Report

Undergraduate Public Health Program

Master of Public Health Program

PhD in Public Health Sciences

2023

SEPTEMBER

Report

Self-Study

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4

A1. Organization and Administrative Processes ........................................................................... 11

A2. Multi-Partner Programs .......................................................................................................... 16

A3. Student Engagement .............................................................................................................. 17

A4. Autonomy for Schools of Public Health .................................................................................. 21

A5. Degree Offerings in Schools of Public Health ......................................................................... 22

B1. Guiding Statements ................................................................................................................ 23

B2. Evaluation and Quality Improvement ..................................................................................... 25

B3. Graduation Rates .................................................................................................................... 34

B4. Post-Graduation Outcomes .................................................................................................... 38

B5. Alumni Perceptions of Curricular Effectiveness ..................................................................... 40

C1. Fiscal Resources ...................................................................................................................... 44

C2. Faculty Resources ................................................................................................................... 50

C3. Staff and Other Personnel Resources ..................................................................................... 55

C4. Physical Resources .................................................................................................................. 57

C5. Information and Technology Resources ................................................................................. 59

D1. MPH & DrPH Foundational Public Health Knowledge ........................................................... 63

D2. MPH Foundational Competencies .......................................................................................... 65

D3. DrPH Foundational Competencies ......................................................................................... 77

D4. MPH & DrPH Concentration Competencies ........................................................................... 78

D5. MPH Applied Practice Experiences ......................................................................................... 89

D6. DrPH Applied Practice Experience .......................................................................................... 94

D7. MPH Integrative Learning Experience .................................................................................... 95

D8. DrPH Integrative Learning Experience ................................................................................... 98

D9. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Domains ....................................................... 99

D10. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Competencies .......................................... 105

D11. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Cumulative and Experiential Activities .......................... 108

D12. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Cross-Cutting Concepts and Experiences ...................... 112

D13. MPH Program Length ......................................................................................................... 114

D14. DrPH Program Length ......................................................................................................... 115

D15. Bachelor’s Degree Program Length .................................................................................... 116

D16. Academic and Highly Specialized Public Health Master’s Degrees .................................... 118

D17. Academic Public Health Doctoral Degrees ......................................................................... 119

D18. All Remaining Degrees ........................................................................................................ 130

D19. Distance Education ............................................................................................................. 131

E1. Faculty Alignment with Degrees Offered .............................................................................. 135

E2. Integration of Faculty with Practice Experience ................................................................... 141

E3. Faculty Instructional Effectiveness ....................................................................................... 143

E4. Faculty Scholarship ............................................................................................................... 148

E5. Faculty Extramural Service .................................................................................................... 154

F1. Community Involvement in Program Evaluation and Assessment ....................................... 158

F2. Student Involvement in Community and Professional Service ............................................. 164

F3. Delivery of Professional Development Opportunities for the Workforce ............................ 167

G1. Diversity and Cultural Competence...................................................................................... 169

H1. Academic Advising ................................................................................................................ 177

H2. Career Advising ..................................................................................................................... 182

H3. Student Complaint Procedures ............................................................................................ 186

H4. Student Recruitment and Admissions .................................................................................. 190

H5. Publication of Educational Offerings .................................................................................... 197

Introduction

1) Describe the institutional environment, which includes the following:

a. year institution was established and its type (e.g., private, public, land-grant, etc.)

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) is the flagship, land-grant, comprehensive research

university in the University of Tennessee System (UT System). UT Knoxville is one of the nation’s oldest

institutions of higher education. UT Knoxville’s Carnegie Classification is Research University/very high

and holds the Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification. Established in 1794 as Blount

College, it was renamed East Tennessee College (1820) and again as East Tennessee University (1840).

The Civil War forced the institution to close, and its buildings were used as a hospital. The University

reopened after the war and, in 1869, was chosen as Tennessee’s land-grant institution, changing its

name to the University of Tennessee (UT) in 1879. The medical campus in Nashville was acquired by the

University in 1879 and moved to Memphis in 1911. The UT System was created in 1968, bringing various

entities together under one Board of Trustees.

b. number of schools and colleges at the institution and the number of degrees offered by the

institution at each level (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral and professional preparation degrees)

The University has 11 Colleges, which includes more than 360 undergraduate degree options,

undergraduate degrees, 65 doctoral programs, 81 master's programs, 71 graduate certificates, 3

educational specialist programs, and 4 professional programs. The public health programs are in the

Department of Public Health (DPH) under the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences

(CEHHS).

c. number

of university faculty, staff, and students

The University offers more than 300 degree programs to its 33,805 students and is authorized to award

bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral degrees. According to UT Data Central, UTK employs 1,178

faculty and 3,868 staff (Human Resources Dashboard, https://data.utk.edu/humanresources/) and

enrolled 33,805 students in fall 2022, including 27,039 undergraduates and 5,988 graduate students

(UTK Fact Book, 2022-2023, https://oira.utk.edu/reporting/fact-book/).

d. brief statement of distinguishing university facts and characteristics

The university is situated a short trolley ride from downtown Knoxville and less than three miles from our

local public health department (Knox County Health Department), where we formalized by MOU

(Memorandum of Understanding) the state’s first Academic Health Department (AHD) in 2011. Campus

boasts green space and nearby outdoor recreation, lakes, urban wilderness, and the Great Smoky

Mountain National Park. UTK attracts students from around the world and has more than 400 student

organizations. We have an 87% freshman retention rate. Ninety-three percent of students receive

financial aid and scholarships. Since the creation of the state lottery that provides funds for the

Tennessee Hope Scholarship, applications to UT have increased, and the quality of incoming first-year

students has risen continuously during the past decade. The incoming fall 2022 freshman class had an

average ACT composite score of 27.7 and average high school GPA of 4.07 (data from the Office of

Institutional Research and Assessment “5 Year Trend of First-Time Freshmen By Equivalent ACT and

GPA Group Fall 2018-2022”, https://oira.utk.edu/).

e. names of all accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds. The list must

include the institutional accreditor for the university as well as all specialized accreditors to which

any school, college or other organizational unit at the university responds

The University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on

Colleges (SACSCOC) to award baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees. UTK has been

continuously accredited by SACSCOC since 1897. In addition to SACSCOC and the Council on

Education for Public Health, other accrediting agencies with a presence at UT include

(https://sacs.utk.edu/programmatic-accreditation/

AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)

Advertising and Public Relations (ACEJMC)

Accrediting Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET)

Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND)*

Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC)

American Bar Association (ABA)

American Chemical Society (ACS)

American Horticultural Therapy Association (AHTA)

American Library Association (ALA)

American Psychological Association (APA)

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE)

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)*

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (formerly NCATE, National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher Education) (CAEP)*

Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP)

Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE)

Council on Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA)

Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs (COA)

Council on Accreditation of Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Related Professions (COAPRT)*

Council on Interior Design (CIDA)

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)

Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB)

National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences (NAACLS)

National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)

National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD)

National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)

National Association of Schools of Theatre (NAST)

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)*

Society of American Foresters (SAF)

*Identifies those agencies which accredit programs in the College of Education, Health, and

Human Sciences

f. brief history and evolution of the public health program (PHP) and related organizational

elements, if applicable (e.g., date founded, educational focus, other degrees offered, rationale for

offering public health education in unit, etc.)

In 1969, we were the first public health degree program outside a school of public health or

college of medicine in the USA to receive accreditation by the Committee on Professional

Education of the American Public Health Association (APHA). The accredited MS degree in

Public Health Education was housed in the UTK College of Education. By 1971, the state of

Tennessee approved the academic MPH degree at UTK, which is also when our MPH Program

became fully accredited. Also in 1972, an MPH concentration in health planning and

administration (HPA) was approved.

In 1974, we established a third MPH concentration in occupational and environmental health and

safety (OEHS). We received initial accreditation by the Council on Education for Public Health

(CEPH) as a community health education program in 1982. During fall 1984, a statistics minor

was offered through the MPH program affiliation with the Intercollegiate Graduate Statistics

Program. In 1987, the MPH program received accreditation in the broader category, community

health/preventive medicine (CH/PM), from the Council on Education for Public Health. The UTK

program became the first program in the nation outside of a school of medicine to be accredited

in this category. This accreditation included all three concentrations, CHE, HPA, and OEHS.

UT offered the first MPH degree program with a community health education concentration for US

Army Veterinarians in cooperation with the College of Veterinary Medicine and the College of

Social Work in 1990. The MPH program was awarded an accreditation extension by CEPH in

1993. In cooperation with the Department of Nutrition, a dual degree (MS-MPH) was approved in

1997 for students in public health nutrition with the first graduate later that same year. These

students could select either the CHE or HPA concentration. The occupational and environmental

health and safety (OEHS) concentration had its last graduate in 1998. The concentration was

discontinued due to a lack of financial resources. A gerontology concentration was developed and

approved in August 1998 and graduated its first student in 1999. The veterinary public health

(VPH) concentration in the MPH program was initiated in August 2004. The course offerings were

a collaboration with the College of Veterinary Medicine making VPH the fifth MPH concentration

approved. The veterinary public health (VPH) concentration graduated its first MPH student in

2005. The gerontology concentration was discontinued in 2006; and the final student in

gerontology graduated in 2007.

The Department of Public Health was established in July 2010 as one of eight academic

departments in the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences. An epidemiology minor

(12 credit hours) was initiated in August 2010. In March 2011, the Department of Public Health

and the Knox County Health Department formed the UT-Knox County Academic Health

Department (AHD), which was the first AHD in Tennessee! In fall 2014, the first student was

enrolled in the new JD/MPH degree program, a dual degree offered with the cooperation of the

University of Tennessee College of Law, that reflects the interrelationship between the legal

system and the protection and promotion of the public’s health. A 12-hour health policy graduate

certificate was offered in August 2011. The JD/MPH degree was eliminated in 2020-2022 due to

low enrollment. In cooperation with the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine,

the dual Doctor of Veterinary Medicine / Master of Public Health (DVM/MPH) degree program

launched in fall 2016.

The DrPH degree started in fall 2015 and a PhD in Public Health Sciences launched in fall 2020.

The DrPH stopped admitting new students in fall 2018.

In 2014, an undergraduate minor in public health launched which grew to nearly 200 declared

minors in 2022. Based on growing student interest and workforce demand, in fall 2022, we began

offering an undergraduate major in public health (BSPH degree) with a concentration in

Population Health Sciences.

In fall 2023, two combined/accelerated programs began: 1) an undergraduate public health minor

paired with any BS or BA degree / MPH and 2) a public health major / MPH degree. The

combined accelerated degree is a competitive program that allows a select number of high

performing undergraduates to pursue 9 graduate credits during senior year that count towards the

120 undergraduate degree and the 42-credit hour MPH degree. In fall 2023, we also launched a

new MPH concentration in Nutrition and began offering the Epidemiology concentration to DE

MPH students. Additional program history is listed here -

https://publichealth.utk.edu/degree-

programs/mph/mph-history/.

2) Organizational charts that clearly depict the following related to the program:

a. the program’s internal organization, including the reporting lines to the dean/director

ERF A-Introduction contains copies of organization charts (department, college, and university).

*A copy of Department, College, and University organizational charts are also provided in ERF A

Introduction.

b. the relationship between program and other academic units within the institution. Ensure that the

chart depicts all other academic offerings housed in the same organizational unit as the program.

Organizational charts may include committee structure organization and reporting lines

c. the lines of authority from the program’s leader to the institution’s chief executive officer

(president, chancellor, etc.), including intermediate levels (e.g., reporting to the president through

the provost)

d. for multi-partner programs (as defined in Criterion A2), organizational charts must depict all

participating institutions

Not Applicable.

3) An

instructional matrix presenting all of the program’s degree programs and concentrations

including bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees, as appropriate. Present data in the

format of Template Intro-1.

The matrix must

• show undergraduate and graduate degrees

• distinguish between professional and academic degrees for all graduate public health

degrees offered

• identify whether public health degrees/concentrations are offered in campus-based,

distance learning, or both formats

• SPH only: distinguish public health degrees from other degrees

• Non-degree programs, such as certificates or continuing education, should not be included

in the matrix.

Template Intro-1

Instructional Matrix - Degrees and Concentrations

Campus

based

Distance

based

Bachelor's Degrees

Population Health Sciences*

BSPH

Master's Degrees

Academic

Professional

Community Health Education

MPH

Epidemiology

MPH

MPH*

Health Policy and Management

MPH

Nutrition**

MPH

Veterinary Public Health

MPH

Doctoral Degrees

Academic

Professional

Public Health Sciences

PhD

Joint Degrees (Dual, Combined, Concurrent,

Accelerated Degrees)

Academic

Professional

2nd Degree Area

Public Health Concentration

4+1 accelerated

BSPH in Population Health

Sciences; any MPH

concentration**

BSPH-MPH

BSPH,

MPH

4+1 accelerated

Any BS or BA + public health

minor; any MPH concentration**

BS or BA-

MPH

BS or BA,

MPH

DVM

-MPH Veterinary Public

Health concentration

DVM-MPH

DVM,

MPH

MS Nutrition

Community Health Education or

Health Policy and Management

MPH

MS, MPH

*Started academic year 2022-23.

**Started academic year 2023-24.

4) Enrollment data for all of the program’s degree programs, including bachelor’s, master’s and

doctoral degrees, in the format of Template Intro-2.

