| Overall Rating | Gold |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 77.34 |
| Liaison | Sally DeLeon |
| Submission Date | Feb. 27, 2022 |
University of Maryland, College Park
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Emily
Hightower Sustainability Coordinator Environmental Safety, Sustainability, and Risk |
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:
Taylor Brinks - Sustainability Associate, University of Maryland College Park (Internal, Primary)
Scott Lupin - Assistant Director, Dept. of Environmental Safety, Sustainability and Risk; Director, Office of Sustainability, University of Maryland College Park (Internal, Secondary)
Tanvi Gadhia - Sustainability Outreach Coordinator, University of Maryland College Park (Internal, Tertiary)
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
The Office identified three internal reviewers that did not have direct involvement in the data collection process or were minimally involved in the process. As a new Associate in the Office, Taylor did not participate in the compilation of the report. Tanvi assisted with compiling information for some Academic and Engagement credits but did not directly write any credit materials. Scott assisted with compiling information for some Operations credits but did not directly write any credit materials.
Each reviewer was assigned credits to review and a reviewer was not assigned a credit if they were involved in the collection process. Taylor predominantly acted as first reviewer and Scott predominantly acted as second reviewer. Tanvi provided additional support. Using the submission tool, each reviewer read the assigned credits, checked for common issues identified in the STARS 2.2 Review Template, and indicated issues in the “Reviewer Comments and Suggestions” column. The Institution (Sally DeLeon or Emily Hightower) revised the credit responses based on this feedback. If the first review indicated the credit met criteria, another reviewer was assigned the second review. If the first review indicated the credit needed improvement, the same reviewer was assigned the second review to verify the corrections.
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.