DRAFT
A
CCREDITATION
S
ELF
-S
TUDY
O
CTOBER
2014
G
RADUATE
S
CHOOL OF
P
UBLIC
H
EALTH
,
U
NIVERSITY OF
P
ITTSBURGH
Dear reviewers,This is a draft of the self study that we will provide as documentation for our upcoming re-accreditation. The goal of the self study is to critically and honestly assess our strengths and weaknesses, and to be a tool for evaluation and planning.
We appreciate your taking the time to review this draft and be a part of the self study process. You will see that this is truly a draft; many pieces are still “under construction.” We are distributing it at this stage precisely in order to gather a wide range of input before anything is finalized. In particular, “strengths and weaknesses” sections are left intentionally blank or in draft form so that your input can be incorporated. We value any contributions or comments you want to make. Those can be addressed to Eleanor Feingold (feingold@pitt.edu) or Maggie Potter (mapotter@pitt.edu), and can be accepted through November 15th, 2014.
A draft of the electronic appendices to the self study is also available at
http://www.publichealth.pitt.edu/home/about/accreditation, although at this time it is incomplete and the links from the self study to the appendices are not yet functional.
We thank you again for your participation in this process. GSPH 2015 Accreditation Committee
Table of Contents
1.0 The School of Public Health
1.1 Mission 1.2 Evaluation.
1.3 Institutional Environment 1.4 Organization and Administration 1.5 Governance
1.6 Fiscal Resources
1.7 Faculty and Other Resources. 1.8 Diversity.
2.0 Instructional Programs
2.1 Degree Offerings 2.2 Program Length
2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge 2.4 Practical Skills
2.5 Culminating Experience 2.6 Required Competencies 2.7 Assessment Procedures.
2.8 Other Graduate Professional Degrees. 2.9 Bachelor’s Degrees in Public Health. 2.10 Other Bachelor’s Degrees. 2.11 Academic Degrees 2.12 Doctoral Degrees 2.13 Joint Degrees
2.14 Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs
3.0 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge
3.1 Research. 3.2 Service
3.3 Workforce Development
4.0 Faculty, Staff and Students
4.1 Faculty Qualifications
4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures 4.3 Student Recruitment and Admissions 4.4 Advising and Career Counseling
CRITERION 1: THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
1.1. MISSION
The school shall have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with supporting goals, objectives and values.
Interpretation. While each school must define its own mission, it is expected that all schools of
public health will be guided by the broad mission of public health, which was defined by CEPH in 1978 as “enhancing health in human populations, through organized community effort.” Public health embraces an ecological approach that recognizes the interactions and relationships among multiple determinants of health. Thus, all schools of public health will be constituted as a consortium of disciplines, together addressing the health of the community through instruction, research and community service. It is further expected that all schools of public health, at a minimum, will prepare public health practitioners who have a prevention orientation and are able to identify and assess needs of populations; plan, implement and evaluate programs to address identified needs; and otherwise assure conditions that protect and promote the health of populations.
In addition, the school may define its mission to include other roles and functions, which derive from the purposes of its parent institution, reflect its own aspirations and are responsive to the changing health needs and demands of populations within the school’s defined service area(s). These factors may be important considerations in the school’s definition of its values. The mission, goals and objectives should reflect the school’s defined values.
The mission, goals and objectives must specifically identify what the school has proposed to accomplish through its public health instructional, research and service activities.
If the university chooses to organize the school to include other related disciplines that are not widely embraced and defined as public health (eg, communication disorders, social work, nursing, physical therapy, etc.), those disciplines should also align with the public health mission of the school.
The mission, goals and objectives of a school should prescribe and limit the activities of the school in ways that permit both the rational allocation of resources and evaluation of outcomes. The goals and objectives should be the basis of the school’s evaluation activities. There should be clearly delineated relationships between the mission and goals and between the goals and objectives. Each school will be evaluated by CEPH based on its self-defined mission, goals and objectives.
Required Documentation
1.1.A. Mission. A clear and concise mission statement for the school as a whole. 3 |
Through excellence and leadership in education, research, and service, the Graduate School of Public Health promotes health, prevents disease, and strives to achieve health equity for everyone.
1.1.B. A statement of values that guides the school.
The University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health acts with respect to the following values:
Excellence: A dedication to excellence in all facets of our work, recognizing that improving the health of populations rests on the discovery and application of the best scientific evidence Diversity: A promise to respect human differences in all aspects of our mission
Ethics: A commitment to the highest standard of ethics and integrity
Service: A duty to provide the highest levels of service to public health at the global, national, and regional levels
1.1.C. One or more goal statements for each major function through which
the school intends to attain its mission, including at a minimum, instruction, research and service.
To fulfill its mission, the Graduate School of Public Health has the following primary goals: Goal 1: Prepare the next generation of public health leaders through rigorous educational programs and robust student support services
Goal 2: Expand knowledge in the field of public health through scientific inquiry and innovation Goal 3: Advance the health of populations across the lifespan and through faculty service, in cooperation with partners at the regional, national, and global levels.
Goal 4: Secure adequate resources and promote operational effectiveness.
1.1.D. A set of measurable objectives with quantifiable indicators related to each goal statement as provided in Criterion 1.1.C. In some cases, qualitative indicators may be used as appropriate.
The Graduate School of Public health has measurable objectives for tracking the institution’s progress in achieving its mission and primary goals. The primary goals and objectives are found
below in Table 1.1.1. Each objective in Table 1.1.1 is associated with one or more quantifiable indicators. These are shown, along with performance data, in criterion 1.2c.
Table 1.1.1: GSPH Goals and Objectives Goal Objective Goal 1: Prepare the next generation of public health leaders through rigorous educational programs and robust student support services
Continue to improve our competency-based curriculum, including assessment Assess our existing certificate programs and develop new ones as appropriate to address developing and interdisciplinary areas
Ensure that diversity and cultural competency issues are appropriately addressed throughout the curriculum, and include explicit content in all core issues Integrate cross-cutting concepts, such as ethics, writing, management skills, and systems thinking into the curriculum.
Develop or enhance educational programs related to global health, computation, and the management and analysis of large databases.
