Nutrition and Dietetics Directors’ Workload and Compensation Related to Program Accreditation Activities

Rayane Abusabha,Mary Dean Coleman

doi:10.2174/1876396001509010013

Abstract

Nutrition and dietetics program directors were surveyed to quantify the amount of time they spend meeting accreditation-related requirements, and to determine the type of compensation they receive for their director workload. The survey was sent electronically in August 2011 to all nutrition and dietetics directors (N=572). A total of 312 usable surveys were received for a 54.5% response rate. The distribution of respondents almost mirrored the general distribution of nutrition and dietetics programs: 138 (44%) from Dietetic Internship (DI) programs, 122 (39%) from Didactic Programs in Dietetics (DPD), 29 (9%) from Coordinated Programs (CP) and 23 (7%) from Dietetic Technician (DT) programs. The majority of respondents (83%) were faculty based at a college or university, of whom, 49% had annual teaching loads between 18 and 24 credits. The average number of hours spent on director-type activities was approximately 22 hours/week with 15.6 of these hours dedicated to meeting accreditation specific requirements. Of the 248 directors who responded to the compensation questions, the majority (n=198, 80%) reported receiving some form of time relief or compensation for their responsibilities as program directors, commonly a 3-credit or 6-credit annual load reduction. On the other hand, 55 directors (22%) received no time relief or compensation for any of their work as program directors. Overall, the reported compensation did not match the level of effort stated by directors. Future evaluations should examine the possible association between the amount of time program directors spend on accreditation-related activities and the quality of their programs, and whether these accreditation activities are affecting the quality of the work for the directors’ other job responsibilities.

Highlights

Nutrition and dietetics programs in the United States are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND), an agency of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [1]
The survey was drafted by a Dietetic Internship (DI) program director and a Didactic Programs in Dietetics (DPD) director and was comprised of a total of 49 questions organized into four major sections that addressed: 1) program director position characteristics, 2) load reduction and compensation, 3) a section completed solely by DI directors where they reported on the characteristics of their program, and 4) a final section where directors reported the hours spent on various nutrition and dietetics related activities derived from the 2008 ACEND standards [6,7]
Findings confirm what nutrition and dietetics program directors have been asserting for some time: accreditation-related activities are time-consuming

Summary

Introduction

Nutrition and dietetics programs in the United States are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND), an agency of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [1]. Accreditation standards are typically updated every five years to reflect the changing educational requirements that a student needs to be prepared for entry-level practice [3]. ACEND requires every program to appoint a director whose role is to ensure the program is meeting all established educational standards [4]. The director’s position must be full-time, of which, an unspecified portion is spent administering the program and responding to ACEND requirements. Beginning with the 2008 standards, ACEND required a separate director for ACEND does not provide guidelines for the allotted time that an individual is expected to spend administering a nutrition and dietetics program; the amount of “release time” is determined by the program director’s administrators. Faced with an ever-growing workload, directors are increasingly being challenged to run quality dietetics programs while simultaneously maintaining clear documentation to meet accreditation requirements

Methods

Results

Conclusion