Three-Year Systematic Program Evaluation Report 2011, 2012 ...reflection about program strengths and areas for improvement, program-related transparency with ... Spring 2013, Summer

Clinical Mental Health Counseling Master’s Program

Three-Year Systematic Program

Evaluation Report 2011, 2012, 2013

Department of Counseling 302 Buchtel Common Akron, OH 44325-5007

Completed February, 2014

Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program Student Handbook Page 2 of 22

Introduction

This report is written to comply with the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2009) standard I.AA which states that every accredited counseling program must distribute an official report that documents outcomes of a systematic program evaluation, with descriptions of any program modifications, to students currently in the program, program faculty, institutional administrators, personnel in cooperating agencies (e.g., employers, site supervisors), and the public.

The purposes for this systematic program evaluation report are specific to the Clinical Mental Health Master’s Program (CMHC) and include, but are not limited to, objective and well-rounded faculty reflection about program strengths and areas for improvement, program-related transparency with stakeholders (e.g., students, graduates and employers), and communication about the program’s status with institutional administrators.

The data compiled for this systematic program evaluation report was drawn from calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013 (i.e., Spring 2011, Summer 2011, Fall 2011, Spring 2012, Summer 2012, Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Summer 2013, and Fall 2013 semesters).

Throughout this program evaluation period there were three core CMHC program faculty: Dr. Sandy Perosa, Dr. Varunee Faii Sangganjanavanich and Dr. Robert Schwartz. Note that during Summer 2013 Dr. Sandy Perosa retired as Professor of Counselor Education and Supervision. This program evaluation report is submitted by the current core CMHC faculty members, Dr. Varunee Faii Sangganjanavanich and Dr. Robert Schwartz, however the program feedback, updates and accomplishments achieved during this period included participation from Dr. Sandy Perosa. Program students and faculty wish to communicate their gratitude for the participation of our retired colleague.

Accreditation Standards Monitoring and Evaluation Data

CACREP Section I. Evaluation

AA. Program faculty members engage in continuous systematic program evaluation indicating how the mission, objectives, and student learning outcomes are measured and met.

Throughout this three-year period program faculty engaged in continuous assessment of program strengths and areas for improvement. This occurred through regular faculty conversations, meetings, informal forums with students, formal student/graduate/supervisor/employer surveys, and feedback from professionals in the field. The program evaluation data obtained lead to three years of in-depth program


reflection and updates including but not limited to the following areas: content published in the student handbook, program curricula, program resources and marketing information (e.g., program brochures and websites), and training requirements and resources (e.g., practicum and internship). The data obtained during the program evaluation process, and the program updates resulting from faculty program reflection, are presented here.

AA.1. A review by program faculty of programs, curricular offerings, and characteristics of program applicants.

Program Application, Enrollment and Graduation Data Program Applicant, Admission, and Active (Matriculated) Student Summary: Semester à

Spring 2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Total Applicants 29 65 27 60 41 68

Total Admitted 22 26 20 34 24 27

Cumulative Total Active (Matriculated)

29 41 43 43 77 70

% Admitted 76 40 74 57 59 40

Program faculty were pleased with the high application rate throughout this program evaluation period. This trend resulted in a more selective admission process, and consequently a slightly lower admission percentage rate over time semester-by-semester (i.e., comparable Spring semesters versus comparable Fall semesters). Program faculty also noted a significant increase in active (matriculated) students throughout the program evaluation period. This increase, coupled with the recent retirement of one core program faculty member, will be addressed with administration to help prevent undue strain on faculty resources and to maintain quality assurance during students’ education and training.


Program Applicants (Note that applicants may apply to the CMHC program Fall and Spring semesters): Calendar Year 2011 (Spring 2011 and Fall 2011 Semesters) = 94 Applicants

Sex à 75 = Female, 9 = Male

Race à 73 = Euro-American/White,12 = African American/Black, 2 = Hispanic American/Latino, 7 = Other

Age à 1 = < 20 years, 55 = 21-25 years, 18 = 26-30 years, 6 = 31-35 years, 4 = 36-40 years,

5 = 41-45 years, 3 = 46-50 years, 2 = 51-55 years, 3 = 56-60 years Calendar Year 2012 (Spring 2012 and Fall 2012 Semesters) = 87 Applicants


Race à 77 = Euro-American/White, 7 = African American/Black, 1 = Hispanic American/Latino, 2 = Other


5 = 41-45 years, 5 = 46-50 years, 1 = 51-55 years, 0 = 56-60 years Calendar Year 2013 (Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 Semesters) = 109 Applicants




5 = 41-45 years, 4 = 46-50 years, 1 = 51-55 years, 0 = 56-60 years Program faculty noted that application rates were consistent semester-by-semester (i.e., comparable Spring semesters versus comparable Fall semesters) throughout the program evaluation period, with an increased application rate during the final two semesters. During all semesters applications exceeded maximum number of admissions possible for program quality assurance purposes. A range of diversity was noted regarding sex, race and age of applicants, however the majority of applicants were Euro-American/White females aged 21-30 years.