In partnership with other schools at the University, increase the public heath content in clinical education across the University
Increase support for teaching and student mentoring
Improve mentoring, feedback, and support services for instructors and mentors Upgrade facilities for teaching and learning
Increase the number and quality of research and practice experiences
Expand opportunities for our students to receive teaching training and experience Increase the diversity and strengthen the quality of the Pitt Public Health student body
Establish a relationship with the University Honors College (UHC) and expose UHC undergraduates to Pitt Public health courses, programs, and opportunities (e.g., early admissions program)
Modernize and integrate data management systems to track students through the application and admission process
Identify best practices for student support services and create cohesive, integrated procedures across departments and student affairs
Provide comprehensive career-related services to ensure professional development and access to local, national, and global employment opportunities
Create infrastructure and facilities to encourage engagement among students and between students and other Pitt Public Health communities
Goal 2: Expand knowledge in the field of public health through scientific inquiry and
Maintain a ranking among the top schools of public health based on National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding
Establish innovative programs to broaden research collaboration (both internal and external to the University) to better position faculty to compete for funding. Increase support from foundations and federal agencies other than NIH Broaden research collaborations internationally, within the University, across departments within Pitt Public health, and with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Expand our research portfolio’s focus on global health 5 |
innovation Increase the use of supplemental funding to NIH R01 grants for support of students and junior faculty members from underrepresented minority groups Create additional endowed faculty positions
Increase the number of awards, elected fellowships, officer positions in scientific and professional organizations, and appointments on editorial and advisory boards Increase the number of publications in top peer-reviewed journals
Enlarge the availability of fellowships to train and recruit underrepresented minority faculty members
Expand the number of training grants (NIH T-awards)
Increase the number of individual training grants (NIH F awards) Maintain and build opportunities for global experiences for students Partner with University of Pittsburgh’s Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI) and other schools of the health sciences to train postdoctoral fellows
Integrate research projects across the full human lifespan
Apply computation and simulation approaches to research and policy
Position the institution to take the lead on comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research
Take a leadership role in the use of large publically available datasets to assess the health of populations
Provide decision-making support for governmental agencies at the county, commonwealth, and federal levels to aid in decision making
Goal 3: Advance the health of populations across the lifespan and through faculty service, in cooperation with partners at the regional, national, and global levels.
Provide services to local and international organizations that are dedicating to reducing health disparities
Advocate for the use of high quality research studies across the lifespan to guide public policies
Develop criteria to evaluate the quality and impact of scholarly service for use in faculty performance and promotions review
Mentor faculty in the development of service portfolios and the documentation of impact for their service activities
Train faculty for participation in technical assistance and policy advocacy Strengthen relationships with country and commonwealth organizations that hold responsibility for public health
Reduce premature mortality through service on local and regional policy-setting boards and advisory bodies
Assist nonprofit hospitals win channeling community benefit funds toward targeted public health interventions
Collaborate with health care providers, governments, and communities to implement and monitor targeted interventions.
Build relationships with medical and public health practice community to sustain monitoring, surveillance, and data collection for public health practice
Provide technical assistance using methodologies grounded in computation and simulation to advance public health policy and practice
Train the public health workforce and agencies for performance improvement, professional certification, and organizational accreditation
Provide advice and technical assistance to codify, revise, and update Pennsylvania’s public health laws
Goal 4: Secure adequate resources and promote operational effectivene ss.
Integrate assessment, budgeting, and strategic planning to support institutional improvement
Reform and implement a new Pitt Public Health budget model Set competitive tuition rates for maximizing revenue
Identify revenue and expense benchmarks for comparable institutions Promote competitive faculty/staff salaries and benefits
Enhance faculty/staff training and development opportunities
Ensure appropriate levels of staff support in academic and administrative departments
Recruit diverse faculty through development of formal guidelines for search committees
Establish relationships with foreign institutions for the recruitment of faculty Mentor junior faculty by utilizing resources of the University, including services provided by Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI) and the schools of the health sciences
Identify potential sources of funds for endowed chairs/directors Increase the number of large (> $100K) donors to the school Increase the number and amount of scholarship awards
Implement a development plan with participation by all stakeholders Achieve a capital campaign goal of $15 million
Develop and implement an integrated communications plan to provide a consistent image and message about the school with specific attention to prospective students, faculty, and alumni
Redesign the school’s Web site to make it a reliable destination for all audiences Engage our audiences in conversation through the use of new and developing media
Promote the research work of underrepresented faculty members in Pitt Public Health
Conduct an IT assessment and inventory for compliance with University data security
Work towards the development of an integrated school-wide IT system through the continuous improvement of IT infrastructure and school-wide use of serves, data storage, and backup
Increase the number of digital classrooms and provide ongoing funding for the renewal of existing digital classrooms
Ensure that computing resources are adequate to address the growing computational needs of public health researchers and educators
1.1.E. Description of the manner through the mission, values, goals, and objectives were developed, including a description of how various specific stakeholder groups were involved in their development.
The development of the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the Graduate School of Public health as we as the objectives from the strategic plan were developed by a working group chaired by the Senior Associate Dean. Members of the working group consisted of the Dean,
Department Chairs, Associate Deans, the Assistant Dean for Finance and Administration, senior members of the Dean’s Office staff (Director of External Affairs) and a student representative. Over a series of meetings in Spring 2012, the mission, vision, goals and objectives generated as part of the prior strategic plan were reviewed and modified. In an iterative fashion the mission, vision, goals and objectives were discussed at meetings and modifications were made and reviewed at the next meeting with possible additional modifications.
Upon the completion of a draft strategic plan, which included the mission, vision, goals and objectives, input was sought by key stakeholders. The plan was made available on the Graduate School of Public Health website and all faculty, students and staff of the Graduate School of Public Health were asked to review and provide feedback. In addition, the Dean emailed copies of the draft strategic plan to additional stakeholders, including key members of the University of Pittsburgh leadership, members of the Board of Visitors, members of the Department of Health at the state and county levels, alumni representatives and leadership of the UPMC Health System.
Comments from the stakeholders were reviewed and integrated into the mission, vision, goals and objectives and approved by the Dean. The entire strategic plan was submitted to the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences on June 20, 2012.
1.1.F. Description of how the mission, values, goals, and objectives are made available to the school’s constituent groups, including the general public, and how they are routinely reviewed and revised to ensure relevance.
A copy of the mission, values, goals, and objectives is available on the Graduate School of Public Health website.
Relevance of goals is reviewed on the full scale every five years when a new strategic plan is developed, but individual goals are re-evaluated at least annually as a part of the strategic plan implementation and review processes described in 1.2a.
1.1.G. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the school’s strengths, weaknesses, and plans relating to this criterion.
Strengths: The Graduate School of Public Health has a clearly stated mission and value statements. The goals and objectives are ambitious and have had the opportunity for review by the key stakeholders, including the faculty, student and staff of the Graduate School of Public Health.
Weaknesses: While plans are in place to feed back information on the metrics used to assess each objective those involved in the implementation, the process can be time consuming and in some instances information is overlooked. As a result the process of informing the constituent groups is constantly being refined.
Plans: Continue to review the implementation of the plan and refine procedural aspects of the implementation.
