University of Hawai I at Mānoa

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA J O H N A . B U R N S S C H O O L O F M E D I C I N E

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES

SELF-STUDY REPORT FOR ACCREDITATION

Prepared for the Council on Education for Public Health

February 2007

. University of Hawaii at Manoa Office of Public Health Studies

OVERVIEW AND CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THEPUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAM’S EVOLUTION AT UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I

This is an overview to outline the context within which the University of Hawai‘i’s (UHM) public health program has been operating since the revocation of the School of Public Health’s accreditation in 2000. The narrative describes the “when, what, who, where, why, and how” of events and actions that have brought us to our current status. The overview is divided in to five sections, summarized in Figure 1. Each section relates to a time period, starting with the closure of the school and bringing us to the present. I. Closure and introspection 2000-2002 II. Reaccreditation as a program 2002 III. New leadership and decentralization - April 2004 IV. The flood and the diaspora - October 2004 – August 2005 V. Moving back and rebuilding – 2005 VI. University support for rebuilding a School of Public Health I. Closure and Introspection 2000-2001 It was with much sadness that the University of Hawai‘i (University) School of Public Health (SPH), a program that was internationally known for its public health education program, lost its CEPH accreditation in 2000. There were a multitude of reasons why the UH SPH lost its accreditation. The crisis did not come quickly. The SPH began to lose the necessary resources to function as an accredited school with the departure of the last permanent dean in 1992. A search was authorized and completed for a new dean, however, this coincided with the appointment of a new UH president who did not successfully complete the negotiations with the search committee’s candidate. The UH administration declined to authorize another search for a permanent SPH dean, requiring existing faculty to try to fill the role on an “interim” basis for the last eight years before closure. The state underwent financial hardships in the early 1990’s and offered a favorable retirement package to eligible senior faculty to reduce personnel costs. By 1995 the fiscal crisis dictated statewide hiring freezes. This meant that the five senior public health faculty who retired could not be replaced and later these unfilled positions were “swept”. The SPH had been criticized by CEPH for its relatively high student-faculty ratio and relatively low research productivity. The loss of faculty without replacement exacerbated the issues of high student-faculty ratio and low research productivity. The 1996 CEPH noted these resource deficiencies and placed the University on notice that if the deficiencies were not rectified within two years, the SPH would face the loss of accreditation. By the time of the 1999 site visit, the SPH had a net loss of 10 tenure-track faculty. The CEPH accreditation team tried to help galvanize UH administrative support for the SPH during their visits, but this was not successful. Locally, the SPH was overwhelmed with supportive testimony to an independent review panel, media attention, and personal appeals to

. Figure 1: Summary Model of the Contextual Framework for the Department of Public Health Sciences

 June 2000, SPH loses CEPH accreditation.  April 2004, Dr. Miller’s term as Chair ends; Dr. Waslien  Spring 2006, the OPHS re-acquires  Reorganized within JABSOM as the Office of Public Health Studies. appointed as new Department Chair. its full complement of offices and  Academic programs under the Dept. of Public Health Sciences &  Leadership decentralization begins with the election of classrooms. Epidemiology. a Graduate Chair, Dr. Jay Maddock.  Leadership further decentralized  Dr. Miller appointed Dept. Chair by Dean Cadman.  Specialization heads and committee chairs now with the establishment of a Budget  Leadership and budget decisions centralized in an effort to focus the required to hold meetings on a regular basis and report Committee. Department and increase research productivity. their recommendations to the full Department for vote.  Dr. Waslien retires; Dr. Maddock  Four new faculty members hired into the epidemiology program.  Permission to hire four new faculty members granted. elected as Dept. Chair and takes an active role in representing PH at JABSOM & UH leadership  April 2002, accredited by CEPH as a public health  October 2004, Biomed Building damaged by flood; meetings. program offering the MPH in epidemiology and electrical and A/C systems destroyed.  Growth in research productivity gerontology.  Disaster management firm hired to remove materials & leads to the re-strengthening of ties  In response to CEPH comments, Evaluation Committee disinfect areas affected by the floodwaters. with the community. established by the Department.  Majority of faculty moved to temporary offices 5 miles from  Student participation in governance  AY 2003-04, gerontology specialization discontinued; UHM; PH classes moved elsewhere on campus. & planning increased. MPH in social & behavioral health sciences approved.  Rebuilding slowed by JABSOM’s move to Kaka’ako; some  Two new faculty members hired. 2nd floor offices & rooms renovated by Sept. 2005.  Despite hardships caused by the flood, four new faculty members hired.

2004 New Leadership 2006-Present 2002 and Decentralization Returning and Reaccreditation Starting to Rebuild 2000-2001 as a Program Closure and Introspection 2004-2005 The Flood and the Diaspora

. 1C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

administration by faculty members and the community. A weeklong hunger strike and sleep-in also was undertaken. Despite these efforts, the SPH experienced the revocation of its accreditation in June, 2000. Public Health was immediately reorganized within the John A. Burns School of Medicine (JABSOM) as the Office of Public Health Studies with the academic programs under the Department of Public Health Sciences and Epidemiology. The pledge of the new JABSOM dean, Edwin Cadman, was to rebuild Public Health into a school within five years. Dean Cadman entrusted department leadership to Dr. Miller, professor of epidemiology. Dr. Miller focused the Program on public health sciences and increasing research productivity. Four remaining faculty members chose to transfer their locus of tenure to other schools at this time. As Dr. Miller followed through with his quest to focus the Program, leadership and budget decisions were centralized. The decision was made to limit the MPH offerings to Epidemiology, although a second MPH, in gerontology, was approved (headed by Dr. Braun). Four new faculty members were hired into the Epidemiology program—Drs. Imrie, Maddock, Nigg, and Rodriquez—each with a strong publication and grant record. Dr. Rodriquez was subsequently appointed (2004) to head the Epidemiology program. II. Accreditation as a program 2002 In April 2002, the Department was accredited by CEPH as a program in public health, offering the MPH in Epidemiology and Gerontology. Comments from CEPH identified several areas of weakness, including a lack of the functional evaluation process. Thus, during this phase the Program established an Evaluation Committee (chaired by Dr. Braun) that developed indicators and targets. Many of the first indicator set concerned faculty productivity, and it was during this time that the Personnel Committee (chaired by Dr. Braun) began to conduct an annual review of each faculty member against Program standards. Governance and budget decisions remained centralized, and the Chair was not supportive of the continuation of the Gerontology specialization. Thus, during 2003-2004, Dr. Braun began efforts to move Gerontology to another unit at UHM. The Gerontology MPH was discontinued. Luckily, the faculty member in Gerontology (Braun) was invited to join with faculty members in maternal and child health (Dr. Baruffi) and in social epidemiology (Drs. Maddock and Nigg) to offer an MPH in Social and Behavioral Health Sciences. This MPH program was approved in 2003, with Drs. Maddock and Nigg sharing leadership of the specialization. III. New leadership and decentralization - April 2004 In April 2004, Dr. Miller’s term as Chair ended. At this point, he transfered his locus of tenure to another department within JABSOM. Dr. Rodriquez transferred her locus of tenure to another department as well. Dr. Alan Katz was appointed as head of the Epidemiology program. Dr. Waslien was recommended by the public health faculty to the dean of JABSOM to chair the Department. She was appointed by the dean and began to decentralize leadership of the Program by calling for an election of a new Graduate Chair of the Field of Study (Dr. Maddock) and requiring program heads and committee chairs to meet regularly and report recommendations to the full Department for vote. She secured permission to hire four new faculty members and employed an open recruitment and review process for these positions.

iv 1C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

IV. The flood and the diaspora - October 2004 – August 2005 After weeks of heavy rain, Mānoa Stream jumped its banks on October 31, 2004. More than $80 million in damage was done to UH buildings and grounds. The Biomedical Sciences Building, where the public health program is located, was among the hardest hit. The stream dumped water and mud throughout the basement and 1st-floor offices. The electrical and air conditioning systems were destroyed. The state called in a disaster-management firm to remove ruined carpets, walls, furniture, books, and papers. Noisy and exhaust-spewing generators were brought in to aid in the clean-up. First-floor faculty had a few days to salvage and box up what they could, which was moved to storage. Second-floor faculty was allowed to stay, but these offices were without power and air conditioning. Fortunately, the student services office remained in the building to provide some stability for public health faculty and students. Faculty members taught their courses in whatever classroom could be found for them on campus, but had nowhere on campus to conduct research or to meet with students and colleagues. Faculty members were supported to set up crude and non-private offices in a warehouse about 5 miles from campus (where administrative staff had been transferred) or in their own homes. (Some quipped that they were working out of their cars and holding all their meetings at Starbucks, which was not too far from the truth.) The rebuilding of the Biomedical Sciences Building was slowed by the fact that many of the pre- flood tenants were able to move in April 2005 to the new JABSOM building that was already under construction when the flood occurred. However, efforts by the public health students and faculty were successful in getting some of the Biomedical Sciences Building second floor offices and classrooms re-habitable by September 2005. With the flood, student opinion of many aspects of the program took a nose-dive. This is reflected in the exit survey results. It should be noted, however, that despite the flood, classes were taught, research was conducted, and papers were written. Most importantly, the Program was able to follow-through with the new hires. In 2005, Drs. Grandinetti, Hurwitz, Keller, and Lu joined the faculty. All had excellent publications and research records. V. Moving back and starting to rebuild – 2005-present Although faculty members began moving back to the Biomedical Sciences Building in 2005, Public Health did not re-acquire its full complement of offices and classrooms until Spring 2006. The process of ordering needed furniture for offices and classrooms and refurbishing the computer and research labs began. The computer lab was not fully functional until Fall 2006 In this phase, leadership was further decentralized with the establishment of a Budget Committee, comprised of regular faculty who cover 50% or more of their salary through grants and contracts. It is this Committee that took the lead on assessing need for computers, laboratory equipment, furniture, non-tenure-track faculty, administrative assistants, and so forth. Committee membership changed to give all faculty opportunities for participation and leadership. For example, Dr. Nigg became head of the Social Behavioral Health Program, Dr. Braun led the Budget Committee, Dr. Baruffi took over Personnel, and so forth. The Evaluation Committee also moved forward to expand and clarify program evaluation indicators and procedures. Personnel continued its annual review of faculty against productivity targets, and these data were fed back to faculty to help them improve their performance. As a result, in 2006, almost all faculty members met or exceeded standards for teaching, research, publications, presentations, continuing education, and service.

v 1C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

Following Dr. Waslien’s retirement in August 2006, Dr. Maddock was elected Chair of the Department. He has maintained a commitment to broadly decentralized leadership. Faculty meetings are biweekly, with regular reports from Committee Chairs. Key functions are review and discussion of evaluation data as well as strategic planning for the Program. In addition, he has taken a more active role in representing Public Health at JABSOM and UH leadership meetings, and in promoting partnerships with the public health community. Now that research productivity has increased, the Department is re-strengthening ties with the community. This includes strengthening relationships with practicum supervisors, students, potential students and new applicants. Thus, two new faculty were hired in 2006, both on soft money. Dr. Heinrich is working on community-placed research projects (Co-investigator for the Health Hawai‘i Initiative) and has an excellent research and publication record. Dr. Yontz is focusing on public health practice. She is ideally suited for this task since she has her own MPH and has worked in the O‘ahu community for the last 11 years and prior to that in Southeast Asia for 6 years. This allows the Practice Coordinator the working knowledge and experience to officially establish numerous community linkages and strengthen the service-learning collaboration with various agencies and organizations. Opportunities for student participation in program governance and future planning have been increased as well. For example, students have joined and contributed to decision making in several the Program committees, including Curriculum, Evaluation, and Student Affairs. In Fall 2006, students in Dr. Braun’s Needs Assessment class agreed to undertake an assessment of community needs for public health education. Data were collected through 2 talk-story sessions, 3 focus groups, 34 interviews, and an online questionnaire completed by 128 students, faculty, and members of Hawai‘i’s public health community. The students drew four conclusions from the findings: 1. There is a lack of awareness about the UH Public Health program. 2. There is a need for a strong Public Health program in Hawai‘i. 3. People want more options and opportunities for education in Public Health. 4. There is a need for cohesive commitment to Public Health from top to bottom. They recommended that the Department continue efforts to strengthen the Public Health program at UH and that we undertake campaigns to market the Public Health program at UH to potential student populations on campus, in the Public Health community, to UH administration and advisors, and to the community at large. VI. University support for rebuilding a School of Public Health The University and UHM administrations have been supportive of the redevelopment of a School of Public Health. This intent to return to a School of Public Health was made clear even at the Board of Regents meeting where the proposal for the merger of the SPH into JABSOM was approved. The establishment of an Office of Public Health Studies with its own administrative structure, including a budget independent from JABSOM, was maintained. As stated in the Board of Regents meeting: “Because the goal is to seek the re-establishment of an accredited school of public health, this reorganization proposal attempts to maintain as much as possible the existing and relevant organizational structure of the SPH. This should facilitate its eventual re-emergence as a separate entity, either within or outside of JABSOM.”1 This level of autonomy has allowed the Program to grow. Even now the Program is in the process of hiring a second faculty member for environmental health with another position being discussed for Fall

1Minutes of Regular Meeting of the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents, July 21, 2000. vi 1C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

2007. The Chancellor’s Office spearheaded a $100,000 grant proposal with CDC to develop a strategic plan for redeveloping a School of Public Health. And just recently the leadership position for the Office of Public Health Studies was changed from Chair of the Department to Director of the Office of Public Health Studies in order to more clearly reflect the organizational structure of the Program. The future of the Office of Public Health Studies looks secure on its path to becoming an even stronger Program while working with the administration towards the goal of reemerging as a School of Public Health.

vii 2C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

Table of Contents

1. The Public Health Program 1.1. Mission...... 1 1.2. Evaluation and Planning...... 9 1.3. Institutional Environment...... 17 1.4. Organization and Administration...... 27 1.5. Governance...... 33 1.6. Resources...... 43 1. Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations...... 55

2. Instructional Programs 2.1. Master of Public Health Degree...... 57 2.2. Program Length...... 59 2.3. Public Health Core Knowledge...... 61 2.4. Practical Skills...... 63 2.5. Culminating Experience...... 69 2.6. Required Competencies...... 71 2.7. Assessment Procedures...... 79 2.8. Academic Degrees...... 85 2. Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations...... 87

3. Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge 3.1. Research...... 89 3.2. Service...... 105 3.3. Workforce Development...... 111 3. Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations...... 115

4. Faculty, Staff and Students 4.1. Faculty Qualifications...... 117 4.2. Faculty Policies and Procedures...... 125 4.3. Faculty and Staff Diversity...... 129 4.4 Student Recruitment and Admissions...... 135 4.5. Student Diversity...... 139 4.6. Advising and Career Counseling...... 143 4. Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations...... 147

vii 3C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

List of Tables

Table 1.2.c. Mission, Goals, and Objectives Outcome Measures...... 12 Table 1.2.f. Department Self-Study Committee Assignments...... 16 Table 1.5.c. Department of Public Health Sciences Leadership, Standing, and Ad Hoc Committees...... 39 Table 1.6.b. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2006...... 45 Table 1.6.d. Core Faculty Fall Semester 2003- 2006...... 46 Table 1.6.e. Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department or Specialty Area...... 47 Table 1.6.f. Office of Public Health Studies Staff: Fall 2005...... 49 Table 1.6.g. Office of Public Health Studies Space...... 49 Table 1.6.m. Resource Outcome Measures...... 53 Table 2.1.a. Degree Programs Offered through the Office of Public Health Studies...... 57 Table 2.3.a. Core Public Health Courses...... 61 Table 2.4.b. Preceptors and Practice Sites Fall 2004 - 2006...... 65 Table 2.6.b. Matrix of Core MPH Competencies...... 73 Table 2.6.c. Matrix of Specialization Competencies...... 75 Table 2.7.b. Student Achievement Outcome Measures...... 81 Table 2.7.d. Destination of Graduates by Specialization Area 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06...... 82 Table 2.8.b.1. Required Coursework for the MS Degree in Epidemiology...... 85 Table 2.8.b.2. Required Coursework for the MS Degree in Social and Behavioral Health Sciences...... 86 Table 3.1.c. Research Funding of Primary and Secondary Faculty FY 2003-04 to 2005-06...... 94 Table 3.1.d.1. Annual Publication Record by Calendar Year for 2003-2006...... 97 Table 3.1.d.2. Research Outcome Measures...... 98 Table 3.2.b.1. Local Service Activities of the Faculty...... 106 Table 3.2.b.2. National and International Service Activities of the Faculty...... 107 Table 3.2.c. Service Outcome Measures...... 108 Table 3.3.c. Participation in Continuing Education Activities...... 113 Table 3.3.e. Workforce Development Outcome Measures...... 114

viii 4C O N T E N T S , T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

Table 4.1.a. Current Core Faculty Supporting Degree by Specialty Area: Fall 2006...... 119 Table 4.1.b. Current Other Faculty Used to Support Teaching Program (Adjunct, Part-Time, Secondary, etc.) Academic Year 2005-2006...... 122 Table 4.1.d. Faculty Qualifications Outcome Measures...... 124 Table 4.3.a.1. Summary Demographic Data for Current Core (Fall 2006) and Other Faculty AY 2005-2006...... 129 Table 4.3.a.2. Summary of Faculty Applicants 2003-2005...... 130 Table 4.3.b. Summary Demographic Data for Staff Fall 2006...... 130 Table 4.3.f.1. Faculty Diversity: Public Health and UHM 2003-2005...... 133 Table 4.3.f.2. Staff Diversity: Public Health and UHM 2003-2005...... 133 Table 4.4.d. Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, and Enrollments by Specialization Area, Fall Semester 2003-2005...... 134 Table 4.4.e. Students Enrolled in Each Degree Program by Specialization Area, Fall Semester 2003-2005...... 137 Table 4.4.f. Student Recruitment and Admissions Outcome Measures...... 137 Table 4.5.c.1. Demographic Characteristics of Applicants, Fall 2003-2005...... 138 Table 4.5.c.2. Race/Ethnicity: Graduate Division (GD), OPHS, and ASPH Fall 2003-2005...... 139 Table 4.5.d. Student Diversity Outcome Measures...... 139 Table 4.6.c. Faculty Advising and Career Counseling Outcome Measures...... 143

List of Figures

Figure 1.3.b.1. University of Hawai‘i Systemwide Administration...... 19 Figure 1.3.b.2. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Organization Chart...... 20 Figure 1.3.b.3. John A. Burns School of Medicine Organizational Chart...... 21 Figure 1.4.a. Office of Public Health Studies Internal Organizational Structure...... 27

ix 5 T h e P u b l i c H e a l t h P r o g r a m

1.1. Mission. The program shall have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with supporting goals and objectives. The program shall foster the development of professional public health values, concepts and ethical practice. 1.1.a. A clear and concise mission statement for the program as a whole. Mission . The mission of the Office of Public Health Studies (OPHS), Department of Public Health Sciences (Program) is to advance the health of the peoples of Hawai‘i, the nation, and the Asia-Pacific region through the education and training of public health professionals, innovative research in public health sciences, and service to the community. Through its multidisciplinary and multicultural approach to instruction, research, and community service, the Program emphasizes the preparation of future public health leaders who are proficient at employing public health knowledge and skills in a culturally diverse world. The mission is defined by the Program’s geographic location and the cultural and ethnic diversity of its students, the communities it serves, as well as the cultural, disciplinary and experiential diversity of its faculty. 1.1.b. One or more goal statements for each major function by which the program intends to attain its mission, including instruction, research and service. The Program’s commitment to instruction, research, and service in the field of public health include the following: 1. Educational Goals 1.1. To recruit quality students into the degree programs. 1.2. To offer required and elective courses and field experiences that facilitate student mastery of public health competences. 1.3. To assure graduates master the core competences for their degree. 2. Research Goals 2.1. To discover and create new knowledge, evaluate health services needs, and apply research. 2.2. To disseminate research findings through publications and participation in local, national, and international professional societies. 2.3. To involve students in research and evaluation projects 3. Service Goals 3.1. To enhance continuing education and training of Department of Health personnel and other health professionals. 3.2. To provide consultative and direct services to community, state, federal, and international organizations in support of the Program’s mission. 4. Program-wide Goals 4.1. To ensure academic excellence by systematically evaluating the Program and considering findings in program development. 4.2. To ensure academic excellence by garnering adequate resources for delivery of a quality public health program.

1 6 T h e P u b l i c H e a l t h P r o g r a m

1.1.c. A set of measurable objectives relating to each major function through which the program intends to achieve its goals of instruction, research and service. 1. Educational Goals and Objectives 1.1. To recruit quality students into the degree programs. Objectives. 1.1.a. The average GPA for admitted students will be 3.4 or higher. 1.1.b. At least 90% of students will maintain a GPA of 3.0 or better. 1.1.c.At least 50% of the students admitted will have previous health experience. 1.1.d. A total of 100% of foreign students will score 550+ on written or 213+ on computer TOEFL. 1.1.e. A total of 100% of U.S. students admitted will have taken the GRE or have completed an advanced degree for which the examination requirement is waived. 1.1.f. Minority distribution will be 45% or greater as compared to the Graduate Division and Association of Schools of Public Health Data Report on minority distribution. 1.1.g. No more than 10% of students admitted to the MPH program will receive a waiver of any admission criteria. 1.2. To offer required and elective courses and field experiences that facilitate student mastery of public health competences. Objectives. 1.2.a. Course/field learning objectives will be reviewed against the student competencies at a faculty meeting annually. 1.2.b.A total of 100% of the faculty members will offer four courses per year or the equivalent unless offset by other academic activities. Teaching load can be reduced for faculty serving as program head and/or through extramurally funded grants that include salary offset. At the discretion of the Director, teaching load can also be reduced to permit investigations of new research areas/faculty development. 1.2.c.A total of 100% of faculty will evaluate their regular and formal continuing education courses, and consider feedback in revising courses. 1.2.d. At least 80% of fieldwork preceptors will complete the student evaluation form. 1.2.e.At least 80% of the students will complete their degrees within 2 years. 1.2.f. At least 80% of the students will indicate satisfaction with their program as excellent or good. 1.2.g. At least 80% of the students will rate the quality of faculty instruction as excellent or good. 1.2.h. At least 80% of the students will rate the expertise of the faculty (depth of knowledge, current knowledge) at excellent or good. 1.2.i. At least 80% of the students will rate access to faculty at excellent or good. 1.2.j. At least 80% of the students will rate academic advising as excellent or good. 1.2.k.At least 80% of the students will rate administrative support as excellent or good. 1.2.l. At least 80% of the students will rate student involvement in governance as excellent or good. 1.3. To assure graduates master the core competences for their degree.

Objectives. 1.3.a. A total of 100% of the members of the student’s committee will agree, following the oral exam and review of written work that the student has mastered the public health and specialty competencies for the student to graduate. 1.3.b. At least 80% of the alumni currently working in health fields will rate their specific program of study at 4 or above on a point scale (1=poor and 5=excellent) regarding adequacy in preparing them for their present job or responsibilities. 1.3.c.At least 80% of employers in health-related fields will indicate that the Program’s graduates can effectively perform the competencies in a practice setting. 1.3.d. At least 80% of alumni will indicate they were employed within 12 months of graduation. 2. Research Goals and Objectives 2.1. To discover and create new knowledge, evaluate health services needs, and apply research. Objectives. 2.1.a. Research dollars per FTE faculty will be $100,000 per year. 2.1.b. A total of 100% of tenure-track faculty will be PI or co-investigator on at least one research project a year and participate on at least one other. 2.1.c. Increase dollar amount of research funding by 5% a year. 2.2. To disseminate research findings through publications and participation in local, national, and international professional societies. Objectives. 2.2.a. A total of 100% of faculty will produce at least 6 peer-reviewed publications over a 3 year period. 2.2.b. The mean number of peer reviewed publications will be at least 3 per FTE per year. 2.2.c. A total of 100% of full-time faculty will present on their research to at least one national or international professional society meeting each year. 2.2.d. A total of 100% of full-time faculty will present on their research to at least one local public health audience each year. 2.3. To involve students in research and evaluation projects. Objectives. 2.3.a. A total of 100% of graduating MPH students will complete the “culminating experience,” including 240 hours of fieldwork practicum, completion of a capstone paper on a public health issue, and a final oral presentation. 2.3.b. At least 10% of students will participate in faculty research as evidenced by participation in Graduate Assistantships. 2.3.c. At least one student per year will be supported through the Elmer Anderson Professional Travel Award to present a paper at an out-of-state conference.

3. Service Goals and Objectives 3.1. To enhance continuing education and training of Hawai‘i’s State Department of Health (DOH) personnel and other health professionals. Objectives. 3.1.a. A total of 100% of full-time faculty will contribute to at least one local continuing education activity each year. 3.1.b. Needs of local public health practitioners for continuing education and public health service will be assessed every three years. 3.1.c.Program will offer at least one formal semester-long course at the DOH each academic year. 3.2. To provide consultative and direct services to community, state, federal, and international organizations in support of the Program’s mission. Objectives. 3.2.a. A total of 100% of full-time faculty will provide professional service to at least one national or international professional society or organization each year. This might include reviewing abstracts and manuscripts, participating in grant reviews, providing training, serving on a federal or professional society committee. 3.2.b. A total of 100% of full-time faculty will provide professional service for at least one local public health society or agency. This might include reviewing abstracts, participating in grant reviews, providing training, serving on a local coalition, board or, committee relating to public health. 4. Program-wide Goals and Objectives 4.1. To ensure academic excellence by systematically evaluating the Program and considering findings in program development. Objectives. 4.1.a. The mission, goals and objectives will be reviewed annually with faculty and students. 4.1.b. The OPHS Governance Document will be reviewed every three years. 4.1.c.A total of 100% of students will complete the Exit Survey. 4.1.d. At least 30% of alumni will complete the Alumni Survey, administered every three years. 4.1.e. An Employer Survey will be administered every three years. 4.1.f. A Report of Evaluation Indicators (REI) will be reviewed annually at a faculty meeting. Annual review includes review and recommendations related to the findings, as well as review and modification (if needed) of the indicators. 4.1.g. MPH and specialization competencies will be reviewed at least every three years. 4.2. To ensure academic excellence by garnering adequate resources for delivery of a quality public health program. Objectives. 4.2.a. Program student/faculty ratio will be maintained at 7:1 or less. 4.2.b. Institutional support (state appropriations, tuition/fees, and indirect cost recovery) per student FTE will be at least $15,000 per year.

4.2.c.Extramural funding (service or training) as part of total budget will be less than 25%. 4.2.d. Salary offset per FTE faculty will average 25% per year. 4.2.e. At least 80% of the students will rate access to computer facilities as excellent or good. 4.2.f. At least 80% of the students will rate space/facilities as excellent or good. 4.2.g. At least 50% of the students will rate career advising as excellent or good. 4.2.h. At least 80% of the students will rate administrative support as excellent or good. 4.2.i. At least 50% of the students will rate student involvement in governance as excellent or good. 4.2.j. Tenurable faculty will be tenured within 6 years or terminated in 7 years. 1.1.d. A description of the manner in which mission, goals and objectives are developed, monitored and periodically revised and the manner in which they are made available to the public. Development of mission statement, goals and objectives. The mission statement was initially created during the formation of the new OPHS within the John A. Burns School of Medicine (JABSOM), and has since been revised in response to CEPH observations and recommendations, and as part of the long-term strategy to reestablish a school of public health (SPH). A plan for evaluation of the Program’s vision, mission, goals and objectives follows the same general plan for evaluation of the Program that was described in the 2004 interim report. Briefly, an ad hoc Evaluation Committee was formed in 2002 to develop a list of measurable objectives that followed from the Program’s mission statement and goals. These objectives were presented at a department faculty meeting (DFM), and were accepted with minor modifications. In Fall 2003, a permanent Evaluation and Planning Committee was added to the OPHS’s Governance Document as a standing committee. (This group meets regularly to review data, which is shared with faculty and used to improve the Program.) The Committee reviewed and suggested revisions to the evaluation objectives in 2004 and again in 2006 (following the revision of the mission statement, described below). As outlined in the Governance Document, all proposed revisions to the mission statement, goals, and objectives are presented to the full faculty for discussion, modification, and vote. Revision of mission statement . Development of the latest revision of the mission statement was facilitated by a grant from the CDC aimed at developing an action plan for expanding the public health program to meet the criteria to reestablish a SPH at the University of Hawai‘i. Funds from this grant were utilized to establish a contract with an external consultant to guide a strategic planning process. The strategic planning process has six phases: Research, Foresight, Strategy, Tactical, Resource, and the Final Phase. The Research phase entailed gathering information on the strategic plans of other schools of public health. The Foresight phase explored public health trends and emerging issues and their impacts on a potential future SPH at the University of Hawai‘i. A faculty retreat was used as a forum for faculty to express their ideas for an appropriate mission and vision for the Program. The Program’s values statement (see section 1.1.e. below), The Public Health Professionals' International Declaration of Health Rights from The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was circulated to the faculty prior to this meeting, and it was agreed upon that the Program’s vision and mission statements should reflect these values.

The consultant led the retreat, where he facilitated the discussion by initially defining the purpose of a vision and mission statement, provided continuous feedback on the appropriateness of specific items to be included in the statement, organizing the sometimes diverse ideas into a concise and coherent statement, all the while prompting the faculty members to assure reflection of the values described in the Declaration. The consultant provided additional assistance in drafting the language of the statement, which was refined at two follow-up DFMs. Development of goals and objectives . After a consensus by the faculty was reached on a vision and mission statement that reflected the public health values from the Declaration, the Evaluation Committee facilitated the review of the goals and objectives against the vision and mission statement. The revised goals and objectives were then reviewed by the relevant standing committees and then the full faculty before incorporation into the Program’s ongoing evaluation system. As a result, the mission statement includes goals and objectives that are specific, defined, and measurable, as well as strategies for ongoing evaluation and benchmarks with which to guide the evaluation and determine whether or not the goals are being achieved.

The revised vision and mission were then shared at the April 26, 2006 meeting with faculty, students, community, university leadership, alumni, and other constituents.

Current strategy phase . The Program is currently in the Strategy phase (the direction the organization will take), to be followed by the Tactical (the initiatives and campaigns to achieve the goal) and Resource phases (determine what resources are available and what are needed to achieve the goal). Expected outputs from this project include an SPH strategic plan, a business plan, and a transition plan that describes the organizational process through which the Program will develop into a SPH. Review of goals and objectives . Ongoing modifications of these criteria continue, with each standing committee responsible for reviewing and recommending modification (if needed) of criteria relevant to that committee. These are reviewed and approved in DFMs. As noted in the objectives, the mission, goals and objectives will be continue to be reviewed and revised (if needed) at least every three years with faculty and students.

Manner in which the mission, vision, goals and objectives are available to the public . The mission, vision, goals and objectives are included on the Program website, and in the Student Handbook and referenced in promotional materials used to advertise the graduate programs. They also are shared with students at orientation, and will be shared with students as part of the required Public Health introduction course to begin in Fall 2007. The website address is http://www.hawaii.edu/publichealth. The mission, vision, goals, and objectives of the Program are shared with alumni and employers in community meetings (e.g., at the Hawai‘i Public Health Association conference in June 2005 and a community education event in April 2006) and in the needs assessment for continuing education and public health education conducted every 3 years with employers (many of whom also are alumni). 1.1.e. A statement of values that guide the program, with a description of how the values are determined and operationalized. Vision . The development of professional public health values, key concepts, and ethical practice is exemplified in the Program’s vision. We envision a future in which society promotes and nurtures the health of its people through far- sighted and responsible policies that preempt avoidable illness and distress. We see a future in

which the natural environment, our built environment, and our lifestyles are maintained in ways that consider healthy people a priority. We see all people living lives of the highest possible standards of health and wellness, enjoying the emotional and physical rewards of active, engaged, and rewarding lives amongst vibrant, connected communities. Within this future, we see the key role that the Department of Public Health Sciences will play, as a full and trusted partner of the community, as an exemplar in research and discovery, and as an innovative and responsive educator and mentor to generations of professionals. We see the department working with and within the many communities and countries across Hawai‘i, the nation, the Pacific, and Asia. We see an organization continually changing and innovating, adapting to the evolving needs of populations, the changing demands of the health professions, and the changing capabilities of human science and knowledge. Values that guide the program. The Program trains public health professionals who espouse values and ethics of the greater public health profession. These values reflect a commitment to a broader health care framework rather than just medical care, to population health as well as to individual health, and to prevention and health promotion in preference to treatment and cure as the primary method of delivering health services to the population. They also reflect a commitment to social equity and cultural sensitivity. Discussions of values and ethical issues are incorporated directly in all public health courses, and students are trained to identify them and deal with them with honesty, integrity and an open perspective. Diversity of values among students . The unique multicultural setting of the Program attracts diversity and is an asset readily exploited in terms of learning made available to our students. In Fall 2005 the Program students were 35% international and 50% were non-Caucasian. Culture and personal experiences influence an individual’s worldview and his/her perception of the role of the public health professional. These experiences often lead to lively discussions in the classroom setting; thus the potential for instilling an appreciation of diversity occurs naturally in all classes. The use of problem or case study methods reinforces such natural learning. Ethics and values part of course work . In addition to this general exposure which all students experience, the ethics and values of public health are part of foundation and specialization course work. Specific ethic and value issues, such as anonymous testing for HIV/AIDS and the confidentiality of the public record, are dealt with in multiple settings within the Program. The PH 600 Introduction to Public Health course will require students to complete the National Cancer Institute online course: Human Participant Protections Education for Research Teams. This is already required by some faculty. All of these efforts are enhanced through the use of our many community settings for class projects and public health professionals who bring to classes examples from their areas of expertise. International Declaration of Health Rights . In 1995, the former School of Public Health adopted the International Declaration of Health Rights (developed at The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) as a statement of human values and social judgment to serve as a set of values for the faculty and students. The Program reaffirmed the acceptance of these values and has utilized them in its strategic planning process (see 1.1.d.). The Declaration forms a context for graduates as a personal and professional vision of the kind of world public health aims to bring about. The statement is presented at the annual student orientation, can be found in the Student Handbook (Reference File) and on the Program website (http://www.hawaii.edu/publichealth/about/about.html. See Appendix 1 for the full statement of values.

1.1.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. The criterion is met. The Program is actively involved in defining and clarifying its mission, vision, goals, and objectives. Participants in this process have included faculty, students, and alumni, many of whom are leaders and employers in the local public health community. This activity was given additional impetus with funding from CDC to involve the Program, University and community in a strategic planning process geared towards rebuilding a SPH. Regardless of the catalyst, the net effect has been a renewed commitment to on-going organizational planning and periodic review.

