The Capacity and Constraints of Small MPA Programs: A Survey of Program Directors

Abstract

Small Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs are commonly defined as having enrollments below 100 students. Given their size, these programs face unique administrative challenges, such as heavy faculty teaching loads, resource constraints, and marketing beyond their region. However, the graduates of small programs serve many of the nation’s communities by building the capacity of local public administration. To explore the capacity and constraints facing small MPA programs, we administered a survey to the directors of these programs. We find that many small programs have faculty with manageable teaching loads and adequate funds for travel. However, small programs still face challenges. Directors of small MPA programs receive little formal training, work under recruitment pressures, and have difficulties maintaining active advisory boards. Directors also report needing more administrative support and budget autonomy to do their jobs effectively and maintain accreditation with the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

W. O.

(1983). Reputation, size, and student success in public administration/affairs programs. Public Administration Review, 43(5), 443–446.

Baldwin

J. N.

(1988). Comparison of perceived effectiveness of MPA programs administered under different institutional arrangements. Public Administration Review, 48(5), 876–884.

Battaglio

R. P.

Jr. Scicchitano

M. J.

(2013). Building bridges? An assessment of academic and practitioner perceptions with observations for the public administration classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(4), 749–772.

Cleary

(1990). What do public administration masters programs look like? Do they do what is needed? Public Administration Review, 50(6), 663–673.

Ellickson

Logsdon

(2001). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees. State and Local Government Review, 33(3), 173–184.

Ferris

J. M.

Stallings

R. A.

(1988). Sources of reputation among public administration and public affairs programs. American Review of Public Administration, 18(3), 309–325.

Hatcher

(2015, October 13). Learning more about small MPA programs. PA Times Online. Retrieved from http://patimes.org/learningsmallMPAprograms.

Jennings

E. T.

(1989). Accountability, program quality, outcome assessment and graduate education for public affairs and administration. Public Administration Review, 49(5), 438–446.

Kerrigan

(2011, August). Fighting to save the MPA. Governing. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/fightingsaveMPA.html.

10.

McGinnis

H. K.

(1993). The status of small MPA programs: A commitment to quality, diversity, and uniqueness. International Journal of Public Administration, 16(1), 15–33.

11.

Morgan

Meier

(1982). Reputation and productivity of public administration/affairs programs: Additional data. Public Administration Review, 42(2), 171–173.

12.

Morgan

Meier

Kearney

Hays

S. W.

Birch

H. B.

(1981). Reputation and productivity among U. S. public administration and public affairs programs. Public Administration Review, 41(6), 666–673.

13.

Rich

(2013). Public affairs programs and the changing political economy of higher education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 263–283.

14.

Uveges

J. A.

(1987). Identifying the impacts of NASPAA’s MPA standards and peer review process on education for the public service: 1975–1985. International Journal of Public Administration, 9(2), 193–227.