School of Public Health
Initial Accreditation Self-Study Report
Council on Education for Public Health
October 31, 2014
Table of Contents
Criterion 1
The University of Memphis
School of Public Health
Page
1.1
Mission
1
1.2
Evaluation
7
1.3
Institutional Environment
22
1.4
Organization and Administration
27
1.5
Governance
33
1.6
Fiscal Resources
46
1.7
Faculty and Other Resources
52
1.8
Diversity
58
Criterion 2
Instructional Programs
Page
2.1
Degree Offerings
68
2.2
Program Length
71
2.3
Public Health Core Knowledge
72
2.4
Practical Skills
73
2.5
Culminating Experience
78
2.6
Required Competencies
80
2.7
Assessment Procedures
103
2.8
Other Graduate Professional Degrees
113
2.9
Bachelor’s Degree in Public Health
115
2.10
Other Bachelor’s Degrees
116
2.11
Academic Degrees
117
2.12
Doctoral Degrees
119
2.13
Joint Degrees
122
2.14
Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs
123
Criterion 3
Creation, Application and Advancement
of Knowledge
Page
3.1
Research
126
3.2
Service
138
3.3
Workforce Development
153
Criterion 4
Faculty, Staff and Students
Page
4.1
Faculty Qualifications
159
4.2
Faculty Policies and Procedures
169
4.3
Student Recruitment and Admissions
176
Criterion Tables and Charts Index Page
1.2.a.1 University of Memphis SPH Planning and Evaluation Process 7
1.2.a.2 Sources of SPH Data and Periodic Assessment 9
1.2.c CEPH Outcomes Table 12
1.3.b University of Memphis Organizational Chart 23
1.4.a SPH Divisional Organizational Chart 28
1.4.a SPH Academic Programs Organizational Chart 29
1.5.b SPH Committees Chart 37
1.5.d Faculty University Committee Membership 42
1.5.e Student Participation in SPH Committees and Workgroups 43
1.5.e Student Roles in Governance 44
1.6.d Measurable Objectives for Fiscal Resources 48
1.6.1 Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category 49
1.7.1 Headcount of Primary Faculty 52
1.7.2 Faculty, Students, and Student Faculty Ratios by Division 53
1.7.i Measurable Objectives for Assessment of Resources 57
1.8.1 Diversity Outcomes 66
2.1.1 Instructional Matrix 69
2.3.1 Core Public Health Knowledge 72
2.6.1.a MPH Core Competencies Matrix 86
2.6.1.b MPH Core Competencies Matrix (Biostatistics Concentration) 88
2.6.1.c MPH Core Competencies Matrix (Environmental Health Concentration) 89
2.6.1.d MPH Core Competencies Matrix (Epidemiology Concentration) 90
2.6.1.e MPH Core Competencies Matrix (Health Services Administration Concentration) 91
2.6.1.f MPH Core Competencies Matrix (SBS Concentration) 92
2.6.1.g Epidemiology PhD Competencies Matrix 93
2.6.1.h Health Systems and Policy PhD Competencies Matrix 94
2.6.1.i Social and Behavioral Sciences PhD Competencies Matrix 95
2.6.1.j MHA Competencies Matrix 96
2.7.b Measurable Objectives for Student Achievement 105
2.7.1.a MPH Degree Completion 107
2.7.1.b Social and Behavioral Sciences PhD Degree Completion 108
2.7.1.c Epidemiology PhD Degree Completion 109
2.7.1.d Health Systems and Policy PhD Degree Completion 109
2.7.2.a MPH Graduate Employment 110
2.7.2.b MPH Graduate Employment by Concentration 110
2.7.2.c PhD Graduate Employment 110
2.10.1 Doctoral Student Data 121
3.1.1 Research Activity from 2011-2013 129
3.1.d Measurable Objectives for Success of Research Activities 135
3.2.1.a Faculty Community-Engaged Service from 2011-2014 142
3.2.1.b Faculty University and Professional Service from 2011-2014 145
3.2.d Measurable Objectives for Success of Service Efforts 150
3.3.1 Funded Training/Continuing Education Activity from 2010-2013 156
3.3.c Measurable Objectives for Public Health Workforce Development 157
4.1.1 Primary Faculty 160
4.1.2 Other Faculty 165
4.2.b.1 Small Grant Recipients 2010-2014 171
4.3.1 Admissions Process Data 181
4.3.2 Student Enrollment Matrix 182
4.3.f Measurable Objectives for Evaluation of Student Recruitment and Admissions
Acronym List
APHA American Public Health Association
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASPPH Association of Schools and Programs in Public Health
CAHME Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education
CEPH Council on Education for Public Health
COFAD SPH Committee for Faculty Affairs and Development
CTHA Common Table Health Alliance (formerly Memphis Healthy Common Table)
DrPH Doctor of Public Health
EBE Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Environmental Health
ERF Electronic Resource File
GMAT Graduate Management Admissions Test
GPA Grade Point Average
GRE Graduate Record Exam
GSC SPH Graduate Studies Committee
HAMPCAS Health Administration Management and Policy Central Application System
HLC Higher Learning Commission
HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration
HSMP Health Systems Management and Policy
HSP Health Systems and Policy
MAPP Mobilizing Action for Planning Partnership
MHA Master of Health Administration
MHASA Master of Health Administration Student Association
MPH Master of Public Health
MRC Memphis Research Consortium
NBPHE National Board of Public Health Examiners
OIE University of Memphis Office for Institutional Equity
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
PHSA Public Health Student Association
RSO Registered Student Organization
RSS Research Support Services
SACS Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
SBS Social and Behavioral Sciences
SETE Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness
SOPHAS Schools of Public Health Application System
SPH University of Memphis School of Public Health
SWOT Strengths, Threats, Opportunities, and Weaknesses
TAF Technology Access Fee
TBR Tennessee Board of Regents
THEC Tennessee Higher Education Commission
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
TPHA Tennessee Public Health Association
UCGS University Council for Graduate Studies
Electronic Resource File
Table of Contents
Criterion 1
The University of Memphis
School of Public Health
1.1e
Comprehensive Strategic Plan
1.1e
SPH Strategic Planning Sessions and Timeline
1.1e
Report from Dean’s Advisory Council Strategic Planning Session, Sept 2013
1.2.b
EBE Division Meetings
1.2.b
MPH Curriculum Committee Meetings
1.2.b
SPH Graduate Studies Committee Meetings
1.2.b
Health Systems Management and Policy Division Meetings
1.2.b
Social and Behavioral Sciences Division Meetings
1.2.b
SPH Faculty Meetings
1.2.d
CEPH Core Work Group Materials
1.2.d
CEPH Faculty/Staff Work Group Participant List
1.3.a
SACS Accreditation Letter
1.3.a
University of Memphis Accrediting Bodies and Activities
1.5.a
Dean’s Advisory Council Membership
1.5.a
Dean’s Advisory Council Description of Duties
1.5.a
Dean’s Advisory Council Meetings, April 2011-April 2014
1.5.a