1.2. Evaluation and Planning. The program shall have an explicit process for evaluating and monitoring its overall efforts against its mission, goals and objectives; for assessing the program’s effectiveness in serving its various constituencies; and for planning to achieve its mission in the future. 1.2.a. Description of the evaluation procedures and planning processes used by the program, including an explanation of how constituent groups are involved in these processes. The Program has an explicit and systematic process for evaluating and monitoring its overall efforts against its mission, goals and objectives; for assessing the Program’s effectiveness in serving its various constituencies; and for planning to achieve its mission in the future. Objectives are measurable . Each of the 50+ objectives is measurable, targeted, and has a specified data collection mechanism and review body (in addition to the faculty as a whole). This information is summarized in the Report of Evaluation Indicators (REI) shown in Appendix 2. Collect and review data in the Fall . The Evaluation Committee, formally added to the Governance Document in 2004, has responsibility for the Program evaluation process. In the Fall, the Committee reminds all other standing committees to gather data on the objectives they are responsible for (e.g., the Personnel Committee gathers data on most of the faculty-related indicators), to provide a preliminary review of data, to recommend actions to improve the Program, and, if warranted, to recommend modifications to the objectives. Evaluation released in the Spring . In early Spring semester, data collected in the previous year are added to Report of Evaluation Indicators (REI), which is reviewed by the Evaluation Committee and then by the entire faculty at a meeting in the Spring semester. All faculty members are involved in discussions of the indicators. The “off-target” indicators are examined and recommended changes to program (and evaluation objectives if warranted) are given and voted upon. Discussion and actions are documented in the minutes of the DFM. Constituent groups are involved in the evaluation process . Data are systematically collected from all constituent groups. Specifically:  CAFE. Each semester, our courses are evaluated using the UH Course and Faculty Evaluation System (CAFE), and faculty members select 13 common departmental items (from more than 300 items) for inclusion on their individual course evaluations. These data are reviewed by the Curriculum Committee (Objective 1.2.c).  Student exit survey. As students graduate, they are required to complete an Exit Survey (Objective 4.1.c). This is conducted by the Office of Graduate Student Academic Services (OGSAS) and is computer-based to assure anonymity of the student responders. Data for monitoring progress against many of the student-oriented and program-oriented objectives are gathered through this survey. These data are reviewed by the Program standing committees.  Faculty self assessment. Each Fall semester, faculty members assess themselves against faculty objectives and submit their review along with their CV to the Personnel Committee. These data are reviewed with each faculty member by the Director and used to improve faculty teaching, service, and research productivity.  Employer survey. Each third year, an Employer Survey will be utilized, which collects data in three areas: 1) their needs for public health graduates; 2) their expectations for competencies of our graduates; and 3) their own needs for continuing education. In the past, some of these data were collected through a paper survey and through data gathering

at biennial meetings of the Hawai‘i Public Health Association (HPHA). While we will continue to present and collect data through HPHA meetings, the Program’s PH 649 Needs Assessment and Planning class will also collected data relating to these areas. The first assessment was completed in Fall 2006 and addressed employer and workers needs for continuing education. (Results are available in the Reference File.) This process assures that quality data are collected and provide students with opportunities to apply classroom learning to a “real problem,” to become introduced to the local public health network, and to hear directly from public health employers about their expectations of graduates.  Alumni survey. Every third year, the Program conducts an Alumni Survey. This is a mail-out survey to those who have graduated in the past five years.  Budget review. Budget-related data are provided annually by the Program’s Administrative Office.  OGSAS student data. Data pertaining to student admissions, GPA, student- faculty ratio, and so forth are provided annually by OGSAS.  Assessment of competencies for the MPH is monitored by the faculty advisor, student grades, course evaluations, and the culminating experience.  On a program-wide basis, exit and alumni surveys (Reference File) provide the student’s perspective on the success of the Program in fulfilling their educational objectives.  The practicum preceptor evaluation and employer survey will offer valuable information on how well the employers of the Program’s graduates perceive their professional competence.  Global Public Health Conference. The program solicits input from the community at the Global Public Health Conference sponsored by the Hawai‘i Public Health Association and the UHM Globalization Research Center. In 2005 the Program solicited input on program activities and direction through two mechanism: in writing (on a survey distributed at the Program exhibit) and at a one-hour session. Survey responses can be found in Appendix 3.

1.2.b. Description of how the results of evaluation and planning are regularly used to enhance the quality of programs and activities. Use of Evaluation Data. Evaluation objectives are used to improve the Program, as illustrated by these examples. CAFE used for faculty review. Faculty-oriented criteria are used in annual faculty reviews conducted by the Personnel Committee, and findings are used to strengthen Program policy. For example, Objective1.2.d. stated that each faculty member evaluates his/her course. Evaluation findings in 2002 revealed that not all faculty members did so or were using their own evaluation tools. Findings were shared, and faculty members agreed to modify the objective to require faculty members to use the UH CAFE system, and by the next semester, all faculty members were evaluating their courses using CAFE. The Personnel Committee used CAFE findings in faculty member reviews. In 2004, two faculty members were found to have “low” scores and student complaints. As part of the annual faculty review, the Director discussed the teaching deficiencies with each faculty member. The Personnel Committee noted improvements to CAFE findings for both professors in their next annual review. The Personnel Committee also noted that faculty members used different CAFE questions to evaluate their courses, precluding cross-instructor comparison. In 2005, faculty members agreed to select 13 departmental items (10 close-ended and 3 open-ended) CAFÉ items in common that would be included for each class. Faculty members are free to add other additional items to their personal course evaluations.

Student exit data used to improve student involvement in governance. Exit data reveal that even though student involvement in governance improved in the last three years, only 47.1% of the graduates rate “student involvement in governance” as excellent or good (Objective 4.2.i.). This issue has been discussed at the Student Affairs Committee and DFMs, and a number of strategies are underway to improve students’ access to information and participation in decision making. These strategies include adding information about the Program and soliciting student input through email, development of an electronic newsletter to improve communication, to encourage student representation on committees, to appoint a faculty liaison to the public health student group, Hui Ola Pono (Hui), who would attend their meetings, and to present information about the vision, mission, goals, and objectives in more public health classes, especially the new Introduction to Public Health class. Response rate for exit survey improved by Student Affairs Committee. The response rate for the Exit Survey that was mailed to each student after graduation was only 45%. Strategies for improving the response rate were discussed in the Student Affairs Committee and it was decided that graduating students would be required to make an appointment at the Office of Student Academic Services to take the survey before the end of their last semester. Results are not reviewed until after graduation. Since implementing this new process for the Exit Survey, 90% of students have provided data for the 2005-06 academic year (Objective 4.1.c.). A review of faculty activities leads to strengthened objectives. A criterion on service and continuing education criteria was established in 2002, which required each faculty member to “contribute to local public health endeavors each year.” This was non-specific, so some faculty members reported activity related to continuing education and others to work on local committees, and all faculty members met this criterion. As we linked objectives back to our revised mission, goals, and objectives we realized that these (and other) objectives needed to become more specific. In place of the 2002 criterion, faculty members will now need to assess themselves against these criteria:  100% of full-time faculty will present on their research to at least one national or international professional society meeting each year (Objective 2.2.c.).  100% of full-time faculty will present their research to at least one local public health audience each year (Objective 2.2.d.).  100% of full-time faculty will contribute to at least one local continuing education activity each year (Objective 3.1.a.).  100% of full-time faculty will provide professional service to at least one national or international professional society or organization each year (Objective 3.2.a.).  100% of full-time faculty will provide professional service for at least one local public health society or agency each year (Objective 3.2.b.). The program has developed a systematic, broad-based, integrated evaluation process designed to provide regular input to enhance the quality of its programs and activities. 1.2.c. Identification of outcome measures that the program uses to monitor its effectiveness in meeting its mission, goals and objectives. Target levels should be defined and data regarding the program’s performance must be provided for each of the last three years. Identification of program outcome measures . A Report of Evaluation Indicators (REI) was developed to monitor the measurable objectives by which the Program can gauge its effectiveness in meeting its mission and its goals and objectives for education, research, service, and the Program.

The data regarding the Program’s performance on these indicators over the past three years is shown in Appendix 2. The REI with complete information on the oversight committee and the instrument to collect the data is available in the Reference File. The Program reviewed the REI for the first time in Fall 2006. There are two factors which will make some of the measures difficult to assess:  First is the change in method of collecting the Exit Survey. As noted in section 1.2.b. above, the survey had been administered by mail with a very low return rate (45%). In 2005-06 each graduate was to complete the survey in the Office of Graduate Student Academic Services before the end of their final semester. The response rate improved dramatically to 90%.  The second factor is the flood in October 2004 that made the Program’s spaces in the Biomedical Sciences Building unusable for almost a year. The Program’s computer lab was not functional again until Fall 2006. It will take at least another year to clearly assess some of the objectives. To assure the effectiveness of the Program, a review of the foundation documents are reviewed on a periodic basis. The documents reviewed are the mission, goals, and objectives of the Program; the Program’s Governance Document; and the Report of Evaluation indicators. Table 1.2.c. Mission, Goals, and Objectives Outcome Measures

Objecti Target Outcome Measure 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 ve 2007-08 Not yet Not yet Complete Review the program’s mission and Every 3 4.1.a. establishe establishe d goals years d d F05 & S06 Reviewed Last Fall 2006 Every 3 Revised 4.1.b. Review the Governance Document NA Ratified years Spring Spring 2004 2007 Not Not Review the Report of Evaluation Spring 4.1.f. Annually establishe establishe Indicators (REI) annually 2006 d d

1.2.d. An analytical self-study document that provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of how the program achieves its mission, goals and objectives and meets all accreditation criteria, including a candid assessment of strengths and weaknesses in terms of the program’s performance against the accreditation criteria. The program has completed a self-study document meeting all the requirements. 1.2.e. An analysis of the program’s responses to recommendations in the last accreditation report (if any). The last Program site visit occurred in February 2002. The Program received a three-year term of accreditation with an option to extend the term by two additional years based on an interim report. An interim report was submitted in April 2004 and accepted by the Council at its May meeting, extending the accreditation term by the two additional years.

The responses of the Program to the observations and recommendations of the site visit team follow. Goals and Objectives . CEPH commented that the objectives for the Program’s goals were not measurable. Soon after the site visit, the Program initiated the development for an integrated evaluation and planning process. One step in this process was to develop quantifiable outcome objectives by which the Program could monitor its progress towards achieving its mission, goals, and objectives. These outcome measures have evolved into the Program’s measurable objectives and an annual reporting system (REI). Organizational Setting . CEPH found that there was confusion with regard to the permanent leadership and organizational structure of Program in that one person was acting as associate dean, Department Chair, and chair of the field of study. The person in that position was the “acting” Department Chair. At the time of the last site visit there was a search in progress for the associate dean position. The UHM Chancellor subsequently withdrew the funding for that position and the search was discontinued. However, as indicated in the Program’s Interim Report in 2004, this did not affect the current administration or role of the Program, the existing department, or its accredited programs. The Department Chair was the chief administrator for the Program and responsible for the functioning of the department. Permanent leadership was installed shortly after the 2002 site visit and the faculty began development of a Governance Document, which was completed in January 2004. It provides documentation of roles and responsibilities of the faculty and the committees which govern the Program. The roles of the Department Chair and the chair of the field of study were also separated, thus sharing the workload more broadly among the faculty. Public Health Values . CEPH found that the Program did not clearly articulate the professional values that it obviously projected. As part of a strategic planning process (section 1.1.d.), the Program reaffirmed the International Declaration of Health Rights (developed at The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) as a statement of human values and social judgment, which will serve as a set of values that the faculty, students, and graduates can accept as a personal and professional vision of the kind of world public health aims to bring about. The statement is presented at orientation and can be found in the Student Handbook (Reference File) and is located on the Program website at http://www.hawaii.edu/publichealth/about/about.html. Governance . CEPH also mentioned the “ambiguity in leadership roles” and consolidation of authority in the Governance section. These issues were addressed in the Organizational Setting section above. Instructional Programs. The site team commented about the following instructional issues:  While the expectations for the gerontology practicum were well documented (including hours required), it was difficult to evaluate the epidemiology practice experience. All MPH students are now required to complete a practicum of 240 hours (Objective 2.3.a.). Epidemiology has also documented the requirements for their student practicum (See Appendix 4 for the Epidemiology and Social and Behavioral Health Sciences Practicum Guidelines.)  Many of the course syllabi did not include learning objectives, making it difficult to ascertain whether the Program competencies matrix was operational. Shortly after the site visit, all course syllabi without learning objectives were revised to include the

objectives. As part of the self-study preparation it was decided that a standardized syllabus format would be implemented. The key elements were discussed at a DFM. The standard syllabus template must include course objectives plus linkages to the specific specialization and MPH competencies covered in the course.  Epidemiology did not have a clearly documented assessment procedure or standardized form for evaluating the performance of their student’s practicum experience. As noted above, Epidemiology faculty established documented practicum expectations. The Program also standardized the practicum preceptor evaluation of student placements and set a measure for the response rate (Objective 1.2.d.) to ensure academic excellence by systematically evaluating the Program and considering findings in program development. However, the current self-study has shown that the organizational structure to collect practicum evaluation data was lacking. Efforts to improve this aspect of assessment are discussed in section 2.4.a. and include the addition of a new position for a field practicum coordinator. Service . CEPH found that this criterion was partially met because there was a lack of a coordinated continuing education program and no written policy regarding service (although it was noted that faculty members were “engaged in work that contributes to the community, the university, and the public health professions.”). The Program developed a policy statement that was included in the 2004 Interim Report, on continuing education as follows: The Program’s continuing education and training effort is to improve the health of the public by offering credit and noncredit courses, hosting seminars and conferences, and to provide quality learning opportunities for students, faculty, public health professionals, alumni, and other interested parties, throughout the community on an ongoing basis. Our continuing education efforts: a) foster information exchange related to new research, resources, and best practices; b) showcase the accomplishments of the Program; c) improve the understanding of public health related issues; d) enhance professional competencies; and e) expand our public health networks. To implement the policy, a formalized continuing education course was added to the Program’s curriculum (PH 696 Continuing Education in Public Health) and measurable objectives were developed for service. PH 696 is offered once a year with topics selected from the needs assessment outcomes, which are administered to public health professionals in the community. Expectations for faculty participation in community-oriented continuing education offerings were made explicit in the Program’s service goals and objectives (Goals 3.1. and 3.2.). Faculty Diversity . CEPH was concerned that all of the directors of the five core courses were white males. Course directors for four of the core courses are still males; however, one of them is not Caucasian. One of the core courses is directed by a Caucasian female faculty member. Ongoing Evaluation. CEPH concluded that even though the Program identified various mechanisms that would contribute to evaluation, monitoring and planning, these were not integrated into a comprehensive approach. The Program began working on this issue immediately after the site visit in 2002 and the evaluation and planning system has been evolving since that time. The Program developed a comprehensive evaluation and planning system as described in this section 1.2.a. An Evaluation Committee was added to the Program’s Governance Document to oversee the monitoring process. Various committees/offices are responsible for providing data

for the Report on Evaluation Indicators (measurable objectives) which is used to monitor the effectiveness in achieving the Program’s mission, goals, and objectives (Appendix 2).

1.2.f. A description of the manner in which the self-study document was developed, including effective opportunities for input by important program constituents, including institutional officers, administrative staff, teaching faculty, students, alumni and representatives of the public health community.

The self-study process was initiated immediately after the last site visit review. The focus was on areas found deficient. The Program’s Interim Report to the Council, dated April 2004, documents the progress made in the first two years. Standing and ad hoc committees provided input and the document was discussed and reviewed at DFMs. In Fall of 2005, four of the Program’s standing committees were assigned responsibility for the evaluation of the Program on the CEPH criteria. Because these committees are part of the governance structure, students had already been included on the committees (exceptions being Admissions and Personnel). The DFMs provided a venue for discussion of accreditation issues through the 2005-06 academic year and Fall 2006. Committee assignments and composition are listed in Table 1.2.f. on the following page. The committees were instructed to develop a 2006 draft report on their criteria. The review considered the CEPH criteria and expected documentation, the Program’s last Accreditation Self-Study, the Site Visit Report and the Program’s Interim Report. An important phase of the self-study was the presentation of the draft self-study at a series of DFMs. This provided opportunity for faculty, students, and staff to discuss the committees’ findings and provided input on the preliminary self-study document. 1.2.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

This criterion is met. The Program has developed a number of mechanisms for evaluation and monitoring, which provide information needed for planning activities to improve the teaching, learning, service, and research activities of the Program. The creation of a standing Evaluation Committee within the structure of the Program’s governance assures that there is a process for evaluating and monitoring the overall effort of the Program against the mission, goals, and objectives.

Table 1.2.f. Department Self-Study Committee Assignments, AY 2005-06

DEPARTMENT OVERSIGHT CRITERION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Kathryn Braun (Chair) Carol Waslien 1.3. Institutional Environment Craig Goodell 1.4. Organization and Budget Andy Grandinetti Administration Allison Imrie 1.6. Resources Ron Lu Jay Maddock Claudio Nigg 2.1. Master of Public Health Degree 2.2. Program Length Jay Maddock 2.3. Public Health Core (Chair) Knowledge John Grove Curriculum 2.4. Practical Skills Stephan Keller 2.5. Culminating Experience Ron Lu 2.6. Required Competencies Eric Hurwitz 2.7. Assessment Procedures 2.8. Academic Degrees 3.3. Workforce Development Carol Waslien (Chair) 1.1. Mission Evaluation and Claudio Nigg 1.2. Evaluation & Planning Planning Kathryn Braun 1.5. Governance Andy Grandinetti Nancy Kilonsky 3.1. Research 3.2. Service Gigliola Baruffi 4.1. Faculty Qualifications (Chair) Personnel 4.2. Faculty Policies and Al Katz procedures John Grove 4.3. Faculty and Staff Diversity

4.4. Student Recruitment and Claudio Nigg Admissions (Chair) Student Affairs 4.5. Student Diversity Peter Holck 4.6. Advising and Career Stephan Keller Counseling Ron Lu

17 1 0 T h e P u b l i c H e a l t h P r o g r a m

1.3. Institutional Environment. The program shall be an integral part of an accredited institution of higher education. 1.3.a. A brief description of the institution in which the program is located, along with the names of accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds. Description and history of the University . The University of Hawai‘i (University) is a multi- campus, statewide system of post-secondary education serving the State of Hawai‘i. It includes the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa (UHM), the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, West Oahu College and seven community colleges. The University governance is vested in the Board of Regents, appointed by the Governor of the State of Hawai‘i. The regents in turn appoint a president of the University. The University was founded in 1907 as a land-grant college of agriculture and mechanic arts called the College of Hawai‘i. The first classes were held at a temporary site in Honolulu with five regular students and twelve faculty members. In 1912, the College moved to its permanent location in Mānoa Valley and, with the addition of a College of Arts and Sciences in 1920, it became the University. In 1972, the Mānoa campus took its present name to distinguish it from the other units in the growing statewide University system. The UHM campus is located on some 300 acres of land in Mānoa Valley, a residential area only a few miles from the State Capitol and metropolitan Honolulu. Easy access to the center of commercial, cultural and political life of Hawai‘i is an extra benefit for the students. The State’s multiracial culture and close ties to the Pacific Basin and Asian nations create a favorable environment for the study of diverse cultural, social, and political systems. Approximately 20,400 students are enrolled at the UHM. In all, the UHM offers bachelor’s degrees in 87 fields of study, master’s degrees in 87, doctorates in 53, first professional degrees in law, social work, nursing, and medicine, and 24 certificates. OPHS located in JABSOM . The JABSOM was established in 1965 as a two-year medical school. It resulted from the vision of the late Governor, John A. Burns, to create a medical school in Hawai‘i to serve two primary objectives: (1) to provide opportunities for Hawai‘i’s citizens to have access to careers in medicine equivalent to those available in other states and (2) to add to the stature, academic quality and research potential of the University of Hawai‘i. Initially, the School took as its mission the education of primary care physicians for Hawai‘i and the Pacific Basin. JABSOM was expanded to a four-year degree granting institution in 1973 and graduated its first four-year class of 62 physicians in 1975. JABSOM includes 12 academic and clinical departments as well as the Office of Public Health Studies (OPHS), and the Department of Allied Medical Sciences, consisting of the divisions of Medical Technology, and Speech Pathology and Audiology. Accrediting bodies . The University is accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The next University accreditation review will be in 2009. JABSOM is accredited through the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). The LCME is made up of representatives from the Council on Medical Education in the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges. JABSOM’s last accreditation site visit was completed in January 2002 and the next site visit is scheduled for the 2007-08 academic year.

1.3.b. One or more organizational charts of the university indicating the program’s relationship to the other components of the institution, including reporting lines. Figure 1.3.b.1. below shows how the UHM campus fits within the University organizational structure. Figure 1.3.b.2. below shows the UHM organizational chart. JABSOM is one of the two schools (also the William S. Richardson School of Law) that report directly to the Chancellor of UHM. The Schools of Nursing and Dental Hygiene, Social Work, Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific Studies, Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Travel Industry Management, and Architecture all report to a Vice Chancellor. Figure 1.3.b.3. shows where OPHS is located in the JABSOM organization. It indicates that the Biomedical Information Center (Health Sciences Library) and the Center on Aging are part of the OPHS. The Health Sciences Library is now directly under the JABSOM Dean’s Office and the Center on Aging moved to the School of Social Work. The organizational changes were agreed to by the administration and are going though the formal University procedures for reorganization proposals. The official organizational chart does not yet reflect these changes.

Figure 1.3.b.1. University of Hawai‘i Systemwide Administration

Figure 1.3.b.2. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Organization Chart

Figure 1.3.b.3. John A. Burns School of Medicine Organizational Chart 1 2Need new official JABSOM org chart

1.3.c. A brief description of the university practices regarding:  lines of accountability, including access to higher-level university officials;  prerogatives extended to academic units regarding names, titles and internal organization;  budgeting and resource allocation, including budget negotiations, indirect cost recoveries, distribution of tuition and fees, and support for fund-raising;  personnel recruitment, selection and advancement, including faculty and staff; and  academic standards and policies, including establishment and oversight of curricula. Lines of Accountability Board of Regents. University governance is vested in the Board of Regents (BOR), appointed by the Governor of Hawai‘i. The regents appoint a President of the University, who in turn appoints the Chancellor of the Mānoa campus. The BOR is composed of eleven members who are vested with general responsibility for the University. The BOR has final responsibility for approval of the University’s budget before it is submitted to the Legislature for action. Their opportunity to exercise control within the governance system is significant. President. The President is the chief executive of the University and exercises power under the BOR for the governance of the advancement of the educational and business aspects of all the University’s colleges and subdivisions. Chancellor. The Chancellor of the Mānoa campus is the Chief Executive Officer and ensures that academic, research and extension service excellence is achieved; ensures that policies and goals of the President and BOR are implemented effectively; develops and executes the strategic plan and mission of the campus; and provides oversight over intercollegiate athletics. There are three other Chancellors assigned to the Hilo and West O‘ahu campuses, and the Community Colleges. All Chancellors report to the President. Vice Chancellors. The UHM Chancellor is supported by four vice chancellors.  The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is the Chief Academic Officer and provides leadership for the planning, direction, development, coordination and management of the academic programs.  The Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education provides leadership for the planning and direction of research and all aspects of graduate education.  The Vice Chancellor for Administration, Finance and Operations is the Chief Administrative Officer and provides leadership and executive management over the administrative functions, services and campus operations.  The Vice Chancellor for Students provides leadership for all student service areas, including student services administration and student life programs. Academic Unit Prerogatives BOR establishes and reorganizes units. The BOR Policies and Bylaws outline the prerogatives of the academic units. Chapter 3-1 to 3-3 delineate the responsibilities for the establishment and reorganization of units within the University System. The BOR may establish or abolish such organizational units upon recommendation of the President or as it deems appropriate. President determines titles. The President, unless otherwise specified by the BOR, determines titles to be used to designate organizational units. These titles may be changed by the President providing there is no change in the scope and function of the organization.

Criteria for BOR organizational change. Official organizational charts, titles, and functional statements are established in accordance with Bylaws and Policies of the Board of Regents. Organizational changes may be approved by the Board of Regents or under delegated authority. BOR approval is required where the proposed change will result in increased operating costs, directly impact students or other clientele of the University, or where new university programs are being created or existing ones abolished. Non BOR changes. Other proposed changes not subject to BOR approval are delegated by the President to each Senior Vice President and Chancellor, the Senior Vice President, each Vice President, each System-wide Director, the State Director for Vocational Education, and the UH Manoa Deans and Directors. Changing of titles of organizational units, unless otherwise specified by the Board are determined by the President provided there is no change in the scope and function of the organization. A recent OPHS request to change the department name from Public Health Sciences and Epidemiology to Public Health Sciences was approved by the President. Budget and Resource Allocation University system-wide biennial budget. The University has a system-wide biennial budget process as outlined in BOR Policy 8.3. The President of the University prepares a budget policy paper and agenda for action for review and approval by the Board. With input from the system’s chancellors, these documents identify broad objectives, priorities, and specific actions designed to accomplish long-range University goals and objectives. The President provides instruction to the administration teams at the various UH campuses to assure their biennium budgets take into account system-wide objectives. This request is passed on to the UHM Chancellor with additional instructions. For this biennium, the budget submittals took into account the System-wide Stocktaking Objectives, the Mānoa Strategic Plan, and the Mānoa Biennium Budget Objectives. Office of Public Health Studies, Level V budget. At the UHM campus, all “cost centers” at a Level V prepare their own budgets and present their results during budget hearings, which include the Mānoa Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs; Research and Graduate Education; Administration, Finance and Operations; and students. Input to the preparation of the budget must include deans, directors, department chairs, faculty and students. The Office of Public Health Studies is a Level V cost center. “Level V” refers to an autonomous level of budgeting within the State of Hawai‘i University system. A Level 5 unit is an academic unit organized as an independent entity for funding and position control purposes. At the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa campus, Level V units are independent schools, colleges, centers or stand alone programs which receive their own budget allocation from the Manoa Budget Office and for which they have sole responsibility and autonomous control within campus-wide fiscal policies established by the Chancellor. When the Office of Public Health Studies was an independent School of Public Health prior to its reorganization within the John A. Burns School of Medicine, it had an independent Level V budget. The Office of Public Health Studies has retained this Level V budget autonomy under the Dean of the School of Medicine in order to ensure the continued integrity of its resources and to facilitate the redevelopment and break-out of a fully accredited School of Public Health in the future.

Management of the Public Health Level V budget has been delegated to the Director for Public Health but ultimate responsibility for the Public Health budget rests with the Dean of the School of Medicine. Budget recommendations. The Vice Chancellors submit their recommendations to the Chancellor where they are reviewed and presented to the Mānoa Budget Advisory Committee. This Committee, comprised of individuals from administration, faculty, staff and both graduate and undergraduate students, forwards its recommendations to the President who prioritizes all of the Mānoa Budget proposals and sends the recommendations to the Mānoa Faculty Senate. Further, the Mānoa requests are then integrated with proposals on a system-wide basis which are prioritized by the President and then presented to the BOR. The BOR in turn prepares the official Regent’s Budget that is sent to the Governor through the Department of Budget and Finance. Indirect Cost Recoveries. Each unit's Research and Training Revolving Fund (RTRF) allocation is calculated independently, not as a portion of the gross pool of Indirect Cost Recovery (IDC) brought in to the University. Of the total IDC expenditures on all of Public Health's extramural awards, 25% goes to the system (President’s Office). Of the 75% remaining, 1/3 of that goes to the Chancellor's office. The remainder (2/3 of the 75% or 50% of the total gross) comes back to the Program. This same calculation is done for all Level V budgeted units. The RTRF allocation for any given fiscal year is based upon the previous fiscal year's expenditures, not based on the total award budget for IDC. Extramural award budget years usually cross fiscal years and spending patterns can vary greatly from month to month. This explains why the RTRF allocation varies in ways that do not relate to gross award IDC dollars brought in. Tuition and Fees. All Tuition and Fees are retained by the University for campus wide budgeting purposes. Each Level V unit receives an operation budget allocation composed of a mixture of State General and University Tuition funds. Each fiscal year the total budget is based on the previous year’s total budget with adjustments for collective bargaining, various campus wide initiatives or restrictions by the President’s and Chancellor’s offices, and the addition of new funded positions. The portion of General vs. Tuition funding that is provided as part of the total budget is related to the unit’s projected salaries and wages expenditures, with General Funds covering salaries and wages and Tuition funds covering other operating expenditures. The amount of Tuition and Fees revenue provided as part of the unit’s budget is therefore not a fixed amount or allocated by any formula as with RTRF funds, but varies from year to year depending on the salaries and wages expenditures covered by General Funds within the total fixed budget allocation. Support for Fundraising. Fundraising for the University of Hawai‘i is accomplished through the UH Foundation. The Foundation is a separate, private, university affiliated, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation charged with raising private funds on behalf of the University of Hawai‘i System. Some of the units at UHM have a representative of the Foundation coordinating their fundraising efforts. The representative is funded jointly by the foundation and the unit. JABSOM has a Director of Development who can assist the Program in promotional or fundraising activities. Personnel Recruitment, Selection and Advancement The Program complies with the recruitment, hiring and advancement procedures of the University. Program personnel are classified as Executive, Faculty, Administrative, Professional

Technical (APT), or Civil Service employees. Hiring, advancement, and all other personnel actions of management, faculty, and APTs require the final approval of the University’s BOR. Most all personnel actions are delegated to the President, Chancellor, and/or Dean. All employees are recruited, selected and advanced in accordance with State and University regulations on equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. Each category of personnel is subject to a separate set of recruiting and hiring procedures such as internal and external selection, scope of advertising, qualification guidelines, and interview requirements. Faculty, APT and Civil Service personnel are recruited, selected and promoted subject to the formal collective bargaining agreements between the University administration or State government and representative unions. Executive personnel are not union members. Clerical/secretarial positions are part of the State Civil Service system and the Program conforms to the State Civil Service procedures. Appointments under State Civil Service are made by the University Director of Personnel, under authority delegated by the President and in consultation with the head of the office in which the vacancy occurs. Academic Standards and Policies Overall supervision by UHM Graduate Division. The UHM Graduate Division is responsible for overall supervision, development and improvement of graduate work at the University. This includes establishment and maintenance of standards, administration of graduate curricula, instructional and research programs, and admission of graduate students. Academic policies and standards are formulated at the departmental level and subject to review by JABSOM and the Graduate Council, which is a faculty body advisory to and appointed by the Dean of the Graduate Division. Curricular changes by academic unit. Curricular changes may be initiated within the academic unit. If the department Curriculum Committee accepts these, the proposal is brought to the DFM for discussion/approval. Should the change affect curricula of students in other academic units, it is referred for approval to those units as well. Interdepartmental course changes (cross- listed courses) require the approval of all departments and colleges involved. The Graduate Division must approve any changes in the nature and scope of degree programs. Periodic exam pursuant to Executive Policy E5.202. In addition to oversight by the Graduate Division, University of Hawai'i Executive Policy E5.202 provides for the periodic examination by faculty and administration to determine the extent to which established academic programs are meeting their objectives and if these objectives remain relevant to the missions of the campus, unit and University. Together with the Dean of the Graduate Division, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs serves as Co-Chairperson of the Council on Program Reviews, a campus-wide body established to provide coordination and continuity for this peer review process. The last review was conducted in 2002. The report is available in the Reference File. The next Program Review is scheduled for 2008. Periodic review by CPS. The UHM Council on Program Reviews (CPS) conducts periodic (approximately every seven years) reviews of all degree programs to assess resource adequacy, performance, and areas where additional strength may be developed. The reviews are conducted by faculty outside the field of study being reviewed. Data are collected through interviews with faculty, students, and administrators and through review of self-study and other documents. The Graduate Division conducts the review of graduate programs for CPS. The public health program has not been reviewed since the last accreditation site visit.

Graduate Faculty standards set by Graduate Dean. The Graduate Division is vested with the authority to approve all faculty at the Associate Professor level or above for “graduate faculty status”. The formal process gives the Graduate Dean the ability to set graduate faculty standards in consort with a group of broadly represented senior colleagues on campus. These standards are applied to newly appointed individuals and are reviewed every five years. This process insures a high level of academic quality in the initial appointment of faculty and has been supportive of quality enhancement in the academic program of the professional programs. Director assure faculty standards. The Director is responsible for assuring that all faculty members teach, provide service, and conduct research as expected and defined in the University and collective bargaining documents. 1.3.d. If a collaborative program, descriptions of all participating institutions and delineation of their relationships to the program. This criterion is not applicable to the Program. 1.3.e. If a collaborative program, a copy of the formal written agreement that establishes the rights and obligations of the participating universities in regard to the program’s operation. This criterion is not applicable to the Program. 1.3.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program is organized within an accredited university (UHM) and an accredited school of medicine (JABSOM). Academic, budgetary, and resource allocation resides within the Program with a direct line to the JABSOM Dean.

1.4. Organization and Administration. The program shall provide an organizational setting conducive to teaching and learning, research and service. The organizational setting shall facilitate interdisciplinary communication, cooperation and collaboration. The organizational structure shall effectively support the work of the program’s constituents. 1.4.a. One or more organizational charts showing the administrative organization of the program, indicating relationships among its component offices or other administrative units and its relationship to higher-level departments, schools and divisions. OPHS located in JABSOM. The OPHS is structurally located as a unit in the John A. Burns School of Medicine. A chart of the organizational structure of JABSOM is shown in Figure 1.3.b.3. above. JABSOM is composed administratively of basic science departments, clinical science departments, the Office of Public Health Studies, and the Department of Allied Medical Sciences. The OPHS, Office of Medical Education, Office of Student Affairs, Facilities, Administrative Services, and Health Sciences Library are currently within the Dean’s Office. Figure 1.4.a. shows the administrative organization of the OPHS.

