Tulane SPHTM Final Self-Study Report

Transcription

SELF-STUDY REPORT
Submitted To:
Council on Education for Public Health
February 1, 2010
Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
Self-Study Report
Table of Contents
1.0 The School of Public Health ........................................................................................1
1.1 Mission.........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Evaluation and Planning ..............................................................................................4
1.3 Institutional Environment ..........................................................................................20
1.4 Organization and Administration ...............................................................................25
1.5 Governance ..............................................................................................................32
1.6 Resources..................................................................................................................44
2.0 Instructional Programs ...............................................................................................69
2.1 Master of Public Health Degree ................................................................................69
2.2 Program Length .........................................................................................................73
2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge ..................................................................................75
2.4 Practical Skills............................................................................................................76
2.5 Culminating Experience .............................................................................................80
2.6 Required Competencies ............................................................................................82
2.7 Assessment Procedures ..........................................................................................109
2.8 Other Professional Degrees ....................................................................................122
2.9 Academic Degrees .................................................................................................123
2.10 Doctoral Degrees ...................................................................................................126
2.11 Joint Degrees.........................................................................................................130
2.12 Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs..............................................134
3.0 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge ...........................................147
3.1 Research .................................................................................................................147
3.2 Service ....................................................................................................................174
3.3 Workforce Development ..........................................................................................192
4.0 Faculty, Staff and Students......................................................................................203
4.1 Faculty Qualifications...............................................................................................203
4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures .............................................................................216
4.3 Faculty and Staff Diversity .......................................................................................222
4.4 Student Recruitment and Admissions......................................................................234
4.5 Student Diversity......................................................................................................247
4.6 Advising and Career Counseling ................................................................ 255
Prologue
Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (SPHTM) is pleased to submit this selfstudy to the Council on Education in Public Health. The self-study represents a three year
school-wide effort to collect and analyze extensive data that characterizes and evaluates the
school, faculty, students, curricula, research and service activities. We are grateful to our
many partners who provide ongoing support and who helped us with our assessments.
The ‘official’ self-study year was 2008-09 academic year and we used records from the 200607 and 2007-08 academic years to conduct assessments over 3 years. Data from the Fall,
2009 academic year has been added where available. The time frame of the self-study
provides a unique view of SPHTM as it recovered from Hurricane Katrina. This
unprecedented natural disaster forced the closing of Tulane University for the Fall, 2005
semester. Faculty returned to SPHTM in November, 2005 and the school reopened for
classes in January, 2006. The data in this self-study document the recovery of SPHTM after
this devastating event and clearly demonstrate the immense loyalty and strength of the
school’s leadership, faculty, staff and students.
1.0
Section 1.1
Mission
1.1 A Mission
Advance global public health knowledge and science; promote health, well-being and quality of life;
prevent and mitigate disease, disability and premature mortality; promote cultural competence; and
develop future public health leaders. This is accomplished through academic excellence in education,
research, collaborative partnerships that translate into improved public health practice, and innovative
service to the local, national and international community.
1.1 B Goal Statements
• Provide educational opportunities that prepare graduates to identify, resolve and prevent global
public health problems, and to manage and assess the effectiveness of health-related programs.
•
Advance public health knowledge by conducting rigorous scientific investigations and by
promoting the dissemination and application of the results.
•
Improve the health of communities, locally, nationally and internationally, through global
leadership, collaborative partnerships and cultural competence using innovative approaches to
disease prevention and health promotion.
(Revised and Reaffirmed by the Faculty – January 2008 and January 2009)
1.1 C Objectives
The objectives listed below are based on the Dean’s 5 year business plan negotiated with the University
and extends to 2013. The goals provide the framework for longer-term priorities; the objectives are the
shorter-term actions to reach the goals.
Goal 1: Provide educational opportunities that prepare graduates to identify, resolve and
prevent global public health problems, and to manage and assess the effectiveness of health
-related programs.
• Maintain the student-faculty ratio between 6.0 and 6.5 each academic year.
• Increase the number of faculty to 125 by 2013.
• Increase the percentage of minority faculty to at least 30% by 2013.
• Limit new resident graduate student enrollment to a ceiling of 350 each academic year.
• Increase the percentage of minority graduate students to at least 30% by 2013.
• Enroll 100 new undergraduate public health majors annually by 2013.
• Increase graduation rates to at least 90% by 2011.
• Increase the number of training grants to 15 by 2013.
• Increase the percentage of students who consult with their advisor at least once per semester to
95% by 2011.
• Increase the percentage of students who report their advisors are available any/most of the time
to 95% by 2011.
• Expand teaching and faculty space to 200,000 nsf by 2013.
• Increase development activities to build the endowment to $100 million by 2013.
Goal 2: Advance public health knowledge by conducting rigorous scientific investigations and
by promoting the dissemination and application of the results.
• Increase the research funding to at least $50 million annually by 2013.
• Increase NIH research funding to at least $15 million annually by 2013.
• Increase number of articles in peer-reviewed journals by SPHTM faculty to minimum of 200 per
year by 2013.
• Increase the percent of articles in journals with an impact factor of >1 to at least 75% and with an
impact factor of >3 to at least 35%.
02/01/10
Page 1
Section 1.1
Mission
Goal 3: Improve the health of communities, locally, nationally and internationally, through global
• Maintain the percent of funded community-based projects at 60% of funded research annually.
• Maintain the percent of faculty engaged in professional service activities each year at 90%.
• Maintain employment rates of graduates at 90% or higher each academic year.
1.1 D Development, monitoring and review of mission, goals and objectives and availability to
the public
The mission, goals and objectives are a framework for the school and administration for decision making,
guiding growth and resource allocation. It provides a guide for responding to new opportunities and
situations, while maintaining focus on our primary purpose. The mission and goals have evolved over
time through a cooperative process among the faculty and administration with input from leaders in the
student government and the SPHTM Board of Advisors. The process of developing and monitoring the
mission and goals involves review by the Executive Faculty and annual review by the General Faculty at
the fall faculty retreat. This annual review keeps the mission and goals current and allows for updating
objectives as a school. In fall 2006, following the upheaval of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, the
faculty carefully examined the mission, goals and objectives in light of the changes within our university
and region. While the mission, goals and objectives are updated regularly, the essence of our mission
and goals has remained consistent. The objectives reflect indicators for the improvement of the school
and in response to new opportunities associated with the recovery of our city and region and a renewed
emphasis on global health.
SPHTM makes its mission and goals publically available to internal and external constituencies by: 1)
distribution to SPHTM faculty, staff and students each year after the faculty retreat; 2) submission to
university administration to be incorporated into the overall university mission and goals; and 3)
placement on the SPHTM web site as a statement of purpose of the school for community partners and
stakeholders and for current and prospective students. The mission, goals and values statements are
posted in common areas of the SPHTM building and have been distributed on bookmarks.
1.1 E Core Values
Nurturing our students. We provide a collegial and stimulating environment for didactic and
practical learning experiences that foster professional development and leadership.
Maintaining a collaborative and collegial environment. We respect the importance of our diverse
backgrounds and the unique learning opportunities provided by our multicultural and multidisciplinary environment.
Advancing diversity within our student body, faculty and staff. We value a diverse learning
environment that fosters cultural, racial, ethnic and global contributions to public health.
Fostering excellence in teaching, research, and the practice of public health. We emphasize
scholarship sustained by an environment that encourages interaction, mentoring, and lifelong learning.
Preserving academic freedom. We endorse the right to exercise academic freedom and recognize
the enriching nature of unconventional views and minority opinions.
Promoting interaction with the community. We work with communities and community leaders to
improve the public's health in local, national, and international arenas.
Fostering a progressive attitude. We encourage and promote contemporary and innovative
approaches in teaching, research, and the practice of public health.
02/01/10
Page 2
Section 1.1
Mission
Promoting high ethical standards. The faculty, staff, and students value personal and professional
integrity. Our daily activities are based on this responsibility and reflect a commitment to these core
values.
(Adopted by the Faculty - November, 1997; Revised and Reaffirmed by the Faculty – January 2008
and January 2009)
The value statements reflect the philosophy of our school and the faculty, staff and students who are
committed to carrying out the teaching, research and service functions of the school. The values guide
the way in which we carry out our mission and goals. The value statements are a consensus of views of
the faculty, students and community partners. The values are reviewed along with the mission and
goals at the fall faculty retreat and are published on the website and in the catalog, and displayed
predominantly in common areas of the school. The operationalization of the values is evidenced in the
way we educate our students and carry out research and service activities. Our values are carried forth
by our graduates into their future professional careers.
1.1 F Assessment
This criterion is met. The school has a clearly formulated mission with supporting goals and objectives.
The process for developing, monitoring and evaluating the mission, goals, objectives and values is
guided through the leadership of the dean with robust input, discussion and approval of the executive
faculty, general faculty, and student leadership. The mission, goals and objectives steer the direction of
the school and the values guide the implementation of them through teaching, research and service
activities. All are publically available on the website and in publications.
02/01/10
Page 3
Section 1.2
Evaluation and Planning
1.2 A Evaluation Procedures and Planning Processes
University Strategic Planning: The Renewal Plan
The impact of Hurricane Katrina forced the university to take immediate and drastic actions to insure that
the university survived and was able to rebuild. From 1998 to August 2005, Tulane University was
flourishing and experiencing a period of growth under the "Renaissance of Thought and Action," a
comprehensive strategic plan that increased student enrollment and quality, doubled the level of total
private giving, spurred a record level of research awards, implemented a number of innovative academic
and research program initiatives and significantly increased its community outreach. When Hurricane
Katrina hit New Orleans, Tulane’s Uptown and Downtown campuses incurred more than $650 million in
property losses and damage, and an estimated $160 million in business interruption. A payroll of over
$35 million/month continued while the university was closed, with its students, faculty, and staff
dispersed around the country. These challenges required an immediate yet deliberate response. On
August 29, 2005 the focus of Tulane University changed from vision for growth to one of survival and
planning for rebuilding. The Renewal Plan was developed to ensure financial stability and to assure that
Tulane would continue as a leading university. The Renewal Plan was approved by Tulane’s Board of
Administrators on December 8, 2005. (See Resource File)
The Renewal Plan represents a major reorganization of the university that strengthens and focuses the
academic mission, builds on Tulane’s vision and core values, and strategically addresses current and
future operations in the post-Katrina era. Buildings on both campuses were repaired over the course of
one semester and students returned in January 2006; a remarkable 87 percent of full-time students
returned. The Renewal Plan defines Tulane University by four characteristics:
•
•
•
•
World-class educational and research programs.
A unique relationship with the culturally rich and diverse City of New Orleans, which is
characterized by one of the world’s great waterways that serves as a gateway to the Americas.
The university’s historical strengths and ability to strategically redefine itself in light of an
unprecedented natural disaster in ways that will ultimately benefit the Tulane community, New
Orleans, and other communities around the globe.
Financial strength and vitality.
Summary of the Renewal Plan: The Renewal Plan addresses the immediate and future financial
impact caused by immense damage and defines how to reshape and renew the university to respond to
that impact. The Plan addresses issues on a university level and each school is guided by these overriding principles and guidelines. The plan keeps a focus on long-term goals while addressing the
immediate post-Katrina economic situation. Guiding principles include:
•
•
•
•
Diligence in retaining institutional quality and working to heighten that quality;
Dedication to providing an unparalleled, holistic undergraduate experience;
Continued strengthening of core research areas and graduate programs that build on strengths
and can achieve world class excellence;
An absolute commitment to using the lessons learned from Katrina to help rebuild the City of New
Orleans and to extend those lessons to other communities.
The Renewal Plan details the path forward to achieve financial viability in the post-Katrina environment
while keeping the long-term goals of the university, advancing Tulane's status in the higher education
community, strengthening ties to and support of the City of New Orleans, and maximizing our efficiency.
Immediate post Katrina components of the plan included a major academic and administrative
reorganization to maximize organizational efficiency and focus on established strengths. Major
reorganization occurred on the Uptown campus:
02/01/10
Page 4
•
•
•
Section 1.2
The School of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the School of Engineering were reorganized into:
the School of Liberal Arts, and the School of Science and Engineering.
The Newcomb-Tulane College was formed from a merger of Tulane College (for men), Newcomb
College (for women) and undergraduates in the Schools of Architecture, Business, Engineering,
and Public Health and Tropical Medicine. This consolidation brought all full-time undergraduates
into one entity to unify the undergraduate core curriculum, streamline undergraduate
administration and provide more support and oversight for students.
The Graduate School was dissolved and the graduate programs placed within their respective
schools with oversight by the associate senior vice president for research. Greater emphasis was
placed on advancing research competitiveness.
Under the Renewal Plan, Tulane eliminated six undergraduate and graduate programs in the School of
Engineering: mechanical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, computer engineering,
environmental engineering, and computer science, and also a bachelor's degree in exercise science.
The university cut twenty-seven of its forty-five doctoral programs and suspended eight NCAAA Division
1 intercollegiate athletic programs.
On the Downtown Health Sciences Center campus, the clinical operations of the School of Medicine
sustained total disruption which resulted in immense financial losses, including the suspension of clinical
income; and the loss of the majority of clinical personnel. The Renewal Plan refocused the School of
Medicine with added emphasis on research and educational programs forging a closer link between
strengths in research and the clinical focus, and rebuilding the School of Medicine based on the new
healthcare needs of the community and region. The School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
remained substantially intact and reopened for classes in January, 2006.
The financial viability of the university was in question in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The immense damage to the campuses, financial loss from closing for a semester, dispersal of students
and faculty around the country, and the destruction of the clinical enterprise required President Cowen to
declare financial exigency. The academic and administrative reorganization was accompanied by the
dismissal of a number of faculty, including tenured and tenure-track faculty. While the numbers were not
released, faculty in discontinued programs and departments on the Uptown campus were dismissed.
This included faculty in every school on the Uptown Campus, particularly in the School of Engineering
and also in Newcomb College, Tulane College, the Schools of Business, Social Work and Architecture.
The School of Medicine lost substantial numbers of faculty, including both tenured and clinical faculty.
The School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine retained all tenured and tenure-track faculty and most
full time research and clinical faculty. The dismissal of tenured faculty prompted the American
Association of Universities Professionals (AAUP) to censure Tulane University in 2006. In November,
2009 AAUP removed Tulane from censure because it approved the corrective actions taken to remedy
the situation. Tulane adopted policies similar to AAUP’s policies that include greater faculty involvement
in decision-making and acknowledgement of the importance of tenure, and giving tenured faculty
members priority over others. Tulane administration contended that Tulane should not have been
censured as faculty representatives were involved in decision-making during the severe situation
immediately following Katrina. (See Resource File.)
A more long term component of the Renewal Plan focused on community partnerships. The Partnership
for the Transformation of Urban Communities supports educational, outreach and research programs of
national and international relevance stemming from the Hurricane Katrina experience. These efforts
focus on transforming and sustaining healthy communities locally, regionally and around the world. This
intra- and inter-university partnership is unique in America. Issues in the Partnership purview include
race and poverty, social justice, educational policies and strategies for public school systems and the
physical development of urban communities. An extension includes transforming Tulane’s current strong
partnership with Xavier University into a nationally known and respected example of academic
collaboration between a major research university and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This
02/01/10
Page 5
Section 1.2
effort strengthens both institutions individually and collectively, supports Tulane's ongoing diversity
efforts, and will ultimately prove to be a model for other universities to follow.
The financial recovery of the university must remain a priority for long-term viability and sustainability.
The university will continue to reconfigure, and in some cases, reduce its school-based and sharedservice administrative functions. In making these decisions, the relevance and cost effectiveness of the
administrative functions will be evaluated against the university's mission and size.
The changes to Tulane University undertaken in the Renewal Plan were extensive and dramatic. The
changes are far-reaching and their impact will reverberate throughout the university for years. A smaller
but much stronger and more focused Tulane University is leading the way in helping rebuild New Orleans
and will serve as a model for other institutions of higher education seeking to refocus their resources and
energy to have the maximum impact on their global communities. With four years to evaluate the impact
of these reorganizational decisions, the university has stabilized and the restructuring has led to a
recovery of the Katrina-related losses. In 2008, the national economic downturn has triggered financial
caution as with most universities in the country. However, the stability brought about by the post-Katrina
reorganization has made the university stronger and better able to handle these current national
economic issues.
SPHTM and the Renewal Plan: In July 2005, SPHTM issued “Evidence-based Global Health”, a
Progress Report and Strategic Priorities. (See Resource File). This report evaluated progress in
achieving the strategic priorities approved in early 2004 and reaffirmed the goals and objectives, and
planned activities concerning people, programs, and facilities. These strategic priorities provided a
framework that guided the school through the university reorganization under the University Renewal
Plan. As a result, SPHTM’s overall direction and focus has continued under this plan. In February 2007,
the Executive Committee updated the SPHTM goals and each department identified target goals and
outcome measures (see Resource File).
As part of the University Renewal Plan process, SPHTM undertook an assessment of its academic
programs to determine the number and type that were sustainable in both the near and long term. The
number of specialty programs was reduced from 51 to 32. The assessment and decrease in academic
programs were consistent with recommendations made by site visitors at the last accreditation site visit.
Several departmental programs were consolidated and strengthened, also consistent with
recommendations from the previous CEPH self-study.
SPHTM lost 18 faculty immediately following the hurricane. A few research and clinical faculty without
financial support were not retained under the renewal plan; several others made personal decisions not
to return to New Orleans given the extent of devastation and loss of their homes and neighborhoods.
New Orleans was a difficult place to live during the Katrina year. All faculty were paid their full salary
throughout the 2005-06 academic year. In the next 3 years, an additional 17 faculty chose to leave
SPHTM, many very productive faculty who left for other career opportunities or personal/family reasons.
Over this same time, SPHTM was able to hire 16 new faculty to rebuild in target areas.
SPHTM emerged from the university reorganization under the Renewal Plan largely intact. SPHTM was
able to hire additional faculty and to proceed along its established plans and goals. This is a testament
to the stability of the school and the leadership of the dean. Holding this course has proven to be
effective as the number of students and the amount of funded research have steadily increased.
In 2007 the administrative organization at the Tulane Health Sciences Center was substantially
reorganized. The position of senior vice president for Health Sciences was dissolved. A new dean for
the School of Medicine was recruited with the objective to rebuild the clinical enterprise at the School of
Medicine. At this time, the academic administration of the university was reorganized so that all
academic units report to the provost; this meant that the SPHTM and the academic programs at the
02/01/10
Page 6
Section 1.2
School of Medicine no longer report within a Health Sciences Center, but to the provost on the Uptown
Campus. This is consistent with the goal of the Renewal Plan to streamline the administrative structure
of the university for greater efficiency and cost savings. It essentially changed the reporting lines, but did
not substantially affect the internal academic functions and organization of SPHTM.
SPHTM Planning Processes and Evaluation Procedures
The planning process is a school-wide endeavor involving participation of the faculty, administration,
students and alumni working through departments and task forces. The process allows for the school to
address issues in the changing post-Katrina environment while keeping a focus on public health issues
and the needs of the local, regional and global community. There are several forums for deliberate
planning and ongoing evaluation of efforts to achieve the school’s goals.
School-wide planning processes: The SPHTM leadership organized school-wide planning and set
goals, objectives and school-wide priorities for meeting the school’s mission. The school's goals and
objectives are reviewed annually at the faculty retreat. The dean and provost monitor the school’s progress.
•
Dean’s Business Plan: the dean prepares a 5-year business plan that is presented to and
approved by the university administration. The business plan includes a plan for growth in terms
of faculty positions, student enrollment, and research funding projections. The business plan
forms the basis for negotiation of resources needed by the school.
•
Executive Committee: The Executive Committee is composed of the SPHTM leadership and
includes: the dean, senior associate dean, associate deans, department chairs, chair and vice
chair of the general faculty and senior university senator, and student body president. The
Executive Committee provides the leadership for planning, developing and implementing goals
and evaluating progress. The Executive Committee has annual retreats to review and update
goals and to assess progress.
•
General Faculty: The General Faculty has held an annual faculty retreat for more than fifteen
years; the faculty retreat serves both planning and monitoring functions. The agenda and
discussion topics are determined by the leadership of the General Faculty with input from the
SPHTM Administration. The day-long retreat allows faculty the opportunity to meet for an
extended period of time to discuss issues, review progress and provide input into curricular topics,
research foci, and policy guiding the school. In addition to its planning functions, it serves as a
means of internal networking. The goal of the 2008 retreat was to review and approve updated
goals and objectives for the school, and to discuss issues regarding the increasing emphasis of
the global focus of public health.
•
Dean’s Board of Advisors is composed of community leaders, public health professionals, and
alumni. It provides a vision for growth and development for SPHTM. The advisory committee
serves as an advisory and consultative group to the dean; brings the perspective of alumni and
friends of the school to bear regarding policy, goals, programs, and activities; advocates for the
school in the general community and provides input into planning and future directions (See the
Resource File)
•
Board of the SPHTM Alumni Association: The board of the SPHTM Alumni Association is
devoted to improving the school and provides advice and guidance to the dean on issues that will
increase the function or impact of the school on the public health community. Since the storm,
the board has adopted as a major project the initiation of an endowed scholarship for the school.
Work is ongoing. (See the Resource File) The board is attuned with current changes in the
practice community and provides this input to the dean for planning and future directions of the
school. The dean meets formally with the board annually to give a “state of the school” address.
02/01/10
Page 7
Section 1.2
Departmental planning process: Each department conducts its own planning process to formulate and
review departmental goals, objectives and priorities. Each department has a process for planning and
reviewing departmental research and teaching programs, assessing and updating their curriculum,
identifying priority areas for research and new teaching programs, setting programmatic goals, assessing
faculty development measures, reviewing student satisfaction and monitoring and tracking departmental
progress in advancing research goals.
Curriculum Planning: Curriculum planning occurs at the department/program level and reflects the
departmental mission, goals and objectives, and the faculty's expertise. Programs and courses are
developed by departmental faculty to meet demands to prepare students for public health careers. New
courses may be offered once before they must receive Curriculum Committee approval before being
offered a second time. New programs must receive Curriculum Committee approval before being offered.
Innovative programs, such as the distance learning programs, executive health system management
programs, and the Diploma Program in Tropical Medicine are evaluated under the same criteria as the
traditional programs; these types of programs are evidence of the school’s response to the identified needs
of mid-career professionals. The Curriculum Committee reviews each department’s course offerings every
5 years and insures that school-wide curriculum changes are implemented at the departmental level. The
Curriculum Committee also reviews the school core courses annually. This includes the review of both the
qualitative and quantitative sections of the student evaluations of the core courses.
1.2 B Monitoring and Evaluation
SPHTM has ongoing processes in place to evaluate its faculty, students and curriculum annually. These
results of the evaluations are used to assess programs, faculty and students and provide feedback for
enhancing quality and effectiveness. Data demonstrating outcomes are provided in the respective
Criterion of the self study. A summary of the monitoring and evaluation processes and measures include:
Teaching and Curriculum:
• Curriculum Committee monitors the quality of the academic teaching programs of each
department. The Curriculum Committee conducts an in-depth evaluation of departmental
programs and courses every five years. The program competencies are cross-walked to course
learning objectives, materials and activities. The Curriculum Committee reviews and approves
all new courses and programs are reviewed prior to implementation.
• Students evaluate every course each semester and this evaluation includes assessment of
faculty teaching and quality of courses. The senior associate dean and the Curriculum
Committee review the result of the student core course evaluations and monitor the overall quality
of the core courses.
• The department chairs review evaluations for all courses taught in their department to assess
program quality and to provide guidance to individual instructors for improving deficiencies.
• Course instructors utilize the student evaluations for ongoing improvement and to identify ways to
improve their teaching.
• Student performance is monitored by successful progress in core and specialty courses,
practicum and culminating experience. Advisors monitor student progress in fulfillment of
required courses, completion of the culminating experience, and in conjunction with their
preceptor or field supervisor, certify demonstration of competencies in the practice experience.
• Graduation rates are monitored for each degree to assess the timely progress of students through
their program of study and to identify systemic barriers to the completion of degrees.
• Employment rates within 1 year and the destinations of graduates are monitored to assess
students’ competitiveness in the job market. The sector of employment provides information on
those who undertake careers in public health.
• An alumni survey is conducted to monitor the progress of graduates and to obtain feedback on the
quality of their education and preparation for careers in public health fields.
02/01/10
Page 8
Section 1.2
•
An employer survey provides feedback from employers on the preparation of graduates in key
public health competencies.
• Informal sessions are held by the deans and department chairs to get feedback from students.
Department chairs host a “Chair’s Hour” and the deans have regular “Dean’s Hour” sessions with
student government officers and students.
Each of these evaluation measures provides feedback on the curriculum and how well students achieve
the competencies of each degree program. The evaluation process obtains feedback from students,
alumni, and employers. In addition, faculty peer-review helps monitor and evaluate the curriculum.
Research:
• Faculty research productivity is monitored by the number and amount of research grants; number
and amount of NIH-funded grants; and the number and quality of publications.
As a Research 1 University, Tulane places an emphasis on research competiveness and productivity.
Evaluation is based on school-wide success in advancing the SPHTM research agenda. Building the
research capacity is a long-term endeavor and the success within departments and among faculty
interdisciplinary teams is closely monitored.
Service:
• Faculty service is monitored by the number and percent of faculty engaged in community service
and professional service activities.
Faculty submit an annual report to the dean each year reporting community service and professional
service activities. This emphasizes the importance placed on faculty being involved in the community.
Faculty
• Faculty composition is assessed by the number of faculty in each track, and by racial, gender and
ethnic diversity.
• Faculty performance in teaching, research, and service is evaluated annually by the dean and
department chairs; promotion, tenure, and merit raises are based on these evaluations.
• The Personnel and Honors Committee evaluates faculty for appointment, reappointment,
promotion, and tenure using minimum criteria established by each department as guidelines.
Departments assess each faculty’s progress annually.
The faculty composition and performance is monitored by the dean to achieve the school’s mission and
goals. The results of the evaluation provide the feedback for allocating faculty positions, directing
resources and space, and requesting additional resources from the university. Annual faculty reviews
are conducted by the chairs and dean. Faculty achievement of criteria for promotion and tenure is
assessed through peer review, the department chairs, the dean, the Executive Faculty and the provost.
These evaluations lead to decisions regarding continuation of appointments, tenure and promotion.
Resources
• The dean and associate dean for finance monitor the school and departmental budgets including
analyzing revenues and expenses of departments, academic programs, non-traditional programs
and research. The Executive Committee reviews the school’s overall budget.
• The dean monitors and seeks resources to carry out the school’s mission and goals. The dean
advocates for the SPHTM budget with senior administration to obtain funds to support or expand
facilities, hire faculty, and support students.
The financial impacts first of Hurricane Katrina and then of the national economic crisis have placed a
priority on administrative efficiency, targeting funds toward essential functions, and getting the most
performance from investment in teaching and research activities. The dean and assistant dean for
finance monitor not only the budgets, but the performance that is derived from the allocation of funds.
02/01/10
Page 9
Section 1.2
Student Involvement in Monitoring and Evaluation: Because the school places a high value on
student participation in all aspects of school operations, several avenues are available for student voices
to be heard: course evaluations, representation on school committees, including the Curriculum and
Admission Committees, and on the Executive Faculty and General Faculty. In addition, informal student
sessions are held by the deans and chairs to solicit student opinions. Students are invited to voice their
concerns or opinions to faculty, chairs and the deans and engage in discussions to arrive at mutually
acceptable solutions. Students are informed at orientation that the deans, department chairs, and faculty
have an open-door policy for students to express their concerns.
Surveys of student satisfaction are conducted each Spring to obtain student opinions on issues. The
Student Government Association (SGA) participates in the development of the survey and reviews the
results. The results of the student survey are reported in Section 2.7 and the findings are used to assess
improvement in identified areas. This process provides students with collective input to identify current
issues and to convey their findings to the faculty and administration.
1.2 C Outcome Measures to Monitor Effectiveness in Meeting Mission, Goals and Objectives
SPHTM monitors the effectiveness of meeting its mission, goals and objectives by tracking key
indicators. These indicators provide the dean and Executive Faculty with information for monitoring
progress each year and to provide data for decision-making. The objectives (listed in Section 1.1) are
based on the dean’s current five year business plan which extends to 2013. These are the priorities of
action for the next few years. Objectives for each goal and their metrics are presented below and in
Table 1.2C.
Goal 1: Provide educational opportunities that prepare graduates to identify, resolve and
prevent global public health problems, and to manage and assess the effectiveness of healthrelated programs.
• Maintain the student/faculty ratio between 6.0 and 6.5 each academic year: The student /faculty ratio
is calculated from the FTE of on-campus public health graduate level students per FTE faculty as an
indicator of the adequacy of the number of faculty and space to support the core graduate public
health programs on the Downtown Campus (See Section 1.6 E)
• Increase the number of faculty to 125 by 2013: The goal is to increase the number of faculty above
the 2004 pre-Katrina level (118) and to a level that will decrease the student/faculty ratio if student
numbers are held constant. (See Section 4.1)
• Increase the percentage of minority faculty to at least 30% by 2013: The goal is to increase the
percent of minority faculty, particularly African-Americana and Hispanic faculty. The increase in
faculty provides an opportunity to increase the minority composition of the faculty. (See Section 4.3)
• Limit new resident graduate student enrollment to a ceiling of 350 each academic year by 2013: The
school will limit the number of new graduate students to approximately 350 each year to decrease
the student faculty ratio. The number is measured by the official enrollment by the Tulane University
Registrar. (See Section 4.4)
• Increase the percentage of minority students to at least 30% by 2013: Even though the goal is to
maintain the total number of graduate students at a constant level, SPHTM will actively recruit and
work to increase the number of minority students. The percent is reported from official enrollment by
the Tulane University Registrar. (See Section 4.5)
• Enroll 100 new undergraduate public health major annually by 2013: SPHTM seeks to grow and
develop the undergraduate public health major. The addition of 100 new undergraduates annually
will yield approximately 400 undergraduate students which will make it one of the pre-eminent
undergraduate programs at Tulane University. (See Section 4.4)
• Increase graduation rates for master’s students to at least 90% by 2011: SPHTM has traditionally
had a high graduation rate which dipped somewhat during the Katrina years. The goal is to increase
the graduation rate to at least 90%. (See Section 2.7)
• Increase the number of training grants to 15 by 2013: Training grants are an important means of
supporting students during their studies and competing for highly qualified students. (Section 4.4)
02/01/10
Page 10
•
•
•
•
Section 1.2
Increase the percent of students who meet with their advisor at least once per semester to 90% by
2011: The enhancement of student advising is a priority. One measure of advising is student
reporting of at least one advising session with their advisor as reported on the student survey. (See
Section 4.6)
Maintain the percent of students who report their advisors are available any/most of the time to 90%
by 2011: As another measure of student advising, the percent of students who report that their
advisor is available any or most of the time is measured on the student survey. Availability of faculty
includes meetings, phone conferences and e-mail advising. (See Section 4.6)
Expand teaching and faculty space to 200,000 nsf by 2013: Additional space will be needed to
accommodate the growth of faculty and academic programs. The dean of SPHTM is in charge of the
Tidewater Building and 200,000 sq ft for SPHTM could be accommodated. The net square feet (nsf)
of total space assigned to SPHTM includes classroom space, faculty/administrative offices and wet
labs in all buildings. (See Section 1.6)
Increase development activities to build the endowment to $100 million by 2013: A substantial
increase in the endowment is needed to provide additional revenue for SPHTM. The endowment is
reported on the Tulane fiscal year. (Section 1.6)
Goal 2: Advance public health knowledge by conducting rigorous scientific investigations and
by promoting the dissemination and application of the results.
• Increase the research funding to at least $50 million annually by 2013: This goal is measured by the
total research funding of SPHTM faculty. $50M expands the research agenda of SPHTM. The
amount is measured on the Tulane fiscal year. (See Section 3.1)
• Increase NIH research funding to at least $15 million annually by 2013: This goal is measured by
total NIH research funding of SPHTM proposals. $15 million expands the NIH funding at SPHTM.
The amount is measured on the NIH fiscal year. (See Section 3.1)
• Increase number of articles in peer-reviewed journals by SPHTM faculty to a minimum of 200 per
year by 2013: Publications are an outcome measure of the success of the research activities. All
journal publications are counted. Duplicates due to multiple faculty authors are eliminated to
determine school-wide totals. Publications are measured on the calendar year. (See Section 3.1)
• Increase the percent of articles in journals with an impact factor of >1 to at least 75% and with an
impact factor of >3 to at least 35%: The impact factor indicates publication in highly respected
journals. Faculty will also be encouraged to publish in international and specialty publications which
may not be rated by impact factors. (See Section 3.1)
Goal 3: Improve the health of communities, locally, nationally and internationally, through global
• Maintain the percent of funded community-based projects at 60% of funded research annually:
Community-based projects are a priority within the research agenda. Faculty identify which funded
research projects are community-based. This is a measure of contribution to the health of
communities. (See Section 3.1 and 3.2)
• Maintain the percent of faculty engaged in professional service activities each year at 90%: Faculty
self report professional service activities are included in the annual report for merit raises. The high
level reflects the ongoing activity of SPHTM faculty. This is collected annually for the calendar year.
(Section 3.2)
• Increase employment rates of graduates to 90% or higher each academic year: The employment
rate indicates the competitiveness of SPHTM graduates in the workplace. (See Section 2.7)
02/01/10
Page 11
Section 1.2
Table 1.2C Outcome measures for objectives from 2006-07 to 2008-09
Objective
Outcome Measures
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Goal 1: Teaching
Maintain the student-faculty ratio between 6.0 and 6.5
Increase the number of faculty to 125
Increase the percentage of minority faculty to 30%
Limit new resident graduate student enrollment to a
ceiling of 350/year
Increase the percentage of minority graduate students
to at least 30%
Enroll 100 new undergraduate public health majors
each year
Increase graduation rates for masters students to at
least 90%
Increase the number of training grants to 15
Increase the percent of students who consult with
advisor to 1+ times/semester to 90%
Maintain the percent of students who report their
advisors are available any/most of the time to 90%
Expand teaching and research space to 200,000 nsf
Total Sq ft for SPHTM
Classrooms
Faculty and Administrative Offices
Total Research Wet Lab Space
Increase the endowment to $100 Million
(Book value in $Million)
Goal 2: Research
Increase the research funding to at least $50 M
Increase NIH research funding to at least $15 M
Increase number of Peer-reviewed articles to a
minimum of 200/year
Increase the impact of Peer-reviewed articles
Impact Factor > 1.0 (%) (target 75%)
Impact Factor > 3.0 (%) (target 35%)
Goal 3: Service
Maintain the percent of funded community-based
projects to at least 60% of funded research
Maintain the percent of faculty engaged in
professional service activities at a minimum of 90%
Increase employment rates of graduates to 90% or
higher each academic year
5.2
6.3
100
23%
268
99
24%
312
6.6
2009-10 – 6.5
99
26%
350
26.3%
26.2%
32.6%
18
39
69
Entered 2003-04
94%
Entered 2004-05
84%
11
N/A
Entered 2005-06
80%
Entered 2006-07
82%
9
75%
10
77%
N/A
89%
90%
(2001)
127,362 nsf
10,434 nsf
63,552 nsf
22,845 nsf
(2009)
167,896 nsf
21,946 nsf
95,239 nsf
26,011 nsf
$24.5 M
$26.2 M
$24.8 M
$46.6M
$10.0M
141
$38 M
$10.0 M
153
Not available
Not available
145
48.9%
25.5%
56.2%
26.8%
69.0%
30.3%
93 (70%)
54 (57%)
Not available
N/A
N/A
92%
91%
87%
88%*
(at 6 mo. Post
graduation)
1.2 D Analytical Self-Study Document
The SPHTM CEPH Steering Committee approached self-study as an evaluation project to assess the
school’s strengths, weaknesses and effectiveness in achieving its mission, goals and objectives. Where
weaknesses are found, a plan for correcting the problem was developed and implemented. This selfstudy focuses primarily on quantitative outcome measures. While processes are identified and
documented, specific outcome measures are tracked to determine the effectiveness of the faculty and
school for each key measure and success in achieving the requirements for each criterion.
02/01/10
Page 12
Section 1.2
The self-study document contains the documentation and analysis of the results of the evaluation. It
provides a thoughtful assessment of the outcome measures documenting how well the school meets its
mission, goals and objectives as well as the CEPH accreditation criteria. For each criterion, an
assessment of the schools progress, strengths and weaknesses, challenges and solutions are provided.
Where weaknesses are identified, a plan to correct the weaknesses is provided. The intense evaluation
demonstrates that Tulane SPHTM is a strong school of public health; has ‘weathered’ the immense
challenges from Hurricane Katrina, emerging stronger and more resilient than before; and has a viable
plan that focuses on its commitment to excellence.
1.2 E School’s Responses to Recommendations of the Last Accreditation Report
At the last CEPH accreditation in 2002, the SPHTM received a ‘Met” on 20 of the 24 criterion; 4 were
“Met with Commentary”. These include:
• Criterion VB - Core Knowledge, Practice and Culminating Experience
• Criterion VC – Learning Objectives
• Criterion VIIIC – Faculty Diversity
• Criterion IXC – Advising and Career Counseling
Criterion VB: Core Knowledge, Practice and Culminating Experience
(new Criterion 2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge):
Core Knowledge
Issue: The site visitors noted that the number of courses that fulfilled the core requirements was
extensive and, while it provided flexibility to students and advisors, it would require extensive oversight to
insure that students obtained the breadth of public health knowledge rather than knowledge limited to
their areas of concentration.
Solution: To remedy this situation, the Curriculum Committee took the lead in developing a plan for reorganizing the core courses. The plan was presented to and approved by the Executive Faculty. As a
result, the large array of core course options was eliminated in 2003 and approved by the General
Faculty in January 2004 when a single core course was developed in each of the 6 core areas.
Competencies for each core area were defined and approved by the Curriculum Committee and the
General Faculty in January 2004. In addition, a plan for ongoing monitoring of core courses was
developed by the Curriculum Committee. Documentation pertaining to this process can be found in the
Resource File.
Practice skills (new Criterion 2.4 Practice skills):
Issue: The site visitors reported that while all students were required to have a practice experience, the
60-hour requirement was low and also could be waived. The site visitors noted that students reported
the 60 hours was not typical and more hours were usually required. They also noted that the capstone
could include both the culminating experience as well as the practice experience.
Solution: The practicum was defined as a separate requirement from the culminating experience (or
previous capstone requirement). In 2006 the 60 contact-hour practice experience option was replaced
by a practicum of 200 contact hours (minimum) that is required of all students. Most practica exceed the
200-hour minimum. These hours may be met by a summer- or semester-long internship or by spending
a designated number of hours per week at a practicum site.
School-wide overarching guidelines for the practicum were developed in 2006 and 2007. The roles and
responsibilities of the faculty advisor, preceptor, and student were more clearly defined and sign-off
processes were implemented to assure adherence by all involved (see the Resource File). The
clarification of roles of each helped to reduce stress among all involved. Students are to show initiative
in finding a practicum in an area and setting that is consistent with their career goals. The advisor and
often the Career Counseling Office as well as the OPH liaison, provide an entrée between the student
02/01/10
Page 13
Section 1.2
and potential practicum site. The preceptors are willing to serve as mentors to students, but most do not
wish to be burdened with paper work and formal reports. The guidelines seek to find a balance while
providing sufficient documentation.
Competencies and associated learning objectives were developed for the practicum and are included in
the Practicum Handbook and on the website (see Resource File). This allows for a better assessment of
rigor across the school even though the format and settings may be different. A practicum setting was
defined as a practice setting outside of the university and could not include working on an advisor
research project. This is intended to ensure that students are introduced to the world of practice and to
interact with practitioners in their work setting. To show appreciation to the preceptors and advisors for
their work on student practica, the first annual “Thank You” reception was held in April, 2008.
Criteria for waiver of the practicum were revised and strictly limited in 2006. For a waiver, the students
must document 3-years of practice experience in their field of study. The criteria are such that only
experienced practice professionals who have returned to study at SPHTM to obtain a public health
degree may obtain a waiver. This waiver option is important to practice professionals seeking a formal
degree to complement their practice experience and to advance their careers in public health.
Culminating Experience (New Criterion 2.5 Culminating Experience)
Issue: While SPHTM policy required all students to complete a capstone experience, wide variations
among departments and within departments raised questions about: a) the need for all formats to be
equally rigorous even if different in structure; b) integrate and synthesize knowledge and skills across all
of the knowledge areas of public health and not just the discipline; and c) use the culminating experience
to assess readiness to practice and link this judgment to the achievement of learning objectives. Some
departments do not require that the practice experience be based outside of the university or with an
external preceptor.
Solution: In 2006, the options for the culminating experience were reviewed, with the options being
narrowed to the following: thesis; public health analysis; and comprehensive examination. In an attempt
to develop consistency across the departments, overarching guidelines for the thesis, public health
analysis, and comprehensive examination were developed in 2006 and 2007. Templates and guidelines
for the reports are posted on the school’s website and are included in the Resource File.
SPHTM eliminated the capstone course as an option for the culminating experience in 2006. In February
2007, SPHTM Faculty approved revised guidelines for the thesis and public health analysis (See the
Resource File). Guidelines for the comprehensive exam were adopted in concept in December 2006 and
the rules finalized in February, 2008.
SPHTM developed a new school-wide comprehensive exam. The comprehensive exam consists of two
parts: Part A covers the public health core courses and is taken by all students choosing this option for a
culminating experience. Part B is given in the department and covers the departmental specialty area.
The first school-wide comprehensive exam was given April 5, 2008. Guidelines for the Comprehensive
Exam were developed for the April 2008 exam (See the Resource File). See Section 2.5 for description
of process and Section 2.7 for summary results. A competency framework for culminating experience
that places the culminating experience options and the practicum into context, was developed and
approved in May 2008 (See the Resource File).
Issue: The graduation rate was a “best estimate” of 81% to 84%. This estimate is confounded by
difficulty in determining an actual rate due to admission and graduation 3 times a year and the varying
lengths of programs.
Solution: A method for tracking graduation rates was developed by calculating the date of admission to
the date of graduation. These data were obtained from student records in the Office of Admissions. The
time is calculated using 3 semesters per academic year (Fall, Spring and Summer). We now have a
02/01/10
Page 14
Section 1.2
system for collecting and analyzing data to determine graduation rates. (See Section 2.7).
Criterion VC – Learning Objectives (New Criterion 2.6 Required Competencies)
Issue: While all degree offerings within each department had stated learning objectives, they
represented overarching learning outcomes expected for students who complete required course
work for each degree. The learning objectives did not appear to be integrated and/or linked directly
to the course content or assignments. They appeared to be stand-alone statements of expected
proficiency in professional practice associated with a specific discipline. Most of the learning
objectives were stated at low levels of proficiency, yet the syllabi indicated the students were
expected to perform at more advanced levels than suggested by the programmatic learning
objectives.
Solution: The Curriculum Committee has been monitoring learning objectives more closely beginning
with development of competencies and supporting learning objectives for core courses in 2004. In 2007
a short document was distributed to faculty by the Curriculum Committee explaining the differences
between competencies and learning objectives, information on creating learning objectives, and
appropriate descriptors for each of the levels of the learning taxonomy (see the Resource File).
As new courses are presented, the Curriculum Committee assures that learning objectives are
appropriate for the course level, appropriately stated and linked to individual lectures. As departments
are reviewed, program competencies are monitored. Individual courses are linked to program
competencies. Learning objectives for advanced courses are expected to emphasize higher levels of the
learning taxonomy. The level of proficiency stated in the competencies is correlated with the expected
level of work. Thus, a cascade is created in which program competencies are supported by course
learning objectives, and learning objectives supported by individual lectures. Emphasis was again placed
on the interrelationship of competencies, learning objectives, lectures and evaluation during the CEPH
component of the Faculty Retreat in October 2008 (See the Resource File).
Criterion VIIIC – Faculty Diversity (New Criterion 4.3 Faculty and Staff Diversity)
Issue: Although SPHTM is working hard to increase the percentage of women and minority faculty
members, no specific proportions are mentioned as a future goal or target. While there has been a
significant demonstration of effort, there has not been a change in the number or proportion of women or
minority faculty, especially in the higher ranks. Women are concentrated in the clinical ranks.
Solution (Minority): The goal to increase the number of minority faculty remains a priority for SPHTM.
SPHTM has increased the total percentage of minority faculty from 21% in 2002 to 25% in 2009; this is
primarily due to an increase in Asian faculty members. (See Section 4.3 Table 4.3F1) As noted by the
site visitors, SPHTM has steadfastly recruited African-American faculty, but has not been as successful
in retaining them. Most leave for either career opportunities that cannot be matched by Tulane (in spite
of attempts to counter offer) or family issues that require moving to another locale. SPHTM now has two
African-American tenured associate professors that shows some progress in retaining and promoting
minority faculty.
Hurricane Katrina is directly responsible for the loss of two minority faculty, one a tenured associate
professor in line for promotion to professor. The ability to attract and mentor the African-American faculty
to prepare them for career advancement demonstrates a welcoming environment, but retention remains
an issue. The school lags in recruiting Hispanic faculty.
Solution (Women): SPHTM has made substantial progress to achieve a more balanced gender
distribution since the last site visit in 2002. The percent of women in the tenure track has increased from
15 (27%) in 2002 to 24 (36%) in 2008. The number of males in the tenure tracks has remained constant
while the number of females has increased substantially. Two major changes occurred to facilitate a
better gender balance in the tenure tracks and rank. 1) After Katrina, there was a change in the Tulane
Faculty Handbook which removed very restrictive rules preventing a move from one track to another. It
02/01/10
Page 15
Section 1.2
now allows conversion from the clinical track to the tenure track (with the requisite qualifications and
review). This rule change allowed the dean to move 6 well-qualified women from the clinical or research
tracks into the tenure track. This rectified several cases where women had responsibilities and were
performing duties consistent with those in the tenure track. 2) New positions have been opened primarily
in the tenure track which has increased the proportion of faculty in the tenure track while decreasing the
percentage in the clinical track. Those who are in the clinical track have chosen this career path and
have appropriate responsibilities (See Section 4.3 for more details).
Women have made strides toward increased in rank at the school. In 2002 only 3 women faculty were at
the Professor level and most were clustered at the assistant professor rank. Currently, three of the
seven department chairs are women. In 2008, 8 women were tenured full professors. Mentoring by
senior faculty contributed to the successful promotion of some women to the rank of professor. The steps
taken have been relatively successful in providing a pathway for women to advance in faculty rank and in
the tenure lines.
Criterion IXC – Advising and Career Counseling (New Criterion 4.6)
Issue: While many students had positive advising experiences, some reported significant deficiencies in the
advising system, including being provided wrong information about course content or sequence. Some
advisors were unavailable when needed or unable to answer students’ questions. While an advisory
workshop is held at the beginning of each academic year, it is not clear that attendance is monitored or
enforced. Availability and quality of academic advising varies across departments and efforts are needed to
make this more consistent and dependable.
Solution: SPHTM has enhanced consistency of advising across departments by: consolidating the number
of teaching programs; eliminating core course options; streamlining the number and type of culminating
experiences; redefining the expectations of the required practicum; and revising the guidelines and
templates for the practicum, thesis, and public health analysis. Guidelines and criteria for the culminating
experiences and practicum are posted on the school’s website.
SPHTM has held school-wide advising workshops, and departments also hold advising workshops prior
to orientation each year to update faculty advisors regarding requirements of each departmental
program. Sign-in sheets were provided when school-wide advising workshops were held. The General
Faculty Retreat following Katrina in October 2006, was dedicated to “Renewing and rebuilding our
student-centered focus in teaching, research, and service.” Attendance at the Faculty Retreat is always
mandatory. A key component of that retreat was a workshop dedicated to student advising (See the
Resource File). In the fall of 2008, in addition to departmental advising workshops, the school held a
school-wide Advising Workshop. (See the Resource File) Additional clarity on course and curricula
requirements was developed by enhancing the school and departmental websites.
The 2008 and 2009 student surveys (Section 4.6) show some improvements in student satisfaction with
advising after the Advising Workshops. Some departments improved more than others. Overall, the
student survey indicated that most (84%) feel their advisors knew the requirements, were available
all/most of the time (90%), and are well informed (85%). Some 77% of students communicated with
advisors at least once each semester. This outcome will be tracked to continue improvement in student
advising (See Section 4.6).
Site Visitors’ observations:
In addition to the formal report, the site visitors provided a list of strengths and concerns to assist the
school. This provided valuable feedback to the school on issues that were indications of areas for
improvement. Other Site Visit Team Observations/Concerns that have not been addressed above are
listed below:
02/01/10
Page 16
Section 1.2
Observation: Emphasis on research has the potential to threaten and undercut the strong practice
orientation and detract from the substantial service commitments of the school.
Answer: The Renewal Plan has a major emphasis on community outreach and service in a post-Katrina
environment. The spirit of community engagement and service is alive and well in the university and
school. At SPHTM, community service also has a global perspective. Research encompasses
community-based research that is conducted in concert with practitioners. Both the president and
provost emphasize that Tulane is a Research 1 University, but also recognize the value and significance
of community-based research or community service. Teaching and service are requirements for
promotion and tenure.
Observation: Due to the wide prerogatives extended to the departments to determine the application of
curriculum design, there is a need for effective oversight at the school wide level to assure there is
equity, if not comparability across the school in critical components of the curricula.
Answer: The Curriculum Committee has the responsibility to oversee and to monitor departmental
programs. All departmental programs are reviewed every five years. It is the responsibility of the
Curriculum Committee to ensure that there is comparability across the school in the curricula. In addition,
we have greatly enhanced consistency across departments by: consolidating the number of teaching
programs; eliminating core course options; streamlining the number and type of culminating experiences;
redefining the expectations of the required practicum; and revising the guidelines and templates for the
practicum, thesis, and public health analysis.
Observation: Growing complexity of the school’s degree offerings and the significant expansion of
student numbers with relatively small increase in faculty size. The school will need to manage its
teaching obligations in a way to sustain and advance quality in education. The student faculty ratio of
8.7 is above that of research universities.
Answer: SPHTM decreased the number of degree offerings from 51 to 32 which has helped to focus
faculty effort and strengthen programs. The clinical faculty track is designed to bring practice to the
classroom and clinical faculty play an essential role in teaching. Following Katrina, SPHTM conserved
resources by not engaging adjunct faculty to supplement the core faculty in teaching. As the university
stabilized, adjunct faculty have again been engaged for courses where specific expertise is needed. The
primary goal is to increase the number of core faculty who will teach, conduct research, and engage in
community service to educate public health students.
Observation: Limited resources for supporting master’s and doctoral students who are offered better
financial aid by peer institutions
Answer: Tulane is handicapped by a relatively small endowment compared to most peer private
universities and is unable to provide large amounts of internal funds for scholarships. Scholarships are
one of the major fund-raising priorities. Increased scholarship funds for all students and disadvantaged
students in particular, is an ongoing needed to which substantial effort is directed.
Observation: Considerable efforts to recruit women and under-represented minorities. More consistent
mentoring of the junior faculty is needed to help them obtain tenure and be successful in their careers.
Answer: Mentoring is one key to the success in retaining and promoting all faculty, including women and
minorities. The chair and senior faculty in each department mentor junior faculty. The school requires a
formal 3-year plan for all new junior faculty. Annual reviews by department chairs and the dean, and an
extensive formal three-year review by the department and the Personnel and Honors Committee keep
junior faculty on target. Departments supplement these reviews with informal support for junior faculty.
Some departments still have more effective formal and informal mentoring mechanisms than others.
02/01/10
Page 17
Section 1.2
1.2 F Self-Study Process
The SPHTM conducted an exhaustive self-study to prepare for the accreditation site visit in March, 2010.
Immediately following the previous accreditation site visit, senior associate dean Anderson identified
issues that needed to be addressed and began the processes required to make the necessary changes,
such as identifying a single core course for each of the five public health areas, requiring an independent
practicum and separate culminating experience, stipulating the culminating experience options and the
processes necessary to accomplish these. The required approvals to implement these changes were
obtained from the Curriculum Committee, departmental chairs, Executive Committee and the General
Faculty. While Hurricane Katrina delayed and set back the timelines to achieve goals, the post-Katrina
university reorganization also provided opportunities for policy changes, particularly regarding clinical
faculty moving into the tenure track; these moves would not have been possible under the previous rules.
During the self study process, issues that emerged were addresses as a part of our ongoing
improvement process. Examples of actions spurred by the self-study include the revision and definition
of specific requirements for each doctoral program, an annual student survey to obtain feedback on
academic and quality of life issues, linking program competencies with course objectives, enhancement
of methods for SPHTM long-term data collection for tracking key indicators, and continued focus on
improving the advising process. Departmental issues were presented to the chairs for action.
In Fall 2007, Dr. LuAnn White was named to chair the self-study, and the CEPH Self-Study Steering
Committee was formed to guide the process. The Self-Study Steering Committee consisted of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A faculty representative from each department
A tenured faculty member
A tenure-track faculty member
A clinical faculty member
President of the Student Government Association
Chair of the General Faculty
Vice Chair of the General Faculty
Senior Associate Dean
Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Chair of the Curriculum Committee
Representative from the LA Office of Public Health
A doctoral student
A master’s student
An alumna
A staff representative
Some represented more than one constituency. The Committee was chaired by LuAnn White, and
members included: A.J Englande, Anastasia Gage, Jeanette Gustat, Mark James, Carolyn Johnson,
Nancy Mock, Fran Mather, Janet Rice, Lizheng Shi, Jeffery Johnson, Ann Anderson, Maya
Begalieva, and Karis Shoellmann (representing the practice perspective), Robert Barrera (staff);
Mario Vincinti (Student Government and masters students), Jocelyn Lewis (doctoral student) and Joe
Kimbrell (community).
The Accreditation Self-Study Committee developed outcome measures for each criterion that were used
by the SPHTM during the self-study process. The SPHTM Executive Committee was a key participant in
the self-study process and the chairs were charged with communicating the self-study approaches and
issues to their faculty, providing departmental data and processes that were not available at the school
level, and reviewing and validating information in the self-study with its findings.
To facilitate data collection, a master list of data needs was initially compiled and distributed to the
department representatives. Each month specific information and data were requested from
02/01/10
Page 18
Section 1.2
departments as a part of the data collection process. The Self-Study Steering Committee discussed the
materials and data as they were compiled.
SPHTM faculty discussed issues related to the self-study at the annual faculty retreats in the Fall 2007,
2008 and 2009. In 2007, the Self-Study Steering Committee explained the approach of using the selfstudy as a school-wide evaluation process and listed the types of data that would be required. The
faculty reviewed and updated the mission, goals and objectives. In 2008, the preliminary findings of the
evaluation were presented and strengths and weaknesses were discussed. In 2009 the draft self-study
is the subject of ongoing discussion.
The draft self-study was distributed for editing and review to the Executive Committee, Self-Study
Steering Committee, and at least one additional faculty member in each department. Community
representatives and the student government were key participants and reviewers. SPHTM placed the
self-study on the school’s website and invited comment by all students, stakeholders and partners.
1.2 G Assessment
This criterion is met. The SPHTM has a formalized planning process that incorporates input from faculty,
students, alumni and the public health community. SPHTM’s strategic priorities align with the University’s
Renewal Plan and are designed to achieve SPHTM’s goals and objectives. The priorities are reviewed
and updated to respond to the changing post-Katrina environment. Departments are responsible for
identifying their goals and objectives, and planning and implementing their teaching programs, research
agenda, and service and practice activities to achieve the goals.
Evaluation and monitoring are inherent in the SPHTM’s structure and organization. SPHTM systematic
collects and analyzes data on key indicators to evaluation the effectiveness of achieving goals and
objectives. In addition to the quantitative process that generates data to monitor progress toward goals
and objectives, SPHTM assesses the effectiveness of the curriculum and programs, and evaluates
students, faculty and departmental performance. Prior to Katrina, there was a system in place for the
external review of departments to provide a critical evaluation of the teaching, research and service
activities in each department. With recovery, external review is being reinstituted.
The curriculum is monitored through systematic student evaluation of courses and monitoring of teaching
quality by department chairs; student performance is monitored by faculty and feedback through the
alumni survey and departmental assessment of the performance of graduates in jobs. Faculty
performance is evaluated through regular review of junior faculty and annual review of all faculty in
conjunction with merit raises. The outcome measures identified in this self- study serve as a template
for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the school. The information derived from these evaluations of
outcome measures provides feedback into decision-making and management of the SPHTM, and in
planning to set goals and objectives.
The SPHTM has conducted a thorough and substantive self- study. The process was open and inclusive
of all of the SPHTM's constituencies. The self-study process engendered considerable frank and open
discussion, some debate, much consensus and exhaustive amounts of faculty time and energy. This is
particularly true in light of much concurrent personal and professional recovery from Katrina. The selfstudy has enabled the faculty and administration to look across the SPHTM and to gain a wider view of
issues that transcend departments. The identification of outcome measures provides a template for
tracking and monitoring progress in departments and across the SPHTM. The outcome measures
provide a means to continue to monitor the effectiveness of programs in the future; the collection of
additional data will allow us to better monitor trends over time.
02/01/10
Page 19
Section 1.3
Institutional Environment
1.3 A University Setting
Tulane University is a privately administered, non-sectarian university offering undergraduate, graduate,
and professional curricula. The university is comprised of ten academic divisions with a total enrollment
of 11,157 students with 6,749 undergraduate students and 4,408 graduate and professional students.
Tulane, the largest private employer in New Orleans, has over 2,700 full-time staff and 1,100 full-time
faculty, exclusive of adjunct and visiting faculty. Tulane is an international resource for education with
students coming from all states and approximately 40 countries. Tulane University is the only Carnegie I
Research University in the Gulf South states. According to U.S. News and World Report, Tulane
University is among the top national universities in the United States ranking 50th among the best
national universities and 36th among the nation’s best universities for overall quality and 44th in the
magazine's "Great Schools/Great Prices" category. Tulane is also cited for its excellent service learning
programs. In 2008, Tulane University was named by Kaplan/Newsweek's college guide as one of the 25
"Hot Schools" in the nation. Tulane University campuses include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Uptown (St. Charles) Campus, the university’s main campus, located in the uptown
residential area of the city includes 110 acres and 79 buildings, housing eight of the schools and
colleges. Academic units include: Newcomb-Tulane College, A. B. Freeman School of Business,
School of Architecture, School of Continuing Studies, School of Law, School of Liberal Arts,
School of Science and Engineering, and School of Social Work.
The Downtown (Health Sciences) Campus, near the commercial center of New Orleans has
several divisions: School of Medicine, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane
Medical Center owned by Tulane University and Columbia HCA, Technology Services, and
Government Relations.
The Northshore Campus is home to the Tulane National Primate Research Center and occupies
500 acres near Covington, LA. The Primate Center is one of eight nationally-funded centers
under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health dedicated to the use of non-human
primates in biological research.
The F. Edward Hebert Research Center, which occupies 550 acres near Belle Chasse, LA.,
provides research facilities in medicine and environmental, behavioral and computer sciences.
The School of Continuing Studies has satellite campuses in Elmwood Business Park in Jefferson
Parish, LA, and in Biloxi, MS.
The A.B. Freeman School of Business offers Executive and Professional MBA programs at its
satellite campus in Houston, TX.
Tulane University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on
Colleges. The most recent accreditation was December 2000, and is effective until January 2011.
Accrediting bodies for other professional schools are listed in Table 1.3A; those with joint degrees with
SPHTM are indicated.
Table 1.3A Accrediting Bodies for Other Professional Schools at Tulane University
Tulane University School
Accrediting Body
Joint Degrees
School of Business
School of Law
School of Medicine
School of Social Work
School of Architecture
School of Science and
Engineering
02/01/10
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business
American Bar Association
Association of American Law Schools
Association of American Medical Colleges
Liaison Committee on Medical Education of the American
Medical Association
Council on Social Work Education
National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)
Accrediting Board of Engineering and Technology
(Tulane programs in Biomedical, Chemical and
Engineering Physics)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Page 20
Section 1.3
Within the SPHTM, the MHA program in the Department of Health Systems Management is accredited
through Spring 2010 by the Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education
(CAHME) and will have a site visit this year. The Industrial Hygiene program in the Department of
Environmental Health Sciences is accredited by the Accrediting Board for Engineering Technology
(ABET) through 2010.
1.3 B Organizational Structure
Figure 1.3 B1 and 1.3 B2 show the organizational structure of Tulane University. The governing and
policy body of the university is vested in a group of trustees incorporated as the Administrators of the
Tulane Educational Fund. The president, Dr. Scott S. Cowen, as chief executive officer, is responsible for
university management and reports to the Board of Administrators. Assisting the president on the
president’s cabinet are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Yvette M. Jones, chief operating officer and senior vice president for external affairs
Michael A. Bernstein, senior vice president for academic affairs and provost
Anthony P. Lorino, senior vice president for operations and chief financial officer
Benjamin J. Sachs, senior vice president and dean, School of Medicine
Charlie McMahon, vice president for information technology and chief technology officer
Victoria D. Johnson, general counsel
Anne P. Baños, vice president for administrative services
Rebecca Conwell, chief of staff
1.3 C Relationship of the SPHTM to University Governance
The dean of the SPHTM reports to the senior vice president for academic affairs and provost, as do the
deans of all of the schools and colleges. The dean represents the school on the University Administrative
Council, which is composed of the deans of the ten schools and colleges and the senior administrative
officers. Prior to the university reorganization under the Renewal Plan, the dean reported to the senior
vice president for health sciences. With the dissolution of this position, SPHTM and the academic
functions of the School of Medicine now report to the provost along with all of the other schools within
Tulane University. While the external lines of reporting changed from the Health Sciences Center to the
Uptown University Administration, the internal governance remained the same. During the university
reorganization, the SPHTM remained intact and retained its self-governance.
The SPHTM is an independent unit within the university and has prerogatives regarding self governance
equal to all of the other schools and colleges in the university. These include: internal organization;
budget formulation and administration; academic standards and policies; faculty recruitment, retention,
and promotion; and research and service policies. The dean, in consultation with the department chairs,
is responsible for formulating and administering the SPHTM’s budget and allocating resources. The
school has full autonomy for faculty retention and promotion, academic programs and curricula, and for
research and service activities.
As one of the ten divisions of the university, the school is independently represented in the University
Senate, the faculty governance body. The dean holds ex officio membership. SPHTM faculty serve in
leadership roles in the University Senate: Hugh Long serves as the current vice chair of the Senate and
Susan Barrera is the chair of the Staff Advisory Council. The school is represented on all Senate
committees requiring membership from each academic division. Faculty members also serve voluntarily
on many other Senate committees and university-wide ad hoc committees and task forces.
The students of SPHTM are represented by the University Associated Student Body. Two senators are
elected by the students each January. These senators, or the president of the Student Government
Association, serve on university committees requiring student representation.
02/01/10
Page 21
Section 1.3
The school is recognized as an integral and vital element of the university. Increasing collaboration
continues to draw the units closely together. The school is recognized as a leader in the university for
innovative partnerships and for its vision for future growth and change. For example:
•
The school shares funding for some faculty members with the School of Medicine, the
Primate Center, the Payson Center, and the LA Office of Public Health.
•
The Center for Excellence in Women’s Health is led by the school’s faculty and is a
partnership among the SPHTM, School of Medicine, Xavier University, Loyola University,
Dillard University and other local partners.
•
Tulane's Center for Bioenvironmental Research draws heavily on expertise in the school.
The J. Bennett Johnston Building provides research offices and laboratories for faculty
from both the School of Medicine and the SPHTM who are involved in environmental
health, tropical medicine, cell and molecular biology, and cardiobiology research.
•
The Tulane Center for Cardiovascular Health, housed in the SPHTM, facilitates
interdisciplinary research among faculty from SPHTM and Departments of Medicine, and
Cardiology, and the Primary Care Program in the medical school and hospital.
•
The Tulane Cancer Center is directed by a SPHTM faculty member; he is also the co-director
of the Louisiana Cancer Research Consortium (LCRC) that includes several SPHTM faculty.
•
The General Preventive Medicine Residency Program provides postgraduate education leading
to board eligibility by the American Board of Preventive Medicine. The program is administered
the Department of Community Medicine of the medical school, with the SPHTM providing
scholarship support for the MPH from endowed scholarship funds.
•
The Department of Tropical Medicine leads research on the development of anti-malaria
drugs which involves the SOM Department of Microbiology and Immunology and the Division
of Bacteriology and Parasitology at the Tulane National Primate Research Center.
•
The Department of Environmental Health Sciences has cross-listed courses with the School
of Social Work, the environmental studies program, and with the homeland security studies
program.
•
The SPHTM has joint degree programs with the Schools of Medicine, Business, Law, Social
Work, and Liberal Arts.
1.3 D Identification of Processes Unique to SPHTM
None of the processes noted above differ in the SPHTM compared with the other professional schools
and colleges of the university.
1.3 E&F Information about Collaborative School Relationships
The SPHTM is not sponsored by more than one institution as defined by this criterion.
1.3 G Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM is a respected and integral part of Tulane University which is fully accredited
by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges. As one of the ten
academic units within the university, the SPHTM has equal academic prerogatives and privileges of self
governance as all other schools in the university. There is equitable representation from all schools in the
university's administrative, faculty, and student organizations. The dean represents the school in the
university administration and participates in top level decision making. SPHTM is one of the most stable
units within the university following Hurricane Katrina and provides leadership in the recovery effort.
02/01/10
Page 22
Section 1.3
Figure 1.3 B1 – Tulane University Organizational Chart
02/01/10
Page 23
Section 1.3
Table 1.3 B2 – Tulane University Academic Affairs Organizational Chart
02/01/10
Page 24
Section 1.4
Organization and Administration
1.4 A School Organizational Setting
As outlined in Figure 1.4 A, the SPHTM is organized into seven academic departments. In addition,
university-wide and school-wide centers support interdisciplinary teaching, research and service in
strategic plan areas across the SPHTM and the university. The dean holds the executive authority and
responsibility for the SPHTM. The dean is assisted by the associate and assistant deans, directors,
department chairs and by the faculty through the General Faculty, the Executive Faculty and SPHTM
committees. (see Criterion 1.5) Students participate in governance through the Student Government
Association and student representation on standing committees of the SPHTM (see Criterion 1.5).
Figure 1.4 A
1.4 B Roles and Responsibilities
• Dean – Dean Pierre Buekens, MD, PhD, represents the SPHTM in its interactions with other units
of the university and with external constituencies. The dean is responsible for guiding formulation
and implementation of SPHTM policies and strategic plan; budgeting and resource allocation;
facilitating research efforts; and establishing outreach initiatives to the local, national, and
international communities. Dr. Buekens is also the W. H. Watkins Professor in the Department of
Epidemiology.
•
Senior Associate Dean – Ann C. Anderson, PhD, is the senior associate dean and is responsible
for oversight of master’s and doctoral degree programs, curriculum planning, public health
practice initiatives, accreditation, and liaison with the alumni office. Dr. Anderson is also a
professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences.
•
Associate Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs – Jeffery Johnson, PhD, is responsible for
student recruiting and admissions and the supervision of the office which administers student
records, financial aid, career services and placement, and award of degrees. He is also director
of undergraduate public health studies. Dr. Johnson is a clinical assistant professor in the
Department of Heath Systems Management.
02/01/10
Page 25
Section 1.4
•
Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education – Marie Antoinette Krousel-Wood, MD, MSPH,
directs the combined MD/MPH program as well as the MPH component of the Preventive
Medicine Residency program with administrative oversight in both the SPHTM and the School of
Medicine. She is also associate dean in the School of Medicine and an associate provost. Dr.
Wood is a clinical professor in the Department of Epidemiology.
•
Assistant Dean for Finance – Susan Barrera, MBA, is responsible for management of the school’s
operating budget, grants and contracts management, and financial aspects of strategic planning.
•
Director of Academic Information Systems – Frances Mather, PhD, is responsible for coordinating
academic and administrative computing and advancing the use of technology for teaching and
research in the SPHTM. She is an associate professor in the Department of Biostatistics.
•
Department Chairs – The department chairs are integral to the leadership and governance of the
school. The department chairs, in conjunction with departmental faculty, are responsible for
planning, implementing, and evaluating departmental programs. The chairs administer the
departmental budgets. Chairs are responsible for communicating relevant administrative matters
to faculty; evaluating individual faculty; advising faculty of the evaluation; and recommending
merit salary increases to the dean.
The chairs and departmental faculty recommend faculty retention, promotion and tenure, and new
faculty candidates. The chairs have joint responsibility with departmental faculty for establishing
departmental objectives and curricula; developing research and service programs; assigning
teaching and administrative duties; and setting departmental admission and graduation
requirements in addition to those of the SPHTM.
The seven departments and the chairs as of Fall 2009 are as follows:
• Biostatistics - John Lefante, PhD
• Community Health Sciences – Jeanette Magnus, MD, PhD
• Epidemiology - Jiang He, MD, PhD
• Environmental Health Sciences - Maureen Lichtveld, MD, MPH
• Health Systems Management – Jane Bertrand, PhD, MBA
• International Health and Development - Dominique Meekers, PhD
• Tropical Medicine – Richard Oberhelman, MD (Nirbhay Kumar, PhD will assume the chair in
Spring, 2010).
Department of Biostatistics (BIOS) prepares students to be part of an interdisciplinary team through
teaching and research programs. The department offers three master’s level degrees: a MSPH and a MS
in Biostatistics and a MS in Bioinformatics. The department also offers a PhD in Biostatistics. Faculty in
the department provide statistical expertise to research projects across the school and university.
Several large school-based health education evaluation programs comprise an active research program.
These include a new NIH funded project to collect and analyze additional longitudinal follow-up
measures for the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG), an NIH funded multi-site program to
enhance physical activity for middle-school age girls. Another active research program is ACTION!
Wellness Program for Elementary School Personnel, a multi-site program to enhance physical activity for
middle-school teachers and other workers. Faculty members in the department also serve as
biostatistical consultants for numerous projects at the Tulane SPHTM, the Tulane School of Medicine,
Tulane Cancer Center, the Louisiana Cancer Research Consortium, and Ochsner Hospital. The
Biostatistics Data Center, a fee-for-service resource, provides data entry, management, and quality
control services to researchers from Tulane, LSU, and the community, including projects from the CDC
as well as the Louisiana Public Health Institute (LPHI). Department faculty direct the biostatistics and
data management core for the Gulf South STI/TM Clinical Research Center. This center is housed at the
02/01/10
Page 26
Section 1.4
LSUHSC but includes researchers from Tulane, LSU, and the University of Texas Medical Branch at
Galveston. Department faculty also provide the statistical expertise to the joint Tulane/LSU Clinical and
Translational Research Center (CTRC). Recently the department has taken the lead in providing the
biostatistics and design component of a new NIH grant application for an Institutional Clinical and
Translational Science Award, through the Pennington Biomedical Research Center (Baton Rouge, LA).
The department also has a grant (FIC/NIH) to train students from Mali in medical Informatics,
bioinformatics and global health. Within the category of statistical methodology, recent work has focused
on a number of areas, including analysis techniques for handling missing data, design of experiments,
robust estimation, survival analysis, analysis of microarray data, genomics and proteomics.
Department of Community Health Sciences (CHSC) focuses on community-based solutions to global
health problems. CHSC offer majors at the master’s level in community health sciences, maternal and
child health, health education, and nutrition, as well as dual majors in coordination with other
departments in MCH epidemiology, in global maternal and child health as well as in community health
management. It offers doctoral degrees (DrPH and PhD) in community health sciences. In addition, the
nutrition section offers a dietetic internship. The Maternal and Child Health Program was nationally
acknowledged for it strong education in 2005 when it successfully secured one the MCHB-funded
Maternal and Child Public Health Leadership Training grants. Two faculty members are jointly funded
with Louisiana Office of Public Health, tying the department closely to the practice of public health in the
state as well as the city. CHSC considers the community as its laboratory and has strong ties to local
public health agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community groups. CHSC works to develop
community-oriented solutions to global public health problems and particularly strives to close the health
gap among diverse communities in New Orleans, and Louisiana. The department also conducts
community-based research that includes development of public health interventions with focus on
behavioral and social aspects of health, public policy, the environment, social relationships, communities,
and organizations. The department also serves as the academic home for the directors of three schoolwide centers: the Tulane/Xavier National Center for Excellence in Women’s Health, the Mary Amelia
Douglas-Whited Community Women’s Health Education Center and the Prevention Research Center.
Department of Environmental Health Sciences (ENHS) Faculty in the Department of Environmental
Health Sciences have expertise in toxicology, risk assessment, environmental oncology, genetics, policy,
and disaster management. Several EHS faculty are members of the Tulane Cancer Center and the
Center for Bioenvironmental Research. The department equips students with the knowledge and skills to
apply scientific principles in toxicology, industrial hygiene, global environmental health, health policy,
oncology, and disaster management in order to prevent, detect and mitigate environmental public health
problems and threats locally and globally. At the master’s level, the department offers the MPH focusing
on policy and management aspects of environmental health and disaster preparedness and
management, while the MSPH is geared to the technical aspects of environmental health sciences. The
department also offers the MD/MPH and JD/MPH combined degrees. In addition, ENHS offers 4+1
programs with undergraduate programs at Tulane, Xavier and Southeastern Louisiana Universities. The
doctoral degree (PhD) offered is an academic research degree that provides in-depth study into a
specific environmental health topic. The Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health
(CAEPH) houses the Center of Excellence in Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) funded by
CDC; the Center of Excellence for the National Children’s Study (Orleans Parish site) funded by NIH;
and the Head-off Environmental Asthma in Louisiana study funded by NIH. CAEPH functions as a link
between academia and practice and houses community and practice-based projects including the
Louisiana Childhood Lead Prevention Program. CAEPH also delivers distance learning degree programs
in health and safety management, industrial hygiene, occupational health, and disaster management.
Department of Epidemiology (EPID) is committed to discovering and disseminating knowledge of the
distribution, determinants and prevention of disease, disability and premature death in populations. Our
faculty share broad interests in environmental and genetic factors affecting human health. Areas of study
include cardiovascular/renal diseases, infectious diseases, environmental epidemiology, reproductive
02/01/10
Page 27
Section 1.4
epidemiology, genetic epidemiology, clinical trials, and epidemiologic methodology. The goal of the
Department of Epidemiology is to play a leading role in the improvement of domestic and inter-national
public health. This is accomplished through our programs of research, education and service at the
local, national and global level. Specifically, we seek to advance knowledge with respect to a wide range
of critical threats to public health through our research efforts; translate this research knowledge into
relevant training for the next generation of public health professionals, both in the classroom and through
experiential learning opportunities; and apply that knowledge in a wide range of service and practice
activities and programs that have a direct impact on the public health of communities around the world.
The department offers the following degrees: master of public health (MPH), master of science (MS),
master of science in clinical research (MS), doctor of public health (DrPH), doctor of philosophy (PhD),
and a combined doctor of medicine/master of public health degree (MD/MPH).
Department of Health Systems Management (HSMG) prepares individuals for successful domestic
and international careers in health system management, research, and policy. HSM has a practitionerscholar model of teaching and learning. The practitioner-scholar model integrates health care
management practice with health services research and policy development. In recent years, the
department faculty has made significant progress towards strengthening all these aspects of scholarship.
The HSM department currently offers on-campus Master of Health Administration (MHA), Master of
Public Health (MPH) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs along with a number of joint degree
programs with the Schools of Law, Business, and Medicine. The MHA program at Tulane is one of two
programs in the country in which academic coursework is fully integrated with a residency experience in
carefully chosen local practice settings. The department’s executive degree programs continued without
interruption during and after Katrina. These program offerings currently include a Master of Medical
Management (MMM) for physician executives, an MPH for Taiwan hospital leaders, and an executive
doctoral program (ScD) for healthcare leaders, professionals, and decision makers. In 2008, the
department introduced a dual concentration in Global Health Systems Management (GHSM) with the
Department of Community Health Sciences. The joint MD/MPH degree in HSM continues to be very
popular and over the past few years was the most frequently selection program of the MD/MPH students.