Program Admissions (Note that applicants are admitted to the CMHC program Fall and Spring semesters): Calendar Year 2011 (Spring 2011 and Fall 2011 Semesters) = 48 Admissions




4 = 41-45 years, 0 = 46-50 years, 1 = 51-55 years, 3 = 56-60 years Calendar Year 2012 (Spring 2012 and Fall 2012 Semesters) = 54 Admissions




3 = 41-45 years, 3 = 46-50 years, 1 = 51-55 years, 0 = 56-60 years Calendar Year 2013 (Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 Semesters) = 51 Admissions




2 = 41-45 years, 3 = 46-50 years, 0 = 51-55 years, 0 = 56-60 years

Program faculty noted that admission rates were fairly consistent semester-by-semester (i.e., comparable Spring semesters versus comparable Fall semesters) throughout the program evaluation period, with a slight increase in the admission rate during the final two semesters (consistent with the increased application rate). Despite an ever-present administrative desire to grow the program for reputability, financial, and other reasons, program faculty have attempted to maintain a steady pool of high-quality students for program quality assurance purposes. A range of diversity was noted regarding sex, race and age of applicants, however the majority of student admissions were Euro-American/White females aged 21-30 years (consistent with the application pool).


AA.2. Formal follow-up studies of program graduates to assess graduate perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program.

Program faculty routinely conduct formal follow-up studies for both current students toward the end of their program (i.e., exit survey) and program graduates/alumni (annually). New online follow-up exit and graduate alumni surveys were developed separately during this program evaluation period in order to better assess key perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program. Although alternative surveys were used prior to and during the first year of this program evaluation period, only new survey data will be reported here because the former surveys were deemed by program faculty to be outdated and less helpful for program improvement purposes. Current Student Exit Survey Results (N=34): Ratings are scored using a Likert-Type scale ranging from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). Higher scores equate to a higher level of student satisfaction.

Statistic Ethics &

Professional Orientaton

Research & Program Evaluation

Assessment & Testing

Human Growth & Development

Min Value 3 2 2 2 Max Value 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.32 3.91 3.71 4.06

Statistic Individual Counseling Theory

Group Counseling Theory

Multicultural Counseling

Career Counseling

Min Value 2 2 3 3 Max Value 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.18 4.38 4.38 4.44 Core Course Survey Data: Program faculty noted that during this program evaluation period ratings in all core course areas averaged between “Somewhat Satisfied” and “Satisfied.” For six of the eight core course areas ratings averaged between “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied.” The two lowest rated core course areas were either taught by faculty in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership (Research & Program Evaluation) or by non-core faculty with a degree other than Counselor Education and Supervision (Assessment & Testing). These results, along with other assessment data, resulted in program modifications to promote quality assurance (see below).


Statistic Legal &

Professional Issues

Addiction Counseling

Crisis & Trauma

Counseling

Mental Disorder Diagnosis & Treatment

Clinical Skills (Pract &

Internship)

Min Value 2 1 1 2 3 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.29 3.82 3.18 4.56 4.53 Clinical Counseling Specialty Course Survey Data: Program faculty noted that during this program evaluation period ratings in all clinical counseling specialty course areas averaged between “Somewhat Satisfied” and “Satisfied.” For three of the five clinical counseling specialty course areas ratings averaged between “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied.” The two highest rated clinical counseling specialty course areas (Diagnosis & Treatment and Clinical Courses) are taught and/or directly coordinated by core program faculty. The two lowest rated clinical counseling specialty course areas (Addiction Counseling and Crisis & Trauma Counseling) were not required courses during this program evaluation period. These results, along with other assessment data and the need to update curricula in compliance with CACREP (2009) standards, resulted in program modifications to promote enhanced knowledge and skills in these areas (see below).

• Regarding use of technology, survey data showed an average rating of 4.35 (out of 5) when students were asked “How satisfied are you with the department's use of technology (e.g., Springboard, websites, email, instructional technology)?”

• Regarding acceptance of student feedback, survey data showed an average rating of 3.76 (out of

5) when students were asked “How satisfied were you with CMHC program faculty receiving/accepting student feedback?”

• Regarding program support, survey data showed an average rating of 4.06 (out of 5) when

students were asked “How satisfied were you with CMHC program faculty help/support when student/program issues/concerns arose?”

