P.,
Ma,
H.,
Gallaher,
P.E.,
Xie,
B.,
Lee,
L.,
Fang,
T.,
Unger,
J.B.
Tobacco
use
among
youth
and
adults
in
Mainland
China:
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study.
Public
Health,
120,
1156‐1169,
2006.
Valente,
T.W.,
Unger,
J.,
Ritt‐Olson,
A.,
Cen,
S.
Y.
&
Johnson,
C.A.
The
interaction
of
curriculum
and
implementation
method
on
1
year
smoking
outcomes.
Health
Educ
Res:
Theory
Pract.,
21,
315‐324,
2006.
Weiss,
J.
W.,
Spruijt‐Metz,
D.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Chou,
C‐P.,
Johnson,
C.A.,
&
the
China
Seven
Cities
Study
Research
Team.
Smoking
among
adolescents
in
China:
An
analysis
based
upon
the
Meaning
of
Smoking
Theory.
Am
J
Health
Promot,
20,
171‐
178,
2006.
Xie,
B.,
Chou,
C.P.,
Spruijt‐Metz,
D.,
Reynolds,
K.,
Clark,
F.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Sun,
P.,
Guo,
Q.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Weight
perception,
academic
performance,
and
psychological
factors
in
Chinese
adolescents.
Am
J
Health
Behav,
30(2),
115‐
124,
2006.
Carolan,
B.V.,
Unger,
J.B.,
Johnson,
C.A.
,
&
Valente,
T.V.
Ties
that
work:
The
interaction
between
group
assignment
method
and
a
culturally‐relevant
curriculum
in
the
context
of
middle
school
anti‐tobacco
program.
Int
Electron
J
Health
Educ,
10,
160‐170,
2007.
Unger,
J.B.,
Sun,
P.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Socioeconomic
correlates
of
smoking
among
an
ethnically
diverse
sample
of
8th
grade
adolescents
in
Southern
California.
Prev
Med,
44,
323‐327,
2007.
Xie,
B.,
Chou,
C‐P.,
Spruijt‐Metz,
D.,
Reynolds,
K.,
Clark,
F.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Sun,
P.,
Guo,
Q.,
Johnson,
C.A.
Socio‐
demographic
and
economic
correlates
of
overweight
status
in
Chinese
adolescents.
Am
J
Health
Behav,
31(4),
339‐
352,
2007.
Baker,
T.B.,
Cummings,
K.M.,
Hatsukami,
D.K.,
Johnson,
C.A.,
Lerman,
C.,
Niaura,
R.,
O’Malley,
S.S.
Transdisciplinary
tobacco
use
research
centers:
Research
achievements
and
future
implications.Nicotine
Tob
Res,
11(10),
1231‐44,
2009.
Burton,
D.,
Graham,
J.W.,
Johnson,
C.A.,
Uutela,
A.,
Vartiainen,
E.,
&
Palmer,
R.F.
Perceptions
of
smoking
prevalence
by
youth
in
countries
with
and
without
a
tobacco
advertising
ban.
J
Health
Commun,
15,
656‐64,
2010.
Wu,
Q.,
Xie,
B.,
Chou,
C‐P.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Gallaher,
P.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Understanding
the
effect
of
social
capital
on
the
depression
of
urban
Chinese
adolescents:
An
integrative
framework.
Am
J
Community
Psychol,
45(1‐2),
1‐16,
2010.
Xie
B,
Unger
JB,
Gallaher
P,
Chou
C,
Johnson
CA,
Wu
W,
Chou,
CP.
Overweight,
body
image,
and
depression
in
Asian
and
Hispanic
adolescents.
Am
J
Health
Behav,
34(4),
476‐88,
2010.
PMCID:
PMC2860429
Okamoto,
J.,
Johnson,
C.A.,
Levanthal,
A.,
Milam,
J.,
Pentz,
M.A.,
Schwartz,
D.,
&
Valente,
T.W.
Social
network
status
and
depression
among
adolescents:
An
examination
of
social
network
influences
and
depressive
symptoms
in
a
Chinese
sample.
Res.
Human
Devel.,
8(1),
67‐88,
2011.
Palmer
PH,
Xie
B,
Lee
L,
Hemingway
B,
Chou
CP,
Johnson
CA.
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study
(CSCS)
Consortium:
Adapting
evidence
based
prevention
science
from
west
to
east.
Translational
Behavioral
Medicine:
Practice,
Policy
and
Research.
Accepted
for
Publication
March
11,
2011.
Unger.
JB.,
Lessov‐Schlaggar,
C.N.,
Pang,
Z.,
Guo,
Q.,
Ning,
F.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Lee,
L.,
Cao,
W.,
Conti,
D.,
Johnson,
C.A.
Heritability
of
smoking,
alcohol
use,
and
psychological
characteristics
among
adolescent
twins
in
Qingdao,
China.
Asia‐Pacific
J
Pub
Health,
23,
5680,
2011.
Xie,
B.,
Chou,
C,
Spruijt‐Metz,
D.,
Reynolds,
K.,
Palmer,
P.H.,
Wu,
Q.,
Gallaher,
P.,
Johnson,
C.A.
Longitudinal
analysis
of
weight
perception
and
psychological
factors
in
Chinese
adolescents.
Am
J
Health
Behav,
35(1),
92‐104,
2011.
PMID:
20950162,
PMCID:
2957668.
Professional
Positions:
Dr.
Johnson’s
training
experience
includes
PI
and
directorship
for
25
years
on
and
NCI
T‐32
training
program
in
cancer
epidemiology
and
control
(University
of
Southern
California)
and
before
that
an
NHLBI
T‐32
in
heart
disease
prevention
(Co‐PI
and
director,
U.
Minnesota).
Other
relevant
leadership/management
experience
includes:


Project
Director
and
Research
Psychologist,
National
Bureau
of
Standards,
Washington,
DC
Assistant
Professor
of
Pharmacy
and
Public
Health
and
Co‐Director,
Program
in
Cardiovascular
Behavior,
College
of
Pharmacy
and
School
of
Public
Health,
University
of
Minnesota,
Minneapolis,
MN
Professor
&
Founding
Director,
Health
Promotion
&
Disease
Prevention
Institute,
University
of
Southern
California,
Los
Angeles,
CA
Page
197







Associate
Director
for
the
Cancer
Cause
and
Prevention,
USC/Norris
Comprehensive
Cancer
Center,
Los
Angeles,
CA
Founding
Director,
MPH
Program,
University
of
Southen
California
Director
of
Pre‐
and
Postdoctoral
training
Programs,
University
of
Southern
California,
Los
Angeles,
CA
Developed
and
initiated
BS
Training
Program
in
Health
Promotion
and
Disease
Prevention
Studies
at
University
of
Southern
California,
Los
Angeles,
CA
Developed
and
initiated
the
USC/Chinese
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
Public
Health
Intelligence
&
Leadership
Program
Chairman,
California
Academic
Task
Force
on
Prevention
Research
and
Policy
Dean
and
Founder
of
the
School
of
Community
&
Global
Health,
Claremont
Graduate
University
Darleen
Peterson,
PhD,
MPH,
MA,
MCHES
Courses
Taught:
Foundations
in
Health
Education
and
Behavior;
Communications
in
Public
Health;
Advanced
Topics
in
Physician
Assistant
Studies:
Managing
Educational
Programs;
Public
Health
Practicum;
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health;
Public
Health
Capstone
Research:
Unger
JB,
Cruz
TB,
Schuster
D,
Flora
JA,
Johnson
CA.
Measuring
exposure
to
pro‐
and
anti‐tobacco
marketing
among
adolescents:
Intercorrelations
among
measures
and
associations
with
smoking
status.
J
Health
Commun
6:11‐29,
2001.
Chen
X,
Cruz
TB,
Schuster
DV,
Unger
JB,
Anderson
CA.
Receptivity
to
protobacco
media
and
its
impact
on
cigarette
smoking
among
ethnic
minority
youths
in
California.
J
Health
Commun
7:95‐111,
2002.
Li
C,
Unger
JB,
Schuster
DV,
Rohrbach
LA,
Howard‐Pitney
B,
Norman
G.
Youth’s
exposure
to
environmental
tobacco
smoke
(ETS):
Associations
with
health
benefits
and
social
pressure.
Addict
Behav
28:39‐52,
2003.
Unger
JB,
Schuster
DV,
Dent
CW,
Zogg
J,
Stacy
AW.
Alcohol
advertising
exposure
and
adolescent
alcohol
use:
A
comparison
of
exposure
measures.
Addict
Res
Theory
11:177‐193,
2003.
Schuster
DV,
Valente
TW,
Skara
SN,
Wenten
MR,
Unger
JB,
Cruz
TB,
Rohrbach
LA.
Intermedia
process
in
the
adoption
of
tobacco
control
policies
among
California
opinion
leaders.
Commun
Theor
y16:
91‐117,
2006.
Weiss
JW,
Cen
S,
Schuster
DV,
Unger
JB,
Johnson
A,
Moutappa
M,
Schreiner
W,
Cruz,
TB.
Longitudinal
effects
of
pro‐tobacco
and
anti‐tobacco
messages
on
adolescent
smoking
susceptibility.
Nicotine
Tob
Res
8:455‐465,
2006.
Unger
JB,
Schuster
DV.
Monitoring
tobacco
industry
marketing.
An
evaluation
report,
Department
of
Health
Services,
Tobacco
Control
Section,
Contract
#99‐85316,
2001.
Cruz,
TB,
Flora,
JA,
Unger,
JB,
Schuster
DV,
Rohrbach
LA,
Anderson
CA.
The
statewide
media
campaign.
In:
Independent
Evaluation
Consortium.
Interim
Report.
Independent
Evaluation
of
the
California
Tobacco
Control
Prevention
and
Education
Program:
Wave
2
Data,
1998;
Wave
1
and
Wave
2
Comparisons,
1996‐1998.
Gallup
Organization,
Rockville,
MD,
2001.
Cruz
TB,
Schuster
DV,
Wenten
M,
Unger
JB,
Rohrbach
LA.
The
statewide
media
campaign.
In:
Independent
Evaluation
Consortium.
Final
Report.
Independent
Evaluation
of
the
California
Tobacco
Control
Prevention
and
Education
Program:
Waves
1,
2,
3
(1996‐
2000).
Gallup
Organization,
Rockville,
MD,
2002.
Cruz
TB,
Feighery
E,
Schuster
DV,
Wenten
M,
Jouharzadeh
P,
Unger
JB,
Rohrbach
LA.
Tobacco
marketing
efforts
in
California.
In:
Independent
Evaluation
Consortium.
Final
Report.
Independent
Evaluation
of
the
California
Tobacco
Control
Prevention
and
Education
Program:
Waves
1,
2,
3
(1996‐2000).
Gallup
Organization,
Rockville,
MD,
2002.
Valente,
TW,
Schuster
DV.
Public
Health
Communication.
In:
New
Tools
for
Environmental
Protection:
Education,
Information
&
Voluntary
Measures
(P
Stern
&
T
Dietz,
Eds)
National
Academy
Press,
Washington
DC,
2002.
Valente,
TW,
Schuster
DV.
Health
Communication.
In:
Encyclopedia
of
Science,
Technology
&
Society
(S
Restivo
Ed)
Oxford
University
Press,
New
York,
NY,
2004.
Past
Professional
Positions:
Dr.
Peterson
has
over
10
years
of
managing
MPH
programs
and
has
consulted
new
programs
on
accreditation.
For
the
last
three
years
as
Associate
Dean
for
Academic
Affairs,
she
has
been
responsible
for
the
oversight
of
all
academic
training
programs
in
SCGH.
She
has
a
MA
in
Communications
Management
from
USC.
Page
198
Paul
Torrens,
MD,
MPH
(New
Concentration
Director
as
of
Fall
2011)
Courses
Taught:
Health
Services
Organization
and
Financing;
Health
Services
Organization
and
Theory;
Managerial
Processes
in
Health
Service
Organizations
and
Managed
Care;
Health
Services
in
the
U.S.
and
Abroad;
Public
Health
Leadership
Research:
Dr.
Torrens
is
the
author/co‐author
of
62
journal
articles,
24
book
chapters,
and
8
monographs.
His
most
recent
work
includes:
Stephen
Williams
and
Torrens,
P.R.,
Introduction
to
Health
Services
,
Wiley
Medical
Publishing,
New
York,
NY,
First
Edition,
1979,
Second
Edition,
1984,
Third
Edition,
1988,
Fourth
Edition,
1992;
Fifth
Edition,
1998.
Zuckerman,
H.,
Hilberman,
D.,
Andersen,
R.
A.,
Alexander,
J.,
Burns,
L.R.,
Torrens,
P.R.,
"Physicians
and
Organizations:
Strange
Bedfellows
or
a
Marriage
Made
In
Heaven?"
Frontiers
of
Health
Services
Management.
1998.
Zuckerman,
H.,
Torrens,
P.R.,
Hilberman,
D.,
"Evaluating
Emerging
Physician
Organization
Integration
Arrangements,"
reprinted
in
Integrated
Delivery
Systems:
Creation,
Management,
and
Governance,
Health
Administration
Press,
Chicago,
1997.
Zuckerman,
H.,
Torrens,
P.R.,
Hilberman,
D.
and
Andersen,
R.A.,
"Evaluating
Emerging
Physician‐
Organization
Integration
Arrangements,"
in
Austin
Ross
and
Mary
Richardson
(eds.),
Ambulatory
Health
Care
Case
Studies
for
the
Health
Services
Executive,
Denver;
Medical
Group
Management
Association,
1995.
Past
Professional
Positions:
As
a
health
care
manager,
Dr.
Torrens
has
had
many
years
of
direct
management
experience
in
hospitals
and
health
organizations.
He
has
also
many
years
of
membership
on
governing
boards
of
health
care
organizations
of
various
kinds;
he
currently
serves
on
the
Board
of
Directors
of
Blue
Shield
of
California,
as
well
as
the
Board
of
PacificCare
Behavioral
Health
of
California.
He
is
also
a
member
of
the
Financial
Solvency
Standards
Board,
Department
of
Managed
Care,
State
of
California,
and
the
Attorneys
General
Task
Force
on
Charity
Care.
As
a
health
policy
expert,
Dr.
Torrens
has
served
in
a
wide
variety
of
advisory
and
consulting
capacities
to
governmental
and
non‐governmental
organizations
in
all
parts
of
the
United
States
and
in
eighteen
foreign
countries.
Page
199
Table
4.2.a.
School/
Specialty
Area
SCGH‐
HPEE
Name
SCGH‐
HPEE
SCGH‐
HPEE
Current
Core
Faculty
Supporting
Degree
Offerings
of
School
or
Program
by
Department/Specialty
Area
Title/
Academic
Rank
Associate
Professor
Tenure
Status
or
Classification*
Non‐tenured
Institutions
Discipline
in
which
degrees
were
earned
Teaching
Area
Research
Interest
Caucasian
Graduate
Degrees
Earned
PhD,
MA
USC
(PhD);
Cal
State‐LA
(MA)
Health
Behavior
Research
(PhD);
Psychology
(MA)
Behavioral
and
Social
Sciences
Male
Caucasian
PhD,
MA
Arizona
State
Social
Psychology
1
Male
Caucasian
PhD,
MA
UC
Riverside
Social
&
Personality
Psychology
Program
Planning
Behavioral
and
Social
Sciences
Non‐tenured
.50
Male
Caucasian
PhD,
MS,
MA
Non‐tenured
.50
Male
Caucasian
PhD
MA
Dennis
Trinidad
Associate
Professor
Tenured
1
Male
Asian
American
PhD,
MPH
USC
SCGH‐
ABE
Bin
Xie
Associate
Professor
Tenured
1
Male
Asian
American
MD,
PhD,
MS,
MS
SCGH‐LM
Andy
Johnson
Professor
Tenured
.75
Male
Caucasian
PhD
Beijing
Medical
U
(MD);
USC
(PhD,
MS),
U
of
Utah
(MS)
Duke
Health
Behavior
Research
(PhD)
Engineering
(MS)
Psychology
(MA)
Educational
Psychology
(PhD)
Communication
(MA)
Health
Behavior
Research
(PhD);Biostatistics/
Epidemiology
(MPH)
Health
Behavior
Research
(PhD);
Biostatistics
(MS);
Nutrition
(MS)
Research
Methods
Assistant
Professor
USC
(PhD)
Colorado
State
(MS);
Cal
State‐LA
(MA)
U
of
Arizona
Prevention
Neurocognitive
Sciences
Behavioral
and
Social
Sciences
Prevention
Neurocognitive
Sciences
Prevention
Neurocognitive
Sciences;
statistics
Kim
Reynolds
Professor
Tenured
Alan
Stacy
Professor
Tenured
SCGH‐
ABE
Jerry
Grenard
Assistant
Professor
SCGH‐
ABE
Jason
Siegel
SCGH‐
ABE
Social
Psychology
Behavioral
and
Social
Sciences
SCGH‐LM
Paula
Palmer
Associate
Professor
Non‐tenured
1
Female
Pacific
Islander
PhD
Clinical
Psychology
Global
health;
management
SCGH‐LM
Darleen
Peterson
Assistant
Professor
Non‐tenured
1
Female
Caucasian
PhD,
MPH,
MA
Behavioral
and
Social
Sciences;
Professionalism
SCGH‐
LM
Paul
Torrens
Professor
Non‐tenured
1
Male
Caucasian
MD,
MPH
Health
Behavior
Research
(PhD):
Communication
(MA):
Health
Education
(MPH)
Medicine
&
Public
Health
Susan
Ames
FTE
or
%
Time
1
Gender
Race
or
Ethnicity
Female
1
Page
200
Cal
School
for
Professional
Psychology
USC
(PhD/MA)
Cal
State
Northridge
(MPH)
Georgetown
(MD);
Harvard
(MPH)
Research
Methods
Adolescent
substance
use
Epidemiology
Racial/ethnic
disparities
in
health
behaviors
Adolescent
health
behaviors;
statistics
Biostatistics
Epidemiology
Health
Services
and
Leadership
Chronic
disease
prevention;
program
management
Global
health;
maternal/child
health
Health
Communication;
program
management
Health
Care
Management,
health
care
policy
4.1.b.
