| Overall Rating | Bronze - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 37.54 |
| Liaison | Matthew Shockey |
| Submission Date | Dec. 17, 2020 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Indiana University South Bend
IN-18: Pre-Submission Review
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.50 / 0.50 |
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
James Mason, Assistant Director of Facilities, IU South Bend
Michelle Shedd, Dining Services Manager
Laura Harlow, Director of Institutional Equity and Inclusive Excellence
Dr. Gail McGuire, Director, IU South Bend Community Engagement
Dr. Deborah Marr, Director, Sustainability Studies program, IU South Bend
Tiffany Garmen-Hall, Environmental Health and Safety
Dr. Brenda Phillips, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, IU South Bend
Dr. Linda Chen, Interim Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
A brief description of the review process:
Reviewers played different roles throughout the review process. Those consulted with about original data collection reviewed the final compilation of the data as represented in the report. Any errors or missing information was corrected and clarified. For example:
Mr. Mason provided resources and the entries were reviewed with him to verify their representation in the Operations section of the report.
Dr. McGuire reviewed and verified the responses related to students community engagement.
Dr. Marr reviewed the Academic sections, which helped to clarify course designations and to provide her with ideas about how record keeping and academic planning could be improved. In addition, Dr. Marr verified responses about research activity.
Planning and Administration were the focus of Dean Phillips' review, although she looked over all sections to understand what was being reported and what opportunities were presented in the report.
Dr. Chen reviewed the entire report.
Sustain IU contributed a review of the report as part of a system wide effort to certify all IU campuses in the STARS system. Since some responses are the same for all campuses, and some are specific to each campus, their review provided validation of system wide responses and gave him insight as to this campus's specific activities.
Which of the following describes the review process?:
Affirmation from the reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template:
Affirmation from an additional reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 2nd reviewer:
Affirmation from a 3rd reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 3rd reviewer:
Affirmation from a 4th reviewer that the submission has been reviewed in full and that any identified inconsistencies have been addressed:
Copy of the completed STARS Review Template for the 4th reviewer:
The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.