Template Intro-2

Degree

Current Enrollment, Fall 2023

Master's

135

MPH Community Health Education

MPH Epidemiology

MPH Health Policy and Management

MPH Nutrition

MPH Veterinary Public Health

Doctoral

PhD in Population Health

Bachelor's

BSPH Population Health Sciences

A1. Organization and Administrative Processes

The program demonstrates effective administrative processes that are sufficient to affirm its

ability to fulfill its mission and goals and to conform to the conditions for accreditation.

The program establishes appropriate decision-making structures for all significant functions and

designates appropriate committees or individuals for decision making and implementation.

The program ensures that faculty (including full-time and part-time faculty) regularly interact with

their colleagues and are engaged in ways that benefit the instructional program (e.g., participating

in instructional workshops, engaging in program specific curriculum development and oversight).

1) List the program’s standing and significant ad hoc committees. For each, indicate the formula for

membership (e.g., two appointed faculty members from each concentration) and list the current

members.

As per DPH (Department of Public Health) bylaws, there are seven standing committees of the faculty:

The MPH Academic Program Committee (MPH/APC), the Doctoral Program Committee (DPC), the

Departmental Human Subjects Review Committee (DHSRC), the Department Promotion and Tenure

Committee (DPTC), the Departmental Technology Committee, the Undergraduate Public Health (UG PH)

Program Committee and the Equity and Diversity Committee. The department head appoints

chairpersons for these committees except the DPTC, which selects its own chair from the membership.

The MPH/APC serves as the governance committee for the MPH program. It is one of the standing

committees of DPH, described in the DPH bylaws. Details on the objectives, composition, and functions

of the committee are described in Appendix B of the bylaws (ERF A1.3). This program-specific committee

is chaired by the MPH program director. The MPH concentrations of study are community health

education, epidemiology, health policy and management, nutrition, and veterinary public health. Early

each fall, a schedule of committee meetings is established for the academic year. All meetings of the

committee are open, so other students, faculty members, and interested parties may attend and share in

the discussion.

The objectives of the MPH/APC are to:

• provide identity and direction for the Master of Public Health program;

• foster creative goal-setting and problem-solving related to the MPH program;

• secure student involvement in academic policy development and program governance;

• facilitate broad-based participation and deliberation;

• enhance recruitment of academically superior students; and

• maintain program accreditation.

The Doctoral Program Committee (DPC) (PhD program-specific) is composed of faculty members who

have been approved to direct doctoral dissertations and is charged with overseeing all matters, including

academic, as they pertain to the doctoral degree in Public Health Science.

Membership: L Meschke (D

irector and Chair), K Smith, S Ehrlich

The Human Subjects Review Committee (department-wide) is charged with reviewing all faculty and

student research proposals involving human subjects to ensure that these proposals adequately address

the necessary compliance procedures as outlined by the Office of Research. The committee serves the

MPH program by assuring timely review of proposals and providing support and guidance for compliance.

As a small department, the DPH is allowed to have a single person serve as the review committee. As

such, there are no minutes.

Membership: J Chen (Ch

air)

The Department Promotion and Tenure Committee (DPTC) (department-wide) reviews dossiers

prepared by tenure-track faculty members and makes written recommendations to the department head

regarding annual retention of probationary faculty members and the awarding of tenure and promotion to

a higher rank. The committee reports summarize the meeting deliberations, the strengths and

weaknesses of the candidate, and a recorded vote. A draft report is circulated and approved by all

members of the DPTC committee, with the finalized, confidential report submitted to the department

head.

Membership: J Chen (Chair) and all tenured faculty

The Technology Committee (department-wide) handles website review, revisions, and management,

assessment and prioritization of departmental technology-related needs, and liaison with the College

Technology Committee. It operates on an informal, as-needed basis.

Membership: J Grubaugh (Chair), W Smith, Student (appointed 1-year

term).

Undergraduate Public Health (UG PH) Program Committee: The function of this committee is to

oversee all matters, including academic (I.e., curriculum, degree requirements), as they pertain to the 11

Department of Public Health By-Laws 11/2/2022 undergraduate program

Membership: J G

rubaugh (Chair), J Chen, A Parks, and B Shelton

Students (1 year term): Samuel Ellis, PUBH major; and Yaswanth Singamaneni, PUBH minor.

Departmental Equity and Diversity Committee: The functions of this committee include a) oversight of

the implementation and evaluation of the department’s Equity and Diversity Plan; b) updating and revising

the plan as needed; c) advising the Department Head otherwise on matters related to Equity and

Diversity.

Membership: LL Meschke (Chair), Jordan Shipley (Co-chai

r, Student), P. Prothero, M Walker, and

Students (full membership listed here https://publichealth.utk.edu/diversity/)

Other committees are appointed as needs arise on an ad hoc basis. These include: faculty search

committees, graduate assistantship review committee, peer review committee, and the Accreditation Self-

study Review Committee.

Also, the full faculty body meets at least monthly after a faculty retreat in August preceding the new

academic year's start. Faculty meeting minutes are provided for review (ERF A1.1 Meeting Minutes).

2) Briefly describe which committee(s) or other responsible parties make decisions on each of the

following areas and how the decisions are made:

a. degree requirements

The program directors (MPH, and PhD) serve as co-directors of public health graduate studies and

program liaison to the UT (University of Tennessee) Graduate School, which is responsible for checking

the requirements for awarding degrees on behalf of the University. The Graduate School conducts two

workshops each academic year to keep directors apprised of procedural and policy changes.

The Office of the Provost oversees undergraduate degree requirements

(https://provost.utk.edu/academic-affairs/

). The Provost’s Division of Academic Affairs Interim Vice

Provost, Ozlem Kilic, oversees degree requirement decision making in concert with the Undergraduate

Council’s Academic Policy, Curriculum, and General Education committees, with the university’s

Classroom Upgrade Committee, and with the University Calendar Committee. The UG PH program

committee facilitates public health degree requirement decisions in compliance with the university policies

and procedures.

b. cur

riculum design

The development of academic standards and curriculum undergoes a multi-level process of planning and

review. Internal to the department, proposed changes typically move from a sub-committee of faculty

members to the relevant degree program committee (i.e., UGPH, MPH/APC, or PhD/APC and ultimately

to the DPH faculty. This process is exemplified in relation to curriculum development.

The DPH faculty plays a pivotal role in the development of curriculum – both specific courses and

ensuring it addresses the foundation and concentration competencies and that optimal sequencing

occurs. Faculty members strategize to ensure that all competencies are addressed by the foundation

classes, and that specific competencies are emphasized by various courses. Scheduling of courses and

the prerequisites are also scrutinized and adjusted to ensure optimal sequencing of courses. The UGPH,

MPH/APC, and doctoral committee are responsible for on-going evaluation and development of the

curriculum, academic standards and policies, setting guidelines for specialized study opportunities, and

for preparing self-study and other program review reports. Following UGPH, MPH/APC and doctoral

committee review and DPH faculty support, the approved curricular changes are then submitted to the

Undergraduate or Graduate Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) first at the College level and then at the

University level Undergraduate Council (https://ugcouncil.utk.edu/), Graduate Council

(https://gradschool.utk.edu/faculty-staff/graduate-council/

) for the final review prior to inclusion in the

University of Tennessee course catalog.

c. st

udent assessment policies and processes

Student assessment policies and processes are established with each degree program committee.

Decisions are made based on compliance with university, college, and department policies and

procedures.

d. admissions policies and/or decisions

The Graduate School sets minimum standards for admission and finalizes admission to the University.

Program admission policies are determined by the program committees (MPH-APC and doctoral). Faculty

members serve as the admissions review committee for the graduate programs (MPH and PhD). The

program director conducts the final review of all applications and provides the final decision. Application

materials are routed electronically through the University’s SLATE system.

Undergraduate admissions policies and decisions are made by the university admissions office,

https://admissions.utk.edu/

e. faculty recruitment and promotion

An ad hoc search committee chaired by a faculty member handles faculty recruitment and selection.

Established by the department head for each search, the committee is comprised of faculty

representatives and at least one student representative. To the extent possible, each committee includes

degree/concentration-specific faculty membership, at least one faculty member from a related

department, a student, and a practitioner. Specific guidance is provided by the Office of the Provost

(https://provost.utk.edu/faculty-search-process/

)

The Provost’s office establishes promotion and tenure guidelines for tenure and non-tenured faculty

(https://provost.utk.edu/appr_tenure_promotion/

). Faculty retention, promotion, and tenure

recommendations are shared responsibilities of the tenured faculty members and the department head.

Each tenure-track faculty member has a designated faculty mentor, offering guidance and support. A

promotion and tenure committee (DPTC) of tenured faculty reviews materials of tenure-track faculty

members for retention annually and reviews dossiers for those seeking tenure and promotion.

f. r

esearch and service activities

The department head conducts annual faculty evaluations based on faculty-submitted activity reports

related to research and service activities using an online system. The department head’s evaluation

report includes narrative comments and ratings of research/scholarship/creative activity, teaching,

service, and overall performance. The department head finalizes assessment of faculty performance by

assigning a rating of far exceeds expectations, exceeds expectations, meets expectations, falls short of

meeting expectations, or falls far short of meeting expectations. Tenure-track faculty members undergo

an enhanced performance review at the beginning of their fourth year, when their accomplishments over

the first three years are reviewed. (ERF Criterion A2. Faculty Handbook or at

https://facultyhandbook.utk.edu

)

3) A copy of the bylaws or other policy documents that determine the rights and obligations of

administrators, faculty, and students in governance of the program.

Several documents specify the rights and obligations of administrators, faculty, and students in

the governance of the academic program available for review in ERF Criterion A2 or online.

These include:

• Faculty Handbook

https://facultyhandbook.utk.edu/wp-

content/uploads/sites/82/2020/12/Faculty-Handbook-2021-Final-2021-01-01.pdf

• DPH Graduate Student Handbook http://publichealth.utk.edu/wp-

content/uploads/sites/20/2019/09/Graduate_Handbook_2022.pdf

• DPH bylaws

http://publichealth.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2015/10/doc_PHSAbylaws.pdf

• CEHHS bylaws https://cehhs.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/04/CEHHS-By-

Laws-Revised-19April22.pdf

• Graduate Council Appeal Procedures https://gradschool.utk.edu/graduate-

council/appeals-committee/the-university-of-tennessee-graduate-council-appeal-

procedure/

• Hilltopics, Student Handbook https://hilltopics.utk.edu

• Graduate Catalog https://catalog.utk.edu/index.php?catoid=35

• Undergraduate Catalog https://catalog.utk.edu/index.php

4) Briefly describe how faculty contribute to decision-making activities in the broader institutional

setting, including a sample of faculty memberships and/or leadership positions on committees

external to the unit of accreditation.

Faculty members in the department have several opportunities to engage in various decision-

making activities at the College and at the University levels. Some of these opportunities might be

on an ad hoc basis, but several other opportunities where faculty serve for multiple years, as

voting members of different committees where faculty have direct input in establishing policy,

requirements and/or other changes for the University. These are summarized in Table A1.4

below.

Table A1.4 Faculty Service on College and University Committees

Committee

Level

Position

Name

Years

IRB

College

Chair

Jiangang Chen

2023-present

Equity, Inclusion and

Justice Institute

College

Member

Jennifer Jabson

Tree*

2021-2023

UG Curriculum Review

Committee

College

Member

Jiangang Chen

2023-present

Graduate Curriculum

Review Committee

College

Member

Jennifer

Russomanno

2022-present

Workload Equity

Committee (ad hoc)

College

Member

Jennifer Perion

Samantha Ehrlich

2021-present

Food Security

Community of Scholars

College

Member

Jennifer

Russomanno

2021-2022

Graduate Assistantship

Task Force (ad hoc)

College

Member

Samantha Ehrlich

2022-present

Awards Committee

College

Member

Samantha Ehrlich

2022-present

Committee on Disease

Detectives

University

Member

Samantha Ehrlich

2022-present

Graduate Curriculum

Review Committee

University

Chair

Laurie Meschke

2021-present

Reimagining Committee

(ad hoc)

College

Member

Laurie Meschke

2023

Academic Restructuring

Committee (ad hoc)

University

Member

Thankam Sunil

2021-2022

*Jennifer Jabson Tree left the university on July 31, 2023.

5) Describe how full-time and part-time faculty regularly interact with their colleagues (self-study

document) and provide documentation of recent interactions, which may include minutes,

attendee lists, etc.

Weekly, program directors meet with each other and the department head to address program needs.

Full-time faculty regularly interact with each other during biweekly faculty meetings held in –person and

zoom (hybrid). Program directors have regular interaction with part-time instructors regarding syllabus,

course content, student issues, and scheduling. Degree program committees periodically invite specific

faculty (full-time and part-time) to participate in committee monitoring and evaluation of course content

and instruction.

6) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• DPH faculty meetings occur twice per month (compared to only once per month for other

departments), which creates more frequent opportunities for faculty interaction regarding

organization and administration.

• Program directors meet biweekly with the department head.

• The faculty in the DPH participate in decision making process at the department, college

and at the university levels.

• Students have multiple opportunities to be fully engaged in program governance through

voting membership on departmental, college, and university level committees.

Weakness

• None noted

Plans

• Provide more resources such, course buyouts for junior faculty who are engaging various

committees at the department, college, and university levels.

• Add program directors meeting as an official DPH committee.

A2. Multi-Partner Programs (applicable ONLY if functioning as a “collaborative unit” as defined in

CEPH procedures)

Not applicable

A3. Student Engagement

Students have formal methods to participate in policy making and decision making within the

program, and the program engages students as members on decision-making bodies whenever

appropriate.