• Regarding faculty advising, survey data showed an average rating of 3.97 (out of 5) when

students were asked “How satisfied were you with CMHC faculty advising availability/effectiveness?”

• Regarding program organization, survey data showed an average rating of 4.06 (out of 5) when

students were asked “How satisfied were you with how clear/thorough CMHC program information was for students - for example guidelines, policies, and procedures?”

• Regarding overall ratings, survey data showed an average rating of 4.03 (out of 5) when students

were asked “Overall how would you rate the CMHC program if someone else asked you (e.g., a prospective student)?”


Positive Qualitative Feedback - Faculty noted positive program-related feedback consistently showing that CMHC faculty involvement and support were key aspects of students’ success. Students consistently praised CMHC core faculty for their conscientiousness, professionalism, knowledge and personal mentoring. Students also praised the clinical training aspects of the program and specific instructors for their skill in teaching specialty areas. Constructive Qualitative Feedback – Faculty noted constructive program-specific feedback related to the need for required addiction counseling and crisis/trauma counseling training, areas which the program addressed in concrete ways through curriculum updates. Constructive feedback also related to non-program-specific issues that CMHC faculty do not administer, such as selection of non-core instructors, difficulties related to class scheduling, and requests for additional CMHC core program faculty members (related to a recent 50% loss of CMHC core faculty to retirements which have not been replaced). Graduate/Alumni Survey Results (N=66): Survey results show that 81% of program graduates are currently employed in the counseling profession, and 86% are currently licensed as a Professional Counselor or Professional Clinical Counselor. Ratings are scored using a Likert-Type scale ranging from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). Higher scores equate to a higher level of student satisfaction.

Statistic Ethics &

Professional Identity

Research & Program Evaluation


Human Growth &

Development

Career Counseling

Min Value 1 1 1 1 2 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.28 3.62 3.49 4.07 3.93

Statistic Individual Counseling Theory

Group Counseling Theory


Legal & Advocacy Information

Addiction Counseling

Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.28 4.10 4.13 3.62 3.58 Core Course Survey Data: Program faculty noted that during this program evaluation period ratings in all core course areas averaged between “Somewhat Satisfied” and “Satisfied.” For five of the eight core course areas ratings averaged between “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied.” The two lowest rated core course areas were either taught by non-core faculty with a degree other than Counselor Education and Supervision (Assessment & Testing) or were not required as part of the program’s curriculum


(Addiction Counseling). These results, along with other assessment data, resulted in program modifications to promote quality assurance (see below).

Statistic Crisis & Trauma

Counseling

Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

Treatment of Mental Disorders

Clinical Skills Overall Professionalism

Min Value 1 3 1 1 1 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 2.77 4.45 3.64 3.86 4.21 Clinical Counseling Specialty Course and Professionalism Survey Data: Program faculty noted that during this program evaluation period ratings in all clinical counseling specialty course areas except one averaged between “Somewhat Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied.” The two highest rated areas (Diagnosis of Mental Disorders and Overall Professionalism) are taught and/or directly coordinated by core program faculty. The lowest rated clinical counseling specialty course area (Crisis & Trauma Counseling) was not a required course/content area during this program evaluation period. These results, along with other assessment data and the need to update curricula in compliance with CACREP (2009) standards, resulted in program modifications to promote enhanced knowledge and skills in these areas (see below).

• Regarding faculty support, survey data showed an average rating of 3.89 (out of 5) when alumni were asked “Post-graduation, overall how satisfied are you with the program's faculty?”

• Regarding clinical training in the field, survey data showed an average rating of 3.91 (out of 5)

when alumni were asked “Post-graduation, overall how satisfied are you with the program's coursework/training?”

• Regarding overall perceptions, survey data showed an average rating of 4.0 (out of 5) when

alumni were asked “Post-graduation, how would you rate the program if someone else asked you (e.g., a prospective student)?”

Positive Qualitative Feedback - Faculty noted positive program-related feedback consistently showing that CMHC faculty mentoring, approachable core faculty, clinical training, and specific courses such as DSM were key aspects of students’ success. Students consistently praised CMHC core faculty for their professionalism and knowledge of counseling. Constructive Qualitative Feedback – Faculty noted constructive program-specific feedback related to the need for required crisis/trauma counseling and addiction counseling training, which has been addressed in concrete ways through curriculum updates. Constructive feedback also related to non-program-specific issues that CMHC faculty do not administer, such as the selection of non-core faculty members teaching CMHC-related courses, and requests for additional core program faculty members with a counselor identity.


AA.3. Formal studies of site supervisors and program graduate employers that assess their perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program.