1.2. EVALUATION
The school shall have an explicit process for monitoring and evaluating its overall efforts against its mission, goals and objectives; for assessing the school’s effectiveness in serving its various constituencies; and for using evaluation results in ongoing planning and decision making to achieve its mission. As part of the evaluation process, the school must conduct an analytical self-study that analyzes performance against the accreditation criteria defined in this document.
Interpretation. A school of public health must undertake ongoing, well-documented,
systematic, broad-based and integrated evaluation of its activities to determine its effectiveness in achieving its stated mission, goals and objectives. The results of this process must be regularly used to inform the school’s planning and decision-making processes. A school must demonstrate how evaluation efforts contribute to quality enhancement of its programs and activities.
The school should have specific data collection mechanisms to provide information for the evaluation, which can be used to improve its management and planning. The school should engage its constituents, including community stakeholders, alumni, employers and the university, in evaluation to ensure the consideration of external contextual factors; a wide variety of methods for obtaining stakeholders’ input is possible.
Accreditation, and the self-study process, is one, although not the only, method of evaluation for schools of public health. A school that pursues accreditation must undertake a self-study process that is reflective, thoughtful and analytical and that produces a candid assessment of the school’s strengths and weaknesses in reference to accreditation criteria.
Like other evaluation activities, the self-study process should involve the school’s institutional officers, administrative staff, faculty, student body, alumni and other significant constituencies, especially representatives from the public health community.
Required Documentation
1.2.A. Description of the evaluation processes used to monitor progress against objectives defined in Criterion 1.1.d, including identification of the data systems and responsible parties associated with each objective and with the evaluation process as a whole.
Overall responsibility for strategic plan implementation and evaluation lies with the Senior Associate Dean. Responsibility within specific areas lies with other Associate Deans. Tables xxx list all of the quantifiable outcome measures and show the responsible parties and data systems for each objective.
The process for monitoring progress is as follows.
Implementation: Prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year, the Strategic Goals, and Objective
will be reviewed by the Associate Deans and the Assistant Dean for Finance to select a subset of the Aims to be implemented in the upcoming fiscal year. For each Aim to be implemented, an implementation plan is developed, resource needs are estimated, and metrics to measure the progress of the Aim are identified (see 1.2c).
For each aim to be implemented, a worksheet is completed which outlines the responsible individual(s), the implementation plan, the necessary resources, the metrics and the dissemination plan.
The Associate Deans and the Assistant Dean for Finance present to the Dean to for approval of the Aims to be implemented at the weekly Operations Committee meeting
The Associate Deans and the Assistant Dean for Finance meet on a quarterly basis to review the progress of implementation of each Aim.
Reporting: On a rotating basis the Associate Deans and the Assistant Dean for Finance report on
the progress of the aims being implemented at the monthly Graduate School of Public Health Council meetings.
A summary of the status will be reported annually at the Fall school-wide faculty meeting.
Tracking: For aims that have been implemented, the implementation worksheet is updated at the
end of each fiscal year, including data on measurable outcomes.
1.2.B. Description of how the results of the evaluation processes described in Criterion 1.2.a. are monitored, analyzed, communicated, and regularly used by managers responsible for enhancing the quality of programs and activities.
With any strategic plan, it is important to close the loop. In this case, closing the loop consists of reviewing the measurable outcome data for each objective, evaluating the success of the
outcome, reporting to key individuals, and then assessing next steps. Within the Graduate School of Public Health this process occurs for all outcomes through the tracking of the measurable outcomes, the reporting of outcomes at a school-wide level, a yearly report to Dean, and discussion of the outcomes at the Weekly Operating Committee meeting. Individual outcomes are reported to and discussed with specific stakeholders as appropriate. Examples are given below.
Commented [EF1]: This is the strategic planning tables
also referenced in 1.2c.
• A summary report of all education-related items was compiled by the Associate Dean for Education in spring 2014. It consisted of three years of longitudinal data by degree program and/or department as appropriate. The report was distributed to all associate deans, chairs, and program directors, and to the EPCC and the student affairs staff (schoolwide and departmental). The full exit survey results on which many of the education outcomes are based are also distributed annually to all of these individuals. Results were discussed in meetings of the student affairs staff and of the EPCC throughout the summer of 2014. Action items are included in the minutes of those meetings.
•
1.2.C. Data regarding the school’s performance on each measurable objective described in Criterion 1.1.d. must be provided for each of the last three years.
Tables xxx list data for all measurable outcomes of the strategic planning process, which includes most of the outcomes discussed in subsequent sections of the self study. Because not all of our aims are implemented each year, some outcomes are reported for only certain years. Moreover, the current strategic plan was initiated in 2012, so 2011/2012 data are only appropriate or available (as baseline measures) for certain outcomes.
1.2.D. Description of the manner in which the self-study document was developed, including effective opportunities for input by important school constituents, including institutional officers, administrative staff, faculty, students, alumni, and representatives of the public health
community.
The school treats its CEPH accreditation as an ongoing process requiring consistent attention throughout the 7-year cycle. At critical points throughout the cycle, the school’s leadership engaged stakeholders including faculty, students, university officials, and external stakeholders. Leadership throughout the current self-study process came from three administrators with experience in previous accreditation cycles and/or training as CEPH site visitors: Associate Vice Chancellor for Education in the Health Sciences, Dr. Margaret McDonald; the school’s Associate Dean for Education, Dr. Eleanor Feingold; and the school’s immediate-past Associate Dean for Public Health Practice, Ms. Margaret Potter. Participating throughout the process were associate and assistant deans, faculty and students of the School, university officials, and stakeholders including community and professional partners. All re-accreditation activities were addressed in monthly reports to the Pitt Public Health Council.
As shown in Table 1.2.D, the process and timeline for the self-study proceeded in five stages: • Beginning immediately after the 2006 site visit, the school reviewed its data tracking and
management accountability to assure accuracy and thoroughness for future self-studies. • CEPH’s 2011 publication of revised accreditation criteria initiated the second-stage
activity and tasks; one of the most critical was establishing adherence to the new
Commented [EF2]: Need to add examples from other
domains.
Criterion 1.8 on diversity. Because this task required a review and revision of existing policies, procedures, and accountability, it was assigned to an Ad-Hoc Diversity Committee with representation from the standing Faculty Diversity Committee as well as additional membership from associate and assistant deans, center directors from Health Equity and LGBT Health Research, students, and minority faculty, the Office of Health Sciences Diversity, and the University Office of Diversity and Inclusion. A complete description of this process appears with Criterion 1.8; an extensive report from the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, including its history of iterative reviews, approvals, and authorizations, appears in the ERF/Appendix.