1) Describe student participation in policy making and decision making at the program level,

including identification of all student members of program committees over the last three

years, and student organizations involved in program governance.

Students participate in policy making and decision making for the MPH and the PhD through membership

on departmental committees. The Department of Public Health has seven standing committees described

in the DPH by-laws. Details on the objectives, composition, and functions of the committee are decsribed

in Section 3.3 of the by-laws (Resource File A3.1 DPH Bylaws)

http://publichealth.utk.edu/wp-

content/uploads/sites/20/2015/10/doc_PHSAbylaws.pdf. Five of the seven committees include student

representatives. Only committees (3) with student representatives are described. The Technology

committee has scaled down and does not have student representatives currently. The Undergraduate

Public Health Committee does not have student representatives as the degree program started this

academic year (2022-2023). Starting in 2023-2024, students will be recruited to serve on the committee.

The following presents each committee, student membership and their associated role in decision

making. The Public Health Student Association is also discussed.

MPH

Academic Program Committee (MPH-APC)

Consistent with department bylaws, the MPH Academic Program Committee (MPH/APC) serves as the

governance committee for the MPH Program. This program-specific committee is chaired by the MPH

program director. The committee's composition includes faculty and student representatives for each

concentration, the director of the Public Health Nutrition Program, the DVM-MPH representative and the

field practice coordinator (See Table A.3.1). The MPH concentrations of study are community health

education, health policy and management, epidemiology, and veterinary public health. Student

representatives are recruited through the Public Health Student Association and the MPH listserv.

Starting in fall 2022, representatives from the Distance education (DE) option of the MPH were added to

the permanent membership per a change in the by-laws. Early each fall, a schedule of committee

meetings is established for the academic year. All meetings of the committee are open, so other students,

faculty members, and interested parties may attend and share in the discussion. Meetings are via ZOOM

to assure access. Proposed changes to the MPH Program are presented as action items and voted on by

the membership. Approved items are then presented to full DPH faculty for approval. Recent action items

include elimination of the GRE for admission, addition of a concentration in Nutrition, and elimination of

the JD-MPH degree.

The objectives of the MPH/APC are to:

• provide identity and direction for the Master of Public Health program;

• foster creative goal-setting and problem-solving related to the MPH program;

• secure student involvement in academic policy development and program governance;

• facilitate broad-based participation and deliberation;

• enhance recruitment of academically-superior students, and

• maintain program accreditation.

Table A.3.1 MPH-APC Student Membership, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023

MPH/- APC Membership

2020-2021

2021-2022

2022-2023

CHE

Peyton Prothero

Sandra Wairimu

CHE alt

Vacant

CHE (DE)

Sandra Cridlin

EPI

Gulsah Onar

Priscilla Pineda

EPI alt.

Vacant

Sara Lyon

HPM

Kenneth Mapp

Rachel Clement

HPM alt.

Emily Wells

Vacant

HPM (DE)

Janelle Alexander

VPH

Robert Stilz

Katherine Deal

VPH alt.

Chelsey Alvina

Vacant

VPH (DE)

Jena West

Doctoral Program Committee

The function of this committee is to oversee all matters, including academic (i.e., curriculum, degree

requirements), as they pertain to the doctoral degree. The Committee was reinvigorated with a new

director of the PhD Program, Dr. Jennifer Jabson Tree (2021-2023) and Dr. Laurie Meschke (2023-

present). The previous two years were years of change and curriculum development and few students.

Students help provide insight in reviewing policies and procedures, they provide their impressions for

annual committee priorities and goals, and they assist in other committee related matters. When specific

student issues arise that require confidentiality, they are not included. Student membership on the

doctoral Program committee is presented in Table A.3.2

Table A.3.2 Doctoral Program Committee Student Membership, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023

2020-2021

2021-2022

2022-2023

Will Martinez

Katherine Buchman

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee formerly Departmental Equity and Diversity Committee

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are core principles of Public Health and its practice, and so are central to

the Department of Public Health at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The mission of the Department

of Public Health’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee is to advance, promote, and support structural,

intra-, and inter- personal activities, and policies that enhance and strengthen diversity, equity, and inclusion

for the department. The Committee strives to support the department in doing whatever work is necessary

to ensure that all students, faculty, and staff feel included, welcomed, and have equitable/fair opportunities.

Students play a key role in determining and presenting learning, social and other activities. The DEI

committee regularly presents two sessions per semester in the Graduate Seminar in Public Health (PUBH

509) course. The students serve as moderators, facilitators or presenters depending on the focus of the

session. The topics are determined by the students in concert with the faculty advisor Dr. Laurie L. Meschke

and other members. The students also assist with the administration of the climate Survey. Student

members for the past three years is presented in Table A.3.3

Thi

s committee engages in activities that:

• cultivate and nurture a departmental environment that enables students, faculty, and staff to feel

empowered, valued, respected, and safe.

• promote ideas and events to further the spirit of inclusion, diversity, and equity.

• advocate for policies and practices to recruit, support, and retain students, faculty, and staff with

diverse experiences and attributes.

Table A.3.3 DEI Student Membership, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23

2020-2021

2021-2022

2022-2023

Sara Keel

Kenny Mapp

Channie Cretsinger

Samira Tamimi

Egla Lopez

Sara Lyon

Sierra Turner

Will Martinez

Priscilla Pineda

Isis West

Priscilla Pineda

Sandra Wairimu

Public Health Student Association

The Public Health Student Association (PHSA) is a voluntary student organization for students enrolled in

public health programs at the University of Tennessee. The PHSA allows public health students, both new

and seasoned, to develop leadership skills, enjoy time together, and develop health-promoting initiatives

for the university community and beyond.

• PHSA activities include planning and leading the new student orientation each fall semester,

participating in campus wellness events, and engaging in other service-learning activities that

promote health.

• Public health students are elected each year for the positions of president, vice president,

secretary, and treasurer.

Some PHSA membership contributions include recruiting students for membership on other committees

and building community. The PHSA plans and co-hosts a new student orientation each August. The

PHSA also organizes review sessions for the MPH Comprehensive exam in coordination with the faculty

advisor and course faculty. The organization is utilized as one of the mechanisms for communicating with

students. Specific to governance, the membership may be asked to provide an opinion or perspective on

the current and future efforts of the program(s).

Table A.3.4. Public Health Student Association, Officers, and Total Membership, 2020-2021, 2021-

2022, 2022-2023

Role

2020*

2021-2022

2022-2023

Faculty Advisor

Dr. Kathleen Brown

Drs. Kathleen Brown

and Jiangang Chen

President

Ahmad Mitoubsi

Egla Lopez

Catherine Warner/ Will

Martinez

Vice-President

Zhannae Cummings

Jeremy Kourvelas

Will Martinez

Secretary

Kayla Simon

Bethany Rand

Meredith Horton

Treasurer

Samira Tamimi

Parth Goenka

Bonnie Valerio

Philanthropy Chair

Sierra Turner

Isis West

Eritrea Negussie

Undergraduate Student

Representative

Eritrea Negussie

Elsa Hendrick

*The term for officers and the functional year changed from calendar year to academic year in 2020.

2) If

applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• The committees continued to function despite a more virtual environment than face-to-face due to

Covid-19.

• Interest by students to participate in governance.

• Active engagement around DEI

• Commitment from faculty to engage with students.

Weaknesses

• The assessment years include the impact of Covid-19. Operating virtually presented challenges

for robust student engagement.

• No student representation on the Doctoral Committee for two assessment years – attributed to the

revisions, low enrollment and change in leadership.

• No student representative on the Technology Committee.

• Time constraints keeping membership in the PHSA low.

Plans

• Assure student representation at all levels on DEI Committee i.e., add UG representation.

• Evolve Undergraduate Public Health Committee to include student representatives, starting in

2023-2024

• Add student representation on the Technology committee, particularly given plans to update the

website to be more focused on prospective students.

A4. Autonomy for Schools of Public Health

Not applicable.

A5. Degree Offerings in Schools of Public Health

Not applicable.

B1. Guiding Statements

The program defines a vision that describes how the community/world will be different if the

program achieves its aims.

The program defines a mission statement that identifies what the program will accomplish

operationally in its instructional, community engagement and scholarly activities. The mission

may also define the program’s setting or community and priority population(s).

The program defines goals that describe strategies to accomplish the defined mission.

The program defines a statement of values that informs stakeholders about its core principles,

beliefs, and priorities.

1) The program’s vision, mission, goals, and values.

Vision Statement: The Department of Public Health will be nationally recognized for academic

excellence, the expertise and talents of its faculty, and its dedication to preparing students for practical

and academic careers in public health. Our alumni and students will improve the health of communities

through outreach, support, and research, reducing health disparities and positively influencing health

policy and resource development.

Mission Statement: The University of Tennessee’s Department of Public Health prepares and mentors

its students for exceptional careers in academia, public health research, administration, and practice,

which promote optimal health of individuals and communities.

als:

The goal statements listed below reflect major functions of the department and assist in the attainment of

the mission and movement toward the vision. The goal statements are linked to instruction, research,

and service.

1. Instructional Goal: Preparation of future professionals competent in public health core content

and methodological approaches.

2. Research Goal: Public health faculty and students engaged in research projects that address

health concerns, contribute to community health improvement, and add to the knowledge base.

3. Service Goal: Public health faculty and students engaged in community, government,

and

professional service to benefit populations at the local, state, and national levels.

Values:

• Humans have a right to the resources necessary for health.

• Humans are inherently social and interdependent.

• The effectiveness of institutions depends heavily on the public’s trust.

• Collaboration is a key element to public health.

• People and their physical environment are interdependent.

• Each person in a community should have an opportunity to contribute to public discourse.

Guiding Principles:

• We are committed to providing an academically challenging, state-of-the-art education that

bridges and integrates community health with epidemiology, health behavior and health

education, health planning, administration, and environmental sciences.

• We seek to understand the common interests of societies and to promote social justice through

focused efforts on equity and fairness.

• We engage in outreach, service, and research that directly benefit the communities we serve.

• We respect and strongly believe in ethnic and cultural diversity.

• We foster interdisciplinary collaboration across departments within the university and with other

health-promoting institutions worldwide.

2) If

applicable, a program-specific strategic plan or other comparable document.

See ERF Criterion B1.2 DPH Strategic Plan

3) If

applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• The DPH strives to maintain student participation in formulating statements of mission, vision,

values, goals, and objectives, which provide a guiding context for all faculty, students, staff, and

administrators.

• The program’s mission, vision, and values are highly compatible with that of its academic

department.

• Program values are discussed in both informal and formal settings. In these discussions, students

are encouraged to develop a deeper commitment to public service.

• Consistent with program values, faculty interactions with students are based on respect, honesty,

and fairness.

• Faculty recognizes the inherent responsibility of mentoring students toward ethical public health

practice and acceptable personal behaviors.

Weaknesses

• Due to the challenges associated with the pandemic, the department was unable to revise the

strategic plans and goals.

• Pandemic-related disruption has also contributed to the lack of engagement of professionals

external to the University in developing the goals and objectives for future years.

Plans

• Develop new five-year objectives for 2028

• Revise department’s strategic plan in 2024

B2. Evaluation and Quality Improvement

The program defines and consistently implements an evaluation plan that fulfills the

following functions:

• includes all measures listed in Appendix 1 in these Accreditation Criteria

• provides information that allows the program to determine its effectiveness in advancing

its mission and goals (as defined in Criterion B1)

o Measures must capture all aspects of the unit’s mission and goals. In most cases,

this will require supplementing the measures captured in Appendix 1 with

additional measures that address the unit’s unique context.

• defines a process to engage in regular, substantive review of evaluation findings, as well

as strategic discussions about their implications

• allows the program to make data-driven quality improvements e.g., in curriculum, student

services, advising, faculty functions, research and extramural service, and operations, as

appropriate

1) Present an evaluation plan in the format of Template B2-1 that lists the following for each

required element in Appendix 1:

a. the specific data source(s) for each listed element (e.g., alumni survey, student

database)

b. a brief summary of the method of compiling or extracting information from the data

source

c. the entity or entities (generally a committee or group) responsible for reviewing and

discussing each element and recommending needed improvements, when applicable

d. the timeline for review (e.g., monthly, at each semester’s end, annually in September)

Template B2-1

Measures

Criteria

Templat

Data source &

method of analysis

Who has

review &

decision-

making

responsibility

Does it

measure

Goal 1?

Does it

measur

e Goal

Does it

measur

e Goal

Student enrollment

Intro-2

Registrar’s official

report every

semester

Program

directors and

Department

Head

Student scores on

comprehensive

exam

B2-1

SACSCOC annual

report in September

MPH

concentration

faculty; PhD

Program

Director, PhD

Primary

Advisor, PhD

Committee

X (MPH

and PhD

Programs

)

X (PhD

Program

)

Student-led

conference

presentations and

publications

B2-1

PhD student annual

assessment in

January; MPH Exit

Survey; BSPH Exit

Survey (planned May

2024)

PhD, MPH,

BSPH program

directors

(BSPH,

MPH,

PhD)

X (PhD,

MPH,

BSPH)

End of program

student survey

assessing

competencies

B2-1

SACSCOC annual

report in September

(self-assessed

competencies)

PhD, MPH,

BSPH program

directors

X (BSPH,

MPH,

PhD)

Applied Practice

Experience (APEx)

B2-1

APEx final report &

oral presentation

MPH APEx

coordinator &

X (MPH)

(MPH)

X (MPH)

MPH program

director

Faculty service

B2-1

Elements database;

annually October.