Figure 1.4.a. Office of Public Health Studies Internal Organizational Structure

1.4.b. Description of the roles and responsibilities of major units in the organizational chart. OPHS organization . The administrative head of OPHS is the Director. Coordination with JABSOM is constant and facilitated by having a direct line to the Dean via the Director. For example, the Director is a member of the JABSOM Executive Committee. At the department level, Department of Public Health Sciences has the same standing as other JABSOM clinical and basic science departments with representation on the JABSOM Faculty Senate. The Dean has also assigned the Senior Associate Dean as a special liaison for the OPHS. Director. The responsibilities of the Director include:  Create and support an environment in which the mission, goals and objectives of the Program can be achieved;  Establish and oversee an open and representative style of governance that centers on professorial faculty with input from students, staff, the University and the community;  Supervise the administrative aspects of the Program;  Recruit and retain faculty;  Conduct faculty meetings;  Oversee curriculum development and implementation;  Supervise instruction of courses required by the curricula;  Assign courses and proper departmental balance of teaching load;  Review faculty members annually;  Review and renew annually, if warranted, faculty not on permanent tenure;  Recommend promotions, reappointments and appointments to unfilled positions;  Prepare and oversee the department budget;  Expend funds allocated to the department; and  Develop community relationships to enhance professional growth and research opportunities for faculty and students and developing career choices for students. The Director executes the responsibilities with consultation from the faculty and students. Chair of the Field of Study (CFS). The CFS is the individual recognized by the Graduate Division as responsible for the academic programs. The CFS has the following responsibilities:  Respond to requests for program information and applications;  Maintain graduate student files;  Serve as liaison between the Department, Graduate Division, the University, and other programs that the graduate program interacts with;  Serve as member of the Graduate Division Senate;  Nominate students for tuition waivers;  Administer the admissions process for the Program; and  Sign all Graduate Division forms, including the recommendations for admission and the confirmation that students have completed all requirements for their degree (degree check). The CFS is aided by the Office of Graduate Student Academic Services (OGSAS). Office of Graduate Student Academic Services. The functional responsibilities of the OGSAS are school-wide. OGSAS is under the direction of the Assistant Dean for Student Services and has responsibilities in support of all non-MD, graduate student-related activities in

JABSOM. Direction of this unit is shared with JABSOM and coordinated through the JABSOM Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. The Administrative Officer for OPHS reports to the Director and works with the JABSOM Office of Administrative Services. The office has responsibility for budgeting and expenditure control. OPHS specialization areas. There are currently two specialization areas within OPHS, epidemiology and social and behavioral health sciences. Each specialization has its own faculty, seven in epidemiology and 7 in social and behavioral health sciences. Some of these faculty members provide other specialization core and elective courses. These include faculty in biostatistics, environmental health, health administration, gerontology, and maternal and child health. All faculty are linked to the specialization that is most related to their background and area of teaching. Each specialization has a faculty head that reports to the Director. Faculty members have direct access to the Director. The gerontology specialization was discontinued once the social and behavioral health science specialization was accredited.

1.4.c. Description of the manner in which interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration are supported. Interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration are essential to the success of a research-driven academic program and are supported by the following:  Open governance. With an open governance structure, multiple opportunities are provided for faculty, students, administrators, and community members to provide input for decision-making.  Interdisciplinary instruction: A number of courses are team-taught by faculty from various disciplines and courses offered by the Program are cross-listed with other related disciplines within JABSOM and across the UHM, e.g. food science and human nutrition, social work, population studies, sociology, tropical medicine, and nursing. A complete list of cross-listed courses is in the Reference File.  Interdisciplinary research: Public health research is de facto collaborative and requires a supportive multidisciplinary environment. Examples include past and current research collaboration with: o The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Georgia investigating the mechanisms of behavior change; o Hawaii Medical Services Association & Kaiser Permanente - Center for Health Research on projects addressing health promotion and obesity prevention; o The Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i (CRCH) addressing smoking cessation through promoting physical activity in college students; o The Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition (UHM) (funded by USDA) on adolescent growth and development; o The Department of Internal Medicine (JABSOM) on the effect of HIV infection on cognitive functioning; o The Asian Pacific Program in Hypertension and Insulin Resistance (with units in Taiwan, Honolulu, and Stanford), which itself is affiliated with the national Family Blood Pressure Program collaborative study (funded by NHLBI) on the genetics of hypertension and insulin resistance;

o The Pacific Health Research Institute, JABSOM, and Kuakini Hospital (funded by NIA) on the Pacific Genetic Epidemiology of Aging study; o The Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sports Management at the University of Florida to assess physical activity in parks in diverse communities; o The CRCH on the measurement of sun protective behaviors; o The Department of Health units, e.g., epidemiology, HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, and health promotion; o The Department of Tropical Medicine, Medical Microbiology and Pharmacology, the Pacific Institute of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases and the Epidemiology Branch, DOH to establish emerging infectious disease epidemiology laboratory; o The CRCH and the Honolulu Heart Program (now called the Hawai‘i Aging Study); o Papa Ola Lokahi, a Native Hawaiian health organization with federally funded projects in cancer and diabetes on research and evaluation projects; o The Executive Office on Aging on evaluations of care giving initiatives and healthy aging interventions; o Schools of Social Work and Nursing on long-term care workforce issues; o The Cooper Aerobics Institute, Dallas Texas to investigate the relationship of physical fitness and nutrition to metabolic syndrome and heart disease; and o The Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado and The Department of Physiology, Medical Collage of Wisconsin to examine the relationship of energy intake and expenditure to maternal health in undernourished poor suburbs of Colombia.  Representatives from the CRCH, DOH, Papa Ola Lokahi, the Executive Office on Aging, and various community-based health programs are called upon to provide guest lectures for several public health courses.  Seminars offered by the JABSOM clinical and basic sciences faculty, CRCH, and other UHM departments are open and advertised to the Program’s students and faculty.  Students are encouraged to choose electives from courses outside their discipline. The varied backgrounds of the faculty permit competition for grants that require a multidisciplinary approach, e.g. combining the clinical, nutritional sciences, microbiological, health disparities, psychological and cultural aspects of cancer, obesity, AIDS or diabetes. This is enhanced by collaboration with the Departments of Geriatrics, Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Pediatrics within JABSOM, and with the CRCH (evidenced by co-authorship on publications and grant proposals).

1.4.d. Identification of written policies that are illustrative of the program’s commitment to fair and ethical dealings. The program adheres to policies operationalizing ethical conduct including:  Agreement between the University of Hawai‘i Professional Assembly and the Board of Regents of the University of Hawai‘I; and

 University of Hawai`i General and Graduate Information Catalog. In addition to the University-wide examples above, the JABSOM Bulletin and the Student Handbook for the Program contain written policies: Academic Rights and Freedoms, Academic Grievance, Nondiscrimination, Compliance with Federal Regulations Concerning Research, Human Experimentation (as defined by the UH Institutional Review Board on which our faculty serve), and Privacy of Student Information. The Program’s Governance Document details how decisions are made at the Program level.

1.4.e. Description of the manner in which student grievances and complaints are addressed, including the number of grievances and complaints filed for each of the last three years. There are a number of avenues for students to voice complaints and grievances. They are found in the Governance Document of the Program and the Student Handbook, as well the Graduate Division Manual and UHM catalog. Student Grievances . Graduate student grievances fall under two different administrative offices depending on the situation. 1. Grievances on grades and disciplinary actions based on violations of the student conduct code are handled through the UHM Dean of Students. 2. The Dean of the Graduate Division is responsible for grievances unique to graduate students relating to: 1) specific graduate program requirements and procedures, including adequate progress and professional competence; 2) qualifying and comprehensive exams; 3) formation and composition of the thesis committee; and 4) final defense of the thesis. The procedures for handling grievances by both offices are similar.  An effort is made to resolve the issue informally with the faculty involved.  If an informal resolution cannot be reached with the faculty, the student prepares formal complaint in writing that is presented to the graduate chair. The graduate chair meets with the parties to discuss the complaint.  If dissatisfied with the outcome the student may file an appeal in writing with the Office of the Dean or the Graduate Division. Appeals to the Office of the Dean and are handled by the UHM Academic Grievance Committee whose decisions are final within the University. Appeals to the Graduate Division are reviewed by the Graduate Dean and actions are taken to reach a resolution.  Failing to achieve a satisfactory solution with the Graduate Dean, the grievance is forwarded the Graduate Academic Grievance Committee. The committee decisions are final within the University. The Student Handbook (provided to each student at the beginning of the academic year) provides Department and/or University policies and procedures related to the student grievances. This information is also available on the Graduate Division website (http://www.hawaii.edu/graduate/sitemap.htm) under Academic Policies. The Student Handbook is also available on the Program website (http://www.hawaii.edu/publichealth/). Student Complaints . The OPHS Governance Document provides for student membership on the Program’s Curriculum, Evaluation, Space, and Student Affairs Committees. While all of these committees provide the opportunity for input into issues affecting the students, the Student Affairs Committee is the committee that provides the major forum for students to bring their complaints. There is also a student representative for the DFMs.

The Program’s Exit Survey has a series of qualitative questions on academics and advising as well as an opportunity to identify strengths and weaknesses of the Program. This is a valuable tool for the evaluation and improvement of the Program. No formal grievances have been filed in the last three years. Student complaints, whether in writing or verbal are taken seriously and considered by the appropriate committee (e.g. Personnel Committee for faculty related complaints and Curriculum Committee for complaints about course offerings) for corrective action. See section 1.2.a. for examples.

1.4.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The program offers an organizational setting that ensures on the one hand an independent autonomous OPHS, and on the other, a program open to and supported by collaborative arrangements that drive the academic program and research. The Program, the supporting institution, and the University are committed to shared, concepts, and ethics.

1.5. Governance. The program administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights and responsibilities concerning program governance and academic policies. Students shall, where appropriate, have participatory roles in conduct of program evaluation procedures, policy-setting and decision-making. 1.5.a. Description of the program's governance and committee structure and processes, particularly as they affect: general program policy development; planning; budget and resource allocation; student recruitment, admission and award of degrees; faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure; academic standards and policies; research and service expectations and policies. Director is administrative head . The Director of OPHS is the chief administrator and is responsible for the functioning of the OPHS. The organizational chart shows the governance structure with Director of OPHS reporting directly to the Dean of JABSOM. Governance structure – lines of authority.

Governance includes input from faculty, students, community. While the Director has the final responsibility for all policy developments and actions, governance is successful due to input of faculty, students and community members through committees and DFMs. The process includes input through the appropriate avenues of representation, including various departmental committees (composition and description in section 1.5.c.) and faculty meetings. Meetings. Any member of the OPHS may initiate agenda items to be discussed at a faculty meeting through the appropriate avenue and all meetings will be announced at least one week prior to the selected date. Faculty meetings include all members of the faculty, relevant executive personnel, and a staff, student and alumni representative. Minutes are taken and stored in the OPHS administration office. These faculty meetings serve as a forum for discussion of policy development, planning, budget and resource issues on the programmatic level, decisions on student training programs, recruitment and admission, faculty recruitment and retention issues, academic standards, research and service expectations.

Voting . Decisions involving all facets of the OPHS are made during the faculty meetings. A vote by faculty of rank 3 or higher with a minimum of .5 FTE appointments will be taken with the decision adhering to the majority vote. A quorum will consist of 2/3 of faculty, including the Director or designate, and including proxy representatives. All OPHS members will be notified in advance of a vote, to insure attendance or designation of a written proxy. Motions raised during faculty meetings that require a vote but are not on the meeting agenda, will be postponed and included in the agenda for a selected and announced date to insure representation by all members. Staff, student and alumni are invited and encouraged to partake in the decision-making process through a designated representative for each group. Procedure to become a voting member . Non-voting members may become voting members if: 1) they are nominated by faculty and 2) they are members of OPHS. A list of nominees must be circulated at least a week prior to the first department meeting of the fall and spring semesters. The nominations are proposed at the first Department meeting and must be accepted by majority of the voting members and be renewed for each academic year. Governance Document . The details of the administrative structure and governance process presented here are specifically described in a separate paper called the Governance Document of the OPHS (Reference File). The purpose of the document is to:  Define the roles of the decision-making positions and groups within the Program and to identify the function of each;  Identify procedures by which committees are formed, members and officers determined, and communications undertaken within and between committees;  Identify the means and manner in which individuals in the Program function, participate, and contribute to the general goals and specific objectives of the Program; and  Identify and explain how issues, problems, and proposals raised at various levels within the Program can be discussed, debated, and resolved through explicit decision-making procedures. Governance Document Amendment Procedures . Propositions for any amendments to this Governance Document are brought forth at the DFMs during the period of September - April, inclusive. A time and date are designated for the decision-making process, as outlined above. For any amendments to this Governance Document, a vote of the faculty will be taken with the decision adhering to a 75% vote. All members of the OPHS may propose amendments via their designated route of representation. General Program Policy Development . General program policy development is initiated and administered through the faculty, and the committee structure defined in the Governance Document. The DFMs include: representatives from all of the Program’s constituencies, i.e., faculty, students, staff, alumni and administration. Policy development follows these general guidelines.  The main policy development body is the Program’s faculty, and any member can initiate or suggest new or revised policies. The Director has the final responsibility for all of the Program’s policy actions.  DFMs are the forum for discussion of all substantive, administrative, policy development, planning, budget and resource issues, decisions on student recruitment and admission, faculty recruitment and retention issues, academic standards, and research and service expectations.

 The faculty is responsible for making all programmatic decisions and reviewing all student training programs. Recommendations are implemented through the Director in coordination with the faculty.  The faculty is also responsible for policies on teaching, mentoring and advising, ethics, and overseeing logistical issues related to space, equipment, administrative staffing, and budget/fundraising for the teaching programs.  In addition to the above, which provides a setting for dynamic planning, the Program conducts ad hoc planning meetings involving faculty, students, and community participants as needed and appropriate for surfacing initiatives. Planning . Strategic planning initiatives are joint efforts of the faculty, administration, students, and alumni. The feedback and recommendations form the Evaluation Committee and DFMs are the originating body for most program planning efforts. The department faculty may assign the initiative to a specific committee or create an ad hoc committee. There is currently an ad hoc DrPH Planning Committee that is developing a proposal to reopen the doctoral program and a Student Recruitment and Public Relations Committee to improve and develop strategies for recruitment information. Budget and Resource Allocation. The OPHS budget is prepared by the Director with assistance from the Administrative Officer. The Director takes into account the needs of OPHS and the fair distribution of resources. The Director presents the draft budget to the faculty at a DMF for input. The Budget Committee’s responsibility is to work with the Director and Administrative Officer to review income/expenditures and to recommend spending decisions regarding indirect cost recovery and faculty salary offset. Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Awarding of Degrees. Student recruitment is a shared responsibility of the faculty and the Graduate Student Academic Services Office. The recruitment process is discussed in Criterion 4.4. Admissions reviews are decentralized. Faculty from the specializations review student applications and make recommendations to the CFS. Those recommendations are forwarded to the Graduate Division, which has final authority on admission to all graduate programs. More details on admissions can be found in Criterion 4.4. The Graduate Division initiates a “degree check” for all students who apply for graduation by the prescribed deadline. The degree check includes the core and required specialization courses. Degrees are awarded only after the degree check is approved by the student’s advisor and the CFS of Public Health, certifying satisfactory completion of all degree requirements. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, Promotion and Tenure . The Program follows the policies and procedures established by the University to recruit faculty. Faculty recruitments are conducted through ad hoc search committees appointed by the Director to oversee the search process. The committee includes a member of the Personnel Committee. Faculty positions must be advertised locally on the UHM website, and daily newspapers as well as nationally, in appropriate professional journals and other suitable publications, to ensure identification of the best possible candidates for each position. Promotion and tenure reviews proceed in a traditional manner for an academic institution. Reviews are based on promotion and tenure standards developed by the University. The application for tenure/promotion is submitted to the Director. The dossier is reviewed by the

Department Personnel Committee, made up of five faculty of equal or greater rank than that sought by the applicant, the Director, and the Dean prior to review by a campus-wide Tenure and Promotion Committee selected by the UHM Chancellor. The Chancellor and the President also review the dossier before it is presented to the Board of Regents for final action. The entire process takes approximately nine months to complete. Academic Standards and Policies . Standards and policies are developed, implemented, and monitored interactively with the Graduate Division, the epidemiology and the social and behavioral health sciences admission committees, and department faculty. The Graduate Division must approve any changes in the nature and scope of the degree programs. The Graduate Division conducts periodic reviews of all degree programs to assess resource adequacy, performance, and areas where additional strength may be developed. The Dean of the Graduate Division and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs serve as Co- Chairpersons of the UHM Council on Program Reviews, a campus-wide body established to provide coordination and continuity for a peer review process. The reviews are conducted by faculty outside the field of study being reviewed. Data are collected through interviews with faculty, students, and administrators and through review of self-study and other documents. Research and Service Expectations and Policies . Research and service are functions of individual faculty interest and prerogative. There are minimal research and service expectations and policies set by the University administration, but OPHS faculty has set more specific standards for themselves. (See sections 3.1.d and 3.2.c for the Programs standards on research and service objectives.)

1.5.b. A copy of the constitution, bylaws or other policy document that determines the rights and obligations of administrators, faculty and students in governance of the program. The Program’s Governance Document was first ratified in May 2002 and revised in January 2004 to include the Evaluation and Planning Committee. Another revision was completed in January 2007 as part of the self-study process with the inclusion of a Space Committee. A copy is available in the Reference File

1.5.c. A list of standing and important ad hoc committees, with a statement of charge and composition. The following committees function to ensure the appropriate development, enactment, and adherence to the above described procedures and policies. Committee membership for the 2006-07 academic year is shown below in Table 1.5.c. Admissions Committees (AC) Composition: There are two admissions committees (AC), one for epidemiology and one for social and behavioral health sciences. The faculty from the epidemiology and social and behavioral health sciences programs are members of these committees and review all applications that meet minimum Graduate Division criteria. (See Table 4.1.a. for a listing of the faculty for each specialization.) Admission to the master’s degree program is recommended to the CFS by the specialization head, based on the objective and subjective faculty assessment. The CFS forwards the recommendations to the Graduate Division Dean, who makes the official decision on

admissions for the University. It is within the DFMs that the two programs interact and ensure congruence of procedures and policies. Budget Committee (BC) Composition: All faculty members of the Program who offset 50% or more of their salary. Because offset levels fluctuate over the course of the year, determination of faculty membership is made in September and January each year. The chair is elected by the committee. The Director and Administrative Officer serve on the Budget Committee as voting members, but neither can serve as chair. The BC’s responsibility is to work with the Director and Administrative Officer to review OPHS income/expenditures and to recommend OPHS spending decisions regarding indirect cost recovery and faculty salary offset. The BC takes into account the needs of the Program and the fair distribution of resources. Curriculum Committee (CC) Composition: Three faculty members selected at the first DFM of each year. In addition, an alumni association member appointed by the president of the alumni association, and at least one student representative sits on the committee. The committee’s primary responsibilities are to review course proposals, evaluate current course offerings and, when necessary, eliminate courses that are no longer consistent with the Program’s objectives. The committee takes into account the needs, capabilities, target audience, accreditation requirements, overlap, and contents/course coverage. Course preparation, coordination, and curriculum planning are also considered during the decision- making process. The CC also reviews needs assessments of the alumni and community about their continuing education interest areas and needs. The committee then makes recommendations for any changes at faculty meetings. Evaluation Committee (EC) Composition: Three faculty members selected at the first DFM each year. There is one representative from the Office of Graduate Student Academic Services (OGSAS) and one student representative appointed by the Hui. The EC is responsible for providing oversight and integration for Program evaluation processes. The EC will ensure that meaningful evaluation criteria are developed, data collection strategies devised and implemented, communication maintained with relevant stakeholders, evaluation results reviewed, results and recommendations disseminated to relevant stakeholders, and evaluation criteria modified, if warranted. Evaluation results and recommendations are to be presented at a faculty meeting at least once a year. Modification of evaluation criteria may be initiated by the EC, the appropriate standing committee, or by faculty at a DFM. All parties are engaged in reviewing and approving modifications. All actions require a majority vote of the faculty. It is through this feedback mechanism that the EC facilitates the active planning within the Program. Personnel Committee (PC) Composition: Three tenured faculty members selected at the first DFM of each year. The PC is responsible for the annual review of all faculty members, including the committee members. This annual review is for the purpose of objectively assessing the overall productivity of a faculty member, to highlight strengths and to identify areas for improvement in regard to scholarship, teaching, service, research, peer-review publication, and extramural funding. The PC reviews faculty nominations for cooperating, adjunct, and affiliate faculty and also evaluates personnel policies and presents amendment recommendations to the faculty.

A PC member serves on search committees convened for the purpose of recruiting and hiring new faculty to ensure proper procedures are followed. A student representative is also included on faculty search committees. Space Committee (SC) Composition: Two faculty members selected at the first DFM of each year, the Director, and one student representative appointed by the Hui. The SC’s primary responsibility is to ensure optimal utilization of all department space by periodically reviewing space allocations and requests for additional space. Requests for space are forwarded to the SC. SC recommendations are brought to the DFM for review and discussion. The Director makes the final decision. Student Affairs Committee (SAC) Composition: Two faculty members selected at the first DFM of each year, at least one student appointed by the Hui, and one representative each from OGSAS and the alumni association. The SAC recommends and monitors policy concerning student issues, and proposes changes in policy to the faculty or the Director as appropriate. The SAC is responsible for determining recipients of scholarship and academic awards and meets on an as needed basis. Additionally the SAC is tasked to nurture a spirit of community among students, faculty, and staff. Ad Hoc Committees Composition: Ad Hoc Committees can be formed at the direction of the Director or faculty to review issues relating to the Program. The composition is determined by the objective of the committee. There are currently two active ad hoc committees. Department Personnel Committee (DPC). (This committee is only convened as needed.) Composition: Five tenured faculty at the associate or higher level. The DPC reviews the formal applications of faculty seeking promotion and/or tenure as per University policy. As dictated by University policy, members of the DPC must be of equal or higher rank to which the applicant is seeking promotion or tenure. If there are not enough members of a department to comprise a DPC, members from other departments may be appointed by the Director. DrPH Committee Composition: Four faculty members. The DrPH Committee is tasked with developing a proposal for Graduate Division review to reopen the DrPH program with an emphasis in Social and Behavioral Health Sciences. Student Recruitment and Public Relations Committee Composition: The Director, three faculty, the Assistant Dean for Student Services, the Practice Coordinator and three students. The Recruitment Committee is tasked with developing and improving the Program recruitment information, including the website.

Table 1.5.c. Department of Public Health Sciences Leadership, Standing, and Ad Hoc Committees 2006-2007

LEADERSHIP Personnel Committee Director John Grove (Chair) Jay Maddock Kathryn Braun Al Katz Chair of the Field of Study Alan Katz Space Committee Allison Imrie (Chair) Epidemiology Head Nancy Kilonsky Alan Katz Jay Maddock Social & Behavioral Head Angelina Ahedo (Student) Kathryn Braun Student Affairs Committee Claudio Nigg (Chair) STANDING COMMITTEES Peter Holck Admissions Committees Stefan Keller (See Table 4.1.a.1. for specialization of OGSAS member faculty.) Debbie Chaffee (Student) Epidemiology faculty Jane Chung (Student) Social & Behavioral Health faculty Joan Pan (Student) Budget Committee AD HOC COMMITTEES Yuanan Lu (Chair) Department Personnel Committee Kathryn Braun (Inactive) Craig Goodell Andy Grandinetti DrPH Committee Eric Hurwitz Stefan Keller (Chair) Allison Imrie Jay Maddock Jay Maddock Kathryn Braun Claudio Nigg John Grove Curriculum Committee Student Recruitment & Public John Grove (Chair) Relations Committee Katie Heinrich Jay Maddock Alan Katz Alison Imrie Yuanan Lu Andrew Grandinetti Nandar Aung (Student) Katie Heinrich Valerie Yontz (Chair) Evaluation Committee Nancy Kilonsky Andrew Grandinetti (Chair) Angel Ahedo (Student) Kathryn Braun Lauren Gentry (Student) Claudio Nigg Joan Pan (Student) Valerie Yontz Dorothy James (Student)

1.5.d. Identification of program faculty who hold membership on university committees, through which faculty contribute to the activities of the university. The Program’s faculty participation on University committees for academic year 2005-06 is listed below:  UHM Graduate Faculty Senate: Reviews polices related to graduate education. (Maddock)  UHM Council of Chairs: Advises the chancellor's office on university policies related to department level functioning. (Maddock, Waslien)  Committee on Human Subjects: Ensures ethical treatment of study participants and adherence to national standards of ethics. (Imrie)  UHM Emergency Preparedness Committee: Examines university preparation for response to biological/infectious disaster. (Katz, Waslien)  UHM Radiation Safety Committee: Ensures safe practices for work involving radioactive materials. (Imrie)  UHM Tenure Promotion and Review Committee: Campus-wide committee for review and recommendation for tenure. (Baruffi, Braun, Grove, Katz)  UHM Promotion and Review Panel (PRP): Evaluates cases of application for tenure/promotion which have been denied and are being contested by the applicant. The PRP re-evaluates all documentation, including the TPRC evaluations and additional material submitted by the applicant in rebuttal of a negative recommendation, and sends its recommendation to the University President. (Grove)

1.5.e. Description of student roles in governance, including any formal student organizations, and student roles in evaluation of program functioning. Student Roles in Governance . The Program’s students have their own organization called the Hui Ola Pono (Hui), which is included in the Program’s Governance Document. Membership includes all students admitted to the graduate program in public health. The Hui has specific mechanisms by which it governs itself and represents the student body with regard to governance issues of the Program. The organization concerns itself with the general activities of the students, including student life and general programmatic concerns, and assigns representatives to the, Curriculum, Evaluation, Space, and Student Affairs Committees and a representative who attends DFMs. Student Roles in Evaluation . Student involvement in the evaluation of the Program is accomplished primarily through their participation in course evaluations, surveys, and standing and ad hoc committees. Course Evaluation. Faculty are required to have students evaluate their courses through CAFE. These evaluations are reviewed by the Personnel Committee and the Director in the annual review cycle. Results are used by the Director to identify problems and improve teaching. Surveys. An Exit Survey is administered to all graduating students at the end of their final semester. In the survey, students rate faculty expertise and instructional skill, academic advising, field training, specialization and overall academic programs, as well as the degree of their involvement in school governance, access to computer facilities, and classroom facilities and building environment. The surveys are reviewed by the Evaluation Committee and the standing committee responsible for tracking the particular outcome measure. Problems are

identified and recommendations made that are then shared with the Director and other appropriate committees as well as at the DFM. Previously, the Exit Survey had been mailed to students after graduation; however, the return rate was quite low (45%). After discussion in the Student Affairs Committee in Spring 2005, the procedure was changed to require students to make an appointment at the Graduate Student Academic Services Office to complete the survey before graduation. The results are held by that office until after graduation. The completion rate is now 90% for the 2005-2006 academic year. Committee Participation. As noted above, students participate in the DFM as well as the Curriculum, Evaluation, Space, Student Affairs Committees, and faculty search committees.

1.5.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. The criterion is met. There is an established structure, which provides for involvement for all faculty and draws on input from students, community members, and others as appropriate. To facilitate faculty, student and community input, announcements/ agendas for the faculty meetings and proposed policy changes are distributed via email and minutes are distributed after each meeting. New policies affecting admission standards are also made available to students and faculty through the teaching programs' recruitment materials, website, and inclusion in the Student Handbook.

1.6. Resources. The program shall have resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives. 1.6.a. A description of the budgetary and allocation processes, sufficient to understand all sources of funds that support the teaching, research and service activities of the program. This should include, as appropriate, discussion about legislative appropriations, formula for funds distribution, tuition generation and retention, gifts, grants and contracts, indirect cost recovery, taxes or levies imposed by the university or other entity within the university, and other policies that impact on the resources available to the program. The Program receives an annual allocation of state and university funds for each fiscal year to support its operation for the period July 1 to June 30. This allocation has its origin in the state budgeting process for the University: University submits budget to the Governor . Funding proposals for the University are prioritized the preceding Fall by the President as described in section 1.3.c. The budget is then presented to the Board of Regents (BOR) and, after BOR approval, it is sent through the Governor to the Hawai‘i State Department of Budget and Finance. The BOR proposals are kept as separate “line items” in the Governor’s budget as required by the State Constitution. Governor prepares Executive Budget . The Governor receives statewide budget recommendations from the Department of Budget and Finance and advice from the Council on Revenues in order to prepare an Executive Budget, which is sent to the Legislature. Legislature reviews and approves Executive Budget . The Legislature, as the appropriating body in the state, reviews the Executive Budget via public hearings. The hearings provide the opportunity for the University to present justification for its budget request as well as to give the legislators the opportunity to question the University regarding appropriateness of need of the request. Upon completion of hearings, the budget is voted upon by both House and Senate, and if passed, it is sent to the Governor for approval. Upon passage and approval, the budget act, called the General Appropriations Act, becomes the vehicle through which funds are appropriated. Governor appropriates funds . At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Governor allocates funds from the appropriation. The Governor is constitutionally required to balance the budget, and after comparing appropriations to State revenue forecasts, may restrict the allocation to less than the full appropriation. Allocation of University funds . The allocation for the University system is sent to the President, who in turn allocates funding for the Mānoa campus. The Chancellor in turn allocates the funds to the individual schools and colleges to serve as their primary allocation for the year. UH Budget Level V status . The method of budget allocation for OPHS was established at the time the new program in JABSOM was designed in the Spring 2000. It was understood that the new public health program would be, to the extent possible, an independent academic unit within JABSOM and have a UH Budget Level V status. A UHBLV means that the OPHS budget is determined and allocated directly from the UH Mānoa Budget Office as opposed to an allocation provided by JABSOM. The JABSOM budget is also a separate Level V budget. The same independence applies to the OPHS state-funded faculty positions, office personnel and space (including office space, laboratory space, meeting rooms, etc.). Since OPHS is located in JABSOM and the Dean is the CEO of JABSOM, the administration of the Program, its budget, and expenditures are nevertheless subject to the Dean’s overall

approval. Having a Level V budget gives a degree of administrative separation from JABSOM and provides assurances that the Program maintains its academic autonomy/identity, and that its funding cannot be used for other items outside of OPHS. Determination of Level V allocations . Allocations for the Level V units are based on historical budgets. These budgets are then adjusted for changes in student enrollment, vacant positions, and levels of extramural funding. The allocation has three distinct segments: general funds, tuition and special fees revenues, and facilitating funds. OPHS is assigned a portion of the tuition revenue generated and receives back a portion of the overhead costs it generates from extramural sources in the form of facilitating funds. These funds are tied in with the operations of the Program and are figured in as part of the overall budget allocation along with the general funds. Throughout the allocation process, factors such as the changing forecasts for the state’s anticipated revenues, pending collective bargaining negotiations and other economic factors may affect the Program’s budget allocation. OPHS budget . The OPHS budget is prepared by the Director with assistance from the Administrative Officer. The Director takes into account the needs of the Department and the fair distribution of resources. The budget committee is responsible to work with the Director and Administrative Officer to review income/expenditures and to recommend spending decisions regarding indirect cost recovery and faculty salary offset. The budget committee is comprised of all faculty members of the DPHS who offset 50% or more of their DPHS salary. The Director and Administrative Officer serve on the BC as voting members, but neither can serve as Chair. The budget committee reviews budget-related documents provided by the fiscal officer and spending requests received from faculty, and then recommends allocation of indirect cost recovery and salary offset funds to the Director.

1.6.b. A clearly formulated program budget statement, showing sources of all available funds and expenditures by major categories, since the last accreditation visit or for the last five years, which is longer. If the program does not have a separate budget, it must present an estimate of available funds and expenditures by major category and explain the basis of the estimate. This information must be presented in table format as appropriate to the program. Table 1.6.b. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2006

2002 2003 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Source of Funds Tuition Fund Revenues 110,000 170,000 108,000 225,838 250,000 Tuition Fund Cash Carry Forward 187,542 183,046 2,096 134,880 164,316 State Appropriation 1,352,389 1,289,050 1,285,142 1,187,590 1,213,923 University Funds None None None None None Grants/Contracts Available Balance Carry 1,231,893 1,381,596 880,971 1,319,488 1,119,766 Forwards Grants/Contracts Revenues* 1,223,829 1,408,397 2,069,410 1,354,904 1,498,802 Indirect Cost Recovery 19,632 19,632 25,463 45,475 87,849 Indirect Cost Recovery Cash Carry Forward 22,296 22,200 16,842 69,100 63,018 START Funds - - - 70,100 - Travel Awards 3,800 2,257 2,000 6,188 - U.H.Foundation Carry Forward Balances 513,846 617,839 617,258 632,890 699,122 Endowment Distributions** 20,039 9,315 20,334 78,251 16,828 Gifts/Donations** 92,205 17,793 9,225 45,601 96,890 TOTAL 4,777,471 5,121,124 5,036,742 5,170,305 5,210,515 Expenditures Faculty/Staff Salaries*** 1,673,047 2,191,519 2,177,727 2,055,693 1,878,380 Casual Hire & Student Help 131,619 136,998 86,216 69,694 36,759 Fringe Benefits 112,522 227,948 174,212 220,426 182,041 Stipends/Allowances 23,450 14,736 21,279 16,042 61,896 Tuition - 10,962 21,488 9,996 4,800 Travel 75,493 68,803 76,700 42,582 51,244 Equipment 101,726 12,743 76,517 43,317 95,454 Other Operating 402,820 605,707 591,982 383,852 810,300 Student Support 50,324 78,727 61,274 89,461 80,220 University Tax None None None None None Total 2,571,022 3,348,144 3,287,396 2,931,063 3,201,094 Balances 2,206,469 1,772,980 1,749,346 2,239,242 2,009,421 * New funding received on the books for that fiscal year only. Includes advance funding, budget balance inputs, and awarded full amounts. Multi-year projects are recorded in yearly increments. ** New funding received into University for Public Health University of Hawai‘i Foundation accounts that fiscal year. *** Includes Faculty (wages, summer overload, & stipends), Lecturers, APTs, Civil Service, RCUH, GRAs

1.6.c. If the program is a collaborative one sponsored by two or more universalities, the budget statement must make clear the financial contributions of each sponsoring university to the overall program budget. This criterion is not applicable to the Program.

1.6.d. A concise statement or chart concerning the number (headcount) of core faculty employed by the program as of fall for each of the last three years. All faculty in OPHS are in one of the two specializations which best suits their education and background. Table 1.6.d. shows the headcount and academic background of faculty in each of the two specializations for the last four years.

Table 1.6.d. Core Faculty Fall Semester 2003- 2006 Specialization 2003 2004 2005 2006 Epidemiology 8 8 7 7  Epidemiology 4 5 3 4  Biostatistics 2 2 2 2  Environmental Health 1 1 1  Nutrition 1 1 1 SBHS 9 8 5 7  Social Behavioral Health 3 4 3 4  Gerontology 4 2 1 1  Health Administration 1 1 1  Maternal and Child Health 1 1 1 1 Total 17 16 12 14

1.6.e. A table showing faculty, students, and student/faculty ratios, organized by specialty area, for each of the last three years. These data must be presented in table format and include at least: a) headcount of primary faculty who support the teaching programs, b) FTE conversion of faculty based on % time or % salary support devoted to the instructional programs, c) headcount of other faculty involved in the teaching programs (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc), d) FTE conversion of other faculty based on estimate of % time commitment, e) total headcount of core faculty plus other faculty, f) total FTE of core and other faculty, g) headcount of students in department or program area, h) FTE conversion of students, based on 9 or more credits per semester as full-time, i) student FTE divided by regular faculty FTE and j) student FTE divided by total faculty FTE, including other. All programs must provide data for a), b) and i) and may provide data for c), d) and j) depending on whether the program intends to include the contributions of other faculty in its FTE calculations. FTE data in this table must match FTE data presented in 4.1.a. and 4.1.b.

