1. science
2. engineering

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?