• Several major changes to educational programs have been in progress since the publication of the 2011 criteria or before. Most importantly, the process of moving all programs toward competency-based curriculum with full assessment of all competencies has been ongoing for approximately five years. In addition, a complete review and revision of DrPH programs was conducted from 2011-2012.
• The third activity stage in 2013 involved creation of an Accreditation Committee comprised of associate and assistant deans and (see Table 1.2.D.1 for listing of the membership). The tasks, with participation from the academic departments and the ad-hoc Diversity Committee, centered on conducting a preliminary virtual self-study in preparation for a consultation visit by CEPH staff in October of that year.
• Preparing the self-study document in 2014 was the fourth activity stage. The
accreditation committee had monthly meetings for the first half year, a two-day retreat in June of 2014, and weekly meetings throughout summer and fall of 2014. In October of 2014, the Accreditation Committee posted a draft self-study document on the website and invited a critical review from representatives of all of the school’s stakeholder
constituencies. The listing of all these invitees, indicating their titles or roles and the particular criteria brought to the attention of each, appears in the ERF.
• DRAFT DESCRIPTION OF STAGE 5
1.2.E. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the school’s strengths, weaknesses, and plans relating to this criterion.
[Need to draft this section.]
1.3. INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
The school shall be an integral part of an accredited institution of higher education and shall have the same level of independence and status accorded to professional schools in that institution.
Interpretation. An accredited institution of higher education is one that is accredited by a
regional accrediting agency recognized by the US Department of Education. Independence refers to the ability of the school to maintain the integrity of its programs through autonomous and well-informed decision making regarding matters such as budgeting and resource allocation; personnel recruitment, selection and advancement; and establishment of academic standards and policies. Status refers to the stature within the institution and the position it holds within the institution because of the organizational arrangement. For purposes of accreditation, CEPH views the terms school and college as synonymous if they both refer to the highest level of organizational status and independence available within the university context. Independence and status are always viewed within the context of the institutional policies, procedures and practices, but in general the school of public health should have the same degree of independence accorded to other professional schools.
Required Documentation
1.3.A. A brief description of the institution in which the school is located, and the names of accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds.
GSPH is one of the University of Pittsburgh’s six Schools of the Health Sciences, which also include Medicine, Dental Medicine, Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Nursing, and Pharmacy. GSPH and all of the Health Sciences schools share in the academic mission of the University by providing a broad range of programs in education; biomedical research training; health
promotion; and diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human disease and disability. The University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, founded in 1787, is a nonsectarian, coeducational, state-related research university. The University is the most comprehensive educational complex in a tri-state area, offering more than 468 distinct degree programs and enrolling a total of 28,617 students in the fall 2014 term. As a state-related institution, the University is a public-private venture supported by public (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) and private funds. As a result, educational services are made available at a lower tuition rate for Commonwealth residents. In return, the University is eligible for state funding for its operating budget and may take advantage of State Facility Construction Grants. However, administratively and academically, the University operates as a private institution and has sole authority over standards for admission, awarding of degrees, and faculty qualifications. The University of Pittsburgh is a member of the Association of American Universities and is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission of Higher Education. The most recent accreditation review for the University took place in September 2012. The review resulted in the University's reaccreditation for an additional 10 years, with no qualifications. Its report praised Pitt’s unusually robust and integrated “culture of assessment,” and affirmed that the University of Pittsburgh is, indeed, “a world-class research university.” GSPH, in addition to its CEPH accreditation, maintains accreditation of the Health
Administration Program by the Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education; the most recent reaccreditation was in May 2014. The program is accredited through May 2021. The genetic counseling program is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling; the most recent reaccreditation was in 2011 for eight years.
1.3.B. One or more organizational charts of the university indicating the school’s relationship to the other components of the institution, including reporting lines.
The following charts illustrate the various administrative, financial, and development relationships of GSPH with other components of the University, particularly the other health sciences schools: the chancellor’s office (Chart II.1), and the health sciences (Chart II.2).
Chart II.1. Chancellor’s Office Organization
Insert org chart here.
Chart II.2. Health Sciences Organization
Insert org chart here.
1.3.C. Description of the school’s level of autonomy and authority regarding the following: -budgetary authority and decisions relating to resource allocation
-lines of accountability, including access to higher-level university officials -personnel recruitment, selection and advancement, including faculty and staff -academic standards and policies, including establishment and oversight of curricula
Resource allocation within the University is affected by a system that distributes planning and budgeting responsibilities among administrators, faculty, staff, students, and trustees. The University-wide Planning and Budgeting Committee develops planning parameters for the University’s general operating budget. The provost and senior vice chancellor for the health sciences then translate these parameters into school allocations. At the school level,
departmental allocations are made through the dean’s office. New programs are initiated at the department level and receive approval from the appropriate school committees, with final review by the GSPH Council and GSPH Planning and Budget Policies Committee and subsequent approval by the dean, senior vice chancellor for the health sciences, and provost.
1.3.D. Identification of any of the above processes that are different for the school of public health than for other professional schools, with an explanation.
GSPH has the same status as the University’s other professional schools and also benefits greatly from its role within the University and the Health Sciences schools.
Commented [EF3]: Need to expand this a bit and address
each area separately. Emphasize “level of autonomy and authority.”
1.3.E. If a collaborative school, descriptions of all participating institutions and delineation of their relationships to the school.
Not Applicable
1.3.F. If a collaborative school, a copy of the formal written agreement that establishes the rights and obligations of the participating universities in regard to the school’s operation.
Not Applicable
1.3.G. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the school’s strengths, weaknesses, and plans relating to this criterion.
[Need to draft this.]
1.4 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The school shall provide an organizational setting conducive to public health learning, research and service. The organizational setting shall facilitate interdisciplinary communication, cooperation and collaboration that contribute to achieving the school’s public health mission. The organizational structure shall effectively support the work of the school’s constituents.
Interpretation. Organization of the school should enhance the potential for fulfillment of its
stated mission and goals. The administrative structure and resources should allow the school to carry out its instructional, research and service functions. The environment must be characterized by commitment to the integrity of the school, including high ethical standards in operations, equity in its dealings with all constituents, support for the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and accountability to its constituencies. The environment should create an interdisciplinary public health community that fosters learning, research and service.
Interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration refers primarily to the school, but could include the university and community.
Required Documentation
1.4.A. One or more organizational charts showing the administrative organization of the school, indicating relationships among its component offices, departments, divisions, or other
administrative units.
Chart II.3 below shows the detailed organization of the Office of the Dean, and Chart II.4 shows the senior administration within the context of the Schools of the Health Sciences.
[Insert updated org charts below]
1.4.B. Description of the roles and responsibilities of major units in the organizational chart. Overall school administration is managed by the Office of the Dean. Student services and educational programs are handled by the Office of Student Affairs and Education, which is jointly managed by the Associate Dean for Student Affairs and the Associate Dean for Education. Responsibilities of senior administrators are as follows.