Supervisor/Employer Survey Results (N=38): Survey results show that approximately 30 different mental health agencies were represented in this survey. All of those completing the survey have served as site supervisors for CMHC trainees. 61% of those completing the survey were involved in employment decisions for one or more graduate. Respondents worked with CMHC trainees for between 1 and 20 years, and have supervised between 1 and 35 CMHC trainees. of program graduates are currently employed in the counseling profession, and 86% are currently licensed as a Professional Counselor or Professional Clinical Counselor. Ratings are scored using a Likert-Type scale ranging from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 5 (Very Satisfied). Higher scores equate to a higher level of student satisfaction.

Statistic Ethics &

Professional Identity


Human Growth &

Development

Career Counseling

Individual Counseling Theory

Min Value 4 -‐ 3 -‐ 3 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.71 2.95 4.43 1.89 4.64

Statistic Group

Counseling Theory


Client/Professional Advocacy

Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

Overall Professionalism

Min Value -‐ -‐ -‐ 3 3 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 3.97 4.25 4.41 4.38 4.65 Core Course, Clinical Counseling Specialty Course and Professionalism Survey Data: Program faculty noted that during this program evaluation period ratings in all core counseling and clinical counseling specialty course areas except one averaged between “Somewhat Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied.” The two highest rated areas (Ethics/Professional Identity and Overall Professionalism) are taught and/or directly coordinated by core program faculty. The lowest rated course area (Career Counseling) is an anomaly. It is possible that this course area was mis-rated, or trainees did not have an adequate opportunity to show career counseling knowledge and skills, or there may be a disconnect between how supervisors/employers versus current students and alumni perceive sufficient training in this area. These results, along with other assessment data and the need to update curricula in compliance with CACREP


(2009) standards, resulted in program modifications to promote enhanced knowledge and skills in these areas (see below).

• Regarding overall perceptions, survey data showed an average rating of 4.5 (out of 5) when supervisors/employers were asked “Based on your experience, overall how would you rate the UA Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program?”

Positive Qualitative Feedback - Faculty noted consistent positive program-related feedback showing that trainees are knowledgeable about the field, professional and ethical, and skilled in clinical interventions and documentation. Survey results also highlight program faculty support of students, “going the extra mile” for students in the field, and site/supervisor support. Constructive Qualitative Feedback – Many respondents advocated that few if any limitations are apparent in the program or its trainees. Faculty noted some constructive feedback related to the need for required addiction counseling and crisis/trauma counseling training, which has been addressed through concrete program modifications to promote quality assurance (see below).

AA.4. Assessment of student learning and performance on professional identity, professional practice, and program area standards.

Comprehensive Examination Results Summary Shortly before this program evaluation period began all CACREP-accredited master’s programs began utilizing the Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE) as one required student evaluation method as opposed to the previous Department of Counseling-generated comprehensive examination developed by faculty. During this program evaluation period program faculty reviewed CPCE data each semester to determine appropriateness and trends related to the examination. Comprehensive Examination Results By Semester: Semester à Spring

2011 Summer 2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Summer 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Summer 2013

Fall 2013

Total Exams 15 9 7 7 10 10 9 4 7

Total Passed 14 9 7 7 8 10 9 4 6

% Passed 93.3 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 85.7


The average pass rate throughout the entire program evaluation period was 94.4% indicating a high success rate among students. The very high pass rates on the CPCE helped to confirm current student quantitative ratings on core courses described above. These very high pass rates on the CPCE are also consistent with high pass rates on the National Counselor Examination (NCE), which Ohio uses as its Professional Counselor state examination. Program students averaged an approximate 93-97% pass rate on the NCE during this program evaluation period, compared to an average approximate 76-78% pass rate nationally.

Program-Related Updates During this program evaluation period program faculty revised the assessment of student learning and performance in total, developing a comprehensive assessment strategy that was fully implemented during Fall 2013 semester. Below is a summary of the major aspects of the new assessment strategy: Student and Program Review Process Updates During this program evaluation period, in keeping with the objectives and philosophy of the program, and in order to comply with CACREP (2009) standards, new comprehensive formative and summative student and program evaluation methods were developed and incorporated in the student handbook and other program-related information sources (e.g., program websites). The following summary includes these updated student and program evaluation methods: Student Evaluation Process (by Program faculty) [Each Fall and Spring semester]

a. Review of active students’ individual course grades b. Review of active students’ overall grade point averages c. Review of Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluations (from candidacy course instructors).