Department of International Health and Development (INHD) currently has 16.5 resident faculty in
New Orleans and five posted at off campus sites in Kenya, Ethiopia, Peru, and Washington DC. A dual
concentration in Global Health Systems Management has been developed with the Department of Health
Systems Management. INHD manages the largest sponsored research portfolio in the SPHTM, and has
ongoing research activities in more than 20 developing countries. Department faculty also provide
extensive technical support to international agencies such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF,
the World Bank, the Centers for Disease Control, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The department has one internal center, the Center for Global Health Equity. The center houses the
department’s CDC-funded Global AIDS Program (GAP)/University Technical Assistance Program, which
provides technical support for programs focusing on HIV prevention, treatment, and care.
Department of Tropical Medicine (TRMD) provides a unique curriculum among schools of public
health, with in-depth programs that combine specialty training in biological and clinical aspects of tropical
diseases with public health classes that emphasize control of these diseases in resource-poor settings.
TRMD offers the only master’s of public health and tropical medicine (MPH&TM) degree in the United
States. In addition, the department offers a Diploma Course in clinical tropical medicine and traveler's
health. It is designed to give a comprehensive educational experience for physicians and other health
professionals seeking certification in tropical medicine and traveler's health through the American Society
of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Over the last 10 years the department has supplemented traditional
training programs in parasitic diseases with new areas of strength in related fields, including vector-borne
diseases and entomology. Faculty members in both areas are active in local and international research
activities, and on-site laboratory research programs in anti-malarial drug development and entomology
are housed on the fifth floor of the J. Bennett Johnston Building in the Center for Infectious Diseases.
The department also has overseas clinical research programs in tuberculosis and gastrointestinal
02/01/10
Page 28
Section 1.4
infections. The department has eight full-time faculty members and nine associate and part-time
members, many of whom have joint appointments in the Tulane School of Medicine or the Tulane
National Primate Research Center. Many of the part-time faculty are clinical faculty members active in
teaching for the MPHTM and Diploma Course programs. The department also maintains two state-ofthe art teaching laboratories in the Tidewater Building, allowing professors to supplement coursework
with practical lab exercises that teach valuable skills.
1.4 C Interdisciplinary Coordination, Cooperation and Collaboration
In addition to the activities which take place in research centers (see Section 3.1 Research), many
partnerships within the university and the community promote collaboration. The SPHTM is actively
involved in the University’s Renewal Plan that defines the university's growth areas and direction for the
future in the post-Katrina era. Close ties, including a number of formal contracts with the Louisiana Office
of Public Health and other state agencies, provide ongoing mechanisms for collaborative activities.
Examples are as follows:
• The University Renewal Plan is designed to strengthen its commitment to building a world-class
educational and research institution, and implementing measures to ensure the university's
financial stability (See the Resource File).
• As part of the Renewal Plan, the SPHTM is expanding its public health practice activities in New
Orleans to further reinforce its global research program. Special emphasis areas in the New
Orleans region include community health, environmental health, vector-borne diseases and
health services research. The school is growing the global health research grants portfolio across
the school with special emphasis on existing strengths in cardiovascular diseases, infectious
diseases and reproductive health, and complex emergencies and disasters.
• The university administrative structure provides access to executive officers on the main Uptown
Campus and the Downtown Campus. The Administrative Council and Senate Committees
provide a formal structure for the SPHTM to interact with the other academic units of the
university (see Criterion 1.5).
• Through its joint degree programs and research projects, SPHTM faculty interact with the faculty
of the Schools of Business, Law, Social Work, Liberal Arts and with Xavier University.
• The Louisiana Office of Public Health and the SPHTM continue to have strong ties through
programs and initiatives. The clinical faculty position jointly funded by OPH and SPHTM attest to
this collaboration. Cooperative activities on Work Force Development and the ongoing activities
supporting culminating experiences, and practica continue on a widespread basis.
• The committee structure assures faculty participation in school governance, including admission
and academic policies, curriculum, research, doctoral programs, honor code and grievance
procedures, and promotion and tenure decisions. Policy and planning functions are carried out by
the administration and the Executive Faculty. All policy and procedures documents which govern
committee actions are acted upon by the General Faculty (see Criterion 1.5).
• Communication is key to coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. The SPHTM facilitates
communication among faculty, departments, administration, and students. The dean meets
annually with faculty of each department. The dean and associate deans report at each meeting
of the General Faculty. The dean holds weekly meetings with the associate and assistant deans,
department chairs and officer of the General Faculty. The dean and associate deans hold brown
bag discussions each semester with students. SPHTM administration has an open-door policy for
students, faculty and community partners.
• During the annual retreat, the faculty discuss issues that are important and impact the school.
This provides a forum for the discussion of major issues and to obtain faculty input that continues
to improve communications. During the Fall 2007 retreat, faculty evaluated the current status of
the mission, goals and the strategic plan. This process is one of the formal mechanisms for
faculty to have input in determining the strategic directions of the SPHTM. The updated goals and
objectives document can be found in the Resource File.
02/01/10
Page 29
Section 1.4
1.4 D Commitment to Fair and Ethical Practices
The SPHTM places great importance on developing public health graduates who possess and exhibit
professionalism. The SPHTM defines professionalism in terms of integrity, ethical behavior, and public
health values. We strive to educate future public health professionals who will serve humanity directly or
work in careers that affect the health of the citizens of the world. One role of public health professionals
is to deliver public health services with respect, empathy and compassion. To do this, an organizational
context and spirit must emphasize the importance placed on these values.
The SPHTM believes that values are individual characteristics which are acquired as well as learned.
Given this, the SPHTM fosters the development of public health values and professionalism through
formal course work available to students, by example of its faculty, and through formal policies at the
university and school level.
In 2007, the school, through its Curriculum Committee, reviewed the ASPH Cross Cutting Competencies
and did a gap analysis to assure that the stated competencies were addressed in the MPH core courses.
It was found that all of the Professionalism competencies, including those pertaining to ethical
considerations were covered in the MPH core courses. While all of the core courses addressed aspects
of professionalism and ethics, most were clustered in HSMG 603, EPID 603 and EHS 603. (See the
Resource File). These competencies were also covered in many additional departmental MPH courses
(See the Resource File).
Faculty are encouraged and expected to interact with students as future public health professionals, in a
fair and ethical manner. This includes an extensive set of relationships, from offering quality courses and
programs as stipulated in the SPHTM's catalog to dealing with individual student concerns effectively
and with compassion. Faculty maintain their accessibility and informal interactions with students, thereby
aiding students in all aspects of their professional development and maturation. Faculty are also
expected to exhibit professionalism in all individual activities that may reflect upon the SPHTM.
The administration of the SPHTM reinforces these attitudes by maintaining an open door policy for both
faculty and students. The deans believe that their role is to assist the faculty in achieving their
programmatic and academic goals. This attitude is reinforced by the faculty's commitment to assist
students in developing their career goals.
The school maintains written policies and procedures for faculty and students. The following policy and
procedures documents are examples of Tulane University and the SPHTM’s commitment to fair and
ethical practices. These materials are available in the Resource File:
University Documents:
Tulane Faculty Handbook
Academic Freedom, Tenure and Responsibility
Appeal of Promotion and Tenure Decisions/Discrimination
Code of Student Conduct
Confidentiality of Student Records
Conflict of Interest
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
Conflict of Interest of IRB Members
Consensual Relationships
Consulting and Extramural Activities
Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
Faculty and Staff Disability Policy
Fraud in Research
Healthcare Workers with Occupational Exposure to Blood Borne Diseases
Intellectual Property
Nepotism
02/01/10
Page 30
Section 1.4
Professional Liability
Research Policies and Compliance Issues
Sexual Harassment
Staff Equal Opportunity/Anti-Discrimination
Subpoena/Search Warrant
Use of Humans in Research
Weapons
School Documents:
Policy on Academic Standards
Code of Academic Conduct
Core Values
Policy and Procedures for Student Academic Complaints
Student Handbook
1.4 E Student Grievances
Student grievances are governed following the Grievance Committee Policy and Procedures for Student
Academic Complaints. This policy document is published in the Student Handbook and posted on the
school’s website (see the Resource File). Student academic complaints subject to review include:
complaints concerning grading; failure to pass a comprehensive examination; and recommendations for
termination from a program on academic grounds. There is a concerted attempt to first resolve student
concerns informally through conversations with the student and faculty involved. If this is not successful,
then the formal process is initiated with its specific timeline and process for registering and resolving a
formal grievance. The complete policy and procedures for grievances is published in the Student
Handbook and posted on the SPHTM website. Please see the Resource File.
In the past three academic years (06/07 through 08/09), there has been one student complaint (in BIOS)
and two formal student grievances filed (EPID-1, INHL-1). In each case, the issue was resolved without
further appeal by the student.
1.4 F Assessment
This criterion is met. The SPHTM is a vital unit of Tulane University; its organizational setting within the
university fosters its mission teaching, research and service. SPHTM has an independent, well defined
and established organizational structure. The school-wide administrative structure promotes
communication within the SPHTM and university and with external partners, and cooperation and
collaboration among faculty, staff and students. Since the last self study in 2002, several new centers
have been added to the school. Examples include: the Center for Evidence Based Global Health; Global
Health Equity; and the National Children’s Study – New Orleans Center. The development of new funded
centers along with the existing centers promotes cooperation and collaboration among faculty.
Pierre Buekens was recently reappointed for another term as Dean that extends to 2013. This will
provide a stable basis for growth for the future and an opportunity to vigorously pursue the dean’s five
year Strategic Plan. The position of assistant dean for finance was created in 2007, reflecting the
continuing growth in grants and contracts and the need for expanded financial assistance. A search is
underway for a new chair of Biostatistics which is expected to be filled in the 2009-2010 academic year.
Fair and ethical dealings with faculty, staff, students, and the community are integral to the school’s
teaching, research and practice programs. The SPHTM’s organizational setting supports its mission,
fosters collaboration, and promotes public health values.
02/01/10
Page 31
Section 1.5
Governance
1.5 A Governance, Committee Structure, and Processes
The administrative and governance structure of the school includes the Office of the Dean, the Executive
Faculty, the General Faculty, department chairs, and the Student Government Association. Prerogatives
of the SPHTM administration, faculty and students regarding governance and academic policies are
stipulated in the school's constitution and by-Laws which were first approved in 1977 and were reviewed
and amended in 2008 as part of this self-study process (see Resource File). Governance policies and
procedures for the university are outlined in the Faculty Handbook (see Resource File). The school's
governance policies are within university guidelines and are in accord with the principles of the American
Association of University Professors. Student governance is conducted through the Student Government
Association as stipulated in its constitution (see Resource File).
The primary administrative responsibilities of the dean, the associate and assistant deans and
department chairs are outlined in the text of Criterion 1.4. The structure and major roles of the Executive
Faculty, General Faculty, and Student Government Association are as follow.
•
Executive Faculty - Voting membership of the Executive Faculty consists of the dean, who
serves as chair, the department chairs, chair and vice chair of the General Faculty, the senior
senator, and the president of the Student Government Association. The student representative
has full voting rights in all matters except those concerned with faculty appointment, promotion,
and tenure. Non-voting members of the Executive Faculty include the associate and assistant
deans, the chairs of the Curriculum and Personnel and Honors Committees and directors of
school-wide centers. The provost is an ex-officio member. (See Table 1.5A.1)
The Executive Faculty has joint responsibility with the dean for determining the formal
organization of the school, and joint responsibility with the dean and the General Faculty for
formulating and implementing school plans and policies. The Executive Faculty has sole
responsibility for establishing, abolishing or consolidating standing committees of the school. The
Executive Faculty meets monthly throughout the year. A subcommittee of the Executive Faculty,
the Executive Committee, meets weekly to address budget issues, personnel and honors, and
other major school-wide issues. The Executive Committee is composed of the deans,
department chairs, elected representatives of the General Faculty and the student government
president. (See Table 1.5A.2)
•
General Faculty - the General Faculty is composed of all persons holding full-time or part-time
academic appointments in the school. The designations of titles and voting membership are
specified in the constitution. The university president and the provost are ex-officio members. The
president of the Student Government Association attends all meetings of the General Faculty. In
addition to its joint role in school planning and policy formulation, the General Faculty has primary
responsibility for its own governance, election of representatives to advisory and decision-making
bodies of the university, and discharging specific responsibilities as appropriate through
departmental and school-wide committees.
Elected officers of the General Faculty include the chair, vice chair (who succeeds the chair the
following year), and secretary. The elected officers, elected university Senators and elected
representative to the Senate Committee on Faculty Tenure, Freedom and Responsibility (FTFR)
serve as the Executive Committee of the General Faculty. The General Faculty meets at least
three times each academic year.
•
02/01/10
Student Government Association - The Student Government Association serves as the focus
for student activities and presents student views to the administration and faculty. All students
in the school are members of the association. The Student Government Executive Committee,
elected annually by the student body, includes president, vice president, secretary, treasurer,
Page 32
Section 1.5
Governance
social chair, academic affairs representatives, and Graduate and Professional Student
Association representatives. Four additional officers are appointed to the Executive Committee
and are non-voting; these include the publications director, the international student liaison and
two representatives to the Honor Board. The Student Government Association appoints student
representatives to school standing committees concerned with educational policy and
curriculum. The president of the Student Government Association is a voting member of the
Executive Faculty.
Student Government Association participates in the school-wide course evaluation program,
publication of a newsletter, and sponsorship of various professional and social events. The
association assisted the dean’s office in the standardized course evaluation program. This
responsibility included collecting course evaluations and disseminating summary qualitative data
on each course for review by the student body. The dean’s office was responsible for processing
course evaluation forms, producing summary quantitative data and circulating the reports to the
administration, course instructor, and department chair. In 2008, the University transitioned to an
on-line course evaluation process.
The faculty and administration of the school have the prerogatives of self-governance in policy
development and planning, budget and resource allocation, student admissions, award of degrees, faculty
recruitment, promotion and tenure, academic standards and policies, research and service expectations
and policies. The processes related to each of these functions are briefly outlined as follows:
•
Policy Development and Planning - The school's governance structure is arranged to engage
all of its constituencies in important decision-making processes. Planning and policy development
focuses on the school's mission, goals, and strategic plan. An annual faculty retreat is used to
review and update long-term plans and to focus on specific short-term objectives and strategies.
Individual departments also hold retreats for strategic planning and evaluation at the
departmental level. School-wide plans are implemented through the administrative or committee
structure as appropriate. The school’s current Business Plan 2005-2013, and materials for the
most recent faculty retreats are included in the Resource File.
The University's Renewal Plan, developed just after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, guides the current
strategic planning process, in which the school participates. The University Renewal Plan
strengthens and focuses the university's academic mission while strategically addressing its
current and future operations in the post-Katrina era. (See the Resource File).
•
Budget and Resource Allocation - The budgeting process is the primary responsibility of the
dean and is carried out in consultation with the department chairs. Priorities for resource
allocation are outlined in the school's strategic plan. Major expenditures, including addition of
new faculty and equipment, are made on the basis of assigned priorities. The annual
budgeting process involves the department chairs, the dean, and the assistant dean for finance.
Each department chair meets with the dean to review the upcoming year's budget for the
respective departments. Faculty and staff merit salary increases and special expenditures (e.g.
equipment, part-time teaching, etc.) are considered at this time. The school's annual budget for
general expenditures, departmental allocations, and projected revenues is then reviewed with the
provost and university financial officers.
•
Student Recruitment, Admission and Award of Degree - The associate dean for Admissions
and Student Affairs has administrative responsibility for student recruitment, processing
admissions, record keeping, and processing recommendations for award of degree. The policies
and procedures guiding these functions originate with the Office of the Dean and the Admissions
and Student Affairs Committee. This committee evaluates general admissions standards, student
recruitment strategies and the award of school-based scholarship funds. The committee makes
recommendations for changes in policy in these areas to the Executive Faculty. The Office of
02/01/10
Page 33
Section 1.5
Governance
Admissions works with the departments to implement department-specific guidelines concerning
admissions and graduation criteria.
•
Faculty Recruitment - Recruitment of new faculty is conducted at the department level with
the approval of the dean and the provost. To conduct a search, a department chair appoints
a search committee. The committee conducts a search (nationwide for tenure-track and
regional for clinical or research faculty), reviews candidates in keeping with affirmative action
guidelines, and interviews selected candidates. In consultation with the department chair and
department faculty, the search committee recommends the finalist to the dean. The dean
officially offers the position to the candidate and makes the financial commitment to the
prospective faculty member. All new appointments are contingent upon review by the
Personnel and Honors Committee and the Executive Faculty.
•
Faculty Retention, Promotion and Tenure - New faculty members are appointed with the
anticipation and expectation that they will be successful in their respective tracks. Departments
and administration strive to provide an environment conducive to the development of new faculty.
For example, recruitment packages for tenure-track faculty contain the necessary tools for new
faculty to pursue their research interests; teaching assignments are carefully allocated to provide
sufficient time to establish a research program. Clinical and research faculty are also given the
tools and support needed for their areas of responsibility. All newly appointed faculty prepare a
3-year plan in consultation with their department chair to guide the development of their research
and teaching programs.
General orientation sessions are held with the department chair. Each new faculty member is
provided with the departmental guidelines for faculty performance in addition to the school-wide
faculty evaluation form used annually for faculty review. The instructions for developing a dossier
for promotion and tenure review are also provided (see Resource File). These documents provide
assistance for new faculty regarding performance expectations.
Faculty appointments and faculty reviews for retention, promotion and tenure begin at the
departmental level. Departmental recommendations are then forwarded to the school's Personnel
and Honors Committee through the dean. The departmental and school-wide guidelines are used
by the committee in evaluating teaching, research, and practice/service activities for promotion
(and tenure) recommendations for each of the three faculty tracks.
The Personnel and Honors Committee reviews tenure-track faculty after three years and again
during the fifth year for tenure decisions. The committee reviews reappointments of all faculty,
including clinical, research and adjunct faculty. The committee makes recommendations to the
dean and the Executive Faculty following review.
•
Academic Standards and Policies - Program requirements and curricula design are the primary
responsibility of the department faculty with oversight by the SPHTM Curriculum Committee.
Each department is responsible for its academic programs. This includes establishing admission
and graduation requirements that may be more specific than those required of the school as a
whole. Departmental faculty determine course content and evaluate programs offered. Student
evaluations, alumni surveys, and other sources are used as a basis for modifying existing
courses. The Curriculum Committee reviews new courses and programs proposed by
departmental faculty. Additionally, the Curriculum Committee reviews each department’s curricula
and student evaluations every five years.
The department chairs and the academic advisor certify that school-wide requirements for the
award of degrees have been met by individual students in their department. It is the responsibility
of the department chairs and faculty advisors to assure that specific departmental requirements
have been completed by students in its programs.
02/01/10
Page 34
•
Section 1.5
Governance
Research and Practice/Service Expectations and Policies - Research and service policies are
formulated on a departmental level and coordinated by the Office of the Dean. Given the
interdisciplinary nature of the school and the number of sub-specialties in several departments,
some variation in emphasis by departments is expected and honored. The overall research and
practice/service policies for the school are addressed in the strategic plan.
1.5 B Constitution and By-Laws
The constitution and by-laws of the SPHTM determines the rights and responsibilities of administration,
faculty, and students. The documents are included in the Resource File.
1.5 C Standing and Major Ad Hoc Committees
The school governance includes the standing committees as shown in Table 1.5C.1. Standing
committees are composed of one faculty member from each department appointed by the dean in
consultation with the department chairs. In addition to Executive Faculty, students are represented on the
following standing committees: Admissions and Student Affairs; Curriculum; and Honor Board. Each
committee is governed by written policies and procedures which are approved by the dean, the
Executive Faculty, and the General Faculty. The policy and procedures for the Honor Board are also
approved by the Executive Committee of the Student Government Association. The policies and
procedures for standing committees were reviewed and updated, as necessary, as part of this self study
process. These documents are available in the Resource File. The functions of standing committees are
as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
02/01/10
Admissions and Student Affairs – This committee makes recommendations to the Executive
Faculty on general admissions requirements and academic standards. The committee oversees
distribution of school-administered traineeship and scholarship funds and hears appeals
regarding decisions on student suspensions.
Curriculum Committee – This committee regularly evaluates school and departmental curricula.
Departmental programs are reviewed every five years. The committee monitors the academic
quality of programs and conducts long-range planning concerning curricula. The chair is elected
by the General Faculty for a three-year term. Terms of members are staggered to provide
continuity in the evaluation process and in long-range planning. The chair is a non-voting member
of the Executive Faculty.
Doctoral Committee – This committee sets policy for admission and evaluates all applicants for
the doctoral programs who have been recommended for admission by the departments. The
committee reviews the initial plan of study for each student at the time of admission and assures
that an appropriate doctoral faculty advisor has been specified.
Grievance Committee – This committee is charged with the responsibility for in-house peer
review of grievances defined to be within its purview. The committee serves as a hearing board
for faculty in the adjudication of complaints. The chair is elected by the members of the
committee.
Honor Board – The Honor Board is composed of three faculty and two student members. It
is charged with the review of alleged student violations of the Code of Academic Conduct.
Personnel and Honors – This committee reviews all recommendations from the department
faculty and chairs for faculty appointments, promotion, tenure, and continuation of adjunct
appointments. The committee makes its recommendations to the Executive Faculty and the dean
on the basis of written criteria approved by the faculty.
Research Council – The Council's principal function is to award available university and school
research funds such as seed grants on the basis of submitted applications.
General Preventive Medicine Residency Committee – This committee is composed of faculty
who participate in the preventive medicine residency program. It governs program admission and
academic policies.
Page 35
•
•
•
Section 1.5
Governance
MD/MPH Advisory Committee – The MD/MPH Advisory Committee (MMAC) comprises
representatives from both SPHTM and the School of Medicine. Formed originally to assess and
strengthen the academic ties and foundation for the MD/MPH Combined Degree Program, the
committee serves as a catalyst for reviewing, designing, and implementing innovative joint degree
curricula that are responsive to the changing health care environment. This committee reviews
applicants to the program and an ad hoc committee drawn from MMAC awards a limited number
of academic scholarships to qualified students. The objectives of this committee are as follows: 1)
to oversee the MD/MPH program and make recommendations as appropriate; 2) to establish
criteria for scholarship awards and award continuations; and 3) to select recipients of scholarship
awards based on established criteria.
BSPH Steering Committee – The BSPH Steering Committee is made up of faculty who are
actively engaged in developing and teaching in the undergraduate program. It guides and directs
the develop of curriculum and interfaces SPHTM with the undergraduate academic structure.
Ad hoc committees – are appointed by the dean to perform defined tasks and are dissolved
upon completion of their work. Selected examples of school-based ad hoc committees are the
Steering Committee for Accreditation Self Study, the Information Systems Planning Committee,
and the Staff Esprit de Corps Award Committee.
1.5 D University Committee Membership
As noted in the text for Criterion 1.4, the school is well represented in the governance of the university. In
brief, the dean serves on the University's Administrative Council, which is composed of senior officers of
the university and the deans of the ten schools and colleges. SPHTM faculty are well represented
throughout the University Senate’s committees. Table 1.5D.1 lists the membership of the SPHTM faculty
on university standing committees.
University Senate – The University Senate is the governing body that gives the faculty, staff and
students a direct voice in university governance. The University Senate is composed of the university
president and senior officers, and deans and elected faculty representatives from each school in the
university. The Associated Student Body also has representation in the Senate. The number of
senators allocated to each school is based on the number of faculty in a school; currently SPHTM is
allocated 4 senate seats. In addition, the SPHTM dean has a voting seat in the Senate. University
Senate also includes 8 chairs of senate committees who are elected to senate status. The Senate meets
monthly and considers and debates issues of overall impact on the university. The university president
brings major policy issues to the Senate for approval. Faculty also serve on numerous University Senate
committees that provide input into university governance and decision making.
1.5 E Student Roles in Governance
The role of the Student Government Association (SGA) in the governance of the SPHTM was described
previously in Criterion 1.5A. The SGA is also well represented in university governance:
•
The Graduate and Professional Student Association of Tulane University has four Senators
from the SPHTM. GAPSA is responsible for addressing issues which affect graduate and
professional students university-wide, and for allocating budgets for all graduate and professional
organizations. GAPSA works closely with its undergraduate counterpart, the Undergraduate
Student Government (USG), and its parent body, the Associated Student Body (ASB).
•
The Undergraduate Student Government (USG) is a diverse group of Tulane students
representing schools, students, Greek societies, and organizations in a multifaceted environment
designed to forge discussion between all Tulane students. SPHTM has one Senator to the USG.
•
The Associated Student Body (ASB) is the parent student governance organization of the
university. Two of SPHTM’s GAPSA Senators represent the school on the ASB.
02/01/10
Page 36
•
Section 1.5
Governance
Students represent the SPHTM on a number of University Senate Committees as indicated
previously in Table 1.5D.1 and on SPHTM Standing Committees as shown in Table 1.5A.1 and
Table 1.5C.1
1.5 F Assessment
This criterion is met. The SPHTM administration and faculty have clearly defined rights and
responsibilities concerning governance and academic policies within the school. Students play an
integral role in the governance structure and function of the SPHTM and the university and exercises
self-government in accordance to the SPHTM constitution and by-laws. SPHTM has prerogatives in
governance related to: policy development and planning, budget and resource allocations, academic
standards and policies, research and service focus and policies, student admissions and award of
degrees, and faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure. Students participate in the school’s
governance through voting membership on the Executive Faculty and school-wide committees and
exercise self-governance through the Student Government Association.
The school has equal standing with other schools and colleges within the university regarding its
governance, and enjoys a leadership role in the university in initiating innovative community health care
programs. The school plays a vital role in determining the direction of the university by virtue of its
participation on university committees, the University Senate, and as an active contributor on the
university’s overall strategic plan.
02/01/10
Page 37
Section 1.5
Governance
Table 1.5A.1. List of members of the Executive Faculty, 2009 - 2010
Voting Members
Dean:
Chair, General Faculty:
Vice Chair, General Faculty:
Senior Senator:
President, Student Association:
Chair, Community Health Sciences:
Acting Chair, Biostatistics:
Chair, Environmental Health Sciences
Chair, Epidemiology
Chair, International Health & Development
Chair, Health Systems Management
Chair, Tropical Medicine
Dr. Pierre Buekens
Dr. Mark Wiser
Dr. Felicia Rabito
Dr. Paul Hutchinson
Mr. Marco Vincenti
Dr. Jeanette Magnus
Dr. John Lefante
Dr. Maureen Lichtveld
Dr. Jiang He
Dr. Dominique Meekers
Dr. Jane Bertrand
Dr. Nirbhay Kumar, PhD
Non-Voting Members
Sr. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs:
Associate Dean Graduate Medical Education
/Associate Provost:
Associate Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs:
Assistant Dean for Finance:
Director, Academic Information Systems:
Chair, Curriculum Committee:
Chair, Personnel and Honors:
Dean’s Special Assistant Chair, CEPH Committee:
Dr. Ann Anderson
Dr. Tonette Krousel-Wood
Dr. Jeffery Johnson
Ms. Susan Barrera
Dr. Fran Mather
Dr. Jeanette Gustat
Dr. Mark James
Dr. LuAnn White
Ex-officio
Provost, Tulane University:
Dr. Michael Bernstein
Invited Guests
Director, T/X Women’s Center:
Dr. Jeanette Magnus
Media Specialist, Public Relations:
Mr. Arthur Nead
Director, SPHTM Communications:
Ms. Dee Boling
Program Director, Deans Office:
Mr.Tom Augustson
Development Officer, Office of Advancement:
Ms. Tatine Frater
Financial Aid:
Mr. Mike Goodman/Jim Bourgeois
Rudolph Matas Library:
Mr. Philip Walker
02/01/10
Page 38
Section 1.5
Governance
Table 1.5 A.2. List of members of the Executive Committee, 2009 - 2010
Voting Members
Dean:
Chair, General Faculty:
Vice Chair, General Faculty:
Senior Senator:
President, Student Government Association:
Chair, Community Health Sciences:
Acting Chair, Biostatistics:
Chair, Environmental Health:
Chair, Epidemiology:
Chair, International Health & Development:
Chair, Health Systems Management:
Chair, Tropical Medicine:
Dr. Pierre Buekens
Dr. Mark Wiser
Dr. Felicia Rabito
Dr. Paul Hutchinson
Mr. Marco Vincenti
Dr. Jeanette Magnus
Dr. John Lefante
Dr. Jiang He
Dr. Dominique Meekers
Dr. Jane Bertrand
Dr. Nirbhay Kumar
Non-Voting Members
Sr. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs:
Associate Dean Graduate Medical Education
/Associate Provost:
Associate Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs:
Assistant Dean for Finance:
Director, Academic Information Systems:
Dean’s Special Assistant Chair, CEPH Committee:
Dr. Ann Anderson
Dr. Tonette Wood
Dr. Jeffrey Johnson
Ms. Susan Barrera
Dr. Fran Mather
Dr. LuAnn White
Ex-officio
Provost Tulane University:
02/01/10
Dr. Michael Bernstein
Page 39
Section 1.5
Governance
Table 1.5C.1. SPHTM Standing Committees, 2009-2010
ADMISSIONS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS
Sr. Assoc. Dean Ann Anderson, ex officio
Assoc. Dean Jeffery Johnson, Chair
Dr. Carolyn Johnson
Dr. Julie Hughes
Dr. A.J. Englande
Dr. Richard Oberhelman
Dr. Sudesh Srivastav
Dr. Susan Hassig
Ms. Penny Jessop
Suzanne Zagury (Student Rep)
GRIEVANCE (vice chair will become chair)
Dr. Xu Xiong (11)
Dr. Robert Reimers (11) (Roy Rando, alternate)
Dr. Chris Beaudoin (10)
Dr. T.J. Stranova (11) (Dr. Ann Butcher, alternate)
Dr. Ivo Foppa, member at large (vice chair)
Dr. Dan Bausch (10) (chair)
Dr. Mai Do (10)
Dr. Lillian Yau (10) (secretary)
Dr. Nancy Mock, non-voting
Dr. LuAnn White, ex officio
CURRICULUM
Dr. A.J. Englande (11)
Dr. Jeanette Gustat, Chair (12)
Dr. Paul Hutchinson (11)
Dr. Lizheng Shi (11)
Dr. Aubrey Spriggs (10)
Dr. Artie Shankar (10)
Dr. Young Hong (10)
Dr. Felicia Rabito (11)
Jay Colingham – Student Rep
Ronald Ikechi – Student Rep
PERSONNEL AND HONORS
Dr. Mark James, Chair (10)
Dr. Patty Kissinger (10)
Dr. Mark VanLandingham (10)
Dr. Hugh Long (10)
Dr. Roy Rando (11)
Dr. Diego Rose (11)
Dr. Larry Webber (11)
DOCTORAL
Dr. Thom Eisele (11)
Dr. Dawn Wesson (10)
Dr. Gretchen Clum (10)
Dr. Mark Diana (11)
Dr. Charles Miller, Chair (11)
Dr. Janet Rice (10)
Dr. Emily Harville (11)
RESEARCH COUNCIL
Dr. Elizabeth Didier
Dr. Carolyn Johnson
Dr. Carl Kendall
Dr. Mark VanLandingham
Dr. Claudia Campbell
Dr. Faye Grimsley
Dr. Jiang He
Dr. Larry Webber, Chair
GENERAL FACULTY (Officers)
Dr. Mark Wiser, Chair
Dr. Felicia Rabito, Vice-chair
Dr. Joe Keating, Secretary
HONOR BOARD
Dr. Mark Wiser, Chair
Dr. Ann Butcher
Dr. Lillian Yau
Ms. Lindsay Bonanno (Student)
Ms. Joelle Salmon (Student)
02/01/10
Page 40
MD/MPH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dr. Lydia Bazzano, Chair
Dr. M. A. Krousel-Wood, ex officio
Dr. Richard Culbertson Dr. Jeffery Johnson
Dr. Mark Dal Corso
Dr. Barbara Beckman (SOM)
Dr. Kevin Krane (SOM)
Dr. Marc Kahn (SOM)
Ms. Penny Jessop
Dr. Richard Oberhelman
Dr. Latha Rajan
Ms. Allys Dieker
Student Representatives:
Michael Ehmann
INHL
Thomas Jan
EPID
Leah Katz
CHSC
Joshua Major
HSMG
Carrie McIlwain
CHSC
Nirmol Pearl Philip
TRMD
Joanne So
EPID
Wendy Wong
INHL
Section 1.5
Governance
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE RESIDENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SPHTM & SOM)
Dr. M. A. Krousel-Wood, ex officio
Dr. Louis Trachtman
Mr. Robert Bermudez
Dr. Harry Pigman
Dr. Allen Smart
Dr. Jean Takenaka
Dr. Clare Hoff – Resident Rep
UNDERGRADUATE PUBLIC HEALTH STUDIES GOVERNING COMMITTEE
Faculty:
Ann Anderson
Jeffery Johnson
Carl Kendall
Mahmud Khan
Fran Mather
Maureen Lichtveld
Dick Culbertson
Assaf Abdelghani
Larry Webber
Jeanette Magnus
Nancy Mock
John Lefante
Charles Miller
Kate Macintyre
Susan Hassig
Penny Jessop
Latha Rajan
Mark Diana
02/01/10
Sr. Assoc Dean
Assoc Dean
INHD
HSMG
BIOS
ENHS
HSMG
ENHS
BIOS
CHSC
INHD
BIOS
ENHS
INHD
EPID
INHD
TRMD
HSMG
Staff:
Chris Lane
Carol Pizer
Kendra Klebba
Pascale Gerdes
Zari Hodges
Erica Geary
Therese Carter
Charlotte Hill
UPHS Program Manager
Academic Advising Staff
CHSC staff
ENHS Staff
EPID staff
Stakeholder Representatives:
Susanne Bourgeois LOPH Representative
Student Representatives:
Caitrin Hogan
4+1 Joint Degree Student
Jennifer Chadd
BSPH Student Gov Rep.
Page 41
Section 1.5
Governance
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
BIO-SAFETY COMMITTEE
Mr. Dan Kuras
Dr. Dawn Wesson
Dr. Kate Macintyre
Dr. Frances Mather, Chair
Dr. Leann Myers
Dr. Joan Steinberg
Dr. Assaf Abdelghani, ex-officio
Ms. Vonnie Wright
Dr. Mark James
Mr. Rashid Johnson
CEPH ACCREDITATION STEERING COMMITTEE
Dr. LuAnn White, Chair
Dr. Janet Rice, BIO
Dr. Carolyn Johnson, CHS
Dr. A.J. Englande, EHS
Dr. Jeanette Gustat, EPI and Curriculum Committee Chair
Dr. Jeffery Johnson, Student Affairs
Dr. Lizheng Shi, HSM
Dr. Stacey Gage, IHD and General Faculty Chair
Dr. Nancy Mock, IHD and General Faculty Vice Chair
Dr. Mark James, TM
Dr. Ann Anderson, Academic Affairs
Marco Vincinti – President SGA; Master’s student
Jocelyn Lewis – Doctoral Student
02/01/10
Page 42
Section 1.5
Governance
Table 1.5d.1. Membership of the SPHTM Faculty on University Standing Committees (2009-2010)
University Senate Officers
Vice Chair:
Dr. Hugh Long
Senators:
Dr. Paul Hutchinson (2007-2010)
Dr. Susan Hassig (2009-2012)
Dr. John Lefante (2009-2012)
University Senate Committees
Academic Freedom and Responsibility of Students:
Academic Freedom, Tenure and Responsibility:
Athletics:
Budget Review:
Educational Policy:
Faculty and Staff Benefits:
Tenure, Freedom and Responsibility:
Honors:
Information Technology:
Physical Facilities:
Research:
Social Issues:
Student Affairs:
Student Conduct Joint Hearing Board:
President’s Faculty Advisory:
President’s Awards For Excellence In Teaching
Presidential Early Career Development Awards
Review Committee
02/01/10
Dr. Emily Harville
Dr. Richard Culbertson
Drs. Hugh Long, Claudia Campbell,
Elizabeth McGehee (student)
Dr. Hugh Long
Leann Meyers, Susan Barrera Faculty
Dr. Anastasia Gage
Dr. Mark Diana, Chris Swalm
Dr. Thomas Eisele
Dr. Mark Van Landingham
Dr. Patty Kissinger
Dr. Gretchen Clum
Ms. Penny Jessop,
Michael Lamb (student)
Kathleen Reilly (student)
Dr. Susan Hassig
Dr. Hugh Long
Dr. Mark James
Dr. Fran Mather
Page 43
1.6 A and B
Section 1.6
Resources
Budgetary and Allocation Processes
School Budget and Budgetary Process
Table 1.6.B (Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category) show the budget statement by
major category for the school over the past five academic years. The tables cover the last five years to
allow for budgetary trend analysis. The budget covers all departments, centers and activities within the
SPHTM.
Revenues: The revenues for SPHTM in 2004-05 total $48.5 M and are derived from tuition, state
capitation, endowment, gifts, sponsored grants and contracts, and indirect cost recovery. Over the last
five years total revenues have increased over 10%: since 2004-05, total revenues have increased from
$48.5 M to over $61 M in 2008-09 (See Table 1.6B). This increase includes a steady increase in tuition
revenues and sponsored programs over the past five years, and the additional revenue generated by the
new undergraduate program in public health that began in the spring of 2006. The increase in revenues
reflects the growth in the school’s student body, faculty, teaching programs and research operations.
However, in the 2005-06 academic year, the financial impact of being closed for a semester due to
Hurricane Katrina was reflected in reduced tuition dollars and sponsored research revenues during that
time period. These revenue streams did increase for the 2006-07 academic year and exceeded preKatrina levels for 2008-09.
Historically, the school has relied heavily upon tuition income. The increase in tuition revenues over the
last five years results from the greater number of students during this period, the addition of the
undergraduate program, and moderate increases in tuition. The SPHTM tuition rates are comparable to
private peer institutions. To keep pace with the rising instructional costs related to increased student
numbers and additional costs related to the university’s targeted contribution, tuition has steadily
increased by 5% over the past five years.
Revenue from sponsored programs has increased by approximately 20% over the past five years and
reflects efforts to build the school’s research portfolio. As illustrated in Table 3.1.C (Research Activity of
Primary and Secondary Faculty for Each of the Last 3 Years), funding from federal sources includes
several large federal awards received for international sponsored research projects. These large
projects have been instrumental in building research capacity, and in increasing the school’s global
activities throughout the world. A review of sponsored projects shows that more faculty are successfully
competing for sponsored funding from federal agencies, thus expanding the portfolio. The steady
increase in sponsored programs shows progress in building a sustainable research revenue base.
Indirect cost recovery has increased proportional to federal funding over the past five years. Funding from
other sources (state, local government and non-governmental sources) does not typically have the same
cost recovery rates. Endowment, state capitation and other sources of revenue contribute to the school’s
income. An objective is to increase the endowment from $26.2 M to $100 M to provide additional
revenue. SPHTM receives donations through the Annual Fund, however these funds are relatively small
and need to grow. The dean uses these donations for special projects; in spring 2009, these funds were
used to improve student spaces.
Expenditures: Expenditures are shown in Table 1.6.B (Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major
Category) and parallel the increase in revenues. Revenues from sponsored programs are used for direct
expenses of the projects. Revenue from tuition and fees supports academic programs and instructional
costs. Other itemized expenses are prorated costs charged to the school for shared university services
such as centralized administrative services, student services, and facilities & operations costs. The
support for the university has increased significantly over the past five years as a result of sharp
increases in operations costs such as insurance and utilities. Indirect cost recovery from grants and
contracts cover central administrative costs, faculty and staff salaries, SPHTM administrative services,
02/01/10
Page 44
Section 1.6
Resources
and operating costs for grants and contracts infrastructure and support activities. The largest cost
categories are personnel (faculty and staff) and operations. Increases in expenditures reflect costs for
additional faculty and staff, merit salary increases, student support, and increased operations and
maintenance.
Decentralized Management Center Budget Model: Prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the school and
university moved to a Decentralized Management Center (DMC) budget model. The purpose of the
university model is to provide a tool to foster university-wide responsibility for financial management
through accountability and incentives. This model is also used to support long-range planning and
financial forecasting. The model ensures accountability for each academic unit and provides a
consistent means for allocating overhead costs across all units. Also, the model creates incentives for
increasing revenue generation and cost containment. Under this model, each school or center is given a
targeted net operating margin. This margin is developed from the calculation of revenue less expenses
and allocated costs. In the model, all central costs of the university are allocated to the various schools
and centers based on allocation formulas related to the users of the central services. Many of the
allocations are based on full time equivalent faculty, staff, and students, sponsored research activity,
alumni and net square footage of space occupied. The schools or centers that exceed their targeted
operating margin in any given year are allowed to keep half of the surplus.
Post Katrina, the university DMC model reverted back to a more centralized system until the university
is able to reach a balanced budget, which is projected by fiscal year 2010-2011. With the centralized
system, target operating margins are set for each unit within the university without taking into account
allocation formulas, and measures are in place to ensure cost containment during the university’s
recovery period. Units have been allowed to keep a small portion of any surplus that has been
generated. The school has been able to meet and exceed the target operating margins over the past 5
years. This has been accomplished by a combination of the generation of additional tuition revenue
and increased revenue streams from sponsored research activity. Thus the school has been able to
continue to enhance the academic and research activities in the school while meeting the financial
demands of the university.
The budget models have been essential for insuring that the school’s finances are balanced and for
providing data for the basis for financial decision-making. The school DMC model has not been fully
reinstated post Katrina, since the university has not returned to a full DMC budget model. A hybrid
system of DMC and centralized management systems has been used to ensure that the school
maintains financial stability during the recovery period and meets the target objectives of the university.
02/01/10
Page 45
Section 1.6
Resources
1.6 B SPHTM Budget Statement for the Last 5 Years
Table 1.6 B
Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, Fiscal Years 2005 to 2009
Year 1
2004-2005
Year 2 *
2005-2006
Year 3
2006-2007
Year 4
2007-2008
Year 5
2008-2009
Source of Funds
Tuition & Fees
12,878,106
10,351,134
11,748,812
12,386,949
14,908,559
State Appropriation
58,270
16,635
51,235
63,447
56,790
(Capitation)
University Funds
0
0
0
0
0
Grants/Contracts
26,092,785
19,867,883
29,371,497
31,264,095
36,582,345
Indirect Cost
5,012,412
4,536,480
5,791,607
5,891,701
6,353,516
Recovery
Endowment
715,791
722,313
956,045
782,691
738,156
(Unrestricted)
Gifts
329,743
799,998
270,002
135,100
366,532
Other (Restricted
2,880,072
3,197,921
3,241,749
2,575,580
1,598,922
Revenue)
Other (Restricted
560,529
530,412
539,738
648,646
816,611
Endowment)
Other (explain)
Total
48,527,708
40,022,776
51,970,685
53,748,209
61,421,431
Expenditures
Faculty Salaries &
12,835,358
11,924,604
12,551,993
12,762,803
13,495,105
Benefits
Staff Salaries &
7,354,167
6,994,896
7,117,934
6,914,595
7,138,353
Benefits
Operations
12,944,401
8,057,259
14,126,961
16,725,397
21,714,853
Travel
2,054,569
1,455,548
2,149,222
1,824,172
2,051,365
Student Support
3,114,772
2,141,602
3,114,886
3,178,990
3,105,078
University Tax
6,861,415
1,220,904
8,491,642
7,349,453
8,840,897
Other (Cost Share^)
(369,007)
(350,448)
(181,545)
(151,444)
(108,943)
#
Other (Transfers )
(1,595,257)
3,854,093
(1,371,976)
(788,749)
(1,148,216)
Other (Indirect Cost)
5,327,291
4,724,318
5,971,568
5,932,992
6,332,939
Total
48,527,708
40,022,776
51,970,685
53,748,209
61,421,431
* Note: Fiscal year 2005-06 was the Katrina year and the financials reflect the fact that the SPHTM was closed for
the Fall 05 semester.
^ Cost share: Matching funds for program or project costs that are not borne by the funding agencies; e.g., salaries
above the NIH cap, salaries not covered, or other cost required to be covered/matched by SPHTM.
#
Transfers: Institutional funds used for investment purposes to cover faculty recruitment costs, proposal
development costs, renovations, or clearing deficits.
1.6 C Collaborative Schools
This criterion does not apply.
1.6 D Number of Faculty in Each of the Departments
SPHTM had 99 faculty for the 2008-09 academic which are grouped by disciplinary area and include
biostatistics, community health sciences, environmental health sciences, epidemiology, health systems
management, international health and development, and tropical medicine. SPHTM has a more than
adequate faculty to offer both MPH/MSPH and doctoral degrees in each of the five areas of public
health. Table 1.6 D lists the complement of full time SPHTM faculty (>50% time) for the last three years
plus the Katrina year. Please note that the faculty numbers in Table 1.6E differs slightly because it
counts the number of faculty engaged in the teaching programs and/or student mentoring; it does not
includes non-teaching faculty (e.g. administrators, research faculty and faculty at the Primate Center
with SPHTM appointments).
02/01/10
Page 46
Section 1.6
Table 1.6 D Total SPHTM Faculty by Department
Department
Faculty head count
2005*
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Biostatistics
8
8
8
8
Community Health Sciences
16
13
13
13
Environmental Health Sciences
19
17
17
16
Epidemiology
22
17
15
17
Health System Management
18
11
11
11
International Health
21
21
22
23
Tropical Medicine
14
13
13
11
Total
118
100
99
99
Resources
2009-10
8
13
17
18
12
23
11
102
* Faculty employed August, 2005 prior to Hurricane Katrina
Faculty employed in August, 2005 are included as a baseline to measure how well SPHTM ‘weathered’
the storm. While SPHTM lost 18 faculty immediately following the Hurricane, the school remained fully
staffed and functional. A few clinical and research faculty without a source of funding were not retained;
others made voluntary decisions not to return to New Orleans after the storm. In the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, the university underwent a major reorganization in response to the immense
challenges it faced with the tremendous financial loss of revenue and massive expenses to repair
buildings and the physical facility. Many schools in the university suffered large cuts in their faculty,
including the termination of tenured faculty. Through the solid leadership of Dean Buekens, SPHTM
emerged largely intact after the post-Katrina university reorganization. No tenured or tenure-track faculty
were released. All faculty, including those not retained, were paid throughout the entire 2005-06
academic year– even the semester the university was closed. In the following four years, several faculty
left SPHTM for other opportunities. SPHTM has hired 16 new faculty since the Hurricane, however, this
has not quite kept up with additional faculty who have left SPHTM. One of the SPHTM objectives is to
increase the faculty number to 125. The dean has used reorganizational changes to increase the
percent of tenure/tenure track faculty. See Section 4.1 for greater details.
1.6 E Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios
Table 1.6.E (Template B) shows the faculty who support the teaching programs (head count and FTE),
students (head count and FTE), and the student/faculty ratios for each department in SPHTM for the last
three years.
02/01/10
Page 47
Section 1.6
Resources
Table 1.6 E (Template B) Faculty, Students, and Student/Faculty Ratios
20062007
HC
Core
Faculty
FTEF
Core
HC
Other
Faculty
FTEF
Other
Total
Faculty
HC
Total
FTEF
HC
Students
FTE
Students
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
8
11
12
10
9
12
9
7.8
10.5
11.5
10
8.8
11.75
9
4
----0.4
8
11
12
10
9
12
13
7.8
10.5
11.5
10
8.8
11.75
9.4
26
94
49
76
65
233
77
TOTAL
71
69.35
4
0.4
75
69.75
20072008
HC
Core
Faculty
FTEF
Core
HC
Other
Faculty
FTEF
Other
Total
Faculty
HC
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
8
13
10
9
9
14
9
8
12.5
9
9
8.8
13.5
9
---1
4
1
2
---0.2
0.8
0.2
0.5
TOTAL
20082009
72
HC
Core
Faculty
69.8
FTEF
Core
8
HC
Other
Faculty
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
8
12
12
12
9
14
9
7.8
11
11
12
7.9
13.5
9
TOTAL
20092010
76
HC
Core
Faculty
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
TOTAL
02/01/10
5.3
48.7
31.9
53.7
44.2
123.7
57.6
SFR
by
Core
FTEF
0.7
4.6
2.7
5.4
5.0
10.5
6.4
SFR
by
Total
FTEF
0.7
4.6
2.7
5.4
5.0
10.5
6.1
620
365.1
5.3
5.2
Total
FTEF
HC
Students
FTE
Students
8
13
10
10
13
15
11
8
12.5
9
9.2
9.6
13.7
9.5
24
83
50
75
78
248
94
8.2
61.1
31.4
55.4
57.7
164.7
72.3
SFR
by
Core
FTEF
1.3
4.9
3.5
6.1
6.6
12.2
8.0
SFR
by
Total
FTEF
1.3
4.9
3.5
6.0
6.0
12.0
7.6
1.7
FTEF
Other
80
Total
Faculty
HC
71.5
Total
FTEF
652
HC
Students
450.8
FTE
Students
-1
1
1
5
2
2
-0.5
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.55
8
13
13
13
15
16
11
7.8
11.5
11.2
12.2
8.9
14
9.55
22
85
65
78
72
206
78
12.3
67.0
41.5
66.9
49.0
198.5
63.7
6.5
SFR
by
Core
FTEF
1.6
6.1
3.8
5.6
6.2
14.7
7.1
6.3
SFR
by
Total
FTEF
1.6
5.8
3.7
5.5
5.5
14.1
6.7
72.2
FTEF
Core
12
HC
Other
Faculty
2.95
FTEF
Other
89
Total
Faculty
HC
75.15
Total
FTEF
606
HC
Students
498.9
FTE
Students
8
11
13
15
11
14
9
7.8
10.6
12
15
8.3
13.5
9
-1
1
1
5
2
2
-0.5
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.55
8
12
14
16
16
16
11
7.8
11.1
12.2
15.2
9.3
14
9.55
24
101
32
98
93
220
108
12.4
92.7
21.1
80.5
70.5
145.8
79.3
6.9
SFR
by
Core
FTEF
1.6
8.7
1.75
5.4
8.4
10.8
8.8
6.6
SFR
by
Total
FTEF
1.6
8.4
1.72
5.3
7.5
10.4
8.3
81
76.2
12
2.95
93
79.15
676
502.3
6.6
6.3
Page 48
Section 1.6
Resources
Definitions and method of calculation:
Core teaching faculty:
• HC - Head Count
• FTEF – Full Time Equivalent Faculty
• Faculty with teaching responsibilities (course instruction, doctoral student mentors, etc) for the
professional and academic programs.
•
Research faculty and non-teaching administrators are not included
Faculty FTE:
• Full time faculty teaching – 1FTE
• Core faculty = SPHTM faculty >50% time
• Part time faculty: < 50% time at SPHTM counted as % effort at SPHTM. Includes % effort of SOM
faculty and others who teach courses in SPHTM
• Part time contract faculty – 0.2 FTE (20% effort) per course taught
• Total Faculty – SPHTM faculty + Part Time
• Does not include contract teaching for executive programs or in distance learning. Teaching in
distance learning by regular faculty is a voluntary overload.
Student FTE: SPHTM students: Students admitted to a SPHTM program
• Full time (9+ credits) = 1 FTE
• Part time (less than 9 credits) = total credits for part time students added and divided by 9 credits.
• SPHTM student FTE does not include: Undergraduate BSPH students, certificate programs,
distance learning or executive programs.
• Does not include students from other schools taking SPHTM courses
Student/Faculty ratio (SFR) by core faculty (FTEF) = # FTE student / # FTE core faculty
Student/Faculty ratio (SFR) by total faculty (FTEF) = # FTE student / # FTE total faculty
__________________________________________________________________________
1.6 F Staff and Administrative Personnel
The staff of the school provides administrative and IT technical support to the central functions and in
departments. Each department employs administrative staff and centers and research projects employ
research staff including laboratory technicians, computer assistants, research assistants and/or project
administrators. Administrative, IT technical and research support staff are outlined in Table 1.6 F.
Table 1.6 F SPHTM Staff by Department/Unit (2008-09)
Unit / Department
Administrative
Technical
Staff
(IT) Staff
Admissions/ Student Affairs
8
Dean’s Office
14
5^
Biostatistics
1
2
1
2
ENHS CAEPH *
3
3
Epidemiology
5
Health Systems Management*
6
1
2
Tropical Medicine
3
0
Total
46
10
Research
Staff
7
19
12
1
7
41
7
4
98
Total
8
26
20
15
3
13
46
7
9
7
154
* includes distance learning and executive program support
^Tech staff in dean’s office supports the overall SPHTM computing systems and departments who do
not employ IT staff
02/01/10
Page 49
Section 1.6
Resources
The dean’s office staff is responsible for school-wide administrative functions as well as supporting the
dean’s research grants/contracts. The Logistics Support Unit is responsible for budgeting and oversight
of the administrative and sponsored program budgets. The Office of Admissions and Student Affairs
staff is responsible for admission of new students, maintaining student records, career counseling and
student support. The Office of Academic Information Systems (AIS) staff supports school academic and
administrative computing, provides computer training and technical support to faculty and students.
Each department has administrative staff with responsibility for daily departmental operations, support of
the instructional programs, and for bookkeeping and day-to-day financial transactions for the
departmental budget and funded projects. Research centers employ administrative and professional
research staff and may also employ technical staff; most centers have at least one administrative person
to perform administrative functions and handle budgets in addition to the professional staff. Individual
research projects employ staff to carry out specific project activities and their jobs are tied to the funding
for that project. Students are employed on projects and function on a staff basis providing valuable
experience as well as financial support.
1.6 G Space Available to SPHTM
SPHTM occupies a significant portion of the Tidewater Building, 1440 Canal Street. The 24-story office
building (with rooftop space) was donated by the Tidewater Corporation. The Tidewater Building is
located adjacent to the Tulane University Hospital and Clinic and is two blocks from the School of
Medicine.
As of April 2009, the SPHTM occupies 143,772 sq. ft. in the Tidewater Building (TW), an increase of
approximately 39,000 sq. ft. in TW since the last self-study. The school has also an additional 24,104 sq.
ft on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors of the J. Bennett Johnston Building (JBJ), consisting of wet laboratories
and offices. There is also student space in the Women’s Health Center on S. Liberty St. The center is
directed by a faculty member from SPHTM, but this area is not included in the total. Table 1.6G1 shows
the total combined SPHTM space in TW and JBJ.
Table 1.6 G1 Total Space, TW and JBJ Buildings
Classrooms
Distance Learning Classroom
Distance Learning Offices
Distance Learning Support Areas
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratories: Computer
Laboratory Support Areas
Laboratory Offices
Student Areas
Offices
Office Support Areas
Total
Net Square Feet (nsf)
21,946
725
1,366
295
26,011
1,954
6,524
3,096
8,986
59,284
37,690
167,876
SPTHM occupies all or part of the following floors in Tidewater Building: 1, 8, 11 and 12, 18 through 26.
This space includes departmental offices, center offices; classrooms and laboratories; dean’s offices and
administrative functions; SPHTM classrooms, computer laboratories and distance learning facilities;
student common area, Student Government Association offices; lobby, auditorium and gallery. Table
1.6.G2 presents a stacking chart for allocation of the space in TW by purpose for each unit by floor.
Floor plans for each floor with space designated by room and purpose are included in the Resource File.
02/01/10
Page 50
Table 1.6 G2 Tidewater Building Stacking Chart
Tidewater Building
st
1 Floor - Dean School of Public Health
Classrooms
Student Areas
nd
2
th
–7
Section 1.6
Resources
Total = 143,772 nsf
Net Square Feet (nsf)
8,820
5,694
2,927
199
Parking
th
8 Floor - Environmental Health Sciences - CAEPH
Student Areas
Offices
3,772
283
2,185
1,254
th
11,502
3,033
446
198
1,149
1,240
5,809
359
1,536
2,536
1,378
2660
806
1,553
301
th
13,713
11,327
9,020
1,542
542
223
2,386
725
1,366
295
th
66
66
11 Floor –
Classrooms
Student Areas
Offices
Epidemiology
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Support
Offices
International Health and Development
Classrooms
Offices
12 Floor
Dean, School of Public Health
Classrooms
Student Areas
Offices
Environmental Health Sciences - CAEPH
Distance Learning Classrooms
Distance Learning Office Support Areas
17 Floor
Dean, School of Public Health - Office Support Areas
th
18 Floor
Academic Information Systems
Offices
Center for Evidence-Based Global Health
Offices
Dean, School of Public Health
Classrooms
Student Areas
02/01/10
2,402
1,539
863
991
786
205
2,019
1,476
492
51
Page 51
Epidemiology: Center for Cardiovascular Health
Student Areas
Offices
Section 1.6
Resources
3,077
267
1,709
1,101
th
16,784
3,082
412
409
7,667
5,214
th
16,783
8,934
541
5,251
3,142
7809
541
263
4,999
2,006
st
11,879
4,775
1,540
3,820
1,744
nd
16,237
1,465
738
525
202
9,729
340
844
5,331
3,214
5,043
2,878
2,165
rd
16,758
9,995
973
5,415
3,607
2,742
1,202
1,341
199
4,021
4,021
19 Floor- Health System Management
Classrooms
Student Areas
Offices
20 Floor
Biostatistics
Classrooms
Offices
Epidemiology
Classrooms
Student Areas
Offices
21 Floor - Environmental Health Sciences
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Support
Offices
22 Floor
Epidemiology: Bogalusa Heart Study
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Support
Laboratory Offices
Classrooms
Student Areas
Offices
Tropical Medicine
Offices
23 Floor
Student Areas
Offices
Epidemiology
Laboratories: Wet
Offices
Tropical Medicine
Laboratories: Wet
02/01/10
Page 52
Section 1.6
Resources
th
16,501
3,034
151
1,962
921
9,666
4,734
4,932
1,629
2,172
th
1,605
549
1,056
th
953
786
167
24 Floor
Admissions
Student Areas
Offices
Dean: SPHTM
Offices
TU General Counsel -- Offices
TU Research -Offices
25 Floor (roof-top) - Office of Global Heath
Offices
26 Floor (roof-top) -- Office of Global Heath
Offices
Table 1.6 G3 Tidewater Building Area Summary
Classrooms
Distance Learning Classroom
Distance Learning Support Areas
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Offices
Student Areas
Offices
143,772 nsf
21,946
725
1,366
295
11,095
1,954
3,601
202
7,349
59,284
35,955
Since the last self study, the school has expanded its space allocation in the Tidewater Building with
additional quality space for faculty, administrative offices, classrooms, an auditorium and reception
gallery. The environmental health sciences labs on the 21st floor of TW are newly constructed. In
addition, SPHTM maintains central student computer laboratories for teaching and student use and three
departments provide student computer labs (see 1.6.I, below). The expansion continues to relieve
crowding induced by our growing programs. Table 1.6 G3 summarizes Tidewater space by function.
1.6 H Laboratory Space
As indicated in Tables 1.6 G2 and 1.6 G3 above, SPHTM has teaching and research wet laboratory
facilities for the Departments of Epidemiology, Environmental Health Sciences, and Tropical Medicine in
the Tidewater building, totaling 11,095 sq. ft. and another 3,601 sq. ft. of wet laboratory support space.
In the JBJ, the Departments of Environmental Health Sciences and Tropical Medicine, respectively, have
14,916 sq. ft. of wet laboratories and 9,188 sq. ft. of laboratory and student support space. Table 1.6 H 1
presents a stacking chart for allocation of the space in JBJ by purpose for each unit by floor. Floor plans
for each floor with space designated by room and purpose are included in the Resource File.
02/01/10
Page 53
Section 1.6
Resources
Table 1.6 H1 SPHTM Stacking Chart
J. Bennett Johnson Research Building
24,104 nsf
rd
7,161
4,847
693
698
923
th
7,250
3,391
734
482
1,220
710
714
th
9,693
1,025
6,196
1,010
1,462
3 Floor - Environmental Health Sciences
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Support (50% shared with SOM)
Laboratory Offices
Student Areas (50% shared with SOM)
4 Floor Environmental Health Sciences
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Offices
Laboratories: Wet (50% shared with SOM)
Office Support (50% shared with SOM)
Student Areas (50% shared with SOM)
5 Floor – Tropical Medicine
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Offices
Table 1.6 H2 summarizes JBJ space by function. Floor plans of this space are included in the Resource File.
Table 1.6 H2
SPHTM JBJ Area Summary
Laboratories: Wet
Laboratory Offices
Student Areas
24,104 nsf
14,916
2,923
2,894
1,637
1,735
1.6 I Computing Resources and Facilities
AIS Department: The office of Academic Information Systems (AIS) is responsible for coordinating the
development and implementation for all computing and network-based areas of technology for the
SPHTM. The supervision of these responsibilities is led by Frances Mather, PhD, director of information
systems. She directs a 5 member staff with expertise in network management, systems administration,
statistical software, data base design and development, geographical information systems, backup
systems, electronic mail and scheduling, hardware/software technical support, and classroom
presentation technology. The AIS core group is active in both school and campus-wide committees for
initiatives that involve technology support, training and implementation, and policy formulation.
Historically, SPHTM AIS has helped lead the way in the successful implementation of VLANs, switched
networking, virus control and network security, software licensing, technology branding and leasing,
video networking, and computing teaching facilities. SPHTM has benefited from a longstanding
collaboration between AIS and Tulane Services (TS) that is responsible for the direction, policy, and
support for networking and computing infrastructure campus-wide. The technical staff supporting
departments, research projects, and distance learning are involved in any projects requiring their
expertise or affecting their department. Further, AIS is active in supporting the growth and collaboration
of all technical staff at the SPHTM and in collaboration with SPHTM departments in the support of their
technical needs.
02/01/10
Page 54
Section 1.6
Resources
Computing Network: The SPHTM is situated in the 24-story Tidewater building and spans over 14
floors. The local area network (LAN) is connected via a modern fiber optic backbone to a series of fast
Ethernet (100Base-T) switches that interconnect each departmental unit. The SPHTM physical network
comprises over 500 seats that serve seven academic departments and three administrative units. The
LAN has full duplex fast Ethernet (200mps) connectivity to the campus wide area network (WAN). All
Tulane schools and colleges; administrative units, academic departments, and research centers have full
secure access where ever necessary via the Tulane network fiber optic backbone. Wireless nodes to
support 802.11b provide network access and secure connectivity is supported and maintained by Tulane
Services (TS). Tulane University is a part of the Abilene Network and has been an Internet-II connector
since January 19, 2000. The SPHTM is fully ready to support academic research that can benefit by
using Internet-II.
The SPHTM LAN is a TCP/IP based network that utilizes Windows 2000 Active Directory, Windows NT4
Domains, and departmental workgroups as network designs. Microsoft networking is the preferred
system used and is fully supported by the AIS department. SPHTM departmental administrative units,
research groups and projects, and student laboratories, have complete access to LAN and/or WAN
resources as needed. Most resources are readily available under local or wide area access to the web
(http) protocols. Examples include but are not limited to university scheduling, class enrollment, course
schedules, registrar’s office, classroom reservations, announcements, billing, accounts, library resources,
course libraries, service requests, Web-based courses (Blackboard) and distance learning resources.
Computing Labs: SPHTM features three state-of-the-art PC laboratories for academic student use and
teaching. The labs have over 60 PCs with Microsoft Windows XP® and Microsoft Office 2007® installed
as base systems. Printing is controlled by Pharos. The labs are available 70 hours a week and lab
technicians are present at a help-desk to provide support to student users and perform routine
maintenance. Additionally, some departments maintain student computing labs designed to meet the
specific computing needs of the students in these areas.
Classroom Technology: Most SPHTM classrooms are equipped with one-touch AMX-controlled
electronic podiums that offer access to high performance (media-ready) PCs, document cameras, VCRs,
DVDs, wireless remotes, and fast Ethernet Access. Media are projected via LCDs to wide screens.
Classrooms are linked to the Tulane Cable Network, TUCAN and support receiving real-time satellite
downlinks from local satellite dishes or university satellite downlinks. Internet (digital) television or
satellite (analog) media are readily linked to 6 different classrooms that contain over 300 seats.
Over 140 classroom seats have full fast Ethernet access to the LAN and WAN. Students can bring laptops
to lecture and connect via DHCP to the network and are free to use web-based media and information
resources that are a part of the instructor’s toolkit or presentation. The capacity for instant connectivity of
students becomes more important as the number of public health resources available to the classroom
increases every year. Recent examples of using such resources are found in the special and timely
information that the CDC’s public health training network (PHTN) made available online concerning
bioterrorism. Wireless (IEEE 802.11b) network access is implemented in classroom and student areas
throughout the SPHTM.
The SPHTM has a 247-seat auditorium. It has a lectern and large screen (12X14 feet) with Theater
style Christie LCD projector. Lectern controls are all automated by the touch control system AMX .
Computer Software: A comprehensive suite of academically licensed software fully supported by the
AIS for renewal and installation in all PC labs and departments includes; Microsoft Windows XP®
operating systems, Arcview GIS (v.9.2), Microsoft Office 2007®, CDC Epiinfo 2000, Ethnograph
6,NVIVO8, Web Mail, SPSS® (v.16) and SAS® (v.9.3), McAfee® Antivirus (v.8.7), FTP and Internet
Explorer (v.7/8). Specialty software is licensed and installed on various systems for academic
departments. UNIX versions of SAS® are available with Telnet to a Unix shell account on an IBM RISC
6000 cluster.
02/01/10
Page 55
Section 1.6
Resources
NAS storage: The NAS storage project was developed from lessons learned following Hurricane
Katrina where faculty and staff were separated from their computers for several months. During
hurricane threats (in the Gulf and New Orleans in the cone of high probability) faculty, staff and students
are requested leave New Orleans. To provide accessible storage to faculty and staff, the contents of
the “my documents” folder of all faculty and staff computers are stored on two mirrored servers, one in
the Tidewater building, and the other mirrored server at a site in Baton Rouge. When an emergency
requires leaving the Tidewater building, the DSN is redirected to the mirrored site in Baton Rouge.
Faculty and staff can either work “offline” or access files on the server by FTP. Most faculty and staff
have adopted hurricane ready laptops with the option to synchronize their newly created data to the
mirrored servers before they leave work on a daily basis. They can go home and work “offline” and when
they return to work they can synchronize again so that the mirrored servers always contain the most
recent information on their machines. We have faculty who leave and work abroad for several months
and some as long as a year. They work offline, back up to local storage devices, ultimately return to
Tulane where they synch to the servers for a continuous record of their work.
Training Initiatives: The SPHTM AIS and other departmental technology staff, for example, the
Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH) currently provide training of faculty, staff and
students in computer-based areas.
• Hands-on computer-based training courses are offered periodically for Blackboard®, Electronic
Mail (Outlook), content management (CommonSpot, Site Executive), and database management
(MS-Access) by the ILC (Innovative Learning Center).
• AIS staff trains administrative groups that have responsibility for departmental computing support
and administration.
• All SPHTM students are provided with computer access training (Computer Assisted Training
CAT workshops) as a part of student orientation. Each new student attends a workshop session
to orient them to the PC lab desktops and computer facilities. All students are provided with Email
and Unix Shell accounts and free unlimited internet access. A complete student handbook of
instructions and information on computing facilities and network policies is provided to all
students.
• MS Office is free to all as the McAfee security software.
• Current projects in progress include the use of clickers in classrooms for immediate testing, the
installation of an access grid for communication to other sites within the university (Uptown
Campus and Tulane Primate Center across the lake) and other sites in the state and US.
1.6 J Library Resources
Library/Information Resources and Services: Tulane University libraries, special collections, and
research centers form a network of academic support services and resources that contain more than 3
million volumes, 14,000 print journals, 30,000 online journals, 52,000 electronic books, 400 licensed
databases and 1.6 million government documents. Students can locate print and electronic books and
journals on-campus through an integrated online catalog. Off-campus access to the online content is
made possible through proxy server authentication.
Rudolph Matas Library of the Health Sciences: The Rudolph Matas Library is the primary resource
library for the students, faculty, and staff of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and the
School of Medicine. It contains more than 35,000 books, 1,500 electronic books, 300 print journal titles,
and currently licenses over 2,100 electronic journals. The library also provides the current texts and
faculty recommended resources. These titles may be placed on reserve within the library for easy and
assured access of required materials. Available copies of e-resources are purchased as requested by
faculty and students. Faculty and students are also encouraged to suggest print titles for purchase that
enhance the collection and support the curriculum and research.
02/01/10
Page 56
Section 1.6
Resources
The library’s online catalog and resources are accessible within the library through the university’s
wireless network as well as forty-two desktops located throughout the library. Each desktop has the
Microsoft Office Professional Version and five of the computers have the SAS, STATA, and SPSS
statistical packages installed. As a result of our recent renovation, library users have twenty-four hour
access to the main reading room, two study rooms and one computer lab.
The collection is developed in order to support the teaching and research needs of the Tulane
community. Items not available within the Matas collection can easily be acquired in several ways. First,
students, staff, and faculty may request items through the Interlibrary Loan Department. Interlibrary Loan,
available to local and distance students, staff and faculty, is a free service which provides journal articles,
books, book chapters, and dissertations that are not available in the Matas Library collection. Being a
member of the National Network of Libraries of Medicine - South Central Region, enables the department
to provide fast and efficient document delivery. Secondly, library patrons have reciprocal borrowing
privileges at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Library. Thirdly, library patrons are eligible to
participate in the CALL Program (the Council on Academic Libraries Liaison) and the LALINC Program
(the Louisiana Academic Library Information Network Consortium). These programs allow library patrons
to borrow materials (directly) from other participating libraries within the City of New Orleans and the
State of Louisiana. Lastly, Tulane University is a member of the Center for Research Libraries which
enables the library to acquire unique international resources and documents.
The library’s Reference Department provides research assistance by phone, email, and within the library.
The librarians can suggest appropriate resources, perform mediated searches, verify citations and assist
with the proper citing of sources. The Reference Department also provides course-specific instruction
upon request and offers workshops on resources, literature searching, and other special topics
throughout the school year.
The Rudolph Matas Library is a member of the National Network of the Libraries of Medicine, South
Central Academic Medical Libraries Consortium (SCAMeL), Louisiana Library Association, Medical
Library Association and the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL). The library is
also accredited under the relevant standards of the:
• Liaison Committee for Medical Education
• Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
• Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations
• Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
As stated earlier, the university has a network of libraries available to the Tulane community. They are as
follows: Howard-Tilton Memorial Library (main campus library), Amistad Research Center (African
American History and Culture), Architecture Library, Lillian A. and Robert L. Turchin Library (Business
and Management), Latin American Library, Tulane Law Library, Tulane Math Library, and the Nadine
Vorhoff Library and Newcomb Archives at The Newcomb College Center for Research on Women.
Other area university libraries, the Law Library of Louisiana, the main branch of the New Orleans Public
Library, and the United States Department of Agriculture Southern Regional Research Center’s Library of
Agricultural Research are easily accessible.
1.6 K Community Resources for Instruction, Research and Service
The school is fortunate to have excellent partnerships with a number of local, regional, national and
international agencies and regional industries which provide opportunities for student internships and
practice experiences and for conducting community-based research. Many of the field sites for student
placements emerge from partnerships developed in conjunction with research and community-based
projects conducted by SPHTM faculty. Other field sites are with agencies, organizations and industries
who seek SPHTM students to work as interns and for partnerships with faculty to conduct special
projects. Some placements provide financial support for students. Table 1.6 K1lists examples of field
02/01/10
Page 57
Section 1.6
Resources
sites that have been used for student placement over the past three years. (See Table 1.6K1 at the end
of this section.) A list of individual field placements can be found in the Resource File. Additional
discussion of field sites can be found in the text of Section 3.2 - Service.
Tulane SPHTM considers "community" to encompass local, regional, national, and international
partnerships. Thus, the school has world-wide resources for community-based teaching, research, and
service/practice activities. Community resources include those with formal agreements (e.g., contracts
for services, memorandum of understanding, letters of support and participation in a funded project) and
those with informal relationships. A description of the community service and practice activities related
to these community resources is included in Section 3.2 Service.
Of particular importance is the long and close partnership with the Louisiana Office of Public Health
(LOPH). SPHTM shares a faculty member with LOPH and provides over 75 internships/capstone sites
for students. Many student interns continue with jobs with LOPH after completing their degrees. In
addition, many faculty conduct studies and community-based projects in conjunction with LOPH
personnel including the Childhood Lead Poisoning Surveillance, Mercury and Fish Consumption
Advisories, Women’s Infant and Children (WIC) program, Mosquito Control program, Partners for
Healthy Babies, and Covering Kids Initiative.
Other examples of close partnerships are the South Central Public Health Leadership Institute which is in
its fourteenth year and the South Central Partnerships for Public Health Workforce Development. Both
include the state health departments from Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi and the school.
The partnership also includes the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The partnership has led to synergy in the development of educational and training initiatives and for
obtaining funding for Workforce Development for the four states including a HRSA-sponsored Workforce
Training Center and a CDC-funded Preparedness Center.
1.6 L “In-kind” Academic Contributions
Occasionally the school is asked to contribute a cost share when submitting proposals for grants or
contracts to some federal agencies. This usually takes the form of a percentage of principal investigator
salary support or tuition scholarships for students. In addition, many adjunct faculty give lectures in
various courses pro bono as do guest lecturers.
1.6 M Outcome Measures
Outcome measures to judge the adequacy of resources include:
• Maintain an adequate and balanced budget annually
• Increase the endowment to $100 M by 2013
• Expand teaching and research space to 200,000 nsf by 2013
• Maintain the Student/Faculty Ratio between 6.0 and 6.5 each academic year
• Support the academic programs as measured by the instructional program expenditures/student
• Expand Faculty Research Productivity
• Foster Long-term Partnerships and Repeated Field Site Placements
Maintain an adequate and balanced budget annually:
The school’s budget had consistently grown since the last self study from $ 35.7 M in 2001-02 to $61.5 M
in 2008-09. This increase reflects an increase in tuition revenues from $11.7 M to $14.9 M derived from
both additional students and increases in tuition rates. Sponsored research increased from $29.4 M
($35.2 M with indirect) to $36.6 M ($ 43 M with indirect). The increase in research funding reflects greater
faculty productivity as the number of faculty decreased following Hurricane Katrina. In 2005-06, SPHTM
budget revenues (and expenditures) dipped somewhat as a result of being closed following Hurricane
Katrina, but they quickly recovered showing amazing stability in the face of this disaster. The SPTHM
budget shows sufficient resources not only to cover the expenses of the school but to foster growth.
02/01/10
Page 58
Section 1.6
Resources
Increase the endowment to $100 M by 2013:
SPHTM receives relatively little revenue from the endowment. One of the dean’s objectives is to
substantially increase the current SPHTM endowment from $26.2 M to $100 M by 2013. The dean is
soliciting major donors who might contribute to this goal. This would provide much needed revenue to
support the school and contribute to decreasing the student/faculty ratio by packages for new faculty.
Expand teaching and research space to 200,000 nsf by 2013:
Since the last accreditation in 2002, SPHTM space has increased ~32% primarily from gaining additional
space in the Tidewater Building. The goal of adding high quality laboratory space within the Tidewater
Building has been accomplished; in addition, SPHTM also has laboratory space in the J. Bennett
Johnson research building. Keeping the state-of-the-art technology for teaching and research is a priority
and much of the existing space has been updated and renovated. A continuing goal is to upgrade
student common space and classrooms. An objective is to increase the total SPHTM space to 200,000
nsf by 2013. While a few other groups in the university still occupy office space in the Tidewater
Building, it is now under the auspices of the dean. The 200,000 nsf goal can be attained by gaining the
rest of the space in the Tidewater Building. In addition, laboratory space in the JBJ research building is
anticipated to accommodate faculty with bench research.
Expand teaching and research space
Total Sq ft for SPHTM
Classrooms
Faculty and Administration Offices
Teaching Laboratories (computing)
Total Research space
Tidewater wet labs
JBJ total Research
JBJ laboratories
2001
127,362 nsf
10,434 nsf
63,552 nsf
1,983 nsf
2009
167,896 nsf
21,946 nsf
95,239 nsf
1,954 nsq
22,845 nsf
5,454 nsf
18,885 nsf
17,391 nsf
26,011 nsf
11,095 nsf
24,104 nsf
14,434 nsf
Maintain the Student/Faculty (S/F) Ratio between 6.0 and 6.5:
The school-wide S/F ratio had decreased from 8.7 in 2001-02 to 5.2 in 2006-07 and has ranged from 6.3
to 6.7 over the last 3 years. The decrease from 2001-02 was accomplished by decreasing total oncampus enrollment from 809 (FTE 599) in 2002 to 620 (FTE 365) in Fall, 2006. In the last 3 years, the
S/F has hovered between 6.3 and 6.5. This is the range we seek to maintain. The plan for maintaining
the current S/F range is to balance student numbers (assuming that the student FTE stabilizes in relation
to the number of students) with an increase the number of faculty to 125 (See Sections 4.1 and 4.4).
Since the S/F Ratio is based on FTE, the variability in the number of credits students in the last 4 years
have taken has made managing this parameter more difficult. The FTE was lower in 2006 because of a
decrease in full time students immediately following Katrina when students lowered their course loads to
volunteer. The S/F ratio rose in 2006-07 and 2007-08 primarily because of an increase in student FTE
(increased student course load) rather than an increase in the total number of students. The student
FTE increased from 365 in 2006 to 498 in 2008 while the head count remained relatively steady over this
period. The ratio between the student FTE to head count appears to be stabilizing.
2001-02
0.76
2006-07
0.59
2007-08
0.69
2008-09
0.82
2009-10
0.74
Within the school, the S/F ratio varies widely across departments and the objective is to keep
departmental S/F ratios below 8.0. In 2008-09, the S/F in INHD reached an untenable 14.7; this was due
to a substantial increase in the student FTE even thought the student head count decreased. INHD has
02/01/10
Page 59
Section 1.6
Resources
long been a popular department with a high enrollment because of its international focus. The plan for
modulating the S/F in departments is to: 1) increase the number of teaching faculty in departments with
high enrollment; 2) direct students to other departments that are enhancing their global focus. (Global
health includes domestic as well as international public health issues.) This is being accomplished by
increasing global opportunities within the public health disciplines through globally oriented projects and
adding faculty with global expertise. As SPHTM expands the global perspective within all departments, it
is anticipated that students will migrate from INHD to other departments that align with their disciplinary,
yet global, career goals. This approach is beginning to show movement: the S/F in INHD has decreased
from 14.7 to 10.4 while CHSC has increased from 5.8 to 8.4 and TRMD has increased from 6.7 to 8.3.
HSMG is increasing its focus on global issues and its S/F has increased from 5.5 to 6.8. The S/F in each
department will be watched carefully and additional steps taken to balance the S/F if needed. Other
actions including dual concentrations and the flexibility of the INHD curriculum to incorporate additional
study in other public health disciplines are also underway.
Support the academic programs as measured by the instructional program expenditures/student:
The instructional expenditure per student in the traditional programs increased from $21,133/student FTE
in 2001-02 to over $37,000/student FTE in 2008-09. The cost of the instructional programs exceeds the
tuition and reflects revenues from gifts, and minimal state capitation funds. Nontraditional (executive and
distance learning) programs do not draw upon these instructional funds and are self-supporting. The direct
instructional expenditure for the traditional programs includes teaching faculty salaries, enhanced
technical infrastructure and services and departmental student support services. The increase in
expenditure/student reflects the increased spending on technology for student computer laboratories, high
speed Internet connections and technology-mediated teaching tools as well as increased operational
costs that have escalated in Post-Katrina New Orleans. The tuition for the 2008-09 academic year based
on 15 credits for 2 semesters is $28,594; this is below the amount spent per student annually.
Annual Institutional expenditures per full-time-equivalent student, (non research expenditure/SFTE)
2006-07
$42,336 / Student FTE
2007-08
$ 37,961 / Student FTE
2008-09
$37,312 / Student FTE
Expand faculty research productivity:
Overall faculty research productivity has nearly doubled since the last site visit. In 2001 the research
funding per faculty was $199,000/faculty and has increased to $440,792/faculty in 2006-07. In 2007-08
the amount decreased reflecting the loss of several productive faculty and delays in submitting grants
following Katrina. The decreased amount in 2008-09 is due to a no cost extension in a very large project
(note research expenditures in Table 1.6 B remain high because of the expenditures covered by the no
cost extension). However, this drop illustrates the vulnerability of depending on large research awards
and the necessity of expanding the number of faculty who are successful in competing for research
grants. In 2008-09, approximately 37 (37%) faculty were Principle Investigators of competitively funded
research; of these 75% of tenured faculty and 52% of tenure-track faculty were PIs (Tables 3.1D1 and
4.1D4&5). The goal is to increase the percent of tenure and tenure-track faculty who are Principle
Investigators as well as the overall research portfolio.
Research $ / faculty
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
02/01/10
$440,792/Faculty
$378,466/Faculty
$223,129/Faculty
% Faculty PI
38%
48%
37%
Page 60
Section 1.6
Resources
Foster long-term partnerships and repeated field site placements:
The school has an ever-expanding number of partnerships that provides field sites for student capstones
and internships, serves as partners in community-based research and draws upon the school as a
resource for expertise in public health. The number and closeness of partnerships has increased as
faculty and students have worked hand-in-hand with community organizations in rebuilding New Orleans
and its public health infrastructure. Many of the partnerships are mature and have spanned decades;
others are more recent and reflect the faculty’s efforts to increase the variety of student field placement
sites and the number of community-based research and service projects. SPHTM has several long-term
partnerships, such as with the Louisiana Office of Public Health, that demonstrates well-established
relationships with the practice community. Evidence of working partnerships includes the repeat
placement of students in culminating experiences and internships, requests for additional students, and
willingness to support and participate in community-based research programs.
1.6 N Assessment
This criterion is met. The school has sufficient financial resources, faculty and staff, space, computers
and technical infrastructure, library resources, and a wealth of partnerships for field placements and
community based activities to carry out our mission, goals, and objectives. The S/F ratio decreased to
6.3 in 2009-10 from 8.7 at the last accreditation in 2002. Maintaining a balanced S/F among
departments initiated efforts to increase global health opportunities in all departments. The student FTE
was variable for 2 years following Hurricane Katrina with students taking lower course loads; this seems
to be stabilizing which will allow for better planning for the allocation of resources to balance
departmental S/F. It is particularly worth noting that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the school is
fully functional, vibrant, and proceeding to carry out its mission and goals.
02/01/10
Page 61
Section 1.6
Resources
Table 1.6 K1 Practicum Sites and Community Resources
Biostatistics
Louisiana Office of Public Health, Metairie, LA
LOPH Maternal and Child Health Epidemiology
LOPH Maternal and Child Health Program
LOPH Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (LACLPPP)
Louisiana Public Health Institute, New Orleans, LA
Malaria Research and Training Center, Bamako, Mali
Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service, Southeast Aberdeen, South Dakota
ACTION! New Orleans, LA
Addiction Recovery Resources of New Orleans, Metairie, LA
Adolescent Drop-In Center, New Orleans, LA
Adolescent Trials Network
American Cancer Society, New Orleans, LA
Archdiocese of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA
Bridge City Center for Youth, Substance Abuse Treatment Program, Bridge City, LA
Carrollton/Hollygrove Senior Center, New Orleans, LA
Catholic Charities, New Orleans, LA
Children's Hospital, FACES, New Orleans, LA
City of New Orleans Department of Public Works
Common Ground Health Clinic, New Orleans, LA
Edible Schoolyard New Orleans
Friends of Lafitte Corridor
HIV Outpatient Program, Access to Care, New Orleans, LA
Holy Cross Neighborhood Association
Hospice Associates of New Orleans, Metairie, LA
Institute for Women and Ethnic Studies, New Orleans, LA
Jefferson Parish Human Services Authority, New Orleans, LA
Kingsley House, New Orleans, LA
Louisiana Cancer Control Partnership
Louisiana Council on Obesity Prevention and Management
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Baton Rouge, LA
Louisiana Office of Public Health, New Orleans, LA
LOPH, Genetic Disease Program, Metairie, LA
LOPH, HIV/AIDS Program, New Orleans, LA
LOPH, Infectious Disease Epidemiology Program
LOPH, Maternal & Child Health, Metairie, LA
LOPH, Maternal & Child Health Epidemiology, Metairie, LA
LOPH, School Based Health Centers, Metairie, LA
LOPH, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Program, Metairie, LA
Marketumbrella.org
McFarland Institute, Congregational Wellness Division
New Orleans Health Department, New Orleans, LA
New Orleans Food and Farm Network
New Orleans Recovery School District
New Orleans Regional AIDS Planning Council, New Orleans, LA
Partners for Health Babies, New Orleans, LA
Pennnington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA
Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans
The Urban Conservancy and Acadiana
Tulane University Student Health Center, New Orleans, LA
Tulane Xavier National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health, Community Health Sciences, New Orleans, LA
YMCA of Greater New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70130
Prevention Research Center, Community Health Sciences Dept, New Orleans, LA
02/01/10
Page 62
Section 1.6
Resources
Asian Institute of Technology, School of Environment, Resources, and Development, Pathumthani, Thailand
Balance Consulting, Mandeville, LA
Chesterfield County, Utilities Department Pretreatment Program, Chester, VA
City of New Orleans/Mosquito Control, New Orleans, LA
DynMcDermott, New Orleans, LA
Environment and Development, Harahan, LA
Environmental Resources, Metairie, LA
Ferrate Treatment Technologies, LLC, Orlando, FL
Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, LA
Jefferson Parish Emergency Management, Marrero, LA
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA
Louisiana DEQ Office of Compliance, Surveillance Division, New Orleans, LA
Louisiana Office of Public Health, LA
LOPH, Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, LA
LOPH, Childhood Lead Poisoning Program, Metairie, LA
LOPH, Genetics/Lead Section, Metairie, LA
LOPH, Sanitarian Services, New Orleans, LA
Materials Management Group, Inc., New Orleans, LA
Natural Resource Protection, Inc., Covington, LA
New Orleans Emergency Medical Services, City Of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA,
New Orleans Childhood Lead Prevention Program
Office of Research and Development US EPA, Washington, D.C.
Office of Homeland Security and Public Safety, City of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA
Relle Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Solutions, Gretna, LA
Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, LA
Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy
Waldemar S. Nelson and Company, Inc, New Orleans, LA
US Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, WA
US Forest Service, Boise National Incident Management Organization, Boise Idaho
Epidemiology
AL Dept. of Public Health, Montgomery, AL
Awesome Girl's Mentoring Program - St. Mark's Community Center, New Orleans, LA
Brigham & Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, TIMI Study Group, Boston MA
CDC Division of Food Borne, Bacterial & Mycotic Diseases, Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch, Atlanta, GA
CDC/TB Elimination, Atlanta, GA
Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO
Community Health Services, School of Health Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH
County of Los Angeles, Dept. of Health Services, Pasadena, CA
Daughters of Charity, New Orleans, LA
Division of Bacterial & Mycotic Diseases, CDC, Atlanta, GA
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC
Emergency Preparedness, Coastal Health District 91, Savannah, GA
Epidemiology Information Section, Bureau of Epidemiology, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand
Family Advocacy Care & Education Services (FACES), Project Lagniappe, New Orleans, LA
Field Memorial Community Hospital, Centreville, MS
Harrisonburg Community Health Center, Harrisonburg, VA
La. Council on Obesity Prevention and Management, Baton Rouge, LA
Louisiana Dept. of Corrections
Louisiana State Health Officer, Baton Rouge, LA
Louisiana Office of Public Health, Metairie, LA
LA Office of Public Health, SIDS Risk Reduction, Metairie, LA
LOPH, Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology, New Orleans, LA
LOPH, Epidemiology, New Orleans, LA
LOPH Genetics Disease Program & Lead Poisoning Prevention Section
02/01/10
Page 63
Section 1.6
Resources
LOPH Infectious Disease Section, Metairie, LA
LOPH, Infectious Disease Epidemiology Section, New Orleans, LA 70160
LOPH, LaPRAMS Project Coordinator, New Orleans, LA
LOPH , MCH, Metairie, LA
LOPH, MCH La Safe Haven Program CATCH Facilitator, New Orleans, LA
Louisiana State University Health Science Center
LSUHSC, Psychiatry, New Orleans, LA
LSUHSC, Dept. of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
LSUHSC, Nephrology, New Orleans, LA
LSUHSC, Dept. of Epidemiology School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA
LSUHSC, SANE Program, New Orleans, LA
LSUHSC Eye Center, New Orleans, LA
Mary Amelia Douglas-Whited Community Health Education Center, New Orleans, LA
MHIRT China, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China
National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Bethesda, MD
National Cancer Institute, Applied Research Program Division of Sciences National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
New Jersey Dept. of Health and Senior Services
New Orleans Emergency Medical Services
New Orleans Health Department, New Orleans, LA
New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY
Ochsner Clinic Foundation Endocrinology Dept., New Orleans, LA
Oklahoma State University, Entomology and Plant Department, Stillwater, OK
Pan American Health Organization, Emergency Preparedness & Disaster Relief Group, Washington, DC
Peace Corps-Albania 2006-2008
REACH 2010: At the Heart of New Orleans - National Black Women's Health Imperative intervention
Thika District Hospital, Thika, Kenya
Tianshan District Dept. of Disease Control & Prevention, China
VA Medical Center, Alexandria, LA
Veratect Corporation, 601 King St., Suite #207, Alexandria, VA 22314
Health Systems Management
Algiers Community Health Clinic, New Orleans, LA
Cardiovascular Institute of the South (CIS)
City of New Orleans Health Department, New Orleans, LA
Daughters of Charity, Harvey, LA
HEAL Program, New Orleans Health Department, HEAL Project, New Orleans, LA
Healthworks: A Management Service Group LLC, Baton Rouge, LA
Lambeth House
Louisiana Public Health Institute
Louisiana DHH, Region 1 Office of Public Health, New Orleans, LA
MCLNO – Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans
Ochsner Health System, New Orleans, LA
Sullivan, Stolier, & Resor, New Orleans, LA
St. Tammany Parish Hospital, Covington, LA
Touro Infirmary, New Orleans, LA
Tulane University Hospital & Clinic, New Orleans, LA
Tulane University, Institute of Sports Medicine, New Orleans, LA
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Representation in Japan, Tokyo, JAPAN
VA Health System
West Jefferson Medical Center, New Orleans, LA
ACE AFRICA
ActionContre La Faim
Adolescent Drop-In Center, New Orleans
Agency for Environmental Health, Inc.
Am Ctr for Int'l Labor Solidarity
02/01/10
Page 64
Section 1.6
Resources
Amauta Spanish & Volunteer School
America International Home Healthcare (DBA) Ameracare and Delta Home Health
American Cancer Society
American Red Cross
American Red Cross
Southeast Louisiana Chapter, New Orleans
American Refugee Committee
AMREF Uganda
Baton Rouge General Medical Ctr; Family Med Residency Program, Baton Rouge, LA
Board on Global Health - Institute of Medicine
Boston Children's Hospital/Institute of Child Development, Boston, MA
Bridges to Community Inc
Brigham and Women's Hospital; Division of Preventive Medicine, Boston, MA
Brotherhood Inc., New Orleans
Bwindi Community Health Center, Uganda
Capital Post Conviction Project Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA
Care Int'l; Mozambique
Caribbean Food & Nutrition Institute, Jamaica
Casa de los 3 Mundos
Catholic Relief Services CRS
CDC/Global AIDS Program Rwanda
CDC/Global AIDS Program, Brasilia, Brazil
CDC/New Orleans
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta GA
Centre for Community Medicine
Centre for Community Medicine All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), India
Centre for Health Services Research and Policy
Child Family Health International (CFHI)
Church World Service Indonesia-Makassar, Indonesia
CIRIT Guinea
City of Dallas; Dept of ENHS
City of New Orleans Health Dept
City Office of Emergency Preparedness, New Orleans
Common Ground Health Clinic, New Orleans
Counterpart Int'l-Senegal
Crisis Corps / FEMA, New Orleans
Crisis Corps / Peace Corps, Several Countries
C-Safe Regional Programming Unit in Johannesburg, South Africa
Daughter of Charity Services of New Orleans
Department of Health and Human Services-Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives
Department of Health, Region XI, Centre for Health Development
Department of State; Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; Office of International
Health and Biodefense
Dept. of Health and Hospitals - New Orleans
Division of Leprosy, TB, and Lung Disease, Ministry of Health
Division of PH Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan
Drop in Center New Orleans
Duval County Health Dept
Emory University Department of Surgery, Atlanta, GA
Faith Mediplex, the medical ministry of Church of God Mission Int'l
Family Guidance Assoc of Ethiopia
Family Service Centre
FEMA, New Orleans
Feminist Women's Health Center (FWHC)
FHI
Fundacion Ecuatoriana Equidad
Fundacion Gualtemalteca Para el Desarrolllo "Carroll Behrhorst", Guatemala
GAP/CDC
02/01/10
Page 65
Section 1.6
Resources
Gedo Health Consortium
German Agro Action Integrated Poverty Reduction Project, Phongsaly, Laos
Global Health & Equity SPHTM, New Orleans
Global Health Fellows Program/ SPHTM, New Orleans
Global Service Corps
Globalization/Health Equity, Institute of Population Health
Gov't of Sri Lanka, District of Trincomalee, Sri Lanka
Guru Nanak Hospital & Rsch Centre
Havana Specialist Hospital, Cuba
Health Alliance International HAI
Healthy Beginnings Program/ Louisiana Dept. of Public Health & Institute of Infant Mental Health, New Orleans
Helen Keller Int'l
Hideyo Noguchi Research Center of the Autonomous University of the Yucatan, Mexico
Homeland Security Office of New Orleans
Hospital Centro Americano; Guatemala City, Guatemala
Institute for Social Science Research
Institute of Public Health, National Yang-Ming University, Taiwan
Institute of Women & Ethnic Studies (IWES), New Orleans
International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Program - ICAP Tanzania
International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Program (ICAP)-Kenya
International Center for Ethnic Studies
International Center for Migration and Health
International Health Partners
International Rescue Committee
Int'l Medical Corps
John Snow, Inc
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Kilimanjaro Intermittent Presumptive Treatment of Malaria in Infants, Kenya
Latino Health Access Network, Hispanic Apostolate Catholic Charities, New Orleans
LIDS, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima Peru
London School of Hygiene and TM, UK
LOPH
LOPH / Family Planning Program
LOPH Region 1 Emergency Response Unit, New Orleans
Louisiana Office of PH Dept of Infectious Disease Epidemiology , New Orleans
Louisiana Office of Public Health, STD Control Program, New Orleans
LSU / Chabert Medical Center
LSU Health Science Center
LSU Health Science Center, School of Public Health: Environmental Determinants of Physical Activity in Parks
Luna Maya Casa de Partos
Malaria Vaccine and Drug Testing Ctr
Marie Stopes Int'l, Pacific
Maryland Dept of Environment, Baltimore
Maternal & Child Hlth / LA OPH
Mayor's Office of Health Policy and AIDS Funding , New Orleans
McCord Hospital
Medical Ctr. of Dr Asha Desai / Mumbai, India
Mercy Corps
MHIRT
Ministry of Health of SNNPR
Nari Chetna Samiti (Jeevan Jyoti-Community Care Center)
National Hispanic Council on Aging
National Policy & Advocacy Council on Homelessness
National University of Rwanda SPH
New Orleans Department of Health
New Orleans Regional AIDS Planning Council
NM Dept of Health; Division of Infectious Diseases, New Mexico
Norwegian People's Aid (NPA), Tanzania Country Program, Tanzania
02/01/10
Page 66
Section 1.6
Resources
Office of Public Health, New Orleans
Operation Crossroads Africa
Oschser Medical Center, New Orleans
Pan American Health Organization
Pan-Chinese Prescription Drug Delivery Center
Partners in Health
Partnership for an Active Community
PATH
Peace Corps
Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana
Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona
Population Council/ Horizons
Population Services Int'l (PSI)
PRISMA
Prof C C Illiescu National Institute of Cardiology Bucharest, Romania & the Romanian Institute of Public HealthBucharest, Romania
Project Galle 2005
Project LazarusNew Orleans
Project Medishare for Haiti, Inc
ProPeru
Rainbow Sky Organization of Thailand
Rally Foundation and Children Crisis Project, New Orleans
Rally Foundation, New Orleans
Region 1 LOPH, Metro New Orleans EMR Div.
Region IX LOPH
Regional Medical Center Memphis TN / Ministerio de Fe, Inc, Reynosa Mexico
Research Triangle Institute
Royaume du Maroc Ministere de la Sante, Morocco
Samburu Aid In Africa (SAIDIA), Kenya
San Cristobal Birth Center / Luna Maya, Mexico
Save the Children – USA, New Orleans
Save the Children US/Uganda field office, Uganda
Scott & White Hospital with Machame Lutheran Hospital
Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans & Acadiana, New Orleans
Selian Luthern Hospital
Sharp Health Care
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, India
SMI Plateaux des 15 Ans-CHU of Brazzaville Republic of CONGO
Society for Family Health (SFH)
SODIS for Life Project ADRA Cambodia
South Texas Environmental Education and Research (STEER) Program, University of Texas Health Science Center at
San Antonio, TX
Southeast Louisiana American Red Cross, New Orleans
SPHTM; Dept of INHL; Measure Evaluation project
St Anna's Medical Mission
St Mary's Episcopal Church
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, International Outreach (Morocco)
Standing Nutrition Committee (SCN) / WHO
Step Together New Orleans & Second Harvest Food Bank
Student National Medical Association with Mundo Guatemala
The Jane Goodall Institute Shanghai Roots and Shoots, Kenya
The Nat'l Policy & Advocacy Council on Homelessness
The Prometheus Group
The U.S. Pres. Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief / US Dept of State
Tulane Community Clinic at Covenant House
Tulane National Primate Research Center
Tulane School of Public Health/ UNICEF
Tulane University ; MEASURE Evaluation (RHAP)
02/01/10
Page 67
Section 1.6
Resources
Tulane University SHC DWHP&E
Tulane Xavier National Center of Excellence in Women's Health (TUXCOE)
Tulane/ UNICEF/ UWC
TUSPTM, Dept. Tropical Medicine
UNESCO: Asia & Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Bangkok, Thailand
UNICEF
UNICEF - Ethiopia
UNICEF Nepal Country Office
United Nations World Food Programme, Trincomalee
University of Nagoya, Japan
Vietnam-CDC-Harvard Medical School AIDS Partnership (VCHAP)
Volta Regional Hospital; Ho, Ghana
Volunteer Society Nepal
Wetmore TB Clinic and HIV Outpatient Clinic (HOP), New Orleans
WHO
Working To Empower
World Food Programme
World Relief Kenya
Tropical Medicine
Baton Rouge Mosquito and Rodent Control, Baton Rouge, LA
Belau National Hospital; Koror, Republic of Palau
Catholic Charities, New Orleans, LA
CDC Public Health Advisor, Louisiana Office of Public Health, TB Control Program, New Orleans, LA
Centro Internacional de Entrenamiento e Investigaciones Medicas (CIDEIM), Cali, COLOMBIA
City of New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board, New Orleans, LA
Covenant House (TUCHC; Fleur de Vie), New Orleans, LA
Daughters of Charity Health Center, New Orleans, LA
Daughters of Charity-St. Cecilia; New Orleans, LA
DHH/OPH/TB Control; New Orleans, LA
EXCELTH Family Health Center, New Orleans, LA
Henrico County Standing Water Initiative, Henrico, VA
Iquitos Laboratory, Navy Medical Research Center Detachment, Iquitos, PERU
Kenema Government Hospital, Kenema, Sierra Leone, West Africa
LA Office of Public Health, HIV/AIDS Program, New Orleans, LA
LA Office of Public Health, Infectious Disease Epidemiology Section, New Orleans, LA
Louisiana Health Care Review, Baton Rouge, LA
Louisiana Office of Public Health, Adolescent School Health Initiative, New Orleans, LA
Louisiana Office of Public Health, Infectious Disease Epidemiology, New Orleans, LA
Louisiana Office of Public Health, New Orleans, LA
Malaria Vaccine and Drug Development Center, Cali, COLOMBIA
New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board, New Orleans, LA
New Orleans Regional AIDS Planning Council; New Orleans, LA
NO AIDS Task Force; New Orleans, LA
Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA
St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement Program, Slidell, LA
Tulane University Multispecialty Clinic; New Orleans, LA
Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, MEXICO
University of Malaya Medical Centre, Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Medicine, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
02/01/10
Page 68
2.0
Section 2.1
Instructional Programs
2.1 A Master of Public Health Degree
The SPHTM offers five professional masters degrees and two professional doctoral degrees.
Professional degrees include the following:
Master of Public Health (MPH)
Master of Science in Public Health (MSPH)
Master of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (MPH&TM)
Master of Health Administration (MHA)
Master of Medical Management (MMM)*
Doctor of Public Health (DrPH)
Doctor of Science (ScD)
The MPH or MSPH are offered in each of the five areas basic to public health as well as in other
specialty areas. In addition, SPHTM offers the MPH&TM for students who focus in Tropical Medicine;
this degree has a long tradition within SPHTM that reflects our emphasis in tropical diseases. SPHTM
also offers the MHA and the MMM through HSMG that focus on health administration and on medical
management. (* No MMM cohorts will be recruited domestically after Jan. 2010.) The professional
degrees prepare students to pursue careers as public health professionals in government, public and
private organizations, business and industry, and academia. Each of these degrees with their
departmental areas of specialization is listed in the matrix in Table 2.1 (Template C). The matrix also
includes joint degrees (See Section 2.11) and degrees offered in the executive and distance learning
formats (See Section 2.12).
Also included in the matrix are the professional doctoral degrees, the Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) and
the Doctor of Science (ScD). See Section 2.10 for description of doctoral degrees. In addition, the
academic degrees offered by SPHTM are the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), the Master of Science (MS)
and the Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH). These are also listed in the matrix. Prior to 2005
the PhD and MS degrees were offered through the Graduate School. However, during the post-Katrina
reorganization, each school in the university took responsibility for the academic degrees in their school.
SPHTM also initiated the BSPH as an academic undergraduate degree in 2005. The academic degrees
are described in Section 2.9.
To promote interdisciplinary study, students may pursue dual concentrations of study in more than one
department or specialty area. Students have a primary department, but may also fulfill the competencies
for another specialty area in another department or within specialty areas within a department. For
example, a dual concentration has been developed in global maternal and child health for students in
INHD and CHSC for students who desire to combine both areas. Students may also select dual
concentrations within specialty areas in CHSC. Options for dual concentrations are not listed separately
in the matrix as students receive only 1 degree and must fulfill the competences in both areas.
In addition, the school houses two special programs geared toward Peace Corps volunteers to promote
their attaining a public health degree. The Masters Internationalist program is established in conjunction
with the Peace Corps. Students who are accepted into the Peace Corps attend SPHTM to fulfill the
didactic requirements for the MPH prior to their overseas assignment – which then serves as their
practicum. Students may pursue a MPH offered by any department in SPHTM, and often selecting the
MPH in INHD. This program allows students to obtain their MPH in conjunction with their Peace Corps
work. The other program is for Returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCV) with experience and interest
in public health and wish to pursue a formal degree. The RPCV program provides a path for these
individuals to obtain didactic study in public health leading to the MPH. These programs are examples of
our commitment to global public health.
02/01/10
Page 69
Section 2.1
2.1 B Description of Curricula
The SPHTM’s catalog will be sent to site visitors and is available in the Resource File. Information
on programs of study and course descriptions is available under each department on the SPHTM
website, http://www.sph.tulane.edu/index.html. The Resource File contains detailed descriptions of
the entire curricula including all Curriculum Committee program files with degree and individual
course information. The SPHTM website serves as an up-to-date resource for students,
prospective students and faculty on the curriculum, programs and degree requirements.
2.1 C Assessment
This criterion is met. The SPHTM offers the MPH or MSPH degrees in each of the core areas of public
health: biostatistics, epidemiology, environmental health sciences, health systems management, and the
social and behavioral sciences. There are also professional MPH, MPH &TM or MSPH degree programs
in international health, tropical medicine, and parasitology. The SPHTM also offers the MHA and MMM
professional degrees. All of the professional degree programs require the public health core courses in
all disciplines. The SPHTM has the depth of faculty and resources to offer programs of study which
provide competencies that allow graduates to pursue professional careers in each of the core areas.
The SPHTM also offers three doctoral degrees: The PhD is offered in each of the seven departments
which includes the five core areas of public health. The DrPH is offered in CHSC, EPID, and INHD. The
ScD is offered by HSMG in the executive format.
Table 2.1 A (Template C) Instructional Matrix
Table 2.1 A Instructional Matrix – Degree/Specialization
Academic Professional
Bachelors Degrees
Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH)
Masters Degrees
Master of Public Health (MPH)
MPH in Health Education and Communication (CHSC)
MPH in Maternal and Child Health (CHSC)
MPH in Nutrition (CHSC)
MPH in Community Health Sciences (CHSC)
MPH in Environmental Health Sciences(ENHS)
MPH in Epidemiology (EPID)
MPH in Health Systems Management (HSMG)
MPH in International Health (INHD)
Master of Science in Public Health (MSPH)
MSPH in Biostatistics (BIOS)
MSPH in Environmental Health Sciences (ENHS)
MSPH in Industrial Hygiene (ENHS)
MSPH in Parasitology (TRMD)
Master of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
MPH&TM (TRMD)
Master of Health Administration (MHA) (HSMG)
Master of Science (MS)
MS in Biostatistics (BIOS)
MS in Bioinformatics (BIOS) (Begins Fall, 2010)
MS in Clinical Research (EPID)
MS in Epidemiology (EPID)
02/01/10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 70
Doctoral Degrees
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
PhD in Biostatistics (BIOS)
PhD in Community Health Sciences (CHSC)
PhD in Environmental Health Sciences (ENHS)
PhD in Epidemiology (EPID)
PhD in Health Systems Management (HSMG)
PhD in International Health and Development (INHD)
PhD in Tropical Medicine (TRMD)
Doctor of Public Health (DrPH)
DrPH in Community Health Sciences (CHSC)
DrPH in Epidemiology (EPID)
Joint Degrees
Tulane School of Medical -- Doctor of Medicine/Master of Public
Health or Master of Science in Public Health
MD/ MSPH in Biostatistics (BIOS)
MD/MPH in Community Health Sciences (CHSC)
MD/MPH or MSPH in Environmental Health (ENHS)
MD/MPH in Epidemiology (EPID)
MD/MPH in Health Systems Management (HSMG)
MD/MPH in International Health and Development (INHD)
MD/MPH&TM in Tropical Medicine (TRMD)
Tulane School of Social Work
Master of Social Work /Master of Public Health
MSW /MPH Community Health Sciences (CHSC)
MSW/MPH Environmental Health Sciences
MSW /MPH International Health and Development (INHL)
Tulane School of Law
Juris Doctor/Master of Health Administration
JD/MHA Health Systems Management (HSMG)
Juris Doctor/Master of Public Health
JD/MPH Community Health Science (CHSC)
JD/MPH or MSPH Environmental Health Sciences (ENHS)
Tulane School of Business
Master of Business Administration/Master of Health Administration
MBA/MHA Health Systems Management
Section 2.1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tulane Undergraduate Schools
Bachelor of Science in Public Health/Master of Public Health
BSPH/MPH
BSPH/MSPH
Xavier University 4+1 Program^^
Bachelor of Science/Master of Science in Public Health
BS/MSPH Environmental Health
^^ Being reinstating during recovery
Executive and Distance Learning Programs
Distance Learning Environmental Health Sciences (ENHS)
MPH in Occupational Health and Safety Management
MPH in Occupational and Environmental Health
MPH in Disaster Management
MSPH in Industrial Hygiene
Executive Programs - Health Systems Management (HSMG)
MMM – Master of Medical Management
(No cohorts recruited domestically after Jan. 2010)
MPH – Taiwan Asia Elite Leadership (TEAL) program
ScD – Health System Management
02/01/10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 71
Section 2.1
Table 2.1 B Degrees by Department
Department
Degrees
Biostatistics
MSPH in Biostatistics
MS in Biostatistics
PhD in Biostatistics
ScD in Biostatistics (No new students accepted after Fall,
2008)
MPH in Health Education and Communication
MPH in Maternal and Child Health
MPH in Nutrition
MPH in Community Health Sciences
DrPH in Community Health Sciences
PhD in Community Health Sciences
MPH in Environmental Health Sciences
MSPH in Environmental Health Sciences
PhD in Environmental Health Sciences
Epidemiology
International Health and
Development
Tropical Medicine
02/01/10
Distance Learning Programs
MPH in Health and Safety Management
MPH in Public Health Disaster Management*
MPH in Occupational and Environ. Health
MSPH in Industrial Hygiene*
* On-campus and by distance learning
MPH in Epidemiology
MS in Epidemiology
MS in Clinical Research
DrPH in Epidemiology
PhD in Epidemiology
MPH in Health Systems Management ^
MHA Master of Health Administration
PhD in Health Systems Management
Executive Programs
MMM Master of Medical Management
(No cohorts recruited domestically after Jan. 2010)
ScD in Health System Management
MPH – Taiwan Asia Elite Leadership (TEAL) program ^
^MPH offered on-campus and in Taiwan
MPH in International Health
PhD in International Health
MPH&TM
MSPH in Parasitology
PhD in Tropical Medicine
Page 72
Section 2.2
Program Length
2.2 A Definition of a Credit
At SPHTM, one credit is defined as fifteen hours of contact time; that is, a 1-credit course has 15 contact
hours; a 2-credit course has 30 contact hours; and a 3-credit course has 45 contact hours. A 1-hour
class period is 50 minutes to allow for room changes. SPHTM uses the standard academic semester
system. The school calendar takes into account holidays and the number of course meetings are
monitored to ensure that all courses have adequately scheduled class periods. In the case of
cancellation of several class periods for weather-related events, class time is made up to ensure
sufficient contact time.
2.2 B Minimum Degree Requirements
All professional master’s students who were admitted in Fall 2006 or later are required to have at least
42 credits to graduate. In most on-campus programs, 45 credits are required. In the MD/MPH
program, the HSMG MMM programs for physicians and the ENHS distance learning program for midcareer professionals, 42 credits are required for the MPH. Prior to the degree requirement increase in
the number of credits, the MPH and other professional masters programs required 40 credits and midcareer professionals were required to complete 36 credits. Table 2.2 B shows the credit requirement
for each degree.
2.2 C Number of MPH degrees awarded for less than 42 credits
No students who entered the professional master’s programs after Fall 2006, following the change in
degree requirements, have graduated with less than 42 credits; in many programs, students must have
45 credits to graduate. The first of the students who enrolled with the 42-credit minimum graduated in
December, 2007. Students who were enrolled prior to the change in number of credits were allowed to
graduate with the degree requirements under which they entered. It is university policy that students may
graduate under the rules that were in effect when they first enrolled in their degree program.
A review of currently enrolled master’s students who entered prior to Fall 2006 shows that 52 students
may graduate with less than 42 credits. These include: 1) 22 MD/MPH students who are scheduled to
graduate in Spring 2010; 2) 24 distance learning students who typically take 4-5 years to complete the
master’s degree; and 3) six part time Tulane staff or Louisiana Office of Public Health staff who take one
course at a time and may or may not be working toward a degree. Tuition waivers are a Tulane
employee benefit of which many staff take advantage. In addition to these, there are a few students (815) who are completing their culminating experience and may not be currently registered (and not
included in this count). It is anticipated that the MD/MPH and distance learning students will graduate by
Spring 2011.
2.2 D Assessment
This criterion is met. In Spring 2006 (effective Fall 2006), the SPHTM increased the number credits
required for the MPH and other professional masters degrees from 40 credits to 42-45 credits for all
students who enrolled beginning Fall 2006. The 45-credit hour requirement for most on-campus
programs exceeds the minimum of 42 credits recommended by CEPH. The credits were increased for
students in the MD/MPH, the MMM program for physicians and the mid-career distance learning MPH
from 36 credits to 42 credits. Students who were already enrolled were allowed to graduate with the
number of credits required when they entered the program.
02/01/10
Page 73
Section 2.2
Program Length
Table 2.2 B Credits Required for Each Degree
Department
Biostatistics
Community Health
Sciences
Environmental Health
Sciences
Epidemiology
Health Systems
Management
International Health and
Development
Tropical Medicine
02/01/10
Degrees
MS in Biostatistics
ScD in Biostatistics (No new students accepted after
Fall, 2008)
MPH in Nutrition
MPH in Public Health Disaster Management*
MPH in Occupational and Environ. Health
MSPH in Industrial Hygiene*
* On-campus and by distance learning
MPH in Epidemiology
MS in Epidemiology
PhD in Epidemiology
MPH in Health Systems Management ^
MHA Master of Health Administration
PhD in Health Systems Management
Executive Programs
MMM Master of Medical Management
(No domestic cohorts to enter after Jan. 2010)
ScD in Health System Management
MPH – Taiwan Asia Elite Leadership (TEAL) program ^
^MPH offered on-campus and in Taiwan
MPH in International Health
MPH&TM
Credits Required
42
36 didactic + 6 research
36 didactic + 6 research
60 didactic + research
45
45
45
45
and practicum
45
45
45
42
42
42
45
45
36 didactic
39 didactic
and practicum
45
60
42
45
45
42
42
Page 74
Section 2.3
Public Health Core Knowledge
2.3 A Public Health Core Knowledge
All professional degree programs listed in the matrices in Table 2.1A (Template C) require students to
demonstrate knowledge within the core areas of public health. All students obtain knowledge in the core
areas through the same designated courses in biostatistics, epidemiology, environmental health, health
systems management, and social and behavioral sciences. In addition, SPHTM students must take a
course in human health and disease. Physicians and others with extensive biological and disease
backgrounds can petition waiver of this course, but not the credits toward a degree. All students in every
professional program (master’s and doctoral) must take these designated core courses. Successful
completion of each core course is a means of demonstrating this knowledge. In addition to successful
completion of the core courses, each student must also demonstrate the application of knowledge for
solving public health problems through practical experiences in the practicum and the integration across
the core areas in the culminating experience.
Core Courses: Students must take the designated core course for each of the five core areas plus a
course in human health and disease. Core courses include:
BIOS 603
EPID 603
ENHS 603
HSMG 603
SPHL 603
SPHL 601
Introductory Biostatistics
Epidemiologic Methods I
Survey of Environmental Health
Principles of Health Systems Administration and Management
Social and Behavioral Aspects of Global Health
Biological Basis of Disease
The competencies for each of the core courses are provided in Section 2.6 Required Competencies. All
students in professional degree programs must also complete a practicum (see Section 2.4 Practical
Skills) and a culminating experience (see Section 2.5 Culminating Experience). Students enrolled in the
academic degrees must demonstrate competency in biostatistics and epidemiology. All students in the
academic programs must take BIOS 603 and EPID 603.
2.3 B Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM requires students in all professional degrees to demonstrate an
understanding of the core areas of public health through a designated course in each area. The core
areas are reinforced throughout each student’s degree program and are demonstrated in their practicum
and culminating experience. No student is allowed to graduate without fulfilling all core requirements.
02/01/10
Page 75
Section 2.4
Practical Skills
2.4 A SPHTM Practicum Policies and Procedures
The practicum is a planned and supervised practice experience which applies measurable learning
objectives to real-world public health practice and has the following characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Real-world public health practice problem or setting
Formal learning objectives
A coordinated plan for the practice experience, developed by the student, faculty director, and
preceptor
A minimum of 200 contact hours
Written report of the work by the student
Written evaluation of the student's activities by the preceptor
SPHTM instituted the degree requirements for a separate practicum and culminating experience for
students entering January 1, 2007 and thereafter. Prior to that, it was common for students to combine a
practicum/field experience within a capstone project. The practicum is a planned, supervised and
evaluated practice experience that complements the student’s field of study. The practicum must be a
minimum of 200 contact hours for master’s students (MPH, MSPH) and 300 contact hours for doctoral
students (DrPH). Some departments have longer time requirements with a minimum of 300 contact
hours for the master’s degree. Student must write a final practicum report.
Practicum sites are identified by the student in conjunction with their advisor. A wide variety of practicum
sites may be selected. The site must be in an established organization primarily engaged in an aspect of
public health practice; it may include public health agencies, community organizations, non-profit
organizations, businesses, consulting firms or health care institutions. A research laboratory is not
considered a practice setting for a professional degree. Students are encouraged to select a practice
setting that complements their programmatic area.
Many of our community partners provide excellent practicum sites. The Louisiana Office of Public Health
(LOPH) provides a substantial number of practica for students. SPHTM and the LOPH share a clinical
faculty member who facilitates practicum placements. Many other community partners provide practica
for students.
A preceptor is identified for each practicum. The preceptor hosts the student at the practice site, serves
as a mentor, and supervises the practicum. The preceptor should be in a responsible position and able
to provide technical and administrative oversight to the student throughout the practicum period. If the
preceptor is unknown to the faculty advisor, he/she will meet or have a telephone conference to assess
the practicum site, explain the responsibilities and determine if the person is qualified as a preceptor.
Each student develops a practicum plan in coordination with the preceptor and faculty advisor. The
practicum plan identifies joint responsibilities of the practicum project, measurable learning objectives
that support the student’s program competencies, and the available technical and programmatic support
to achieve the objectives. The practicum plan and a placement agreement are signed by the student,
preceptor and advisor. The advisor tracks the progress of the student throughout the practicum and
receives feedback from the preceptor and student. If any problems arise, the advisor should be informed
immediately so appropriate measures can be taken to correct the problem.
A Student Practicum Handbook was developed to provide guidance to students on the practicum and its
requirements. The handbook lists the roles and responsibilities of the student, advisor and preceptor,
lists frequently asked questions and contains forms for the approval and documentation of the practicum
including the practicum site approval. It also includes the placement agreement with goals and
objectives, practicum progress reports, and instructions for the final practicum report. The practicum
handbook is on the SPHTM website at http://www.sph.tulane.edu/main/academics/handbooks.htm and is
included in the Resource File.
02/01/10
Page 76
Section 2.4
Practical Skills
To coordinate placement of students in a practicum and to facilitate supervision and evaluation of
students in field placements, the following measures are in place:
•
•
•
Faculty in the clinical track integrate public health practice into the SPHTM's academic programs.
A clinical faculty member is shared with the Louisiana Office of Public Health (LOPH) to identify
placement sites at OPH, coordinate placement of SPHTM students in practica at LOPH, and
monitor and evaluate their progress. This faculty position is jointly funded by OPH and SPHTM.
The Career Planning and Placement Office is staffed by a professional career counselor to
facilitate practice and practicum placements for students and to assist in employment searches.
Defined Responsibilities:
Specific roles and responsibilities include:
Student: In collaboration with the practicum coordinator, the advisor, and appropriate specialty track
faculty, the student:
• Identifies potential practicum topics based on area of specialization, previous experience, career
interests, and career goals. The department and faculty advisor help to identify opportunities, a
prospective site, and preceptor.
• Develops a practicum/project plan including learning objectives linked to program competencies, a
timeline, milestones, and final deliverables: student is to secure approval of their plan by their
preceptor and faculty advisor.
• Provides a mid-project written progress report to the preceptor and faculty advisor.
• Participates in periodically scheduled progress review meetings with the preceptor and advisor.
• Submits a final practicum report describing the project, the activities undertaken, and the results,
findings, and recommendations.
• Conducts a self mid-term and final evaluation of the practicum experience.
• Completes any additional department requirements such as a poster, oral presentation and/or
seminar: verify all additional departmental requirements with the advisor.
Advisor: The advisor provides general oversight of the practicum. In this role, the faculty advisor
engages in the following activities:
• Helps identify prospective sites.
• Provides advice to students about site selection and the development of the specific practicum plan.
• Reviews overall progress of the student during the practicum process.
Preceptor:
• Provides technical and administrative oversight to the student throughout the practicum period.
• Provides periodic feedback and guidance to the student in writing and/or through meetings.
• Reviews the student’s progress through formal mid-term and final evaluations.
• Collaborates with the advisor to address overall project issues as necessary.
Waiver of the practicum:
All students are expected to fulfill the practicum requirement. The practicum is a valuable and essential
component of training for students who have not worked or have minimally worked in a public health
field, or for those making a career change to a new field. Only in a limited set of circumstances can the
practicum be waived for mid-career students who are practicing professionals and already have
substantial practical experience in their field. Some mid-career practitioners returned to graduate school
to obtain the theory and academic credentials to complement their practical experience. On a case-bycase basis, practitioners with documented practice experience in a field of public health may be granted
a waiver of the practicum requirement. The Practicum Handbook contains the Criteria for the Waiver of
the Practicum.
02/01/10
Page 77
Section 2.4
Practical Skills
Criteria for granting a waiver of the practicum: all four of the following criteria must be met:
1.
At least three years of documented prior work experience in a field that is closely related to the
academic objectives of the student’s degree program.
2.
Employment that results in possessing the set of skills commensurate with those intended to be
achieved through the practicum.
3.
Documentation that the student possesses those skills.
4.
Approval of the waiver request by the faculty advisor and department chair.
As indicated in #4 above, written documentation addressing #1-#3 above is reviewed by the advisor and
department chair who confer and make the decision regarding the granting of the waiver. For those
entering students with in-depth public health experience of at least two years (for example, returning
Peace Corps volunteers or career public health professionals, such as health department leaders), the
required number of hours in the practicum will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
2.4 B Identification of Agencies and Preceptors used for Practice Experiences
Table 1.6K1 contains a list of agencies and field sites used for the practice experience.
2.4 C Number of Students receiving a Waiver of the Practice Experience
The current degree requirement for a separate practicum was set for students entering January 1, 2007.
Of over 350 graduating students who entered SPHTM after this requirement took effect, 32 practicum
waivers have been granted; these included one physician in TRMD, three midcareer occupational health
professionals; two career public health professionals in ENHS, three physicians in INHD; the executive
MMM program has granted 23; 13 in one cohort and 10 in the current cohort. (The MMM will not add
new cohorts domestically.) Given the stringent rules for obtaining a waiver, it is unlikely that waivers will
granted to anyone without solid public health practice experience. Those likely to be given a waiver will
be mid-career practicing professionals, or in the distance learning or executive programs that target
midcareer professionals. The midcareer professionals already have substantial public health practice
skills and are seeking a degree to enhance their knowledge base to complement their practice
experience.
2.4 D Preventive Medicine Residents in the Academic Program
Tulane University's SPHTM and the School of Medicine co-sponsor the Preventive Medicine Residency
Program. Tulane does not have an occupational medicine or aerospace medicine residency. The
Preventive Medicine residency is designed to train residents for careers in academic, administrative
and/or clinical preventive medicine/public health. The residency is a two-year residency in general
preventive medicine and public health during which residents simultaneously take course work leading to
the MPH degree and work on a supervised practicum. The program includes both the didactic study of
public health disciplines and the application of these knowledge, skills and attitudes for the practice of
preventive medicine and public health.
Table 2.4 D Preventive Medicine Residents
2005-06
2006-07**
2007-08**
2008-09
# residents in program
4
3*
-1
# completed program
1
2
-0
*1 resident did not complete the MPH
**No residents were accepted while the program was restructured following Hurricane Katrina.
Practicum Sites for the Preventive Medicine Residency include:
Louisiana Office of Public Health
Daughters of Charity Clinics
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Alexandria
Veterans Affairs Hospital in New Orleans
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
02/01/10
Page 78
Section 2.4
Practical Skills
Rotations for the Preventive Medicine Residency include:
Adolescent Health
Bioterrorism/Infectious Epidemiology
Communicable Diseases
Chronic Disease
Environmental Health & Epidemiology
Genetics and Developmental Disabilities
Injury Prevention
Internal Medicine
Maternal/Child Health
Nutrition
Occupational Health
Quality Management/Primary Care
Vaccine Preventable Diseases
Women’s Health
The Resource File contains the residents’ schedule of rotations at practicum sites.
2.4 E Assessment:
This criterion is met: SPHTM requires a practicum as a criterion for graduation in all of the professional
master’s degree programs (MPH, MSPH, MPH&TM, MMM, MHA) and doctoral programs (DrPH and
ScD.) The practicum is a minimum of 200 contact hours and takes place in a practice setting. SPHTM
has well-defined policies and procedures for the practicum including the selection of a practicum site,
articulated roles and responsibilities for the student, preceptor and faculty advisor, and established
evaluation criteria. The Practicum Handbook compiles all of the requirements and processes into a
usable reference for students, preceptors and faculty.
The practicum is well integrated into professional master’s degree programs at SPHTM. Clinical faculty
facilitate the integration of practice into the curriculum. We have a shared faculty with the LOPH who
facilitates student placement and supervision. Faculty have community partnerships with practitioners
who serve as preceptors and provide field sites. A wide array of field sites has been assembled allowing
students a range of options for this requirement.
02/01/10
Page 79
Section 2.5
Culminating Experience
2.5 A Culminating Experience
The culminating experience is designed to demonstrate a student’s ability to synthesize and integrate
knowledge and skills acquired through the core courses as well as their ability to apply this foundation to
the investigation, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of real-world problems in public health. Master’s
students at SPHTM satisfy the requirements for a culminating experience by completing one of the
following options:
1. Research Thesis
2. Public Health Analysis
3. Master’s Comprehensive Examination
The choice of available options is made at the department level and not all options are available in all
departments. However, the requirements for each of these options are the same throughout SPHTM.
Table 2.5 A Culminating Experience Options by Department
Department
Biostatistics
Epidemiology
Tropical Medicine
^Distance learning students only
Research Thesis
X
X
X
X
X
Public Health
Analysis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comprehensive
Exam
X
X
X^
X
X
X
The choice of culminating experience is made by the student in consultation with their advisor. The
selection of an option is influenced by the student’s program of study and practicum and other practice
experiences. The overarching competencies for the Culminating Experience (all options) are as follows.
1. Demonstrate general knowledge and understanding of the core discipline areas of public health.
2. Apply general knowledge of the core discipline areas of public health to identify and solve public
health problems.
3. Investigate public health issues using evidence-based practice.
4. Analyze public health issues using contemporary theories and research techniques.
5. Evaluate the outcomes of public health-related interventions.
6. Clearly communicate public health concepts orally and in written form.
The research thesis is an in-depth study of a public health problem that requires the student to develop
research hypotheses and develop a study design to conduct appropriate research to address the
hypotheses. The thesis includes a literature review, generation and analysis of data, with discussion and
conclusions based on the research findings. The student produces a document that describes and
discusses the research in the context of the hypotheses. Some departments also require the results to
be presented orally in a seminar or other venue. The thesis is original applied research that contributes
to the field. Additional competencies for the research thesis are listed in Section 2.6.
The public health analysis identifies a public health problem and develops goals and objectives for
conducting the analysis of the issue or problem. The analysis is written in a formal document that
includes a literature review, analysis and evaluation of the body of knowledge relevant to the problem,
and a discussion that evaluates the public health activities and results. Some departments also require
the results to be presented orally in a seminar or other venue. Additional competencies for the public
health analysis are listed in Section 2.6.
02/01/10
Page 80
Section 2.5
Both the research thesis and public health analysis generate manuscripts that are expected to show: an
understanding of general public health knowledge and how the core disciplines in public health are
employed in the thesis or analysis (Overarching competencies 1 and 2 above); skill in employing tools for
the investigation, analysis, and evaluation for the problem addressed (Overarching competencies 3, 4,
and 5 above); and specific knowledge, skills and abilities relevant to the student’s area of concentration.
Faculty evaluation of the research thesis and public health analysis is based on the student
demonstrating achievement of the overarching competencies. These two culminating experiences also
demonstrate written communication competency (Overarching competency 6). The presentation of data
at a poster session, department seminar, or other venue also provides students the opportunity to
demonstrate oral communication competency – (Overarching competency 6).
The master’s comprehensive examination must also show that the student has achieved a desired level
in these six overarching competencies. Additional competencies for the comprehensive exam are listed
in Section 2.6. The exam tests for knowledge of the public health core areas and the area of study. The
comprehensive exam consists of two parts:
Part A: Focuses on the school-wide core courses and is geared to assess competency in the core
knowledge and application of knowledge and tools in public health (Overarching competencies 1
and 2). The student must achieve a grade of 70% to pass the exam.
Part B: Assesses the student’s knowledge from a discipline-specific perspective and is
administered separately by each department in the School. Individual departments develop
questions (in written form) to examine the other four overarching competencies. Thus,
department examinations place emphasis on the student’s ability to investigate, analyze, evaluate
and communicate a public health problem, activity or issue. Faculty evaluate the student’s level
of successful achievement in each of these six overarching competencies.
The policies, procedures and requirement for the culminating experience are well defined and published
on the SPHTM website http://www.sph.tulane.edu/main/academics/handbooks.htm and are available in
the Resource File and includes: 1) The Culminating Experience Competency Framework; 2) Thesis
Outline for Academic Degree Programs; 3) Outline for Thesis or Public Health Analysis for Professional
Degree programs; 4) Comprehensive Exam Rules; 5) Comprehensive Exam Frequently Asked
Questions. For the doctoral degrees (PhD, ScD and DrPH), the culminating experience is the
dissertation. Please see Section 2.10 for details.
2.5 B Assessment
This criterion is met. The SPHTM requires all students in professional degree programs to have a
culminating experience that integrates and applies knowledge across areas of public health and their
specialty area. Three options for demonstrating the synthesis and integration of knowledge and skills are
available. All three master’s options are guided by the same overarching competencies. The three
options allow the student in consultation with their advisor the flexibility to select the best means for
demonstrating their ability to synthesize, integrate and apply the core areas of public health.
The culminating experience has well defined policies and procedures that are available to students and
faculty. Faculty ensure that students successfully complete their culminating experience through the
production of a thesis or public health analysis manuscript or by passing the comprehensive
examination.
02/01/10
Page 81
Section 2.6
Required Competencies
2.6 A School-wide Core Public Health Competencies
The SPHTM core public health competencies are listed below and are common across the school for the
MPH and all other master’s professional degrees including the MSPH, MPH&TM, MMM degrees and the
DrPH. A foundation of the SPHTM core competencies are the six core courses that provide the didactic
study and which are further advanced through application of the core competencies in the practicum and
culminating experience. No student in the professional degree programs may graduate without
demonstrating these competencies. The core competencies for each of the areas are listed below.
SPHL 601: Biological Basis of Health and Disease and Genomics
The biological basis of health and disease core area is designed to provide a foundation of knowledge
about the human body in health and disease. The three levels it is built upon comprise a natural
transition from the cellular level, to the individual level, and, finally, to the societal level.
At the completion of this course, the student will be able to:
Molecular and Cellular Level
1. Describe the central dogma of biology, including definitions of DNA, RNA, protein, macromolecule
function and classify organ systems.
2. Outline genome structure and organization and discuss cell cycle control and cancer.
3. Discuss major metabolic pathways, signaling and homeostasis.
4. Discuss inheritance and evolution, and explain and quantify genetic diversity.
Physiological and Organ System Level
1. Describe major physiological and organ systems, including immune and endocrine systems.
2. Identify and describe the basic/major diseases of the organ systems.
3. Describe the role of diet and the aging process as they relate to health and disease states.
4. Discuss the effects of environmental factors on metabolism and organ systems.
5. Discuss the effects of behavior on metabolism and organ systems.
6. Describe the effects of infectious diseases on metabolism and organ systems.
Society Level
1. Describe the most prevalent global diseases (e.g. cardiovascular) in terms of:
a. patterns
b. etiology
c. risk factors
d. clinical aspects
e. major issues in prevention and control
2. Discuss population dynamics (reproduction, fecundity, selection, allele frequencies, fitness, and
evolution).
SPHL 603: Social and Behavioral Aspects of Global Health
The core area on the social and behavioral aspects of global health covers the behavioral, social, and
cultural aspects of health and disease. Students learn behavioral and social theories that are relevant to
health, with particular attention to the roles of culture, race, and ethnicity in the conceptualization of
health and illness. Students learn how factors that protect or erode health operate at multiple levels,
examples include: individual, organization, and societal levels, social policy, and globalization. Students
develop an appreciation for the relevance of these theories to the identification and solution of public
health problems in both developed and developing countries. At the completion of this course, the
student will be able to:
1. Apply a social ecological framework to identify how individual, community, and population health
is affected by factors at multiple levels. Examples include: individual, interpersonal,
organizational, community, societal, global.
2. Examine and critique important theoretical frameworks for understanding social and behavioral
02/01/10
Page 82
Section 2.6
health interventions. Examples include: Health Belief Model; Transtheoretical Model (Stages of
Change); Diffusion of Innovation; empowerment theory; theories of privilege and oppression;
core-periphery theories of international relations.
3. Analyze specific public health intervention strategies based on the factors and theories listed
above.
4. Identify the role of race, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, and culture in the above theoretical
frameworks, including discussion of major schools of thought regarding these factors. Examples
include: “nature vs. nurture"; biological vs. social constructions of demographic variables.
5. Explain how health-related behavior reflects cultural differences in conceptualizations of health
and illness (disease constructs) and show, through examples, how these patterns vary across
time and place.
6. Identify aspects of interventions that can address the impact of disease constructs on healthrelated behavior.
7. Identify the contributions of various research approaches in understanding and addressing public
health problems related to social and behavioral factors at multiple levels. Examples of
approaches include: basic research, action research/intervention research, community-based
participatory research.
8. Discuss the importance of effective communication in health promotion interventions that address
social and behavioral aspects of global health.
9. Identify the importance of “cultural competence” in working with diverse communities to effect
change in social and behavioral factors related to the health of individuals and communities.
10. Explain how social and behavioral sciences are important to public health domestically and
abroad and complement the approaches used in other major public health disciplines. Examples
include: health systems management, epidemiology, environmental health.
BIOS 603: Introductory Biostatistics
The biostatistics core area concentrates on the management and analysis of data to describe and make
inferences about the behavior of random variables related to health in populations. Data are based on
samples drawn from the relevant populations. This core also addresses the communication of these
analyses for decision-making. At the completion of this course, the student will be able to:
1. Distinguish between categorical variables without order, categorical variables with order, and
continuous variables.
2. Select the appropriate graphic presentation for a set of data and generate the graph.
3. Construct frequency distributions.
4. Compute measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and variability (variance, standard
deviation).
5. Select and use the appropriate laws of probability (additive, multiplicative, Bayes’ Law).
6. Use the binomial and normal distributions to assess the probability and uncertainty of health
outcomes.
7. Construct and interpret confidence intervals around means.
8. Differentiate between the research, null and alternative hypotheses.
9. Construct one and two-sided hypotheses.
10. Identify type I and type II errors, significance level, p value and power.
11. Determine the sample size needed for one- and two-sample tests on means.
12. Perform and interpret one-sample, two-sample, and paired t tests on means.
13. Perform and interpret the normal theory two-sample test of proportions.
14. Perform and interpret the F test to compare two variances.
15. Perform and interpret chi square tests of independence.
16. Compute the least squares estimate of slopes and intercepts for simple linear regression.
17. Test the hypothesis that a simple linear regression is significant.
18. Compute and interpret Pearson product moment correlation coefficients.
19. Construct graphs, charts and tables to communicate the results of statistical analyses for decision
making purposes.
02/01/10
Page 83
Section 2.6
ENHS 603: Survey of Environmental Health
The aim of the environmental health sciences core area is to familiarize public health students with
current and future environmental health issues. These issues include water quality, fate and transport of
toxins and microbes in the environment, wastewater collection, disposal and reclamation, and solid
waste management. Other pertinent topics include food protection, including food-borne pathogens,
handling and management of infectious and hazardous waste, occupational health and industrial
hygiene, and environmental policy and ethics issues. At the completion of this course, the student will be
able to:
1. Discuss the role of microorganisms in the environment, including benefits and risks associated
with microorganisms in water, air, food, and soil.
2. Identify and discuss the physical, chemical, biological, and microbial hazards associated with
water pollution, as well as the importance of water quality related to contamination, protection and
monitoring of water supplies.
3. Identify and discuss methods of collection, treatment, disposal and recycling of human waste and
biosolids, solid and hazardous waste, infectious waste and describe the health hazards
associated with improper management of these wastes.
4. Identify and discuss food-borne pathogens and the importance of the protection of food sources.
5. Identify and discuss indoor and outdoor air pollution associated with air pollutants and natural
contaminants.
6. Identify and discuss adverse health effects in occupational settings due to exposure to dust,
gases, vapor fumes, noise, and their mitigation and control and discuss the legal, regulatory
processes to provide workers with a safe workplace.
7. Classify toxic chemicals in the environment; define their beneficial and detrimental effects, their
persistence, distribution, toxicity, endocrine disrupting properties and transformation in the
environment.
8. Identify and describe vectors of public health importance, including insects and rodents; discuss
disease transmission and control; identify breeding and control methods.
9. Discuss the legal, regulatory and policy aspects of environmental assessment, evaluation and
control, including risk assessment, management and communication.
10. Discuss ethical issues of environmental health such as environmental injustice and racial
inequality in environmental rule-making and environmental management.
11. Define global environmental health issues, especially those facing developing countries, such as
water supply, waste disposal, pathogen issues, wetland management, and the misuse of
agricultural pesticides.
EPID 603: Epidemiological Methods I
The epidemiology core area is designed to give students a general introduction to epidemiologic theory,
methods and practice. The purpose of this core area is to enable the student to interpret epidemiologic
data and understand and apply epidemiologic approaches to the investigation of infectious and noninfectious diseases and other health outcomes. The student will acquire the basic tools needed to
understand and address threats to global health at the population level. At the completion of this course,
the student will be able to:
1. Describe the concept of causality.
2. Calculate and interpret attributable risk.
3. Calculate and interpret rates, ratios and proportions.
4. Calculate and interpret standardized rates (and interpret age pyramids).
5. Describe and evaluate screening and surveillance programs (including sensitivity, specificity, and
predictive values).
6. Describe and compare the basic study designs (e.g. cross-sectional, longitudinal, case-control,
experimental).
7. Calculate and interpret unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios and relative risks.
8. Explain the concept of confidence intervals.
02/01/10
Page 84
Section 2.6
9. Describe the concept of bias.
10. Describe the concept of confounding.
11. Explain the concepts of reliability and validity.
12. Critique peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies.
13. Describe the principles of research ethics.
HSMG 603: Principles of Health Systems Administration and Management
The purpose of the health systems management core area is to develop leadership and management
competencies of students for careers in public or private sector health organizations.
At the completion of this course, the student will be able to:
1. Discuss managerial roles, task and responsibilities required to effectively plan, organize, lead and
control entities (organizations, divisions and projects) towards achievement of the organizational
mission.
2. Distinguish between managerial and personal decisions and between organization and
individual perspectives.
3. Discuss managerial roles and responsibilities as they apply to selected public health
organizational settings.
4. Discuss the organization of the U.S. health care system, including provider categories, payer
groups, users of health care services, role of the government and environmental trends.
5. Apply basic concepts and tools that are integral to strategic leadership, to:
a. Explain the relationship between organizations and their external environments and the
resulting effect on the role and function of the manager.
b. Recognize the role of uncertainty and accept risk as a necessary component of
organizational change and development.
c. Discuss the use of political and legal systems to affect change.
d. Recognize the importance of a professional ethical code and the need to promote an
organizational culture that fosters high ethical standards.
e. Relate theories of organizational structure to professional practice.
f. Recognize importance of organizational performance measurement including budgeting
and quality improvement systems.
g. Apply financial techniques to the allocation of public health resources.
h. Discuss the fundamentals of team and organizational learning and relate them to
management of public health organizations.
The culminating experience is designed to allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills
gained from the core and programmatic courses as well as their ability to apply such a foundation to the
investigation, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of real-world problems in public health. There are three
options for the master’s culminating experience:
a. Research Thesis
b. Public Health Analysis
c. Master’s Comprehensive Examination
Although the three culminating experiences differ somewhat, the student should be able to demonstrate
these overarching competencies:
1. Demonstrate general knowledge and understanding of the core discipline areas of public health.
2. Apply general knowledge of the core discipline areas of public health to identify and solve public
health problems.
3. Investigate public health issues using evidence-based practice.
4. Analyze public health issues using contemporary theories and research techniques.
5. Evaluate the outcomes of public health-related interventions.
6. Clearly communicate public health concepts orally and in written form
02/01/10
Page 85
Section 2.6
The Research Thesis and Public Health Analysis manuscripts (see Guidelines) should show an
understanding of general knowledge and how the general knowledge of the core disciplines in public
health is employed in the thesis or analysis (Overarching competencies 1 and 2). The manuscript should
show the employment of the tools of investigation, analysis, and evaluation for the problem addressed in
these manuscripts (Overarching competencies 3, 4, and 5). These papers will also reflect the specific
knowledge, skills and abilities relevant to the student’s area of concentration. Faculty evaluation of this
culminating experience will be based on the student’s demonstration of the achievement of these
overarching competencies. As a major writing activity, these two culminating experiences will show
written communication competency (Overarching competency 6). The presentation of their papers at a
poster session, department seminar, or other venue will provide the opportunity to demonstrate oral
communication competency (Overarching competency 6).
The master’s comprehensive examination must also show that the student has achieved a desired level
in these six overarching competencies. The exam consists of two parts:
• Part A: Focuses on the school-wide core courses and is geared to assess competency in the core
knowledge and application of knowledge and tools in public health (Overarching competencies 1
and 2).
•
Part B: Assesses the student’s achievement from a discipline specific perspective and is
administered separately by each department in the School. Individual departments will develop
questions (in written form) to examine the other four overarching competencies. Thus,
department examinations will place emphasis on the student’s ability to investigate, analyze,
evaluate and communicate a public health problem, activity or issue. Faculty will evaluate the
student’s level of successful achievement in each of these six overarching competencies.
For each culminating experience option and practicum, specific competencies that support the
overarching competencies are listed below.
Research Thesis: At the completion of the research thesis, the student will demonstrate the ability to:
1. Formulate relevant research hypotheses and develop a study design to conduct appropriate
research to address the hypotheses.
2. Prepare an appropriate literature review of the research topic.
3. Analyze data, measure relevant outcomes and draw appropriate conclusions.
4. Produce a formal professional document that describes the original applied research and
contributes to the scope of knowledge in the field of public health.
Public Health Analysis: At the completion of the public health analysis, the student will demonstrate the
ability to:
1. Formulate relevant goals and objectives to be explored in a public health analysis.
2. Prepare an appropriate literature review of the analysis topic.
3. Analyze and evaluate the body of knowledge in a selected field of public health.
4. Produce a formal professional document that completely describes public health activities and
results
Comprehensive Exam: By passing the comprehensive exam, the student will show the ability to:
1. Part 1: Demonstrate acquisition of core competencies in each of the public health areas
(biostatistics, environmental health sciences, epidemiology, health policy and management,
social and behavioral sciences, and biological basis of disease) through questions that test
knowledge or skill of the competency.
2. Part 2: Apply the core competencies in the specialty area of study.
3. Clearly convey ideas and knowledge in their discipline in writing Part 2 of the exam.
02/01/10
Page 86
Section 2.6
Practicum
The practicum is designed for students to demonstrate the application of core public health knowledge
within a field of public health in a practice setting. The practicum also demonstrates specialty area
competencies. By completing the practicum, the student will be able to:
1. Demonstrate understanding of practical public health applications.
2. Evaluate options in selecting an appropriate practice based public health application or
intervention.
3. Apply an appropriate action to the solution of a public health issue in practice.
4. Summarize and report on professional public health experiences
5. For those who conduct the Practicum in a government setting, demonstrate knowledge of the
structure and working process of public health agencies.
2.6 B Matrix Identifying the Learning Experiences for the Core Public Health Competencies
Learning experiences by which SPHTM students acquire the public health core competencies are listed
in the matrix below. Core competencies are obtained through the core courses, practicum and
culminating experience. All students, regardless of department, take the same core courses;
departments may designate which of the three culminating options are allowed in each department.
Table 2.6 B Learning Experiences and Outcome Measures for the Core Courses
Core Course
Learning experiences
Outcome Measures
Biological Basis of
Disease: SPHL 601
Biostatistics: BIOS 603
Behavioral Science:
SPHL 603
Epidemiology: EPID
603
Environmental Health:
ENHS 603
Health Systems
Management: HSMG
603
Practicum
Culminating
Experience
02/01/10
Lectures
Readings
Lectures
Reading/text book
Problems sets
Homework problems
Exercises
Analysis of Data Sets
Lectures
Audiovisuals
Small group discussions
Small group exercises
Lectures
Exercises
Homework problems
Lectures
Case Studies
Video Tapes/CDs
Textbook Readings
Research papers
Handouts
Lectures
Readings/text book
Group exercises and projects
Case studies
Problem sets, homework problems
Term papers
Discussion board forums
Field experience in a practice setting
Options:
1. Public Health Analysis
2.Research Thesis
3.Comprehensive exam
Exams
Exams
Exams
Group course project
Exams
Quizzes
Exams
Reports
Presentations
Exams
Homework
Papers
Class presentations
Analysis of case studies
Team projects
Report and/or Presentation
1. Report
2. Report
3. Passing Exam
Page 87
Section 2.6
2.6 C
Identification of a set of competencies for each program or specialization for professional
and academic degree curricula
The competencies for each degree program and areas of specialization are presented by department.
Specific courses that address each of the competencies are indicated below. In addition, the joint
degree programs have bridging competencies in addition to the competencies for the MPH or MSPH
degrees; these are listed after the departmental degree program competencies.
Undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH)
Academic Degree:
BSPH
After completing the BSPH degree, the graduate will be able to:
1. Recognize the public health problems of populations on a social and community scale. (SPHU
101, 201, 301, & SPHL 603)
2. Describe multidisciplinary and ecological public health issues and concerns. (SPHU 201, ENHS
603)
3. Explain and compare health promotion and disease prevention. (SPHU 102, 201, 430 & SPHL
6034)
4. Recognize the role of quantitative methods in addressing public health issue. (BIOS 603 & EPID
603)
5. Apply cultural competencies to public health problems. (SPHU 101, 201 & SPHL 603)
6. Apply concepts of strategic planning, cost effectiveness analysis and decision analysis in public
health. (SPHU 301, HSMG 603)
Department of Biostatistics
Degrees offered:
Professional degree: MSPH in Biostatistics
Academic degrees: MS in Biostatistics
MS in Bioinformatics
After completing the MSPH degree in Biostatistics, the graduate will be able to:
1. Incorporate knowledge of the core areas of epidemiology, environmental health, health systems
management, and the biological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of health and disease, in
selecting and applying appropriate biostatistical procedures. (EPID 603, ENHS 603, HSMG 603,
SPHL 601, SPHL 603)
2. Select and conduct appropriate statistical procedures for evaluation of public health intervention
and surveillance programs. (BIOS 604, 706, 715, 725)
3. Contribute to the design of public health programs by estimating the required sample size and
power for program monitoring. (BIOS 604, 708, 716, 725).
4. Exhibit proficiency in programming using standard statistical software such as SAS, SPSS and
STATA. (BIOS 623, 624, 628)
5. Design and manage data bases and analysis datasets. (BIOS 622, BIOS 623, 624, 628)
MS in Biostatistics
After completing the MS degree in Biostatistics, the graduate will be able to:
1. Formulate appropriate linear regression models and conduct simple and multiple linear
regression analysis. (BIOS 604, 706)
2. Differentiate between various analysis of variance procedures and analyze data using these
procedures. (BIOS 604, 708)
02/01/10
Page 88
Section 2.6
3. Distinguish between procedures for analyzing discrete data and conduct logistic regression and
other categorical procedures. (BIOS 604, 715)
4. Exhibit proficiency in programming to manage and analyze datasets using standard statistical
software such as SAS, SPSS and STATA. (BIOS 623, 624, 628)
5. Design and manage data bases. (BIOS 622)
6. Estimate sample size and power. (BIOS 604, 708, 715, 725)
7. Design clinical trials and conduct survival analyses. (BIOS 730, 740)
8. Define and use the principles of probability and mathematical statistics to guide the selection and
application of data analysis methods. (MATH 607, MATH 608)
MS in Bioinformatics (to begin Fall, 2010)
After completing the MS degree in Bioinformatics, the graduate will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Summarize and describe the fundamental concepts and principles of bioinformatics. (BINF 601)
Analyze gene expression microarray data. (BINF 716)
Analyze DNA and protein sequence data. (BINF 721)
Select and conduct bivariate statistical analyses. (BIOS 604)
Select and conduct simple and multiple linear regression analysis. (BIOS 604, 706)
Select and conduct analysis of variance procedures. (BIOS 604, 708)
Select and conduct logistic regression analyses and other categorical procedures. (BIOS
604)
8. Use the standard statistical software, R in bioinformatics. (BINF 620)
9. Estimate sample size and power. (BIOS 604, 706 708, BINF 716)
10. Use the principles of probability and mathematical statistics to guide the selection and application
of data analysis methods. (MATH 607, MATH 608)
After completing the PhD degree in Biostatistics, the graduate will be able to:
1. Formulate appropriate linear regression models and conduct simple and multiple linear
regression analysis. (BIOS 604, 706)
2. Differentiate between various analysis of variance procedures and analyze data using these
procedures. (BIOS 604, 708)
3. Distinguish between procedures for analyzing discrete data and conduct logistic regression and
other categorical procedures. (BIOS 604, 715)
4. Estimate sample size and power. (BIOS 604, 708, 715, 725)
5. Design clinical trials and conduct survival analyses. (BIOS 730, 740)
6. Define and use the principles of probability and mathematical statistics to guide the selection and
application of data analysis methods. (MATH 607, MATH 608)
7. Propose research hypothesis, develop appropriate research methods and conduct independent
research in statistical methods. (coursework, dissertation research, working as research
assistant)
8. Prepare and communicate the results of statistical studies and analysis in both verbal and written
formats. (coursework, seminar series, dissertation research)
9. Demonstrate the ability to teach statistical concepts and methods. (coursework, working as
teaching assistant, and working as independent instructor)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCES
Degrees offered:
Professional degree: MPH in Maternal and Child Health
MPH in Nutrition
02/01/10
Page 89
Section 2.6
DrPH
Academic degrees:
PhD
Upon completion of the MPH in Maternal and Child Health, the graduate should be able to:
1. Describe MCH problems in terms of time, magnitude/severity, scope, dispersion/location, and cooccurrence/co-morbidity and identify the scientific underpinnings and determine the validity of
evidence for interventions addressing MCH problems. (SPHL 641, CHSC 641, CHSC 642,
CHSC 646, CHSC 651, CHSC 655, CHSC 751)
2. Apply knowledge of demographic, health, familial, socio-cultural, environmental and community
factors to the design of MCH programs and services. (CHSC 603,CHSC 610, CHSC 611, CHSC
641, CHSC 646, CHSC 651)
3. Recognize different strengths, needs, values, and practices of diverse cultural, racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic groups and determine how these factors affect health status, health behaviors,
and program design. (CHSC 603, CHSC 610, CHSC 611, CHSC 614, CHSC 642, CHSC 646,
CHSC 651, CHSC 751)
4. Prepare and interpret data from vital statistics, censuses, surveys, service utilization, and other
relevant reports on the health of MCH populations, and have the ability to detect meaningful
inferences from data and the translation of data into information. (BIOS 603, CHSC 613, CHSC
614)
5. Evaluate the integrity and comparability of data and identify existing gaps. (CHSC 613, EPID 603)
6. Integrate population-based health promotion and disease prevention strategies within primary
care and other service delivery systems. (HSMG 603, CHSC 610, CHSC 751)
7. Develop mechanisms to monitor and evaluate program and service networks for their
effectiveness and quality, including use of performance measures. (CHSC 611, CHSC 612,
CHSC 613, CHSC 682)
8. Develop strategies to assure integrated service systems for MCH populations. (CHSC 614,
CHSC 642, CHSC 646, CHSC 651)
9. State the feasibility and expected outcomes of and barriers to achieving each policy option and
decide on the appropriate course of action. (CHSC 610, CHSC 614, CHSC 642, CHSC 651,
CHSC 655, CHSC 751)
10. Promote cultural competence concepts within diverse MCH settings. (SPHL 603, CHSC 610,
CHSC 614, CHSC 642, CHSC 646)
Upon completion of the MPH in Health Education and Communication, the graduate should be able to:
1. Assess individual and community needs for health education/communication. (CHSC 611, CHSC
612, CHSC 613, CHSC 621, CHSC 622, CHSC 627, CHSC 635, CHSC 636, CHSC 682)
2. Plan health education/communication strategies, interventions, and programs. (CHSC 611,
CHSC 613, CHSC 621,CHSC 622, CHSC 626,CHSC 627,CHSC 635,CHSC 636,CHSC
681,CHSC 682)
3. Implement health education/communication strategies, interventions, and programs. (CHSC 611,
CHSC 613, CHSC 621, CHSC 622, CHSC 626, CHSC 627, CHSC 635, CHSC 636, CHSC 681,
CHSC 682)
4. Conduct evaluation and research related to health education/communication. (CHSC 612, CHSC
613, CHSC 682, SPHL 998)
5. Administer health education/communication strategies, interventions, and programs. (CHSC 611,
CHSC 612, CHSC 621, CHSC 622, CHSC 626, CHSC 627)
6. Serve as a health education/communication resource person. (CHSC 612, SPHL 998)
7. Communicate and advocate for health and health education. (CHSC 610, CHSC 612, CHSC 613,
CHSC 621, CHSC 622, CHSC 626,CHSC 627,CHSC 635,CHSC 636,CHSC 682)
02/01/10
Page 90
Section 2.6
MPH in Nutrition
Upon completion of the MPH program in Nutrition, the graduate will be able to:
1. Apply the concepts and principles of public health practice to the development of programs and
policies in nutrition. (CHSC 610, CHSC 661, CHSC 677)
2. Identify the major types of nutrition problems in both developed and developing country contexts
and the factors that cause them. (CHSC 675)
3. Apply various methods for the nutritional status assessment of populations, including
anthropometric, biochemical, clinical, dietary, and ecological methods. (CHSC 675)
4. Organize nutrition assessment data using computer software, interpret the results of analysis of
these data, and communicate findings from this analysis in written form. (CHSC 675)
5. Apply the concepts and principles of public health practice to the development of programs in
nutrition. (CHSC 610)
6. Develop innovative approaches to solving nutrition problems, plan and evaluate nutrition
programs in the U.S. and overseas, and serve as consultants. (CHSC 612, CHSC 622, CHSC
661)
7. Monitor and evaluate food systems from the perspectives of both management and nutrition.
(CHSC 661, CHSC 677)
8. Describe the major stages of the policy cycle, including the manner in which public policies
affecting the food supply and nutritional status of the U.S. population are formulated and
implemented. (CHSC 677)
9. Explain current U.S. policy efforts in the areas of dietary guidance, food labeling, food safety, food
assistance, food access, food production, and food marketing. (CHSC 677)
MPH Community Health Sciences
Upon completion of the MPH in Community Health Sciences, the graduate will be able to:
1. Assess individual and community needs for public health programs. (CHSC 611, CHSC 612,
2. Demonstrate competence in planning community-based public health programs and research
projects. (CHSC 611, CHSC 613, CHSC 621, CHSC 627, CHSC 635, CHSC 636, CHSC 681,
CHSC 682)
3. Implement and manage preventive strategies, interventions and programs at the community level.
(CHSC 611, CHSC 621, CHSC 627, CHSC 635, CHSC 636, CHSC 681, CHSC 682, SPHL 603)
4. Acquire the ability to identify and use various methods of evaluating community-based public
health programs. CHSC 612, CHSC 613, CHSC 682)
5. Communicate and advocate for community health programs and policies. (CHSC 610, CHSC
612, CHSC 613, CHSC 621, CHSC 622, CHSC 626, CHSC 627, CHSC 635, CHSC 636, CHSC
682)
6. Serve as a resource person for community-based programs in public health. (CHSC 612, SPHL
603, Practicum)
7. Promote cultural competence concepts within diverse community settings. (CHSC 610, CHSC
614, SPHL 603)
Upon completion of the DrPH in Community Health Sciences, the graduate should be able to:
Describe public health problems in terms of time, magnitude/severity, scope, dispersion/location, and cooccurrence/co-morbidity and identify the scientific underpinnings and determine the validity of evidence
for interventions addressing public health problems. (SPHL 601, CHSC 642, CHSC 646, CHSC 651,
CHSC 655, CHSC 675, CHSC 677, CHSC 621, CHSC 627, CHSC 681, CHSC 682, CHSC 783)
1. Develop leadership capacity to apply knowledge of demographic, health, familial, socio-cultural,
environmental and community factors to the design of public health programs and services.
02/01/10
Page 91
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Section 2.6
(CHSC 603, CHSC 710, CHSC 711, CHSC 714, CHSC 641, CHSC 646, CHSC 65, 1CHSC 655,
Recognize different ethical considerations strengths, needs, values, and practices of diverse
cultural, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups and determine how these factors affect health
status, health behaviors, and program design. (CHSC 603, CHSC 710, CHSC 711, CHSC 713,
CHSC 714, CHSC 621, CHSC 627, CHSC 642, CHSC 646, CHSC 651, CHSC 675, CHSC 783)
Apply systems thinking in the preparation and interpretation of data from vital statistics, censuses,
surveys, service utilization, and other relevant reports on the health of populations, and detect
meaningful inferences from data and the translation of data into information. Evaluate the
integrity and comparability of data and identify existing gaps. (BIOS 604, BIOS 706, BIOS 623,
624, and/or 628, CHSC 621, CHSC 627, CHSC 682, CHSC 713, CHSC 714, CHSC 783, EPID
626)
Develop the professionalism and management skills necessary to oversee the monitoring and
evaluation of program and service networks for their effectiveness and quality, including use of
performance measures. (CHSC 682, CHSC 711, CHSC 712, CHSC 713, CHSC 714, CHSC 782,
CHSC 783, INHL 626, EPID 626, HSMG 758, HSMG 754)
Develop the professionalism and leadership capacity necessary to assess the feasibility and
expected outcomes of and barriers to achieving policy options and decide on the appropriate
course of action. (CHSC 627, CHSC 642, CHSC 655, CHSC 677, CHSC 710, CHSC 714,
HSMG766)
Promote ethical and cultural competence concepts within diverse settings. (SPHL 603, CHSC
621, CHSC 642, CHSC 646, CHSC 661, CHSC 621, CHSC 627, CHSC 710, CHSC 714)
Demonstrate leadership and professionalism of written and oral skills for communicating with
different audiences in the context of professional public health activities. (SPHL Interdisciplinary
Doctoral Seminar, CHSC 713, CHSC 714, CHSC 799, CHSC 626, CHSC 621, CHSC 627,
CHSC 651, CHSC 675, CHSC 677, CHSC 681, CHSC 682, CHSC 783)
Upon completion of the PhD in Community Health Sciences, the graduate should be able to:
1. Conduct independent theory-based scientific research in an academic or practice setting. (CHSC
783, CHSC 721, CHSC 727, CHSC 751, CHSC 775, SPHL 601, SPHL 990)
2. Demonstrate theoretical and analytical competencies in investigating community health problems
in a specialty area. (SPHL 601, SPHL 603, CHSC 713, CHSC 782, CHSC 721, CHSC 727,
CHSC 751, CHSC 775, CHSC 777, CHSC 651, BIOS 603, BIOS 604, BIOS 623 or 624, BIOS
706, BIOS 715, BIOS 760, INHL 626, EPID 603, EPID 626, EPID 712)
3. Apply theories and/or evidence based research to design, implement and evaluate community
health programs. (SPHL 603, CHSC 782, CHSC 721, CHSC 727, CHSC 742, CHSC 751, CHSC
761, SPHL 990)
4. Synthesize and analyze research results for the purpose of research communication and
dissemination. (INHL 626, CHSC 775, CHSC 651, BIOS 603, BIOS 604, BIOS 623 or 624, BIOS
706, BIOS 715, BIOS 760, EPID 603, EPID 626, EPID 712, SPHL 990)
5. Develop a well-rounded professional persona with a clear research focus, including
demonstrating ethical conduct, cultural competence and a sense of academic integrity. (SPHL
990, CHSC 721, CHSC 727, CHSC 751)
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
Degrees offered:
Professional degrees:
MPH in Environmental Health
MSPH in Environmental Health
Professional Degrees by Distance Learning:
MPH in Occupational and Environmental Health
02/01/10
Page 92
Section 2.6
MPH in Disaster Management (same competencies as the on-campus program)
MSPH in Industrial Hygiene (same competencies as the on-campus program)
Academic degree: PhD
Upon completion of the MPH in Environmental Health Science, the graduate will be able to:
1. Apply scientific principles to prevent, detect and mitigate environmental public health problems
and threats locally and globally. (ENHS 603, ENHS 660, ENHS 762)
2. Conduct public health analyses and investigations for innovative solutions to environmental
health issues. (ENHS 603, EPID603, BIOS603,SPHL603, ENHS700)
3. Investigate and monitor environmental hazards resulting from exposures to hazardous
substances in the environment. (ENHS 762, ENHS 651, ENHS 659)
4. *Apply international, federal, and state regulatory programs, guidelines and authorities to address
public health issues. (ENHS 775, ENHS 655, ENHS 647, ENHS 696)
5. *Conduct analyses of existing policies and regulations integrating public health science, policy,
and practice. (ENHS 775, ENHS 676, ENHS 655, ENHS 696)
6. *Evaluate the direct and indirect human, ecological and safety effects of major environmental
resource agents on human health. (ENHS 655, ENHS 647)
7. *Examine the role of policy in public health decision-making. (ENHS 647, ENHS 611, ENHS 696)
8. *Develop a policy framework to address a contemporary environmental health issue. (ENHS 775,
ENHS 611, ENHS 655, ENHS 696)
9. Âpply public health science, policy, and practice principles to address the health threats resulting
from natural and intentional disasters. (ENHS 775, ENHS 691, ENHS 791, ENHS 692)
10. Întegrate environmental public health strategies in the development, execution, and evaluation
of each core component of disaster management: preparedness, detection, response,
containment, and recovery. (ENHS 691, ENHS 694, ENHS 791)
11. Împlement population-based interventions to protect communities, particularly vulnerable
populations, from natural and intentional disasters. (ENHS 693, ENHS 643, ENHS 695, ENHS
795)
12. Êvaluate the capacity of public health systems to effectively and efficaciously respond to natural
and intentional disasters. (ENHS 693, ENHS 775, ENHS 643, ENHS 791)
*Competencies for elective course work in environmental policy
^Competencies for elective course work in disaster management
At the completion of the MSPH in Environmental Health, the graduate will be able to:
1. Recognize, evaluate and control environmental health problems. (ENHS 610, ENHS 660, ENHS
700, ENHS 762)
2. Apply environmental health principles to solve public health problems. (ENHS 610, ENHS 660,
ENHS 762)
3. Use quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate data. (ENHS 660, ENHS 762)
4. Provide environmental health services. (ENHS 762)
5. Interpret and evaluate research in environmental health. (ENHS 762)
6. Communicate environmental health concepts or concerns in writing or verbally to peer groups,
environmental health practitioners, and the public. (ENHS 700)
7. *Apply fundamental toxicology principles to elucidate mechanisms of actions in humans exposed
to hazardous substances. (ENHS 660, ENHS 661)
8. *Conduct a quantitative human health risk assessment. (ENHS 762, ENHS 766)
9. *Develop chemical-specific standards to inform policy at local, state and national levels. (ENHS
762)
02/01/10
Page 93
Section 2.6
10. *Apply risk communication skills to inform communities of potential health risks from exposure to
hazardous substances. (ENHS 668)
11. Êvaluate environmental health concerns including water quality, waste management and
resource sustainability using basic concepts of mitigation. (ENHS 604, ENHS 640, ENHS 650,
12. ^Perform fate and transport field and laboratory evaluation to assess the toxicity and the
chemical, physical, and biological interactions to pollution. (ENHS 652, ENHS 656, ENHS 603,
ENHS 740, ENHS 610, ENHS 754, ENHS 600, ENHS 663)
13. Âpply innovative techniques for water, wastewater and residuals management. (ENHS 641,
ENHS 753, ENHS 651, ENHS 610, ENHS 754, ENHS 702, ENHS 667)
14. ^Describe methods for assessment, prevention and control of biological, chemical and physical
environmental health problems related to the rapid global industrialization. (ENHS 641, ENHS
753, ENHS 604, ENHS 603, ENHS 610, ENHS 766)
15. ^Design technologies to providing safe food,water, and waste in developing countries with a
focus on small communities. (ENHS 641, ENHS 651, ENHS 753, ENHS 603, ENHS 640, ENHS
604, ENHS 610)
*Competencies for elective course work in toxicology and risk assessment
^Competencies for elective course work in global environmental health
MSPH in Industrial Hygiene (Offered on-campus and by distance learning)
At the completion of the MSPH in Industrial Hygiene, the graduate will be able to:
1. Use basic scientific and engineering principles to anticipate and identify potential hazards in the
workplace. (ENHS 620, ENHS 672)
2. Apply the methods and techniques of analytical chemistry and other measurement sciences to
quantify the degree of hazard of identified occupational health stressors. (ENHS 662, ENHS 711,
3. Interpret toxicology literature and health data and incorporate these into the management of
occupational health hazards. (ENHS 660, ENHS 762)
4. Apply principles of engineering in the design of appropriate controls for workplace hazards, with
emphasis on general and local exhaust ventilation. (ENHS 711, ENHS 714)
5. Select, evaluate, and manage the use of appropriate types of personal protective equipment for
control of worker exposures. (ENHS 714, ENHS 721, ENHS 711)
6. Utilize critical thinking in the development, management, and evaluation of industrial hygiene
programs. (ENHS 672, ENHS 714)
7. Communicate to labor, management, and the community, verbally and in writing, the nature,
risks, and remediation of workplace and environmental hazards. (ENHS 662, ENHS 668)
8. Interpret and assure compliance with applicable government regulations and standards pertaining
to occupational safety and health. (ENHS 721, ENHS 711)
MPH in Occupational Health and Safety Management (Distance Learning only)
At the completion of the MPH in Occupational Health and Safety Management, the graduates will be
able to:
1. Apply and evaluate the role of the functions of planning, organizing, staffing, leading, controlling
and evaluating health and safety programs. (ENHS 723)
2. Discuss and analyze the effect of managerial roles, styles, activities and decision-making as well
as the relationship between management and organizational effectiveness. (ENHS 724, HSMG
603)
3. Demonstrate facility with various management responsibilities such as Total Quality Management
(TQM), employee ownership, resource management, personnel evaluations, and goal setting.
(ENHS 723, ENHS 724, ENHS 728)
4. Integrate skills in environmental and hazardous materials management, emergency planning and
02/01/10
Page 94
Section 2.6
response, crisis communications, accident investigation, risk assessments, perception and
communication. (ENHS 643, ENHS 671, ENHS 722)
5. Design a risk management plan considering economics and risk/benefit analysis, comparative
risk assessment, and laws and regulations pertaining to risk assessment. (ENHS 726, ENHS
731)
6. Demonstrate methods of systematically integrating health and safety programs into standard
management systems used by organizations. (ENHS 723, ENHS 724)
7. Integrate the leadership roles involved in strategic planning, project management, management
of multi-disciplinary teams, and regulatory affairs management. (ENHS 723, ENHS 724, ENHS
731)
8. Direct activities in voluntary standards systems, professional ethics, labor relations, contracts and
“selling” health and safety initiatives to all levels of the organization and the public. (ENHS 724)
9. Apply the business principles of budgeting and finance to health and safety programs. (ENHS
726)
10. Demonstrate knowledge and evaluation of leading occupational disease hazards, their
assessment and control and integrate into a managerial perspective. (ENHS 720)
11. Demonstrate use of statistical methodology in the health and safety field. (BIOS 603, EPID
603)
MPH in Occupational and Environmental Health (Distance Learning only)
At the completion of the MPH in Occupational Health and Safety Management, the graduates will be able
to:
1. Identify, evaluate and manage the effects of occupational hazards on worker health. (ENHS 672,
ENHS 720)
2. Identify, characterize and assess the health effects of chemical agent found in the workplace and
in the general environment on workers and the general population. (ENHS 660, ENHS 603)
3. Interpret the impact of chemical exposures on workers and general populations health within the
frame work of the route of exposure, estimated dose, duration and frequency of exposure and the
acute and chronic effects of the agent. (ENHS 660, ENHS 762)
4. Interpret exposure assessment conducted by industrial hygienists and/or other health and safety
professionals. (ENHS 672, BIOS 603)
5. Conduct work and chemical exposure histories within the framework of the individuals’ medical
history. (ENHS 720)
6. Utilize population data from hazard and medical surveillance to prevent negative health effects in
the workplace, (EPID 603, ENHS 729)
7. Integrate health promotion, wellness applications and health education into occupational
programs. (SPHL 603, ENHS 605, ENHS 720)
8. Design, implement and evaluate primary, secondary and tertiary prevention applications including
clinical, behavior and environmental interventions for the protection of worker health. (SPHL 603,
ENHS 605)
9. Apply basic concepts of management to plan, budget, and organize occupational health
programs. (HSMG 601, HSMG 603)
10. Demonstrate written and oral communication skills for reaching a variety of target audiences
including workers and patients, managers and H&S professionals, and other scientists and
clinicians. (HSMG 601, SPHL 603, ENHS 605)
MPH in Disaster Management (On-campus and Distance Learning)
At the completion of the MPH in Disaster Management, the graduate will be able to:
1. Apply scientific principles to prevent, detect and mitigate environmental public health problems
and threats locally and globally. (ENHS 603, ENHS 660, ENHS 762)
2. Conduct public health analyses and investigations for innovative solutions to environmental
health issues. (ENHS 603, EPID603, BIOS603,SPHL603, ENHS700)
02/01/10
Page 95
Section 2.6
3. Investigate and monitor environmental hazards resulting from exposures to hazardous
substances in the environment. (ENHS 762, ENHS 651, ENHS 659)
4. Apply public health science, policy, and practice principles to address the health threats resulting
from natural and intentional disasters. (ENHS 775, ENHS 691, ENHS 791, ENHS 692)
5. Integrate environmental public health strategies in the development, execution, and evaluation of
each core component of disaster management: preparedness, detection, response, containment,
and recovery. ENHS 691, ENHS 694, ENHS 791)
6. Implement population-based interventions to protect communities, particularly vulnerable
populations, from natural and intentional disasters. (ENHS 693, ENHS 643, ENHS 695, ENHS
795)
7. Evaluate the capacity of public health systems to effectively and efficaciously respond to natural
and intentional disasters. (ENHS 693, ENHS 775, ENHS 643, ENHS 791)
At the completion of the PhD in Environmental Health Sciences, the graduate will be able to:
1. Design original environmental health research employing, in a multidisciplinary fashion, key areas
of science including toxicology, industrial hygiene, global environmental health, environmental
oncology, environmental policy, or disaster management. (ENHS 660, ENHS 762, ENHS 661,
ENHS 786, ENHS 750, ENHS 754, ENHS 656, ENHS 791, ENHS 693, ENHS 711)
2. Generate data to address local and global environmental health problems. (ENHS 660, ENHS
762, ENHS 661, ENHS 786, ENHS 750, ENHS 754, ENHS 656, ENHS 791, ENHS 693, ENHS
711, ENHS 693, ENHS 775, ENHS 650, ENHS 795)
3. Collect environmental and health data to assess the impact of hazardous substances on
populations and the ecosystem. (ENHS 660, ENHS 762, ENHS 661, ENHS 786, ENHS 750,
ENHS 754, ENHS 656, ENHS 791, ENHS 693, ENHS 711, ENHS 693, ENHS 775, ENHS
650,ENHS 647)
4. Analyze data to test hypotheses designed to fill a knowledge gap in environmental health science.
(ENHS 660, ENHS 762, ENHS 775, ENHS 791, ENHS 651, ENHS 661, ENHS 750)
5. Synthesize research conclusions and recommendations to address a multidisciplinary
environmental health research. (ENHS 676)
6. Disseminate environmental research findings through publications in the peer reviewed literature.
(ENHS 700)
7. Communicate complex environmental health research findings to peers, communities and other
stakeholders. (ENHS 700)
Department of Epidemiology
Degrees offered:
Professional degrees:
MPH in Epidemiology
Academic degrees:
MS in Epidemiology
PhD in Epidemiology
MPH in Epidemiology
At the completion of the MPH in Epidemiology, the graduates will be able to:
1. Pose the appropriate research question or questions when given a public health or medical problem
requiring an epidemiological investigation. (EPID 605, EPID 626, EPID 712)
2. Select the appropriate study design to answer the research question. (EPID 712)
02/01/10
Page 96
Section 2.6
3. Identify demographic, social/behavioral and environmental factors which have an impact on the
problem under investigation. (EPID 603, EPID 626, ENHS 603, SPHL 603)
4. Specify the data needed to answer the question including data on possible confounding factors
identified above. (EPID 626, EPID 712)
5. Write a study protocol detailing the objectives and methods for such an investigation. (EPID 605,
EPID 624)
6. Identify the sources of health data such as demographic reports, vital statistics records, disease
registries, and clinic and hospital records and how to access these sources. (EPID 603, EPID
624, EPID 712)
7. Interpret health status indices based on these data, such as mortality and morbidity rates. (EPID
603)
8. Plan, organize, and manage procedures for collecting data from existing sources as well as
original sources such as household surveys or subjects identified for specific studies. (EPID 624,
EPID 626, BIOS 725)
9. Use computer software for data processing preparatory to statistical analysis. (EPID 623)
10. Analyze data using appropriate statistical techniques under the guidance of someone with more
advanced training. (BIOS 603, BIOS 604)
11. Interpret the results in consultation with an investigator experienced in the problem area. (EPID
712)
12. Critique epidemiologic literature for strengths and weaknesses of the methodology in published
studies. (EPID 712)
13. Discuss from knowledge of the literature the epidemiology in a chosen area of concentration,
namely chronic diseases, infectious diseases, environmental, reproductive or behavioral
epidemiology. (elective course in chosen concentration area)
MS in Epidemiology
At the completion of the MS program in Epidemiology, graduates will be able to:
1. Define the concepts and contents of epidemiology. (EPID 603)
2. Formulate a research hypothesis. (EPID 603)
3. Determine study aim, objectives and appropriate study design to address the hypothesis. (EPID
603)
4. Identify risk and/or preventive factors that may contribute to outcomes and incorporate them into
a research study. (EPID 712, EPID 713)
5. Use computers to collect, manage and analyze data for evaluation of hypotheses. (EPID 623,
EPID 713)
6. Evaluate the use of questionnaires and measurement instruments in collection of data to maintain
internal validity. (EPID 712)
7. Use existing databases to provide background or supportive data to address research questions.