Department

head (annual

reviews)

BSPH practice

experience

B2-1

PUBH 489 course

grade & Preceptor

evaluation; each

semester

BSPH program

director and

UG PH

committee

X (BSPH)

(BSPH)

At least three specific

examples of

improvements

undertaken in the last

three years based on

the evaluation plan.

At least one of the

changes must relate

to an area other than

the curriculum

B2-2

Graduation rates

B3-1

UT Data Central;

annually in January

Department

Head and

program

directors

Doctoral student

progression (e.g., #

newly admitted, #

completed

coursework)

B3-2

Annual PhD Student

Assessment in

January

Doctoral

Committee;

Faculty

Members

Post-graduation

outcomes (e.g.,

employment,

enrollment in further

education)

B4-1

MPH Exit Survey

Program

Directors and

associated

committees

Actionable data

(quantitative and/or

qualitative) from

recent alumni on their

self-assessed

preparation for post-

graduation

destinations

Alumni Survey, every

2-3 years

Department

Head and

Program

Directors and

associated

committees

(e.g., MPH-

APC)

Budget table

C1-1

CEHHS Budget

Director’s Office;

Annual August

Department

Head, Budget

Director, Dean

Student perceptions

of faculty availability

Annual student

Satisfaction Survey

(April)

Department

Head and

Program

directors

Student perceptions

of class size &

relationship to

learning

Annual student

Satisfaction Survey

(April)

Department

Head and

Program

directors

List of all faculty,

which concentrations

they support & their

FTE allocation to the

unit as a whole

C2-1,

E1-1,

E1-2

CVs; Annually

Department

Head and

Program

directors

Ratios for student

academic advising

(all degree levels)

C2-2

Banner Faculty

Advising report

(BSPH), Dept. list of

MPH Advisees; twice

Department

Head and

Program

directors;

annually by semester

fall and spring

CEHHS

Advising

Center (BSPH

only)

Ratios for supervision

of MPH ILE

C2-2

Faculty list by

concentration (2

faculty per student)

MPH Program

Director

Ratios for supervision

of bachelor’s

cumulative/experienti

al activity

C2-2

Course enrollment

BSPH

Program

Director and

UG PH

Committee

Ratios for PhD

dissertation advising

C2-2

Graduate Handbook

2023-24; (4:1;

dissertation

committee); annually

January Review

Primary

advisor; PhD

student; PhD

program

director

Count, FTE (if

applicable), and

type/categories of

staff resources

C3-1

Faculty and Staff

input; Biweekly

meetings

Department

Head;

Faculty participation

in activities/resources

designed to improve

instructional

effectiveness

(maintain ongoing list

of exemplars)

Department bylaws;

Faculty evaluation

handbook;

Department

Head; Peer

evaluations;

APPR

Faculty maintenance

of relevant

professional

credentials or

certifications that

require continuing

education

Annual Performance

and Planning Review

(APPR) January-NTT

faculty and October-TT

faculty

Department

Head

Student satisfaction

with instructional

quality

(TN Voice Student

semester evaluations);

APPR; end of every

semester; annually

Department

Head

Peer evaluation of

teaching

APPR (as collected

for pre-tenure review,

tenure review and

review for promotion),

NTT promotion

Department

Head; Peer

Observers

Teaching assistants

trained in

pedagogical

techniques

Annual Student

Evaluation Discussion

Teaching

Assistant

assigned

faculty

supervisor.

Faculty

research/scholarly

activities with

connections to

instruction (maintain

ongoing list of

exemplars)

Departmental Bylaws;

Faculty Evaluation

Handbook; annually

Department

Head; APPR

Number of faculty

initiated IRB

applications

E4-1

iMedris; APPR

October-TT faculty

Department

Head

Number of articles

published in peer

review journals

E4-1

Elements; APPR

October-TT faculty

Department

Head

Presentations at

professional

conferences

E4-1

APPR; Elements;

annually October TT,

NTT January

Department

Head

Percentage of faculty

with grant

submissions

E4-1

IMedris; APPR;

annually October TT,

January NTT

Department

Head

Faculty extramural

service activities with

connections to

instruction (maintain

ongoing list of

exemplars)

Departmental Bylaws;

Faculty Evaluation

Handbook; annually

October TT, NTT

January

Department

Head

Percentage of

faculty participating

in extramural

service activities

APPR; annually

October TT, NTT

January

Department

Head

Number of

community based

service activities

APPR; annually

October TT, NTT

January

Department

Head

Number of faculty-

study service

collaborations

APPR; annually

October TT, NTT

January

Department

Head

Number of faculty

appointed on

professional

practice track

Human Resources;

annually

Department

Head, Dean

Actionable data

(quantitative and/or

qualitative) from

employers on

graduates’

preparation for post-

graduation

destinations

Community survey

(MPH) every 2-3 years

MPH Program

director, APEx

Coordinator

Feedback from

external stakeholders

on changing practice

& research needs

that might impact unit

priorities and/or

curricula

AHD Steering

Committee, quarterly

Department

Head and

Program

Directors

Feedback from

stakeholders on

guiding statements

and ongoing self-

evaluation data

Community Survey;

Academic Health

Department Steering

Committee; Preceptor

Feedback

Department

Head; Program

Directors;

APEx

coordinator;

Professional AND

community service

activities that

students participate in

(maintain ongoing list

of exemplars)

BSPH, MPH and PhD

listserv

announcements

Program

directors

Current educational

and professional

development needs

of self-defined

communities of public

health workers

(individuals not

currently enrolled in

unit’s degree

programs)

Community partners

(Academic health

department, Academic

medical center, ETC,

TPHA)

DPH faculty

and staff

Continuing education

events presented for

the external

community, with

number of non-

student, non-faculty

attendees per event

(maintain ongoing

list)

F3-1

APPR - Elements,

January-NTT faculty

and October-TT faculty

Department

head

Quantitative and

qualitative

information that

demonstrates unit’s

ongoing efforts to

increase

representation and

support success of

self-defined priority

underserved

populations—

among students

AND faculty (and

staff if applicable)

Graduate School

Admissions; SLATE;

Diversity Action Plan,

DPH Climate Survey,

EIJ participation rates,

Departmental Retreat

Department

Head; Program

Directors;

Equity and

Inclusion

Committee

Student AND faculty

(staff, if applicable)

perceptions of unit’s

climate regarding

diversity & cultural

competence

Climate Survey every

2 years

Equity and

Inclusion

Committee;

Department

Head

Student satisfaction

with academic

advising

Annual Student

satisfaction survey in

April

Program

directors and

associated

committees

Student satisfaction

with career advising

Annual student

satisfaction survey in

April

Program

directors and

associated

committees

Events or services

provided to assist

with career

readiness, job

search, enrollment in

additional education,

etc. for students and

alumni (maintain

ongoing list of

exemplars)

Professional

development

workshops (3 per

semester)

APEx

Coordinator,

MPH Program

director

Number of student

complaints filed (and

info on disposition or

progress)

Graduate Council;

Graduate School

Assistant Dean; Vice

Present of Academic

Faculty Affairs;

Department

Head; Program

Directors

Recruitment &

admissions

measure

Slate (MPH and PhD);

Third party

recruiting/marketing

organization (DE

program)

Faculty;

Program

Directors

2) Provide evidence of implementation of the plan described in Template B2-1. Evidence may

include reports or data summaries prepared for review, notes from meetings at which results

were discussed, etc.

ERF B2.2 contains the following examples of evidence of implementation.

PhD Examples

• Student progression - The Annual Doctoral Student Evaluation Form and Sample PhD Student

Annual Reviews reflect our process to support doctoral student progression. Three student

samples are provided in ERF B2.2.

• Research - Each year the University of Tennessee offers a variety of graduate student

fellowships for incoming and current students. In Fall 2022, three PhD students were nominated

for these fellowships. A nomination for a current PhD student is provided in ERF B2.2 as an

example of the quality of our students and their achievements.

• Student involvement in PhD curriculum – Student voice is a critical component of planning and

evaluating the PhD curriculum. In addition to the teaching evaluation surveys completed by the

PhD students, the PhD Committee also has student representation. In 2022-2023 the PhD

committee included two doctoral students (Will and Katherine). The activity of the committee,

including the student involvement, is represented in the PhD committee notes in ERF B2.2.

BSPH Examples

• Teaching – The UG PH committee has been responsive to faculty, student, GTA, and the

Registrar (i.e., classroom size constraints) to develop a formula for UG class size that will assure

course rigor, individualized student attention, utilize teaching resources effectively, and align with

university classroom availability. Minutes from the UG PH Committee meeting reflect discussion

of faculty and student input regarding appropriate class size. Subsequent BSPH class size

Proposal to Faculty on the class size proposal and rationale demonstrates commitment to

seeking input for monitoring appropriate class size in terms of quality of instruction, workload

equity, and feasibility.

• Advising – The UG PH committee has developed a close working relationship with the CEHHS

Advising Center. As meeting notes indicate, in early August 2022, before the launch of the BSPH

degree, UG PH committee members met with CEHHS advising director to discuss plans PH

faculty to train the CEHHS advising team on the new BSPH major to assure effective recruitment

and advising into the major, as well as the Advising team to offer input on course offerings and

student outreach from advisor perspective. A subsequent training meeting was held with

Advisors, as well as a BSPH Interest Meeting that included advisors and prospective/current

majors. On-going communication via email, zoom, and in-person allows timely, effective advising

for BSPH majors. An example email between the UG program director and CEHHS Advising

Center director of recruitment and engagement documents communication about course offerings

and curricular changes.

• Research – Every year, the university offers paid undergrad research opportunities for first

generation or Pell-eligible students through a Departmental Research Assistantship (DRA)

program. The UG public health program director has facilitated 2-3 undergraduate public student

research opportunities per year. Example recruitment materials are provided for 2022 and 2023.

MPH Examples

• Student satisfaction with career guidance - The 2022 student satisfaction survey indicated a

greater need to offer professional development and career planning opportunities during their

MPH program to gain insight into what opportunities might be available to them post-graduation.

Given the results of the student satisfaction survey, the MPH program director and APEx

coordinator planned 3 professional development workshops in Spring 2023. These sessions were

offered via Zoom to accommodate both distance education and campus-based students and

were well attended. This professional development series is planned to continue into the

2023/2024 academic year. The 2023 Student Satisfaction Survey and flyer for 2023 Professional

Development series are included in the ERF.

• Student-led research & post-graduation outcomes – A student exit survey is provided to all

outgoing MPH students in their semester of graduation that documents their accomplishments

during the MPH program (including any research posters or publications), and results are entered

into our departmental database to allow monitoring and reporting. This survey also captures

outgoing students’ employment status at the time of graduation as well as non-University contact

information for alumni follow-up surveys. The MPH Exit Survey is provided in the ERF.

• Student self-assessment of competencies – A self-assessment of CEPH foundational

competencies is required of all incoming and outgoing students in their semester of enrollment

and subsequent graduation. Students rate their competence of each competency in their first

semester of the program (distributed in PUBH 509 – Public Health Seminar). In their semester of

anticipated graduation, the student completes the same survey and results are tallied and

compared by the MPH Program Director. These results are recorded and reported in our annual

SACSCOC report, due each September. The MPH Self-assessment of Competencies survey and

the 2021/2022 SACSCOC report are provided in the ERF.

• Student involvement in MPH curriculum – The Academic Program Committee (APC) is

comprised of students, faculty, and staff of the Public Health Department. APC meets twice per

semester to review any curriculum change proposals and allows for input on the academic

oversight of the MPH program for all concentrations. The MPH Program Directors (campus and

distance education) are co-chairs of the committee. Membership includes a faculty representative

from each concentration (CHE, EPI, VPH, NUTR, HPM, MS/MPH), staff representation, and a

minimum of two student representatives from each concentration, ensuring student

representation from both distance education and campus-based programs. Sample APC meeting

minutes are included in the ERF.

Department Examples

• Financial Associate Position - During biweekly faculty/staff meetings, it was indicated the need

for additional staff position in the department, given growth of the department both in terms of

number of faculty and number of degree programs. This request was then taken to the attention

of the Dean and providing further justification, the new staff position was approved. The position

description and related details of this position are included in ERF B2.

• Full-time APEx Coordinator Position - Given the anticipated increase in the number of students

enrolling in the Applied Practice Experience (APEx) course stemming from the DE program, the

department was able to get the approval for and hired a full-time staff position to coordinate the

placement of students and evaluation of these students starting in the Fall 2022. Prior to this

period, the APEx coordinator position was half-time staff position.

• Senior Methodologist Position - In Fall 2022, CEHHS hired a Senior Methodologist, Angela

Pfammatter, primarily to enhance faculty scholarship in grant writing, provide more focused

training to early career faculty in advancing methodological skills, and further strengthen graduate

training in advanced research methods. This full-time tenure-track faculty line is funded through

the Dean’s office but the position is housed in the Department of Public Health.

3) Provide at least three specific examples of improvements undertaken in the last three years

based on the evaluation plan in the format of Template B2-2. At least one of the changes must

relate to an area other than the curriculum.

Template B2-2

Measure (copied

from column 1 of

Template B2-1) that

informed the

change

Data that indicated

improvement was needed

Improvement

undertaken*

Example 1

Applied Practice

Experience

Student APEx reviews indicated a

complexity and redundancy of

APEx-required paperwork.