Senior Associate Dean: The Senior Associate Dean is responsible for the research mission of
the Graduate School of Public Health (similar to and Associate Dean for Research). The Senior Associate Dean is responsible for the oversight of the External Affairs staff in the Dean’s Office, which is in charge of the marketing and communication for the school, all facilities management, and the information technology staff in the Dean’s Office. In addition, the Senior Associate Dean stands in for the Dean at University functions when the Dean is not available.
Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs: fdsk Associate Dean for Policy: fdsk
Associate Dean for Practice: fdsk Associate Dean for Education: xx Associate Dean for Student Affairs: Asso Assistant Dean for Student Affairs: fdsk Assistant Dean for Finance: fdsk
Assistant Dean for Global Health Programs: fdsk
In addition to the central units described above, a number of centers and other auxiliary units are critical to the functioning of the school.
Center for Public Health Practice Public Health Dynamics Laboratory
Center for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology Epidemiology Data Center
Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health Issues Center for Health Equity
Health Policy Institute
Center for Bioethics and Health Law
Center for Healthy Environments and Communities Institute for Evaluation Sciences in Community Health
Commented [EF4]: Expand this a bit to give the big
picture of how the school is administered. Mention chairs, high-level staff, and major operational meetings (operating committee, chairs, council).
Commented [EF5]: Describe all centers and other
important units here. One paragraph each.
Center for Lung Regeneration
Center for Free Radical and Antioxidant Health Center for Aging and Population Health Center for Global Health
1.4.C. Description of the manner in which interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration occur and support public health learning, research, and service.
The School places high priority on interdisciplinary activity and supports this value through policies and procedures affecting all aspects of its mission and strategic objectives. PROVIDE OVERVIEW OF EXAMPLES FROM THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
The following are specific examples of interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration in public health learning, research, and service.
Public Health Learning. All students are exposed to multiple disciplines and interdisciplinary perspectives during their time at GSPH.
• For MPH students, the schoolwide core curriculum exposes students to perspectives from all five core disciplines and engages them in integrative multi-disciplinary problem solving through the capstone course.
• Students in all degree programs are required to participate in two semesters of the “Dean’s Grand Rounds” course, which requires them to attend seminars and events of multi-disciplinary interest throughout the year.
• Academic and other professional degree students also take the “Essentials of Public Health” course, which gives them an integrated exposure to topics in health management and policy, environmental determinants of health, and social determinants of health.
• All dissertation, thesis, and essay committees are required to include faculty from at least two departments.
• A number of certificate programs are inter-departmental in course content and faculty participation.
Research. [Need text for this section.]
Service. [Need text for this section.]
1.4.D. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the school’s strengths, weaknesses, and plans relating to this criterion.
[Need text for this section.]
1.5 GOVERNANCE
The school administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights and responsibilities concerning school governance and academic policies. Students shall, where appropriate, have participatory roles in the conduct of school and program evaluation procedures, policy setting and decision making.
Interpretation. Within the framework of the university’s rules and regulations, school
administration and faculty should have sufficient prerogatives to assure integrity of school programs and to allow accomplishment of the school’s stated mission, goals and objectives. School faculty should have formal opportunities for input in decisions affecting admissions and progress, resource allocation, faculty recruitment and promotion, curriculum design and evaluation, research and service activities, and degree requirements. Where degrees are awarded to school students through the university’s graduate school, school faculty should represent school views and interests in graduate school policy setting and decision making. Students should have formal methods to participate in policy making and decision making within the school.
Students should participate in appropriate aspects of governance including providing student perspectives on instruction, research and service opportunities, field experiences, and career counseling and placement procedures. Administrative mechanisms should permit appropriate student involvement in program policy formulation and review. Standing and ad hoc committees, with explainable exceptions, should include student members.
Required Documentation
1.5.A. A list of school standing and ad hoc committees, with a statement of charge, composition, and current membership for each.
There are four standing committees that participate in and drive the governance of GSPH, in addition to the highest governing body in the School, which is the GSPH Council. These committees are the Faculty Advancement, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (FAPTC), Educational Policies and Curriculum Committee (EPCC), Planning and Budget Policies Committee (PBPC), and Faculty Diversity Committee (FDC). The charges, compositions, and memberships of these committees are detailed in Table 1.5.A.1.
In addition, there are a number of important ad hoc committees within the school. These committees are detailed in Table 1.5.A.2 below.
Table 1.5.A.2 Pitt Public Health Ad Hoc Committees
Committee Name Statement of Charge Committee
Composition MPH Committee Until September 2014, the core curriculum committee existed as the
working group for discussions of and changes to the core
curriculum. It was a subcommittee of the EPCC. It was also involved in development and assessment of MPH competencies, along with the program directors. In August of 2014, the EPCC formally added the MPH program directors to the subcommittee and reconstituted it as the MPH Program Committee. Recommendations of this committee are referred back to the EPCC for formal action.
• Core course faculty • MPH program directors • Educational Programs Coordinator • Associate Dean for Education • MPH students
Safety Committee This committee meets regularly to discuss facility and operations aspects of the GSPH with an emphasis on personal, collective, and environmental safety.
• Faculty Committee Chair
• One representative from each department • Dean’s Office liaison
Healthy Lifestyles Oversight Committee
This committee has been responsible for the planning and oversight of the recently launched healthy lifestyles initiative which is implementing programs targeted and increasing physical fitness, improved nutritional habits, and smoking cessation.
Strategic Planning Committee
This committee has met in recent years to develop school-wide and departmental five year strategic plans and to periodically evaluate the progress made on these goals and objectives.
CEPH Accreditation Self-Study and Planning Committee
This committee meets weekly has been heavily engaged in preparing for and writing the self-study required as a major part of the CEPH re-accreditation process.
1.5.B. Description of the school’s governance and committee structure’s roles and responsibilities relating to the following: general school policy development; planning and evaluation; budget and resource allocation; student recruitment, admission, and award of degrees; faculty recruitment, retention, promotion, and tenure, academic standards and policies, including curriculum development; research and service expectations and policies
General School policy is developed and formulated at multiple levels. Current policies have
been developed over many years and have been impacted by University policy and actions initiated by individuals, committees, departments, Department Chairs, Deans and Associate Deans. As would be expected, the Dean, department Chairs, Associate Deans, and Standing Committee Chairs are key individuals in the formulation and changing of School policies.