These candidacy courses were chosen to ensure ongoing formative assessment of clinical knowledge/skills development before Practicum approval:

i. 5600:651 – Techniques of Counseling ii. 5600:674 – Prepracticum in Counseling

d. Review of clinical supervisor evaluation/feedback. These sources of evaluation/feedback

were chosen to ensure summative assessment of clinical competence before graduation:

i. 5600:675 – Practicum ii. 5600:685 – Internship

e. Review of Department of Counseling statement of expectations f. Review of individual comprehensive examination (CPCE) scores and pass rates


Program Evaluation Process (by Program faculty) [Once annually, end-Spring semester]

g. Review of current students’ completers surveys h. Review of Program graduates’ surveys i. Review of other students’ surveys as administered by Program faculty (e.g.,

comprehensive examination surveys, etc) j. Review of Program supervisors’ and employers’ surveys k. Review of global comprehensive examination (CPCE) patterns l. Review of signature assessments of learning outcomes chosen by Program faculty to

ensure ongoing formative evaluation of CACREP (2009) Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program standards. Student learning outcome data for specific signature assessments were chosen within the following Program-specific courses:

i. 5600:635 (Introduction to Clinical Counseling) ii. 5600:664 (DSM)

iii. 5600:666 (Treatment in Clinical Counseling) iv. 5600:675 (Practicum) v. 5600:685 (Internship)

Student Review and Retention Process Updates During this program evaluation period, in keeping with the objectives and philosophy of the program, and in order to comply with CACREP (2009) standards, new comprehensive formative and summative student review and retention methods were developed and incorporated in the student handbook and other program-related information sources (e.g., program websites). The following summary includes these updated student review and retention methods:

1. Evidence of progress that indicates an ability to complete degree requirements in six years (as required by the Graduate School).

2. An overall GPA of at least 3.0 (on a 5-point standard grading scale) or higher throughout the program.

3. Individual grades of at least B- (3.0) or better on all required Program coursework. NOTE: According to State law, the Ohio Counselor, Social Worker and Marriage & Family Therapist Board will not accept any course with a grade lower than “B-” toward PC licensure. If a “C” or lower is received in any course required for licensure purposes, that course must be repeated.


4. Demonstration of at least ‘2’ (adequate) on all areas of the Student Candidacy Fitness

Evaluation (below), and recommendation of instructor.

5. Demonstration of at least ‘3’ (competent) or better in all Practicum competency areas, and recommendation of instructor.

6. Demonstration of at least ‘2’ (marginally acceptable) or better on the overall Internship evaluation and a recommendation of ‘yes’ on the Internship evaluation stating the trainee has the knowledge and skills to practice competently as a professional counselor.

7. A passing score on the comprehensive examination (CPCE).

8. Demonstration that the Department of Counseling Statement of Expectations, which is printed on all Department of Counseling syllabi, has been followed throughout the program: “Programs in the Department of Counseling are charged with the dual task of nurturing the development of counselors-in-training and ensuring the quality of client care. In order to fulfill these dual responsibilities, faculty must evaluate students based on their academic, professional, and personal qualities. A student’s progress in the program may be interrupted for failure to comply with academic standards or if a student’s interpersonal or emotional status interferes with being able to provide effective or ethical services to clients. For example, in order to ensure proper training and client care, a counselor-in-training must abide by relevant ethical codes and demonstrate professional knowledge, technical and interpersonal skills, a professional attitude, and moral character. These factors are evaluated based on one’s academic performance and one’s ability to convey warmth, genuineness, respect, and empathy in interactions with clients classmates, staff, and faculty. Students should also demonstrate the ability to accept and integrate feedback, gain awareness of their impact on others, accept personal responsibility, and show effective and appropriate expression of emotions.”

Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluation A new fitness evaluation form was developed by program faculty to provide program and student-centered feedback regarding performance in key areas related to candidacy courses deemed as signature assessment points which are prerequisites for clinical courses such as Practicum and Internship.

The purpose is to track student development and offer remediation when needed throughout the program’s curriculum. Forms are completed on all CMHC students in specific candidacy courses (Techniques of Counseling and Prepracticum in Counseling), areas for growth are described, and the form is returned to the Program/Clinical Coordinator for student and program evaluation purposes.


Fitness evaluation areas include the following. All areas are rated according to a 3-point Likert-type scale (1 = Deficient, 2 = Adequate, 3 = Good, or Not Observed). More detail and the actual fitness evaluation can be found in the student handbook: Openness to learning/feedback, Flexibility, Self-awareness, Personal responsibility/conscientiousness, Personal maturity, Academic/classroom performance, and Ethics

AA.5. Evidence of the use of findings to inform program modifications.