(EPID 998 Thesis)
8. Analyze data to compose an understandable and presentable report of the results. (BIOS 604,
BIOS 706, BIOS 715)
9. Perform ethical research. (EPID 998 Thesis)
At the completion of the MS program in Clinical Research, graduates will be able to:
1. Define the concepts and contents of epidemiology; formulate research hypothesis; determine study
aim, objectives and appropriate study design to test hypothesis. (EPID 603)
2. Define ethics and regulations in relation to clinical trials; define and develop clinical trial design.
(BMSP 643)
3. Analyze the business aspects and personnel management required for successful clinical trials
and formulate appropriate. (SOP BMSP 643)
02/01/10
Page 97
Section 2.6
4. Identify areas of career development in relation to clinical research. (BMSP 643)
5. Memorize fundamental knowledge of tissue architecture, cell signaling, cell organization and
function, cell growth, protein processing, basic anatomy and physiology of organ systems,
principles of medical therapeutics. (BMSP 777, BMSP 607)
6. Identify risk and/or preventive factors that may contribute to outcomes and incorporate them into
a research study. (EPID 712, EPID 713)
7. Assess the use of questionnaires and measurement instruments in collection of data to maintain
validity in a clinical trial. (EPID 712, EPID 713)
8. Utilize computers to collect, manage and analyze data for evaluation of hypotheses. (EPID 623,
EPID 713)
9. Demonstrate ability to identify new funding opportunities, conduct a CRISP search for funded
projects and be able to navigate the NIH website. (BMSP 609)
10. Identify the NIH requirements for grant submission and exhibit proficiency in preparing all the
components of an NIH grant proposal. Define and understand the peer review process. (BMSP
609)
11. Define DNA structure and gene expression, chromosomes, Mendelian Inheritance, and
techniques for genetic analysis. Investigate gene organization, molecular pathology, gene
mapping, cancer genetics. Recognize how gene based therapies will impact medicine, including
gene therapy and pharmacogenomics. (BMSP 608)
12. Analyze data to compose an understandable and presentable report of the results. (BIOS 604)
13. Practice ethical research; demonstrate clinical research proficiency via NIH grant submission
and/or peer reviewed journal article submission and acceptance. (BMSP/EPID 998 Thesis)
At the completion of the DrPH program in Clinical Research, graduates will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Discuss major epidemiologic public health problems and controversies. (EPID 700 [Departmental
seminar], EPID 799 [Independent study])
Demonstrate expertise in at least one content area of epidemiology. (EPID 621, EPID 622, EPID
633, EPID 642, EPID 648, EPID 709, EPID 721, EPID 741, EPID 781, EPID 799 [Independent
study])
Exhibit proficiency in epidemiologic surveillance, program design and evaluation. (EPID 626,
EPID 675, EPID 613, CHSC 612, INHL 624, EPID 712, EPID 713)
Conduct ethical and scientifically sound applied research. (EPID 997 [Dissertation])
Demonstrate leadership and professionalism of written and oral skills for communicating with
different audiences in the context of public health. (EPID 997 [Dissertation], EPID 700
[Departmental seminar], Practicum, attendance at professional meetings)
PhD in Epidemiology
At the completion of the DrPH program in Clinical Research, graduates will be able to:
1. Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of basic and advanced concepts of Epidemiology. (EPID 603,
EPID 712, EPID 713, EPID 626, EPID 730, EPID 695)
2. Exhibit proficiency in grant writing and protocol development. (EPID 626,EPID 605)
3. Exhibit proficiency in advanced data analysis skills. (EPID 623, EPID 712, EPID 713, BIOS 715,
BIOS 715, BIOS 708, 730 or 740)
4. Exhibit proficiency in ethical and scientifically sound study design and conduct. (EPID 603, EPID
712, EPID 695, EPID 730, EPID 997 [Dissertation])
5. Demonstrate mastery of critical evaluation of the scientific literature. (EPID 712, EPID 713,
Journal club, EPID 997 [Dissertation])
6. Demonstrate excellence in scientific writing. Dissertation work (3 paper format)
02/01/10
Page 98
Section 2.6
Department of Health Systems Management
Degrees offered:
Professional Degrees:
MPH^
MHA
Academic Degree:
PhD
Executive Professional degrees:
MMM
MPH (Taiwan Asia Elite leadership (TAEL)^
ScD
MPH in Health Systems Management (On-campus and in Taiwan (TAEL) ^
At the completion of the MPH program in Health Systems Management, graduates will be able to:
1. Engage in planning and decision-making, organizing, supervising, monitoring and evaluating a
non-profit or government organization’s human, fiscal, physical, and information resources to
achieve organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner. (BIOS 603, EPID 603, HSMG
603, HSMG 632, HSMG 637, HSMG 645, HSMG 650, HSMG 675, HSMG 754, SPHL 998)
2. Provide organizational leadership, vision and direction through effective team building,
interpersonal and communications skills, including the ability to judge what needs to be
communicated, and how communication should take place. (HSMG 603, HSMG 632, HSMG 637,
HSMG 645, HSMG 650, HSMG 675, HSMG 754, SPHL 795, SPHL 998)
3. Assess and advocate for the health needs and expectations of groups of major and diverse
community stakeholders based on a broad knowledge of population health and health systems
and its implications for government, institutional, and community policy formulation. (BIOS 603,
ENHS 603, EPID 603, HSMG 603, SPHL 601, SPHL 603, HSMG 632, HSMG 645, SPHL 795,
SPHL 998)
^ The on-campus MPH and TAEL MPH have the same competencies
MHA - Master in Health Administration
Upon completion of the MHA program in Health Systems Management, graduates will be able to:
1. Develop and define a vision and guide individuals and groups toward that vision while maintaining
group cohesiveness, motivation, commitment, ethical standards and effectiveness. (BIOS 603,
ENHS 603, EPID 603, HSMG 617, HSMG 619, HSMG 621, HSMG 632, HSMG 637, HSMG 650,
HSMG 675, HSMG 684, HSMG 691, HSMG 692, HSMG 717, HSMG 754, HSMG 758, HSMG
766, HSMG 771, HSMG 791, HSMG 792)
2. Participate in planning and decision-making, organizing, leading, and controlling an organization’s
human, financial, physical, and information resources to achieve organizational goals in an efficient
and effective manner. (BIOS 603, ENHS 603, EPID 603, HSMG 617, HSMG 619, HSMG 632,
HSMG 637, HSMG 650, HSMG 675, HSMG 684, HSMG 692, HSMG 717, HSMG 754, HSMG 758,
HSMG 771, HSMG 791, HSMG 792)
3. Effectively transfer information in oral, written, and non-verbal form to others, including the ability
to judge what needs to be communicated, when it needs to be communicated, to whom, how and
how much, and where this communication should take place. (BIOS 603, ENHS 603, EPID 603,
SPHL 601, HSMG 603, HSMG 617, HSMG 619, HSMG 621, HSMG 632, HSMG 637, HSMG
645, HSMG 650, HSMG 675, HSMG 684, HSMG 691, HSMG 692, HSMG 717, HSMG 754,
HSMG 755, HSMG 766, HSMG 771, HSMG 791, HSMG 792)
4. Formulate the right questions, think logically and independently, conceptualize and problem solve
in an unstructured environment. (BIOS 603, ENHS 603, EPID 603, SPHL 601, SPHL 603, HSMG
HSMG 692, HSMG 717, HSMG 754, HSMG 755, HSMG 758, HSMG 771, HSMG 791, HSMG
792)
02/01/10
Page 99
Section 2.6
5. Assess the impact of health policy on major and diverse community and organizational
stakeholders and its implications for organizational response, initiatives, and direction. (ENHS
603, EPID 603, HSMG 603, HSMG 621, HSMG 637, HSMG 650, HSMG 684, HSMG 754, HSMG
755, HSMG 766)
6. Recognize and analyze health system and sub-system properties, processes, and outputs, and
the dynamic interactions within the system and with the external environment. (BIOS 603, ENHS
603, EPID 603, HSMG 603, HSMG 617, HSMG 619, HSMG 621, HSMG 632, HSMG 637, HSMG
HSMG 766, HSMG 771, HSMG 791, HSMG 792)
7. Develop, implement, manage, and evaluate economic and financial models to plan and guide the
organization to achieve its strategic goals and objectives. (BIOS 603, ENHS 603, EPID 603,
SPHL 601, HSMG 603, HSMG 619, HSMG 621, HSMG 632, HSMG 637, HSMG 645, HSMG
HSMG 771, HSMG 791, HSMG 792)
Masters of Medical Management (MMM) in Health Systems Management (Executive Program)
(No additional cohorts will be opened for the MMM after Jan 2010.) Upon completion of the executive
MMM program, the graduate should be able to:
1. Interpret health status of populations, determinants of health and illness, and factors influencing
the use of health care and medical care services. (BIOS 603, EPID 603, EMMM 771, SPHL 603,
EMMM 655, HSMG 603, ENHS 603)
2. Analyze the organization, financing, and delivery of health services to understand the position of
one’s own organization. (HSMG 603, EMMM 651, EMMM 633, EMMM 638, EMMM 658, EMMM
650, EMMM 654, EMMM 758)
3. Interpret and apply accounting, finance, policy, and quantitative analysis in pursing cost-effective
and quality care. (EMMM 651, EMMM 658, EMMM 650, EMMM 654, EMMM 758, EMMM 771)
4. Develop knowledge on positioning organizations within their business environment and managing
these organizations for continued effectiveness. (EMMM 617, EMMM 632, EMMM 613/713,
EMMM 635, EMMM 614/714)
5. Develop interpersonal communication and leadership skills around team-work and medical
accountability. (EMMM 632, EMMM 633, EMMM 638, EMMM 613/713)
6. Apply managerial skills in human resources and with patient populations (create ethical and
responsive environment). (EMMM 633, EMMM 638, EMMM 635)
7. Apply performance measurement, quality improvement, and information systems in medical
settings. (EMMM 614/714, EMMM 771)
ScD in Health System Management (Executive Program)
Upon completion of the executive ScD program, the graduate should be able to:
1. Design research projects. (ESCD 777, ESCD 778, ESCD 779)
2. Apply advanced methods in data analysis. (ESCD 779, ESCD 771, ESCD 743, ESCD 773, ESCD
775)
3. Apply higher level statistical theory and application. (ESCD 779, ESCD 773, ESCD 775)
4. Analyze health sector management and policy issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
(ESCD 771, ESCD 751)
5. Interpret the process of health policy analysis and health policy making. (ESCD 771, ESCD 761,
ESCD 731)
6. Analyze health services research and health management issues from economic and social
perspectives. (ESCD 761, ESCD 731, ESCD 751)
7. Appraise and utilize appropriate analytical approaches. (ESCD 779, ESCD 778, ESCD 777)
8. Manage and analyze large data sets. (ESCD 779, ESCD 773, ESCD 775, ESCD 780)
9. Apply ethical standards in research and data analysis. (ESCD 777, ESCD 778)
02/01/10
Page 100
Section 2.6
10. Utilize core skills in the areas of health systems management, health policy and health outcomes
research. (ESCD 771, ESCD 761, ESCD 731, ESCD 751)
11. Demonstrate ability to write scholarly publications and grant applications. (Dissertation research
and directed reading stage)
12. Demonstrate ability to present research methodology and research findings orally in formal settings.
(Dissertation research, defending dissertation, presentations in class or outside)
PhD in Health System Management
After completion of the PhD program in Health Systems Management, the graduate will be able to:
1. Demonstrate ability to design research projects. (ESCD 777 or HSMG 777, BIOS 604, EPID 712,
ESCD 778, ESCD 779, BIOS 760, EPID 624 or INHL 624, EPID 731)
2. Demonstrate ability to apply advanced methods in data analysis. (BIOS 604, ESCD 779, HSMG
715 or ESCD 771, ESCD 743 or HSMG 743, ESCD 773, ESCD 775, EPID 731, BIOS 782)
3. Apply higher level statistical theory and application. (BIOS 604, EPID 712, ESCD 779, ESCD
773, ESCD 775, BIOS 745, BIOS 725, EPID 624 or INHL 624, BIOS 782)
4. Analyze health sector management and policy issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
(HSMG 715 or ESCD 771, HSMG 717, HSMG 645, ESCD 761, HSMG 755, HSMG 766, HSMG
637 or ESCD 731, HSMG 771)
5. Interpret the process of health policy analysis and health policy making, HSMG 645, HSMG 637
or ESCD 731, HSMG 755, HSMG 754, HSMG 758
6. Analyze health services research and health management issues from economic and social
perspectives. (HSMG 645, ESCD 779, ESCD 778, HSMG 755, EPID 624 or INHL 624, EPID 731)
7. Appraise and utilize analytical approaches. (BIOS 604, BIOS 725, BIOS 745, ESCD 779, ESCD
773, ESCD 775, ESCD 780)
8. Demonstrate ability to handle and analyze large data sets. (HSMG 777 or ESCD 777, HSMG
771, HSMG 637 or ESCD 731)
9. Apply ethical standards in research and data analysis. (HSMG 777 or ESCD 777, HSMG 771,
HSMG 637 or ESCD 731)
10. Utilize core skills in the areas of health systems management, health policy and health outcomes
research. (HSMG 771 or ESCD 771, HSMG 637 or ESCD 731, HSMG 645, ESCD 743)
11. Demonstrate ability to write scholarly publications and grant applications. (Dissertation research
and directed reading stage)
12. Demonstrate ability to teach in at least one specific areas of health system management, health
policy, health economics, etc. (Teach in courses as part of requirements of doctoral study)
13. Demonstrate ability to present research methodology and research findings orally in formal
settings. (Participation in seminars, research presentations in conferences)
Department of International Health and Development
Degrees offered:
Professional degree: MPH in International Health
Academic degrees: PhD in International Health
MPH in International Health and Development
Upon completion of the MPH in International Health and Development, the graduate will be able to:
1. Identify target populations or subgroups that require specific intervention approaches using
demographic, epidemiologic and economic analysis. (INHL 605, INHL 624)
2. Design population, health, environmental and/or public nutrition programs/projects in the context
of national and international policy. (INHL 604, INHL 605, INHL 611, Public Health Analysis,
Thesis, Culminating Experience)
3. Incorporate cultural factors in the design and implementation of projects/programs. (Practicum)
02/01/10
Page 101
Section 2.6
4. Assess critically strategic obstacles to successful social change in these sectors. (SPHL 603,
INHL 605)
5. Evaluate developmental programs/projects in terms of their quality, effectiveness and efficiency
using qualitative and quantitative research techniques. (INHL 604, INHL 605, INHL 624, INHL
725, Practicum, Culminating Experience)
6. Utilize state-of-the-art information technologies in the design and monitoring of programs/projects.
(INHL 622, INHL 624,INHL 626, INHL 645, INHL 675, INHL 702, INHL 709, INHL 712, INHL 713, INHD
713, INHL 725, INHL 7920)
7. Access and utilize effectively the programming resources of local, national, and international
organizations engaged in social sector activities. (INHL 605, Practicum)
At the completion of the PhD in International Health and Development, graduates will be able to:
1. Identify significant health problems and related research questions in the international domain
that require interdisciplinary research. (INHL 705, INHL 725, EPID 703, EPID 712 and acting as
teaching assistants, and SPHTM Doctoral Seminar )
2. Conceive, design and implement field research and data analysis to address these questions and
problems. (INHL 705, INHL 725, EPID 712, Independent study with faculty member, prospectus
preparation and INHD Doctoral Journal Club)
3. Summarize, synthesize, interpret and communicate scientific findings. (INHL 645. INHL 725,
INHL 624)
4. Advise public health and development professionals based on interdisciplinary population-based
research in his/her specialty area. (Field work and advanced methods course in EPID or BIOS)
5. Train practitioners and graduate students in the methods and substance of applied public health,
population-based research, and quantitative methods. (Observing faculty teaching, Observe
faculty presentations of research, attend present at conferences)
6. Teach at the graduate level in schools of public health in his/her area of specialization
(substantive, regional and methodological). (Give guest lectures in appropriate courses)
Department of Tropical Medicine
Degrees offered:
Professional degree: MPH&TM
MSPH
Academic degrees: PhD
MPH&TM
Upon completion of the MPH&TM in Tropical Medicine, the graduate will be able to:
1. Describe the clinical aspects of the major tropical infectious diseases, including their descriptive
epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, diagnostic methods, and treatment. Tropical
infectious diseases include parasitic, bacterial, mycobacterial, viral, fungal, rickettsial, and
HIV/AIDS-related infections. (TRMD 631, TRMD 633, TRMD 636, TRMD 605, TRMD 607)
2. Demonstrate an understanding about the clinical approach to specific disease syndromes
commonly seen in the tropics, such as fever, hepatosplenomegaly, and altered sensorium.
(TRMD 631, TRMD 636)
3. Describe the diagnosis and management of nutritional deficiencies in both children and adults.
(TRMD 631, TRMD 636)
4. Perform routine diagnostic tests for tropical diseases using a microscope, including hematologic,
bacteriologic, and parasitologic studies. (TRMD 634, TRMD 609)
5. Diagnose and treat non-infectious diseases or conditions common in the tropics, including food
and venomous creature intoxications, heat disorders, high-altitude illness, and tropical
dermatological problems. (TRMD 631, TRMD 636)
6. Describe the basics of pre-travel counseling and disease prevention, including immunizations,
02/01/10
Page 102
Section 2.6
malaria prophylaxis, and diarrhea management. (TRMD 631, TRMD 636)
7. Demonstrate the appropriate use of radiologic studies in the management of tropical diseases,
including x-irradiation (X-rays) and more sophisticated techniques (ultrasound, CT, MRI, contrast
studies). (TRMD 631, TRMD 636)
8. Train and supervise paramedical personnel such as nurse practitioners and health promoters in
the management of common tropical disease syndromes, identification of ill or at-risk children
through neonatal examination and growth monitoring, basic follow-up of pregnant women with
criteria for referral, and immunization programs. (TRMD 631, TRMD 632 or 635)
9. Describe the principles of infectious disease transmission in communities and develop strategies
for outbreak control at the community and regional level. (TRMD 632 or 635)
Upon completion of the MSPH in Tropical medicine, the graduate will be able to:
1. Describe the basic biology and clinical manifestations of infections caused by parasitic helminths and
protozoa, including morphological features, host-parasite interactions, geographic distribution,
methods of transmission and control, pathology, and diagnosis. (TRMD 605, TRMD 607)
2. Describe the general anatomy, physiology, and taxonomy of arthropods and their role in the
transmission of pathogens causing human disease, including epidemiology, pathogenesis, and
methods of vector control. (TRMD 606)
3. Describe the cells and tissues of the immune system and mechanisms of innate and adaptive
immunity, including cell-mediated and antibody-mediated immune responses and the complement
system; and describe the mechanisms of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions and transplant
rejection. (TRMD 617)
4. Describe the basic principles of biochemical, molecular, and immunological techniques used in
biomedical research. (TRMD 623, TRMD 624)
5. Perform routine diagnostic tests for tropical diseases using a microscope, including hematologic,
bacteriologic, and parasitologic studies. (TRMD 609, TRMD 634)
Upon completion of the PhD in Tropical Medicine (Parasitology), the graduate will be able to:
1. Plan and carry out research projects on various aspects of tropical diseases in the community.
(BIOS 6030, BIOS 6040; BIOS 7080, EPID 6030, EPID 7120, TRMD 6050, TRMD 6060, TRMD
6070, TRMD 6080, TRMD 6090, TRMD 6780, TRMD 7800, TRMD 7820, TRMD 7990, lab
rotations, dissertation research)
2. Plan, implement, and monitor programs for the control of tropical diseases in endemic areas.
(BIOS 6030, BIOS 6040; BIOS 7080, INHL 6240, EPID 6030, EPID 7120, TRMD 7990,
dissertation research)
3. Analyze the results of their own research, as well as the research of others as reported in the
literature. (BIOS 6030, BIOS 6040; BIOS 7080, EPID 6030, EPID 7120, dissertation research)
4. Communicate effectively in written and oral format the results and implications of research
outcomes. (TRMD 7000, TRMD 7020, TRMD 7800, TRMD 7820, INHL 6370, SPHL
9900, journal club, departmental and other invited seminars dissertation manuscripts)
5. Direct an infectious disease diagnostic laboratory in a hospital, clinic or local, regional or national
governmental health agency. (TRMD 6050, TRMD 6060, TRMD 6070, TRMD 6080, TRMD 6090,
TRMD 6170, TRMD 6230, TRMD 6240, TRMD 6340, TRMD 6420, TRMD 6800, TRMD 7180, lab
rotations)
6. Train laboratory personnel in the detection and identification of parasites in clinical specimens,
the diagnosis of other tropical infectious diseases and the methodology employed. (TRMD 6050,
TRMD 6060, TRMD 6070, TRMD 6080, TRMD 6090, TRMD 6230, TRMD 6240, TRMD 6340,
TRMD 7990, lab rotations, dissertation research)
02/01/10
Page 103
Section 2.6
7. Train field workers in the techniques used for research projects and control programs. (TRMD
6050, TRMD 6060, TRMD 6070, TRMD 6080, TRMD 6090, TRMD 6230, TRMD 6240, TRMD
6340, lab rotations)
8. Teach learned expertise, in both academic and professional meeting settings, to advanced
students and peers. (TRMD 7000, TRMD 7020, TRMD 7800, TRMD 7820, journal club,
departmental and other invited seminars)
Bridging Competencies for Joint Degree Programs
Competencies for the public health degree portion of a joint degree program are identical to the
competencies for the separate public health degree as indicated in the departmental listings above. In
addition, the bridging competencies given below express the value added to the public health degree
through the second graduate degree offered in the joint program as follows:
Bridging Competency for all MD/MPH Programs: The competency that bridges the public health
curriculum with the medical school curriculum is that MD/MPH students graduate from the MD/MPH
program with the ability to use educational experiences in the School of Medicine to apply populationbased and public health findings and principles in assessing individuals and groups at risk of disease
and injury and to translate these findings and principles into recommendations and actions for improved
health in clinical practice settings.
Departmental Bridging Competencies:
• JD/MPH: Advocate for public health policies and/or programs using legal skills.
• MSW/MSPH: Utilize clinical social work skills to affect individual health behavior change.
MSW/MPH:
• Apply psychosocial principles and methods with individuals, families and groups in community
and organizational settings to address presenting issues and affect change on multiple levels.
• Implement evidence-based bio-psychosocial assessments and interventions with individuals,
families, groups, communities and organizations in a community-based agency setting.
•
•
JD/MSPH:
Apply international, federal, and state regulatory programs, guidelines and authorities to address
public health issues.
Conduct analyses of existing policies and regulations integrating public health science, policy,
and practice
MHA/JD:
• Develop greater technical depth in analytic skills required to understand the language,
procedures, and political context for legislation, regulation, and legal interpretations thereof that
affects health care delivery (1LAW111, 1LAW108, 1LAW116, 1LAW141, 4LAW528).
• Interpret and apply the key law and regulation affecting the financing and delivery of health care
services, including, at the federal level, EMTALA, HIPAA, ADA, ERISA, FCA, Fraud and Abuse,
and Stark, as well as, at the state level, matters of licensure, quality assurance, and informed
consent (1LAW151, 1LAW108, 4LAW528).
• Assist health care delivery organizations in dealing managerially with institutional and
professional liability, community benefit requirements, and other care delivery matters directly
affected by legislation, regulation, and case law (1LAW121, 1LAW151, 1LAW136, 4LAW528).
02/01/10
Page 104
Section 2.6
MHA/MBA:
• Develop increased mastery of the disciplines and tools of accounting, finance, entrepreneurship,
business statistics, operations and strategic management, consumer behavior, and marketing
through business applications to sectors other than health care (ACCN 601, FINE 611, MGMT
621, MGMT 622, MKTG 601, MCOM 601) .
MSW/MPH
• Using the social sector as a framework and incorporating sociological methods, students in the
MSW/MPH program in IHD will be able to identify target populations or subgroups that require
specific intervention approaches; design programs/projects in the context of national and
international policy; incorporate cultural factors in their designs and management; assess critically
strategic obstacles to successful social change; and evaluate social development
programs/projects.
2.6 D Manner in which Competencies are Developed, Used and Made Available to Students
As a part of the university reorganization following Hurricane Katrina, SPHTM departments
reviewed their degrees and programs to determine those which should be maintained and those
which should be discontinued. As a part of the review, the department faculty assessed each
program to determine its relationship to the core mission of the university and school, feasibility of
combining or eliminating programs, and ensuring that programs were aligned with faculty capability
and resources. This process utilized a competency-based review process whereby competencies
were developed or updated within the overall framework of the school’s degree programs.
The ASPH competencies were used to provide an overarching context for MPH programs in the five
areas of public health. The departments responsible for core areas developed or updated competencies
for each core course. These were then reviewed and approved by the School’s Curriculum Committee
and ultimately by the General Faculty. Departmental faculty developed or updated specific program
competencies that reflect the focus of the program and faculty capability. In addition to drawing upon
nationally accepted competencies, SPHTM competencies are also derived from the faculty's experiences
in the field; work with public health and other agencies and partners; consultation with other public health
faculty; and experience on research and community-based projects. Job descriptions for advertised
public health positions are another resource used to identify competencies in demand. Both formal and
informal feedback from alumni regarding the tasks they perform in their jobs and the training received to
prepare them for these positions constitutes another source of information.
Program competencies form the framework for course development and the practice experiences
contained in the curriculum. Learning objectives for each course are tied to the program competencies.
Regular evaluation of course learning objectives is a means of assessing whether the overall program
competencies are met. Program competencies may be met in more than one course, thereby reinforcing
attainment of that particular competency. The student’s attainment of the program competencies and
ability to demonstrate knowledge and skills are monitored though performance in the courses, the
culminating experience, and practicum. Students formally evaluate courses and the instructors; these
evaluations are used by the faculty, departments and Curriculum Committee for continuous improvement
of the courses and programs.
Program competencies and degree requirements are available to students on the departmental websites,
the SPHTM catalog, and additional programmatic materials provided to students. Students receive
specific competencies and degree requirements during their orientation to the departments at first
enrollment, in consultation with their advisors. Instructors provide students with individual course
learning objectives.
02/01/10
Page 105
Section 2.6
In Spring 2007, the change in the MPH and other professional master’s degree requirements which
instituted a separate practicum and culminating experience caused confusion among both students and
faculty. The new requirements applied to students who entered the MPH program in the Spring 2007
semester; students who entered prior to January 1, 2007, were allowed to complete their degree under
the degree requirements for which they were admitted. This resulted in two sets of rules that applied to
sets of students for about 1½ years. Faculty advised students with two different requirements, and thus,
instructions were not always clear. Furthermore, students received information from other students who
also did not appear to understand the changes or to whom the changes applied. Recognizing that
confusion existed, SPHTM instituted a plan to communicate the changes in degree requirements to
faculty through: 1) General Faculty meetings; 2) faculty retreat; 3) advising workshops; and 4) Executive
Faculty wherein department chairs were to instruct their faculty on the new rules. The school and
departments reviewed competencies and made sure all degree requirements and program competencies
were clearly posted and also clarified the new requirements on their website. In addition, policies and
procedures for the practicum (Practicum Handbook) and detailed documents describing each option for
the culminating experience were placed on the SPHTM website. Once again, SPHTM mounted another
effort in the Fall 2009 to assure that all departments instruct faculty in the school and program
requirements and provide up-to-date information on departmental websites regarding course, practicum
and culminating experience requirements.
To monitor student understanding of the new requirements, the annual student survey asked students
about the clarity of information on degree requirements. The survey showed in Spring 2008 that 79% of
students felt they had clear information; in 2009, the percent increased slightly to 82%. The results,
when analyzed by department, showed mixed results with some departments indicating improved
understanding and others not. Analysis of the responses showed that those who were confused were
most likely to be 1st year students who had not yet begun to investigate their practicum and culminating
experience options. The survey indicated that some faculty were still not clear about the requirements
and did not provide clear information to students.
Table 2.6 D Percent of Students with Knowledge of Degree Requirements by Department
2008
2009
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
Know
1
All
64
44
30
72
57
38
50
Know
2
Some
18
37
15
22
38
41
23
Confused
18
4
11
0
0
3
11
3
Mixed
4
info
0
15
44
6
5
18
17
Know
1
All
64
46
24
48
19
48
35
Know
2
Some
36
41
57
33
48
34
47
SPHTM
48
31
6
15
35
47
1.
Clearly know all degree requirements.
2.
Know some requirements but are unclear on others.
3.
Confused about requirements and do not know where to get information.
4.
Get mixed information from website, advisors and others on requirements.
2.6 E
Confused
3
0
2
14
2
5
1
6
Mixed
4
info
0
11
5
17
28
17
12
6
12
Assessments of the Changing Needs of Public Health Practice to Establish the
Competencies for Educational Programs
SPHTM has policies and procedures to keep the curriculum up-to-date and responsive to public health
issues. The Curriculum Committee reviews each department curriculum every five years on a rotating
basis. For this review, the departmental faculty review and update each program and each course to
ensure that the competencies are current and relevant. A new requirement for the review of programs in
the last two years is for faculty to link courses to the program competencies; to link course leaning
02/01/10
Page 106
Section 2.6
objectives to program competencies; and within courses to link lectures to the course learning objectives.
Outcome measures for individual courses such as exams, papers, presentations, analyses of case
studies, etc. are linked to learning objectives. Thus, the link between competency and outcome measure
is complete. This process is designed to assist in the reviews and to prompt faculty to ensure all
competencies are adequately covered while updating courses.
Keeping programs relevant and responsive to public health issues is a goal of the program reviews. This
occurs in several ways. As the architects of the courses and curriculum, SPHTM’s faculty ultimately
bring new findings and emerging public health concepts into the teaching programs. Faculty research
foci predominantly center on public health problems and issues which are brought into the classroom.
SPHTM faculty are engaged in community-based research – locally to internationally – which generates
a discourse with the practice community which is then imported into the curriculum and incorporated into
course and program competencies. Input from community partners is integrated into the curriculum and
competencies. Within departments, community advisory boards, associated research, and intervention
projects provide a constant influx of topics that are translated by faculty into the classroom. Participation
in scientific meetings and conferences provides new information and ideas which can also be
incorporated into teaching programs.
Periodic alumni surveys and student evaluations also provide feedback that is used to revise and update
competencies. Our alumni are our best supporters and toughest critics. The alumni surveys provide
feedback and comments are particularly rich with advice and suggestions for improving the curriculum.
Student evaluations provide another source for assessing courses. As a part of course evaluation,
students provide essential feedback that is used to review departmental programs and courses. While
the faculty role is to lead students during their education, our students constantly push faculty by bringing
up current issues; this keeps faculty exploring new frontiers in public health.
2.6 F Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM has standardized its core courses, culminating experience and practicum
competencies so that all students in the professional degree programs (MPH, MSPH, MPH&TM, MMM,
DrPH and ScD) attain the established core public health competencies. No student graduates from a
professional program at SPHTM without demonstrating the core public health competencies. Students in
the academic programs must take the core course in biostatistics and epidemiology.
In addition, each program offered by the SPHTM has developed specific competencies that are listed in
this section of the self study. Learning objectives for individual courses are linked to program
competencies and can be found in the Curriculum Committee program review and course review
documents in the Resource File. The departments’ programs build upon the public health core
competencies in providing a course of study in specific focal areas. Some departments offer programs in
specialty areas. The programmatic curriculum is composed of well articulated competencies carried out
through carefully designed courses, culminating experiences and practica. These competencies provide
the breadth and depth of knowledge integrated with the practice experience to equip students with the
tools to pursue a career in these areas. At the end of their studies, students provide the departments
with their assessment of the program through an exit interview or survey.
SPHTM implemented the CEPH changes requiring the practicum as a separate requirement from the
culminating experience for all students entering January 2007. Feedback from students indicated some
did not have a clear understanding of the new requirements; SPHTM undertook several measures to
communicate the changes to both faculty and students. The student survey showed that while some
progress had been made in communicating degree requirements to students, work still needed to be
done. Changes to update the website with clearer statements of the requirements and faculty workshops
to educate faculty will contribute to this communication. The student survey was a useful tool to monitor
the level of student understanding of competencies and degree requirements and led to actions to
increase their knowledge of changes in competencies and degree requirements.
02/01/10
Page 107
Section 2.6
SPHTM has well-established policies and procedures for regularly reviewing and updating core and
public health competencies. The Curriculum Committee provides oversight that serves as a stimulus for
departments to conduct a formal review and update the curriculum, program and course competencies
every 5 years. Faculty research, community-based projects, partnerships with practitioners, and
participation in scientific conferences and meetings provide input to keep the curriculum relevant to
current public health issues and scientific findings. The Curriculum Committee and departmental chairs
monitor course evaluations for student responses to faculty and courses. The competencies and degree
requirements are communicated to students through orientation, the departmental website, and advising
sessions with faculty.
Students have ample opportunities to reinforce knowledge and skills acquired in introductory courses
with the provision of intermediate and advanced level courses. Further, the culminating experience and
practicum enable students to test their competencies while still under the guidance of the faculty.
Feedback from these experiences enables the faculty to monitor how well students are prepared and to
pinpoint any deficiencies in the curriculum that may need strengthening.
SPHTM has well-defined core public health competencies, learning experiences and outcomes to
determine if the competencies are met, and defined competencies for each program of study. SPHTM
also has a process for developing and reviewing competencies and for making them available to
students. Faculty integrate changing public health issues and findings into their courses; this leads to
updating program and course competencies.
02/01/10
Page 108
Section 2.7
Assessment Procedures
2.7 A Procedures used for monitoring and evaluating student progress in achieving the
expected competencies.
The advisor has the primary responsibility for monitoring student progress through their degree
requirements and the achievement of program competencies. Individual student progress is monitored
on several levels:
•
Courses: Each course is designed to develop competencies for each academic program. The
instructors monitor and evaluate student fulfillment of course learning objectives and attainment of
competencies.
• Course grades reflect the students’ ability in mastering material presented in course work and
are directly related to the course competencies.
•
A course grade of B or above, hence at least B's in all program courses, is considered
satisfactory progress. Students performing below this level are counseled by their advisor or
the course instructor midway through the course to assess any problems that might be
corrected. If necessary, the Departmental Chair, and then the Senior Associate Dean are
consulted.
•
Course grades are based on evaluation of students by exams, written and/or oral reports,
and/or student projects. Depending on the type of course, one or all of these evaluation
methods may be used.
•
Many courses require students to apply, and thereby synthesize, competencies acquired
across courses. These provide the opportunity to observe the students' abilities to integrate
competencies. Measures of students’ include;
o Student presentations at departmental seminars or as part of individual courses.
o Group projects in which students must work together and share learning experiences,
as is often the case in the field of public health practice.
•
Practicum: Develops practice skills in a practice setting. The student is evaluated by the preceptor
through a written evaluation of progress and field accomplishments. The preceptor monitors the
student’s achievement relative to the goals and objectives set forth prior to beginning the practicum.
The student’s advisor ensures that the student successfully achieves the stated objectives and
performs adequately during the experience.
•
Culminating experience: Demonstrates that students are able to synthesize knowledge across
their chosen field and apply it to problem solving. The choice of option (public health analysis, thesis
or comprehensive exam) for the culminating experience reflects the student’s academic program,
career goals or inclination toward one of the options. All options require students to integrate and
apply information and knowledge obtained in the classroom.
•
Academic Program: The academic advisor monitors student progress and achievement throughout
their academic program as evidenced by successful completion of all degree requirements including
courses, practicum, and culminating experience. If an advisor determines that a student has not
achieved or is weak in a competency, s/he may advise additional course work or special studies. The
need for such advice is rare as is evidenced by the student success in the core courses (see Table
2.7B1). The advisor evaluates student progress each semester and watches for signs of problems
that may be handled proactively.
02/01/10
Page 109
Section 2.7
Table 2.7 A1 Process for Monitoring and Evaluation of Individual Student Progress
Requirement
Courses
Evaluator
Instructor
Seminars or projects
Faculty
Practicum
Culminating Exp
Preceptor and
Advisor
Advisor
Program
Advisor
•
Student measure
Grade based on exams,
papers, presentations
Presentations, questions
asked
Performance in the field
Program proficiency
Knowledge of course
content
Synthesis of knowledge
Public Health Analysis; thesis;
Comprehensive exam
Progress through course plan,
course work, practicum and
culminating experience
Integration of knowledge
across public health areas
Successful completion of
all requirements
Practice skills
Doctoral Students: In addition to demonstrating the competencies required for master’s degree
programs, doctoral students are expected to achieve a higher degree of learning and demonstration
of more in-depth knowledge and skills. Doctoral student’s progress is monitored by:
• Instructors' evaluation of their performance in advanced level courses.
• Products produced in special studies and in research projects (reports, papers, journal
articles, presentations, etc.).
• Service as teaching assistants.
• Comprehensive examinations. The comprehensive examination is a key mechanism for
monitoring student progress in doctoral programs. Doctoral students must pass the qualifying
examinations before being allowed to develop a research prospectus and advancing to
doctoral candidacy. The examination covers the areas of learning unique to each degree
program and tests the ability of the student to integrate concepts from across the field. The
exam determines if the student is sufficiently prepared to continue in the doctoral program, or
whether additional course work is necessary. Performance indicates whether the student is
adequately prepared to meet professional challenges of a career in the chosen field of public
health and demonstrates the knowledge necessary to conduct substantive research.
• Defense of Prospectus and Defense of Dissertation. After passing the comprehensive
examination, the doctoral candidate then prepares the prospectus for the dissertation. When
approved, the student then proceeds to complete the research and write the dissertation.
These activities are monitored and evaluated by the student's dissertation committee that is
charged with ensuring that the project and its results demonstrate that the candidate is
capable of independent research on a substantive issue in public health. Only after the
dissertation is successfully defended is the degree awarded.
2.7 B & C. Outcomes measures.
Outcome measures for student achievement are assessed on three levels: 1) measures of assessing
student attainment of public health core competencies (grades in core courses; percent passing
comprehensive exam; student opinion survey on core courses; and student evaluation of core courses);
2) graduation rates and time to completion of degrees; and 3) post-graduation measures including
employment rates, sector of employment, time to employment and alumni opinion and employer rating of
graduates. These measures are discussed below.
2.7 B 1. Assessment of student achievement of core competencies:
Grades in Core Courses: Students achieving competencies as measured by grades obtained in courses:
Table 2.7 B1 shows the summary of grades for the core courses for three academic years. At least one
section (and sometimes two sections) are offered each semester and grades for all sections are
combined. The grades indicate that at least 90% of students in each core course score a B or higher
indicating they have achieved the competencies in the course. A small percent scored a C in the course
02/01/10
Page 110
Section 2.7
indicating minimal achievement of competencies. Those who fail a core course must retake and pass
the course to graduate. Students must achieve a 3.0 GPA to graduate, so a student who scores any
grade below a B requires extra work to bring the overall average to the 3.0 level.
Table 2.7 B1 Percent of Students in Core Courses With Each Grade
Course
SPHL 601
YEAR
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Avg % with A or A- 49%
Avg % B or higher 91%
SPHL 603
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
BIOS 603
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Avg % B- or higher 92%
ENHS 603
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
EPID 603
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
HSMG 603
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
A
19%
20%
22%
A30%
30%
36%
B+
27%
26%
22%
B
10%
14%
11%
B11%
6%
6%
C
3%
3%
1%
F
1%
1%
Total # Students
132
174
166
36%
31%
30%
36%
42%
35%
20%
20%
25%
6%
3.6%
9.3%
3%
0.4%
1.1%
0.3%
-
-
280
241
268
32%
31%
30%
21%
18%
23%
20%
18%
20%
15%
18%
19%
8%
6%
4%
3%
7%
3%
0.4%
2%
0.8%
283
310
396
37%
39%
44%
36%
30%
33%
17%
21%
15%
8%
6%
6%
2%
3%
2%
0.6%
0.3%
-
0.3%
-
179
290
343
33%
31%
36%
17%
23%
23%
8%
11%
15%
22%
20%
13%
11%
10%
7%
8%
5%
6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
250
325
311
65%
62%
67%
18%
20%
23%
12%
11%
6%
4%
6%
2%
0.4%
0.4%
1%
0.4%
0.9%
0.4%
0.9%
252
252
321
Percent of Students Passing PART A of the SPHTM Comprehensive Exam: SPHTM instituted the
comprehensive exam as an option for the culminating experience in the Spring 2008. Part A of the
comprehensive covers the SPHTM core courses; Part B covers departmental competencies. The
percent of students passing the comprehensive exam is a measure of achievement of competencies.
The comprehensive exam is given at the end of their course work, so it provides some measure of
retention of the competencies, particularly for core courses taken at the beginning of their studies.
Part A of the comprehensive exam is administered once each semester including summer. In the five
times it has been given, 62 students have taken the exam. The exam is graded as pass or fail and
students must achieve an overall score of 70% to pass. Of the 55 students who have taken the exam,
76.4% have passed; this percentage is consistent for the five exams. The exam shows that
approximately 24% of those taking the exam do not retain all of the competencies from the time they
complete a course until the exam. Those not passing have the option of retaking the exam or selecting
another culminating option which then reinforces the core competencies.
02/01/10
Page 111
Section 2.7
Average (and range of) scores on Part A of the comprehensive exam for each core area:
BIOS 603
69% (50-75)
ENHS 603
75% (50-93)
EPID 603
68% (43-86)
HSMG 603
70% (44-100)
SPHL 601
61% (77-46)
SPHL 603
76% (60-87)
The average score on the comprehensive exam is 73.4%. These scores are not fully representative of
the student body as only 62 students have selected the comprehensive exam since it became an option
for the culminating experience in Spring 2008. The comprehensive exam undergoes regular reevaluation
of questions to achieve a representative and useful testing tool. Questions have been reviewed by
faculty and chairs; in addition, doctoral students took mock exams to assess the clearness of the
questions. Any question on the exam that 50% of students answer wrong is either revised or discarded.
Student Survey –Student Opinions: On both the 2008 and 2009 student surveys, students were asked:
“Which core courses do you feel succeed in providing the essential knowledge in the area.” They could
respond for each course.
Table 2.7 B2 Student Opinion Survey (2008 and 2009)
Core course
Student’s Dept.
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
SPHTM Overall
SPHL 601
SPHL 603
9%
44%
29%
37%
22%
33%
19%
31%
4%
42%
29%
19%
17%
32%
27%
26%
BIOS 603
62%
70%
75%
77%
41%
70%
67%
67%
EPID 603
58%
72%
64%
82%
47%
73%
77%
69%
ENHS 603
18%
49%
47%
36%
31%
30%
40%
37%
HSMG 603
9%
56%
36%
45%
41%
36%
35%
38%
*Average of responses from 2008 and 2009 surveys
The Student Survey showed that students rate BIOS 603 and EPID 603 the highest for providing
essential knowledge of the area. On the other hand, SPHL 603 rates quite low and the other core
courses have less than a 40% rating. There is some natural tendency for students in the more
quantitative areas not to like the social sciences and vice versa. Many students focus on their
disciplinary area and do not yet have a wider perspective of the utility of the core areas in their future
careers. Interestingly, one of the consistent findings on Alumni Surveys over the last 15 years is that as
graduates proceed along their careers and use the knowledge and skills from core courses, they begin to
appreciate them more. We have received comments from alumni that many of the courses they disliked
the most at the time turned out to be some of the most useful in their jobs. Another comment from an
alumnus admitted that the student did not put time or effort into the statistics course, but wished
“someone had jolted me into really learning it”.
The performance in the core areas on the comprehensive exam and the grades received in the courses
are higher than the opinions on the student survey. A frank discussion with leaders of the Student
Government indicated that students prefer the courses for which they feel they gain skills, such as
biostatistics and epidemiology. Students do not like courses they feel do not provide useful knowledge
and skills. They also comment that some faculty do not seem interested in teaching. They also feel
many faculty are truly interested in student learning and provide support and help in their courses.
Quality of core courses is an issue that the curriculum committee should address in its reviews and
provide suggestions for increasing the skills-base exercises in core courses.
02/01/10
Page 112
Section 2.7
Student Course Evaluations:
The results of the core course evaluations for 2008-09 (Fall, Spring, Summer) from all sections were
compiled (See Table 2.7B3). The course evaluations ask a series of questions about the course,
instructor and, for the distance learning courses, the technology to which students respond to one of
seven options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The responses were summarized into
the percent who rated the course or instructor as either favorable or unfavorable, where favorable
included the strongly agree + agree + somewhat agree responses and unfavorable included strongly
disagree + disagree + somewhat disagree responses. The neutral option was not included in either.
Combining all sections within an academic year provides a greater number of responses and focuses on
the course rather than individual instructors. Chairs review these same evaluations and provide
guidance to individual instructors.
Table 2.7 B3 Core Course Evaluations 2008-09
On-Campus Traditional courses
Core Course
#Sections # students
Bios 601
6
245
% Favorable
Course
93%
Instructor 94%
ENHS 603
3
297
70%
Course
66%
Instructor 71%
EPID 603
4
229
61%
Course
80%
Instructor 78%
HSMG 603
3
176
72%
Course
75%
Instructor 86%
SPHL 601
3
96
66%
Course
88%
Instructor 90%
SPHL 603
3
161
54%
Course
82%
Instructor 93%
Overall Core
64%
Course
83%
courses
Instructor 87%
Distance Learning –Asynchronous for Medical Students and On-campus Students
Bios 601-40
3
31
55%
Course
85%
Instructor
81%
ENHS 603-40
3
48
71%
Course
60%
Instructor
51%
EPID 603-40
2
38
67%
Course
89%
Instructor
83%
HSMG 603-40
2
48
55%
Course
97%
Instructor
99%
SPHL 601-40
2
22
30%
Course
68%
Instructor
63%
SPHL 603-40
2
68
74%
Course
82%
Instructor
83%
Distance Learning for Midcareer Students – Synchronous Delivery
Bios 601-70
2
27
64%
Course
96%
Instructor
96%
ENHS 603-70
1
38
68%
Course
87%
Instructor
86%
EPID 603-70
1
18
67%
Course
74%
Instructor
75%
HSMG 603-70
1
22
55%
Course
89%
Instructor
92%
SPHL 601-70
1
24
54%
Course
87%
Instructor
88%
SPHL 603
1
23
52%
Course
80%
Instructor
87%
02/01/10
% response
68%
% Unfavorable
2%
2%
11%
11%
10%
10%
17%
6%
7%
2%
9%
3%
9%
5%
9%
4%
36%
31%
7%
6%
4%
0%
11%
1%
15%
7%
2%
0%
10%
5%
11%
12%
9%
2%
5%
3%
7%
2%
Page 113
Section 2.7
Achievement of core competencies: Assessment of the results of evaluation measures of the core
competences show that while SPHTM does an adequate job in teaching the core competencies, there is
room for improvement. Input from students and alumni provide important insight for improving the core
courses and suggestions include the following: Faculty teaching the core courses should include more
skill-building exercises and demonstrate the application of core knowledge to public health practice.
Greater attention needs to be given to orienting students to the importance of the core knowledge and
skills as the basis for public health practice that will be used throughout their careers. Many students
and faculty tend to be more attentive to their specialty areas and may lose focus on the breadth of skills
required for public health. Advisors need to help students identify areas of weakness in the core areas
and provide guidance to help them improve these areas when needed.
2.7 C1 Graduation Rates and Time to Completion of Degrees
Master’s Degree Graduation Rates: The graduation rates for each degree in each department were
calculated for the academic years from 2003-04 (pre-Katrina) to 2007-08. In the post-Katrina years, the
graduation rate dropped somewhat from 95% to ~ 80%-84%. Following Hurricane Katrina, more
students than normal chose to leave New Orleans and transfer to other schools. Approximately 85% of
SPHTM students returned for the Spring 2006 semester. However, many who did not return were new
students (entering 2005-06) early in their master’s program that chose to go elsewhere in the aftermath
of Katrina. Others returned to New Orleans, but then decided to leave the following year. The
graduation rate prior to Hurricane Katrina was consistently above 90%. Following Katrina, approximately
~15% of students either did not return or left in the following year dropping our graduation rates down to
80-84%. Given the immense impact of Katrina on New Orleans, it is remarkable SPHTM did not lose
more students. However, it is our goal to return the graduation level to 90%.
Table 2.7 C1A Graduation and Attrition Rates for Master’s Programs
Dept
Degree
time
Entered
2003-04
#
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
MSPH
MPH
MPH/MSPH
MPH
MPH
MHA
INHD MPH
TRMD MPHTM
MSPH
Total for SPHTM
% Continuing
%Graduated+
%Continuing
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.3
3.3
2.0
3.4
3.9
2.3
3
48
22
46
39
14
112
11
30
%
GR
66
88
96
85
97
100
96
100
97
94
94
Entered
2004-05
%
AR
33
12
4
15
3
0
4
0
3
6
#
1
44
16
59
32
5
98
17
37
%
GR
100
80
88
75
88
100
87*
82
92
84
3
87
%
AR
0
20
12
22
12
0
9
19
8
14
Entered
2005-06
#
1
25
10
33
9
6
59
14
20
%
GR
100
72
60*
81
100
100
75*
93
80
80
2
82
Entered
2006-07
%
AR
28
30
18
0
0
18
7
29
18
#
1
36
10
23
10
9
80
7
25
%
GR
100
83*
90*
57*
100
77*
82
57*
92
82
7
89
Entered
2007-08^
%
AR
0
8
0
13
0
11
18
0
8
11
#
1
27
13
44
15
12
102
12
19
%
GR
100
63*
85*
61*
27*
75*
59*
17*
74*
61*
29
90
%
AR
0
11
8
7
6
8
12
0
11
10
%GR = Graduation Rate -% of students entering each year who graduate within the expected time.
%AR = Attrition Rate - Attrition rate indicates percent of students who leave SPHTM;
% continuing = enrolled students actively pursuing a degree.
# = number of students entering the program in a given academic year
*Interim rate - students continuing in program
^ Students entering in 2007-08 not expected to graduate until 2009-10.
The average time to graduation for full time students in master’s degree programs is slightly longer than
two years. This time is calculated on the time it took students to complete their master’s programs over
the last five years. The time to completion of degrees has increased slightly over the last three years.
This is due to: 1) the increase in the required number of credits to 45 for most on-campus master’s; and
2) lower student course loads in 2006-07 and 2007-08 because of involvement in post-Katrina recovery
activities. Unfortunately, the increase in the number of required credits occurred immediately following
Katrina and the two factors cannot be separated at this point. The attrition rates show that after the initial
02/01/10
Page 114
Section 2.7
loss of students following Katrina (~15%), those returning took longer to complete their degrees. In the
last year, that trend is changing back to higher course loads and shorter times to completion of degree.
MD/MPH, master internationalist and Peace Corps students typically take four years to complete their
master’s degrees and influence the time to completion in programs that attract a large number of these
students (e.g., MPH&TM, MPH in HSMG and INHD).
Doctoral Program Graduation Rates: The number of students who enter doctoral degree programs in
each departmental per year is quite small, so the rates are impacted by one student. Table 2.7C1B
shows the Graduation and Attrition Rates for students who entered doctoral programs beginning in 200304. The attrition rate provides an indicator of student progress in the doctoral programs as it indicates
those lost. Katrina impacted doctoral students more than the master’s student studies and the attrition
rate increased to 24% for those who entered in 2005-06. Several students who were early in their
doctoral studies when Katrina hit moved to other universities because of the uncertainly. The combined
% who graduated and % continuing gives an estimate of possible graduation rates.
Table 2.7 C 1B Graduation and Attrition Rates for Doctoral Programs
Dept
Degree
Entered
2003-04
#
BIOS PhD/ScD
CHSC DrPH
ENHS PhD/ScD
EPID PhD/DrPH
HSMG PhD/DrPH
INHD PhD/DrPH
TRMD PhD/ScD
Total for SPHTM
% Continuing
%Graduated+
Continuing
3
5
2
2
4
14
2
32
%
GR
67
40*
50
50
50*
79*
50*
63*
19
82*
Entered
2004-05
%
AR
33
40
50
50
25
0
0
19
#
1
6
1
2
3
7
3
23
%
GR
0*
50*
0*
100
33*
43*
33*
43*
49
92
Entered
2005-06
%
AR
0
17
0
0
33
0
0
5
#
1
2
3
3
3
5
1
17
%
GR
0*
50
33*
33*
33*
0*
100
29*
47
76
Entered
2006-07
%
AR
0
50
33
33
0
40
0
24*
#
1
2
4
2
3
8
3
23
%
GR
0*
0*
0*
50*
0*
38
33*
22*
70
92
Entered
2007-08
%
AR
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
9
#
1
1
5
4
2
5
0
18
%
GR
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0
0*
88
88
%
AR
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
11
%GR = Graduation Rate -% of students entering each year who graduate within the expected time.
%AR = Attrition Rate - Attrition rate indicates percent of students who leave SPHTM;
% continuing = enrolled students actively pursuing a degree.
# = number of students entering the program in a given academic year
*Interim rate - students continuing in program
We tried to calculate the graduation rates further back and had major barriers: 1) reorganization of the
doctoral programs within the University and degree revisions in SPHTM; 2) inherent properties of the
university student records management system.
The doctoral programs were substantially revised following Hurricane Katrina (See Section 2.10 for
details). In the university reorganization, the Graduate School (in which all PhD students were
enrolled) was dissolved and the PhD program moved into each school or college, including SPHTM.
All doctoral programs (ScD, DrPH and PhD) were critically examined and revised resulting in more
clearly defined focus, career path and requirements for each degree. The ScD was dropped by most
departments (only the Executive ScD in HSMG remains). Because of the substantial changes,
students were given the one time option to align their enrollment in the degree program that best fit
their career objectives. Therefore, graduation rates are presented for all doctoral programs and do not
differentiate among the degrees.
The university student records management system focuses on the management of active enrolled
students. Students who do not register for two years are removed from the student records system and
archived. A new student records system was recently implemented, so data on students who graduated
has been archived and not available to us. Ideally we would have liked to have had graduation rates for
doctoral students who graduated over the last three years; these would have had entered as far back as
02/01/10
Page 115
Section 2.7
10 years ago. Since calculating doctoral graduation rates requires tracking all students who began a
program each academic year, we need data for those who left the program. While we have the data on
those who graduated, we do not have available records for those who may have dropped out more than
two years ago. Another problem in the university database is that the semester/year a student first
enrolls in SPHTM is the permanent entry date. Since many of our students complete the MPH or MSPH
prior to doctoral study, the university system does not capture the date students begin doctoral
programs. These issues impact the determination of graduation rates for doctoral programs more than
master’s programs as most master’s programs are ~2 years. Processes to collect this data over time
and track cohorts of entering doctoral students are in place for the future. The graduation rates provided
in Table 2.7 C1B are based on abstraction of student files in departments and the years for those for
which accurate records can be obtained.
The average time for doctoral students to complete their studies is 6.4 years. Following Katrina, doctoral
students were allowed to petition the Doctoral Committee for an extra year to complete their studies. All
lost time while the university closed, many lost samples and data requiring new data collection. Other
dissertation projects had to be substantially modified because of community dispersion or data loss.
We observe that those who are full-time doctoral students are more likely to complete their degree in a
reasonable time period. Those that work or go overseas on projects tend to take longer and are less
likely to complete the dissertation. Financial issues were a factor for those who worked full-time after
they finished their course work. Additional doctoral student support would help this greatly. This may be
an issue for advisors to address to keep students on track.
2.7 C2 Graduate employment rates (Job Placement)
The employment of SPHTM graduates was tracked for one year following graduation. Tracking the time
for students to obtain a job and the sector in which they are employed requires a follow-up of graduates
until they find a job. Tracking graduates to obtain follow-up is difficult as it depends on keeping current
contact information for a group who are moving on to their future careers. Extensive staff time was
devoted to this effort. A process was developed to facilitate the collection of this data. Each department
was responsible for tracking their graduates to obtain employment information. Prior to graduation, all
students were required to provide a post-graduation e-mail address and those who had jobs provided
that information to their department. Following graduation, departments received a list of their graduates
for that semester and followed up periodically until the student reported employment. A few who could
not be contacted or did not respond to inquiries were lost to follow-up. The percent employed was
calculated only from those with confirmed employment. It is probable that some of those lost to follow-up
are also employed, thus increasing our employment rate above 90% each year.
Table 2.7C2 shows the % employed for each department for the last three years. SPHTM graduates are
highly sought by employers as indicated by the high job placement rate. Over 70% of students are
employed by the time they graduate or are continuing their education. Others report finding employment
within a few months (average 2.5 months). Of those who graduated in the 2008-09 academic year, 88%
are confirmed as employed less than a year after graduation. Each year, some graduates (6%-10%)
cannot be located or do not respond to inquiries. It is likely that at least some of these are employed and
would increase the graduation rate. The percent of students reporting to be unemployed is very low at
~3% over the last three years.
02/01/10
Page 116
Section 2.7
Table 2.7 C2 Employment rates for Graduates by Department
2006-07
2007-08
Grad
Lost
Grad
#
#
2
3
1
1
5
10
3
8
17
3%
6%
Employed = Confirmed employment
% employed = # employed/# graduates
#
3
36
13
17
30
36
19
78
45
277
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EH-DL
EPID
HSMG
HSM E
INHD
TRMD
% Emp
Total
#
4
42
10
27
35
35
25
69
30
277
Employed
#
4
37
10
27
34
34
25
54
27
252
%
100
88
100
100
97
97
100
78
90
91%
Not
Emp
Employed
#
3
29
13
17
29
31
19
60
39
240
%
100
80
100
100
97
86
100
76
87
87%
2008-09
Not
Emp
Lost
Grad
#
2
1
1
4
8
3%
#
5
4
14
6
29
10%
#
5
41
19
21
38
27
16
93
42
302
Employed
#
5
36
19
21
35
24
16
73
37
266
%
100
88
100
100
92
100
100
78
90
88%
Not
Emp
Lost
#
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
10
3%
#
0
3
0
0
3
3
0
16
1
26
9%
2.7 D Destination of graduates
Table 2.7 D (Template D) shows the destination of graduates by department for the last three years. The
same process as described for obtaining employment data was used for this measure. The distribution
of the graduates among the sectors reflects the departmental foci and is relatively consistent over time.
The majority of SPHTM graduates are hired into sectors for which they use their public health education.
The non employed category includes all who report they have not found employment, including those
who report they are not seeking employment, usually for taking time off or family reasons.
02/01/10
Page 117
Section 2.7
Table 2.7.D. (Template D) Destination of Graduates by Department
2006-07
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EHS DL
EPID
HSMG
HSM EX
INHL
TRMD
Total
2007-08
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EHS DL
EPID
HSMG
HSM EX
INHL
TRMD
Total
2008-09
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EHS DL
EPID
HSMG
HSM EX
INHL
TRMD
Total
Government
#
%
1
25
9
21
5
50
9
33
5
14
3
9
1
4
9
13
8
27
50 18
Government
#
%
2
67
7
19
3
23
4
24
5
17
2
1
5
12 15
2
4
38 14
Government
#
%
2
40
10 25
7
37
2
10
10 26
6
22
0
12 13
49 16
Nonprofit
#
%
7
17
1
3
5
14
2
8
18 26
33 12
Nonprofit
#
%
11 28
3
1
4.5
16 20
1
2
32 12
Nonprofit
#
4
1
2
25
1
33
%
10
5
13
27
2
11
Health
Care
#
%
1
25
6
1
10
6
18
1
3
15 43
22 88
10 14
9
30
71 27
Health
Care
#
%
1
33
2
7
6
16 86
19 24
14 31
58 21
Health
Care
#
%
4
10
4
20
2
5
4
15
8
50
6
6
5
12
33 11
Private
Practice
#
%
1
10
1
3
1
3
1
2
4
1
Private
Practice
#
%
1
3
1
0.3
Private
Practice
#
%
2
[2
3
7
10
7
19
2
Univ. /
Research
#
%
2
50
4
10
1
3
7
20
3
9
4
6
5
17
26 9
Univ./
Research
#
%
4
11
3
23
8
26
2
1
4.5
7
9
6
13
31 12
Univ./
Research
#
%
3
60
10 25
3
16
1
5
6
16
0
1
6
13 14
13 31
50 17
Prop.
Industry
#
%
1
2
20
11 40
2
6
1
3
2
3
1
3
20 7
Prop.
Industry
#
%
1
3
3
23
13 76
17 6
Prop.
Industry
#
%
1
2.5
6
14 74
3
11
1
6
3
3
1
2
29 10
Further
Educate
#
%
9
21
1
10
17 48
4
11
9
13
4
13
44 16
Further
Educate
#
%
6
17
2
15
13 37
18
5
6
16 36
60 22
Further
Educate
#
%
6
15
16 42
9
33
1
6
14 15
16 36
62 21
NonHealth
#
%
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
1
NonHealth
#
%
2
15
1
1
3
1
NonHealth
#
%
1
2.5
1
3
0
0
1
2
3
1
Not
Employ
#
%
2
5
1
3
5
7
8
3
Not
Employ
#
%
2
5
1
13
1
4
5
0
8
5
Not
Employ
#
%
2
5
4
4
4
12
10 3
lost
#
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
10
3
17
lost
#
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
14
6
29
lost
2.7 E Professional Certification:
One of the outcome measures for which we seek data is the percent who take and pass certification
exams in their fields. Areas for which there are professional certifications include: the new
Certification in Public Health (CPH), Industrial Hygiene (CIH), Health Education (CHES), and
Preventive Medicine. Other certifications held by SPHTM students relate to other education and
training, such as emergency medical technician, medical technology and other health related
certifications. Obtaining accurate data on the number of students who take and the number who pass
the exam is extremely difficult. We must rely on polling students who are eligible for taking the exam;
we find we are more likely to receive reports from those who pass the exam, but not information on
those who do not. We do not have a reliable denominator from which to calculate rates and do not
know if we have complete data on a number who passed.
02/01/10
Page 118
0
3
0
0
3
3
0
16
1
26
Section 2.7
A question was included in the student survey asking if the students planned to take the public health
certification exam. Of the 240 who responded in 2009, only 22% said they planned to take the exam;
41.4% said they did not plan to take the exam and 36% did not know.
The examining boards will not provide information to the schools on the number of their graduates who
take the exam, the pass rate for graduates or other information. We look at lists of newly certified
professionals, but have no way to collect information on those who took the exam and did not pass. We
request information from students about professional certifications when gathering data on employment,
but few seem to take the exams in the first year after graduation. Some professional boards, (e.g., CIH)
require 3-5 years of professional experience to be eligible to sit for the exam. We continue to seek this
information, but do not have sufficient data to use this as an outcome measure.
2.7 F Surveys of Alumni and Employers
Employer Survey: The 2009 employer survey asked those who hire and supervise SPHTM graduates to
rank their competencies and skills. Over 150 employers responded to the survey. Employer opinion of
graduates skills show that approximately 77% rate SPHTM graduates as excellent and nearly 99% rate
graduates as excellent or good.
Table 2.7 F Results of the Employer Survey
Overall Rating
Knowledge of public health core areas
Ability to communicate verbally
Written communication skills
Computer skills
Prepare and present materials effectively
Ability to collect and analyze data
Ability to apply knowledge and skills in their field of expertise
Ability to conceptualize and implement solutions
Excellent
76.9%
74.0%
71.9%
63.4%
60.8%
67.6%
63.6%
76.4%
70.7%
Good
21.8%
25.3%
26.7%
32.4%
39.2%
27.7%
32.2%
20.8%
24.5%
Fair
1.4%
0.7%
1.4%
4.1%
0%
4.7%
4.2%
2.8%
4.8%
Poor
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
We received some excellent comments on the Employer’s Survey that included:
“Tulane graduates come to the work place with confidence, a strong sense of community service,
and a ready network of fellow public health practitioners as resources.”
“Tulane should take pride in its tight-knit network (the Tulane mafia) that helps people find and
apply for jobs. When we send announcements to Tulane, we always get a wide variety of skilled
applicants - and I know the alumni look out for each other on the job market.”
We invited comments on additional skills or areas for improvement; these comments included:
“They need to be skilled in public speaking. The content I've seen them use is usually right on
target, but learning to be a good public speaker is very important for advocacy. That should either
be integrated into classes, or offered as a separate course. The students I have employed who
are skilled in public speaking move into leadership positions more rapidly.”
“There should be more contact between academics at Tulane who work in international health
and PVO membership organizations devoted to international health like the CORE Group
(www.coregroup.org). These groups often have the latest tools and training materials for
international health. By having students learn about some of these, they will be a step ahead of
students from other schools who do not.”
02/01/10
Page 119
Section 2.7
Alunmi Survey:
The Alumni Survey had 288 responses and included alumni from across the country and world and
included a 1949 graduate. Responses were received from those who graduated in:
2000 – 2008
49%
1990 – 1999
32%
1980 – 1989
14%
1970 – 1979
7%
Prior to 1970
1%
The survey included questions on satisfaction and usefulness of their degree program, and employment
information. Overall, the Alumni who responded said that their degree program prepared them for a
career in public health:
Excellent
53%
Good
41.9%
Fair
3.3%
Poor
1.9%
On questions asking the most useful and least useful learning experiences, courses were rated the most
useful (89.3%). The responses to the other options were divided with about a third of students rating the
capstone/culminating experience, mentoring and networking as the most useful; a third of the
respondents rated these same experiences as the least useful; and a third did not indicate useful or not
useful. However, 79% rated their capstone as excellent or good. Alumni had a wide variety of opinions
about their learning experiences and showed a wide variability of experiences among students. Many
comments praised specific faculty members who were memorable to many alumni. A particularly candid
remark was cited above about emphasizing the importance of the core courses.
Another set of questions asked the alumni about employment. Nearly 80% were currently employed. Of
those not employed, however, a number were retired and others had chosen to raise families. Of those
currently employed, 86% report they were in a job for which their SPHTM degree was relevant. In other
questions on the time from graduation until employment and sector, the responses from alumni were
very similar to those of our recent graduates: over a quarter (26%) were employed while pursuing their
studies; 58% were employed in less than 6 months; and only 6% required more than a year to gain
employment. Forty-four percent were employed in their job for more than 5 years. The majority (84%) of
the alumni felt their job met their career expectations.
While a large percentage of respondents were more recent graduates, 57% were in mid- management
positions, and 32% in upper executive positions. The salary ranges showed that many SPHTM
graduates have obtained well paying jobs:
Less than $ 30K
$30-$50
$50-$75
$75 – $100
$100 +
3.9%
13%
25.6%
23.7%
33.8%
The feedback from the Alumni Survey provides useful information for assessing our academic programs.
The alumni who responded were pleased with the quality of their education and their success in their
careers indicates they were well prepared. The overall response was quite positive and provided useful
suggestions. Several commented on the high tuition, especially now that they are repaying student loans.
Examples of comments include:
“Tulane's student diversity was one of the best learning opportunities I had while at Tulane. I
02/01/10
Page 120
Section 2.7
hope the name of Tulane lives on as I have got some great jobs by saying I graduated from
Tulane, at least this got me in the door where my skills could then speak for themselves.”
“Learning public health in New Orleans is an unbeatable experience. I've met graduates of many
other public health schools and their appreciation of the realities of public health are always
second to those of Tulane graduates - living in New Orleans helps reinforce what students learn
in the classroom (the international/study abroad opportunities are outstanding too).”
2.7 G Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.
This criterion is met. SPHTM has extensive measures in place to assess student performance and the
academic programs. By objective measures, SPHTM students and graduates show achievement and
proceed on to careers in public health. The outcome measures show that the majority of the students
demonstrate mastery of the core competencies; mechanisms are in place to reinforcement the core
areas beyond the courses, but not all students take full advantage of these opportunities. Graduation
rates remain relatively high; however, the time to graduation seems to be increasing slightly. It remains
to be seen if this is a function of the requirement of additional credits for a MPH or the high level of
volunteerism by students helping the city to rebuild or both. SPHTM students are sought after by
employers – they are quickly employed and the employers seek out SPHTM graduates. The majority of
the students are employed in public health sectors. The assessment indicates that SPHTM students
receive a solid education in public health, and they have the skills to compete for jobs and to excel in
their careers.
02/01/10
Page 121
Tulane School of Public Health
Section 2.8
Other Professional Degrees
Section 2.8 Other Professional Degrees
SPHTM does not offer other professional degrees.
02/01/10
Page 122
Section 2.9
Academic Degrees
2.9 A Academic Degree Programs
As indicated in Table 2.1 A (Template C) SPHTM offers three academic degrees: Doctor of Philosophy
(PhD), Master of Science (MS), and the Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH). The PhD is
offered in each of the seven departments; the MS is offered in the Departments of Biostatistics and
Epidemiology; and the BSPH is a university-wide undergraduate degree program.
PhD and MS Degrees:
Prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the PhD and MS degrees were offered through the Tulane University
Graduate School and only four SPHTM departments offered the PhD. Following Hurricane Katrina, the
University reorganized the Graduate School in 2005 so that each school became responsible for all of its
degree programs, including the MS and PhD degrees. All seven departments opted to offer the PhD in
Public Health as the academic research degree. Two departments (Biostatistics, and Epidemiology)
offer the MS degree.
BSPH Degree:
The Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH) degree is a four-year undergraduate academic
program that is designed to provide public health education on the undergraduate level within the
liberal arts and science framework at Tulane University. The first BSPH students were accepted for
the fall semester of 2005. However, because of Hurricane Katrina, the first class offerings began in
Spring 2006. The undergraduate program is a means of bringing a new cadre of highly qualified
students into public health.
The BSPH degree is an offering within Tulane’s undergraduate liberal arts and science education and is
directed through the Undergraduate Public Health Studies (UPHS). As an undergraduate program,
Newcomb-Tulane College has administrative oversight for full-time undergraduate students and ensures
completion of the common core undergraduate curriculum. All full-time undergraduate programs at the
university are within the Newcomb-Tulane College. The UPHS program is governed by a representative
body consisting of faculty and staff of each of the seven SPHTM departments as well as representatives
from University Admissions, Academic Advising, Registrar’s office, and Louisiana Office of Public Health.
This group is referred to as the UPHS Governing Committee, and includes several sub-committees as
well as an executive committee.
The BSPH degree fulfills Tulane University’s campus-wide undergraduate core proficiencies combined
with study in public health. The public health curriculum is determined by SPHTM faculty who teach all
undergraduate public health courses. The UPHS program offers a baccalaureate degree with three
possible focus areas and also allows students in other undergraduate programs to obtain a minor in
public health.
The BSPH degree is an academic degree which addresses the health of populations and communities
through instruction in the natural and behavioral sciences, service-learning, and community-based
research. The degree is firmly grounded in the basic sciences, humanities, social science, and the
liberal arts. During their course of study, students pursuing a BSPH complete all Tulane University
undergraduate proficiency requirements in writing, mathematics, and foreign languages as well as
distribution requirements in the humanities and fine arts, social sciences, and natural sciences. Public
health courses are integrated throughout the curriculum. Students with a BSPH major are required to
complete the Newcomb-Tulane College core curriculum, additional BSPH proficiency requirements, and
the Public Health Major Curriculum Requirements. Completion of the BSPH degree requires a minimum
of 120 credit hours. See the Resource File for the Curriculum for the BSPH degree.
02/01/10
Page 123
Section 2.9
Academic Degrees
2.9 B Public Health Orientation
PhD and MS Degrees
Students in the MS and PhD academic programs obtain public health orientation through both course
work and in-depth research in an area of public health. All students must successfully complete the
Public Health core courses in biostatistics and epidemiology. In addition, the majority of the other course
work consists of public health courses offered in their department and throughout the school. Given the
public health orientation of the majority of the faculty in these programs, illustrative materials used in
SPHTM courses have a public health focus. Further, classroom instruction with public health students,
especially the opportunity for group projects, allows MS/PhD students to be integrated into the public
health-oriented environment.
Doctoral students must also participate in the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Seminar that provides an
interdisciplinary perspective of public health issues. Students must register for credit in each of two
semesters and are encouraged to attend every semester (see the Resource File). Doctoral students’
dissertation research frequently focuses on public health issues where they conduct in-depth work in
their disciplines that includes both theory and public health application.
Very few students select the MS, so most students entering the PhD program have completed the MPH
or MSPH degree and have a solid understanding and orientation to public health. Students who are
enrolled in the MS program must take the biostatistics and epidemiology degree courses. In addition,
their degree coursework is primarily in the school of public health where the public health perspective
and examples are used.
BSPH Degree
In addition to their core liberal arts requirements, undergraduates in the BSPH program are required to
take biostatistics and epidemiology as core courses. The students take additional SPHTM MPH core
courses to enhance their public health foundation. (See Resource File for course descriptions of all
BSPH courses.) Upper level students (juniors and seniors) also may take 600 level graduate courses at
SPHTM.
All BSPH students must complete a capstone project that focuses on a public health topic. In addition,
all undergraduate students must complete a public service requirement that is oriented to public health
for the BSPH students. Options for the public service requirement include:
• Service learning course (300 level or above)
• Academic service learning internship
• Faculty-sponsored public service research project
• Public service honors thesis project
• Public service-based international study-abroad program
• Capstone with public service component
2.9 C Culminating Experiences
PhD and MS Degrees:
The MS and PhD require a research thesis or dissertation, respectively that builds the knowledge and
skills necessary to conduct original research usually on a topic of relevance to public health. Since the
majority of the faculty focus their research on public health issues, it is rare that the dissertation would
not have some relevance to public health. Examples of dissertations over the past three years are in the
Resource File.
BSPH Degree:
The undergraduate capstone is designed to integrate, synthesize and apply knowledge as developed
02/01/10
Page 124
Section 2.9
Academic Degrees
through a student's academic program. Students are eligible to complete their capstone after completing
four semesters of university coursework. The undergraduate student has four options for completion of
the capstone requirement:
1.
Public Service Internship and a weekly internship seminar at the Center for Public
Service. This option allows students to build skills through real-world experiences in the
community.
2. Student Independent Research - Working one-on-one with a faculty member, a student writes
a formal research paper.
3. Study Abroad Experience -Tulane's Office of Study Abroad works with international programs.
4. Honors Thesis - This option is open only for students who are part of Tulane's Honors
Program. The honors thesis requires two semesters of work with a three-member faculty
thesis committee.
2.9 D Assessment
This criterion is met. Since the last accreditation, the MS and PhD programs are now administered by
SPHTM which are well integrated within the public health academic programs. All seven departments
now offer the PhD in Public Health in each of their areas. The PhD has emerged as a degree for
students who wish to pursue careers in academic research in public health. While the PhD at SPHTM
has always had a strong public health focus, the administrative organization within SPHTM provides
the framework to set policies, procedures and requirements to ensure a very strong public health
focus. The emphasis of the academic graduate programs tends to be theoretical and prepares
students for careers in research. At SPHTM, students typically obtain a MPH or other public health
master’s degree prior to entering the PhD program. Few students enroll in the MS program and those
tend to focus on disciplinary methods and analyses; however, they take the majority of their courses at
SPHTM. All students in the MS and PhD are required to take the public health core courses in
biostatistics and epidemiology at a minimum. PhD students are required to participate in the
interdisciplinary doctoral seminar.
The BSPH program leads to an academic degree and is designed to provide study in public health on an
undergraduate level. The BSPH program at Tulane resides within the undergraduate liberal arts
program at Newcomb-Tulane College. Students fulfill the requirements for an undergraduate degree and
add studies in public health as a major. Students in other majors may select a public health minor.
Students in the BSPH program take courses in epidemiology and biostatistics as well as the other public
health core courses. The BSPH program has been extremely successful in attracting highly-qualified and
motivated students into the field of public health.
02/01/10
Page 125
Section 2.10
Doctoral Degrees
2.10 A Identification of Doctoral Programs
The SPHTM offers the Doctor of Public Health (DrPH), Doctor of Science (ScD) and Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) degrees as approved by the Tulane Board of Administrators. The PhD is offered in all
seven departments and the DrPH is offered in three departments (CHSC, EPID and INHD). The ScD is
currently offered only by HSMG in an executive format. The degrees are included in the Instructional
Matrix (Table 2.1A) and listed in Table 2.10A. Competencies for each of the doctoral programs are listed
in Section 2.6. The policies and procedures for the doctoral programs are stated in the Doctoral Policies
and Procedures which is on the website at http://www.sph.tulane.edu/main/academics/handbooks.htm
and included in the Resource File.
Table 2.10 A Doctoral Programs
Department
Professional Degrees
BIOS
CHSC
DrPH
ENHS
EPID
DrPH
HSMG
ScD
INHD
DrPH*
TRMD
*The DrPH in INHD will not accept new students after August 1, 2009.
Academic Degrees
PhD
PhD
PhD
PhD
PhD
PhD
PhD
Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005-06, the University reorganization dissolved the Graduate School and
all graduate programs were made the responsibility of each school. This organizational change offered
SPHTM the opportunity to restructure its doctoral degree programs to clearly elucidate the focus and
career paths in either academic research or as public health professional degrees. SPHTM conducted an
analysis of doctoral degrees with the goal of reaching a consistent definition for each degree and
codification of the policies and procedures for all doctoral programs across the school. There were
discrepancies in the way the doctoral degrees were characterized among the departments, particularly
the ScD which was considered a research degree in some departments and an applied degree in others.
Each department reviewed its doctoral programs and defined degree options based on student career
paths and faculty capability. All seven departments chose the PhD as their academic research degree
and the DrPH was defined as the public health practice degree. All but one department chose to
discontinue the ScD in 2006. The Department of Health Systems Management retained the ScD for
practicing professionals in their executive doctoral program format. The opportunity to offer the PhD
provided a well accepted and understood research degree; this eliminated the inconsistency in the
definition of the ScD degree that had evolved over the 150 year history of Tulane. Since the last selfstudy, three departments added the PhD degree (CHSC, ENHS, and HSMG). Three departments
eliminated the ScD (BIOS, ENHS, and TRMD) and HSMG eliminated the DrPH. The Department of
International Health and Development will also eliminate the DrPH through attrition of graduating
students; no more DrPH students are being accepted.
The doctoral policies and procedures were reviewed and updated to reflect the actions to consolidate the
doctoral programs. The program requirements for the PhD, DrPH and ScD were reviewed and additional
measures to ensure that doctoral students receive a quality education were implemented. These
changes included strengthening the didactic requirements, instituting an interdisciplinary doctoral
seminar, and requiring advanced core course work for the DrPH. Doctoral program requirements are
described in the doctoral policies and procedures and summarized below:
•
02/01/10
For the PhD degree:
o A minimum of 60 total credits of didactic coursework beyond the baccalaureate degree is
required. At least 30 credits beyond the master’s degree must be completed at Tulane
University.
Page 126
o
Section 2.10
Doctoral Degrees
PhD students must have had, or must take, the introductory Public Health Core Courses
in biostatistics and epidemiology (or equivalent). If taken at TUSPHTM, these courses
may count toward the 60 credits needed for the PhD degree.
•
For the DrPH and ScD degrees: A minimum of 72 hours of didactic coursework beyond the
baccalaureate degree is required. At least 30 credit hours beyond the master’s must be
completed at Tulane University.
•
Additional specific requirements for the DrPH degree:
o The MPH, MSPH, or an equivalent degree is required to enter the program. Applicants
lacking one or more of the introductory Public Health Core Courses (or equivalent) will be
required to successfully complete these courses. Credit for an introductory Public Health
Core Course will be applied toward the 72 credits of didactic coursework required beyond
the baccalaureate degree, but will not apply to the 30 credits of required post-masters
coursework.
o Students must take at least 9 credits in advanced Public Health Core Courses (beyond
the introductory Public Health Core Courses) that are outside the doctoral student’s area
of study.
o A 300-hour advanced field experience (practicum) that allows students to develop
competencies in advanced practice skills, under the direction of a qualified preceptor in
the practice setting, is required. This practicum should focus on developing advanced
leadership skills in public health disciplines.
•
Additional specific requirements for the ScD degree:
o ScD candidates must have a MPH, MSPH, or equivalent degree prior to admission.
Students are required to successfully complete any of the introductory Public Health Core
Courses they lack. These course credits may be applied toward the 72 credits of didactic
coursework required beyond the baccalaureate degree, but will not be applied to the 30
credits of required post-masters coursework.
•
All doctoral students must register for and participate in the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Seminar
series (1 credit/semester). A minimum of two credits and a maximum of four credits must be
applied to the degree. Students must register and attend for two semesters and are encouraged
to attend every semester.
•
No more than 12 credits of special studies may be applied toward the doctoral degree. Such
courses must have clearly defined and written learning objectives developed together by the
student and course instructor. A written report of the work done in special studies must be on file
in the department for review by the student's dissertation committee.
•
No more than 12 credits earned as an advanced graduate special student may be applied toward
the doctoral degree.
•
All doctoral students are required to complete at least one course in research methods and one
course in statistical methods beyond the introductory Public Health Core Courses in biostatistics
or epidemiology.
•
Didactic coursework must be completed prior to taking the doctoral comprehensive examination.
(see doctoral policies in the Resource File)
•
A dissertation is required (See full description, Doctoral Policies, Section IV)
02/01/10
Page 127
Section 2.10
Doctoral Degrees
In the 2006-07 academic year, students were informed of the clearer definitions of each doctoral
program as well as the termination of the ScD programs in most departments and new PhD programs.
Doctoral students in the affected programs were given the one-time opportunity to change doctoral
degree programs to align their career goals with their degree. Students were required to meet the new
requirements of the degree to which they changed. Students in a degree program that was
discontinued in a department were allowed to complete their studies, but no new students were
admitted to those programs.
2.10 B Students in Doctoral Degree Programs
Table 2.10 B shows the number of active doctoral students in each department. As indicated above,
some students have changed degree programs. In addition, each department examined their list of
doctoral students to identify those actively working on their degree. Those beyond the 7-year time limit
were reviewed and informed that they must petition to continue and show active progress toward the
degree. Because of Hurricane Katrina, issues such as time lost, samples lost, or needed revision to
dissertation hypothesis because of changed conditions, current doctoral students were allowed to
petition the doctoral committee for limited time extensions (usually 1 year) on a case-by-case basis. The
number of active doctoral students is shown in Table 2.10 B and the applications, acceptances and
enrollments are shown in Table 2.10 C.
In the reorganization of the Graduate School, PhD students in a program offered by the Payson Center
were temporarily placed in the Department of International Health and Development at SPHTM while this
program completed an assessment for alignment with one of the academic units within the university.
This increased the number of doctoral students in INHL by approximately ~65 students, and inflated the
number of doctoral students for 2006-07 and 2007-08. This increase can be observed in Table 2.10B.
After reorganization on the uptown campus, these students were moved back to the Payson Center and
the School of Law.
Table 2.10 B Active Doctoral Students Enrolled in Each Degree Program for three years:
2006 - 09
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 – 2009
DrPH
ScD
PhD DrPH
ScD
PhD
BIOS
12
12
10
9
CHSC
16
16
ENHS
2
1
15
2
2
10
EPID
1
13
2
12
HSMG
10
34*
3
8
33*
4
INHD
4
81^
4
84^
Tropical Medicine
13
9
Total
33
47
137
32
45
128
Total all doctoral students
217
205
* ScD in HSMG is offered in an executive program
^ Includes PhD Students temporarily in SPHTM from the uptown Payson Center
02/01/10
DrPH
ScD
7
9
2
2
6
4
21
31*
40
114
PhD
7
1
8
10
5
17
5
53
Page 128
Section 2.10
Doctoral Degrees
Table 2.10 C Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, and Enrollments by
Doctoral Program Area 2006 to 2009
2006 -07
Applied
9
Accepted
5
Enrolled
3
CHSC DrPH
Applied
20
Accepted
4
Enrolled
2
CHSC PhD
Applied
2
Accepted
0
Enrolled
0
ENHS PhD
Applied
12
Accepted
11
Enrolled
3
EPID DrPH
Applied
9
Accepted
1
Enrolled
0
EPID PhD
Applied
7
Accepted
4
Enrolled
2
HSMG PhD
Applied
10
Accepted
5
Enrolled
4
HSMG ScD
Applied
20
Accepted
9
Enrolled
0
INHD PhD
Applied
23
Accepted
18
Enrolled
7
TRMD PhD
Applied
6
Accepted
3
Enrolled
0
Data source: SPHTM total applicants – full academic year
*Fall 2009 only; Other years include 3 semesters of applications.
BIOS PhD
2007-08
10
7
0
9
1
1
6
1
0
11
8
1
4
1
0
25
15
2
15
8
3
10
8
2
28
13
6
10
1
0
2008-09
11
9
2
0
0
0
5
4
2
12
7
2
9
1
1
24
5
3
13
11
3
13
12
10
20
8
1
7
4
2
Fall 2009*
17
11
1
7
2
0
15
7
1
12
5
1
0
0
0
34
12
1
14
7
3
31
9
0
13
1
0
2.10 C Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM offers 11 doctoral degree curricula: seven PhD programs, three DrPH
programs, and one ScD program. The school has the faculty numbers and capability in each of the
seven departments, resources for research, and sufficient advanced course work to educate students
on the doctoral level. Since the last accreditation, the faculty has examined its doctoral degree
programs and consolidated its doctoral policies and procedures across the school. All seven
departments now offer the PhD as the academic research degree and three departments offer the
DrPH as the public health practice degree. The elimination of the on-campus ScD has reduced the
ambiguity of the degree in its interpretation among the departments. The ScD remains as an executive
professional degree in HSMG.
02/01/10
Page 129
Section 2.11
Joint Degrees
2.11 A Joint Degree Programs
The SPHTM has joint degree programs with five other schools in Tulane University and with two other
universities. These programs bring undergraduates and professionals, including physicians, attorneys,
business specialists, and social workers, into the public health arena. Joint masters programs are offered
with the School of Medicine (MD/MPH, MD/MPH&TM, MD/MSPH), the A. B. Freeman School of
Business (MBA/MPH, MBA/MHA), the School of Social Work (MSW/MPH), and the School of Law
(JD/MPH, JD/MSPH, and JD/MHA). Undergraduate students in Tulane College and Newcomb College
may obtain a joint BSPH/MPH or BSPH/MSPH. The SPHTM also has joint BS/MPH and BS/MSPH
degrees with Xavier University, a Historically Black University (HCBU). This program is currently on hold
as the university was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina and has been slower in rebuilding. We have kept
these lines open as these are important bridges for bringing minority students into public health and are
seeking to reinstate them. The joint program with Xavier is designed as a pipeline to attract minority
students into public health and to provide a means to obtain public health degrees. A BS/MPH or MSPH
joint degree has recently been established with Southeastern Louisiana in Hammond, LA. Table 2.11
outlines the joint degree offerings of the SPHTM.
Table 2.11 A
Department
Biostatistics
Joint Degrees Offered
Joint Degree
MD/MPH
BSPH/MSPH
MD/MPH
MSW/MPH
JD/MPH
BSPH/MSPH
MD/MPH
JD/MPH
MSW/MPH
BSPH/MSPH
BS/MSPH
BS/MPH
Epidemiology
MD/MPH
MD/MPH
JD/MHA
MBA/MHA
BSPH/MSPH
International Health & Development
MD/MPH
MSW/MPH
BSPH/MSPH
Tropical Medicine
MD/MPHTM
BSPH/MSPH
* Inactive following Hurricane Katrina, but reinstating during recovery
School or Institution
Medicine
Tulane Undergraduate
Medicine
Social Work
Law
Medicine
Law
Social Work
Xavier University*
Southeastern Louisiana University
Medicine
Medicine
Law
Business
Medicine
Social Work
Medicine
Joint Degree Requirements:
All of the joint degree programs require that candidates apply to and be independently admitted by both
schools. Thus, identical admission standards are applied to all students in each school. For all joint
degree programs, graduation requirements of both schools must be met. The advantage of the joint
degree program is that credit may be applied toward both degrees; the programmatic or core courses of
one school may be applied as electives toward degree credit in the sister school. This arrangement
affords a time saving for the student in meeting the requirements for both degrees. Since the public
health component is a professional degree program, requirements include the following: (1) public health
core courses; (2) programmatic specialty requirements; (3) practicum and culminating experience.
All students in joint degree programs in the SPHTM must take the public health core courses and the
02/01/10
Page 130
Section 2.11
Joint Degrees
required programmatic courses. The program competencies for the public health degrees joint degree
programs are the same as those for public health students (See Criterion 2.6). Each of the joint degree
programs are described in the SPHTM Catalog and on the Website by department.
Joint Degrees with the School of Medicine
