STARS Pilot Project Results - Association for the Advancement of

 Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) for Colleges and Universities Pilot Project Results June 2009 Project coordinated by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
Wait, Wait! Don’t Print Me! To reduce paper consumption, this document has been designed to be browsed quickly and easily on computer screens using Adobe Reader. The following special features have been embedded: Moving Around in the Document • Table of Contents Links – Headings in the Table of Contents are links, which can be clicked to take you directly to the referenced page. • Bookmarks – You can jump to segments of the document quickly and easily using the Bookmarks provided in the document. To access the Bookmarks, click on the “Bookmarks” tab on the left side of the Adobe Reader window – it’s the icon that looks like a sheet of paper with a blue ribbon hanging over the upper left corner. • Pages – You can quickly go to any page listed in the Table of Contents simply by typing the page number into the box that displays the current page number in the Adobe Reader window, and pressing “Return/Enter.” Searching • Adobe Reader’s search tool allows you to see the results of your search in a menu format, similar to web search engines. Using the menu, you can choose to go directly to the occurrence of the search term that is most relevant to your interest. To access this search tool, press Shift+Ctrl+F, or choose “Search” from the “Edit” menu. If these features don’t meet your on‐screen reading needs, please consider printing only the sections you need, printing double‐sided, and using recycled‐content paper. AASHE is a professional, membership‐based association of colleges and universities in the U.S. and Canada. Its mission is to empower higher education to lead the sustainability transformation. AASHE does this by providing resources, professional development opportunities, and a network of support to enable institutions of higher education to model and advance sustainability in everything they do, from governance and operations to education and research. 213 ½ N. Limestone, Lexington, KY 40507 • Phone: 859.258.2551 • www.aashe.org
2 Table of Contents 1. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. STARS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 a. What is STARS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 b. Why is STARS Needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 c. STARS History and Future Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. STARS Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 a. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 b. Gathering Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 c. Methodology for Calculating Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 d. Notes about Using these Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 a. How Scores Were Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 b. Presentation of Overall Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Credit Level Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 a. Education and Research i. Co‐Curricular Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. ER 1: Student Sustainability Educators Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. ER 2: Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. ER 3: Sustainability in New Student Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4. Co‐Curricular Education Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ii. Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1. ER 4: Sustainability Course Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2. ER 5: Sustainability‐Focused Academic Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3. ER 6: Sustainability‐Related Academic Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4. ER 7: Sustainability Courses by Academic Department . . . . . . . . . . 42 5. ER 8: Academic Sustainability Courses by Student Credit Hours . 45 6. ER 9: Sustainability Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 7. ER 10: Sustainability‐Focused Undergraduate Program . . . . . . . . . 51 8. ER 11: Sustainability‐Focused Graduate Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 9. ER 12: Sustainability Immersive Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 10. ER 13: Non‐Credit Sustainability Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 11. ER 14: Non‐Credit Sustainability‐Focused Certificate Program . . 60 12. ER 15: Sustainability Literacy Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 13. Curriculum Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 iii. Faculty and Staff Development and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1. ER 16: Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses . . . . . . . . 68 2. ER 17: Staff Professional Development in Sustainability . . . . . . . . 71 3. ER 18: Sustainability in New Employee Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4. ER 19: Employee Sustainability Educators Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3 iv. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 1. ER 20: Sustainability Research Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 2. ER 21: Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3. ER 22: Departments Involved in Sustainability Research . . . . . . . . . 85 4. ER 23: Internal Funding for Sustainability Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5. ER 24: External Funding for Sustainability Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 6. ER 25: Sustainability Research Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7. ER 26: Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion . . . . . . 93 b. Operations i. Prerequisite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 ii. Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 1. OP 1: New Construction, Renovations, and Commercial Interiors 99 2. OP 2: Building Operations and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3. OP 3: Potable Non‐Irrigation Water Consumption Reduction . . . . 107 4. OP 4: Green Cleaning Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5. Buildings Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 iii. Dining Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 1. OP 5: Local Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2. OP 6: Food Alliance and Organic Certified Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 3. OP 7: Fair Trade Coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 4. Dining Services Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 iv. Energy and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 1. OP 8: Energy Intensity Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2. OP 9: Renewable Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 3. OP 10: On‐Site Combustion with Renewable Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 4. OP 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5. Energy and Climate Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 v. Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 1. OP 12: Organic Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 2. OP 13: Irrigation Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 3. Grounds Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 vi. Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 1. OP 14: Waste Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 2. OP 15: Waste Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 3. OP 16: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . 171 4. OP 17: Electronic Waste Recycling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 5. OP 18: Hazardous Waste Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 6. Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization Tier Two Credits . . 177 vii. Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 1. OP 19: ENERGY STAR Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 4 2. OP 20: EPEAT Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 3. OP 21: Purchasing Green Cleaning Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 4. OP 22: Environmentally Preferable Paper Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . 190 5. OP 23: Environmentally Preferable Furniture Purchasing . . . . . . . . 192 6. OP 24: Vendor Code of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 7. Purchasing Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 viii. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 1. OP 25: Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 2. OP 26: Commute Modal Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 3. OP 27: Commuter Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 4. OP 28: Air Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 5. Transportation Tier Two Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 c. Administration and Finance i. Prerequisite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 ii. Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 1. AF 1: Investment Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 2. AF 2: Committee on Investor Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 3. AF 3: Screening for Negative Investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 4. AF 4: Positive Sustainability Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 5. AF 5: Shareholder Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 6. Investment Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 iii. Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 1. AF 6: Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 2. AF 7: Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 3. AF 8: Sustainability Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 4. AF 9: Climate Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 iv. Sustainability Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 1. AF 10: Sustainability Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 2. AF 11: Sustainability Recognition Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 3. AF 12: Inter‐Campus Collaboration on Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . 245 4. AF 13: Specialized Sustainability Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 5. Sustainability Infrastructure Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 v. Community Relations and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 1. AF 14: Community Service Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 2. AF 15: Student Participation in Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 3. AF 16: Student Hours Contributed in Community Service . . . . . . . 260 4. AF 17: Financial Incentives for Public Service Careers . . . . . . . . . . 263 5. AF 18: Community Sustainability Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 6. AF 19: Public Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 7. Community Relations and Partnerships Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . 272 5 vi. Diversity, Access, and Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 1. AF 20: Diversity and Equity Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 2. AF 21: Diversity and Equity Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 3. AF 22: Diversity and Equity Attitudes Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 4. AF 23: Diversity and Equity Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 5. AF 24: Support Programs for Under‐Represented Groups . . . . . . . 287 6. AF 25: Support Programs for Future Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 7. AF 26: Affordability and Access Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 8. Diversity, Access, and Affordability Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . 296 vii. Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 1. AF 27: Sustainable Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 2. AF 28: Faculty and Staff Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 3. AF 29: Graduate Student Employee Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 4. AF 30: Family Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 5. AF 31: Domestic Partner Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 6. AF 32: Employee Satisfaction Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 7. Human Resources Tier Two Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 viii. Trademark Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 1. AF 33: Independent Monitoring of Logo Apparel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 2. AF 34: Designated Suppliers Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 d. Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 6. Appendix A: Institutions that Participated in the Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 7. Appendix B: Final Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 8. Appendix C: Survey of Institutions that Withdrew from the Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 9. Appendix D: Average Number of Points Earned per Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 6 Acknowledgements The success of the pilot project is due to the tremendous contributions of the participating institutions. Many thanks to the people at the following institutions for your questions, feedback and suggestions, hard work gathering data, and patience test‐driving the system – we couldn’t have done it without you! Acadia University Northland College Appalachian State University Northwest State Community College Arizona State University Pacific Lutheran University Ball State University Portland State University Boise State University Randolph College California State University, Chico Richland College California State University, Sacramento Rose‐Hulman Institute of Technology Case Western Reserve University Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Cedar Valley College Santa Barbara City College College of St. Benedict Santa Clara University Colorado State University Santa Fe Community College Concordia University Seattle Pacific University Dallas County Community College District St. Johnʹs University De Anza Community College State University of New York, College of Delta College Environmental Science & Forestry Dickinson College Syracuse University Eastern Iowa Community College District The Evergreen State College Eastern Kentucky University University of British Columbia Eastfield College University of California, San Diego Emory University University of California, Santa Barbara Florida Gulf Coast University University of Central Florida Grand Rapids Community College University of Colorado at Boulder Grand Valley State University University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Gustavus Adolphus College University of Florida Illinois State University University of Illinois at Chicago Iowa State University University of Kansas McGill University University of Minnesota, Morris Middlebury College University of Nebraska at Omaha Monroe Community College University of New Hampshire Monterey Institute of International Studies University of Texas at Austin Mount Union College University of Wisconsin ‐ River Falls Mountain View College Williams College New York University Worcester Polytechnic Institution North Lake College 7 STARS Introduction What is STARS? The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) is a voluntary, self‐reporting framework for recognizing and gauging relative progress toward sustainability for colleges and universities. It is designed to: 1) Provide a framework for understanding sustainability in all sectors of higher education. 2) Enable meaningful comparisons over time and across institutions using a common set of measurements developed with broad participation from the campus sustainability community. 3) Create incentives for continual improvement toward sustainability. 4) Facilitate information sharing about higher education sustainability practices and performance. 5) Build a stronger, more diverse campus sustainability community. STARS Credits are arranged into 3 main categories: Education & Research, Operations, and Administration & Finance. STARS includes four types of credits: • Prerequisites – The pilot version of STARS included two prerequisites. When AASHE launches STARS 1.0, participants would need to meet the prerequisites in order to earn a STARS score. Meeting these prerequisites was not required of pilot participants. Instead, institutions were asked to respond to these prerequisites by submitting data and feedback as they did other credits. • Tier One Credits – Tier One credits were worth 1 to 6 points each and are grouped in a section (e.g., Curriculum) within a category (e.g., Education & Research) • Tier Two Credits – Most sections in STARS include a group of Tier Two credits. Each Tier Two credit is worth 0.25 points. There are two reasons a credit is Tier Two instead of Tier One. o First, some Tier Two credits recognize strategies that merit recognition, but tend to have a smaller impact than Tier One credits (e.g., the Transportation section includes a Tier One credit that recognizes institutions where a high percentage of the population uses environmentally preferable modes for commuting; there is a Tier Two credit that recognizes institutions that have a bike sharing program). o Second, some Tier Two credits recognize strategies whose benefits are largely captured by a Tier One credit (e.g., there is a Tier Two credit that recognizes institutions that have a composting program. Composting is an important sustainability strategy, but the primary benefits of composting are captured by a Tier One credit on Waste Diversion). • Innovation Credits – Innovation credits are not required to be specific to any category. Institutions may earn up to 4 innovation credits for new and groundbreaking practices and performances that are not covered by other STARS credits or that exceed the highest criterion of a current STARS credit. Why STARS is Needed There is currently no standard, comprehensive way to compare the sustainability performance of higher education institutions and to benchmark a single institution’s performance over time. This makes it difficult for schools to reap the marketing, recruitment, and fundraising benefits of sustainability leadership. 8 While there are several other campus sustainability rankings and rating systems that serve valuable purposes, they don’t fully meet the goals of STARS outlined above and differ from STARS in the following ways: • STARS has a fully transparent process for its ratings – it’s clear to users and observers what an institution needs to do to achieve a rating. • All colleges and universities have an opportunity to participate in STARS. • STARS is being developed with widespread participation and input from higher education and sustainability communities. • Most of the information that institutions submit to earn a STARS rating will be shared publicly, thereby enabling opportunities for learning and collaboration. Information submitted during the pilot project will be kept confidential. • Consistent with the original and long‐standing meaning of sustainability, STARS includes credits related to an institution’s social, economic, and environmental performance. Other systems tend to focus exclusively or primarily on environmental performance. • STARS is a rating system not a ranking. In other words, institutions are not competing against each other to earn a high score. Each school is evaluated based on its own performance and not relative to other schools. In addition, AASHE expects that STARS will help create a central source for standardized information about campus sustainability performance and will facilitate information‐sharing among institutions. Since institutions will be reporting about their sustainability programs and accomplishments, the STARS reporting system will be able to generate helpful resources for schools looking to benchmark against peer institutions and learn from experiences of other schools. STARS History and Future Plans In August 2006, the Higher Education Associations Sustainability Consortium (HEASC), an informal network of higher education associations with a commitment to sustainability, issued a call for a campus sustainability rating system. HEASC said the system ʺwould of necessity address all the dimensions of sustainability (health, social, economic and ecological) and all the sectors and functions of campus, including curriculum, facilities, operations, and collaboration with communities.ʺ The statement called for ʺAASHE to convene all relevant stakeholders in a collaborative process to develop such a system.ʺ Over the next year and a half, AASHE gathered feedback and input from workshop participants at several campus sustainability conferences. In September 2007 AASHE released STARS 0.4, a draft version of the rating system that included potential credits. AASHE enlisted the assistance of experts from throughout the sustainability and higher education communities to provide feedback on the draft system. The draft document generated widespread feedback. Around the same time, AASHE conducted a survey of STARS Technical and Strategic Advisory Committee members to gather input on the structure, credits, and organization of STARS. To further revise STARS, AASHE conducted a series of focused conference calls with experts and interested parties. The calls helped identify and resolve outstanding issues about particular areas covered by STARS. AASHE spent several months processing all of the feedback to develop phase one of the STARS pilot project, which was released in early February 2008. 