Table 1.6.e. Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department or Specialty Area

SFR SFR HC Core FTEF HC Other FTEF Total Total HC FTE by Core by Total Faculty Core Faculty Other Faculty HC FTEF Students Students FTEF FTEF (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) EPI 2003 8 8 1 1 9 9 20 19.0 2.37 2.1 2004 8 8 1 0.14 9 8.14 27 24.5 3.06 2.7 2005 7 7 1 0.86 8 7.86 21 18.5 2.6 2.3 2006 7 7 NA NA NA NA 14 17.5 2.5 NA SBHS 2003 9 9 3 2.34 12 11.34 6 6.0 0.67 0.53 2004 8 8 3 1.8 12 10.8 14 13.0 1.7 1.2 2005 5 5 7 3.36 12 8.36 20 18.5 3.7 2.1 2006 7 7 NA NA NA NA 13 12.5 1.8 NA

Faculty FTE: Calculated on the % time paid for by OPHS. Student FTE:Graduate Division defines full-time enrollment for graduate students as 8 credits.

Core Faculty = Fall Semester, 1.0 FTE funded by the Program Other Faculty = Last full Academic Year—2005-06

Key: HC = Head Count Core = full-time faculty who support the teaching programs FTE = Full-time-equivalent FTEF = Full-time-equivalent faculty Other = adjunct, part-time and secondary faculty Total = Core + Other SFR = Student/Faculty Ratio NA = Not available at this time (see Other Faculty above)

1.6.f. A concise statement or chart concerning the availability of other personnel (administration and staff). Table 1.6.f. on the following page shows the Office of Public Health Studies staff for Fall 2005. 1.6.g. A concise statement or chart concerning amount of space available to the program by purpose (offices, classrooms, common space for student use, etc.), by program and location. Table 1.6.g.on the following page shows the Office of Public Health Studies space. Floor plans for the Program’s space are available in the Reference File. 1.6.h. A concise statement or floor plan concerning laboratory space, including kind, quantity and special features or special equipment. The three Infectious Disease Epidemiology laboratories are located in the D courtyard on the first floor (collectively 665 square feet). The three Environmental Health laboratories are located both in the C and D courtyards on the first floor (collectively 2,166 square feet), of which two laboratories are located in the C courtyard and one in the D courtyard. These laboratories have been newly renovated as infectious diseases and molecular biology laboratories with the related tissue culture, virology, immunology, PCR, Western Blot, and molecular biological equipment. 1.6.i. A concise statement concerning the amount, location and types of computer facilities and resources for students, faculty, administration and staff. Hardware . All students, faculty and staff have access to a newly renovated computer classroom laboratory. Twenty-four new computers were purchased for the Computer Lab in Spring 2006. The Computer Lab equipment includes: Pentium-IV personal computers, a network printer, and a scanner (all equipment upgraded in 2006). An instructor’s computer is connected to a ceiling mounted video projector. Software . All computers have MS Office Pro 2003 Software, EpiInfo, SAS, SPSS and R statistical programs among other software. Internet . All computers are connected to the network via a high-speed switch. Internet access is available upon request for students who have laptops. Computer Lab hours . Classes are regularly scheduled in the Computer Lab. Students and faculty have access to the lab 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday with extended hours when needed. IT Specialist . The Program has a full-time IT specialist. The major duties for this position are to manage the computer lab, assist faculty with their IT hardware and software needs, design and configure network and backup system, make recommendations on IT purchases, manage the computer lab inventory, and provide technical assistance for computer problems. Email accounts . All faculty, staff, and students have university-supplied email addresses and access to electronic resources both from campus and remote sites. 1.6.j. A concise statement of library/information resources available for program use, including description of library capabilities in providing digital (electronic) content, access mechanisms and guidance in using them, and document delivery services. The principal library resources of JABSOM are housed in two University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa libraries. They are:

Table 1.6.f. Office of Public Health Studies Staff: Fall 2005

Executi Administrati Technical Title ve ve & Professional FTE Clerical FTE FTE OPHS Administrative Officer 1.0 Personnel Officer 1.0 Fiscal Specialist 1.0 IT Specialist 1.0 Department Secretary II 1.0 Clerk Typist 0.5 OGSAS* Assistant Dean 1.0 Student Services 1.0 Specialist II Student Services 1.0 Specialist I Secretary II 1.0 TOTAL 1.0 4.5 4.5 *Shared with other JABSOM Graduate Programs

Table 1.6.g. Office of Public Health Studies Space

Biomedical Sciences Building Sq Ft Sq Ft EPIDEMIOLOGY SPECIALIZATION 4,535  Epidemiology Offices 1,005  Epidemiology Laboratories 495  Biostatistics Offices 397  Environmental Health Office 472  Environmental Health Laboratory 2,166 SOCIAL and BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SCIENCES 4,186 SPECIALIZATION CLASSROOMS 1,876 CONFERENCE/CLASSROOM 1,143 COMPUTER LAB 1,173 STUDENT STUDY/MEETING AREA 2,171 ADMINISTRATION 1,771  Department 890  Office of Public Health Studies 881 Total 16,855 Space Shared With JABSOM Sq Ft Sq Ft GRADUATE STUDENT ACADEMIC SERVICES 900 STUDENT LOUNGE 373

Total 1,273 TOTAL OPHS SPACE 18,128

The Health Sciences Library . The new Health Sciences Library (http://www.hawaii.edu/hslib/) resides on the first floor of the Medical Education Building in Kaka‘ako. The Health Sciences Library is stronger in clinical and public health fields but also has an adequate working collection in the basic sciences. It consists of approximately 966 print journals and over 2,100 journals available in full-text online. Additionally, many specialized databases and online medical textbooks (approximately 300 in medicine and 650 in psychology) are available. Most online resources can be accessed both within the Library as well as remotely, providing point-of-need access anywhere, anytime. The Health Sciences Library staff provides several workshops in the public health Computer Lab every year to orient new public health students to the holdings of the library and other services. The Health Science Library has a website specifically for public health resources. http://www.hawaii.edu/hslib/infofor/phstudents.html The Health Sciences Library offers a 24/7 computer lab/classroom, three 24/7 group study rooms, wireless Internet access, and a full array of reference and library instruction services, including MEDLINE, other databases, and Internet searching training sessions. UHM Libraries – Hamilton and Sinclair . The UHM Libraries (housed in Hamilton and Sinclair) provide the largest resource of information and research materials in the state. More than 3.3 million volumes, including more than 36,542 currently received serial and periodical titles in electronic and print format. The library is ranked 68th of 114 university research libraries who are members of the Association of Research Libraries. Its online website (http://libweb.hawaii.edu/) provides access to other local and national indexes and to specialized databases with links to many full-text journal subscriptions (including MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and ISI Web of Science). The major online databases and electronic journals including those purchased by the Health Sciences Library can be accessed through their website. The Hamilton and Sinclair libraries cooperate to provide the best possible collection for all of the users at UHM. Hamilton Library. The second major collection resides at Hamilton Library whose compilation of basic science books and journals is extensive and includes excellent reference materials and a substantial core of clinical books and journals as well as titles specific to public health. A librarian with a degree in public health specifically reviews the public health collection at Hamilton Library. Hamilton Library also contains the main print book, periodical, and microform collections. Separate components include Asia Collections; Special Collections (Hawaiian, Pacific, Rare Books, and Charlot Collections); Government Documents, Maps, and Microforms; Humanities and Social Sciences (including business and education); and Science and Technology (including the preclinical sciences and medicine). Sinclair Library. The Gregg M. Sinclair Library holds the Reserve Book Room, the Computerized Learning Information Center, the Wong Audiovisual Center, the Music collection and older, bound journals in all subjects. It is also temporarily housing the government documents collection. Librarians provide reference services, research-paper consultation, and instruction in library use and database searching. The Interlibrary Loan service helps faculty and students obtain research material from off-campus sources. Faculty and graduate students may obtain subsidized copies of journal articles not owned by the library.

Other Libraries . Research Information Services. The East-West Center has a library collection called the Research Information Services in Burns Hall, Room 4063. The RIS collection features a current and interdisciplinary coverage of selected social, cultural, political, and economic development issues in Asia and the Pacific region. Hawai’i Medical Library. The Queen’s Medical Center’s Hawai‘i Medical Library is located on the grounds of the Queen’s Medical Center and is the library for Queen’s Medical Center. Students may access their electronic resources and the print resources located on the first floor on-site only. 1.6.k. A concise statement describing community resources available for instruction, research and service, indicating those where formal agreements exist. Community Resources . The program has wide-ranging and long-term established contacts with research and service activities in the specialty areas of biostatistics, epidemiology, environmental health, gerontology, and maternal and child health. These include various community institutions such as branches of the DOH, The Executive Office on Aging, various hospitals and local community health centers, US-Naval Medical Research Unit (NAMRU)-2, NAMRU-3, Kaiser Permanente, and Hawaii Medical Services Association, Pacific Health Research Institute, Kōkua Kalihi Valley Health Center, Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawai‘i and the Healthcare Association of Hawai‘i. Resources available include research collaboration, practicum preceptors as well as seminar and course lecturers which brings the practical applications of the curriculum into the classroom. Table A.5.a. in Appendix 5 lists the community resources available to the Program, describes the type of collaboration and indicates whether or not there is a formal agreement involved. 1.6.l. A concise statement of the amount and source of “in-kind” academic contributions available for instruction, research and service, indicating where formal agreements exist. Academic Contributions . Academic collaborations within the University provide the students and faculty with opportunities to integrate learning experiences from other academic areas relevant to public health. In JABSOM these include: the Departments of Geriatric Medicine; Tropical Medicine, Medical Microbiology and Pharmacology; Native Hawaiian Health; Psychiatry; Family Medicine and Community Health; and Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Other University associations include: Native Hawaiian Health Research Project of Pacific Biosciences Research Center, Honolulu-Asia Aging Study, Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i, Area Health Education Centers; other departments in UHM such as Microbiology; Food Science, Animal Science and Human Nutrition; Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering; Water Resources Research Center; the College of Social Sciences, and the Schools of Social Work, Nursing, and Law; and Kapi‘olani Community College. Resources available with other University units include research collaborations, lecturers and guest speakers, and cooperating graduate faculty for student academic committees. Table A.5.b. in Appendix 5 lists the “in-kind” academic contributions available for instruction, research, and service and indicates whether or not there is a formal agreement involved.

1.6.m. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may judge the adequacy of its resources, along with data regarding the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. At a minimum, the program must provide data on institutional expenditures per full-time-equivalent student, research dollars per full-time-equivalent faculty, and extramural funding (service or training) as a percent of the total budget. The Program has eight measures to evaluate its resources that are shown in Table 1.6.m. below. Student rating of space/facilities (Objective 4.2.f.) declined but is coming back. The flood in 2004 required evacuation of the Program’s faculty and staff to offsite facilities, and negatively impacted facility ratings. In Fall 2005 some faculty were able to return to sections of the building. Renovations to the entire facility were completed in Spring 2006, allowing all faculty to move back into their offices. The computer lab remained closed until Fall 2006. Table 1.6.m. Resource Outcome Measures

Objecti Target Outcome Measure 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 ve 2007-08 Administrative support rated as 1.2.k. 80% 100% 85.7% 76.5% excellent or good by graduates Current Current Current Year Year Year $60,021 $35,873 $87,606 2.1.a. Research dollars/FTE faculty* $100,000 Total Total Total Active Active Active $181,742 $243,409 $355,379 4.2.b. Institutional support/FTE students $15,000/yr $55,726 $31,669 $39,565 Percentage of extramural funding 4.2.c. (service or training) as part of total <25% 30.1% 27.8% 14.7% budget Not yet Not yet 4.2.d. Annual salary offset/FTE faculty 25% establishe establishe 28.04% d d Computer facilities rated as excellent 4.2.e. 80% 100% 100% 82.4% or good by graduates Space/facilities rated as excellent or 4.2.f. 80% 100% 71.4% 58.8% good by graduates Tenurable faculty tenured in 6 years or 4.2.j 100% 100% 100% 100% terminated in 7 years

* The measures for research dollars per FTE faculty (Objective 2.1.a.) was previously calculated only on the amount received from a grant/contract in the fiscal year. The variation of timing of the funding award and the actual receipt of the award for the fiscal year made it difficult to look at only the current year awards as was done in the past. It was noted that there can be a carry over balance to the next year with the grant still active but there is no new funding received. Looking at both the current awards in the current fiscal year as well as the total active awards gives a clearer picture of the research efforts of the faculty.

1.6.n. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program’s resources are sufficient to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives. While the University funding was decreasing from 2002-03 to 2004-05, the program has seen an increase close to the 2002-03 level again this year. The faculty are competitive for grant funding, which ensures that their research skills are well developed and current. As noted in section 1.6.m. above, even though extramural funding per faculty FTE decreased significantly in 2005-06, this was due to the lag in transferring new faculty grants to the Program and the timing of new grants that began the day after the 2005-06 fiscal year. The faculty is the Program’s most important asset for students and their research activities also provide more student funding opportunities. There is a critical mass of faculty to support the two accredited specializations. In addition, the Program now has core faculty in all five basic areas of public health knowledge. Library, computer, and space meet the current needs of the Program.

1. The Public Health Program: Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 1. The Public Health Program Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  The mission, vision, goals, and measurable objectives of the Program were developed in departmental planning process with student W1-There is no regular R1-The Program will assemble a representation and guided by mechanism for obtaining input Community Advisory Committee expert consultants. from the public health made of community and  The mission, vision, goals, community at large other than Program members in order to and objectives of the Program occasional community- carry-out regular review and are available on the Program partnership meetings and the give input on planning process website and in the Student biannual Global Public Health from the health community at Handbook. Conference. large.  Annual mechanism has been formulated to ensure monitoring, review, and revision (as needed) of the mission, goals, and objectives.  An ongoing and W2-The evaluation system has comprehensive evaluation evolved to its current form system, which includes with 50+ indicators. The first students, alumni, and complete review of the community employers, has indicators by the committees been developed to monitor and the faculty occurred in the achievement of the Spring 2006. Another cycle or R2a-Continue to collect mission, goals, and objectives two will be needed to objectives’ data and assess the of the Program. determine the effectiveness of evaluation process and make  Measurable objectives the latest, comprehensive incremental changes as have been developed to format. necessary. monitor progress towards W3-The organizational R2b-Review all evaluation and accomplishing the Program’s association with JABSOM planning activities in three years mission and goals. reduces the Program’s ability to assess overall success.  to directly augment separate Specific committees or R4-It was recommended that an endowed financial resources. offices have been identified as individual be assigned to W4-Not all of the necessary responsible for data monitor all evaluation efforts to evaluation tools are in place as gathering. assure compliance with the required by our objectives,  The evaluation indicators Program goals and objectives. specifically the employer are reviewed annually by the The Practicum Coordinator hired survey and the practicum responsible committee, with in Fall 06 will take on this evaluation (being revised issues and recommendations responsibility, and she will serve based on MPH competencies). brought to and acted on at as a member of the Program’s Some of these areas were the DFM Evaluation Committee. addressed to some extent through a survey conducted by  The Evaluation Committee the Fall 06 PH 649 Needs is a standing committee in the Assessment course, but further governance structure of the work needs to be done to Program develop tools to collect the required data.

1. The Public Health Program Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  The autonomy of the budget (Level V) allows the Program to grow and make decisions that are specifically pertinent to public health. R5-The Program will more  Being within JABSOM closely work with the JABSOM gives access to the Health UH Foundation representative to Sciences Library, collaborators generate financial gifts of various types, and other specifically allocated for the broader health care resources Public Health Program.  The large UHM health sciences faculty provides opportunity for collaboration and cooperation in teaching and research  An organizational process encourages participation in governance and open communication  A learning environment that is enhanced by R5a-Ensure that key resources, classrooms, updated online journals, and/or books are W5-Although many resources computer and research purchased for the JABSOM are available electronically and laboratories, and faculty Health Science Library and/or the library staff is available for situated in a central location Hamilton Library. consultation, the new JABSOM for university and community Health Science Library was collaboration R5b-Circulate the lists on a moved off the Mānoa campus  There were no formal regular basis to indicate what to Kaka’ako. student grievances since the newly acquired resources are Program was reorganized into available. JABSOM in 2002.  Student complaints are acted upon on an ongoing basis by the appropriate committee  A Governance Document R6a-Provide recognition of that defines the structure, students who participate in the roles and function for all governance of the Program constituencies (certificate). W6-Per the Exit Survey, R6b-To facilitate faculty and students do not sufficiently student input,  Active faculty involvement perceive that they have a role announcements/agendas for the exists with every faculty in governance faculty meetings and proposed serving on at least one policy changes, and a summary committee. of the minutes will be distributed via email will be distributed after each meeting.  The Level V budget which provides the same budgetary control as schools at UHM.

1. The Public Health Program Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  A low student/faculty ratio provides students with more W7-A small student enrollment opportunity to interact with means that some committees the faculty. It also provides R6a and R6b are applicable do not always have student the faculty with more time for participation. research and service activities.  The Program has its own student services, administrative and IT support staff

59 3 3 I n s t r u c t i o n a l P r o g r a m s

2.1. Master of Public Health Degree. The program shall offer instructional programs reflecting its stated mission and goals, leading to the Master of Public Health (MPH) or equivalent professional masters degree. The program may offer a generalist MPH degree or an MPH with areas of specialization. The program, depending upon how it defines the unit of accreditation, may offer other degrees, professional and academic, if consistent with its mission and resources. 2.1.a An instructional matrix presenting all of the program’s degree programs and areas of specialization, including undergraduate, masters and doctoral degrees, as appropriate. If multiple areas of specialization are available, these should be included. The matrix should distinguish between professional and academic degrees and identify any programs that are offered in distance learning or other formats. Non-degree programs, such as certificates or continuing education, should not be included in the matrix. The OPHS offers an MPH and an MS in public health. MPH students may concentrate in either epidemiology or social and behavioral health sciences. There are no degrees offered in a nontraditional format.

Table 2.1.a. Degree Programs Offered through the Office of Public Health Studies Professional Academic Specialization Areas Degrees Degrees MPH MS Epidemiology X X Social and Behavioral Health X X Sciences

2.1.b. The bulletin or other official publication, which describes all curricula offered by the program. If the university does not publish a bulletin or other official publication, the program must provide for each degree and area of specialization identified in the instructional matrix a printed description of the curriculum, including a list of required courses and their course descriptions. Applicants requesting information receive a brochure along with the application. Both of these can be accessed through the Program website (http://www.hawaii.edu/publichealth/) and provide prospective applicants with information on the admission and degree requirements. The Student Handbook also includes the curricula of the MPH programs and a description of all classes, and is also available on the website. The Program is listed in the JABSOM Catalog under the title of Department of Public Health Sciences and Epidemiology as well as appearing in the JABSOM website under graduate programs (http://jabsom.hawaii.edu/JABSOM/admissions/graduate.php). All publications are updated and revised annually to reflect improvements and changes made to the teaching programs.

2.1.c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. The criterion is met. The program offers professional and academic degrees and these are described through various appropriate media that is easily accessible.

2.2. Program Length. An MPH degree program or equivalent professional masters degree must be at least 42 semester credit units in length. 2.2.a. Definition of a credit with regard to classroom/contact hours. A credit unit is defined as 50 minutes of contact time per week for a standard 15 week semester.

2.2.b. Information about the minimum degree requirements for all professional degree curricula shown in the instructional matrix. If the program or university uses a unit of academic credit or an academic term different than the standard semester or quarter, this should be explained and an equivalency presented in a table or narrative. Current degree requirements . The required number of credits for graduation with an MPH is 30-39 for epidemiology and 33-40 for social and behavioral health sciences, depending on the student’s background and/or research experience in the specialization (e.g., students with previously earned advanced degrees or commensurate work history). There are fifteen (15) credits required for both specializations—core courses (12) and a field practicum (3). The remaining credits are specialization courses and electives selected to support the student academic objectives. Students who are currently in the Program will be assessed under these current credit requirements. Revised degree requirements as of Fall 2007 . All students admitted from Fall 2007 onward will be required to complete 42 credits. The website and 2007-08 brochure are updated to reflect this change. In order to increase the credit hours to 42, the following changes were made in the specialization courses and the number of electives required:  Epidemiology increased the number of required specialization credits by four. All students will need to complete a three (3) credit course in either infectious or chronic disease (PH 666 or PH 748).  The computer applications course (PH 658) was modified to increase the credits from two to three.  Currently epidemiology students take between 1 and 10+ electives, depending on the students’ previous experience and their academic goals. Beginning in Fall 2007, eight credits of electives will be required. The Social and Behavioral Health Sciences decreased the number of required course credits by one (18-17) with the following changes:  A directed reading course (PH 699) that dealt with data analysis was removed.  Biostatistics II (PH 656) will no longer be required in Fall 2007.  A research methods course (PH702) that will be taken in place of one of three epidemiology courses.  A three credit integrative seminar (PH 789) was added. Table A.6.a. in Appendix 6 shows the current requirements for professional degree curricula offered by the Program. The requirements that will be in effect for students admitted in Fall 2007 are shown in Table A.6.b. The “X” denotes which semester the course is offered.

2.2.c. Information about the number of MPH degrees awarded for less than 42 semester credit units, or equivalent, over each of the last three years. A summary of the reasons should be included. Credit requirements for all of the Program’s degrees are currently less than 42 semester credits. In the last three years only 6 students graduated with 42 credits or more. Based on these figures it is not expected that any students will graduate in 2006-07 with 42 credits. According to Graduate Division policy, students are held responsible for completing the degree requirements in force at the time of their admission. If the Program changes the degree requirements, students already enrolled can agree to accept the new requirements but it is not mandatory. All students admitted for Fall 2007 and there after will be required to complete 42 credits.

2.2.d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met This criterion will be met by Fall 2007. The University administrative procedures are completed to change the required credits to 42 for the MPH degree.

2.3. Public Health Core Knowledge. All professional degree students must demonstrate an understanding of the public health core knowledge.

2.3.a. Identification of the means by which the program assures that all professional degree students have a broad understanding of the areas of knowledge basic to public health. If this means is common across the program, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or specialty area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each. The MPH program requires all students to take five core courses in each of the areas of knowledge basic to public health and to have a broad understanding of them upon graduation. These courses are guided by the core areas of public health knowledge as defined by CEPH. See section 2.7 for a discussion of assessment procedures utilized to assure students have a broad understanding of the areas of knowledge basic to public health. Table 2.3.a. presents the core public health course requirements for the two MPH specializations. Syllabi for core courses are available in the Reference File. A new core course, PH 600 Introduction to Public Health, will be required in Fall 2007. Table 2.3.a. Core Public Health Courses

PH 602 Fundamentals of Health Services and Administration PH 623 Social Science and Public Health PH 655 Biostatistics I PH 663 Principles of Epidemiology I PH 681 Environmental Determinants of Health

2.3.b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The program has a clearly defined set of “core courses” designed to provide professional degree students with a broad understanding of the basic areas of public health, including biostatistics, epidemiology, environmental health science, health services administration, and social and behavioral sciences. All core courses are taught by doctoral prepared faculty qualified in the designated area.

2.4. Practical Skills. All professional degree students must develop skills in basic public health concepts and demonstrate the application of these concepts through a practice experience that is relevant to the students’ areas of specialization. 2.4.a. Description of the program’s policies and procedures regarding practice placements, including selection of sites, methods for approving preceptors, approaches for faculty supervision of students, means of evaluating practice placement sites, preceptor qualifications and criteria for waiving the experience. Application of Public Health Knowledge. The application of public health concepts, knowledge and skills is valued as an extremely important learning approach for all MPH students in the Program. The application component is executed through the field training practicum with great care given in selecting, screening, monitoring, and evaluation of each practice placement and field preceptor. The Program recently hired a Practice Coordinator in September 2006 to ensure all the components of the practice placement system are standardized with on-going monitoring and evaluation. The new Practice Coordinator is ideally suited for this task since she has an MPH and has working the O‘ahu community for the last 11 years and prior to that in Southeast Asia for six years. This allows the Practice Coordinator the working knowledge and experience to officially establish numerous of community linkages and strengthen the service-learning collaboration with various agencies and organizations. All MPH students must complete the field training practicum . There are no waivers. Before the MPH degree is granted, the MPH students must enroll in PH 791 Advanced Public Health Practice, which is a required 3-credit course that is taken after at least two semesters of course work. There are several policies and procedures regarding practice placements. These are listed in Appendix 7. They contain the following: policies and procedures; preceptor qualifications, selection, and approval method; faculty supervision; evaluation of practice sites; and evaluation of students. Students receive a general information document on MPH field training relevant to their specialization. Copies of these documents are found in Appendix 4. Similar information is summarized in the Student Handbook (Reference File). This information includes:  Goals of the training experience;  Policies;  Expectations for students;  Guidelines for preceptors, and  MPH and specialization competencies. Process . The process for practice placements is described below and the procedural steps are also contained in Appendix 7. Due to the unique nature of individual student learning needs and educational goals, all students are required to develop a practicum plan. Learning objectives determined. The student works with his/her faculty advisor to identify areas of interest and to assess the student’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the MPH and specialization competencies. Learning objectives for the field practicum are selected based on this information and the need or desire to acquire a higher level of skill in a given competency area.

Selection of preceptor and site. Based on the learning objectives of the student, the faculty and student discuss a variety of sites and preceptors in the student’s area of interest that may be able to help the student develop the MPH and specialization competencies. Preceptor qualifications. Qualified field preceptors that hold master’s degrees (at a minimum) have been identified for their exemplary practice in epidemiology or social and behavioral health sciences, and public health. Field preceptors are screened to ensure that they have a rich public health-related background and experiences. Approval for placement. Once a practicum site/preceptor is selected, the student and preceptor meet with faculty advisors to discuss the practicum. The faculty advisor and the Practice Coordinator insures that the site is appropriate for the needs of the student, that the project should be able to be completed satisfactorily, and the field preceptor identified by the student is willing and able to give enough oversight, direct the required activities, and complete the final evaluation on the student. Practicum contract. Once the site and preceptor have been selected, the student contract, Form 15 – PH 791 Advanced Public Health Practice (Appendix 8), is completed by the student and signed by the field preceptor, faculty advisor, and other committee memebers. The Form 15 includes the student learning objectives, scope and nature of the field training, and expected outcomes and/or deliverables. Practicum requirements. Practicums are required to be at least 240 hours in length. Students are encouraged to complete their practicum in the summer or over a single semester but flexibility is allowed to accommodate part-time/working students’ schedules. Faculty supervision. The faculty advisor provides general supervision of the practicum while the field preceptor supervises the day-to-day practicum in the field. The student’s faculty advisor and the preceptor for the student direct the student’s activities and keep informed of the student’s progress. The student is expected to meet with the committee to discuss progress on the project. Upon completion, the student is required to prepare a report and provide an assessment of the practicum. Evaluati o n Evaluation by preceptor. Field preceptors are required to complete an evaluation of the student’s performance during the practicum. Students receive a letter grade based on the quantity and quality of work and the degree of understanding of public health exhibited. They must receive a grade of “B” or better in PH 791 to be awarded the MPH degree. Student performance is also assessed through an evaluation of the students’ final reports and oral presentations. Program improvements. In the past, the preceptor evaluation responses have been low and the process for assuring compliance was left entirely to the faculty. Tracking of preceptor evaluations was problematic with forms not always being kept in the student’s file. Attempts were made to change the questionnaire and make it easier for the preceptor to complete. This action did not improve compliance and the revised questionnaire did not provide the kinds of information needed for a complete assessment. The Program faculty and Director determined the solution through the hiring of an associate specialist for this task. As mentioned earlier, the Practice Coordinator was appointed in Fall 2006 and has developed a plan to eliminate these deficiencies. The Practice Coordinator serves as a liaison between public health students and the community. The position responsibilities include fostering relationships between the Program and community agencies. This also includes but is not

limited to developing memoranda of agreement and practicum placements. She works with the students to assess individual needs and connect students to appropriate placement sites. This position is also be responsible for making sure that the Form 15, all evaluation forms, and other practicum related paperwork have been completed.

2.4.b. Identification of agencies and preceptors used for practice experiences for students, by specialty area, for the last two academic years. Table 2.4.b. below identifies the agencies and preceptors used for practice experiences over the last two academic years.

Table 2.4.b. Preceptors and Practice Sites Fall 2004 – 2006 Semester Preceptor Place Specialization Graduated Beatriz Honolulu Heart Program, Public Health Fall 2004 Epidemiology Rodriguez, PhD Research Institute Social and Chong Vandaca, Adolescent Reproductive Health Program, Fall 2004 Behavioral Health MD Reproductive Health Association of Cambodia Sciences Doris Segal Social and Fall 2004 Matsunaga, Kalihi Palama Health Center, Honolulu Behavioral Health MPH Sciences Social and Alison Alfonzo Cross Cultural Health Care Program, Seattle, Fall 2004 Behavioral Health Pense, PhD Washington Sciences Department of Pediatrics, John A. Burns School Fall 2004 Raul Rudoy, MD Epidemiology of Medicine, University of Hawai‘i James Pietsch, Elder Law Program, William Richardson School Fall 2004 Gerontology JD of Law, University of Hawai‘i Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Alan Katz, MD, Fall 2004 Program, University of London School of Epidemiology MPH Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Gertraud Epidemiology Prevention and Control Program Fall 2004 Maskarinec, Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i, University Epidemiology PhD of Hawai‘i Madeline Porta, Spring 2005 National Cancer Institute Epidemiology PhD Kati Cui,MD, Immunology Branch, Hawai’i Department of Spring 2005 Epidemiology MPH Health Timothy Juday, STD/AIDS Prevention Branch, Hawai‘i Spring 2005 Epidemiology PhD Department of Health Timothy Juday, STD/AIDS Prevention Branch, Hawai‘i Spring 2005 Epidemiology PhD Department of Health Carol Waslien, Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Spring 2005 Epidemiology PhD Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai‘i Allison Imrie, Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Spring 2005 Epidemiology PhD Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai‘i Beatriz Fall 2005 Pacific Biomedical Research Institute Epidemiology Rodriguez, PhD

Semester Preceptor Place Specialization Graduated Alan Katz, MD, Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Fall 2005 Epidemiology MPH Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai‘i Social and Toby Clairmont, Fall 2005 Healthcare Association of Hawai’i Behavioral Health RN, CEM Sciences Jean Johnson, Center On Disability Studies, University of Fall 2005 Epidemiology DrPH Hawai’i Social and Therese Childhood Injury Prevention, Hawai‘i Fall 2005 Behavioral Health Argaund, MPH Department of Health Sciences Department of Tropical Medicine, Microbiology, Social and Frederick Fall 2005 and Pharmacology, John A. Burns School of Behavioral Health Burkle, MD Medicine, University of Hawai’i Sciences Paul Effler, PhD Outbreak Control Division, Hawai‘i Department Fall 2005 Sarah Y. Park, Epidemiology of Health PhD Social and Sara Okubo, Spring 2006 Kalihi Palama Health Clinic, Honolulu Behavioral Health MPH Sciences Arlene Disease Outbreak Control Division, Hawai‘i Spring 2006 Buchholz, DVM, Epidemiology Department of Health MPH Social and Catherine Healthy Hawai‘i Initiative, Hawai‘i Department Spring 2006 Behavioral Health Sorenson, DrPH of Health Sciences Paul Effler, PhD Outbreak Control Division, Hawai‘i Department Spring 2006 Sarah Y. Park, Epidemiology of Health PhD Social and Vu Ngoc Khanh, Spring 2006 Save the Children US/Vietnam Behavioral Health MD Sciences Social and Mya Moe Hla, Kōkua Kalihi Valley Community Health Center, Spring 2006 Behavioral Health MD, MPH Honolulu Sciences Social and Thom McKenzie, Department of Exercise and Nutritional Spring 2006 Behavioral Health PhD Sciences, San Diego State University Sciences Social and Kristen Scholly, University Health Education Center, University Spring 2006 Behavioral Health MSW Health Services, University of Hawai’i Sciences Andrew Summer Grandinetti, Kohala Research Project, Kohala Epidemiology 2006 PhD Summer Tim Brown, PhD East West Center, Honolulu Epidemiology 2006 Social and Summer Nancy Lees, Kaiser Permanente, Honolulu Behavioral Health 2006 PhD Sciences

Semester Preceptor Place Specialization Graduated Social and Jan Shoultz, School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene, Quentin Fall 2006 Behavioral Health MPH, MS, DrPH Burdick Rural Health Project Sciences Kay Hansen, Fall 2006 Kōkua Kalihi Valley Health Center Epidemiology RN, MPH Paul Effler, MD, Outbreak Control Division, Hawai‘i Department Fall 2006 Epidemiology MPH of Health Social and D. Christian Fall 2006 Infant Development, Environmental & Lifestyle Behavioral Health Derauf, MD Sciences Alan Katz, MD, Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Fall 2006 Epidemiology MPH Burs School of Medicine Social and Fall 2006 Elvira Lee, MSW Executive Office on Aging Behavioral Health Sciences Marian Melish, Fall 2006 Kapi‘olani Children and Women Hospital Epidemiology MD Dr. Lon White, Fall 2006 Pacific Health Research Institute. Epidemiology MD, MPH Gertrund Fall 2006 Maskarinec, Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i Epidemiology MD, MPH

2.4.c. Data on the number of students receiving a waiver of the practice experience for each of the last three years. The practicum may not be waived.

2.4.d. Data on the number of preventive medicine, occupational medicine, aerospace medicine, and public health and general preventive medicine residents completing the academic program for each of the last three years, along with information on their practicum rotations. The Program does not have a preventive medicine program.

2.4.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion has been met. A well-defined field training experience is required of all MPH students. Field training requires 240 hours and emphasizes the practical application of skills and knowledge acquired in core and specialization courses.

2.5. Culminating Experience. All professional degree programs identified in the instructional matrix shall assure that each student demonstrates skills and integration of knowledge through a culminating experience. 2.5.a. Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program. If this is common across the program’s professional degree programs, it need be described only. Culminating Experience . In the master of public health degree program, the strategy to assure that students are able to integrate their classroom experiences with the realities of practice of public health in the field is met by the culminating experience. Prior to graduation, all MPH students participate in a field practicum, and prepare a capstone paper and a final oral presentation based on their practicum. As with other milestones in the student’s program of study, the final paper and oral presentation are guided by the faculty and student appraisal of the student’s attainment of program and specialization competencies. Although the capstone paper and oral presentation are based on the student’s field practicum, they are required to integrate a broader scope than the field experience itself. The capstone paper and oral presentation are the final opportunities for students to demonstrate the mastery of the program and specialization competencies, and demonstrate preparation for the professional workforce. Capstone Expectations. The final assessment is made by the student’s program committee. The capstone expectations for both specializations include:  Addressing a key issue, concern or research problem related to the area of public health specialization;  Applying conceptual models and/or theoretical frameworks to address the issue/problem; and  Demonstrating integration and practical application of public health concepts and practices for the specialization. The specializations provide a recommended outline for the final paper and presentation (Appendix 9). The final oral presentations are advertised throughout the Program and are open to the public. A question-and-answer session follows the presentation in which the committee and other members of the audience are free to ask students question pertinent to their specialization or to the field of public health to assess the student’s knowledge and understanding of the MPH and specialization-specific competencies.