A thorough and objective review of all data presented in this program evaluation report lead program faculty to implement significant changes in order to strengthen areas deemed satisfactory, and update areas noted as in need of improvement through quantitative and qualitative current student/alumni/supervisor/employer survey feedback, core faculty observations, academic training methodology considerations, and other assessment methods. Many of the program modifications also occurred in preparation for CACREP reaccreditation in compliance with 2009 accreditation standards. The following is a summary of the major program modifications that have occurred during this three-year program evaluation period: Program Name Change The CMHC program is accredited by CACREP until March 2016 as a Community Counseling program. In order to prepare for the reaccreditation process, and to better align with current nomenclature in the profession, during the 2013 academic year the program officially changed it’s name to CMHC. In order to remain transparent about the program’s current accreditation status, the student handbook and websites were updated to reflect the following language: “The Clinical Mental Health Counseling program is currently accredited under the 2001 standards for Community Counseling programs as a Community Counseling program. The CACREP 2009 standards combine the Community Counseling and Mental Health Counseling standards into standards for Clinical Mental Health Counseling programs. The counseling program intends to seek accreditation for this program as a Clinical Mental Health Counseling program when it comes up for reaccreditation, per CACREP guidelines. Students are encouraged to visit the CACREP website to learn more about counseling accreditation guidelines: http://www.cacrep.org/template/index.cfm.”

Program Objectives, Philosophy and Mission Statement Updates

During this program evaluation period program faculty determined that a clearer description of the CMHC program’s objectives, philosophy and mission would be helpful in distinguishing core aspects of


what the program aims to achieve, why and how. These updates were thought to be especially important given the program’s name change from Community Counseling to CMHC, so core program information could better align with the current state of the broader profession and upcoming (CACREP 2009) reaccreditation standards.

These updates include the following information quoted from the 2013 CMHC student handbook:

Program Objectives: The Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program aims to prepare students as effective professional counselors using a Clinical Mental Health Counseling philosophy/identity. It is expected that graduates from the Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program will have gained: (1) A professional identity founded on human growth/wellness from a holistic perspective (2) Knowledge about bio-psycho-social causes of client distress and social/occupational impairments (3) Skills related to the enhancement of human development as well as the treatment of psychopathology (4) Confidence/competence related to improving one’s community through individual, group,

and societal advocacy and outreach. In this regard, the Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program is designed to foster the following educational and professional objectives among its students:

• A clinical counselor identity • Knowledge of specialty counseling areas unique to clinical counselors – for example, advocacy,

social justice, and community consultation • Knowledge of core counseling areas – for example, human growth and development,

social/cultural foundations, helping relationships and professional orientation, theories of counseling and group work, career and lifestyle development, tests and appraisal, research and program evaluation

• Ethical and professional decision-making skills • Clinical skills leading to State licensure • Self-awareness and personal growth

Program Philosophy and Mission:

The Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program has as its mission world-class graduate-level training in the art and science of mental health in order to produce Professional Counselors/Professional Clinical Counselors who effectively enhance the lives of individuals, groups, and communities.

Clinical Mental Health Counseling, as defined by the American Mental Health Counselors Association, is a distinct profession with national standards for education, training and clinical practice. Clinical Mental Health Counselors are highly skilled professionals who provide flexible, consumer-oriented therapy. They combine traditional psychotherapy with a practical, problem-solving approach that creates a dynamic and efficient path for change and problem resolution.


Clinical Mental Health Counselors offer a full range of services including:

• Assessment and diagnosis • Longer-term psychotherapy • Treatment planning and utilization review • Brief and solution-focused therapy • Alcoholism and substance abuse treatment • Psychoeducational and prevention programs • Crisis management

Clinical Mental Health Counselors are uniquely qualified to meet the challenges of providing high quality care in a cost-effective manner. Clinical Mental Health Counselors practice in a variety of settings, including independent practice, community agencies, managed behavioral health care organizations, integrated delivery systems, hospitals, employee assistance programs, and substance abuse treatment centers (retrieved July 2013 from http://www.amhca.org/about/facts.aspx).

Program Diversity Inclusion/Recruitment Standards Updates During this program evaluation period diversity-related inclusion/recruitment efforts were more clearly highlighted in the student handbook and throughout the program’s marketing, information-sharing, and internal (e.g., program and department-wide) communications efforts. These updates include the following information quoted from the 2013 CMHC student handbook: Education in the United States is designed to cultivate human thought, behavior, and perception through a prescribed program of experiences aimed at helping individuals realize their professional potential and develop a high ethical and work-related standard. The Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program takes into account ethnic and cultural trends in order to provide a satisfying and effective education for its students. In order to promote the acceptance, facilitation, inclusion and retention of diverse students and faculty, the Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program engages in the following activities:

(1) The student handbook highlights an affirmative action policy explaining “that there shall be no discrimination against any individual because of age, sex, race, gender identity, creed, disability, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation” which applies to all students (and applicants), faculty, staff, and employees.

(2) The program faculty openly endorse the recruitment and development of culturally diverse counselors as a professional responsibility, similar to providing adequate and appropriate services to culturally diverse clientele.