Campbell and Company Fundraising Plan Executive Summary
1.5.b
SPH Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
1.5.c
MPH Graduate Handbook
1.5.c
Epidemiology Doctoral Program Handbook
1.5.c
Social and Behavioral Sciences Doctoral Program Handbook
1.5.c
Health Systems and Policy Doctoral Program Handbook
1.5.c
MHA Graduate Handbook
Criterion 2
Instructional Programs
2.1.b
MPH Course Requirements and Advising
2.1.b
Epidemiology PhD Graduation Analysis
2.1.b
Social and Behavioral Sciences PhD Graduation Analysis
2.1.b
Health Systems and Policy PhD Graduation Analysis
2.1.b
MHA Course Requirements and Advising
2.1.b
MPH Advising Training
2.4.a
MPH Practicum Guidelines
2.4.b
Practicum Agreements
2.6.a
MPH Competencies
2.6.b
Social and Behavioral Sciences PhD Competencies
2.6.b
Epidemiology PhD Competencies
2.6.b
Health Systems and Policy PhD Competencies
2.6.b
MHA Competencies
2.6.b
2014 Course Syllabii
2.6.f
Competencies to Curriculum Mapping Tool
2.7.a
MPH Competency Assessment Outcomes
2.7.a
Epidemiology PhD Competency Assessment Outcomes
2.7.a
MHA Competency Assessment Outcomes
2.7.e
MPH-ASPPH-MHA Alumni Surveys 2013-2014
2.14.b
Student Course Ratings (SETE) Example
Criterion 3
Creation, Application and Advancement
of Knowledge
3.1.e
Table of Student Participation in Research, Projects and Publications
3.1.e
Samples of Student Publications and Presentations
3.3.a
Presentation of LIFEPATH Workforce Survey, August 2012
3.3.b
Detailed List of Continuing Education Workshops 2012-2014
Criterion 4
Faculty, Staff and Students
4.1.a
Faculty CVs
4.2.b
Committee for Faculty Affairs and Development Meetings
4.2.b
Memphis Resource Consortium Funding Announcement
4.2.c
SPH Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
4.2.c
Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation Document
4.3.a
SPH Magazine
4.3.c
SPH Recruitment Material
4.3.c
MPH Recruitment Material
4.3.c
Epidemiology PhD Recruitment Material
4.3.c
Social and Behavioral Sciences PhD Recruitment Material
4.3.c
Health Systems and Policy PhD Recruitment Material
4.3.c
MHA Recruitment Material
4.4.a
MPH Graduate Handbook
4.4.a
Epidemiology Doctoral Program Handbook
4.4.a
Social and Behavioral Sciences Doctoral Program Handbook
4.4.a
Health Systems and Policy Doctoral Program Handbook
4.4.a
MHA Graduate Handbook
Criterion 1.0
The School of Public Health
1.1 Mission. The school should have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with supporting
goals, objectives and values. Brief History
Memphis and surrounding Shelby County face serious challenges to improve the health and well-being of our community. Early determinants of poor health that create risk for families and children are highly prevalent, with our overall poverty rate for children the worst in the nation. Deep disparities in wealth are revealed, with poverty rates three to four times higher in our high concentration of urban minority families compared to non-Hispanic Whites. In national and county health rankings, Memphis ranks poorly for overall health outcomes and health risk behaviors. Although Shelby County ranks reasonably well for good
availability of quality healthcare this is in stark contrast with the poor and inequitable health status in many parts of the community. These realities highlight why we need to exist and illuminate the major challenges for the School—working to research and engage in effective community prevention and intervention efforts and reform our local system of primary care to improve the social determinants of health and ensure a healthier future for all individuals and families in this region.
As a metropolitan research university, the University of Memphis is dedicated to generating new
knowledge and best practices with recognition that we seek to provide practical solutions to the problems that impact the community we serve. Acknowledging the challenges facing our community’s health, with Memphis and the Mid-South region having some of the poorest rankings in health status and health disparities in the country, local leaders in the early 1990s began discussion of forming a new school of public health. At the inception of these meetings, there were no accredited schools of public health in Tennessee, with the nearest accredited schools in New Orleans and Birmingham. After nearly a decade of careful planning and preparation, the University launched a major new academic, research, and outreach effort, the School of Public Health, to prepare our future public health workforce, address public health concerns through translational research, form academic partnerships to support public health practice, and provide outreach to our community and region.
Under the leadership of former President, Dr. Shirley Raines, the University sought approval from the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) in 2006 to develop a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree. A Director of the MPH Program (Dr. Marian Levy) was hired in 2007 to further develop the program. In 2007, the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) approved the launch of a new School of Public Health (SPH) at the University of Memphis. A Director of the School (Dr. Lisa Klesges) was hired in August of 2008 to develop and organize the start-up of the School within the College of Arts & Sciences and further develop the MPH program. The Master of Health Administration (MHA) program and its faculty were transferred from the School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy in the College of Arts & Sciences into the School as the SPH gained status as an independent entity within the University with the Dean reporting directly to the University Provost on July 1, 2009.
Under an Interim Dean (Dr. Lisa Klesges), TBR and THEC approved the first SPH doctoral program in Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) in 2010, and students were enrolled that Fall. Dr. Klesges was named as the Founding Dean in 2011, and a second doctoral program in Epidemiology was approved by TBR and THEC. After three years in existence, the School was accepted into candidacy by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) in October, 2012 and the School became an associate member in the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH). Our Environmental Health laboratories were completed in 2013 to support the Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Environmental Health (EBE). In February 2014, the doctoral program in Health Systems and Policy was approved by TBR and THEC; students matriculated into the program in August 2014.
