| Overall Rating | Platinum |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 88.80 |
| Liaison | Richard Demerjian |
| Submission Date | Aug. 11, 2021 |
University of California, Irvine
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Carrie
Metzgar Sustainability and Planning Analyst Campus Physical and Environmental Planning |
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:
Reviewers:
-- Carrie Metzgar, Sustainability & Planning Analyst, Campus Physical & Environmental Planning
-- Matt Deines, Senior Planner, Campus Physical & Environmental Planning
-- Brenna Biggs, Sustainability Analyst, UCI Office of Sustainability
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
After each credit was ready for review, the Responsible Party completes a self-check of the credit for completion, accuracy, and to ensure that common issues outlined by AASHE have been addressed. Then, an internal reviewer (“Reviewer #1”) -- who was not directly involved in the data collection process for that credit -- completes an additional review for completion, accuracy, and to check for common issues. They also have the option to include comments and suggestions for improvement. After this step, the Responsible Party has an opportunity to respond, addressing all suggestions and comments. After that, an additional internal reviewer (“Reviewer #2”) -- who was not directly involved in the data collection process for that credit -- completes an additional review for completion, accuracy, and to check for common issues. After this step, the Responsible Party has one more opportunity to respond, addressing all suggestions and comments and then the credit is marked complete.
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:
UCI found the internal review process to be very effective in identifying issues, determining areas for improvement, and making revisions in order for credits to satisfy STARS criteria.
UCI found the internal review process to be very effective in identifying issues, determining areas for improvement, and making revisions in order for credits to satisfy STARS criteria.
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.