AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: College of Professional Studies
Program Reviewed: Homeland & Corporate Security BS Q, S.I.
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
Queens:
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Computed
homeland & corp sec
Fall 2012
Computed
1,160
Fall 2013
Computed
1,093
Computed
1,071
1,050
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
homeland & corp sec
Fall 2012
High School
Fall 2013
High School
High School
88
87
84
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
87
Staten Island:
Freshmen SAT Scores
Fall 2010
Computed
homeland & corp sec
Computed
1,110
Computed
1,050
Computed
1,170
1,030
Freshmen High School Average
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
High School
homeland & corp sec
Fall 2012
High School
89
Fall 2013
High School
94
High School
82
83
Comparable data:
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 2
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - Q
1013
1014
1025
1028
84
84
85
86
Total University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
SAT Scores
High School Average
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010
2011
2012
2013
School/
College - SI
997
1017
1004
996
83
84
83
85
Total
University
1097
1087
1096
1104
87
87
88
89
Intended college major for 2012 college-bound seniors
SAT
Test-Takers
Intended College Major
Security and Protective Services
Mean Scores
Number Percent (%) Critical Reading
5,565
4.1%
436
Mathematics Writing
447
423
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 3
Queens
2009
Total
Returned
#
HCS
2010
4
4
DNR
%
#
Total
%
100%
6
2011
Returned
DNR
Total
#
%
#
%
5
83%
1
17%
2012
Returned
#
8
8
DNR
%
#
Total
%
100%
12
Returned
DNR
#
%
#
%
10
83%
2
17%
Staten Island
Total
HCS
1
2009
Returned
#
%
1 100%
DNR
# %
Total
1
2010
Returned
#
%
1 100%
DNR
# %
Total
2
2011
Returned
#
%
2 100%
DNR
# %
Total
2
2012
Returned
#
%
2 100%
DNR
# %
Comparable data:
Queens
Fall
2009
2010
2011
2012*
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - Q
74%
74%
71%
766
575
75%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
Fall
Staten Island
2009
2010
2011
2012**
# Fresh
# Ret
%
School/
College - SI
78%
85%
86%
68
60
88%
Total University
78%
78%
76%
2757
2195
80%
* The % of students started in Fall 2012 and returned to the program in Fall 2013
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
Not applicable.
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 4
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - Q
53%
52%
50%
47%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
Fall
2004
2005
2006
2007
School/College
Average Rate - SI
56%
58%
63%
65%
Total University
58%
58%
59%
55%
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Not Applicable
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Queens
Fall
Number of Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
0
0
0
5
17
Minors
0
0
0
2
9
Total
0
0
0
7
26
Staten Island
Fall
Number of Students
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Majors
1
1
1
1
1
Minors
0
0
0
3
0
Total
1
1
1
4
1
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 5
Queens
MAJORS
MINORS
HCS
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
BS
43
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Minors
Minors
Minors
11
10
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
Total
Total
Total
BS
111
7
Fall 2011
Staten Island
HCS
96
Fall 2010
43
MAJORS
79
Fall 2011
HCS
Total
2h.