As the SPH continues to grow, we seek to respond to community health needs through engaged research and community outreach of our faculty and students. We provide numerous experiences for our students to increase their capacity for engagement and service. Our academic degree programs enjoy strong
relationships with the Shelby County public health department and healthcare community. An emphasis on cultural competence of our students is central to our training, and we support one of the first nationally accredited training programs for health care interpreters. Through a HRSA subcontract, the faculty has supported training of the public health workforce in Shelby County and throughout West Tennessee. School faculty regularly share insights in research and best practices ranging from informatics, tobacco control research, obesity prevention, HIV prevention, faith-based community health promotion, and evidence-based public health practice. Examples of current community projects include collaboration with the Memphis Fast Forward initiative of Healthy Shelby, Shelby County Schools, Memphis Common Table Alliance, Shelby County Tobacco-Free Coalition, South Memphis Renaissance Collaborative, and Refugee Empowerment Program. Through our advisory councils and community members participating in School activities, we continue to enhance our public relations and networking between the SPH and leaders in business and labor, government, health care, and voluntary associations.
A major research objective of the SPH is to conduct research of relevance to the community with a focus on translating research into practice. Through engaged and participatory research, faculty and students identify evidence-based, sustainable approaches to health interventions, health services, and health policy. We are keen to improve health outcomes by focusing on health equity issues such as social and
environmental justice policies and applied population-based research in obesity, cardiovascular disease, tobacco use, cancer prevention, health promotion, behavioral risk assessment, and preventable health care utilization. Our further growth will allow us to increase the School’s reputation in public health research of significance to the community by building strategic collaboration with existing programs and centers on campus as well as affiliations with local health systems, the FedEx Institute, the Memphis Research Consortium, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The University has placed the SPH among its top academic program priorities and has allocated and redirected internal resources and funds to support the initial growth of the School. Under the new leadership of President David Rudd, the SPH continues to enjoy strong support as the University seeks to increase its research portfolio and health sciences programs.
1.1.a Clear and concise mission statement for the school as a whole. University of Memphis SPH Mission
To improve population health, promote health equity, and produce the next generation of public health leaders, through innovation and excellence in interdisciplinary education, research, service, and community engagement.
University of Memphis SPH Vision
To be recognized as one of the nation’s premier metropolitan schools of public health, a leader in education, research, and practice.
1.1.b A statement of values that guides the school
While the SPH faculty, staff, and students participated during multiple strategic planning sessions, the results of discussions and decisions regarding a set of values for the School mirrored almost exactly the University of Memphis’ articulated values. Therefore, the SPH has enthusiastically adopted the University’s values as its own. These values are:
• The pursuit of excellence in teaching and research as the highest measure of successful achievement
• Interdisciplinary collaboration and research as vehicles for leveraging our resources, solving problems, and multiplying our accomplishments
• The transfer and dissemination of knowledge with community stakeholders for the intellectual, economic, and social advancement of our community
• Innovation and creativity in everything we do • Respect for diversity and individual worth • Integrity and transparency in all our actions
• Responsible stewardship and conservation of resources
• Stewardship of wisdom, knowledge, and information created by our predecessors
• Leadership and involvement in the economic, social, and professional growth of Memphis, the State of Tennessee, and the nation
Similarly, the new School’s faculty, staff, and students made the decision to wholeheartedly adopt the University’s motto—Dreamers. Thinkers. Doers.
The University of Memphis’ mission, vision, values, highest priorities, and most recent strategic plan
(adopted 2011-12 AY) can be found at http://www.memphis.edu/stratplan/.
1.1.c One or more goals statement for each major function through which the school intends to attain its mission, including at minimum, instruction, research and service.
The SPH’s goals and objectives flowed from the strategic planning process during 2012 and 2013, and are aligned with the SPH’s statements of mission, vision, and values. Additionally, the SPH’s goals are clearly reflective of a newly developing SPH and the School’s preparation for CEPH candidacy, self-study and accreditation efforts, with regard to the faculty hiring plan, the launch of degree programs, and plans for continued sustainability of resources to support the School.
The University of Memphis SPH has adopted five broad goals, each with a number of specific objectives that have specific metrics associated with them. The five broad goals are:
1. Business Operations: Create strategic and effective operations to support the mission of the SPH. 2. Partnerships (inclusive of service): Develop and sustain collaborative community partnerships to address local health challenges.
3. Research Excellence: Conduct interdisciplinary research and disseminate knowledge to improve population health.
4. Faculty Success: Attract and retain a highly qualified and diverse faculty.
5. Student Success (inclusive of instruction): Provide high quality education and training.
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. There are 14 specific objectives contained within the five broad goals. They are listed here. At least one, usually several, indicators and metrics accompany each objective. These can be found in the CEPH Outcomes Table below under Criterion 1.2.c.
1. Business Operations: Create strategic and effective operations to support the mission of the SPH. 1a. Financial and personnel resources to grow the SPH
1b. Advisory and outreach efforts to promote stakeholder support and communication
2. Partnerships (inclusive of service): Develop and sustain collaborative community partnerships to address local health challenges.
2a. Establish and maintain education and research community partnerships 2b. Engage public health workforce development
2c. Engage and support involvement by SPH alumni
3. Research Excellence: Conduct interdisciplinary research and disseminate knowledge to improve population health.
3a. Increase faculty research funding
3b. Disseminate research findings to professionals and the public 4. Faculty Success: Attract and retain a highly qualified and diverse faculty. 4a. Recruit core faculty to meet the educational and research needs of the SPH 4b. Recruit faculty of diverse backgrounds
4c. Support and retain high quality faculty
5. Student Success (inclusive of instruction): Provide high quality education and training 5a. Improve volume of applications and admissions.
5b. Admit high quality applicants
5c. Attainment of competencies and learning outcomes 5d. Successful graduation and employment
1.1.e Description of the manner through which the mission, values, goals and objectives were developed, including a description of how various specific stakeholder groups were involved in their development.