If
the
program
uses
other
faculty
in
its
teaching
programs
(adjunct,
part‐time,
secondary
appointments
etc),
summary
data
on
their
qualifications
should
be
provided
in
table
format
and
include
at
least:
(1)
name,
(2)
title/academic
rank,
(3)
title
and
current
employment,
(4)
FTE
or
%
time
allocated
to
teaching
program,
(5)
gender,
(6)
race,
(7)
graduate
degrees
earned,
(8)
disciplines
in
which
degrees
were
earned,
and
(9)
contributions
to
the
teaching
program.
CEPH
Data
Template
F.
Adjunct
Faculty
Adjunct
faculty
who
teach
are
also
evenly
distributed
across
ranks
with
their
efforts
complemented
by
instructors
who
have
considerable
public
health
experience.
MPH
faculty
are
also
drawn
from
a
number
of
different
disciplines
appropriate
to
the
courses
they
teach.
Current
adjunct
faculty
include
two
Professors
and
two
Assistant
Professors.
Page
201
Table
4.1.b.
Current
Other
Faculty
Used
to
Support
Teaching
Program
(Adjunct,
Part­Time,
Secondary,
etc.)
Department/Specialty
Area
Name
Title/Academic
Rank
Title
&
Current
Employer
SCGH‐‐HPEE
Patty
Kwan
Assistant
Professor
Consultant
SCGH‐ABE
Lin
Xiao
Assistant
Professor
SCGH‐‐LM
Larry
Gruder
James
Howatt
SCGH‐‐LM
FTE
or
%
Time
Gender
Race
or
Ethnicity
Graduate
Degrees
Earned
Discipline
for
earned
graduate
degrees
Teaching
Areas
1
Female
Asian
American
PhD,
MPH
Post
doc
Fellow,
USC
.50
Female
Asian
American
PhD,
MS
Health
Education,
Health
Communication
Biostatistics
Professor
Consultant
.25
Male
Caucasian
PhD
Professor
Chief
Medical
Officer,
Molina
Health
Care
Inc.
.25
Male
Caucasian
MD,
MBA
Health
Behavior
Research
(PhD);
Preventive
Nutrition
(MPH)
Neuroscience
(PhD);
Biostatistics
(MS)
Social
Psychology
Medicine,
Health
Care
Management
&
Policy
(MBA)
Page
202
Grant
Writing
Environmental
&
Occupational
Health
4.1.c.
Description
of
the
manner
in
which
the
faculty
complement
integrates
perspectives
from
the
field
of
practice,
including
information
on
appointment
tracks
for
practitioners
if
used
by
the
program.
Faculty
Integration
of
the
Practice
Community
The
MPH
program
integrates
perspectives
from
the
field
of
practice
in
a
myriad
of
ways,
including
involving
community
members
in
scholarly
activity,
advisory
positions,
and
educational
opportunities.
The
faculty
represent
many
different
disciplines,
with
research
interests
that
range
from
health
communications
to
tobacco
control
to
chronic
disease
prevention
to
health
care
policy
to
the
neurocognitve,
genetic,
and
environmental
underpinnings
of
functional
and
dysfunctional
health
behavior.
Despite
their
wide‐ranging
interests,
there
is
a
very
high
priority
placed
on
interdisciplinary,
team
approaches
to
research
and
teaching.
Research
and
training
interests
of
the
faculty
consist
primarily
of
applied,
practice
research.
Research
projects
generally
have
large
teams
of
co‐investigators
and
researchers
since
the
projects
involve
a
multi‐disciplinary
community/collaborative
approach
to
public
health.
The
disciplines
represented
include
faculty
who
study
individual,
community,
and
population
level
behavior;
thus,
the
focus
is
one
involving
an
ecological
approach
to
public
health
practice.
Faculty
programs
follow
health
planning
models
that
call
for
considerable
community
involvement
and
collaboration
in
order
to
create
successful
programs,
and
insist
on
formative
research
so
that
programs
are
sensitive
to
community
needs.
Finally,
the
faculty
participated
in
several
community‐based
research
projects
that
provide
opportunities
for
students
to
collaborate
with
these
agencies.
Examples
of
community
partners
involved
in
faculty
research
include:
 California
Diversion
Intervention
Foundation,
Varies
sites
in
CA
 California
State
University
Fullerton,
Fullerton,
CA
 Center
for
Disease
Control,
Chengdu,
China
 Chinese
University
of
Hong
Kong
 City
of
Hope
Medical
Center
&
Comprehensive
Cancer
Center,
Duarte,
CA
 Huaxi
Medical
University,
Chengdu,
China
 Orange
County
Asian
&
Pacific
Islander
Community
Alliance,
Garden
Grove,
CA
 Guam
Communications
Network,
Long
Beach,
CA
 Mahidol
University,
Thailand
 Molina
Healthcare,
Long
Beach,
CA
 My
Friend’s
Place,
Hollywood,
CA
 Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership,
Garden
Grove,
CA
 Peking
Union
Medical
College,
Beijing,
China
 Samoan
National
Nurses
Association,
Carson,
CA
 SAATH,
Los
Angeles,
CA
 Taiwan
Health
Ministry,
 Tongan
Community
Service
Center,
Gardena,
CA
 Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities,
San
Diego,
CA
 University
of
Tokyo,
Japan
 University
of
Southern
California,
Los
Angeles,
CA
The
program
utilizes
an
advisory
committee
to
inform
School
and
MPH
program
activities.
The
committee
is
comprised
of
18
individuals
from
local
health
departments,
schools
of
medicine,
hospitals,
non‐governmental
health
organizations,
health
maintenance
organizations,
university
board
of
trustees,
industry,
and
practicing
physicians.
The
committee
convenes
annually
in
the
winter
to
discuss
progress
Page
203
made
by
the
School
and
outcomes
of
the
training
programs.
Recommendations
for
future
activities
are
made.
The
program
maintains
adjunct
appointment
track
for
public
health
practitioners
who
teach
a
course
at
the
University.
This
is
a
contractual
(term
by
term)
appointment
that
is
approved
by
the
Provost.
Adjuncts
enjoy
a
limited
amount
of
benefits
such
as
library
privileges,
e‐mail
and
Sakai
accounts.
Payment
for
teaching
is
based
on
rank.
There
are
three
levels
of
adjunct
faculty:
Assistant,
Associate
and
Full
Professor.
Other
members
of
the
practice
community
are
invited
to
give
guest
lectures
in
courses
[see
listings
in
table
1.61(1)]
and
presentations
in
the
Annual
Global
Health
Symposium
and
the
monthly
Global
Health
Seminar
Series
[see
listings
in
tables
1.6
(2)].
The
MPH
program
places
students
in
the
field
for
internship
experiences
and
develops
relationships
with
site
preceptors
that
may
include
future
research
or
service
collaborations.
Thus
far,
students
have
completed
their
internship
requirements
with
community
based
organizations,
departments
of
health,
Indian
health
services
and
have
traveled
aboard
visiting
community
clinics,
hospitals,
regional
training
centers,
the
ministry
of
health
and
university
faculty.
As
a
part
of
course
requirements,
students
have
visited
agencies
involved
in
public
health.
For
example,
in
spring
2011
semester,
students
enrolled
in
CGH
304:
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health
course
took
a
tour
of
a
water
treatment
plan
organized
by
one
of
our
community
partners,
the
Center
for
Community
Action
and
Environmental
Justice.
As
part
of
CGH
310:
Foundations
of
Global
Health:
An
Interdisciplinary
Approach
students
participated
in
a
telepresence
conference
with
members
of
the
Chengdu
CDC
in
China,
courtesy
of
our
community
partner
Cisco
Systems,
Inc.
4.1.d.
Identification
of
outcome
measures
by
which
the
program
may
judge
the
qualifications
of
its
faculty
complement,
along
with
data
regarding
the
performance
of
the
program
against
those
measures
for
each
of
the
last
two
years.
Faculty
Outcome
Measures
Outcome
measures
to
judge
faculty
complement
are
vast
as
evidenced
in
table
4.1.d.
The
faculty
are
highly
qualified,
with
majority
have
achieved
the
rank
of
Associate
level
or
higher
at
the
University.
SCGH
does
however,
hopes
to
attain
a
more
diverse
faculty
complement.
Overall,
the
faculty
have
very
productive
careers
and
participate
in
a
myriad
of
service
activities
within
and
outside
the
University.
Table
4.1.d.
Measures
Assessing
Qualifications
of
Faculty
Complement
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
and
percent
of
faculty
with
doctoral
degrees
2.
Number
and
percentage
of
female
faculty
3.
Number
and
percentage
of
ethnic/minority
faculty
4.
Number
and
percent
of
tenured/tenured
track
faculty
5.
Number
and
percent
of
faculty
with
the
rank
of
Associate
Professor
or
higher
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
15
100
16
100
6
40
6
40
6
40
8
50
7.5
50
8
50
7.5
50
8
50
Page
204
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
15
100
15
94
Met
Not
Met
5
33
5
31
Not
Met
Not
Met
6
40
4
25
Met
Not
Met
8
80
7
70
Met
Met
8
80
8
80
Met
Met
Table
4.1.d.
Measures
Assessing
Qualifications
of
Faculty
Complement
Outcome
Measures
6.
Overall
mean
course
evaluation
of
4.30
(scale
of
1.0=poor
to
5.0=excellent)
7.
Number
and
percent
of
all
faculty
involved
in
service
activities
8.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
presentations
at
professional
meetings
9.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
with
funded
research
10.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
with
peer‐reviewed
publications
11.
Number
and
percent
of
core
faculty
who
supervise
students
on
research
projects
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
11.25
75
12
75
8
80
8
80
7.5
75
7.5
75
8
80
8
80
7.5
50
7.5
50
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
4.45
4.79
Met
Met
13
87
15
88
Met
Met
9
90
8
80
Met
Met
90
90
9
9
Met
Met
9
90
9
90
Met
Met
5
50
6
60
Met
Met
Targets
concerning
faculty
diversity
are
not
met.
A
faculty
search
is
currently
underway
with
significant
efforts
being
taken
to
achieve
a
diverse
applicant
pool.
The
program
involves
adjunct
faculty
from
diverse
backgrounds
in
the
program
curriculum,
internships,
student
mentorship
and
research
as
described
in
criterion
4.3.
4.1.e.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 The
MPH
program
consists
of
a
highly
qualified
and
multi‐disciplinary
faculty.
These
faculty
have
extensive
research
and
practice
experience,
and
are
characterized
as
having
a
strong
commitment
to
applied,
community‐based
health
promotion
research.
 Faculty
have
strong
linkages
with
local
and
national
community
organizations
and
have
a
shared
vision
on
the
importance
of
applied
public
health
practice
and
research.
 Scholarly
activity
among
the
faculty
is
high
as
evidenced
by
the
amount
of
research
funding
and
publication
success.
Challenges
 Not
all
faculty
have
degrees
in
public
health
(55%);
however,
faculty
who
lack
a
formal
public
health
degree
do
possess
extensive
teaching,
research,
and
national
and
international
leadership
experience
in
public
health.
Page
205
Blank
page
Page
206
Criterion
4.2.
Faculty
Policies
and
Procedures
The
program
shall
have
well‐defined
policies
and
procedures
to
recruit,
appoint
and
promote
qualified
faculty,
to
evaluate
competence
and
performance
of
faculty
and
to
support
the
professional
development
and
advancement
of
faculty.
4.2.a.
Faculty
handbook
or
other
written
document
which
outlines
faculty
rules
and
regulations.
Faculty
Handbook
CGU’s
Institutional
Handbook,
which
species
a
section
on
faculty
governance
policies
and
procedures,
can
be
found
online
at
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1479.asp.
It
covers
policies
and
procedures
related
to
the
following
issues:
faculty
government,
committees,
academic
practices
and
policies,
appointments,
promotions
and
tenure,
policies
pertaining
to
research,
integrity
of
the
academic
environment,
faculty
grievances,
faculty
dismissal,
and
academic
and
family
life
balance.
Additional
University
publications
delineate
policies
on
committees,
faculty
rights
and
responsibilities,
evaluation,
grievance
procedures,
research,
protection
of
human
subjects,
outside
activities,
benefits,
leaves
of
absence,
compensation,
faculty/student
relations,
registration,
instructional
policies,
advisement,
documentation
of
academic
records,
course
disputes,
academic
integrity,
degree
requirements,
student
counseling,
faculty
benefits,
and
tuition
assistance.
4.2.b.
Description
of
provisions
for
faculty
development,
including
identification
of
support
for
faculty
categories
other
than
regular
full‐time
appointments.
Faculty
Development
Development
Processes
for
Non‐Tenure
Track
Faculty
Non‐tenure
track
faculty.
The
primary
category
of
faculty
in
need
of
support
for
career
development
includes
faculty
in
term
positions,
such
as
term
faculty,
research
faculty,
and
professors
of
practice.
These
positions
may
range
in
time
commitment
at
the
school
from
50%
to
100%
but
are
all
in
need
of
consideration.
There
are
two
primary
avenues
for
development,
one
formal
and
one
informal.
The
formal
process
is
through
the
annual
faculty
consultation.
Each
faculty
member
is
consulted
in
a
bi‐
directional
mechanism
once
per
year
about
their
needs,
progress,
and
future
goals,
as
well
as
their
perceptions
of
the
school’s
ability
to
help
them
reach
their
goals.
Avenues
are
considered
to
help
the
faculty
member
better
meet
their
ultimate
career
objectives.
For
example,
if
they
have
not
yet
submitted
a
grant
proposal
as
PI,
then
mechanisms
are
considered
for
future
grant
production.
If
scholarly
productivity
is
not
sufficient,
then
barriers
and
resolutions
are
discussed.
Needs
in
productivity,
whether
in
scholarship
or
grant
productivity,
are
addressed
by
discussing
avenues
such
as
changes
in
mentorship
from
senior
faculty,
collaborative
opportunities,
training
opportunities,
possibilities
for
a
different
time
allocation,
and
other
possibilities.
If
service
needs
improvement,
opportunities
for
service
to
the
university
and
community
are
outlined.
If
teaching
evaluations
are
not
on
par,
then
the
potential
reasons
are
explored
and
resolutions
are
uncovered,
such
as
teaching
workshops,
time
release
for
teaching
preparation,
assistance
in
materials
preparation,
more
appropriate
course
assignment,
or
other
assistance.
The
informal
process
of
development
for
non‐tenure
track
faculty
is
through
ongoing
mentoring
by
senior
investigators.
Senior
investigators
routinely
engage
more
junior
colleagues
in
grant
preparation
Page
207
and
scholarly
production.
Through
this
mechanism,
more
junior
faculty
experience
all
stages
of
the
grant
writing
process.
It
is
typical
to
assign
specific
proposal
sections
to
junior
faculty
and
have
them
review
the
entire
proposal.
In
this
manner,
they
learn
to
take
leadership
of
a
section
of
a
proposal
while
also
getting
a
broad
picture
of
the
entire
proposal
process.
As
junior
faculty
become
more
advanced,
they
learn
to
take
on
more
sections
themselves
and
are
eventually
able
to
write
their
own
grant
proposals,
serving
as
PI.
We
have
found
this
mechanism
very
fruitful
in
training
junior
faculty
in
all
tracks
at
grant
preparation.
We
have
much
more
evidence
that
this
is
fruitful
than
alternatives,
such
as
most
grant
training
workshops.
Such
external
classes
are
usually
led
by
individuals
with
much
less
(if
any)
record
of
grant
productivity
than
the
mentors
available
at
our
school.
We
do
offer
a
grant
course
to
our
students,
taught
by
a
grant
professional
with
substantial
experience.
Faculty
can
sit
in
on
this
class
if
they
so
choose.
Tenure
track
faculty.
Tenure
track
faculty
at
SCGH
receive
the
same
bi‐directional
annual
consultation
provided
to
all
faculty.
This
provides
an
opportunity
to
discuss
progress
toward
tenure,
in
terms
of
scholarship,
service,
teaching,
and
grant
productivity,
as
well
as
all
the
other
issues
outlined
in
terms
of
non‐tenure
track
faculty.
The
informal
process
for
tenure
track
faculty
include
occasional
meetings
during
each
year
with
the
chair
of
the
faculty
affairs
committee.
The
frequency
of
meetings
is
determined
by
faculty
progress
and
needs.
All
faculty
with
regular
appointments.
Funds
for
certain
travel
or
workshop
expenses
are
granted
to
faculty
without
sufficient
grant
support,
up
to
$1,500.
per
year
per
faculty
member.
A
formal
request
must
be
approved
by
the
Dean
and
a
benefit
to
the
individual's
career,
field
of
study,
community
agency,
or
to
the
school
must
be
demonstrated.
The
school
encourages
collaborative
research
that
is
supportive
to
faculty
growth.
Section
3.1
outlined
the
collaborative
agenda
of
the
school,
which
provides
many
opportunities
for
networking
and
growth
in
scholarship
and
service.