Program growth and addition of

DE program modality required an

overview and assessment of

APEx reporting requirements.

APEx processes and

requirements were

streamlined. Prior to

2020, students were

required to print/bind a

copy of their APEx final

report. Students now

submit a final report in

electronic format only.

Additionally, the

required weekly journal

reports were updated to

bi-weekly to avoid

redundancy.

Example 2

Number of doctoral

student abstract

submissions,

manuscript

submissions, and

conference

presentations.

Annual SACS and annual doctoral

student assessment conducted by

student and faculty, revealed low

numbers of presentations and

abstracts/manuscripts submitted.

Student evaluations revealed

underdeveloped professional

socialization as to the importance

and necessary skills for

abstract/manuscript development

and submission.

Modification to PhD

program curriculum to

add doctoral seminar (2

credits; 1 per semester

for two semesters)

Example 3

Adequate preparation

for the BSPH practice

experience

Faculty review of proposed new

curriculum

Social & Behavioral

Theories in Public

Health - increased 200-

level course to 300-level

course and added a pre-

requisite of Introductory

Public Health course

4) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• Some measures include multiple data sources to triangulate data

• Decision-making usually includes multiple individuals and committees

• Each degree program has a committee focused on evaluation and quality improvement and each

program director meets weekly with each other and the department head, allowing for regular

communication, curricular planning, and informed decision-making.

• The long-standing MPH program has well-established processes for monitoring and evaluation

Weaknesses

• With new and expanding programs, some evaluation metrics and associated processes are not

fully developed nor to scale

Plans

• In May 2024, implement an annual BSPH student exit survey to capture undergraduate student

publications and presentations.

• Doctoral program will develop a student satisfaction survey during fall 2023 and conduct during

spring 2024

• Establish consistent infrastructure of evaluation and quality improvement.

• Systematize and streamline data management

B3. Graduation Rates

The program collects and analyzes graduation rate data for each degree offered (e.g., BS, MPH,

MS, PhD, DrPH).

The program achieves graduation rates of 70% or greater for bachelor’s and master’s degrees and

60% or greater for doctoral degrees.

1) Graduation rate data for each degree in unit of accreditation. See Template B3-1.

Template B3-1

Students in BS Degree, by Cohorts Entering 2022-23

*Maximum Time to Graduate: 8 years

Cohort of Students

2022 - 23

2023-24

2024-25

2022

-23

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

2023-24

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

BSPH academic year entry is defined as fall, spring, summer.

Students in MPH Degree, by Cohorts Entering Between 2016-17 and 2022-23

*Maximum Time to Graduate: 6 years

Cohort of Students

2016-

2017-

2018

-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2016-

# Students

entered 24

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

Rate

2017-

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

70%

16%

2018-

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

96%

84%

2019-

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

96%

89%

86%

2020-

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

Rate

96% 95% 100% 55% 0%

2021-

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

Rate

77% 73%

2022-

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

Rate

82%

80%

37%

MPH academic year entry is defined as summer, fall, spring.

Students in PhD Degree, by Cohorts Entering Between 2020-21 and 2023-24

*Maximum Time to Graduate: 8 years

Cohort of Students

2020 - 21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

2020

-21

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

2021

-22

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

Rate

13%

2022

-23

Students entered 7

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

38%

2023

-24

# Students entered

# Students withdrew,

dropped, etc.

# Students graduated

Cumulative graduation

rate

PhD academic entry year is defined as fall entry.

After being accepted in an earlier DrPH cohort, five students joined the 2020-21 PhD cohort, resulting in

an expedited degree completion.

2) Data on doctoral student progression in the format of Template B3-2.

Template B3-2

Doctoral Student Data for year 2022

PhD in Public Health Sciences

# newly admitted in 2022

# currently enrolled (total) in 2022

# completed coursework during 2021

# in candidacy status (cumulative) during 2021

# graduated in 2021

3) Explain the data presented above, including identification of factors contributing to any rates that

do not meet this criterion’s expectations and plans to address these factors.

The program continues to achieve graduation rates above 70% within 6 years for the MPH degree, despite

the challenges the pandemic posed to graduate level education. Our recent addition of the DE MPH, which

includes a higher proportion of part-time students than the in-person degree, means that our time to

graduation with the MPH will lengthen.

The program’s PhD degree only began enrolling students in 2020. However, one of the two full time doctoral

students who entered the PhD program in 2020 is on track to graduate in 2024 (i.e., four years after entering

the program). Note that there was one student who originally entered the DrPH program but switched over

to the PhD program and then graduated in summer 2022; two more students who entered the DrPH

program and switched to the PhD program are on track to graduate in summer 2023.

Our switch to the PhD better aligns our doctoral students with their faculty mentors’ expertise and research.

A weakness is that we have not graduated many PhD students to date, but it takes time to train students in

research. We have observed that the process is expedited for full-time students and in instances where the

student and their faculty mentor have the same research focus area. We had two doctoral students

withdraw (one in 2022 and one in 2023) due to mismatches between the students’ needs and their faculty

mentors (e.g., a faculty member left).

We are addressing this issue by accepting fewer part time doctoral students, who take longer to advance

through the program due to limited time for training in research and performing additional vetting of

prospective doctoral students to ensure a research area match with their faculty mentor.

The bachelor’s degree program began enrolling students in fall 2022. The same student engagement

strategies utilized for the MPH degree are being employed for the PhD and bachelor’s degrees to ensure

their success.

4) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• To date, we have exceeded the criterion for graduation rates for MPH.

Weakness

• With the newness of our undergraduate and PhD programs we lack sufficient years of reporting to

detect graduation rates within specified time to degree completion.

Plans

• We will closely monitor the progress of our doctoral students and those who enroll in the bachelor’s

degree program to ensure that the graduation rates of these new programs also meet CEPH

benchmarks (i.e., graduation rates of 70% or greater for bachelor’s degree and 60% or greater for

doctoral degrees).

• We will continue to monitor the progress of our MPH students to ensure graduation rates are above

70% into the future.

• Continue offering required courses to our DE students over multiple semesters, including the

summer (i.e., throughout the year) so that DE students can proceed through the program as quickly

as possible.

• Accept fewer part time doctoral students and thoroughly vet prospective doctoral students to ensure

a faculty mentor match upon entry into the program.

B4. Post-Graduation Outcomes

The program collects and analyzes data on graduates’ employment or enrollment in further

education post-graduation, for each degree offered (e.g., BS, MPH, MS, PhD, DrPH).

The program achieves rates of 80% or greater employment or enrollment in further education

within the defined time period for each degree.

1) Data on post-graduation outcomes (employment or enrollment in further education) for each

degree. See Template B4-1.

Template B4-1

MPH Post-Graduation Outcomes

2019-20

Number and

percentage

2020-

Number and

percentage

2021-22

Number and

percentage

Employed

16 (67%)

14 (78%)

18 (60%)

Continuing education/training (not employed)

8 (33%)

2 (11%)

11 (36%)

Not seeking employment or not seeking additional

education by choice

0 (0%)

Actively seeking employment or enrollment in further

education

0 (0%)

1 (5%)

1 (3%)

Unknown

0 (0%)

1 (5%)

0 (0%)

Total graduates (known + unknown)

Note: Outcomes are for master’s program graduates only. Percentages in parentheses may not sum to 100

because of rounding errors.

2) Ex

plain the data presented above, including identification of factors contributing to any rates that

do not meet this criterion’s expectations and plans to address these factors.

The table displays post-graduation outcomes for master’s students who graduated in the 2019-2020,

2020-2021, and 2021-2022 school years. The data is based on three primary data-sources: online

information at graduation form, personal communication from graduates and review of LinkedIn profiles.

The total percentage of students listed as employed or in continuing education/training exceeded 80% for

all school years. These percentages were 100%, 89%, and 96% respectively for the 2019-2020, 2020-

2021, and 2021-2022 school years. The percentage of former master’s students employed after

graduation fell by 18 percentage points between the 2020-21 and 2021-2022 school years. However, this

decline was compensated for by a three-fold increase in the number of students who moved to higher

education or training after graduation.

Because there was only one graduate from the doctoral program, a separate table is not shown.

However, one doctoral student graduated in the Summer of 2022 and is currently employed.

3) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• We consistently exceed the 80% (or greater) benchmark for employment, or enrollment in

further education at one-year post-graduation.

• Our ability to monitor and update post-graduate employment and continuing education

outcomes.

• High participation in MPH Alumni LinkedIn page.

• Faculty maintain connections with students after graduation through professional

associations.

Weakness

• Students and graduates can only be encouraged, not required, to participate in LinkedIn.

Plans

• As our newer programs begin to produce graduates, we will monitor post-graduation

outcomes for undergraduate, DE MPH, and doctoral students.

• Develop a feasible, scalable process to monitor undergraduate post-graduate outcomes

(i.e., BSPH exit surveys, LinkedIn tracking, collaboration with University Alumni

Association)

B5. Alumni Perceptions of Curricular Effectiveness

For each degree offered, the program collects information on alumni perceptions of their

preparation for the workforce (or for further education, if applicable). Data collection must elicit

information on what skills are most useful and applicable in post-graduation destinations, areas in

which graduates feel well prepared, and areas in which they would have benefitted from more

training or preparation.

The program defines qualitative and/or quantitative methods designed to provide useful

information on the issues outlined above. “Useful information” refers to information that provides

the unit with a reasonable basis for making curricular and related improvements. Qualitative

methods may include focus groups, key informant interviews, etc.

The program documents and regularly examines its methodology, making revisions as necessary,

to ensure useful data.

1) Summarize the findings of alumni self-assessment of their preparation for post-graduation

destinations.

A survey of MPH alumni is conducted at regular intervals every 2 - 3 years. The alumni survey seeks

satisfaction ratings regarding the program’s contribution to increasing student personal and professional

skills in preparation for the work setting. The two most recent surveys are discussed here. The 2020 Alumni

Survey included graduates (66) in 2016 through 2019. The most recent survey, distributed in October 2022

included graduates (38) in calendar years 2020 and 2021. The rating for the Overall Quality of the MPH

Program is high. Ninety percent (20) of the 2023 respondents indicated “Satisfied”, “Very satisfied” or “More

than satisfied”. Specific to preparation for post-graduate destinations, respondents replied either “Well-

prepared” or “Prepared” in 2020 (86%) and in 2023 (91%).

2) Provide full documentation of the methodology and findings from quantitative and/or

qualitative data collection.

The Qualtrics-based survey is sent out via email to all MPH graduates in the associated years. Following

the initial request, 2 reminders are sent to optimize response rate. Response rate was 71.7% (38 out of 53)

in the 2020 report and 71% (27 out of 38) in the 2023 report. The data is analyzed and summarized in

report form. The survey can be viewed in ERF B5.2 Alumni Survey tool. Both the 2020 and 2023 alumni

survey reports may be reviewed at https://publichealth.utk.edu/surveys/

or Resource File B5.2 Alumni

Survey Report 2020 and B5.2 Alumni Survey Report 2023.

Spec

ific to preparation for post-graduate destinations, respondents replied either “Well-prepared” or

“Prepared” in 2020 (86%) and in 2023 (91%). The survey also asked for respondents to assess their ability

to perform MPH competencies (future surveys will list the 22 Foundational competencies vs. the Program

competencies). The results are presented in Table B5.1. We acknowledge the change from a 10-point to

a 5-point scale, per CEPH guidance.

Table B5.1 Self-assessed preparedness to perform MPH competencies, 2020 and 2023 report*

Mean in 2020

10-point

scale

Mean in

2023

5-point

scale

1 Define a health problem in a population 8.94 4.55

Make relevant inferences about patterns of health and potential

causes from quantitative and qualitative data

8.97 4.23

3 Collect, summarize, and interpret information relevant to an issue 9.26 4.61

Utilize current techniques in decision analysis and health

planning

8.36 3.86

5 Lead and participate in groups to address specific issues 8.94 4.48

Appraise the role of cultural, economic, social, and behavioral

factors in determining the delivery of public health services

8.15 4.32

Collaborate with community partners to promote the health of the

population

8.83 4.24

8 Identify community assets and available resources 8.71 4.14

9 Identify and apply basic research methods used in public health 8.57 4.32

10 Manage programs within budget constraints 7.84 3.80

Evaluate internal and external issues that may impact delivery of

essential public health services

8.45 4.09

Facilitate collaboration with internal and external groups to

ensure participation of key stakeholders

8.86 4.22

2020 report includes MPH alumni graduating 2016-2019 calendar years. The 2023 report surveyed alumni who graduated 2020-

2021 calendar years. Alumni are surveyed at least 1 year post graduation and no more than 3 years post-graduation.

Alumni rated their satisfaction with the program’s development of professional skills. For all skills, a

majority of respondents indicated “satisfied,” “more than satisfied” or “very satisfied.” The satisfaction

ratings are found in Table B5.2 for both survey years.

Table B5.2 Self-assessed satisfaction with development of professional skills

% Satisfied,

More than

satisfied or

Very satisfied

2020

% Satisfied,

More than

satisfied or

Very

satisfied

2023

1 Articulating prevention approaches of public health 98 95

Interacting with persons of diverse cultural, racial/ethnic and SES

backgrounds

87 90

3 Conducting needs assessments for planning purposes 98 95

4 Using data to make relevant inferences. 98 95

5 Leading professional workgroups 98 80

6 Collaborating with community partners 100 85

7 Managing programs and projects 96 90

8 Evaluating health programs/projects 98 95

9 Providing effective presentations 98 90

10 Communicating clearly in written form 96 100

11 Engaging in advocacy of policy 78 80

12 Obtaining grant funding 78 75

Of note, the more recent survey covered the years most impacted by COVID-19. The survey results,

while showing some variation, overall show a high level of satisfaction for skill development despite the

limited face-to-face contact in classes and the limited opportunities for community engagement. Alumni

(84% in 2020 and 83% in 2023) indicated “High Value” for the MPH in helping achieve professional goals.