During strategic planning throughout 2012 and 2013, the mission statement drafted in 2009 for the new SPH was reexamined to ensure it reflected current priorities. Discussion among various stakeholders included sessions with faculty and staff, focus groups with master and doctoral students, surveys of both MPH and MHA alumni, focus groups with University officials (Vice Presidents and Vice Provosts, Deans and Associate Deans of the other colleges/schools), and focus groups with external community stakeholders. The newly revised mission statement was adopted in 2013, along with a vision statement. Both reflect our critical role in an urban, underserved community. A short summary of the comprehensive strategic plan is provided below. The full document is provided in the electronic resource file (ERF).
The School of Public Health (SPH) at the University of Memphis was founded in 2008 as part of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 2009 it became an independent school. Our Founding Dean (Dr. Lisa Klesges) was named in 2011. In January 2012, the SPH launched a strategic planning effort to build upon earlier work begun in 2008, with the goal of moving the School forward through growth and toward full accreditation by CEPH.
The approach to planning has been comprehensive and inclusive of all important stakeholders. The efforts have included environmental scans of the University setting as well as national and local public health and health services. Stakeholders have included the School’s students and alumni, faculty and staff, University leadership in the Provost’s and President’s offices (including Deans of other schools and colleges), and public health, health services, and business and community leaders across the Memphis region.
The end product, a comprehensive strategic plan, includes the mission, vision, values, and goals of the SPH, and richly detailed data obtained from the School’s engagement with all of its internal SPH and University stakeholders during the 18-month strategic planning process. Faculty, staff, and students were involved in face-to-face planning sessions that included discussions of mission, vision, values, and diversity, as well as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT); appreciative inquiry to uncover past
accomplishments most valued, current priorities, and future hopes for the School; and delineation,
clarification, and narrowing of goals and objectives. Alumni were surveyed to solicit feedback about similar elements of the strategic planning process.
A separate document, entitled “Dreaming, Thinking, Doing Where It Matters Most,” is also included in the ERF. The Dean, with support from her Dean’s Advisory Council, engaged the Institute for Alternative Futures to gather the School’s most important community stakeholders in a very hands-on, interactive session to envision the role and potential impact of the new University of Memphis SPH for the Memphis region.
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.
The mission, vision, values, and goals are made available to the public via the University of Memphis
website (http://www.memphis.edu/sph/mission_objectives.php) and in the SPH’s marketing materials,
both hard copies and electronically.
Since the SPH is new and the mission, vision, values, and goals were adopted in preparation for CEPH candidacy and self-study in 2012 and 2013, they have not undergone routine review and revision at this time. The School’s leadership will ensure that these guiding statements and annual goals and objectives are reviewed periodically, timed with the CEPH accreditation cycle (first, after four years for initial
accreditation, and then every seven years for reaccreditation with an interim review during the seven year period). Additionally, like the School’s comprehensive strategic planning process during 2012 and 2013, the leadership will ensure involvement of the School’s primary stakeholders—students, alumni, faculty, and staff—and other important University and community stakeholders.
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.
Assessment: Met with commentary in consideration of the weaknesses identified below Strengths:
• Mission, vision, values, goals, and objectives were developed with input from multiple, important stakeholders using engaging approaches and methods.
• National consultation to prompt a “future driven” and aspirational exploration of our mission and vision.
• Mission, vision, values, and goals are consistent with those of the University of Memphis. Weaknesses:
• While the SPH’s leadership has set expectations with regard to goals and objectives, and has adopted metrics/benchmarks (and targets for moving forward), the School has not had specific annual targets in past.
• Periodic review has occurred, but not under the newly revised strategic plan, and initial accreditation self-study year for CEPH.
• Though the community advisory group has given input, and faculty and students have provided input during and following the self-study year, the School will work toward annual systematic input by all stakeholders annually.
Plans:
• Regular, periodic reviews will continue, with the inclusion of the new annual targets and action plans for improvement—timed with initial CEPH accreditation period of four years, and subsequent accreditation periods of seven years.
• Develop and adopt targets to all objectives in the strategic plan, possibly using the approach of adopting both a set of realistic and attainable goals and a set of “stretch goals” to challenge faculty, staff, and students.
1.2 Evaluation. The school shall have an explicit process for monitoring and evaluating its overall efforts against its mission, goal 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.
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. If these are common across all objectives, they need be described only once. If systems and responsible parties vary by objective or topic area, sufficient information must be provided to identify the systems and responsible party for each.
With a focus on engaging in continuous quality improvement and based on evidence-based strategic management, the SPH has been developing an evaluation process to assess its mission, goals, objectives, and quality on an ongoing basis. This has allowed us to identify challenges and implement improvement plans on a regular basis. The SPH uses a multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach for planning and evaluation of its activities. In collaborative efforts with various constituents, the leadership in the School seeks input, collects data, and assesses its progress to make timely decisions for further improvement. The SPH is implementing quality improvement plans in various facets of its operations and education programs and sharing ideas and successes across Divisions and committees to benefit from each other’s learning. The Dean and the Executive Committee reviews and discusses data to implement change processes as needed within SPH endeavors. As an example, a recent meeting of our Marketing Committee involved review of program inquiries, application data, and recruitment material that led to recommended improvements in advertising our degree programs. Changes are being implemented for the SBS doctoral program and will be tracked to ascertain improvements in yield.