New
tenure
track
or
term
faculty
can
request
a
reduction
in
teaching
obligations,
if
they
have
a
clear
plan
to
engage
in
a
major
effort
to
begin
a
new
research
program
essential
to
school
goals
and
faculty
advancement.
The
request
is
considered
on
a
case
by
case
basis
and
must
be
approved
by
the
dean
of
the
school.
Normally,
release
time
for
one
course
per
year
is
considered,
though
in
rare
circumstances
additional
course
release
is
possible.
Term
faculty
with
relevant
qualifications
are
encouraged
to
apply
for
tenure
track
positions
at
SCGH,
when
such
positions
become
available
through
an
open
search
process.
Although
such
individuals
cannot
be
given
an
advantage
in
this
process
over
other
applicants,
the
dean
and
associate
dean
for
faculty
affairs
are
available
to
provide
consultation
about
this
process.
4.2.c.
Description
of
formal
procedures
for
evaluating
faculty
competence
and
performance.
Procedures
for
Evaluation
of
Faculty
Formal
procedures
for
evaluating
faculty
competence
and
performance
involve
the
assessment
of
teaching
evaluations
and
the
conduct
of
annual
consultations
and
reviews.
Factors
considered
in
the
promotion,
tenure
and
renewal
decisions
vary
by
appointment
and
are
detailed
in
Criterion
1.3c.
Teaching
Evaluations
All
teaching
faculty
receive
anonymous
teaching
evaluations
for
each
course
taught.
Table
4.2c
illustrates
teaching
assignments
of
MPH
faculty.
These
evaluations
are
reviewed
each
term
by
the
MPH
Program
Director.
If
any
negative
evaluations
occur,
they
are
discussed
during
the
annual
faculty
review,
in
the
MPH
Curriculum
Committee
and
corrective
measures
are
taken.
Usually
these
measures
involve
resolution
through
faculty
development
(see
Criterion
4.2b)
or
in
some
instances
re‐assignment
to
a
different
course
aligning
with
faculty
expertise
and
interest.
Page
208
Table
4.2.c.
Faculty
Teaching
Assignments
in
the
MPH
Program
Faculty
Andy
Johnson
Susan
Ames
Appointment
Core
Core
Course
#
CGH
390
CGH
300
Jerry
Grenard
Larry
Gruder
Core
Adjunct
CGH
390
CGH
390
CGH
305
Michael
Harnar
Adjunct Johanna
Hardin
James
Howatt
Patty
Kwan
Paula
Palmer
1
CGH
309
Adjunct Adjunct
Adjunct
1
CGH
301
CGH
304
CGH
309
Core
CGH
311
CGH
310
CGH
317
CGH
318
Michael
Owens
Kim
Reynolds
1
Adjunct Core
Darleen
Peterson
Jason
Siegel
Alan
Stacy
Core
Paul
Torrens
Core Dennis
Trinidad
Core
Jennifer
Unger
Core Made’
Wenten
Bin
Xie
Adjunct Core
Lin
Xiao
Adjunct
1
Core
Core
2
1
1
CGH
319
CGH
390
CGH
304
CGH
308
CGH
390
CGH
306
CGH
307
CGH
313
CGH
300
CGH
390
CGH
303
CGH
316
CGH
302
CGH
390
CGH
302
CGH
390
CGH
312
CGH
301
CGH
314
CGH
390
CGH
301
CGH
312
Units
Course
Title
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Theoretical
Foundations
of
Health
Education
&
Promotion
Varies
Directed
Research
Varies
Directed
Research
2
Seminar
in
Grant
Writing
&
Proposal
Development
4
Monitoring
&
Evaluation
of
Global
Public
Health
Programs
4
Biostatistics
4
Environmental
&
Occupational
Health
4
Monitoring
&
Evaluation
of
Global
Public
Health
Programs
4
Curriculum
&
Materials
Development
4
Foundations
of
Global
Health:
An
Interdisciplinary
Approach
4
Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Cultural
Diversity
4
Management
of
International
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
4
Current
Issues
in
Global
Public
Health
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Environmental
&
Occupational
Health
4
Foundations
of
Program
Planning
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health
2
Public
Health
Capstone
4
Research
Methods
4
Theoretical
Foundations
of
Health
Education
&
Promotion
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Health
Services
in
the
US
and
Abroad
4
Public
Health
Leadership
4
Epidemiology
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Epidemiology
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Data
Analysis
(SAS)
4
Biostatistics
4
Emerging
Chronic
&
Infectious
Diseases
Worldwide
Varies
Directed
Research
4
Biostatistics
4
Data
Analysis
(SAS)
2010‐2011
academic
year
only.
Was
adjunct
in
year
1
and
2
.
Hired
as
core
faculty
in
year
3.
2
Page
209
Course
Type
Elective
Core
Elective
Elective
Core
Concentration
Core
Core
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Elective
Core
Concentration
Elective
Core
Core
Concentration
Core
Elective
Core
Concentration
Core
Elective
Core
Elective
Concentration
Core
Concentration
Elective
Concentration
Concentration
Annual
Consultation
The
annual
consultation,
addressed
in
previous
sections,
is
bi‐directional,
where
each
faculty
member
provides
feedback
to
the
school,
while
the
school
provides
feedback
to
the
faculty
member.
Faculty
development
issues
are
simultaneously
addressed.
This
is
less
threatening,
more
positive,
and
more
useful
to
the
school
and
its
faculty
than
a
one‐way
evaluation.
However,
faculty
members
are
consulted
regarding
any
needs
for
improvement
in
research,
teaching,
or
service.
Faculty
are
held
accountable
to
obligations
noted
in
previous
sections
for
research
productivity
and
service
requirements
(Criterion
1.3c)
and
teaching
evaluations.
Whenever
relevant,
development
support
is
offered,
as
outlined
in
Criterion
4.2.b.
The
specific
criteria
for
annual
evaluation
depend
on
the
specific
track
of
each
faculty
member.
As
outlined
in
Criterion
1.3c,
these
expectations
vary
somewhat
depending
on
whether
faculty
are
tenure
track,
tenured,
term
faculty,
or
specific
term
designations
such
as
research
faculty
or
professor
of
practice.
Annual
University
Review
In
addition
to
school
internal
review
of
all
faculty
every
year,
the
university
(Provost’s
office)
conducts
an
independent
review
of
faculty
progress
listed
in
an
annual
report
which
all
faculty
must
submit.
The
annual
report
includes
a
list
of
all
contributions
to
research,
service,
teaching,
and
mentoring
within
the
last
year.
Reviews
for
Promotion,
Tenure,
Renewal
of
Term
Positions,
and
Full
professors
Policies
regarding
these
reviews
were
outlined
in
Criterion
1.3c.
except
for
the
review
of
full
professors.
These
reviews
provide
a
mechanism
for
regular
major
evaluation
of
competence
and
performance
for
all
ranks
and
faculty
tracks.
Full
professors,
not
addressed
in
earlier
sections,
are
reviewed
by
the
school
and
university
every
five
years,
in
addition
to
the
annual
school
consultation
and
annual
report.
For
this
five‐year
review,
the
Provost
appoints
a
nominating
committee
within
the
school,
composed
of
all
tenured
professors.
The
nominating
committee
evaluates
research,
service,
and
teaching,
in
accord
with
Criterion
1.3c.
The
nominating
committee
submits
an
evaluation
and
the
professor’s
dossier
to
the
university‐level
APT
Committee.
This
committee
provides
a
2nd
and
final
evaluation
of
the
professor
and
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
Provost.
4.2.d.
Description
of
the
processes
used
for
student
course
evaluation
and
evaluation
of
teaching
effectiveness.
Student
Course
Evaluation
Process
Course
evaluations
are
administered
at
the
end
of
every
course,
independent
of
the
instructor.
The
MPH
program
manager
appears
in
every
course
in
the
week
or
two
prior
to
final
exams
to
administer
the
form.
Using
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
measures,
the
instrument
requires
students
to
evaluate
the
content
of
the
course,
including
the
strengths,
and
areas
needing
improvement.
The
data
is
then
analyzed,
and
the
forms
are
kept
in
the
office
of
the
Dean.
Copies
are
provided
to
the
instructors
after
the
submission
of
grades.
Copies
of
teaching
evaluations
are
available
on‐site
in
the
resource
file.
Table
4.2.d.
summarizes
the
average
course
evaluation
scores
for
MPH
courses.
Note
that
the
majority
of
courses
received
above
average
to
excellent
mean
scores,
indicating
a
high
level
of
satisfaction.
Page
210
Table
4.2.d.
Summary
of
MPH
Course
Ratings
Overall
Course
Rating
Poor
Below
Avg.
Avg.
Above
Avg.
Excellent
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
Course
Course
Title
Fall
2009
Number
CGH
300
Foundations
of
Health
Promotion
&
Education
4.07
Spring
2010
4.75
Summer
Fall
2010
Spring
2010
2011
4.58
Mean
Ratings
Summer
2011
2009‐
2010
4.41
2010‐
2011
4.58
CGH
301
Biostatistics
3.58
4.00
3.58
4.00
CGH
302
Epidemiology
3.58
3.86
4.20
3.72
4.20
CGH
303
Health
Services
in
the
US
and
Abroad
4.67
4.45
4.67
4.45
CGH
304
Environmental
&
Occupational
Health
4.67
3.75
4.67
3.75
CGH
305
2.25
TBD
N/A
2.25
CGH
306
Seminar
in
Grant
Writing
&
Proposal
Development
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health
5.00
5.00
TBD
N/A
5.00
CGH
307
Public
Health
Capstone
3.00
5.00
TBD
N/A
4.00
CGH
308
Foundations
in
Program
Planning
4.33
4.80
4.33
4.80
CGH
309
1.75
N/A
1.75
4.82
N/A
4.82
CGH
311
Monitoring
&
Evaluation
of
Global
Public
Health
Programs
Foundations
Global
Health:
An
Interdisciplinary
Approach
Curriculum
&
Materials
Development
TBD
N/A
TBD
CGH
312
Data
Analysis
(SAS)
4.80
4.80
N/A
CGH
313
Research
Methods
TBD
N/A
TBD
CGH
314 Emerging
Chronic
&
Infectious
Diseases
Worldwide
2
CGH
315 Introduction
to
Clinical
Trials
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CGH
316
4.81
N/A
4.81
CGH
317 Ethics,
Human
Rights
&
Cultural
Diversity
N/A
N/A
CGH
318
Management
of
International
Health
Programs
&
Organizations
Current
Issues
in
Global
Public
Health
4.27
N/A
4.27
4.92
4.92
N/A
Special
Topics:
Global
Perspectives
on
Maternal
&
Child
Health
Overall
Mean
4.0
4.0
N/A
4.45
4.79
CGH
310
1
Public
Health
Leadership
1
CGH
319
CGH
396
1
Due
to
low
enrollment,
this
course
was
taught
in
a
directed
research
format.
Course
evaluations
are
not
conducted
for
directed
research
sections.
This
course
is
scheduled
to
be
taught
in
fall
2011.
2
This
course
has
yet
to
be
taught.
Evaluation
of
Teaching
Effectiveness
The
MPH
program
director
has
direct
responsibility
for
verifying
that
course
evaluations
are
attended
to
and
that
these
are
taken
into
consideration
in
making
teaching
assignments.
The
MPH
program
director
reviews
student
evaluations
of
courses
at
the
end
of
each
semester
and
discusses
them,
when
appropriate,
with
each
faculty
member.
Page
211
An
exit
survey
is
also
conducted
with
all
MPH
students
to
assess
their
satisfaction
with
instruction
and
general
comments
with
regard
to
specific
courses.
Results
of
the
course
evaluations
and
exit
survey
are
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
Curriculum
Committee.
4.2.e.
Description
of
the
emphasis
given
to
community
service
activities
in
the
promotion
and
tenure
process.
Value
of
Community
Service
Activities
Demonstration
of
significant
service
to
the
university
and
the
community
is
required
for
promotion
and
tenure
at
both
the
School
and
University
levels.
Further,
evidence
of
service
must
be
provided
every
year
in
the
annual
faculty
report.
Service
is
an
important
component
of
the
annual
consultation
provided
by
the
School,
as
well
as
the
University
review.
For
promotion,
tenure,
renewal
of
term
positions,
and
5‐year
review
of
full
professors,
service
must
be
well
demonstrated,
in
accord
with
the
requirements
in
Criterion
1.3c
and
University
requirements
in
the
APT
Rules.
Faculty
can
be
denied
renewal
of
appointments,
promotions,
or
tenure
if
the
level
of
service
is
not
sufficient.
Requirements
of
service
are
obligatory
but
are
in
accord
with
federal
compliance
and
human
resource
regulations.
Thus,
although
faculty
members
are
required
to
conduct
service,
they
cannot
spend
any
time
paid
for
by
governmental
grants
on
service
that
is
not
grant
related.
In
addition,
legal
requirements
regarding
human
resources
impose
restrictions
on
the
amount
of
service
that
can
be
required.
Required
service
must
be
in
accordance
with
the
amount
of
paid
compensation
(e.g.,
percent
time)
provided
to
employees.
However,
faculty
may
choose,
at
their
own
will,
to
conduct
additional
service
beyond
these
requirements.
Some
donated
service
is
typical
but
cannot
be
legally
required
by
Schools.
4.2.f.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 CGU
has
well‐defined
policies
to
acknowledge,
motivate
and
ensure
faculty
performance.
 Annual
reviews
are
conducted
to
assess
teaching
and
service
performance
of
each
faculty
member.
 Systems
are
in
place
to
obtain
and
review
course
evaluations
soon
after
the
end
of
each
semester.
Once
received,
the
MPH
Director
reviews
the
evaluations
and
provides
summary
copies
to
the
instructors.
Problems
areas
are
discussed
at
that
time,
if
not
already
raised
during
the
semester.
A
general
discussion
of
these
ratings
is
conducted
at
the
MPH
curriculum
committee
meeting
held
at
the
conclusion
of
the
academic
year.
Challenges
 Some
adjunct
faculty
received
low
teaching
evaluations.
Adjunct
faculty
are
important
to
the
program
because
they
bring
current
public
health
practice
to
the
classroom.
The
challenge
is
to
work
with
these
faculty,
some
of
whom
do
not
have
recent
teaching
experience,
to
improve
the
quality
of
the
classroom
experience
for
students.
Page
212
Criterion
4.3.
Faculty
and
Staff
Diversity
The
program
shall
recruit,
retain
and
promote
a
diverse
faculty
and
staff,
and
shall
offer
equitable
opportunities
to
qualified
individuals
regardless
of
age,
gender,
race,
disability,
sexual
orientation,
religion
or
national
origin.
4.3.a.
Summary
demographic
data
on
the
programs
faculty,
showing
at
least
gender
and
ethnicity,
faculty
numbers
should
be
consistent
with
those
shown
in
the
table
in
4.1.a.
Data
must
be
presented
in
table
format.
CEPH
Data
Template
H.
Faculty
Demographic
Data
Table
4.3.a.
Summary
Demographic
Data
for
Current
Core
and
Other
Faculty
#
%
Male
#
%
African
American
Male
#
%
Caucasian
Male
#
%
Hispanic/Latino
Male
#
%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Male
#
%
Native
American/Alaska
Native
Male
#
%
Unknown/Other
Male
#
%
International
Male
#
%
Female
#
%
African
American
Female
#
%
Caucasian
Female
#
%
Hispanic/Latino
Female
#
%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Female
#
%
Native
American/Alaska
Native
Female
#
%
Unknown/Other
Female
#
%
International
Female
TOTAL
Core
Faculty
#
%
8
73
0
0
6
55
0
0
2
18
0
0
Other
Faculty
#
%
2
50
0
0
2
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
#
%
10
67
0
0
8
53
0
0
2
13
0
0
0
1
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
27
0
18
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
50
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
3
0
0
6
33
0
13
0
20
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
1
4
0
25
0
1
15
0
6
Demographic
data
for
core
and
adjunct
faculty
are
fairly
similar.
Approximately
30%
of
core
and
adjunct
faculty
are
female.
Overall,
faculty
are
Caucasian
or
of
Asian/Pacific
Islander
descent.
Hispanic/Latino
and
African
American
female
faculty
are
underrepresented.
4.3.b.
Summary
demographic
data
on
the
program’s
staff,
showing
at
least
gender
and
ethnicity.
Data
must
be
presented
in
table
format.
CEPH
Data
Template
I
Page
213
Staff
Demographic
Data
Table
4.3.b.
Summary
Demographic
Data
for
Staff
#
%
Male
#
%
African
American
Male
#
%
Caucasian
Male
#
%
Hispanic/Latino
Male
#
%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Male
#
%
Native
American/Alaska
Native
Male
#
%
Unknown/Other
Male
#
%
International
Male
#
%
Female
#
%
African
American
Female
#
%
Caucasian
Female
#
%
Hispanic/Latino
Female
#
%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Female
#
%
Native
American/Alaska
Native
Female
#
%
Unknown/Other
Female
#
%
International
Female
TOTAL
Staff
2
0
1
1
0
0
TOTAL
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
All
four
staff
members
allocated
to
the
MPH
program
are
part‐time:
Program
Manager
@
80%,
Recruiter
@
70%,
Consultant
@
50%,
and
Contracts
&
Grants
Manager
@20%.
There
is
an
adequate
gender
and
diversity
mix
among
MPH
staff.
4.3.c.
Description
of
policies
and
procedures
regarding
the
program’s
commitment
to
providing
equitable
opportunities
without
regard
to
age,
gender,
race,
disability,
sexual
orientation,
religion
or
national
origin.
Equal
Opportunity
Policies
CGU
is
proudly
pluralistic
and
firmly
committed
to
providing
equal
opportunity
for
outstanding
men
and
women
of
every
race,
creed
and
background.