9 STARS Pilot Project Introduction All AASHE member institutions were invited to apply to participate in the pilot project. AASHE selected participants to represent diverse institution types, locations, and sizes. A list of pilot participants and their locations, grouped by basic Carnegie Classification and student population is included in Appendix A. The pilot project launched in February 2008 with the release of the Guide to Pilot Phase One, which included the Operations credits and about half of the Administration & Finance Credits. Phase Two – which included the Education & Research, Innovation, all Tier Two and the other half of the Administration & Finance credits – was released in September of 2008. All reporting was conducted through an online reporting system. The pilot project concluded in January 2009. Gathering Feedback During the pilot project, AASHE sought to answer several questions, including: • How are diverse institutions performing on these credits? • What data are readily available and what data are impossible to gather? • Do the credits make sense to readers? What causes confusion and/or needs further clarification? • What does operating a rating system entail (in terms of customer service, developing and operating an online reporting system, and continuing to improve the system)? • Should the credits change? If so, how? • How should the overall system change or be developed? In addition to the detailed responses to and feedback on each credit, which is described below and comprises the majority of this document, there were other opportunities for pilot participants to provide feedback. Following the release of both Phase One and Phase Two, AASHE conducted a series of conference calls focused on each topical section. Institutions could ask questions and provide feedback during those calls. Notes from all calls are available at www.aashe.org/stars/pilot/call_notes.php. In addition, after the conclusion of the pilot project, participants were asked to complete a survey about their overall experiences and impressions. Results from that survey are included in Appendix B. To get detailed feedback about each credit, the following questions was included with each credit reporting form: 1) If you did not attempt this credit, please select a reason why. (Options: Credit does not apply, Data not available, Too difficult to measure, Other). 2) How difficult was it to obtain the information necessary to complete this credit? (Very difficult, difficult, moderately difficult, moderately easy, easy, very easy) 3) Would you recommend 1) maintaining this credit as it is, 2) changing it slightly, 3) changing it significantly, or 4) eliminating the credit from STARS? 4) How would you suggest AASHE change the credit to improve it? If you think AASHE should eliminate the credit, please explain why. 5) Please describe any circumstances unique to your institution that may have affected your ability to obtain the credit. 10 In addition, a number of institutions applied to participate in the pilot project but then withdrew or did not submit data. Feedback from these institutions is in included in Appendix C. Methodology for Calculating Results Results are presented for institutions grouped by basic Carnegie Classification (i.e., Associate’s Colleges, Baccalaureate Colleges, Doctorate‐granting Universities, and Master’s Colleges and Universities). One Special Focus Institution participated in the pilot project; to preserve anonymity, the responses from this institution are grouped with its closest peer group (Baccalaureate Colleges). Likewise, Canadian institutions were included in the groups in which they would be classified. Since STARS is a self‐assessment framework, AASHE did not verify or correct responses or the number of points an institution claimed in most instances. However, several institutions selected that a credit did not apply to indicate that they do not qualify for any points for that credit. There is an important distinction between “not applicable” and “0 points earned” that AASHE should have made clearer in the STARS documents and reporting system. (See the section on “How Scores Were Calculated” for an explanation of how these responses influence an institution’s score). Several STARS credits include an applicability criterion, which is intended to exclude institutions from credits they could not possibly earn due to institutional circumstances (e.g., credits about dining halls don’t apply to institutions without dining halls, credits about research don’t apply to institutions that don’t conduct research, credits about investment don’t apply to institutions that don’t have an investment pool). AF Credit 2, which recognizes institutions that have committees focused on social and environmentally responsible investing, illustrates this confusion. Several institutions selected that the credit did not apply and intended to indicate that they do not have such a committee. Responses that the credit “Does not apply” should have been reserved for institutions that do not have an investment pool. When the institution’s response provided enough contextual information that it was clear what the appropriate response should be, AASHE staff changed the number of points claimed from “0” to “Not applicable” or vice‐versa (these changes are reflected in the results presented in this document and not in individual reports provided to participating institutions). Notes about Using these Results We have compiled this document with the hope that it will be useful for institutions interested in the development of STARS and/or benchmarking sustainability performance. That said, there are limitations to the data presented here and several things to note about using and interpreting the results. • Since not every institution submitted data for each credit, you cannot infer how any particular institution scored on any credit or overall. • While we corrected some of the confusion regarding applicability, it was sometimes impossible to know what the correct response should have been. • As is noted throughout the document, there was a lack of clarity with regards to what counts for some credits (particularly several Tier Two credits). As a result, institutions with identical practices may have given themselves different scores. 11 •
For some credits that were based on quantitative performance, there were inconsistencies between the number of points claimed and the data reported; some institutions claimed fewer and other institutions claimed more points than the data reported indicated they should have. • Finally, the pilot version of STARS was focused primarily on the content of the credits themselves and not the relative weighting or points assigned to each credit. Overall scores should be viewed with this caveat in mind. We are optimistic that with the lessons learned from the pilot – the need to provide clearer definitions, streamline reporting, and automate point calculations among them – and further development of the rating system, future versions of STARS will yield even more valuable benchmarking data and results. Summary Results How Scores were Calculated An institution’s score in each category is based on the percentage of applicable points earned in that category. For example, there are 54.25 possible points in the Administration & Finance category. If an institution did not have an investment pool, the institution would select that the credits in the Investment section (worth 8.5 points) did not apply. Assuming the rest of the credits in that category were applicable, that institution’s score in the Administration and Finance category would be calculated by dividing the number of points earned by the number of applicable possible points: 45.75 (54.25 minus 8.5). An institution’s overall STARS score is the average of the percentage of applicable points it earned in each of the three categories. For example, if an institution earned 20 percent of applicable points in the Education & Research category, 30 percent of applicable points in the Administration & Finance category, and 40 percent in the Operations category, the institution’s overall score would be 30 (the average of the three percentages). Innovation credits are not required to be specific to any category and are scored separately. Each innovation credit earned counts for a one point increase in an institution’s overall score. In the previous example of an institution that achieved an overall score of 30, earning 2 innovation credits would result in a final score of 32. Presentation of Overall Scores 37 institutions completed and submitted a reporting form for each credit. The scores from those institutions are presented in the following table. The numbers in parentheses is the standard deviation 1 for each response. 1
Standard deviation is a common statistical measure of the spread or dispersion of a set of data. It is calculated by taking the average of the squared difference between data points and the mean. Standard deviation is measured in the same units as the data. The standard deviation will be small if the data points are close to the average. Similarly, if many data points are far from the average, the standard deviation will be large. The standard deviation will be zero if all values in the data set are equal. 12 Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Overall Scores by Institution Type Complete submissions received 7 6 14 10 37 15.1 (10.6) 17.5 (7.4) 42.8 (8.5) 0.6 (0.8) 25.7 (8.8) 25.3 (6.9) 18.0 (8.0) 38.2 (17.4) 1.3 (1.2) 28.5 (9.5) 29.5 (17.2) 30.9 (10.0) 54.8 (12.3) 1.9 (1.9) 40.3 (11.6) 35.2 (21.7) 26.9 (11.5) 48.0 (17.8) 1.7 (1.8) 38.4 (16.5) 27.6 (17.3) 25.2 (11.0) 48.0 (15.0) 1.5 (1.6) 35.1 (13.4) Scores
Education & Research Operations Administration & Finance Innovation Total As the table shows, Doctorate‐granting institutions tended to have the highest scores, followed by Master’s institutions. For all four types of institutions, the highest scores were in the Administration & Finance category. For Associate’s and Doctorate‐granting institutions, Education & Research was the lowest‐scoring category. For Baccalaureate and Master’s institutions the Operations section yielded the lowest scores. The overall scores varied the most for Master’s institutions. The following chart illustrates the distribution of overall scores for the 37 complete submissions. The median (34.3) and quartile scores (23.7 and 45.2) are highlighted. 13 Distrribution of O
Overall Scorres n=37 ddition to th
he 37 instituttions that com
mpleted and
d submitted every creditt form, 29 in
nstitutions su
ubmitted In ad
data for some credits. Of thiis group, som
me institutio
ons focused their respon
nses on the ccredits for which they hers reported
d only on the credits thee institution earned, and
d others repo
orted on one weree able to obtaain data, oth
or tw
wo categoriees (e.g., AF an
nd OP). ults from all submissionss received fo
or each crediit are presen
nted with thee results for each section
n and a tablee Resu
of all credit‐level results in in
ncluded in A
Appendix D
D. Responsess from institu
utions that iindicated thaat the credit did n
not apply were omitted from these ttables. Resu
ults for each institution ty
ype are pressented as lon
ng as there was at least one applicable rresponse for that instituttion type. In
n instances w
when all insttitutions of aa certain ply, the table reads “n/a””. The totals presented in
n these tablees are sums typee selected thaat the credit did not app
of th
he average points earned
d from each ccredit. 14 Credit Level Results The following section includes a summary of the responses and feedback received for each credit included in the pilot project. We have strived to provide as much information in these results as possible without overwhelming the reader. Results and lessons learned are provided alongside feedback. Details about the number of points claimed and descriptions about the practices that earn institutions points are provided when they are available and when doing so would not compromise the confidentiality of submissions received. For most credits, results separated by institution type are presented in narrative form below overall results; typically these results include the percentage of institutions of a certain type that claimed points for the credit (versus those that did not claim points). However, for credits for which there was significant variation in the number of points claimed, results by institution type are presented in a table that shows a breakdown of the number of institutions of each type that claimed each number of points available. Most of the feedback and comments included in this document are direct quotations. Occasional minor clarifying edits have been made, but the language is generally that of the original submission. All feedback received is presented in this document (even if it was not entirely clear) with two exceptions. First, when several institutions made the same comment or recommendation, the comment is generally presented once with an indication of how many institutions made the same comment. Second, to avoid further confusion, some comments that reflect a misunderstanding of the credit have been omitted (and we noted that clarification is necessary). Based on the results and feedback, four key needs emerged across the system. • Provide additional guidance – Many terms and standards need to be defined or defined more clearly to ensure they are used consistently. Likewise, further detail needs to be provided regarding how scores are calculated and how STARS works. • Streamline reporting – Completing the pilot version of STARS was time‐consuming. Requesting information that was not required to determine whether or not an institution earned a credit often was viewed as excessive and tedious. Further, limitations of the online reporting system used during the pilot project often exacerbated confusion and frustrated some users. • Maintain flexibility – Results and feedback reinforced the diversity of higher education institutions. Among reporting participants, endowment sizes ranged from $550,000 to $5.5 billion and the number of courses offered per year ranged from 250 to 8,873. Further, the existence of certain practices, policies, or programs – a strategic plan, student learning outcomes, investment activities – cannot be assumed for all institutions. As a result of this diversity, approaches to sustainability varied considerably across institutions and make it difficult for STARS to be prescriptive or specific. • Incorporate more recognition for gradual steps toward sustainability – Many institutions suggested that STARS better incorporate recognition for incremental progress toward sustainability, instead of the all‐or‐nothing approach that exists in some of the credits. For example, OP Credit 21 recognizes purchasing of green cleaning products. In order to earn the credit, institutions had to purchase exclusively green cleaners; this credit provides no recognition for institutions that have started to experiment with green cleaners or are using primarily green cleaners. Likewise, for situations in which 100 percent is not possible, there is no incentive for institutions to take further steps toward sustainability. The same shortcomings emerged for credits that included multiple point thresholds, as the progress required to go from earning 2 to 3 points was often seen as large or impossible. 15 Education & Research Co­Curricular Education Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points Earned per Credit ER 1: Student Sustainability Educators Program 1 0.14 0.36 0.62 0.38 0.44 ER 2: Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign 1 0.00 0.91 0.76 0.85 0.71 ER 3: Sustainability in New Student Orientation 1 0.00 0.60 0.59 0.50 0.49 2.75 0.57 1.22 1.54 1.41 1.30 3.14 2.94 Co-Curricular Education
Co‐Curricular Education Tier Two Credits* Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 5.75 0.71 3.09 3.51 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. ER Credit 1: Student Sustainability Educators Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution coordinates an ongoing peer‐to‐peer sustainability outreach and education program for students. In the program, student educators are formally designated by the institution and receive formal training or participate in an institution‐sponsored orientation. The institution offers staff and/or financial support to the program. Results Credit Results 2 Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
23 29 0 52
Percentage of Total 44.2 55.8 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit 18 are public and 5 are private. 53 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 26 percent of the eligible private institutions. Since STARS is a self‐assessment framework, AASHE did not verify or correct responses or the number of points institutions claimed (except to correct confusion regarding the difference between not earning a credit and the credit not applying). The results presented in Credit Results tables throughout this document reflect the scores institutions selected for themselves. In addition, about 40 percent of pilot participants did not submit a form for each credit. Some of these institutions focused their responses on the credits for which they were able to obtain data, others reported only on the credits the institution earned, and others reported on one or two categories (e.g., AF and OP). We cannot assume how institutions that did not pursue certain credits would have performed. 2
16 Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible associate’s, 38 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 62 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 42 percent of eligible master’s institutions. A couple of the institutions that claimed this credit indicated that they “have several programs that might qualify for this.” The credit did not include a documentation field requesting information about the program’s formal training or orientation activities. As a result, in reviewing the results, it was difficult to determine the students’ level of formal training or orientation. Institutions cited several types of programs for this credit, including: • Student clubs • Campus‐sponsored student organizations • Elected student positions in residence halls and student government • Internships through campus centers, departments, or the campus sustainability office • Sustainability events, like Focus the Nation, that students help coordinate • A student‐led course initiative through which students have the opportunity to design a course and seek approval for the course to be taught • Peer‐to‐peer mentoring programs • Chapters of national societies like Engineers without Borders • A partnership with an energy service company that works with students to raise awareness about energy conservation on campus A few institutions mentioned institutional size and type as issues that influence their abilities to earn this credit. • “[Institution has] trouble maintaining momentum with some of these initiatives due to lack of on campus presence and the short duration we have students.” • “As a 2‐year institution, and with many non‐credit and non‐traditional students, it is more difficult to organize student‐led activities than it would be at a 4‐year institution where students are more ‘captive’ on campus and there for a longer period of time. Our sustainability initiative is young enough that we have not branched out to try to include this type of activity.” • “For the type and size of [institution] this is very difficult to name any specific program or programs ‐‐ they are infused in many programs and disciplines.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
15 16 4 0 1 0 36
17 Percentage of Responses 41.7 44.4 11.1 ‐‐ 2.8 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
29 7 1 0 37
Percentage of Responses 78.4 18.9 2.7 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “This credit should be changed slightly because I believe many schools have sustainability clubs that are highly involved throughout the campus. However to require administrative involvement makes it much more difficult.” • “There are additional campus groups that engage in sustainability peer‐to‐peer outreach as part of their functions. The credit should allow for additional groups to be listed.” • “More specific information should be provided about how students are selected, how it is promoted, how integrated the interns are with the faculty and other employees of the college.” • A couple institutions commented, “Formal training should be removed as a requirement as well as institution appointment of members. A peer to peer program should be maintained by the students in the committee. Institution financial or other forms of support for the program should be an indication of the institutionʹs approval. The purpose of a peer to peer program is that those leading the program as well as those ‘taught’ by the program are learning something. New members should be trained by the current members rather than the institution as well for the same purposes; the point of a peer to peer program is that it is being run by students who are acting on their own will rather than students who are more or less doing the ‘bidding’ of the institution.” • “It should not matter whether the institution coordinates it, or students do. Particularly if you are looking for a peer‐to‐peer outreach program.” Reasons the credit should be changed • ”This would be a resource‐intensive activity that would take from our ongoing recruitment and orientation programs. In our future, we may be able to try this with our [honors program], as they are initiating a mentor program.” • “There needs to be some way to account for smaller institutions to blend programs due to having multiple departments working toward a common focus without the heavy documentation that would take away from the program.” Other comments • “Is it necessary for the program to have a name, or could it be simply be something that is part of a staff personʹs job description?” 18 ER Credit 2: Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution holds at least one sustainability‐related outreach campaign directed at students that yields measurable results in advancing sustainability. The campaign could take the form of a competition, such as a residence hall conservation competition, or collective challenge, such a campus‐wide drive to achieve a specific sustainability target. For this credit, the outreach campaign(s) are directed toward at least 50 percent of the student body. For example, if the campaign targets on‐campus residents, at least 50 percent of the institution's students must live on campus in order to qualify for the credit. Multiple campaigns that cumulatively reach or measure at least 50 percent of the student body count for this credit. The campaign(s) may focus on one or more sustainability‐related issues, but educating students is a primary feature of the campaign. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
