| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 70.10 |
| Liaison | Francis Mitalo |
| Submission Date | March 5, 2021 |
University of California, Riverside
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Fortino
Morales Sustainability Officer 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 and 2nd Reviewers:
Madison Reichhold, Student Staff, Office of Sustainability, UC Riverside
Francis Mitalo, Sustainability Coordinator, Office of Sustainability, UC Riverside
Self-Check Reviewers:
Chelsea Lee - Graduate Student Staff, Office of Sustainability, UC Riverside
Fortino Morales, Sustainability Officer, Office of Sustainability, UC Riverside
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
The Office of Sustainability team members collected data for the STARS credits and reported them on the STARS website. Once credits were completed, the team engaged in a self-check to ensure the information was correct.
Once credits were checked, they were sent to the next team members for the review process. The review was completed based on the STARS 2.2 Technical Manual and the STARS 2.2 Review Template. The 1st review was conducted by a team member who had no part in the data collection and reporting process. Any issues or inconsistencies were listed for the reporting team. Once corrections were made by the reporting team, the 2nd review process was conducted by another team member who had no part in the data collection and reporting process. Any issues or inconsistencies were listed for the reporting team. Once all issues were addressed by the reporting team, the credits were ready for submission.
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:
Credit prepared by Chelsea Lee.
Credit prepared by Chelsea Lee.
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.