2.5.b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The program has a well defined culminating experience with documented procedures and expectations. A practicum, a capstone paper, and an oral presentation are required of all students before the MPH degree is awarded. The capstone paper and oral presentation draw upon the skills and knowledge of the student to demonstrate integration and application of public health concepts and practices.

2.6. Required Competencies. For each degree program and area of specialization within each program identified in the instructional matrix, there shall be clearly stated competencies that guide the development of educational programs. 2.6.a. Identification of core public health competencies that all MPH or equivalent professional master’s degree students are expected to achieve through their courses of study. The program’s MPH core competencies are structured around those developed by the Public Health Faculty/Agency Forum project. By graduation MPH students must demonstrate ability to apply public health perspectives, knowledge, and skill in the areas of cultural understanding, communication, policy development, program planning, critical analysis, and public health practice. The level of mastery of these core competencies will vary depending on the area of specialization. The program core competencies are listed below. Analytic Skills (AS) AS1 Define a public health problem. AS2 Determine appropriate use of data and statistical methods. AS3 Collect and summarize data relevant to an issue. AS4 Evaluate the quality and comparability of data and identify gaps in data sources. AS5 Describe how data illuminate ethical, political, scientific, economic, and overall public health issues. AS6 Identify research designs used in public health, including advantages and flaws of specific designs, and determine designs appropriate to specific needs. Communication Skills (CO) CO1 Communicate effectively with professional and lay audiences both in writing and orally (unless a disability precludes oral communication). CO2 Solicit input from individuals and organizations. CO3 Advocate for public health programs and resources. CO4 Work effectively in a team environment. Policy-Development And Program-Planning Skills (PP) PP1 Relate historical development and structure of local, state, and federal public health agencies to current public health practice issues, policies and program development. PP2 Identify the feasibility and expected health, fiscal, administrative, legal, social and political implications of policy or program options. PP3 Develop a plan to implement a policy or program, including goals, outcome and process objectives, implementation strategies, and mechanisms to monitor and evaluate programs for their effectiveness, and budget. Cultural Skills (CS) CS1 Interact sensitively, effectively and professionally with persons from diverse cultural, socioeconomic and professional backgrounds. CS2 Identify the role of cultural, social, and behavioral factors in determining disease, disease prevention, health-promoting behavior, and medical service organizations and delivery. CS3 Develop and adapt approaches to problems that take into account cultural differences.

Basic Public Health Skills (PHS) PHS1 Define, assess, and describe the health status of populations, determinants of health and illness, factors contributing to health promotion and disease prevention and factors influencing the use of health services. PHS2 Apply the basic public health skills from behavioral and social sciences, biostatistics, epidemiology, and environmental health to design/evaluate programs/policies to improve health. PHS3 Demonstrate mastery of access and use of public health literature. PHS4 Use advanced computer skills as appropriate. 2.6.b. A matrix that identifies the learning experiences by which the core public health competencies are met. If this is common across the program, a single matrix will suffice. If it varies by degree or specialty area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each. A matrix of the core MPH competencies and courses can be found below in Table 2.6.b. below.

Table 2.6.b. Matrix of Core MPH Competencies

MPH Core Courses Curriculum for Epidemiology Specialization Curriculum for SBHS Specialization PH602 PH623 PH655 PH663 PH681 PH656 PH658 PH661 PH664 PH747 PH755 PH791-E PH649 PH656 PH660 PH699 PH750 PH751 PH765 PH791-S AS1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X AS2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X AS3 X X X X X X X X X X AS4 X X X X X X X X X X AS5 X X X X X X X X AS6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CO1 X X X X X X X X CO2 X X X X X X CO3 X X X CO4 X X X X PP1 X X PP2 X PP3 X X X X CS1 X X X X X X X X X CS2 X X X X X X X X X CS3 X X X X PHS1 X X X X X X X PHS2 X X X X X X X X PHS3 X X X X X X X X X PHS4 X X X X X X X X

PH602 Intro to Health Services PH623 Social Science & Public Health PH656 Biostatistics II PH649 Needs Assessment & Program Planning PH655 Biostatistics I PH658 Computer Applications in Public Health PH656 Biostatistics I PH663 Principles of Epidemiology I PH661 Epidemiological Study Design PH660 Current Topics in SBHS PH681 Environmental Determinants of Health PH664 Principles of Epidemiology II PH699 Directed Reading PH747 Statistical Methods in Epidemiological Research PH750 Health Behavior Change PH755 Seminar in Tropical Medicine & Public Health PH751 Social Epidemiology PH791E Advanced Public Health Practice PH765 Program Evaluation PH791S Advanced Public Health Practice

2.6.c. Identification of a set of competencies for each specialty area identified in the instructional matrix, including professional and academic degree curricula. Epidemiology MPH Competencies E1 Identify the epidemiological dimensions of the major causes of morbidity and mortality regionally, nationally and internationally with particular emphasis on chronic and infectious disease. E2 Identify public health practices for disease control including surveillance, screening, and outbreak investigation. E3 Identify practices for disease detection including the use of biomarkers, and molecular biology. E4 Demonstrate proficiency in computer based data collection, management, and analysis using major statistical software and fundamental strategies for biostatistical analysis. E5 Apply appropriate statistical tests for parametric and non-parametric settings and identify advanced statistical methods for analyzing both nominal and continuous data, for both univariate and multivariate applications. E6 Demonstrate skills in the conduct of epidemiologic research: a. Critically assess epidemiologic data and literature. b. Write an epidemiologic research proposal. c. Devise sampling protocols and design questionnaires. d. Develop a plan for survey logistics and data quality control. e. Evaluate, interpret and discuss research results in the format required for an epidemiologic research report. Epidemiology MS Competencies In addition, the following competencies are required for MS students: EMS1 Demonstration of an understanding of epidemiologic-specific theoretical constructs, research design, research methodology, and analytic strategies. EMS2 Participation in an original research project that makes a contribution to the body of knowledge in epidemiology. Social Behavioral Health Sciences MPH Competencies SBHS1 Identify and assess determinants of individual, community, and population health, including cultural, social, and biobehavioral factors contributing to health related behaviors. SBHS2 Apply theoretical perspectives in analyzing the behavioral, cultural, and ethical dimensions of community health problems. SBHS3 Identify a range of individual, interpersonal and community-wide health promotion and disease prevention models and strategies. SBHS4 Assess needs and plan interventions based on identified needs. SBHS5 Evaluate interventions (e.g., programs and policies) to determine impact and identify areas of improvement. Social Behavioral Health Sciences MS Competencies In addition, the following competencies are required for MS students: SBHSMS1 Develop a study protocol detailing research questions, sampling strategies, and quantitative and/or qualitative research methods. SBHSMS2 Use the scientific method to design, conduct and report on a study of a question concerning the social and behavioral health sciences.

Table 2.6.c. Matrix of Specialization Competencies

Curriculum for Epidemiology Specialization Curriculum for SBHS Specialization PH602 PH623 PH655 PH663 PH681 PH656 PH658 PH661 PH664 PH747 PH788 PH791-E PH649 PH656 PH660 PH699 PH750 PH751 PH765 PH791-S E1 X X X X X E2 X X X E3 X X E4 X X X X X E5 X X X X X X X E6a X X X X X X E6b X X E6c X X E6d X X E6e X X X X X SBHS1 X X X X SBHS2 X X SBHS3 X X X X SBHS4 X X X SBHS5 X X

PH602 Intro to Health Services PH623 Social Science & Public Health PH656 Biostatistics II PH649 Needs Assessment & Program Planning PH655 Biostatistics I PH658 Computer Applications in Public Health PH656 Biostatistics I PH663 Principles of Epidemiology I PH661 Epidemiological Study Design PH660 Current Topics in SBHS PH681 Environmental Determinants of Health PH664 Principles of Epidemiology I PH699 Directed Reading PH747 Statistical Methods in Epidemiological Research PH750 Health Behavior Change PH755 Seminar in Tropical Medicine & Public Health PH751 Social Epidemiology PH791E Advanced Public Health Practice PH765 Program Evaluation PH791S Advanced Public Health Practice

2.6.d. A description of the manner in which competencies are developed, used and made available to students. The competencies are developed on two levels: the core MPH competencies and the specialization competencies. MPH competencies . The core MPH competencies were generated from the Public Health Faculty/Agency Forum project. These were reviewed and revised in the DFMs. The last review of the competencies occurred in Spring 2006, and faculty considered revising the Program’s competencies using the Association of Schools of Public Health’s MPH Core Competencies Development Project. However, the importance of that task as well as the time and effort that it would require was not available during the self-study process. Specialization competencies. The specialization competencies are developed by the faculty in each specialization program and revisions are made in conjunction with national, professional, and/or community criteria, standards, and evaluations. The Report on Evaluation Indicators (Appendix 2—Objective 4.1.g.) calls for a review of competencies at least every three years. The last review occurred in the 2005-2006 academic year. Operationalizing competencies. The core and specialization competencies are operationalized through the course learning objectives and the evaluation methods used to assess the student’s attainment of those objectives. With the reaffirmation of the MPH competencies, faculty members agreed to include on their syllabi the specialization and MPH competencies covered in their individual courses. Initially, this was done in whatever manner the faculty member deemed appropriate. In August 2006, however, faculty members agreed to develop a syllabus template. The template not only assures that course learning objectives and competencies are specified in a uniform way; it also assures that each syllabus includes the following elements:  Meeting Place and Time  Instructor Information o Name o Phone o Email o Office and Office Hours  Course Description  Course Learning Objectives  Required Text and Assigned Readings  Course Schedule (lectures and assignments by dates)  Course Policies  Grading Scale for Class Assignments  Specialization Competencies Addressed  MPH Competencies Addressed  Assignments (optional) New or modified courses will be carefully reviewed by the curriculum committee to ensure the relationship of the learning objectives to the competencies is clearly stated. The core and specialization competencies are found in the Program brochure, on the Program website, and in the Student Handbook that is distributed at new student orientation.

2.6.e. A description of the manner in which the program periodically assesses the changing needs of public health practice and uses this information to establish the competencies for its educational programs. Faculty review of literature and curriculum guidelines . Faculty continuously review current literature on programs, research, and policies in their areas of specialization for potential additions to course requirements. Each specialization committee also periodically reviews its curriculum in light of new competency or curriculum guidelines for the specialization. Courses examine emerging public health issues . The Program has two courses designed to examine topics, issues, and problems of the changing public health environment called Current Issues and Topics in Public Health (PH 792) and Exploration in Public Health (PH 797). Both courses provide a mechanism to rapidly introduce emerging issues related to public health curriculum. 2.6.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The faculty members have identified well-defined sets of competencies to assure development of practitioners and researchers in their disciplines. Core and specialization course work and other learning experiences provide students with a curriculum to achieve those competencies.

2.7. Assessment Procedures. There shall be procedures for assessing and documenting the extent to which each student has demonstrated competence in the required areas of performance. 2.7.a. Description of the procedures used for monitoring and evaluating student progress in achieving the expected competencies. The student’s progress towards their degree is monitored and evaluated through faculty advising and interaction, course work and grades, program committee meetings, practicum evaluations, papers/orals, and degree checks. A competencies advising form was developed (Appendix 10) to review student achievement of competencies each semester. The faculty is testing this method to strengthen competency integration in to the assessment process. Faculty Advising . Faculty interactions with students through the advising process are the major method to monitor student progress. Students are assigned an interim advisor at the time of admission. This advisor assists the student with orientation to the program and specialization competencies. The students are expected to select a permanent advisor, who will act as the chairs of their program committees, by the beginning of their second semester. The faculty advisor assists students with course selection to ensure that core and specialization competencies are satisfied while meeting individual student expectations regarding educational goals. Form 14 is used to document the MPH student’s academic plan (Appendix 11). The program committee, which includes at least one additional faculty member, is important in the development of the field placement for MPH students and thesis topic for MS students. Students must communicate with their advisors at least once a semester and can change advisors with the permission of the old and new advisors and input from the specialization head. Individual Courses . Since course work is one method of providing the skills and knowledge needed for successful completion of the program, monitoring grades in these courses is one procedure for evaluating student progress. The learning objectives for each course are linked to the competencies. A matrix of core MPH competencies can be found in section 2.6. Each course has specific expectations of student performance and means of evaluation that are included in the syllabus. All courses require documented evaluation procedures (e.g., quizzes; home work assignments; midterms; final examinations; papers; oral presentations) to assess the students. Grade Point . The Office of Graduate Student Academic Services and the Graduate Division require that all students maintain a cumulative GPA of at least a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale to maintain enrollment. The UHM Graduate Records Office monitors student grades and GPAs. One of the objectives of the Program is that 90% of the students will maintain a GPA of 3.0 or better. The CFS for public health is notified if a student fails to maintain a 3.0 GPA and the Graduate Dean places the student on academic probation. The Program supports the student’s efforts to return to good academic standing. If the student fails to bring the GPA to 3.0 by the end of the next semester, the student is in jeopardy of being expelled from the program. Practicum . The practicum (240 hours) is a major component of the MPH program. It provides the opportunity to evaluate the degree to which students are able to integrate the knowledge and skills from their academic program into public health practice. All MPH students are required to complete field training.

The students and their committees develop the scope of the field training experience and select a site for accomplishing training. Documentation of field training is required on Form 15, which is kept in the student’s file (Appendix 8). Assessment by the preceptor of the student’s performance in the practice setting is required for both specializations. As noted in 2.4.a. the preceptor assessment process has been problematic. A new assessment tool and process are newly developed and were integrated in Fall 2006 (Appendix 12). Capstone Paper/Orals . All MPH students are required to complete a final paper and oral presentation. It is the final portion of the culminating experience and draws on skills and knowledge of the students to demonstrate preparation for the professional workforce. The final assessment is made by the student’s program committee. The capstone expectations for both specializations include:  Addressing a key issue, concern or research problem related to the area of public health specialization;  Applying conceptual models and/or theoretical frameworks to address the issue/problem; and  Demonstrating integration and practical application of public health concepts and practices for the specialization. The oral presentation is followed by a question and answer period given by the student’s committee and others attending the presentation. Questions may or may not be related to the student’s project directly, but do encompass public health applications as well as the student’s public health skills. Degree Check . The Graduate Division initiates a degree check for each student who applies for graduation. Form 14 is reviewed by faculty and OGSAS for all master’s students to assure foundation requirements and specialization courses have been completed. The student’s advisor must approve each student’s degree check before the CFS certifies the student eligible for graduation to the Graduate Division.

2.7.b. Identification of outcomes that serve as measures by which the program will evaluate student achievement in each degree program, and presentation of data assessing the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. 2.7.c. If the outcome measures selected by the program do not include degree completion rates and job placement experience, then data for these two additional indicators must be provided, including experiential data for each of the three years. If degree completion rates, in the normal time period for degree completion, are less than 80%, an explanation must be provided. If job placement, within 12 months following award of the degree, is less than 80% of the graduates, an explanation must be provided. The measures by which program effectiveness and the performance is monitored is shown in Table 2.7.b. below. The outcome measures include: monitoring grades, the culminating experience, degree completion rates, student satisfaction with the program from both the exit and alumni surveys, employer satisfaction with graduates, and job placement experience. Several of the indicators are below the desired levels, including completion rates (1.2.e.), satisfaction with the program (1.2.f.), and alumni perception of how well the program prepared them for their current job responsibilities (1.3.b). The first two of these indicators may have

been influenced by the serious flood that made the Program’s classrooms, faculty and administrative offices, and the computer laboratory unusable from Fall 2004 to Spring 2006. A detailed explanation of these areas follows. Completion Rates . The years considered are the last three academic years that students would have been able to graduate in two years, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05. Completion rates are reviewed for the total number of graduates as well as excluding graduates who were enrolled part-time or in a concurrent degree program, which would affect the time to completion. Considering all graduates, the rates were 63.6%, 60% and 95%. With the exclusions the rates are 90.9%, 80%, and 100%. A review of the student course loads shows that an average of 17.2% students over the period covered were not taking a full course load. The Exit Survey indicates that 30% of the respondents attended a combination of full-time and part-time. The Program has also increased the percentage of students with graduate assistantships from 15% to 24% of the enrolled students between 2003-04 and 2004-05. This can lengthen the completion time. And because we are part of a medical school, there are students who have become inactive due to acceptance to the MD program. All of the above contributed to a lower than completion rate considering all students. Satisfaction with the Program . The decrease in satisfaction with the program appears to also be partially a result of the October 2004 flood. Satisfaction was very high and declined dramatically after the flood. Satisfaction has begun to rebound. Alumni . There was a small number of graduates at the time of our first Alumni Survey and the low return rate makes the significance of the data difficult to determine. (Alumni Survey results are available in the Reference File.) The next Alumni Survey is scheduled for Spring 2007. Table 2.7.b. Student Achievement Outcome Measures

Tar get Objecti Outcome Measure 200 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 ve 7- 08 3.4 1.1.a. Average GPA for admitted students 3.49 3.35 3.43 + 90 1.1.b Enrolled students maintaining a 3.0+ GPA 100% 96.5% 96.9% % Graduates completing the MPH degree within 2 63.6% 60% 95% 80 1.2.e. years. (Adjusted rate excludes part-time and Adjusted: Adjusted: Adjusted: % concurrent degree students.)* 90.9% 80.0% 100% Program satisfaction rated as excellent or good 80 1.2.f. 100% 57.1% 76.5% by graduates % To graduate, the student’s program committee 100 1.3.a. members agree the student has mastered the 100% 100% 100% % public health/specialty competencies The program’s provision of adequate 16.7% Scheduled preparation for present job rated at 4 or above 80 (1 of 6 Every 3 1.3.b. for Spring (on a 5 pt scale) by alumni working in health % responden yrs 2007 field ts)

Not yet Not yet Employers indicate graduates effectively 80 Not yet 1.3.c. establishe establish perform competencies in a practice setting % established d ed Alumni Alumni employed within 12 months of 80 1.3.d. 100% NA Survey graduation % Spring 2007 * Years for this measure are 2002-03 to 2004-05—the last three years students would have been able to graduate in two years. 2.7.d. A table showing the destination of graduates for each of the last three years. The table must include at least the number and percentage of graduates by program area each year going to a) government (state, local, federal), b) nonprofit organization, c) hospital or health care delivery facility, d) private practice, e) university or research institute, f) proprietary. The destination of Program’s graduates is shown in Table 2.7.d. below. Of the 45 graduates, information on destination after graduation is known for 25 (55%). The percentages are calculated on number of responses received.

Table 2.7.d. Destination of Graduates by Specialization Area 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 / d y t n e i t e o s i d t a s c r t l i t e e t y n s e a r t e n r i y c e v c e f a i e a t o R a t u l o

r m n C d a r

e d p h i n n u P t p U h r r l E o t m d n h l p e e a r p a t c o E a v o e r r e s a r t e o N a h e H v G o P t i - H e G r r R n N s u P o e F N R 2 1 1 2003-04 (9) 4 22% 11% 11% 2 1 Epidemiology (7) 3 29% 14% SBHS (1) 1 Gerontology (1) 1 100% 1 1 3 1 2 2004-05 (16) 8 6% 6% 19% 6% 13% Epidemiolog 3 1 (11) 4 y 27% 9% 1 2 SBHS (4) 3 25% 50% 1 Gerontology (1) 1 100% 3 4 2 1 3 2005-06 (20) 13 15% 20% 10% 5% 15% Epidemiolog 2 1 2 1 1 (10) 7 y 20% 10% 20% 10% 10% 1 3 2 SBHS (10) 6 10% 30% 20% Gerontology 5 5 1 3 4 1 6 TOTAL (45) 25 11% 11% 2% 7% 9% 2% 13%

Epidemiolog 4 1 2 4 1 2 (28) 14 y 14% 4% 7% 14% 4% 7% 1 4 4 SBHS (15) 9 7% 27% 27% 1 1 Gerontology (2) 2 50% 50%

2.7.e. In public health fields where there is certification of professional competence, data on the performance of the program’s graduates on these national examinations for each of the last three years. Professional certification is not required for either epidemiology or social behavioral health sciences; therefore, no graduates have taken national examinations. 2.7.f. Data describing results from periodic assessments of alumni and employers of graduates regarding the ability of the program’s graduates to effectively perform the competencies in a practice setting. The first Alumni Survey was completed in Spring 2004. There were only 20 graduates of the Program at that time and only 8 responses were received. With this small sample size, the results cannot be considered significant. The Alumni Survey results are available in the Reference File. The Program has not yet developed a method for surveying employers of graduates.

2.7.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met with key components just being initiated. The program has procedures for monitoring and assessing students’ progress toward their degree objectives. This assessment is an ongoing process carried out by the advisor and the program committee, through evaluation of coursework, in-class observation, advisor meetings, field work or thesis research and final paper/thesis preparation and presentation as well as exit, alumni and employer surveys. It should be noted that the UHM Vice Chancellor’s Office and the Mānoa Academic Assessment Council commended the Program for its “student learning outcomes” assessment procedures (Appendix 13). “Student learning outcomes (SLOs) seem to be adequately developed and published for their graduate programs. In fact the list of SLOs seems excellent. TheSLOs also appear to be adequately mapped onto the curriculum. The department seems to adopt multiple procedures for gathering assessment data. The report also describes how assessment data have been used to make informed decisions concerning the curriculum and administration of the graduate programs. In short, sufficient and adequate assessment activities seem to be going on for the department’s graduate programs.”

2.8. Academic Degrees. If the program also offers curricula for academic degrees, students pursuing them shall obtain a broad introduction to public health, as well as an understanding about how their discipline-based specialization contributes to achieving the goals of public health. 2.8.a. Identification of all academic degree programs, by degree and area of specialization. The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose. The MS degree is offered in both the epidemiology and social and behavioral health sciences specializations as listed previously in the instructional matrix in section 2.1.a. above.

2.8.b. Identification of the means by which the program assures that students in research curricula acquire a public health orientation. If this means is common across the program, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or specialty area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each. Students in both MS degree programs receive a broad orientation to public health and in depth education in their discipline. Epidemiology MS degree students are required to take core MPH courses in epidemiology and biostatistics. They are also encouraged to take coursework in the other public health areas based on their interests and professional goals. Table 2.8.b.1. below shows the curriculum required for the MS in epidemiology. Social and behavioral health science MS degree students are required to take the same core coursework as the MPH students that includes: epidemiology, biostatistics, social and behavioral sciences, environmental health and health services. Table 2.8.b.2. below shows the curriculum required for the MS in social and behavioral health sciences. Table 2.8.b.1. Required Coursework for the MS Degree in Epidemiology

Required Courses Credi Fa Sprin ts ll g

Biostatisti PH 655 Biostatistics I 3 X cs PH 656 Biostatistics II 3 X Courses PH 747 Statistical Methods in 3 X Epidemiological Research Advanced Statistical Methods * X X PH 661 Epidemiological Study Design 2 X X Critique PH 663 Principles of Epidemiology I 3 X Epidemiol ogy PH 664 Principles of Epidemiology II 3 X Courses PH 699 Directed Reading/Research 1-6** X X PH 700 Thesis work 1-6** X X Advanced Epidemiology Courses ^ X X Grand A minimum of 30 credits required 30 Total

+ Undergraduate courses may be required, depending on the student's academic and professional background. Courses below the 300-level cannot be counted toward the MS degree. *A minimum of 3 credits is required.

** No more than 12 credits (combined total) in PH 699 and PH 700 may be applied to the minimum degree requirement. ^ Credit hours to be determined by adviser based on student's experience and professional goals.

Table 2.8.b.2. Required Coursework for the MS Degree in Social and Behavioral Health Sciences

Courses Credi Fa Sprin ts ll g PH 602 Introduction to Health Services 2 X PH 623 Social Science & Public Health 2 X Core PH 655 Biostatistics I 3 X Courses PH 663 Principles of Epidemiology I 3 X PH 681 Environmental Determinants of Health 2 X Core Total 12 PH 656 Biostatistics II 3 X PH 660 Current Topics in Social & Behavioral Health Sciences 2 X X Specializa PH 699 Directed Reading/Research (data analysis study) 1 X X tion Courses PH 750 Health Behavior Change 3 X PH 751 Social Epidemiology 3 X PH 700 Thesis Research 6 X X Total 18 Electives Up to 6 of the 10 credits may not be required for students with 4-10 X X related advanced degree Grand 34- Total 40

2.8.c. Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program. If this is common across the program’s academic degree programs, it needs to be described only once. If it varies by degree or specialty area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each. The culminating experience for the MS degree, the only academic degree offered, is a thesis and an oral defense of the thesis. The written document must meet the standards of the committee and the Graduate Division for originality and relevance to public health.

2.8.d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. Students in both MS specializations receive a public health orientation through core coursework and are encouraged to explore other areas of public health knowledge based on their research interest. A thesis and oral defense are required as capstone projects for the degree.

2. Instructional Programs: Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 2. Instructional Programs Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  Strong community ties offering a broad range of practicum opportunities W8a-Most faculty have  Students are placed in local nine month appointments, R8a-The Program will seek extramural as well as national and making it difficult to funding to assist with off-set summer international settings. supervise summer salary for faculty and Associate  All MPH students must practicums. Specialist for Practice will offer faculty complete the 240 hour W8b-Low preceptor support and direction during the practicum evaluation returns rates summer months.  An Associate Specialist for from practicum preceptors. R8b-Create an electronic evaluation Practice was appointed to W8c-Preceptor evaluation form to make it easier for the strengthen this linkage. did not tie learning preceptor to return. The position is an 11 month objectives of practicum to appointment to support for competencies. students in summer practicums. R9a-Identify competencies on Form 15 so that the preceptor can evaluate on those items. R9b-Publish the specialization expectations  The Program has a well for the culminating experience in the defined culminating Student Handbook and on the experience with program website. W9-A new process of documented procedures R9c-New faculty advisor forms include evaluating the and expectations linked to MPH and specialization specific competencies was just the competencies. The competencies and are to be reviewed developed in Fall 2006. competencies are included each semester and tracked for in the Student Handbook compliance by the Practice and on the Program Coordinator. website R9d-Review competency process in Fall 2007 after one year of usage and revise according to use of competency tracking form, students’ Exit Surveys, and course evaluation of the new expanded 42 credit curriculum.  A standardized syllabus template was developed requiring that course learning objectives be linked to specialization and core MPH competencies.

2. Instructional Programs Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations R10a-Implement new competency evaluation form for advisors to review competencies with their students each  The Program has a W10-Preceptor Evaluation semester. competency Evaluation forms were not uniformly R10b-Finish developing the online Form to be used by the collected or saved in Practicum Evaluation Form that can faculty and student to track student files to facilitate easily include preceptor assessment the student’s progress. data collection. of student mastery of competencies. R10c-Develop process for collecting preceptor evaluations and a database to track responses.  The final paper and oral presentation are also competency based W11-Many graduates are “lost” soon after R11-Attempt to improve tracking of graduation, making post alumni by developing a regular program evaluation difficult processes for communicating more with 20 graduates often through web-based updates, unaccounted for in Table and distribution PHS E-Newsletters. 2.7d. Destination of Graduates.  A standardized syllabus template was developed requiring that course learning objectives be linked to specialization and core MPH competencies.  The strong research focus of the faculty and their collaborations across the University and in the community provide many opportunities for the research interests of the MS students

94 5 5 C r e a t i o n , A p p l i c a t i o n a n d Ad v a n c e m e n t o f K n o w l e d g e

3.1. Research. The program shall pursue an active research program, consistent with its mission, through which its faculty and students contribute to the knowledge base of the public health disciplines, including research directed at improving the practice of public health. 3.1.a. A description of the program’s research activities, including policies, procedures and practices that support research and scholarly activities. Policies, procedures and practices . The Program actively supports research and scholarly activities through the following policies, procedures and practices: Annual review process . All teaching faculty members, whether or not on tenure-track, are reviewed annually throughout their career, and active pursuit and involvement in research is one of the main categories of faculty review. The department annual review process of each faculty member’s work is conducted by its Personnel Committee and Director. More extensive formal post-tenure is required every five years for tenured faculty. See section 4.2.c. for a description of the annual review process. Promotion and tenure . Promotion and tenure (for tenure-track faculty) require formal review at University, JABSOM, and the Program levels, and the creation and dissemination of knowledge is one of the key factors when determining promotion and granting tenure to faculty. Criteria for hiring new faculty . Candidates for open faculty positions are evaluated on their commitment to research and their track record in securing research funds and contributing to the public health dialogue. Funding to support research activities . The JABSOM Faculty Development Program promotes staff development, and through the Program Budget Committee offers support to faculty and staff for research activities. Several types of funding are available including research “start-up” funds for new faculty to enhance research activity and an incentive fund for faculty who offset 50% or more of their salary to support their travel to professional conferences, collaborative research activities, travel, equipment and expenses that would not otherwise be covered. Teaching load to accommodate research activities . Objective 1.2.b. of the Program provides for a reduction in the required teaching load of four courses per year for faculty members that offset their salary by 50% or more. For example, faculty members with 50% or more of their salary covered through extramurally funded grants are only required to teach two classes per year. This policy also gives the Director the discretion to reduce teaching load for faculty to investigate new research areas. Budget Committee membership . Faculty members who bring in 50% or more of their salary become members of the Program Budget Committee, where they will work with the Director and Administrative Officer to review OPHS income/expenditures and participate in spending decisions regarding indirect cost recovery and faculty salary offset. Administrative and clerical support . The Program has an administrative officer and two specialists (fiscal and personnel) as well as a part time clerical position to support faculty in their research activities. Research activities . Research activities evidence the Program’s commitment to research and scholarly activity. This can be seen in the numerous collaborative research relationships with public and private organizations enjoyed by nearly all of the Program faculty members. These relationships in research have benefited both the students and the Program faculty. Collaborative research partners include:

 The Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i (CRCH)  The State of Hawai‘i, Executive Office on Aging  The Japan Hawai‘i Cancer Study  Hawai‘i Center for Health Research  The East-West Center Population Institute  The Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit Number 6  The Honolulu Heart Program  Papa Ola Lokahi (a Native Hawaiian organization)  Pacific Health Research Institute  The University Pacific Biomedical Research Center  The Water Resources Research Center  The Hawaii Medical Services Association  Kaiser Permanente—Center for Health Research  The State of Hawai‘i, Department of Health  University of Hawai‘i units in geriatrics, psychiatry, family medicine, pediatrics, anthropology, law, social work, tropical medicine and medical microbiology, food science and human nutrition, and microbiology Topics of research demonstrate the breath of activities . Program faculty are involved in numerous research projects that span a wide range of public health topics. To demonstrate the breadth of activities, some of the topics of ongoing research involving the department’s faculty are listed in the table below. The topics are classified broadly by subject, but the categories are not mutually exclusive and in some instances the research is related to more than one field. Infectious Diseases  Leptospirosis screening (Katz)  Various projects on sexually transmitted diseases (Katz)  Evaluate the efficacy of using mutated tRNA primers to combat HIV-1 inhibition (Lu)  Evaluate the use of a blood-derived monocyte delivery system for gene transfer into the central nervous system for the treatment of neuroAIDS (Lu)  Diagnosis of Arbovirus infection (Imrie)  Molecular epidemiology of dengue in the Pacific (Imrie)  Hepatitis B epidemiology (Holck)  The role of cell mediated immunity in control of central nervous system HIV infection (Imrie)  Immunopathogenesis of dengue virus infection (Imrie) Chronic Diseases  Diabetes and metabolic syndrome (Grandinetti)  PBI factors in back pain (Hurwitz)  Genetic epidemiology studies of colorectal cancer, hypertension, bone development (Grove)  Cognitive dysfunction caused by HIV infection (Grove)  Epidemiologic studies of cardiovascular disease (Grandinetti, Grove)  Risk factors for idiopathic Parkinson's disease (Grandinetti)  Ethnic comparisons of 5-year breast cancer survival (Braun) Social/Behavioral Sciences  Testing the Transtheoretical Model of behavior change (Nigg)

 Fun 5 – Promoting physical activity and healthy nutrition in children (Nigg)  Using exercise to help college students quit smoking (Nigg)  Obesity prevention in hotel employees (Nigg)  Examining stage of change for physical activity among several nationally funded projects (Nigg)  Improving direct measurement of sun protective behaviors (Maddock)  Factors associated with leisure-time physical activity in public parks in diverse communities (Maddock)  Supports and barriers of young adult Native Hawaiians to living a healthy lifestyle (Braun)  Developing and testing a cancer patient navigation curriculum (Braun)  Ethnic comparisons in end-of-life preferences (Braun)  Ethnic differences in smoking behavior (Grandinetti)  Evaluation of interventions to improve nutrition, increase physical activity, and decrease tobacco use in Hawai‘i (Maddock) Environmental Health and Related Topics  Virus susceptibility in various natural marine animal populations (Lu)  High altitude sickness prevention (Holck)  Dive injury treatment (Holck) Gerontology  Testing “healthy aging” interventions in senior clubs (Braun)  Conditions related to “healthy aging” (Grove) Maternal/Child Health and Human Nutrition  Prevalence of overweight in young children (Baruffi, Waslien)  Weight gain and retention after pregnancy (Baruffi, Waslien)  Nutritional factors related to obesity (Waslien)

3.1.b. A description of current community-based research activities and/or those undertaken in collaboration with health agencies and community-based organizations. Formal research agreements with such agencies should be identified. Each member of the faculty has been involved in community-based research . Regardless of the faculty member’s program affiliation, most of this research can be classified broadly as “epidemiologic” or “behavior/educational research”. The following are examples of some of the community-based research projects of the faculty.  The Family Blood Pressure Program, now in its third phase, has 1500 local Chinese and Japanese participants as part of on-going research on the genetics of hypertension.  The evaluation of the Healthy Hawai‘i Initiative is a faculty-run project funded by DOH. This $12 million annual initiative is designed to improve nutrition, increase physical activity, and decrease tobacco use among the people of Hawai‘i through community, school and public and professional education grants. This project employs three graduate research assistants annually.  The Pacific Genetic Network studied the genetics of successful aging in Hawai‘i residents of Japanese ancestry.