37 15 0 52
Percentage of Total 71.2 28.8 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 15 are private and 22 are public. 83 percent of eligible private institutions earned this credit, compared to 65 percent of eligible public institutions. Those earning the credit include 10 baccalaureate, 16 doctorate‐granting, and 11 master’s institutions. This represents 91 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 76 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 85 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions listed many different outreach campaigns for this credit. Campaigns cited include: • Anti‐bottled water and reusable mug campaigns • Campaigns encouraging students to go outdoors • Campus energy and water conservation campaigns • Campus litter clean‐up campaigns • Campus organic garden and compost awareness campaigns • Campus recycling program campaigns • Campus sustainability and energy audits • Campus sustainability conferences, workshops, lectures, debates, and film series • Campus veggie feeds • Collecting and donating items from residents during hall move‐out • Community service programs • Donation drives for charity • Educational kiosks in LEED certified buildings • Events like Earth Day and Focus the Nation • Greek community sustainability campaigns 19 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Green printing initiatives National Campus Energy Challenge (NCEC) Real Food Challenge RecycleMania competition Residence hall energy competitions and student sustainability leaders in the residence halls Responsible transportation campaigns and ride‐share programs Student grant programs for sustainability research Sustainability pledges Sustainability themes in academic programs Zero Waste events Institutions were asked to report the measurable outcome(s) of the campaigns. Sample responses include: • Several institutions cited a reduction in energy consumption (ranging from 2 to 20 percent) • Increase in the recycling rate • “It is hard to measure if these campaigns have advanced sustainability as our sustainability movement is just beginning. There is interest, ideas are being generated/shared, and the student sustainability club is growing.“ • “Nearly 100 tons of waste have been diverted from the landfill since 2005” • “Raised consciousness of sustainability, recruited students to actively work on sustainability projects, trained students in sustainable methods and practices” • “Decreased bottled water sales” • “Participating in RecycleMania lead our Facilities department to measure our recycling rate for the first time, and has lead to further conversations about how to better measure and improve our diversion rate.” • “Students became more aware of the process of recycling and its benefits.” Three institutions that did not claim the credit wrote that they were interested in or planning for developing such campaigns. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
9 23 10 1 0 0 43
20 Percentage of Responses 20.9 53.5 23.3 2.3 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
36 6 2 1 45
Percentage of Responses 80.0 13.3 4.4 2.2 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “I think you should change/clarify the 50% rule. We do a dorm energy competition that affects almost all of our non‐transfer students in their freshman year. So in a way we affect more than 50% of students over the 4 year period. If it’s 50% of students this year, then we affect less than 50% because most students only live in the dorms their freshman year. I also think competitions amongst more targeted groups can often be more effective, such as a competition amongst sororities and fraternities.” • “Further define a campaign, and consider removing the qualification of yielding measurable, positive results. There are campaigns that may be difficult to measure results for because they affect behaviors outside of the campus setting that cannot be easily measured. However, it may be possible to measure how many individuals were reached through the campaign through communication data, circulation numbers, crowd estimates, etc.” • “It is difficult to measure how much reach campaigns actually have. For example a table tent campaign in the dining halls may or may not reach more than 50% of the population, depending on what percentage of the population eat there. I would not want to add this as a measurement for this credit. I think if multiple big events are held that are meant to have broad reach, this is in keeping with the credit.” • “There are many institutions that are considered non‐residential such as [institution]. There are a few residence halls on campus but they only house a small percentage of the student population. While this spring, [institution] will have smaller outreach campaigns for its on‐campus students (e.g. Recyclemania) by having the requirement of 50% of students on campus eliminates non‐residential colleges and universities. This credit could be changed to exclude commuter schools or develop another credit that is more specific to outreach campaigns for non‐residential colleges and universities.” • One institution requested clarification regarding whether or not non‐credit students should be included in the requirement that the campaign reach 50 percent of the student body. Reasons the credit should be changed • “We have a very good on‐campus energy challenge, but less than 50% of students live on campus. There is no way to evaluate off‐campus student involvement in these kinds of sustainability efforts. We strongly encourage AASHE to reevaluate this credit because of this problem. Perhaps this should be a credit that allocates points based on percentage of engaged student body. Itʹs really too bad that our effort that has substantially reduced energy consumption in residence halls will not qualify us for this credit.” • ”Like ER Credit 1, this credit only covers official institution‐sponsored campaigns, which may not cover campaigns run by students attending the institution that have equal or greater impacts.” • “50% threshold seems arbitrary.” 21 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “I believe what we are trying to measure here is a ʹcultureʹ of sustainability, but it doesn’t seem to me that you need to give points for the means by which that is achieved. If the point is to streamline the process of auditing then I think we can get rid of this one. If in the end this credit is kept, I don’t think that the outreach campaigns should only reach out to students. Staff and faculty like competitions as well.” Other comments • “It is important to allow multiple campaigns to count for this credit. At a campus as large as [institution], it is difficult for any campaign to reach half of students.” • “We do a campus wide competition amongst all departments on campus, where the staff competes for the greenest department. It would be nice if we got credit for that as well.” 22 ER Credit 3: Sustainability in New Student Orientation Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution includes sustainability prominently in new student orientation activities. This credit does not apply to institutions that do not hold a new student orientation. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
26 27 0 53
Percentage of Total 49.1 50.9 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 16 are public and 10 are private. 44 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 59 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 6 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 7 master’s institutions. This represents 60 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 59 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 50 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Most institutions that claimed this credit cited numerous ways sustainability is incorporated into new student orientation activities. Examples include: • Distributing information materials (e.g., door hangers with energy conservation tips, welcome packets, emails, bookmarks, reusable tote bags made of recycled content that have information printed on them, green tips for back‐to‐school shopping) • Distributing environmentally preferable materials along with information about their benefits (e.g., reusable water bottles, compact fluorescent light bulbs) • Offering tours of the institution’s sustainable features (e.g., the biomass facility, campus garden, recycling center) • Holding a discussion on sustainability broadly or a specific sustainability‐related topic • Conducting community service activities with sustainability themes • Implementing sustainability strategies into the orientation’s operations and calling attention to those strategies (e.g., zero waste events, making materials available online instead of printing them) • Training and orientation to sustainability programs and issues (e.g., how to buy ENERGY STAR products for your dorm, how to recycle at the institution, how to use the car share and bike sharing programs, how to find sustainability‐themed courses and fulfill general education requirements with sustainability courses) • Holding lectures and screening movies with sustainability themes • The sustainability office tabling and having a presence at major orientation events Several institutions that did not claim this credit reported that typically some information about sustainability was conveyed during new student orientation, but it was not formalized or part of an overall sustainability 23 orientation. Others reported that some, but not all, departments included sustainability information in new student orientation. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
10 14 11 0 1 0 36
Percentage of Responses 27.8 38.9 30.6 ‐‐ 2.8 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
38 5 0 0 43
Percentage of Responses 88.4 11.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “At [institution], we have official new student orientations for incoming freshmen, which are hosted in Spring ‐ Summer. We also have [another student orientation event] and a few other orienting activities the week before classes start. Would we include all of these under the realm of ‘new student orientation’ or would we just include our new student orientation? I would recommend that the form be a bit more specific as to which activities should be represented here.” • “I would add a question about what topics are covered in this orientation to see what the breadth of topics are, and to possibly give schools that are developing sustainability presentations suggestions about what to cover.” • “It is unclear if multiple years should be reported here, when there is variation in activities from year to year. Again, the main focus in our answers is the undergraduate experience.” • “This credit should accommodate colleges with multiple campuses. [Institution] is composed of six different colleges, each with a different student orientation plan. Thus, ideas presented above could only be specific to one college.” • “The credit seems vague ‐ perhaps some elaboration on ‘prominently’ and the type of activities and materials necessary to achieve the goal.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “There are so many ways to be involved in Orientation Programs, but the language seems to exclude a lot of what we do. I guess it depends on what you count as ‘prominently.’ Our approach is to be involved in as many small aspects of orientation programs as possible.” 24 Co­Curricular Education Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
“These credits help to boost the scoring of the institution.” “You should be able to list other programs that fit in this category. In some ways this feels like a somewhat random list of ‘things you could do’ and there are many more just as legitimate things you could add.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a wilderness or outdoors program that organizes hiking, backpacking, kayaking, and other outings for students and follows Leave No Trace principles. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
27 18 0 45
Percentage of Total 60.0 40.0 ‐‐ 100 Those earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The programs cited for this credit include university departments, student clubs, and campus‐sponsored organizations. 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has active student organizations focused on sustainability. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
40 4 0 44
Percentage of Total 90.9 9.1 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The focus of the student organizations cited varied. Examples include: • Community service • Energy conservation • Environmental justice • Food • General sustainability education and awareness • Green business 25 •
•
•
•
•
Incorporating sustainability into student government Recycling Responsible transportation Sustainability in the Greek community Sustainable events 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has sustainability‐themed housing (residential hall, floor, or theme house). Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 25 4 44
Percentage of Total 34.1 56.8 9.1 100 Those claiming this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Institutions that indicated the credit “did not apply” did not offer on‐campus housing. Institutions that claimed this credit described a variety of sustainability‐themed housing arrangements that served a varying number of students. In most instances, students applied to be part of the community and committed to volunteer, provide tours of their housing, or otherwise engage with sustainability themes. 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an on‐campus garden where students are able to gain farming and/or gardening experience. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
22 22 0 44
Percentage of Total 50.0 50.0 ‐‐ 100 Those claiming the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. A couple institutions cited obstacles to having a fully Organic garden on campus. Several of the institutions that do not have an on‐campus organic garden are planning to develop such a garden soon. 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a formally designated model dorm room that is open to students during regular hours and demonstrates sustainable living principles. 26 Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
4 36 4 44
Percentage of Total 9.1 81.8 9.1 100 Those claiming this credit include baccalaureate and doctorate‐granting institutions. Institutions that indicated the credit “did not apply” did not offer on‐campus housing. One institution did not claim the credit and wrote, “We do have such rooms, but our dorm capacity is at 100 percent, and they could not keep a room empty for display.” 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution produces outreach materials for students about on‐campus sustainability efforts, such as electronic newsletters, signage about sustainability features, information kiosks, sustainability websites, and sustainability maps. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
39 5 0 44
Percentage of Total 88.6 11.4 ‐‐ 100 Those claiming the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Institutions cited several types of outreach materials for this credit. These materials include: • Banners and posters • Bike repair service area on campus • Brown bag lunches on sustainability topics • Campus center for community to learn more about sustainability • Campus newspaper articles • Community handbook outlining sustainability measures on campus • Information kiosks and electronic message boards • Interactive displays highlighting real time on energy systems and LEED aspects of buildings • Library area focused specifically on sustainability resources • Listserv announcements • Maps highlighting on‐campus sustainability projects like the location of recycling and compost bins • Materials available in the sustainability office • On‐campus tabling by student organizations • Self guided sustainability tours and talking points in campus tours • Signage for recycling, compost, energy conservation reminders, vegan/vegetarian options in dining halls, and highlighting aspects of LEED buildings • Student sustainability guide 27 •
Website, electronic newsletters, bulk emails, blogs, web calendars of sustainability events, Facebook groups, and campus portal announcements 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a student‐run sustainable enterprise, such as a café, through which students gain sustainable business skills. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
10 34 0 44
Percentage of Total 22.7 77.3 ‐‐ 100 Those claiming this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Colleges and universities listed several types of student‐run campus enterprises when documenting this credit. Enterprises cited include: • Bookstore • Cafés and restaurants • Fair Trade, organic coffee cart • Grocery store • Organic farm co‐op • Eco laundry detergent manufacture and sales Feedback “Credit 7 seems like such a major accomplishment and a huge contribution to sustainability such that is should warrant more points.” 8. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a student publication focused on sustainability. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
6 38 0 44
Percentage of Total 13.6 86.4 ‐‐ 100 Those claiming this credit include doctorate‐granting and master’s institutions. Student publications cited include: • A guide to sustainability on campus that “was developed and updated by a student group. We print 5,000 copies per year for all incoming students as well as for class presentations.” 28 •
•
•
•
•
An e‐mail update focused on sustainability that is “geared toward the student community. Faculty and Staff can also subscribe.” “The [publication] is published by students at the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences.” “The journal provides a forum for critical analysis and innovative commentary on the intersection of the three pillars of sustainable development law and policy: economics, society and human rights, and the environment.” “The [name of publication] was started about a year ago and is written primarily by student interns and edited by sustainability coordinators. It comes out once a month and is distributed electronically to about 1,000 people and in print we hand out about 600‐800 (depending on how many other events are happening that month that we can hand them out at). We make sure there are copies in all of the student resource centers and in the offices of all of the main administrators on campus. Stories cover best practices of students, staff, and faculty. We also advertise events, internships, and grants in this publication.” “Sustainability is incorporated into student publications, but there is not one dedicated to sustainability.” 9. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution's main student newspaper covers sustainability regularly. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
32 12 0 44
Percentage of Total 72.7 27.3 ‐‐ 100 Those claiming the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The institutions that claimed this credit wrote that the main campus newspaper has a section devoted to sustainability topics, covers these topics on a regular basis, has a reporter assigned to the sustainability beat, or these topics are currently being covered due to the preference of the current newspaper staff members. One campus that did not claim this credit stated, “There is only an occasional coverage of sustainability” in the main campus newspaper. Another institution commented, “The [institution’s] student newspaper covers topics related to sustainability when they are news, but does not cover the topic on a scheduled, regular basis that is intentional and planned.” 10. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution holds major events related to sustainability, such as conferences, speaker series, or symposia that have students as the intended audience. 29 Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
37 5 0 42
Percentage of Total 88.1 11.9 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Events cited for this credit include: • Brown bag series • Conferences • Earth day events • Events with a specific focus (e.g., local/sustainable food, climate, voting, plastic water bottles, science, and public health) • Festivals • Film series • Green building tours • Hosted dinners with specific discussion topics • National events like Focus the Nation and Campus Sustainability Day • Presentations • Speaker series • Weekly colloquium in environmental studies department • Workshops 11. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has held a sustainability themed semester or year during the previous three years. Results Number of Institutions
Earned credit 2 Did not earn credit 41 Credit did not apply 0 Total submissions received 43 Percentage of Total
4.7 95.3 ‐‐ 100
Those claiming this credit include a baccalaureate and a doctorate‐granting institution. “Poverty and Opportunity” and “Energy” were the sustainability themes cited by these institutions. 30 Curriculum Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit ER 4: Sustainability Course Identification 1 0.43 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.43 ER 5: Sustainability‐Focused Academic Courses 6 0.57 1.50 1.00 0.92 1.00 ER 6: Sustainability‐Related Academic Courses 6 1.29 1.38 1.12 1.31 1.24 ER 7: Sustainability Courses by Academic Department* 3 0.86 2.22 1.05 1.58 1.38 ER 8: Academic Sustainability Courses by Student Credit Hours 6 0.86 0.75 0.65 0.92 0.78 ER 9: Sustainability Learning Outcomes* 5 0.17 1.38 0.13 0.91 0.60 ER 10: Sustainability‐Focused Undergraduate Program* 2 0.20 1.10 1.00 0.45 0.80 ER 11: Sustainability‐Focused Graduate Academic Program* 2 n/a n/a 0.83 0.57 0.76 ER 12: Sustainability Immersive Experience* 1 0.17 0.67 0.72 0.33 0.54 ER 13: Non‐Credit Sustainability Courses* 3 0.29 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.71 ER 14: Non‐Academic Sustainability‐Focused Certificate Program* 2 0.00 0.67 0.27 0.25 0.26 ER 15: Sustainability Literacy Assessment 2 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.09 0.5 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.07 8.88 8.66 Curriculum