Fall 2010
90
106
118
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
4
5
7
9
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
Undergraduate BS
0
0
0
0
0
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 6
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred Degrees Conferred
CPS-UG-Q
HCS
Homeland & Corporate Security
BS
3
13
30
12/13
Degrees Conferred
CPS-UG-SI
HCS
Homeland & Corporate Security
BS
1
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 43-Homeland Security, Law
Enforcement, Firefighting, and Related Protective Service.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Bachelors
Local
218
262
301
National
43,667
47,602
53,767
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your responses using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 7
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken
in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data
provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
Fastest growing occupations and occupations having the largest numerical increase in employment by level of education
and training projected.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Percent
Numeric
Legal Occupations (excluding
paralegal)
14%
3,100
Private Detectives and
Investigators
21%
7,100
Law Enforcement Workers
7%
58,700
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
Law Enforcement Workers
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
7%
58,700
Projected Changes in Related Occupations (2010 – 2020)
Changes, 2010-20
Grow much faster than average – Increase 21% or more
Private Detectives and Investigators
Percent
Numeric
21%
7,100
Changes, 2010-20
Grow about as fast as average - Increase 7 to 14.9%
Percent
Numeric
Law Enforcement Workers
7%
58,700
Legal Occupations (excluding paralegal)
14%
3,100
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 8
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
3. The University Core competencies
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com/.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 9
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
Queens
Fall 2005
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Fall 2006
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2007
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2008
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Majors
0
0
0
5
5
16
Minors
0
0
0
2
2
9
Majors
& Minors
Combined
0
0
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
0.00
0.00
Total
1
17
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
7
25
1
26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.00
7.00
25.00
0.33
25.33
# of FTE
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2005
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
Majors
PT
Total
1
1
Minors
Majors
Minors
Fall 2006
FT
PT
1
0
Fall 2007
Total
FT
1
PT
1
0
Fall 2008
Total
FT
PT
Fall 2009
Total
1
1
1
0
3
3
FT
PT
Total
1
1
0
&
Combined
# of FTE Students (Majors &
Minors)
0
1
0.00
0.33
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
4
0
4
1
0
1
0.33
0.00
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.33
0.33
4.00
0.00
4.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
# of FTE Faculty assigned to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 10
Queens
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
41
2
43
77
Fall 2011
F
MINORS
2
Total
F
P
1
11
9
Total
F
98
109
2
111
Total
10
7
7
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
41
2
43
87
3
90
103
5
108
116
2
118
Fall 2010
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
4
Fall 2013
1
Fall 2010
FTE MAJORS
94
Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors Minors
10
MAJORS/MINORS
79
Fall 2012
P
Minors
Total
Fall 2013
F
MAJORS
Total
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
41
0.667
41.667
87
1
88
103
1.667 104.667 116
0.667 116.667
Self_Study Template 11
Staten Island
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
Total
Fall 2011
4
FTE MAJORS
4
5
5
7
7
9
9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
F
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
4
4
5
5
7
7
9
9
Important Notes
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by SJU for all external reporting.
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit Hours
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
4395
56%
3690
50%
3912
55%
4002
60%
3726
57%
PT Faculty
3516
44%
3717
50%
3192
45%
2694
40%
2802
43%
Total
7911
100%
7407
100%
7104
100%
6696
100%
6528
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed by
Non-Majors
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
19%
25%
22%
19%
17%
Self_Study Template 12
Fall 2010
Credit Hrs Taught
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