Table 1.2.a.1. University of Memphis SPH Planning and Evaluation Process
Inputs Process Review Data Sources
Goal 1: Business Operations THEC/TBR Fiscal Affairs President’s Office Provost’s Office School of Public Health Dean’s Advisory Council
-Budget Allocation & Planning -Development Office
-University Foundation
-Space Planning & Development -IT Maintenance & Improvement
-Hiring Plan (Core Faculty & Staff) -Corporate/Foundation Relations -Major Gift Accounts
-Advancement Services
-University Foundation Resources
Goal 2: Partnerships President’s Office Provost’s Office School of Public Health
-Office of Legal Counsel -Development Office -Vice-President of Research Office
-Alumni Affairs -Enrollment Services
-Marketing & Communications
-Legal Contract Services
Corporate/Foundation Relations -Research Support Services -Employer/Preceptor
-Faculty Allocation of Time/Annual Review
-Student Survey/Service Activities -Workshop Registration
-Workforce Needs Assessments -Alumni Survey
-SOPHAS survey Goal 3: Research
President’s Office
School of Public Health -Vice-President of Research Office
-Development Office
-Research Support Services -Annual Faculty Reviews -Student Employment Records -Corporate/ Foundation Relations Goal 4: Faculty Success
TBR
President’s Office Provost’s Office School of Public Health
-Human Resources -Affirmative Action Office -Academic Affairs
-Faculty Academic Services
-Faculty Applicant Pool Analysis -Faculty/Staff Demographics -Annual Faculty Reviews -Faculty Contract Renewal -Mid-tenure Review
-T & P Applications and Review Goal 5: Student Success
Provost’s Office
School of Public Health -Graduate School Admissions -Academic Affairs
-Enrollment Services
-SPH Admissions Committees -Student Demographics & Qualifications
-Student Review of Progress -Curriculum Committee Reviews -Course Syllabi Review
-SETE Student Evaluations -Student Exit Survey -Alumni Survey
The Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean and Division Directors, i.e. all the members of the Executive Committee, collect and monitor a variety of process and outcomes data derived from multiple sources. Major sources of data include: budget information, faculty annual evaluation, faculty contract renewals, extramural funding data, course evaluations, admissions and enrollment, student progress and graduation data, student exit surveys, alumni survey, and feedback from town hall meeting with students and
community members. In addition, all data with regard to faculty recruitment, development, annual evaluation, and promotion/tenure are collected and reviewed by the Division Directors, the Dean, and the Provost when required.
While the new SPH has been collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data to make improvements and inform decision-making since its inception, the self-study year for CEPH accreditation has informed our process to
further strengthen planning and evaluation. Our current major sources of data for planning, evaluation, and continuous quality improvement are illustrated in Table 1.2.a.2.
Table 1.2.a.2: Sources of SPH Data and Periodic Assessment
Sources of Data Description of Periodic Assessments Frequency
Annual Reviews -Faculty -Staff
-Administration
Faculty, staff, and administrators are evaluated annually on performance measures including teaching, research, service,
and administration. Yearly
-Competency Reporting -Course Evaluations (SETE) -Enrollment and Graduation Data
Students enrolled in courses with assigned competencies and culminating experiences are evaluated for competency attainment; Course evaluations are available to identify strengths and weaknesses; Student recruitment efforts, enrollment, and graduation data are monitored.
Semester
Student Advising Student Advisors and Major Professors review the student’s
progress in the program to plan for a timely course of successful completion of the program. This includes doctoral students annual evaluation (students’ report on academic progress and accomplishment in research and Major Professor evaluation), and Advising Summary for both PhD and Master students for meetings related to courses, exams, research, career, and other academic issues).
Semester/Yearly
Internship Preceptor
Survey Preceptors evaluate students’ preparation for public health practice, attainment of competencies, and indicate gaps in
training and preparation the practicum At the end of
Student Town Hall
meetings Assistant Dean meets with the students in various programs each month to assess the strengths and challenges in each of
the programs Monthly
Student Exit Survey Students respond to questions related to satisfaction with
their degree program, field experience, advising, and career
services, and their employment status. Semester
Alumni Survey Graduates respond to questions related to satisfaction with
their degree program, field experience, advising, and career services, the extent to which they can perform in their
workplace, and employment status Yearly
Dean’s Community Advisory Council Feedback
The Dean’s Advisory Board provides regular feedback regarding the performance of the School and community
needs Quarterly
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.
Various types of data for planning and evaluation are processed and reviewed by respective offices, Divisions, and committees. Accordingly, data collection, monitoring, review, and recommended changes begin with the faculty and assigned committees (1.1.d and Table 1.2.c). Major processes within the SPH are described in more detail below.
The process evaluation for instructional programs begins with the curriculum committees for the MPH, doctoral, and MHA programs. They are initially responsible for systematic review of results regarding student attainment of competencies, mapping of individual courses to the curriculum, and making
recommendations to the Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) for the SPH each fall semester for changes to be implemented the following Fall. These changes are reviewed by the Executive Committee and the Dean, and the SPH Director of Graduate Studies signs off on the changes prior to their submission to the
University of Memphis Graduate Council for approval. Once approved there, major changes must also be approved at the TBR system level. The ERF documents this process and shared decision-making across the faculty and School leadership with regard to all of our curriculum committee agenda and minutes, and the agendas and minutes of the GSC.
The process for admissions begins with each of the five academic programs’ Admissions Committees making decisions that go directly to the Dean of the Graduate School. The Graduate School Dean is the only individual with the authority to admit masters and doctoral students to the University; however, in the past three years the Dean has been fully supportive of admission decisions made by the MPH, MHA, or three PhD admissions committees. While the Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, or Division Directors do not make decisions regarding admissions, the Executive Committee is apprised at least monthly on aggregate numbers and quality of applications and admissions, and the Director of the Masters Programs (MPH and MHA) reports directly to the Dean.
The process of evaluation for business and finance operations occurs as follows. The Dean has the final responsibility for the SPH budget, working closely with Ms. Ropo Sanvee, the SPH’s Associate Director of Business Operations. The Dean and Business Officer work closely with the three Division Directors on operational budgets for each Division. However, salaries and benefits for faculty and staff remain within the Dean’s budget for the School. The division directors seek input from their faculty in prioritizing budget expenditures. There are also budgets at the School level for student development, marketing and
recruitment, national speakers, and community events that the Dean develops in coordination with other SPH leadership. The Dean seeks input regarding the budget and other financial and operational matters with the Executive Committee which meets weekly during the academic year, and twice monthly over the summer. The Associate Director of Business Operations regularly updates the Dean on budget matters with major reconciliations reviewed quarterly.
Evaluation of research processes is headed by Dr. Gurney, who directs the research affairs of the SPH, working closely with the Dean and the two other Division Directors, and with the University’s Office of Research Support Services. The research coordinator, Ms. Lisa Krull, works closely with Dr. Gurney and Ms. Sanvee to document, monitor and report on research affairs, including proposals submitted, awards received, research assistantships, publications and presentations.