Curriculum Tier Two Credits* Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 39.5 5.02 9.87 8.31 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. ER Credit 4: Sustainability Course Identification Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has identified all of its sustainability‐focused and sustainability‐related courses. The identification system can take any form, including official recognition in the course catalog or a list compiled and published by the sustainability committee or officer, as long as the information is publicly available to the campus community. Sustainability‐focused courses concentrate on the concept of sustainability, including its social, economic, and environmental dimensions, or examine an issue or topic using sustainability as a lens. Sustainability‐related courses incorporate sustainability as a distinct course component or module, or concentrate on a single sustainability principle or issue. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
22 29 0 51
31 Percentage of Total 43.1 56.9 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 16 are public and 6 are private. 46 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 38 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 3 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 10 doctorate‐granting, and 7 master’s institutions. This represents 43 percent of eligible associate’s, 20 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 50 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 50 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions were asked to provide, “A brief description of the methodology used to identify sustainability courses.” Methodologies reported include: • Sustainability office asked department chairs and program directors to identify sustainability courses within their departments/programs • Sustainability office asked faculty members to identify the sustainability courses they teach • Sustainability office staff searched course catalog for key words (e.g., sustainability, social responsibility) and then deans reviewed and modified the list • Faculty teaching in the Sustainability minor identified courses that would count toward the minor • A panel of deans, faculty members, and administrators reviewed course descriptions to compile a list. • The Institutional Research department regularly surveys faculty about themes of their courses. Sustainability is one of the themes faculty can select. The vehicles through which institutions share their lists of sustainability courses include: • Included in annual sustainability reports • Listed on the sustainability website • Listed on the institution’s website and/or individual departments’ websites • Identified in the course catalogs • Emailed and distributed in hard copy by individual faculty members Several institutions that did not claim this credit stated that an inventory of such courses had been conducted but the results were not available to the public. Others stated that an inventory had not been completed, but there are plans to identify such courses. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
8 7 8 10 2 6 41
32 Percentage of Responses 19.5 17.1 19.5 24.4 4.9 14.6 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
31 8 3 1 43
Percentage of Responses 72.1 18.6 7.0 2.3 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Take in the courses which may not have sustainability as their key focus but have it incorporated into the curriculum.” • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” • ʺDistinction of focused and related courses is good. Possibly have this credit only consider sustainability‐focused courses and do ‐related courses in a different credit.” • “I think there needs to be a commonly accepted framework for understanding courses to be sustainability focused or related. Scanning a course calendar for key words does not suffice.” • “Perhaps more descriptors to help the reader determine what constitutes a sustainability course.” Reason the credit should be changed • ʺ’Sustainability‐Related course’ definition is too vague and subject to wildly divergent interpretation. Would require examination of syllabi from hundreds of courses.ʺ • “Hard to distinguish between sustainability‐focused and sustainability‐related courses.” • “The methodologies will likely differ greatly between campuses and that even though definitions are given that some campuses will be very inclusive and others less so. This should not affect this particular point but may affect others that have more quantitative requirements.” • “It will be very hard for [institution] to be too specific. With the way sustainability is woven into numerous courses no one specific or exact course is purely dedicated to sustainability. Quite a number of courses have threads of sustainability in them but to try and delineate percentages is very difficult.” • “This credit makes a great deal of sense for those schools just beginning to add sustainability across the curriculum. How will we credit schools which have advanced to sustainability main‐streamed in the curriculum? At [institution] we are focused on making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Itʹs not enough to have a list of courses about sustainability: the ability for the students to draw connections between disciplines and between courses creates the kind of leaders we want to be educating for. How can we structure this series of credits to help schools move from islands of innovative curriculum to an overall culture of sustainability in the curriculum?” • “We would argue that sustainability should be infused through the entire curriculum, making such course identification pointless. However, we realize that such infusion may take a long time, so such identification might be useful to students in the meantime.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “The course title or description generally describes its emphasis on sustainability, providing specific identification for it is excessive and not very effective.” 33 Other comments • “I think this is a really good credit to have and achievable, this does take a lot of time though. Our challenges have included that as a research‐one institution, our faculty are not satisfied with the current definition of sustainability when it comes to determining which courses count and which donʹt. Does a course on climatology count if it doesnʹt talk much about possible solutions? Does a purely environment‐focused course count? If you say no to the last, then you alienate faculty that have been addressing environmental issues for years and are our best faculty advocates for sustainability. Letʹs break that down more though, we can figure that a course on bird behaviors wouldnʹt count, but what about a stream ecology course that acknowledges human impacts? What about the math faculty that just started including environmental issues into his discipline, a real challenge for a math professor. His course does not address social and economic issues, but was able to bridge environmental concerns and mathematics. We have completed some assessment work in this area and have a draft list of courses, however before we can publicly release this, we have to vet it with all the major departments on campus to make sure that we arenʹt missing any courses. This will take time. Our defining criteria will be any course that talks about the connection between humans and the environment.” • “We are in the process of proposing a general education requirement focused on humansʹ relationship to the environment. If this proposal goes through, our goal is to have a list of all the courses that will qualify for this GE (identified in the General Catalog under the GE section, and highlighted as a GE Course where the course description appears). We thought it didnʹt make sense to have two lists (one for the GE, and one broader list of sustainability courses) since these would overlap and confuse students trying to find GE courses.” 34 ER Credit 5: Sustainability­Focused Academic Courses Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution conducts a specified percentage of sustainability‐focused academic courses, as measured by courses held during the past academic year or past two years, if the institution prefers. ∙ 1 pt: Between 0 and 2 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐focused. ∙ 2 pts: 2 to 4 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐focused. ∙ 3 pts: Between 4 and 6 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐focused. ∙ 4 pts: 6 to 8 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐focused. ∙ 5 pts: Between 8 and 10 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐focused. ∙ 6 pts: 10 percent or more of the institution's courses are sustainability‐focused. Courses that are cross‐listed in multiple departments do not count as separate courses. In determining percentages, institutions should count each time a course was held. For example, a course that is held twice (or if there are two sections) in the fall term and once in the spring term shall be counted as three courses. This credit does not include continuing education and non‐credit courses, which are covered by ER Credit 13: Non‐
Credit Sustainability Courses. Results Credit Results Earned 6 points Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
4 0 0 0 1 20 21 0 46
Percentage of Total 8.7 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.2 43.5 45.7 ‐‐ 100 Points Claimed by Institution Control and Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s No points
5 (36%) 16 (50%) 3 (43%) 1 (13%) 11 (61%) 6 (46%) 1 point
7 (50%) 13 (41%) 4 (57%) 6 (75%) 4 (22%) 6 (46%) 35 2 points
0 (‐‐) 1 (3%) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 (6%) 0 (‐‐) 6 points
2 (14%) 2 (6%) 0 (‐‐) 1 (13%) 2 (11%) 1 (8%) Total
14 (100%) 32 (100%) 7 (100%) 8 (100%) 18 (100%) 13 (100%) 15 of the 21 institutions that did not claim this credit (71 percent) reported that the credit was too difficult to measure or that data were not available. 24 institutions submitted data on both the number of sustainability‐focused and total courses offered. Institutions were given the option to report data from one year or two years. Of this group, 19 institutions reported on one year, 4 reported on two years, and 1 did not specify. The total number of courses offered per year for this group ranged from 250 to 8,873. The following table summarizes the results from this group. Sustainability­Focused Courses by Institution Control and Type Institution Type Average percentage of courses that were sustainability‐focused 3.3 2.3 0.4 2.7 4.1 2.6 2.7 Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s All Institutions Standard Deviation 4.9 3.9 0.4 4.9 4.5 4.8 4.2 Number of submissions 9 15 4 7 7 6 24 Several institutions provided caveats about the quality and comprehensiveness of their counts of sustainability‐focused courses. Many institutions reported that measuring the number of sustainability‐
focused courses was difficult and participating in the STARS pilot project catalyzed the first efforts to measure sustainability in the curriculum. Several institutions mentioned that there was room to improve their methodology. Others reported that they did not receive a response from all departments or faculty, so there may be sustainability‐focused courses that were not included in the count. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 1 8 10 5 11 37
Percentage of Responses 5.4 2.7 21.6 27.0 13.5 29.7 100 Number of Responses
23 7 9 0 39
Percentage of Responses 59.0 17.9 23.1 0 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 36 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “[Institution] has 2,146 classes offered in Fall 08. To achieve just 2% would be 43 classes. I would be surprised if any institution has 43 courses focused on sustainability. I would change it from percentage to number of classes.” • “As an item of clarification, should this credit count the number of sections or number of unique courses? I understood this credit to apply to unique courses.” • “Please help us develop a way to more easily determine this figure.” • “The indicator is very narrow. Broaden it to include courses that include sustainability as a measure in the curriculum but may not be designated a sustainability course. More realistic is the number of students who may involve themselves in projects that research sustainability.” • Three institutions suggested that “The methodologies will likely differ greatly between campuses and that even though definitions are given that some campuses will be very inclusive and others less so. A more specific methodology may need to be provided.” Two other institutions requested stronger definitions of “sustainability‐focused” and “sustainability‐related” courses. Reasons the credit should be changed • “Based on not qualifying for ER credit 4 this question cannot be answered.” • “Too stiff!” • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” • “It was difficult to obtain a list of academic courses by academic year.” • “The graduated credit scale is good but it will be difficult for major public universities to obtain the 6 credits considering the huge number of courses that are offered overall. This credit scale is geared to benefit small schools and specialty schools.” • “Since multiple sections of the same course are counted in the computation, it is biased against small colleges that may offer a variety of sustainability focused courses, but not multiple sections.” • “There should be a simpler method of counting sustainability‐focused courses.” Other comments • “For a community college with a comprehensive program of vocational and certificate programs, calculating the overall number of for‐credit course offerings is quite a challenge and likely lowers the number of sustainability‐focused courses compared to other kinds of institutions. Should we count all the public safety, carpentry, and child‐care vocational courses in our course schedule? These courses are certainly offered for credit; however, they are not offered in the arts and sciences division, and their courses mostly will not transfer to baccalaureate status.” • “Keep in mind that at a large institution, tracking may only be possible initially via course descriptions and not syllabi. Also keep in mind that if a course does not include the word ‘sustainability’ in its description, that does not preclude it being listed as a sustainability‐focused course.” • “There is always a tension between breadth and depth. As I was assessing our curriculum for this pilot, I noticed that our curriculum has leaned on the side of depth: that is, we have fewer sustainability‐focused courses because we have tended to focus on one or the other aspect of sustainability ‐‐ economic, social, environmental ‐‐ in a given course, and rely on the connections between courses (often themes in majors) to provide an understanding of the interconnections. How do we create incentives to find a balance between a selection of broad survey courses (‘sustainability‐
focused’) giving an overview of sustainable systems and encouraging holistic thinking, and a selection 37 of courses with narrower content (‘sustainability‐related’) that highlight complexity in deeper, but perhaps more fragmented ways? What curricular structures beyond courses provide that balance?” 38 ER Credit 6: Sustainability­Related Academic Courses Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution conducts a specified percentage of sustainability‐related academic courses, as measured by courses held during the previous academic year or past two years, if the institution prefers. ∙ 1 pts: Between 1 and 5 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐related. ∙ 2 pts: 5 to 10 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐related. ∙ 3 pts: Between 10 and 15 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐related. ∙ 4 pts: 15 to 20 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐related. ∙ 5 pts: Between 20 and 25 percent of the institution's courses are sustainability‐related. ∙ 6 pts: 25 percent or more of the institution's courses are sustainability‐related. Courses that are cross‐listed in multiple departments do not count as separate courses. In determining percentages, institutions should count each time a course is offered. For example, a course that is offered twice (including two sections) in the fall term and once in the spring term shall be counted as three courses. This credit does not include continuing education and non‐credit courses, which are covered by ER Credit 13: Non‐
Credit Sustainability Courses Results Credit Results Earned 6 points Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 1 2 4 6 13 18 0 45
Percentage of Total 2.2 2.2 4.4 8.9 13.3 28.9 40.0 ‐‐ 100 Points Claimed by Institution Control and Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s No points 5 (36%) 13 (42%) 2 (29%) 1 (13%) 9 (53%) 6 (46%) 1 point 2 points 3 points
4 points
5 points
6 points Total
5 (36%) 8 (26%) 2 (29%) 5 (63%) 2 (12%) 4 (31%) 1 (7%) 5 (16%) 2 (29%) 1 (13%) 3 (18%) 0 (‐‐) 1 (7%) 3 (10%) 1 (14%) 0 (‐‐) 2 (12%) 1 (8%) 2 (14%) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 (25%) 0 (‐‐) 1 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 (3%) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 (6%) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 (3%) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 (8%) 14 (100%) 31 (100%) 7 (100%) 8 (100%) 17 (100%) 13 (100%) 39 15 of the 18 institutions that did not claim points for this credit (83 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. 23 institutions submitted data on both the number of sustainability‐related and total number of courses offered. Institutions were given the option to report data from one year or two years. Of this group, 19 institutions reported on one year, 3 reported on two years, and 1 did not specify. The total number of courses offered per year for this group ranged from 250 to 8,873. The following table summarizes the results from this group. Sustainability­Related Courses by Institution Control and Type Institution Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s All Average percentage of courses that were sustainability‐related 5.1 9.9 7.1 5.0 8.1 12.0 8.0 Standard Deviation 4.8 9.4 6.3 5.0 8.7 11.4 8.1 Number of submissions 9 14 4 7 6 6 23 As with ER Credit 5: Sustainability‐Focused Academic Courses, several institutions provided caveats about the quality and comprehensiveness of their counts of sustainability‐focused courses. Many institutions reported that measuring the number of sustainability‐focused courses was difficult and participating in the STARS pilot project catalyzed the first efforts to measure sustainability in the curriculum. Several institutions mentioned that there was room to improve their methodology. Others reported that they did not receive a response from all departments or faculty, so there may be additional sustainability‐related courses that were not included in the count. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 1 4 13 5 6 31
Percentage of Responses 6.5 3.2 13.0 41.9 16.1 19.4 100 Number of Responses
19 7 5 1 32
Percentage of Responses 59.4 21.9 15.6 3.1 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 40 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several institutions requested a stronger definition of sustainability‐related courses. One wrote, “Because of the subjective nature of determining what makes a course sustainability related, it would be helpful to have some greater specificity. In other words, be included as an objective in the syllabus, devote a certain percentage of the course (ex. 10%) to sustainability, or explores what components of that discipline are needed in order to achieve sustainability.” • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” • “I think the points per percentage should be changed slightly so that for example 10‐15% is worth 4 points instead of 3 points.” • “Please help us develop a way to more easily determine this figure.” • “The methodologies will likely differ greatly between campuses and that even though definitions are given that some campuses will be very inclusive and others less so. A more specific methodology may need to be provided.” • “There should be a simpler method of counting sustainability‐related courses.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The graduated credit scale is good but it will be difficult for major public universities to obtain the 6 points considering the huge number of courses that are offered overall. This credit scale is geared to benefit small schools and specialty schools.“ • “Since multiple sections of the same course are counted in the computation, it is biased against small colleges that may offer a variety of sustainability related courses, but not multiple sections.” • “With the way sustainability is woven into numerous courses no one specific or exact course is purely dedicated to sustainability. Quite a number of courses have threads of sustainability in them but to try and delineate percentages is very difficult.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This category is far too vague and all‐encompassing. I could easily argue that the majority of courses on campus are sustainability‐related. For instance by the above definition, wouldnʹt all courses related to ecology or environment count? Wouldnʹt all courses in sociology count? Wouldnʹt all courses in economics count? When the [academic sustainability group] was talking about what counted and didnʹt one of the questions that came up was how do building block courses play into this determination? For instance, does Biology 101 count? Thatʹs where most students learn the basic concept of Ecology. This would certainly count as a ‘component’ of sustainability.” 41 ER Credit 7: Sustainability Courses by Academic Department Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the academic departments or programs that offer courses within an institution offer at least one course related to or focused on sustainability. ∙ 1 pt: More than 5 and up to 25 percent of the institution’s academic departments offer a sustainability‐
