Overall Rating Gold - expired
Overall Score 65.90
Liaison Sarah Stoeckl
Submission Date March 6, 2020

STARS v2.2

University of Oregon
PA-4: Reporting Assurance

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 0.00 / 1.00 Steve Mital
Office of Sustainability Director
Finance & Administration
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

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?:
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.

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 AASH​E:
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 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.

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.

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.