CGU
has
been
and
remains
an
equal
opportunity
employer,
committed
to
an
active
Affirmative
Action
policy.
CGU
is
committed
to
the
position
that
all
faculty
and
staff
employees
and
applicants
will
receive
equal
consideration
and
treatment.
All
recruitment
hiring,
transfer,
and
reclassification
are
on
the
basis
of
the
qualifications
of
the
individual
for
the
position
being
filled,
regardless
of
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
age,
sex,
marital
status,
sexual
orientation,
non‐disqualifying
handicap
or
whether
the
individual
is
a
disabled
veteran
or
a
veteran
of
the
Vietnam
Era.
All
other
personnel
actions
such
as
compensation,
benefits,
layoffs,
returns
from
layoffs,
termination,
training
(including
apprenticeship
and
tuition
assistance),
and
social
and
recreational
programs
are
also
administered
regardless
of
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
age,
sex,
marital
status,
sexual
orientation,
non‐disqualifying
handicap
or
whether
the
individual
is
a
disabled
veteran
or
a
veteran
of
the
Vietnam
Era.
In
addition
to
the
commitment
to
equal
employment
opportunity
and
affirmative
action,
the
University
practices
and
observe
the
following:
Federal
laws
and
regulations
such
as
Executive
Order
11246
as
Page
214
amended,
Section
504
of
the
Rehabilitation
Act
of
1973,
Title
IX,
and
regulations
issued
thereunder,
which
bar
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
age,
sex,
marital
status,
non‐disqualifying
handicap
or
whether
the
individual
is
a
disabled
veteran
or
a
veteran
of
the
Vietnam
Era,
in
employment
and
related
activities.
The
objective
of
the
Affirmative
Action
policy
is,
wherever
possible,
to
actively
recruit
and
include
for
consideration
for
employment
women
and
members
of
underrepresented
ethnic
groups.
CGU
is
committed
to
the
recruitment
and
employment
of
the
physically
handicapped,
disabled
veterans,
and
Vietnam
Era
veterans.
All
decisions
on
employment
must
be
made
solely
on
the
individual's
qualifications
(merit)
and
occupational
qualifications
for
the
job
in
question,
and
the
feasibility
of
any
necessary
job
accommodation.
Claremont
Graduate
University's
Vice
President
for
Business
and
Finance
and
Treasurer
has
been
designated
the
CGU
Affirmative
Action
Officer
(AAO).
Inquiries
concerning
the
application
of
Federal
and
State
laws
and
regulations,
such
as
Title
IX
and
Section
504
of
the
Rehabilitation
Act
of
1973,
should
be
referred
to
the
Human
Resources
Department.
Personnel
actions
are
analyzed
to
ensure
adherence
to
this
policy.
Regular
reports
are
submitted
for
review
of
progress.
To
achieve
the
goals
of
our
Affirmative
Action
Policy,
each
of
the
CGU
community
understands
the
importance
of
the
policy
and
his
or
her
individual
responsibility
to
contribute
toward
its
maximum
fulfillment.
Specifically,
managers'
performance
on
this
Program
will
be
taken
into
account
as
is
their
performance
on
other
institutional
goals.
CGU
strives
to
build
a
community
in
which
each
person
respects
the
rights
of
other
people
to
be
proud
of
who
and
what
they
are,
to
live
and
work
in
peace
and
dignity,
and
to
have
an
equal
opportunity
to
realize
their
full
potential
as
individuals
and
members
of
society.
To
this
end,
the
University
places
great
emphasis
on
those
values
and
virtues
that
bind
us
together
as
human
beings
and
members
of
the
CGU
family.
There
are
no
any
program‐level
policies
that
relate
to
diversity;
however,
criterion
4.3e
details
School
and
program
level
practices
related
to
achieving
diversity.
CGU
is
committed
to
maintaining
an
environment
that
is
conducive
to
learning
and
scholarship
and
free
from
sexual
harassment.
To
this
end,
a
formal
written
policy
in
the
Institutional
Handbook
specifies
certain
behaviors
by
faculty
and
employees
of
the
University,
acting
under
the
aegis
of
the
University,
which
fall
within
the
definition
of
sexual
harassment
and
which
are
therefore
subject
to
sanction.
In
addition,
even
though
students
are
not
covered
by
the
public
laws
on
this
subject,
behavior
by
students
that
falls
within
the
definition
of
sexual
harassment
is
also
subject
to
sanction
by
the
University.
All
faculty
are
required
to
complete
sexual
harassment
training.
In
addition,
an
individual
or
group
of
individuals
who
are
students,
faculty,
administrators
or
staff
members
at
Claremont
Graduate
University
may
bring
to
the
Provost
a
written
allegation
that
a
CGU
faculty
member
has
violated
established
policies
or
behavioral
standards
of
the
University.
Such
an
allegation
must
be
signed;
it
may
not
be
anonymous.
Disciplinary
procedures
are
invoked
in
response
to
a
written
allegation,
when
the
Provost
formally
charges
a
faculty
member
in
writing
with
misconduct
that
is
serious
enough
to
consider
a
sanction
ranging
from
reprimand
to
dismissal
from
the
University.
Such
misconduct
includes
but
is
not
limited
to
the
following:
dishonest
or
unethical
behavior
in
the
faculty
member’s
own
teaching
or
research;
Page
215
preventing
or
obstructing
teaching
or
research
or
any
other
lawful
function
of
the
University;
harassment;
and
the
neglect
of
University‐related
duties
and
responsibilities.
A
faculty
member
so
charged
under
these
procedures
may
be
subject
to
sanctions
including
but
not
limited
to
the
following:
a
letter
of
reprimand
(public
or
private);
monitoring
of
the
faculty
member’s
teaching,
supervision
of
students
or
related
activities
concerning
the
violation;
suspension
from
the
University
for
a
specified
period
of
time;
reduction
in
rank
or
pay;
dismissal
from
the
University.
Under
extraordinary
circumstances,
when
the
President
feels
that
there
is
a
clear
and
present
danger
to
the
faculty
member,
students,
faculty
or
the
University,
the
faculty
member
may
be
placed
on
an
administrative
leave
for
up
to
six
months
pending
the
outcome
of
the
FDC
proceedings.
Suspension
under
these
circumstances
may
be
with
or
without
pay
and
benefits,
pending
the
outcome
of
the
FDC
proceedings.
Approval
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
is
required
for
the
President
to
suspend
a
faculty
member
without
pay
and
benefits.
The
MPH
program
upholds
the
policies
and
procedures
of
the
University
in
providing
equitable
opportunities
without
regard
to
age,
gender,
race,
disability,
sexual
orientation,
religion
or
national
origin
and
follows
disciplinary
procedures
outlined
in
the
Institutional
Handbook.
4.3.d.
Description
of
recruitment
and
retention
efforts
used
to
attract
and
retain
a
diverse
faculty
and
staff,
along
with
information
about
how
these
efforts
are
evaluated
and
refined
over
time.
Recruitment
and
Retention
Efforts
CGU
has
a
clear
commitment
to
implementing
a
number
of
diversity
goals,
particularly
with
regards
to
faculty
hires.
In
the
early
2000s,
CGU
participated
in
the
James
Irvine
Foundation
Campus
Diversity
Initiative
(CDI).
Its
goal
was
“to
establish,
support,
and
sustain
a
diverse
faculty
who
are
strong
and
influential
contributors
to
accomplishing
the
University’s
vision
of
diversity
among:
students,
faculty,
staff;
research
topics,
methodology,
and
applications;
curriculum,
policies
and
administration;
and
relationship
with
other
institutions
and
the
community.”
The
University
established
a
faculty
committee
‐‐
Affirmative
Action
and
Diversity
Committee
‐‐
charged
with
monitoring
and
approving
the
entire
faculty
recruitment
process,
from
advertisements
to
campus
interviews
to
the
final
selection.
Guidelines
for
Diversity
Procedures
in
Faculty
Search
are
available
onsite
in
the
resource
file.
Faculty
diversity
updates
by
School
are
sent
to
the
Academic
Affairs
Committee
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
and
the
Provost.
CGU
undertook
a
planning
retreat
in
February
2005
during
which
diversity
and
transdisciplinarity
were
central
topics.
The
Office
of
the
Provost
organized
a
workshop
on
faculty
diversity
in
January
2008,
which
required
participation
by
all
school
deans
and
department
chairs.
Conducted
by
the
country’s
leading
expert
on
faculty
diversity,
Dr.
JoAnn
Moody,
the
workshop
further
heightened
the
awareness
of
importance
of
faculty
diversity
and
provided
training
in
strategy
and
methods.
CGU’s
goal
is
to
continue
to
increase
faculty
diversity
to
serve
the
needs
of
an
increasingly
diverse
student
body
and
society.
Compared
to
the
2002‐03
data,
CGU
increased
its
female
faculty
percentage
from
30%
to
34%.
The
increases
in
faculty
of
minority
backgrounds,
however,
were
offset
by
the
departures
of
faculty
of
color
through
retirement
or
resignation.
From
2002‐03
to
the
present,
the
African‐American
faculty
percentage
in
the
faculty
was
reduced
from
5%
to
4%;
Hispanic
faculty
from
7%
to
5%;
and
Asian
American
faculty
from
16%
to
11%.
Page
216
As
articulated
in
the
strategic
plan,
SCGH
strives
to
create
a
diverse
and
dynamic
learning
community
with
respect
for
and
inclusion
of
diverse
values,
beliefs,
orientations
and
cultures
in
research
and
teaching.
SCGH
actively
pursues
diversity
in
our
faculty,
staff,
and
student
body.
SCGH
gives
consideration
in
all
faculty
hires
to
increasing
its
diversity
and
actively
recruits
diverse
candidates
in
all
searches.
SCGH
also
works
to
ensure
that
faculty
retention
efforts
are
made
for
faculty
from
diverse
populations.
By
diversity,
we
refer
to
but
are
not
limited
to
the
following
populations:
racial/ethnic
minority
groups,
multi‐ethnic/multi‐racial
people,
lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender
people,
socioeconomically
disadvantaged
people,
and
historically
underserved
or
underrepresented
population
groups.
4.3.e.
Description
of
efforts,
other
than
recruitment
and
retention
of
core
faculty,
through
which
the
program
seeks
to
establish
and
maintain
an
environment
that
supports
diversity.
Diverse
Environment
Efforts
that
demonstrate
the
commitment
by
the
University
and
SCGH
to
provide
an
environment
supportive
of
diversity
are
illustrated
below.
Institutional
Commitment
The
University
has
effective
equal
opportunity
and
affirmative
action
policies,
and
currently,
one
MPH
faculty
member
serves
on
the
University’s
Affirmative
Action
and
Diversity
Committee.
The
School’s
Strategic
Plan
and
the
MPH
Program’s
mission,
goals
and
objectives
reference
a
commitment
to
serving
diverse
populations.
SCGH
has
established
a
tradition
that
puts
it
at
the
forefront
of
the
global
health
movement:
the
annual
Global
Health
Symposium
attracts
interested
stakeholders
from
around
the
region
and
the
world,
which
is
essential
for
the
implementation
of
innovative
technologies
that
are
being
developed
for
health
promotion,
research
and
education
that
involves
diverse
populations.
SCGH
also
offers
a
monthly
seminar
on
multicultural
issues.
Events
are
well
publicized
throughout
the
Claremont
Colleges
to
encourage
attendance
by
faculty,
staff
and
students.
Presenters
and
visitors
(come
from
many
different
backgrounds
and
environments
to
provide
a
rich
array
of
experiences
pertinent
to
public
health.
Examples
of
relevant
seminars
include:
 “Program
Evaluation
and
Public
Health
Initiatives
for
Pacific
Peoples”
 “Diet
and
Exercise
Intervention
for
Obesity
and
Metabolic
Health
in
Minority
Youth:
 “The
Cultural
Context
of
Screening
for
Early
Detection
of
Breast
Cancer”
 “Uninsured
Health
Services
in
Los
Angeles
County”
 “HIV
and
Migrants
in
Western
Nepal”
 “Impact
of
Disaster‐Related
and
Daily
Stressors
on
Youth
in
Sri
Lanka”
The
University’s
Minority
Mentor
Program
and
the
McNair
Scholars
Program
are
examples
of
organizational
structures
in
which
diversity
issues
are
pursued
on
a
regular
basis.
(See
Criterion
4.5
for
a
description
as
these
programs).
CGU
commits
financial
resources
to
retain
students
of
diverse
populations;
minority
students
are
eligible
to
receive
special
fellowships
upon
admission
and
throughout
their
tenure
at
the
University.
Page
217
Faculty
The
program
augments
its
full‐time
faculty
with
adjunct
faculty
members
who
have
diverse
backgrounds.
Adjunct
and
community
faculty
are
involved
in
teaching
courses,
the
development
of
internship
sites,
and
provide
guest
lectures
in
courses.
Internship
preceptors
are
invited
to
the
students’
poster
presentation
night.
Curriculum
The
program
features
courses
that
provide
students
with
opportunities
to
learn
about
health
disparities
and
the
multicultural
context
of
health
including:
 CGH
310:
Foundations
of
Global
Health:
An
Interdiscplinary
Approach
 CGH
317:
Ethics,
Human
Rights
and
Cultural
Diversity
 CGH
396:
Special
Topics
in
Global
Public
Health
–
Maternal
and
Child
Health
 CGH
306:
Supervised
Field
Training
in
Public
Health/CGH
390:
Directed
Research:
Summer
Global
Health
Framework
Experience
in
Sri
Lanka
The
program
maintains
two
core
MPH
competencies
related
to
cultural
diversity
that
are
to
be
mastered
by
all
MPH
students:
“Consider
the
role
of
cultural,
social
and
behavioral
factors
in
the
accessibility,
availability,
acceptability,
and
delivery
of
public
health
services;
and
communicate
in
writing
orally,
in
person,
and
through
electronic
means
with
linguistic
and
cultural
proficiency.”
Research
and
Scholarly
Activity
The
research
program
at
SCGH
can
be
succinctly
described
as
the
creation,
implementation,
and
evaluation
of
school‐
and
community‐based
programs
designed
to
promote
health
among
diverse
populations.
Successful
implementation
of
these
research
activities
require
researchers
be
integrated
with
community
partners
and
establish
community
partnerships
that
lead
to
successful
public
health
interventions
and
policies.
Faculty
have
a
long
tradition
of
seeking
extramural
support
for
the
study
of
diversity
in
health
status.
Current
research
projects
include:
The
Pacific
Rim
Transdisciplinary
Tobacco
&
Alcohol
Use
Research
Center:
This
project
engages
research
in
the
U.S.
and
China,
focusing
on
the
nations’
culturally
diverse
youth
as
it
examines
neurocognitive,
genetic,
environmental,
social,
and
cultural
factors
influencing
tobacco
and
alcohol
use
behavior
in
order
to
develop
more
effective
prevention
programs.
A
collaborative
effort,
the
center
joins
the
newly
formed
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
at
Claremont
Graduate
University
with
research
partners
at
the
University
of
Southern
California,
SRI
International,
and
the
municipal
Centers
for
Disease
Control
in
three
of
China’s
largest
cities:
Chengdu,
Qingdao,
and
Wuhan.
The
PR
TTAURC’s
specific
aims
are
to
investigate
the
efficacy
of
tobacco
and
alcohol
use
prevention
programs
(1)
across
cultures,
(2)
within
specific
cultural
and
environmental
contexts,
and
(3)
among
individuals,
explicitly
examining
the
role
of
neurocognitive
attributes
and
genetics
across
these
three
areas.
Neurocognitive
and
genetic
studies
that
fail
to
properly
account
for
the
environmental,
social,
and
cultural
contexts
in
which
tobacco
and
alcohol
use
behaviors
occur
will
likely
be
unsuccessful
in
identifying
and
characterizing
key
traits.
Likewise,
studies
that
focus
solely
on
such
factors
as
knowledge,
attitudes,
beliefs,
and
social
norms
may
reach
incorrect
conclusions
if
they
do
not
consider
individual
differences
such.
Insight
into
malleable
environmental,
social,
and
cultural
risk
factors
provides
strong
targets
for
public
health
intervention
at
the
population
level.
Understanding
the
neurocognitive
and
genetic
contribution
to
these
factors,
however,
is
imperative
in
uncovering
the
underlying
etiology
at
the
individual
level.
In
addition,
a
population‐level
public
health
intervention
that
appears
to
have
weak
effects
overall
might
indeed
have
strong
effects
among
a
subgroup
of
the
Page
218
population.
It
is
important,
therefore,
to
investigate
individual
differences
in
responsiveness
to
prevention
programs.
In
pursuing
this
research,
the
PR
TTAURC
fosters
the
integration
of
theories
and
methods
from
various
disciplines,
thereby
bridging
their
unique
perspectives
to
create
innovative
ways
of
tackling
complex
research
questions.
Among
the
disciplines
represented
by
researchers
are
social,
experimental,
clinical,
and
health
psychology;
genetic
and
molecular
epidemiology;
neuroscience
and
neurogenetics;
quantitative
genetics;
psychometrics;
education;
communication;
health
behavior;
statistics;
nutritional
epidemiology;
public
health;
medicine;
sociology;
and
health
policy.
Parenting
to
Prevent
Cancer
Risk
Behaviors
in
Filipino
Adolescents:
This
project
involves
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
culturally‐tailored
parenting
intervention
program
to
prevent
the
development
of
problem
behaviors,
including
smoking,
among
Filipino
adolescents
in
Southern
California.