related or focused course. ∙ 2 pts: 25 to 50 percent of the institution’s academic departments offer a sustainability‐related or focused course. ∙ 3 pts: More than 50 percent of the institution’s academic departments offer a sustainability‐related or focused course. Sustainability‐related or focused courses that are cross‐listed in multiple departments may be counted separately for each department through which the course is listed. In other words, if a course is cross‐listed in two departments, both departments would be able to count that course. Courses should be held at least once every three years to be eligible for this credit. This credit does not include continuing education and non‐credit courses, which are covered by ER Credit 13: Non‐Credit Sustainability Courses. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
10 13 9 15 1 48
Percentage of Total 20.8 27 18.8 31.3 2.1 100 The institution that selected that the credit did not apply does not have academic departments or established degree programs. Points Claimed by Institution Control and Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s No points 2 (13%) 13 (41%) 3 (43%) 0 (‐‐) 9 (47%) 3 (25%) 1 point
1 (7%) 8 (25%) 2 (29%) 1 (11%) 4 (21%) 2 (17%) 2 points
7 (47%) 6 (19%) 2 (29%) 5 (56%) 2 (11%) 4 (33%) 42 3 points
5 (33%) 5 (16%) 0 (‐‐) 3 (33%) 4 (21%) 3 (25%) Total 15 (100%) 32 (100%) 7 (100%) 9 (100%) 19 (100%) 12 (100%) 13 of the 15 institutions that did not claim points for this credit (87 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. 32 institutions submitted data on both the number of departments with sustainability courses and the total number of departments. The total number of departments at these institutions ranged from 8 to 138. The following table summarizes the results from this group. Percentage of Departments with Sustainability Courses by Institution Control and Type Institution Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s All Percentage of Departments that Offer Sustainability Course(s) 44.1 38.9 20.7 39.4 52.5 42.5 41.0
Standard Deviation 22.6 26.7 11.1 24.1 30.8 20.0 24.9
Number of submissions 13 19 5 9 9 9 32
Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 3 13 9 2 7 35
Percentage of Responses 2.9 8.6 37.1 25.7 5.7 20.0 100 Number of Responses
29 4 3 0 36
Percentage of Responses 80.6 11.1 8.3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Add in not just departments but also those courses not listed under a department ‐‐ e.g., perhaps in overarching graduate school.” • “By using percentages this puts colleges with many departments at a disadvantage. Change it to be number of departments.” • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” 43 •
“The methodologies will likely differ greatly between campuses and that even though definitions are given that some campuses will be very inclusive and others less so. A more specific methodology may need to be provided.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Accessing totals for the institution as far as total number of ‘units’ or departments gets tricky for some of our colleges. They are not all structured by department.” • “Based on not qualifying for ER credit 4 we are unable to determine.” • “Did not receive actual feedback on how it should be changed. Faculty did not like this!” • “With the way sustainability is woven into numerous courses no one specific or exact course is purely dedicated to sustainability. Quite a number of courses have threads of sustainability in them but to try and delineate percentages is very difficult.” Other Comments • “Is there a clear reason for distinguishing between sustainability related and sustainability focused courses? There doesnʹt seem to be any difference within the credit system.” • “It is easy to get this data, once you have the list of sustainability‐focused and related courses.” 44 ER Credit 8: Academic Sustainability Courses by Student Credit Hours Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of student credit hours or equivalent is earned through sustainability‐related or focused courses. ∙ 1 pt: More than 0.1 and up to 5 percent of student credit hours are earned in sustainability‐related or focused courses. ∙ 2 pts: 5 to 10 percent of student credit hours are earned in sustainability‐related or focused courses. ∙ 3 pts: Between 10 and 15 percent of student credit hours are earned in sustainability‐related or focused courses. ∙ 4 pts: 15 to 20 percent of student credit hours are earned in sustainability‐related or focused courses. ∙ 5 pts: Between 20 and 25 percent of student credit hours are earned in sustainability‐related or focused courses. ∙ 6 pts: 25 or more percent of student credit hours are earned in sustainability‐related or focused courses. Student credit hours are calculated by multiplying the number of students that complete each course in each class by the number of credit hours or equivalent the course is worth. Results Credit Results Earned 6 points Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
2 0 1 1 3 10 28 0 45
Percentage of Total 4.4 ‐‐ 2.2 2.2 6.7 22.2 62.2 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 11 are public and 6 are private. 36 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 42 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 3 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 5 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 43 percent of eligible associate’s, 50 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 29 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 39 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 23 of the 28 institutions that did not claim points for this credit (82 percent) reported that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. 16 institutions submitted data on both the number of student credit hours earned in sustainability courses and the total number of student credit hours. The percentage of student credit hours earned in sustainability courses ranged from 1.4 to 34.4 percent for these institutions. The following table provides further results. 45 Percentage of Student Credit Hours Earned in Sustainability Courses by Institution Control and Type Institution Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s All Percentage of Student Credit Hours Earned in Sustainability Courses 3.3 10.6 6.6 3.7 9.6 12.7 8.3
Standard Deviation 2.7 11.9 7.9 2.9 14.0 13.2 10.4
Number of submissions 5 11 3 4 5 4 16
Several institutions that claimed points for this credit said that, in addition to the challenges of identifying sustainability related and focused courses, measuring the percentage of credit hours from sustainability courses depended significantly on estimations. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 1 5 6 3 13 29
Percentage of Responses 3.4 3.4 17.2 20.7 10.3 44.8 100 Number of Responses
20 2 6 2 30
Percentage of Responses 66.7 6.7 20.0 6.7 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” • “Please help us develop a way to more easily determine this figure.” • “The methodologies will likely differ greatly between campuses and that even though definitions are given that some campuses will be very inclusive and others less so. A more specific methodology may need to be provided.“ Reasons the credit should be changed • “Earning 1 point should not be so difficult!” 46 •
•
“With the way sustainability is woven into numerous courses no one specific or exact course is purely dedicated to sustainability. Quite a number of courses have threads of sustainability in them but to try and delineate percentages is very difficult.” “This measure is only concerned with student numbers and not with evidence of student learning or impact.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[Institution’s] institutional research group indicated that this would be difficult to measure.” • “The credit seems fairly redundant, unless applied to an institution with only a few sustainability courses, where enrollments might play a significant role in how much exposure students had. At [institution], since so many courses are sustainability related or focused, the work of collecting the data would be of less use to us in continuing to strategically develop sustainability across the curriculum. The more pertinent question to us seems to be more qualitative ‐‐ what holistic understandings are building as students take all these courses, and what connections are drawn between the courses?” Other comments • “Faculty did not provide specific constructive feedback.” • “How are we possibly supposed to determine the total number of student credit hours?ʺ • “ER credit 5‐8 are based off of ER Credit 4 and therefore with no data available for ER credit 4 we are unable to determine these credits.” 47 ER Credit 9: Sustainability Learning Outcomes Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the institution's graduate and undergraduate students graduate from programs that include sustainability as a required learning outcome. ∙ 1 pt: Between 0 and 25 percent of the institution's students graduate with a degree that includes sustainability as a learning outcome. ∙ 2 pts: 25 to 50 percent of the institution's students graduate with a degree that includes sustainability as a learning outcome. ∙ 3 pts: Between 50 and 75 percent of the institution's students graduate with a degree that includes sustainability as a learning outcome. ∙ 4 pts: 75 to less than 100 percent of the institution's students graduate with a degree that includes sustainability as a learning outcome. ∙ 5 pts: 100 percent of the institution's students graduate with a degree that includes sustainability as a learning outcome, or there is an institution‐wide sustainability learning outcome that applies to all students. For this credit, learning outcomes at the course level count if a course with a sustainability learning outcome is required to earn the degree. Results Credit Results Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
2 0 0 1 12 25 5 45
Percentage of Total 4.4 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.2 26.7 55.6 11.1 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 5 are public and 10 are private. 19 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 71 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 7 baccalaureate, 2 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 17 percent of eligible associate’s, 88percent of eligible baccalaureate, 13 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 42 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 16 of the 25 institutions that did not claim points for this credit (64 percent) reported that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Five institutions selected that the credit “did not apply”. One institution commented, “As a community college, [institution] does not have an undergraduate program where such learning outcomes would apply.” Another institution cited, “The [institution] is very unique in the country in that the institution does not have established degree programs or academic departments.” The other institutions reported that they did not specify any learning outcomes for their programs. 48 Institutions followed different approaches to determine which departments or programs had sustainability learning outcomes. Several institutions expressed confusion about how to measure learning outcomes and the difference between offering sustainability courses and having a sustainability learning outcome. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 2 7 6 5 3 24
Percentage of Responses 4.5 4.5 31.8 22.7 22.7 19.6 100 Number of Responses
16 5 5 3 29
Percentage of Responses 55.1 17.2 17.2 10.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “This credit is problematic. I understand the intent, and Iʹm comfortable with [an environmentally focused college] getting max points for focusing 100% of their students on sustainability. But if [institution] were to graduate 24% of our students at all levels from sustainability‐related programs, that would exceed [the environmentally focused college’s] numbers and still only earn us 1 point. I hate to suggest it, but maybe the fair thing is to stratify the percentage criteria by enrollment size or Carnegie classification.” • “Narrow the bands (certainly the first couple). Once I found any graduates who qualified, and knew we werenʹt going to reach 25%, I had no motivation to do further research. Research on this, and similar credits, is what enables useful conversations on campus.” • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” • “Provide examples of sustainability learning outcomes.” • “Better define ʹlearning outcome’ and ʹsustainability.ʹ These are terms that are not institutionalized at [Institution] and therefore are difficult to track.” • “Clearer definitions. Will goals count as outcomes? What if Sustainability the word is not actually used?” • “What defines a sustainability learning outcome? Does it need to include the word sustainability, or does it simply need to connect students to environmental and social issues?” 49 Reasons the credit should be changed • “With the way sustainability is woven into numerous courses no one specific or exact course is purely dedicated to sustainability. Quite a number of courses have threads of sustainability in them but to try and delineate percentages is very difficult.” • “[Institution] is currently undergoing a process to approve a new campus‐wide learning outcome related to sustainability. The proposal to include this into campus wide learning outcomes has been presented to the Faculty Senate for discussion and will go to a vote in February. If this passes the faculty senate, a sustainability learning outcome will apply to all students that graduate from [institution]. Identifying the number or percentage of students that graduate fulfilling this requirement will be hard to measure. Some students will obviously get more exposure to sustainability and will most likely fulfill this learning outcome with little effort. However, students who study in disciplines that are not inherently sustainability focused (Mathematics, Computer Science, English, History, etc) will graduate without direct exposure to sustainability programming, yet they will have passed through the system that promotes sustainability as a campus wide learning outcome.” • “Many Community College students do not take a degree. Instead, they transfer with general education requirements completed.” • “A sustainability learning outcome is vague. We felt that even if we had time to work with Institutional Research & Assessment and with the Graduate School to get numbers of students graduating from each major, minor, dual major or graduate program, we would be choosing said programs a bit subjectively. Whoʹs to say that a student graduating in music but who took a wide range of electives also in natural resources, political science, or philosophy, say, didnʹt learn about sustainability? This credit implies that only certain academic programs teach about sustainability, and that students can learn about it through other means like elective courses, internships, volunteer and student organization work, research projects, study abroad and more. Not sure how best to suggest you change this credit to remove this bias.” • “It should also be noted that students often have requirements for the college, in addition to their degree requirements. There were several first‐year seminar courses rated as sustainability‐related or focused for students to choose from. We could not count these courses as required because they do not belong to any particular department. The credit as it currently is does not fully reflect how many students receive a sustainability education. In our case, we can look online to see how many students took each course in the last 10 years. If other institutions have this option, this would be a more accurate portrayal of sustainability learning outcomes than looking at required courses. At the least, courses required by the college that are not in any particular department should be tallied somehow.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “I think the inventory covers it.” • “This credit is biased towards institutions that follow a particular educational philosophy of requiring faculty to specify learning outcomes. For institutions like ours where such approaches are not required, such a credit is not possible.” • “We donʹt list ‘Learning Outcomes’ for each degree program, in the way that this credit assumes.” 50 ER Credit 10: Sustainability Focused Undergraduate Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers a sustainability‐focused undergraduate academic program. ∙ 1 pt: Institution offers a sustainability‐focused major, academic concentration, academic certificate, or minor program for its undergraduate students. ∙ 2 pts: At least one percent of undergraduate students graduate with a sustainability‐focused major, academic concentration, academic certificate, or minor. For this credit, sustainability‐focused academic programs concentrate on sustainability, including its social, economic, and environmental dimensions. A program that focuses exclusively on environmental or social issues would not be sufficient to earn this credit. This credit does not apply to institutions that do not offer undergraduate degrees. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
11 14 20 3 48
Percentage of Total 22.9 29.2 41.7 6.3 100 Of the institutions earning points for this credit, 16 are public and 9 are private. 55 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 56 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 6 baccalaureate, 14 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 20 percent of eligible associate’s, 60 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 74 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 36 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Two associate’s colleges selected that the credit did not apply because they do “not have an undergraduate program” but instead offer associate’s degrees. Fourteen institutions reported the total number undergraduate degrees granted and the number of sustainability degrees granted. Of this group, the average percentage of undergraduate degrees that were granted in sustainability programs was 1.6 percent (the standard deviation was 2.3 percent). The highest percentage reported was 8 percent. Several institutions that did not have any graduates from sustainability programs reported that such programs were new and the first graduating class had not yet graduated or that the programs were under development. Institutions did not treat environmental studies and environmental science programs consistently. Some institutions claimed points for these programs and others did not. 51 Feedback Data Availability Number of Responses
9 8 7 8 1 0 33
Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Percentage of Responses 27.2 24.2 21.2 24.2 3.0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Number of Responses
31 1 0 0 32
Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Percentage of Responses 96.8 3.1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how this credit should be changed • “This credit should be changed slightly to include Associateʹs Degrees.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The only challenge here was getting the departments to give us the details (like number of students) in their program.“ Other comments
• “Does Environmental count as Sustainability?” 52 ER Credit 11: Sustainability Focused Graduate Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers a sustainability‐focused academic program for graduate students. ∙ 1 pt: Institution offers a sustainability‐focused major, academic concentration, academic certificate, or minor program for graduate students. ∙ 2 pts: At least one percent of graduate students graduate with a sustainability‐focused major, academic concentration, academic certificate, or minor. For this credit, sustainability‐focused academic programs concentrate on sustainability, including its social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This credit does not apply to institutions that do not offer graduate degree programs. If an institution offers fewer than 25 distinct graduate degree programs, it may choose to omit or seek this credit. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
3 13 9 23 48
Percentage of Total 6.3 27.1 18.8 47.9 100 Of the institutions earning points for this credit, 14 are public and 2 are private. 64 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 67 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning points for the credit include 14 doctorate‐granting and 2 master’s institutions. This represents 78 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting and 29 percent of eligible master’s institutions. All baccalaureate and associate’s and some master’s institutions selected that the credit did not apply because they do not offer graduate degrees or they offer fewer than 25 distinct graduate degrees. Several institutions reported that their graduate programs in sustainability were new or were under development. There was some confusion regarding whether environmentally focused programs or concentrations that are part of a broader program (e.g., a sustainability concentration within the architecture degree program) should count for this credit. 53 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
7 5 9 4 1 0 26
Percentage of Responses 26.9 19.2 34.6 15.4 3.8 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Number of Responses
23 2 0 0 25
Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Percentage of Responses 92.0 8.0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Is there a way to give credit for a trend toward graduate theses on sustainability topics? The Masterʹs in Geography and Environmental Studies program focuses a lot on sustainability even though it is not formally in the title. Perhaps a Tier 2 credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Since graduate students are able to focus their research in a way that they choose, even without a major or concentration in sustainability they may still have a sustainability‐focused degree. This is hard to measure at a university.” Other comments • “Does environmental = sustainability?” 54 ER Credit 12: Sustainability Immersive Experience Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers an immersive, sustainability‐ focused study program that lasts at least three weeks. The program may take place off‐campus, overseas, or on‐campus. For this credit, the program meets one or more of the following criteria: 1) it concentrates on sustainability, including its social, economic, and environmental dimensions or 2) it examines an issue or topic using sustainability as a lens. Programs offered by outside entities do not count for this credit. This credit does not apply to institutions that do not offer any immersive experience programs. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 18 6 45
Percentage of Total 46.7 40.0 13.3 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 14 are public and 7 are private. 48 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 70 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. 17 percent of eligible associate’s, 67 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 72 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 33 percent of eligible master’s institutions. The programs institutions described varied across several dimensions. • Location – Institutions described programs that took place across the globe and in their local communities. • Number of programs offered – While some institutions cited multiple programs, others described only one program. • Nature of the program – Academic, adventure, and service projects were all described. In addition, some programs were academic requirements and others were non‐credit. • Audience – Some programs were part of a specific academic program (e.g., MBA students) while others were open to all community members. Institutions were asked to provide “a brief description of the policies, programs, and other practices in place to mitigate the negative social and environmental impacts of programs, including air travel.” Sample responses include: • Participating in the Green Passport program • Offering students an opportunity to offset greenhouse gas emissions • A pledge program through which participants pledge to explore and improve the social and environmental conditions in their host countries. • “The instructors and students are very aware of their influence in foreign environments, incorporating the impact of their short visit into the course objectives.” • “Leave No Trace practices‐ mitigating the impact of humans on the natural environment.” 55 •
•
•
•
“Some of the air travel for this trip is offset using Terrapass. Students are given the option of whether they wish to offset their travel or not.” “[Program] works in partnership with local community‐based NGOs and directly with potential beneficiaries to understand their needs directly address them through the projects. While the program does not off‐set emissions from travel, the program has a strong commitment to ecological principles.” “No program or policy exists to mitigate negative social and environmental impacts of programs and travel. However, given the topics of the courses/experiences that [the institution] offers, and considering many of them work with ‘at‐risk’ communities, instructors are assumed to take great care in preparing students to be socially sensitive in an attempt to mitigate any adverse social affects.” “All three of our programs are dedicated to global understanding and cooperation, and we do not anticipate negative social or environmental impacts. While we acknowledge the impact of international travel, our institution does not have the resources to purchase carbon offsets or other mitigation measures, and we have made a conscious decision that it is better to offer these experiences for students in the manner we can, than to not offer them at all.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 9 11 3 1 0 25
Percentage of Responses 4.0 36.0 44.0 12.0 4.0 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
25 4 1 0 30
Percentage of Responses 83.3 13.3 3.3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Consider allowing one‐week programs to count for this credit.” • “There should be an opportunity for institutions to receive credit for courses that are immersive but last fewer than 3 weeks.” • “Consider allowing programs by outside entities to count.” • “I would not recommend fixing the time at 3 weeks. Some programs offer 1 week experiences for freshman prior to coming to campus, while others may offer something over spring breaks. These may be immersion. Another alternative could be tracking by number of consecutive hours (3 weeks = 120 hrs?).” • “Like most schools, [institution] does not staff the majority of our study abroad programs, but send students to existing programs run by other organizations. The decision to approve those programs with a sustainability focus and to provide financial aid for them is an important allocation of resources to support sustainability education and should be part of the STARS assessment.” 56 Reasons the credit should be changed • “It is difficult to get exact totals of students who have travelled because our programs are many and run by different entities. It is also difficult to describe the sustainability content and policies.” 57 ER Credit 13: Non­Credit Sustainability Courses Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution conducts a specified percentage of non‐credit courses that are sustainability‐related or focused. ∙ 1 pt: Between 0 and 1 percent of the institution's non‐credit courses are sustainability‐related or focused. ∙ 2 pts: 1 to 5 percent of the institution's non‐credit courses are sustainability‐related or focused. ∙ 3 pts: More than 5 percent of the institution's non‐credit courses are sustainability‐related or focused. Courses that are cross‐listed in multiple departments do not count as separate courses. Non‐credit courses refer to courses that cannot be taken for academic credit. It may include courses for which continuing education units are awarded, as long as academic credit cannot be earned. This credit does not apply to institutions that don't offer courses for which academic credit cannot be earned. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
4 3 6 21 13 47
Percentage of Total 8.5 6.4 12.8 44.5 27.7 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 12 are public and 1 is private. 41 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 20 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 2 associate’s, 8 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. 29 percent of eligible associate’s, 47 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 38 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Of the 21 institutions that did not claim points for this credit 10 (48 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Very few institutions provided the total number of non‐credit courses offered and the number of non‐credit sustainability courses. Several institutions reported that they offered very few non‐credit courses while others reported that they offered so many that it was too difficult to count them all. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 4 6 4 3 5 28
58 Percentage of Responses 21.4 14.2 21.4 14.2 10.8 17.9 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
19 4 4 2 29
Percentage of Responses 65.5 13.8 13.8 6.9 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The credit focus should not be on the amount of courses offered but on the actual content available for non‐credit areas. There are too many non‐credit options offered across too many departments and programs at [institution] ‐‐ we cannot capture all courses and workshops offered. We have a LOT going on but get no points for this credit because of this.” • “Concerning ER credits 4 thru 9, and ER credit 13. Please identify a few specific pieces of information that are informative to compare across institutions and redesign a few forms to elicit that information.” • “Define ʹcourseʹ” • “The credit should be re‐worded to better include non‐traditional programs that offer education without credit.” • “Consider this as a percentage measure rather than specific number of courses.” • “Consider the use of different terminology – some of what we offer is best described as workshops or events.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “We were not able to gather this information. Many different courses exist, but the data for each individual course are very difficult to pull out.” • “Not clear why this credit specifically excludes continuing education classes that give credit.” • “This credit like those specific to course information in this category will be very hard for [Institution] to be too specific. With the way sustainability is woven into numerous courses no one specific or exact course is purely dedicated to sustainability. Quite a number of courses have threads of sustainability in them but to try and delineate percentages is very difficult.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This credit should be eliminated because it’s unlikely that students are going to take classes for no credit. STARS also already covers classes related and focused on sustainability for credit.” • “Iʹm not sure, given the depth and breadth of information supplied for all other areas, that this one adds much value (by comparison). On the other hand, if our institution offered a large number of non‐
credit courses, I would want them to count.” Other comments
•
“A community‐college offers a variety of non‐credit courses ranging from Continuing Education contracts with community employers, to Community Education classes for community personal enrichment, to Adult Education courses designed to assist the community with re‐entering education. These programs are spread throughout the college, not always in formal ways. If we were to attempt this credit, it would most likely be due to the presence of certain courses in our community education program related to sustainability. By their very nature, however, these courses are geared to be fun and are not particularly rigorous or results‐oriented.” 59 ER Credit 14: Non­Academic Sustainability­Focused Certificate Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers a non‐academic, sustainability‐focused certificate or training program. ∙ 1 pt: Institution offers a non‐academic sustainability‐focused certificate or training program. ∙ 2 pts: At least 1 percent of students participating in institution's non‐academic certificate or training programs participate in those that are sustainability‐focused. For this credit, sustainability‐focused programs are programs that concentrate on sustainability, including its social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This credit does not apply to institutions that do not offer non‐academic certificate or training programs. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 5 21 18 45
Percentage of Total 2.2 11.1 46.7 40.0 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 5 are public and 1 is private. 23 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 20 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 baccalaureate, 4 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. 33 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 27 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 25 percent of eligible master’s institutions earned this credit. Several institutions reported that they were in the process of developing such programs. Others reported that they offer sustainability certificate programs, but the programs are offered for academic credit. Institutions documented various certificate programs. Sample responses include: • “The [institution] has created a program focused on sustainable building tools and strategies, including LEED. Our Green Building Certificate Program is an on‐campus, accelerated evening program providing critical knowledge about emerging practices in commercial and residential building. This certificate responds to the growing need for specially trained professionals who are able to adapt to a changing industry and culture.” • “SPARE‐Solar power as renewable energy, sustainable production and supply of biomass in [state].” • “The [institution] extension program offers a facilities management professional certificate and a sustainable business practices specialized certificate.” • “The Campus Sustainability program offers ongoing weekly training for the roughly 25 students (roughly 3% of the entire student body) who have campus jobs in it. Students gain skills in leadership, group process, conflict management, project management, and facilitation. They work in teams so that senior students can mentor under‐class students.” 60 •
“Permaculture Certificate, Graduate Certificate in Sustainability, Graduate Certificate in Hydrology, and Graduate Certificate in Transportation.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 6 5 3 0 0 20
Percentage of Responses 30.0 30.0 25.0 15.0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
22 4 1 1 28
Percentage of Responses 78.6 14.3 3.6 3.6 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “For such an item, perhaps partnerships with other entities could be counted?” • “This credit should focus on total number of participants in such programs, not solely students. Everyone who participates ‐‐ from local citizens and working professionals to business leader to elected officials to teachers to, yes, our own students, benefit!” • “We have several certificate programs related to sustainability, however, given the criteria of this credit, only one (graduate certificate in sustainability) would qualify under the criteria. It might be helpful to have reporting options that allow us to claim credits for certificate programs with sustainability themes but that focus on specific areas of sustainability (transportation, hydrology, etc). It is hard for us to say that every certificate that addresses some component of sustainability must also address all three realms of the sustainability paradigm.” • “It’s hard to determine the number of students that are participating in these and other programs so I would suggest that this not be necessary information for this credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “[Institution] does not track the number of program participants for non‐academic programs; these students may or may not (depending on the program) be included in the numbers for non‐credit participants.” • “Tracking student numbers is really hard. The data just isnʹt there, although we hope that in the future we will have a more comprehensive way of knowing how many students are completing these certificates.” • “Hard to determine the number of students participating in the certificate program as enrollment changes quarterly. Perhaps clarifying the academic terms would be helpful.” 61 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “Non‐credit programs are unreasonable expectations of students.” 62 ER Credit 15: Sustainability Literacy Assessment Pilot Version Credit Criteria ∙
∙
1 pt: Institution conducts an assessment of its students' sustainability literacy. 2 pts: Institution conducts an assessment of its incoming students' sustainability literacy and then conducts an assessment of the same cohort's sustainability literacy upon graduation. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 2 44 0 47
Percentage of Total 2.1 4.3 93.6 ‐‐ 100 All of the institutions that claimed points for this credit are public. 1 associate’s, 1 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institution earned points for this credit. Several institutions reported that they were in the process of developing a sustainability literacy assessment. Institutions were asked to report how the assessment was developed. • “The questionnaire is modeled on those used at other institutions and have given a preliminary measure of the knowledge base and interest of incoming students.” • “The student survey was developed first in our Sustainability Task Force. We did searches of student surveys that already existed at various institutions around the country. The task force then shaped the questions based on our culture here at [institution]. We then took this list of questions to our institutional research office and had them tweak the questions for reliability and consistency. They then converted the questions to a survey monkey document that we could have accessible to all students.” • Another institution described a sustainability literacy assessment that is part of their quality enhancement plan that is part of the reaccreditation process. Institutions were asked to provide “A brief description of how the assessment was administered.” Responses include: • Survey administered by the department of Institutional Research • “We placed this assessment on survey monkey and used every setting possible to expose students.” • Survey conducted before and after students participate in a required course about sustainability 63 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
8 5 4 2 1 1 21
Percentage of Responses 38.1 23.8 19.0 9.5 4.8 4.8 100 Number of Responses
26 1 1 1 29
Percentage of Responses 89.7 3.4 3.4 3.4 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “For larger institutions, it may be appropriate to allow for parts of the institution (departments or units) to implement assessments before the entire institution.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Campus is struggling with demands for ‘outcomes assessment’ beyond the ad hoc assessments conducted by individual departments, but if we canʹt agree on how to assess something like critical thinking, I canʹt imagine that we will ever have a campus‐wide test of sustainability literacy.” • “Very broad and very subjective.“ Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “1. No valid and well‐tested and vetted measures testing sustainability literacy exist. 2. What would such tests prove if they did? We are looking for more than just accumulated knowledge. We immerse [institution] students in our sustainable learning community to prepare them to advance sustainability in their civic and professional lives. Itʹs an intellectual, emotional, and overall transformation that cannot be measured with a test. 3. Such assessments for a number of reasons can only be voluntary, and so we couldnʹt capture all students. 4. Whoʹs to say that if a student tests higher on such sustainability literacy tests after coming out of an institution that such knowledge was caused by being at said institution? There are too many external variables. 5. No long‐term effects can be shown. 6. Information is not enough to motivate transformational learning or even just behavior change. What is the value in measuring this? 7. Such tests could become like todayʹs K‐12 public school standardized testing. Teaching to the test is not effective learning, regardless of whatʹs taught.” Other comments • “[Institution] is a two year institution that also has many transfer students and student that are here for very short durations. This will make it difficult to have an effect on their sustainability literacy and to find ways of measuring our affect on these student populations.” 64 •
•
“The major difficulty with obtaining this credit is developing a credible, meaningful tool. It would be very helpful to institutions if this is something that AASHE could provide as a resource. We started developing a survey here and discovered that it needs to address issues of not only knowledge but likeliness to act, behavior, world view, etc.” One institution questioned what the assessment would need to include in order to earn this credit. The institution wrote, “Is it one question, a group of question? Is there a specific area of sustainability that needs to be addressed to qualify for this credit?” 65 Curriculum Tier Two Credits 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution's common book is sustainability‐related. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 17 14 40
Percentage of Total 22.5 42.5 35.0 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The books cited by those claiming the credit include: • Blessed Unrest, Paul Hawken • Elemental South, Dorinda G. Dallmeyer (Ed.) • Ethics for the New Millennium, His Holiness The Dalai Lama • Field Notes from a Catastrophe, Elizabeth Kolbert • Mountains Beyond Mountains, Tracy Kidder • Plan B, Lester Brown • Three Cups of Tea, Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin • The Travels of a T‐Shirt in the Global Economy, Pietra Rivoli • When the Rivers Run Dry, Fred Peace Several of the institutions that claimed this credit reported that there is not a requirement that the common book be sustainability‐related, it has just happened that such books were selected. Feedback •
•
“This credit needs more information, as it is confusing. What possible books could be the institutionʹs ‘Common Book’?ʺ “It’s hard to determine if the institution’s ‘common book’ is sustainability related.” 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution's first year experience is sustainability themed. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
3 30 9 42
Percentage of Total 7.1 71.4 21.4 100 All of the institutions that claimed this credit are doctorate‐granting institutions. Two are public and one is private. 66 Feedback •
•
“This credit provides no continuum for sustainability within the first year program. To have the entire first year themed in sustainability is quite a heavy program, perhaps points can be accrued for smaller forms of participation?” “Would be interested in reading about how this can be achieved.” 67 Faculty and Staff Development and Training Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit ER 16: Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses 1 0.14 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.30 ER 17: Staff Professional Development in Sustainability 1 0.71 0.22 0.56 0.42 0.48 ER 18: Sustainability in New Employee Orientation 1 0.14 0.33 0.53 0.25 0.36 ER 19: Employee Sustainability Educators Program 1 0.14 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.20 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 4 1.13 0.66 1.86 1.17 1.34 Faculty and Staff Development and Training