Overall, alumni indicate satisfaction with the program and preparedness for employment in the field.

Some of the comments from respondents are included quoted:

o “My time in the UTK MPH program led directly to my employment, albeit outside the area

of public health practice that I was seeking. This is perhaps a testament to the program

and the value of the training and degree - that I proved to be capable and qualified for an

area of practice outside of what my focus was during my graduate experience.”

o “My MPH gave me the connections and knowledge needed to pursue a job in a

healthcare setting. MPH classes on my undergraduate degree to give me practical

knowledge and skills that I use daily in my current position.”

o “Name recognition of the degree is significant at my place of employment.”

o “The theories we were taught were extremely valuable however, in the private sphere,

healthcare becomes closely related to business and I do not feel the MPH program did

enough to bridge those divides.”

o “Frankly, without a master's degree, I wouldn't have been able to receive the current pay

scale I'm on.”

o “Helped me achieve a career I am engaged with significant ease. I likely could have

ended up in the same field without an MPH, but the MPH degree made that path

significantly easier. Through every job I've applied to after graduation I have been a very

competitive candidate for the position.”

o “The MPH has given m

e a unique perspective and critical understandings of how we

interact with the healthcare system, barriers to health, and the regulatory environment

that enables/hinders all of the above.

o “I learned a lot of transferable skills. Excellent program! “

o “As a public health veterinarian in the military my primary job is to ensure the health of

the Soldiers through One Health concepts. One Health was emphasized in the MPH

program and I gained so much experience and perspective working with non-vet students

that help me when working with non-vet military partners.”

o “I have used almost every aspect of the things I learned during my MPH program and I'm

so grateful for it all! “

3) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• The survey has been successful in gathering feedback from MPH alumni.

Weaknesses

• The MPH alumni who did not complete a survey may have had valuable input.

• The impact of COVID-19 on alumni seeking jobs created an environment that may impact

alumni perceptions of curricular effectiveness.

• The survey has not been administered to doctoral alum. This is due to the newness of the

program and few graduates (to-date).

Plans

• Create alumni survey for PhD Program, anticipated date of administration to be

determined.

• Revise MPH survey to reflect 2016 competencies and new concentrations (Epidemiology

and Nutrition).

• Develop an alumni survey for BSPH graduates. The inaugural cohort of BSPH graduates

is anticipated in spring 2025, thus the initial undergraduate public health alumni survey is

slated for spring 2026 and will continue every two years after that.

• For all degree levels, add an open-ended question to future surveys, "In what areas do

graduates feel they would have benefitted from more training/preparation"

• Consider other methodologies for gathering alumni input in addition to the survey (i.e.,

focus group, interviews).

C1. Fiscal Resources

The program has financial resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals. Financial

support is adequate to sustain all core functions, including offering coursework and other

elements necessary to support the full array of degrees and ongoing operations.

1) Describe the program’s budget processes, including all sources of funding. This description

addresses the following, as applicable:

a) Briefly describe how the program pays for faculty salaries. If this varies by individual or

appointment type, indicate this and provide examples. If faculty salaries are paid by an entity

other than the program (such as a department or college), explain.

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville follows an annual budget process whereby academic units and

support, and auxiliary units request recurring dollars or “base” budget from the University for an amount

not to exceed their respective pre-determined maximum thresholds. The College of Education, Health

and Human Sciences seeks input from its units when developing the College’s annual budget request.

The dean and director of finance and administration along with the College’s budget committee review

each program request for additional funds. The director of finance and administration combines the dean-

approved unit budgets into one College-level budget request which is submitted to the University’s Office

of Budget and Finance for approval and incorporation into the University’s campus wide budget. The

University’s Board of Trustees reviews and approves the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Sources of

University funding include state appropriations, tuition, course fees, indirect cost recovery, gift, and

endowment income. Approved funds are provided to the University and then distributed as appropriate in

the form of recurring or “base” budget. The funding flows from the University to the College then the

department, and the department head allocates funds to programs according to their initial request. Any

unspent, recurring funds can be made available as a nonrecurring budget to the department upon

justification and request after year end closure.

University funds provided via the annual budget process are the primary source of faculty salaries.

Carryover when available can also be used for this purpose. Any salary expenses charged to the

sponsor’s budget for externally funded projects create salary savings for the program. Based on the

donor specifications, faculty salaries can also be provided by gifts.

b) Briefly describe how the program requests and/or obtains additional faculty or staff (additional

= not replacements for individuals who left). If multiple models are possible, indicate this and

provide examples.

The department head works closely with program directors, faculty, and staff to stay informed about

staffing needs. The department head takes any requests for new faculty or staff to the Dean. The request

for additional faculty or staff includes a justification, how the position will be funded, and the anticipated

impacts of hiring or not hiring. With the Dean’s approval, the department’s business manager consults

with the College’s human resources manager to finalize a position description, job classification and

salary range for new positions.

c) Describe how the program funds the following:

a. operational costs (programs define “operational” in their own contexts; definition must be

included in response)

The University considers operational expenses to be any costs except for salaries and benefits. They

include but are not limited to travel; professional services and memberships; office, computer, and

laboratory supplies; printing and publication; computer services; maintenance and repairs; and

contractual services. Operating costs are included in the program’s annual budget request process.

b. student support, including scholarships, support for student conference travel, support for

student activities, etc.

The College of Education, Health and Human Sciences has recurring funds set aside for graduate

students, including stipends, insurance, and tuition waivers. The college distributes nonrecurring funds

each semester; whereby the waivers are allocated to programs that have demonstrated a need for

graduate student support. This allows the program to hire graduate assistants in support of teaching and

service projects.

Programs are encouraged to seek external funding to support graduate research assistants as well as

hourly student workers. Where allowable and appropriate, the sponsor’s budget includes stipend,

insurance, and tuition. The program pays the hourly wage for any student workers who do not hold a

graduate assistantship. Student activities and travel are paid for by the department using nonrecurring

funds.

The graduate school provides annually an opportunity for departments to support new PhD students in

their respective programs through the Graduate School Fellowships (GSF). Each department is allocated

funds to support said students for 4 years. Other fellowships and scholarships are also offered annually

collegewide to graduate students based on certain criteria set by the Graduate School.

Graduate and professional students who will be presenting research on behalf of UT at in-person

professional conferences may receive support to help with travel costs. Only students who are presenting

first authors will be funded through this mechanism. To help fund as many students as possible, students

are allowed only one GSS (Graduate Student Senate) Travel Award or GSS Academic Support Award

per year. Departments and/or colleges are expected to help support the cost of these trips. Students are

expected to notify their advisor(s), department head, and college dean of travel before submitting this

application to request funding. Students must submit their applications prior to attending the conference

(with the exception of the first review period). The GSS Travel Awards Committee review the requests two

times during the fall semester, two times during the spring semester, and one time prior to the start of

summer school. The DPH provides $100 towards graduate student to present research at regional and at

national conferences.

c. faculty development expenses, including travel support. If this varies by individual or

appointment type, indicate this and provide examples

Professional development and travel expenses are included in the annual base budget process (see

above). Distribution of said funds varies by department. In general, each Tenure Track (TT) faculty will

receive $700-$800 per year towards travel expenses and $250 for NTT faculty per year. New TT faculty

have the option to include travel expenses as part of their start-up funds for the first 3 years.

d) In general terms, describe how the program requests and/or obtains additional funds for

operational costs, student support and faculty development expenses.

Program administrators submit funding requests biannually to the associate dean of academic affairs

and community engagement and director of finance and administration for approval. Funds are

distributed in both fall and spring semesters. In the event the department needs additional funds for

student support or other operational costs, the department head can make such requests to the Dean’s

Office with proper justification.

e) Explain how tuition and fees paid by students are returned to the program. If the program

receives a share rather than the full amount, explain, in general terms, how the share

returned is determined. If the program’s funding is allocated in a way that does not bear a

relationship to tuition and fees generated, indicate this and explain.

Starting in FY2023, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville transferred from an incremental budget model

to an RCM (Responsibility Center Management) budget model, aligning university resources with

strategic priorities, creating greater transparency and accountability, and providing units with more control

over their own budgets. Tuition revenues are allocated based on students attending classes – the college

of instruction receives 80% and the college of student record receives 20%. The colleges in turn are

enabled with a capacity to spend in support of instruction, research, and service. Colleges allocate

financial resources to their units, namely salaries and benefits for both faculty and staff as well as

operating and travel budgets. Course fees are distributed to units where applicable and do not follow the

80/20 split model

f) Explain how indirect costs associated with grants and contracts are returned to the program

and/or individual faculty members. If the program and its faculty do not receive funding

through this mechanism, explain.

Where allowable and appropriate, the sponsor’s budget for externally funded projects includes indirect

costs not to exceed the University’s federally negotiated rate or the maximum allowed by the sponsor.

Indirect costs are incurred on the sponsor’s budget as work is completed if the grant/ contract is cost

reimbursable. Historically, the College has distributed nonrecurring funds equal to 20% of the total F&A

earned one year in arrears to the lead investigator’s department. Of the funds received in the department,

the faculty member receives 80% of the amount received and the department retains 20% of the funds.

Faculty members who received these funds can use these funds for supporting graduate students,

drawing as additional salary, or using for scholarship related activities. Funds raised from F&A are used

towards graduate student travel to conferences, and other departmental expenses.

If the program is a multi-partner unit sponsored by two or more universities (as defined in

Criterion A2), the responses must make clear the financial contributions of each sponsoring

university to the overall program budget. The description must explain how tuition and other

income is shared, including indirect cost returns for research generated by the public health

program faculty appointed at any institution.

Not applicable.

2) A clearly formulated program budget statement in the format of Template C1-1, showing sources of all available funds and expenditures

by major categories, for the last five years.

The head of DPH is responsible for managing resources budgeted for the department. Table C1-1 presents sources of funds and expenditures for

the Department of Public Health for the last five years. All full-time faculty members, staff, and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are supported

fully by state-appropriated funds allocated by the college, without the requirement that some portion of salary be recovered from other sources.

Salary data are based on actual expenditures per FTE faculty member, staff, and GTA for the appropriate percentage of workload directly related to

public health. Compensation paid to adjunct faculty members is included in the total faculty salary line. The decrease in the faculty salary line that

occurred in 2019-2020 did so because a full-time faculty member left the department during this period. Faculty start-up funding is awarded equally

by the college and the University’s Office of Research to new tenure-track faculty members to support their early research activities. A restricted

public health alumni fund exists in the department, which helps fund speakers, special events, and professional development of faculty members.

Excess funds (the difference between the total amount of available funds and the total amount of expenditure) are managed according to the type

of funds. For example, new faculty start-up funds are provided for a three-year period. Unspent funds from one year may be carried over to the next.

Other unspent funds (depending on the line-item) may be used to support adjunct faculty members as needed.

Template C1-1

Sources of Funds and Expenditures for the Department of Public Health by Major Category, 2018 to 2023

2018-2019

2019-2020

2020-2021

2021-2022

2022-2023

2023-2024*

Source of Funds

University Funds

$1,530,379.00

$1,316,945.00

$1,531,578.00

$2,062,554.00

$2,327,700.00

$2,077,230.09

Grants/Contracts

$340,700.00

$498,786.00

$585,979.00

$655,375.00

$702,894.00

$723,980.82

Indirect Cost Recovery

$5,371.00

$8,395.00

$`4,567.00

$24,929.00

$40,179.00

$19,260.63

Gifts

$6,677.18

$4,445.32

$2,925.86

$10,537.49

$2,997.00

$3,086.91

Other (Centrally Funded

Waivers)

$126,232.00

$126,233.00

$114,075.00

$109,048.00

$150,593.00

$173,453.50

Other (Faculty Start-up)

$164,086.00

$123,376.00

$63,055.00

$263,934.00

$212,033.00

$214,318.45

Total

$2,173,445.18

$2,078,180.32

$2,312,179.86

$3,126,377.49

$3,436,396.00

$3,211,330.40

Expenditures

Faculty Salaries

$827,261.61

$662,393.56

$872,208.37

$1,202,229.85

$1,322,221.36

$1,361,888.00

Staff Salaries

$103,809.48

$79,601.78

$90,714.95

$118,348.06

$171,899.96

$177,056.96

Total Benefits

$328,784.58

$251,452.31

$294,494.94

$463,145.02

$503,953.54

$519,072.15

Operations

$28,958.57

$28,395.62

$43,545.95

$76,667.04

$49,090.80

$50,563.52

Travel

$6,974.02

$4,272.57

$1,527.03

$9,248.76

$20,707.70

$21,328.93

Student Support

$274,831.65

$225,976.21

$234,343.29

$269,509.11

$276,339.51

$284,629.70

Other (Cost Share - Research)

$9,637.21

$4,333.44

$3,861.14

$8,865.21

$9,131.17

Other (Grants & Contracts)

$34,700.00

$498,786.00

$585,979.00

$655,375.00

$702,894.00

$723,980.82

Other (Gifts – Funds Spent)

$6,677.180

$4,445.32

$2,925.86

$10,537.49

$2,997.00

$3,086.91

Other (Star-Up Funds Spent)

$83,420.05

$100,358.36

$39,456.21

$171,399.22

$130,011.55

$133,911.90

Total

$2,011,054.35

$1,860,015.17

$2,165,195.60

$2,979,320.69

$2,493,905.45

$3,284,650.05

*Estimated values

If the program is a multi-partner unit sponsored by two or more universities (as defined in

Criterion A2), the budget statement must make clear the financial contributions of each

sponsoring university to the overall program budget.