The highest governance body in the School is the GSPH Council, which is chaired by the Dean of GSPH. The Chairs of the standing committees (Table 1.5.A.1) are voting members on the GSPH Council. The GSPH Council membership and standing committee membership, and leadership, governance, charge, and election rules are detailed in the GSPH bylaws. With regard to planning and evaluation, as well as budget resource allocation, all standing committees have responsibilities in this area to some extent. However, the Planning and Budget Policies Committee (PBPC) meets monthly to discuss, vote on, and advise on issues specifically in this area. They address such issues as facility planning, curriculum changes that could affect human and financial resources, many aspects of school finances, and the impact of University fiscal policies and actions on the GSPH.
With regard to student recruitment, admission and award of degrees, student admission, academic performance, and the awarding of degrees are governed by the GSPH faculty through the Educational Policies and Curriculum Committee (EPCC) (see XX) and by the dean’s office through the associate dean for student affairs, the associate dean for education, and the assistant dean for student affairs. Departments also generally have faculty leaders or committees dealing with student recruitment, admissions, and assessment of competency for degree status. The duties and responsibilities of GSPH entities are governed by University guidelines specified in the Regulations for Graduate Study at the University of Pittsburgh and GSPH policies. With regard to faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure, the Faculty Advancement, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (FAPTC) oversees the review of all recommendations for primary faculty appointments, promotions, and conferrals of tenure. The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs carefully reviews all recommendations for adjunct appointments, visiting faculty appointments, and award of graduate faculty status. (Graduate faculty status is required for a faculty member to serve as the major advisor for doctoral students.) Recruitment, retention, and promotion oversight and actions are also heavily driven by the Department Chairs and their evaluations of individual faculty members. However, the FAPTC carefully reviews all recommendations for these actions, and if approved the actions then are presented to the GSPH Council for approval, at which time the faculty actions are sent from the Dean to the Senior Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences.
With regard to academic standards and policies, including curriculum development, the EPCC is the governing body, working in collaboration with the Associate Dean for Education, the Associate Dean for Student Affairs, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, and the Educational Programs Coordinator. Individual departments also have curriculum committees. The Associate Dean for Education serves as the GSPH representative to the University Council on Graduate Studies, which is the university’s graduate educational policy and programs committee.
With regard to research and service expectations and policies, the policies in this area and others are in place as a product of historical policies that are periodically reviewed at the School and University levels. There are different expectations, placed by Department Chairs and the FAPTC, on faculty in different areas and hired under different appointments. These
expectations, based on policy as detailed in the University’s Faculty Handbook, are dependent on the track (prefixed or suffixed, such as Research or Public Health Practice appointments) or 20 |
concentration (Public Health Education), are carefully considered when appointments and promotions are reviewed by the FAPTC committee
1.5.C. A copy of the school’s bylaws or other policy documents that determine the rights and obligations of administrators, faculty, and students in governance of the school.
The GSPH bylaws serve as the overall governance and guidance document for the school. The bylaws are available to all GSPH community members through the school’s intranet. A copy of the official, full document has been provided within the ERF. The bylaws are reviewed each fall by the GSPH Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC), which is comprised of the current President of the GSPH Faculty Senate, as well as the Past-President, and the President-Elect. Changes proposed upon annual review, or through the workings of the GSPH Standing Committees, are drafted and presented at a school-wide faculty meeting and then voted on via a secure internet voting system.
1.5.D. Identification of school faculty who hold membership on university committees, through which faculty contribute to the activities of the university.
GSPH faculty members have been highly active in service to the University on different committees. In this way, our faculty members contribute to the achievement of the University’s mission and goals, alongside those of the School. Examples of University committees on which GSPH faculty members have served include: the University Senate, Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), University Council on Graduate Studies, and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACAUC). Using data provided in June 2014 through the University’s Faculty Information System, we know that 53 different GSPH faculty served on 112 University committees in the past three years. A University committee has been defined here as any committee or working group that operates across schools throughout the University.
1.5.E. Description of student roles in governance, including any formal student organizations. Students are chosen to serve as representatives on several school-wide committees, including GSPH Council, EPCC, MPH committee, PBPC, Faculty Diversity Committee, and the Safety Committee. The student representatives participate fully and are voting members on most of these committees. Student involvement is particularly critical for the curriculum and student affairs areas; the EPCC has four student members and the MPH committee has three. Students also fill officer positions on GSPH’s Student Government Association (SGA), which serves as the umbrella organization for the school’s seven other University-recognized student organizations. SGA also represents student interests and concerns on behalf of Pitt Public Health to the University-wide Graduate and Professional Student Government.
1.5.F. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the school’s strengths, weaknesses, and plans relating to this criterion.
Strengths
• The Governance of GSPH is achieved through clearly defined roles, responsibilities and expectations of standing committees and their members and through participation across the spectrum of GSPH stakeholders. Standing committees have elected representation across the board and inclusive student participation and proportion of faculty members who have served or currently do serve on standing committees is sizable. Flexibility and adaptability are achieved through regular review of the GSPH bylaws and the recent development of standing committee operations guidelines. Transparency, participation, and checks and balances are achieved through the GSPH Council, the meetings of which are open to the entire GSPH community.
• Real student participation – a mix of doctoral and master’s students; student input has a real impact on policies and recommendations
• Respectful exchange of ideas in committee meetings Weaknesses
• GSPH standing committee Chairs are selected from amongst the membership during the first meeting of the academic year and this often results in short terms for committee Chairs. This limits the experience and “institutional memory” of such committees. Recommendations
• Suggestions for changes to the GSPH governance structure and operations could be sought from the GSPH community to identify issues that might be out there but that have not been voiced.
• Opportunities could be found to identify and recruit committee members early in their term of service for additional service as the Chairs of standing committees.
• Would we benefit from a longer “term” for SGA representatives – for example, if they were selected in January (and hence were “officer-elect” through the spring term) but still served in their officer roles for the same one-year period, would they benefit from working with current officers more closely and getting through the learning curve a little sooner?
1.6 FISCAL RESOURCES
The school shall have financial resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives.
Interpretation. School financial resources shall be sufficient to achieve the school’s mission,
goals and objectives. Financial support must be adequate to sustain all core functions, including offering coursework and other elements necessary to support the full array of degrees, and must adequately support the school’s ongoing operation.
Required Documentation
1.6.A. Description of the budgetary and allocation processes, including all sources of funding supportive of the instruction, research and service activities. This description should include, as appropriate, discussion about legislative appropriations, formula for funds distribution, tuition generation and retention, gifts, grants and contracts, indirect cost recovery, taxes or levies imposed by the university or other entity within the university, and other policies that impact the fiscal resources available to the school.