4,032
60.7%
3,984
58.0%
3,963
58.8%
3,939
60.4%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,613
39.3%
2,883
42.0%
2,775
41.2%
2,586
39.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total
6,645
100%
6,867
100%
6,738
100%
6,525
100%
%
Consumed
by NonMajors
1,026
15.4%
984
14.3%
864
12.8%
813
12.5%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Taught
#
%
FT Faculty
54
49%
PT Faculty
57
Total
111
Courses Taught
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
46
42%
57
50%
56
53%
50
51%
51%
64
58%
58
50%
50
47%
48
49%
100%
110
100%
115
100%
106
100%
98
100%
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
53
55.8%
64
57.7%
59
54.6%
60
56.6%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
42
44.2%
47
42.3%
49
45.4%
46
43.4%
0.0%
Total
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
95
100%
0.0%
111
100%
0.0%
108
100%
0.0%
106
100%
Self_Study Template 13
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 14
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental information on next
page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
11
65%
32
76%
Female
6
35%
10
Total
17
100%
Black
3
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
43
10
67%
34
77%
24%
16
5
33%
10
42
100%
59
15
100%
18%
3
7%
6
2
0
0%
1
2%
1
Asian
1
6%
0
0%
White
12
71%
38
Unknown
1
6%
Total
17
100%
Tenured
12
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
44
13
72%
27
73%
23%
15
5
28%
10
44
100%
59
18
100%
13%
6
14%
8
2
0
0%
2
5%
2
1
1
7%
1
2%
90%
50
12
80%
35
0
0%
1
0
0%
42
100%
59
15
100%
71%
12
11
5
29%
5
Not Applicable
0
0%
Total
17
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
40
13
72%
22
71%
27%
15
5
28%
9
37
100%
55
18
100%
11%
8
22%
10
2
0
0%
1
3%
1
2
1
6%
1
3%
80%
47
15
83%
27
0
0%
0
0
0%
44
100%
59
18
100%
73%
11
11
4
27%
4
0
0
0%
17
15
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
35
12
71%
22
76%
34
29%
14
5
29%
7
24%
12
31
100%
49
17
100%
29
100%
46
11%
5
16%
7
2
12%
3
10%
5
0
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
2
1
6%
0
0%
1
1
6%
0
0%
1
73%
42
15
83%
25
81%
40
14
82%
25
86%
39
0
0%
0
0
0%
1
3%
1
0
0%
1
3%
1
37
100%
55
18
100%
31
100%
49
17
100%
29
100%
46
61%
11
12
67%
12
13
76%
13
7
39%
7
6
33%
6
4
24%
4
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
15
18
100%
18
18
100%
18
17
100%
17
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 15
2010
FT
2011
PT
T
#
%
#
%
Male
12
67%
17
68%
Female
6
33%
8
32%
Total
18
FT
2012
PT
T
#
%
#
%
29
12
67%
17
65%
14
6
33%
9
35%
43
18
16%
6
2
11%
4
0%
1
1
6%
4%
2
1
6%
0%
0
19
76%
33
1
4%
FT
2013
PT
T
#
%
#
%
29
12
67%
19
73%
15
6
33%
7
27%
44
18
15%
6
2
11%
1
4%
2
1
6%
1
4%
2
1
6%
0%
0
19
73%
33
1
4%
FT
PT
T
#
%
#
%
31
12
67%
20
74%
32
13
6
33%
7
26%
13
44
18
15%
6
2
11%
3
11%
5
0%
1
1
6%
1
4%
2
4%
2
1
6%
1
4%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
20
77%
34
78%
21
78%
35
1
4%
1
4%
1
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
Gender
25
26
26
27
45
Ethnicity
Black
2
11%
Hispanic
1
6%
Asian
1
6%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
4
1
0%
14
78%
2 or More Races
0%
14
78%
4
1
0%
14
78%
14
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
18
0%
25
0
0%
43
18
0%
26
0
0%
44
18
0%
26
0
0%
44
18
27
45
Tenure Status
Tenured
14
78%
14
15
83%
15
15
83%
15
16
89%
16
Tenure-Track
4
22%
4
3
17%
3
2
11%
2
2
11%
2
0%
0
0%
0
1
6%
1
0%
0
18
18
Not Applicable
Total
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
18
18
18
18
18
18
Self_Study Template 16
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External Funding
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
$ Amount Program
$ Amount Department
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
-
-
-
-
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluations instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Homeland &
Corporate
Security BS (Q)
College of
Professional
Studies
Total
Undergraduate
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.21
4.43
4.41
4.44
4.61
4.59
4.04
4.09
4.14
4.34
4.33
4.43
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Self_Study Template 17
Homeland &
Corporate
Security (SI)
College of
Professional
Studies
Total
Undergraduate
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
4.52
4.80
4.72
4.70
4.72
4.87
4.04
4.09
4.14
4.34
4.33
4.43
4.01
3.21
4.07
4.27
4.29
4.35
Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1 /3page)
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards
for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science
laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 18
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to
the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
CPS_HCS_BS_Q & SI
Self_Study Template 19