NASPAA - National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration

public (pub-lik) adj.: Of or pertaining to the people; relating to, belonging to, or affecting a nation, state or community at large.

enterprise (ên-ter-priz') n: an undertaking, esp. one which involves activity, courage, energy, or the like; an important or daring project; a venture.

Thanks to all of you who participated in the NASPAA Annual Conference in Pittsburgh last month! Jim Perry (Indiana University and Purdue University, Indianapolis) and the other members of the Program Committee organized a diverse, interesting, and informative range of sessions for the more than 300 registrants, and the two plenary speakers provided stimulating presentations focusing on NASPAA members’ challenges and opportunities in educating students and managing programs – thanks, Jim, to you and your Program Committee colleagues. Special thanks also goes to the host institutions and their deans – Carolyn Ban (University of Pittsburgh) and Mark Wessel (Carnegie Mellon University) – as well as to NASPAA staff members Jackie Lewis, Barbara Ridgely, Laurel McFarland, Deborah Rosenbloom, and Monchaya Wanna for their overall conference management and leadership.

At the 2003 Annual Business Meeting, B.J. Reed (University of Nebraska at Omaha) succeeded Jo Ivey Boufford (New York University) as NASPAA president. Thank you, Jo, for your leadership and commitment to NASPAA during your presidency – and welcome, BJ! Thanks, also, to all NASPAA representatives who served this past year on the NASPAA Executive Council, COPRA, and NASPAA committees and sections.

The 2004 NASPAA Annual Conference is somewhat later than usual, so mark your calendar now to be in Indianapolis from Thursday, October 21, to Saturday, October 23, 2004; as usual, there will be pre-conference activities and meetings earlier that week. [Note that this is the week after the Columbus Day holiday, not the week of that holiday.]

Last reminder: NASPAA has only received completed Annual Conference evaluation forms from about 25 conference attendees. Please complete and fax your evaluations to Jackie Lewis at (202) 626-4978; contact the NASPAA office if you need another copy of this form. Your evaluations will be very helpful to the 2004 Annual Conference Program Committee and its chair, Michelle Piskulich (Oakland University), as it begins to plan the Indianapolis meeting in the coming months.

Following the October COPRA and NASPAA meetings, there are a number of important accreditation announcements.

1. The Commission is clarifying the instructions for Standard 5.5 (faculty diversity). Schools need to include a formal, program-level faculty diversity plan as part of their self study submission for Standard 5.5. The Commission requests that programs provide evidence of any actions associated with implementation of specific diversity plans for all individuals involved in instruction, including, but not limited to, full-time faculty, part-time faculty, adjunct faculty, lecturers, and instructors delivering program instruction. This information should be included, not just referenced, in the self study.

2. The NASPAA Executive Council approved a change to the structure (though not the amount) of accreditation fee payments. From 2004 on, in the fall of the self study submission year, there will be a single accreditation fee (currently: $2925) due no later than September 15. Programs that fail to submit their fee in full by that time will not be able to proceed through the accreditation review process. (Formerly, the fee was paid in two installments, the first due with the submission of the self study and the second due upon the appointment of the site visit team.)

3. The Commission has reaffirmed that programs must be in financial good standing in order to be reaccredited. This means that NASPAA membership dues must be fully paid, that the accreditation fee must be paid in full by the September 15 deadline (see 2. above), and that the site visit expense reimbursements must be made in a timely manner.

4. In an effort to clarify the links in the Standards between student competencies, assessment, and mission, the Commission has undertaken an effort to change the instructions to Standard 2.1, 4.1, and 4.2 C&D. These instructions should be posted by January 1st on the NASPAA website. The Commission has also recommended to the Standards Committee that, in the future, the standards be reordered to incorporate Standard 4.23 into Standard 4.1. This will make it clearer that programs need to identify desired student competencies, measure them, set “the bar” for whether students have achieved those competencies, and use the results of that exercise to assess the program and refine the mission.

5. Instructions are also being revised for Standard 4.21 with regard to information management, technology applications, and policy; and for Standard 4.4 with regard to internships. The instructions for the applicants/attrition tables for Standard 6 are also being streamlined. These instructions should all be posted by January 1st on the NASPAA website.

The new version of the NASPAA brochure “Graduate Degrees That Make a Difference” is now available – with a new cover photo, in a new color, and at lower cost than last year. This brochure provides an overview of the value of earning an MPA/MPP degree and includes a listing of representative positions held by MPA/MPP alumnae/alumni. NASPAA institutions have found this brochure useful in reaching out to both prospective students and prospective employers of their graduates, so order it now! To link to the brochure and its order form on the NASPAA website, see http://www.naspaa.org/principals/news/brochure.asp.

Congratulations to the 2003 NASPAA and Pi Alpha Alpha award recipients who were honored at the 2003 Annual Conference! See photos of these recipients on the NASPAA website at http://www.naspaa.org/principals/conference/conference.asp.