Not applicable

3) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• During the 2018-2024 reporting period, budgets were adequate to meet program responsibilities.

• Funding for part-time personnel and other non-routine needs of programs and departments can be

allocated from empty salary lines by request of department head to the dean and from salary

recovery made available through grants, or contracts.

• We anticipate an increase in resources as we see increases in enrollment in the DE and BSPH

degree programs.

Weaknesses

• Graduate students have complained about low wages and insufficient funds to support themselves.

Given the fact that the University is going through the implementation of a new budget model, it is

highly unclear how the outlook of budget is at the departmental level.

Plans

• The DPH will continue to recommend that faculty members request student support in grant and

contract proposals.

• The DPH will pursue development funds to support public health students.

C2. Faculty Resources

The program has adequate faculty, including primary instructional faculty and non-primary

instructional faculty, to fulfill its stated mission and goals. This support is adequate to sustain all

core functions, including offering coursework and advising students. The stability of resources is

a factor in evaluating resource adequacy.

Students’ access to a range of intellectual perspectives and to breadth of thought in their chosen

fields of study is an important component of quality, as is faculty access to colleagues with

shared interests and expertise.

All identified faculty must have regular instructional responsibility in the area. Individuals who

perform research in a given area but do not have some regular expectations for instruction cannot

serve as one of the three to five listed members.

1) A table demonstrating the adequacy of the program’s instructional faculty resources in the format

of Template C2-1 (single- and multi-concentration formats available).

Template C2-1 (Programs)

FIRST DEGREE LEVEL

SECOND

DEGREE

LEVEL

THIRD

DEGREE

LEVEL

ADDITIONAL

FACULTY

CONCENTRATION

PIF 1*

PIF 2*

FACULTY 3^

PIF 4*

PIF 5*

Community Health

Education

Jennifer

Russomanno

Amy

Wotring

Jennifer Perion

PIF: 2

Non-PIF: 1

MPH

1.0

Epidemiology

Samantha

Ehrlich

Daleniece

Jones

Phoebe Tran

PIF: 2

Non-PIF: 0

MPH

1.0

Health Policy and

Management

Kenneth

Smith

Brittany

Shelton

Ashley Parks

PIF: 0

Non-PIF: 1

MPH

1.0

Public Health

Nutrition

Marsha

Spence

Katie

Kavanaugh

Sarah Colby

PIF: 0

Non-PIF: 0

MPH

0.8

0.5

Veterinary Public

Health

Chika Okafor

Agricola

Odoi

Michael

Mahero

PIF: 0

Non-PIF: 0

MPH

0.8

0.5

Public Health

Sciences

Samantha

Ehrlich

Laurie

Meschke

Phoebe Tran

PIF: 0

Non-PIF: 0

PhD

1.0

Population Health

Sciences

Julie

Grubaugh

Jiangang

Chen

Ashley Parks

PIF: 2

Non-PIF: 4

BSPH

1.0

Total

2) Explain the method for calculating FTE for faculty in the templates and evidence of the calculation

method’s implementation. Programs must present calculation methods for primary instructional

and non-primary instructional faculty.

Primary instructional faculty are full-time faculty members in the Department of Public Health who have

regular instructional responsibilities in the program, spend a majority of time on activities associated with

the program. Faculty who are full-time at the university but housed in another academic unit (i.e.,

Department of Nutrition, College of Veterinary Medicine) are considered 0.5 FTEs based on their

contribution to the specific concentration, with the exception of the dual degree concentration directors

(Nutrition and Veterinary Public Health) who are estimated at 0.8 to the program.

Non-primary instructional faculty are adjunct faculty who have regular instructional responsibility in the

program (at least one course per year).

3) If applicable, provide a narrative explanation that supplements reviewers’ understanding of data

in the templates.

Not applicable

4) Data on the following for the most recent year in the format of Template C2-2. See

Template C2-2 for additional definitions and parameters.

Advising ratios (faculty and, if applicable, staff) by degree level (bachelor’s, master’s,

doctoral), as well as the maximum and minimum. If both faculty and staff advise, present

and calculate both ratios

b. If applicable, average number of baccalaureate students supervised in a cumulative or

experiential activity10

c. Average number of MPH students supervised in an integrative learning experience (as

defined in Criterion D7), as well as the maximum and minimum

d. Average number of DrPH students advised, as well as the maximum and minimum

e. Average number of PhD students advised, as well as the maximum and minimum

f. Average number of academic public health master’s students advised, as well as the

maximum and minimum

As noted in Template C2-2’s instructions, schools should only present data on public health

degrees and concentrations. If primary instructional faculty, non-primary instructional faculty

and/or staff are all regularly involved in these activities, indicate this and present data separately

for each group, as applicable.

Though the self-study requires only the most recent year, the school or program may wish to

present additional years of data for context. For example, if the most recent year’s results are

anomalous, additional data may be helpful.

Named PIF

Total PIF

Non PIF

Template C2-2

General advising & career counseling, 2022-2023

Degree level

Average

Min

Max

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

2.8

Advising in MPH integrative

experience, 2022-2023

Average

Min

Max

Supervision/Advising of bachelor's

cumulative or experiential activity

Average

Min

Max

Mentoring/primary advising on dissertation, 2022-

2023

Degree

Average

Min

Max

PhD

5) Quantitative data on student perceptions of the following for the most recent year:

a. Class size and its relation to quality of learning (e.g., The class size was conducive to my

learning)

The 2023 MPH Student Satisfaction Survey reports the following in response to the

statement: “class size is conducive to my learning”:

Indicator

Percent (n)

1=Strongly Disagree

0 (0)

2 = Disagree

5.0 (2)

3=Neither agree nor disagree

0 (0)

4=Agree

35.0 (14)

5=Strongly agree

60.0 (24)

Student satisfaction surveys for the new BSPH and PhD programs are planned for spring

2024.

b. Availability of faculty (i.e., Likert scale of 1-5, with 5 as very satisfied)

The 2023 MPH Student Satisfaction Survey reports the following in response to the

question: “How satisfied are you with availability of faculty?”

Indicator

Percent (n)

1= Not very satisfied

0 (0)

2= Less than satisfied

0 (0)

3= Satisfied

7.5 (3)

4= More than satisfied

15.0 (6)

5= Very satisfied

77.5 (31)

Student satisfaction surveys for the new BSPH and PhD programs are planned for spring

2024.

6) Qualitative data on student perceptions of class size and availability of faculty.

Students are prompted to provide comments if they selected a 1 or 2 (not very satisfied or not

satisfied). Selected narrative from the qualitative responses to class size and availability of faculty

are included below. A full report of the survey can be found here:

ERF C2: MPH Student Satisfaction Survey 2023 report

Comments for “class size”:

I think the quality of content provided is much more necessary than a larger or smaller class size.

Certain professors and courses are suited to larger or smaller class sizes.

Class size doesn’t affect my learning unless a group project is involved.

Comments for “availability of faculty”:

Faculty are not proactive with advising. When started program did not get a schedule that I could

use to continue signing up for classes.

7) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• Additional faculty lines have been added as program enrollment has increased.

• Faculty expertise aligns with courses taught.

• In coordination with PIF faculty, a full-time APEx Coordinator centrally manages all of the

MPH APEx experiences.

• Most MPH students strongly agree with the current class size and are satisfied with their

faculty interactions.

Weaknesses

• Data on student satisfaction at the BSPH and PhD level does not exist.

• Rate of growth could quickly challenge the capacity of current faculty resources.

Plans

• During spring 2024, conduct student satisfaction survey for PhD and BSPH programs.

C3. Staff and Other Personnel Resources

The program has staff and other personnel adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals. The

stability of resources is a factor in evaluating resource adequacy.

1) A table defining the number of the program’s staff support for the year in which the site visit will

take place by role or function in the format of Template C3-1. Designate any staff resources that

are shared with other units outside the unit of accreditation. Individuals whose workload is

primarily as a faculty member should not be listed.

Role/Function

FTE

Description

Business Manager

Manage budget and day-to-day

expenditures, student travel and

admissions

Administrative Specialist

Supports the administrative aspects

of department and programs

Financial Associate 2 (new position)

Assist business manager,

procurement cards, travel, hiring,

and payroll

Applied Practice Experience (APEX)

Coordinator

Coordinates the Applied Practice

Experience (APEx) for on-campus

and distance education MPH

students, develop relationships with

community partners to serve as field

sites for the APEx, conduct student

and alumni surveys, and assist with

department recruitment and

professional development efforts.

Enrollment Advisor (DE)

Explores program fitness with

prospects and helps them arrive at

a completed application for program

review. works very collaboratively

with program leadership to resolve

questions and/or other applicant

issues.

Success Coach (DE)

.50

"Onboard" students to the program

by setting early expectations,

facilitating orientation, and

subsequently maintaining a

coaching relationship with students

to promote retention.

Director, Student Success (DE)

.20

Works with the program on

expanding access to support

services and providing

recommendations on changes to

policies and practices that improve

the student experience and help

students persist to graduation

Director, Enrollment (DE)

.20

Hiring and managing the

performance of the Enrollment

Advisor(s). Coordinates with

program leadership

Director, Term Prep (DE)

.20

Works collaboratively with program

leadership and faculty to prepare

their individual sections for a new

academic term.

Other personnel

3.41

Support staff in administrative duties

and faculty with teaching.

2) Provide a narrative description, which may be supported by data if applicable, of the contributions

of other personnel.

Other personnel in the Department of Public Health at University of Tennessee, Knoxville (DPH

UTK) consist of student employees. Students are typically hired to support staff in administrative

duties. Work hours are up to 20 hours per week per position, paid hourly or monthly. Every

academic year, the College allocates Graduate Assistantships to each department based on

student credit hours generated by department. We have 11 GTAs (3.41 FTEs) that support our

undergraduate courses. PhD students that can move from Graduate Teaching Assistants to

Associates (i.e., Instructor of Record) based on experience or capacity.

3) Provide narrative and/or data that support the assertion that the program’s staff and other

personnel support is sufficient or not sufficient.

Based on current degree program size and program growth trajectory, staff and other personnel

support is insufficient. Additional staff will be needed to assist in business and administrative

duties. In March 2023, the Dean approved creation of another Administrative Staff (1.0 FTE). In

addition, our undergraduate program lacks staff to perform student services (i.e., advising for

juniors and seniors) and intern coordination. The College provides undergraduate advising for

freshmen and sophomores, but our department will be responsible for advising juniors and

seniors and coordinating undergrad internships starting in January 2024.

4) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• The DPH UTK benefits from experienced staff who are highly competent in their

positions.

• The DE program support staff lend timely, accessible services to our DE students, which

has been vital to our rapid growth of DE student enrollment.

• GTAs add teaching support and capacity to the growing number of undergraduate

courses.

Weaknesses

• DPH UTK has inadequate staff to fulfill its mission and goals and meet the growing needs

of the students and faculty, particularly considering the new undergraduate major (started

in fall 2022) as well as the continued growth of the MPH DE program (started in fall

2021).

Plans

• We will continue to monitor student growth and satisfaction to make adjustments that

enhance the program.

• By December 2023, hire a new full-time staff coordinator who will be jointly funded and

equally shared with the Knox County Health Department. The new staff coordinator will

spend .5 FTE providing the undergraduate program intern coordination and advising for

juniors and seniors.

• By August 2023, hire a new full-time administrative staff (Financial Associate).

C4. Physical Resources

The program has physical resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals and to

support instructional programs. Physical resources include faculty and staff office space,

classroom space, student shared space and laboratories, as applicable.

1) Briefly describe, with data as applicable, the following. (Note: square footage is not required

unless specifically relevant to the program’s narrative.)

• Faculty office space

The Department of Public Health is housed on the third floor in the Health, Physical Education, and

Recreation Building (HPER) within the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences (CEHHS). The

department occupies the HPER 390 suite, which was updated in 1995, 2005, and most recently in 2021.

HPER 390 occupies nearly 3,700 square feet and provides 13 single office spaces, seven double offices

for Faculty and Staff, eight offices for Graduate Teaching Assistants, one conference room (which was

upgraded in 2011), two storage rooms, and a small faculty/staff break room. The conference room is

equipped with overhead computer projection equipment. The conference room within the suite is primarily

used for committee meetings/presentations. Each faculty member has their own office, allowing for

appropriate productivity and for advising and mentoring of students. Veterinary Public Health (VPH)

faculty members have their offices in the College of Veterinary Medicine building

• Staff office space

The department business manager has one single room. The administrative specialist staff member has

an office in the reception area of the suite. The APEx coordinator has an office beside the business

manager. The Public Health graduate assistants share offices with no more than two GAs per office. The

department also provides one office space for the Public Health Student Association officers in the suite

on the third floor, an office space which can host 4 graduate assistants on the second floor, and a

research lab (dry lab) in the sub-basement

• Classrooms

There are four classrooms on the second floor of HPER building which provide space to accommodate

about half of MPH and doctoral program courses within the HPER (MPH and doctoral courses have

priority access in HPER building). Each room can seat at least 40 people. All the classrooms are

technology-enhanced classrooms equipped with a podium with laptop connection, computer, video, and

VCR/DVD display capabilities, Internet access, document cameras, and integrated audio systems

(updated during the pandemic). Two classrooms have sophisticated lighting controls at the lectern,

affording the instructor flexible control of the three strips of overhead lighting. Due to the expansion of

enrollment as well as the establishment of new programs/majors across the University including our own

programs (for example, the newly established undergraduate major in Public Health, two new

concentrations in Epidemiology, and Public Health/Nutrition), approximately half of our courses are now

delivered across campus in various buildings. As the classrooms in HPER, all the classrooms on other

locations of campus are technology-enhanced with laptop connection, computer, video, and VCR/DVD

display capabilities, internet access, document cameras, and integrated audio systems.