 The Hawai‘i Colon Cancer Family Registry studies families at high risk for colorectal cancer in Hawai‘i and has an additional study on colon cancer among Japanese in Hawai‘i.  The “HIV Seropositivity, Aging, and Neuro-Cognitive Function” study has recruited a cohort of HIV seropositive subjects and a matched control group from people living in Hawai‘i among all ethnic groups.  The “Japanese and Caucasian Female Adolescent Maturation” study recruited its subjects from the island of O‘ahu.  There has been a long-standing collaboration of department faculty with the Honolulu Heart Program and the associated Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. These successful projects are based on a cohort of males born between 1900 and 1918 of Japanese ancestry living in Hawai‘i.  A collaborative community research effort with the DOH’s STD/AIDS Prevention Branch provides for the evaluation of HIV prevention efforts across the state.  Illustrative examples of research done by contributing faculty at the CRCH include one of the largest cohort studies of cancer currently under study to examine ethnicity, diet and related factors on cancer. The CRCH has also been involved with studies examining the relationship between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, and isoflavones and breast cancer risk in premenopausal women.  Faculty members are participating in the Native Hawaiian Diabetes Intervention Program, a study comparing different approaches for behavioral change to lower the risk of diabetes in native Hawaiians.  With funding from the CDC and in collaboration with the Hawai‘i DOH, faculty members completed a survey of health professionals throughout the state to assess bioterrorism preparedness. This has resulted in four peer reviewed publications.  A faculty member serves as Research Director of ‘Imi Hale—Native Hawaiian Cancer Network, a program funded by the National Cancer Institute and housed at Papa Ola Lokahi (a community-based Native Hawaiian organization). In this capacity, she mentors Native Hawaiian junior researchers to develop research ideas, develop proposals, carry-out research, and submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. Since 2000, these junior researchers have secured $1.1 million in small research grants and submitted more than 40 manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals (35 of which have been published to date).  A faculty member collaborates with Kaiser Permanente – Center for Health Research (a local Health Plan), the Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i on the Work Weight and Wellness Project, addressing hotel employees of O‘ahu. This is an NHLBI funded project  A faculty coordinates the Fun 5 project, a community partnership between the Hawai‘i Medical Service Association, the State Department of Education, YMCA, Youth Community Services, Kama’aina Kids, and the Program. The project is disseminated across elementary schools in Hawai‘i  A faculty member is working with the Executive Office on Aging on a 3-year federal grant (to them) to replicate evidence-based self-care and physical activity programs in Hawai‘i, working through providers in 3 counties (Honolulu, Kauai, Hawai‘i) Formal regular/collaborative research agreements exist with the following:  Hawai‘i State Department of Health  Pacific Genetic Network  Hawai‘i Colon Cancer Family Registry

 Family Blood Pressure Program  Native Hawaiian Diabetes Intervention Program  Centers for Disease Control  Papa Ola Lokahi  Kaiser Permanente—Center for Health Research  Honolulu-Asia Aging Study  Native Hawaiian Cancer Network  University of Hawai‘i Cancer Research Center  Hawaii Medical Services Association  YMCA  Youth Community Services  Executive Office on Aging 3.1.c. A list of current research activity of all primary and secondary faculty identified in Tables 4.1.a and 4.1.b., including amount and source of funds, for each of the last three years. This data must be presented in table format and include at least the following: a) principal investigator, b) project name, c) period of funding, d) source of funding, e) amount of total award, f) amount of current year’s award, g) whether research is community-based, and h) whether research provides for student involvement. Only research funding should be reported here; extramural funding for service or training grants should be reported elsewhere. A list of extramural funding for core faculty is shown in Table 3.1.c.

Table 3.1.c. Research Funding of Primary FY 2003-04 to 2005-06 Primary Investigato Funding Project Name r & Funding Period Amount Amount Communit Student Specializati Source Start/En Total Current y-Based Participat on d Award* Year** Y/N ion Y/N (b) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) FY 2003-2004 9/15/200 Risk of Anderson USDA/CSREE 3- Ciguaterra Fish 30,712 $30,712 Y N EPI S 9/14/200 Poisoning 6 Hawai‘i-State Self- 3/1/2002- Braun Executive Determination 10/31/20 59,000 $0 Y N SBHS Office on Project 03 Aging Diagnosis of 7/1/2003- Imrie $118,73 Arbovirus DOH / CDC 6/30/200 118,731 Y N EPI 1 Infection - Yr 2 4 5/12/200 Sun Exposure in Hawai‘i Maddock 2- Elementary Community 36,499 $0 Y Y SBHS 7/31/200 Schools Foundation 3 Identification of 5/1/2003- Maddock Hawai‘i Dept Hawai‘i’s Health 12/31/20 35,000 $0 Y N SBHS of Health Priorities 04 Social Epidemiology 6/28/200 Project/Epidemi Maddock Hawai‘i Dept 0- 1,869,82 $615,54 ological Y Y SBHS of Health 6/30/200 1 5 Research 4 Related to Public Health Hawai‘i 9/1/2003- Maddock Hawai‘i Dept Outcomes 5/31/200 71,450 $71,450 Y N SBHS of Health Institute 5 Hawaii A+ After School 1/1/2003- Nigg Medical Activity Pilot 12/31/20 17,798 $0 Y Y SBHS Services Project 03 Association Hawaii 12/01/20 SPARK PE&A+ Medical Nigg 03- Program Services 569,736 $64,324 Y Y SBHS 11/30/20 Evaluation Yr 1 Association 08 Foundation Genetic Determinants of Pacific Human 7/1/2003- Rodriguez Health Hypertension' 6/30/200 183,371 $22,098 Y N EPI Research (Family Blood 5 Institute Pressure Program)

Primary Investigato Funding Project Name r & Funding Period Amount Amount Communit Student Specializati Source Start/En Total Current y-Based Participat on d Award* Year** Y/N ion Y/N (b) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 9/15/200 Pacific Genetic Kuakini Rodriguez 3- Epidemiologic Medical 97,500 97,500 Y N EPI 9/14/200 Study on Aging Center 6 $3,089, $1,020, TOTAL 618 360

Primary Investigato Funding Project Name r & Funding Period Amount Amount Communit Student Specializati Source Start/En Total Current y-Based Participat on d Award* Year** Y/N ion Y/N (b) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) FY 2004-2005 9/15/200 Risk of Anderson USDA/CSREE 3- Ciguaterra Fish 30,712 $0 Y N EPI-EH S 9/14/200 Poisoning 6 Social Epidemiology 6/28/200 Project/Epidemi Maddock Hawai‘i -Dept 0- 1,869,82 ological $0 Y Y SBHS of Health 6/30/200 1 Research 5 Related to Public Health Identification of 5/1/2003- Maddock Hawai‘i-Dept Hawai‘i’s Health 12/31/20 35,000 $0 Y N SBHS of Health Priorities 04 Hawai‘i 9/1/2003- Maddock Hawai‘i-Dept Outcomes 5/31/200 71,450 $0 Y N SBHS of Health Institute 5 A Study of Physical Environmental Factors and 1/15/200 Their Univ of Maddock 5- Association with Florida 21,685 $14,290 Y N SBHS 1/14/200 Leisure-time Subaward 7 Physical Activity in Public Parks in Diverse Communities Improving Direct NIH-National 6/3/2005- Measurement of Maddock Cancer 5/31/200 134,698 $68,150 Y Y Sun Protective SBHS Institute 7 Behaviors Yr 1 (NCI) Testing the 9/27/200 Transtheoretical Nigg 4- $268,22 Model of NIH-NCI 848,293 N Y SBHS 6/30/200 4 Behavior 9 Change Yr 1 Hawai‘i 12/1/200 SPARK PE&A+ Medical Nigg 3- $191,02 Program Services 569,736 Y Y SBHS 11/30/20 8 Evaluation Yr 2 Association 08 Foundation 9/12/200 Pacific Genetic Kuakini Rodriguez 3- Epidemiologic Medical 97,500 $0 Y N EPI 8/31/200 Study on Aging Center 4

Primary Investigato Funding Project Name r & Funding Period Amount Amount Communit Student Specializati Source Start/En Total Current y-Based Participat on d Award* Year** Y/N ion Y/N (b) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Pacific 9/1/2004- Epidemiology of Rodriguez’ Health 8/31/200 32,282 $32,282 Y N CHD of Men 40+ EPI Research 5 Inst. / NIH Genetic Determinants of Pacific Human 7/1/2003- Rodriguez Health Hypertension' 6/30/200 183,371 $0 Y N EPI Research (Family Blood 5 Institute Pressure Program) $3,894, $573,97 TOTAL 548 4 FY 2005-2006 5/1/2006- PBI Factors in Hurwitz UCLA / NIH- 4/30/200 59,000 $29,090 N N Back Pain EPI NCCAM 7 Social Epidemiology 6/28/200 Project/Epidemiol MaddocK Hawai‘i Dept 0- 2,509,82 $639,99 Y Y ogic Research SBHS of Health 6/30/200 0 9 Related to Public 6 Health A Study of Physical Environmental Univ of Factors and Their 1/15/200 Florida / Association with Maddock 5- Robert Wood 21,685 $7,395 Y N Leisure-time SBHS 9/30/200 Johnson Physical Activity 5 Foundation in Public Parks in Diverse Communities A Study of Physical North Environmental Carolina Factors and Their State 5/1/2006- Association with Maddock University / 4/30/200 16,033 $4,398 Y N Leisure-time SBHS Robert Wood 8 Physical Activity Johnson in Public Parks in Foundation Diverse Communities Improving Direct NIH-Nat'l 6/3/2005- Measurement of Maddock Cancer 5/31/200 134,698 $66,548 Y Y Sun Protective SBHS Institute 7 Behaviors Yr 2 (NCI)

Primary Investigato Funding Project Name r & Funding Period Amount Amount Communit Student Specializati Source Start/En Total Current y-Based Participat on d Award* Year** Y/N ion Y/N (b) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Hawai‘i SPARK PE&A+ 9/1/2003- Nigg Medical Program 11/30/20 665,354 $64,930 Y Y SBHS Services Evaluation 08 Association Hawai‘i 9/1/2003- SPARK Program Nigg Department 11/30/20 9,662 $9,662 Y Y Income SBHS of Education 08 Testing the Transtheoretical National 9/1/2005- Nigg $229,25 Model of Institutes of 6/30/200 848,293 N Y SBHS 1 Behavior Health 9 Change $4,264, $1,051, TOTAL 545 273 "Year" = UH Fiscal Year, July 1st through June 30th. *Amount Total Award = Total award amounts for all research projects active during that fiscal year, e.g., for FY2003-2004, "Amount Total Award" = the total award amount for all research projects active during the period 7/1/03 through 6/30/04. This would include the total amount awarded for multi-year projects, single year projects, and continuing projects which started during the course of that fiscal year, continued all the way through that fiscal year, or ended at some point during that fiscal year. **Amount Current Year = New research funding received for the grant or contract during that fiscal year, e.g., for FY 2003-2004.

3.1.d. Identification of measures by which the program may evaluate the success of its research activities, along with data regarding the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. For example, programs may track dollar amounts of research funding, significance of findings (e.g., citation references), extent of research translation (e.g., adoption by policy or statute), dissemination (e.g., publications in peer-reviewed publications, presentations at professional meetings), and other indicators. Increasing rate and mean of faculty publications . The most widely recognized method of assessing research and scholarship is through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and it is the primary evaluation criterion of the Program. Other publications are also valued such as monographs, textbooks, and book chapters. Despite the turmoil caused by a serious flood in 2004 that required evacuation of the Program to temporary offices off campus for one year, the mean number of peer reviewed publications per faculty member per year was always greater than 3 and has increased steadily over time. The publication rate during this period was more than twice as high as for the years 2000-2001. The faculty also averaged roughly one non-reviewed publication per year and three published conference abstracts per year during this period. During the four complete calendar years 2003-2006, the 9-12 faculty members were authors of 167 peer reviewed articles and 151 conference presentation abstracts. Table 3.1.d.1 below shows the annual publication record for this period.

Table 3.1.d.1. Annual Publication Record by Calendar Year for 2003-2006* Book Other Articles (e.g. Publish Peer- Chapters No. of published as conference Instructiona ed Reviewed (unless Facul proceedings but not peer- l Manuals Abstrac Publications peer- ty reviewed) ts reviewed) Total=2 Total=30 Total=2 Total=9 Total=1 2003 7 9 Mean=3.33 Mean=0.22 Mean=1 Mean=0.11 Mean=3 Total=2 Total=33 Total=4 Total=6 Total=1 6 9 2004 Mean=3.67 Mean=0.44 Mean=0.67 Mean=0.11 Mean=2. 89 Total=4 2005* Total=47 Total=2 Total=6 Total=2 4 12 * Mean=3.92 Mean=0.17 Mean=0.50 Mean=0.17 Mean=3. 67 Total=5 2006* Total=57 Total=2 Total=6 Total=0 4 12 ** Mean=4.75 Mean=0.17 Mean =0.50 Mean=0 Mean=4. 50 *Faculty Names: Baruffi, Braun, Grove, Holck, Imrie, Katz, Maddock, Nigg, Waslien, plus (from 2005) Grandinetti, Keller, & Lu and (from 2006) including Heinrich but losing Waslien. **During 2003-2005, two tenured faculty members left the department and six new tenure-track faculty members were hired. The summary of publications below is from the work of the faculty employed by the department at the end of 2005 and describes their work for the years in which they have been members of the department. ***During 2006, one senior faculty member retired and a junior faculty member was hired; for consistency with the earlier entries, the 2006 entry summarizes the work for those employed at the end of the Fall semester, 2006 regardless of when they began.

Increasing rate of research dollars, peer reviewed publications and research presentations . In addition to publications, the Program uses research dollars, faculty activity and presentations to evaluate research success as found in Table 3.1.d.2. The Program has steadily increased in a majority of the outcome measurements over the past three years. Objectives 2.1.a. and 2.1.c. measure research dollars per FTE faculty and the increase of dollar amount of research funding per year. These measurement outcomes are steadily increasing. Objective 2.1.b. evaluates faculty activity as a principal or co-investigator. The 2004-05 decrease is partially explained by timing of the award dates. Faculty are actively engaged in research, and the Program is close to achieving its target goal of 100% for this measurement outcome. Objectives 2.2.c. and 2.2.d. measure presentations at professional national and international scientific meetings, invited reports, consulting, and related technical documents prepared for local, national, and international health agencies. The Program is performing at or within range of its targeted goal of 100%. An additional measure of research is extramural research funding, which was summarized in the previous section 3.1.c.

Table 3.1.d.2. Research Outcome Measures

Targ Objecti et 2003- 2004- 2005- Outcome Measure ve 2007 04 05 06 -08 Current Current Current Year* Year* Year** $35,87 $87,60 $60,021 3 6 $100, Total 2.1.a Research dollars*/FTE faculty Total Total 000 Active** Active* Active* * * * $181,74 $243,4 $355,3 2 09 79 Tenure track faculty serving as PI/co-investigator on 2.1.b. 100% 92% 67% 91.7% 1+ project a year and serve on at least one other Current Current Current Year* Year* Year* (44%) 83% 33% 2.1.c. Research funding***/increase per year 5% Total Total Total Active* Active* Active** * * 71% 26% 10% Faculty producing 6+ peer-reviewed publications 2.2.a. 100% 79% 90.3% 81.8% over a 3-year period 3 per 2.2.b. Mean peer-reviewed publication/FTE faculty 3.33 3.67 3.92 year Full-time faculty giving 1+ presentation at a national 2.2.c. 100% 75% 78% 100% or international professional society meeting a year

Full-time faculty giving 1+ presentation to local 2.2.d. 100% 100% 100% 90% public health audience a year *The research dollars were calculated in two ways: by timing of the funding award and the actual receipt of the award for the fiscal year. For example, in Table 3.1.c. above, it shows that there can also be a carry over balance to the next year with the grant still active but there is no new funding received. Looking at both gives a clearer picture of the research efforts of the faculty. **Calculated on F/Y Award ***Calculated on Total Award

3.1.e. A description of student involvement in research. Opportunities for student participation in research . There are numerous opportunities for students to participate in research activities under the direction of the Program’s faculty, adjunct faculty, or other faculty in JABSOM, Pacific Biomedical Research Center, or the Cancer Research Center of Hawai‘i. In some cases, the students have received graduate research assistantships for their work and/or an independent field practicum conducted through an outside agency can lead to student-involved research. Some examples of student research follow:  An epidemiology student was first author on a peer reviewed article after analyzing data on “remnant-like particles” newly obtained from the Honolulu Heart Program.  An epidemiology student analyzed data on the Metabolic Syndrome using newly acquired lab results from frozen specimens from the Honolulu Heart Program. A manuscript is in preparation.  An epidemiology student analyzed data on dietary patterns of consumption from the Kohala Health Research Study.  An epidemiology student won a research award to develop and test a cancer screening intervention, findings from which were presented at national meetings and published in the CDC-online journal, Preventing Chronic Disease.  Fun 5 – a physical activity and nutrition project in elementary school children includes a graduate research assistant.  The Healthy Hawai‘i Initiative includes three graduate research assistants. Student publications and conference presentations . Below are 48 examples of student involvement in research and creation of knowledge. The public health students’ names are in boldface. Publications In Press Aitaoto, N, Braun, K., Dang, K., Soa, T. (in press). Cultural considerations in developing church-based programs to reduce cancer health disparities among Samoans. Ethnicity and Health. Dellinger, S., Aung, N., Campos, J., Choy, L., Chung, J., Gentry, L., Li, J., Lindsey, J., Mayet, S., Mitchell, K., Pan, J., Nigg, C., & Braun, K. (in press). Formulating Hawai’i’s public health education needs: Input from the health community. Hawai‘i Medical Journal. Lindsey, J., Braun, K., Aung, N., Campos, J., Choy, L., Chung, J, Dellinger, S., Gentry, L., Li, J., Mayet, S., Mitchell-Box, K., & Pan, J. (in press). An assessment of educational needs for Hawai‘i;s public health workforce: A class project. Pacific Health Dialog.

2006 Publications Braun, K., Tsark, J., Santos, L., Aitaoto, N., Chong, C. (2006). Building Native Hawaiian capacity in cancer research and programming: The Legacy of ‘Imi Hale. Cancer. 107 (8 Suppl): 2082-2090. Fong, M., Braun, K., & Chang, M. (2006). Native Hawaiian preferences for informed consent and disclosure of results from genetic research. Journal of Cancer Education, 21 (supplemental): 547-552. Gellert, K., Braun, K., Starkey, V. & Morris, W. (2006). The ‘Ohana (Family) Day Project—A community approach to increase cancer screening. Preventing Chronic Disease [serial online] July. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jul/pdf/05_0188.pdf Katz AR, Nekorchuk DM, Holck PS, Hendrickson LA, Imrie AA, Effler PV. Hawaii veterinarians’ bioterrorism preparedness needs assessment survey. J Vet Med Educ 2006; 33:612-617. Katz AR, Nekorchuk DM, Holck PS, Hendrickson LA, Imrie AA, Effler PV. Dentists' preparedness for responding to bioterrorism: a survey of Hawaii dentists. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:461-467. Katz AR, Nekorchuk DM, Holck PS, Hendrickson LA, Imrie AA, Effler PV. Hawaii Physician and nurse bioterrorism preparedness survey. Prehospital Disaster Med 2006;21:396-405 Katz AR, Nekorchuk DM, Holck PS, Hendrickson LA, Imrie AA, Effler PV. Bioterrorism preparedness survey of Hawaii mental health professionals. Int J Ment Health 2006;35:12-25. Noy, L., Walter, M., Segal-Matsunaga, D. & Maddock, J.E. (2006). Pediatric obesity: are we under-diagnosing? Assessing pediatric obesity at an urban community health clinic. Hawaii Medical Journal, 64,102-104. Katz,A., Nekorchuk,D., Holck,P., Hendrickson,L., Imrie,A., Effler,P. "Hawaii Dentists’ Bioterrorism Preparedness Needs Assessment Survey". JADA 2006;137:461-7. Nigg, C.R. & Richards K. (2006). Cancer Research Center Hotline: Physical Activity in Youth. Hawaii Medical Journal, 65, 148-149 and 153. Shimizu SM, Chow DC, Katz, AR, Richmond-Crum S, Miller FD. Ethnic differences in HIV disease progression: a comparison of Asian/Pacific Islanders and Whites living in Hawaii. Ethn Dis 2006;16:262-267 2005 Publications Aitaoto NT, Braun K, Ichiho HM, Kuhaulua RL. (2005). Diabetes Today in the Pacific: Reports from the field. Pacific Health Dialog 12:124-131. Battista, J, Nigg, C. R., Chang, J. A., Yamashita, M. & Chung, R. (2005). Elementary After School Programs: An Opportunity to Promote Physical Activity for Children. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3(4), 108-118. Braun, K., Fong, M., Gotay, C., Chong, C., & Pagano, I. (2005). Ethnicity and breast cancer in Hawai‘i: Increased survival, but continued disparity. Ethnicity and Disease.15:453-460. Braun, K., Fong, M., Ka‘ano‘i, M., Kamaka M., & Gotay, C. (2005). Testing a culturally appropriate, theory-based intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among Native Hawaiians. Preventive Medicine. 40:619-627.

Choy, L. & Maddock, J.E. (2005). Correlates of smoke-free policies in homes and cars among Hawaii residents. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3 (4), 8-20. Imke C., Rodriguez, B.L., Grove, J.S., McNemara, J.R., Waslien, C., Katz, A.R., Wilcox, B., Yano, K. (2005). Are remnant-like particles independent predictors of coronary heart disease incidence? The Honolulu Heart Study. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology Aug; 25 (8):1718-1722. Tanaka, C.K., Richards, K.L., Takeuchi, L.S.L., Otani, M. & Maddock, J.E. (2005). Modifying the Recess Before Lunch program: a pilot study in Kaneohe Elementary School. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3 (4), 1-7. Williams, R., Nigg, C., & Oda, M. (2005). Physical Activity and Nutrition Interventions and Physical Self-Image In Youth. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3(4), 119-133. 2004 Publications Braun, K., Fong, M., Gotay, C., & Chong, C. (2004). Ethnic differences in breast cancer in Hawai‘i: Age, stage, hormone receptor status, and survival. Pacific Health Dialog 11(2):146- 153. Eakin, P., Maddock, J.E., Kaliko, R., Techur-Pedro, A. & Derauf, D.C. (2004). Sun protection policy among elementary schools in Hawaii. Preventing Chronic Disease, 1, 1-10 available online at www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/jul/03_0013.htm. Fong, M., Braun, K., & Chang, M. (2004). Native Hawaiian preferences for informed consent and disclosure of results from research using stored biological specimens. Pacific Health Dialog. 11(2):154-159. Kaanoi, M., Braun, K., Gotay, C., & Fong, M. (2004). Primary care physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to cancer screening and prevention-oriented clinical trials. Pacific Health Dialog. 11(2):160-165. Nigg, C.R., Maddock, J.E., Barnett, J.D. & Marshall, C.S. (2004). Consider using the stages of change for surveillance? In S. Keller & W.F. Velicer (Eds.), Research on the Transtheoretical Model: Where are we now, where are we going? (pp. 87–88). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers. 2003 Publications Braun, K., Ichiho, H., Kuhaulua, R., Aitaoto, N., Tsark, J., Spegal, R, & Lamb, B. (2003). Empowerment through community building: Diabetes Today in the Pacific. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 9(Suppl): S19-S25. Choy, L., Richards, K. & Maddock, J.E. (2005). Personal smoke-free policies in homes and cars. Presented at the John A. Burns School of Medicine Bio-Medical Sciences Symposium, Honolulu, HI. Fong, M., Braun, K., & Tsark, J. (2003). Improving Native Hawaiian health through community- based participatory research. Californian Journal of Health Promotion. 1:125-130. Maddock, J.E., Marshall, C., Nigg, C.R. & Barnett, J.D. (2003). Development and first year results of a psychosocial surveillance system for chronic disease related health behaviors. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 1(5), 54-64.

Nigg, C.R., Maddock, J.E., Barnett, J.D., & Marshall, C.S. (2003). The theory of planned behavior for physical activity: Are there ethnic differences? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, S102-S103. Conferences Some of our students presented their research at conferences. Below is a partial list of presentations (student’s name in boldface). 2006 Conferences Braun, K., Tomioka, M., Kidani, S., Colmanares, J., & Sasaki, P. (2006). Investing in evaluation: Applying the logic model to evaluation of Hawai‘i’s Healthy Aging Project. Presented at the Amerian Society on Aging Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA. Lau, J. & Maddock, J.E. (2006). Increasing stair use through environmental changes. Presented at the John A. Burns School of Medicine Bio-Medical Sciences Symposium, Honolulu, HI. Maddock, J.E., Takeuchi, L., Nett, B., Johnson, C., Richards, K. Lau, J & Choy, L. (2006). Addressing obesity in Hawaii: the Healthy Hawaii Initiative. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Hawaii Public Health Association, Honolulu, HI. Maddock, J.E., Richards, K.L. & Verive, A.J. (2006). Relationship between knowledge of physical activity recommendations and behavior. Presented at the International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health, Atlanta, GA. McCurdy, D.K., Westling, J.L., McGee, K.A., Motl, R.W., Horwath, C.C., Dishman, R.K., & Nigg, C.R. (2006). Processes of change: Investigating gender differences. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, S159. Nigg, C.R., Kerr, N.A., Hottenstein, C., Yamashita, M., Inada, M., Paxton, R. & Chung, R.S. (2006). First year dissemination results: fun 5 – a physical activity and nutrition program for elementary after school programs. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, S92. Citation Paper. 2005 Conferences Fong, M., Braun, K., & Chang, M. (2004). Native Hawaiian preferences for informed consent and disclosure of results from genetic research. Presented at the National Meeting of the Intercultural Cancer Council, Washington, DC. Maddock, J.E., Eakin, P.J., Kaliko, R.K., & Techur-Pedro, A. (2005). Development of a systematic observation system for measuring sun protection in elementary schools. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, S76. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicin e, Boston, MA. Nigg, C.R., Battista, J., Chang, J.A., Yamashita, M. & Chung, R.S. (2004). Physical Activity Outcomes of A Pilot Intervention Using SPARK Active Recreation in Elementary After School Programs. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, S144-S145. Nigg, C.R., Inada, M., Yamashita, M., Battista, J., Chang, J.A. & Chung, R.S. (2005). Fun 5: a physical activity and nutrition program - dissemination in elementary after school programs. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, S52. Citation Paper Richards, K., Choy, L. & Maddock, J.E. (2005). Examining the knowledge gap in a social marketing campaign. Presented at the John A. Burns School of Medicine Bio-Medical Sciences Symposium, Honolulu, HI.

2004 Conferences Battista, J., Nigg, C.R., Chang, J.A., Yamashita, M. & Chung, R.S. (2004). Getting Children Physically Active: Opportunities and Mechanisms. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, S31. Maddock, J.E., Barnett, J.D., Marshall, C.S. & Nigg, C.R. (2004). Stage of change for fruit and vegetable consumption in a longitudinal sample. Presented at the 112th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

2003 Conferences Eakin, P.J., Maddock, J.E., Kaliko, R.K., Techur-Pedro, A., Derauf, C. (2003). Sun Protection Policy in Elementary Schools in Hawaii. Pediatric Research 53 (4): 1198 Part 2 Suppl. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Academic Society, Seattle, WA Marshall, C.S. & Maddock, J.E. (2004). An innovative program to improve nutrition among Native Hawaiian immersion school students. Presented at the John A. Burns School of Medicine Bio-Medical Sciences Symposium, Honolulu, HI. Marshall, C.S., Amparo, J. & Maddock, J.E. (2003). Development of a surveillance system for print coverage of physical activity, nutrition and tobacco in Hawaii. Presented at the John A. Burns School of Medicine Bio-Medical Sciences Symposium, Honolulu, HI.

3.1.f. An assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program’s research productivity is generally good:  The Program policies and procedures place a high priority and support research activities;  There is great depth and breath to topics researched by faculty;  There collaborative research relationships with community and government organizations are longstanding, well developed and productive;  The active research by faculty is lengthy and varied;  The list of peer reviewed publications and presentations at conferences is significant; and  The measurement outcomes are steadily increasing, and in some cases have reached targeted levels. With the recent hiring of additional faculty with well-developed records in research and the establishment in the Program of a new Environment Health lab, the department’s future work in research is expected to grow.

3.2. Service. The program shall pursue active service activities, consistent with its mission, through which faculty and students contribute to the advancement of public health practice. 3.2.a. A description of the program’s service activities, including policies, procedures and practices that support service. If the program has formal contracts or agreements with external agencies, these should be noted. Service, together with teaching and research, is an essential part of the mission and goals of the Program. Faculty members and students provide service both through formal contracts and individual networking/exchanges. Service is considered an integral part of teaching . Service activities are often referred to in class to exemplify or complement the discussion of theories and concepts. In some courses (PH 649 Needs Assessment and Program Planning, PH 765 Program Evaluation, and PH 791 Advanced Public Health Practice) students participate in the service activities through class projects, during their field practicum, and/or their voluntary endeavors. These service activities also offer an opportunity for collaborative research with community organizations. Promotion and tenure. The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Criteria and Guidelines for Faculty Tenure/Promotion Application require that a candidate’s record include evaluation on service to the University, the profession and the community, in addition to teaching and research. Annual review process . The Program criteria for the faculty annual evaluation include contributions to national, international and local professional organizations, agencies, and programs. These contributions include: reviewing abstracts, participating in grant reviews, providing training, and serving on a coalition, board or, committee relating to public health. Performance on service is evaluated annually by the Personnel Committee (see section 4.2.c.), using the faculty evaluation form (Appendix 14), the curriculum vitae, and an explanatory cover letter required from each faculty member. Faculty members are directly actively involved in service activities . Service is also reflected through the faculty professional activities and their provision of consultation and technical assistance to public or private community organizations. Hawai‘i State Department of Health. The public health program at UHM has long standing, strong relationships with the Hawai‘i State Department of Health (DOH) and other local agencies and organizations that provide opportunities for collaboration, consultation and technical assistance, student class projects and field practicum, joint research projects, and shared resources. Hawai’i Health Initiative and the Hawai‘i Data Warehouse. A DOH contract with the Program involves collaboration with the Healthy Hawai‘i Initiative and the Hawai‘i Data Warehouse. Two faculty have been hired to assist in the assessment of prevention of chronic disease and the evaluation of related interventions. These faculty members and their staff are housed in the Program’s office space at Mānoa but spend 80% of their time with DOH-sponsored programs and projects. Three graduate research assistantships have been created to involve MPH students in this particular research and evaluation project. STD/AIDS Prevention Branch. Several faculty members participate in AIDS-control activities through the AIDS Clinical Trials and evaluation of AIDS projects. Another contractual agreement between the DOH’s STD/AIDS Prevention Branch (SAPB) and the Program includes the provision of evaluation expertise for the SAPB’s HIV prevention programs. In carrying out this agreement, the faculty members closely collaborate with community-based organizations

throughout the state receiving federal or state funding for HIV prevention, as well as the Hawai‘i HIV/AIDS Community Planning Group (the state advisory group for HIV/AIDS prevention and care), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Members of the faculty provide regular consultation on the development and establishment of standards of care and procedures are being created for Neighbor Islands’ HIV/AIDS projects. Maternal and Child Health. Formal contracts also exist with the DOH Family Health Services Division for the Maternal and Child Health faculty to evaluate the Abstinence-Only Education Program, and with DOH, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Education to evaluate a teacher-training program. State of Hawai‘i, Executive Office on Aging. Faculty members, through contracts awarded by the Executive Office on Aging and other local, national, and international groups, have assisted with training, grant writing, and program evaluation in gerontology. Activities include university teaching, continuing education, individual and community educational conferences, organizational consulting, international programs and Edu-Tourism, and research (research activities are reported under criterion 3.1.).

3.2.b. A list of the program’s current service activities, including identification of the community groups and the nature of the activities, over the last three years. All faculty members are involved in service activities to local, national and international organizations . In addition to the service provided by the Program through formal contracts, individual faculty members perform service primarily through professional commitment, but also to fulfill university expectations. The following tables are examples of service activities of the faculty. This information was gathered from annual faculty evaluations submitted to the Personnel Committee and in the individual members’ CVs. Additional information was gathered through surveys of faculty accomplishments during the last 3 academic years. A review of all these documents provided detailed information on faculty service activities, excluding university service. An expanded list can be found in Appendix 15. Table 3.2.b.1. Local Service Activities of the Faculty

Organization Faculty Role Hawai‘i Birth Defects Program (HBDP) Advisory Committee Member The West Nile Surveillance Group Participant The Hawai‘i Comprehensive Cancer Team leader Prevention The Hawai‘i Comprehensive Cancer Consultation on surveillance data needs assessment Control Coalition The Hawai‘i Board of Health Chair The Leptospirosis Ad Hoc Committee, Member and contributor to surveillance activities after the DOH Mānoa floods The Institutional Review Board, DOH Member in relation to various aspects of IRB responsibilities Consultation on program evaluation, training and Alu Like, Inc. consultation on evidence-based program planning and evaluation The State of Hawai‘i Department of Health Author/co-author Communicable Disease Report The Community Quarantine Reform Risk analysis Coalition

Organization Faculty Role The Technical Committee, Immunization Technical assistance Information System The Hawai‘i State Genetics Program Evaluation consultant

Faculty contributions to national or international organizations indicate the depth and breadth of involvement in the public health community outside of Hawai‘i. Table 3.2.b.2. National and International Service Activities of the Faculty

Organization Faculty Role Member of the Ad Hoc Committee to create an The American Statistical Association MS program in Biostatistics for Vietnam The Alaska Native Medical Center, Emergency Assistance in evaluation and assessment of Medicine Department bioterrorism event detection The Indian Health Service Western Headquarters, Consultation in study design, sampling frame Albuquerque definition, and sampling method The Association for Gerontology in Higher Education Member of the National Board of Directors Member of the Study Section and scientific The National Institute of Health reviewer Reviewer of the MCH Block Grant applications The Health Resources and Services Administration, from the U.S.-Associated Pacific Island Maternal and Child Health Bureau Countries The Statewide Organ Donation Initiative, Hessen, Consultant Germany The Swiss Federal Council of Sport, Research Master Ad Hoc reviewer Plan “Sport and Exercise 2004-2007” The FDA Food Advisory Committee on Food Allergens Member and Gluten Thresholds The WHO 2000-2010 Decade of the Bone and Joint Member of the Scientific Secretariat Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Reviewer for National Registry of Evidence- Administration & National Cancer Institute based Programs and Practices

Service as an editor or reviewer for a scholarly journal or other publications: Reviewing manuscripts for professional and scientific journals or serving as editor for a journal or a specific journal issue is an important component of the public health faculty service to the profession. The breadth of journals served in the last three years reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the faculty. Examples of journals include: Addiction, Addictive Behavior, Alcohol and Alcoholism, Ambulatory Pediatrics, American Family Physician, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, American Journal of Health Behavior, American Journal of Health Promotion, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, Athletic Insight, British Journal of Health Psychology, British Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Californian Journal of Health Promotion, Cancer Detection and Prevention, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Death Studies, Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Infections, Ethnicity and Disease, Ethnicity and Health, Evaluation and Program Planning, European Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Disease, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, Gerontologist, Health and Social Work, Health Education Research, Health Education and Behavior, Health Psychology, Home Health

Services Quarterly, ILM, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, Obesity Research, Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, Journal of Crustacean Biology, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Journal of the American Geriatric Society, Journal of the American Medical Women Association, Journal of Adolescent Health, Journal of Applied Gerontology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, JAMA, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, Journal of Ethics, Law, and Aging, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, Journal of Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved, Journal of National Medical Association, Journal of Nutrition, Journal of Pediatrics, Journal of Palliative Care, Journal of Physical Activity & Health, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, Journal of Substance Abuse, Journal of Virological Methods, Journal of Women’s Health, Hawai‘i Medical Journal, Health Education Research, Health Psychology, Lancet, Maternal and Child Health Journal, Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise, Medical Science Monitor, Molecular Basis of Disease, Motivation and Emotion, Pacific Health Dialogue, Pediatric and Prenatal Epidemiology, Patient Education and Counseling, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Physical Activity and Health, Physical & occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, Preventive Medicine, Preventing Chronic Disease, Psycho-Oncology, Psychology and Health, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Research in Aging, Research in Sport Medicine: An International Journal, Social Science and Medicine, Substance Abuse, The Sport Psychologist, Tropical Medicine and International Health.