Organizational Structure, Personnel, and Academic Standards and Policies
GSPH is organizationally located within the health sciences schools of the University. The dean functions as the School’s chief academic and administrative officer and, as such, is responsible to the Board of Trustees and the chancellor through the senior vice chancellor (SVC) for the health sciences (for administrative matters) and the provost (for academic matters). All academic appointments require both SVC and provost approval. The dean represents GSPH on the University’s Council of Deans, which is composed of the deans of the University’s 18 schools and the presidents of the four regional campuses. The dean also represents GSPH at the monthly SVC senior staff/health sciences deans meeting.
GSPH operates under the policies and procedures established by the University that govern personnel recruitment, advancement, academic standards, and academic policies. In addition, the School has specific policies and procedures that govern its administrative and human resources functions. All policies and procedures are on file in the dean’s office and in the individual departments. The School exercises the full prerogatives and status of the other schools of the University.
Mark A. Nordenberg, JD, has served as chancellor of the University from 1996 through July 31, 2014. On August 1, 2014, Patrick Gallagher became the 18th chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh. Patrick Gallagher was the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and
Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology before coming to the University. Arthur S. Levine, MD, has served as senior vice chancellor for the health sciences and dean of the School of Medicine since 1998. Dr. Levine’s dual responsibilities follow a model that has been adopted by other major research universities; his relationship to the GSPH dean is the same as for all of the other health sciences deans.
Faculty members express their views, recommendations, and requests through their departmental and School faculty meetings and committees, the University Senate, the School’s Planning and Budget Policy Committee, the School’s Educational Policies and Curriculum Committee, and the University Planning and Budgeting System. Recommendations from the University Senate are made to the chancellor or other appropriate University officers on policy matters including, but not limited to, education; tenure; academic freedom; student affairs; physical plant (including expansions); substantive and procedural budgetary matters; health and welfare of the faculty, students, and staff; athletics; admissions; nondiscrimination; creation, termination, or merger of schools or major academic divisions; creation or termination of major administrative units; the University-wide mission and plan; and other matters of University-wide concern. The 23 |
University’s system of governance includes faculty membership on standing and ad hoc committees, many of which have representation or leadership from GSPH faculty members.
Budgeting and Resource Allocation
Planning, budgeting, and resource allocation procedures are organized through the University’s Planning and Budgeting System (PBS). The PBS is an integrated, comprehensive system that provides collegial structures at all levels of the organization through Planning and Budget Policy Committees (PBPCs). The PBPCs afford participation by administrators, faculty, staff, and students at all steps in the process of developing plans and budgets, from the smallest significant organizational unit, the department, up through the chancellor.
Within GSPH, each department provides input to the GSPH Planning and Budget Policies Committee, through elected representatives from all School departments, as well as the director of budget and finance and the departmental administrators as ex-officio members due to their particular knowledge. The PBPC is responsible for coordinating and prioritizing the plans, programs, and budgets of the various departments. PBPC recommendations are approved by the GSPH Council as described in the GSPH bylaws. Once approved, these recommendations are summarized and transmitted to the SVC for the health sciences. After the same review process is completed by the SVC PBPC for all of the health sciences schools, the recommendations are forwarded to the chancellor’s office and ultimately approved by the Board of Trustees. The PBPC process has facilitated an increase in resources allocated to GSPH by the University; an increase in the indirect cost income from sponsored research that is returned to the School ($6.5 million in 2014 compared to $2.5 million in 2005); additional financial aid for graduate students supported on full-rate indirect cost return grants in the amount of $750,000 in 2005; and a new funding stream that provides a return of 65 percent of GSPH’s tuition revenue over the 2002 base year, resulting in a return to the School of $104,000 in 2005.
GSPH also has an indirect fiscal relationship with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) through a contractual relationship with the University whereby UPMC supports the SVC and the programs under his administration. The SVC, with the assistance of his Planning and Budgeting Committee, sets the priorities within the health sciences schools. Over the last eight years, the SVC has allocated $14 million to GSPH. This support has provided resources to operate and/or sustain the departments in the School, department initiatives, and school-wide initiatives such as the Center for Health Equity, the Center for Healthy Aging, the Public Health Dynamics Lab, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center. The SVC has also supported the School’s growth by providing funds for capital projects and for recruiting and supporting new faculty.
Fund-raising activities for GSPH and the other five Schools of the Health Sciences take place through the University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Medical and Health Sciences Foundation, which was created in 2003 to serve as a unified fund-raising organization for these entities. The GSPH director of development reports to the director of health sciences development and is in charge of directing the School’s fund-raising programs. The director of development is expected to work closely with the dean in identifying the School’s needs and major gift prospects among School alumni; area residents and individuals with potential interest in the School’s programs nationally;
Commented [EF6]: Review this after bylaws are finalized.
Commented [E7]: Text needs to be reviewed and
checked.
and corporations, foundations, and other organizations that support public health initiatives. With the assistance of Medical and Health Sciences Foundation staff in annual giving, planned giving, corporate and foundation relations, and special events, the director of development is expected to conduct a comprehensive development program to meet needs identified by the dean, department chairs, and leading School faculty.
1.6.B. A clearly formulated school budget statement, showing sources of all available funds and expenditures by major categories, since the last accreditation visit or for the last five years, whichever is longer. This information must be presented in a table format as appropriate to the school. See CEPH Data Template 1.6.1.
Though Pitt Public Health consistently ranks among the top five Schools of Public Health nationally in terms of annual research support awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funding does fluctuate based on economic factors that affect our sponsors. NIH funding accounts for approximately 60% of extramural grants awarded to Pitt Public Health. Awards resulting from The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) peaked in Fiscal Year 2012, and subsequently declined in Fiscal Year 13 with the conclusion of that program. In addition, available funding for research in Fiscal Years 13 and 14 decreased due to other factors such as the adoption of continuing resolution efforts at the NIH that have had a lasting effect on their fiscal policy. This policy reduced funding levels for continuing awards in FY 13 to 90% of previously committed levels, and eliminated inflationary budget increases for newly awarded multi-year projects. Though some funding was restored later in FY 13, most projects endured a reduction of 2.5% in annual funding that continued into FY 14. The expectation of future increases will first depend on the resolution of current economic developments, but also on the retention of our highly productive faculty, on our ability to provide modern and competitive research space, and on our ability to support programs and initiatives that provide the best possible means for collaboration and study throughout the region and world.
[This section needs more discussion per the following description from CEPH. . Use footnotes or narrative to define categories as necessary.]
