| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 65.90 |
| Liaison | Sarah Stoeckl |
| Submission Date | March 6, 2020 |
University of Oregon
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.00 / 1.00 |
Steve
Mital Office of Sustainability Director Finance & Administration |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Please note that assured reports are still subject to review by AASHE staff prior to publication, which may require additional revisions. AASHE reserves the right to withhold points for this credit if it is determined that the assurance process was clearly unsuccessful in identifying and resolving inconsistencies or errors (e.g., when AASHE staff identify a significant number of issues that were either not mentioned in the completed review template or not resolved successfully).
No
Did the assurance process include internal review, an external audit, or both?:
Internal review
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
All of the reviewers are employees of the University of Oregon.
The following reviewers work at the Office of Sustainability:
Steve Mital, Director
Sarah Stoeckl, Program Manager
Briana Meier, Graduate Employee
Lastly, Taylor McHolm is another UO reviewer who works as the Student Sustainability Center Director.
The following reviewers work at the Office of Sustainability:
Steve Mital, Director
Sarah Stoeckl, Program Manager
Briana Meier, Graduate Employee
Lastly, Taylor McHolm is another UO reviewer who works as the Student Sustainability Center Director.
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
---
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:
---
Optional
---
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 Office of Sustainability conducted a thorough internal review of each of the STARS credits from January to March 2020. Each credit was reviewed by staff who were not involved in the data collection for the staff. We have indicated on the review template the specific staff who were assigned to complete the internal review of each credit.
As described, staff conducted an iterative review process with data providers. This review process was thoughtfully constructed so that staff could review credits independently of the data providers, but so that we could create a collaborative work environment across units in the university. To this end, we completed the following activities:
• We held weekly drop-in ‘workshop’ sessions from December until March so that data providers and the core team could work through credit requirements together.
• We fielded questions from data providers throughout the data collection process (as recommended in the STARS templates and sample process online support sections)
• When data collection was complete, we assigned each Office of Sustainability staff member to review a batch of credits for which they were not involved in data collection. Staff who fielded questions and workshopped with the data providers in the months of data collection were assigned to review other credits than those for which they assisted in data collection.
• Each staff member conducted phone calls, in person meetings, email exchanges, and “fact-checking” for their respective credits.
We chose not to specifically document mistakes and correction process as we felt it runs counter to the inclusive, collaborative learning environment we’re building. When mistakes were discovered, we simply and quietly worked with the data provider one-on-one to address problems.
The Office of Sustainability is committed to accuracy and creating a welcoming environment for the many volunteer data collectors we work with. We dedicated dozens of staff hours to this internal review process. We will continue to refine it in subsequent submissions.
As described, staff conducted an iterative review process with data providers. This review process was thoughtfully constructed so that staff could review credits independently of the data providers, but so that we could create a collaborative work environment across units in the university. To this end, we completed the following activities:
• We held weekly drop-in ‘workshop’ sessions from December until March so that data providers and the core team could work through credit requirements together.
• We fielded questions from data providers throughout the data collection process (as recommended in the STARS templates and sample process online support sections)
• When data collection was complete, we assigned each Office of Sustainability staff member to review a batch of credits for which they were not involved in data collection. Staff who fielded questions and workshopped with the data providers in the months of data collection were assigned to review other credits than those for which they assisted in data collection.
• Each staff member conducted phone calls, in person meetings, email exchanges, and “fact-checking” for their respective credits.
We chose not to specifically document mistakes and correction process as we felt it runs counter to the inclusive, collaborative learning environment we’re building. When mistakes were discovered, we simply and quietly worked with the data provider one-on-one to address problems.
The Office of Sustainability is committed to accuracy and creating a welcoming environment for the many volunteer data collectors we work with. We dedicated dozens of staff hours to this internal review process. We will continue to refine it in subsequent submissions.
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.