| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 74.81 |
| Liaison | Kelli O'Day |
| Submission Date | March 6, 2020 |
University of California, Davis
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Kelli
O'Day Assessment Program Manager Office of Sustainability |
Has the institution completed an assurance process that provides independent affirmation that the information in its current STARS report is reported in accordance with credit criteria?:
Did the assurance process include internal review, an external audit, or both?:
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reviewers:
Kelli O'Day, Assessment Program Manager, Office of Sustainability, UC Davis
Camille Kirk, Director and Campus Sustainability Planner, Office of Sustainability, UC Davis
Sue Vang, Engagement and Zero Waste Program Manager, Office of Sustainability, UC Davis
Self-Check Reviewers:
Kiana Lee, student employee in the UC Davis Office of Sustainability
Chinyi Lydia Kao, student employee in the UC Davis Office of Sustainability
Vindyani Jayasinghe, a visiting Humphrey Fellow with the UC Davis Office of Sustainability
Camille Kirk, Director and Campus Sustainability Planner
Sue Vang, Engagement and Zero Waste Program Manager
Kelli O'Day, Office of Sustainability Assessment Program Manager
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
Office of Sustainability team members were assigned STARS credits to collect data for and compile into the STARS online tool. Each person assigned to a credit could opt in to performing a self-check. Each self-check followed the same checklist as the 1st Review (based on the guidelines in the STARS 2.2 Technical Manual and the STARS 2.2 Review Template).
Once a credit was complete a 1st Review was conducted by a team member who had no participation in data collection or compilation for the credit being reviewed. If any revisions were required or the credit did not meet criteria, the credit owner was notified, corrections were made, and a 2nd Review was performed by another team member. The final status was updated after the credit was checked as complete in the STARS tool.
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE:
Completed STARS Review Template:
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE (2nd review):
Completed STARS Review Template (2nd review):
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE (3rd review):
Copy of completed STARS Review Template (3rd review):
Website URL where information about the institution’s reporting assurance 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.