NASPAA award recipients this year are:

Elmer B. Staats Public Service Career Award:
Thomas Vocino, Auburn University at Montgomery

NASPAA Leslie A. Whittington Excellence in Teaching Award:
Sue R. Faerman, University of Albany, SUNY

NASPAA/ASPA Distinguished Research Award:
Kenneth J. Meier, Texas A&M University

NASPAA Annual Dissertation Award:
Andrea Hetling, University of Maryland, College Park
and
Young Han Chun, University of Georgia

Pi Alpha Alpha award recipients this year are:

Pi Alpha Alpha National Honorary Member:
Honorable Sala Udin, City Councilman, Pittsburgh, PA

Pi Alpha Alpha Chapter Award of Excellence:
The University of Utah

Pi Alpha Alpha Master’s Student Manuscript Award:
Erin McNees, University of Kentucky

Pi Alpha Alpha Doctoral Student Manuscript Award:
David W. Pitts, The University of Georgia

The NASPAA Doctoral Committee is organizing another doctoral workshop for doctoral program directors or faculty on June 4th and 5th at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Details will follow, but note these dates in your calendar now and make plans to attend. For further information after January 1st, please contact Laurel McFarland at copra@naspaa.org.

NASPAA, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the National Forum for Black Public Administrators (NFBPA), and the Hispanic Network are jointly developing and implementing a new national Local Government Management Fellowship (LGMF) Program to encourage recent graduates from NASPAA masters’ programs in public administration, management, policy, and related fields to enter the local government management profession.

The LGMF Program will be piloted during 2004-2005. NASPAA representatives on the LGMF Program Planning Committee are John Nalbandian (University of Kansas) and Sy Murray (Cleveland State University); Deborah Rosenbloom is staffing the LGMF Program and its Planning Committee for NASPAA. Applications will be available in December; watch the NASPAA listserv for updates, or contact Rebecca Singer, NASPAA, in December at singer@naspaa.org for applications.

Thank you to everyone who attended the four Accreditation Institute sessions this year at the NASPAA conference! Special thanks goes to the presenters and panelists: B.J. Reed, Maria Aristigueta (University of Delaware), Kim Bodine (University of Delaware), Stuart Bretschneider (Syracuse University), Michelle Piskulich (Oakland University), Laurel McFarland, and the participants in the “Five Faculty Rule” panel. Please email Laurel at copra@naspaa.org with any suggestions or feedback on this year’s Accreditation Institute; please include specific suggestions for session topics for the 2004 Accreditation Institute, and also please share your views on whether the new Saturday block structure (i.e., all Accreditation Institute sessions on the same day) was a scheduling improvement or not.

As promised, the materials from the Accreditation Institute sessions on the “Five Faculty Rule” and on “Student Learning Outcomes” are posted on the NASPAA website; see http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/institute/institute.asp

• Options for clarifying and/or changing Standard 5.1 (“Five Faculty Rule”) http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/institute/rule/options.asp

There is some interest among NASPAA members in forming an Executive Education Programs group to discuss such issues as best practices, curricula, measuring outcomes, relationships with government agencies, etc. We are currently trying to identify which of our members has an Executive Education Program. If you have such a program, please respond to rosenbloom@naspaa.org with a brief description of the program and your institutional contact person. If there is sufficient interest among NASPAA members in forming an Executive Education Programs group, we will explore such possible next steps as a separate listserv and a spring 2004 workshop.

At a meeting in Rio de Janeiro in February 2003, Inter-American Network for Public Administration Education (INPAE) partnership project representatives adopted Bylaws for INPAE as the initial step in the process of creating a formal organizational entity to strengthen education and practice in public administration, public management, and public policy research in the Americas. NASPAA organized and conducted this meeting and, during the summer and fall, has coordinated the implementation of the INPAE governance structure outlined in the Bylaws.

First, NASPAA administered the process for confirming the founding institutional members of INPAE; such members totaled 26, 8 from the U.S. and 18 from Latin America. Second, the institutional representatives of these founding members, through a multi-step electronic process administered by NASPAA, then nominated and elected INPAE’s first president (Oscar Oszlak, Argentina); vice president (Patria Julnes, U.S.); and 8 Directing Council members (from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and the U.S.).

This fall, NASPAA organized the first annual business meeting of INPAE institutional representatives in Panama City, Panama, on October 27, 2003, immediately preceding the annual congress of CLAD (Latin American Center of Administration for Development). At this meeting, participants also discussed INPAE strategic and programmatic priorities for the next few years with respect to education, research, technical assistance, and institutional strengthening. In addition, participants took initial steps to locate the INPAE secretariat at a Latin American institutional member of INPAE; the INPAE Directing Council will make this decision later this year.