• Shared student space

Common space available for students within minutes of walking distance from HPER. The John C.

Hodges Library, the main campus library, offers additional common space for study and meetings. The

Black Cultural Center, the Student Union as well as Fred Brown Building are all a short walk from the

public health offices and are often used for large events such as colloquiums, orientation sessions,

workshops, research day, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Public Health Student Association

(PHSA) meetings, training sessions, and other events, especially when refreshments or luncheons are

provided.

• Laboratories, if applicable to public health degree program offerings

In addition, one Public Health faculty member occupies an office (~200 square feet) and one wet lab

(~400 square feet) on the third floor in Jessie Harris Building within CEHHS; the other faculty has an

office (~150 square feet) and a shared wet laboratory space (three benches and one cell culture room of

~60 square feet) on the 6

floor in Mossman Building. Both laboratories are equipped with centrifuges,

refrigerated centrifuges, refrigerators, -20 and -80 C freezers. Both laboratories also contain multiple cell

culture incubators, thermocyclers, photo-enabled inverted microscopes, vortex-mixers, and shakers for

routine biochemical and molecular biological works. The two laboratories also have their own chemical

fume hood and cell culture hood. In addition, the faculty members in charge of the labs have access to all

the core laboratory equipment of the Department of Nutrition, which is also located in Mossman Room

614. The core facility hosts two Real time PCR 7300 system with Dell computer-supported software

(Applied Biosystems), a spectra Count microplate reader (Packed), a Promega GloMax Multi-Mode

luminometer, a FluoroCount Flurescence reader, a Kodak EPAS290 scientific imaging system and a

LS6500 multi-purpose scintillation counter.

2) Provide narrative and/or data that support the assertion that the physical space is sufficient or not

sufficient.

Due to the increase of student enrollment (which leads to larger class size) and the establishment of new

concentrations accompanied by new courses offerings, current classroom space and available time for

classes in HPER building are no longer able to meet the demand of our graduate programs (MPH and

PhD), much less our undergraduate courses. We currently have 124 graduate students enrolled in our

program (among them 78 are online students). In addition, the new BSPH, launched in fall 2022, has 30

declared majors and nearly 200 declared minors in Public Health. That said, the University assures space

for all courses through a centralized system that factors in enrollment, time of day and instructor

preference.

3) If appl

icable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• The classrooms in HPER building are all equipped with modern technology to meet the teaching

and research needs and the University periodically upgrades the classrooms on campus with

advanced technology to enhance the teaching and learning experience. Offices in HPER are also

adequate for our staff to conduct their routine work and provide support to meet faculty and students’

needs.

• Faculty are taking advantage of the virtual classroom for some strategic class content delivery.

Weaknesses

• Due to the rapid expansion of academic programs and new majors across the campus, we are

not able to deliver all our graduate courses in the HPER building, which adds a short walk for students

and faculty.

Plans

• Work with the university and college administration to continue to ensure adequate classroom

and office space.

C5. Information and Technology Resources

The program has information and technology resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and

goals and to support instructional programs. Information and technology resources include

library resources, student access to hardware and software (including access to specific software

or other technology required for instructional programs), faculty access to hardware and software

(including access to specific software required for the instructional programs offered) and

technical assistance for students and faculty.

1) Briefly describe, with data if applicable, the following:

• library resources and support available for students and faculty

UT Knoxville is the flagship university in the system with an enrollment of over 28,000 and more than 300-

degree programs. The University of Tennessee consists of five campuses across the State of Tennessee.

The university possesses three million library volumes, periodicals, and computer resources to serve

students and faculty associated with this degree program.

Research Librarians

There are two full-time Health Science librarians available to faculty and students at all levels

(undergraduate, master, and doctoral). They connect faculty and students to the resources and support

needed for courses, research, or teaching

Journals and Periodicals

John C. Hodges Library of the University of Tennessee is the largest library in the state of Tennessee. In

addition, the University of Tennessee has Special Collections, Agriculture & Veterinary Medicine, and

Music Libraries. The university libraries have more than 3,309,000 titles cataloged with the Hodges

library. In FY 2019-2020, more than 1,550,000 visitors visited the libraries, more than 2,381,000 full-text

articles were downloaded, and the total expenditure of the libraries was $23,246,255 (detailed UT library

information can be accessed with this link: University of Tennessee Libraries at a glance

(https://www.lib.utk.edu/assessment/statistics/ and

https://www.lib.utk.edu/wp-

content/uploads/sites/19/files/LibraryFactsheetFY2021.pdf).

Hodges library has collections of all major health-related journals. Faculty, staff, and students also have

access to essential databases electronically for biomedicine, including MEDLINE citations and biomedical

articles in life science journals (PubMed) from 1948 to the present. Other databases UT students may

access public health-related journals include Scopus, a multidisciplinary database covering peer-reviewed

literature in science, engineering, medicine, and social sciences (1996-present), and Web of Science

(1900-present), which comprises a multidisciplinary index of articles and conference proceedings in

sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Below is a partial list of top Public Health-focused academic

journals that the University has: The Lancet Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, New

England Journal of Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, American Journal of Epidemiology,

Annual Review of Public Health, BMC Public Health, Canadian Journal of Public Health, Milbank

Quarterly, Public Health Reports, Journal of Adolescent Health, Environmental Science and Technology,

Journal of Public Health Policy, Health Affairs, Journal of Occupational Health, Journal of Aging

and Health, and the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

• student access to hardware and software (including access to specific software or other

technology required for instructional programs)

Workstations and Equipment

UT Hodges Library has 16 Workstations and one large format scanning station with a wide variety of

software for faculty, staff, and students to use for their media project: 8 Video Workstations (with analog-

to-digital media converters capable of importing analog media sources); 8 Graphics/Web Workstations

(with various scanners including – letter sized flatbed, tabloid sized flatbed, and film/negative scanners)

and one Large-format scanning station (PC). In addition, Hodges library provides one Video Room, one

Virtual Reality Room, one Whisper Room for vocal recording, and three Audio Recording Rooms (with

USB microphones and full-sized MIDI keyboards).

The Studio

The Studio, located in the Commons South at Hodges Library, is a media production and design lab open

to all UT students, staff, and faculty. The Studio provides multimedia workstations, production software,

knowledgeable staff, and training materials to assist in the creation of multimedia education projects. The

Studio continues the UT Libraries’ rich tradition of innovation and operates in a creative environment of

instructional and service excellence. Multimedia and GIS workstations are available on a first come, first

served basis. Specialized production facilities, like audio recording booths, the virtual reality lab, and the

video production suite are also available by reservation. Detailed information on the collection media

production resources can be found through the link here:

https://libguides.utk.edu/studio?_ga=2.94722841.467623693.1667581045-463155583.1649269905

The link below details Equipment that is available for faculty, staff, and students to checkout from

Libraries.

https://libguides.utk.edu/hodgesequipment/commonsequipment?_ga=2.91274015.467623693.166758104

5-463155583.1649269905

Software

UTK’s Office of Information Technology offers a variety of software to meet faculty’s teaching and

research needs and facilitate student’s learning experience at reduced or no additional cost. All faculty,

staff, and students have free access to Qualtrics (web survey platform) for academic, research, or

administrative purposes (https://oit.utk.edu/research/websurveys/

)

Students at UTK are eligible for one copy of Windows 10 for Education at no cost. Through Apps@UT,

UTK allows its faculty, staff, and students to run software as if it were installed on their computer, open

and save files on individual’s computer and print to their designated printers.

A partial list of available software for downloading includes:

Alertus, Atlas.ti, Autodesk Education Master Suite, ChemDraw Professional, Endnote, Endpoint

Management, ArcGIS pro, ESRI ArcMap, ArcGIS Bridge, Identity Finder, Maple 2022, MatLab, Microsoft

software, LabView, Nvivo, QDA miner, Wordstat, Simstat,Securing the Human, SAP GUI, SAS, Jump,

SPSS, Stata, Read&Write, Pulse Secure Cento, Mathematica, and Eduroam Config.

Detailed information on services provided by the Office of Information and Technology (OIT), including

Teaching & Learning Technologies, Research Support, and Information Management & Analytics, can be

accessed here: https://oit.utk.edu/

. OIT also provides technical support to assist faculty who engage in

distance education (https://oit.utk.edu/remote-it/teaching-remotely/). In addition, the University Libraries

provide document delivery services to remote UTK students, faculty, and staff as well as UT agricultural

extension and research agents (https://www.lib.utk.edu/info/distance-ed/).

• faculty access to hardware and software (including access to specific software or other

technology required for instructional programs)

As described above, faculty have the same hardware and software access as students.

• technical assistance available for students and faculty

UT OIT provides hands-on, face-to-face workshops, live Zoom workshops, Live Zoom support to assist

faculty to develop online courses or use Canvas, as well as self-paced online training to assist faculty,

staff, and students to leverage technology in teaching, research, and career development. Students, staff,

and faculty can contact the OIT HelpDesk online to inquire about scheduling training for a group or ask for

a one-on-one consultation. OIT online testing, plagiarism, and proctoring tools are used for instructors to

facilitate academic integrity assessment. OIT’s media services support includes digitizing course content

for online, hybrid, and live classroom delivery and includes text scanning, slide scanning, course

recording, conversion, and video digitization within copyright standards. OIT helps host and manage

students, staff, and faculty’s video content in a single cloud-based storage solution (powered by Panopto)

and share it easily through the Canvas courses or websites.

OIT provides technical assistance with various analysis methods the students, staff, and faculty need.

OIT tests new releases thoroughly, teaches their use through workshops or one-on-one tutorials, and

usually has more than one knowledgeable consultant available to assist students, staff, and faculty. OIT

can assist students, staff, and faculty with installing it on a computer or starting it on their computers. OIT

can point students, staff, and faculty towards tutorials and documentation and be able to help with

importing or exporting data. In addition, UTK provides information on security tools and resources to help

students, staff, and faculty prevent and mitigate possible security issues associated with online

communications and to help better secure personal, teaching, and research information. OIT maintains

firewalls in our data centers and many locations on campus.

2) Provide narrative and/or data that support the assertion that information and technology

resources are sufficient or not sufficient.

The information and technology resources for the Public Health program are sufficient. According to the

Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the UT Libraries ranked 23rd among public research university

libraries in the United States in 2019. The ARL is a coalition of 124 major research libraries in the United

States and Canada and includes the National Library of Medicine and the Library of Congress. The

Chronicle of Higher Education currently ranks UT Knoxville libraries 13th in the nation for the most money

spent on subscriptions, with 69% of those electronic subscriptions. In 2017, the UT libraries received the

2017 John Cotton Dana Library Public Relations Award for outstanding library public relations sponsored

by the American Library Association, the H.W. Wilson Foundation, and EBSCO Information Services.

Digital Media Services (DMS) at UT also provides several Information Technology services such as video

production, digitization, and image or text scanning.

Overall, the technologies provided are effective, sufficient, and supported by the University OIT team,

which is available at 865-974-9900 (HelpDesk) 24/7, excluding university holidays and administrative

closings. All faculty and students, campus-based or remote, can use technology to enhance research,

collaboration, and classroom engagement. Faculty, students, and staff can also visit the Walk-In

HelpDesk in the Commons at Hodges Library for face-to-face IT support, submit a Help Request online,

or Chat with the OIT HelpDesk at oit.utk.edu/chat. If a technical issue needs to be escalated, the

HelpDesk will create a support ticket and an OIT specialist will follow up to provide additional support. In

addition, our college has its own OIT support team to help faculty solve technical hardware/software

issues encountered during teaching and research. Our college OIT staff provide timely support coming to

faculty’s office for onsite troubleshooting upon request.

3) If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for

improvement in this area.

Strengths

• The BSPH, MPH and doctoral programs are well supported by a dedicated OIT staff and the

college and university level Help Desk.

• Interactive technologies for course instruction are continually reviewed, piloted, implemented, and

evaluated.

Weaknesses

• None noted.

Plans

• Continue to utilize university-provided hardware, software, and technical support to foster

teaching, learning, and research.

D1. MPH & DrPH Foundational Public Health Knowledge

The program ensures that all MPH and DrPH graduates are grounded in foundational public health

knowledge.

The program validates MPH and DrPH students’ foundational public health knowledge through

appropriate methods.

1) Provide a matrix, in the format of Template D1-1, that indicates how all MPH and DrPH students

are grounded in each of the defined foundational public health learning objectives (1-12). The

matrix must identify all options for MPH and DrPH students used by the program.

Template D1-1

Content Coverage for MPH (and DrPH degrees, if applicable) (SPH and PHP)

Content

Course number(s) & name(s) or other

educational requirements*

1. Explain public health history, philosophy, and values