The
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework:
The
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
consortium
brings
together
institutions
in
the
U.S.,
India,
China,
Sri
Lanka,
Bangladesh,
and
Thailand
to
promote
the
study
of
global
health
and
to
collaborate
on
the
development
of
state‐of‐the‐art,
interdisciplinary,
scientific
training
that
will
lead
to
the
reduction
of
chronic,
non‐communicable
diseases.
Emphasis
in
the
PRGHF
is
on
the
prevention
of
tobacco
use,
alcohol
abuse,
sedentary
behavior,
and
obesity‐‐all
of
which
have
been
impacted
by
lifestyle
changes
in
response
to
cultural
and
societal
transitions
fueled
by
economic
growth,
technological
advances,
and
western
influences.
Meeting
the
challenge
of
this
global
phenomenon
necessitates
the
development
and
implementation
of
innovative
training
programs
that
address
the
underlying
behavioral,
physiological,
and
environmental
mechanisms
responsible
for
the
spread
of
these
diseases.
Partner
institutions
include:
 In
India:
National
Institute
of
Epidemiology,
Chennai
Sree
Chitra
Tirunal
Institute
for
Medical
Sciences
&
Technology,
Trivandrum
 In
China:
China
Ministry
of
Health
Human
Resources
Development
Center,
Beijing;
China
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention,
Beijing;
Peking
Union
Medical
College,
Beijing;
Peking
University,
Beijing;
Chengdu
Center
for
Disease
Prevention
and
Control,
Chengdu
Huaxi
Medical
University,
Chengdu;
University
of
Electronic
Science
and
Technology
of
China,
Chengdu;
Qingdao
Center
for
Disease
Prevention
and
Control,
Qingdao;
Shandong
University,
Qingdao
 In
Sri
Lanka:
Eastern
University,
Batticaloa;
University
of
Colombo,
Colombo
 In
Bangladesh:
National
Institute
of
Preventive
and
Social
Medicine,
Dhaka
 In
Thailand:
Mahidol
University,
Bangkok
 In
the
United
States:
University
of
Southern
California,
Los
Angeles,
CA
Stressful
Life
Events,
Genetic
Variants
and
Obesity
in
Chinese
Adolescents:
This
project
seeks
to
investigate
effects
of
stressful
life
events,
genetic
variants
and
their
interactions
on
depressive
symptoms,
food
consumption,
physical
activity
and
inactivity,
and
obesity
in
a
representative
sample
of
Chinese
adolescents
living
in
Wuhan,
China.
The
project
seeks
to
delineate
effects
of
a
battery
of
stressful
life
events
assessed
on
four
domains
(school,
family,
peer
and
individual)
on
depressive
symptom
experience,
food
consumption,
physical
activity
and
inactivity,
and
overweight
and
obesity
status;
to
systematically
examine
the
potential
impacts
of
specific
candidate
genes
regulating
brain
serotonin
and
dopamine
systems
on
depressive
symptoms,
eating,
physical
activity
and
overweight
and
obesity
phenotypes;
to
investigate
gene
X
stressful
events
interactions
on
depressive
symptoms,
eating,
physical
activity
and
overweight
and
obesity
phenotypes;
and
to
explore
other
potential
moderating
effects
of
gender,
family
harmony
and
perceived
availability
of
social
support
with
stressful
events
and
specific
genes
on
depressive
symptoms,
eating,
physical
activity
and
overweight
and
obesity
phenotypes.
The
University
of
Southern
California
serves
as
a
partner
institution.
Page
219
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Control:
The
overarching
goal
of
the
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
(WINCART)
Center
is
to
contribute
to
the
reduction
of
cancer
health
disparities
among
Pacific
Islanders
(PIs)
in
Southern
California
through
an
integrated
program
of
research,
training,
and
community
education
utilizing
a
multi‐level,
interdisciplinary,
approach
that
is
driven
by
community‐based
participatory
research
(CBPR)
principles.
Building
upon
the
successes
of
our
first
Community
Network
Program
(CNP)
WINCART:
Weaving
an
Islander
Network
for
Cancer
Awareness,
Research
and
Training
(U01CA114591/WINCART1),
this
new
Center's
programs
and
cores
incorporate
the
themes
of
reducing
chronic
disease
mortality
and
morbidity
through
lifestyle
change
(Research
Program;
Intervention
Project),
exploring
cultural
and
ethical
issues
around
biobanking
to
enhance
the
promise
of
personalized
medicine
(Research
Program:
Pilot
Project),
increasing
prevention
and
early
detection
through
assessment
and
community
education
(Community
Outreach
Program),
and
training
of
early
career
investigators
in
CBPR
methods
(Training
Program).
Experienced
community
leaders
and
researchers
will
facilitate
integration
across
all
Center
components
(Administrative
Core).
The
overarching
CBPR
principles
and
processes
in
WINCART2
derive
from
those
established
in
WINCART1,
and
include:
1)
shared
participation
by
both
community
and
academic
researchers
in
the
planning,
development,
implementation
and
evaluation
of
community
education,
research,
and
training
activities;
2)
co‐learning
between
all
academic
and
community
partners
via
joint
activities
in
the
Center's
core,
programs,
and
projects;
3)
collaboration
mechanisms,
through
the
Center
Steering
Committee
and
Community
Advisory
Groups,
that
ensure
fidelity
to
CBPR
tenets
among
center
partners
and
trainees;
and
4)
promotion
of
lasting
community
benefits
across
multiple
levels
of
factors
associated
with
PI
cancer
health
disparities.
WINCART2
incorporates
the
multilevel
population
health
approach
to
address
cancer
health
disparities,
and
employs
new
technologies
(including
distance
learning,
electronic
surveys
and
intervention
systems)
for
communication
within
the
Center,
dissemination
to
external
audiences,
and
facilitation
of
state‐of‐the‐
science
research,
all
in
the
service
of
reducing
cancer
health
disparities
among
PIs.
Partner
institutions
include:
 California
State
University
Fullerton,
Fullerton,
CA
 Orange
County
Asian
&
Pacific
Islander
Community
Alliance,
Garden
Grove,
CA
 Guam
Communications
Network,
Long
Beach,
CA
 Pacific
Islander
Health
Partnership,
Garden
Grove,
CA
 Samoan
National
Nurses
Association,
Carson,
CA
 Union
of
Pan
Asian
Communities,
San
Diego,
CA
 Tongan
Community
Service
Center,
Gardena,
CA
 University
of
Southern
California,
Los
Angeles,
CA
Determinants
of
Tobacco
Use
Among
Adult
South
Asians:
South
Asians
(SA),
individuals
from
Bhutan,
Bangladesh,
India,
Maldives,
Nepal,
Pakistan,
and
Sri
Lanka,
represent
the
third
most
populous
Asian
group
in
the
U.S.
While
high
rates
of
tobacco
use,
both
cigarette
smoking
and
smokeless
forms
of
tobacco
have
been
documented
in
certain
South
Asian
countries,
we
know
relatively
little
about
the
rate
of
tobacco
use
or
choice
of
tobacco
products
among
these
SA
populations
in
the
U.S.
Moreover,
our
knowledge
of
the
factors
that
influence
tobacco
use
among
SAs
in
this
country
is
extremely
limited.
Across
all
racial/ethnic
groups
in
the
U.S.,
young
adults
have
among
the
highest
rates
of
tobacco
use.
Yet,
to
date,
they
remain
largely
understudied
and,
as
a
result,
present
unique
challenges
to
the
development
of
effective
methods
to
quit
tobacco
use.
To
our
knowledge,
scientifically‐based
programs
developed
specifically
to
help
young
adult
SA
populations
quit
tobacco
use
do
not
exist.
Over
the
two
years
of
this
proposed
project,
we
will
establish
a
community‐university
collaboration
to
study
tobacco
Page
220
use
among
176
Bangladeshi,
Indian,
Nepali,
and
Pakistani
current
and
former
tobacco
users
between
18
and
29
years
of
age.
Utilizing
in‐depth
interviews,
focus
groups,
surveys,
and
real
time
data
collection
using
cell
phones,
we
will
identify
the
cultural,
social,
environmental,
and
intrapersonal
factors
that
impact
smoking
and
quitting
behaviors
among
our
SA
participants.
We
will
disseminate
our
findings
to
SA
communities
through
community
meetings,
webinars
and
other
web‐based
distribution
methods
and
to
external
audiences
through
scientific
meetings
and
publications.
Ultimately,
our
study
results
will
inform
the
development
of
future
cessation
strategies
uniquely
suited
to
young
adult
SAs
in
the
U.S.
The
proposed
pilot
is
directly
relevant
to
TRDRP’s
research
mission
in
that
it
addresses
one
of
TRDRP’s
primary
areas
of
research,
namely,
“Prevention
and
Cessation
of
Tobacco
Use
and
Tobacco‐Related
Health
Disparities
among
California’s
Diverse
Populations.”
SAATH,
a
Los
Angeles‐based
non‐profit
organization
benefiting
South
Asians
is
a
partner
institution.
Ethnic
Disparities
in
Smoking:
This
project
involves
the
analysis
of
representative
population‐level
data
from
California
and
the
United
States
to
examine
individual,
social,
and
policy
factors
and
their
relation
to
ethnic
disparities
in
smoking
behaviors
and
tobacco
control.
China
Seven
Cities
Study:
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study
is
a
longitudinal
investigation
of
substance
use
and
lifestyles
in
seven
of
China’s
most
populated
urban
areas:
Harbin
and
Shenyang
in
the
northeast,
Wuhan
in
central
China,
Chengdu
and
Kunming
in
the
southwest,
and
Hangzhou
and
Qingdao
in
the
coast
regions.
The
seven
cities
represent
a
broad
spectrum
of
economic
developmental
stages,
thus
providing
a
unique
opportunity
to
study
regional
variations
of
the
impact
of
westernization
and
modernization
on
substance
use
and
control.
Partner
institutions
include:
 China
Center
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
 Peking
University
School
of
Public
Health
 Harbin
Center
for
Disease
Control
 Shenyang
Center
for
Disease
Control
 Qingdao
Center
for
Disease
Control
 Hangzhou
Center
for
Disease
Control
 Wuhan
Center
for
Disease
Control
&
Wuhan
Health
Bureau
 Chengdu
Center
for
Disease
Control
 Kunming
Health
Education
Institute
Technology
&
Smoking
Cessation
for
Late
Adolescent/Young
Adult
Pacific
Islanders:
Utilizing
a
community‐based
participatory
research
(CBPR)
model,
we
will
investigate
how
culture,
social
and
environmental
cues,
intrapersonal
and
neurocognitive
characteristics
impact
smoking
and
quitting
behaviors
among
young
adult
PIs
to
inform
the
development
of
a
theory‐based,
culturally‐attuned
intervention.
This
intervention
will
be
informed
by
a
comprehensive
tobacco
use
and
quitting
assessment
utilizing
smoking
history
semi‐structured
interviews,
ecological
momentary
assessment
of
smoking
behaviors
and
cues,
and
a
computer‐assisted
neurocognitive
decision‐making
assessment.
The
multicomponent
smoking
cessation
intervention
incorporates
an
interactive
computer‐based
program,
tailored
text
messaging,
web‐based
social
networking,
and
telephone
coaching.
As
a
result
of
these
projects,
faculty
have
published
peer‐review
articles
that
expand
the
intellectual
discussions
about
health,
race
and
ethnicity.
Sample
publications
include:
Page
221
Ell
K,
Katon
W,
Xie
B,
Lee
P,
Kapetanovic
S,
Guterman
J,
Chou
C.
Collaborative
Care
Management
of
Major
Depression
among
Low‐Income
Predominantly
Hispanics
with
Diabetes:
A
Randomized
Controlled
Trial.
Diabetes
Care
2010;
33(4):
706‐13.
Wang
Y,
Jahns
L,
Tussing‐
Humphreys
L,
Xie
B,
Rockett
H,
Liang
H,
Johnson
L.
Dietary
Intake
Patterns
of
Low‐
Income
Urban
African
American
Adolescents.
Journal
of
the
American
Dietetic
Association
2010;
110:1340‐1345.
Xie
B,
Palmer
HP,
Pang
Z,
Sun
P,
Johnson
CA.
Environmental
Tobacco
Use
and
Metabolic
Syndrome
in
Chinese
Adults.
Nicotine
&
Tobacco
Research
2010;
12(3):
198‐206.
Xie
B,
Unger
JB,
Gallaher
P,
Chou
C,
Johnson
CA,
Wu
W,
Chou,
CP.
Overweight,
body
image,
and
depression
in
Asian
and
Hispanic
adolescents.
Am
J
Health
Behav,
34(4),
476‐88,
2010.
PMCID:
PMC2860429
Okamoto,
J.,
Johnson,
C.A.,
Levanthal,
A.,
Milam,
J.,
Pentz,
M.A.,
Schwartz,
D.,
&
Valente,
T.W.
Social
network
status
and
depression
among
adolescents:
An
examination
of
social
network
influences
and
depressive
symptoms
in
a
Chinese
sample.
Res.
Human
Devel.,
8(1),
67‐88,
2011.
Palmer
PH,
Xie
B,
Lee
L,
Hemingway
B,
Chou
CP,
Johnson
CA.
The
China
Seven
Cities
Study
(CSCS)
Consortium:
Adapting
evidence
based
prevention
science
from
west
to
east.
Translational
Behavioral
Medicine:
Practice,
Policy
and
Research.
Accepted
for
Publication
March
11,
2011.
Siyan,
Y,
Poudel,
K,
Yasouka,
J,
Palmer,
PH,
Yi,
S,
Jimba
M.
Role
of
risk
and
protective
factors
in
risky
sexual
behavior
among
high
school
students
in
Cambodia.
BMC
Public
Health,
2010
Aug
12;10(1):477.
PMCID:
PMC2928204
Valente
T,
Fujimoto,
K,
Palmer,
P,
Tanjasiri,
SP.
A
Network
Assessment
of
Community‐Based
Participatory
Research:
Linking
Communities
and
Universities
to
Reduce
Cancer
Disparities.
Am
J
Public
Health,
2010;100
1319‐1325.
Xiao,
L.,
Bechara,
A.,
Grenard,
J.L.,
Stacy,
A.W.,
Palmer,
P.,
Wei,
Y.,
Jia,
Y.,
Fu,
X.,
&
Johnson,
C.A.
Affective
decision‐making
predictive
of
Chinese
adolescent
drinking
behaviors.
J
Int
Neuropsychol
Soc,
15,
1‐11,
2009.
Trinidad
DR,
Pérez‐Stable
EJ,
Emery
SL,
White
MM,
Messer
K.
A
nationwide
analysis
of
US
racial/ethnic
disparities
in
smoking
behaviors,
cessation
and
related
factors.
American
Journal
of
Public
Health.
2011;101(4):699‐706.
Trinidad
DR,
Pérez‐Stable
EJ,
Messer
K,
White
MM,
Pierce
JP.
Menthol
cigarettes
and
smoking
cessation
among
racial/ethnic
groups
in
the
U.S.
Addiction.
2010;105(Suppl.
1):84‐94.
Trinidad
DR,
Pérez‐Stable
EJ,
Emery
SL,
White
MM,
Grana
RA,
Messer
K.
Intermittent
and
light
smoking
across
race/ethnic
groups
in
the
United
States.
Nicotine
and
Tobacco
Research.
2009;11(2):203‐10.
The
PR
TTAURC’s
parent
organization,
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health,
offers
multidisciplinary
training
for
MPH
and
doctoral
students
as
well
as
postdoctoral
fellows.
Students
at
all
levels
of
training
are
afforded
numerous
opportunities
for
involvement
in
ongoing
faculty
research.
In
addition,
researchers
at
the
PR
TTAURC
and
SCGH
have
developed
four
innovative
programs
to
equip
China’s
senior
public
health
leaders
and
public
health
managers
to
meet
the
challenges
of
public
health
practice.
Starting
summer
2011,
eligible
students
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
a
global
public
health
internship
made
possible
through
the
Pacific
Rim
Global
Health
Framework
(PRGHF),
funded
by
the
Fogarty
International
Center,
National
Institutes
of
Health.
The
internship
takes
place
both
in
the
U.S.
and
Sri
Lanka.
For
example,
during
the
course
of
the
internship,
students
have
the
opportunity
to
learn
firsthand
about
the
health
system
of
Sri
Lanka,
how
public
health
services
are
delivered,
the
challenges
that
the
current
system
faces
and
lessons
that
may
be
applicable
to
public
health
policy
and
practice
in
other
developing
and
developed
nations.
Community
Service
The
School
actively
maintains
a
list
of
community
agencies,
clinics,
and
other
health
care
organizations
that
are
of
known
need
or
suitability
for
service
activities.
In
many
instances,
faculty
find
additional
Page
222
needs
for
community
service
related
to
their
own
area
of
expertise.
The
MPH
program
has
formal
contracts
with
numerous
agencies,
including
local
health
departments,
school
districts
and
City
of
Hope,
which
is
a
comprehensive
cancer
center,
and
community‐based
organizations
serving
racial/ethnic
communities.
Opportunities
exist
for
the
involvement
of
students
in
community‐based
service
activities,
whether
individually,
on
behalf
of
the
student
association
or
with
faculty
are
vast.
Many
examples
of
service
activities
are
relevant
to
health
disparities
in
diverse
populations
[see
tables
3.2d
(1&2)].
Students
have
also
participated
with
the
implementation
of
various
continuing
education
events
(see
table
3.3c).
4.3.f.
Identification
of
outcome
measures
by
which
the
program
may
evaluate
its
success
in
achieving
a
demographically
diverse
faculty
complement,
along
with
data
regarding
the
performance
of
the
program
against
those
measures
over
the
last
two
years.