The Tulane SPHTM and the School of Medicine offer Tulane medical students an opportunity to work
concurrently toward the medical degree and a masters degree in public health. The MD/MPH program
(which includes the MD/MPH&TM and MD/MSPH) is the largest of the SPHTM’s joint degree programs.
It is one of the largest MD/MPH programs in the country and serves as a model for many schools.
Medical students pursuing a joint degree in public health select a course of study in one of the SPHTM
departments. Medical students are encouraged to, and typically do begin course work at SPHTM either
the summer before medical school matriculation or in the second semester of the freshman year.
Students may, however, enter during their sophomore year at the latest. A course plan is outlined with
their SPHTM program advisor to fulfill all of the SPHTM core courses and departmental requirements for
the MPH, MSPH or MPH&TM. The advisor works with the student to schedule required courses within
the Medical School Curriculum. A number of students utilize time in their senior year to complete the
degree requirements. In the joint programs, medical students take at least 32 credits in the school of
public health along with medical school courses completing the 42 credits required for the degree.
During the 2008-09 academic year, 47 incoming medical students enrolled in a joint MD/MPH degree for
a total of 150 medical students (first through fourth year) currently working toward the joint degree.
Approximately 35-45 of the joint degree medical students graduate annually. The requirements for the
MD/MPH and MD/MPH&TM programs are outlined in the SPHTM Catalog under "Combined Degree
Programs for Medical Students" and on the SPHTM website.
Marie Antoinette Krousel-Wood MD, MSPH, who also serves as the associate provost for the health
sciences, is the associate dean for the MD/MPH program. She has overall responsibility for the
coordination of the program between the two schools. A dedicated director facilitates the MD/MPH
program and oversees administrative functions and assignment of program advisors for students. The
MD/MPH Advisory Committee (MMAC) consists of representatives from both the School of Public Health
and Tropical Medicine and the School of Medicine. Formed originally to assess and strengthen the
academic ties and foundation for the MD/MPH Combined Degree Program, the committee also serves as
a catalyst for reviewing, designing, and implementing innovative joint degree curricula that are
responsive to the changing health care environment and to accreditation requirements. This committee
reviews applicants to the program and provides input into the awarding of academic scholarships to
qualified students. Student progress is monitored primarily by the faculty advisor in the specific
department and the MD/MPH program office staff; if necessary, issues are discussed with MMAC. Any
problems that are identified are communicated to the students.
Joint Degree Programs with Other Professionals Schools
The SPHTM has combined MPH or MSPH degrees with other professional schools in Tulane University
to promote public health approaches and applications within these areas. Departments that participate in
the joint degrees include:
Professional School
School of Law
School of Business
School of Social Work
02/01/10
SPHTM Department
International Health & Development
Joint Degree
JD/MHA
JD/MSPH
JD/MPH
MBA/MHA
MSW/MPH
MSW/MPH
MSW/MPH
Page 131
Section 2.11
Joint Degrees
In 2008-09, a total of five students enrolled in joint degree programs with other professional schools;
typically 2-3 students are formally in joint degrees with the Schools of Business, Law, and Social Work.
The joint degree offers a path for students in other professions to incorporate public health into their
field. The number of students in any of the joint programs varies each year; students in other
professional schools frequently enroll in SPHTM courses, with a smaller number who formally enroll to
obtain a public health degree. While none of these joint degree programs has a large number of
students, the option offers a means for other professionals to get a public health orientation without
consuming additional resources.
Joint Degree Programs with Undergraduate Schools
Joint Degree Programs with Tulane Undergraduate Schools
The 4+1 joint degree program allows BSPH students to complete the class requirements for both
undergraduate and master’s degrees at the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in a period
of approximately five years. With permission of the deans of undergraduate and graduate admissions
and the appropriate department chair at SPHTM, BSPH students may apply to the Master of Public
Health (MPH) or Master of Science in Public Health (MSPH) degrees while an undergraduate. Fifteen
(15) credit hours of graduate core coursework apply toward the BSPH and the MPH for those in the
joint degree program. The MSPH and MPH degree offerings at SPHTM require 42 to 45 credit hours at
the graduate level.
.
Students apply to the SPHTM for the 4+1 program during the spring semester of their junior
undergraduate year. Admissions requirements for the master’s component of the 4+1 program are
identical to those for admission into the School’s regular master’s programs. Program admission takes
effect upon receipt of the BSPH degree and acceptance by the dean of Graduate Admissions. Students
are strongly encouraged to work closely with their academic advisers to ensure that the requirements of
the BSPH degree, and the MPH or MSPH degree are all successfully met.
Students in the BSPH/MPH program may select a specialization in each department:
• Biostatistics-MSPH
• Community Health Sciences-MPH
• Environmental Health Sciences-MPH, MSPH
• Epidemiology-MPH
• Health Systems Management-MPH
• International Health and Development-MPH
• Tropical Medicine-MSPH
Joint Degree Programs with Xavier University
Tulane has formal agreements with Xavier for combined BS/MPH and BS/MSPH degree programs that
are specifically designed to recruit minority undergraduate students into careers in public health. The 4-1
program with Xavier University has served as an effective pipeline to attract minority students into public
health. The 4-1 program with Xavier was initiated in 1992. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the joint programs
were successful in attracting 5 – 10 minority students into MPH and MSPH programs each year, many of
whom continued into doctoral programs. Xavier University sustained substantial damage during
Hurricane Katrina and has been slower in recovering – both in terms of their physical facilities as well as
loss of up to 50% of their student body in the year following Katrina. This led to a lapse in the program
as they concentrated on their rebuilding efforts. Tulane has provided substantial help in rebuilding,
providing space immediately after the hurricane, opening courses to their students and partnering on a
variety of projects. The joint degree programs have not recruited students to allow Xavier to rebuild and
stabilize. In the last year, discussions have begun to revive the 4-1 program and relationships remain in
place to activate it shortly. It is anticipated that the programs will become active again in the next year.
02/01/10
Page 132
Section 2.11
Joint Degrees
Joint Degree Program with Southeastern Louisiana University
The joint BS/MSPH degree program between SPHTM Department of Environmental Health
Sciences and Southeastern Louisiana University is designed to recruit undergraduate students,
including minority students, into public health. As with other joint degrees with undergraduate
programs, students must complete all of the requirements and attain the competencies for both the
undergraduate degree and the SPHTM courses. The combined degree program does not decrease
the requirements of individual programs. Students may take 8-10 credits at SPHTM in their senior
year. These credits are taken as free electives in their undergraduate courses of study and are
applied to the BS degree and to the MSPH degree. After completion of all BS degree requirements
and award of the BS degree, students are considered full-time MSPH students at SPHTM.
Southeastern University has several science programs that are complementary with ENHS in
SPHTM including industrial hygiene, environmental science, chemistry and biology and others. The
joint provides a bridge for students to enter careers in public health.
2.11 B Assessment
This criterion is met. All of the joint degree programs are equivalent to separate degrees in terms of
admission and degree requirements including the public health core courses, program requirements, and
practicum and culminating experiences. Students in graduate programs are able to apply requirements
from the other degree as electives toward the SPHTM degree.
The interdisciplinary nature of public health is particularly well exemplified by the SPHTM's joint degree
programs. The excellent rapport between the SPHTM and the other professional schools of the
University fosters collaborative program planning and implementation. MD/MPH program is very robust
and serves as an excellent path for educating medical students in public health approaches and
prevention. The association with the School of Medicine is particularly close. The School of Medicine
considers the joint MD/Public Health degree programs exceptional recruiting tools; the number of
medical students in these programs attests to the quality of the offerings.
The joint degrees with undergraduate institutions are the means to attract students into careers in public
health. The combined BSPH/MPH program builds upon the emerging BSPH program to recruit
exceptionally qualified undergraduates into public health. Tulane Undergraduate students in the BSPH
program may apply SPHTM credits toward their undergraduate degrees. This allows for a saving in time.
Students develop a course plan between the two programs that enhances an interdisciplinary approach
to their studies. In the past, the joint degree programs with Xavier University have proved successful in
establishing a pipeline to bring additional minority students into careers in public health. We look forward
to these programs again being robust.
02/01/10
Page 133
Section 2.12
Nontraditional Programs
2.12 A Non-traditional Degree Programs
The non-traditional programs fulfill the school’s mission to advance public health knowledge by providing
educational opportunities to public health professionals who cannot attend the traditional on-campus programs.
They are an integral component of the overall teaching program and provide educational opportunities to
practice professionals.
Seven non-traditional degree programs are identified in Table 2.12 A The non-traditional programs at SPHTM
utilize two models: 1) executive programs with concentrated weekend or 7-day on-campus sessions with
independent work; and 2) technology-mediated distance learning in which the student and instructor are
separated. Table 2.12.A shows the program, degree offered and the non-traditional format. Details of each
program are listed on the SPHTM website.
Table 2.12 A Non-traditional Degree Programs
Department
Degree
Title
Format
HSMG
MMM*
Master of Medical Management (MMM)
7 day on-campus sessions
HSMG
ScD
Executive Doctorate of Science (ScD)
Monthly weekend sessions
HSMG
MPH
ENHS/CAEPH
MPH
ENHS/CAEPH
MPH
Taiwan Asia Elite Leadership (TAEL)
Program
Occupational Health and Safety
Management (OSHM)
Occupational and Environmental Health
ENHS/CAEPH
MSPH
Industrial Hygiene (IH)
ENHS/CAEPH
MPH
Disaster Management
7 day on-campus sessions
Courses in Taiwan
Distance Learning: Synchronous
Internet Virtual Classroom
* The last domestic cohorts will graduate in May, 2010
SPHTM nontraditional programs target specific groups of public health professionals. SPHTM does not offer a
general MPH program in a nontraditional format. Two departments offer programs in the nontraditional format:
HSMG offers programs using an executive format focusing the management aspects of health care and public
health. ENHS through the Center of Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH) offer distance learning
programs for midcareer occupational or environmental health professionals. Each program is described in
detail below. The non-traditional degree programs are geared to the mid-career professional who cannot enroll
in traditional full-time programs. Recent college graduates are directed to the regular on-campus program.
The school also offers all of the core courses on-line to facilitate schedules with medical students. The on-line
core courses target on-campus students in the traditional degree programs who are not enrolled in the
executive or distance learning degree programs. These on-line courses are not included in this section.
2.12 B Description of Non-traditional Degree Programs
While each non-traditional program has a defined target audience and the modes of delivery vary, all follow
the best practices for executive and executive education. Common factors in SPHTM non-traditional
programs include:
• Each has administrative, academic and technical support services for faculty and students
• All programs adhere to the same academic standards as on-campus programs
o Students must meet SPHTM admission and graduation requirements
o All core courses are required for professional degrees
• Students must fulfill all SPHTM requirements for the core courses, programmatic requirements, a
practicum, and a culminating experience
• All programs undergo the same academic review procedures as on-campus programs
02/01/10
Page 134
Section 2.12
All programs and courses are reviewed by the SPHTM Curriculum Committee for competencies
and learning objectives, appropriateness of the format and evaluation procedures.
o All faculty must be reviewed and approved through the SPHTM Personnel and Honors process
and must meet the same requirements as those who teach on-campus. Many faculty
participating in the non-traditional programs are the regular faculty who teach in the traditional
programs.
Each program has clearly stated program objectives and requirements and sample time lines for
degree completion
The programs use adult learner teaching methods and facilitate student interactions with faculty and
other students.
Each program is regularly evaluated for student learning outcomes and effectiveness of the delivery
models.
The business plans for the HSMG executive programs and the CAEPH distance learning programs
provide sustainable resources to support the programs.
o
•
•
•
•
The non-traditional programs extend public health educational opportunities to midcareer professionals who
cannot attend traditional on-campus programs. If the degree program is offered on campus, the competencies
are the same for both formats.
The business plan for the executive and distance learning programs have proved to be successful in
supporting the programs over the long term. The HSMG executive programs have been successful for nearly
20 years and the CAEPH distance learning program is in its 15th year. At SPHTM, the tuition revenues are
accrued to the program from which all programmatic expenses and school/university taxes (~25% of revenues)
are paid. Expenses include payments to instructors, administrative support, technology and technical support,
and programmatic expenses. Any remaining funds are invested into the program for technical upgrades or
programmatic expansion. In some cases, the nontraditional programs may contribute to cover any
departmental budget deficit. This business model has functioned well to support the non-traditional programs
with their required infrastructure and to provide incentive for faculty to participate in them.
The curriculum, student learning and the effectiveness of the format is regularly evaluated by the Curriculum
Committee and within each unit. In addition, the distance learning programs also evaluate student satisfaction
with the technology and delivery modes. The results of the in-depth program evaluations are used for
continuous improvement. The non-traditional programs are carefully scrutinized to assure quality.
The students in the HSMG MMM program enter as a cohort and proceed through the program at the
prescribed rate. The average time for those in the MMM executive degree is 1.6 years; the program brings
students through as a cohort with a specified schedule. The graduation rate is high; occasionally one student
may leave, but the graduation rate consistently ranges from 93-100%. The executive ScD degree begins a
cohort every other year and time to completion is similar to other doctoral programs with some students
requiring over six years to complete requirements. Students who enter and are brought through the nontraditional programs as a cohort tend to have higher rates of completion and stay on schedule. The students in
ScD program also enter as a cohort and are proceeding according to their plan.
The CAEPH distance learning program is designed for part-time students who are practitioners. Initially,
students entered as a cohort and proceeded through the program taking two courses each semester for
approximately 2½ years. As the number of credits increased and with increasing workloads in student’s jobs,
the time to complete the program has increased to ~4 years and can extend to six years. Many students are
taking only take one course a semester instead of two which extends the completion time. Over 15 years of
operation, the distance learning program has an excellent record of retention and graduation of students as
compared to other distance learning programs: the SPHTM program graduates over 85% of students who
enter as compared to 40%-60% for other distance learning programs.
Data on student enrollment for the nontraditional programs is included in Section 4.4.
02/01/10
Page 135
Section 2.12
Executive Programs (HSMG)
Master of Medical Management (MMM)
The last domestic cohort in the MMM program will graduate in May 2010. The MMM will not add new domestic
cohorts, but international cohorts may be offered in the future.
Model and Rationale: The Department of Health Systems Management has developed, in cooperation with the
American College of Physicians Executives (ACPE), a non-traditional degree program resulting in a Master of
Medical Management (MMM). The degree has been approved by the Curriculum Committee and the Tulane
Board of Administrators. The MMM is also a valuable opportunity for ACPE members to build on the work they
have already completed through the Certificate of Medical Management and to earn a masters degree in a
flexible and convenient format. The MMM degree meets the SPHTM’s admission requirements and degree
requirements including the core courses, a practicum, and a culminating experience. The Master of Medical
Management degree provides:
• Business and organizational skills to allow physicians to manage the internal and external
issues facing their organizations.
• Strategic management and planning skills necessary to thrive in today’s changing healthcare
environment.
• Decision, integrative, and leadership skills for the new era in health care.
• Educational component necessary to qualify for the American Board of Preventive Medicine
board examination.
The program consists of five separate five-day sessions at Tulane University in New Orleans, LA. These
sessions include lectures, small group discussions, case studies and individual application projects. Each of
these on-campus sessions is followed by three-month off-campus sessions during which time students
complete projects that integrate course teaching and skills. The entire program takes approximately 18 months
to complete. Specific program competencies are listed in Section 2.6.
Faculty: The faculty of the MMM Program are drawn from within the Department of Health Systems
Management, the SPHTM and Tulane University. Outside experts, including senior faculty from other
educational institutions, and practicing physician leaders and managers, also serve as faculty for the MMM
Program. All faculty are reviewed by the SPHTM’s Personnel and Honors Committee. Faculty are included in
the faculty list in Table 4.1 A and B.
Student Selection: Students in the MMM program are selected from mid-career ACPE physicians who wish to
make a career transition from clinical (direct patient care) to administrative and management positions.
Classes are kept small to facilitate cohesiveness of each group, and maximize faculty and student interaction.
Applications to the MMM must possess:
• Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) degrees
• Five years of work experience after completion of residency
• Completion of the Certificate in Medical Management Program through ACPE or equivalent
course work in the HSM department
• A professional resume, a written professional self-assessment, and a written career plan
• Official transcript from all post-secondary schools (college, medical, and other professional)
• Three letters of reference
The admissions committee considers the following in selecting students: professional experience,
demonstrated ability, professional achievement, motivation, diversity, and leadership ability. The program is
designed to build upon the Certificate in Medical Management Program through ACPE or coursework in the
Department of Health Systems Management.
Curriculum: Building upon the Certificate in Medical Management Program, the curriculum for the MMM offers
new knowledge and skills in the following areas: organizational behavior; accounting /financial reporting;
marketing management; financial management and decision making; epidemiology for health care managers;
biostatistics; public health; environmental health; decision models; human resources management; regulatory
02/01/10
Page 136
Section 2.12
process; planning/design/ management of capital projects; payment systems/Insurance basics; strategy
formulation and implementation; managed care proposals/negotiations/ bidding/pricing; and public policy.
Requirements include successful completion of the following:
• Required SPHTM core courses
• Programmatic requirements
• 200-contact hour practicum
• Public health analysis project on quality improvements in health care
Students in the MMM program complete a four-month project on quality improvements in a medical setting.
This project allows students to plan and implement practical, population health enhancements to existing
organizational practices. Students evaluate the outcomes of this intervention, and display results to HSM
faculty and students in a poster presentation. Posters include a problem statement, methods, results and
analysis of the intervention, and students answer questions from faculty on the content of their study.
Administrative and Student Support: The program is supported by a program manager, program coordinator,
and two student workers. The program manager and coordinator make all arrangements for on-campus
sessions. All Master of Medical Management students attend an orientation the first evening of their first oncampus session to become acquainted with the program’s academic and administrative aspects, and to meet
each other. During each on-campus session, to the administrative staff assists participating faculty with
preparation and dissemination of materials. Students are given access to on-campus electronic resources
(color printers, e-mail, library databases, Blackboard) with a dedicated user services analyst to provide
technological assistance and trouble-shooting.
Monitoring and Evaluation: MMM students are evaluated the same way as the traditional students and other
executive students. Each course in the MMM curriculum includes graded assignments, projects, presentations,
and examinations. MMM Program and Faculty are evaluated at the end of each course.
Assessment: The MMM program is designed to meet the specific academic preparation needs of a target
group of physicians who have already identified themselves as physician administrators. Many of these
physicians are members of the American College of Physician Executives. This organization has a
membership of over nine thousand physicians. The MMM alumni have been surveyed regularly through the
SPHTM alumni surveys. This opportunity allows for longitudinal assessment and ongoing surveys.
Executive Doctor of Science (ScD)
Model and Rationale: The Department of Health Systems Management has developed a non-traditional
doctoral degree program resulting in a Doctor of Science (ScD). This degree is a valuable opportunity for
students nationwide to earn an accredited doctoral degree in a convenient format. The program is based on
public health principles of improving the health of populations through the application of advanced analytical
and research knowledge and skills. New students are accepted into the program every two years in the
spring semester.
The program’s course schedule consists of five three-day on-campus sessions each spring and fall semester
over a two-year period. After coursework is completed, students sit for comprehensive exams in areas of core
competency. Students passing comprehensive exams continue to the dissertation stage, proposing and then
completing a dissertation research project. The Executive Doctor of Science meets the SPHTM’s admission
requirements and professional degree requirements including the core courses and a dissertation. The degree
has been approved by the SPHTM’s curriculum committee. Specific program competencies are listed in
Section 2.6.
Faculty: The faculty of the ScD Program is drawn from within the Department of Health Systems Management,
the SPHTM and Tulane University. Outside experts, including senior faculty from other educational institutions,
also serve as faculty for the ScD Program. All faculty are reviewed by the SPHTM’s Personnel and Honors
Committee. Faculty are included in the faculty list in Table 4.1 A and B.
02/01/10
Page 137
Section 2.12
Student Selection: Students are selected from mid-career professionals with either a clinical or
administrative/management background from various health care areas. Students are self-motivated, mature
individuals who seek to advance their careers with a doctoral degree. Classes are kept small to facilitate and
maximize faculty and student interaction. Applications to the Executive Doctor of Science Program must
possess the following:
• A Master’s degree equivalent to MPH, MBA, MHA or a terminal clinical degree (i.e.: M.D.,
D.D.S.).
• GRE score of 1000 minimum – 1200 preferred
• Official transcripts from all post-secondary schools (college, medical, and other professional)
• A 500-1000 word career statement
• Three letters of reference
The admissions committee considers each of the following in selecting students: professional experience,
demonstrated ability, professional achievement, motivation, and diversity. All admission files are first reviewed
by the doctoral committee of the Department of Health Systems Management and then reviewed by the
SPHTM’s Doctoral Committee.
Curriculum: The Executive Doctor of Science curriculum covers the core areas basic to public health and
focuses on three major learning themes:
• Research Methods
• Application of Analytic Skills to Current Problems
• Seminar Series in Contemporary Management Issues
Total credits include 81 hours beyond the baccalaureate; 45 credits beyond the masters degree or a prior 36
credits of master’s level coursework.
These content areas provide the student with the skills required to undertake successful independent research
and to identify issues that merit further research. A research study and the preparation and defense of a
dissertation are required for completion of the program. The research may be directed to a question within the
student’s workplace, allowing the student to address an actual health system problem and to apply research
skills to its solution.
Program courses are offered every spring and fall semester over a two-year period. Following the completion
of coursework, students sit for comprehensive examinations in areas of core competency. Upon satisfactory
completion of the comprehensive exam, students commence work on a research dissertation under the
supervision of an interdisciplinary dissertation committee. The student produces a written research prospectus
which is defended orally prior to conducting their original research work. The dissertation must include a
discussion of relevant literature, the research methods, and findings and conclusions of their original research
project. The dissertation is presented and orally defended to their committee and the Tulane community.
Program monitoring and evaluation: Executive Doctor of Science students are evaluated in much the same
way as other executive students. Each course in the ScD curriculum includes graded assignments,
presentations, and examinations. Students evaluate the program at the end of every semester. Faculty are
evaluated at the end of each respective course. Course evaluations are reviewed at the end of each semester
by the department doctoral committee and the program staff. The ScD program is monitored directly by the
department’s doctoral programs advisory committee under the supervision of the department chair.
Programmatic review is undertaken every two years prior to admission of a new student cohort. Any curriculum
or program changes are further evaluated by the departmental faculty, the school’s Curriculum Committee, and
the school’s Doctoral Committee.
Assessment: The program seeks applicants with Health Care Administration expertise and masters or
professional degree preparation to join a group of fellow students and faculty in the pursuit of new skills, and
the development of new knowledge in Health Systems Management. A primary objective of the program is to
recruit students with diverse health administration backgrounds and experience. Students remain employed
02/01/10
Page 138
Section 2.12
while undertaking this program, and in many instances student research will be based in the student’s home
organization. It will culminate in the dissertation.
Taiwan Asia Elite Leadership (TAEL) Program (MPH)
Model and Rationale: The TAEL (Tulane Asia Elite Leadership) program is an executive MPH degree offered
to participants from the Show Chwan Memorial Hospital system in Taiwan. The program responds to the
growing need and desire of foreign health professionals to obtain executive education in the management of
health systems. The program curriculum mirrors the categories of knowledge within the traditional Master of
Public Health degree offered by the department and has the same competency expectations and curriculum
requirements as the on-campus MPH. Program competencies are included in Section 2.6.
The program has 42 credit hours with courses in three major areas: public health core, health systems
management, and research design. The program also requires a practicum and public health analysis as its
culminating experience. The TAEL program is conducted over a three- year period with students attending
classes at Show Chwan Memorial Hospital in Taiwan as well as classes once a year at Tulane. The oncampus sessions last from 7-10 days. Currently, the Department of Health Systems Management is
conducting the program for the second cohort. These students will complete the MPH program in May 2010.
Faculty: The faculty of the TAEL Program is drawn from within the Department of Health Systems
Management, the SPHTM and Tulane University. Faculty from Asia University (Taiwan) also teach selected
courses within the program. All faculty are reviewed by the SPHTM’s Personnel and Honors Committee.
Faculty are included in the faculty list in Table 4.1 A and B.
Student Selection: Students are drawn from Show Chwan Memorial Hospital System who have recognized the
need for more skills in the current positions or the need for the degree (and accompanying skills) for promotion.
Students’ backgrounds range from medical professionals to mid- and upper-level administrators within the
hospital system. Cohort size is limited to 25 students to allow for maximum student-faculty contact.
All students must meet the requirements for admissions to SPHTM. The admissions committee considers the
following in selecting students: professional experience, demonstrated ability, professional achievement,
motivation, diversity, and leadership ability.
Curriculum: The curriculum for the TAEL MPH program offers a wide knowledge base for students. Program
categories of knowledge include: functions of management; financial management and decision making;
accounting /financial reporting; health economics and the relationship between health and economic
development; human resources; organizational behavior theory; strategy formulation and implementation;
history of health and disease; epidemiology for health care managers; biostatistics; environmental health;
occupational health; and basic research design. Requirements include successful completion of the following:
•
•
•
•
Required SPHTM core courses
Programmatic requirements
200-contact hour Practicum
Public health analysis project on quality improvements in health care
Program monitoring and evaluation: TAEL MPH students are evaluated the same way as the traditional
students and other executive students. Each course in the TAEL curriculum includes graded assignments,
projects, presentations, and examinations. TAEL program goals and faculty are evaluated at the end of each
course.
Assessment: The TAEL program meets growing demand and need for an international MPH degree focused
on the management of health systems. There is opportunity for employees of health systems, both private and
public, to gain the knowledge and skills needed for more effective management of their health systems. The
need for well-trained professionals in managerial positions in health systems globally continues to grow, as
more countries are recognizing the impact of effective management on the performance of their systems. The
Department of Health Systems Management has forged a strong partnership with Show Chwan Memorial
Hospital to provide these opportunities to medical professionals and administrators in Taiwan.
02/01/10
Page 139
Section 2.12
The distance learning programs are offered through the Center for Applied Environmental Public Health
(CAEPH) and have a 15 year track record of excellence in distance education. Established in 1994, the
program has matured and grown and developed a state-of-the-art facility to deliver quality academic education
to midcareer students around the world. Following Hurricane Katrina, the distance learning programs were
reinstated the first week of October 2005 and delivered courses during the fall semester when the rest of the
University was closed. The distance learning programs are a means to serve the practice community and
provide a public health graduate degree for career advancement.
The distance education programs at Tulane SPHTM are built upon the following: 1) the curriculum and
academic content of the program; 2) instructional design adapting materials and teaching methods for
technology-mediated teaching; this provides substantial instructor support; 3) technical infrastructure to support
distance delivery (hardware, software and technical personnel); 4) administrative support for students and
faculty; and 5) ongoing evaluation.
Model and Rationale: Distance learning programs were established in response to a need to build capacity in
industrial hygiene and occupational health among working professionals in remote locations where they were
no academic programs. Distance learning technology was implemented to deliver master’s degrees in
occupational disciplines without individuals leaving their jobs for extended periods of time. In the last 15 years,
CAEPH has expanded the technical capacity for delivering educational programs. Initially, the program used
video teleconferencing and then moved to the Internet as it developed to handle a virtual classroom. All of the
distance learning programs target midcareer professionals who desire to develop their professional skills
without sacrificing their family obligations or interrupting their careers.
Distance Learning Technology and Delivery: The distance learning programs are delivered via synchronous
interactive Internet through a virtual classroom (the Learn Linc courseware system). The system mimics a
traditional classroom and provides for real-time classes with the instructor and 15 to 25 students on-line
simultaneously. Two-way audio, text chat and simultaneous viewing of PowerPoint slides or web-based
materials allow students to hear and participate in lectures and to ask questions and speak during class
discussion and debate. Semester-long weekly classes set an academic tone and provide a structure for
graduate study. Features of the virtual classroom system include: Q & A (students respond to a set of multiplechoice questions and results with the percent responding to each answer are instantly available); chat rooms;
bulletin boards; white board for writing equations; access to web sites; application sharing and student polling.
E-mail is utilized to allow the instructor to hold office hours and to promote student-to-student interaction.
Written materials are sent electronically between instructor and the students; homework assignments and
examinations are submitted electronically. The virtual classroom may also be set up for students to meet
virtually for small-group projects independent of the instructor. The distance learning courses use the webbased course management system Blackboard™. This allows a centralized location for all course related
materials. These materials include: lectures, slides, videos, podcasts, assignments, exams, syllabus and other
course related information. Tools such as SafeAssign™ are used to check submitted documents for
plagiarism. Blackboard™ facilitates e-mail and other forms of electronic communications and collaboration in
class. The sessions are electronically recorded and placed on a web site after class; the recorded classes are
available for later review or if a class is missed.
All distance learning programs follow the traditional semester format. Each class is typically held for 3 hours
one night a week during the fall, spring and summer semesters. The courses have start and completion dates
with specific timelines for assignments, projects and exams. These are not self-paced courses, but a
synchronous delivery of classes.
The format of the distance learning system and technology has engendered communication and networking
among faculty and students. In spite of the distance, the weekly class format and technology has facilitated
communication and interactions among students which has led to networking for jobs and professional
friendships. This phenomenon is similar to the social networking systems popular today, but predated them by
10 years.
02/01/10
Page 140
Section 2.12
Quality and Academic Rigor: CAEPH Distance Learning program has mechanisms in place for ongoing
evaluation and improvement including: regular upgrades to the technical infrastructure; incorporating new
features to enhance technical delivery; and review of the curriculum to keep abreast of new practice issues.
CAEPH provides technical and academic support to students and instructors to promote excellence in teaching
from a distance. Measures for ensuring the quality and academic rigor of the programs include: use of subject
matter experts, faculty qualifications, student qualifications, review of the curriculum, and oversight by an
advisory committee.
Faculty: Faculty who teach in the distance learning programs include the regular on-campus faculty; adjunct
faculty from other universities and industries; and clinical faculty with practice experience. Prior to Katrina, oncampus faculty were paid for teaching in the distance learning programs as an overload; this was an incentive
and many on-campus faculty sought to teach in the distance learning program. However, with the financial
tightening as a result of Katrina, no overload payments are allowed. As a result, fewer on-campus faculty are
willing to teach even greater loads without some compensation.
All faculty who teach must have the same academic credentials and discipline-specific qualifications as the oncampus faculty; all are reviewed and approved by the Personnel and Honors Committee. Because of the
distance learning technology, faculty do not have to reside in New Orleans; this allows us to recruit very highly
qualified faculty from around the country.
Student selection: The distance learning programs accept only mid career professionals who have at least 3
years experience in an occupational health and safety field. Students must meet the school’s admissions
requirements for the respective degree program. In addition, students must have facility with computers and
using the Internet. Students are self-selected as electronic media are a major recruitment tool. Applicants are
counseled on: the differences between distance education programs and traditional on-campus courses; the
rigor of the program and time needed for study; and, the need to be able to function and learn independently.
Most of the students have mid- to high-level positions within their organizations and are seeking further career
advancement.
Curriculum: Four degree programs are offered in the distance learning format:
MPH in Occupational Health and Safety Management
MPH in Occupational Health
MPH in Disaster Management
All four programs require students to meet the SPHTM’s admission and degree requirements including the
core courses, programmatic requirements, a practicum, and a culminating experience. In addition, the
industrial hygiene program meets more stringent admission requirements as mandated by ABET. The
competencies for the industrial hygiene, occupational health and disaster management programs are the same
as for their on-campus equivalent programs. The occupational health and safety management program is only
offered through distance learning. The competencies for each are listed in Section 2.6.
All distance learning programs have the same requirements as the corresponding on-campus MPH or MSPH
mid-career program. (See curriculum course descriptions and requirements in the Resource File.)
The curriculum for distance learning programs includes the following:
• SPHTM core courses.
• Programmatic requirements specific to the degree program.
• Culminating experience
• Practicum (waived only for practice professionals with proper documentation)
The curriculum design incorporates adult learning techniques and draws upon professional experience; it
is rich with case studies, in-class exercises, discussion, debate and small group projects in addition to
traditional lectures and exams. The technology supports synchronous real-time sessions for in-class
interactions. The curriculum and choice of technical tools enhance learning by fostering interaction
among students and instructor.
02/01/10
Page 141
Section 2.12
Industrial Hygiene: The programmatic requirements of the Industrial Hygiene program are similar to the oncampus program and include the public health core requirements and the ABET (Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology) required industrial hygiene performance areas. In addition to the SPHTM core
courses, industrial hygiene course topics include: Principles of Industrial Hygiene; Principles of Toxicology;
Radiological Health; Physical Agents as Occupational Health Hazards; Industrial Ventilation; Air Sampling and
Analysis; Principles of Occupational Health; Occupational Laws and Compliance; Air Pollution. In addition,
students are required to pass an Industrial Hygiene comprehensive examination upon completion of their
course work and complete a culminating experience.
The industrial hygiene program is the only distance learning program to have an on-campus requirement.
Students are required to attend an on-campus laboratory course to attain hands-on technical skills as a part of
the Air Sampling and Analysis course. The laboratory portions of air sampling and ventilation is offered during
an intensive one week (7 days) summer session.
Occupational Health and Safety Management (OSHM) The OSHM program is offered only in the distance
learning format. The program is designed for midcareer professionals who already have technical knowledge
and skills and seek to add management abilities to advance their careers. The OSHM program attracts a
number of students who are already certified industrial hygienists (CIH) or certified safety professionals (CSP)
and who have years of technical experience. The admission and degree requirements follow the guidelines for
the on-campus midcareer MPH programs, including all of the core requirements and culminating experience.
An Advisory Committee guides the curriculum of the program to assure its quality and relevance to the practice
world. In addition to the SPHTM core courses, the occupational health and safety management curriculum
includes: Health and Safety Management I; Health and Safety Management II; Elements of Health and Safety
Training & Evaluation; Financial and Human Resource Management; Principles of Occupational Health;
Occupational Laws and Regulations; Current Issues in Industrial Hygiene and Safety; Elements of Health and
Safety Training and Evaluation; and an elective course. Students frequently take a disaster management
course. There is no on-campus requirement for the program.
Occupational and Environmental Health: The MPH in Occupational and Environmental Health is designed
for physicians, nurses and other occupational health professionals and provides the didactic requirements for
physicians who seek board certification in occupational medicine. The program follows MPH requirements for
preventive medicine and occupational medicine boards. The course and program learning objectives were
crossed-walked with designated knowledge areas for the preventive medicine and occupational medicine
board exams to insure coverage of all topic areas. The program focuses on health effects related to
occupational settings and the means to promote health and prevent injury and disease in the workplace.
The admission and degree requirements are identical to the occupational health program for on-campus
students. In addition to the SPHTM core courses, the occupational and environmental health curriculum
includes include: History and Organization of Health Services; Population Behavior and Environmental public
Health, Principles of Toxicology; Principles of Industrial Hygiene; Principles of Occupational Health;
Environmental Health Risk Assessment; and electives. Students frequently take elective courses from the
health and safety management or disaster management track. There is no on-campus requirement for the
program.
Disaster Management: The MPH in Disaster Management is designed for environmental public health
professionals tasked with responding to and planning for emergencies and disasters. The program is designed
for mid-career professionals who already have a background in related fields including: nurses, EMT’s,
paramedics, firefighters, healthcare administrators, managers (government, industry and non-profit), and those
with a public health background. Individuals completing this program are prepared for professional careers in
managing the environmental public health aspects of disasters for industry, government or non-profit agencies.
The admission and degree requirements follow the guidelines for the on-campus mid-career MPH programs,
including all of the core requirements and culminating experience.
02/01/10
Page 142
Section 2.12
An Advisory Committee guides the curriculum of the program to assure its quality and relevance to the practice
world. In addition to the SPHTM core courses, the disaster management curriculum includes: Principles of
Toxicology; Disaster and Emergency Communication; Environmental Preparedness and Response;
Environmental Sampling, Monitoring and Data Analysis; Population Issues in Disaster Management and
Psychosocial Aspects of Environmental Health Disasters. There is no on-campus requirement for the
program.
Culminating Experience: All distance learning programs require a public health analysis with a written report
that is designed to synthesize material and integrate knowledge across disciplinary courses and other learning
experiences, and applies theory thorough a real-world project that approximates an aspect of professional
practice. The written technical report includes a literature review, hypothesis, methods, results and discussion
and conclusion. Most students develop a culminating experience that addresses an issue related to their work.
Often the results of the culminating experience are utilized by the student’s company for improving their health
and safety programs.
In the Spring 2010, students will have the option of the SPHTM comprehensive examination for a culminating
experience. An assessment of the reason some students take longer to graduate or delay graduation is the
lack of time to complete a public health analysis. All are working professionals with families and making time
for the public health analysis is a barrier to graduation. A survey of these students indicates a preference for
the comprehensive exam as an alternative.
Practicum: Distance learning students, as for the on-campus students, are required to complete a practicum as
a part of their study for the MPH or MSPH. The practicum is a valuable and essential component of training
for students who have not worked in public health or occupational health or those making a career change.
However, the majority of the distance learning students are mid-career practice professionals who already
have extensive practical experience in their field gained on the job and are returning to graduate school to
obtain the theory and academic credentials for advancement in their profession. For those with documented
practice experience in their field of study, a waiver of the practicum requirement may be considered. Since a
practicum has been a requirement, 3 students have qualified for a waiver (See Resource File).
Administration and Student and Faculty Support for Distance Learning: The distance learning programs are
administered through the Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH). CAEPH performs the
administrative functions, provides academic support and oversight, curriculum development and adaptation of
materials to the distance format, technical infrastructure and technical support for students and faculty, and
course and program evaluation. The CAEPH instructional designer assists faculty in adapting course materials
to the distance learning format. Academic administration is coordinated through the SPHTM’s Office of
Admissions and Student Affairs.
CAEPH provides substantial administrative and technical support for distance learning students. The CAEPH
Distance Learning Office consists of: the program manager who oversees the academic content and quality of
the overall program, technical infrastructure and update of distance delivery tools; a clinical faculty member
who oversees the day-to-day operations of the program and is the primary contact with the students;
administrative staff for recruiting and the processing of registration, grades and other official transactions;
technical staff who oversee the upgrade and maintenance of the computing system and the technical delivery
of the courses. The staff provides technical support to program faculty and students. The support functions of
the CAEPH distance learning office are a key element in the success of the program.
The clinical faculty member serves as the advisor for distance learning students to assure oversight and serves
as the primary faculty contact. Prior to Katrina, most students progressed through the program as a cohort with
a designated curriculum and the course plan set at the time of admission. However, following the disruption in
the sequencing of courses, students entering at each of the three semesters, and the increasing tendency for
students to take only one course a semester rather than two, the cohort system has been difficult to maintain.
A regular schedule for courses (spring, summer and fall) has been established, and a few specialty courses
are offered every other year. This is published on the website to allow for students to know the course
02/01/10
Page 143
Section 2.12
scheduling. The CAEPH clinical faculty member works closely with students to maximize the scheduling of
courses to allow students to proceed through their programs in the most efficient manner. The advisor works
with the student in the selection of a culminating experience and practicum. The advisor then coordinates
supervision of the culminating experience by a faculty member with specific expertise in the topic.
The Distance Learning Program also provides support for faculty who teach in the program. An instructional
designer assists in adapting materials to the distance learning format and in developing interactive exercises.
The technical staff provides technical support to the instructor. The administrative staff facilitates the collection
and dispersal of assignments and test/exams.
Communication with Students: The CAEPH Office facilitates communication for the distance learning students
with: instructors, technical personnel; business and administrative units within the school and university.
Students interact with the program through three designated e-mail addresses (dldirect, dlinfo, and dltech) and
through a 1-800 phone number; this provides a direct means for communication. In addition, students
communicate directly with each course instructor. All e-mails, phone calls and requests for technical help
receive a response within 24 hours of request (usually the technical help is provided the same day as
requested). The technical assistance provided by CAEPH is often cited by students as a notable benefit of the
program. Technical staff always monitors the classes while they are being held and responds immediately to
issues raised during class time. All classes are recorded and posted for students to access and reference.
Evaluation: CAEPH conducts extensive three-tied evaluations on student satisfaction, student performance,
and program effectiveness including assessment of the curriculum, teaching methods and technical delivery
systems. CAEPH conducts ongoing evaluations of courses, students, and instructors; this information is used
by the Program Director and the Advisory Committee for making recommendations on improving the program.
Evaluation of student performance in courses is tailored to the course and may include: traditional exams some
of which are structured to be open book with timed on-line testing; papers and reports; individual or group
projects; case studies; participation in class discussions; and group and individual presentations. On-line
testing software allows for students to receive grades soon after completion of the exam. Testing methods and
assignments are based on the type of knowledge, skills and abilities developed in the course, and are
designed to stimulate integrated problem-solving and critical thinking rather than memorization. The use of
technology by both students and instructors has allowed for developing monitors of student performance
beyond exams.
At the end of every semester, each class is evaluated for student satisfaction with the course content, the
instructor’s performance, and technical delivery. The course evaluations are parallel to those conducted on
campus with the addition of information on technical delivery of the course. The results are given to the
instructor, Distance Learning Program Director and the Advisory Committee. In addition, periodic surveys of
student satisfaction with the technical delivery mode are conducted.
In addition to monitoring individual student performance by exams and grades, student performance in
distance learning courses has been compared to the performance of students in the same course taught in a
face-to-face classroom on-campus. Performance measures include grades on tests, grades and quality of
projects, quality of discussions and questions during class and completion of assignments on time. The
measures were tracked and compared between on-campus and distance students. It was found that distance
learning students typically performed at or slightly above levels of students in the corresponding on-campus
courses. Factors in the high performance of distance learning students include the experience of the mid-career
student, and their focus and motivation to obtain a graduate degree for career advancement. The evaluations
shows that the technology does not impede learning in these students and students can perform at a superior
level even when the courses are taught via technology from a distance. The synchronous delivery provides
advantages over asynchronous distance learning: weekly real-time classes and interactions among faculty and
student provide for regular feedback to students and the feeling of connection to the program and instructor. The
structure of weekly class meetings keeps students paced to complete work in a timely manner. The technology
also facilitates learning through the recorded classes for later review of a session or if a class is missed.
02/01/10
Page 144
Section 2.12
Surveys of students indicate that the synchronous delivery was a key factor in completing the program and they
place a very high value in the professional networking that occurs through this medium.
When students complete the program, an exit interview is conducted to assess: (1) student satisfaction with
the program; (2) the impact of the program on the student’s job and career. Permission is obtained to interview
the student’s employer to assess the impact of the learning on the organization.
Another measure is student retention in the program. Information published by the U.S. Distance Learning
Association indicates that the dropout rate in asynchronous distance learning programs ranges from 40% to
60%. There is no information on synchronous programs. The drop out rate for our distance learning programs
is less than 15%. In most of these cases, students cite individual problems (e.g., job transfers, health issues,
family problems, financial issues) and not dissatisfaction with the program as the reason for not continuing
classes. Many of these students return at a later time when their job or personal issues are resolved.
Evaluation of Technical Systems and Support: The synchronous mode of delivery, the virtual classroom and
technical support for the program are evaluated. On each course evaluation, technical support and quality of
delivery are assessed; specific endpoints include connectivity interruptions, reliability of the system and quality
of technical support. In addition, the Internet logs are reviewed to monitor the number of technical problems
that impact course delivery. In addition, a survey on the technical delivery systems for distance learning shows
that the synchronous nature of delivery enhances learning and is highly valued by students. The structure of
weekly classes combined with the interactivity of the virtual classroom keeps the student engaged in learning
and allows for networking among peers in their field.
Social and professional networking via the internet is now an accept norm. To address this milieu, CAEPH has
established a presence on Facebook™. Current and former students utilize this site to: network, inform users
about job prospects, and to track changes in career requirements.
Assessment of Distance Learning Programs: The distance learning programs have clearly articulated learning
objectives, and are subject to the same admission and graduation requirements as on-campus programs.
There is an ongoing evaluation process that provides feedback to the program director, instructors and
Advisory Committee. Since distance learning is a nontraditional mode of education, the program has had close
scrutiny since its inception 15 years ago. Distance education and technology-mediated teaching and learning
are still evolving; the research and development of technology-mediated teaching methods and tools and
curricular design benefits on-campus teaching. For example, the assistance of an instructional designer to
develop high quality materials and assist in course organization has improved the presentation of the course
when subsequently taught on-campus.
In addition, more technology is being used as on-campus teaching tools. Blackboard™ is now used for both
on-campus and distance students in the same manner. Library access through electronic subscriptions to
scientific journals via the Internet benefits both faculty and students. In the near future, increased use of
technology-mediated teaching will diminish differences between distant and on-campus teaching. As
evaluations indicate, the tailoring of the curriculum for midcareer professionals with practical experience is
perhaps a more important factor to be considered than the interface with technology.
2.12 C Assessment of the Non-Traditional Programs
This criterion is met: The non-traditional programs are geared to mid-career practice professionals and serve
an important function in fulfilling the mission of the SPHTM. The non-traditional programs provide mechanisms
to open educational opportunities to mid-career professionals who cannot attend traditional on-campus
programs. The structure of the programs reflects the discipline and the needs of specific target audiences.
Courses have clear learning objectives, are subject to the same admission and degree requirements, and are
reviewed by the Curriculum Committee. All faculty must have academic qualifications and are reviewed by the
Personnel and Honors Committee. More extensive evaluations are conducted for each of the non-traditional
programs. The business model for the non-traditional programs provides a mechanism for financial support
02/01/10
Page 145
Section 2.12
that insures sustainability. The Distance Learning Program provides for student and instructor support that
takes into account programmatic needs and accommodates students who are not on-campus. Evaluation
mechanisms assess the curriculum, format and/or technology, and student performance and satisfaction. The
criteria are met for each of the programs listed.
02/01/10
Page 146
3.0
Section 3.1
Research
Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge
3.1 A Research Activities, Policies, Procedures and Practices
Research is an essential component of the mission, goals and objectives of the school. Tulane is
classified as a Category I Carnegie Research University and therefore, research and scholarly activities
are fundamental to our mission. SPHTM has made substantial progress in building its research base
and growing community-based research. Over the last 10 years, one long term objective has been to
expand the research foundation and increase the number and amount of competitively funded research.
Research Policies, Procedures and Practices: The school’s commitment to research is reflected in its
policy and procedures:
•
Tenured and tenure track faculty are expected to engage in research, scholarship and creative
effort in their specialty field. To obtain tenure, faculty must show a proven track record in their
research area with peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals and by serving as a principal
investigator on federally funded peer-reviewed research grants.
•
Junior tenure-track faculty are expected to collaborate with other faculty and to develop
independent research programs. The importance the school places on research is reflected in
the individual departments’ criteria for three-year review in the tenure track, tenure review, and
promotion (see the Resource File).
•
Research is the primary responsibility of faculty in the research track. This track was created to
encourage and facilitate research competitiveness and build research capability.
•
Clinical faculty participate in community-based research and facilitate the link between
research and practice. They also cultivate research with public health agencies and
community organizations.
•
An informal mentoring program is in place at the departmental level to assist new faculty in
initiating research programs. Senior investigators involve new faculty in research proposals and
projects and assist new faculty in proposal writing.
•
Faculty salary support is budgeted from project awards based on the percent effort devoted to the
project. Tenure-track faculty have the goal to generate 25% of their salary through research
grants and contracts after three years. Tenured faculty have a goal of generating 50% of salary
from sponsored projects.
•
Space for research is provided to faculty who obtain research funding. Faculty who do not maintain
research funding may have to relinquish research space to those with active funding.
•
Faculty on nine-month appointments may be paid additional salary (up to two-elevenths of their
annual salary) for summer research work.
•
Merit salary increases are recommended by department chairs, in part based on research
productivity as measured by publications, presentations, and external funding.
•
The Logistics Support Unit of the dean’s office assists departmental financial staff with budget
preparation for proposals, and routing.
•
Faculty members are free to pursue research funding from all available sources (e.g.
governmental agencies, private foundations, business, and industry) and are encouraged to
maintain an active research program in their area of expertise. Collaborative efforts are
encouraged among faculty across the school and university.
•
After a grant application is prepared, it is routed through the department chair, the SPHTM Logistics
Support Unit, and to the dean for approval. This process assures that the proposed project budget
meets University regulations and resources are available to support the research project if funded.
•
The application is approved by the dean after budget review and prior to submission.
•
Principal investigators are responsible for technical implementation and budget management of
funded projects. The Logistics Support Unit assures that use of sponsored research funds
complies with the terms of the grant or contract. The dean is responsible for institutional
oversight of all sponsored projects.
Facilities: The school fosters research by providing the appropriate facilities for disciplinary research.
This includes laboratories, academic computing, and office space for faculty, professional, technical and
02/01/10
Page 147
Section 3.1
Research
administrative staff. See Section 1.6 for a full description of space, laboratory and computing facilities.
Research facilities include:
•
SPHTM has over 11,000 sq ft of high quality “wet” laboratory research space in the Tidewater
Building for the Departments of Tropical Medicine, Environmental Health and Epidemiology.
Environmental Health Sciences has newly constructed labs on the 21st floor.
•
The Departments of Environmental Health Sciences and Tropical Medicine have state-of-the-art
research facilities in the JBJ Building approximately 2 blocks from the Tidewater Building.
•
The computing infrastructure in the Tidewater Building continues to be expanded to support evergrowing academic computing capabilities. The computing infrastructure continues to grow with
the addition of extensive hardware, soft ware and high speed, broad band Internet connections.
(See Section 1.6 i)
•
Tulane University is a part of the Louisiana Optical Network Initiative (LONI) which is a fiberoptics research network that interconnects mainframe computers at Louisiana's major research
universities and medical schools. This gives Tulane researchers access to supercomputers with
high-speed, high-performance computing capabilities.
Research Centers: SPHTM has several research centers that serve as a basis for interdisciplinary
collaboration on a variety of basic, applied and community-based research areas.
Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH): The center facilitates interdisciplinary research
on the impact of environmental factors on human health and is the research base for the NIH National
Children’s Study Orleans Parish Site; the CDC Academic Partner of Excellence for Environmental Public
Health Tracking; and the Louisiana Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Program.
Center for Cardiovascular Health: The center promotes epidemiological and clinical research on risk
factors for heart disease and activities to promote cardiovascular health. The mission is to prevent
heart disease in future generations, by understanding the origin of major causes of adult heart
diseases, atherosclerosis, hypertension and diabetes, and by applying prevention modalities.
Center for Evidence-Based Global Health: The center promotes and supports evidence-based research
addressing today’s most critical global health issues. The center manages projects in several countries,
particularly in Latin America.
Center for Infectious Diseases (CID): The CID is a research-based center with specialties in basic and
applied studies of HIV/AIDS, vaccine development, tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and malaria. The center
stimulates interdepartmental research on emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases both in the US
and abroad.
The Prevention Research Center (PRC) at Tulane University: The Tulane PRC is one of 33 prevention
research centers funded by the CDC to conduct community-based research to reduce chronic diseases.
The Tulane PRC focuses on facilitating changes in the social and physical environment to promote
health and healthy behaviors by designing and implementing strategies for prevention.
Tulane/Xavier National Center for Excellence in Women’s Health (TUXCOE): TUXCOE is a collaborative
effort to increase awareness of women's health, improve health services for women, and increase
women's involvement in their health and healthcare. TUXCOE promotes basic, clinical and communitybased research on women’s health issues.
Mary Amelia Douglas-Whited Community Women’s Health Education Center: This endowed center uses
an ecological approach to engage in evidence-based health promotion activities in collaboration with
communities. The center focuses on cultural sensitivity, community development and individual growth
as it works in partnership with the women of the greater New Orleans area.
Office of Global Health: The mission of the Tulane Office of Global Health is to create new educational
and research opportunities in global health for Tulane students, as well as to foster interdisciplinary,
collaborative research opportunities for faculty.
02/01/10
Page 148
Section 3.1
Research
Office of Health Research: The Office of Health Research conducts studies on risk factors for kidney
and heart disease among patients with mild kidney problems, the effects of dietary protein
supplementation on lowering blood pressure, and the impact of exercise on blood pressure in AfricanAmerican women with hypertension.
Health Office for Latin America: Building upon Tulane's historical ties to Latin America, the SPHTM has
opened a health office in Lima, Peru to facilitate research in South and Central America. The office has a
faculty who manages the office and facilitates partnerships within the region.
3.1 B Community-based Research Activities
Community-based research projects funded over the past three years are indicated in the list of research
awards in Table 3.1C at the end of this section. As indicated by the array of projects, the SPHTM is
involved with the community at the local, regional, and international level. The success of communitybased projects is fostered through the large number of partnerships between the school’s faculty and
community organizations and local, state, national, and international agencies. Many of the communitybased research projects provide evidence to improve public health practice. Examples of communitybased projects include:
•
Tulane Prevention Research Center: The basic tenet of the PRC is community-based participatory
research.
o Partnership for an Active Community Environment (PACE) is the PRC core research project
which identifies barriers to physical activity and assesses the impact of environmental change
in an Upper Ninth Ward neighborhood. Leaders of neighborhood organizations participate on
the project steering committee. The project funded supervisors from the local school as
playground monitors to keep a playground open after school hours.
o The Food Policy Advisory Committee (FPAC) is a broad-based committee of area business
and policy leaders working to improve access to fresh healthy food. The FPAC was
authorized by a resolution New Orleans City Council in May 2007. The committee consists of
local stakeholders.
o The Food Ubiquity Study examines the prevalence of snack foods available at non-food
retailers. This is a Tulane PRC project that utilizes local observers in 20 cities to assess the
availability of high-calorie snack foods in retail outlets.
o Impact of Improved Play Equipment for Physical Activity in school children. The project
assesses the effect of playground equipment without organized activity on the physical
activity of children. After Hurricane Katrina, play structures were built on a number of
schoolyards in New Orleans. Staff assessed physical activity levels of children in several
schools before and after the play structures were installed.
•
Center for Applied Environmental Public Health has conducted community-based research
projects for over 20 years. Current projects include
o Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Project uses summary data from childhood lead
surveillance to provide information on lead poisoning to primary care physicians and
neighborhood groups.
o Head-Off Environmental Asthma in Louisiana (HEAL) is a community-based project to
assess the impact of mold on childhood asthma in Post-Katrina New Orleans. The
community advisory board has been active in the recruitment of children to participate and
will be instrumental in the dissemination and education efforts based on HEAL’s findings.
•
Researchers in Biostatistics have conducted multi-center school-based and community-based
projects focusing on health behaviors among children, adolescents and adults for over 20 years.
They have also evaluated the level of programmatic success and ongoing progress of a number of
community intervention projects in central Louisiana. Projects include:
o The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH) was an NIH-funded trial
to improve eating and physical activity behaviors in 3rd through 5th grade students.
02/01/10
Page 149
o
o
o
o
o
o
Section 3.1
Research
The Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG was an NIH-funded multi-center trial to
reverse the decline in physical activity in middle-school girls.
The Acadiana Coalition of Teens Against Tobacco (ACTT) was a multi-school program to
prevent the onset of tobacco use among high school students in South Central
Louisiana. Faculty members were involved with the design, data management, and
statistical analyses for the study.
ACTION! Wellness for Elementary School Personnel is a work-site environmental intervention
program to impact obesity. The program is being implemented across all adult staff of 22
elementary schools.
The Central Louisiana Medication Access Program (CMAP), funded by the Rapides
Foundation, provides chronic care prescription medications to residents of central Louisiana
parishes at reduced cost. The department evaluated change in health outcomes, patient
satisfaction, health care access and use, activities of daily living, as well as other factors
Operation Heartbeat AED Placement Program, established by the American Heart
Association and funded by the Rapides Foundation, trained and equipped first responders
and placed external defibrillators in fire trucks and police and sheriff department cruisers in
Central Louisiana. The primary goal of the evaluation was to provide an assessment of the
frequency and the extent of correct application, and outcome of the AED usage.
Public Access Defibrillation Project in Central Louisiana, established by the American Heart
Association and funded by the Rapides Foundation placed AEDs in non-profit, public
buildings and private industry sites. The primary goal of the evaluation was to provide an
assessment of the frequency and the extent of correct application, and outcome of the AED
usage.
The Department of Environmental Health conducts community-based projects with the Tulane Cancer
Center:
o Mammograms Save Lives: Almost 130 women in urban and rural Louisiana participated in
focus groups to help evaluate the cultural relevance of an existing DVD to promote
mammography in non-adherent women with historic burden of health disparities. The findings
of the project have resulted in new funding to develop a culturally competent interactive DVD
specifically tailored to African American women locally, in our region and nationally. The
project, sponsored among others by the American Cancer Society, will feature local breast
cancer survivors across the high risk ages telling their stories.
•
The Department of International Health and Development conducts community-based projects in
many countries throughout the world, but mainly in Africa. The projects address various health topics,
but all are geared to working with local agencies and governments to build public health capacity in
developing countries. Examples of projects include:
o The CDC Global AIDS Program (GAP) is a five-year HIV program, with the specific intent of
augmenting and expanding CDC’s world-wide efforts for development, implementation and
evaluation of HIV prevention, care, and treatment programs. The project provides technical
assistance and works with the GAP countries to build infrastructure to support prevention and
care programs and services. Activities are undertaken with the specific goal of reducing HIV
transmission and improving HIV/AIDS care and support in partnership with resourceconstrained countries.
o The MEASURE Evaluation Project develops and applies methods for monitoring and
evaluating population, health, and HIV/AIDS programs worldwide. MEASURE Evaluation
uses evaluation for a more coordinated approach to monitoring and evaluation that leads to a
more cost-effective and efficient health program. MEASURE Evaluation staff provide technical
assistance and training to personnel from USAID, its cooperating agencies, ministries of
health, and NGOs to build local capacities in monitoring and evaluation.
o Mobile Phones, Kitchen Gardens, and HIV/AIDS in Rural Africa is testing the use of mobile
phones in rural Africa in three projects: 1) Hybrid Technologies in the Era of HIV and AIDS:
Hoes and Mobile Phones in Rural Africa; 2) Crops, Cell Phones and T-Cells: Technology
02/01/10
Page 150
Section 3.1
Research
Change for Livelihood Security in Sub-Saharan Africa; and 3) Power is Knowledge, Field
Tests of Mobile Phone Chargers for Rural Kenyans.
3.1 C Current Research Activities
A list of funded research projects is provided in Table 3.1 C which indicates the principal investigator, title
of the project, funding agency, amount of the award, and indicated community-based project. Research
is funded by local, state/regional, national and international agencies. Examples of funding agencies
include:
•
Federal Agencies: National: National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, US Department of Agriculture, Health Resources Services Administration,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Naval Research, US Dept of Housing and Urban
Development; US Agency for International Development; National Science Foundation.
•
State/Regional: Louisiana Office of Public Health, Louisiana Board of Regents, Louisiana
Department of Education, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, State of Mississippi,
Mississippi State Department of Health, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans; Alabama
Dept of Public Health; Arkansas Department of Health.
•
Foundations/Associations/Industry: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Robert Wood
Foundation; Pew Foundation; Rapides Parish Foundation, American Health Association,
American Public Health Association; Frost Foundation, American Forestry Products
Association, Johnson and Johnson Medical, Inc; Eli Lilly; JEH Consulting; Rand Gulf States
Policy Institute; BlueCross & Blue Shield; Greenstar Social Marketing Pakistan Ltd.; PATH
Foundation; Water Environment Research Foundation; US Silica Corp; HCA Healthcare
•
International: USAID, Care, UNICEF; World Health Organization; French Embassy; United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; World Vision.
3.1D Outcome Measures
Measures for evaluating the success of research activities over the past three years include:
• Increase the research funding to at least $50 million annually by 2013
• Increase NIH research funding to at least $15 million annually by 2013
• Maintain the percent of funded community-based projects at 60% of funded research annually
• Increase number of articles in peer-reviewed journals by SPHTM faculty to 250 per year by 2013
• Increase the percent of articles with an impact factor of >1 to at least 75% and with an impact
factor of >3 to at least 35%
Increase the research funding to at least $50 million annually by 2013
Increase NIH research funding to at least $15 million annually by 2013
One of SPHTM’s objectives is to increase research funding to at least $50 million annually by 2013, of
which at least $15 million will be from NIH. Research funding awarded had reached $46 million in 200607 and then decreased to $38 million in 2007-08 following Katrina and is $21,886,710 in 2008-09. In
2005, prior to Hurricane Katrina, SPHTM had more than doubled the $19.5 million in research funding
awards at the time of the last CEPH site visit in 2001-2002. However, SPHTM has experienced a dip in
research awards following Katrina. The initial decrease can be attributed to the disruption in grant
submissions in 2005-06 and the loss of several very productive faculty who moved their research to other
universities. The current years decrease is due to no cost extension of a multi-million dollar project with
the subsequent year’s funding pushed into the next fiscal year.
A strategy for increasing research funding is to increase the number of faculty who are successful in
obtaining research grants as measured by the number who are Principle Investigators on peer-reviewed
funded research awards. Currently, a large volume of SPHTM’s research funding is generated by a few
faculty with large research and center grants. While large grants are actively sought, increasing the
02/01/10
Page 151
Section 3.1
Research
number of research-competitive faculty across all departments will provide greater stability and
sustainability of the research base, as well as increasing the total amount of funding.
The research target is to increase annual research awards to $50 million and NIH research awards to
$15 million over the next 4 years. The research awards for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are listed in
Table 3.1C. The variation in amount awarded and the amount in listed in Section 1.6 is due to the
difference in Tulane University’s and federal agencies’ fiscal years. The funds booked are those actually
spent within the Tulane fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) whereas research awards usually span parts of
two Tulane fiscal years.
Table 3.1 D1 shows the amount of research awards by department. Tabulation of research awards by
department shows the opportunity for research growth in departments that are not as research active as
others. The number of faculty who are principle investigators is another indication of the breadth of
research competitive faculty in each department. Less than 50% of faculty are principle investigators
which indicates a means for increasing research funding and broadening the research base.
Table 3.1 D1 Annual Research Awards by Department
2006-07
2007-08
$ Awards
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
1,419,388
2,272,765
3,551,659
5,017,258
286,488
26,621,064
TRMD
Dean’s
Office
3,156,783
1,753,765
Total
44,079,170
PI
#(%)
3(38)
6(50)
4(25)
8(47)
2 (18)
9 (39)
6 (55)
$/
Faculty^
177,424
174,828
208,921
295,133
26,044
1,267,67
0
242,829
$ Awards
648,050
1,363,760
1,222,452
8,441,731
112,392
23,798,147
487,723
1,393,894
PI
#(%)
3 (38)
7 (58)
4 (25)
10 (59)
3 (27)
13 (57)
7 (64)
2008-09
$/
Faculty^
81,006
104,905
71,909
562,782
10,217
1,081,73
6
37,517
$ Awards
982,300
1,827,434
508,033
7,273,601
649,215
3,344,747
5,841,226
1,398,154
PI
#(%)
3(38)
4(25)
4(21)
9(41)
5(28)
8(38)
$/
Faculty^
122,787
114,215
30,002
330,618
36,067
159,273
4(29)
417,230
38
440,792 37,468,149
47
378,466 21,866,710
37
223,129
(38%)
(48%)
(37%)
Faculty PI by approximate study years
# – number of faculty in the department that are PIs on a grant
% - faculty PIs as percent of the total faculty in department
^ $/faculty – Extramural funding award per faculty per year = Current years funding /total # faculty in department
Overall in 2008-09, 84% of SPHTM faculty report engaging in research as investigators or coinvestigators. Co-investigators actively participate in many research projects and are key to the success
of large center projects. Some lead projects within centers. For example, three faculty serve as PI of
projects within in the Prevention Research Center and two faculty members lead projects in the Center of
Excellence for Environmental Public Health Tracking. Leading projects within research centers is a way
to develop young investigators and provide experience to become PI on competitive research proposals.
Funded research per faculty FTE has increased from $199,000/faculty in 2001-02 at the time of the last
CEPH site visit to $ 440,792 in 2006-07; reflecting the dip in overall post-Katrina funding, the $/FTE
dropped to $378,466 in 2007-08 and $223,129 in 2008-09 (Table 3.1D1). In 2008-09, a large grant was
delayed to Sept 30, thus lowering the total funds booked during the Tulane fiscal year. As SPHTM
increases its number of faculty, we plan to increase the research funds per faculty as well.
Maintain the percent of funded community-based projects at 60% of funded research
Community-based projects increased from 48% of total funded project in 2002 to 70% in 2006-07
following Katrina; it ranges around 55% in subsequent years. This shows community-based research
continues to be a major element of SPHTM’s research portfolio. SPHTM has a long history of
02/01/10
Page 152
Section 3.1
Research
community-based research built upon a strong base of partnerships with community-organizations and
health agencies locally and globally. SPHTM’s community-based research has been synergistic with our
teaching and professional service activities utilizing our network built from years of joint activities. As the
amount of research increases, emphasis will be placed on maintaining the percentage of communitybased research. Many projects offer students the opportunity to participate in research projects as
shown in Table 3.1D2.
Table 3.1 D2 Number of Community Based Research Projects
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
DEAN’S
SPHTM
Total #
projects
8
20
16
15
6
39
15
12
131
2006-07
# com- # involve
based
Students
6
4
18
18
7
12
7
8
3
5
39
28
11
11
2
1
93
87
(70%)
Total #
projects
7
9
8
23
4
23
9
12
95
2007-08
# com- # involve
based
Students
4
1
8
7
4
6
7
7
2
3
23
19
5
6
1
1
54
50
(57%)
Total #
projects
5
8
6
20
11
15
6
7
78
2008-09
# com
# involve
based
Students
3
2
5
7
5
5
9
4
3
10
15
7
2
1
1
1
43
37
(55%)
Increase number of publications in peer-reviewed journals to 250 per year by 2013
Increase the percent of articles with an impact factor of >1 to at least 75% and with an impact
factor of >3 to at least 35%
Publication of research results in peer-reviewed journals in an indication of the quality of research. The
objective is to increase the number of articles in peer-reviewed journals to 250 while maintaining the
quality of the publications. To accomplish this, more faculty must publish regularly as a few faculty have
a large number of publications annually (Table 3.1D3).
A review of the impact factor of the journals in which articles are published indicates the quality of the
publications. While the high impact of journals is tracked, faculty are also encouraged to publish in
specialty journals and international journals which may not have impact factors, yet are important for the
dissemination of research findings.
Table 3.1 D3 Number of Faculty Peer-Reviewed Publications and Impact Factor Journals
Year
Faculty
# of
FTE
Faculty
2008
81
98
2007
87
99
2006
86
100
2005
94
118 *
2004
87
115
2003
85
113
* 2005 Pre-Katrina count
# of Faculty who
Published
49
61
50
49
55
50
# of
Publications
145
153
141
171
136
124
Impact Factor
≥ 1.0 or above
100
86
69
129
101
89
Impact Factor
≥ 3.0 or above
44
41
36
77
58
50
The review of the number of publications by department and per faculty shows that some departments
have room for increasing their productivity. The average number of publications has decreased from 2.2
publications/faculty/year in 2002 to approximately 1.8 in 2008 (Table 3.1D4). This average is based on
departmental publications, so that a publication with multiple authors from different departments would
be counted in each department but only once in a single department. In spite of this, some departments
averaged less than 2 publications per faculty which is a minimum desired.
02/01/10
Page 153
Section 3.1
Research
Table 3.1 D4 Number of Publications by Department and Average/Faculty
Department
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
2006
#
Publications
27
28
5
29
8
32
20
Avg/
faculty
3.4
2.2
0.3
1.7
0.7
1.5
1.5
2007
#
Avg/
Publications
faculty
23
2.9
20
1.5
16
0.9
47
3.1
11
1.0
26
1.2
13
1.0
2008
#
Avg/
Publications
faculty
30
3.8
28
2.3
6
0.4
61
3.6
11
1.0
23
1.0
12
1.1
SPHTM
149
1.5
156
1.6
171
1.8
*Publications with multiple authors counted in each department, but only once per department.
Publications # = total number of publications in Dept
Avg/faculty = number of publications/ # of faculty for given year
All of the indicators show that a few faculty drive the research base in terms of the number and amount
of research awards and publications. To achieve the target research funding and publications, additional
faculty must increase their research and publication productivity.
3.1 E Student Involvement in Research
In Table 3.1C, the extramurally funded research projects that involve students are indicated for each.
Over the last three years, 55% - 65% of research projects provide the opportunity for students to
participate in research with faculty. It is estimated that ~200 students work in some capacity with faculty
on projects each year; many of these are community-based research. See Table 3.1D2 for the number
of projects that include students. There are many opportunities for students who are interested in
participating in a research project to do so.
Research is considered an essential part of graduate public health education and faculty research
includes stipends/salary on many grants. This is also a way to support students while enrolled in
SPHTM. Students may work on research projects in staff positions, as student workers, or on a
volunteer basis. The PhD programs require research projects as part of the degree requirements.
Special studies courses and culminating experiences frequently incorporate community-based
research activities.
Students are involved in research in several ways:
• Students work as research assistants or data analysts on funded and unfunded projects of the
faculty in the school, and on projects outside the school.
• The school continues to develop new sources of stipends to support doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows. These funds often are derived from grants and contracts, development funds
and University funds.
• Some students conduct laboratory or community-based research and write a thesis/research
report.
• Doctoral students conduct original research and write a dissertation as part of the doctoral degree
requirements. Doctoral student research projects often result in peer-reviewed publication of the
work. When students contribute substantially to faculty research projects, the students are
included as coauthors on the resulting publications.
• Several students receive partial funding support from NIH, and the CDC Prevention Research
Center through minority supplements. This requires that the students participate in the activities
of the research project.
• Students may implement projects developed as part of research methods courses in the
curriculum.
• Several students in the BSPH program who elect the honors program, develop a 50 page honors
thesis based on their research engagement with their SPHTM advisor.
02/01/10
Page 154
Section 3.1
Research
Table 3.1 C which lists each funded research project, shows those which involve students, usually as
paid research assistants. In addition to these projects, students frequently participate as volunteers in
research projects to gain experience in the field. A majority of projects that engage students are
community-based projects.
3.1 F Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM’s faculty are actively engaged in scholarly research that includes basic,
applied, clinical and community-based research. The faculty publish research findings in peer-reviewed
journals and contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. Multidisciplinary research engages
researchers from across the school and University and projects are conducted locally and throughout the
world. Traditionally, a large number of SPHTM research projects focus on the community and
community-based research continues to grow as a major part of the SPHTM’s public health research
agenda. Over the long term, faculty research productivity has increased over the last 10 years in spite
of the drop associated with the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Review of departmental research
productivity indicates that some departments are stronger than others in terms of the number of faculty
PIs, amount of funding and number of publications. This provides an opportunity to raise overall SPHTM
research productivity by increasing research activity in these departments. Overall, SPHTM has a strong
research base that is focused on public health issues from the local to the global setting.
Students are active in the schools’ research program. They have numerous opportunities to practice
their research and data analysis skills in a variety of settings before they graduate. The teaching
programs are enhanced as more research-active instructors incorporate their findings into instruction.
This beneficial interaction between research and teaching will continue as the research program
continues to expand.
02/01/10
Page 155
Table 3.1C - Research
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
CommunityParticipation
Based Y/N
Y/N
2006-07
Consultation on the Louisiana Health & Population
Survey
BIOS
Lefante, John
Louisiana Public Health
Institute
7/1/06-10/31/06
$4,178
$4,178
Y
Y
2006-07
Phase II of an Evaluation Program for the CENLA
Medical Access Program (CMAP)
BIOS
Lefante, John
Rapides Foundation
11/1/06-10/31/07
$563,213
$285,985
Y
Y
2006-07
Phase II of an Evaluation Program for the CENLA
Medical Access Program (CMAP)
BIOS
Lefante, John
Rapides Foundation
3/1/07-10/31/07
$52,589
$52,589
Y
Y
2006-07 LA Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System
BIOS
Mather, Frances
LA Office of Public Health
7/1/06-6/30/07
$7,327
$7,327
Y
N
2006-07
Environmental Determinants of Physical Activity in
Parks - SUB with LSU
BIOS
Mather, Frances
National Institutes of Health
9/30/06-9/29/07
$13,222
$13,222
Y
N
2006-07
Alcohol, HIV Infection & Host Defense - SUB with
LSU
BIOS
Myers, Leann
12/1/06-11/30/07
$13,062
$13,062
N
N
2006-07
Gulf South STI/Tropical Microbicide Cooperative
Research Center - SUB with LSU
BIOS
Myers, Leann
9/1/06-8/31/07
$196,555
$39,685
N
N
2006-07
ACTION! Wellness Program for Elementary School
Personnel (& Coordinating Center)
BIOS
Webber, Larry
7/1/06-6/30/07
$2,441,798
$1,003,340
Y
Y
Beaudoin,
Christopher
Beaudoin,
Christopher
Institute
7/1/06-6/30/07
$72,924
$72,924
N
N
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$25,000
$25,000
N
N
10/10/06-10/9/07
$465,548
$178,276
Y
N
2006-07 LPHI Evaluation 2006-07
CHSC
2006-07 LCRC Allocation
CHSC
CHSC
Boris, Neil
Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation
CHSC
Boris, Neil
State of Louisiana
1/1/07-8/31/07
$40,792
$40,792
Y
N
CHSC
Clum, Gretchen
4/1/07-3/31/08
$152,060
$152,060
Y
N
2006-07 Tulane University PRC
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
Center for Disease Control
9/30/06-9/29/07
$735,000
$735,000
Y
Y
2006-07 Step Together New Orleans Program
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
Institute
9/22/06-9/21/07
$55,845
$55,845
N
N
2006-07
Orphan Support Africa & Tulane OVC Studies
Program
2006-07 The Childhood Behavior Study
2006-07
PTSD & Risk Behavior in HIV+ Female
Adolescents
2006-07
GIS, Alcohol Marketing & Alcohol-Related
Outcomes - SUB with Rand Corp
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
8/1/06-7/31/08
$54,136
$54,136
Y
N
2006-07
Neighborhood Crime, Destination Density, &
Walking in an Urban Population - Yaolin Weng
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
12/1/06-5/30/08
$23,898
$23,898
Y
Y
2006-07
Social & Behavioral Interventions to Increase Organ
& Tissue Donation
CHSC
Johnson, Carolyn
Health Resources & Services
Administration
8/1/06-7/31/07
$391,627
$202,142
Y
Y
02/01/10
Page 156
YEAR
Project Name
Infant Feeding Decision-Making in the African
2006-07 American Community: A Multi-Generational
Perspective
Indicators of the Public's Ability in Southern LA to
2006-07 Seek Healthcare Following One of the Worst
Natural Disasters in US History
2006-07 Ambassadors for Change
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
DEPT
PI / Last,First
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette
Department of Health &
Human Services
7/21/06-7/20/07
$2,451
$2,451
Y
Y
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette
Human Services
8/1/06-9/30/07
$2,500
$2,500
Y
Y
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette Department of Health &
Human Services
Magnus, Jeanette
Administration
9/1/06-8/31/07
$25,254
$25,254
Y
Y
8/1/06-5/31/07
$270,642
$270,642
N
N
2006-07
Tulane Leadership Education in Maternal & Child
Public Health
CHSC
2006-07
Stress & Depression Awareness in Louisiana's
Hurricane Affected Areas
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette
Johnson & Johnson Medical
Inc.
7/1/06-6/30/07
$25,000
$25,000
Y
Y
2006-07
Neighborhood Food Availability, Consumer
Economics & Dietary Choices
CHSC
Rose, Donald
7/7/06-6/30/07
$279,816
$169,860
Y
Y
2006-07 New Orleans Food Access & Consumption Study
CHSC
Rose, Donald
United States Department of
Agriculture
4/1/07-3/31/08
$522,512
$147,862
Y
Y
2006-07 MCHL State Program 2007-2008
CHSC
Schoellman, Karis LA Office of Public Health
3/15/07-3/14/08
$60,642
$60,642
Y
Y
2006-07
Building Social Support to Enhance Home
Visitation - SUB with U of Chicago
CHSC
Taylor, Catherine Center for Disease Control
9/1/06-8/31/07
$7,152
$7,152
Y
N
2006-07
Fathers & Risk for Physical Maltreatment:
Prevention Pathways - SUB with Columbia
CHSC
Taylor, Catherine National Institutes of Health
9/1/06-8/31/07
$21,329
$21,329
N
Y
2006-07 ADPH Strategic Direction Project
DEAN'S Anderson, Ann
Alabama Dept. of Public
Health
10/1/06-9/30/07
$65,000
$65,000
N
N
2006-07
South Central Center for Public Health Preparedness
- Tulane
9/1/06-8/31/07
$1,022,395
$1,022,395
N
Y
2006-07
ASPH - South Central Public Health Leadership
Institute
10/1/06-9/30/07
$15,734
$15,734
N
N
2006-07
MS-South Central Public Health Leadership
Institute - October 2006
Mississippi State Dept. of
Health
10/15/06-6/30/07
$50,000
$50,000
3/11/07-3/14/07
$15,000
$15,000
N
N
6/20/07-6/19/08
$13,500
$13,500
N
N
2006-07 Advanced Crisis Leadership Institute
2006-07 Leadership Institute Workshop
Health
State of Louisiana
State of Louisiana
3/16/07-3/15/08
$25,000
$25,000
N
N
State of Louisiana
6/10/07-6/9/08
$4,500
$4,500
N
N
State of Louisiana
5/3/07-5/2/08
$7,500
$7,500
N
N
02/01/10
Page 157
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
2006-07 Community Cafe-Treme
DEAN'S Buekens, Pierre
French Embassy
11/1/06-12/26/06
$18,691
$18,691
Y
N
2006-07 Scientific Meeting with INSERM
French Embassy
1/1/07-5/31/07
$12,000
$12,000
N
N
5/1/07-4/30/08
$504,445
$504,445
Y
N
Evidence-Based Global Health Interventions for
Mothers & Children, Argentina
Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Positioned
2006-07
Nucleosomes
Molecular Dynamics Study of Nucleosome Stability
2006-07
& Receptor Binding
2006-07
ENHS
Bishop, Thomas
Louisiana Board of Regents
7/1/06-6/30/07
$25,830
$25,830
ENHS
Bishop, Thomas
2/1/07-1/31/08
$31,742
$31,742
ENHS
Echeverri,
Margarita
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$5,657
$5,657
Sampling of Biological Contaminants from Surfaces
2006-07 in Flooded Homes of New Orleans - SUB with U of
Cinn
ENHS
Grimsley, Faye
US Department of Housing
& Urban Development
11/1/06-10/31/07
$118,471
$118,471
Y
Y
2006-07 Louisiana Drinking Water Risk Analysis Program
ENHS
Hartley, William LA Office of Public Health
7/1/06-6/30/07
$13,919
$13,919
Y
Y
HEAL Study: Head-Off Environmental Asthma in
LA
ENHS
10/1/06-9/30/07
$2,019,138
$2,019,138
Y
Y
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$133
$133
Y
Y
2006-07
Lichtveld,
Maureen
Lichtveld,
Maureen
ENHS
2006-07 Evaluating Drug Toxicity in Humanized Yeast
ENHS
Miller, Charles
9/1/06-8/31/08
$204,783
$204,783
N
Y
2006-07 Evaluating Drug Toxicity in Humanized Yeast
ENHS
Miller, Charles
9/1/06-8/31/07
$228,393
$228,393
N
Y
ENHS
Miller, Charles
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$14,710
$14,710
N
N
2006-07
Critical Analysis of the USS Monitoring Database
for Respirable Dust Containing Crystalline Silica
ENHS
Rando, Roy
US Silica Corporation
7/1/06-6/30/07
$13,525
$13,525
N
Y
2006-07