3.2.c. Identification of the measures by which the program may evaluate the success of its service efforts, along with data regarding the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. The Program has four measurable indicators to evaluate service success. These measurements examine service contributions to local continuing education (Objective 3.1.a.), assessment of public health practitioners continuing education needs (Objective 3.1.b.), conducting semester courses at the DOH (Objective 3.1.c.), and the provision of professional service to local, national or international organizations (Objectives 3.2.a. and 3.2.b.). All of these outcomes are at or within immediate reach of targeted levels. The following table summarizes service outcome measures over the last three years. Table 3.2.c. Service Outcome Measures

Objecti Target 200 Outcome Measure 2003-04 2005-06 ve 2007-08 4-05 Full-time faculty contributing to 1+ local 3.1.a. 100% 92% 89% 100% continuing education activity per year. Sum Assessment of local public health practitioners’ Every 3 Spring Scheduled 3.1.b. mer need for continuing education & PH service. years 2004 for 2008 2005 Course Conducting a formal semester-long course at 1/acade Fall Spring 3.1.c. cancelle DOH each academic year. mic year 2004 2006 d Full-time faculty providing professional service 3.2.a. for 1+ national or international society or 100% 77% 80% 100% organization per year. Full-time faculty providing professional service 100 3.2.b. 100% 100% 100% for 1+ local public health society or agency. %

The extensive involvement of the faculty in service activities for the enhancement of the profession and the betterment of the people in the communities served is evident by the summary of service outcome measures in the table above and by the extensive list of service activities presented in section 3.2.b. and Appendix 15. The duration of these linkages is also an indicator of the effectiveness of the program’s commitment to service. The Program receives repeated requests for consultation, technical assistance and participation in community-based public health activities, and these requests are an additional indication of satisfaction with the services provided and their quality. The Program also considers its research activities to provide service indirectly. Research benefits the community and especially, vulnerable populations, including hard-to-reach populations such as those on Oahu’s neighbor islands and remote Pacific islands. Through research, knowledge is gained as to how to improve the initiation and effectiveness of important public health initiatives. 3.2.d. A description of student involvement in service. The OPHS encourages student involvement in service through the following: Annual student awards. There are two annual student awards that include service as a criterion for evaluation are as follows:  The Pauline Stitt Award for Outstanding Public Health Graduate Student; and  The Lawrence Koseki Award for Excellence in Community Service Student organization . The Hui Ola Pono is the public health student organization that provides opportunities for involvement in University and community service activities. Examples are:  Volunteering at campus health fairs (Great American Smokeout, Condom Fair, World AIDS Day);  Volunteers for the Student Health Advisory Council (SHAC), an advisory body to the University Health Services that consists of student representatives, UH faculty and administration. The main purpose is to ensure that the students are represented in the planning and decision making of their university’s health care services; and  Volunteering in the community (Backyard Jam by Drug Free Hawai‘i, March of Dimes). 3.2.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program, individual faculty members and students are actively involved in service activities:  The Program policies and procedures place a high priority and support service activities;  The Program is involved in a number of collaborations with community and government organizations to provide service in the form of consultation or technical support;  The number of publications that faculty have served as an editor or reviewer is far reaching.  The measurement outcomes are at or within targeted levels. The Program will continue to support service activities to the community through Program, faculty and students. Service activities are a strength of the Program.

3.3. Workforce Development. The program shall engage in activities that support the professional development of the public health workforce. 3.3.a. A description of the program’s continuing education activities, including policies, needs assessment, procedures, practices, and evaluation that support continuing education and workforce development strategies. Policy regarding continuing education and training . Service and continuing education are considered essential aspects of the Program’s presence, impact and exchange with the community. Although all Program faculty were and continue to be extensively involved in community-oriented service activities, the Program was perceived by CEPH as lacking in this area. After the 2002 accreditation site-visit, the Program developed a statement of policy concerning continuing education as follows: “The Program’s continuing education and training efforts are to improve the health of the public by offering credit and noncredit courses, hosting seminars and conferences, and to provide quality learning opportunities for students, faculty, public health professionals, alumni, community members and other interested parties, throughout the community on an ongoing basis. These efforts:  Train appropriate students and community members to meet public health workforce needs;  Foster information exchange related to new research, resources, and best practices;  Showcase the accomplishments of the Program;  Improve the understanding of public health related issues;  Enhance professional competencies; and  Expand the Program’s public health networks.” Improved the quality and quantity of continuing education activities. The new statement of policy and commitment to continuing education activities has resulted in several new initiatives. New Course Offering. The creation of an ongoing continuing education course (PH 696 Continuing Education in Public Health) offered once/year to the Program constituency with topics selected from a needs assessment administered to public health professionals in the community and public health alumni by the Program’s at least once every three years. Training . The development and delivery of a data management modular training course for DOH staff. The initial project was initially approved for two years and continues with a long-term commitment from the Program and DOH to build data and informatics competency within the DOH and related agencies. Distance Training Opportunities. The Program utilizes the DOH distance training facilities and other connected sites to reach professionals on O‘ahu (through sites at St. Francis Hospital, Shriner’s Hospital, and Tripler Army Medical Center), on the neighbor islands (through sites at Hilo Medical Center and Maui Medical Center), and others from Samoa and Majuro to Alaska. This method is used for the PH 696 course and selected lectures. Faculty Expectations. Participation in community-oriented continuing educational offerings has been made an explicit requirement for each faculty member. Documentation of participation in community-oriented continuing educational activities must now be included as part of the annual faculty review process (section 4.2.c. and Appendix 14).

Needs Assessment . The Program has employed several methods for the assessment of local public health practitioners’ needs for continuing education. Department of Health Survey. In Spring 2004, the Curriculum Committee completed an informal survey with the Department of Health on topics they would like to have presented in the PH 696 course and, as a result, Bioterrorism was selected as the focus for the Fall 2004 course offering. Global Public Health Conference Survey. As part of the Program’s ongoing strategic planning process, a survey was distributed to the participants of the June 2005 Global Public Health Conference in Honolulu (Appendix 3). One of the questions asked about the most pressing local public health concerns. The next two PH 696 courses focused on areas prioritized by survey respondents—environmental health (Spring 06) and chronic disease education, prevention, and treatment (Spring 2007). Community workers and employers survey. A survey conducted by the PH 649 Needs Assessment course in Fall 2006 solicited feedback about continuing education needs of workers and employers. Respondents indicated needs for continuing education in 1) policy development and program planning skills, 2) analytical skills; 3) leadership and systems thinking skills; and 4) financial planning and management skills. This document, Public Health at UH: A Needs Assessment is available in the Reference File. Annual Faculty Evaluations . The Program has incorporated requirements for continuing education into the evaluation process, including faculty annual assessments (Objective 3.1.a.), needs assessment for continuing education topics (Objective 3.1.b.), commitment to training (Objective 3.1.c.), and as well as course evaluations for all formal continuing education courses (Objective 1.2.c). 3.3.b. Description of certificate programs or other non-degree offerings of the program, including enrollment data for each of the last three years. Maternal and Child Health Certificate Program . One non-degree certificate program exists at this time in the area of maternal and child health. This program is funded through a training grant from Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration. The goal of the program is to increase workers’ ability to deal with analytic and epidemiologic concepts relevant to the management of programs for women and children. This curriculum is aimed at full-time workers without an advanced degree in public health that work with minority or underserved populations or populations that reside in geographically dispersed areas. The courses are at the graduate level and the prerequisites are those for a graduate certificate. However, this project is not a formal University certificate, but a certificate of completion is provided from the Program for those students who successfully finish the requirements. Individual courses can be taken by interested graduate students or community professionals as continuing education to acquire or strengthen specific skills. Fourteen (14) students have completed the course of study and obtained the certificate of completion. Twenty eight (28) are currently enrolled and are at various levels of completion. Individual courses were attended by a number of graduate students in public health and other University programs.

Certificate enrollment for the last three years was as follows: 2003.4 16 2004.5 25 2005-06 28 This program is regularly evaluated in relation to its goals and objectives as well as through the University course evaluation services (CAFE).

3.3.c. A list of continuing education programs offered by the program, including number of students served, for each of the last three years. Those that are offered in a distance learning format should be identified. Continuing education offerings designed to meet the needs of the local workforce. The Program has developed three different approaches to continuing education: development of a formal course, PH 696; courses offered in collaboration with the state DOH; and courses offered through the UH Outreach College. Each of these options are designed to serve the varying needs and time constraints of the local workforce. Table 3.3.c. lists continuing education programs and summarizes the number of students served for each continuing education activity. Table 3.3.c. Participation in Continuing Education Activities

Activity Students PH 696 Continuing Education in Public Health  Advances in Bioterrorism Surveillance and Outbreak 40* Investigation PH 792 Current Issues and Topics in Public Health 60*  Biosecurity, Bioterrorism and Bioagents PH 696 Continuing Education in Public Health  Overview of Current Topics Relating to Environmental Risks 221* to Public Health PH 696 Continuing Education in Public Health Currently being  Overview of Current Topics Relating to Chronic Diseases in offered Hawai‘i Hawai‘I State Department of Health Training  Data Management Training 162  Evidence-Based Program Design and Evaluation 62  Program Evaluation ** Outreach College***  Public Health Courses 85 TOTAL 630 *Total attendees for all sessions (individuals may be counted twice) **Because of the individual nature of the ongoing training and technical assistance, the number of participants is not known. ***Regular PH Program courses offered though Outreach College do not require the student to be officially enrolled at UHM, allowing community members to access courses.

Appendix 16 has a more complete description of the continuing education programs listed above.

Invited lectures and presentations . In addition to Program sponsored continuing education activities, individual faculty members provide continuing education through specific short-term training, conference presentations, and consultation or technical assistance. The number of attendees for these activities was not counted. Invited lectures or paper presentations at local, national or international meetings fulfill the double function of providing continuing education and communicating research findings. During three academic years 2003 to 2006, the faculty gave at least 59 presentations. Twenty- one (21) of them were at the local or state level; most of the others were at the national level, with seven presented internationally. The settings were highly varied and included government entities, health care delivery organizations, community groups, topical conferences, professional or academic societies and educational institutions. (See individual faculty CV’s for details.) 3.3.d. A list of other educational institutions or public health practice organizations, if any, with which the program collaborates to offer continuing education. The Program does not have any other such collaboration. 3.3.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. Continuing education to the local public health workforce is now a well developed part of the Program:  The policies and procedures place a high priority and support service activities, including a new policy statement on policy regarding continuing education and training;  The Program has implemented a number of new initiatives in a variety of formats that respond to the needs of the public health workforce;  There are a number of collaborations with community and government organizations to provide continuing education or training in formats appropriate to their workforce, covering topics identified by needs assessments.  The continuing education classes or trainings have been well attended and very favorably evaluated. Classes and courses are evaluated through the University evaluation system CAFÉ;  A Maternal and Child Health certificate program has been established and is well attended and well received in the community;  Faculty have individually been involved in numerous presentations at conferences and meetings; and  The measurement outcomes are at targeted levels. The Program will continue to support workforce development through continuing education and training. Workforce development is a strength of the Program. Table 3.3.e. Workforce Development Outcome Measures

Objecti Target 2004 2005- Outcome Measure 2003-04 ve 2007-08 -05 06 Full-time faculty contributing to 1+ local 3.1.a. 100% 92% 89% 100% continuing education activity per year Sum Assessment of local public health practitioners’ Every 3 Spring Fall 3.1.b. mer need for continuing education years 2004 2006 2005 Conducting a formal semester-long course at 1/academi Course Fall Spring 3.1.c. DOH each academic year. c year cancelled 2004 2006

Faculty evaluating their courses & consider 100 1.2.c. 100% 100% 100% feedback in revising courses %

3. Creation, Application, and Advancement of Knowledge: Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 3. Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  Clear evidence of an active collaborative and productive research program with many examples of community-based projects and active student involvement  The Program has 16 active extramurally funded grants/contracts from a broad variety of sources—11 federal and 5 state/private.  The creation of an ongoing continuing education course offered once a year to R12-Utilize the proposed the Program constituency with topics W12-A more Program Advisory Board as an selected from a need assessment systematic method additional resource to solicit administered to public health of collecting this future for topics need for the professionals in the community and UH data should be ongoing continuing education public health alumni by the Program developed. course. curriculum committee once every three years;  The development and delivery of a data management modular training course for DOH staff. The initial project was approved for two years with a long- term commitment from the Program and DOH to build data and informatics competency within the DOH and related agencies;  Participation in community-oriented continuing educational offerings has been made an explicit requirement for each faculty member. Documentation of participation in community-oriented continuing educational activities must now be included as part of the annual faculty review process.  Some of the Program’s courses are offered through Outreach College, which allows enrollment for non-UH students.  The Program has a certificate of completion in Maternal and Child Health Leadership, which was designed for local and Pacific Island professionals.

124 6 3 F a c u l t y, S t a f f a n d S t u d e n t s

4.1. Faculty Qualifications. The program shall have a clearly defined faculty which, by virtue of its distribution, multidisciplinary nature, educational preparation, research and teaching competence, and practice experience, is able to fully support the program’s mission, goals and objectives. 4.1.a. A table showing primary faculty who support the degree programs offered by the program. It should present data effective at the beginning of the academic year in which the self-study is submitted to CEPH and should be updated at the beginning of the site visit. This information must be presented in table format and include at least the following: a) name, b) title/academic rank, c) FTE or % time, d) tenure status or classification*, e) gender, f) race, g) graduate degrees earned, h) discipline in which degrees were earned, i) institutions from which degrees were earned, j) current teaching areas, k) current research interests, and l) current and past public health practice activities. *Note: classification refers to alternative appointment categories that may be used at the institution 4.1.b. If the program uses other faculty in its teaching programs (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc), summary data on their qualifications should be provided in table format and include at least a) name, b) title/academic rank, c) title and current employment, d) FTE or % time allocated to teaching program, e) gender, f) race, g) graduate degrees earned, h) disciplines in which degrees were earned, and i) contributions to the teaching program.

Faculty qualifications . The teaching faculty in the Program represents the multidisciplinary breadth necessary to fully support the Program’s mission, goal, and objectives. All current teaching faculty members have doctoral degrees relevant to their teaching responsibilities. Seven of the 14 professorially-ranked core faculty members also have a masters degrees in public health. Faculty changes . Since the last site visit, a number of changes were made to faculty:  The core faculty expanded to include a second faculty member in biostatistics (an associate professor with a PhD in biostatistics and an MPH in epidemiology), a faculty member in environmental/occupational health (an associate professor with a PhD in microbiology), and a faculty in health administration and policy (an associate specialist with a PhD in Sociology and an MPH).  Two social and behavioral health science members were added at the assistant professor level.  Two faculty members in epidemiology were transferred to other departments in JABSOM, but both positions have been replaced. The new hires have PhD and MPH degrees in epidemiology.  Recent retirements have given the Program the opportunity to expand the environmental health program. The expected hire date would be Fall 07. Cooperating faculty . The core teaching faculty members are also supplemented by a group of “cooperating graduate” faculty (Reference File). These individuals are all regular faculty in graduate programs housed in academic departments outside of public health, but they contribute to our Program’s mission, goal, and objectives, through teaching, collaborative research projects, and service to the Program. Cooperating faculty have contributed to the teaching program by providing guest lectures, directed reading and directed research courses,

serving on academic committees for graduate students, and serving on search committees for program faculty. Affiliate faculty member . We currently have an “affiliate” faculty member who serves as a preceptor and academic committee member for one of the MPH students. An “affiliate” graduate faculty member is an individual who is not a faculty member at the University but who is both qualified and willing to serve as graduate faculty and help advise graduate students. All our cooperating and affiliate graduate faculty members have doctoral degrees and work within the broad field of public health, including population-based HIV/AIDS prevention, research, cancer epidemiology, gerontology, tropical medicine and infectious diseases, and biostatistics. Core and other faculty . Data on the core and other faculty that support the Program is shown in Tables 4.1.a. and 4.1.b. below. Current and past public health activity . The current and past public health activity of the Program faculty is shown in Appendix 17.

Table 4.1.a. Current Core Faculty Supporting Degree by Specialty Area: Fall 20062

Area: Epidemiology Hig hes Race t Ra T/T FT Gen / Instituti Teaching Research Current/Past PH Activities Name Deg Discipline nk T E der Ethn on Area Interest (See details below in Table 4.1.a.3.) icity ree Ear ned Grandinet Ass TT 1. M W PhD U Biostatistics/ Chronic Diabetes and DM Scientific Research Committee at TAMC, ti, Andrew oc. 0 Hawai‘i Epidemiology Disease complications, UH CHS member, reviewer for several Pro Epidemiolo CVD, Parkinson’s peer-reviewed journals, ad hoc reviewer f. MS Public Health gy disease for USDA, statistical consultant to TAMC U Dept. of Behavioral Medicine, Principal Hawai‘i Investigator, co-Investigator and co-PI on several nationally and locally funded research grants. Grove, Pro T 1. M W PhD U Genetics Biostatistic Chronic disease Collaboration on research project John f 0 Hawai‘i s/ epidemiology, involved with: issue matching for organ MS Genetics Epidemiolo genetic transplantation; cancer, heart and stroke U Curriculum gy epidemiology epidemiology, bone density and, genetics Arizona of healthy aging, HIV, and respiratory problems. Holck, Ass TT 1. M W PhD U Biomedical Sci. Biostatistic Statistical Collaboration on research of effective Peter oc. 0 Hawai‘i s simulation and hospital disease management, Pro MS Biostatistics modeling, data community hepatitis B, Hawai‘i rabies f. U management, risk, STD monitoring in Native American MPH Washingto IntlHlth/Epidemi hospital data- populations, telemedicine, early n ology based childhood social services. U epidemiology Washingto n Hurwitz, Ass TT 1. M W PhD UCLA Epidemiology Epidemiolo Epidemiologic Grant reviewer (NIH/NCCAM, Center for Eric oc. 0 gy methods, chronic Scientific Review), provide technical Pro MS UCLA Epidemiology disease support to the VA’s Research and f. epidemiology, Development Program, expert panel DC Los Chiropractic clinical member to the National Health Service

2T/TT: T = Tenured; TT = Tenure Track; NTT = Not Tenure Track; Race/Ethnicity: W = White; C = Chinese; O = Other Asian/Pacific Islander

Area: Epidemiology Hig hes Race t Ra T/T FT Gen / Instituti Teaching Research Current/Past PH Activities Name Deg Discipline nk T E der Ethn on Area Interest (See details below in Table 4.1.a.3.) icity ree Ear ned Angeles epidemiology, Corps Loan Repayment Project, member College complementary of Data and Safety Monitoring Board of of and alternative the Multi-center Pneumonia Study in the Chiropra medicine, health Elderly clinical trial, peer reviewer to ctic services research several professional journals. Imrie, Ass TT 1. F O PhD U New Virology Epidemiolo Molecular UH Committee on Human Studies; UH Allison t. 0 South gy epidemiology of Radiation Safety Committee; journal peer Pro Wales infectious review; Principal Investigator; technical f. pathogens; viral and scientific training for local and immunology international entities. Katz, Alan Pro T 1. M W MD UC Irvine Preventive Epidemiolo Infectious disease Research in sexually transmitted f 0 Medicine gy epidemiology: diseases, bioterrorism preparedness, and MPH U leptospirosis, ocean pathogens; Consultant: Hawai‘i Hawai‘i Epidemiology sexually State Department of Health; Peer transmitted reviewer for professional journals. diseases Lu, Ass TT 1. M C PhD U Virology Environme Molecular-based Coordinate conduct a PH696 course – Yuanan oc. 0 Hawai‘i ntal Health gene therapy for Continuing education on public health; Pro MS Microbiology HIV and West Nile monitoring marine contaminants and f. Oregon virus; marine infectious viruses in Manoa stream and State U virology; medical Ala Wai channel; Research in HIV virology; marine infection and control; peer reviewer for antiviral actives; professional journals and funding novel methods for agencies; leptospirosis monitoring and detection and detection. diagnosis for leptospirosis; international collaboration in monitoring infectious disease and environmental

Area: Epidemiology Hig hes Race t Ra T/T FT Gen / Instituti Teaching Research Current/Past PH Activities Name Deg Discipline nk T E der Ethn on Area Interest (See details below in Table 4.1.a.3.) icity ree Ear ned pollutants

Area: Social and Behavioral Health Sciences Hig hes Race t Ra T/T FT Gen / Instituti Teaching Research Current/Past PH Activities Name Deg Discipline nk T E der Ethn on Area Interest (See details below in Table 4.1.c.) icity ree Ear ned Baruffi, Pro T 1. F W MD U Milano, Pediatrics MCH Ethnic differences Serve on community MCH related Gigliola f 0 Italy Integrative in perinatal committees. Principal investigator on seminar health. HRSA training grant. MCH block grant MPH Johns Maternal & Childhood and SSDI grant reviewer Hopkins Child Health overweight U Braun, Pro T 1. F W DrP U Public Health Needs Health disparities, In addition to teaching, I serve as Kathryn f 0 H Hawai‘i assess- gerontology Research Director for Imi Hale—Native Public Health ment, Hawaiian Cancer Network and Director of MPH U planning, the UH Center on Aging. Hawai‘I evaluation Heinrich, Ass NT 1. F W PhD U Psychology and Social and Health promotion, Teaching and guest lecturing, co- Katie t. T 0 Missouri- Education Behavioral physical activity, investigator, grant reviews, Pro Kansas Health obesity, presentations at conferences, peer f. MA City Sports & Sciences ecological models reviewer for professional journals Exercise U Missouri- Psychology Kansas City

Area: Social and Behavioral Health Sciences Hig hes Race t Ra T/T FT Gen / Instituti Teaching Research Current/Past PH Activities Name Deg Discipline nk T E der Ethn on Area Interest (See details below in Table 4.1.c.) icity ree Ear ned Keller, Ass TT 1. M W PhD U Psychology Health Health behavior Membership in several committees and Stefan t. 0 Marburg, Behavior change theory & coalitions, editorial board member of two Pro Germany Change, practice, multiple journals, conference and training f. MA Psychology Social risk behaviors, presentations, member of local & U Science & smoking, diet, international professional societies Marburg Public binge drinking, Germany Health, stress, back pain Health Communic ation, Stress Maddock, Ass TT 1. M W PhD U Rhode Experimental Social and Community-Level Academic PH administration, journal Jason oc. 0 Island Psychology Behavioral Health Promotion editor, principal investigator, NIH Pro Health reviewer, chairing and serving on local f. MA U Rhode Experimental Sciences community committees/ boards. Island Psychology Nigg, Ass TT 1. M W PhD U Rhode Psychology Social Physical Activity, NIH grant reviews, conference and Claudio oc. 0 Island Epidemiolo Multiple Health training presentations, Pro gy; Health Behavior Change, workgroup/committee chair/member of f. MSc U of Kinesiology Behavior Theory, for local, state and national entities. Calgary Change; Intervention, Physical activity and nutrition promotion current Youth, Older in elementary children. RO1 PI topics adults investigating physical activity and nutrition behavior change. Co-I on several health promotion projects Yontz, Ass NT 1. F W PhD U.Hawai‘ Sociology of Health Community Administering Community-based Elder Valerie oc. T 0 i Aging Services & Partnerships and Service Programs, End-of Life Teaching Sp MPH Administra Networking, with ECHO project, Quality Improvement ec U Gerontology tion, Gerontology, for Community Health Centers, Multi- MA Hawai‘i Gerontolog Public Health disciplinary Professional Student Sociology y, Cultural Practice, Training, Certified Administrator for MSN U Competen Community- Assisted Living Programs, Certified as

Area: Social and Behavioral Health Sciences Hig hes Race t Ra T/T FT Gen / Instituti Teaching Research Current/Past PH Activities Name Deg Discipline nk T E der Ethn on Area Interest (See details below in Table 4.1.c.) icity ree Ear ned Hawai‘i Nursing cy, Health based Gerontological Nurse, Licensed as MS Policy Participatory Registered Nurse for 29 years U Utah Biology Research, Health Disparities, Cross- Saint Cultural Equity Louis U

Table 4.1.b. Current Other Faculty Used to Support Teaching Program (Adjunct, Part-Time, Secondary, etc.) Academic Year 2005-2006

Area: Social and Behavioral Health Sciences Title/ Title & Current Employer FTE Race or Highest Name Academic or Gend Ethnicity Degree Discipline Teaching Areas Rank % er Earned Time Fuddy, Lecturer Chief, Family Health Services 0.2 F W MSW, Maternal & Child Health MCH Policies & Loretta Division; DOH 1 MPH Programs Geling, Asst. Prof. Department of Public Health 0.8 F W PhD Sociology Data Management Olga Sciences 6 and Evaluation Karel, Assoc. Center on Aging 0.7 F J PhD Medical Sociology Gerontology Harumi Spec. 5 Tsark, Jo Lecturer Research Director; 0.2 F H MPH Health Education Needs Ann Papa Ola Lokahi 1 assessment and planning Untalan, Assoc. Department of Public Health 0.6 F O DSW Social Welfare Policy in Maternal and Faye Prof. Sciences 2 Health Child Health Yontz, Lecturer Coordinator of Elderly 0.2 F W PhD Sociology of Aging, Public Health Services Valerie Services; Kokua Kalihi Valley 1 Health, Gerontology, Health Center Nursing Zir, Ana Jr. Spec. Center on Aging 0.5 F W MPH Community Health Gerontology 0 Development

4.1.c. Description of the manner in which the faculty complement integrates perspectives from the field of practice, including information on appointment tracks for practitioners, if used by the program. The core, affiliate, and cooperating faculty represent a wide variety of public health practice and related fields and bring both breadth and depth to the Program. The Program does not have an appointment track for practitioners. However, all field preceptors must hold a master’s degree and be identified by exemplary practice experience. As described in section 2.4., Practice Skills, the Program has numerous community-based practicum supervisors who add immeasurable perspectives to the experiential offering for our students. Recent examples of integrated perspectives can be seen in Table 2.4.b. showing preceptors and practice sites. Sample descriptions of field practicums undertaken by our students are as follows:  Worked with the Executive Office on Aging, to develop and provide “elder nutrition program best practices” workshops to individuals affiliated with state, county, and service-provider agencies on aging. The student conducted a needs assessment in developing the workshops and evaluated all workshops.  Assisted the Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies organization conduct a survey of pharmacists regarding emergency contraception. Wrote an issue paper on pregnant and parenting teens in Hawai‘i and a brochure on teen access to care.  Analyzed data from the Honolulu Heart Program to determine whether light exercise (walking) affected the risk of coronary heart disease.  Analyzed data to determine whether the formally defined Metabolic Syndrome actually predicted incident stroke in a population of elderly people of Japanese ancestry using data from the Honolulu Heart Program.  Analyzed data from a local population to determine whether diet is associated with serum factors related to insulin resistance.  Molecular epidemiology of dengue in Hawai‘i.  Worked as a health policy assistant in the Governor’s office.  Worked as an evaluator in a school complex for coordinated school health efforts.  Worked at Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women and Children designing following a protocol to develop and test educational materials on early childhood development for families of drug-exposed babies. The protocol included both qualitative and quantitative data collection. The finished products will be shared with other sites working with this population.  Participated in the Quentin Burdick Rural Health Interdisciplinary Program. The interdisciplinary team consisted of one medical student, one nursing students, and a public health student. The team was placed in the community of Waimea, Kauai with the purpose of enhancing the health of the community. They worked with various community organizations to carry out small projects over six weeks.  Worked with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research on a research project on decision making. The project included data collection and analysis comparing factors that influence decision making across age groups.  Assessed women’s health needs in the target population at the Kōkua Kalihi Valley Community Health Center.  Disseminated best practices at the National Institutes of Health, physical activity environment evaluation and promotion with the Kalihi-Palama Health Center.

4.1.d. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may judge the qualifications of its faculty complement, along with data regarding the performance of the program against those measures for each of the last three years. The primary means of judging the qualifications of the faculty is evaluated through the annual review process. Faculty members are required to demonstrate research productivity, service to the profession at the local, national and international levels. Outcome measures from the Report of Evaluation Indicators are shown below.

Table 4.1.d. Faculty Qualifications Outcome Measures

Targ Objecti et Outcome Measure 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 ve 2007 -08 Faculty instruction rated as excellent or good by 1.2.g. 80% 100% 71.4% 88.2% graduates Faculty expertise rated as excellent or good by 1.2.h. 80% 100% 85.7% 88.2% graduates Current Current Current Year Year Year $100, $60,021 $35,873 $87,606 2.1.a Research dollars/FTE faculty 000 Total Total Total Active Active Active $181,742 $243,409 $355,379 Tenure track faculty serving as PI/co-investigator 2.1.b. on 1+ project a year and serve on at least one 100% 92% 67% 91.7% other Current Current Current Year Year Year 33% (44%) 83% 2.1.c. Research funding/increase per year 5% Total Total Total Active Active Active 71% 26% 10% Faculty producing 6+ peer-reviewed publications 2.2.a. 100% 79% 90.3% 81.8% over a 3-year period Full-time faculty contributing to 1+ local 3.1.a. 100% 92% 89% 100% continuing education activity per year Full-time faculty providing professional service for 3.2.a. 1+ national or international society or 100% 77% 80% 100% organization per year Full-time faculty providing professional service for 3.2.b. 100% 100% 100% 100% 1+ local public health society or agency Not yet Not yet 4.2.d. Annual salary offset/FTE faculty 25% establishe establishe 28.04% d d

4.1.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. Individually and as a whole, the faculty and the department has demonstrated good quality instruction, increased research productivity, and extensive community and professional service contributions.

4.2. Faculty Policies and Procedures. The program shall have well-defined policies and procedures to recruit, appoint and promote qualified faculty, to evaluate competence and performance of faculty, and to support the professional development and advancement of faculty. 4.2.a. A faculty handbook or other written document that outlines faculty rules and regulations. Documents that outline faculty rules, regulations and conduct are available in the Program and administrative offices, principal of which is the contract between the University of Hawai‘i Professional Assembly and the Board of Regents of the University of Hawai‘i. Each faculty member has a copy of this contract. The faculty policies are listed in the Board of Regents (BOR) Policy Manual. The general procedures are described below. Faculty recruitment . Recruitment of new faculty is conducted by an ad hoc search committee appointed by the Director. There is a national search for any new faculty member. The committee reviews candidates according to affirmative action guidelines and interviews selected candidates. Recommendation and approval . The search committee recommends a finalist to the Director. The official offer is made by the JABSOM Dean upon recommendation of the Director. All appointments are contingent upon approval of the Board of Regents. Retention, promotion and tenure determinations . Retention of faculty is determined through an annual performance evaluation. Faculty reviews for retention, promotion and tenure are initiated at the departmental level. For tenure and/or promotion purposes, the faculty candidate prepares a dossier which is first reviewed by the Department Personnel Committee (DPC). The dossier, including comments and recommendation by the DPC, is then passed to the Director who also makes written comments and documents either a positive or negative recommendation. The dossier is then sent to the JABSOM Dean for review, comment, and recommendation. At this point the dossier is sent to a university-wide Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (TPRC) composed of tenured faculty members outside the school of medicine. The TPRC provides written comments and recommendations to the UHM Chancellor, who in turn reviews the dossier and makes a final recommendation to the BOR. The ultimate decision on tenure and promotion is made by the BOR. Tenure . The normal probationary period is two years for faculty hired at the professorial rank, three years at associate professor, and five years at assistant professor. Eligible faculty must apply for tenure before the final year of the probationary period. Once tenure is achieved, faculty competence and performance are evaluated once every five years in accordance with Board of Regents guidelines. Promotion . Application for promotion also involves a systematic and comprehensive evaluation. The criteria used are similar to those used for tenure and promotion, and include teaching, research, and service. Faculty union procedures . Tenure and promotion procedures follow guidelines established in the collective bargaining agreement between the University, the faculty union (the University of Hawai‘i Professional Assembly) and the BOR. These guidelines establish minimum criteria for tenure, and the academic units may impose additional formalized requirements for promotion.

Criteria and guidelines for tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review are available in the Reference File.

4.2.b. Description of provisions for faculty development, including identification of support for faculty categories other than regular full-time appointments. The Program supports the University and JABSOM philosophy that continual professional development of an individual is essential in maintaining a high quality faculty. Faculty development is encouraged in a number of ways including: resources, support; workshops and other offerings through the University Office of Faculty Development and Academic Support (OFDAS) and the JABSOM Faculty Development Office. Most of these resources are open to core as well as other faculty who support the Program. OFDAS . Examples of resources available through the OFDAS are listed below:  The Center for Teaching Excellence offers a Teaching Assessment Diagnostic Instructional Feedback Service. The services include: small group instructional diagnosis, paper & pencil assessment, videotape assessment, and classroom observation (http://www.cte.hawaii.edu/TeachingAssessment.html).  The Center for Instructional Support provides support for instruction through technology and technology-related resources.  A Course and Faculty Evaluation service provides valuable information for assessing the impact of educational experiences on students, generating information for professional portfolios, and improving course content and instructional methods.  The Faculty Mentoring Program focuses on professional development related to successful renewal, promotion and tenure processes for UHM faculty.  Department Leadership Workshops are provided on a periodic basis for all those interested in department leadership. The goal of the workshop is to provide current and incoming chairpersons or those interested in becoming a chairperson with help in effective department leadership. Some of the topics to be covered are leadership strategies, legal issues, personnel and fiscal procedures, creating a cooperative work environment, creating a chair's checklist, and discussions about key issues in department leadership  The University Research Council administers a Faculty Travel Fund for faculty and staff members to attend professional conferences, for the purpose of presenting results of research and/or scholarship.  The President's Educational Improvement Funds (EIF) is a source of funding for instructional improvement and curriculum innovation at UHM. EIF funds are available through enhancement grants to permit faculty to purchase software, equipment, and instructional materials; to travel to professional meetings; to hire student help; or may be used for other endeavors directed at enhancing the quality of learning opportunities. JABSOM . The JABSOM Faculty Development Program promotes faculty and staff development by generating, coordinating, communicating, and sponsoring activities for faculty and staff in the areas of teaching, learning, research, continuing preparation, administration and service. The Faculty Development Program conducts workshops, seeks grants to support instructional improvement, and helps faculty improve teaching and evaluation skills. In addition, Web information is available related to faculty development and continued competence (http://jabsom.hawaii.edu/facdev/HOME/Default.asp). The Program also offers funding through the Budget Committee to support faculty and staff for teaching and research activities and their career development. Several types of funding are available including research “start-up” funds for new faculty to enhance research activity;

incentive fund for faculty who offset 50% or more of their salary to support their travel to professional conferences and their collaborative research activities; and a general fund for all the faculty to enhance their competence in teaching and internet communication. In addition, the Program’s Budget Committee offers a special fund for upgrading the computer teaching laboratory to improve teaching and learning activities.