Diversity
Outcome
Measures
The
CGU
MPH
program
strives
to
maintain
a
faculty
balanced
by
sex,
race/ethnicity
and
country
of
origin.
Table
4.3.f
reports
the
number
and
percent
of
all
faculty
who
belong
to
these
categories.
Targets
were
determined
by
taking
in
consideration
the
level
of
diversity
of
faculty
for
the
university
as
a
whole.
About
34%
of
CGU
faculty
is
female
and
13%
are
foreign
born.
About
20%
of
the
faculty
are
faculty
of
color
(African
American:
4%,
Latino:
5%
and
Asian
American:
11%).
The
percentage
of
female
faculty
at
SCGH
is
slightly
below
the
university
(31%/33%
versus
34%);
however,
percentages
for
ethnic/minority
and
international
faculty
meet
or
surpass
those
for
the
university
as
a
whole:
38%
versus
20%
(2009‐2010)
and
27%
versus
20%
(2010‐2011)
for
ethnic/minority
faculty
and
15
versus
13%
(2009‐2010)
and
13%
versus
13%
(2010‐2011)
for
foreign
born
faculty.
While
the
self‐defined
targets
for
diversity
are
not
met,
the
program
will
continue
to
engage
in
the
many
efforts
to
achieve
diversity
described
in
criterion
4.3e
above.
One
area
we
plan
to
bolster
is
mentoring
of
minority
faculty.
Table
4.3.f.
Outcome
Measures
for
Achieving
Diverse
Faculty
Complement
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
and
percentage
of
female
faculty
2.Number
and
percentage
of
ethnic/minority
faculty
3.
Number
and
percent
of
international
faculty
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
6
40
6
40
6
40
6
40
1.5
10
1.6
10
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
5
33
5
31
Not
Met
Not
Met
6
40
4
25
Met
Not
Met
3
20
7
12.5
Met
Met
Note:
Total
faculty
for
2009‐2010
is
15
and
2010‐2011
is
16.
4.3.g.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met
with
commentary.
Strengths
 SCGH
considers
many
measures
of
diversity
in
its
faculty,
staff
and
student
body.
Page
223
SCGH
engages
in
activities
that
promote
a
diverse
and
dynamic
learning
community
with
respect
for
and
inclusion
of
diverse
values,
beliefs,
orientations
and
cultures
in
research
and
teaching.
Challenges
 There
is
a
dearth
of
Hispanic/Latino
and
African
American
faculty,
particularly
female
faculty.
Thus,
the
faculty
complement
is
not
necessarily
reflective
given
the
ethnic
composition
of
California
and
Los
Angeles
County.
There
is
a
reasonable
number
of
Asian/Pacific
Islander
faculty
so
new
recruitments
do
not
need
to
target
this
group
in
particular.

Page
224
Criterion
4.4.
Student
Recruitment
and
Admissions
The
program
shall
have
student
recruitment
and
admissions
policies
and
procedures
designed
to
locate
and
select
qualified
individuals
capable
of
taking
advantage
of
the
program’s
various
learning
activities,
which
will
enable
each
of
them
to
develop
competence
for
a
career
in
public
health.
4.4.a.
Description
of
the
programs
recruitment
policies
and
procedures.
Recruitment
Policies
The
MPH
program
trains
individuals
who
are
committed
to
becoming
public
health
researchers
and
practitioners
by
providing
excellence
in
education,
mentorship,
research
and
service
opportunities.
Students
are
actively
recruited
nationally
and
internationally
from
among
undergraduate,
graduate,
and
professional
students
potentially
interested
in
studies
in
public
health,
as
well
as
persons
already
engaged
in
public
health
practice.
Special
recruitment
efforts
are
designed
to
reach
health
practitioners
and
community
workers
in
the
immediate
region,
as
well
as
Claremont
College
undergraduates,
staff,
and
faculty,
as
well
as
students
in
related
professional
programs
at
CGU
who
desire
training
in
public
health.
Recruitment
Procedures
Procedures
used
by
the
MPH
program
to
recruit
students
are
diverse.
Strategies
involve
both
traditional
face‐to‐face
contact
and
electronic
communication.
Face‐to‐Face
Contact
The
program
faculty
and
staff
participate
in
various
recruitment
activities
both
on
and
off
campus
including
graduate
schools
careers
fairs
and
various
local
and
national
conferences.
We
also
recruit
from
public
agencies
in
locales
and
countries
where
we
are
actively
engaged
in
public
health
research.
Faculty
who
attend
local,
state,
national
and
international
conferences
are
given
program
brochures
to
be
distributed
to
interested
persons.
In
addition
to
fair
and
conference
settings,
the
recruitment
team,
comprised
of
the
MPH
program
director
and
manager,
SCGH
recruiter,
and
two
MPH
students,
has
identified
local
universities
with
undergraduate
public
health
programs
and
student
clubs.
When
presenting
at
undergraduate
public
health
programs
oftentimes
the
recruiter
is
accompanied
by
a
current
student
or
a
faculty
member.
This
format
has
proven
to
be
successful
because
it
gives
undergraduates
a
first
person
account
of
student
life
at
SCGH.
Virtual
Contact
and
Web
Presence
Beyond
traditional
face‐to‐face
recruitment
methods,
SCGH
is
working
to
enhance
its
web
presence
and
online
recruiting
channels.
E‐mail
communication
plans
that
share
information
about
faculty
research,
admission
requirements
and
student
life
are
sent
to
students
that
have
taken
the
GRE
and
opted
to
receive
information
about
graduate
school.
The
SCGH
recruiter
tracks
e‐mail
campaigns
in
Hobson’s
Connect
system
and
measures
the
effectiveness
of
our
marketing
efforts
by
looking
at
open
rates
and
interaction
rates.
If
students
are
interacting
with
our
e‐mails,
we
then
have
a
sense
that
the
content
of
these
e‐mails
is
relevant
to
our
target
population.
Efforts
have
also
been
made
in
the
area
of
search
engine
optimization.
The
recruitment
team
updates
the
web
content
frequently
and
is
making
efforts
to
ensure
that
the
SCGH
is
easy
to
locate
on
the
web.
Page
225
A
program
known
as
Web
Trends
Analytics
measures
the
web
traffic
and
provides
a
“stickiness”
indicator
for
our
website.
The
ultimate
goal
is
to
improve
the
website
to
the
degree
that
the
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health
becomes
more
prominent
in
Google’s
search
engine
results.
As
the
program
receives
requests
for
information,
the
SCGH
recruiter
responds
immediately
by
contacting
the
prospect
by
e‐mail
or
phone.
Prospects
are
logged
in
a
contact
management
system.
As
applications
are
received,
acknowledgement
letters
and
e‐mail
messages
are
sent
to
inform
applicants
of
their
application/admissions
status.
Efforts
are
made
to
meet
with
prospective
applicants
in
person
by
the
recruiter
to
respond
admission
and
program
inquires.
Name
Buys
SCGH
made
a
significant
investment
in
purchasing
names
from
both
a
Graduate
Record
Examination
database
and
a
Princeton
Review
database.
The
investment
yielded
six
applications
for
fall
2011
and
has
laid
the
foundation
for
a
greater
investment
in
subsequent
years.
4.4.b.
Statement
of
admissions
policies
and
procedures.
Admission
Policies
The
Program
will
consider
applicants
who
satisfy
the
following
admission
requirements:
 Cumulative
Grade
Point
Average
(GPA)
of
3.00
or
higher;
 Satisfactory
test
scores
(Graduate
Record
Examination
(GRE)
–
1000
V/Q
combined;
MCAT
of
28
or
the
GMAT
of
500)
 A
bachelor’s
degree
from
an
accredited
college
or
university;
 English
language
skills
–
Applicants
whose
native
language
is
not
English
are
required
to
submit
a
score
on
the
Test
of
English
as
a
Foreign
Language
(TOEFL).
It
is
a
policy
of
the
program
to
consider
applicants
who
do
not
meet
all
the
above
requirements.
In
this
case,
other
supporting
documentation
(i.e.,
personal
statement,
letters)
must
make
a
strong
case
for
admission
on
a
conditional
basis.
Students
admitted
conditionally
must
satisfy
the
GPA
stipulation
(3.00)
within
the
first
semester
of
coursework
(at
least
8
units).
Students
meeting
this
condition
will
advance
to
regular
student
status.
Admission
Procedures
To
apply,
an
applicant
must
send
the
following
documents:
three
letters
of
reference;
a
completed
CGU
Graduate
Application;
a
statement
of
interest;
a
curriculum
vita
or
resume;
and
official
transcripts
of
all
colleges
and
institutions
attended.
The
program
accepts
admission
to
fall
and
spring
semesters.
The
deadlines
for
each
semester
are
posted
on
the
website
and
identified
in
our
promotional
materials.
Once
complete,
the
applicant’s
file
is
circulated
to
members
of
the
admissions
committee.
Each
member
reviews
the
file
and
recommends
the
applicant
be:
(1)
fully
admitted;
(2)
admitted
conditionally
(i.e.,
below
minimum
test
score
or
GPA);
(3)
admitted
provisionally
(i.e.,
complete
application,
but
requires
test
score);
or
(4)
rejected
(below
minimum
test
score
and
GPA).
Each
reviewer
is
blind
to
the
decisions
of
the
other
reviewers.
The
majority
decision
takes
precedence
and
applicants
are
notified
via
email
and
hard
copy
of
a
letter
from
the
university
once
a
decision
has
been
rendered.
Students
who
are
rejected
may
write
a
letter
of
appeal
to
the
program
director
who
will
take
this
to
the
Dean
for
a
final
decision.
Page
226
Assessment
of
Admissions
Procedures
During
student
orientation,
which
is
held
in
August
and
January,
all
incoming
students
are
asked
to
complete
a
brief
survey
that
assesses
their
satisfaction
with
the
admissions
process.
This
survey
provides
information
the
program
can
use
to
improve
upon
recruitment
strategies,
promotional
materials,
and
new
student
orientation.
The
goal
is
to
have
90%
of
incoming
students
rate
their
experience
with
the
admissions
process
at
CGU
as
being
“satisfied”
or
“delighted.”
Table
4.4b
illustrates
that
this
target
has
been
met
for
the
last
two
years.
Table
4.4.b.
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Delighted
Don’t
Know
Student
Rating
of
Admissions
Process
at
CGU
2009‐2010
Fall
0%
23%
77%
0%
2010‐2011
Spring
0%
0%
100%
0%
Fall
0%
39%
46%
15%
Spring
0%
83%
17%
0%
4.4.c.
Examples
of
recruitment
materials
and
other
publications
and
advertising
that
describe,
at
a
minimum,
academic
calendars,
grading,
and
the
academic
offerings
of
the
program.
If
a
program
does
not
have
a
printed
bulletin/catalogue,
it
must
provide
a
printed
web
page
that
indicates
the
degree
requirements
as
the
official
representation
of
the
program.
In
addition,
references
to
website
addresses
may
be
included.
Recruitment
Materials
A
number
of
materials
and
services
have
been
produced
for
recruitment
purposes
including:
 Separate
brochures
for
the
Accelerated
Bachelors/MPH,
MPH/MBA
and
MA/MPH
programs
 Distinct
web
pages
for
the
Accelerated
Bachelors/MPH,
MPH/MBA
and
MA/MPH
programs.
See
www.cgu.edu/scgh
 In‐depth
program
description
listed
in
graduate
publications
 Program
description
listed
in
Gradschools.com
educational
directory
 A
table‐top
(8’
x
5’)
and
booth
display
for
exhibition
at
local
and
national
conferences
and
graduate
school
fairs
 Printed
summaries
of
faculty/instructor
profiles
 Printed
summaries
of
dual
degree
programs
 Printed
summaries
of
curriculum,
course
descriptions
and
student
counseling
sheets
for
all
concentrations
 Printed
information
on
financial
aid
and
graduate
assistantships
 Reprints
of
articles
featuring
the
SCGH
 Promotional
pens,
business
card
holders,
and
bags
 Program
banner
Samples
of
recruitment
materials
will
be
available
in
the
on‐site
resource
file.
Academic
Offerings
Degree
requirements
are
listed
in
two
places:
(1)
MPH
website
at
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5930.asp.
Page
227
(2)
University
Bulletin
at
http://bulletin.cgu.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=3&poid=222&returnto=153.)
Academic
calendars
can
be
found
at
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/2059.asp.
Grading
information
is
available
at
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/8191.asp.
4.4.d.
Quantitative
information
on
the
number
of
applicants,
acceptances
and
enrollment
by
specialty
area,
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Data
must
be
presented
in
table
format
CEPH
Data
Template
J.
MPH
Applicants,
Acceptances
and
Enrollments
Table
4.4.d
illustrates
the
number
of
applicants,
acceptances
and
enrollment
by
specialty
area
as
well
as
a
grand
total
for
each,
including
those
who
are
undeclared.
Some
do
not
list
a
concentration
at
the
time
of
application;
however,
enrolled
students
must
select
a
concentration
upon
the
first
their
advisement
session
with
the
program
director,
which
is
typically
before
new
student
orientation.
Applications
and
enrollments
rose
in
year
2.
Fall
2011
saw
steady
interest
within
the
Applied
Biostatistics/Epidemiology
and
Leadership
and
Management
concentrations,
but
a
decline
within
the
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
emphasis.
The
number
of
undeclared
applicants
declined
significantly
from
year
2
to
year
3.
Table
4.4.d.
Area
Quantitative
Information
on
Applicants,
Acceptances,
and
Enrollments
by
Program
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
2009‐2010
6
2010‐2011
11
Fall
2011
8
Accepted
6
11
8
Enrolled
5
8
4
6
5
6
6
5
6
Enrolled
4
3
3
Applied
6
6
8
Accepted
6
6
7
Enrolled
5
6
4
Applied
4
12
4
Accepted
4
12
4
Enrolled
0
0
0
Applied
Applied
Biostatistics
Applied
&
Epidemiology
Accepted
Leadership
&
Management
Undeclared
4.4.e.
Quantitative
information
on
the
number
of
students
enrolled
in
each
specialty
area
identified
in
the
instructional
matrix,
including
headcounts
of
full‐
and
part‐time
students
and
a
full‐
time‐equivalent
conversion,
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Non‐degree
students,
such
as
those
enrolled
in
continuing
education
or
certificate
programs,
should
not
be
included.
Explain
any
important
trends
or
patterns,
including
a
persistent
absence
of
students
in
program
or
specialization.
Data
must
be
presented
in
table
format.
CEPH
Data
Template
K.
Page
228
Enrollment
Information
Table
4.4.e
lists
students
enrolled
in
each
degree
program
by
the
four
areas
of
emphasis.
Full‐time
students
are
defined
as
those
who
enroll
in
8
or
more
units
each
semester
while
part‐time
is
considered
as
those
who
enroll
in
7
or
less
units
each
semester
(i.e.
fall,
spring,
and
summer).
Since
students
are
not
consistently
full‐time
or
part‐time
throughout
their
time
in
the
MPH
Program,
head
count
is
based
on
students
enrolled
in
fall
and
spring
semesters
to
calculate
the
value
for
the
year.
Enrollment
is
primarily
concentrated
in
the
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
and
Leadership
&
Management
tracks.
Table
4.4.e.
Students
Enrolled
in
Each
Degree
Program
by
Area
of
Specialization
HC
FT
Masters
Degrees*
MPH
–
Health
Promotion,
Education
&
Evaluation
MPH
–
Applied
Biostatistics
&
Epidemiology
MPH
–
Leadership
&
Management
Joint
Degrees
MPH/MBA
MPH/MA
(Applied
Psychology)
Bachelor’s/MPH
2009‐2010
HC
FTE
PT
4
3
1
5
1
1
1
N/A
0
1
N/A
0
5
Totals
10
HC
FT
2010‐2011
HC
FTE
PT
HC
FT
Fall
2011
HC
FTE
PT
7.25
1.50
7.63
11
4
17.38
10
6
17.13
4
8
2
3
6.25
12.75
6
8
3
3
7.50
13.75
1.19
N/A
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
5.38
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
5.25
0.50
0
16.38
23
9
36.38
24
12
38.38
HC=Head
Count
FT=Full‐time
students
(8
units
or
more
per
semester)
PT=Part‐time
students
(8
units
or
less
per
semester)
FTE=Full‐time
equivalent
(8
units
or
more
per
semester)
Enrollment
Trends
4.4.f.
Identification
of
outcome
measures
by
which
the
program
may
evaluate
its
success
in
enrolling
a
qualified
student
body,
along
with
data
regarding
the
performance
of
the
program
against
those
measures
for
each
of
the
three
years.
Identification
of
Outcome
Measures
Table
4.4.f.
describes
measures
by
which
the
program
may
evaluate
its
success
in
enrolling
the
most
appropriate
students
to
the
program.
These
measures
include
mean
undergraduate
GPA
and
GRE
scores
for
all
incoming
MPH
students.
With
the
exception
of
the
first
two
years,
targets
for
the
mean
GPA
and
GRE
scores
were
met.
Table
4.4.f.
Measure
Mean
Undergraduate
GPA
MPH
Program
Admission
Outcome
Measures
Target
3.00
Applied
Accepted
2009
to
2010
3.29
Met
3.29
Met
Page
229
2010
to
2011
3.07
Met
3.07
Met
Fall
2011
3.259
Met
3.279
Met
Table
4.4.f.
Measure
MPH
Program
Admission
Outcome
Measures
Target
Enrolled
1
Mean
GRE 1000
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
1
2009
to
2010
3.30
Met
1044
Met
1044
Met
947
Not
Met
2010
to
2011
3.03
Met
1034
Met
1034
Met
965
Not
Met
Fall
2011
3.226
Met
1083
Met
1119
Met
1028
Met
Score
includes
combined
verbal
and
quantitative
sections.