Support of Scoping Experiments to Test a Multiple
Oxidant Method for Optimization of the Baseline
ENHS
Reimers, Robert
JEH Consulting, Inc.
8/30/06-11/30/06
$27,618
$27,618
N
Y
2006-07
Usage of Ferrate as a Plishing Step for Wastewater
Reuse
ENHS
Reimers, Robert
Water Environment Research
Foundation
3/15/07-5/14/08
$7,500
$7,500
N
Y
ENHS
Sabbioni,
Gabriele
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$352,663
$352,663
N
N
ENHS
White, LuAnn
Human Services
9/15/06-9/14/07
$3,170,000
$450,000
Y
Y
ENHS
White, LuAnn
7/1/06-6/30/07
$20,000
$20,000
Y
Y
ENHS
White, LuAnn
LA State Department of
Health
7/1/06-6/30/07
$8,000
$8,000
Y
Y
Centers of Excellence for Environmental Public
Health Tracking EPHT
State of Louisiana Department of Health &
2006-07
Hospitals Office of Public Health
Louisiana Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
2006-07
Program (CLPPP)
2006-07
02/01/10
Page 158
YEAR
Project Name
Evolution of Cardiovascular Risk with Normal
2006-07
Aging
2006-07
Aging - Katrina Supplement
Genetics of Hypertension & Related Subclinical
2006-07
Cardiovascular Traits
DEPT
PI / Last,First
ENHS
Wiese, Thomas
EPID
Funding Source
State of Louisiana
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
7/1/06-6/30/07
$9,577
$9,577
Berenson, Gerald National Institutes of Health
9/1/06-8/31/07
$2,326,697
$775,514
Y
Y
EPID
9/30/06-8/31/07
$50,000
$50,000
N
N
EPID
Chen, Wei
American Heart Association
7/1/06-3/31/07
$154,000
$77,000
N
N
1/1/07-12/31/07
$820,990
$283,100
N
Y
8/1/06-7/31/07
$2,119,978
$2,119,978
N
Y
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
2006-07 Sine Retrotransposition
EPID
2006-07 Mentoring a Cancer Genetics Program
EPID
EPID
Engel, Astrid
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$5,578
$5,578
N
N
EPID
Harville, Emily
3/1/07-2/29/08
$329,280
$162,217
Y
Y
EPID
He, Jiang
5/1/07-4/30/08
$52,603
$52,603
Y
N
EPID
He, Jiang
9/1/06-8/31/07
$627,895
$627,895
N
N
EPID
He, Jiang
7/1/06-6/30/07
$2,881,270
$500,047
Y
Y
EPID
He, Jiang
3/1/07-2/29/08
$69,980
$69,980
Y
N
EPID
He, Jiang
7/1/06-6/30/07
$28,779
$28,779
Y
Y
EPID
He, Jiang
3/1/07-2/29/08
$48,000
$48,000
Y
N
EPID
Hedges, Dale
12/1/06-11/30/07
$45,976
$45,976
N
N
EPID
Muntner, Paul
8/1/06-7/31/07
$125,443
$125,443
N
Y
EPID
Xiong, Xu
6/1/07-5/31/09
$422,418
$105,731
N
Y
EPID
Zhao, Hua
State of Louisiana
7/1/06-6/30/07
$9,395
$9,395
N
N
Campbell,
Claudia
Campbell,
Claudia
Clemmons,
Jacquetta
Health
7/1/06-6/30/07
$49,900
$49,900
Y
Y
State of Louisiana
9/30/06-4/30/07
$82,238
$82,238
Y
Y
HCA Healthcare
1/15/07-1/14-08
$10,000
$10,000
Y
N
Effects of Hurricane Katrina on Postpartum Mental
2006-07
Health - Katrina Recovery
Pulse Wave Velocity in Chronic Kidney Disease 2006-07
SUB with U of Penn
Genetic Epidemiology of Blood Pressure
2006-07
Intervention - Katrina Supplement
2006-07 Clinical Trial of Dietary Protein on Blood Pressure
2006-07
CRIC-PLUS: Study of Advance Renal Insufficiency SUB with UCSF
2006-07 Clinical Center for Prospective Cohort Study of CRI
Genetics of Antherosclerosis in Renal Disease SUB with U of Penn
Assessing Mobile Element-Based Mutagenic
2006-07
Recombination
2006-07
2006-07 Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, & Glycemic Control
2006-07
Relationship Between Periodontal Disease &
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
2006-07 RTI/HISPC
HSMG
2006-07 LaHIE Project Evaluation Strategy
HSMG
2006-07
HCA Healthcare Emergency Services Rate Setting
Methodology
02/01/10
HSMG
Page 159
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
HSMG
Hughes, Julia
Health
9/1/06-12/30/06
$30,000
$30,000
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Eli Lilly
9/19/06-9/18/07
$13,700
$13,700
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Eli Lilly
12/18/06-12/17/07
$75,000
$75,000
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Eli Lilly
6/1/07-5/31/08
$25,650
$25,650
N
Y
2006-07 Green Star Social Marketing Project
INHL
Agha, Sohail
Greenstar Social Marketing
Pakistan Ltd.
1/1/07-6/30/07
$13,760
$13,760
Y
N
2006-07 Private Sector Program - SUB with ABT, Inc.
INHL
Agha, Sohail
United States Agency for
International Development
7/1/06-6/30/07
$401,952
$401,952
Y
Y
INHL
Agha, Sohail
2/1/07-4/1/07
$25,725
$25,725
Y
Y
2006-07 Support for Horizons Project
INHL
Brown, Lisanne
6/6/07-7/31/07
$15,813
$15,813
Y
N
2006-07 Support for Horizons Project
INHL
Brown, Lisanne
8/1/06-7/31/07
$28,444
$28,444
Y
N
Assessing the Psychosocial Benefits of a
Community-Based Mentoring Program for Orphans
2006-07
& Vulnerable Children in Rwanda - SUB with POP
Council
INHL
Brown, Lisanne
5/3/07-7/31/07
$58,342
$58,342
Y
Y
2006-07 SARA-II Project
INHL
Duale, Sambe
1/1/07-12/31/07
$1,086,058
$648,860
Y
N
Baseline Data Collection to Guide the Development
2006-07 of an Effective National Malaria Control Strategy
for Haiti - SUB with RTI
INHL
Eisele, Thomas
8/11/06-3/1/07
$173,588
$173,588
Y
Y
2006-07 Measure -2 - SUB with UNC
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
6/6/07-9/29/08
$900,000
$900,000
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
7/10/06-9/29/08
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Y
Y
2006-07 Louisiana's Real Choice Systems Transformations
Contract on Impact of Dose Frequency on
Compliance & Health Outcomes
One-Year Health Outcomes After Switching
2006-07 Antipsychotic Medications in VA Schizophrenic
Patients
Meta-Analysis on the Comparison of Efficacy &
2006-07 Safety Between Glargine & NPH in Patients with
Type II Diabetes
2006-07
2006-07
USAID Netmark Evaluation Consultancy - SUB
with AED
02/01/10
Page 160
YEAR
Project Name
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
DEPT
PI / Last,First
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
9/30/06-9/29/07
$500,000
$500,000
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
1/18/07-9/29/08
$800,000
$800,000
Y
Y
2006-07 Health Systems 20/20 - SUB with ABT
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
5/2/07-9/29/11
$74,362
$74,362
Y
Y
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
2/1/07-7/31/07
$12,999
$12,999
Y
Y
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
10/1/06-12/31/06
$221,424
$36,865
Y
Y
2006-07
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative M&E - SUB
with ABT
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
2/19/07-2/18/08
$24,562
$24,562
Y
N
2006-07
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative M&E - SUB
with ABT
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
10/2/06-7/31/07
$38,971
$38,971
Y
N
INHL
Kendall, Carl
8/1/06-3/31/07
$1,149,200
$1,149,200
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
8/1/06-3/31/07
$1,000,342
$1,000,342
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
8/1/06-3/31/07
$975,000
$975,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/07-3/31/08
$14,720,000
$14,720,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/07-3/31/08
$500,000
$500,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/07-3/31/08
$390,608
$390,608
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/07-3/31/08
$175,000
$175,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/07-3/31/08
$270,000
$270,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
UN Programme on
HIV/AIDS
8/1/06-7/31/07
$890,894
$890,894
Y
N
INHL
Mason, John
UNICEF
8/7/06-3/31/07
$199,986
$199,986
Y
Y
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
University Technical Assistance in Support of
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
2006-07 UNAIDS Monitoring & Evaluation
2006-07
National Information Analysis for Effective
Response (NIAER-ESA)
02/01/10
Page 161
YEAR
2006-07
Project Name
M & M: Implementation & Impact of UNICEF
Strategies for Improved MCH & Nutrition: Asia
2006-07 REACH
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
INHL
Mason, John
UNICEF
8/1/06-12/31/06
$62,730
$62,730
Y
Y
INHL
Mason, John
UNICEF
11/1/06-4/30/07
$38,273
$38,273
Y
Y
2006-07
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Child-to-Child
Health Action Methodology
INHL
Meekers,
Dominique
American Public Health
Association
2/1/07-7/31/08
$10,000
$10,000
Y
Y
2006-07
Global Communications Project - SUB with Johns
Hopkins
INHL
Meekers,
Dominique
7/1/06-6/30/07
$747,904
$747,904
Y
Y
1/1/07-12/31/07
$49,974
$49,974
Y
Y
3/1/07-2/28/08
$97,900
$97,900
Y
Y
People Count in Vulnerable Neighborhoods PostKatrina
2006-07 World Vision Children in Crisis
INHL
Mock, Nancy
INHL
Mock, Nancy
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
World Vision
2006-07 Hybrid Technologies in the Era of HIV and AIDS
INHL
Murphy, Laura
National Science Foundation
6/1/07-5/31/08
$8,770
$8,770
Y
N
2006-07 Hybrid Technologies in the Era of HIV and AIDS
INHL
Murphy, Laura
9/1/06-5/31/08
$96,595
$96,595
Y
N
2006-07 Migration & Health in Thailand
INHL
7/1/06-6/30/07
$321,607
$321,607
Y
Y
7/1/06-6/30/07
$49,291
$49,291
Y
N
7/1/06-6/30/07
$100,000
$100,000
Y
Y
2006-07
2006-07
Migration & Health in Thailand - Katrina
Supplement
INHL
Vanlandingham,
Mark
Vanlandingham,
Mark
Vanlandingham,
Mark
INHL
Research & Policy Analysis Using the Displaced
2006-07 New Orleans Residents Pilot Survey - SUB with
Rand
INHL
Vanlandingham,
Mark
Pew Charitable Trusts
4/1/07-9/30/08
$12,747
$12,747
Y
N
2006-07 Lassa Fever Control in West Africa
TRMD
Bausch, Daniel
World Health Organization
10/1/06-6/30/07
$6,000
$6,000
Y
Y
TRMD
Bausch, Daniel
1/1/07-12/31/07
$80,000
$80,000
Y
Y
TRMD
Bausch, Daniel
6/2/07-6/1/08
$25,000
$25,000
Y
Y
TRMD
Brindely, Paul
7/1/06-6/30/07
$78,644
$78,644
Y
Y
TRMD
Brindely, Paul
10/1/06-9/30/07
$21,465
$21,465
Y
Y
TRMD
Brindely, Paul
5/1/07-4/30/08
$485,750
$485,750
Y
Y
TRMD
Brindely, Paul
1/1/07-12/31/07
$347,796
$347,796
Y
Y
TRMD
Hong, Young
7/1/06-6/30/07
$88,000
$44,000
N
Y
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
2006-07
Emerging Helminthiases in China - SUB with
Chinese CDC
The Influence of Environmental Change on Parasite
Diffussion - SUB with UC Berkeley
Pathogenesis of Liver Fluke Induced Cancer in
Thailand
Transduction of Schistosoma Mansoni by
Pseudotyped Retrovirus
Molecular Screening & Characterization of West
Nile Virus receptors in the Mosquito Vector, Culex
Quinquefasciatus
02/01/10
Page 162
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Increasing the Impact of maternal & Neonatal
Health Systematic Reviews
TRMD
Jacquerioz,
Frederique
2006-07 Development & Testing of New Antimalarials
TRMD
2006-07 Regulatory T Cells & HIV Disease
2006-07
Probiotics in Pediatric Diarrhea in Peru: Planning
Grant
WNV Infection & Outcomes of Pregnancy in
2006-07
Humans
2006-07
2006-07 Renovations to Louisiana ARBONET Website
Control of Urban Container Breeding Arbovirus
Vectors
Environmental Determinants of Physical Activity in
2007-08
Parks - SUB with LSU
Maternal & Child Health Bureau TA Project
2007-08
Contract
2007-08
Contract
2006-07
2007-08
LSU
2007-08
2007-08
2007-08 Steps to a Healthier New Orleans
Legacy Partnership for Physician-Based Donor
Education Program
Tulane Leadership Education in Maternal & Child
2007-08
Public Health
2007-08
2007-08 TUXCOE - The Frost Foundation Support
2007-08
Stress & Depression Awareness in Louisiana's
Hurricane Affected Areas
2007-08 New Orleans Food Access & Consumption Study
02/01/10
Funding Source
Agency for Healthcare
Research & Quality
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
7/1/06-6/30/07
$49,512
$49,512
Y
N
Krogstad, Donald Center for Disease Control
8/1/06-7/31/07
$1,027,470
$1,027,470
Y
Y
TRMD
Murphy, Holly
3/1/07-2/29/12
$135,000
$135,000
N
N
TRMD
Oberhelman,
Richard
10/1/06-9/30/07
$156,063
$156,063
N
N
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
9/1/06-8/31/07
$1,420,000
$240,655
Y
Y
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
8/29/06-8/28/07
$19,991
$19,991
N
N
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
3/1/07-2/28/08
$1,835,008
$439,437
Y
Y
BIOS
Mather, Frances
9/30/07-9/29/08
$9,880
$9,880
Y
N
BIOS
Mather, Frances
7/1/07-3/31/08
$12,000
$12,000
Y
N
BIOS
Mather, Frances
10/1/07-4/30/08
$7,820
$7,820
Y
N
BIOS
Myers, Leann
NIH-Natl Institute of Allergy
& Infectious Diseases
9/1/07-8/31/08
$196,555
$40,660
N
N
BIOS
Myers, Leann
12/1/07-11/30/08
$13,058
$13,058
N
N
BIOS
Webber, Larry
NIH-Natl Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute
7/1/07-6/30/08
$2,441,798
$564,632
Y
Y
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
9/30/07-9/29/08
$740,586
$740,586
Y
Y
CHSC
Johnson, Carolyn
Institute
9/22/07-9/21/08
$24,919
$24,919
N
N
CHSC
Johnson, Carolyn Legacy Donor Foundation
7/1/07-6/30/08
$25,736
$25,736
Y
N
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette
6/1/08-5/31/09
$338,748
$338,748
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette The Frost Foundation
10/17/07-10/6/08
$390
$390
Y
Y
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette
2/14/08-2/13/09
$75,000
$75,000
CHSC
Rose, Donald
4/1/08-3/31/09
$522,512
$126,792
Y
Y
Administration
Johnson & Johnson Medical
Inc.
United States Department of
Agriculture
Page 163
YEAR
Project Name
2007-08 MCHL State Program
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
CHSC
3/15/08-6/30/08
$21,589
$21,589
Y
Y
CHSC
Taylor, Catherine LA Children's Trust Fund
7/1/07-6/30/08
$10,000
$10,000
Y
Y
Framing Child Maltreatment Prevention: Social
Norms in New Orleans
2007-08
- Tulane
Mississippi-South Central Public Health Leadership
2007-08
Institute
9/1/07-8/31/08
$1,011,076
$1,011,076
N
Y
Health
10/1/07-6/30/08
$50,000
$50,000
N
N
2007-08 South Central Public Leadership Institute 2007-10
9/30/07-9/29/08
$100,950
$100,950
N
N
2007-08 Advanced Crisis Leadership Institute
Health
3/1/08-3/31/08
$15,000
$15,000
N
N
State of Louisiana
7/9/07-7/8/08
$6,375
$6,375
N
N
State of Louisiana
1/7/08-1/6/09
$12,500
$12,500
N
N
State of Louisiana
2/15/08-2/14/09
$25,000
$25,000
N
N
State of Louisiana
9/11/07-9/10/08
$12,500
$12,500
N
N
State of Louisiana
7/18/07-7/17/08
$12,500
$12,500
N
N
2007-08 ADPH Strategic Direction Project
Alabama Dept. of Public
Health
10/1/07-9/30/08
$50,000
$50,000
N
N
Oxytocin in Uniject: A Tool to Increase the Use of
2007-08 Prophylactic Oxytocin for the Management of the
Third Stage of Labor in Latin America
PATH Fndn
8/1/07-3/31/09
$95,293
$95,293
Y
N
French Embassy
8/1/07-7/31/08
$2,700
$2,700
N
N
2007-08
Meeting on Disease & Healthcare (Colloque sur la
maladie et the soins)
Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Positioned
2007-08
Nucleosomes
2007-08
ENHS
Bishop, Thomas
7/1/07-6/30/08
$24,830
$24,830
N
N
ENHS
Echeverri,
Margarita
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$94,214
$94,214
Y
N
2007-08 Louisiana Drinking Water Risk Analysis Program
ENHS
Hartley, William LA Office of Public Health
7/1/07-10/31/07
$3,855
$3,855
Y
Y
ENHS
Lichtveld,
Maureen
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$47,716
$47,716
Y
Y
ENHS
Miller, Charles
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$9,744
$9,744
N
N
ENHS
Rando, Roy
8/1/07-5/31/08
$134,491
$27,954
N
N
2007-08
Novel Therapies for Chlorine-Induced Lung Injury SUB with U of Louisville
02/01/10
Page 164
YEAR
Project Name
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
PI / Last,First
Support of Scoping Experiments to Test a Multiple
2007-08 Oxidant Method for Optimization of the Baseline
Oxidative Leaching Process
ENHS
Reimers, Robert
2/4/08-8/4/09
$20,741
$20,741
N
Y
2007-08 Proposal to Use Ferrate for Wastewater Reuse
ENHS
Reimers, Robert
Sewerage and Water Board
of New Orleans
2/1/08-1/31/09
$105,540
$105,540
Y
Y
ENHS
Sabbioni,
Gabriele
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$272,340
$272,340
N
N
ENHS
Wang, He
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$124,479
$124,479
N
N
ENHS
White, LuAnn
7/1/07-6/30/08
$20,000
$20,000
Y
Y
ENHS
White, LuAnn
7/1/07-6/30/08.
$8,000
$8,000
Y
Y
ENHS
White, LuAnn
9/15/07-9/14/08
$3,170,000
$450,000
Y
Y
ENHS
Zhao, Hua
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$13,039
$13,039
N
N
EPID
Bazzano, Lydia
Eli Lilly
7/1/07-6/30/08
$25,000
$25,000
N
N
EPID
Berenson, Gerald
9/1/07-8/31/08
$2,326,697
$461,759
Y
N
9/1/07-8/31/08
$291,265
$291,265
N
N
8/1/07-5/31/09
$120,857
$120,857
N
N
2007-08
Program (CLPPP)
2007-08
2007-08
Meta-Analysis of the Comparison of Efficacy &
2007-08 Safety Between Glargine & NPH in Patients with
Type II Diabetes - Bazzano Project
2007-08
Aging
2007-08
Aging
Genetic Epidemiology of Change in CVD Risk
2007-08
Factors - SUB with U of TX
2007-08
Aging
EPID
NIH-National Institute on
Aging
Berenson, Gerald
Aging
EPID
Berenson, Gerald
EPID
EPID
High Throughput Modular Devices for Molecular
Profiling of Colorectal Cancer - SUB with LSU
Health
Human Services
EPID
2007-08
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
DEPT
EPID
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
Aging
NIH-National Cancer
Institute
NIH-Natl Center for
Research Resources
9/1/07-8/31/08
$753,024
$753,024
Y
Y
1/1/08-12/31/08
$820,990
$283,100
N
Y
8/1/07-7/31/08
$1,075,380
$1,075,380
N
Y
8/1/07-7/31/08
$269,461
$134,100
N
N
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$2,217,606
$2,217,606
N
N
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$6,567
$6,567
N
N
EPID
EPID
EPID
Engel, Astrid
State of Louisiana
7/1/07-6/30/08
$23,120
$23,120
N
N
EPID
Gustat, Jeanette
9/1/07-7/31/09
$135,151
$60,674
Y
Y
2007-08
Assessing Cognitive Function in the Bogalusa Heart
Study
02/01/10
Page 165
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
EPID
He, Jiang
EPID
He, Jiang
2007-08 Sodium Sensitivity & Risk of Hypertension
EPID
He, Jiang
Funding Source
NIH-Natl Institute of
Diabetes & Digestive &
Kidney Diseases
Kidney Diseases
Kidney Diseases
Blood Institute
Kidney Diseases
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
7/1/07-6/30/08
$730,058
$730,058
Y
N
7/1/07-6/30/08
$19,560
$19,560
Y
Y
8/15/07-7/31/08
$1,125,582
$581,450
N
N
6/1/08-5/31/09
$243,384
$243,384
N
N
3/1/08-2/28/09
$62,849
$62,849
Y
N
3/1/08-2/28/09
$51,752
$51,752
Y
N
5/1/08-4/30/09
$50,637
$50,637
Y
N
6/1/08-5/31/09
$342,566
$342,566
N
Y
7/15/07-5/31/08
$383,952
$383,952
N
Y
12/1/07-11/30/08
$48,796
$48,796
N
N
7/1/07-6/30/08
$177,968
$177,968
N
N
10/1/07-10/21/08
$15,000
$15,000
N
Y
8/1/07-9/30/08
$125,000
$97,304
N
Y
6/1/08-5/31/09
$422,418
$184,003
N
Y
7/1/07-1/31/08
$10,000
$10,000
Y
N
2007-08
Sodium & Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with
Chronic Kidney Disease
EPID
He, Jiang
2007-08
CRIC-PLUS: Study of Advance Renal Insufficiency SUB with UCSF
EPID
He, Jiang
2007-08
Genetics of Antherosclerosis in Renal Disease SUB with U of Penn
EPID
He, Jiang
EPID
He, Jiang
EPID
He, Jiang
EPID
He, Jiang
EPID
Hedges, Dale
EPID
Makridakis, Nick State of Louisiana
EPID
Rabito, Felicia
EPID
Rabito, Felicia
EPID
Xiong, Xu
HSMG
Campbell,
Claudia
HSMG
Campbell,
Claudia
Blue Cross & Blue Shield
10/1/07-8/30/08
$18,000
$18,000
Y
Y
HSMG
Hughes, Julia
Health
8/1/07-5/31/08
$42,196
$42,196
N
Y
Pulse Wave Velocity in Chronic Kidney Disease SUB with U of Penn
2007-08
Intervention
2007-08
Intervention
Assessing Mobile Element-Based Mutagenic
2007-08
Recombination
2007-08
2007-08
Housing Conditions & Health: An Evaluation of the
Impact of Residents' Knowledge
2007-08 New Orleans Respiratory Health Study
2007-08
2007-08 HISPC: Phase 2 SOW
2007-08
Assess the Use & Benefits of Electronic Prescribing
in Blue Cross & Blue Shield of LA Physicians
2007-08 Louisiana's Real Choice Transformations Grant
02/01/10
Blood Institute
Blood Institute
NIH-National Institute of
General Medical Sciences
US Department of Housing
& Urban Development
Rand Gulf States Policy
Institute
NIH-Natl Institute on
Deafness & Other
Communication Disorders
Health
Page 166
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
HSMG
Hughes, Julia
Health
6/1/08-5/31/09
$42,196
$42,196
N
Y
2007-08 Private Sector Program - SUB with ABT, Inc.
INHL
Agha, Sohail
4/22/08-6/30/08
$35,000
$35,000
Y
Y
2007-08 Green Star Social Marketing Project
INHL
Agha, Sohail
Greenstar Social Marketing
Pakistan Ltd.
4/1/08-9/30/08
$36,538
$36,538
Y
Y
2007-08 SARA-II Project
INHL
Duale, Sambe
1/27/08-12/31/08
$1,086,058
$437,197
Y
N
Translating Efficacy into Effectiveness of
2007-08 Insecticide Treated Nets Using an Interpersonal
Communication Intervention
INHL
Eisele, Thomas
9/30/07-9/29/08
$449,656
$214,997
Y
Y
2007-08 Impact Model - CHERG
INHL
Eisele, Thomas
UNICEF
3/1/08-12/31/08
$15,000
$15,000
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
12/1/07-9/29/08
$500,000
$500,000
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
3/17/08-9/30/08
$500,000
$500,000
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
10/9/07-9/29/08
$500,000
$500,000
Y
Y
2007-08 Global Health Monitoring & Evaluation Task III
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
8/3/07-10/3/07
$100,000
$100,000
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
10/4/07-3/31/08
$242,000
$242,000
Y
Y
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
8/1/07-7/31/08
$65,085
$65,085
Y
Y
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
4/7/08-9/29/11
$32,118
$32,118
Y
Y
INHL
Hotchkiss, David
3/28/08-7/31/08
$32,118
$32,118
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
3/5/08-3/31/08
$150,000
$150,000
Y
Y
2007-08
2007-08
Monitoring & Evaluation to Assess & Use Results
(MEASURE) Phase II - SUB with UNC Chapel Hill
Global AIDS
02/01/10
Page 167
YEAR
2007-08
Project Name
Global AIDS
DEPT
PI / Last,First
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
INHL
Kendall, Carl
2/8/08-3/31/08
$100,000
$100,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
3/1/08-5/31/08
$45,000
$45,000
Y
N
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/08-3/31/09
$2,450,000
$2,450,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/08-3/31/09
$11,384,747
$11,384,747
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/08-3/31/09
$3,510,000
$3,510,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/08-3/31/09
$3,135,000
$3,135,000
Y
Y
INHL
Macintyre, Kate
10/1/07-10/9/08
$162,599
$162,599
Y
N
INHL
Vanlandingham,
Mark
7/1/07-6/30/08
$472,355
$150,748
Y
Y
TRMD
Bausch, Daniel
4/1/08-9/30/08
$59,656
$59,656
Y
Y
TRMD
Brindely, Paul
10/1/07-12/31/07
$23,420
$23,420
Y
Y
TRMD
Hong, Young
7/1/07-6/30/08
$134,274
$44,000
Y
Y
2007-08 Pulmonary Hypertension in Severe Malaria
TRMD
Krogstad, Donald Louisiana Board of Regents
7/1/07-6/30/08
$60,000
$60,000
Y
Y
2007-08 Probiotics in Pediatric Diarrhea in Peru
TRMD
Oberhelman,
Richard
9/1/07-8/31/08
$40,000
$40,000
Y
Y
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
8/29/07-8/28/08
$19,991
$19,991
N
N
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
9/1/07-8/31/08
$1,420,000
$240,656
Y
Y
BIOS
Mather, Frances
10/1/08-6/1/09
$6,959
$6,959
Y
N
BIOS
Myers, Leann
12/1/08-11/30/09
$13,062
$13,062
N
N
BIOS
Myers, Leann
9/1/08-8/31/09
$196,555
$36,440
N
N
BIOS
Webber, Larry
7/1/08-6/30/09
$2,441,798
$553,339
Y
Y
2007-08 Global Health (TASC III) IQC - SUB with AED
2007-08
2007-08
2007-08
2007-08
2007-08
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Global AIDS
Program
The Influence of Environmental Change on Parasite
Diffussion - SUB with UC Berkeley
Molecular Screening & Characterization of West
2007-08 Nile Virus receptors in the Mosquito Vector, Culex
Quinquefasciatus
2007-08
2007-08
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
WNV Infection & Outcomes of Pregnancy in
Humans
Contract
LSU
02/01/10
Foundation
NIH-Natl Institute of Child
Health & Human
Development
Page 168
YEAR
Project Name
DEPT
PI / Last,First
2008-09
Longitudinal Assessments in the Trial of Activity of
Adolescent Girls
BIOS
Webber, Larry
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
CHSC
Farley, Thomas
CHSC
2008-09 Tulane BIRCWH
Funding Source
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
9/22/08-8/31/09
$372,500
$372,500
Y
Y
7/1/08-6/30/09
$100,000
$100,000
N
N
9/1/08-11/30/09
$150,000
$150,000
Y
Y
9/30/08-9/29/09
$730,000
$730,000
Y
Y
7/1/08-6/30/09
$65,000
$65,000
Y
Y
CHSC
Magnus, Jeanette National Institutes of Health
8/1/08-7/31/09
$482,900
$482,900
N
N
CHSC
8/1/08-7/31/09
$185,000
$185,000
Y
Y
2008-09 MCHL State Program
CHSC
7/1/08-6/30/09
$91,907
$91,907
Y
Y
CHSC
Taylor, Catherine National Institutes of Health
9/1/08-8/31/09
$22,627
$22,627
N
Y
10/6/08-10/7/09
$3,750
$3,750
N
N
2008-09 Consultant on New Health Initiatives
2008-09
2008-09
Financial Analysis of a Corner Store in a LowIncome Neighborhood
Fathers & Risk for Physical Maltreatment:
Prevention Pathways - SUB with Columbia
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
NYC Dept Health & Mental
Hygiene
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
State of Louisiana
2008-09
- Tulane
8/9/08-8/8/09
$526,759
$526,759
N
Y
2008-09 Public Health Training Center
Administration
9/1/08-8/31/09
$375,070
$375,070
N
N
2008-09 South Central Public Leadership Institute 2007-10
9/30/08-9/29/09
$50,500
$50,500
N
N
2008-09 Dengue Virus During Pregnancy
French Embassy
1/1/09-12/31/09
$10,000
$10,000
N
N
Evidence-Based Global Health Interventions for
2008-09
Mothers & Children, Argentina
NICHD
5/1/09-4/30/10
$815,020
$310,575
Y
N
2008-09 Tulane Framework for Global Health Program
9/10/08-8/31/09
$121,500
$121,500
N
N
DVD Intervention to Increase Breast Cancer
2008-09 Screening in Vulnerable Populations: Focus on GulfSouth African-Americans
Novel Therapies for Chlorine-Induced Lung Injury 2008-09
SUB with U of Louisville
Support of Bench Scoping to Minimize Caustic
Requirements in the Seoeration of Aluminum &
2008-09
Chromium from High Level Waste Species in
Hanford Tank Waste
2008-09
02/01/10
ENHS
Lichtveld,
Maureen
University of Alabama at
Birmingham
2/1/09-1/31/10
$25,000
$25,000
Y
N
ENHS
Rando, Roy
8/1/08-5/31/09
$134,491
$34,470
N
Y
ENHS
Reimers, Robert
8/4/08-10/1/08
$2,563
$2,563
N
Y
ENHS
White, LuAnn
7/1/08-6/30/09
$20,000
$20,000
Y
Y
Page 169
YEAR
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
Project Name
Program (CLPPP)
Heritability & Genome-Wide Linkage of Lipid
Phenotypes
Genetic Epidemiology of Change in CVD Risk
Factors - SUB with U of TX
Aging
DEPT
PI / Last,First
ENHS
White, LuAnn
ENHS
White, LuAnn
EPID
Bazzano, Lydia
Funding Source
Health
Human Services
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
7/1/08-6/30/09
$38,000
$38,000
Y
Y
9/15/08-9/14/09
$3,170,000
$450,000
Y
Y
9/15/08-6/30/09
$123,876
$123,876
N
Y
EPID
8/1/08-5/31/09
$120,857
$120,857
N
N
EPID
9/1/08-8/31/09
$2,326,697
$737,962
Y
Y
1/1/09-12/31/09
$820,990
$329,886
N
Y
10/1/08-9/30/10
$224,731
$224,731
N
Y
10/1/08-9/30/10
$23,000
$23,000
N
Y
EPID
2008-09 Modular Microsystems for Genomics
EPID
2008-09 Modular Microsystems for Genomics
EPID
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
Deininger,
Prescott
2008-09
EPID
Deininger,
Prescott
5/1/09-4/30/10
$269,101
$269,101
N
N
2008-09
EPID
Deininger,
Prescott
8/1/08-4/30/09
$269,101
$269,101
N
N
EPID
Deininger,
Prescott
8/1/08-7/31/09
$1,062,044
$1,062,044
N
Y
EPID
Engel, Astrid
8/1/08-7/31/09
$272,670
$272,670
N
N
EPID
Engel, Astrid
8/1/08-7/31/09
$69,795
$69,795
N
N
EPID
Gustat, Jeanette
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
1/1/09-12/31/11
$182,234
$182,234
Y
Y
EPID
Gustat, Jeanette
8/1/08-7/31/09
$135,151
$59,742
Y
Y
EPID
He, Jiang
5/1/08-4/30/10
$682,461
$682,461
Y
Y
2008-09 Sodium Sensitivity & Risk of Hypertension
EPID
He, Jiang
8/1/08-7/31/09
$1,125,582
$544,132
Y
Y
EPID
He, Jiang
8/15/08-4/30/09
$682,461
$682,461
Y
Y
EPID
He, Jiang
9/15/08-7/31/09
$763,796
$763,796
N
Y
EPID
Kissinger, Patty
5/1/09-4/30/10
$235,515
$235,515
Y
Y
2008-09
Regulatory Effects of LINE Components on SINE
Mobilization
Baseline Evaluation of the Lafitte Greenway, New
Orleans, Louisiana
Assessing Cognitive Function in the Bogalusa Heart
2008-09
Study
2008-09
Family-Based Genome-Wide Association Study for
Salt Sensitivity of Blood Pressure
Epidemiology of Drugs & HIV Sex Risks Among
2008-09
Newly Arrived Latino Migrants
2008-09
02/01/10
Page 170
YEAR
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
PI / Last,First
EPID
Kissinger, Patty
9/1/08-8/31/09
$264,803
$264,803
Y
Y
EPID
Makridakis, Nick National Institutes of Health
8/1/08-7/31/09
$222,750
$222,750
N
N
EPID
Xiong, Xu
6/1/09-5/31/10
$422,418
$132,684
Y
Y
HSMG
Butcher, Linda
Lighthouse for the Blind
7/1/08-6/30/09
$78,748
$78,748
Y
N
HSMG
Campbell,
Claudia
Blue Cross & Blue Shield
12/5/08-12/4/09
$15,600
$15,600
Y
Y
HSMG
Hughes, Julia
2008-09 Health Facility Survey
Use Patterns of Opiates in VA Patients on
2008-09
Duloxetine
Association Between Use Patterns of Rosiglitazone
2008-09 & Health Outcomes in Type II Diabetes in the VA
Health System
Review on the Self-Reported Questionaires &
2008-09 Monitoring Devices Used for Measuring Medication
Adherance
Use Patterns of Opiates in VA Patients on
2008-09
Duloxetine
Health System
Health System
Health System
Translating Efficacy into Effectiveness of
2008-09 Insecticide Treated Nets Using an Interpersonal
Communication Intervention
HSMG
T. Vaginalis Recurrence Among HIV+ Women SUB with LSUHSC
Professional Services Agreement for Dr. Ann
2008-09
Butcher
2008-09
2008-09
2008-09
Assess the Use & Benefits of Electronic Prescribing
in Blue Cross & Blue Shield of LA Physicians
Monitoring & Evaluation to Assess & Use Results
(MEASURE) Phase II - SUB with UNC Chapel Hill
02/01/10
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
DEPT
2008-09
Project Name
6/1/09-5/31/10
$42,196
$42,196
N
Y
Khan, Mahmud
Health
World Bank
11/1/08-8/31/09
$126,852
$126,852
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Eli Lilly
1/1/09-12/31/09
$133,798
$133,798
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Takeda Neuroscience
Research Fund
10/1/08-10/9/09
$30,000
$30,000
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Eli Lilly
10/1/08-3/31/09
$65,208
$65,208
Y
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Eli Lilly
12/11/08-9/10/09
$84,813
$84,813
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Takeda Neuroscience
Research Fund
12/5/08-12/4/09
$30,000
$30,000
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Takeda Neuroscience
Research Fund
7/1/08-6/30/09
$12,000
$12,000
N
Y
HSMG
Shi, Lizheng
Takeda Neuroscience
Research Fund
8/14/08-8/13/08
$30,000
$30,000
N
Y
INHL
Eisele, Thomas
9/30/08-9/29/09
$444,460
$444,460
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
7/1/08-3/24/09
$122,001
$122,001
Y
Y
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
7/1/08-6/30/09
$170,000
$170,000
Y
Y
Page 171
YEAR
Project Name
2008-09 USAID Alpha II Evaluation Project
Funding Source
Funding Period
Amount
Start/End
Total Award
Amount
Current
Year
Student
Based Y/N
Y/N
DEPT
PI / Last,First
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
8/11/08-8/10/10
$142,913
$142,913
Y
N
2008-09
MEASURE Phase III Monitoring an Assessment for
Results - SUB with UNC
INHL
Gage, Anastasia
8/15/08-8/14/13
$1,093,834
$1,093,834
Y
Y
2008-09
Building Haiti's Capacity in Monitoring &
Evaluation
INHL
Kendall, Carl
4/1/09-3/31/10
$600,000
$600,000
Y
Y
INHL
Kendall, Carl
7/1/08-6/30/09
$30,000
$30,000
Y
N
INHL
Kendall, Carl
7/31/08-8/31/09
$15,000
$15,000
Y
N
INHL
Lemma, Wuleta
Packard Foundation
11/19/08-8/31/09
$150,000
$150,000
Y
N
INHL
Macintyre, Kate
Foundation
10/10/08-10/09/09
$189,724
$189,724
Y
N
2008-09 WHO Landscaping Project
INHL
Mason, John
3/19/09-3/26/09
$14,796
$14,796
Y
Y
2008-09 WHO 6th Report on the World Nutrition Situation
INHL
Mason, John
4/7/09-5/9/09
$9,900
$9,900
Y
N
INHL
Mason, John
World Bank
5/21/09-12/31/09
$43,456
$43,456
Y
N
INHL
Mock, Nancy
World Bank
10/1/08-12/31/08
$85,684
$85,684
Y
N
INHL
Vanlandingham,
Mark
7/1/08-6/30/09
$472,355
$232,979
Y
Y
TRMD
Bausch, Daniel
LA Vaccine Center
7/1/08-5/31/09
$75,000
$75,000
Y
N
TRMD
Krogstad, Donald
Food and Drug
Administration
3/9/09-3/8/10
$398,840
$398,840
N
N
2008-09 Informed Consent in Illiterate Subjects
TRMD
Krogstad, Donald National Institutes of Health
9/12/08-8/31/09
$520,773
$207,287
N
N
2008-09 Probiotics in Pediatric Diarrhea in Peru
TRMD
Oberhelman,
Richard
9/1/08-8/31/09
$2,178,717
$520,773
Y
Y
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
Foundation
11/1/08-10/31/13
$4,559,326
$4,559,326
N
N
TRMD
Wesson, Dawn
8/29/08-8/28/09
$20,000
$20,000
N
N
An Evaluation of Oromia Development Association
2008-09 (ODA) Reproductive Health/Family Planning
Project
2008-09
Program
Ethiopia Global Facility for Disaster Reduction &
Recovery
TA for Strengthening Community Resources for
2008-09
Health
2008-09
Burden of Disease & Etiology of Arbovirus in
Guinea, West Africa
Phase 2 Studies of AQ-13, an Investigational
2008-09
Antimalarial
2008-09
2008-09
Development & Proof of Efficacy of a Lethal
Ovitrap fro Dengue Preventions
02/01/10
Page 172
Section 3.2
Service
3.2 A SPHTM Service Activities, Policies and Formal Agreements
Service is an integral component of the SPHTM mission and is integrated throughout school’s
activities. SPHTM faculty engage in professional service through an array of partnerships providing
expertise, technical assistance, consultation and other support to community organizations and public
health agencies.
The SPHTM enjoys a domestic and international network of agencies and institutions where the faculty
and students address public health issues through community-based projects and community service.
These relationships provide practice sites for faculty and students and open opportunities for students
to gain experience in public health practice. Faculty involvement in public health practice provides
essential feedback to update the curriculum and insure the relevance of the teaching programs and
continuing education courses. This network is used to identify practitioners to participate in teaching
public health students. The SPHTM’s commitment to service/practice is reflected in its policies and
procedures. For example:
• While participation in service/practice is the decision of the individual faculty member, all faculty
are encouraged to contribute their professional expertise to public health organizations.
Opportunities and requests from outside constituencies are referred to appropriate faculty
members via the administration, fellow faculty, and students.
• Practice/service is an essential requirement for tenure. While a faculty member will not attain
tenure based solely on service activities, tenure cannot be attained without a record of
professional service.
• Faculty report their service activities as part of their annual evaluations. Merit raises are based on
these evaluations.
• The SPHTM has developed a clinical faculty category for professionals primarily engaged in
teaching and practice. This faculty category serves to strengthen ties to the community and
provides additional opportunities to incorporate public health practice into the curriculum. Every
department has faculty with clinical appointments.
• The SPHTM’s administration has designated a practice coordinator, who is currently the senior
associate dean. The role of the practice coordinator is to initiate and/or facilitate school-wide
practice activities. Activities include the formal affiliation with the Louisiana Office of Public Health
(LOPH), the regional South Central Public Health Leadership Institute, the HRSA Workforce
Training Center, and the CDC Preparedness Center. Funds and staffing in support of school-wide
practice activities are provided as needed by the dean’s office.
• One clinical faculty member is jointly funded by the SPHTM and the Louisiana Office of Public
Health to promote practice activities.
• Students in the MPH and MSPH programs are required to participate in service/practice activities
as part of their degree program. All such students must participate in a practicum.
Faculty and students also provide professional service to the community through center and SPHTM
organization activities. Examples include:
• The Tulane Prevention Research Center (PRC) provides extensive service to numerous nonprofit organizations on an ongoing basis. The PRC Community Advisory Board (CAB) has
evolved as an important networking body that provides a forum for community organizations to
coordinate projects, piece together funding for projects, exchange ideas, and to recruit others into
their organizations. The PRC funds student stipends to provide public health services to
community organizations and to provide professional service not available from within the
organization.
• The Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH) provides professional service to
the childhood lead poisoning coalition composed of local environmental activists, nonprofit
groups, and local agencies that have banded together to reduce lead poisoning. CAEPH
provides the expertise for the LOPH lead program for surveillance and generating statistics used
for targeting preventive activities. CAEPH also conducts training and education sessions and
supports student internships with affiliated partners.
02/01/10
Page 174
•
•
•
•
Section 3.2
Service
SPHTM faculty regularly provide technical expertise and program evaluation support to several
OPH programs. OPH programs that routinely rely on SPHTM faculty professional service include:
Maternal and Child Health; Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention; Environmental Epidemiology;
Indoor Air Program; Hazardous Materials Response; Occupational Surveillance; Family Planning;
Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Infectious Disease Epidemiology; HIV/AIDS; Genetic Disease;
Louisiana Council on Obesity Prevention and Management; Nutrition; Tuberculosis Control
Program; and Adolescent School Health Program - School-Based Health Centers.
The Student Government Association regularly organizes and sponsors community service
projects. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, students were a major source of volunteers to
community organizations that assisted in the recovery of the city.
SPHTM students and faculty brought public health into every recovery activity and the impact of
their work is visible through emphasis on rebuilding a healthier city. The emergence of bike and
walking paths as a part of the new city design and support for farmers markets are examples of
the impact of SPHTM on the recovery.
Immediately following Katrina, many faculty provided professional expertise to local, state and
federal public health agencies including: the environmental impact of the flooding; surveillance of
emergency rooms and hospitals for hurricane-related illness and disease; assessment of the
damaged health delivery system; development of plans for community clinics; among many other
activities. SPHTM faculty and students were instrumental in reopening the city and in assessing
damage to the health care system and in developing plans for rebuilding and recovery.
Formal Agreements
The SPHTM’s capacity to develop new programs and projects is enhanced by formal agreements with
local, national, and international agencies. Formal partnerships include:
• The Louisiana Office of Public Health (LOPH): The SPHTM has a formal affiliation with LOPH
through a memorandum of understanding which emphasizes the mutual mission of education and
training of public health professionals. Numerous collaborations have been built upon this longstanding partnership, such that students and faculty work seamlessly alongside practitioners at
LOPH. Practitioners at OPH are regularly called upon to teach classes and serve on committees
at Tulane University. Elements of the partnership include: (1) joint faculty appointments, (2) a
formal program for student internships and field practice sites, (3) leadership development, (4)
workforce development initiatives, and (5) support for OPH programs and projects. Practice and
service projects are described in the following section on ‘Current Service Activities’ and
leadership initiatives and workforce development projects are described under “Continuing
Education.”
• Tulane/OPH Master of Public Health Internship Program: As the SPHTM’s public health practice
laboratory, the OPH expands its organizational capacity and workforce by placing as many as 75
Master of Public Health students annually in public health internships. In turn, the increased dayto-day interaction among students, their mentors/preceptors at OPH, and their academic advisor
enrich the students’ public health training, provide feedback to the SPHTM on effectiveness of its
curriculum, and further strengthens the bond between both organizations. SPHTM and OPH also
share the cost of a college work-study program to provide $25,000 per year to finance student
practice.
• Workforce Development Coordinator: A faculty coordinator serves as the liaison between the
SPHTM and OPH, arranges and manages SPHTM student practica, and coordinates interactions
between the OPH Workforce Development initiative with SPHTM’s HRSA Workforce Training
Center and the CDC Preparedness Center. This faculty member also coordinates and manages
the SPHTM/OPH internship program.
• Louisiana Office of Public Health and Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health
(CAEPH): The Tulane CAEPH has two formal contracts with LOPH: one to provide professional
service to the Childhood Lead Poisoning Program for maintaining the childhood lead surveillance
system and professional continuing education; and the other for environmental health and
02/01/10
Page 175
•
•
Section 3.2
Service
toxicological services. This contract has been ongoing for over 25 years.
Partners for Healthy Babies Program Director: A jointly appointed clinical faculty member
manages this ongoing, statewide social marketing program, started in 1993 to promote prenatal
care and healthy behaviors during pregnancy. This project also provides several internship
opportunities each year for MPH students.
TUXCOE/ Mary Amelia Center: In January 2003, the Tulane-Xavier National Center of Excellence
(TUXCOE) in Women’s Health received a naming endowment from the Frost Foundation to
establish the Mary Amelia Douglas-White Community Women’s Health Education Center (Mary
Amelia Center). The Mary Amelia Center offers comprehensive, community-oriented health
education. At the center, goals are accomplished by working in partnership with a variety of
organizations. A longstanding relationship between the Mary Amelia Center and the Louisiana
Office of Public Health’s Maternal and Child Health program has led to collaborative activities for
teaching, student internships, doctoral work, graduate employment, and academic program
development. This work with community-based organizations often involves comprehensive
community assessment, conducting health talks, and participating in health fairs or other outreach
activities. With community- and faith-based organizations, our collaborations also include project
planning, organizational strategic planning, and community assessment.
Informal Agreements:
The SPHTM has many productive community partnerships that have been established throughout the
years. The large number of community partners is indicative of these relationships. Community partners
and student field placement sites are listed in Table 1.6 K1 as part of the criterion describing community
resources available to the school. Many partnerships are forged by way of grants and contracts which
fund public health practice activities with city, state, and federal agencies, foundations and nonprofit
agencies, international organizations, and business and industry. Others are built upon request for
services of the faculty and students.
3.2 B SPHTM’s Current Service Activities
Table 3.2B (at end of this section) provides a list of service activities over the last 3 years.
3.2 C Measures by Which SPHTM Evaluates its Service Activities
Number and percent of faculty engaged in community service
Every faculty member (100%) reported having engaged in community service activities each year for the
last 3 years. Following Hurricane Katrina, SPHTM faculty actively volunteered to work in the community
and performed a wide range of activities that drew upon professional expertise such as providing medical
and public health services, planning and organizing community health endeavors as well as volunteering
to gut and rebuild houses and mobilizing neighborhoods. Faculty and students, like almost everyone in
the greater New Orleans area and thousands from around the country, did what job was necessary to
assist in the rebuilding effort. The volunteerism displayed in the aftermath of the hurricane was
immense. The community service and volunteer work not only assisted the individuals and organizations
who received the help, but helped build and expand community partnerships that have translated into
community-based research and professional service activities.
Number and percent of faculty engaged in professional service activities
The SPHTM faculty were actively engaged in professional service activities. Eighty percent of SPHTM
faculty report having practice experience in addition to their academic focus. This shows that while
research is a priority at SPHTM, the many faculty have a practice perspective and a commitment to
professional service. In 2008, 92% of faculty reported engaging in professional service activities. These
activities included consultancies and professional service to organizations and public health agencies,
grant reviewers and peer journal reviewers. These activities were carried out at the local, regional,
national and global levels. Community-based research forms a link between the research efforts,
community partnerships and service activities; 63% of the faculty participated in community-based
research during 2008.
02/01/10
Page 176
Section 3.2
Service
Table 3.2 C Number and Percent of Faculty with Practice Experience and Engaged in
Professional Service and Community-Based Research (2008)
Practice
Professional
% (#) Community
Experience
Service Activities
based Research
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
SPHTM
6 (75%)
12 (100%)
13 (81%)
12 (69%)
6 (54%)
23 (100%)
8 (73%)
80 (80%)
6 (75%)
12 (100%)
14 (88%)
15 (87%)
10 (92%)
23 (100%)
11 (100%)
91 (92%)
4 (50%)
8 (67%)
5 (31%)
8 (47%)
2 (18%)
23 (100%)
6 (86%)
63% (57)
3.2 D Student Involvement in Service
Public heath practice and community service are integral components of students’ public health
education at SPHTM. All students in the master’s program are required to gain practice experience by
completing a practicum or internship as part of their degree requirements (see Section 1.6 and 2.4). In
addition, students are encouraged to participate in community service. Students select from the many
service opportunities available through the SPHTM, the University, the Louisiana Office of Public Health
and other community-based organizations. All undergraduate students are also required to participate in
service learning through the Center for Public Service. Undergraduate service learning is designed to
contribute to the development of civic engagement. These projects also provide students with ‘real
world’ experiences so that they can begin to use their education in the community.
Graduate student service activities included:
• MD/MPH students volunteered at Daughters of Charity Community Health Centers to educate
patients on improving diabetes management.
• Assisted physicians at Common Ground Clinic with electronic medical records and patient trends
after Hurricane Katrina.
• The NO AIDS walk is an advocacy activity. This activity demonstrates the role of volunteerism as a
tool in public health. This concept is not well understood in many international communities and
this provides a forum for better understanding of how volunteerism can advance public health.
• Created the Jump-Start Project in Pierre Part, LA to encourage healthy behavior changes in a
community-wide nutrition campaign in a rural Louisiana town.
• Worked with the Latina Health Outreach Project Clinic to provide care for Spanish-speaking postKatrina workers in New Orleans.
• MD/MPH students raised $13,000 for Project Play-Fit which provided a new playground for
rebuilding a New Orleans neighborhood post-Katrina.
• MD/MPH students volunteered at the Fleur de Vie Clinic post-Katrina and were honored for
leadership in 2008 and 2009.
• MPH students served as advocates for access to healthy fruits and vegetables and worked
collaboratively with Dr. Tom Farley to improve the health of New Orleans neighborhoods.
• The Prevention Research Center at Tulane University offers its Health Promotion Practicum
program every semester to provide students opportunities to work with non-profit organizations
across the City of New Orleans. Experiences included: working for the YMCA Trim Kids program
to reduce overweight and obesity in adolescents in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes; developing a
monitoring and evaluation program for Liberty’s Kitchen, a program that teaches job skills to at
risk youth; promoting anti-smoking policies around church grounds for the McFarland Institute;
and developing online nutrition programs for practitioners and community members through
Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans and Acadiana.
02/01/10
Page 177
Section 3.2
Service
Examples of Undergraduate Service Learning Projects:
 Tutored students at Banneker Elementary School as part of the Reading Buddies program.
 Examined childhood obesity and nutrition reports at Banneker Elementary School
 Promoted exercise as a public health issue for children and used observations to champion
exercise at Banneker Elementary School
 Help New Orleanians recycle building materials and supplies with the Green Project Initiative
 Assisted at the drop-in clinic and service center at Covenant House, highlighting diabetes in the
Hispanic population.
 Conducted a needs assessment of children with disabilities who participated in the Orleans
Parish Head Start Program Post-Katrina.
The Graduate Student Government Association sponsored community service activities; examples
include:
• Worked with the Salvation Army to facilitate food and clothing drives twice a year.
• Organized an all-day trip to the lower Ninth Ward where student volunteers helped to rebuild a
house on behalf of the LowerNine.org.
• Distributed condoms and safe-sex literature in the French Quarter as a part of the Mardi Gras
Coalition.
• Organized a small group of volunteers in fall 2008 to work with Brad Pitt's Make It Right
Foundation to consult on a building project in the Ninth Ward.
• Walked in the American Heart Association’s 16th Annual Heart Walk in Audubon Park to help
protect against heart disease and stroke.
• Hosted the 30th Annual Minority Conference with the Society for Young Black Public Health
Professionals, and the University of North Carolina School of Public Health. The keynote speech
was delivered by Dr. Barbara C. Wallace, entitled “Our World, Our Community: Building Bridges
for Health Equality.”
• Helped raise over $50,000 for St. Baldrick’s Foundation and Boundless Playground, Inc. with the
support of the Society for Young Black Public Health Professionals of the School of Public Health
and Tropical Medicine, Tulane Hospital and Clinic, and the Tulane School of Medicine,
• Raised funds for the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS patients in New Orleans and Louisiana by
walking in the 5K NO/AIDS Walk.
TUXCOE/Mary Amelia Center focuses on cultivating the next the generation of women’s health
professionals. The Center is involved in developing meaningful opportunities for students and community
members to assist in the Center’s work:
• Conducted outreach through health fairs and local events and provided wellness talks through the
Jane Wilson Smith Wellness Talk series. Student participation in these activities included
developing and translating health education materials and conducting health presentations in the
community.
• Engaged communities in a sharing and learning project called Creating Community Connections.
Student involvement has been a part of this project since its inception, with students being engaged
in all aspects of design, implementation, evaluation and analysis.
• Initiated a Mary Amelia Center student “alumni” newsletter to keep former students engaged with
the center.
At the Louisiana Office of Public Health, students have:
• Worked on a study to determine the specific causes of death during Katrina: went through nearly
1,000 coroner's reports, recording the specific cause of death (drowning, suicide, hospice,
nursing home transplantation, etc.) during Katrina in a Microsoft Access database, and working
with the state epidemiologist to analyze the data.
• Worked with the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program that performs lead surveillance
for the State of Louisiana; assisted in determining the burden of childhood lead poisoning,
02/01/10
Page 178
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
compared these statistics to prior years based on how many children were screened and the
proportion of those children with elevated blood-lead levels.
Participated in preparing the influenza mass vaccination exercise and a CDC-funded initiative for
Strategic National Stockpile, the Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) with the Emergency
Preparedness Unit, New Orleans Metro Region 1.
Helped with the logistics for a rapid-response team training seminar, hosted by the Infectious
Disease Epidemiology Division, and assembled conference evaluations and feedback reports for
the Convocation of Southern State Epidemiologists.
Compiled a report interpreting the sanitary code regarding tattoo regulations for the State of
Louisiana as it relates to hepatitis C infections and transmission reduction, and conducted
independent research on the risks involved with hepatitis C virus transmission in tattooing.
Worked with two outreach coordinators to help organize prevention efforts and patient advocacy
among the Hispanic population; compiled all published literature and reports regarding Hispanics
in New Orleans and their HIV/AIDS status; and distributed hygiene kits and condoms as part of
outreach activities.
Assisted the prevention training coordinator on the HIV Counseling Program; edited and
formatted the rapid testing trainer’s manual; created and facilitated HIV 101 training for new
members of the HIV/AIDS Program staff; assisted with grant research; compiled information for
the testing site database; and assisted in preparing for counseling and testing trainings.
Worked with Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Students reviewed
literature on factors that have been associated with intimate partner violence and wrote a
review/summary; examined factors in PRAMS associated with intimate partner violence during
pregnancy; examined adjusted models to determine which factors are associated with intimate
partner violence during pregnancy; and summarized findings in a report.
Worked with the Infectious Disease Epidemiology Division on possible nosocomial infections
based on analysis of data from the Louisiana Hospital Discharge Database.
Assessed HIV-associated behaviors among MSM at risk for HIV infection in New Orleans, and
analyzed data from the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) - New Orleans
MSM cycle 2008.
Worked on a survey for all STI clinics within Louisiana, and pilot tested the survey at the
Hammond Health Unit.
Worked with the STD Program on the Continuous Quality Improvement Plan Mystery Caller
Program. Students called every listed health clinic in the State of Louisiana that was open after
Hurricane Katrina; recorded and charted responses of the clinics; and tested the efficacy of their
appointment scheduling.
Worked on Pandemic Flu Preparation (Region IX). Students helped to create mental health
section of Pandemic Flu State Plan for Region 9; researched alliances/resources for mental
health services; and outlined the Region 9 plan.
Assembled all documentation for pandemic and all-hazards planning for Region 1. Students
reviewed the material and acted on necessary steps to establish a concrete plan; narrowed down
the information to the basics; and contacted agencies that could aid Region 1 in putting together
the coordinated steps.
Aided with preparations for the PanFlu Tabletop Discussion Exercise. Students contacted local
schools, universities, and agencies to participate in the day-long discussion of school closures as
a result of a PanFlu in the New Orleans area; and networked with area law enforcement, EMS,
hospital and education systems as they worked to understand the depth of coordination required
for such an occurrence.
Conducted a thorough review and assessment of the New Orleans City-Assisted Evacuation Plan
(CAEP), ensuring that all aspects of the plan can be exercised under current local and regional
conditions.
Page 179
Section 3.2
Service
3.2 E Assessment
This criterion is met: SPHTM faculty provide extensive professional service to the Louisiana Office of
Public Health and to other local non-profits and public health organizations. SPHTM faculty are also
active as consultants to many foreign governments, NGOs and agencies worldwide. In addition to
professional service, faculty serve as peer reviewers to journals, journal editors, grant reviewers, provide
testimony to legislative bodies, serve on boards of non-profits, and work with many community-based
organizations. SPHTM has close relationships with the professional community and provides
professional expertise when needed.
02/01/10
Page 180
Section 3.2
Service
Table 3.2 B List of school’s current service activities
Service
Activities
Grant reviewer
Community Group
Nature of activity
American Institute of Biological Sciences
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
LCRC
American Chemistry Council
CDC/ASPH
NIH study section-HSOD
Military Infectious Disease Research
Program grant review
Chair, Scientific Review Committee
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
U.S. Civilian Research & Development
Foundation
CDC RFTP 2006-N-08835: “Technical support
for birth defects and developmental disabilities
prevention education efforts”. April 2007
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
NIH (4 study sections, 3 as ad hoc, 1 as
regular member
National Cancer Institute’s Centers of
Excellence in Cancer Communications
Research II (CECCR II) initiative
HRSA/ HHS, R39, Social and Behavioral
Interventions to Increase Organ and Tissue
Donation
CDC CD08-001 Panel A: “Elimination of
Health Disparities through Translation
Research”. July 2008
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
02/01/10
Children's Research Center of Michigan,
Children's Hospital of Michigan
NIOSH
CDC
CDC Grants for Public Health Research
Dissertation
Cooperative Research Partnership for
Biodefense–NIH/NIAID
Special Emphasis Panel–NIAID Center of
Excellence for Influenza Research and
Surveillance
CDC
Special Emphasis Panel CK09-006
Special Emphasis Panel 05061, 05062 and
05064
NIH, NIAID
NIH
NIAID Review Panel
NIH5 year term grant consultant
Fulbright Council for International Exchange
of Scholars (CIES)
Internship/Fellowship applications
Chair, Review NIH grants for scientific
quality
2008 Biomedical Research Competition
Chair, Grant review panel
CASE, Permanent Member 2005-2007
Special Emphasis Panel, Research and
Demonstration Projects, 2007.
NHLBI—ZHL1 CSR-R (F1) 1—Patient
Oriented Research (K23, 24, 25) Career
Enhancement Award Special Emphasis
Panel, 2008
Study section member
Reviewer
Reviewed grants for federal funding
Chair, Grant review
Special Emphasis Panel/ Scientific Review
Group for “Research for Preventing
Violence and Violence Related Injury”
Open proposal review
Review grants
Review grants advisory committee
Grant review
Grant review
Grant review
Special Emphasis Review Panel
Chair
Reviewer
Proposal Review
Reviewer
Review Committee
Grant consultant
Review applications and proposals for
Fulbright awards
Page 181
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
AIDS Journal
NIH -NICHD
Grant reviewer
Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA)
VA grant proposals
Norway Development Fund
Medical Research Council
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Naval Medical Research Center Detachment
(NMRCD), United States Army, Peru
NIH, NSERC (Canada), ZonMw (Netherlands)
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Grant reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
NIH/ Fogarty Center
AMFAR
State of Indiana
NIH Review Group Behavioral and Social
Consequences of HIV/AIDS
NIH ZRG1 IDM A 02 Bacterial Pathogenes ZAI1 TP-A (J2) 1 Transmission and
Pathogenesis of HIV in Women.
>10 journals
Experimental Parasitology, Transactions of
the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene
Journal of Scientific Research (JSR)
Journal of Applied Statistics
Health Communication
Scientific journals
American Journal of Health Behavior
Journal of American Medical Women’s
Association; Journal of the Poor and
Underserved; Journal of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome; Journal of Adolescenc;
AIDS Care; Sexually Transmitted; Infections;
Obstetrics and Gynecology American; Journal
of Infectious Diseases; American Journal of
Epidemiology; Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology; Pediatrics; Clinical Infectious
Diseases; Journal of the National Medical
Association; Journal of Reproductive
Medicine; Am J of Public Health; Women’s
Health Journal; Women’s Health Issues;
BioMed Central Infectious Diseases; PLoS
One open access journal; Journal of Urban
Health; Parasitology International;
Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene
Tobacco Control, CyberPsychology &
Behavior, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Journal of School Health,
Communication Reports, Journal of Health
Communication, Health Communication
Journal – HERA
Analytical Biochemistry (Elsevier)
Journal reviewer
PLOS medicine
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Pre-publication review of submitted articles
National Children's Study-- grant review
panels
Maternal and Child Health Extramural
Research Program—grant review panels
Reviewed or will review a total of five grant
applications.
Grant Review
Periodic review of grants submitted to NIH
Periodic review of grants submitted to
NMRDC
Full member for NIH study section (AOIC),
ad hoc reviewer for other national agencies
Study section reviewer
Reviewed grants
reviewer
Reviewed 4 papers for EP and reviewed 5
papers for RSTMH
Reviewer
Reviewer
Editorial Board
Ad hoc reviewer
Review Board Member
Peer reviewer for manuscripts
Peer-reviewed journal submissions
Review manuscript
Member of the Editorial board Reviewer for
publication of manuscripts in the field
Academic Editor
Page 182
Journal reviewer
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Journal reviewer
American Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene Newsletter “Trop Med and Hygiene
News”.
Circulation
Journal of Women’s Health and Gender
Based Medicine
Child Maltreatment, ad hoc
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, ad hoc
Injury Prevention, ad hoc
International Journal of Human and Ecological
Risk Assessment, Associate Editor of
Debates/Commentaries and Perspectives
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Health Affairs
American Journal of Public Health
Public Health Reports
Health Promotion Practice
Journal of Public Health Management and
Practice
International Journal of Environmental
Epidemiology and Toxicology
Environmental Health Perspectives
Journal of Environmental Health
Louisiana Medical Society Journal
Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene
Biomarkers
Biomarkers
Analytical Biochemistry, Gene, Genomics,
Journal of Molecular Evolution, BBA-Gene
Structure and Expression, Journal of
Molecular Biology, PLoS Biology, Journal of
Heredity, Molecular Biology and Evolution,
BioMed Central Genomics
American Journal of Managed Care, Diabetes
Research and Clinical Practice, Ochsner
Journal, Nature Clinical Practice and
Cardiovascular Medicine
Biomarkers
Future Oncology
Human Genetics
Genetics
Annals of Human Genetics
Cambridge University Press
Cochrane Injuries Group, Annals of
Epidemiology, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Environmental Research, Public
Health Reports
Journal of Developmental Health
Health Policy
Health Administration Education
Various health policy journals
Journal of Vector Ecology
International Journal of Health Geographics
Journal of Insect Science and its Application
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Editorial Board; Review papers and
participate in Board meetings
Editorial Board
occasional manuscript review
Editorial Board
Review manuscripts for publication
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
editorial board member and guest editorin-chief
Temporary chief editor
Editorial board
Reviewer for publication of manuscripts in
the field
Manuscript review
Review papers
Review papers
Review papers
Review paper
Review paper
Review book proposal
Manuscript review
Editorial board member
Reviewed papers for these two journals
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Page 183
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Journal of Health Education Research
Journal of Information Technology & Develop.
World Development
Journal of Information Technology & Develop.
World Development
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Reviewer20 Peer-reviewed journals
Misc. infectious disease journals (editorial
board of Folia Parasitologica and PLoS One)
Hygiene Newsletter “Trop Med and Hygiene
News”.
National Medical Research Council,
Singapore
18 scientific publications
UNC and NYU and Radcliff fellowship
program. 12/2006
World Bank
LA OPH
Fresenius Medical Care, Celebration, Florida
Rosenblum Consulting for Occup. health
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
Rand Corporation
South Carolina Research Consortium
Prof. service
Broadmoor Community Health Center
Prof. service
Broadmoor Improvement Association
Prof. service
KaBOOM! Project Playground, and others
Prof. service
LA Office of Public Health Teenage
pregnancy
John Tung Foundation Tobacco control
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Peer reviewer
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
02/01/10
International Tobacco Control and Policy
Asia Pacific Association for Control of
Tobacco
World Association for Chinese Public Health
Professionals
RAND
Chicago Department of Health
New York City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Louisiana Public Health Institute/New Orleans
Health Department
Dr. Martin Luther King Charter School
Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
Louisiana Public Health Institute/Louisiana
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Living
Section 3.2
Service
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Manuscript review
Associate editor
Manuscripts review
Editing manuscripts
Editorial Board
Reviewed one grant
> 100 papers reviewed in 2008
Reviewed tenure applications
Malaria technical assistance – HAMSET
Data Analysis for OPH MCH program
Data analyst
Data Analyst
Consultant on Research Project
Consultant on Research Project
Consultant for Development of Research
Grant
Planning for building community
engagement for health center.
Community outreach for information to
returning residents on available health and
environmental resources
Promotion of physical activity among
children in playground building projects in
New Orleans.
Advisory Committee
Chief Advisor: direct law implementation
on “ban smoking in all public places” and
raise cig. tax
President (2004-2007): direct development
of leadership and policy
Vice-President; training and program
development for Chinese public health
professionals
Katrina effect on schools
Consultation
Senior advisory for 12 months while on
leave; periodic consultations.
Board membership and Chair of Steering
Committee for Step Together New Orleans
Board membership
Member of Advisory Committee for Safe
Routes to School program
Member of Board of Directors for nonprofit
public health organization
Member of steering committee for state
tobacco control program
Page 184
Prof. service
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
Prof. service
Lafitte Corridor Steering Advisory Committee
Prof. service
Louisiana Healthy Food Retail Study Group
Prof. service
Rapides Health Foundation, Alexandria, LA
Prof. service
Winter Park Health Foundation, Winter Park,
FL
Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic Church
Health Clinic
Governor of Louisiana’s Women’s Policy and
Research Commission
Commission on Women’s Health, Louisiana
State
MCH Leadership Conference Planning
Committee, University of Chicago, IL
Council of Organization for the Study of Sex
Differences, Washington DC
Executive Committee Organization for the
Study of Sex Differences, Washington DC
Site visit team, MCHB, SPH Maternal Child
Public Health Long term Leadership Training
Program, Department of MCH, University of
Birmingham School of Public Health,
Birmingham, AL
Steering Committee International Conference
on Women and Infectious Diseases, Atlanta,
and Moderator of session on Infectious
Diseases and the Interface of Sex and
Gender
Steering Committee, National Centers of
Excellence in Women’s Health and the
National Community Center of Excellence in
Women’s Health Research Consortium
Greater New Orleans Breastfeeding Coalition
Show Chwan Health Care System, Taiwan,
Building a Comprehensive Women Health
Care System
Organization for the Study of Sex Differences,
Washington DC
St. Bernard Project, New Orleans, LA
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Central Louisiana Breastfeeding Coalition,
Alexandria, LA
Prof. service
Trinity Counseling and Training Center, New
Orleans, LA
Summit on Structural Racism and Recovery,
Institute on Race and Poverty, New Orleans,
LA
Association of Maternal and Child Health
Programs meeting, Arlington, Virginia
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Consultation: strategic planning for state
chronic disease control program
Member of advisory committee to develop
greenway in New Orleans
Advisory Committee: state study on lack of
access to healthy food
Consultant for health foundation on
strategic planning
Consultant for health foundation on
strategic planning
Consult, community advisory board
Strategic planning, Technical assistance
Strategic planning, Technical assistance
Technical assistance
Technical Assistance
Strategic planning, organizational
development
Strategic planning, organizational
development, nonprofit management
Developed formative research instruments,
trained use of instruments, analyzed and
summarized data, wrote a successful grant
for the coalition to Robert Wood Johnson .
Board member
Board member
Human resource development
Invited Discussant
Invited Speaker
Page 185
Prof. service
Prof. service
Louisiana’s Nurse Family Partnership Annual
Conference, Baton Rouge, LA
American Medical Women’s Association
meeting, Tucson, AZ
New Orleans EMS
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
LPHI Advisory board
La MOD Advisory board
La OPH
American Public Health Association
Prof. service
EPA National Public Health Committee /Gulf
Of Mexico Food and Safety
Prof. service
Prof. service
CDC Committee in case of Disasters
CDC International border food safety in case
of disaster
The Health Central Network (THCN), Inc
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
University of Maryland, College of Information
Studies
Prof. service
University of Maryland, College of Information
Studies
Prof. service
Technology, Automation & Management, Inc
(TeAM), Falls Church, VA
Prof. service
Prof. service
Lake Ponchartrain Basin Foundation
Water Environment Federation: Disinfection
Committee
International Water Association: Chemical
Industries Specialist Group
DSCEJ
ABIH
HEAL, CAG
Scientific Executive Committee, Louisiana
Cancer Research Consortium
Bring New Orleans Back Commissions – CoChair, Environmental Health Sciences
Committee
Chair, C-Change Cancer Workforce Strategic
Initiative
Pfizer Public Health Advisory Board; Faculty
Scholar Award selection committee
National Public Health Leadership Society,
Chair Education Services Committee
Consultant to the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
Chair, Morehouse MPH Advisory Board
National Environmental Educational (Training)
Foundation Steering Committee Member
NIH Study Section
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Invited Speaker
Speaker on Women’s Health Education
Technical assistance Developed surveys
and focus group guides, supervised EMS
to collect data on stress and coping.
Media Task Force/work groups
Work Group
Ongoing consultation
Family Violence Prevention Forum,
Program Planning Committee
Public Health issues affecting the Gulf Of
Mexico states. Taped lectures for national
broadcast
Member of committee and advisor
Technical advisor
Directed a team project to develop a
personalized health information retrieval
system on breast cancer
Directed a study to build a virtual
community to connect cancer
organizations worldwide to share
knowledge and best practices in the global
fight against cancer.
Directed a grant proposal to develop a
Senior Health & Wellness Information
Kiosk
Directed a grant proposal to design and
implement a nutrition information delivery
system that provides real-time information
to promote healthier quality of living
Consultant: Technical advisory committee
Assist in research needs identification and
application of technology
Past Chair; assist in developing and
staging new international conferences
Advisory Board member
Certification Board member
Community Outreach
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee
Page 186
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
African Christian Fellowship – New Orleans
African Christian Fellowship – New Orleans
Church of Abundant Life
Working Group Analytical Chemistry of the
German Commission for the Investigation of
Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in
the Work Area
School of Population Health and Clinical
Practice, Adelaide University, Australia
Louisiana Office of Public Health; CLPPP
Prof. service
Prof. service
New Orleans Health Dept
Louisiana Office of Public Health; SEET
Prof. service
NIH – National Children’s Study
Prof. service
Prof. service
School Safety committee
Advisor to Society of Young Black Public
Health Professionals
Washington Parish and Bogalusa School
System
Safe Routes to School
PACE – Partnership for an Active Community
Environment
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
FACES
Prof. service
OPH family planning services
Prof. service
Latino AIDS coalition
Prof. service
CDC - Behavioral Intervention Research
Branch
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
American Board of Preventive Medicine—core
examination
Delta Omega National Public Health Honorary
Society
American Heart Association
Southern Societies for Clinical Investigation
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
CDC, HUD, NCHH, City of New Orleans
Prof. service
Prof. service
New Orleans Outreach
The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans
Prof. service
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Pro bono litigation
Legal advise
Legal advise
Develop Analytical chemistry methods
Safety advice, inspection of workplaces,
safety education to staff.
Assistance on CLPPP surveillance;
analysis of surveillance data
Communication and outreach
Analysis of exposure to toxic agents
Occupational surveillance of heavy metals
and pesticides
Advisory committee and serve on
Executive Steering Committee for NIH
Safety Issues
Advising Issues
Implementation of Health Promotion
Statewide Board Member
Research project Steering committee
member for a Community-based
organization
Ad hoc consultations on select PH issues
and situations
Evaluator Received an award recognizing
my contribution over the last 10 years to
this CBO. Have conducted evaluations of
SAMHSA and Ryan White Funded projects
and helped write grants
Performed needs assessment and helped
with grant writing
Meet on a regular basis with CBOs
working with Latinos
Expert advisor for: research portfolio
evaluation; Expedited Partner Treatment;
and, Nale screening for Chlamydia
trachomatis
Prepare certifying exam for physicians
seeking certification by ABPM
Past President ; Policy review and
implementation
Elected Fellow
Elected Member Mentoring/research
activities
Statistical application
Build supercomputer
Member of a national expert panel and
member of the Science Advisory Council,
expertise on pediatric asthma
Board member
Developed and directed services for blind
and visually impaired adults and children
Page 187
Prof. service
Ministry of Health and Tulane University Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
Prof. service
Prof. service
Amedisys Inc.
Prof. service
Louisiana Health Care Alliance/Louisiana
Business Group On Health
Prof. service
Louisiana Health Care Quality Forum
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Louisiana Department of Hospitals and Health
Services
Prof. service
Association Of University Programs In Health
Administration
Prof. service
Touro Infirmary, N. O.
Prof. service
Aurora Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wi.
Prof. service
American Hospital Association
Prof. service
American Hospital Association
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
The National Health Alliance for Information
Technology (in cooperation with the Louisiana
Public Health Institute)
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Helping to develop and edit the Ethiopian
Human Resources for Health Strategic
Plan
Reviewed and edited the monograph,
“Assessment of the Ambulatory Care
Workforce in Greater New Orleans:
Board Member, Strategic Advisory Board,
Developing a model of chronic care to
improve outcomes
Member, Board of Directors LHCA/LBGH
public policy and how changing policy can
provide incentives for employee health
care coverage
Co-Chair, Quality Measurement
Committee; Louisiana Health care Quality
Forum to support quality measurement for
improvement of health care delivery and
outcomes
Member, CMS EHR Steering Committee to
advise the Quality Forum Implementation
of the Electronic Health Record
Demonstration Project for CMS
Chair, Provider Plan Performance SubCommittee Development of quality
indicators for recommended use by health
care providers in Louisiana
Chair, Organizational Structure Committee,
Louisiana Healthcare Quality Forum Led
the group that created the organizational
structure, wrote the By-Laws and recruited
the Board for this new 501-C3 that was
later approved and funded by the
Louisiana State Legislature.
Member, Board of Directors AUPHA;
innovation in healthcare management
education, research and practice
Member, Board of Directors Governance of
hospital
Member and Chair of Board Governance
of 14 hospital system
Member, committee on governance
Representative of nation’s one million
volunteer trustees
Member, Regional Policy Board for setting
policy for region’s hospitals
Prepare CMS Waiver application for
electronic health record (EHR)
demonstration project.
Prepare vision paper for Louisiana’s health
information management and technology
Prepare State Analysis of the Health
Information Technology, Capacity and
Resource Needs of Recipients of the
Primary Care Access & Stabilization Grant
Page 188
Prof. service
The Louisiana Public
Health Institute
Prof. service
Prof. service
Touro Infirmary
Asian Institute of Technology
Prof. service
Baptist Community Ministries
Prof. service
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; State
University of Bangladesh, Dhaka United
International University, Bangladesh
CDC
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
New Orleans Drop-In Center Suicide
prevention and violence reduction among
homeless adolescents
Sarasota Memorial Health Care System
Embracing our Differences Exhibit (a
community project)
New Orleans Recovery Authority (NORA)/City
of New Orleans
National Collegiate Volunteers
African Regional Health Institutions and
USAID Bureau for Africa
Albert Schweitzer Fellowship Program- New
Orleans
Roll Back Malaria Monitoring and Evaluation
Reference Group (MERG)
Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group
(CHERG)
Johns Hopkins SPH
Global Fund
World Bank
Institute De L'Enfance
World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Pan
American Health Organization
Rockefeller Foundation, World Health
Organization
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Green Project
Banneker School
Planned Parenthood
Covenant House
OPCSO HIV Workgroup
Prof. service
Global fund to AIDS, TB & Malaria
Prof. service
Institute of Medicine, Board of Global Health
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
Co-author the Assessment of the
Ambulatory Care Workforce in Greater
New Orleans
Member, Governing Board Medical Care
Resource person for workshop on Poverty,
health and development
Advised on how to use inflation factor to
present long-term trend of the real value of
endowment of the foundation.
Presentations on: Health economics,
economics of polio eradication,
international trade in health services.
CDC School Closure Expert Panel
Participation in the Expert Panel
Grant writing “APA Helping Hand Grant”
and research leadership
Patient Flow Task Force Committee
member and model creator
Manage transportation of 10,000 students
each April to view this exhibit
Advisory – New Orleans East Hospital
Project
Advisory Board Member
Policy and strategy development, design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of programs to address infectious
diseases, child survival, emerging threats
in Africa.
Board Chair Community advisory boards
International committees Invited member
International committees Malaria expert
group member
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Led various assessments and evaluations
of health financing issues/interventions
Working Group Member Served as invited
participant on Monitoring and Evaluation
Working Groups/Meetings
Environmental cleanup Service Learning
Service Learning Tutoring
Service Learning Program design
Service Learning Health Education
Logistical planning, implementation of
HIV/STI testing and treatment in Orleans
Parish Jails
5-year impact evaluation framework
development
Committee on perspectives on the role of
intermittent preventive treatment for
malaria in infants (IPTi)
Page 189
Prof. service
Prof. service
XVIII IEA World Congress of Epidemiology
and VII Brazil Congress of Epidemiology,
Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Trust for Indigenous Culture and Health
(TICAH), Nairobi, Kenya
ACE Africa – USA
Prof. service
RUCEBO, Bungoma
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
World Bank UNICEF
UNICEF
UNICEF
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
International Journal of Men’s Health
Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS
DHS
Prof. service
Prof. service
World Vision
Centers for Disease Control
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Department of Education
Trust for Indigenous Culture and Health
(TICAH), Nairobi, Kenya
ACE Africa – USA
Prof. service
RUCEBO, Bungoma
Prof. service
PRISMA (non profit, non-governmental org in
Peru)
Prof. service
US Navy Medical Research Center
Detachment Avian Influenza Working Group
Save the Children, New Orleans
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Pathogen Detection and Quantification Core
TNPRC
Doctors for Global Health ;Vice President and
Board Member, Doctors for Global Health
National Organization;
World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland
World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Prof. service
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, MA
Prof. service
American College of Physicians
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
02/01/10
Section 3.2
Service
A systematic review of RDS:
recommendations for future development.
Consulting on social science research for
traditional medicines for international NGO
Regular board member for US arm of
Kenyan NGO involved in HIV/AIDS
responses and OVC support
Technical advisor for small communitybased organization in Bungoma, Kenya
Design, analysis Program design Ethiopia
Information systems design, E Africa
Child Health Days Evaluation E & Srn
Africa
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Analysis of MFM experience and adequacy
of current Emergency Support Function
Assist to revise global monitoring strategy
Methods for community assessment post
disaster
Evacuation of special needs populations
Consulting on social science research for
traditional medicines for int’l NGO
Regular board member for US arm of
Kenyan NGO involved in HIV/AIDS
responses and OVC support
Technical advisor for small communitybased organization in Bungoma, Kenya
Led midterm evaluation of this project to
reduce maternal and neonatal death in
Peruvian rainforest
Regular meetings to discuss latest findings
on topic
Evaluation of STC’s psychosocial
programming for children in the Gulf Coast
affected by Hurricane Katrina
Management
Consultant for NGO working on behalf of
health and human rights
Consultant on clinical care and
investigations in outbreaks
Consultant on viral hemorrhagic fevers
Consultant on clinical care and
investigations of viral hemorrhagic fevers
External Advisor for NIH research project
to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals on RNA
interference treatment of filoviruses
Editorial Consultant for viral hemorrhagic
fevers for the Physicians’ Information and
Education Resource (PIER)
Page 190
Prof. service
DHHS-IDSA
Prof. service
Doctors of the World Switzerland
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
NIH-Mali Research Center of Excellence;
Faculty of Medicine and Public Health
USAID
Statewide Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens
Committee (SARPAC) of the Louisiana Office
of Public Health
USAID
Statewide Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens
Committee (SARPAC) of the Louisiana Office
of Public Health
Central European Journal of Biology
The Open Parasitology Journal
New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control
Board
St. Tammany Mosquito
Control Board
Louisiana Mosquito Control
Association
AMREF HQ
Prof. service
Prof. service
Operations Research for TB, KEMRI
TICCAH
Prof. services
Chair of SAIDIA, Kenya and USA Community
based non governmental agency
Project advisory
activity
Reconstructing a
house
Review panel
American Water Works Associations
Reviewer
Reviewer
Reviewer
Reviewer
Reviewer
AIHA/ACGIH: Conference ENHS Committee
Oxford university press
Circulation
Hygiene (ASTMH)
Int’l Workshops on Opportunistic Protists
Textbook review
Sage Publications
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
Prof. service
02/01/10
NOLA RPCVs and Preservation Resource
Center
CDC – National Health Promotion Conference
Section 3.2
Service
Member of microsporidiosis working group
for revising the “Guidelines for the
prevention and treatment of opportunistic
infections in HIV-infected adults”
Consultant for a community-based Tb
control program in Chiapas Mexico
Developing a whitepaper for research
funding policies
Planning for development of Malian faculty
in public health
Tuberculosis Control
Technical expertise on antibiotic resistance
Tuberculosis Control
Technical expertise on antibiotic resistance
Editor
Editorial Board Member
Professional practice, Board Member
Professional practice,
Advisor to Board
Professional practice,
Board Member
Technical Advisor for hiring of M&E team
leader (2008)
Technical Advisor
Advisor on linkages between traditional
healing and formal medical system for
PLHA
Technical Advisor on grants and
fundraising, as well as leadership of
organization
Member of project advisory committee for
a project on microsporidiosis
Community Workdays
Abstract review, conference decision
making
Abstract Reviewer
Book Reviewer
manuscript review
Assist ASTMH in identifying appropriate
candidates for committees and awards
Helped establish program, reviewed
manuscripts for publication, wrote review
on microsporidia presentations
Review text: Rossi, PH, Lipsey, MW, and
Freeman, HE (2004) Evaluation: A
Systematic Approach.
Page 191
Section 3.3
Workforce Development
3.3 A Continuing Education at SPHTM
Workforce development at SPHTM continues to evolve to meet the educational needs of public health
professionals and is addressed in two ways. The first is through three centers focused on workforce
development and funded through HRSA and the CDC. These centers provide a framework for systematic
workforce development activities in concert with the national initiatives. The second is via more
traditional continuing education offered by departments and research center programs that target the
local public health community. Faculty are also active in professional continuing education programs
through professional organizations at conferences and in continuing education programs organized to
meet a training need.
Prior to the last reaccreditation, we conducted needs assessments to identify training needs and delivery
preferences for continuing education of practicing public health professionals. Results indicated two
types of training needs: training on basic topics for entry level practitioners; and emerging issues for
more experienced professionals. The assessment also indicated decreased ability to travel to traditional
continuing education programs. The reasons included: lack of funds for travel to educational meetings;
and difficulty in taking time from jobs. When travel funding was available, only one person per group was
allowed to attend, even though several people may have needed the training. Further, while entry level
personnel had the greatest need for training, they were the least likely to be allocated funds for travel
and continuing education. Obtaining time off from one’s job was extremely difficult, even when paying
one’s own expenses. The assessment also showed that most practitioners have access to computers
and the Internet, have basic computer literacy, and are able to take time to complete a 1-hour module
twice a week. Furthermore, they indicated that their interest in a continuing education module occurred
when a need arises and immediate access is preferable to waiting until a face-to-face program is offered.
Discussions with senior supervisors at LOPH indicated that the training needs of their workforce differ
among the health regions and individual experience. Based on these data, we have continued to
develop our web-based continuing education program.
Our needs assessments indicated that web-based distance learning was a feasible and desirable means
for delivering continuing education to the practice community. We have built the technological
infrastructure to advance our capability to develop and deliver continuing education modules. To this
end, we have assembled a substantial technical infrastructure built in partnership among the training
centers (see below) and the Center for Applied Environmental Public Health which delivers distance
learning degree programs. The infrastructure includes: computing technology hardware/servers, large
bandwidth to the Internet; technical support personnel to manage the technology; instructional designers
to develop the training modules; recording and editing equipment and personnel to operate the systems;
and a learning management system to manage and track continuing education. This infrastructure
supports a major effort to develop and deliver continuing education modules targeting the practice
community. For the most part, continuing education credit (CME, CEU) are granted through our
partners at the University of Alabama in Birmingham.
In the last seven years, we have directed resources and efforts into developing web-based continuing
education capability and have developed an array of topics and levels of expertise. Since Internet
technology has rapidly emerged as a major communication medium and is now so widely available, this
seems to be a mode of delivery that expands the reach of traditional education and will continue to take
on importance in building the public health workforce. While we still participate in traditional continuing
education programs where practitioners come to New Orleans or faculty join with professional groups to
present continuing education at professional meetings, we have observed a decline in attendance.
Workforce Development: Training Centers
HRSA and CDC have workforce development initiatives in response to the need to rebuild the public
health infrastructure. The initiatives have supported the development of competencies for public health
practitioners; both agencies have funded centers in schools of public health to prepare curricula around
these competencies. The approach to public health workforce development is through systematic
continuing education and training. Distance education is an integral delivery mode for workforce
02/01/10
Page 192
Section 3.3
development. SPHTM has operated training centers awarded by both agencies for many years and is
actively engaged in developing continuing education under these centers.
The SPHTM efforts for developing continuing education and for delivering it to practitioners through the
workforce development programs is based on partnerships with public health agencies and other
universities. The local partner is the Louisiana Office of Public Health, regionally with the Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Alabama state health departments; and nationally through distance learning programs
for practitioners. Additional partners include the Louisiana Public Health Institute, the University of
Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, CDC, and HRSA. Faculty shared with LOPH are
instrumental in the success of these initiatives which are described below.
The South Central Public Health Workforce Partnership recognizes the need for solid training programs
and provides many opportunities for practitioners to continue their education, learn new management
skills, and engage with other public health professionals to share experiences. The regional consortium
is comprised of the state health departments in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; Tulane
University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine; the University of Alabama at Birmingham
School of Public Health; the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center; plus three local public
health agencies: Jefferson County, Alabama; Mobile County, Alabama; and New Orleans, Louisiana. The
consortium works through a number of centers and institutes (described below), including the South
Central Public Health Leadership Institute, the South Central Center for Public Health Preparedness, and
the South Central Public Health Training Center. A single advisory board operates for all of the
partnership projects and has been a model of a successful collaboration across state public health
agencies and academic public health schools since 1993. Please see the partnership website for
additional information such as courses available and upcoming satellite broadcasts:
www.http//southcentralpartnership.org
•
South Central Public Health Leadership Institute (SCPHLI)
The SCPHLI is a joint effort between SPHTM and the state offices of public health in Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It was the first regional collaboration offering leadership
development and enhancement for practicing public health professionals. The SCPHLI accepts
40 participants for a year-long program that includes three on-site sessions per year. Currently,
participation is limited to state health office employees. The ongoing program began in 1995.
•
South Central Public Health Training Center (SCPHTC)
In response to the emerging needs of the public health workforce, the SCPHTC established a
comprehensive, regional approach to professional workforce development. The SCPHTC aims to
strengthen the technical, scientific, managerial and leadership competence of our current
workforce. The courses and opportunities offered are grounded in core public health functions
and essential services. The curriculum is designed in response to the needs identified through
the assessment of public health employees in state health departments in AL, AR, LA, and MS
and is delivered nationally through distance education technologies including on-line courses and
satellite broadcasts. HRSA funds this initiative. The Center began in 2000.
•
South Central Center for Public Health Preparedness (SCCPHP)
The partners of the SCPHTC and SCPHLI continue their collaboration in this CDC-funded center
to assist the state health departments in AL, AR, LA and MS in developing their capacity to
respond to bioterrorism and other public health threats and emergencies. On-line and on-site
professional workforce development courses and satellite broadcasts also enhance the ability of
public health professionals nationwide to gain skills in emergency preparedness and response.
The Preparedness Center is in its 7th year.
The training centers rely on their partners in the state health agencies (see above) to identify regional
training needs and to participate in the development of training modules. For example, training needs in
the core areas of public health were assessed regionally for the HRSA Training Center in 1999 and
02/01/10
Page 193
Section 3.3
2006, respectively, using an extensive survey format. Preparedness training needs were assessed: in
Arkansas (2002) and Mississippi (2003) using a survey format; and in Mississippi (2004) and Arkansas
(2004), respectively, using a 2-day workshop format. A post-Katrina training needs assessment was
carried out in Alabama and Mississippi (2005-2006) using surveys, structured interviews, and focus
groups. A longitudinal follow-up study of SCPHLI graduates was performed for all graduates in 2007.
Data on sample sizes and response rates as well as examples of reports with methods and results can
be found in Talabae 3.3 A1 and the Resource file. Results of the needs assessments were reported to
the partnership’s advisory board and decisions regarding training priorities were made jointly by the
board and the academic partners.
Table 3.3 A1 Summary of Needs Assessments
Needs
Target
Sample Response
Date
Assessment
Population
Size
Rate
Study
1999
2002
2003
2004
2006
SCPHTC Core
Function sand
Essential
Services (HRSA)
SCCPHP
Emergency and
Bioterrorism
Competencies
(CDC)– Training
Needs
Assessment
Workshop model
(TNAW)
Professional
workforce in AL,
AR, LA, and MS
Health Depts.
Arkansas
Department of
Health and
selected external
agencies that
interact with ADH
during
emergencies
SCCPHP
Emergency &
Bioterrorism
Competencies
(CDC) – TNAQ
SCCPHP
Emergency and
Bioterrorism
Competencies
(CDC) – TNAW
SCPHTC Core
Functions and
Essential
Services (HRSA)
Mississippi
Department of
Health workforce
MS Health Dept.
and agencies that
interact with MDH
during
emergencies
Professional
workforce in AL,
AR, LA, and MS
Health Dept
1181
883/1181
(74.77%)
85*
54/74
(72.97%)
1507
374/1507
(24.8%)
79
71/79
(89.87%)
8838
2168/8838
(24.5%)
Comments
Paper-based, self-administered questionnaire;
Systematic sampling yielding 20% of total public health
workforce; Useable data from 838 of the 883
respondents (70.96% response rate)
*Purposive sample of 85 individuals identified according
to pre-determined criteria and invited to participate (45
ADH, 40 external agencies). Of the 85, 74 replied that
they were available to attend (44 ADH, 30 external
agencies). Note that the start of the session was
delayed for several hours because of an emergency
affecting and some people left thinking the workshop
would be cancelled. At the delayed start time, 54
participants were present (36 ADH, 18 external
agencies). Consequently, response rate is calculated
as 54/74 = 72.97%
Web-based questionnaire administered to every ADH
public health employee who had a valid email address
with the ADH
Purposive sample - same methodology and workshop
format as used with the ADH in 2002, as noted above
Web-based questionnaire administered to every state
agency public health employee who had a valid email
address with the agency
Additional training needs assessment data were collected as part of the overall program evaluation
activities for the SCPH Partnership. Semi-structured protocols for telephone and site visit interviews
included questions pertaining to training needs assessment, as did the protocol for focus groups that
were conducted as part of program evaluation site visits. These were used to supplement the large
scale training needs assessment studies. Follow-up training needs assessments were included as a part
of annual program evaluation activities (See Table 3.3A2)
Accountability for South Central partnership training centers is assured through frequent monitoring and
evaluation of the specific training activity being conducted and of the programs themselves. Training
accomplishments provided by the partnership programs are evaluated according to Kirkpatrick’s fourlevel outcome framework with respect to the learner. These training criteria include: reactions to the
training program (Level 1); learning during training (Level 2); transfer of training or behavior following
02/01/10
Page 194
Section 3.3
training (Level 3); and results of the training program in meeting organizational goals or organizational
level change (Level 4). The process assesses the effectiveness of training activities in enhancing specific
competencies and the capacity to respond to job specific events or situations. Each training program
developed and delivered by the partnership is rigorously assessed via this evaluation methodology. A
detailed training evaluation report from 2005-2006 is included in the Resource File.
Additionally, each year the partnership conducts an overall program evaluation using a mixed methods
research design emphasizing qualitative methods. The annual evaluation provides a structured format for
practice partners’ views of the partnership and provides meaningful formative and summative feedback
to the program leaders and academic-practice partners. Results of the overall program evaluation
complement the specific training effectiveness feedback obtained from individual learners who participate
in web-based courses, satellite seminars, and face-to-face programs. Together, these evaluation
activities provide strong and dynamic feedback that can be used for formative and summative purposes.
Table 3.3 A2 summarizes the annual overall program evaluations.
Table 3.3 A2 Overall Program Evaluation
Year
Telephone
Interviews
2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