(3) The program actively recruits minority students, and makes every effort to retain these students via financial and tutorial assistance (including accommodations due to the impact of a disability per the University Office of Accessibility).


(4) The program maintains internal diversity statistics for our students and faculty. (5) Program faculty complete peer-reviewed publications and presentations on diversity-related

topics and advocacy. (6) The program has access to the Office of Multicultural Development, which helps attract/retain

students of color per http://www.uakron.edu/omd/. (7) The program has access to the university Chief Diversity Officer whose office helps attract/retain

diverse students/faculty per http://www.uakron.edu/ie/. (8) The Department of Counseling advertises for open faculty positions not only in the standard

academic outlets (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education) but also Black Issues in Higher Education, Diverse Issues, and Hispanic Outlook.

Program Curricula Updates In order to conform with CACREP (2009) CMHC standards, Ohio Professional Counselor licensure standards, and after a review of student/alumni/supervisor/employer feedback obtained throughout this program evaluation period, several important program curriculum updates occurred. The curriculum updates outlined below were fully implemented for all CMHC students admitted Fall 2013 semester (and beyond), including the structure of the overall program (i.e., the Graduate Bulletin), reduction in credits for certain courses, and the creation of additional courses: Educational Foundations (9 semester credits total):

• 5600:601 Research & Program Evaluation (3 credits) [5600:601 is a newly developed course added to the curriculum because the previously required course, 5100:640 Introduction to Research, was taught by faculty in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership and did not adequately focus on counseling-related research knowledge and skills]

• 5600:646 Multicultural Counseling (3 credits) [No change] • 5600:648 Individual & Family Counseling Across the Lifespan (3 credits) [No change]

Required Counseling Core Courses (20 semester credits total):

• 5600:600 Professional Orientation & Ethics (2 credits) [5600:600 was renamed (previously Seminar in Counseling) and was increased from 1 to 2 credits in order to incorporate additional ethics-related knowledge and skills]

• 5600:635 Introduction to Clinical Counseling (2 credits)


[5600:635 was renamed and was decreased from 3 to 2 credits in order to focus more specifically on CMHC history, laws, and professional knowledge]

• 5600:643 Counseling: Theory & Philosophy (3 credits) [No change] • 5600:645 Tests & Appraisal in Counseling (3 credits)

[5600:645 was decreased from 4 to 3 credits in order to provide additional room to add other program required knowledge and skills]

• 5600:647 Career Development & Counseling Across the Lifespan (3 credits) [No change] • 5600:651 Techniques of Counseling (3 credits) [No change] • 5600:653 Group Counseling (4 credits) [No change]

Clinical Counseling Specialty Courses (28 semester credits total):

• 5600:662 Personality & Abnormal Behavior (3 credits) [No change] • 5600:664 DSM (3 credits) [No change] • 5600:666 Treatment in Clinical Counseling (3 credits)

[5600:666 was reconstructed to include specific crisis/trauma-specific treatment knowledge and empirically validated treatments]

• 5600:732 Addiction Counseling (3 credits) [5600:732 was previously one of several elective courses but was added as a required course in order to ensure addiction counseling knowledge and skills]

• 5600:714 Evaluation of Mental Status (3 credits) [5600:714 was renamed (previously Objective Personality Evaluation) and was decreased from 4 to 3 credits in order to focus more specifically on CMHC assessment, interviewing and mental status examination knowledge and skills]

• 5600:674 Prepracticum in Counseling (2 credits) [5600:674 is a newly developed course added to the curriculum in order to ensure readiness for clinical practice during Practicum]

• 5600:675 Practicum in Counseling (5 credits) [No change] • 5600:685 Internship (6 credits over two semesters)

[5600:685 was updated to include a required crisis/trauma focused clinical experience in addition to a primary mental health agency placement in order to ensure knowledge and skills in crisis/trauma treatment methods]


Program Electives (3 credits minimum):

• 5600:621 Counseling Youth at Risk (3 credits) OR 5600:622 Play Therapy (3 credits) OR 5600:660 Counseling Children (3 credits) OR 5600:640 Counseling Adolescents (3 credits) OR 5600:655 Marriage & Family Therapy (credits) OR 5600:620 Issues in Sexuality for Counselors [No change]

Clinical Course Updates

During this program evaluation period Practicum and Internship course registration procedures were updated in order to ensure a transparent and fair registration process (across students and semesters), and in order to provide more structured and detailed information for students. In addition, a new Internship requirement was initiated for all students focused on specific training in crisis/trauma knowledge and skills. The requirements for this Internship component, which are additional to the standard primary mental health agency placement, are described in detail in the student handbook and course syllabus.