4.4.g.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Strengths
 Specific
admission
policies
and
procedures
have
been
established
with
special
policies
established
for
conditional
students.
 The
program
regularly
assesses
students’
experience
with
the
admissions
process.
 The
average
student
GPAs
exceed
the
3.0
threshold
required
for
admission
and
there
is
little
difference
in
the
average
GPA
among
those
who
apply,
are
admitted
and
enroll.
Challenges
 The
GRE
scores
of
program
enrollees
are
slightly
below
the
minimum
SCGH
requires
for
admission
for
years
1
and
2.
Page
230
Criterion
4.5.
Student
Diversity
Stated
application,
admission,
and
degree‐granting
requirements
and
regulations
shall
be
applied
equitably
to
individual
applicants
and
students
regardless
of
age,
gender,
race,
disability,
sexual
orientation,
religion
or
national
origin.
4.5.a.
Description
of
policies,
procedures
and
affirmative
action
plans
to
achieve
a
diverse
student
population.
Policy
and
Procedures
CGU
is
committed
to
providing
equal
opportunity
for
outstanding
men
and
women
of
every
race,
creed
and
background
as
well
as
complying
with
all
applicable
laws
and
governmental
regulations
at
the
federal,
state
and
local
levels
which
prohibit
discrimination,
or
which
mandate
that
special
consideration
be
given,
on
the
basis
of
race,
religion,
national
origin,
gender,
age,
veteran
status,
disability,
sexual
orientation,
or
any
other
characteristic
which
may
from
time
to
time
be
specified
in
such
laws
and
regulations.
This
good
faith
effort
to
comply
is
made
even
when
such
laws
and
regulations
conflict
with
each
other.
4.5.b.
Description
of
recruitment
efforts
used
to
attract
a
diverse
student
body,
along
with
information
about
how
these
efforts
are
evaluated
and
refined
over
time.
Diversity
Recruitment
Efforts
A
wide
range
of
activities
are
pursued
to
achieve
diversity
within
the
student
body.
These
efforts
are
detailed
below.
Recruitment
Events
Targeting
Diverse
Populations
The
MPH
program
has
a
detailed
marketing
plan
with
objectives,
strategies
and
assessments.
The
recruitment
plan
is
available
on‐site
in
the
resource
file.
Periodic
monitoring
of
outcomes
is
conducted
with
bi‐weekly
recruitment
meetings
with
the
Dean,
program
director
and
manager,
and
the
School’s
recruiter.
Specific
marketing
strategies
that
do
not
appear
to
be
productive
are
altered.
As
a
School
of
Community
and
Global
Health,
it
is
critical
that
our
faculty
and
students
appreciate
the
communities
that
they
will
ultimately
serve,
a
theme
that
is
emphasized
in
instruction
and
research.
A
diverse
student
body
allows
both
our
faculty
and
students
to
be
more
responsive
to
the
populations
they
seek
to
educate.
It
is
a
goal
of
the
MPH
program
to
recruit
a
diverse
student
body.
Given
the
importance
of
diversity
to
our
School,
our
recruitment
team
actively
seeks
out
diverse
groups
of
students
interested
in
careers
in
public
health
research
and
practice.
Table
4.5b
illustrates
the
various
recruitment
activities,
both
on
and
of
campus
including
graduate
school
career
fairs
and
various
local
and
national
conferences.
The
program
targets
events
that
are
likely
to
attract
attention
of
potential
culturally
diverse
students
(see
shaded
entries).
Page
231
Table
4.5.b.(1).
Summary
of
Recruitment
Events
Attended*
Event
Type
Graduate
School
Fairs
Location
Cal
Poly
Pomona
CSU
Bakersfield
CSU
Berkeley
CSU
Channel
Islands
CSU
East
Bay
CSU
Monterey
Bay
CSU
Northridge
CSU
Sacramento
CSU
San
Bernardino
CSU
San
Marcos
CSU
Santa
Cruz
Idealist
Fair
Seattle
University
Loyola
Marymount
San
Diego
State
San
Francisco
State
University
of
Redlands
University
of
San
Diego
University
of
San
Francisco
UC
Davis
UC
Irvine
UC
Los
Angeles
UC
Merced
UC
Riverside
University
of
La
Verne
UC
San
Diego
UC
Santa
Barbara
UC
Berkeley
CSU
San
Marcos
UC
Santa
Cruz
CU
Channel
Islands
CU
Sacramento
University
of
Southern
California
Alpha
Chi
Omega
Sorority
at
Cal
State
Fullerton
Loyola
Marymount
University
of
La
Verne
UC
Riverside
Medical
Scholars
Pre
Health
Club
University
of
San
Diego
Pre‐Health
Club
Seattle
University
Pre‐Health
Club
University
of
Washington
Pre‐Health
Club
Cal‐State
San
Marcos
UC
Irvine
Public
Health
Club
Pre‐Health
Club
Cal‐State
East
Bay
Pacific
Islander
Fair
in
Huntington
Beach
UC
Santa
Barbara
The
California
Forum
for
Diversity
in
Graduate
Education
Health/Career
Fairs
2008‐
2009
Page
232
2009‐
2010
2010‐
2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table
4.5.b.(1).
Summary
of
Recruitment
Events
Attended*
Information
Sessions
Minority
Access
to
Research
Careers
Programs
National
Conference
‐
APHA
McNair’s
Scholars
Program‐
2008‐
2009
X
X
Claremont
Graduate
University
CU
San
Bernardino
Mount
Saint
Mary’s
San
Diego
Philadelphia
Denver
Claremont
Graduate
University
University
of
Southern
California
CU
Northridge
2009‐
2010
X
X
X
X
X
X
2010‐
2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The
California
Forum
for
Diversity
in
Graduate
Education
serves
as
an
excellent
venue
for
SCGH
to
gain
exposure
to
minority
students
interested
in
pursuing
graduate
education
in
public
health.
Likewise,
events
such
as
the
Pacific
Islander
Fairs
have
allowed
us
to
share
some
of
the
obesity
research
with
members
of
that
community
as
well
as
connect
with
prospective
students.
Support
for
Minority
Student
Organizations
Another
method
used
by
the
program
to
outreach
to
a
diverse
student
population
is
to
collaborate
with
McNair
Scholars
Programs
through
colleges
and
universities
in
California.
The
McNair
Scholars
Program
is
a
federal
TRIO
program
funded
at
194
institutions
across
the
United
States
and
Puerto
Rico
by
the
U.S.
Department
of
Education.
It
is
designed
to
prepare
undergraduate
students
for
doctoral
studies
through
involvement
in
research
and
other
scholarly
activities.
McNair
participants
are
either
first‐generation
college
students
with
financial
need,
or
members
of
a
group
that
is
traditionally
underrepresented
in
graduate
education
and
have
demonstrated
strong
academic
potential.
The
goal
of
the
McNair
Scholars
Program
is
to
increase
graduate
degree
awards
for
students
from
underrepresented
segments
of
society.
Our
School’s
recruiter
holds
hour
long
information
sessions
that
educate
the
students
about
the
field
of
public
health
and
student
life
at
SCGH.
This
year,
CGU
is
hosting
the
2nd
Annual
McNair
Scholars
Research
Conference;
where
McNair
Scholars
from
throughout
the
U.S.
will
unite
to
highlight
the
skills
and
scholarly
contributions
of
first‐generation
Americans.
At
this
year’s
conference
McNair
Scholars
from
across
the
United
States
will
convene
and
present
their
research
projects
to
faculty
scholars,
peers,
friends
and
all
those
who
are
an
integral
part
in
supporting
their
academic
growth.
SCGH
will
have
a
significant
presence
at
this
event.
Scholars
will
have
various
opportunities
to:
 Network
with
faculty
who
are
in
and
outside
of
their
fields
 Network
with
fellow
McNair
Scholars
from
other
universities
 Meet
with
various
graduate
school
representatives
from
across
the
United
States
 Meet
with
graduate
school
representatives
from
Claremont
Graduate
University
 Attend
an
array
of
educational
workshops
covering
topics
such
as:
Graduate
School
Preparation,
Leadership
Development
and
Professional
Development
Our
School’s
recruiter
also
presents
to
MARC
program
participants.
The
Minority
Access
to
Research
Careers
is
a
special
research
training
support
activity
of
NIH’s
National
Institute
of
General
Medical
Sciences.
Its
goals
are
to
increase
the
number
and
capabilities
of
scientists
from
underrepresented
Page
233
minority
groups
who
are
engaged
in
biomedical
research
and
to
strengthen
science
curricula
and
student
research
opportunities
at
institutions
with
substantial
minority
enrollments
in
order
to
prepare
minority
students
for
research
careers.
Financial
Assistance
Available
for
Students
As
a
way
to
enroll
and
maintain
a
more
diverse
student
body,
CGU
is
committed
to
providing
financial
support
to
students
who
might
otherwise
be
unable
to
attend.
Table
4.5.b.(2)
illustrates
the
number
of
MPH
students
receiving
assistance
each
year.
SCGH
makes
considerable
efforts
to
secure
funded
research
projects
on
which
MPH
students
can
work;
however,
few
of
these
positions
provide
partial
tuition
remission.
Hourly
employment
on
faculty
research
projects
is
also
available.
Department
fellowships,
stipends
and
assistantships
are
awarded
to
selected
students
on
the
recommendation
of
individual
academic
departments
based
on
merit
and
need.
All
MPH
students
receive
a
20%
tuition
discount.
MPH
students
who
are
McNair
Scholars
receive
a
25%
tuition
discount.
CGU
provides
fellowship
funds
to
award
to
US
citizens
and
permanent
residents
who
are
members
of
ethnic
groups
that
are
traditionally
underrepresented
in
American
higher
education
(American
Indian,
African
American,
Asian
American,
and
Latin
American/Hispanic).
A
separate
essay
is
required
with
the
CGU
admissions
application.
Table
4.5.b.(2).
Summary
of
MPH
Student
Support
Distribution
of
Financial
Support
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
Fall
2011
5
8
6
9
3
7
13
30
47
N/A
26
7
52
4
61
Research
Assistantships
Hourly
Employment
Departmental
Tuition
Reduction
Fellowship
Minority
Fellowship
Total
Number
of
Awards*
*In
2009‐10,
one
student
was
a
research
assistant
as
well
as
hourly
employee
(on
different
studies).
In
2010‐11,
two
students
held
both
types
of
positions.
Students
can
also
receive
both
tuition
assistance
and
employment
and/or
research
assistantships.
Academic
Support
Services
for
Students
Offering
adequate
support
services
for
minority
students
increases
the
appeal
of
CGU.
Four
such
services
are
described
below.
Office
of
Student
Life
&
Diversity:
The
mission
of
the
Office
of
Student
Life
and
Diversity
at
CGU
is
to
provide
organizational
support
and
resources
to
empower
students
through
our
peer
mentoring
program,
workshops,
social
events
and
student
organizations
whose
mission
is
to
promote
social
and
political
awareness,
specifically
with
respect
to
issues
of
class,
ethnicity,
gender,
race,
physical
and
learning
challenges,
sexuality,
and
sexual
orientation.
Minority
Mentor
Program
(MPP0):
As
part
of
its
commitment
to
improve
the
retention
of
underrepresented
students,
the
MMP
is
a
network
of
minority
students
at
CGU
dedicated
to
the
social,
cultural
and
academic
well‐being
of
students
of
color.
Through
its
mentor‐protégé
pairings,
MMP
seeks
to
provide
first‐year
students
with
a
sense
of
connectedness
by
matching
them
with
a
more
advanced
student.
MMP
also
offers
workshops
that
focus
on
academic
and
professional
development,
a
student
research
conference,
event
such
as
rap
sessions
and
informal
gatherings.
International
Place
of
the
Claremont
Colleges
(I‐Place):
I‐Place,
an
intercollegiate
center
for
international
and
domestic
students,
scholars,
faculty
and
staff
seeks
to
increase
international
and
Page
234
multicultural
understanding
and
friendship
through
programs
for
the
entire
community,
such
as
Thursday
lunch
programs
on
global
issues
and
the
annual
Spring
International
Festival.
The
Center
also
offers
services
for
international
students
such
as
airport
pick‐ups,
orientation
programs,
homestays,
support
groups,
workshop
on
career
and
INS
issues,
and
individual
assistance.
I‐Place
houses
the
student
International
Club,
a
lounge
open
daily
from
9:00
a.m.‐5:00
p.m.
Global
Communications
Course
(GCC):
The
GCC
is
a
language
preparation
course
that
provides
intensive
instruction
in
American
English
discourse
to
strengthen
international
students’
ability
to
succeed
in
graduate‐level
courses.
Students
also
have
weekly
tutoring
sessions
with
graduate
students
to
work
on
individual
needs.
Formal
Collaborative
Relationships
with
Undergraduate
Colleges
As
of
spring
2010,
SCGH
maintains
an
articulation
agreement
between
CGU
and
the
University
of
La
Verne
(ULV)
wherein
up
to
16
ULV
Community
Health
credits
taught
by
SCGH
faculty
through
a
fee‐for‐
service
agreement
will
be
accepted
toward
the
CGU
MPH
degree
for
ULV
graduates
accepted
into
the
MPH
program
through
the
regular
admissions
process.
The
purpose
of
this
agreement
is
to
create
a
stream
of
highly
qualified
and
ethnically
diverse
students
into
CGU’s
MPH
program
and
to
realize
benefits
associated
with
this
fee‐for‐service
arrangement.
ULV
is
ranked
#1
in
diversity
by
US
News
and
is
recognized
federally
as
an
Hispanic‐serving
institution
of
higher
education.
The
opportunity
to
create
a
pipeline
of
qualified
and
diverse
undergraduates
students
in
our
MPH
program
arises
from
the
confluence
of
a
new
undergraduate
major
in
Community
Health
at
ULV
and
of
CGU
faculty
participation
in
that
degree
program.
The
new
Bachelor’s
degree
will
be
jointly
taught
by
ULV
faculty
and
contracted
CGU
faculty.
This
agreement
creates
a
pool
of
diverse
and
capable
students
from
which
to
draw
outstanding
applicants
to
our
MPH
program
and,
in
so
doing,
to
extend
the
opportunity
for
outstanding
ULV
students
to
complete
the
MPH
degree
in
one
calendar
year
at
CGU.
The
agreement
specifies
that
ULV
students
admitted
to
CGU
will
be
eligible
to
apply
16
units
of
400‐level
courses
from
their
Bachelor’s
degree
in
Community
Health,
not
including
internship
or
senior
project,
to
MPH
program
requirements,
thereby
reducing
the
number
of
post‐BA
units
for
the
MPH
degree
from
48
to
32.
These
students
would
then
have
the
ability
to
complete
the
MPH
degree
within
approximately
a
year.
In
terms
of
units
accepted
as
part
of
a
master’s
program,
this
articulation
agreement
is
consistent
with
CGU’s
existing
Accelerated
BA/MA
programs,
which
allow
qualified
undergraduate
students
at
the
Claremont
Colleges
the
opportunity
to
work
simultaneously
toward
the
completion
of
their
undergraduate
and
master’s
degree
requirements.
These
students
may
complete
up
to
one‐third
of
their
master’s
degree
credits
in
their
undergraduate
institutions
(for
example,
16
units
in
a
48‐unit
master’s
degree).
Unit
sharing
across
programs
allows
for
completion
of
both
degrees
in
five
years.
The
rationale
for
the
overlap
in
credits
in
the
particular
case
of
ULV
Community
Health
majors
is
that
the
core
courses
for
both
the
Bachelor’s
and
MPH
degrees
are
taught
at
the
graduate
level
by
CGU
faculty.
In
addition,
the
articulation
agreement
enhances
SCGH’s
mandate
as
a
school
of
public
health
to
effectively
serve
populations
of
the
region
in
which
it
resides.
ULV
and
CGU
are
uniquely
situated
at
the
edge
of
the
Inland
Empire,
a
region
of
communities
in
transition.
The
distinctive
challenges
faced
by
these
communities
are
reflected
in
patterns
found
globally:
the
growth
of
major
desert
cities
and
urban
sprawl;
the
public
health
needs
of
rural
and
urban
tribal
populations
in
Southern
California,
akin
to
those
of
indigenous
peoples
in
Asia
and
Latin
America;
and
the
difficulties
faced
by
populations
in
Page
235
communities
confronted
with
rapid
growth,
rising
chronic
disease,
environmental
degradation,
health
and
economic
disparities,
public
health
emergencies,
and
entry
into
a
global
economy.
Assessing
and
addressing
the
unique
health
challenges
of
these
communities
in
transition
serves
as
a
major
theme
guiding
the
development
of
ULV’s
undergraduate
major
and
CGU’s
established
MPH
program.
Students
completing
the
MPH
degree
will
be
qualified
to
move
into
positions
of
leadership
and
management
in
public
health.
Student
Recruitment
Materials
Program
promotional
materials
were
designed
to
promote
cultural
diversity
and
to
be
welcoming
to
all
population
groups.
The
program
distributes
a
printed
piece
that
includes
a
folder
and
inserts
for
each
program
offered
through
SCGH.
Both
the
folder
and
inserts
feature
images
of
individuals
of
various
ages,
genders
and
racial/ethnic
backgrounds.
Themes
emphasizing
cultural
diversity,
collaboration,
and
globalization
are
evident.
Similar
features
on
the
program’s
website
increase
their
appeal
to
a
broad
audience.