Site Visit,
including multiple
focus groups
Questionnaire


2006-2007

2008-2009

2009-2010

planned
Comments
Telephone interviews were completed at mid-year with key
members in each state agency who were members of the
SCPH Advisory Board. A minimum of 3 focus groups per
each of the four state agency site visits. Each focus group
included 8-10 participants. Purposive selection of
participants based on pre-established criteria to ensure
broad, appropriate representation.
Telephone interviews were completed at mid-year with key
members in each state agency who were members of the
SCPH Advisory Board. For the most part, these were the
same individuals who participated in 2002-2003, providing a
longitudinal perspective.
Same as noted above.
Only telephone interviews conducted in this year because of
the impact of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Brief feedback questionnaire distributed to key leaders and
SCPH Partnership Advisory Board members in each of the
four partner state agencies who were identified as best
informed. Questions pertaining to training needs were
included.
Brief feedback questionnaire distributed to key leaders and
SCPH Partnership Advisory Board members in each of the
four partner state agencies who were identified as best
informed. Questions pertaining to training needs were
included.
Interviews were conducted in October with 1-2 long standing
Advisory Board members, representing the four partner state
agencies and several academic partner leaders. Again,
training needs and feedback about training effectiveness
were addressed as part of the interview protocol.
Traditional Continuing Education Programs
SPHTM faculty participate in traditional continuing education programs through departmental seminars,
grand rounds and professional education series. Two of our research centers have education and
outreach activities that are important modes for reaching community and agency practitioners.
02/01/10
Page 195
Section 3.3
•
TUXCOE Continuing Education Program: To improve the health status of women of all ages,
TUXCOE occasionally sponsors continuing professional education programs. Continuing
education topics are selected to increase awareness of women's health issues in the community,
and within academic medicine and the allied health professions.
•
Tulane Prevention Research Center: The Tulane PRC offers two seminar series that are open
to community members, faculty, staff, and students of Tulane University School of Public Health
and Tropical Medicine annually. The 2008-2009 seminar series focused on environmental and
policy approaches for health promotion and disease prevention. Average attendance was 30
participants and the mean evaluation score was 4.50 out of a possible 5.0 on a Likert scale. The
PRC and Maternal and Child Public Health Leadership Training Program (MCPHLTP) co-sponsor
the Communication Workshop Series. The 2008-2009 series focused on improving writing skills
and developing specialized communications techniques for various dissemination channels.
Average attendance was 22 participants.
•
Departmental Seminars, Grand Rounds, and Professional Education Series: The local
community of public health practitioners is invited to attend regularly scheduled programs that
feature nationally and internationally recognized public health experts. The seminars function to
update faculty and local public health practitioners on new innovations in public health.
Faculty routinely participate in continuing education courses offered by the SPHTM, departments, or
professional organizations that invite SPHTM faculty as instructors; these activities are listed in Table 3.3
C at the end of the section.
Other Modes of Workforce Development
Professional Continuing Education Credit for Students in Nontraditional Programs: Executive
and mid-career distance learning programs are a key means of workforce development by providing
knowledge and credentials for career advancement. In addition, continuing education credit is granted for
those enrolled in the degree courses.
Physicians in the MMM program receive continuing medical education credit for completed courses. The
mid-career distance learning courses are credited as continuing education activities for environmental
and occupational health and safety practitioners, occupational physicians, nurses, and physician
assistants located in remote areas. Students registered in the distance learning programs submit course
completion verification to professional organizations for credit toward continuing education in obtaining
their professional certification.
3.3 B Graduate Certificate and Diploma Programs
The SPHTM also provides education for mid-career practitioners through diploma courses and graduate
certificate programs. While these are not of the traditional short course format, such programs are
particularly important for practice professionals seeking a greater depth of knowledge to improve their
skills. Students in these programs must have at least a bachelor’s degree (Tropical Medicine Diploma
Course requires a health professional degree [MD, RN, DVM, etc.]). They receive graduate credit for the
courses that may be applied to master’s degrees; however, the student must apply to and be accepted
into the degree program and fulfill all of the admission requirements.
•
Tropical Medicine Diploma Course: The Diploma Course in Clinical Tropical Medicine and
Traveler’s Health is designed to provide a comprehensive educational experience for physicians
and other health professionals seeking certification through the American Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene.
•
Graduate Certificate in Industrial Hygiene: In 2006, the American Board of Industrial Hygiene
02/01/10
Page 196
Section 3.3
(ABIH) increased its requirements for certification as a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) to
include at least 12 credit hours in industrial hygiene related coursework in addition to a bachelor's
degree. To help practicing industrial hygienists meet these new requirements, Tulane University's
School of Public Health offers a graduate certificate program in Industrial Hygiene designed for
this purpose. The Tulane Graduate Certificate Program in Industrial Hygiene is offered in both the
on-campus and distance learning formats.
•
Graduate Certificate in Disaster Management (DM): This program is designed for mid-career
professionals who are involved in disaster management or emergency response-related careers,
e.g. firefighters, EMS personnel, emergency managers, hospital managers and administrators as
well as physicians, nurses, disaster planning coordinators, rescue responders, civil preparedness
and mass fatality responders. The DM certificate is for those individuals who seek additional
expertise in their field, but who may not wish to pursue a full master’s degree in the topic.
•
Global Health Certificate: This is certificate program open to all graduate or post-graduate
students in five schools at Tulane (School of Liberal Arts, School of Medicine, School of Public
Health and Tropical Medicine, School of Science and Engineering, and School of Social Work).
The program complements students’ disciplinary study by providing a structured learning
experience to relate their own field of study to global health. This new program was initiated in
Fall, 2009 and will enroll the first students in Spring, 2010.
•
Dietetic Internship: CSHC offers a dietetic internship for students who have completed a
bachelors degree in nutrition and have competencies required by the American Dietetic
Association (ADA). The internship is a graduate-level supervised practice program for students
seeking to become registered dieticians. The 9½ month internship is a series of rotations in
clinical and community settings that develop a range of practice skills in dietetics and nutritional
counseling. Tulane University's dietetic internship is accredited by the Commission on
Accreditation for Dietetics Education (CADE) of the American Dietetic Association. The program
accepts 16 students/year.
The Diploma and Graduate Certificate programs do not have a very high enrollment (Table 3.3B). Many
who inquire or first enroll in certificate programs decide to complete the corresponding MPH, MSPH or
MPHTM programs. However, the certificates fill a need for those not wishing to pursue a master’s
degree or those who may already have a MPH or MSPH, are changing careers or are expanding their
knowledge in other areas. Another issue is that many agencies and companies require a master’s
degree for promotion to certain managerial level jobs and the status of a graduate certificate is unclear in
the promotion criteria.
Table 3.3 B Enrollment in Diploma Course and Graduate Certificates
Program
2006-07
2007-08
Tropical Medicine Diploma
3
1
Graduate Certificate in Industrial Hygiene
6
8
Graduate Certificate in Disaster Management
2
Global Health Certificate (begins Spring 2010)
Dietetic Internship
16
16
2008-09
2
9
3
16
3.3 C Continuing Education Programs Offered by the SPHTM
Table 3.3 C (at end of this section) lists examples of continuing education programs offered by the training
centers and by traditional methods. Those using distance learning delivery are noted.
3.3 D Partners Who Collaborate in Continuing Education Activities
SPHTM collaborates with several partners in the training centers who are key to developing the
continuing education modules. In addition, faculty often partner or participate in continuing education
with their professional organizations. See Tables 3.3D1 to 3.3D3 below.
02/01/10
Page 197
Section 3.3
Table 3.3 D1 Collaborators on Continuing Education
Collaborator
Louisiana Office of Public Health
Arkansas Dept. of Health
Mississippi State Dept. of Health
Alabama Dept. of Public Health
UAB School of Public Health
LSU Health Sciences Center
CDC
HRSA
SCPHLI, SCPHTC, SCCPHP
“
“
“
“
“
SCPHLI, SCCPHP
SCPHLI, SCPHTC
SCPHLI
Table 3.3 D2 Workforce Development /Continuing Education Programs (as of June 1, 2009)
Continuing education
South Central Public Health
Leadership Institute
South Central Public Health
Training Center (SCPHTC):
South Central Center for Public
Health Preparedness
Environmental Health Workforce
Development (Distance Learning)
Other institutions
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi Health Departments
Mississippi Health Departments;
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Mississippi Health Departments;
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Louisiana Office of Public Health,
Division of Environmental Health; CDC
National Center for Environmental
Health
# of attendees
40 annually
Approximately 13,000
annually
Approximately 17,000
annually
Modules in
development;
Anticipate 100-200
participants annually
Table 3.3 D3 Number of Courses and Satellite Broadcasts with CEUs by the South Central Center
for Public Health Preparedness (SCCPHP)
Course Title 2006-08
Biological Response Preparedness for Emergency Medical
Services
Bioterrorism Preparedness: Infectious Disease Prevention and
Control
Bioterrorism Preparedness: Factors for the
Emergence/Reemergence of Infectious Diseases
Bioterrorism Preparedness: Infectious Disease Epidemiology and
Public Health Surveillance
Bioterrorism Preparedness: Infectious Disease Transmission
Dynamics
Bioterrorism Preparedness: Principles of Emerging Infectious
Diseases
Bioterrorism: The Agents
Bioterrorism: The Public Health Threats
Pediatric Issues in Disasters and Emergencies
Mass Casualty Incident Triage
Communication Gap: Linking First Responders and First Receivers
Explosion and Blast Injury
Mass Casualty Medical Command
Risk Communication in Public Health Emergencies
Psychological First Aid: Building Resiliency for "Us" and "Them"
Alternative Standards of Care in Disasters (Satellite Broadcast date
3/26/09)
ABN CEU
Social
Work
CEU
ASNA
CEU
3.6
7.2
6
7.2
6
7.2
6
7.2
6
9.6
8
7.2
7.2
7.9
8.4
2.3
2.9
2.5
1.7
1.8
6
6
6
1.8
7
1.75
2.4
1.75
1.5
2.4
2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
NOTE: ABN = Alabama Board of Nursing ASNA = Alabama State Nursing Association
02/01/10
Page 198
Section 3.3
3.3 E Assessment
This criterion is met: SPHTM devotes substantial effort to workforce development. The three training
centers provide a systematic framework for developing and delivering continuing education in concert
with the national initiative to build the public health infrastructure. The training centers have strong
partnerships with four state health departments in the south central region of the USA and provide a
regional approach to building the public health workforce. Distance learning technologies are used
effectively to deliver the training, overcoming the barriers of funding for travel and time from their jobs.
The distance formats make the centers’ programs available to public health audiences nationwide.
SPHTM faculty participate in and provide continuing education through departmental seminars, grand
rounds and workshops. Research centers conduct outreach and education through seminar series that
bring in experts on a range of topics and conduct workshops for community groups. Practitioners and
other public health professionals are invited to seminars and grand rounds. Faculty also participate in
continuing education programs through their professional groups locally, nationally and internationally.
02/01/10
Page 199
Section 3.3
Table 3.3.C. Continuing Education Presentations
BIOS
BIOS
BIOS
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
02/01/10
Presentation in Continuing Education
(CME, CEU, other units granted)
Trend Analysis in MCH National
Multilevel Modeling
Introduction to Clinical Trials
The Importance of Women’s Health to a
Nation, Changhua, Taiwan
Current Status of Hormone Replacement
Therapy, The 2nd International Symposium on
Building Comprehensive Women Health Care
System, Lukang, Taiwan
The coming about and current status of
women’s health programs in the US, The
nd
2 International Symposium on Building
Comprehensive Women Health Care
System, Lukang, Taiwan
Breastfeeding, from biology to policy,
Nurse Family Partnership Conference,
Baton Rouge LA
Maternal and Child Health – academic
state partnership, MCH partnership
meeting, Alexandria VA
Osteoporosis in a comprehensive
perspective, The 1st International Symposium
on Building Comprehensive Women Health
Care System, Lukang, Taiwan
Comprehensive Women’s Health - care
across the lifespan, The 1st International
Symposium on Building Comprehensive
Women Health Care System, Lukang,
Taiwan
Building Comprehensive Women's Health
Care Centers, The 1st International
Symposium on Building Comprehensive
Women Health Care System, Lukang,
Taiwan
Why focus on Women’s Health? The U.S.
National Center of Excellence in Women’s
Health Model – the Tulane Experience,
Changhua, Taiwan
Katrina in New Orleans, Life after the storm,
Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson
Sex, Gender and Women’s Health Research
-the Challenges and Benefits of a National
CoE Model - The Tulane experience. Key
note address, Research day at University of
South Dakota, Sioux Falls
Recovering from a Natural Disaster Tulane’s Post-Katrina Experience, AAMC,
GRAND meeting Virginia
Emergency preparedness a theoretical or
practical issue – a post Katrina case study.
MCHB and AUCD joint meeting, Arlington,
Virginia
Target audience
State Public Health Offices
LA Office Public Health
Medical Students
Public Health, MD, RN
#
students
60
30
20
30
Length of
presentation
2 days
5 days
2 hrs 30 min
1 hr
30
1 hr
30
1 hr
Public Health Nurses
40
1 hr
Public Health Practitioners
40
1 hr
30
1 hr
30
1 hr
30
1 hr
30
1 hr
Public health, MD, Psych
SW and RN
SW and RN
20
1 hr
15
2 hrs
MD
45
1 hr
SW and RN
30
1 hr
Page 200
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
Academic Women’s Health Center,
University Medical Center, Tucson,
Arizona
Building Comprehensive Women’s Health
Center, The annual American Medical
Women’s Association, Tucson, Arizona
Public Relations/Working with the media
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
Social Marketing
Father and Mother Reports of Intimate
Partner Violence and Harsh Parenting.
Society for Social Work and Research
annual conference, New Orleans, LA.
Parental spanking and childhood
aggression. American Public Health
Association annual conference, San
Diego, CA.
Intimate partner violence and risk for
maternal physical child abuse and
neglect: A prospective analysis. Society
for Social Work and Research annual
conference, Washington, D.C.
Intimate partner violence and risk of
maternal child abuse and neglect. Society
for Social Work and Research annual
conference, San Francisco, CA.
Intimate partner violence and risk of child
abuse and neglect: Findings from a
population-based longitudinal cohort study.
American Public Health Association annual
conference, Boston, MA.
Cumulative experiences of violence
among homeless youth: Linkages
between family, intimate, and community
violence exposure. American Public
Health Association annual conference,
Boston, MA.
Committee on Diversity Initiatives, Society
of Toxicology’s annual meeting in Seattle,
WA
Recovery from Disaster (DL)
Alt. Standards of Care (DL)
Disaster Response (DL)
Special Needs in Disaster (DL)
Guidelines and Standards (DL)
Disaster Exercise (DL)
WMD
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
Psychology of Command
Medical Mgmt. of Disaster
Pan Flu
Pan Flu
Pan Flu
WMD Terrorism
Incident Command
Guidelines and Standards
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
ENHS
ENHS
02/01/10
Section 3.3
Public health, MD, Psych SW
and RN
20
1 hr
MD
50
1 hr
Fetal Infant Mortality
Coordinators, OPH Staff
OPH - Staff
Social work professionals,
practitioners, and scientists
20
2 hrs
20
20
1 hour
0.33 hrs
Public health professionals,
20
0.33 hrs
20
0.33 hrs
20
0.33 hrs
20
0.33 hrs
20
0.33 hrs
Hispanic, African- and Native
American undergraduates
70
1 hr
Public Health Professionals
Arkansas Public Health
Professionals
SCPHLI
Ottawa, CA
Memorial Hosp, IN
Memorial Hosp, IN
Laporte Cty. Med. Soc.
Laporte Cty. Med. Soc.
U of Indiana
CD ROM and Online Courses
2000
2000
2000
5000
2000
2000
300
1 hr
1 hr
1.4 hr
1.5 hr
1.5 Hour
1.5 hours
5 hrs. 5 days
120
250
100
100
50
50
250
250
50
50
3 hr. 3 days
1 hr
1 hr
1 hr
1 hr
1 hr
1 hr
15 hrs
3 hr
3 hr
Page 201
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
Epid
Exercise Plan and Implement
Care of Rad. Casualties
Special Needs in Disaster
Points of Distribution
Dinner meeting speaker (CEUs granted to
attendees)
Post-disaster Mental Health (CME)
Epid
Update re Medication Adherence in older
adults
HSMG
Summer Training Institute: Transforming
Tobacco Control and Evaluation in
Missouri
HSMG
Evidence Based Public Health: Chronic
Disease Prevention
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
Physician in Management (CME)
Financial Decision Making (CME)
LSU Leadership Academy-2007 and 2008
HSMG
TRMD
ACPE Milestone Program on Patient Flow
- 2007
Cerner Corporation Annual Meeting- on
Patient Flow, 2007
ACPE Milestone Program on Project
Management - 2006
American Public Health annual meeting
Symposium on viral hemorrhagic fevers at
annual meeting of the American Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH)
American Society of Tropical Medicine
TRMD
Infectious Diseases Society of America
TRMD
TRMD
International Congress of Tropical
Medicine and Malaria (Plenary Invited
Lecture, XVIIIth Congress in Korea)
ASTMH Seminar
TRMD
ASTMH research presentation
TRMD
Pediatric Grand Rounds
TRMD
Clinical Pathology conference
HSMG
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
02/01/10
Section 3.3
Professional Industrial
Hygienists
Medical students, residents,
physicians, administrators,
public health professionals
Medical students, residents,
physicians, administrators,
public health professionals
Tobacco control and
prevention professionals from
state agencies and NGOs in
Missouri
affiliated with Countrywide
Integrated Noncommunicable
Diseases Intervention)
Physicians
Physician Executives
Executives and managers in
the LSU healthcare system
Physicians in Physician
Executive program
Physicians and other health
care managers
Physicians in Physician
Executive program
Public health professionals
Members of the ASTMH
50
50
50
50
10
4 hrs
5 hrs
5 hrs
3 hrs
1 hr
~25
1 hr
10-15
1 hr
25
4 hrs
31
6 hrs
500+
100+
40
7 hrs
12 hrs
1 day
100+
½ day
200+
2 hours
80
2-3 hours
30
~200
30 minutes
2 hours
Domestic and foreign
investigators
Domestic and foreign
investigators
International investigators
~40
1 hr
~50-60
1 hr
150-200
1 hr
Tropical medicine students
and professionals
Tropical medicine students
and professionals
Pediatrics residents,
students, and faculty
Pathologists, medical
residents
100
4 hrs
100
1 hr
150
1 hr
9
1 hr
Page 202
Section 4.1
Faculty Qualifications
4.0
Faculty, Staff, and Students
4.1 A Faculty Qualifications
The faculty of Tulane SPHTM is defined in the SPHTM by-laws as "all persons holding full-time or parttime academic appointments in the SPHTM and designated as professor, associate professor, assistant
professor, instructor, lecturer, and includes persons with these titles modified by the prefixes 'emeritus',
'visiting', 'adjunct', 'research', and 'clinical'." Voting members of the SPHTM faculty are those holding a
full-time primary appointment in the SPHTM and include all faculty in the tenured, tenure-track, clinical,
and research tracks. Full-time regular faculty is defined as those members receiving at least one-half
salary through the SPHTM and are listed in Table 4.1 A (Template F). Those with less than 50% time are
designated as part-time faculty and described in section 4.1 B (Template G). Faculty tracks at SPHTM
are the tenured/tenure-track, clinical, and research; each has defined areas of responsibility and different
criteria for promotion. Faculty ranks include professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and
instructor and these apply across all tracks. See the Resource File for the criteria for promotion for each
department in each of the faculty tracks and for tenure.
Tenured and tenure-track faculty are responsible for teaching, developing and carrying out research,
and providing service to the community. Tenured and tenure-track faculty positions must be filled
through a national competitive search. Faculty hired into tenure-track positions must have a doctoral
degree in a field related to public health and demonstrate research capability. Junior faculty enter the
tenure track at the assistant professor rank, although a few with more experience are occasionally
appointed at the rank of associate professor. Tenure is awarded based on research accomplishments,
contributions to the teaching programs, and professional service. Tenure and promotion to the rank of
associate professor usually occur together. Promotion to professor is based primarily on a strong
record of scholarly accomplishment and an established national reputation in the candidate’s field of
public health.
Clinical faculty have responsibilities for teaching, community service, and for integrating practice into
the school’s curriculum and research agenda, especially community-based research. Appointments to
clinical faculty positions require a regional search and consideration is given to the type of practice
experience needed within the teaching programs. While the majority of clinical faculty have doctoral
degrees, a few have master’s degrees with extensive practice experience. This track allows SPHTM to
incorporate practitioners within the faculty. Clinical faculty are promoted based on criteria specific to the
clinical track and do not have the emphasis on research productivity and publications as do faculty in the
other tracks. The clinical track does not lead to tenure.
Research faculty oversee major research programs and do not have major teaching responsibilities.
Research faculty must hold a doctoral degree. Research faculty are supported on research funding and
rank is based on research experience, productivity and accomplishments. Searches for research
positions may be national or regional and usually focus on specific expertise needed for research
endeavors. The research track does not lead to tenure.
Tables 4.1 A at the end of this section lists the full complement of SPHTM’s faculty as of July 1, 2009 by
department, name, title/academic rank, FTE or % time, tenure status or track, gender, race, graduate
degrees earned, discipline in which degrees were earned, institutions from which degrees were earned,
current teaching areas, current research interests, and current and past public health practice activities.
4.1 B Other Teaching Faculty
In addition to the regular faculty, part-time faculty participate in the teaching programs to supplement the
regular faculty. Part-time faculty are defined as < 50% time and, in general, have their primary
employment outside SPHTM. Part-time SPHTM faculty may be full-time in the university, but devote
<50% in SPHTM. For example, full-time faculty from the School of Medicine play regular teaching roles
in several tropical medicine courses and receive a percent of salary from SPHTM. Part-time faculty may
02/01/10
Page 203
Section 4.1
also be adjunct or clinical faculty who are public health practitioners with specialized expertise and are
contracted to teach a course for a set fee. Those contracted to teach a course usually have specific
expertise needed to supplement the regular faculty or are contracted to teach certain courses in the
executive programs or distance learning programs. Part-time faculty with teaching responsibilities are
listed in Table 4.1 B.
4.1 C Faculty Integrating Perspectives from the Field of Practice
Historically, the SPHTM has placed an emphasis on practice. As a research university, the SPHTM has
sought to expand the research base while maintaining a strong practice perspective. Input from the field
of practice is received from several sources: clinical faculty; community-based research; faculty service
to the public health community; and feedback from practicum preceptors. In the 2008-09 annual reports,
80% of the faculty reported having practice experience (Table 4.1D4).
The clinical faculty category is a means of enhancing the number of practitioners among the faculty and
ensuring that the practice perspective is well integrated into the curriculum. The faculty approved basic
criteria for clinical faculty appointments in February 1993. The Personnel and Honors Committee
developed a working description of the clinical faculty track as follows:
"The fundamental role of faculty in the clinical track is to enhance opportunities for students to
learn the practice and management of public health. By virtue of these faculty members' current
activity, experience, and expertise in or related to the practice of public health, clinical faculty
expand and complement the contributions of the tenure track faculty. Responding to the diversity
of skills needed in public health practice, clinical faculty may hold traditional or non-traditional
academic credentials. Clinical faculty contribute through teaching and service; responsibilities
may also include but not be limited to supervision of students at off-campus sites. Service in the
clinical track does not lead to tenure, and is not subject to the sunset clock..."
Clinical faculty responsibilities are based upon teaching needs, especially in areas related to practice.
Criteria for selection of clinical faculty include the candidate's practice experience and their ability to
translate that experience into the students' learning environment. This includes experience in public
health practice outside the academic environment. Clinical faculty support MPH and MSPH programs
requiring activities, such as internships/practica and field experiences, for obtaining public health practice
experiences. In addition to their role in teaching, clinical faculty participate in research projects that
utilize community-based and/or practice perspectives. Therefore, the faculty complement includes
persons who know and can teach methods and applications of those methods in each of the disciplines.
Community-based projects require faculty to work closely with the practice community and may be either
research- or service-oriented. Community-based projects place regular faculty into the field and serve as a
means for establishing partnerships to provide input into the academic programs. These also provide a
place for students to gain practice experience. Community advisory boards associated with communitybased projects are another valuable source of input by practitioners.
The SPHTM faculty in all tracks frequently provide service to public and private health agencies and
organizations outside the university. SPHTM faculty have both formal contractual arrangements and
informal agreements with agencies to provide professional services (see section 3.2 Service).
Partner agency and community organizations provide practicum sites for students to have practice
experiences. The practitioners provide both formal and informal feedback on the student which informs
the faculty of practice needs.
In addition to full-time faculty, adjunct faculty complement and enhance the practice perspective for
students. Most adjunct appointments are given to persons working in non-academic environments who
bring their work place perspectives to the classroom.
02/01/10
Page 204
Section 4.1
4.1 D Outcome Measures
One of the SPHTM primary objectives is to increase the number of faculty to 125 by 2013. A
complementary objective is to achieve a balance among disciplines, departments and faculty tracks.
Outcome measures include:
•
Increase the number of faculty to 125 by 2013
•
Achieve a faculty complement appropriately balanced among tracks and disciplines by 2013
Increase the number of faculty to 125 by 2013
SPHTM seeks to increase the number of faculty to 125 by 2013. Faculty numbers have stabilized following
the loss of faculty following Hurricane Katrina. For the last three years, SPHTM has had a full-time
complement of regular faculty ranging between 99-102 faculty (Table 4.1D1).
Table 4.1 D1 Faculty headcount by department
Department
2001-02
2005*
Biostatistics
8
8
12
16
21
19
Epidemiology
18
22
Health System Management
15
18
21
21
Tropical Medicine
11
14
Total
106
118
* August, 2005 immediately prior to Hurricane Katrina
^ Count as of October, 2009
Faculty head count
2006-07
2007-08
8
8
13
13
17
17
17
15
11
11
21
22
13
13
100
99
2008-09
8
13
16
17
11
23
11
99
2009-10^
8
12
17
18
12
23
12
102
SPHTM had 118 faculty in August, 2005. In the three years following Hurricane Katrina, SPHTM lost a
total of 35 faculty. Immediately after the hurricane, 18 faculty did not return, either through terminations
or voluntary choice. In the following two years, 17 additional faculty left to pursue career opportunities
elsewhere. During that time 16 new faculty were hired. In spite of this large turnover of approximately
30% of the faculty, SPHTM remained stable and continued its teaching programs and research agenda.
The number of academic programs was streamlined and resources concentrated on the remaining
programs. Now that the Katrina years are behind us, the SPHTM faculty turnover has returned to normal
and is poised to continue its prior trajectory to bring the total number to 125.
Despite the national economic downturn in 2009, the university continues to invest in the SPHTM. In
2009, SPHTM added eight new faculty while five left for a net gain of three. As of October, 2009,
SPHTM has 102 faculty. SPHTM has invested funds, time and effort to develop the faculty and, as a
result, they become attractive to recruiters at other universities. Several faculty searches are underway
or recently been completed. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
Biostatistics – negotiations are underway with a candidate for the chair of the department and
several additional faculty.
Environmental Health Sciences – two assistant professor positions are open and searches are
underway; one clinical assistant professor position was recently filled.
Epidemiology – a search is underway for one assistant professor in cancer epidemiology.
Health Systems Management – the position of departmental chair was recently filled.
Tropical Medicine – the position of chair of the department was recently filled.
The target of 125 new positions by 2013 is achievable and is included within the dean’s five year
business plan. Immediately following Katrina, recruitment was difficult, but the faculty hired had a
commitment to participate in the rebuilding of New Orleans. As the city recovers from Katrina,
recruitment has become easier and the qualifications of the faculty hired are very high. The national
economic situation may be an opportunity for SPHTM to recruit additional qualified faculty.
02/01/10
Page 205
Section 4.1
Achieve a faculty complement appropriately balanced among tracks and disciplines by 2013
While the loss of faculty was difficult after Katrina, it provided an opportunity to realign the balance within
faculty tracks. The intent is to build the tenured and tenure-tracks while maintaining a balance of clinical
and research faculty to fulfill our mission. Tenured faculty provide the core academic leadership in
teaching, research and service.
In 2001-02, only half of the faculty were in tenured/tenure track with the other half in non-tenure tracks.
Further, some clinical and research faculty had the same qualifications and responsibilities as tenured
faculty without the option for tenure. Also, there was a gender disparity among the tenured/tenure tracks
and the non-tenure tracks (see Section 4.3). Since that time, SPHTM has sought to increase the percent
of faculty in the tenured/tenure tracks and rectify historical issues with responsibilities and tenure
opportunity for clinical and research faculty.
In the last 4 years, the percent of faculty in the tenured and tenure-tracks has increased in proportion to
those in non–tenure tracks (Table 4.1D2). The percent of faculty currently in the tenure and tenuretracks has increased to twice that of non-tenured faculty.
Table 4.1 D2 Number and Percent of Faculty in Tracks
Faculty Tracks
Tenured
Tenure-track
Clinical (non-tenure)
Research (non-tenure)
Other/special
Ratio: tenured & TT/
non-tenured
2001-02
# (%)
37 (35%)
16 (15%)
31(29%)
17 (16%)
5 (5%)
1.0
2006-07
# (%)
43 (43%)
21 (21%)
20 (20%)
16 (16%)
1.8
2007-08
# (%)
41 (41%)
20 (20%)
20 (20%)
18 (18%)
1.6
2008-09
# (%)
42 (43%)
24 (24%)
19(19%)
14 (14%)
2.0
2009-150
#(%)
44 (43%)
24 (24%)
20 (20%)
14 (14%)
2.0
The increase in the percent of tenured/tenure track faculty has increased for two reasons. First, many
faculty who left following Hurricane Katrina were in the clinical or research tracks while the majority of
new faculty hired are in the tenure-track. This achieved a net shift of faculty positions into the tenuretrack. Most new faculty positions will be in the tenured/tenure-tracks. Second, the university changed its
rule prohibiting a move within faculty tracks after a very short period of time. The dean reviewed the
qualifications and responsibilities of clinical and research faculty, and recommended several be given the
option to convert to the tenure-track. This ameliorated situations where the appointment to non-tenured
tracks did not match responsibilities. These measures enabled SPHTM to increase the percent of faculty
in the tenure/tenure track while decreasing the percent in the clinical track.
Full professors composed 38% of the faculty in 2008-09 and 37% in 2009-10 (Table 4.1D3). The
percentage of full professors has increased from 29% in 2002 to 37% in 2009. In the last 4 years, the
number of full professors continued to increase as individuals meet the criteria for promotion. Several
women have been promoted to full professor (See Section 4.3.) This is another indicator that faculty
have continued to grow and develop in the post-Katrina years.
Table 4.1 D3 Number and Percent of Faculty by Rank
Faculty Rank
Professor
Assoc. Professor
Asst. Professor
Instructor
2006-07
33 (33%)
27 (27%)
37 (37%)
3 (3%)
2007-08
31 (31%)
29 (29%)
38 (38%)
1 (1%)
2008-09
38 (38%)
21 (21%)
39 (40%)
1 (1%)
2009-10
38 (37%)
20 (20%)
43 (42%)
1(1%)
As new faculty are added, SPHTM considers the distribution of faculty to achieve the breadth and depth
of coverage of public health disciplines. SPHTM has a depth of teaching faculty in each of the core
areas:
02/01/10
Page 206
Biostatistics:
Behavioral Science (CHSC and INHD):
Environmental Health:
Epidemiology:
Health Systems Management:
Section 4.1
8 faculty
17 faculty
12 faculty
12 faculty
8 faculty
The SPHTM also has more than sufficient teaching faculty to support all of the core areas. Behavioral
science expertise is located in both INHD and CHSC and the number indicated are those with graduate
education in this area. It should also be noted that both of these departments have faculty with other
expertise. In addition, the SPHTM has a strong faculty in tropical medicine and global health.
Furthermore, the faculty in the Department of International Health and Development as well as faculty in
each department, have expertise in global health. Programs in international health are quite
interdisciplinary; students take courses in many departments and work with faculty throughout the
school. The SPHTM faculty have a wide range of expertise needed to support public health education
programs and research as shown in Table 4.1.A.
The SPHTM has a depth of expertise in all areas to support MPH and MSPH degrees. SPHTM also has
a depth of faculty expertise in each area to support robust doctoral programs. SPHTM has active
research faculty who provide opportunities for doctoral students to expand their research skills.
Faculty Qualifications: SPHTM faculty are well qualified to offer MPH/MSPH and doctoral degrees in
public health as measured by their doctoral degrees, by teaching in the discipline in which they are
formally trained, and by their public health experience (see table 4.1A for detailed data on each faculty).
Table 4.1D4 summarizes the qualifications by track and Table 4.1D5 lists the qualifications by
department. Of note is that 100% of the faculty have graduate education and experience in the areas in
which they teach. All but three clinical faculty have a doctoral degree; those three clinical faculty bring
practice experience to the students and their teaching assignments focus on practice elements of public
health. Overall, 85% SPHTM faculty report public health practice experience and 92% report service
activities in 2008. Traditionally, SPHTM faculty have had a strong public health practice and service
orientation, in addition to an emphasis on research. Tenured (75%) and tenure-track faculty (52%) are
principle investigators of funded peer-reviewed research. Research faculty are usually hired to work on
large research projects, and therefore, are not PIs on many projects.
Table 4.1 D4 Faculty Qualifications by Track (2008-09)
Faculty
Research Funding
% Published % with Public
in 2008-09
Health
% funded
% PI of
de
Experience
as PI
Community
e
based Research
a
Tenured
42
86%
100%
75%
52%
55%
79%
b
Ten-track 23
83%
100%
52%
9%
74%
74%
Clinical
19
100%
84%
28%
22%
11%
100%
c
Research 15
6%
100%
40%
13%
27%
73%
f
f
f,g
f,g
f
f
79%
96%
37%
29%
53%
85%
Total
99
a
Tenured faculty who do not teach include administrators and some in research centers
b
Reduced teaching for some tenure-track faculty
c
Occasionally a research faculty may teach a course if research funding decreases
d
Research funding as PI on peer-review project; does not include co-investigators or internally funded projects.
e
% of faculty within rank
f
% of total faculty
g
Faculty may be the PI of more than 1 funded research or community-based research project, so the % of
community projects is higher in other tables.
02/01/10
#
%
Teaching
%
Doctoral
Degree
Page 207
Section 4.1
Tenure-track faculty show progress in obtaining research funding and 74% have published in the last
year; this shows that these faculty are building the track record required for tenure. As would be
expected from the responsibilities of the clinical track, fewer have funded research projects or
publications. Clinical faculty carry out teaching responsibilities and 100% report public health experience.
Of the SPHTM faculty complement, 52% have graduate degrees from schools of public health; however,
80% report having public health practice experience. This indicates that for faculty whose graduate
education was not in a school of public health, most are involved in public health applications; these
experiences are brought back to the classroom and used in research. These data are summarized in
Tables 4.1D4 and 4.1D5.
Table 4.1 D5 Faculty Qualifications and Experience by Department (2008-09)
Degree
from a
SPH
Practice
Exper
Teach in
Area of
Expertise
Professional
Service
Activities
% (#)
faculty
published
(2008)
(#) *
Pubs
% (#)
faculty
engaged in
funded
research;
(2006-08)
BIOS
25%
75%
100%
75%
63% (5)
25
38% (3)
CHSC
50%
100%
100%
100%
58% (7)
32
58% (7)
ENHS
44%
81%
100%
88%
13% (2)
6
56% (9)
EPID
50%
69%
100%
87%
82% (14)
72
59% (10)
HSMG
45%
54%
100%
92%
55% (6)
13
27% (3)
INHD
84%
100%
100%
100%
43% (10)
24
57% (13)
TRMD
27%
73%
100%
100%
55% (6)
11
64% (7)
SPHTM
52%
85%
100%
92%
57% (49)
53% (52)
*# of publications/dept may be counted in two departments because of multiple authors
% (#)
Involved in
Community
based
Research
50% (4)
67% (8)
31% (5)
47% (8)
18% (2)
100% (23)
86% (6)
63% (57)
4.1 E Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM has a well qualified faculty with depth across the each of the five core
areas of public health as well as our historical strength in global health and tropical medicine. The
number of faculty has remained relatively constant for the last three years with distribution across the
departments reflecting the number of students and research volume.
Faculty must meet specified qualifications when hired and progress is regularly reviewed for tenure
and promotion. Tenure and tenure-track faculty must hold doctoral degrees and have responsibility
for teaching, research and service. The clinical faculty track is a tool to incorporate practice
experience into the faculty complement. The criteria for appointment and promotion for the clinical
track include teaching and service reflecting the emphasis on the practice perspective.
Even in the face of the post-Katrina challenges and the turnover of 30% of faculty, the SPHTM faculty
has remained quite stable. The financial realities, first from Katrina and then from the national economic
crises, have impeded an increase in numbers to the pre-Katrina levels. However, the fact that SPHTM
has retained the majority of its faculty who continue to teach a full course schedule, show research
productivity, and engage in service is a testament to the stability, dedication, and tenacity of the faculty.
02/01/10
Page 208
Table 4.1A - SPHTM Regular Faculty
Dept
Last Name
First
Name
Acad
Title
Track FTE Gen Race Deg.
der
BIOS
Lefante
John
PROF
T
1
M
W
BIOS
Mather
Frances
ASSOC
A
0.8
F
W
BIOS
Myers
Leann
PROF
T
1
F
W
BIOS
Rice
Janet
ASSOC
T
1
F
W
BIOS
Shankar
Arti
ASSOC
C
1
F
W
Institutions
Discipline
Teaching Area
Research Interest Public Hlth Activities
PhD
MS
PhD
MSc
PhD
MS
PhD
MS
PhD
U of AL at Birm
U of New Orlean
Tulane
U of Mich
Tulane
Tulane
Purdue
Purdue
India Inst of Tech
Biostatistics
Math
Biostatistics
Mathematical Stat
Biostatistics
Biostatistics
Educ Research/
Applied Statistics
Psychology
Intro Biostat
Journal reviewer
MS
PhD
MS
PhD
MPhil
PhD
MA
MD
PhD
MPH
PhD
MPH
MA
PhD
MA
MD
Psychology
Statistics
Applied Math
Biometry
Biometry
Statistics
Math & Statistics
Int Med
Nuclear Medicine
Int Hlth Sys Mngmt
Hlth Ed & Psych
Public Health Ed
Health Education
Psychology
Mod Letters
Community Health
Microarray
Analysis; Exp
Obesity; Risk
Reduction Behavior
Survival Analysis;
longitudinal Anal.
Public Health
Practice; Workforce
Develop
Tobacco Control;
Health Promotion
Chair, Scientific Rev;
grant reviewer
Journal reviewer; Grant
reviewer; stat. consult
MPH
PhD
MS
MPH
Gorakhpur
Old Dominion Univ
NJ Inst of Tech
Yale
Yale
Univ of NM
Univ of NM
Kyrgyz Med Inst
Kyrgyz
Tulane
OH State Univ
UC Berkley
Univ of MD
Univ GA
Tulsa Univ
Universidad de
Monterrey
Tulane Univ
U of New Orleans
San Diego State U
Tulane
Occupat Statistics
Data Interpretation
GIS; Clinical Trials;
Informatics
Longitudinal Anal;
Monte Carlo
Data Analusis;
Evaluation
Multiple regression
Anal; Factor Anal
BIOS
Srivastav
Sudesh
PROF
T
1
M
A
BIOS
Webber
Larry
PROF
T
1
M
W
BIOS
Yau
Lillian
ASST
TR
1
F
A
CHSC Begalieva
Maya
ASST
C
1
F
W
CHSC Chen
Ted
PROF
T
1
M
A
CHSC Clum
Gretchen
ASST
TR
1
F
W
CHSC Dal Corso
Mark
ASST
C
0.5
M
W
CHSC Johnson
Carolyn
ASSOC
C
1
F
W
INHD
Francoise
ASST
C
0.6
F
W
Jeanette
PROF
T
1
F
W
MD
Univ of Tromso
Medicine
Univ of Tromso
Loyola - NO
Clin Biochemistry
Mngmt & Econ
Kendall
CHSC Magnus
CHSC Piacun
Marsha
CHSC Rose
Diego
Appl Biopsychology
Cl Psychology
Int. Health
INST
C
0.8
F
W
PhD
MBA
ASSOC
T
1
M
W
PhD
Univ of CA
Consumer Econ
MPH
Univ of CA
Pub Hlth Nurt
CHSC Schoellman
Karis
ASST
C
1
F
W
MPH
Tulane
CHSC Spriggs
Aubrey
ASST
TR
1
F
W
PhD
UNC
Health Educ
Communication
MCH
MA
Univ of Chicago
Social Service Adm
2/1/10
Computer Pkgs
Statistics/Monte
Carlo methods
Intro to Statistics
Stastics; Environ
Biostatistics
Intro Biostatistics
Intro Biostatistics
Intermed Biostat
Biological Basis of
Disease
Plan of Health Ed
Prog
Data analysis for
OPH/MCH
Grant reviewer; NIH
study sections
Consulting/data
analysis
Community health
center; playground
health promotion
Community Advisor:
Smoking Cessatino
MCH; Contemp
issues
Intro to Public
Health Practice ;
Child Health
Human Sexuality;
Leadership and
C
i itand
Intro to Mon
Stress and Health
Outcomes; HIV
Child Health;
Immigrant Health
Women's Health
Eval of Health Prog
Develop Leadship Women's Health
and Com. Skills;
MCH
OMH preconception
peer mentoring
Reviewer NIH, CDC,
HRSA, Women's
H
lth
Internship
coordinator
Nutrition;
Assessment and
Monitoring
Soc Marketing
Nutrition/Food
Policy
Community Advisory
Boards; IOM Child
Obesity Comm.
OPH/MCH Director of
Health Ed/Commu
MCH
Health Behavior;
School Hlth Promot
Social Marketing;
Health Commun
Adolescent health;
Partner Violence
Heatlh promotion in
schools; Journal
Hispanic AMA of
Louisiana; Daughters of
Charity Health clinic
Reviewer HRSA
Page 209
Dept
Last Name
First
Name
Acad
Title
CHSC Taylor
Catherine
ASST
TR
1
F
W
ENHS
Assaf
PROF
T
1
M
W
Abdelghani
der
ENHS
Anderson
Ann
PROF
T
1
F
W
ENHS
Contiguglia
Joseph
PROF
C
0.5
M
W
Institutions
Discipline
Teaching Area
PhD
MPH
MSW
UCLA
Boston Univ
Boston Univ
Violence Prevent
BIOS/EPI
Cl Soc Work
Monitor & Eval Hlth Child Abuse
Prom
Prevention; Stress
and Mental Health
CDC Grant Revewer'
APHA committees;
Journal Reviewer
ScD
Tulane
Ecotoxicology
Tulane
LA State Univ
LA State Univ
Univ Siena
Env Health
Microbiology
Microbiology
Medicine
Survey Env Hlth;
Intl Env Health
Fate &Transport;
Global Env Health
Editoral Boards;
MSPH
PhD
MS
MD
N/A
PH Practice;
Grant reviewer
Workforce Develop
Disaster
Military disaster drills
Management
MPHTM Tulane
Tropical Medicine
Disaster
Management
MBA
Phd
St Marys Univ
Tulane
Operations Mngt
International Dev
N/A
Evaluation; Cultural Cancer screenings
Competencies
Water Quality
Management
Industrial Waste
Management
Consulting for Health
Depts
Indust Hygiene
In-Door Air Qual
NIOSH Grant reviewer;
Community Assistance
for Mold and Indoor Air
ENHS
Echeverri
Margarita
ASST
R
1
F
W
MS
Tulane
Applied Dev
ENHS
Englande
A. J.
PROF
T
1
M
W
PhD
Vanderbilt
Env Engineering
ENHS
Grimsley
Faye
ASSOC
T
1
F
B
MS
PhD
Tulane
U of Cincinnati
Civil Engineer
Env Health
MSPH
Univ of AL
Indust Hygiene
Adult Education;
Distance Learning
Molecular Biology
ENHS
James
Elizabeth
ASST
C
1
F
W
PhD
Johns Hopkins
ENHS
Lichtveld
Maureen
PROF
T
1
F
O
Cert
MD
Microsoft; Sun
Univ Surinam
MPH
Johns Hopkins
Biochemistry/Comput N/A
ing
Computing Systems
Medicine
Environmental
Policy
ENHS
ENHS
Miller, III
Charles
ASSOC
T
1
M
W
PhD
NY Univ
Molecular Biology
ENHS
Orie
Kenneth
ASST
C
0.5
M
B
JD
LLM
McGill
U of BC
Env Law & Policy
Int Law
ENHS
Rando
Roy
PROF
T
1
M
W
ScD
Tulane
Indust Hygiene
MSPH
Tulane
Indust Hygiene
PhD
Vanderbilt
Env Chemistry
MA
Univ of TX
Env. Chemistry
W
PhD
Univ of Berne
Org Chem
MS
MD
MSPH
Univ of Berne
LSU
Tulane
Chemistry
Medicine
Occupat. Health
ENHS
ENHS
Reimers, III
Sabbioni
Robert
Gabriele
ENHS
Swift
Douglas
ENHS
Wang
He
2/1/10
PROF
ASSOC
T
TR
1
1
M
M
W
ASSOC
C
0.5
M
W
ASST
TR
1
M
A
PhD
Sydney Univ
MBBS
Baotou
Master of Shandong Med U
Med
Respir Disorders
Medicine
Occupation Med
Env Toxicology;
Cancer Tox
EHS Manage; Env
Policy; PH Law
Environmental
Policy
Env Health Law
Community outreach
Legal Advice African
Christian Fellowship
Exposure Assess
Journal Editioral Board;
Occupational Lung Journal Reviewer
Disease
Toxic & Hazard
Biosolids
Waste Manag; Env Treatment;
Chemistry
Disinfection
Biological
Biological
Monitoring
Monitoring
Indust Hygiene
Occupational
Medicine
Occ health
Injury Prevention
and Medical
Monitoring
Cancer and lung
Medical consultations
to industry and workers
Page 210
Dept
Last Name
First
Name
Acad
Title
der
ENHS
White
LuAnn
PROF
T
1
F
W
ENHS
Wickliff
Jeffrey
ASST
TR
1
M
W
Institutions
Discipline
Teaching Area
PhD
Tulane
PhD
Texas Tech Univ
Pharmacology/
Toxicology
Biology
Princ of Toxicol;
Risk Communicat
Risk Assesssme
MS
MD
PhD
MPH
Texas A & M
Tulane
Tulane
Tulane
Env Toxicology
Medicine
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Children's env
health
Genetic
Susceptibility
Clinical
Epidemiology;
Disease Epid
Nutrition and
Primary Prevention
Tech Assist to LOPH
on Enviorn Emergency
Assist community
groups
EPID
Bazzano
Lydia
ASST
TR
1
F
W
EPID
Berenson
Gerald
PROF
R
1
M
W
MD
Tulane
Science/ Research
N/A
Heart Disease
EPID
Buekens
Pierre
PROF
T
1
M
W
MD
Free U Brussels
Medicine
N/A
PhD
Free U Brussels
Epidemiology
Perinatal
Epidemiology
MPH
MD
Free U Brussels
Nanjing Med Univ
Pub Hlth
Medicine
Beijing Med Univ
Epidemiology
Computer Pkgs
Epidemiology
Genetic
Epidemiology
Journal reviewer
PhD
Molecular Biology
and Cancer
Genetics
Infectious Disease
Journal reviewer
EPID
Chen
Wei
ASSOC
R
1
M
A
EPID
Deininger
Prescott
PROF
T
1
M
W
PhD
Univ of CA Davis
Physical Chem
Molecular Biol
EPID
EPID
Engel
Foppa
Astrid
Ivo
ASST
ASST
R
TR
1
1
F
M
H
W
Gustat
Jeanette
ASSOC
C
1
F
W
LA State Univ
Univ Bern
Harvard
Tulane
Microbiology
Medicine
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Molec genetics
Epid Meth I
EPID
PhD
MD
SD
PhD
MPH
PhD
MSPH
DrPH
MPH
MD
PhD
PhD
MPH
PhD
MPH
BSN
PhD
Tulane
UNC
UNC
Tulane
Tulane
Jiang Med Coll
Johns Hopkins
Tulane
Tulane
Tulane
Tulane
Marquette Univ
USC
Nutrition Epi
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Int Hlth/Epi
Medicine
Cardiovas Epi
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Nursing
Biochem/Mol Bio
MD
PhD
MS
PhD
China Med Univ
UNC Raleigh
Univ of Wash
Tulane
Medicine
Stat/Bioinformatic
BIOSinformatics
Epidemiology
MPH
Tulane
Biostat/Epid
EPID
Harville
Emily
ASST
TR
1
F
W
EPID
Hassig
Susan
ASSOC
C
1
F
W
EPID
He
Jiang
PROF
T
1
M
A
EPID
Kelly
Tanika
ASST
TR
1
F
W
0
Kissinger
Patricia
PROF
T
1
F
W
EPID
Makridakis
Nick
ASST
TR
1
M
W
EPID
Mei
Hao
ASST
TR
1
M
A
EPID
Rabito
Felicia
ASSOC
TR
1
F
W
2/1/10
Epidl Meth I; survey Cardiovascular
methodology
Epidemiology
Community Health
Promotion
National Committees;
Grant Reviewer;
Journal Reviewer
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer; Grant
Reviewer
State Board for Safe
Routes to School;
Steering Committee for
Observational Epi
Pregnancy Epi
Epid Meth I;
Infectious Disease
Cardiovas
Epidemiology
Epidemiol of AIDS
Observational Epi
STD and HIV
Molecular Epid
Moledular Epid
Genetic Epi
Statistics for
Mapping Complex
Disease
Epid Meth II
Environ Epid; Lead CDC Expert Panel;
and Asthma
Journal Reviewer
Cardiovascular
Disease Epid
Genetic
Epidemiology
Technical Consultant
LOPH; Journal
Journal reviewier;
Grant Reviewer
Editor - PLoS One;
Editoral Board - Sexual
Transmitted Diseases
Journal reviewer
Journal reviewer
Page 211
Dept
Last Name
First
Name
Acad
Title
der
EPID
Srinivasin
Sathanur
PROF
R
1
M
A
EPID
Wood
Marie
Antoinette
PROF
C
0.3
F
W
EPID
Xiong
Xu
ASSOC
TR
1
M
A
HSMG Bertrand
Jane
PROF
T
1
F
W
HSMG Butcher
Ann
ASST
R
1
F
W
HSMG Campbell
Claudia
PROF
T
1
F
W
HSMG Culbertson
Richard
PROF
T
1
M
W
HSMG Diana
Mark
HSMG Hughes
Julia
HSMG Johnson
HSMG Khan
ASST
TR
1
M
W
Institutions
Discipline
Teaching Area
PhD
Univ of Madras
Chemistry
N/A
MSc
Univ of Madras
Chemistry
MD
MSPH
MD
DrPH
PhD
MBA
MA
LA State Univ
Tulane
Shanghai
Free U Brussels
Univ Chicago
Tulane Univ
Univ Chicago
PhD
Tulane
Medicine
Bios/Epi
Pub Hlth
Epidemiology
Sociology
Business & Manage
Social Science;
Communicaiton
Soc Psychology
Cardiovasascular
Disease
Epidemiology
Health Services
Research
MPH
Tulane
PhD
Washington Univ
President- Delta
Omega; Amer Heart
A
Grant reviewer
Survey Methods;
Reproductive Epid
Reproductive Epid
Health and Intl
Family Planning
Program Eval;
Reproductive
Health; HIV/AIDS
Grant Reviewer;
Journal Reviewer
Medicaid and
Managed Care
Lighthouse for the Blind
Hlth Ed/Comm
Organizational
Behavior
Economics
Health Economics
Healthcare Econom Louisiana Healthcare
& Policy
Quality Forum, Pres Natl Assoc of Graduate
Health Care
Touro Board of
Organizations
Directors; Board Regional Hospitals;
MA
Vanderbilt Univ
Economics
PhD
Univ of CA
Sociology
MHA
MDiv
PhD
MSIS
Univ of MN
Harvard
VA Commonwealth
VA Commonwealth
Hlth Care Admin
Ethics
Hlth Serv Org Res
Information Sys
MBA
Shenandoah
Hlth Care Mngmt
Organizaitonal
Behavior; Human
Resources; Ethics
Information Sys
ASSOC
C
0.5
F
W
DrPH
MHA
MBA
Tulane
Tulane
Tulane
Hlth Sys Mnmgt
Hosp Admin
Bus Admin
Management
Jeffery
ASST
C
1
M
W
PROF
T
1
M
A
UNO
Tulane
Stanford
Educ Admn
Educ
Economics
N/A
Mahmud
PhD
MLA
PhD
MA
MA
Stanford
Stanford
Economics
Applied Econom
HSMG Long
Hugh
PROF
T
1
M
W
PhD
JD
MBA
Stanford
Tulane
Stanford
Bus Admin/ Fin
Law
Bus Economics
HSMG Shi
Lizheng
ASST
TR
1
M
A
PhD
MA
MS
Pharm Econ/Policy
Economics
Pharmacy
HSMG Steinberg
Joan
ASSOC
C
1
F
W
PhD
MPH
MS
USC
USC
Peking Union Med
College
Tulane
Tulane
GA Inst of Tech
2/1/10
Preventive Med
Manag Science
Public Health
Sys Engineering
Prof consultation LA
Health Care Quality
Org
Management
Economic
Hlth & Econ Dev;
Comparative Health Development
Systems
Financial Mngmt;
Health Care
Payment
Finance
SystemsPolicy and
F
ti
PharmacoPharm Health Care
Economics; Policy Economics
& Med Product
Tech
Prin of Hlth Sys
Operations
Mngmt
Research
National Admissions
Comm; ASPH
C
ittconsult Asian
Technical
Institute of Technology
Member - Touro Hosp
Board
CDC Expert Panel
Grant writing for
Community Org on
Suidice Prevention
Page 212
Dept
Last Name
HSMG Stranova
First
Name
Acad
Title
Thomas
ASST
der
C
1
M
W
Institutions
Discipline
Teaching Area
ScD
Tulane
Organ Structure
Strategic Planning
MHA
Tulane
Hlth Admin
Organizational
Management and
Communication
Social Impact of
HIV/AIDS
INHD
Andrinopoulus Katherine
ASST
TR
1
F
W
PhD
Johns Hopkins
Int Health
INHD
INHD
Bertrand
Bushen
William
Oluma
PROF
ASST
T
R
1
1
M
M
W
B
MHS
PhD
MD
Int Health
Sociology
Medicine
INHD
Do
Mai
ASST
TR
1
F
A
INHD
Duale
Sambe
ASST
R
1
M
B
MD
DrPH
MPH
MD
Johns Hopkins
Tulane
Jimma Inst of hlth
Sci
Hanoi SOM
Johns Hopkins
Johns Hopkins
National U of Zaire
MPH
Tulane
Int Health
PhD
Tulane
Demography
MPH
PhD
MA
PhD
Tulane
U of Penn
U of Ghana
UNC/Chapel Hill
Monitor/Eval
Demography
Population Studies
Economics
MA
Georgetown Univ
Demography
INHD
Eisele
Thomas
ASST
TR
1
M
W
INHD
Gage
Anastasia ASSOC
T
1
F
B
INHD
Hotchkiss
David
T
1
M
W
PROF
Medicine
Family Hlth & Pop
Population Dynamic
Medicine
N/A
N/A
M and E of MCH,
Adolescent Hlth Pol
Health Exonomics
for Dev Countries
Adolescent Health
Risk Behaviors
Health Policy and
Interventions
Hlth & Econ Dev;
Res Method in
Global Health
Intro to Pub Hlth
Evaluation of Health
Systems
Hutchinson
Paul
ASST
TR
1
M
W
PhD
UNC/Chapel Hill
Hlth Econ
INHD
Jessop
Penny
ASST
C
1
F
W
MPH
Tulane
Med Care Admin
INHD
Keating
Joseph
ASST
TR
1
M
W
PhD
INHD
Kendall
Carl
PROF
T
1
M
W
PhD
Tulane
Ohio Univ
U of Rochester
INHD
Lemma
Wuleta
ASST
R
1
F
B
MA
PhD
U of Rochester
Liverpool
Field Methods
INHD
Internat Dev Studies
Anthropology
PH Commun;
Formal Qualitative
Anthropology
M th d
Immunology
N/A
MPH
MPhil
PhD
MSPH
MA
PhD
Emory
Liverpool
UNC/Chapel Hill
UNC/Chapel Hill
Cambridge
Cambridge
MA
Cambridge
PhD
U of Penn
MA
MA
U of Penn
U of Penn
Macintyre
Katherine
INHD
Mason
John
INHD
Meekers
2/1/10
Dominque
ASSOC
T
1
F
W
PROF
T
1
M
W
PROF
T
1
M
W
Infect Disease
Soc Behav Aspects Health
Glo Hlth
Communication;
Impact Evaluation
N/A
International Health Technical Assistance Systems
African Regiopnal
Health Isittutions
Survey measure in Malaria and Child
Technical assistance to
Intl Helath
Survival
several organizations
INHD
INHD
Social and Behav
Determinants of
Health
Advisory: New Orleans
East Hospital; National
Collegiate Volunteers
Board Member on CBO
to Prevent HIV in Jails
Int Hlth/Epi
Parasitology/Epi
Health Policy & Adm Int Hlth Policy
Int Hlth Policy
Modern Letters
Nutrition
PH Nutrition
Policies;Adv
Physiology
Nutrition Assess
Communication
Sociology
Res for HIV/AIDS;
Sociology
Social and Behav
Demography
International Public
Health
Vector-Borne
Disease Ecology
Med Anthroplogy
Technical Assistance to
CBOs
Technical assistance World Bank; Asian
Development Bank;
Covenant House;
Planned Parenthood
World Bank; Journal
HIV/AIDS;
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Internal Health
Technical Advisor
Policy, TB, Malaria AMREf HQ and
TICCAH
Public Health
World Bank; UNICEF
Nutrition
Adolescent
Reproductive
Health
Journal Reviwer
Page 213
Dept
Last Name
First
Name
Acad
Title
Institutions
Discipline
Teaching Area
INHD
Mock
Nancy
ASSOC
T
1
F
W
W
DrPH
MPH
PhD
Tulane
Tulane
UNC/Chapel Hill
Int Hlth & Epi
Int Health
City/Reg Planning
Complex
Emergencies
Social Impact of
AIDS
F
H
PhD
UNC/Chapel Hill
MCH
Complex
Emergencies
Poverty and Econ
Dev; Pop and Env
Theory and Eval
N/A
INHD
Murphy
Laura
ASSOC
C
1
F
INHD
Paz-Soldan
Valerie
ASST
R
1
INHD
Thurman
Tonya
ASST
R
1
F
W
INHD
Van
Landingham
Mark
PROF
T
1
M
W
INHD
Yukich
Joshua
ASST
R
M
W
TRMD Bausch
Daniel
ASSOC
TR
1
M
W
TRMD Hong
Young
ASST
TR
1
M
A
TRMD Jacquerioz
Frederique ASST
C
0.6
F
W
TRMD James
Mark
PROF
T
1
M
W
TRMD Krogstad
Donald
PROF
T
1
M
TRMD Marx
TRMD Oberhelman
Preston
Richard
PROF
PROF
T
C
1
1
TRMD Rajan
Latha
ASSOC
C
1
TRMD Wesson
TRMD Wiser
2/1/10
Dawn
Mark
ASSOC
ASSOC
der
T
T
1
1
World Vision and CDC
Technical Assistance TICAH
Population and
Family Planning
PhD
Tulane
INHD
N/A
Orphans and
Vulnerable Children
MPH
Tulane
INHD
PhD
Princeton
Sociology
Int Aspects of Hlth; Migration and
Intro to Population Health; Immigrant
MPH
U of Mich
Population Plan
Health
MA
Princeton
Sociology
PhD
Swiss Tropical Inst Epidemiology/Public Malasria Epi and
Epid. and Econom
University of Basel Health
Health Economics of Vector Borne
Diseases
MD
Loyola
Medicine
Virology & Emerg Hemorrhagic Fever
Pathogens; Health Viruses
MPHTM Tulane
Trop Med
and Human Rights
National Admissions
Comm; ASPH Comm
Technical Advisor Save
the Children
Grant Reviewere;
Journal Reviwere
Purdue
Korea Univ
Lausanne
Tulane
U of Illinois
Emory
Harvard
Insect Physiology
Entomology
Medicine
Epidemiology
Zoology/Immunology
Zoology
Medicine
Genomics in Public Molecular
Healht
Entomology
N/A
Global Health
Consultant to La Board
of Regents
Consultant for CBO on
TB
Grant Reviewer
W
PhD
MS
MD
MPH
PhD
MS
MD
M
M
W
W
PhD
MD
Louisiana State U
U of Texas SW
Microbiology
Medicine; Infectious
Disease
N/A
Immunology
Clinical Trop Med; Gastro-intestinal
Prevent. Trop Med Diseases/TB
F
A
MD
India Inst of Med
Microbiology
Tropical Medicine
Tropical Medicine
Med Entomology
HIV/STDs,
Tuberculosis
W
MPH
Tulane
MPHTM Tulane
PhD
Notre Dame
Clinical Tropical
Medicine
Ecology
Cell Biology
Medical
Entomology
Medical
Entomology
W
MS
PhD
Parasite Cell
Biology; Biol Basis
of Health and
Malaria
F
M
U of IL
U of MN
Immuniparasitology Immunity and
Malaria
Malaria
Malaria
Advisor; Member of
several Intl Comm;
Editor; Peer reviewer
NIH - Mali Research
Cemnter of Excellence
Grant Reviewer
CDC TB Education and
Training Network.
USAID consultant on
tTechnical
b
l expertise
i
t l
Mosequito Control
B
d Board; Journal
Editorial
Revierwer
Page 214
Table 4-1B - Adjunct Teaching Faculty 2007 - 2010
Dept
Last Name
First Name Acad Title
Title & Current Employer
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
CHSC
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
ENHS
EPID
EPID
EPID
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
HSMG
INHD
INHD
INHD
TRMD
TRMD
Bouvier
Cunningham
Gee
Theall
Brown
Downey
Lafreniere
McCormick
Reynolds
Rhoads
Welch
Abraham
Balsamo
Bowers
Brandt
Cecich
Goans
Herr
Leeman
Redinger
Stevenson
White
Chen
Etheredge
Kieltyka
Amoss
Covaleski
Deitelzweig
Frady
Hauser
Hinton
Keogh
Monceaux
Newman
Zhivan
Hardy
Huff-Rouselle
Johnston
McLellen
Silio
Ginger
Stacy
Rebeka
Katherine
Margot
Erin
Amy
Lisa
Barbara
Jacqueline
Susan
John
James
Harold
Michael
Thomas
Ronald
Monty
James
Charles
Dennis
Reginald
Carol
Gina
Lyn
Lisa
Mark
Steven
Philip
Jamie
Jeannine
Timothy
Mollye
Ray
Natalia
Ralph
Maggie
Lisa
Susan
Margarita
Nutritionist - LSUHSC
Sr. Prog Mngr - Tulane
Asst Prof - George Washington
Asst Professor - LSUHSC
NIH/NICHD
Dir Emerg Prep - HRSA
Battelle Research Institute
Prog Dir - SCCPHP
Lead Scientist - CDC
Professor - LSU Nursing
Hlth & Safety Consult
ATSDR/CDC (ret)
Dir - Tulane Env Hlth & Saf
Pacific N W Nat Lab
Univ Cal Los Alam Nat Lab
Pres - TFC & Assoc
Oakrideg Assoc Univs
Laurence Livermore Nat Lab
Pres - The Leeman Group
Env Hlth & Saf Consult
Asst Dir Env Hlth & Saf
Santarita Information Services
Biostatistician - Tulane
Sr. Consultant
Sr. Service Fellow - CDC
President - ABT Assoc
Prof - Univ of Wiscon
V.P. Med Affairs - Ochsner
Independent Consultant
Chief Oper Officer
Health Works, LLC
Asst Professor - Citadel
Law Assoc - Sullivan,
Former Vice Chancellor
Boston College
Dir Commun Programs
Pres - Soc Sectors Dev
Independent Consultant
Assoc Prof - SOM
Assoc Prof - SOM
02/01/10
Adj Instructor
Adj Instructor
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Assoc Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Instructor
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Prof
Adj Instructor
Adj Asst Pro
Cl Asst Prof
Asj Assoc Prof
Cl Assoc Prof
Adj Instructor
Cl Assoc Pro
Cl Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Instructor
Adj Assoc Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Instructor
Adj Professor
Adj Assoc Prof
Adj Instructor
Adj Instructor
Adj Instructor
Adj Assoc Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Professor
Adj Asst Prof
Cl Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Adj Asst Prof
Cl Assoc Pro
Asso Prof
FTE Gen Race Degree
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
B
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
A
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
H
MD
MSc
MD/MPH
PhD
ScD
ScD
ScD
MHA
PhD
PhD
MSPH
PhD
MPH
HSD
DrPH
MS
MD/MPH
PhD
PhD
PhD
PhD
JD
MS
PhD
PhD
MBA
PhD
MD/MMM
MSW
MHA
MHA
PhD
JD
PhD
PhD
MFA
PhD
PhD
MD
MD
Discipline
Teaching Area
Educ/Hlth Promo
Psychology
Health Policy
Epidemiology
Env Hlth
Hlth Care Prepared
Env Hlth
Env Hlth
Psych
Critical Care Nursing
Env Hlth
Env Hlth
Med Care Admin
Hlth & Safety
Occup/Env Hlth
Indust Engin
Med/Occup Hlth Saf
Industiral Hygiene
Systemic Mngmt
Indust Hlth
Physics
Law
Statistics
Epi
Epi
Mngmt/Org Behavior
Acct/Mngmt
Med/MGMT
Soc Work
Hlth Care Admin
Health
English
Law
Pub Admin/Econ
Economics
Writing
Mngmt Studies
International Hlth
Medicine
Medicine
Community Nutrition
Community Organization
Policy and Advocacy
Rsrch Mthds Soc & Behav Sci
Env Hlth Risk Assess
Pop Issues During Disast
Env Hlth Risk Assess
Elem Hlth Saf & Trn Ev
Crisis & Emerg Commun
Pop & Env Pub Hlth
Principles Indus Hyg
Env Hlth Assess
Curr Issu Ind Hyg & Saf
Prin of Safety
Hlth & Safety Mngmt I
Fin Aspects Env HlthSaf
Radiologic Health
Curr Issu Ind Hyg & Saf
Hlth & Safety Mngmt II
Int Mngmt Sys Stan En Oc
Hlth & Safety Mngmt I
Env Laws & Compliance
Computer Pkgs
Epidemiologic Meth I
Epidemilogical Methods I
Prin Hlth Sys Mgmt
Mangerial Accounting
Total Quality Mngmt
Organizational Behavior
Hlth Care Marketing
Prin Hlth Sys Adm and Manag
Negotiations in Hlth Care
Hlth Law & Regulation
Intro to Hlth Care Acct
Socioecon Stat Labor
Grant Writing
Soc Marketing BEH Chng
Surveillance Using RDS
Clin Trop Med
Diagnostic Meth/Microbio
Page 215
Section 4.2
Faculty Policies
4.2 A Faculty Handbook
The Tulane University Faculty Handbook contains the policies regarding faculty membership,
appointments, probationary regular appointments, promotion and tenure, grievance and termination
procedures, academic freedom, conflict of interest, etc. The Faculty Handbook provides guidance to the
faculty and administration throughout the university, including SPHTM. The last update was adopted April
13, 2009. The Faculty Handbook is in the Resource File and can be found
at http://tulane.edu/provost/faculty-handbook.cfm/ .
4.2 B Faculty Development
Faculty development takes place across the entire career of faculty. Special measures are directed
toward junior faculty to help them launch their careers, provide support for success in teaching, research
and service, and for tenure-track faculty, in obtaining tenure. Measures are also available to assist midcareer faculty who wish to re-energize their careers or who wish to refocus their research areas. Since
tenure-track faculty represent the future core of SPHTM faculty, special attention is given to nurture and
develop their careers in teaching, research and service. Development measures for clinical faculty are
focused on teaching and practice areas. Research faculty are cultivated within their research specialty
and as a part of a research team.
Development for Junior Faculty
Development of junior faculty is the responsibility of each department chair with assistance of senior
faculty. While junior faculty development activities are not identical in all departments, most contain the
following measures:
Three-year plan: SPHTM requires each department chair and new faculty to develop a 3-year plan that
becomes a part of the annual review process. The 3- year plan provides the framework for early career
development aimed toward promotion and success within the track. The plan sets forth goals for each
faculty in their areas of responsibilities (teaching and research), identifies resources and support needed
to achieve the goals, and milestones for annual progress. A 3-year plan is always developed for tenuretrack faculty; some departments develop 3-year plans for new clinical appointments and others do not.
Research faculty are hired in conjunction with funded research projects; such plans are handled by the
faculty PI of the project or center director and are related to their role in the research agenda.
Annual review: The chair formally meets with new tenure-track faculty annually to provide feedback and
identify ways to help and support them. Issues discussed include courses taught, student course
evaluations, committee service, research progress, publications, grant proposals and service to the
school, university, and community. The chair also reviews progress toward the goals in their 3-year plan
and adjustments are made to the plan as needed. It should be noted that the annual review is not the only
time the chair provides feedback to junior faculty during the year. Informal assessment occurs regularly
as the chair and senior faculty informally monitor teaching, collaborate on research, and bring the new
faculty into the university family.
Chairs also conduct annual review of clinical faculty. Clinical faculty initially receive one-year
appointments and the review serves as the basis for reappointment. After a period of time, clinical faculty
may receive reappointments for up to 3 years. If faculty performance is below that required by the criteria,
the appointment may not be renewed. Research faculty are reviewed by the PI or center director under
whom they work. The salary line for these tracks is dependent on departmental needs for teaching and/or
research funding. For full-time faculty, the individual is given a year’s notice prior to discontinuing an
appointment as stated in the Faculty Handbook.
Faculty mentors: Senior faculty serve as mentors to junior faculty in all tracks. Different senior faculty
may mentor for teaching, research or community service; their role is to provide help and guidance in
carrying out these activities. Some departments have a formal process to facilitate mentoring, but most
faculty mentoring is informal and related to common interests. (See Resource File and Section 4.3)
02/01/10
Page 216
Section 4.2
Faculty Policies
Research support: SPHTM provides most new faculty in the tenure-track with start up funds for
research. These funds are for seed or pilot studies to help new faculty obtain data to be competitive for
external research funding. Clinical faculty are generally hired to teach specific courses and do not receive
research packages. Research faculty are hired for funded research.
Involving junior faculty in research: The chair and senior faculty actively introduce tenure-track faculty
members to established researchers and policy makers locally and nationally. Senior faculty members
involve junior faculty who work in their research areas in ongoing research projects, grant writing and
publications.
Reduced workload: Most new tenure-track faculty receive substantial reduction in workload during the
first two years, usually by lower teaching loads and/or lower involvement with school and departmental
committees. This provides the junior faculty the opportunity to develop their research agenda. Clinical
and research faculty are hired for specific duties and do not have reduced workloads.
Support of teaching: Senior faculty in some departments serve as teaching mentors for tenure-track and
clinical faculty by sharing teaching techniques, methods, course objectives, schedules, and general
experiences in the classroom. The department chair reviews student course evaluations each semester,
consults with individual faculty members and provides the appropriate type of support when need. In at
least 1 department, junior faculty (tenure-track and clinical) are given the highest priority for teaching
assistants.
Travel to professional meetings: Most departments support travel to a professional meeting for tenuretrack faculty to present research findings or to network with others in their field. Travel for research faculty
is supported by their funded projects.
Continuing education: Some departments provide funds for faculty to attend formal continuing education
programs or to visit another researcher to learn new skills.
Development for All Faculty
The SPHTM and university have a number of faculty development programs to support both new and
established faculty. Examples include:
•
•
•
•
•
02/01/10
Grant writing workshops: The university Office of Research Administration offers regular
workshops (~monthly) to train and support faculty in preparing proposals for competitive research.
Teaching workshops: Annual teaching workshops are held prior to the fall semester and are
open to faculty across the university. The workshops provide hands on teaching tips, examples of
effective materials, role playing, incorporating new technological teaching tools and other useful
methods.
Blackboard workshops: Regular workshops on using the features in the Blackboard system for
teaching materials, grades, evaluation and a host of other support features are held regularly. At
least one workshop is held in the Tidewater Building for SPHTM faculty. In-house tech support
and training are also available.
SPHTM annual advising workshop: An annual SPHTM advising workshop is organized in the
fall by the school and/or each department to augment the advising skills of faculty. It includes
practical tips (e.g., office hours, degree requirements) as well as other issues such as identifying
students under stress or with emotional problems.
Support for grant proposal preparation: Departments provide administrative support to faculty
in preparing grant proposals, particularly accounting support for budgets and administrative
support for electronic submissions.
Page 217
•
•
•
•
•
Section 4.2
Faculty Policies
Travel to professional meetings: Departments may provide funding for travel to professional
meetings if a faculty member has an accepted presentation and no travel funds. Junior faculty
usually have priority for travel funds.
Continuing education: Faculty are encouraged to attend continuing education programs,
seminars and special lectures held at SPHTM, in conjunction with professional meetings or
sponsored by other groups. In some cases, the department chair may provide financial support for
a continuing education course.
Professional practice: Faculty may engage in professional consulting within the guidelines of the
Faculty Handbook.
Sabbatical leave: Full-time tenured faculty are eligible for a sabbatical leave every seven years.
Sabbatical leaves may be granted for mid-career faculty to gain new research skills, re-focus their
research direction or to advance specific research agendas.
Research and practice: As faculty pursue their research and/or engage in practice activities,
they grow and develop with experience. It is a faculty member’s responsibility to pursue activities
which keep them abreast of new developments in the field and to apply their skills and expertise.
The faculty member may discuss resources or assistance that may be needed with the
departmental chair.
4.2 C Formal Procedures For Evaluating Faculty Competence And Performance
Faculty peer-review involves several levels of periodic review by: the tenured departmental faculty,
departmental chair, SPHTM Personnel and Honors Committee (tenure and promotion reviews), Executive
Faculty (tenure and promotion), and the dean. The formal evaluation of faculty is through the annual
review. The department chair is the primary evaluator of each faculty. The chairs meet with the dean to
review and determine merit salary increases each year.
Annual Review
All faculty are reviewed annually by the department chair for teaching, research productivity and
service/practice activities as part of the departmental annual review and report to the dean. Department
chairs review the progress of each faculty with respect to the criteria for the respective track. This review
serves as the basis for merit salary raises.
Faculty provide an updated NIH 398 biosketch that contains data on professional experience, honors,
publications, and research support. In addition, faculty complete a status report that includes international
activities, new grants and contracts, service activities, continuing education and other accomplishments.
The department chair also reviews student course evaluations as a monitor of teaching quality. The chair
provides feedback to the faculty member and indicates areas in need of improvement. Progress and
accomplishments on the annual review are a major factor in determining merit raises. As indicated
above, at the annual review, the progress of junior faculty is evaluated by the department chair and dean.
The faculty member is counseled regarding their progress as compared to their 3-year plan, including
areas of accomplishment and in need of improvement.
The annual review is one of the mechanisms for the review of clinical and research faculty for
reappointment. These tracks typically have appointments ranging from one to three years. Their
appointments depend largely on their performance and the availability of funding. In addition to the
annual review by the chair, the departmental personnel and honors committee (usually made up of the
tenured faculty) reviews the performance of the faculty. Clinical faculty are evaluated for their teaching
ability, community service, and grant and publication record, where applicable. Research faculty must
have salary funding from research projects and publications are expected.
Three-Year Reviews
Tenure-track faculty undergo a rigorous review after 3 years. The trajectory toward tenure is evaluated
primarily with respect to funded research (proposals submitted and funded), publications, and teaching
evaluations. Progress on the 3-year plan is evaluated by the department, the Personnel and Honors
Committee, and the dean. After 3 years, the departmental Personnel and Honors (P&H) committee
02/01/10
Page 218
Section 4.2
Faculty Policies
determines if the faculty member is making sufficient progress toward attaining tenure. If their progress is
unacceptable, the faculty member may be terminated with 1 year’s notice. (See the Resource File for
sample 3-year reviews).
Clinical and research faculty also receive a 3-year review. Each member is also evaluated with respect to
accomplishment of their respective responsibilities. If they have shown competence and fulfillment of all
responsibilities, they may be recommended for a multi-year appointment (up to three years).
Tenure Review
Faculty in the tenure track are reviewed for their achievement of the departmental minimum criteria for
tenure. The departmental P&H committee reviews the faculty member’s research and teaching records
and the faculty are expected to meet or exceed each of the minimum criteria (see the Resource File for
departmental criteria for promotion and tenure). The department assesses the achievement of all criteria,
and then forwards their recommendation (positive or negative) to the SPHTM P&H committee for review.
(See the Resource File for SPHTM P&H procedures.) All recommendations, positive or negative, proceed
to the SPHTM Executive Faculty and then to the dean. Any recommendation can be overturned at any of
these steps. The dean then forwards the recommendation along with his evaluation letter to the provost
who examines the record again, reviews letters of evaluation and makes the final decision on tenure.
Approval of tenure is generally accompanied by promotion to associate professor.
Promotion
The same process of review described above for tenure is followed for all promotion actions. Each track
has different minimum criteria for advancement in rank and these criteria may differ among departments.
As with tenure, letters of evaluation are required from external reviewers. See the Resource File for the
criteria for tenure and promotion in all tracks for each department.
Measures of Competency
Each track has different areas of responsibility and, therefore, different emphasis in the measures of
achievement.
• Tenure and Tenure-Track: The emphasis is on research and teaching; service must be present.
• Clinical Track: Teaching has the highest priority, service/practice is necessary, and research,
usually community-based, is desired.
• Research Track: Research accomplishment with funding is essential.
Research measures include:
• Number of publications
• Impact factor of publications
• External research funding
• % of salary covered by research
Teaching measures include:
• Positive course evaluations
• Positive observations by senior faculty
• Attendance at teaching workshops
• Response to feedback on teaching
Professional service measures include:
• Number of service activities
• Type of service activities (grant or journal review, professional services, etc)
• Participation and organizing activities in continuing education
02/01/10
Page 219
Section 4.2
Faculty Policies
4.2 D Procedures Used for Student Course Evaluation and Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness
In December 2008, the university policy on course evaluations changed and all student course
evaluations are now conducted at the university level using the Blackboard system. Prior to that, the
evaluations were conducted at SPHTM. The mechanisms for this process are still evolving. The same
evaluation questions for SPHTM are used in the university evaluation questionnaire. However, the
process differs: now students must go to the electronic evaluation site independently. Previously,
students completed their course evaluations on the last day of class with a student volunteer taking the
completed evaluations to the SPHTM dean’s office. While the electronic format is more efficient for
compiling results, fewer students participate in the evaluation process. This also creates a situation for
those with a strong opinion (either pro or con) to bias the evaluation in comparison to those without a
strong opinion who may not take the extra effort to go to the website to fill out the questionnaire. The
University has observed a drop in the number of student responses with the university-wide electronic
process and a review is underway to improve the response rate.
The course instructor receives the results of their course evaluations two to four weeks after the end of
the semester. The department chair, the dean, and the senior associate dean have access to evaluations
of each course. It is the responsibility of the department chair to review all of the departmental courses
and faculty teaching and to provide feedback and guidance where needed. Previously, the Curriculum
Committee also received the results. The dean’s office provides printed copies of the core course and
other course evaluations for departmental 5-year reviews as requested by the Curriculum Committee.
Student course evaluations provide important information to individual faculty and students. They reflect
student opinion about how well teachers meet stated learning objectives. If evaluations indicate a fair or
poor student opinion, the department chair meets with the instructor to determine ways to improve
teaching. These measures may include mandatory attendance at teaching workshops, assignment of a
senior faculty teaching mentor, a co-instructor for the course, and/or periodic observations by the chair.
The goal is to improve teaching rather than to take punitive actions. If the faculty does not show
improvement or work to improve teaching, they may not be given courses to teach which will adversely
affect promotion and/or tenure. In the case of part-time and/or adjunct faculty, contracts may not be
renewed. Course evaluation results are used in several ways:
• Evaluations are reviewed by both individual instructors and their respective department chairs for
course/lecture refinement.
• Evaluations are considered in promotion/tenure actions by the SPHTM's Personnel and Honors
Committee.
• Evaluation results are available for review by the Curriculum Committee during the regular fiveyear review of the curriculum.
• Prior to the electronic system, hard copy evaluation results for all core courses were available for
review by the Curriculum Committee. The dean’s office provides printed copies of the core course
evaluations for the Committee’s annual review. (See the Resource File)
• Prior to the electronic system, qualitative data on each course was available to students through
the SGA Office.
For issues that may occur during a course, corrective action may involve informal meeting with students
and the instructor to deal with specific issues. If concerns are not resolved, students are encouraged to
meet with the instructor's department chair, and, if necessary, with the associate dean for academic
affairs. Consistent student course surveillance helps instructors to improve courses and assists the
SPHTM in maintaining high academic standards.
4.2 E Emphasis Given to Community Service Activities in the Promotion and Tenure Process
As a research institution, Tulane University set research accomplishment as a priority for tenure and
promotion within the tenured and tenure-tracks. Teaching competence and professional service to the
public health community complete the expected activities of a well rounded faculty member. The provost
reviews each tenure file for the impact of research accomplishments and to determine the levels and
quality of teaching and service activities.
02/01/10
Page 220
Section 4.2
Faculty Policies
Service activities fall into three broad categories: service to the SPHTM/university; service to the
academic/professional community outside the university; and professional service to the community at
large (local, regional, national, and international). The type and extent of service activities performed by
faculty vary widely depending on academic discipline, rank, and other factors such as length of time on
the faculty. Traditionally, senior faculty tend to devote more time to the community and professional
service at large.
In tenure decisions, all faculty are expected to meet minimum standards in service as well as teaching
and research. Service to the community is not viewed in isolation, but rather as a key component of
faculty performance which interacts synergistically with the more academic functions of teaching and
research. While balanced excellence in all three components of faculty performance is desirable, service
to the community alone does not substitute for sub-minimal performance in teaching or research. Service
to the community by tenure track or tenured faculty is an important vehicle for enhancing performance in
teaching and research. As such, it contributes to promotion and tenure decisions.
Professional service to the community is an essential part of the responsibilities of the clinical track. As
such, it is a requirement for promotion for clinical faculty. For the research track, service is not a
requirement for promotion.
The SPHTM's leadership stresses the strong synergy among these three aspects when evaluating faculty
performance. Service to the community outside the university generates benefits to the individual faculty
member and to the SPHTM. Examples of benefits include opportunities for publications, classroom
applications that improve teaching, enhanced image of the SPHTM, identification of placement
opportunities, identification of opportunities for community-based programs, recruitment of students and
fund-raising opportunities.
4.2 F Assessment
This criterion is met. SPHTM has well defined processes and criteria for promotion and tenure that are
available to all faculty. The procedures are applied equitably to all faculty and recent measures have
been instituted by the provost to bring comparable processes for promotion and tenure across the
university. The criteria for promotion and tenure parallel the school’s missions and goals in teaching,
research, and service.
SPHTM has instituted several measures to support the career development of junior faculty in all tracks.
Special attention is given to faculty in the tenure-track as they have the greatest pressure to achieve a
high standard for tenure in a relatively short time. The tenure-track faculty will be the core faculty that will
carry on the mission and goals of the school in the future. Tenured and tenure track faculty are charged
with carrying out the full mission of the school for teaching, research and service.
The criteria for promotion in the clinical and research tracks are consistent with the defined responsibilities
for each track and explicitly described within the SPHTM departmental criteria for promotion and tenure.
The two non-tenure tracks are integral to respective areas related to SPHTM’s mission.
02/01/10
Page 221
Section 4.3
Faculty and Staff Diversity
4.3 A Faculty Demographic Data
SPHTM is committed to diversity among our faculty, staff and student. We support equal opportunity to
insure that qualified individuals are included regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or
other personal characteristics. Beyond the issues of equal opportunity, SPHTM recognizes that diversity
is fundamental to public health and a diverse faculty is a core value essential to carrying out our mission
and goals. In addition to racial and gender diversity, we also seek cultural diversity as a means to fulfill
our mission and goals in global public health.
Based on our long tradition and focus on global public health, we have a large percentage (38%) of
faculty from countries outside the United States. We have had a major presence in sub-Saharan Africa
for more than 25 years. As such, we have faculty who were born in Africa and became American
citizens as well as African-Americans born in the US. In a similar manner, we have faculty who were
born in Asia and are American citizens, and others born in the US of Asian heritage. For consistency in
measuring our diversity, we report race rather than national origin. We do not track citizenship.
Table 4.3 A 1 (Template H) presents the summary data for the gender and racial composition of the
SPHTM faculty. Table 4.1.A lists the gender and race of each individual faculty. Of the 99 core SPHTM
faculty, 43% (43) are women and 57% (56) are men. Minority faculty constitute 27% (27) of the faculty;
this is an increase of 7% since the last self study in 2002-2003 when 20% of the faculty were minority.
Minority faculty include 6% (6) African-American, 18% (18) Asian, and 3% (3) Hispanic. The cultural
diversity of the faculty is enriched by 38 (38%) international faculty originally from 25 countries on five
continents. SPHTM seeks racial, gender and cultural diversity to carry out our commitment to global
public health.
Table 4.3.A1 (Template H) Summary Demographic Data for Faculty 2008-09
# % Male
# % African American Male
# % Caucasian Male
# % Hispanic/Latino Male
# % Asian/Pacific Islander Male
# % Native American/Alaska Native Male
# % Unknown/Other Male
# % International Male
# % Female
# % African American Female
# % Caucasian Female
# % Hispanic/Latina Female
# % Asian/Pacific Islander Female
# % Native American/Alaska Native Female
# % Unknown/Other Female
# % International Female
TOTAL
Core Faculty
#
%
56
56%
3
3%
41
41%
12
12%
21
21%
43
43%
3
3%
31
34%
3
3%
6
5%
17
17%
99
100%
Other Faculty
#
%
18
45%
18
45%
22
55%
1
2.5%
19
47.5%
1
2.5%
1
2.5%
1
2.5%
40
100%
TOTAL
#
%
74
53%
3
2%
59
43%
12
8%
21
15%
65
47%
4
3%
50
36%
4
3%
7
5%
18
13%
139
100%
Table 4.3.A2 further breaks down the distribution of the core faculty by track, rank, gender and race.
Since the last site visit, SPHTM has increased its percent of tenured/tenure-track faculty to 65% as
compared with 53% in 2002. Among the 65 tenure /tenure-track faculty, 42 (65%) are male and 23
(35%) are female. Since the last site visit, SPHTM has increased the percent of female faculty in tenure/
tenure-tracks from 28% to 35%. The non- tenure tracks (research and clinical) have 34 faculty of which
14 (41%) are male and 20 (59%) are female. Table 4.3.A3 shows departmental faculty distribution by
track, race and gender.
02/01/10
Page 222
Section 4.3
Table 4.3 A2 Faculty Distribution for Race and Gender by Track and Rank 2008-09
Total Number
Track
Rank
Total Faculty
Total Minority
Tenured
Tenure-track
Clinical
Research
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Instructor
All
99
25
43
22
19
15
37
23
38
1
M
56
15
28
14
6
8
29
9
18
-
F
43
12
15
8
13
7
8
14
20
1
White
M
F
41
31
Black
M
F
3
3
24
9
5
3
24
6
11
-
1
2
3
-
12
5
11
3
7
12
11
1
Race
Hispanic
M
F
3
2
0
1
2
1
-
-
Asian
M
F
12
6
1
2
3
-
4
5
3
5
3
4
-
1
2
2
1
1
Total
#
Total
FTE
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
3%
8
13
17
17
11
21
13
100
7.8
12.4
15.1
17..3
10.8
22.5
12.5
95.3
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
3%
8
13
17
15
11
22
13
99
8
12.5
14.8
17.3
10.8
21.8
12.5
95.4
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
3%
8
13
16
17
11
23
11
99
7.8
12.5
14.3
17
10
22.5
10.5
93.9
5
-
Table 4.3 A3 Summary for Faculty: Track, Rank, Gender, and Race
Tenure
Tenure
-Track
Clinical
Research
M
Gender
F
W
Race
Af- A
Am
0
3
0
2
2
1
0
4
0
2
3
2
0
1
6
14
6% 14%
2006-07
BIOS
6
1
1
0
3
5
5
CHSC
4
4
4
1
5
8
11
ENHS
9
2
4
2
10
7
14
EPID
6
4
3
4
9
8
12
HSMG
4
1
5
1
7
4
9
INHL
8
1
2
10
11
10
14
TRMD
6
3
2
2
10
3
12
TOTAL
43
21
20
16
55
45
77
%
43%
21%
20%
16%
55% 45%
77%
2007-08
BIOS
6
1
1
0
3
5
5
0
3
CHSC
5
4
4
0
5
8
11
0
2
ENHS
8
2
4
3
11
6
13
2
1
EPID
4
4
3
4
8
7
10
0
4
HSMG
4
2
4
1
7
4
9
0
2
INHL
9
3
2
8
12
10
15
4
2
TRMD
5
4
2
2
10
3
12
0
1
TOTAL
41
20
20
18
56
43
75
6
15
%
42%
20%
20%
18%
56% 43%
76% 6% 15%
2008-09
BIOS
6
1
1
0
3
5
5
0
3
CHSC
5
4
4
0
5
8
11
0
2
ENHS
9
2
4
1
10
6
11
2
2
EPID
4
8
2
3
10
7
11
0
5
HSMG
4
2
4
1
7
4
9
0
2
INHL
9
3
2
9
13
10
16
4
2
TRMD
6
2
2
1
8
3
9
0
2
TOTAL
43
22
19
15
56
43
72
6
18
%
43%
22%
19%
15%
56% 43%
73% 6% 18%
Full time regular faculty (<50% time)
Note: FTE in this table is total faculty; FTE in Section 1.6 E is teaching faculty only.
02/01/10
H
Page 223
Section 4.3
4.3 B Staff Demographic Data
SPHTM employs staff to support the teaching and research functions of the school. As with our faculty,
we believe a diverse staff is key to fulfilling our mission, particularly in community-based research. Table
4.3 B1 (Template I) is a summary of staff demographic information. Table 4.3B2 provides the distribution
of departmental staff by gender and race.
Table 4.3 B1 (Template I) Summary Demographic Data – Staff 2008-09
Table 4.3.b. Summary Demographic Data for Full-Time Staff
# Full-Time
Staff
35
1
20
6
6
2
# % Male
# % African American Male
# % Caucasian Male
# % Hispanic/Latino Male
# % Asian/Pacific Islander Male
# % Native American/Alaska Native Male
# % Unknown/Other Male
# % International Male
# % Female
# % African American Female
# % Caucasian Female
# % Hispanic/Latina Female
# % Asian/Pacific Islander Female
# % Native American/Alaska Native Female
# % Unknown/Other Female
# % International Female
TOTAL
%
22.7%
0.6%
13.0%
3.9%
3.9%
1.3%
119
28
81
5
2
3
77.3%
18.2%
52.6%
3.3%
1.3%
154
100%
1.9%
Table 4.3 B2 Departmental Staff by Race and Gender 2008-09
Department
Total
#
Adm
Staff
#
Admissions
Dean’s Office
BIOS
CHSC
ENHS
ENHS
CAEPH
EPID
HSMG
INHD
TRMD
Total
8
26
20
15
3
13
8
14
1
2
2
3
46
7
9
7
154
5
6
2
3
46
Researc
h Staff
#
7
19
12
1
7
Tech
Staff
#
5
1
3
41
1
7
4
98
10
Gender
Race
M
2
9
1
1
6
F
6
17
19
14
3
7
W
6
19
17
11
7
B
2
3
2
4
2
3
H
1
-
A
-
O
1
3
-
10
2
1
3
35
36
5
8
4
119
28
3
5
5
101
6
3
3
1
29
3
1
1
1
11
7
-
2
8
5
3
1
4.3 C SPHTM Policies and Procedures for Equitable Opportunities
Tulane University and SPHTM have formal policies and procedures to promote equal opportunity for all
employees. Written policies and procedures guide the implementation of equal opportunity for all
faculty, staff and students. Tulane University’s statement on equal opportunity is as follows:
Tulane University is committed to providing equal employment opportunity to qualified persons
without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, citizenship, marital status, sexual
02/01/10
Page 224
Section 4.3
orientation, age, disability, military, veteran status or any other protected status or classification
under federal, state or local law. This commitment to equality extends to all personnel actions,
including recruitment, advertising for employment, selection for employment, compensation,
performance evaluation, and selection for training or education, treatment during employment,
promotion, transfer, demotion, discipline, layoff and termination. Discrimination on the basis of
any protected classification will not be tolerated. Tulane University maintains a written affirmative
action policy and for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. There are written policies for
reporting discrimination or any type of harassment.
The Tulane Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) provides the leadership and oversight to ensure that
diversity and equal opportunity are central to Tulane University. Ways in which the University promotes
equal opportunity include:
• Developing strategic diversity planning and implementation;
• Developing and implementing comprehensive and relevant educational leadership programs for
managers, supervisors, and the Tulane community that includes topics such as: diversity
leadership, diversity perspectives, cross-cultural communications, and preventing discrimination
and harassment in the workplace and academic environment;
• Overseeing and supporting Tulane University's compliance efforts, including federal and state
reporting requirements in the areas of equal opportunity and affirmative action, harassment, nondiscrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
• Conducting thorough and fair investigations into complaints of discrimination and sexual
harassment; seeking resolution through the means of education, remediation and/or conflict
resolution;
• Monitoring recruitment, selection, promotion, transfer, termination, and compensation practices to
ensure compliance with equal opportunity regulations;
• Advising and consulting on compensation procedures to ensure equitable treatment of all
employees and candidates for employment;
• Serving as a resource to ensure access to all qualified persons with disabilities under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
• Serving as liaison between the University and advocacy groups, such as women's organizations,
organizations that advocate for the rights of people of color, and other diverse groups concerned
with employment opportunities for women and minorities.
The SPHTM follows all of the university and federal Equal Opportunity Guidelines in faculty
appointments. In addition to the legal requirements and formal policies, SPHTM practices for faculty and
staff recruitment involve seeking minority candidates.
4.3 D Recruitment and Retention Efforts to Attract and Retain a Diverse Faculty and Staff
Each faculty search must include methods to recruit and identify minority and female candidates. Minority
and women faculty serve on most search committees. Minority candidates are actively sought in all
faculty searches. This is accomplished by sending letters to minority institutions with doctoral students in
the area of the search and advertising in journals, websites, newsletters or other communication modes
that promote minority opportunities. Search committees are expected to seek out minority and women
applicants and invite them to interview. Our most successful activity for recruiting minority applicants is
through word of mouth and networking within professional groups to identify qualified professionals, even
if they are not actively seeking a job. When a minority candidate becomes known, a member of the
search committee arranges for a phone call or meeting to explore interest. Even if the candidate does
not seem interested, they are invited to visit, present a seminar and enjoy a weekend in New Orleans to
get to know us better. The final decision of search committees is based on finding the best candidate for
the position. Since Hurricane Katrina, all faculty recruitment has been more difficult because of the
extensive damage to the area’s infrastructure; the recruitment of minority faculty more so because they
have other options and do not want to contend with living in a recovering city.
02/01/10
Page 225
Section 4.3
Once a candidate is selected for a faculty position, the Equal Opportunity Officer (EOO) of the university
reviews and must approve the search procedure and reviews the candidates who applied and who were
interviewed. After approval by the EOO, the candidate’s credentials are submitted to the Personnel and
Honors Committee for review. The dean also reviews the process in accepting the recommendations of
the search committee. This process must be completed before an offer is made to the candidate.
When a faculty member is hired, the chair and new faculty develop a plan that outlines responsibilities
and expectations. Each new faculty represents a strategic investment of time and resources to build the
expertise to advance the school’s mission, so retention of faculty is a priority. Because of the paucity of
doctoral level minorities and females in some fields, their success is a priority and efforts and resources
are targeted toward this goal. As with all junior faculty, a 3-year plan is outlined for the development of
teaching and research. Initially junior tenure-track faculty are encouraged to focus on developing their
research by working with a more senior faculty who has an active research program. Start-up packages
are provided to new tenure-track faculty for initiating their research. Chairs try to shield minority faculty
from time-consuming committee appointments. Often, school committees seek minority representation;
however, this can put an undue burden on young minority faculty who need to focus their efforts on their
teaching and research. They are encouraged to form relationships with the community early in their
careers. During the faculty annual review, the chair counsels each faculty on their strengths and
weaknesses. This process serves as a mechanism for enhancing the mentoring and support of minority
faculty and for supporting women faculty to rise in faculty rank.
Mentoring has been identified as one means to foster faculty development and to build a track record to
fulfill the criteria for tenure and promotion. Mentoring is also a means to enhance the overall academic
environment. Mentoring occurs on several levels and usually involves multiple mentors who guide the
junior faculty across various areas of academic life, research, teaching and community involvement. For
the past seven years, the Women’s Center, with the support of a National Institutes of Health grant, has
provided a comprehensive, mentored research training program on the health sciences campus. With
the guidance of senior faculty, junior faculty members have learned how to navigate the academic
system toward promotion and research independence. Areas addressed include academic life,
research, teaching and community involvement. In addition to individual mentoring meetings, the
program supports peer mentoring, seminars, and a Women’s Health Research Day (WHRD). The 2008
WHRD included a mentoring workshop open to all faculty. Many of the health sciences faculty
participated and expressed an interest in future events addressing this area of personal and professional
development. Another mentoring event was held in December, 2009.
Department chairs and senior faculty also serve as mentors; chairs are charged with guiding and
focusing junior faculty and in setting goals and milestones toward tenure and/or promotion. The chairs
provide the resources and may reduce teaching loads to allow junior faculty time to concentrate on
writing grants or papers or other critical items needed for promotion. Senior departmental faculty also
serve as mentors for junior faculty for teaching or research.
SPHTM has tried to develop innovative measures to increase the number of minority faculty. One such
method was an arrangement developed between SPHTM Department of Environmental Sciences and
Xavier University that hired faculty with joint appointments at both institutions. The innovative approach
was funded by the Louisiana Board of Regents and four faculty were shared with 40% to 60% time at
each university. Representatives from both Universities served on the search committees and
participated in the selection of the individuals to fill these positions. At its peak, four faculty were shared:
two white males and two African-American females. The team initially sought to recruit all AfricanAmerican candidates, but did not garner sufficient African-American candidates to fill all four positions.
This points out the difficulty in finding minority faculty to fill open positions even with the active network
within HBCU institutions. The joint endeavor was effective in recruiting a number of minority students
into SPHTM from Xavier. However, the program was not as successful as hoped for the 4 faculty.
SPHTM and Xavier are extremely different institutions with regard to tenure criteria. Xavier does not
02/01/10
Page 226
Section 4.3
have tenure as such, and emphasizes teaching, particularly in bringing students who may be behind
academically up to a level where they are competitive for admission into medical school and other
professions. Tulane, as a research institution, places a heavy emphasis on research, in addition to
teaching and service. Toward the end of the program, two faculty (one Af/Am and one white) elected to
become 100% Xavier faculty and the other two became Tulane employees. All were subsequently
successful within the respective institutions. However, this approach, while innovative toward a goal of
faculty diversity, was not in the best interest of the career advancement of the young faculty. Tulane
provided extra time on the tenure clock for both its faculty to allow for the development of a research
program. One African-American female faculty in this program recently received tenure at SPHTM.
Since Hurricane Katrina, the rules governing the tenure clock have been slightly relaxed. Prior to
Hurricane Katrina, a very strict tenure clock was enforced and the rules made it impossible for faculty
to change tracks. After Katrina, requests for the extension of the time-clocks were granted to allow for
delays and setbacks related to the difficult conditions. This proved especially helpful in the case of
the faculty who had been shared with Xavier where extra time was needed to fulfill the research
criteria for tenure.
In the last self study, an issue with the gender distribution among rank and track was noted; the clinical
track/rank was mostly female assistant professors and tenured professors were primarily male. Several
faculty in the clinical track were carrying out the responsibilities for research, teaching and service
indistinguishable from tenure-track faculty, but without the option of tenure. The modification of the rules
governing the change of faculty tracks allowed qualified faculty to move from the clinical track to the
tenure-track. Seven women and four men in the clinical track were invited to switch to the tenure track.
All but one woman accepted the offer; she subsequently moved out of New Orleans due to the impact of
the hurricane. The Personal and Honors committee reviewed each and recommended the change in
track; those meeting the criteria were awarded tenure and promoted. This was particularly
advantageous for qualified female faculty who were previously locked in the clinical track. This rule
change provided for a more equitable situation and helped to align responsibilities and activities with the
faculty in the respective tracks.
SPHTM tracks the racial and gender composition of the faculty and monitors progress in achieving racial,
gender and cultural diversity. Since building a faculty is a long term endeavor, changes occur slowly.
Typically, there are only a few open positions in any year; it is particularly important to carefully track the
percent of minority and women faculty over time. The steps to achieve diversity include not only the
recruitment of women and minority faculty, but also the retention through career development and
advancement.
The SPHTM dean monitors the racial and gender composition of the faculty and students in each
department, and the distribution of faculty among the tracks and ranks. SPHTM has tracked racial and
gender composition for over 20 years to assess the long term evolution of faculty diversity. About 9
years ago, the clustering of female faculty as clinical assistant professors and the paucity of female
faculty as tenured full professors stimulated the school to initiate measures to rectify this imbalance.
Greater attention was directed toward faculty development and mentoring. The realignment of faculty in
tracks is a long term process, but success in achieving a better distribution of females in tenured
positions is now evident. At this time, it was also noted that SPHTM was fairly successful in recruiting
African-American faculty, but retention remains an issue.
4.3 E Additional Efforts to Establish and Maintain an Environment That Supports Diversity
As a part of its commitment, SPHTM takes steps to advance a culture of diversity in the school. Dean
Buekens formed a faculty taskforce on diversity to take a pulse on the state of diversity in the School and
to advise him on ways to improve the environmental to enhance the comfort factor of all races, cultures
and genders at the school. The 2009 taskforce report can be found in the Resource File.
02/01/10
Page 227
Section 4.3
Diversity is imbedded throughout SPHTM. Health disparities among the disadvantaged and the impact
of poverty and race is a major public health issue that is addressed in several courses throughout the
curriculum. Cultural sensitivity is intertwined through the curriculum, especially as it relates to developing
interventions and developing public health programs. With our emphasis on global public health, cultural
sensitivity is quite expansive and an essential competency for our students. SPHTM community-based
research occurs throughout the world and affords the opportunity for faculty and students to study and
develop interventions that are culturally appropriate. Methods developed internationally are often
brought back and applied to problems in New Orleans. Doctoral dissertations frequently address public
health problems dealing with health disparities and cultural factors. SPHTM promotes diversity through
social activities that involve students, faculty and staff. See Section 4.5 A for examples of social
activities to promote an appreciation of cultural and racial issues.
4.3 F Outcome Measures for Achieving a Diverse Faculty and Staff
SPTHM established 5 outcome measures that have been followed since 2000. These were developed
by an ad hoc Committee on Women and Minorities (WAM) and used in the last accreditation self study in
2002. The objective of the committee was to examine the diversity of the faculty, identify specific issues
and to develop recommendations to address problems. The objectives and outcome measures to
increase faculty diversity are:
•
•
•
•
•
Increase the number and percent of minority faculty to 30% by 2013
Increase the number and percent of minority faculty tenured or in the tenure- track
Increase measures for recruitment and retention of minority faculty, particularly African
Americans, to all tracks;
Increase the number and percentage of women faculty who have tenure and are in the tenuretrack
Increase the number and percent of women faculty in higher ranks
Increase the Number and Percent of Minority Faculty to at least 30% by 2013 :
The target is to increase the number of minority faculty to at least 30% by 2013. Strategies to achieve
this objective include: 1) increase the number of minority faculty by targeted recruitment as the school
expands the total number of faculty; and 2) retain minority faculty by insuring the environment is
welcoming, comfortable and supportive. SPHTM has slowly increased the percentage of total minority
faculty; however, the percent of African-American and Hispanic faculty has not increased (Table 4.3 F1).
Since the last accreditation site visit in 2002, the number of African-American faculty has decreased from
9% to 6% in 2009. The percent of Hispanics has also remained constant at 3%. SPHTM has shown the
largest increase among Asian faculty who have increased from 11% to 18%.
Table 4.3.F1 Percent of Minority Faculty Over the Last 3 Years Compared to 2001-02
Total Minority
African-American
Asian
Hispanic
White
*As of Oct, 2009
2001-02
22%
9%
11%
2%
78%
2006-07
23%
5%
15%
3%
77%
2007-08
24%
6%
15%
3%
76%
2008-09
26%
6%
17%
3%
74%
2009-10*
27%
6%
18%
3%
73%
Although SPHTM has actively sought to increase the number of minority faculty, particularly AfricanAmericans for two decades, the number of minority faculty has remained relatively constant. Since