Several NASPAA institutions are among the INPAE founding institutional members. In addition, Ana Mejia, NASPAA’s international programs coordinator, and Jo Ivey Boufford, past president of NASPAA (and NASPAA’s ex officio representative on the INPAE Directing Council), continue to provide critically important INPAE leadership.

On October 27-28, Dean Ellen Schall and the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University hosted NASPAA’s annual Career Services Professionals Workshop. More than 30 NASPAA member institutions’ career services professionals shared “best practices” with each other and networked with representatives from nonprofit firms, foundations, financial organizations, and international organizations that offer MPA/MPP internships, fellowships, and employment. The employers represented on panels included Amnesty International, International Rescue Committee, Annie B. Casey Foundation, Commonwealth Fund, Enterprise Foundation, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Moody’s Investors Service, U.S. Congressional Budget Office, U.S. General Accounting Office, the New York City Office of Management and Budget, and three United Nations units – U.N. Capital Development Fund, U.N. Development Programme, and U.N. Headquarters.

Thanks to David Schachter of the Wagner School for organizing an excellent workshop and to Deborah Rosenbloom for providing PMI and Local Government Management Fellowship Program updates and serving as NASPAA liaison. For information about future events for NASPAA career services professionals, please subscribe to the group’s listserv at careerlist@naspaa.org.

NASPAA currently has 249 institutional members. The following data summarize the distribution of NASPAA members by their student enrollment levels.

1-50 students	92 institutions
51-100 students	61 institutions
101-175 students	46 institutions
more than 175 students	50 institutions
	249

In April 2003, NASPAA/COPRA distributed an e-mail survey to the principal representatives at all NASPAA member institutions. We received completed surveys from 91 members with master’s degree programs. Following is a summary of the responses received.

1. Is your master's program currently accredited by NASPAA's Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation (COPRA)?
Yes 65
No 26

2. If not, do you plan to seek accreditation within 5 years?
Yes 15
Probably 2
No 9

3. What are your one or two biggest reasons for participating/not participating in COPRA's accreditation process?

Reasons for school's pursuit of accreditation:
institutional/alumni/faculty demand for it
recognition from potential students
recognition from university administration
attract better students and faculty
protects faculty release time for public service
incentive to keep reaching for the "best" program
increases long-term thinking
external validation of internal high opinion
provide model for other programs
professional responsibility
status; tradition; collegiality
keeps us current with the profession
state encourages accreditation in whatever fields it is available
campus politics
capture lessons learned by others
advance the shared mission of public administration
continuous improvement
to be seen participating in best practices
dean values it
establishes clear curriculum and program standards for our profession
enhances quality of instruction and preparation for public service
recruitment
reputation
stimulus for excellence
feedback for improvement
NASPAA's rigorous standards and the overall quality of its process
advice for program improvement
marketing tool in crowded market
only and best means for quality assurance
peer review provides useful "consulting"
secure resources (human and financial)

Reasons school does not pursue accreditation:
too few faculty
small program
too time consuming
program in too much flux
too much work
don't need it
expense
state funding cuts
too new a program to qualify
no MPA degree
object to the resource demands that accreditation can impose

4. In your opinion, what single change would most improve COPRA's accreditation process?
reduce data reporting requirements; streamline data reporting; prioritize data
requirements
reduce review time
longer time to respond to interim report
undergraduate accreditation
more attention to the specific core curriculum of the MPA
use on-line capabilities more
make standards more open to public policy programs, less focused on PA
less paperwork
lengthen accreditation period
higher quality standards, with strict adherence to them
high quality external site team members
provide framework for measuring outcomes
templates for routine questions
reach out to small programs
consistency across reviewers
don't review student transcripts
less process; brevity
greater assistance in the development of outcome measures
more sensitivity to small programs
focus on program integrity, not learning outcomes
focus on revised strategic vision – the process is itself the goal
more communication between site visitors and COPRA liaison
reduce paperwork
provide "excellent" self studies as models on-line
bigger pool of site visitors, especially practitioners
raise standards for faculty/student quality and size
interim report earlier
reduce arduousness for small programs
accredit doctoral programs
stronger standards more uniformly applied: mission-driven approach vague -- no one knows what MPA means

5. Should COPRA focus more on evidence of student learning outcomes (vs. program mission or resources) when making an accreditation decision?
Yes 44
No 36
Other 4 (unsure; don't know; a balance between inputs and outcomes)

6. Should COPRA provide more information to the public about its accreditation decisions, including denials of accreditation and one-year reaccreditations?
Yes 42
No 33
Other 5 (disclose only denials); 8 (don't know; unsure)

7. Should COPRA require schools to provide information to the public about the impact of their programs on graduates' competencies and job placement?
Yes 33
No 44
Other 7 (unsure; don't know)

8. Should COPRA offer optional quality reviews of MPA specializations (such as non-profit management or health care administration ) in addition to its general review of the degree and the core curriculum?
Yes 42
No 35
Other 5 (unsure; don't know)