Evaluation
of
Recruitment
Efforts
to
Achieve
a
Diverse
Student
Body
An
overall
evaluation
of
our
recruitment
strategies
is
conducted
yearly.
The
report
assesses
both
process
and
outcome
indicators
of
success.
Process
indicators
include
the
number
of
events
attended,
number
of
name
buys,
number
visits
to
the
website,
etc.
Outcomes
indicators
include
the
number
of
prospects,
applications,
and
deposits.
An
evaluation
of
recruitment
efforts
that
specific
to
student
diversity
is
included.
Specific
outcomes
are
assessed
and
additional
strategies
are
considered.
4.5.c.
Quantitative
information
on
the
demographic
characteristics
on
the
student
body,
including
data
on
applicants
and
admissions,
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Data
must
be
presented
in
table
format.
CEPH
Data
Template
L.
Student
Demographic
Data
Data
presented
in
Table
4.5.c.(1)
indicates
a
diverse
study
body.
All
ethnic/racial
groups
are
represented
in
the
MPH
student
body.
For
example,
student
enrollment
in
2009‐2010
includes
14%
(African
American),
43%
(Caucasian),
29%
(Hispanic/Latino),
and
7%
(Asian
Pacific
Islander
and
Native
American).
Student
enrollment
in
2010‐2011
includes
19%
(African
American),
26%
(Caucasian),
38%
(Hispanic/Latino),
13%
(Asian
Pacific
Islander)
and
0%
(Native
American).
The
international
student
population
is
relatively
low
compared
with
the
University
as
a
whole
(6%
versus
16%).
About
19%
of
CGU
students
are
African
American
or
Hispanic/Latino.
SCGH
students
are
more
diverse
(29%
and
38%
versus
19%
Hispanic/Latino).
Females
are
heavily
represented
at
SCGH:
86%
in2009‐2010
and
71%
in
2010‐2011.
This
is
contrast
with
the
CGU
student
population
which
is
has
equal
percentages
of
males
and
females.
However,
a
greater
percentage
of
males
applied
to
the
program
in
fall
2011.
Table
4.5.c.(1).
Demographic
Characteristics
of
Student
Body
African
American
Caucasian
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
2009‐2010
Male
Female
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
7
1
5
Page
236
2010‐2011
Male
Female
0
5
0
5
0
3
4
11
4
11
3
2
Fall
2011
Male
Female
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
9
2
8
0
2
Table
4.5.c.(1).
Demographic
Characteristics
of
Student
Body
Hispanic/Latino
Asian
Pacific
Islander
Native
American/Alaska
Native
Unknown/Other
International
TOTAL
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
2009‐2010
Male
Female
0
5
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
0
4
18
4
18
2
12
2010‐2011
Male
Female
1
6
1
6
1
5
2
6
2
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
2
6
0
1
9
34
9
34
5
12
Fall
2011
Male
Female
2
6
2
3
1
2
5
2
5
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
3
4
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
0
18
23
17
19
4
7
4.5.d.
Identification
of
measures
by
which
the
program
may
evaluate
its
success
in
achieving
a
demographically
diverse
student
body,
along
with
data
regarding
the
programs
performance
against
these
measures
over
the
last
three
years.
Student
Diversity
Outcome
Measures
Table
4.5d
illustrates
progress
made
regards
to
measures
selected
by
the
program
to
achieve
a
diverse
student
body.
Measures
consist
of
demographic
characteristics
of
the
applicant
pool,
the
number
of
recruitment
events
attended
that
would
attract
a
diverse
applicant
pool,
and
the
availability
of
financial
assistance
for
students.
Targets
for
each
of
these
outcomes
were
exceeded
for
both
academic
years.
Table
4.5.d.
Measures
Assessing
a
Demographically
Diverse
Student
Body
Outcome
Measures
1.
Number
and
percent
of
minority
applicants
Target
Level
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
11
50
21
50
2.
Number
and
percent
of
female
applicants
11
50
21
50
3.
Number
and
percent
of
recruitment
events
attended
targeting
diverse
populations
4.
Number
and
percent
of
financial
assistance
available
for
students
5
20
5
18
13
100
30
100
4.5.e.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met.
Page
237
Performance
2009‐2010
2010‐2011
#
%
#
%
14
64
28
65
Met
Met
18
82
34
70
Met
Met
6
24
8
29
Met
Met
13
100
30
100
Met
Met
Strengths
 The
program
has
been
successful
in
attracting
and
retaining
many
diverse
students
who
are
highly
qualified
in
terms
of
traditional
academic
criteria.
 The
percent
of
enrollees
from
diverse
backgrounds
ethnically
indicates
serious
consideration
of
students
and
the
protection
of
affirmative
action
standards.
 The
program
provides
financial
aid
for
every
MPH
student;
some
students
are
eligible
for
additional
aid
through
minority
fellowships
or
research
assistantships.
 The
program
attends
a
wide
range
of
recruitment
events
targeting
members
of
diverse
populations.
 The
University
has
formalized
programs
to
provide
students
from
diverse
backgrounds
to
interact
solve
problems
and
work
and
study
together.
Minority
students
receive
various
methods
of
academic
support.
 A
formalized
collaborative
relationship
with
ULV
has
been
established
to
create
a
stream
of
highly
qualified
and
ethnically
diverse
students
into
CGU’s
MPH
program.
Challenges
 Recruitment
methods
to
reach
more
international
students
should
be
pursued.
 A
formalized,
systematic
plan
to
evaluate
efforts
dedicated
to
achieving
a
diverse
student
body
has
not
yet
been
implemented.
Page
238
Criterion
4.6.
Advising
and
Career
Counseling
There
shall
be
available
a
clearly
explained
and
accessible
academic
advising
system
for
students,
as
well
as
readily
available
career
and
placement
advice.
4.6.a.
Description
of
the
advising
and
counseling
services,
including
sample
orientation
materials
such
as
student
handbooks.
Academic
Advising
Upon
confirmation
of
enrollment,
each
student
receives
a
welcoming
packet
from
the
University
and
the
MPH
Program.
The
packet
serves
as
a
preliminary
means
of
introducing
the
students
to
CGU
and
the
specifics
of
their
experience
as
graduate
students
in
public
health.
Among
the
items
included
in
the
packet
are
a
schedule
of
fall
course
offerings,
a
curriculum
summary
sheet,
faculty
profile,
degree
checklists
for
all
tracks,
and
housing
information.
All
students
are
instructed
to
meet
with
the
program
director
to
plan
their
schedule
of
classes.
Before
matriculation,
all
students
are
required
to
attend
an
orientation
session
which
includes
a
mixer
attended
by
MPH
program
faculty,
staff
and
students,
both
current
and
former.
At
this
time,
students
receive
explanations
regarding
program
values,
degree
requirements
(e.g.,
coursework
and
internship),
and
administrative
procedures
(e.g.,
financial
aid,
minority
mentor
program,
electronic
communication
management).
A
MPH
student
handbook
(available
on‐site
in
the
resource
file)
is
distributed
to
furnish
more
detailed
program
information,
methods
of
monitoring
student
progress,
and
registration
procedures.
The
MPH
Student
Association
(MPHSA)
officers
and
other
interested
students
serve
as
program
ambassadors
that
help
to
orientate
new
and
prospective
students.
The
purpose
of
this
program
is
to
ease
the
transition
to
graduate
student
life
by
offering
study
tips,
social
support
and
guidance,
networking
opportunities
and
housing
information.
Academic
advisement
from
the
MPH
program
director
may
precede
or
follow
orientation.
Throughout
the
year,
announcements
are
made
regarding
upcoming
course
offerings.
This
information
can
also
be
found
on
the
CGU
and
MPH
websites.
Students
are
required
to
communicate
with
the
MPH
program
director
(by
phone,
e‐mail
or
in‐person)
at
least
once
a
semester
to
plan
coursework,
and
are
encouraged
with
meet
with
the
faculty
members
of
their
selected
concentration
to
discuss
their
course
work,
field
experience
and
plans
for
the
future.
All
MPH
faculty
are
available
to
advise
and
mentor
students
on
research
opportunities,
community
service
activities
and
provide
career
counseling.
All
advising
meetings
with
the
program
director
are
documented
using
the
student
counseling
sheets
for
the
student’s
selected
concentration.
A
copy
is
given
to
the
student
for
their
records.
Prior
to
the
next
advisement
meeting,
the
program
director
reviews
the
checklist
and
discusses
the
scheduling
of
outstanding
requirements.
Graduate
students
must
meet
both
university
degree
requirements
and
those
specific
to
the
MPH
program.
University
degree
requirements
consist
of
minimum
grade
point
averages,
unit
residency
and
time
limit
stipulations.
Degree
requirements
specific
to
the
MPH
program
of
study
consist
of
course,
field
training
and
capstone
requirements.
Students
admitted
to
the
MPH
are
required
to
be
enrolled
for
fall
and
spring
semesters
each
year
until
all
degree
requirements
have
been
satisfactorily
completed
within
a
the
five‐year
time
limit.
Satisfactory
progress
toward
an
advanced
degree
as
determined
by
the
MPH
faculty
is
required
at
all
times.
Students
who
fail
to
make
satisfactory
progress
(i.e.,
cumulative
GPA
below
3.0)
receive
written
confirmation
from
the
director.
The
student
has
two
academic
Page
239
semesters
to
raise
the
grade
point
average.
The
program
director
and
manager
play
a
significant
role
in
referring
the
student
to
academic
(e.g.,
tutoring)
and
personal
resources
(e.g.,
psychological
counseling).
The
faculty
has
the
right
to
recommend
at
any
time
after
the
probationary
period
that
a
student
be
dismissed
for
failure
to
meet
the
minimum
grade
point
average
requirement.
Students
are
apprised
of
these
requirements
in
the
MPH
Student
Handbook
and
during
academic
advisement
sessions.
Career
Advising
Career
advising
takes
two
forms:
(1)
selection
of
internship
sites
and
(2)
post‐graduation
placements.
MPH
students
are
eligible
for
the
internship
upon
completion
of
core
and
concentration
coursework.
Students
are
advised
to
contact
the
program
manager
at
least
4‐6
weeks
prior
to
the
beginning
of
the
semester
in
which
they
wish
to
conduct
their
internship.
If
a
student
desires
to
complete
their
field
training
in
a
site
that
is
not
currently
on
the
list
of
approved
sites,
it
is
advised
that
students
should
begin
the
search
process
even
earlier.
During
the
first
meeting
with
the
program
manager,
the
student
completes
the
Student
Information
Form
included
in
the
student
internship
manual.
With
this
information
in
hand,
the
program
manager
is
able
to
recommend
internship
sites
with
the
appropriate
focus
and
learning
opportunities
as
well
as
discuss
search
strategies.
Similarly,
MPH
faculty,
internship
supervisors
and
members
of
the
MPH
Community
Advisory
Committee
may
also
serve
as
mentors
in
the
selection
process.
Once
students
complete
the
internship
requirement,
they
are
free
to
meet
with
the
program
director
or
manager
to
discuss
permanent
job
placement
or
future
academic
programs
if
they
so
choose.
There
is
the
potential
for
public
health
field
training
to
evolve
into
full‐time
employment.
Future
plans
are
also
discussed
with
the
program
director
as
students
undertake
the
capstone
seminar.
Additionally,
both
current
students
and
alumni
have
access
to
job
postings
via
the
MPH
website
which
assists
them
in
securing
internships
and
permanent
employment.
Students
have
access
to
the
CGU
Office
of
Career
Management
to
help
achieve
their
career
objectives.
The
office
is
staffed
with
career
consultants
who
provide
the
structure
and
services,
including
counseling
and
specific
workshops,
to
help
students
focus
their
search,
to
target
appropriate
employers,
to
implement
their
job
search
strategies,
and
to
build
skills
in
self‐marketing.
The
CGU
student's
role
in
this
partnership
is
to
actively
participate
in
self‐assessment,
career
exploration,
and
proactive
job
search
strategies
to
ensure
a
successful
transition
from
graduate
school
to
a
fulfilling
career.
Specific
services
offered
include
access
to
job/internship
databases
and
search
links,
resume
and
interviewing
strategies,
and
on‐demand
workshops.
The
MPH
Program
Manager
collaborates
with
career
counselor
Paul
Hardister
and
Director
Fatma
Kassamali
of
the
CGU
Office
of
Career
Management
(OCM)
to
design
career
development
activities
specific
to
public
health
students.
In
2010‐11,
Ms.
Hawkins,
a
graduate
student
assistant
two
MPH
students
met
with
OCM
staff
to
overview
resources
available
to
students,
areas
of
need
for
public
health
students
and
discuss
possible
OCM/SCGH
collaborations.
The
MPH
program
regularly
notifies
students
about
on‐campus
career
fairs
and
guest
speakers.
Starting
in
fall
2011,
the
OCM
will
conduct
a
workshop
as
part
of
the
SCGH
new
student
orientation
as
well
as
co‐sponsor
a
series
of
noon
workshops
will
be
held
monthly
and
focusing
skill
development
for
public
health
careers.
Fall
semester
topics
will
include
resume
and
curriculum
vitae
writing,
informational
interviewing,
online
career
searches
and
how
to
focus
interests
and
talents
into
careers.
Invited
speakers
will
address
careers
possibilities
in
all
three
MPH
concentrations.
In
addition,
an
internship
fair
will
give
students
initial
exposure
to
partner
organizations
available
as
MPH
field
experience
sites.
Page
240
4.6.b.
Description
of
the
procedures
by
which
students
may
communicate
their
concerns
to
program
officials,
including
information
about
how
these
procedures
are
publicized
and
about
the
aggregate
number
of
complaints
submitted
for
each
of
the
last
three
years.
Student
Grievance
Procedures
Students
have
many
mechanisms
by
which
they
can
communicate
their
concerns
to
program
officials:
direct
communication
with
the
program
director
and
manager,
program
faculty;
student
surveys
(e.g.,
exit
interviews)
and
the
annual
focus
group.
It
is
common
for
students
to
first
approach
the
program
director
or
manager
directly
with
any
concerns
they
may
have.
Most
often
the
complaints
or
grievances
will
involve
an
instructor’s
grading
practice.
Upon
the
student’s
request,
the
program
director
will
work
with
both
the
student(s)
and
faculty
to
resolve
the
issue.
The
grievance
procedures
are
made
available
on
the
CGU
website
and
the
MPH
student
handbook.
Copies
of
formally
filed
student
grievances
are
available
onsite.
Within
the
last
two
years,
there
have
been
three
formal
grievances
filed
on
behalf
of
MPH
students.
Events
listed
in
table
4.6.b
provide
more
detail
on
the
specific
events.
Table
4.6.b.
Semester
Spring
2010
Summary
of
Grievances
Submitted
by
Students
Mechanisms
Used
to
Communicate
the
Grievance
E‐mails,
In‐person
meetings
with
program
manager
&
director
Fall
2010
E‐mails,
in‐person
meeting
with
program
manager
Spring
2011
E‐mails,
phone
conversation
with
program
director
Nature
of
the
Grievance
Outcome
Adjunct
professor’s
teaching
style
Faculty
was
excused
from
teaching
duties;
a
replacement
instructor
was
located.
MPH
students
dissatisfied
with
Students
resigned
from
the
working
relationship
with
a
research
project.
The
project
manager
staffed
on
a
program
directed
alerted
faculty
research
project.
the
faculty
member
regarding
the
complaints
received.
SBOS
faculty
member’s
grading
SCGH
Dean
and
program
criteria
director
met
with
instructor
to
discuss
student
concerns.
4.6.c.
Information
about
student
satisfaction
with
advising
and
counseling
services.
Satisfaction
with
Advising
Student
exit
and
alumni
surveys
assess
student
satisfaction
with
academic
advising
and
counseling.
To
provide
their
opinions
regarding
academic
advising
services,
students
completing
the
exit
survey
score
the
academic
advisor’s
performance
on
the
following
six
criteria
using
a
4‐point
scale
(poor,
average,
good,
outstanding).
 Was
responsive
to
my
needs
 Clearly
communicated
the
requirements
of
the
program
 Understood
my
academic
goals
 Helped
me
create
a
program
geared
toward
my
interests
 Provided
sound
academic
advice
 Was
a
good
resource
Page
241
Of
the
two
students
who
completed
the
exit
survey,
only
one
responded
to
the
section
on
advising.
This
student
gave
a
rating
of
“outstanding”
to
all
six
items.
Graduates
completing
the
alumni
survey
indicate
their
satisfaction
with
one
item
pertaining
to
academic
counseling
(very
dissatisfied
to
very
satisfied).
Data
from
the
alumni
survey
is
not
currently
available.
4.6.d.
Assessment
of
the
extent
to
which
this
criterion
is
met.
Assessment
of
Criterion
This
criterion
is
met
with
commentary.
Strengths
 A
systematic
academic
advising
system
has
been
established
which
provides
for
routine
advisement
sessions,
including
just
prior
to
orientation
and
at
least
once
per
semester
thereafter.
 A
tracking
system
is
used
to
monitoring
degree
progress.
Student
counseling
sheets
that
assist
with
the
scheduling
of
program
requirements
are
provided.
 Internship
and
job
postings
are
available
to
current
students
and
alumni.
 Students
have
access
to
the
university’s
office
of
Career
Management.
 Students
receive
guidance
with
internship
search.
 Students
have
many
mechanisms
by
which
they
can
communicate
concerns
to
program
officials.
Challenges
 Data
concerning
students’
satisfaction
with
advising
and
counseling
services
is
not
yet
available.
 There
is
a
lack
of
public
health
career
related
resources
as
compared
with
other
fields.
The
program
is
working
with
the
Office
of
Career
Management
to
tailor
more
information
towards
public
health
students.
Page
242