changes in faculty composition occur over time, we tracked trends in minority numbers and percentages
from 1997 to 2009 (Table 4.3 F2). While we have been fairly successful in adding minorities to the
faculty, we have not been able to sustain an overall increase in numbers because we have not retained
them over the long-term. This is particularly true for African-American faculty.
02/01/10
Page 228
Section 4.3
Table 4.3.F2 The Number of Minority Faculty and Number in Tenured/Tenure Track 1997-2009
Total
Race
Year* Faculty
Total
AfricanHispanic
Asian
All
American
Minority
Total
T/TT
Total
T/TT
Total
T/TT
1997
103
20 (20%)
6
1
2
12
3
1998
105
21 (20%)
7
1
2
12
3
1999
106
19 (18%)
6
1
3
10
4
2000
107
19 (18%)
6
2
3
10
4
2001
110
24 (22%)
9
3
3
12
4
2002
113
24 (21%)
9
3
2
13
4
2003
115
24 (21%)
8
3
2
14
5
2004
118
26 (22%)
10
3
2
14
7
2005
118
24 (20%)
7
3
3
14
8
2006
100
23 (23%)
6
2
3
14
9
2007
99
24 (24%)
6
2
3
15
10
2008
99
27(27%)
6
2
3
18
13
2009
102
27 (27%)
6
2
3
18
13
*Count as of Fall of each year
Since 1997, SPHTM has hired 13 African-American faculty, but lost the same number; we are essentially
at the same number as we were 12 years ago. Increasing the percent of African-American and Hispanic
faculty has been elusive. To understand this better, we also tracked retention and reasons for minority
faculty leaving Tulane. Table 4.3 F3 shows the number of African-American faculty added and the
number lost each year since 1997.
Table 4.3.F3 Turnover of African-American Faculty 1998-2008
YEAR
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
Total
6
7
6
6
9
9
8
10
7
6
6
6
6
--
# Added
1
1
1
1
5
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
13
# Lost
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
13
We examined the reasons why African-American faculty have left Tulane to identify issues that may need
to be addressed. We found that each of the African-American faculty who left did so for a positive
reason and not because of social or ‘comfort’ factors at SPHTM or because of not meeting academic
criteria for retention. Of the 6 African-Americans who left since the last accreditation site visit, four were
hired by other universities. Of these, one was hired to head a large research center on minority health;
one was hired to head a large laboratory; two (one tenured) left after Hurricane Katrina – both lost homes
and chose not to return to New Orleans; each was immediately offered jobs elsewhere. One was hired
by a NGO to lead a large research project in Africa after 10 years at Tulane. One person retired after
many years at SPHTM. Had it not been for Hurricane Katrina, it is likely we would have retained two of
these faculty. In some respects, this turnover represents the national demand for the small pool of
02/01/10
Page 229
Section 4.3
doctoral level minorities, and reflects the hiring of minorities away by other universities or organizations.
The recruitment of our minority faculty by others indicates the qualifications and benefits of faculty
development. The loss of minority faculty points to the need for continuing aggressive recruitment of
minorities and increasing measures to retain our faculty.
Table 4.3 A3 shows the departmental distribution of minority faculty within SPHTM. All of the departments
have hired Asian faculty, however, only two departments, international health, and environmental health,
currently have African-American faculty. This indicates that greater efforts might be made by some
departments to recruit African-American faculty when positions become open. It should also be noted that
some disciplines, such as tropical medicine, and biostatistics, do not have many doctoral level minorities
in their fields. In these cases, efforts to train students in these areas is a priority.
If we compare the percent of minority faculty at SPHTM to that reported to ASPH by other schools of
public health in 2007, we are similar to other schools of public health. ASPH reports that of the more
than 4,600 public health faculty members, fewer than 5% are African-Americans and SPHTM is slightly
above this average at 6%. However, SPHTM faculty has only 3% Hispanic compared to an average of
6%. ASPH reports that minority faculty members indicate that they and their minority colleagues are
sometimes hired by sister schools or programs, thereby increasing the number of minority faculty
members at one institution while decreasing the number at another. SPHTM has observed this first
hand. Clearly, the challenge to all schools of public health is to educate more doctoral level students
who can then move into faculty positions.
Increase the Number and Percent of Tenured and Tenure-Track Minority Faculty by 2013:
SPHTM has 7 tenured minority faculty (16% of the tenured faculty) and 8 minority faculty (36% of the
tenure track faculty) in the tenure track; combined this represents 23% of the faculty in these tracks.
Table 4.3.F2 shows the steady increase in the number of tenure/tenure-track minority faculty. Two
African-Americans and five Asians are tenured. We have been successful in increasing the number of
tenured or tenure-track Asian faculty from four at the last site visit in 2002 to 13 in 2009. We have not
lost any tenured Asian faculty; we lost one tenured African-American faculty which resulted in a decrease
in these tracks. Two African-Americans were awarded tenure in the last three years.
Increasing the number of minority faculty in the tenure/tenure track is a strategy to achieve a sustainable
increase of minority faculty. Only a few tenure-track positions are opened each year and usually in a
targeted specialty area. In some fields, there are few minority candidates available. In spite of this,
SPHTM will continue to work to increase the number of minorities, particularly African-Americans and
Hispanics, in the tenure-tracks.
Increase Measures to Recruit and Retain Minority Faculty, Particularly African-Americans:
The success in recruiting 13 African-American faculty since 1997 is evidence of the concerted effort to
increase minority faculty at SPHTM (Table 4.3F3). Prior to Katrina, we were in a growth phase; in 2004
six new position opened and four of the six were filled by minority faculty; in 2005 prior to Katrina, 12
faculty were added and four (33%) were minority. Following Hurricane Katrina, growth slowed, however,
in 2006 to 2008, 13 new faculty were recruited to replace faculty who relocated; of these four (31%) were
minority. This shows the tenacity in recruiting minority candidates to join the faculty given the hardships
in post-Katrina New Orleans. The goal is to retain all of those recruited in the long term. We are
currently in a hiring “slow down” reflecting the economic conditions resulting from the national financial
crises, however, several searches are currently underway.
Using strategies developed by the 2001 WAM committee, targeted recruitment strategies have proven
successful in identifying qualified minority candidates. Recruitment using websites and journals that
primarily target minorities has not proven as successful as searching for minorities within a disciplinary
area. Greater success is achieved when the search committee seeks the names of minority
professionals or new graduates through their specific disciplinary professional organizations, other
02/01/10
Page 230
Section 4.3
universities or professional networks. Personal contact was a key factor in recruiting minority faculty
rather than non-disciplinary advertisement to minority publications and websites. This approach is used
in all faculty searches. As positions are opened in the tenure track, SPHTM must continue its efforts to
recruit minority faculty using the methods shown to be successful. Increasing minority faculty in the
tenure track is a recruitment goal.
Special attention is focused on increased measures, such as mentoring and professional development
within departments to bolster retention. Since the last site visit, all new faculty must develop a 3-year
plan and chairs are instructed to make sure the plan includes attention to the needs of minority faculty.
Building upon the mentoring process fostered by the Women’s Center, senior faculty give support to
junior faculty in common research areas and teaching. These measures have shown success as two
African-American faculty have received tenure in the last three years.
Increase the Number and Percentage of Tenured Women Faculty and Women in the Tenure-Track
In Fall 2009 female faculty make up 43% of the SPHTM core faculty (Table 4.3A1) which is slightly less
than the percentage of women (48%) at the last site visit. Although there were near equal numbers of
male and female faculty at that time, the distribution within tracks and ranks was not. Tenured and
tenure-track faculty were predominantly men (73% men vs 27% women) while the majority of the clinical
faculty were women (21% men vs 79% women); females comprised 66% of the non-tenure tracks. Yet,
many women in the non-tenure tracks had full responsibilities for teaching, research and service
comparable to those in tenure/tenure-tracks, but without the benefit of tenure. Substantial progress has
been made to achieve a more balanced gender distribution within rank and tracks. Now, 38% of faculty
in the tenure-tenure track are women as compared to 27% in 2002. As more tenure track positions are
opened in the next 4 years, the percent of females is likely to continue to continue increase. Those who
are in the clinical track have chosen this career path and have appropriate responsibilities.
As described in Section 4.1, the increase in the percent of faculty appointments in the tenured and
tenure-track following Hurricane Katrina provided the opportunity to change the gender distribution
among the tracks. The change in the university rule for switching tracks allowed several well qualified
faculty (many of these women) in the clinical and research tracks to move to the tenure-track. This rule
change, along with placing new faculty in tenure-track positions has resulted in a better balance and
provided the opportunity for more women to achieve tenure.
Table 4.3F4 Distribution of Males and Females Within Faculty Tracks
Tenure Tracks (Total)
Tenured
Tenure-track
2002-03
M
F
40 (73%)
15 (27%)
29 (76%)
9 (24%)
11 (65%)
6 (35%)
2008-09
M
F
42 (65%)
23 (35%)
28 (65%)
15 (35%)
14 (64%)
8 (46%)
Non-Tenure Tracks (Total)
Clinical
Research
19 (34%)
7 (21%)
12 (52%)
37 (66%)
26 (79%)
11 (48%)
14 (41%)
6 (32%)
8 (53%)
20 (59%)
13 (68%)
7 (47%)
59 (52%)
54 (48%)
56 (57%)
43 (43%)
Total
% within track
Increase the Number and Percent of Women Faculty in Higher Ranks
At the last site visit in 2002, faculty who held the rank of professor were overwhelmingly men (90%); only
two women were full professors. All chairs were instructed to actively review the records of female
faculty and to identify those who might be eligible for promotion. Senior women throughout the health
sciences campus mentored several who were close to the criteria for promotion to enhance their records.
The result was that 6 women were promoted to full professor since the last site visit bringing the total to
02/01/10
Page 231
Section 4.3
eight. Promotion to professor is an arduous process which will take time to fully effect this change.
While more is still to be done to achieve greater gender equity, tremendous steps have been made.
Table 4.3F5 shows the trends toward achieving gender balance among ranks and tracks at SPHTM.
Table 4.3F5: Distribution of Faculty in Rank and Track (Number of Faculty) over Time
1995-96
Rank
2002-03
Track
M
F
M
F
Tenured
22 (88%)
3 (12%)
20 (91%)
2 (9%)
Prof.
Tenure Track
1
Clinical
2
1
4
1
Research
2
3
TOTAL
26 (87%)
4 (13%)
28 (90%)
3 (10%)
Tenured
10
7
9
7
Assoc. Tenure Track
4
3
3
Clinical
1
3
4
Research
5
2
1
1
TOTAL
20 (70%)
9 (30%)
16 (52%)
15 (48%)
Tenured
1
Assist
Tenure Track
9
8
7
3
Clinical
4
3
0
15
Research
6
6
8
11
TOTAL
21 (50%)
21 (50%)
15 (34%)
29 (66%)
Clinical
3
6
Inst.
Research
1
1
Total
67 (67%)
34 (43%)
59 (52%)
54 (48%)
Faculty with 50% time and above included in the table.
% within track
*As of October 2009; includes new 3 new faculty from tables for 2008-09.
2009-10*
M
25 (73%)
1
3
29 (76%)
3
3
1
1
8 (40%)
F
9 (27%)
9 (24%)
7
1
4
12 (60%)
11
4
4
19 (44%)
56 (56%)
9
9
6
24 (56%)
1
46 (46%)
4.3 G Assessment
This criterion is met: 1) policies and procedures are in place and have been reviewed to insure equal
opportunities for all; 2) an in depth assessment of faculty diversity identified issues and solutions for
improving faculty diversity; 3) the SPHTM is committed to targeted recruitment and enhanced retention of
minority faculty; 4) chairs are focusing efforts to foster the career development of junior faculty to support
promotion and tenure of women and minority faculty. Measures are in place to monitor progress and
foster diversity.
SPHTM has been relatively successful in recruiting minority faculty, yet there has not been a net gain
because of departures to other career opportunities or planned retirements. This mirrors the national
situation where there is a paucity of minority doctoral level professionals who pursue careers in
academia. The competition for doctoral level minority faculty is great as private industry offers much
higher salaries and other universities or agencies provide career incentives or opportunities for spouses
beyond those available in the New Orleans area. Feedback from those who have left indicates career
opportunities and not discomfort at SPHTM were the reason for leaving. The SPHTM’s efforts in
recruiting minority faculty have shown success, and our current focus is to retain the minority faculty
while continuing to recruit additional minorities to SPHTM. A greater number of minority faculty,
particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, is a goal of SPHTM.
At the last site visit, the self-study identified the gender imbalance between the tenure/tenure-track and
the clinical track; the lack of females at full professor; and large number of female assistant professors in
the clinical track. SPHTM has endeavored to enhance both racial and gender diversity by targeting
specific measures to increase the number of minority faculty, increase the number of women with tenure
02/01/10
Page 232
Section 4.3
and in the tenure track, and develop better mentoring for the career development of all young faculty for
success in academic careers. SPHTM has achieved some success in increasing the number of women
at the tenured and full professor ranks by changing clinical and research faculty with the qualifications to
the tenure track and/or granting tenure. SPHTM has increased the percentage of faculty in the
tenure/tenure track relative to the clinical track to insure that responsibilities are consistent with
appointment in a track. Mentoring plays an important role in nurturing junior faculty and can be further
enhanced to foster career development leading promotion in rank in all tracks.
SPHTM is committed to assembling and maintaining a diverse faculty and staff. With our long tradition in
global public health, we have a rich cultural diversity which complements our goals for racial and gender
diversity. This commitment is carried out in numerous formal and informal actions. SPHTM faculty are
personally committed to diversity and this value is promulgated during recruitment, faculty development,
teaching, research and community-involvement.
02/01/10
Page 233
Section 4.4 Student Recruitment and Admission
4.4 A Recruitment Policies
Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine recruits and admits qualified students
regardless of age, sex, race, sexual orientation, disability, or national origin. The SPHTM seeks students
with personal and professional backgrounds and educational achievement that indicate the motivation
necessary to undertake graduate level study in the public health sciences. The SPHTM actively seeks
students among employed health professionals and experienced international workers, as well as new
and recent baccalaureate degree holders.
Recruitment Procedures:
The SPHTM attracts qualified applicants through:
• Brochures, catalog and other written materials
• Website and other Internet /electronic /Web-based materials
• APHA and other professional meetings
• Graduate and professional school recruitment fairs at universities throughout the US and
internationally which are hosted by colleges and universities and organizations such as
Idealist.org and the World Grad Tour.
• Targeted recruitment at neighboring Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), such as
Dillard and Xavier University in New Orleans, in addition to Morehouse College and Spellman
College in Atlanta, Georgia.
• Master’s Internationalist Collaboration with the US Peace Corps.
• Promoting 4/1 BSPH/MPH degree with Tulane undergraduate students who have completed
Tulane’s undergraduate bachelor of science in public health degree.
Recent Recruitment Activities:
• The SPHTM purchases advertising space in Worldview Magazine, a US Peace Corps publication
and is a member of the Peace Corps Hot Line. The edition of Worldview Magazine introduces
Tulane University to 19,000 readers associated with the Peace Corps. Due to their broad
experience, enthusiasm and ambitions, Returning Peace Corps Volunteers have consistently
made significant contributions to the student body. Academically, these students are wellmotivated and high achievers. Dean’s Grant Awards are available for exceptional Master’s
International and Returned Peace Corps Volunteer applicants who have expressed a
commitment to global public health service through the SPHTM Office of Admissions.
• In 2007, 2008, and 2009, faculty and SPHTM recruiters participated in career days at other
universities and professional and recruitment meetings in the US and internationally.
• In 2007 and/or 2008, SPHTM recruiters attended career days at regional colleges with targeted
recruitment at HBCU’s such as Xavier University, Dillard University, Morehouse College, and
Spellman College in Atlanta, Georgia.
• In 2007 and/or 2008, SPHTM recruiters attended US Career fairs at Boston University, The
George Washington University, The University of the South-Sewanee, Tennessee, Rhodes
College, UCLA, UC-Riverside, UC-Berkeley, The New England Health Professions Career Fair,
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Northwestern University in Chicago, Louisiana
State University, Emory University, University of Texas, University of Michigan, University of
Wisconsin, Idealist.org Graduate Fairs in Portland, Seattle, New York, and Los Angeles.
• SPHTM recruiters attended international career fairs in Geneva (2007), London (2007), and in
five cities in India which included Delhi (2007), Hyderabad (2007, 2008), Bangalore (2007, 2008),
Chennai (2009), and Mumbai (2007, 2009).
• SPHTM admissions office staff attend the annual meeting of the American Public Health
Association’s National Conference. The SPHTM is an active participant in ASPH-Visit Day which
allows undergraduates to be exposed to graduate programs and career opportunities in the public
health sciences.
• SPHTM dean of admissions attends the Annual Public Health Awareness Conference at
Morehouse College in Atlanta. This conference is designed to encourage minority/underrepresented students to pursue careers in the public health sciences and familiarize them with
relevant training pathways.
02/01/10
Page 234
•
•
•
•
SPHTM faculty give regular presentations to Tulane Undergraduate Pre-Med Society and the
Loyola University Pre-Med Society in New Orleans.
In the fall of 2007, the SPHTM Office of Admissions was part of a group of ASPH schools of
public health which launched the Schools of Public Health Application Service (SOPHAS). This
centralized application system allows applicants to submit applications, career statements, and
letters of recommendation in a ‘one-stop shop’ and to apply to several schools concurrently. As of
June 2009, 31 out of the 40 CEPH accredited schools of public health are participating in
SOPHAS.
The SPHTM continues to make available additional moneys for academic scholarships to
targeted groups possessing limited resources and substantial outstanding undergraduate loans.
Scholarship funds include the Randolph Hearst Scholarship Award and the US Public Health
Traineeships.
The SPHTM offers innovative executive, mid-career and distance-based Internet programs to
meet the needs of full-time and part-time students, and non-traditional students including
continuing education programs, non-traditional degree offerings, and off-site programs through
the Center for Applied Environmental Public Health (CAEPH) and through the Department of
Health Systems Management.
4.4 B Statement of Admissions Policies and Procedures
SPHTM has well defined admissions policies and procedures. The SPHTM Office of Admissions
manages and oversees the application and admission process. Faculty review all applications and
determine qualifications for admission based on departmental criteria. Two standing committees, the
Admission Committee and the Doctoral Committee, provide additional faculty review and input.
Admissions Committee: The Admissions Committee is a school-wide committee and has a
representative from each of the seven departments in the SPHTM. The responsibilities of this standing
committee are to:
• Evaluate and recommend admissions policies
• Recommend change(s) in policies.
• Monitor student aid and scholarship awards.
• Evaluate recruiting programs and suggest new recruitment strategies.
• Encourage alumni activities, including alumni volunteers who assist in recruiting.
• Assess recruiting strategies and develop new approaches for the recruitment of new students
Doctoral Committee: The Doctoral Committee is also a school-wide committee with representatives
from each of the seven departments. The responsibilities of this standing committee are to:
• Evaluate, update, and disburse approved doctoral policies and procedures.
• Monitor doctoral students whenever appropriate
• Review exceptions to current policies and make recommendations to the members of the
Executive Faculty.
Admission Requirements for the Master Programs : Admissions requirements, listed below,
represent the minimal standards set by the SPHTM. Additional requirements and standards may be
stipulated by the various departments. Applicants for admission to the Master of Public Health (MPH),
Master of Public Health and Tropical Medicine (MPH&TM), Master of Science in Public Health (MSPH),
and Master of Health Administration (MHA) degree programs must have:
• A baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution.
• A strong undergraduate record with a grade point average (GPA) of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale.
• Graduate Record Examination (GRE) with combined verbal and quantitative scores of at least
1000. (Required of all graduates from US institutions of higher learning). When appropriate, the
Graduate Management Achievement Test (GMAT), the Medical Colleges Admission Test
(MCAT), or the Miller Analogies Test (MAT) may be substituted.
• Scores from the Test of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the International English
02/01/10
Page 235
•
•
Language Testing System (IELTS) are required of applicants from non-English-speaking nations.
The minimum acceptable score is 570 on the Paper-Based TOEFL Test and 230 on the
Computer Based TOEFL Test and 6.5-7 for the IELTS Test.
A written statement of career goals.
Recommendations from three individuals familiar with academic or professional performance.
Additional programmatic admission requirements: Applicants to the MPH&TM program must possess a
doctor of medicine degree, another health professional degree (RN, DO, DVM), or be currently enrolled
in the Tulane School of Medicine. Applicants to the MSPH in industrial hygiene have additional program
requirements as required by ABET: The baccalaureate degree is based on a minimum of 120 semester
hours or the equivalent and includes 60 or more semester-hours credits in undergraduate or graduatelevel courses in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, at least 15 of which are at the upper
(junior, senior, graduate) level; a minimum of 21 semester hours credits or equivalent, in
communications, humanities, and social sciences.
Admission Requirements for Doctor of Public Health (DrPH), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and
Doctor of Science (ScD) degrees:
Admissions requirements listed below represent the minimal standards for doctoral programs set by the
School. Additional requirements are stipulated by some programs.
• Completion of the requirements for a master's degree or 30 graduate-level credits in a field
related to the doctoral area of study. Exceptions are made for outstanding students holding only
baccalaureate degrees. For the DrPH program, a Master of Public Health (MPH), Master of
Science in Public Health (MSPH) or an equivalent degree is required.
• For students with a master's degree, a grade point average (GPA) of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale for
graduate coursework is preferred.
• A combined verbal and quantitative score of 1200 or greater is preferred on the Graduate Record
Examination (GRE). Official test scores (GRE, MCAT or GMAT, as specified by the applicant’s
department) are required of all doctoral applicants.
• For applicants from non-English speaking nations, a minimum Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL) score of 88 for the Internet Based Test (IBT), 230 for the computer based test
(CBT), or 570 for paper based test (PBT) is required.
Under rare circumstances, exceptions to these minimum criteria will be considered by the Doctoral
Programs Committee upon the written request of the chair of the department to which the applicant is
seeking admission. Students applying for admission to doctoral programs based on graduate degrees
from other universities must have the adequacy of their prior academic preparation evaluated and
approved by the faculty and chair of the department in which the doctoral degree is sought.
Application process: The application process for both master’s and doctoral programs includes
documentation that the student has the ability to succeed at SPHTM. To apply to SPHTM, prospective
students must provide the following:
• A completed application submitted through the SOPHAS Centralized Application Service with a
non-refundable application fee of $ 95 is required for a single application.
• Official transcripts of all baccalaureate and graduate coursework should be forwarded directly
from each college or university to SOPHAS, the online application that verifies the transcripts of
Tulane applicants.
• GRE scores sent directly to Tulane using school code 6809 and department code 0616.
• A written statement of career goals and objectives is required, and should not exceed 1500 words
submitted as a part of the application on the SOPHAS system.
• Three letters of recommendation submitted through the SOPHAS application or sent directly to
Tulane SPHTM Admissions. Written recommendations are required from individuals who are
familiar with the applicant's academic and/or professional performance. At least one of the
recommendations must be from a person with an earned doctorate and preferably at least one
from outside Tulane University.
02/01/10
Page 236
Admission process: Applications for admission to both the master’s and doctoral programs are
received and processed by the Office of Admissions. The Director of Admissions reviews each
application for completeness and minimal standards and forwarded the application to the appropriate
department.
For the master’s programs, each department reviews applications and makes admission decisions based
on the departmental standards. Departments consider the applicants’ GPA, GRE scores, career goals
and recommendations. Students are admitted to the SPHTM on a rolling admissions basis which
includes summer, spring and fall matriculation options. The department makes a recommendation to the
dean of admissions who issues the final approval and signs the letter of acceptance or the letter of
denial. Those not meeting minimal school-wide requirements are denied admission.
For the doctoral programs, the department reviews the applicant for previous academic performance,
GPA, GRE scores, career goals and recommendations. In addition, the department determines if there is
a faculty member with appropriate expertise to act as a mentor for the student. A limited number of
doctoral students can be accepted in some areas because of faculty time and research resources. After
a department accepts a student, the application is forwarded to the Doctoral Committee of the SPHTM
for a recommendation for acceptance or denial into the program.
Admission Requirements for Joint Degree Programs: Admission to the joint degree programs
requires a separate application to each school; and the applicant must be accepted at both schools to
enter a joint degree program. For example, students must apply separately to the Schools of Medicine,
Law or Social Work, respectively, as well as the SPHTM. The SPHTM reviews the applications in the
same manner as described above.
4.4 C Recruitment Materials
The SPHTM website address, www.sph.tulane.edu , contains the SPHTM’s policies, procedures for
admission and degree requirements. Examples of recruitment materials and other publications and
advertising are available in the Resource File.
• SPHTM catalog: The catalog is published in hard-copy bi-annually and is also available on the
school website.
• SPHTM Global Health Newsletter, published twice yearly.
• Departmental and Program flyers are distributed at appropriate conferences and career fairs.
• SPHTM website: The SPHTM website contains information about the school, each department,
faculty, application requirements and procedures, degree requirements, course offerings and
extensive additional information about the school, organizations, and research centers. The
website contains the most up to date information about the school.
• One-Page Departmental Overviews: Each academic department in the school publishes a special
one-page overview which details the specific unit’s mission and highlights faculty research.
• Video: The SPHTM Office of Admissions has filmed leading SPHTM research and teaching
faculty at various Open House recruitment events. These faculty members share their own
personal journeys into teaching and research in the public health sciences. The videos are
posted periodically on the School website.
• Social Networking: The SPHTM Office of Admissions is utilizing Facebook to connect applicants
who are applying the Master’s International Program.
4.4 D Quantitative Information on the Number of Applicants, Acceptances and Enrollment
Quantitative data on the number of applicants, the % accepted and the % of those accepted who enroll is
provided in Table 4.4 D1 (Template J) for the last three years. This included 2006-07 academic year
which is the first academic year following Hurricane Katrina. The subsequent years reflect SPHTM
performance in the Post-Katrina era. The SPHTM applicant, acceptance and enrollment is compared to
the average for all Schools of Public Health as reported by the Association of Schools of Public Health
(ASPH) in the ASPH Annual Reports in Table 4.4.D2. In 2007, SPHTM joined the SOPHAS centralized
application service that consolidates the application process for many schools of public health and allows
02/01/10
Page 237
prospective students to apply to several schools of public health concurrently. The number of
applications has steadily increased as it is easier for students to apply to multiple schools.
Table 4.4 D1 Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, and New Enrollments
2006-07
Biostatistics
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
CHSC
Applied
Health
Accepted
Education
Enrolled
CHSC
Applied
Maternal and
Accepted
Child Health
Enrolled
CHSC
Applied
Nutrition
Accepted
Enrolled
Environmental
Applied
Health
Accepted
Sciences
Enrolled
Epidemiology
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Health
Applied
Systems
Accepted
Management
Enrolled
International
Applied
Health
Accepted
Enrolled
Tropical
Applied
Medicine
Accepted
Enrolled
Total
Applied
Traditional
Accepted
Programs
Enrolled
Non-Traditional Programs
ENHS
Applied
Distance
Accepted
Learning
Enrolled
HSMG)
Applied
Executive
Accepted
programs
Enrolled
SPHTM total
#
24
18
4
30
26
20
75
63
28
12
11
4
81
72
26
155
122
22
117
85
39
384
314
95
93
66
30
971
777
268
52
40
36
33
24
23
%*
75%
22%
86%
76%
84%
44%
91%
36%
89%
55%
79%
18%
73%
46%
82%
30%
71%
45%
80%
34%
77%
90%
72%
95%
2007-08
#
27
17
8
64
54
22
93
75
30
19
15
1
41
28
15
201
163
31
126
91
56
417
347
104
83
60
45
1071
850
312
43
40
35
35
26
17
%*
63%
47%
84%
41%
81%
40%
79%
7%
68%
54%
81%
19%
72%
62%
83%
29%
72%
75%
79%
36%
93%
87%
74%
65%
Applied
1056
1071
Accepted
841
80%
916
86%
Enrolled
327
39%
364
40%
% Accepted = # accepted/# applied
% Enrolled = # enrolled/# accepted.
02/01/10
2008-09
#
31
25
5
75
57
18
144
118
32
18
15
7
42
40
17
214
173
46
135
101
44
466
387
135
77
69
46
1202
985
350
48
34
27
16
13
5
1304
1032
382
%*
80%
20%
76%
32%
82%
27%
83%
47%
95%
43%
80%
27%
75%
44%
83%
35%
87%
67%
82%
36%
Fall 2009*
#
36
24
2
120
90
21
111
92
24
13
12
4
35
23
8
158
118
27
135
81
27
321
227
52
71
53
27
1000
720
192
81%
38%
29
28
19
2
2
0
79%
37%
1031
750
211
71%
79%
%*
67%
8%
75%
23%
83%
26%
92%
33%
66%
35%
75%
23%
60%
33%
71%
23%
75%
51%
72%
27%
97%
68%
100%
73%
28%
Page 238
SPHTM has had a steady increase in applications in the last two years showing a strong recovery after
Hurricane Katrina and dispelling fears that the destruction of Hurricane Katrina would discourage
students from attending SPHTM. Applications have increased steadily each year to a high of 1304 in
2008-09, an increase of 21% over 2007. The number of new students who enrolled increased from 327
in 2006 to 382 in 2008. The number of applications and enrollment are indications of increased
confidence in the recovery of Tulane and New Orleans. In fact, many students have sought admission to
Tulane to help in the rebuilding of the city and to study public health issues in a post-disaster
environment. The dedication of the students is palpable in courses and in the students’ service activities.
Within departments, applications, acceptances and enrollments are similar to the school-wide trends in
terms of the percent accepted and enrolled (see Table 4.4D1). The greatest number of applicants is to
the Department of International Health and Development; the large number of applicants has translated
into a high student enrollment and subsequently led to the escalating student-faculty ratio.
To assess the effectiveness of SPHTM’s recruitment, the percent of acceptances and the percent of
those who enrolled are compared to the average of all schools of public health as reported ASPH (Table
4.4D2). SPHTM accepts approximately 80% of applicants as compared to the average of approximately
53% at other schools of public health. In 2008, of those accepted, 36% enrolled in SPHTM as
compared to the average 43% at other schools of public health. The lower percent who enroll may be a
function of SOPHAS which facilitates applicants applying to multiple schools with one application and
one fee. In 2008, 11.8% of SOPHAS applicants applied to SPHTM. Nationally, the average of the
percent who enroll at all schools of public also shows some decline at the time SOPHAS was
implemented. This overall lower percent who enroll may reflect students’ shopping for the best financial
package in terms of scholarships and loans.
For SPHTM, the objective is to bring the percent accepted in line with the average of other schools of
public health while increasing the percent accepted who enroll. However, this requires a concomitant
effort to increase the percent who enroll and enter the degree.
Table 4.4 D2 Trends in Applications, Acceptances, Students Enrolled*
Applications
# SPHTM Applications
% accepted at SPHTM
Âvg % accepted at all SPH
2002
2006
2007
2008
2009
864
76.9%
57.7%
971
80%
53.3%
1071
79%
53.3%
1202
82%
52.8%
1000
72%
N/A
Enrollments
# SPHTM enrollments
333
268
312
350
% accepted who enrolled in SPHTM
51.7%
34%
36%
36%
Âvg % accepted who enrolled at all SPH
46.9%
49.4%
44.3%
43.1%
* Traditional on-campus programs to be comparable to ASPH data
a
Fall 2009 data only; other years include all 3 semesters of applications and enrollments
ÂSPH Annual Reports used to compare to all schools of public health.
a
a
192
a
27%
N/A
4.4 E Quantitative Information on the Number of Students Enrolled in Each Specialty Area
Quantitative data on the distribution of students who enrolled in each program for the last three years is
provided in Table 4.4.E1.
02/01/10
Page 239
Table 4.4 E1 (Template K) Students Enrolled Degree Programs
Fall 2006
HC
FT
BIOS (Total)
MSPH in BIOS
MS in BIOS
PhD in BIOS
ScD in BIOS
CHSC (Total)
MPH in MCH
MPH in HEC
MPH in Nutrition
MPH in CHSC
DrPH in CHSC
PhD in CHSC
ENHS Total
MPH in ENHS
MSPH in ENHS
ScD in ENHS
PhD in ENHS
EPID Total
MPH in EPID
MS - EPID
MS - Clinic. EPID
DrPH in EPID
PhD in EPID
HSMG Total
MPH in HSMG
MHA
PhD in HSMG
DrPH in HSMG
INHD Total
MPH in INHD
PhD in INHD
DrPH in INHD
TRMD Total
MPH&TM
MSPH in
Parasitology
PhD in TRMD
Total on-campus
students
BSPH Total
Distance
Learning - ENHS
MPH in OHSM
MPH in OEH
MSPH in IH
MPH in DM
Executive Prog.
(HSMG)
MMM
ScD – EDOC
EMPH -Taiwan
Total
Total head count
02/01/10
Fall 2007
HC
PT
23
1
12
10
51
18
10
3
7
13
26
10
4
1
11
33
22
11
31
24
1
6
139
66
70
3
30
8
14
8
FTE
333
620
118
365.1
38.0
48.4
98
28
71
17
30
31
23.4
5.4
19.6
32.3
20
8
353
5
26
482
835
23.3
9.0
483.8
3
1
2
43
23
5
2
10
3
23
3
14
2
4
43
39
1
3
34
14
14
2
4
94
82
11
1
47
17
26
4
287
38
5.3
1.5
2.3
4.4
48.7
29.9
8.6
2.3
11.7
4.8
31.9
8.0
16.0
1.5
5.4
53.7
48.7
1
4
44.2
24.7
14.0
5.5
123.7
105.3
17.4
1.0
57.6
21.3
30.3
6.0
HC
FT
Fall 2008
HC
PT
12
1
7
4
28
10
4
1
4
9
39
24
9
1
5
21
11
1
1
1
7
30
8
15
1
6
72
53
16
3
26
12
9
5
FTE
8.2
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.2
61.1
22.3
16.5
6.5
12.7
3.1
31.4
14.0
11.8
2.6
3.0
55.4
46.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
5.3
57.7
31.2
21.0
2.5
3.0
164.7
117.5
46.0
1.2
72.3
28.1
41.2
3.0
HC
FT
10
4
1
1
4
57
18
13
8
17
1
26
17
5
1
3
57
51
1
1
1
3
42
22
15
4
1
134
132
1
1
52
7
45
0
320
652
111
450.8
378
498.9
415
98.0
36.4
177
228
606
75
177.0
35.6
29
68
16
27
26
14.5
9.3
12.6
32.2
24
31
12
26
6
23
18
11
459
4
22
457
916
20.2
11.0
617.4
15
9
579
1
22
326
905
7
4
1
2
48
18
14
6
10
24
12
8
2
2
45
38
1
1
1
4
42
16
21
2
3
108
99
8
1
58
18
39
1
332
HC
PT
17
9
8
35
7
6
1
5
16
26
6
9
2
9
30
21
1
8
36
29
2
5
140
61
76
3
36
17
10
9
FTE
Fall 2009
12.3
4.6
1.0
2.5
4.2
67.0
22.7
14.3
8.6
19.1
1.3
1.0
41.5
27.5
7.8
1.0
5.2
66.9
56.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
5.8
49.0
26.3
15.0
4.2
1.7
198.5
150.8
2.1
1.4
63.7
16.0
47.3
0.4
HC
FT
8
7
1
79
45
14
6
13
1
18
15
2
1
70
60
4
1
5
57
34
17
6
123
123
60
10
50
HC
PT
16
2
2
7
5
22
10
3
1
2
5
1
14
4
1
9
28
16
2
2
8
36
26
6
4
97
70
22
5
48
28
12
FTE
12.4
7.3
1.3
1.9
1.9
92.7
52.7
16.6
6.3
14.7
1.1
1.3
21.1
15.0
2.7
0
3.4
80.5
67.2
5.6
1.8
5.9
70.5
47.2
17.0
6.3
0
145.8
141.9
3.3
0.6
79.3
24.7
53.8
0.8
502.3
227
12
8
261
676
87
14.3
7.3
7.3
1.0
24.8
3
2
1
1
23
26
18
28
13
46
14.5
13.3
18.3
10.6
30.6
15.6
9.2
736.3
9
14
677
22
24
394
1071
9.0
14.0
7.6
816.6
227
56.7
Page 240
Number of Students and Faculty Student Ratios: At the time of the last accreditation in 2002,
SPHTM had a total of 970 (735 FTE) students in the primary on-campus programs with and S/F of 8.7.
In 2004 the decision was made to limit the growth of the student body while increasing the number of
faculty. In 2008-09, SPHTM had 606 students (499 FTE) in the on-campus programs (Table 4.4E2). In
the last three years, the enrollment has stabilized averaging 626 students/year; however, the student
FTE has steadily increased by 35%. In one way, the increase in the FTE reflects a greater number of
students attending full time (>9 credits/semester) and is another sign of returning to a more normal
situation as time from the hurricane increases. This also indicates that limiting enrollment may not
always decrease the FTE. (See Section 4.4F)
Table 4.4 E2 Master’s and Doctoral Students Enrolled in SPHTM^
2001
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total Head Count
970*
620
652
606
676
Student FTE
735
365
451
499
502
Student/Faculty Ratio
8.7
5.2
6.3
6.7
6.3
^Students in the on-campus master’s and doctoral programs are tracked; students in the distance learning and
executive programs are not counted with the core on-campus programs. (See section 1.6E).
*To keep the numbers comparable, the 2001 number includes 95 PhD students who were counted in the Graduate
School that year.
Table 4.4E3 shows the distribution of students across departments presented as the number, student full
time equivalent (FTE) and S/F ratio (See section 1.6E). INHD consistently has the largest number of
students and highest S/F reaching an unacceptable level of 14.1 in 2008. While still high, it declined to
10.4 in 2009. In 2008, other departments had S/F ratios ranging from 1.6 to 7.1 indicating that several
had the capacity to absorb more students. In 2009, the S/F ratio decreased in INHD, while it rose in
three other departments. While we have only one year of data, it appears that students have distributed
better among the departments. Lowering the S/F ratio in INHD can be achieved by 1) increasing the
number faculty; 2) limiting enrollment in the department, and 3) migrating students to other departments
with fewer students by enhancing their global focus. Managing the S/F ratio is an objective and is
addressed in Section 4.4F. However, managing the S/F ratio is difficult as the total FTE has been
variable over the last four years (See Table 4.4F1.)
Table 4.4 E3 Master’s and Doctoral Students Enrolled by Department (On-Campus Programs)
#
2001
FTE
27
124
91
137
105
168
83
735
S/F
2006
FTE
26
5.3
94
48.7
49
31.9
76
53.7
65
44.2
233^ 124
77
57.6
620
365
#
S/F
2007
FTE
24
8.2
83
61.1
50
31.4
75
55.4
78
57.7
248^ 165
94
72.3
652
451
#
S/F
#
2008
FTE
12.3
67.0
41.5
66.9
49.0
199
63.7
499
S/F
#
2009
FTE
12.4
92.7
21.1
80.5
70.5
146
79.3
502
S/F
BIOS
34
5.5
0.7
1.3
22
1.6
24
1.6
CHSC
157
7.3
4.6
4.9
85
6.1
101
8.4
ENHS
159
6.5
2.7
3.5
65
3.8
32
1.7
EPID
162
8.0
5.4
6.0
78
5.6
98
5.3
HSMG
133
5.9
5.0
6.0
72
6.2
93
7.5
INHD
226
8.3
10.5
12.0 206
14.7 220
10.4
TRMD
101
5.7
6.1
7.6
78
7.1
108
8.3
Total
970*
8.7
5.2
6.3
606
6.9
676
6.3
SPHTM
Number for Fall enrollment each year.
*To keep the numbers comparable, the 2001 numbers include 95 PhD students who were counted in the Graduate
School that year.
FTE rounded for space needs in some cells.
Înclude doctoral students from the Uptown Payson Center that were administratively assigned to SPHTM following
the dissolution of the Graduate School.
Distribution of Students among Degree Programs: Table 4.4E4 shows the number of students in
each SPHTM degree program. The majority (~80%) of master’s students are enrolled in a MPH program.
In the last three years, the distribution of students within the degree programs has remained relatively
02/01/10
Page 241
steady. The overall decrease in student numbers from 2001-02 is most prominently seen in the MPH, the
largest program. In 2008, 15% of students were enrolled in a doctoral program; this number is a better
indication than the previous two years when a large number of Payson Center doctoral students were
temporarily assigned to SPHTM following the dissolution of the Graduate School (See Section 2.10).
Table 4.4 E4 Number of Students by Degree Program
MPH
MSPH
MPH&TM
MHA
MS
Total masters
Total Doctoral
Total SPHTM
Fall 2001
552
175
19
36
782
188
970*
Fall 2006
338
60
25
14
437
183*
620
Fall 2007
349
71
35
21
3
478
174*
652
Fall 2008
397
74
19
30
5
520
86
606
Fall 2009
438
77
38
17
6
576
98
676
* Includes Payson Center Doctoral students temporarily assigned to SPHTM after Katrina
Full time Students: The University Registrar reports that ~75% of all SPHTM students are enrolled
on a full time basis. The Registrar counts all students regardless of program, so these counts include
students in the distance learning and executive programs which are designed for part time study for
midcareer students. Prior to Katrina, the majority of part time students were working public health
professionals, many from the Louisiana Office of Public Health (LOPH), seeking a MPH. Many classes
were scheduled in evenings to accommodate them. However, since Katrina, fewer working
professionals attend SPHTM because of heavier workloads, the move of many sections of LOPH to
Baton Rouge, and other post-Katrina difficulties. In the two years following Katrina, SPHTM observed
that fewer students were enrolled full time, with full time enrollment dropping to 41.8% in 2006. This is
trend is also reflected in the ratio of student FTE/head count which dropped during these years (Table
4.4F1). Focus groups indicated that students chose to actively volunteer in the rebuilding efforts and
decreased their course load.
From 2006-07 to 2008-09 the number of students (head count) remained relatively steady, however, the
FTE increased substantially (~133 FTE) (Table 1.6 E.) as the percent of full time students increased
(Table 4.4E5). The FTE impacts the S/F ratio and its variability makes it difficult to manage the S/F.
Table 4.4 E5 Percent of Full-Time and Part-Time Students
Full time course work
Full time dissertation
Total full time
Part time
2001-02
56.0
16.7
72.7
27.3
2006 -07
41.8
33.4
75.2
24.8
2007-08
48.0
27.3
75.3
24.7
2008-09
54.1
23.3
77.4
22.6
2009-10
52.6
22.8
75.4
24.6
Source of Data: Tulane Registrar School Profiles
Student Qualifications: A review of the applicants accepted shows they are well qualified and that
SPHTM attracts a strong applicant pool. The average GPA of SPHTM applicants is equal to that of all
students applying through SOPHAS. While SPHTM accepts a relatively high number of applicants,
those accepted are well qualified and meet admission requirements. The GRE was examined but found
not to be a good indicator of student quality and performance in the SPHTM master’s professional
degree programs. While the average GRE was above 1100, it was not a consistent indicator for many
types of students. It best reflected performance of students who came directly from undergraduate
programs. It was not an accurate indicator for international students who consistently scored lower
because of low scores on the verbal component; they frequently had very high scores on the quantitative
sections. It is not unexpected that non-English speakers would not score as high on the verbal section.
In addition, the GRE was not indicative of performance of midcareer students.
02/01/10
Page 242
Table 4.4 E6 Characteristics of SPHTM Applicants and the Average of All SPH applicants
2006
SPHTM
All SPH
Average GPA
3.4
3.43
Data obtained from SPHTM SOPHAS
2007
SPHTM
All SPH
3.33
3.38
2008
SPHTM
ALL SPH
3.35
3.34
2009
SPHTM
ALL SPH
3.36
N/A
Undergraduate BSPH Students: The number of students in the BSPH program is rapidly growing
reflecting a keen interest in public health among undergraduate students. Tulane University
undergraduate programs are among the most selective in the nation and the undergraduate students
have exceptional academic records. These students represent a very highly qualified pool of applicants
to the BSPH program which is proving a pathway to attract some of the best students into careers in
public health. The first students were accepted into the program in 2005 and entered Tulane University a
few days before Katrina struck. All of those first students returned when Tulane reopened in January,
2006. In the following semesters, several of the upperclassmen changed their major to Public Health
and the program has been growing steadily ever since. The interest in public health at the
undergraduate level is immense. Table 4.4E7 shows the growth in declared public health majors in the
undergraduate programs. This does not reflect the large number of non-major students who take the
undergraduate public health courses offered on the Uptown Campus.
Table 4.4 E7 Undergraduate Enrollment by year (Declared majors)
Year
Freshmen
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors
Total
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
8
18
39
70
71
0
10
27
41
70
0
10
25
36
47
0
0
7
32
39
8
38
98
179
227
We have found that the undergraduate public health majors are fully dedicated to careers in public
health. As we have observed among the graduate level SPHTM students, the dedication and spirit of
volunteerism among the post-Katrina classes has been overwhelming and demonstrates characteristics
of individuals committed to public health.
4.4 F Outcome Measures
SPHTM works to build a qualified student body and to provide a superior education in public health. The
outcome measures track SPHTM’s performance in achieving a capable student body and providing a
public health education. Outcome measures are also used to assess SPHTM recovery after Hurricane
Katrina. The outcome measures include:
• Limit new resident graduate student enrollment to 350 per year by 2013
• Decrease the percent accepted to 50% by 2013
• Increase the enrollment of those accepted to at least 45% by 2013
• Balance the number and distribution of students in degree programs to achieve a Student/Faculty
ratio of no more than 8.0 in any department
• Increase the number of training grants to 15 by 2013
• Enroll 100 new undergraduate public health majors each year
Limit new resident graduate student enrollment to 350 per year by 2013
One of the school’s primary objectives is to reduce the S/F ratio to 6.0 by 2013 (Section 1.6). This will be
accomplished by increasing the number of faculty to 125 (Section 4.1) while limiting the addition of new
students to 350/year to modulate growth. Prior to 2004, SPHTM experienced a high rate of growth with
number of students in the master’s (MPH, MSPH, MPH&TM, MHA) and doctoral programs. In the last 6
years, SPHTM has attempted to slowly decrease the total number of students to balance the growth of
the student body with the faculty resources. Table 4.4F1 shows that SPHTM has decreased the number
of students by approximately 35% since 2001.
02/01/10
Page 243
Table 4.4F1 shows the S/F ratio has increased since 2006 while the number of students has remained
relatively steady. This shows that limiting enrollment alone is not sufficient to decrease the student
faculty ratio. The percent of part time students influences the total student FTE. Since Katrina, the FTE
has been variable. To help estimate the expected student FTE, the ratio of the total number of students
(head count) and the student FTE was calculated (Table 4.4F1). Reviewing data from 2001- 2004 (preKatrina), the ratio of student FTE to head count was approximately 0.76 for over five years. In the two
academic years following Katrina, this ratio dropped to 0.59 in 2006 and 0.69 in 2007 and is consistent
with the enrollment trends. In 2008, the ratio increased to 0.82 indicating that a greater percentage of
students were attending full time. SPHTM feels that the student FTE relatively to the head count is
stabilizing. A ratio of 0.75 was selected to be used to project the enrollment that would be needed to
attaining the S/F of 6.0 based on the anticipated increase in faculty. SPHTM estimates that enrolling
350 new students each year will result in a student body of ~850 or student FTE of 640. To attain a
student faculty ratio of 6.0, SPHTM would need a teaching faculty FTE of 107 which should be attainable
with a total faculty of 125. In 2008, 350 new resident students enrolled in SPHTM programs and the
objective is to maintain this level of enrollment. Without controlled enrollment, the number of students
could increase beyond the capacity to add faculty.
Table 4.4 F1 Ratio of Student FTE to Head Count
Total Head Count
Student FTE
FTE/Head count
2001
970*
735
0.76
2006
620
365
0.59
2007
652
451
0.69
2008
606
499
0.82
2009
676
502
0.74
2013 (Projected)
850
640
0.75
Decrease the percent accepted to 50% by 2013
Increase the enrollment of those accepted to at least 45% by 2013
SPHTM accepts approximately 80% of applicants whereas the average among schools of public health
ranges around 53% (See Table 4.4D2). The objective is to decrease the percent of applicants accepted
to 50%. This will allow SPHTM to be somewhat more selective in acceptances and perhaps increase the
GPA of students to above the average of all schools of public health. While SPHTM is pleased with the
overall quality of its student body, there is room to increase the average GPA. Decreasing the percent
accepted to 50% can also be used to balance the students among departments.
Of those accepted, approximately 36% enroll in SPHTM compared to 43%, the average for all schools of
public health. Since SOPHAS has been implemented in 2007, the percent of accepted who enroll at all
schools of public health has decreased about 5% (49.4% in 2006 to 43.1% in 2008). SOPHAS facilitates
students applying to several schools of public health and increases the likelihood of their being accepted
at multiple schools, thus affecting overall percent who enroll. With multiple acceptances, students
explore the best financial offers from scholarships and other financial support from the schools. Follow
up interviews with students who were accepted and did not enroll shows that SPHTM was among their
top choices, but finances were a major factor in their decision to go elsewhere. Other schools offered
more attractive financial packages. The tuition at SPHTM, while comparable to private schools, is higher
than state schools. This makes SPHTM expensive for many students. Further, SPHTM has limited
scholarships and student support to alleviate some of the financial impact of the high tuition. Increasing
scholarship funds is a major fund raising priority for SPHTM.
Balance the number and distribution of students in degree programs to achieve a Student/Faculty
ratio of no more than 8.0 in any department
While it is an objective to achieve a school-wide S/F ratio between 6.0 and 6.5, the departmental S/F
ratio must also be kept within an acceptable range. In 2008-09 the Department of International Health
had an unacceptable S/F ratio of 14.1; while still high, it dropped to 10.4 in 2009-10. INHD attracts
students because of the overall student interest in global health. Lowering the S/F ratio in INHD is a
priority and will be accomplished by adding new faculty in INHD as well as appointing faculty with
expertise in global health in all departments. One plan is to increase the focus on global health and
02/01/10
Page 244
opportunities for the application of disciplinary skills within an international setting to provide additional
options to students in traditional departments. This will allow students to gain expertise in a disciplinary
area while applying it in both international and domestic settings. This approach has begun to show
results as the S/F ratio decreased in INHD from 14.1 to 10.4 while departments with added international
options have attracted students as evidenced in the increase in the S/F in CHSC from 5.8 to 8.4, in
TRMD from 6.7 to 8.3 and in HSMG from 5.5 to 7.5. Each of these departments has a global focus or
joint programs that include a global health option. While one year is not enough to establish a trend, the
S/F ratio is somewhat more balanced in 2009-10 than in 2008-09. This will have to be extended to other
departments with lower S/F to keep departmental S/F below 8.0 in these departments.
The INHD departmental curriculum is very flexible with few required program courses. INHD students
develop a course plan that includes courses and mentors from other departments, so even though the
ratio is higher than desired, students take courses and consult with faculty advisors in other departments.
The Master’s Internationalist Program provides an international focus and is open to students in every
department. Joint programs across departments are also a way to distribute students to advisors who
can mentor them across disciplinary lines. Using this approach, it is anticipated that some of the
students currently clustered in international health will migrate to other departments, thus reducing the
high S/F in International Health while increasing it in other departments. As a last resort, if there is not
sufficient movement of students from INHD to other departments, a limit can be placed on enrollment in
INHD. The number of students in each department and the S/F will be one consideration used to
determine the distribution of new faculty among the departments.
Increase the number of training grants to 15 by 2013
One factor in enrolling students who have been accepted into SPHTM is the availability of scholarships
and students support. Training grants are one means to provide student support and have been
effective for targeting specific student groups, (e.g., minority students) or for study in a specific area
(e.g., maternal and child health). At the doctoral level, scholarships are instrumental in attracting the
best candidates.
Currently, SPHTM has 10 training grants that support student during their graduate study. Increasing the
number of training grants is one means to support student and to attract top student to SPHTM. Current
training grants support both master’s and doctoral students. In addition to training grants, SPHTM seeks
to increase the amount of scholarship funds for master’s and doctoral students. Mechanisms include
increasing gifts for scholarships and increasing the endowment which will provide funds the dean can
direct to student scholarships.
Enroll 100 new undergraduate public health majors each year by 2013
The Public Health Undergraduate Program has been growing rapidly since its inception in 2005. Table
4.4E7 shows that the number of freshmen public health majors admitted was 70 and the total number
public health majors reached a total of 179 in 2008 and increased to 277 in 2009. Not included in these
numbers are undergraduate students who choose public health as a minor; numerous others take one or
more public health courses offered the uptown campus. The growth in the undergraduate program
dictates that SPHTM modulate student enrollment with the resources available to support it. As an
undergraduate program, the students are enrolled in the Newcomb-Tulane College and receive their
undergraduate liberal arts education within the Uptown undergraduate structure. SPHTM faculty offer
the courses for their major study in public health.
The objective of enrolling 100 new undergraduate majors each year will build the program to a
sustainable level and make it a significant undergraduate program at Tulane University. It is currently
larger than the program in architecture and adding 100 students/ year will bring the total number to ~400.
This will make the public health program comparable in size with the undergraduates in the business
school and be large enough to garner additional resources from the undergraduate division.
02/01/10
Page 245
4.4 G Assessment
This criterion is met. Tulane SPHTM fully meets the stated criteria for student recruitment and
admissions. The School actively seeks and admits qualified students and equitably applies all
admissions criteria. Exceptions to the stated criteria are considered on an individual basis and carefully
monitored. The Office of Admissions encourages personal contact with all interested applicants to
enhance interest in the school. The admissions staff is charged with responding quickly and thoroughly
to all requests for information and assistance. Potential students are assisted with financial aid analysis
and interpretation of their financial aid package through the SPHTM Office of Financial Aid. All
applicants are encouraged to meet with the faculty, staff and other students, and to attend class sessions
as an important part of the final decision making process. The number of applications remains very
strong which shows that SPHTM remains attractive to students seeking careers in public health.
Many students enter SPHTM as recent graduates who have decided to pursue careers in public health.
The growing number of undergraduates is creating a well prepared pool for master’s and doctoral study
in public health. The undergraduates are gaining practical experience through service learning and
practica. At the other end of the spectrum, the executive and distance learning programs focus entirely
on practice professionals who are pursuing degrees in public health for career advancement. The nontraditional formats cater to working professionals who cannot attend class during the day.
SPHTM has materials with accurate information regarding the academic calendar, admissions policies,
grading policies, academic integrity standards, and degree completion requirements. The SPHTM
website contains the most up-to-date information as it is updated regularly. The catalog is printed biannually. The Office of Admissions insures that all materials distributed are accurate and reflect SPHTM
policies and procedures.
SPHTM accepts approximately 75-80% of applicants. Those accepted have qualifications at or above
the requirements for admission to SPHTM. Of those accepted, ~36% enroll; of those who do not attend,
financial considerations related to tuition and available scholarship funds are the primary reason for not
coming to SPHTM. Insufficient scholarship funds remain an issue for students desiring to attend
SPHTM. The dean has focused fundraising efforts for scholarships and, while he has been relatively
successful, more funds are needed.
SPHTM draws an extremely well-qualified applicant pool from which it enrolls a qualified student body.
In addition to academic qualifications, students who have enrolled post-Katrina are demonstrating an
eagerness to learn and apply public health to the recovery efforts in New Orleans. They are
demonstrating a spirit and commitment to public health that cannot be measured and will be carried
forward in their future careers.
02/01/10
Page 246
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
4.5 A Policies, Procedures and Plans for a Diverse Student Body
SPHTM values diversity among its student body and works to recruit and retain students of both
genders, many races, backgrounds and nationalities. Tulane University and SPHTM have established
formal policies to provide equal opportunity to all; in addition, SPHTM believes that diversity is essential
to public health and welcomes people from all backgrounds into the student body. Given our mission for
global public health, diversity at SPHTM includes cultural and ethnic diversity as well as racial diversity.
Affirmative Action Policies: Tulane University’s affirmative action policy is in accordance with the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. The policy is to recruit, retain and promote the most outstanding students, faculty and staff
possible; regardless of the individual’s sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. Classified
handicapped persons may not, on the basis of the /handicap, be denied admission or be subjected to
discrimination in the admission or recruitment process (See the Resource File).
Tulane University welcomes students with disabilities and seeks to support their particular needs and
rights to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to participate in the university community. To that
end, the main campus houses an Office of Disability Services which serves as the central campus
resource for disability concerns and for granting requests for special accommodations.
Commitment to Diversity: The SPHTM is committed to increasing the opportunity for minority and
economically disadvantaged students to become public health professionals through career-enhancing
graduate work in public health. SPHTM has investigated the barriers and limitations to diversity to enable
us to better recruit and graduate minority students. There are two primary barriers to recruiting students
to public health:
1) Lack of knowledge of public health as a career: Many minority students are unaware of public
health and of the specialty areas within public health. Most are familiar with medicine and
often think that public health activities are a part of medical schools.
2) Financial Issues: Costs and financial problems are major barriers. Most minority students
have large undergraduate debt, many are helping support families, and have other financial
obligations. Many minority students (as with other racial groups) are reluctant to take on
additional dept for graduate school tuition and living expenses. SPHTM has observed that we
are able to attract more minority students when we have scholarship funds. The loss of
minority students during their academic programs at the SPHTM is often due to financial
problems encountered rather than from academic difficulties.
The SPHTM has actively pursued funding for minority students. Scholarships targeting minority students
are essential to increasing the number of minority students at SPHTM. From 2000 – 2004, SPHTM was
successful in obtaining over $350,000 in funding for scholarships and financial aid for minority and
disadvantaged students from HRSA, Randolph Hearst Foundation, Jack Aron Scholarship Fund, Texaco,
the Star Foundation and Vada Reynolds Family Fund. The scholarships were used to attract promising
minority students into public health and provide funds for tuition and living expenses. In the post-Katrina
environment, the need to generate additional scholarships for minority students is even greater. SPHTM
has been awarded HRSA Scholarship for Disadvantaged Students funds ($208,422) for 2009-2010. In
addition, Faye Grimsley has been awarded an Occupational Safety and Health Training Grant from
NIOSH to support minority students in industrial hygiene.
The Tulane-Xavier Minority Health International Research Training (MHIRT) Program is sponsored by
the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health to
provide short-term (10-12 weeks) research training opportunities for minority students interested in a
career in international health research. Sites sponsoring MHIRT students are bases for established
international collaborative research programs for SPHTM faculty. They cover a range of geographical
locations, including Asia, Africa, and South America, and a variety of international health disciplines (e.g.,
02/01/10
Page 247
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
cardiovascular diseases, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases, parasitic infections, refugee health, perinatal
morbidity, etc.). Each site specializes in a specific discipline based on the interests of the sponsoring
faculty members. At each site, Tulane faculty are paired with overseas faculty who mentor MHIRT
students during their research experiences. The objectives of the MHIRT program include to increase
awareness of international research issues and opportunities and to increase the number of minority
students that pursue advanced degrees in basic sciences and biomedical and behavioral research, as
well as to provide opportunities for work in international health disparities from a global health
perspective. The MHIRT program covers all major expenses for participating students, including airfare,
housing, living expenses, research supplies and costs related to pre-travel planning and counseling.
Joint Degree Programs: Prior to Hurricane Katrina, joint degree programs with Xavier University
provided a pipeline to attract minority students into public health. This was a very successful method for
increasing minority students at SPHTM. Xavier has a long-standing reputation for preparing students for
study in the sciences and placing students into schools for health professionals. Xavier has ranked first
nationally in placing African-Americans in medical school programs. Since Hurricane Katrina these
programs have faltered as the storm greatly impacted Xavier which lost over 30% of their faculty and
their student body decreased by nearly 50%. Enrollment at Xavier has slowly increased to 80% of the
pre-Katrina numbers. Since Katrina, Xavier has focused their attention on rebuilding their student body,
physical facility and academic infrastructure. Following Hurricane Katrina, Tulane provided help to
Xavier in several ways, including providing space and admitting Xavier students into Tulane classes.
Alliances among the universities are instrumental in the overall recovery effort. In the last few months, a
Xavier student has become interested in the joint BS/MPH program and discussions have begun with
Xavier on reinvigorating the joint degree program. However, the future success of this program will
depend on generating funds for scholarships to support the financial needs of minority students.
For the last three years, Xavier biology and pharmacy students who received internships from the
National Cancer Institute at NIH expressed an interest in conducting environmental oncology
research—both basic and population based. Those students have been successfully assigned to
faculty in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences and were integral members of the
research team. All the students were able to present their research at regional and national
conferences. Utilizing scholarships provided by Texaco to increase the number of minority industrial
hygienists, the joint degree program was used to recruit students into this field. Industrial hygiene is a
field dominated by white males and the joint degree program with Xavier provided a means to recruit
students of both genders into a relatively unknown field. The program was so successful that Tulane
SPHTM was awarded special recognition by the American Industrial Hygiene Association in 2006 for
graduating more African-American students than any other school.
Cultural and ethnic diversity: SPHTM has historically attracted large numbers of international students
who find New Orleans a comfortable locale in which to study. Research projects in Sub-Saharan Africa
provide a pipeline for African students to study at SPHTM. For over 25 years, SPHTM had received
Humphrey Fellows each year who attend classes and participate in cultural experience while in the US.
In spite of increased difficulty in obtaining visas to study in the US, SPHTM enrolled student from 73
countries in 2008. To support international students, Tulane University maintains an International
Students Office that handles visa issues, and offers English-as-a-second-language program.
Distance Learning to reach Native-Americans in rural areas: The distance learning program has
been very successful in reaching Native-American students. Because many locations for the Indian
Health Service are in remote areas, the distance learning programs offer the only opportunity for NativeAmericans to obtain an MPH degree. Tulane consistently ranks among the top 3 schools of public
health for Native-American students because of the enrollment in distance learning programs. This
demonstrates a means to fill a need to obtain public health degrees for those in remote areas.
02/01/10
Page 248
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
Community and Health Disparities: SPHTM has placed an emphasis on community-based research
and community outreach that focuses on health disparities. This has enhanced the attractiveness of the
SPHTM to minority students. The SPHTM provides students with the opportunity to work and learn in the
under-served geographical area surrounding SPHTM. Some of the instruction and arrangements are with
health clinics serving individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Examples include:
• Health disparities among African-Americans who have higher rates of many chronic diseases,
such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma, are topics in core courses and program
courses. These courses provide knowledge of the etiology of chronic diseases, risk factors,
cultural issues and preventive measures.
• Differential mortality and morbidity is addressed in maternal and child health classes, cancer
epidemiology, basic epidemiology and biostatistics as well as other assessment related topics.
• Tulane Xavier National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health (TUXCOE) has attracted and
paved the way for students to do projects that are useful in developing programs related to
community needs. Approximately 65% of the population served by TUXCOE belongs to
traditionally defined minority groups. Also the students reflect the spectrum of diversity in the
project with African-American, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic and students from Africa.
• Women Wellness Wednesday is a unique comprehensive health and wellness education session
that addresses the emotional, social, physical and spiritual needs of women. It is designed to
meet women at work on their lunch breaks featuring a brown bag casual lunch accompanied by
an interactive discussion on various health issues.
• Health Fairs focusing on African-American women provide heath promotion and disease
prevention information that encourages them to maintain good health practices and learn about
services available to meet their needs. Other health fairs focusing on the Latino community
provide health education materials in Spanish on prevention and free screenings for blood
pressure, cholesterol, glucose and body mass index. The health fairs bring together medical and
public health students into learning experiences that address cultural and multidisciplinary issues.
Diversity is supported through numerous other venues in both formal and informal settings.
Examples of student activities that promote diversity and cross-cultural exchange include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
02/01/10
The Student Government Association has an elected position for an international student liaison.
This person promotes cultural awareness toward international students and inclusion of the
international perspective into student government activities. The international student liaison also
promotes a weekly international movie night.
The African-American Student Association provides support to and camaraderie for AfricanAmerican students. The group organizes volunteer activities to help the community and to
promote networking opportunities.
Weekly inter-cultural seminars are held in the in fall each semester. International scholars
present a profile of their countries and share a major public health issue of that country. The
group then considers strategies to mitigate that issue. This is often a forum for discussion of
cultural, racial, religious and gender issues throughout the world.
Monthly meetings are organized for Returned Peace Corps Volunteers, Master Internationalist
students, and international faculty to share experiences of living overseas. Foreign scholars
share their US experiences. Interesting discussions flow from African students living in the New
Orleans area when the general community thinks they are local African/Americans. The white
American students relate their experiences as a minority in other cultures. These exchanges are
immensely valuable in understanding cultural differences for those who plan to work overseas.
Religious groups meet regularly in the building. On Fridays, the Muslim students and faculty
meet for prayers. A Catholic bible group meets twice a week.
Page 249
•
•
•
•
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
International and American students participate in the annual NO/AIDS walk to demonstrate
support for the gay and lesbian community. This event is used to show international students
how they might mobilize a community for advocacy and the role of volunteerism in public health.
SPHTM students, including international scholars participate in Operation Comeback rebuilding homes
of low income families in the 9th Ward who were displaced after the hurricane.
International pot luck dinners are held each semester where international and American students
and faculty share dishes and cultural experiences of their country or region. The food of New
Orleans demonstrates the confluence of African, Caribbean, Native American, French and
Spanish cooking and culture in Louisiana.
Many faculty offices are decorated with memorabilia that reflect the rich cultural diversity
associated with public health locally and around the world.
Other Considerations: Applicants with a grade point average lower than the minimum admissions
requirement and/or low standardized test scores may be admitted as special students. They are placed
on academic probation for the first semester of enrollment. Individuals accepted under this condition
must show potential for success in the program and strongly desire a career in public health. Examples
of these might be mid-career applicants who have proven performance as public health professionals or
foreign or minority students who have not scored well on a standardized test, but who have other
demonstrable skills which would indicate potential to successfully complete the program. The academic
performance of these students is evaluated during the first semester by departmental faculty with
recommendations for either change in status to degree candidate or dismissal. Tutoring is provided in all
of the basic courses to assist students in overcoming academic deficits. Routinely, tutorial sessions are
held in biostatistics, epidemiology and environmental health. Educational support for students is made in
other areas based on their individual needs.
Each year several minority students continued their graduate studies to obtain doctoral degrees at
SPHTM and at other institutions. One of the barriers to pursuing doctoral degrees is the high student
loan burden from both undergraduate and graduate school. This further highlights the need for additional
scholarships for under-represented students and is a priority for SPHTM.
4.5 B Recruitment and Evaluation of a Diverse Student Body
In addition to the ongoing recruitment of minority students in all recruiting activities, special recruitment
efforts target minority students and those of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Targeted
recruitment of minority students takes place in many venues, including career days at HBCUs including
Xavier University, Dillard University, Morehouse College, and Spellman College in Atlanta, Georgia.
SPHTM attends the Annual Public Health Awareness Conference at Morehouse College in Atlanta
which is designed to encourage minority/under-represented students to pursue careers in the public
health sciences.
Diversity at SPHTM includes ethnic and cultural diversity. SPHTM recruits students globally and
values students from many countries and cultures. SPHTM routinely attends International Career fairs
in Geneva, London, and in five cities in India which included Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai,
and Mumbai.
SPHTM has designated scholarships to attract minority students to public health that have been pivotal
to attracting disadvantaged students to SPHTM. As indicated above, more scholarship funds are needed
to attract and retain disadvantaged students at SPHTM. As a demonstration of a culturally and racially
welcoming atmosphere, all SPHTM publications, including recruitment materials, and the school website
show people of all races and cultures and reflect the diversity that is valued by SPHTM.
4.5 C Demographic Characteristics
Table 4.5 C 1 shows the applications, acceptances and enrollment of minority students for the last
02/01/10
Page 250
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
three years. Approximately 48-50% of SPHTM applications are from US white students;
approximately 25-29% from US minority students and 20-25% from International students. SPHTM
accepts comparable percentage of students in each racial and national origin category. During the last
3 years, SPHTM new enrollments included 47-55% US white students, 20-29% US minority students
and 17-21% international students.
Table 4.5 C1 (Template L) Demographic Characteristics of the Student Body for the last 3 years
2006-07
2007-08
M
F
M
F
Applied
42
63
45
85
African American Accepted
28
45
32
63
Enrolled
8
23
10
42
Applied
141
228
152
248
Caucasian
Accepted
108
180
110
190
Enrolled
68
85
73
126
Applied
16
17
11
20
Hispanic/Latino
Accepted
12
15
9
15
Enrolled
7
9
4
9
Asian Pacific
Applied
20
23
25
27
Islander
Accepted
16
19
20
21
Enrolled
4
5
5
11
Native
Applied
3
2
2
3
American/Alaska Accepted
2
1
2
2
Native
Enrolled
2
0
2
1
Applied
9
7
12
17
Unknown/Other
Accepted
8
6
9
12
Enrolled
5
2
4
7
Applied
96
89
84
78
International
Accepted
74
78
68
62
Enrolled
46
63
38
32
Applied
327
429
331
478
TOTAL
Accepted
248
344
250
365
Enrolled
140
187
136
228
Total enrolled
327
364
2008-09
M
F
51
91
38
69
7
44
162
271
119
210
76
131
8
25
5
19
1
9
30
35
22
26
1
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
14
19
11
16
11
13
76
71
58
56
41
40
344
515
255
399
139
243
382
Fall 2009*
M
F
14
95
8
52
5
24
107
331
80
277
37
67
5
33
5
24
2
5
28
73
22
57
3
13
4
3
4
1
3
1
19
95
15
73
3
16
97
127
47
85
10
22
274
757
181
569
63
148
211
Table 4.5 C2 compares the racial distribution of students at SPHTM to all schools of public health
(SPH) as reported in the ASPH Annual Reports. As noted in section 4.4, the data from the ASPH
annual reports differs from the Tulane registrar because of the data collection requirements. ASPH
collects consistent data across all SPHs to allow for comparability across all schools; this data does
not include all SPHTM students because of our traditional programs in international health and tropical
medicine. The Tulane registrar includes data from all students who are enrolled in SPHTM. Both sets
of data are shown in Table 4.5C2 for SPHTM: the ASPH Annual Report data allows comparison with
other schools of public health whereas the registrar’s data provides a more complete picture of the
percentages of minority students.
In general, when compared to other SPHs, SPHTM has somewhat fewer minority students. This is
primarily reflected in fewer Asian and Hispanic students; SPHTM has slightly higher percentages of
African-American students. One notable difference is SPHTM’s higher percentage of Native American
students; SPHTM is consistently in the top 3 SPHs (along with Oklahoma and Arizona) for Native
American students. This is primarily due to the distance learning program which enrolls several students
from the Indian Health Service; distance learning enables public health professionals in remote areas to
obtain an MPH.
02/01/10
Page 251
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
Table 4.5 C2 Racial Distribution of Students with the Average at All Schools of Public Health
2006
ASPH Report^
All
SPHTM
SPH
0.7%
2.8%
*Tulane
Registrar
2007
ÂSPH Report
All
SPHTM
SPH
0.7%
2.9%
*Tulane
Registrar
2008
ASPH rRepot^
All
SPHTM
SPH
0.7%
3.4%
*Tulane
Registrar
Native
2.8%
3.8%
4.8%
American
Asian
12.3%
7.9%
7.5%
12.4%
5.6%
5.7%
12.5%
9.1%
7.6%
African11.6%
11.1%
16.3%
11.7%
13.0%
14.9%
11.5%
12.6%
15.9%
American
Hispanic
8.6%
4.5%
5.6%
8.8%
4.6%
5.0%
8.9%
3.9%
4.3%
Total
33.2%
26.3%
32.2%
33.6%
26.1%
29.4%
33.6%
29.0%
32.6%
Minority
White
60.8%
62.9%
67.9%
59.3%
63.8%
67.4%
58.9%
67.1%
63.6%
Other
6.0%
10.9%
7.1%
10.1%
3.1%
3.9%
3.9%
3.8%
ÂSPH Annual Report: Data reported by SPHTM is compared to the mean of data reported by all schools of public
health; ASPH collects data on designated programs and does not include all SPHTM students
*Tulane registrar: Official student enrollment data from Tulane University (all students).
Note: A substantial number of students decline to provide information on race which tracking of minority students
over time.
4.5 D Outcome Measures
One of SPHTM’s primary objectives is:
• Increase the percentage of minority graduate students to 30%
The SPHTM tracks the characteristics and diversity among of the student body with the following measures:
• Number and percent of minority students
• Number and percent of African-American students
• Number and percent of international students
• Number and percent of women
• Amount of financial aid for minority students
• Graduation rates among minority students
The primary objective is to achieve racial and cultural diversity among the SPTHM student body. The
outcome closely monitored is the percent of minority students, especially traditionally disadvantaged
minorities to achieve and maintain at least 30% minority students as tracked by the official enrollment by
the Tulane registrar. While SPHTM regularly achieves this percentage of minority students, efforts to
increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanic student require targeted efforts. The
SPHTM student body has a comparable percent of minority students as other schools of public health
(See Table 4.5 C2).
Number and percent of minority students
The number and percent of minority students at SPHTM as reported by the Tulane registrar over the last
three years has ranged from 29% to 32% which includes: 15-16% African-Americans, 6-9% Asians, 45% Hispanics and 3% Native Americans. The percent of minority students has decreased since the last
self-study when 37% of students were minority. The primary decrease is observed among AfricanAmerican students; the percent of Asian and Hispanic students has remained approximately the same.
The percent of Native American students is slightly higher because the distance learning program
provides access to an MPH in remote areas.
Number and percent of African-American students
The percent of African-American students has decreased from 25% in 2002 to 15-16% over the last
three years. This decrease can be directly related to the post-Katrina disruption of the 4-1 joint degree
BS/MPH pipeline from Xavier University and a number of students from Dillard University. The
02/01/10
Page 252
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
effectiveness of the 4-1 joint degrees in providing a steady pipeline can be observed by this change in
the number of students. In 1994 at the beginning of the implementation of the program, SPHTM had
14.3% African-American students. After implementation of the 4-1 joint degrees in 2002, the percent of
African-American students had increased to 25% of the student body. During this time, several major
donors provided scholarships targeting minority students which enhanced the ability of disadvantaged
students to pursue a graduate degree. With the interruption of the program, the percent of AfricanAmerican students fell 15-16%. Prior to Katrina, the Tulane-Xavier partnership provided a steady flow of
qualified African-American students through the joint degrees. As has been noted above, these schools
have been slower to recover which has been a barrier to reviving the formerly robust programs. Work
has begun in re-establishing the program; one student has expressed interest and is applying.
Number and percent of international students
Another rich source of diversity in the SPHTM results from our large number of International students
from 73 countries around the world. SPHTM has traditionally had a large enrollment of international
students; however, the number and percentage of foreign nationals has decreased following 9/11 and
the increased difficulty in students’ obtaining visas to study in the US. The percent of international
students enrolled at SPHTM has remained steady for the last 8 years with approximately 18-20% of the
student body from outside of the United States (Table 4.5D1). The many international projects and our
large alumni from around the world provide a steady flow of students who wish to study in the United
States. The majority of the students return to their countries to contribute to the building of the public
health infrastructure around the world. The international students provide the SPHTM community with a
unique view of other cultures, enrich class discussions and broaden perspectives to include multi-cultural
aspects of health. We strive to maintain at least 20% international students within our student body.
Number and percent of women students
The number and percent of women students has remained around 60% since the last site visit. At the
last accreditation site visit, the percent of women had increased from 52% in 1994 to 64% in 2002,
comparable to that at other schools of public health. Since 2002, the gender balance has remained at
approximately 60% female/40% male while the average for all schools of public health has increased to
70% female/30% male according to the ASPH Annual Reports (Table 4.4D1). We seek to maintain our
gender balance as well as our racial and cultural balance among students.
Table 4.5 D1 Percent of students by Gender and National Origin Characteristics
SPHTM compared to All SPH (ASPH Annual reports)
2006
Gender
Natl origin
M
F
US*
Non
Applicants
SPHTM
Avg at All SPHs
New Enrollments
SPHTM
Avg at All SPHs
Students
SPHTM
Avg at All SPHs
2007
Gender
M
F
Natl origin
US*
Non
2008
Gender
M
F
Natl origin
US*
Non
39
30.6
61
69.4
73.4
74.2
26.6
25.3
30.2
28.9
69.8
71.0
69.9
72.3
25.8
27.1
27.9
29.8
72.1
70.2
74.5
73.6
21.1
26.4
35.0
30.2
65.0
69.8
75.6
84.7
24.4
15.1
31.7
28.3
68.3
71.7
75.9
81.5
19.7
17.9
29.1
30.0
70.9
70.0
79.4
82.7
20.6
17.3
43.1
30.0
56.9
70.0
74.1
84.8
17.6
14,8
39.0
29.6
61.0
70.4
79.1
82.6
10.9
17.3
41.1
29.7
58.9
70.3
82.0
83.0
16.0
16.5
Graduates
SPHTM
37.2
62.8
80.6
17.3
28.4
71.6
79.2
19.8
Avg at All SPHs
30.0
70.0
84.3
14.5
28.4
71.6
84.0
15.2
*Nationality does not always add to 100% - does not include nationality unknown
41.7
30.2
58.3
69.8
83.5
82.8
16.5
16.8
It should be noted that internal records indicate slightly different proportions than that reported to ASPH.
In general, among all SPHTM programs, we have a slightly greater percentage of males and foreign
nationals than the average at all schools of public health.
02/01/10
Page 253
Section 4.5
Student Diversity
Increase in minority scholarships and financial aid
From 1998 to 2004, SPHTM increased the number and amount of scholarship and financial aid directed
toward minority students. In the 2000-2001 academic year, 77 disadvantaged and economically
disadvantaged students received these funds. Unfortunately Katrina hit around the time much of this
funding was ending and there was a lag in obtaining new funds. However, new funding sources have
been obtained to replace some of these funds. HRSA recently awarded SPHTM $208,422 in scholarship
funds for disadvantaged students for 2009-10 which will be a great help in providing funding for
disadvantaged students wishing to pursue studies in public health. Obtaining additional funds for
scholarships is a priority.
Graduation rates among minority students
Of equal importance to the number of students enrolled in the SPHTM is the graduation rate among US
non-white students. The successful degree completion rate for minority students is very high with nearly
95% of minority student completing their master’s programs. The graduation rate and time to graduation
for minorities is comparable to that for white students. We are noting a slightly longer time to complete
degrees for all students. The requirement for the MPH/MSPH to have a minimum of 42 credits plus the
observation of students taking fewer credits per semester in the post-Katrina recovery is contributing to
this observation. However, there does not appear to be a difference in the time associated with race or
national origin.
4.5 E Assessment
This criterion is met. Efforts to increase the number of minority students, especially African-Americans,
had substantial success prior to Hurricane Katrina when the pipeline that provided a steady stream of
highly qualified students was interrupted. Xavier University was a major source of African-American
students who sought careers in the health sciences. The process of rebuilding this pipeline has begun,
but it will take a few years for it to become fully functional again. Another critical factor in recruiting
minority students is the availability of scholarship and grant funds. Finances are a major barrier for many
students in continuing their education at the graduate level. Student’s often have significant loans from
undergraduate degrees; these loans, as well as family obligations, preclude students delaying their entry
into the job market and taking on additional debt. To this end, the SPHTM is focusing efforts to raise
funds for minority scholarships and obtain grant funds for disadvantaged students. Prior success in the
endeavor shows the impact that scholarships have on the ability of disadvantaged students to obtain
master’s and doctoral degrees.
While recruitment of African-American students is a priority given the population in our geographic area,
SPHTM also values other racial and ethnic groups. Attention to increasing the number of Hispanic
students is a target. International students from 73 countries provide a rich source of cultural diversity
and provide critical insight to the role of culture in health disparities and in developing public health
interventions. Our cultural diversity reflects our mission for global public health.
The number of Native American students who attend SPHTM through distance learning shows the power
of this delivery method for reaching students in remote areas and for providing public health education to
targeted populations. Many Native Americans are reluctant to leave their cultural setting for long periods
of time; the distance learning programs provide a way to obtain a quality education in public health while
serving their constituents at home.
Minority students have taken an active role in student government. Since the last accreditation, two of
the Student Government Association Presidents have been African-Americans. The leadership
demonstrated by these individuals has serves as a role model for other under-represented students
considering entering the SPHTM.
02/01/10
Page 254
Section 4.6
Advising and Career Counseling
4.6 A Advising and Career Counseling Services
Advising:
At the beginning of each semester, a full orientation is provided for all entering students. The Academic
Policies and Procedures and Student Handbook (See Resource File) are given to students at
orientation, along with appropriate forms that may be needed by the students and their advisors.
During orientation, students are introduced to their department faculty and meet individually with their
advisors. When a student is accepted, advisors are assigned by the department in which the student
will matriculate. Advisors are assigned based on the student’s career statements submitted as part of
the application. Students may request a change of advisor through their department. As a result of
formal and informal interaction, students and professors can exchange ideas. This provides the
opportunity for a close working relationship with faculty members and affords students unique
opportunities for practical experiences in public health. The department chair is responsible for
insuring that each student has an advisor.
Students register for classes through TUTOR, the online registration system. Preregistration opens at
the end of each semester for courses that will be offered in the next semester. Students may register
directly using their assigned PIN number; registration in courses should be after a conference with their
advisor. Departments have the option to block student registration until advisors have signed off on a
course plan; however, this is seldom done because of the time it takes to lift the block and is only used in
selected cases. While most students know they are required to do a separate practicum and
culminating experience, only those who are about to undertake these requirements seemed to seek out
the details. The general school policy on advising includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Each entering student is assigned a designated faculty advisor in the area of study indicated on the
application. The advisor is available to meet with the student during orientation.
Each entering student receives a model course plan for their major/track indicating required courses
and the sequencing of courses. The advisor and the student may modify the model plan to meet a
student’s past experience or future career goal.
Entering students will not be given their PIN number to access TUTOR until they have met with their
assigned advisor.
In subsequent semesters, it is the student’s responsibility to meet with their faculty advisor at least
once a semester before registering for courses. If a student does not schedule a meeting, the
advisor should contact the student.
Advising sessions may occur via e-mail or phone. This type of arrangement may be made only if the
student agrees. This system works best for advanced students who have an established course plan
and for those traveling on projects. Entering students should meet their advisor in person during their
first two semesters.
Each faculty will notify their advisees of times they are available for advising sessions at the end of
each semester (during preregistration times) and just prior to registration at the beginning of each
semester. For faculty who may travel on projects, this will provide the student with available times for
meetings.
Career Services Center:
The Career Services Center offers services to support students’ advancement through the areas of career
development and placement. Staffed by a director with a master of science degree in counseling, the
center is open five days a week. Center Services Center provides individual student counseling for all
career and placement needs, resume critiquing, workshops on placement skills, alumni speakers,
employer visits and job fairs, a job listserve for students and alumni, and online web pages with extensive
public health career information. A new LinkedIn group has been launched and is managed by the
director to promote professional/job networking for the school. The Career Services Center resources
include an alumni career network of 500+ contacts for student networking and a career library housing
public health career information, placement directories, employer information, placement skills
information and lists of jobs, fellowships, and internships.
02/01/10
Page 255
Section 4.6
Career and placement counseling is extended to all affiliates of the school, including SPHTM graduate and
the undergraduate students, those seeking jobs or internships and former students (alumni) needing job
search assistance. The SPHTM is sensitive to the differing career and placement counseling needs of all
various types of students. In addition to these formal career counseling and placement services, clinical
faculty, community practitioners and alumni provide students with career advice and serve as role models.
The director of the Career Services Center has developed an effective network of employers who routinely
visit SPHTM and send job opportunities for posting for our students. The effectiveness of this network
was demonstrated for our employer survey when the director was able to obtain over 125 responses in 1
week. The Resource File contains a binder with extensive information on career counseling.
4.6 B Procedures Students May Use to Communicate Their Concerns to School Officials
SPHTM defines an academic “Complaint” as an issue that is resolved informally and a “Grievance” as a
complaint that proceeds to a formal grievance procedure. All complaints are attempted to be resolved
informally through discussions with the student(s) and faculty involved to arrive at a solution to address
the problem. If the issue cannot be resolved, then it proceeds through the formal grievance process.
SPHTM has policies and formal procedures for grievances detailed in Appendix E Grievance Policy of
the Student Handbook which is published on the SPHTM website:
http://www.sph.tulane.edu/main/academics/handbooks.htm . The policies set forth the process for
pursuing a grievance with timelines, the composition of the Grievance Committee and the procedures for
appeal to the dean and then to the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility of
Students. The Grievance Procedures are also included in New Student Orientation packages and
Departmental Materials distributed to students.
In the last three years, there was one complaint in 2006 that was resolved without going into the formal
grievance procedure. There were two formal grievances filed in the last three years. In each case, the
issue was resolved without appeal by the student.
In addition to the formal policies that address academic issues, SPHTM deans and chairs seek to elicit
opinions of students on other issues. This happens in two ways. 1) The Student Government
Association (SGA) will present students issues to one of the deans or Executive Committee. Often these
are not academic problems, but quality of life issues. In the last year, the president of the SGA
expressed concerns about the quality of student space in the Tidewater Building. He quite effectively
presented his case with logical evidence and data. In response, the dean found funds to upgrade the
student space on the 12th floor and the student lounge on the 1st floor. Another complaint that was
brought to Executive Committee concerned the slowness of the Financial Aid Office in processing
student loans. These issues were addressed, and while not all financial aid proceeds at a rapid pace,
the long lag time has been reduced in most cases. 2) The deans hold a Dean’s Hour at least once a
semester to meet with students and hear their concerns. This allows all who wish to express opinions a
forum to be heard. The first of the school’s core values is that of “nurturing our students”. We strive to
create and maintain a culture in the school that is open and welcoming to students and their
opinions. In such an atmosphere, we encourage students to express opinions and provide
suggestions for improvement.
4.6 C
Student Satisfaction with Advising and Career Counseling Services
Student advising is a priority at SPHTM. Measures of effectiveness include the frequency that students
meet with advisors and availability of advisors as reported on the annual student survey. To this end,
SPHTM has the following objectives:
•
Increase the percent of students who consult with their advisor to at least once per semester to
90% by 2011
•
Maintain the percent of students who report their advisors are available any/most of the time to
90%
02/01/10
Page 256
Section 4.6
For the last two accreditation site visits, improvement in the satisfaction in student advising was
recommended. Site visitors asked students their experiences with advising and students voiced
concern. At the same time, many faculty stated that they routinely meet with their advisees. Annual
faculty advising workshops are held and faculty are reminded of their advising responsibilities and it is
obvious that some faculty are excellent advisors while others may not do as well. To clarify the issue
and to identify departments where problems may exist, SPHTM added specific questions to the student
survey to measure satisfaction with advising. The specific measures tracked are: 1) availability of faculty
to students; and 2) the number of times students meet with their advisor each semester.
Student surveys were administered in Spring, 2008 and 2009 that included questions on advising. Over
230 students responded to the survey each year. Students who responded in 2009 reported: 1) 90%
reported that faculty were available all or most of the time; and 2) 77% consult with their advisor one or
more times a semester. While room to improve, the survey indicated that faculty are available to
students. Availability was defined as communication by meetings, phone or e-mail. The objective is to
increase faculty availability to 90%. The percent who meet with advisors once per semester was 77%;
this also should be improved. Some students register directly on-line and do not ask faculty for guidance
or approval. Faculty are encouraged to track that all of their students have communicated with them at
least once each semester, and to contact those that have not. This will increase the responsibility of
faculty to reach out to student who do not seek communication.
The student surveys also provide additional information on advising: 81% received clear information on
their degree requirements; 75% communicated at least once each semester; 89% of advisors were
available most of the time; and 88% of advisors were well informed. The student survey also indicated
that most students were unclear on the new practicum and culminating experience requirements. In
2008 discussions with faculty it appeared that in the aftermath of Katrina, many were not totally clear
about the changes and how that impacted the students. In response, a school wide advising workshop
was held that included sessions on the practicum and culminating experience requirements and the
changes that took place in 2006 and 2007. The responses in the student survey in 2009 showed a slight
increase in their reported understanding of the requirements. Most seemed to know they are now
required to do a separate practicum and culminating experience, but only students who were about to
undertake these requirements seemed to seek out the details.
Table 4.6 C Student Survey Opinion of Advising 2008 and 2009
Clear Know All /
Some Requirements*
Communicate 1+
times per semester
Advisor available
Anytime / Most of the
time*
91% (82 + 9)
90% (53 + 37)
85% (52 + 33)
100% (72 + 28)
81% (52 + 29)
82% (49 + 33)
100% (60 + 40)
89% (60+29)
Advisor well informed
/ know basics*
2008
BIOS
82% (64 + 18)
91%
91% (73 + 18)
CHSC
81% (46 + 35)
89%
81% (37+ 44)
ENHS
35% (25 + 10)
76 %
71% (52 + 19)
EPID
94% (72 + 22)
61%
89% (78 + 11)
HSMG
95% (57 + 38)
76%
100% (47 + 53)
INHD
79% (38 + 41)
73%
79 % (49 + 30)
TRMD
70% (47 + 23)
82%
81% (69 + 12)
All
81% (50+31)
75%
88% (62+26)
2009
BIOS
100% (64+36)
91%
100% (91+9)
100% (91+9)
CHSC
87% (46+41)
97%
96% (63+33)
97% (61+36)
ENHS
81% (24+57)
76%
85% (52+33)
85% (60+25)
EPID
81% (48+33)
88%
98% (63+35)
88% (67+21)
HSMG
67% (19+48)
67%
80% (50+30)
83% (44+39)
INHD
82% (48+34)
67%
85% (42+43)
80% (37+43)
TRMD
82% (35+47)
82%
94% (74+20)
89% (69+20)
All
84% (41+43)
77%
90% (56+34)
88% (54+34)
*The percentage is the combination of the two positive choices with the breakdown of responses to each option
shown in parentheses (e.g., Clearly know all requirements and Know some requirements but unclear on other).
02/01/10
Page 257
Section 4.6
In the alumni survey, respondents were asked to rate their most useful learning experiences and their
least useful learning experiences. Mentors and Advisors were one of six choices in each of these
questions. Of the alumni who responded, 32% listed mentors and advisors as their most useful learning
experience (following courses and practica) yet 31% listed mentors and advisors as the least useful
experience. This shows the variability among advisors and differences over the time that the alumni
were at SPHTM.
The student survey also asked the respondents to rate the Career Services Center. The responses in
2008 and 2009 were similar. Of those who used the services, the majority found the services excellent.
Very few who used the services did not find them useful. In both years of the survey, approximately half
of the students did not use the Career Services Center. Those who do not use the Career Services
Center utilize departmental faculty who serve as career counselors in their respective fields; in many
cases, faculty are more closely aligned with employers within their field and are effective in helping
students network and find jobs.
4.6 C2 Student Opinion of Career Counseling
Excellent
Fair
Not Useful
Did not use
% of all Respondents
2008
28%
13%
5%
54%
2009
32%
12%
6%
50%
% of Respondents who Used services
2008
2009
60%
64%
29 %
24%
11%
12%
-
One of the reasons that 50%- 54% reported not using career services is that over 70% of the students
who graduate report having already obtained jobs or are going on to further education. Midcareer
students are already employed. Faculty advisors in departments are effective as career counselors and
link students into networks where they find jobs. Students have ample opportunity to obtain career
counseling in their departments and through the Career Services Center.
4.4 D Assessment
This criterion is met. Student advising is integral to the academic programs and SPHTM has a
systematic advising process in place. Over the last three years, SPHTM has focused activities to keep
faculty informed of changes and new degree requirements. The importance of the advising process is
reflected in the school’s core value of “nurturing our students.” Mechanisms to review and monitor the
effectiveness of the advising process are in place to insure it serves the needs of students. The student
survey conducted in the Spring 2008 and again in 2009 provided an indication of the student satisfaction
with the advising process. For the most part, a large majority of students receive clear information from
their advisors and meet with them at least once a semester. The advisors are available most of the time
and are knowledgeable of the degree requirements. To update faculty on the advising process, an
advising workshop is held at the department level before the beginning of the fall semester. The advising
process is carefully considered and discussed at new faculty orientation as well as at departmental and
general faculty retreats. The responses from the alumni survey show mixed opinion of advising over the
years and indicates some advisors performed well while other may not have.
It is also recognized that as we grow and increase the use of technology throughout the academic
process, we must make sure the advising system also grows and adapts to the changing needs. Tutor,
the online registration system, offers benefits for direct and easy registration, but allows students to
register without a formal advising session. Many students desire to be more independent in the
selection of their courses, while others need more guidance. The departments seek to find this balance
with each student.
The SPHTM maintains an active Career Services Center that provides assistance in internship
opportunities, career counseling, assistance in preparation of resumes and job placement. In the student
02/01/10
Page 258
Section 4.6
surveys, those students who used the Career Services Center expressed a high degree of satisfaction
with career and placement services. The center demonstrates the SPHTM’s commitment toward meeting
student’s career planning needs. In addition to the Career Services Center, many faculty advisors serve
as career counselors to their students and provide career guidance; they help students find jobs and
access to networks within their discipline.
02/01/10
Page 259

Tulane SPHTM Final Self-Study Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Slides - cme.ucsf.edu

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/webweather/index.html

Women Making Waves Speaker Bios

Greater New Orleans Science and Engineering Fair, Inc

WeatherPak - RAE Systems

•Daily Operations Briefing

Tulane Naval ROTC Alumni Newsletter

The Southeastern Conference: its roots and its members!