4.2.c. Description of formal procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance. The Program’s Personnel Committee (PC) conducts annual faculty evaluations to assess faculty competence and performance. The annual review addresses research productivity, teaching competency, and specifically highlights community service activities. See Appendix 14 for annual faculty evaluation form. This form includes measurable indicators based on teaching, research, and service. The PC reviews each faculty member’s annual evaluation and reports to the Director, who then meets with each faculty member individually to discuss his/her annual evaluation.

4.2.d. Description of the processes used for student course evaluation and evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Teaching competency is evaluated through the use of standardized university-wide course and faculty evaluation (CAFE). The PC reviews each faculty member’s annual evaluation including results of the CAFE evaluations, and reports to the Director, who then meets with each faculty member individually to discuss his/her annual evaluation.

4.2.e. Description of the emphasis given to community services activities in the tenure and promotion process. Documentation of service activities is a required component of the tenure and promotion review process on both the University and Program level. The three key areas that are emphasized during the tenure and promotion process are research, teaching, and service. In addition, on the Program level, documentation of community-based service, as noted above (section 4.2.c), is a key component of the annual faculty review.

4.2.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program follows the University’s well defined and documented policies to recruit, appoint, and promote qualified faculty. Procedures are in place to evaluate faculty competence and performance on an on-going basis, through the annual review process and by students. The excellent record for tenure and promotion, the quantity and quality of peer reviewed and funded research and publications and the extensive amount of community projects and service demonstrate that the Program complies with this criterion.

4.3. Faculty and Staff Diversity. The program shall recruit, retain and promote a diverse faculty and staff, and shall offer equitable opportunities to qualified individuals regardless of age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin. 4.3.a. Summary demographic data on the program’s faculty, showing at least gender and ethnicity; faculty numbers should be consistent with those shown in the table in 4.1.a.1. Data must be presented in table format.

Table 4.3.a.1. below summarizes the demographic data for current core faculty and other faculty who supported the program in 2005- 2006.

Table 4.3.a.1. Summary Demographic Data for Current Core (Fall 2006) and Other Faculty AY 2005-2006

Core Faculty Other Faculty TOTAL # % # % # % # % Male 9 64.3 1 11.1 10 43.5 # % African American ------# % Caucasian 7 77.8 -- -- 7 70.0 # % Hispanic/Latino ------# % Asian/Pacific Islander 1 11.1 1 100 2 20.0 # % Native American/Alaska Native ------# % Unknown/Other ------# % International Male 1 11.1 -- -- 1 10.0 # % Female 5 35.7 8 88.9 13 56.5 # % African American ------# % Caucasian 4 80.0 4 50.0 8 61.5 # % Hispanic/Latino -- -- 2 25.0 2 15.4 # % Asian/Pacific Islander 1 20.0 2 25.0 3 23.1 # % Native American/Alaska Native ------# % Unknown/Other ------# % International ------TOTAL 14 100 9 100 23 100

Four tenure-track faculty positions were filled since 2003. Table 4.3.a.2. below provides summary data on the applicant pool for those positions. The data show a fairly even distribution between male (51%) and female (49%) applicants and those interviewed/invited to interview, with 45% of the males and 55% of the females. The applicant pool was also very similar for race/ethnicity, with 61% of the female applicant Caucasian and 62% of the males. Sixty percent of the males interviewed/invited to interview were minority but only 25% of the females. All four faculty hired for the positions were male and 75% Caucasian.

Table 4.3.a.2. Summary of Faculty Applicants 2003-2005* Applicant Interviewed/ Pool Invited to Interview # % # % # % Male 39 51 10 45 # % African American 2 5 2 20 # % Caucasian 24 62 4 40 # % Hispanic/Latino ------# % Asian/Pacific Islander 13 33 4 40 # % Native American/Alaska Native ------# % Female 38 49 12 55 # % African American ------# % Caucasian 23 61 9 75 # % Hispanic/Latino ------# % Asian/Pacific Islander 15 39 3 25 # % Native American/Alaska Native ------

4.3.b. Summary demographic data on the program’s staff, showing at least gender and ethnicity. Data must be presented in table format. Table 4.3.b. below summarizes the demographic data for the program support staff in Fall 2006.

Table 4.3.b. Summary Demographic Data for Staff* Fall 2006

Percentage TOTAL # % Male 14.3% 2 # % African American -- -- # % Caucasian 50.0% 1 # % Hispanic/Latino -- -- # % Asian/Pacific Islander 50.0% 1 # % Native American/Alaska Native -- -- # % Unknown/Other -- -- # % International -- -- # % Female 85.7% 12 # % African American -- -- # % Caucasian Female 8.3% 1 # % Hispanic/Latino -- -- # % Asian/Pacific Islander 66.7% 8 # % Native American/Alaska Native -- -- # % Unknown/Other 16.7% 2 # % International 8.3% 1 TOTAL 100% 14 * Includes regular and grant supported personnel

4.3.c. Description of policies and procedures regarding the program’s commitment to providing equitable opportunities without regard to age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin. Diversity is a characteristic of Hawai‘i’s population and is central to the vision of the University of Hawai‘i System and the Mānoa campus. The University’s Strategic Plan includes diversity, fairness, and equity as one of its core values to complement the vision of “working together for the betterment of all the diverse ethnic populations that are now part of this state.” The University of Hawai‘i is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, arrest and court record, sexual orientation, and veteran status. The Program is governed by and fully supports University policy #1.202 on nondiscrimination and affirmative action. “The University of Hawai‘i is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. It is the policy of the University of Hawai‘i to comply with federal and state laws which prohibit discrimination in University programs and activities, including but not necessarily limited to the following laws which cover students and applicants for admission to the University: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended (race, color, national origin); Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (age); Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act as amended (sex); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex, blindness, severely impaired vision); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (disability) and to comply with federal and state laws which mandate affirmative action and/or prohibit discrimination in employment (including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, upgrading), salaries, benefits, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended (race, color, national origin, religion, sex, pregnancy); Executive Order 11246 as amended (race, color, national origin, religion, sex); Equal Pay Act of 1963 as amended by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex); Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ages 40-70); Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (veteran's status); Section 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (disability); and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, Chapter 76, 78, 378 (race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, political affiliation, disability, marital status, arrest and court record). The University strives to promote full realization of equal opportunity through a positive, continuing program including Titles I-IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) P.L. 101-336. Accordingly, vocational education opportunities will be offered without regard to race, color, national origin, sex or disability. American citizens or immigrants with limited English proficiency skills will not be denied admission to vocational education programs.” The faculty union, The University of Hawai‘i Professional Assembly, has a similar clause (Article II, Non-Discrimination) in its collective bargaining agreement. This clause gives faculty the right to file grievance with the union should discrimination be thought to have occurred on any of the aforementioned dimensions. The University maintains an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Office to assure these policies are upheld. This office is responsible for oversight of employment practices in all units of the University.

4.3.d. Description of recruitment and retention efforts used to attract and retain a diverse faculty and staff, along with information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time. Faculty recruitment efforts. Faculty recruitment is conducted via postings on the University of Hawai‘i’s employment webpage, a statewide newspaper, and is also placed in appropriate national professional publications specific to the topic of recruitment. Further, the search committee disseminates the recruitment advertisement to topic appropriate professional listservs. Each recruitment advertisement is accompanied with the phrase The University of Hawai'i is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. All qualified applicants will be considered, regardless of race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or status as disabled veteran or veteran of Vietnam era. Efforts to recruit and retain diverse faculty. The Program is sensitive to having women/minority faculty members participate in search committees. This ensures opportunity for local and nationally qualified applicants to have the opportunity to apply, and provides information on our recruitment approach regarding diversity. Diverse faculty and staff are retained via the faculty support given through the medical school and the University which have workshops to assess and improve teaching, and to help faculty prepare for tenure and promotion. The University has a general faculty mentorship program, and there is also a mentorship program that matches junior women faculty members with senior women faculty members. Recruitment and retention efforts are up to date. In terms of keeping these efforts up-to-date, the postings on the University of Hawai‘i’s employment webpage and a statewide newspaper along with the EEO/AA phrase is University policy and is amended by the University. The professional publications and listservs are chosen specific to each recruitment, thus are adapted for every search. The tenure and promotion workshops are adapted to any updates in the tenure and review process on an ongoing basis.

4.3.e. Description of efforts, other than recruitment and retention of core faculty, through which the program seeks to establish and maintain an environment that supports diversity. The Program supports diversity in several ways: research projects target minority populations; the faculty actively participates in training of minority post-doctoral fellows and researchers; and the Program is committed to training public health staff in the Pacific Islands and the Pacific Rim.

4.3.f. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may evaluate its success in achieving a diverse faculty and staff, along with data regarding the performance of the program against those measures for each of the last three years. The outcome measures of faculty and staff diversity are twofold. First, comparison of the Program’s diversity with previous years; and second, comparison of the Program’s diversity versus the University. This is provided below in Table 4.3.f.1. for faculty and in Table 4.3.f.2. for staff. For comparison purposes, State of Hawai‘i census data (2000) is also provided. The decline in the percentage of women as compared to the UHM is explained largely by a reorganization that moved the Center on Aging from public health to social work. However, the Fall 2006 figures in Table 4.3.a.1. shows a slight increase (to 35.7%) from Fall 2005 figures.

Table 4.3.f.1. Faculty Diversity: Public Health and UHM 2003-2005* Gender Race/Ethnicity American Asian/ African Indian/Ala Pacific Other/ Male Female America ska Islander Hispanic White Unknown n Native # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 2003 PH 9 52.9 8 47.1 ------4 23.5 1 5.9 12 70.6 -- -- 811. 396. 824. UHM 65.3 430.9 34.7 7 0.6 5 0.4 31.9 9 0.7 66.4 -- -- 1 6 4 2004 PH 8 50.0 8 50.0 ------3 18.7 1 6.3 12 75.0 -- -- 791. 390. 817. UHM 64.4 437.6 35.6 6 0.5 4 0.3 31.8 11.5 0.9 66.5 -- -- 7 3 4 2005 PH 8 66.7 4 33.3 ------2 16.7 -- -- 10 83.3 -- -- 792. 390. 824. UHM 64.0 446.9 36.0 8 0.6 4 0.3 31.5 13.0 1.0 66.5 -- -- 9 4 3 Hawai ‘i State 50.2 49.8 2.8 2.1 81.4 7.2 39.3 (2000) ** * University data for Fall 2006 not available **Percentage total for race/ethnicity is greater than 100 as the 2000 Hawai‘i state census data includes persons selecting one race as well as those selecting two or more races.

Table 4.3.f.2. Staff Diversity: Public Health and UHM 2003-2005* Gender Race/Ethnicity American Asian/ African Indian/Ala Pacific Other/ Male Female America ska Islander Hispanic White Unknown n Native # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 2003 PH 2 13.3 13 86.7 11 73.3 4 26.7 -- -- UHM/SY 189 970 42.8 1295 57.2 12 0.5 3 0.1 83.5 15 0.7 344 15.2 -- -- S 1 2004 PH 3 18.7 13 81.3 10 62.5 1 5 31.5 -- -- UHMSY 103 198 42.7 1363 56.3 14 0.6 3 0.1 82.0 12 0.5 375 15.4 -- -- S 5 7 2005 PH 2 14.3 12 85.7 8 66.6 1 8.3 3 24.9 UHM/SY 104 199 43.4 1362 56.6 14 0.6 3 0.12 82.9 16 0.7 378 15.7 -- -- S 5 6 Hawai‘i 50.2 49.8 2.8 2.1 81.4 7.2 39.3 State (2000)*

* *Includes regular and grant sponsored personnel. ** Percentage total for race/ethnicity is greater than 100 as the 2000 Hawai‘i state census data includes persons selecting one race as well as those selecting a combination of two or more races.

4.3.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program fully supports the University’s policies on non discrimination and affirmative action to with reference to recruitment, appointment and promotion of all qualified personnel.

4.4 Student Recruitment and Admissions. The program shall have student recruitment and admissions policies and procedures designed to locate and select qualified individuals capable of taking advantage of the program’s various learning activities, which will enable each of them to develop competence for a career in public health. 4.4.a. Description of the program’s recruitment policies and procedures. The Program seeks to educate individuals about the opportunities and career options in public health and to recruit individuals who are academically well prepared, and committed to improving health and well being of the populations. The goal is to attract an applicant pool for the epidemiology and social and behavioral health science specializations that include those with prior training in the health field and individuals from select undergraduate majors. The program has a special interest in attracting a diverse student population to match its multicultural environment and does not discriminate with regard to age, sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or religion. Recruitment methods . Student recruitment approaches includes personal contacts, distribution of relevant literature, participation in career and health fairs, the Program website, and activities of the JABSOM and the Graduate Division on behalf of the Program. Personal contact efforts include presentations and/or distribution of program brochures at various departments, schools and offices across campus, and the distribution of program information at national professional meetings and conferences and at the various career fairs held at the University. OGSAS Specialist . The OGSAS has a student services specialist assigned to manage the dissemination of Program information in response to personal inquiries about the program, and responds to e-mail inquiries from potential applicants, directing them to application materials on the web. The specialist also follows-up with individuals who submit their applications. JABSOM . In addition, the JABSOM catalog includes a section on the public health academic programs. JABSOM participates in the Minority Access to Research Careers program, which attempts to match qualified minority students with areas of research that interest them. The director of this program has an MPH and DrPH from the former University of Hawai‘i School of Public Health. The JABSOM Hawai‘i/Pacific Basin Area Health Education Center (AHEC) assists high school and college students from socially, economically, and educationally underrepresented populations and underserved communities who are interested in pursuing health careers. Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) . AHEC also supports training experiences in rural and underserved areas of Hawai‘i and the Pacific Basin for health professional students, and has also been a source of student recruitment to the Program. The director of this program is a physician and is currently an MPH student.

4.4.b. Statement of admissions policies and procedures. The Program’s admissions policies and guidelines function within the admissions guidelines established by the University and the Graduate Division. Complete policy statements are contained in the UHM General and Graduate Information Catalog and the Program’s brochure. Applicant review . Applications meeting the Graduate Division and Program’s requirements are transmitted to the Admissions Committees for each specialization by OGSAS. These committees determine adequacy of prior training, background experience in a health field, the

student’s potential to become an effective public health professional, and the student’s goals to determine the best match with program faculty resources. Prospective students may be interviewed to determine how the program would help them to develop their career/professional goals. Recommendation for admission . Admission to the master’s programs is recommended to the CFS for public health by the specialization head, based on the objective and subjective faculty assessment, including the guidelines listed below. The CFS forwards the recommendations to the Graduate Dean who makes the official decision on admissions for the University. Requirements for admission . Criteria used to determine admission include graduation from an accredited university or college, undergraduate and graduate academic performance, appropriate course work in social or biological sciences, chemistry, and mathematics, and prior health-related research/work experience. A 3.0 (B) GPR or equivalent is the minimum required for a bachelor’s program and all post-baccalaureate course work. The Program has set a higher standard. Objective 1.1.a. states that the average GPA for admitted students will be 3.4 or higher. The GRE is required for all Native English speaking applicants. Exceptions will be made for applicants with advanced degrees or extensive experience in the field.

4.4.c. Examples of recruitment materials and other publications and advertising that describe, as a minimum, academic calendars, grading and the academic offerings of the program. If a program does not have a printed bulletin/catalog, it must provide a printed web page that indicates the degree requirements and the official representation of the program. In addition, references to website addresses may be included. Examples of recruitment materials and a copy of the most recent JABSOM bulletin are attached. Program information can be found at www.hawaii.edu/publichealth.

4.4.d. Quantitative information on the number of applicants, acceptances and admissions, over the last three years.

Table 4.4.d. Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, and Enrollments by Specialization Area, Fall Semester 2003-2005

Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005

Applie 26 28 29 d

Epidemiolog Accept 14 21 12 y ed

Enrolle 6 14 4 d Social and Applie Behavioral 9 34 24 d Health Sciences Accept 6 17 13 ed

Enrolle 4 9 8 d

4.4.e. Quantitative information on the number of students enrolled in each specialty area identified in the instructional matrix, including head counts of full- and part-time students and a full-time-equivalent conversion, for each of the last three years. Non-degree students such as those enrolled in continuing education or certificate programs, should not be included. Explain any important trends or patterns, including a persistent absence of students in any program or specialization.

Table 4.4.e. Students Enrolled in Each Degree Program by Specialization Area, Fall Semester 2003-2005

Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005

FT P FT FT P FT FT P FT T E T E T E

Epidemiology - 15. 2. 16. 18. 5. 20. 13. 3. 14. MPH 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5

Epidemiology - 3.0 0. 3.0 4.0 0. 4.0 3.0 2. 4.0 MS 0 0 0

SBHS - MPH 6.0 0. 6.0 11. 2. 12. 15. 3. 16. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

SBHS - MS 0.0 0. 0.0 1.0 0. 1.0 2.0 0. 2.0 0 0 0

In Fall 2005 there was a 29% decrease for Epidemiology in FTE enrollments from the previous year. Factors influencing this decrease included a planned decrease in admissions because faculty recruitment and a higher than expected “no show” rate for students admitted.

4.4.f. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may evaluate its success in enrolling a qualified student body, along with data regarding the performance of the program against those measures for each of the last three years.

Table 4.4.f. Student Recruitment and Admissions Outcome Measures

Tar get Objecti 2003 2005 Outcome Measure 200 2004-05 ve -04 -06 7- 08 3.4 1.1.a. Average GPA for admitted students. 3.49 3.35 3.43 +

96.9 1.1.b Enrolled students maintaining a 3.0+ GPA. 90% 100% 96.5% % 1.1.c. Admitted students having previous health experience. 50% 60% 53% 42% 100 1.1.d. Students scoring >550 (PBT) or >213 (CBT) on the TOEFL. 100% 93.3% 100% % 100 1.1.e. U.S. students taking the GRE Test. 95% 100% 100% % <10 1.1.g. Admitted students receiving admission criteria waivers. 7% 19% 0% % 63.6 % 95% Graduates completing the MPH degree within 2 years. 60% Adjus Adjus 1.2.e. (Adjusted rate excludes part-time and concurrent degree 80% Adjusted ted: ted: students.) : 80.0% 90.9 100% %

4.4.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The Program has recruitment and admissions policies and procedures that allow selection of qualified applicants as indicated by academic credentials, health related work experience, and potential for contributions to the public health field.

4.5. Student Diversity. Stated application, admission, and degree-granting requirements and regulations shall be applied equitably to individual applicants and students regardless of age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin. 4.5.a. Description of policies, procedures and plans to achieve a diverse student population. The University’s policies as an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution, as noted in 4.3.c. above, covers academic considerations such as admission and access to as well as participation and treatment in the University’s programs, activities, and services. Commission on Diversity . The University has an Office of Student Equity, Excellence, and Diversity (SEED) to provide programs for the recruitment and success of students from underrepresented groups in higher education. This office handles the University’s Commission on Diversity. The commission was established as part of ongoing efforts to foster a community that embraces and values the various social and cultural differences. Diversity and Equity Initiative . The SEED also administers the Diversity and Equity Initiative to ensure that diversity and equity issues are addressed by the University, especially given the social and cultural diversity of Hawai‘i. It oversees grants for proposals and programs that deal with diversity on the University campuses. The initiative funding is provided specifically to engage the University community to work towards a more diverse campus setting. Proposals are funded for outreach and recruitment. Outreach activities to the broader community are presented through symposium and forums for university students, faculty, staff and community members. AHEC . JABSOM houses the Hawai‘i/Pacific Basin Area Health Education Center (AHEC). The Center is funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration with a mandate to improve diversity, distribution and quality of the health professions workforce. The mission of the Hawai‘i AHEC is to improve the health of the underserved through education. One of their activities is recruitment to the health professions. East-West Center (EWC) . Public health has a long-standing relationship with the EWC, which is an education and research organization established to strengthen relationships and understanding among the people and nations of Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. The EWC provides support to citizens of countries in Asia and the Pacific for study at the UHM. Public health students from the EWC help provide a rich diversity that is always appreciated by graduates of the Program. The Program maintains a favorable minority distribution relying on the diversity of Hawai‘i’s population as well as the University and AHEC commitment to recruit from under-represented minorities and international students.

4.5.b. Description of recruitment efforts used to attract a diverse student body, along with information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time. 4.5.c. Quantitative information on the demographic characteristics of the student body, including data on applicants and admissions, for each of the last three years. As noted above, the Program is fortunate in that its informal recruitment efforts continue to attract a diverse student body. The State’s diverse population and the University’s reputation as a multicultural institution serve as a catalyst for a well-rounded student body. The Program monitors the ethnicity of the enrolled students against the Graduate Division and the ASPH to maintain a comparable minority distribution. Table 4.5.c.1. shows the demographic characteristics of students who applied, were admitted, and subsequently enrolled. Table 4.5.c.2. shows the race/ethnicity of the Program’s student body and measures demographic diversity by comparing the Program’s minority distribution to the Graduate Division and Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH). The table indicates a favorable minority enrollment for the Program compared to the Graduate Division and ASPH. This is an improvement over the Program’s 2002 self-self-study that showed distribution between Asian/Pacific Islanders and Caucasians was not balanced. The Program’s total minority distribution of US citizens has improved, moving up from 40% to 50% over the last three years.

Table 4.5.c.1. Demographic Characteristics of Applicants, Fall 2003-2005 2003 2004 2005 M F M F M F Applied 0 1 0 1 2 0 African American Accepted 0 0 0 1 1 0 Enrolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 Applied 3 9 5 13 5 18 Caucasian Accepted 2 5 3 8 2 10 Enrolled 0 4 2 5 1 2 Applied 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hispanic/Latino Accepted 0 1 0 0 0 0 Enrolled 0 1 0 0 0 0 Applied 3 8 12 27 4 21 Asian/ Accepted 0 6 8 16 1 9 Pacific Islander Enrolled 0 4 5 9 1 6 Applied 0 0 0 1 0 0 Native American/ Accepted 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alaska Native Enrolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 Applied 0 4 0 3 1 2 Unknown/Other Accepted 0 2 0 2 0 2 Enrolled 0 0 0 2 0 2 Applied 3 3 6 12 3 10 International Accepted 2 2 3 8 1 2 Enrolled 0 1 2 5 1 2 Applied 9 26 17 45 12 41 TOTAL Accepted 4 16 11 27 4 21 Enrolled 0 10 7 16 2 10

Table 4.5.c.2. Race/Ethnicity: Graduate Division (GD), OPHS, and ASPH Fall 2003-2005 2003 2004 2005 GD OPHS ASPH GD OPHS ASPH GD OPHS ASPH African American/Black 0.8% 3.5% 9.4% 1.0% 2.4% 11.6% 1.0% -- 11.4% Caucasian 32.1% 31.0% 51.3% 32.0% 31.0% 60.9% 33.4% 25% 60.0% Hispanic/Latino 0.9% 3.5% 7.7% 1.6% 2.4% 9.3% 19.6% -- 9.1% Asian/Pacific Islander 32.9% 20.7% 9.8% 31.0% 31.0% 11.8% 31.3% 35.0% 12.6% Native American/ 0.5% -- 0.8% 0.4% -- 0.8% 3.0% -- 0.8% Alaska Native Unknown/Other 10.9% 10.3% 4.1% 10.0% 7.1% 4.1% 9.0% 10.0% 6.1% International 21.4% 31.0% 16.9% 24.0% 26.2% 16% 23.2% 30.0% 16.1%

Minority US Citizens 45.0% 40.0% 28.9% 44.7% 48.4% 33.5% 44.7% 50.0% 33.9%

4.5.d. Identification of measures by which the program may evaluate its success in achieving a demographically diverse student body, along with data regarding the program’s performance against these measures for each of the last three years.

Table 4.5.d. Student Diversity Outcome Measures

Targe Objecti t Outcome Measure 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 ve 2007- 08 45.3 44.7 44.7 Minority distribution will be 45% or GD % % % greater as compared to the Graduate OPH GD GD 40.0 48.4 50.0 1.1.f. Division and Association of Schools of ≥45% S OPHS OPHS % % % Public Health Data Report on minority ASP ASPH ASPH 33.3 33.6 33.9 distribution H % % %

4.5.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. This criterion is met. The University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution with a commitment to diversity, fairness and equality as evidenced in its Strategic Plan core values. The Program recruits and admits a demographically diverse student body, providing a rich cultural experience for all students.

4.6. Advising and Career Counseling. There shall be available a clearly explained and accessible academic advising system for students, as well as readily available career and placement advice. 4.6.a. Description of the advising and career counseling services, including sample orientation materials such as student handbooks. Academic Advising Faculty advisors. Each student enrolled in the program is assigned a temporary interim advisor, determined by specialization faculty upon admission to the Program. An attempt is made to match student interests with faculty member focus. An orientation letter is sent to the new students notifying them of their advisors and asked to contact their advisors in order to discus their anticipated course selections and program goals. Over the course of the semester students are encouraged to become acquainted with and meet other faculty to find a permanent faculty advisor for their academic committee (prior to the end of their first semester). Student Handbook. In addition, degree course work requirements and suggested course sequences are specified in detail in the Student Handbook, which all students receive at orientation. (The Student Handbook is also available on the Program website. A copy will be provided in the Reference File.) This information includes required core courses (and associated prerequisite courses), including those courses appropriate for the student’s initial semester. The handbook also provides a draft Program Plan Form (Appendix 11) to be completed by the end of the student’s first semester that will detail a proposed roadmap for the student to follow through their program. Both the student and the academic committee members sign this finalized form. Much other useful program information is contained within the Student Handbook, and it serves as a reference guide of the Program and the Graduate Division requirements for the students. The handbook provides comprehensive information on the Program objectives, requirements, policies, support services, a faculty and staff directory, a list of courses, and various forms. Copies of the Student Handbook are available from the Office of Graduate Student Academic Services in addition to being supplied during student orientation. Student academic committee. A student’s academic committee is composed of two faculty members from the Program, with the student’s permanent faculty advisor serving as the chair. After selecting their permanent faculty advisor, the student and advisor will consult to identify another faculty member to serve on this committee. The committee assesses the student’s progress, reviews course offerings, and possibly makes amended recommendations to the student’s academic training plan. These modifications might be a result of new courses offerings by faculty (perhaps offered on a temporary basis), or relevant course offerings becoming available in other departments on campus. As such, it is important that the committee meets with the student at least once a semester (usually directly prior to the beginning of an upcoming semester) to advise and counsel the student prior to the semester’s course registration. This academic committee will also assist the student in identifying appropriate practicum placement. While it is expected that faculty advisors and students will be in periodic contact via email or via class encounters, they are also encouraged to establish a regular meeting time to ensure

student questions and concerns are addressed, and to provide feedback to the advisor and the Program on issues or concerns regarding the Program. Career Counseling Employment contacts. Career counseling/advice and possible employment contacts are provided by OGSAS and faculty. Mailed notices of openings both locally and outside the state are posted on a bulletin board. Additional job notices are maintained in a notebook available to students in OGSAS. The department’s website contains links to other public health employment websites, such as the site hosted by the Rollins School of Public Health and the Association of Schools of Public Health. These additions to the Program website were made in response to the low evaluations in the area of career counseling. Job search and application skills. The Career Services Center of the University is also available to assist students in their employment search. Career Services conducts workshops and seminars on topics such as resume writing, job search techniques, and interviewing. Students are notified of these services via a monthly E-mail schedule from Career Services. Faculty contacts. The faculty’s connections throughout the community and out of state are often conduits to future employment, or result in contacts for additional career advice and consultation. Faculty also utilize Program alumni to suggest other possible areas of career planning. The student’s practicum, while not necessarily an entrée into a position following graduation, often provides a network for the student, which can be utilized to find employment. Faculty often receive notifications of employment opportunities, and these are funneled to the Director for distribution via email to the student body. Practice Coordinator. The Practice Coordinator has numerous established linkages with community and government organizations through research, service and teaching collaborations, and these linkages will help strengthen the career opportunities for graduates. Future career counseling efforts. Other efforts are being considered, including working with the alumni association to create opportunities for students to meet local graduates who are working in the field.

4.6.b. Description of the procedures by which students may communicate their concerns to program officials, including information about how these procedures are publicized and about the aggregate number of complaints submitted for each of the last three years. There are both informal and formal means by which the students may communicate their concerns and complaints to the Program. Because of the small size of the Program there is ready access to faculty and program officials. This is shown in the results of the 2005-06 Exit Survey, with 94.1% of the graduates rating access to faculty as excellent or good and 76% indicating the same for administrative support service. Office of Graduate Student Academic Services . There is an Assistant Dean for Student OGSAS. The Assistant Dean and staff assist in handling a wide variety of problems and advocate for student concerns. OGSAS also acts as a liaison with other University offices which offer student services. A Student Handbook is distributed to students at the beginning of each year. The handbook contains information on grievance procedures. Hui Ola Pono, student organization . The students have their own organization, the Hui Ola Pono (Hui). Student interests and concerns can be communicated to the faculty via student

representatives on standing and ad hoc committees. A Hui representative also attends the DFMs. Direct communication with faculty . Students also approach individual faculty with issues and these are brought to the attention of the appropriate committee or the Director where the issue can be reviewed and, if appropriate, action taken. In one instance, students were concerned with the quality and content of a specialization course taught by a non-core faculty. This was also reflected in the Exit Survey comments. The course is now taught by a core faculty member. Student Affairs Committee . The Student Affairs Committee is also a primary avenue for addressing student concerns and communication between students, faculty, and administration. The committee is composed of three faculty, at least one student (this year there are three), and the assistant dean for student services. No formal complaints have been lodged in the last three years to the Program.

4.6.c. Information about student satisfaction with advising and career counseling services. Students are encouraged to provide feedback throughout their program. Two of the Program’s objectives relate to student satisfaction with advising. The Program’s formal evaluation procedure, an Exit Survey, tracks these objectives. Results for the last three years are shown below. The sharp decrease in satisfaction in the 2004-05 survey may be attributed to the October 2004 flood which made the Program’s spaces unusable. After the flood, faculty and administrative offices were forced to move off campus to a site not easily accessible to students. Faculty and administrative services were not able to return to the campus until Fall 2005. The OGSAS remained on site and was able to provide a home base for faculty and students to meet, but the interactions were severely diminished. Many students affected by the flood graduated in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Table 4.6.c. Faculty Advising and Career Counseling Outcome Measures

Tar get 200 200 Objecti 200 Outcome Measure 200 3- 4- ve 5-06 7- 04 05 08 Access to faculty rated as excellent or good by 100 71.4 94.1 1.2.i. 80% graduates % % % Academic advising rated as excellent or good 100 57.1 82.4 1.2.j. 80% by graduates % % % Career advising rated as excellent or good by 0.0 29.4 4.2.g. 50% 80% graduates % %

While the Program is meeting its indicators for faculty access and academic advising, satisfaction with career advising has dropped dramatically. Part of the difference can be explained by the increased size of the student body and the difficulty for students to access faculty during the aftermath of the October 2004 flood.

The Program is doing more to try to address this deficiency. The new Practice Coordinator is developing community relationships which will help students to access faculty for field practicums and career advising.

4.6.d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

This criterion is met. The Program has well defined academic advising services. Satisfaction was high prior to the Fall 2004 flood. As career advising satisfaction has not rebounded, additional efforts are being made to improve awareness of job resources and opportunities on the Program website www.hawaii.edu/publichealth/resources/resources.html#employment and additional advising will be provided through the practice coordinator.

4. Faculty, Staff, and Students: Strengths, Weaknesses and Recommendations 4. Faculty, Staff and Students Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  All core teaching faculty have doctoral degrees pertinent to their areas, and 7 of 14 professorially ranked core faculty also have an MPH or MS degree in public health.  The core, affiliated and cooperating faculty bring depth and breadth to the Program. R13a-Continue to promote faculty involvement with service at all levels R13b-Strongly recommend that junior faculty attend Center for Instructional Support tenure and promotion W13-New faculty workshops to ensure continued success. are not R13c-Ensure that new faculty are  New faculty were hired to systematically oriented to the tenure and promotion strengthen the basic core faculty offered process so that they can plan the orientation activities needed for successful application. This would be accomplished by mentoring within the specialization as well as attending workshops provided by the JABSOM Faculty Development Office and the UHM  The Program has a very strong community-based focus.  There is a strong affiliation with the R14-Continue to strengthen ties with Hawai‘i State Department of Health organizations to ensure long-term that allows student excellent field community connections. practicum opportunities with real world experience.  Each faculty member undergoes a complete annual review by the Program’s Personnel Committee and the Director with feedback provided by the Director to the faculty. The feedback given to each faculty member can be invaluable in helping him/her to address areas of weakness so that they may be corrected, eventually leading to a positive University tenure and/or promotion review. (All tenure and/or promotion actions for the Program have been successful.)

4. Faculty, Staff and Students Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations  JABSOM and the UHM provide tenure and promotion workshops. JABSOM’s Director of Faculty Development provides one-on-one consultation for faculty on their tenure/promotion application  Faculty is expected to show productive activity in all three areas important to graduate education in public health— teaching, research, and service W13-The faculty  The Program’s recruitment process R13 Consider advertising for new faculty gender and attracts a diverse applicant pool positions in professional journals targeting race/ethnicity has and candidates chosen for minority readership. become less interview are equally diverse. diverse  The UHM is a multicultural environment with diversity central to University’s vision.  The curriculum of the Program also emphasizes core competencies for cultural skills (see section 2.6.a.). W14-The R14 Create an ad hoc committee of application pool  The ability of the program to faculty and students to discuss diversity should be attract ethnic and culturally diverse in the admission process (including broadened. student body and provide them review of recruitment material) and W15 with the opportunity to work develop process for informing students of International together and solve problems in a avenues for discussion of diversity Students need rich multicultural community issues. more support environment. R15-Develop a support system within the once accepted to Program for international students the Program  Faculty research and student practicums are often based on multicultural issues and health disparities.  A well defined application process with an admissions coordinator to assist applicants  The low student faculty ratio provides students with excellent access to faculty. W16-Do not  The addition of a practice meet the target coordinator will further strengthen for student R16 Further develop methods for providing linkages with the community and satisfaction with students with career counseling provide students with another career advising resource for career counseling. (50%)—29.4%.