ER Credit 16: Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers incentives for faculty to develop sustainability‐related or focused courses and/or incorporate sustainability into their courses or departments. Incentives may include release time, curriculum workshops, and funding. This credit applies to incentives for academic, non‐credit, and/or continuing education courses. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
14 32 0 46
Percentage of Total 30.4 69.6 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 11 are public and 3 are private. This represents 33 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 23 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 6 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible associate’s, 11 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 33 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 50 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions described a variety of incentives for faculty to develop sustainability courses. Example responses follow. Funding • “Faculty development monies are available to support initiatives in new course development including those that focus on sustainability. Monies are available at the departmental, collegiate and university level. In addition, the university conducted a program for some 14 years in which a two‐week summer 68 •
•
workshop was used to expand faculty understanding of how to bring these issues into their current course offerings.” “In 2008, two $1,500 stipends were provided for 2 faculty members to develop sustainability modules for Freshman Seminar. Both modules will be made available for future semesters and courses.” “In mid‐fall 2006, the Provost decided that $25,000 be allocated to support ‘Mini‐grants for the Enhancement of Sustainability in Instruction,’ intended to fund proposals from faculty to advance sustainable principles in their curricula. Faculty were encouraged to consider enhancing existing course pedagogy by inviting sustainability experts related to their fields; traveling to important locations, or attending seminars or conferences in the relevant sustainability area in order to bring first‐
hand experience to the classroom. Faculty were encouraged to organize student field‐trips, or develop new courses that would leverage interdisciplinary sustainable models. The Sustainability Committee required a demonstration of how sustainable principles would be engaged in the classroom on a continuing basis. The Sustainability mini‐grants program funded 14 proposals for faculty integrating sustainability into their curriculum. Faculty used the grants to invite sustainability experts related to their fields to [institution]; travel to important locations, and attend seminars or conferences in the relevant sustainability area in order to bring first‐hand experience to the classroom.” Release time • “A limited number of faculty (less than ten) have received a course release time to allow them to develop a sustainability related course. Workshops and other trainings are offered for free each year through our annual sustainability conference. Four revamped courses are now offered in biology, geography, management, and engineering.” • “During the Fall 2008 semester five faculty members were given one semester of release time to work on sustainability related course work. This group formed a larger committee to include a more diverse group of faculty members that are working on cross‐discipline collaboration on sustainable courses and programs. As part of this group’s work a grant has been identified through a partnership with a four‐
year institution. We are currently working on a proposal that will provide funding for another 3 to 4 faculty to work on course and/or module development. We currently have a draft of a wind energy program, a sustainable building course, preliminary work on a sustainable course in the heating and cooling area, and a course in the science of renewable energies.” Workshops • “In February 2008 [a department at the institution] hosted a workshop called ‘Integrating Sustainability Across the Curriculum’. This workshop had 40 participants and was a key event coordinating faculty who were already working in this area, developing new faculty champions, and in signaling the university’s interest to develop in this direction.” Multi‐faceted Programs • A program at the institution “accepts up to 20 applicants a year, provides a stipend of $1000, and requires a 2‐day May workshop, summer independent time to develop a new syllabus or new course module, an August fieldtrip and lunch to share results of the summer’s work, and a follow‐up dinner a year later, to discuss continuing growth in understandings about sustainability.” • “On a case‐by‐case basis, [the sustainability office] provides incentives by offering funding for faculty members and staff (cost‐sharing with departments on salaries and benefits; stipends and faculty fellowships; course ‘buyouts’ to free time; money to travel to conferences like Terra Madre; etc.) in order to help develop new sustainability‐related or focused courses. [The sustainability office] also 69 •
brings together faculty from across campus to work with them to development courses and academic programs.” “[Institution] is involved in a five‐year project to develop a curricular initiative focusing on the study of renewable energy and resource sustainability. Through that project, faculty members interested in developing new lecture topics or laboratory/field exercises that will enrich teaching about aspects of renewable energy/green architecture in existing classes can apply for support from the grant. Support could consist of summer stipends, and student summer or semester research assistants.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 9 11 0 1 0 25
Percentage of Responses 16.0 36.0 44.0 ‐‐ 4.0 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
24 3 2 1 30
Percentage of Responses 80.0 10.0 6.7 3.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Make this a percentage of total funding for course development.” • “Because faculty development efforts are cumulative, results will always incorporate effects of all the years past. Therefore, STARS should not focus on a 2‐year timeframe for this credit.” • “Credit should be given for such support of staff time and staff are often needed to support faculty in development courses ‐‐ e.g., memorandums of understanding between departments and colleges (or with international programs), scheduling meetings, doing paperwork on stipends, travel and course buyouts, etc.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Our policies and practices allow freedom to faculty to obligate funds as they see fit toward incorporating sustainability into their course material.” • “At [institution], there is a strong sustainability component to the academic program; it is therefore not beneficial to add incentives.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “Providing faculty with incentives to teach any subject matter might cross a line by providing too much administrative interference with faculty and putting professors of other legitimate subjects at a distinct disadvantage.” 70 ER Credit 17: Staff Professional Development in Sustainability Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes available training and/or other professional development opportunities in sustainability to all staff at least once per year. Separate training opportunities for each department and training opportunities for all staff would count for this credit, as long as each staff member has an opportunity to learn about sustainability at least once per year. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
22 24 0 46
Percentage of Total 47.8 52.2 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 18 public and 4 are private. This represents 55 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 31 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 10 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 71 percent of eligible associate’s, 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 56 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 42 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Sample responses from institutions that claimed this credit include: • “The university maintains a campus‐wide training and development program with the opportunity to broaden these offerings to address the issues of sustainability. In addition, staff is encouraged through their reporting units to enrich their understandings and have in select cases participated in sustainability training workshops. Quite a few of the facilities and management personnel, for example, are LEED accredited.” • “Sustainability 101 is offered across the campus for staff to come and learn the basics about sustainability in general and what the University is doing in regards to this subject area. This course also shares with staff how they can become involved in initiatives on‐campus.” • “In 2007‐2008 [institution] hosted 44 events open to staff, faculty, students and the community at large on subjects ranging from how to reduce our ecological footprint to workshops on conflict resolution and anti‐oppression.” • “We offered a training session entitled, ‘Sustainability @ [institution].’ The purpose of this session was to help the attendees to understand what we mean when we talk about sustainability. The session included a brief summary of the process of building the Sustainability office and a history of sustainability at [institution]. We then focused on the triple bottom line, using a bean bag toss game to help illustrate the meaning. The plan is to have repeat sessions like this and then to follow with more detailed sessions focused on specific needs.” • “Sustainability related sessions were offered at [institution’s] annual Staff Development Day held in September 2008. One session explained [institution’s] sustainability initiative and the other session contained information about becoming more sustainable at home. [Institution’s] professional development department will soon have sustainability related on‐line offerings available for [institution’s] employees.” 71 •
•
•
“All faculty and staff were invited to 2008ʹs ʺBeing Green at Homeʺ Panel Event on April 9th. With support from the Environmental Council and others, the fair attracted about 300 people to [institution] for exhibits, workshops, and demos presented by community members, local businesses and non‐profit organizations. The emphasis was on sustainable living and exhibitors covered topics including: energy efficiency, solar and wind power, wildlife conservation, recycling, gardening and community supported agriculture, and public transportation to name. Also, custodial staff does an annual day‐long visit to a peer institution to learn about green custodial practices and products. Response to the event was overwhelmingly positive and a similar event will likely occur in 2009.” “[Institution] offers periodic sustainability training opportunities through the Human Resources department. These workshops are available to all staff.” “Each year [institution] has a Fall Faculty Retreat where a variety of topics important to faculty are discussed. Sustainability was a topic discussed at the retreat in years: 2007, 2008.” These institutions also provided a brief description of the outcomes or results of offering such programs. • “After their consultations, the based upon their evaluation and recommendations, many offices have reduced their energy, paper, and water use, as well as other behavioral changes.” • “The Conference provides the community, faculty, staff, and students with a greater understanding of sustainability. We give out awards such as the Greenies and Best Practice, to exemplify those who are doing exceptional. It increases collaboration among the campus and the community, allows individuals to incorporate sustainability into their personal lives, instill sustainability ethics into our graduates, and changes the operating practices of the participating vendors and caterers.” • “Nearly half of all staff participate in one or more of these programs.” • “The attendees seemed very interested in the topic, and many of them agreed that they would take away practices for their personal lives. Some of the attendees have become more involved with on‐
campus activities involving sustainability.” • “The result of offering on‐going sustainability trainings and educational events is that there is a real culture of sustainability developing at [institution]. This change is clearly present though hard to capture as some departments have resultantly modified their mission statements, description of services, or everyday purchasing practices.” • “As a result of the staff development day programs, [institution] employees are more aware of what our institution is undertaking to become more sustainable.” • “Currently, we have no quantifiable outcomes directly related to our professional development opportunities in sustainability. Anecdotally, support staff supervisors have noticed more attention to energy and resource saving practices and more discussion among employees about sustainability and sustainability issues. In the future, we hope to develop a rubric for evaluating the impact of offering such programs.” 72 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 12 6 3 0 0 27
Percentage of Responses 22.2 44.4 22.2 11.1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
27 3 1 0 31
Percentage of Responses 87.1 9.7 3.2 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Because one of our units does this program well, it seems the credit needs to find a way to acknowledge different units of a university and the extent to which different units are able to offer such a program.” • “It is important to the know results of a staff program, however it is difficult to put the results in tangible terms. It is just a thought to remove this part of the credit.” • “I would like to see greater clarity in defining professional development opportunities and training.” • “Is as rigid once/year schedule necessary?” Reasons the credit should be changed • “There are so many training programs offered across campus, that we donʹt always know about everything that is offered. We are finding that since we began spreading sustainability across the campus, more and more staff are starting to include sustainability in presentations that they offer and in their work, due to having gone to one of our events or trainings, or participating in one of our programs. I would also note that the opportunities to give workshops are constantly changing. Each year we give at least one presentation a month on campus to a different group of staff, faculty, and/or students. Because we are trying to reach new groups, the settings change and the audience changes constantly.” 73 AF Credit 18: New Employee Orientation Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution covers sustainability topics in new employee orientation and/or in outreach and guidance materials distributed to new employees, including both faculty and staff. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
17 30 0 47
Percentage of Total 36.2 63.8 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 14 public and 3 are private. This represents 42 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 21 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 10 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible associate’s, 33 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 53 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 25 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not claim this credit reported that they were developing sustainability orientation for new faculty and staff. Many institutions that claimed this credit provided a brief description of how sustainability is covered in orientations and trainings for new employees. Sample responses follow. • “The sustainability officer has a standing time slot of about 30 minutes at all new employee orientations. A PowerPoint Presentation on sustainability is given with time for questions and answers. New employees are also provided with materials in their orientation packets about recycling and [institution’s] commitment to sustainability.” • “Most faculty and staff attend an HR orientation. The sustainability office has been presenting practices and policies pertaining the sustainability around the campus and community.“ • “Once a month, all incoming employees are provided with information on how to get involved with sustainability on campus, such as the introduction of alternative transportation methods.” • “All new employees receive a brochure about how [institution] addresses sustainability, and a tip sheet (also posted on the web) for sustainability actions on campus.” • “Recycling and transportation and energy materials are made available at new employee orientation.” • “In Fall 2008, New Faculty orientation included a presentation by the sustainability director. The focus of the talk was the background of [institution’s] sustainability progress including institutional commitments, the Sustainability Strategic Plan, renewable energy, academic programs, etc. The talk also stressed the role of new faculty in helping the university to be more sustainable and encouraged faculty members to incorporate sustainability curriculum and projects in their classes. This talk was very productive as several new faculty members have joined sustainability committees and have already added sustainability to their coursework. For 2009 new employee orientation, sustainability will be added as a focus with a similar focus.” 74 •
•
“New employee orientation is now offered in an on‐line module which includes a section on sustainability.” “At orientation for new faculty and staff [institution] offers written information about its sustainability work and also provides a ʺgreenʺ tour of sustainability initiatives.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
8 13 8 0 0 0 29
Percentage of Responses 27.6 44.8 27.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
30 1 0 0 31
Percentage of Responses 96.8 3.2 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Reasons the credit should be changed • “With multiple units in a university, specify how programs for some units can count towards the credit.” 75 AF Credit 19: Employee Sustainability Educators Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution administers or oversees an ongoing faculty/staff peer‐to‐peer sustainability outreach and education program. In the program, employee sustainability educators are formally designated and they receive formal training or participate in an institution‐sponsored orientation. The institution offers staff and/or other financial support to the program. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 37 0 46
Percentage of Total 19.6 80.4 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 7 public and 2 are private. This represents 22 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 14 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s and 8 doctorate‐granting institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible associate’s and 44 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting institutions. Sample descriptions of the educators program follow. • “The sustainability office oversees an ongoing faculty/staff peer‐to‐peer sustainability outreach and education program the Sustainability Ambassador network. Ambassadors meet a minimum of twice yearly to discuss issues that are important to our campus and report back to the unit they represent. This program is a key component to achieving sustainability at [institution] because it serves as a major pathway for generating new ideas, establishing partnerships, and sharing information about sustainable research and practices with the campus community. Ambassadors are selected by individual departments, often by the departmental director or chair, to serve as a representative for their division. The goal for the program is to have representation from all academic and administrative units on campus.” • “The Presidentʹs Task for on Sustainability is a group of individuals whose function is to develop methods of communicating sustainability information and resources throughout the organization. The Green Team is a hands‐on group which is dedicated to reaching out to the students, staff, and faculty to educate and affect sustainable change.” • “The Sustainable Ambassadors Program (SAP) is an initiative to engage faculty & staff in developing sustainable behaviors and attitudes. The SAP Coordinator engages staff & faculty in campaigns and challenges and seeks to develop sustainability champions through workshops and lunch hour conversations. These champions are the bridge to communicating in their departments and key resource people for their departments. The program priorities and needs are identified annually through a multi‐stakeholder advisory committee.” • “Sustainability reps are nominated by a school dean or departmental supervisor and receive a modest budget for expenses and events to support their programs. The 46 reps serve as ambassadors between the Sustainability Office and the units of the university where change actually happens. Reps support thoughtful daily decisions regarding recycling, energy, water, food, transportation, purchasing, 76 printing, and other issues of interest to help [institution] build a truly sustainable campus. They meet monthly for most of the year and carry out energy awareness campaigns and other activities. Reps are offered support by campus experts on sustainable food, water, energy, and recycling issues, as issues and questions arise. They also receive substantial marketing materials—posters, stickers, banners, and promotional materials—to support their efforts.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
14 8 3 1 0 1 27
Percentage of Responses 51.9 29.6 11.1 3.7 ‐‐ 3.7 100 Number of Responses
27 1 1 0 29