Program Evaluation Report Summary and Conclusions Program faculty strongly endorse the use of this program evaluation report as a means of better understanding the program’s status, strengths, and areas for growth to ensure effective and efficient world-class counselor education and training. The quantitative and qualitative data obtained during this three-year program evaluation period resulted in better educational opportunities for students, greater reputability and accountability for the university, increased professional readiness for graduates and enhanced public mental health service to the community. Application rates were steady across the program evaluation period, and for all semesters were higher than the maximum number of applicants who were able to gain admission into the program. Program faculty have therefore been increasingly selective during the application review process. Admission rates have also been steady throughout the program evaluation period, although the number of active (matriculated) students has increased particularly during the last year of the program evaluation period. Program faculty will monitor this trend in order to maintain quality assurance for current students. Although graduation rates have remained steady throughout the program evaluation period program faculty will attempt to better understand these data in order to help increase the overall graduation rate for all students. Diversity of applicants is broad in terms of sex, race, and age, however a trend is apparent in that the majority of applicants are Euro-American/White females age 21-30 years. This trend is common within the counseling profession. Although program faculty note a broad range of student diversity, including males (15-20% of current students), international students (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, etc) and


non-traditional aged students (e.g., those over 50 beginning new careers), program faculty have revised the Program Diversity Inclusion/Recruitment Standards in order to help broaden the multicultural base of applicants and current students. Program faculty were pleased that students had a very high pass rate on the comprehensive examination throughout the program evaluation period, consistent with a high pass rate on the National Counselor Examination (NCE), averaging an approximate 93-97% pass rate compared to an average approximate 76-78% pass rate nationally. Quantitative data showed that current students were satisfied with all courses taught in the program. Survey data showed an average rating of 4.03 (out of 5) when students were asked “Overall how would you rate the CMHC program if someone else asked you (e.g., a prospective student)?” Data showed that program alumni were retrospectively satisfied with all courses taught in the program, except training in crisis/trauma counseling. Regarding overall perceptions, survey data showed an average rating of 4.0 (out of 5) when alumni were asked “Post-graduation, how would you rate the program if someone else asked you (e.g., a prospective student)?” Supervisors/employers were satisfied with all coursework and training students received, except training in career counseling (which program faculty believe is an anomaly that needs to be investigated due to possible rater error). Regarding overall perceptions, survey data showed an average rating of 4.5 (out of 5) when supervisors/employers were asked “Based on your experience, overall how would you rate the UA Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program?” Regarding qualitative data, several program-specific positive themes emerged from current students, alumni, and supervisors/employers: (a) core program faculty professionalism and mentoring; (b) core program faculty availability and concern for students; (c) core program faculty knowledge of the profession; (d) high-quality clinical training and readiness for field work as a result of program-specific knowledge and skills. The primary program-specific constructive feedback theme identified was the need for additional training in addiction counseling and crisis/trauma counseling. Concrete program curriculum changes have been instituted to address this feedback for all students beginning Fall 2013 semester. Non-program-specific (above program-level) constructive feedback themes included: (a) selection of non-core faculty instructors for professional identity/quality assurance purposes; (b) course scheduling/management; (c) the need for more core program faculty, as the program has been challenged with a recent 50% loss of CMHC core faculty to retirements which have not been replaced despite increasing application rates and program demand, and stricter accreditation standards regarding core faculty instruction and faculty-to-student ratios. This need has been explicitly communicated to administration. Program Update Summary Based on comprehensive data reviewed during this program evaluation period, the following program updates had been instituted by Fall 2013 semester):

(1) New student evaluation process created (for formative and summative student reviews); (2) New program evaluation process created (for formative and summative program-level reviews);


(3) New program name approved, changed from Community Counseling to Clinical Mental Health Counseling;

(4) New program objectives, philosophy and mission statements published; (5) New student review and retention guidelines developed (more thoroughly outlining student

review and retention standards); (6) New student candidacy fitness evaluation created (better tracking student progress during key

candidacy points in the program); (7) Updated program diversity inclusion/recruitment standards published; (8) Curriculum updates approved including, but not limited to: (a) requiring addiction counseling

knowledge and skills (i.e., Addiction Counseling class), (b) requiring crisis/trauma counseling knowledge and skills (i.e., Treatment in Clinical Counseling and Internship classes), (c) requiring a newly developed counseling-focused Research & Program Evaluation class, (d) requiring a newly developed pre-practicum class;

(9) Advocacy for administrative allocation of additional core program faculty members due to recent retirements (in response to increasing application rates and program demand, and stricter accreditation standards regarding core faculty instruction and faculty-to-student ratios).

Documents

Three-Year Systematic Program Evaluation Report 2011, 2012 ...reflection about program strengths and areas for improvement, program-related transparency with ... Spring 2013, Summer