One of the most important aspects of the evaluation process is the extent to which SPH faculty are kept fully informed and actively engaged in the SPH’s progress, in the areas of development, budget and finance, curriculum matters, admissions, and research efforts and results. As described in section 1.5b, faculty participation in our committee structure creates the opportunity for close interaction in reviewing data, evaluating progress, and helping implement new approaches. Another primary forum for review and discussion occurs in the monthly SPH faculty meetings. Various members of the School’s leadership, including the Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, all Division Directors, the Masters’ Program Director, and all three doctoral program coordinators brief the full faculty each month about progress and changes in their respective areas. Leadership engages the faculty in questions, discussion, and additional
recommendations for issues under review. Additional discussions occur at the level of the three divisions in faculty meetings that occur at least once per month. Documentation of SPH monthly faculty meetings and division meetings for the self-study year is provided in the ERF.
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. To the extent that these data duplicate those required under other criteria (e.g. 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, and 4.3), the school should parenthetically identify the criteria where the data also appear.
Included below are the outcome measures for the objectives described in Criterion 1.1.d. [See CEPH Outcomes Table (pp. 9-20]. Data for each of the measurable objectives are provided for three years when data are available. Data are provided for one or two years where the objectives have been added in the past three years or where three years of data are not available given new programs or processes. As instructed, data that are duplicated in criteria 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, and 4.3 are indicated with table numbers in parentheses, bolded, and highlighted in blue.
CEPH Outcomes Table
Goal 1: Business Operations: Create strategic and effective operations to support the mission of the SPH
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Target Responsible
Party
Secure and maintain financial and personnel resources to grow the SPH Number of core faculty positions (Table 1.7.1 and 4.1.1) 20 23 22 26 By 2014-2015 Dean and Division Directors Maintain number of administrative support staff per core faculty at < 5/1 ratio 5 F/S = 4 6 F/S = 3.8 6 F/S = 3.7 <5/1 SPH Business Director Funding support from major foundation and corporations (Table 1.6.1) $730,000 $500,000 $500,000 Increase 10% per year ($550,000) Dean and University Development Office Build targeted endowment and major gifts development activities Started fund-raising Campaign for Accreditation Formed Dean’s Friends for Development to consult on increasing visibility and fund-raising Engaged fund-raising consultant: Campbell & Company Engage new Advancement Officer – Seek major gifts Develop subcommittee of Dean’s Community Advisory Council for new fund-raising effort
Dean and University Development Office
Ensure quality of physical infrastructure to foster achievement in education and research
Continue to increase space in the fully renovated SPH building Moved into Robison Hall 18,623 square feet dedicated to the SPH Gain additional office space on the 3rd floor Dean and University’s Space Planning and Utilization Office 12
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Target Responsible Party
Ensure access to adequate smart classroom space and other onsite classroom space 4 smart class rooms $64,000 spent on the onsite classrooms Construct smart classroom on 3rd floor that accommodates 50 students by 2016 Dean and University’s Space Planning and Utilization Office Establish and maintain independent laboratory space for EH program Plans developed / resources secured Under construction/ Total construction costs $291,345 2 wet labs completed (917 square feet) plus 1 dedicated space (449 square feet) for equipment and storage
Meets current needs for lab space and storage/ Maintain equipment and supplies EH faculty through start-up funds and EBE Division Director through divisional budget.
Facilitate effective advisory and outreach efforts to promote diverse stakeholder support of SPH and foster communication Ensure continued development and involvement of Dean’s Advisory Council of key community stakeholders Met 3 times Ensure diversity in: -Race/Ethnicity (33%)
-Gender (33%) -Type of profession
Met 3 times/meeting
minutes Met 3 times/meeting
minutes
Meet 3 times per year Increase involvement in fund-raising efforts Dean Engage external consultants and national advisors to support SPH and increase outreach efforts Augustus White, MD Culturally Competent Care Education Program, Harvard Medical School --- Melvin Shipp, OD,
DrPH, Dean of College of Optometry, The Ohio State University President, APHA Public Health Blan Godfrey, PhD Dean, College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Co-founder of Institute for Healthcare Improvement --- John Dreyzehner, MD TN State Health Commissioner Maureen Bisognano CEO of Institute for
Healthcare Improvement
--- Paul Batalden, MD Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and
Clinical Practice Geisel School of Medicine Annual consultations with SPH Leadership and community participation Dean and, as needed, Executive Committee 13
Goal 2: Partnerships: Develop and sustain collaborative community partnerships to address local health challenges
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Target Responsible
Party
Establish and maintain community service and community-based research partnerships Increase the number of key community partners / Number whose primary mission includes serving the poor and underserved generally, and African Americans and Hispanics specifically* 7/X* 6/X* 7/X* 8 by 2015 Increase number 10% per year / at least 50% with mission for poor or underserved, at least 35% for African Americans, and at least 5% for Hispanics *(sub-goals to be added in 2014-2015) Dean and Assistant Dean Number of community partners hiring employees with SPH graduate degree MPH - 6 MHA - 4 MPH - 4 MHA - 4 MPH - 6 MHA - 4 MPH - 7 by 2015 MHA – 5 by 2015 Increase 5% per year Assistant Dean and Director of Masters Programs Number of community-based research projects/ number including students 13 / 12 15 / 14 14 / 10 20% increase by 2016 Associate Dean and Assistant Dean
Engage public health workforce development that meets local needs
Number of formal academic public health department partnerships in West TN 0 1 (West TN) 1 (West TN) 2 in 2014-15 (add Shelby County Health Department) Dean 14
Goal 3: Research Excellence: Conduct interdisciplinary research and disseminate knowledge to improve population health
Objective Metric 2011* 2012* 2013-14* Target Responsible
Party
Continue to increase faculty research funding
Number of submitted grants and contracts
31 32 43 Increase to average of 2
submissions/ faculty member/year
Faculty, Associate Dean and Division Directors Number of newly funded research projects (Table 3.1.1) 18 19 15 and 7 under review Increase to an average of 1 per faculty member/year
Faculty, Associate Dean and Division Directors
Number of community-based research projects
13 15 14 Increase by 5% per year
Faculty, Associate Dean and Division Directors
Number of SPH research projects that currently fund students and/or graduate assistantships
14 15 16 Increase by 5% per year
Faculty, Associate Dean and Division Directors
Number of dollars from
grants and contracts $1,007,479 $898,371 $2,434,350 $1 million annually
Faculty, Associate Dean and Division Directors
Disseminate research findings to professionals and the public
Number of publications in peer-reviewed literature 38 42 77 (in 2013 only) Average of 2 independent papers per year per faculty
Faculty, Division Directors Number of presentations at professional meetings 62 57 59 (in 2013 only)
Average 2 meetings per year per faculty
Faculty, Division Directors Number of publications
and presentations with student co-author NA 17 (calendar years 2011 and 2012) 25 (CY 2013-present) additional 32 in prep/review
Increase by 5% per year
Faculty, Division Directors
*Information in these columns represents calendar year, rather than academic year, with the exception of 2013-14 which, unless otherwise specified, includes 2013 and the first 9 months of 2014.
