1. Implementing E.O. 1064: Risk Management in Academic Internships Stephanie Martinez, Jen Gasang, Shana Love PA 720: Organization Design & Change Summer 2015 Instructor: Yeonji No, Ph.D. August 21, 2015

2. Overview Background ▪ CSU Chancellor’s E.O. 1064: Risk Management - Student Internships ▪ Organizational Analysis: Bureaucracy & RM Case Study ▪ SF State’s Academic Student Internship Policy ▪ Problem Definition ▪ Solutions

3. Background CSU E.O. 1064: Student Internships ▪ “each campus is required to develop, implement, maintain and publish a student internship policy governing internships where the university makes the placement.” Scope: ▪ Formally integrates the student’s academic study with practical experience in a cooperating organization ▪ It is an off-campus activity designed to serve educational purposes by offering experience in SL, business, non-profit or govt. setting. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? SF State identified four types: ▪ Community Service Learning ▪ Academic Internships ▪ Pre-enrollment required service ▪ Study Abroad Policy include: a. Internship Planning b. Placement Assessment c. Internship Site Visits d. Placement and Orientation e. Annual Review

4. Organizational Analysis: CSU ▪ Organizational leadership structure is hierarchical Campus- level: contingency method of leadership & decision- making ▪ CSU: 23 campuses and 8 off-campus centers Autonomy afforded to campuses: - Implementation of policies - Formation of unique cultures, curriculum and emphasis

5. Organizational Chart

6. CSU Org Structure Roles & Responsibilities - CSU Board of Trustees: ▪ Most appointed by CA Governor ▪ Appoints Chancellor & Presidents of each campus ▪ Establish policies and oversee various aspects of CSU system e.g. budgets and academic plans Roles & Responsibilities – Chancellor’s Office: Leads the CSU system as CEO ▪ Appoints vice chancellor and other senior executives ▪ Represent CSU to state and federal policymakers Operates as CSU headquarters ▪ Assists campuses to carry out mission ▪ Planning and implementing initiatives with campuses ▪ System-wide operations including academic, fiscal, legal and HR Roles & Responsibilities – Campus Presidents: Acts as CEO of his/her site Represents campus to community Administers operations and fundraising Works with campus to set priorities and plan for future needs Supervises hiring and support of staff and faculty

7. Risk Management What does risk management (RM) mean to universities? ▪ RM is forecasting possible risks and ascertaining ways to minimize or eliminate risk ahead of time and insuring against inevitable liabilities ▪ Of utmost importance to university’s financial health and reputation Particularly related to safety, sexual harassment and violence toward students

8. Recent Case: NY Times article, 2015 ▪ 2012, Stanford Student Ellie Clougherty vs. Mentor Joe Lonsdale ▪ Student alleged assault and rape by mentor ▪ Mentor denied claims and countersued for defamation ▪ Stanford found mentor in violation of rule against consensual relationships between mentors and mentees ▪ Mentor claims he was not made aware of this rule RM & Universities Are University RM policies clear and easy to follow? Are campus implementation of policies in CSU system effective?

9. Risk Management Efforts to institutionalize RM procedures: ▪ 1997: CSU Risk Management Authority (CSURMA) established Partnership between CSU & Auxiliary Orgs To “protect member resources by providing broad coverage and quality RM services” ▪ 2011: Title IX “Dear Colleague” mandate: allegations of sexual harassment must be handled with quick responsiveness CSU RM Procedures: Implementation barriers ▪ RM directives come from Federal level, or from the Chancellor’s office (top down) ▪ Campuses act somewhat autonomously → struggle to implement RM policies

10. Case Study: SF State’s Student Internship Policy Current Campus-wide Status: Departments working in silo E.O. 1064 Implementation Status: Internship and Field Trip Risk Management Committee was formed in 2012 Pre-pilot Program: fall 2013 with small department cohort Campus-wide buy-in / spring 2014: Initiate a pilot program across all disciplines summer 2015: Convened participating departments fall 2015: Committee will reconvene – pilot program on hold Guiding Principle: Maximize the use of institutional knowledge and existing processes Community Service Learning Program: ▪ Risk management managed by ICCE since 2003 ▪ Follows the CSU Resource Guide for Managing Risk in Service Learning → complaint to E.O. 1064 ▪ Community Engagement Agreement with all “University Approved Agencies”

11. Problem Definition: Culture Clash ▪ Department level: Faculty/internship coordinator resistance ▪ McGregor’s Theory X ▪ Merton: “displacement of goals” ▪ Unfunded mandate: Resource Dependency & Coercive Power Case Study: SF State’s Student Internship Policy

12. Proposed Solution 1: ICCE as the “Central Office” Advantages: ▪ Allow for one-stop shop for all internships and CSL ▪ Centralized database: Agreements / forms ▪ Resolve resource scarcity issues for faculty ▪ Potential for institutionalism among campuses Obstacles: ▪ Causes resource scarcity for ICCE ▪ Internal conflicts: faculty resistence, as well as potential division between faculty and ICCE Proposed Solution 2: Faculty Advantages: More buy-in from resistant faculty Freedom of control to design individual departmental processes Eliminate need for more ICCE staffing Obstacles: No centralized office for oversight and/or compliance No centralized access to information 8 S4 expensive and inefficient for some departments

13. Conclusion ▪ CSU CO Audit coming in the near future to SF State ▪ No perfect solution yet ▪ Bounded rationality: 2 possible solutions Which of the solutions is the best answer? Will both solutions continue to be offered? And will a better solution present itself in the future?

14. Questions?