Table 1.6.1 Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, FY07 - FY14
FY 07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Source of Funds
Tuition & Fees 8,666,910 8,575,038 9,856,282 9,930,226 10,108,667 11,992,195 12,091,015 12,700,931
State Appropriation
(University) 458,053 477,236 446,266 433,665 435,303 188,644 188,644 71,837
University Funds 6,916,518 7,166,517 7,075,894 6,974,675 7,527,985 7,989,191 8,369,265 8,516,791
Grants/Contracts 69,409,089 71,780,251 65,823,731 71,329,577 77,437,483 78,071,257 72,955,725 66,053,308
Indirect Cost Recovery 5,493,573 5,350,933 5,707,091 5,336,042 6,251,713 6,159,162 6,386,275 6,089,535
Endowment (Mellon and other) 3,626,391 3,926,459 4,280,969 4,207,352 4,006,422 4,015,144 4,017,612 4,108,146
New Gifts 658,034 1,865,150 558,184 1,075,218 488,857 638,908 638,908 692,072
University Financial Aid 3,033,536 3,183,327 3,323,473 3,452,350 3,546,627 3,718,176 3,829,721 3,954,187
Restricted Gifts and Income 1,382,473 2,743,395 1,091,265 2,218,945 1,151,185 1,747,474 1,747,474 1,758,304
Tuition Incentive Funds 460,404 1,048,135 1,325,385 1,849,041 1,937,446 1,686,163 1,686,163 4,592,355
Sr. Vice Chancellor Funds 3,367,000 3,367,000 3,367,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
Provost's Funds 223,718 248,858 202,210 313,496 151,496 168,326 168,326 215,366
Out of School Sponsored
Research 12,405,414 13,660,301 13,660,301 13,660,301 13,053,702 12,879,822 12,879,822 11,359,584 Total 116,101,113 123,392,600 116,718,05 1 122,480,888 127,796,885 130,954,462 126,658,950 121,812,416 26 |
Expenditures
Total Medical Faculty 352,601 360,034 419,088 523,653 396,304 440,103 412,964 446,056
Total Non-Med Faculty 13,644,477 13,977,450 14,460,528 15,367,247 17,008,420 16,941,779 17,232,270 17,577,456
Total Research Assoc 2,166,416 1,781,400 1,780,562 1,708,086 1,621,722 1,766,289 1,469,383 1,104,927
Total Temp Fac & RA 72,003 72,426 102,956 59,956 56,837 128,203 185,878 100,661
Total Staff 14,343,380 14,689,752 14,897,352 15,331,599 16,647,214 16,913,781 15,800,736 15,126,033
Total Senior Admin 300,000 312,000 325,935 319,800 327,912 330,548 343,180 352,087
Total Temp Staff 513,481 706,815 536,843 569,643 656,307 668,774 768,955 413,579
Total Grad - GSA, TA, TF 339,863 459,629 463,601 564,898 567,337 625,397 613,596 643,207
Total Grad Stud - GSR 1,993,842 1,841,830 1,691,129 1,550,934 1,932,016 2,109,874 2,056,608 1,727,429
Total FICA-Pay & Other 247,871 197,720 279,417 328,537 460,301 729,726 362,213 341,148
Total Non-FICA-Pay & Oth 416,364 384,939 379,374 374,079 451,621 499,545 530,834 619,259
Total Other Emp Types 152,393 101,702 65,143 52,913 63,153 39,000 48,453 54,450
Total Stip & Oth Nontax 1,185,604 1,153,213 1,283,386 1,340,641 1,038,863 923,850 836,750 838,149
Total Compen Cost Recovery 24,794 19,250 22,362 15,941 13,378 13,104 17,190 16,214
Total Salaries & Wages 35,753,088 36,058,160 36,707,677 38,107,927 41,241,386 42,129,974 40,679,012 39,360,655
Total Fringe Benefits 11,746,691 11,555,649 10,165,492 11,234,890 12,492,233 12,722,140 13,864,088 14,164,236
Total Compensation 47,499,779 47,613,809 46,873,169 49,342,817 53,733,619 54,852,114 54,543,100 53,524,890
Total Supplies & Other 5,117,188 5,771,737 4,228,267 5,644,059 5,447,775 4,660,225 4,088,518 4,108,363
Total Fixed Assets 779,217 1,202,263 956,480 1,069,053 949,764 865,114 915,388 365,174
Total Equipment Rental 19,289 9,298 13,540 7,695 2,779 1,780 1,140 5,235
Total Travel & Business 2,523,952 2,506,770 2,667,934 2,486,995 2,827,456 2,835,480 2,818,322 2,627,418
Total Prof Svcs & Cons 12,204,581 12,978,349 13,594,386 14,468,165 16,870,612 18,107,165 15,283,651 13,344,593
Total Telecommunications 522,017 520,189 566,413 544,720 557,036 529,891 514,733 423,898
Total Mail & Postage 378,406 355,153 260,647 180,710 335,341 237,382 139,278 110,433
Total Printing & Pub 657,805 449,203 371,489 362,182 454,932 430,697 405,733 272,004
Total Dues, Mem & sub 235,692 146,358 159,351 151,069 166,491 156,536 155,953 159,285
Total Maint & Other Fac Costs 644,769 397,125 370,842 401,518 417,596 352,447 283,756 346,333
Total Moving & Reloc 35,351 21,622 16,658 37,645 19,369 29,496 25,253 27,789
Total Space Rental 992,421 1,121,599 1,242,814 1,098,491 1,469,602 1,204,576 1,188,496 1,097,668
Total Sponsored Proj Exp 3,918,714 5,424,363 1,714,389 393,058 337,723 406,562 299,652 307,908
Total Financial Aid 3,887,983 4,036,766 3,746,146 3,954,515 4,633,648 5,056,015 4,599,592 3,933,109
Total Insurance 14,783 15,813 13,360 16,689 17,253 15,529 16,726 13,464
Total Financial Charges -3,738 7,260 8,184 1,652 -118,829 -10,638 -39,464 -303,898
Total Misc Expenses Pavillion
Gifts -19,465 -42,348 -85,723 -116,869 -31,239 -11,380 -2,590 -16,008
Total Transfers -9,288,577 -8,919,512
-10,221,504 -8,044,153 -10,357,476 -6,780,623 -13,529,713 -12,261,690
Total Distributed Exp 14,554,552 15,325,951 14,372,163 16,551,804 17,862,880 17,713,753 16,957,501 15,889,500
Total InterDept Cost Rec -928,647 -985,768 -923,579 -1,027,510 -904,186 -963,786 -994,930 -1,235,039
Total Computing Charges 107,050 112,470 102,630 103,060 105,880 108,070 96,320 106,150
Total Non-Compensation 36,353,343 40,454,660 33,174,885 38,284,548 41,064,407 44,944,291 33,223,315 29,321,686
Total Expenses 83,853,122 88,068,469 80,048,054 87,627,365 94,798,026 99,796,406 87,766,415 82,846,576
Total Revenue & Expenses -83,853,122 35,324,131 36,669,997 34,853,523 32,998,860 31,158,056 38,892,535 38,965,839