Goal 4: Faculty Success: Attract and retain a highly qualified and diverse faculty
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14* Target Responsible
Party
Recruit faculty to meet the educational and research needs of each SPH Division and Concentration SPH hiring plan approved by the University 8 positions advertised 3 filled (38%) 9 positions advertised 4 filled (44%) 8 positions advertised 5 filled (62.5%) 6 tenure-track positions currently open and recruiting. Target is to fill all 6 positions by August 2015** Associate Dean and Division Directors
Recruit faculty of diverse backgrounds Percentage of women faculty members (Table 1.8.1) 30% 19% 37% 50% (total number 13-14) Dean and Associate Dean Percentage of African American faculty members 9% 5% 5% 12% (total number 2-3) Dean and Associate Dean Percentage of Hispanic faculty members 0% 0% 0% 5% (total number 1-2) Dean and Associate Dean
Retain high quality faculty through successful mid-tenure and mid-tenure review
Number of mid-tenure/tenure reviews and outcomes 1 – continued 1 – not continued 3 – continued
1 – not continued 1 – continued 80% success rate Division Directors * As of July 2014.
** As of October 22, 2014: two tenure-track positions in Biostatistics have been recruited and are under contract, one starting in January 2015 and one starting in August 2015; two positions in Environmental Health have been recruited and are under contract, one non-tenure track with a December 2014 start date and one tenure-track with a January 2015 start date. Of the 4 that are newly under contract, 2 are females.
Goal 5. Student Success: Provide high quality education and training
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Target Responsible
Party Improve volume of applications and admissions Increase number of applications (Table 4.3.1) MPH – 71 MHA – 40 PhD –20 MPH – 64 MHA – 58 PhD –11 MPH – 84 MHA – 53 PhD – 22 20% annual increase in applications for each program through 2017/ Increase applications from African Americans Academic Services Coordinator, and Marketing Committee Increase number of enrollments (Table 4.3.1) MPH – 30 MHA – 9 PhD – 8 MPH – 18 MHA – 9 PhD – 5 MPH – 30 MHA – 7 PhD – 5 25% increase by 2017 in each program Increase enrollments among African Americans Assistant Dean and Program Directors
Admit high quality applicants
Average GPA and average GRE scores for MPH students 2011* N=26 V=489.62 Q=539.62 N=28** GPA=3.29 2012* N=7 V=153.86 Q=155 N=9** GPA=3.66 N=24 V=152.1 Q=149.47 N=28 GPA=3.41 N=38 V=151.87 Q=150.22 N=39 GPA=3.19
Maintain quality while increasing enrollment Academic Services Coordinator, Marketing Committee, and Admissions Committees Matriculate diverse students Increase percentage of African American students 26% 27% 24% 34% Academic Services Coordinator, and Marketing and Admission Committees Maintain or increase the percentage of Hispanic students 6% 3% 4% 4% or > Academic Services Coordinator, Marketing and Admission Committees 17
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Target Responsible Party Maintain or increase the percentage of first-generation graduate students 24% 29% 21% 23% Academic Services Coordinator, Marketing and Admission Committees Attainment of competencies MPH competencies for the core and the five
concentrations (Table 2.6.1)
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
Specified in the tables in the ERF folder for Criterion
2.7. Assistant Dean for Students, MPH Program Director PhD competencies for all three doctoral programs
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
Specified in the tables in the ERF folder for Criterion
2.7. Assistant Dean for Students, PhD Program Coordinators MHA competencies
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
In ERF in folder for Criterion 2.7.
Specified in the tables in the ERF folder for Criterion
2.7. Assistant Dean for Students, MHA Program Director Successful graduation and employment Percentage of MPH enrollees continuing to next academic year or graduating (Table 2.7.1.a) 99% 92% 96% 90% Assistant Dean for Students and MPH Program Director
Objective Metric 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Target Responsible Party Percentage of PhD enrollees continuing to next academic year or graduating (Table 2.7.1.b) 93% 82% 100% 90% PhD Program Coordinators and Faculty Advisers Percentage of MPH graduates within 3 years (normative time for master degrees at U of M is 7 years) (Table 2.7.1.a) 83%
This cohort has not had 3 years since
enrollment yet
This cohort has not had 3 years enrollment yet
80%
Assistant Dean for Students and MPH Program Director Number of PhD graduates within 5 years for fulltime, within 7 years for part-time (normative time for doctoral degrees at U of M is 10 years) 2 PhD students graduated in August 2014, both within 5 years (100%) 80% PhD Program Coordinators and Faculty Advisors MPH graduates successfully employed or pursuing additional degree 61/76 80% (this is cumulative since 2008) 80% Assistant Dean for Students and MPH Program Director * The GRE scoring method changed from 2011 to 2012.
** The number of students for the GRE is different from GPA due to some being exempt from GRE (MD, JD, PhD, etc.). Additionally, not all foreign evaluators calculate GPA. Lastly, students with upper-level degrees do not have to submit undergraduate transcripts so some students do not have a GPA.
