Diversity Criterion: Successful Strategies for Responding & Incorporation in Criteria Revision P res ented by C E P H Ac c reditation S pec ialis ts • B rittney L illy, MP H • K ris ten Varol, MP H, C HE S How Did We Get Here? • Us ed to have s trong foc us on s truc tural divers ity, c ounting of individuals • Now greater emphas is on ins titutional/programmatic s ys tems and c ulture • E xpanded foc us from rac e/ethnic ity/gender to als o c ons ider other c ategories that fit with S P H/P HP ’s mis s ion Data Template Template 1.8.1. Summary Data for Faculty, Students and/or Staff Category/ Definition Method of Collection Data Source Target Year 1 • Mus t report at leas t four lines of data One must relate to students One must relate to faculty At leas t 2 c ategories mus t relate to rac e/ethnic ity Year 2 Year 3 General concepts • Define c ategories of interes t that align with mis s ion, s etting, etc . • C ons is tently and s ys tematic ally follow through on c ommitment to the c ategories of interes t • All aspects of activity: student recruitment, faculty recruitment, retention of both, curriculum, research & service focus, etc. • Demons trate quantitative evidenc e for s uc c es s • Demons trate other evidenc e for s uc c es s • Demons trate c ommitment to ongoing review & reevaluation as needed Documentation Requests • P res ent a c oherent, c oordinated approac h • Don’t answer doc requests as if they are independent of one another—requests are intended to be related and complementary • A ns wer thes e ques tions for s ite vis itors • How do/will you know you’re successful? • Are you doing enough? • If not, what are you doing/what do you plan to do to improve? • Make s ure that ans wers are program/s c hools pec ific • Fine to use successful university or college-level systems or definitions, but need to evaluate the fit & “make it your own.” Common Issues (A K A : T hings that annoy s ite vis itors ) • Weak or poorly-explained rationale for c hos en populations • You know your setting best! • Us e of gender as a c ategory without c lear rationale • Gender imbalance in PH students typically tilts female, but leadership & senior faculty roles may not • May be a meaningful category for you, but need to explain WHY • R elianc e on univers ity- or c ollege-bas ed plans without tailoring or evidenc e of examination • Dis c onnec t between data in template and dis c us s ion in other doc umentation reques ts • Happens more frequently than one would expect! More common issues… • B road s tatements without relations hip to c hos en populations of interes t • “Most courses in our curriculum address disparate effects of public health issues and policies on different populations.” • L ong lis t of links to s tandard non-dis c rimination polic ies • This criterion should tell visitors about YOUR school/program, not about verifying existence of formal language that is standard across most universities • R es ting on laurels /perc eption of c omplac enc y • L ac k of evidenc e that P HP /S P H is res ponding to data & adapting Some technicalities • S ome programs have identified legal is s ues with defining “ targets ” • International s ettings have different divers ity frameworks • F oc us on the c riterion’s intent & s pirit • What CAN you do? • What is meaningful in your setting, given context & constraints? • How can you express accountability & measure success? • Criterion is intended to be useful component of selfreflection/self-study Planned criteria revisions • Will c ombine s ome redundant reques ts • More foc us on examples rather than the exis tenc e of polic ies and proc edures • Will more explic itly s eek rationale for populations of interes t – and c lear links between thes e populations and the data pres ented Enough abstraction… What has actually worked? What hasn’t?
© Copyright 2018