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 Dean appointed the following members to lead the CEPH accreditation effort for the SPH as the “CEPH Work Group”: Dan Gentry, PhD, former Associate Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs, and current Professor and Director of the Division of Health Systems Management and Policy, and Special Adviser to the Dean for Strategic Planning and Accreditation; Marian Levy, DrPH, Associate Professor of Social and
Behavioral Sciences and Assistant Dean for Students; Mark Hendricks, MHA, Instructor and Director of Masters programs for the SPH; Shirl Sharpe, MS, Academic Services Coordinator for the SPH; and Jason Hodges, MA, Social and Behavioral Sciences Doctoral Student candidate, a former employee at the Shelby County Health Department and recently employed with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
The CEPH Work Group was convened in January 2013 following acceptance of the School into Candidacy by CEPH in October 2012. The CEPH Work Group began preparations immediately for a 2013-14 self-study year; has met at least monthly during 2013 and 2014; and continues to work on preparation of the self-study document and plans for the December 2014 scheduled site visit. Drs. Gentry and Levy meet twice monthly with the Dean, specifically to work on CEPH accreditation decision-making and tasks, and provide weekly reports regarding CEPH self-study progress to the Dean’s Executive Committee. Just as strategic planning was a regularly-occurring agenda item on the SPH monthly faculty meetings during 2012-13, CEPH accreditation has been a regular agenda item for reporting on progress and seeking input in faculty
meetings since Fall 2013.
The Dean and the CEPH Work Group hosted Mollie Mulvanity, Deputy Director of CEPH, for a staff consult visit as recommended for all accreditation self-studies and required for the initial accreditation self-study, in March 2014.
The CEPH Work Group set up specific folders on the School’s shared drive , both for requesting information from the faculty (updated curriculum vitae; all course syllabi; graded, marked up student work; etc.) and for sharing work produced for the CEPH self-study. Drafts of the CEPH self-study sections were shared with all faculty and staff through email and on the shared drive during the months of May and June, 2014, for their review, recommendations regarding changes, and to obtain their input regarding the assessment of criterion as met, partially met, or not met and their ideas regarding ways to improve given the findings of the self-study. CEPH work group materials are provided in the ERF.
At the direction of the Dean and with the input of the Executive Committee, seven ad-hoc work groups of faculty and staff (and one doctoral student) were formed to work on specific areas where either significant weaknesses were noted or where the self-study document did not sufficiently reflect the School’s
strengths. These groups were formed in August 2014 and have worked through the Fall 2014 semester. Focal areas have been: (1) 1.2 Evaluation, (2) 1.5 Governance, (3) 1.8 Diversity, (4) 2.6 and 2.7
Competencies and Competency Assessment, (5) 3.2 Service, (6) 3.3 Workforce Development, and (7) 4.3 Student Recruitment and Admissions. A list of participants in these groups is provided in the ERF.
In early October, community stakeholders were invited to meet with SPH leadership and advisors to provide additional validation of self-study findings and plans for moving forward. Following review and revisions to the self-study document, Drs. Levy and Gentry hosted an additional Student Town Hall (all SPH students were invited; 17 attended—10 MPH, 4 doctoral, and 3 MHA students) to share information and seek additional feedback and input for: 1) Diversity, 2) Competencies, and 3) Student Recruitment and Admissions.
As required by CEPH, public announcements were made via the University’s weekly electronic bulletin, the School’s website, and emails to alumni, preceptors, advisory board members, community leaders, and local health department staff making them aware of the opportunity to write to or email CEPH with public comments regarding the University of Memphis School of Public Health’s application, candidacy, and review for CEPH accreditation.
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.
Assessment: Partially met in consideration of the weaknesses identified below Strengths:
• The self-study was undertaken and written in a systematic, collective manner with input from faculty, staff, and students.
• There is a comprehensive and well-articulated process of oversight and evaluation at multiple levels within the SPH and University.
• The School will continue to review its progress with internal and external stakeholders including the Dean’s Advisory Council and national consultants.
Weaknesses:
• The self-study was not as extensively vetted by alumni and external community stakeholders as the School would have liked early in the process, but additional input and feedback were gained in late summer and fall 2014.
• The evaluation process has not been formally operationalized in a way that would include increasing the influence of faculty, students, and community advisors on SPH decision-making, progress toward meeting goals, and allocation of resources to meet goals and objectives.
Plans:
• CEPH self-study and site visit results will be used to guide and inform future efforts related to SPH priorities, assessment approaches, and quality improvement to better serve the needs of our community.
• Fully integrate institutional reporting into the evaluation plan for the SPH as new measurements are introduced.
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.
1.3.a A brief description of the institution in which the school is located, and the names of the accrediting bodies to which the institution responds.
The countryside east of Memphis was the site of the West Tennessee State Normal School when the institution that has become the University of Memphis was established in 1909. Tradition holds that students selected the school colors, blue and gray, in commemoration of the reuniting of the country after the Civil War. The main campus is now in the heart of residential Memphis.
In 2013, the total enrollment in the fall semester was 22,480 students with 17,222 at the undergraduate level, 3,897 students at the graduate level, and 361 students in the School of Law.
The mission of the University of Memphis is to be a learner-centered metropolitan research university providing high quality educational experiences while pursuing new knowledge through research, artistic expression, and interdisciplinary and engaged scholarship.
Memphis, the state’s largest city, is located on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River in the southwest corner of Tennessee. It is the regional hub for a tri-state area of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The greater Memphis metropolitan area has a population of over 1.3 million.
The University of Memphis is classified by the Carnegie Foundation of Institutions of Higher Education as: Bal/HGC: Balanced arts & sciences/professions, high graduate coexistence; CompDoc/NMedVet:
Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary); HU: High undergraduate; MFT4/S/HTI: Medium full- time four-year, selective, higher transfer-in; L4/NR: Large four-year, primarily nonresidential; RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity); Community Engagement, Curricular Engagement, and Outreach and Partnerships.
The following are considered academic peers with regard to comparison benchmarking: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Arizona State University, Florida International University, University of South Florida, Georgia State University, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Louisville, University of Cincinnati, University of Oklahoma at Norman, University of Pittsburgh, University of South Carolina, and the University of Houston.
The University of Memphis is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) to award bachelors, first professional, masters, educational specialists and doctoral degrees. The last accreditation was in December 2005 for ten years. The letter, along with a comprehensive table with of all of the University’s school and program level accreditations and activities is included in the ERF. The next SACSCOC visit is March 2015.
1.3.b One or more organizational charts for the university indicating the school’s relationship to the other components of the institution, including reporting lines.