Percentage of Responses 93.1 3.4 3.4 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “We feel that our program [a sustainability committee] is an ongoing faculty/staff peer‐to‐peer sustainability outreach and education program, with some financial support. The committee, under the chairʹs leadership, does coordinate programs in which the members (faculty, staff and students) educate and mobilize their peers around sustainability initiatives and programs. We do this through the efforts of our committee which is not specifically described as a ‘program’.” Other Comments • “It might be a good idea to have at least a Tier Two credit recognizing grassroots staff/faculty organizations, similar to the ‘active student organizations’ credit in the Co‐Curricular section.” 77 Research Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit ER 20: Sustainability Research Inventory* 1 0.00 0.20 0.41 0.33 0.34 ER 21: Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research* 3 0.00 3.00 1.33 0.88 1.28 ER 22: Departments Involved in Sustainability Research* 5 n/a 5.00 2.72 2.38 2.79 ER 23: Internal Funding for Sustainability Research* 4 n/a 2.00 0.50 1.60 0.87 ER 24: External Funding for Sustainability Research* 3 n/a 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.93 ER 25: Sustainability Research Incentives* 1 1.0 0.50 0.29 0.20 0.32 ER 26: Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion* 1 n/a 1.00 0.59 0.75 0.70 7.00 7.23 Research
Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 18 1.00 12.70 6.78 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. ER Credit 20: Sustainability Research Inventory Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has identified and publicized all of its sustainability research initiatives underway during the past year. The inventory should include all research centers, laboratories, and individual professors' research activities that focus on or are related to sustainability. Sustainability research focuses on a key principle of sustainability (such as social equity or environmental stewardship); addresses a sustainability challenge (such as climate change or poverty); or furthers our understanding of the interconnectedness of societal and environmental challenges. Sustainability research leads toward solutions that support economic prosperity, social wellbeing, and ecological health. This credit does not apply to institutions where research is not a core component of the institution's activities. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
11 21 14 46
Percentage of Total 23.9 45.7 30.4 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 8 are public and 3 are private. This represents 35 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 33 percent of eligible private institutions. 78 Those earning the credit include 1 baccalaureate, 7 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 20 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 41 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 33 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Some, but not all, associate’s, baccalaureate, and master’s institutions selected that the credit did not apply because research is not a core component of their activities. Institutions were asked to describe the methodology used to conduct the inventory. Sample responses follow. • “We did a keyword search on the Office of Researchʹs database. This was not a fine‐tuned process because we were essentially doing a keyword search on the titles of academic grant proposals. In the second phase of assessment we read through the proposals that came back and evaluated whether we thought they would be valid based on the full title. In the end, we have decided that we will use this data to identify which faculty members to follow up with. This was not effective mechanism to determine the number of faculty or number of grants focused on sustainability, but it did identify some projects we hadnʹt known about before.” • “The institution identifies sustainability research as research that addresses one or more elements: ecological integrity, social justice, and the interconnections with economic prosperity. Faculty research is publicized in the [institution] Magazine.” • “It was time consuming to locate all the sustainable research that goes on at this college and there may be some things that are sustainability related that were not included in this search. A search was done for research that included the following terms: Alternative Fuel/Energy, Biorefinery, Bio Products, Urban Forestry, Sustainable Forestry, Sustainable Communities, Green Design, Green Chemistry, Climate Change, Sustainability Theory.” • “A campus survey was distributed to all departments.” • A sustainability school within the university tracks sustainability research for all schools within the university • “It is difficult to track. What we have posted is our best effort to date, and is based on contact with faculty, solicitation, and departmental inquiries.” A couple institutions that did not claim this credit reported that they were in the process of conducting their first research inventory. Another institution reported that it had conducted an inventory of departments, labs, and research center, but that inventory did not qualify for this credit because it did not detail individual professors’ research. Finally, a couple institutions commented that conducting a research inventory would have been too time‐consuming to attempt during the STARS pilot project. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 3 4 5 3 6 25
79 Percentage of Responses 16.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 12.0 24.0 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
21 3 3 0 27
Percentage of Responses 77.8 11.1 11.1 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “I would recommend separating the inventory of research related to sustainability and the publicizing of research related to sustainability into two questions. We know about a lot of the research being done on campus, have built relationships with those research centers, and are publicizing it. That said, we donʹt feel we have a complete enough assessment to state any numbers of how many faculty are involved.” • “It’s important to clarify your definition of sustainable research. As you state the definition above, I could easily argue that almost all of what we do on the campus is sustainable. This definition would not pass muster with our faculty.” • “The criteria to decide if a research project is on sustainability have to be elaborated.” • “Institutions may not have research as a core component, however we do conduct different research projects that could fall under this credit. We would like to recommend that there be a credit made for R1 universities and one made for other universities, in order to acknowledge the research being done by universities that do not have it as a core component.” • “The research department would prefer if sustainability was defined in the terms of this studyʹs interest, in order to alleviate any confusion on what research would fall under the umbrella of sustainability.” • “Perhaps provide examples of best practices for developing a methodology.” • “It might be good to stagger this credit ‐ large universities may not always be able to provide a comprehensive research inventory for their faculty.” • “May need clarification on whether this needs to a formal inventory process by the institutional research department of the University.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “For many research grants captured in our central database, a primary and secondary area of research are indicated (e.g., through codes). However, this is insufficient to identify if it could be sustainability‐
related or not since most codes refer to more classical disciplines (e.g., civil engineering). The project titles are also captured in the data base. Titles contain information on the type of project, but this is insufficient to assess if the research (or some part of it) is on sustainability. One would therefore need to read through each proposal manually and identify whether the research is sustainability‐related or not. This would mean going through several thousands of proposals, which would take a considerable amount of time. Also, while a number of projects would be clearly on sustainability, some others would only include elements related to sustainability (e.g., research on water). Would these projects, which contribute somehow to sustainability, be categorized as such?” • “Different departments, different colleges, and different institutions all have different definitions for research, making it difficult to provide an accurate and true measurement of sustainability based research from institution to institution.” • “At a large university it is difficult to have an inventory and publicize ALL sustainability research.” 80 •
“The research questions are not applicable to our institution and therefore, unless the STARS project is divided into subcategories for various types of institutions, we will not be able to attain a significant portion of the Education and Research credits. This will make it difficult to compare our progress to other institutions.” Other comments
• “Being a research one institution, it’s critical that we do thorough assessments built on rigorous methodologies. This takes time.” 81 ER Credit 21: Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the institution's faculty members are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 1 pt: Between 0 and 5 percent of the institution's research faculty members are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 2 pts: 5 to 10 percent of the institution's research faculty members are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 3 pts: More than 10 percent of the institution's research faculty members are engaged in sustainability research. For this credit, “research faculty” means faculty for whom research is a component of their job. This credit does not apply to institutions where research is not a core component of the institution's activities. Results Credit Results 3 points 2 points 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
7 4 8 10 15 44
Percentage of Total 15.9 9.1 18.2 22.7 34.1 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 13 are public and 6 are private. This represents 57 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 100 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 2 baccalaureate, 12 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 100 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 67 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 63 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Some, but not all, associate’s, baccalaureate, and master’s institutions selected that the credit did not apply because research is not a core component of their activities. Of the 10 institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 7 (70 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. 12 institutions reported both the number of total research faculty members and the number of research faculty engaged in sustainability research. Among this group the average percentage of faculty engaged in sustainability research was 17.1 percent (the standard deviation was 17.3; responses ranged from 0.6 to 45.1 percent). The number of total research faculty members at these institutions ranged from 37 to 1,246 people. 82 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 1 5 5 2 8 25
Percentage of Responses 16.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 32.0 100 Number of Responses
15 6 4 0 25
Percentage of Responses 60.0 24.0 16.0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The wording and phrasing implies that an institution must have research‐designated faculty. Why not base this upon total faculty (tenure track)?” • “Please explain what you mean by research. Research has a specific connotation ‐‐ hypothesis driven. It only captures scientific and social science research, NOT any some research in the humanities or any kind of creative inquiry. Itʹs a very limited question.” • “The scope of ‘sustainability research’ needs clarification. Does this just mean empirical research in the natural and social sciences, or does it also include research in the humanities?” • “In addition to maintaining this credit for research institutions, a similar credit should be available for non‐research institutions like ours. Some faculty may in fact be engaged in sustainability‐related research, but this credit does not allow us to be recognized for this fact.” • “I would suggest perhaps having separate credits for R1 universities and other universities in order to acknowledge the work being done in research by universities that do not have it as a core component of their activities. Even then, this credit may be very difficult for some universities to measure, since it would require going to every individual college and maybe even further, to each department.” • “Define Sustainability Research much more clearly. The Definition you currently have would allow me to list almost all the faculty on campus.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Not clear how much of a faculty memberʹs research would have to be ‘related to sustainability’ to qualify.” • “[Institution] research cuts across so many departments, colleges, institutes, centers, Cooperative Extension, and more, that we couldnʹt capture the name of every faculty member on campus conducting research, let alone a description of such research. This credit involves way too much work for 3 points!” • “Credits that eliminate certain institutions because of their very nature seem unfair and could lead to unfair comparisons.” 83 •
“While you might still want an estimated number of faculty (and staff? and students?) conducting sustainability (focused only? related too? please specify) research, to get a name, title, department, and research description from all of them is impossible. We tried talking to associate deans and directors, conducting online surveys, and combing through the data collected by offices likes our Office of Sponsored Research (which only collects information on externally funded research), and we still couldnʹt capture all thatʹs on‐going on campus, nor did we have the time to comb through what data we did manage to get. This is WAY too much work for 3 points!” Other Comments • “This is a credit that may not directly apply to a comprehensive masters institution, and seems more suitable for a Research I institution that has specific research faculty. However, [institution] does have a pool of almost 20 faculty who are actively involved with sustainability research.” • “It’s very time consuming to determine the departments and descriptions of the research that is done. This institution does not have a website where this information is posted and therefore had to be compiled in an excel file to determine the number of faculty involved with sustainability research.” 84 AF Credit 22: Departments Involved in Sustainability Research Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the institution's academic departments that conduct research are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 1 pt: Between 0 and 5 percent of the institution's academic departments that conduct research are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 2 pts: 5 to 15 percent of the institution's academic departments that conduct research are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 3 pts: Between 15 and 25 percent of the institution's academic departments that conduct research are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 4 pts: 25 to 35 percent of the institution's academic departments that conduct research are engaged in sustainability research. ∙ 5 pts: More than 35 percent of the institution's academic departments that conduct research are engaged in sustainability research. This credit does not apply to institutions where research is not a core component of the institution's activities. Results Credit Results Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
10 3 2 4 2 7 16 44
Percentage of Total 22.7 6.8 4.5 9.1 4.5 15.9 36.4 100 All associate’s and most baccalaureate institutions selected that the credit did not apply. The average number of points claimed by doctorate‐granting institutions was 2.4 points; master’s institutions claimed an average of 2.7 points. The average number of points claimed by public and private institutions was 2.2 and 4.8 respectively. 16 institutions reported both the total number of departments that conduct research and the number of departments that conduct sustainability research. Among this group the average percentage of departments engaged in sustainability research was 42.8 percent (the standard deviation was 22.6; responses ranged from 11.1 to 100 percent). The total number of departments that conduct research at these institutions ranged from 6 to 128. Of the 7 institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 6 (85.7 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. 85 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 3 4 5 2 5 23
Percentage of Responses 17.4 13.0 17.4 21.7 8.7 21.7 100 Number of Responses
18 3 2 1 24
Percentage of Responses 75.0 12.5 8.3 4.2 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Again, I would recommend adding a sustainability research credit of some type for non‐research (teaching) institutions. If an institution is not focused on research, but faculty is doing research in addition to their teaching load and that research is sustainability focused, the institution should be generously rewarded for that fact.” • “Research as a percentage of departments active is not necessarily a strong indicator of activity. Perhaps based on a percentage of faculty?” • “The scope of ‘sustainability research’ needs clarification. Does this just mean empirical research in the natural and social sciences, or does it also include research in the humanities?” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Credits that eliminate certain institutions because of their very nature seem unfair and could lead to unfair comparisons.” • “Our university does not contain research as a core component of our activities. For this reason, we may not rank as highly as other schools, though we are conducting some sustainable research projects. Perhaps STARS can have two credits in this category, one for research universities and one for other.” • “Not clear how much of a faculty memberʹs research would have to be ‘related to sustainability’ to qualify.” • “Universities that are not an R1 university may conduct research, though it is not easy to measure the percentage of research being conducted that is related to sustainability in a short time frame. It would take extensive work to contact each department on campus and to have them go through all research projects to determine which ones are covered in this credit.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “I think the previous indicators cover what is essential to the question.” 86 ER Credit 23: Internal Funding for Sustainability Research Pilot Version Credit Criteria 1) Institution demonstrates a three‐year upward trend in sustainability research funding from internal sources. (1 point possible) 2) Institution dedicates a specified percentage of its internal research funds to sustainability research. (4 points possible) ∙ 1 pt: 0.1 to 5 percent of the institution's internal research funds are devoted to sustainability research. ∙ 2 pts: Between 5 and 15 percent of the institution's internal research funds are devoted to sustainability research. ∙ 3 pts: 15 to 25 percent of the institution's internal research funds are devoted to sustainability research. ∙ 4 pts: More than 25 percent of the institution's internal research funds are devoted to sustainability research. This credit does not apply to institutions where research is not a core component of the institution's activities. Results Credit Results 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 2 1 1 2 16 22 45
Percentage of Total 2.2 4.4 2.2 2.2 4.4 35.6 48.9 100 Those claiming points for this credit include public, private, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. All associate’s, most baccalaureate, and some master’s institutions selected that this credit did not apply. Four institutions reported both the total amount of internal funding for research and the amount of internal funding for sustainability research. Among this group, an average of 40.0 percent of internal funding was allocated to sustainability research (the standard deviation was 26.3). Of the 16 institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 15 (93.8 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. This represents 65.2 percent of all eligible institutions. In addition, several institutions indicated that the number of points they claimed were based on estimations. 87 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 1 0 7 2 4 18
Percentage of Responses 22.2 5.6 ‐‐ 38.9 11.1 22.2 100 *All institutions that selected “Very Easy” also selected that the credit did not apply Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
14 6 1 1 22
Percentage of Responses 63.6 27.3 4.5 4.5 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Instead of dollar amounts, credit should be given for programs that provide internal financial support for research, regardless of dollar amounts. In‐kind support is also ignored here.” • “There should be a way for comprehensive universities that provide some funds for sustainability research internally to be recognized. [Institution] is providing $5,000 this year as seed money for research projects for both faculty and students... yet we do not qualify for any credits.” • Several institutions suggested correcting a typo in the reporting form that was used for this credit. Reasons the credit should be changed • “Same dependency on judgments about what qualifies as ‘sustainability research.’” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “We donʹt have any dedicated internal funding for research. We do contribute to research in terms of hiring top faculty, supporting research through the Office of Research, facilities, etc... however researchers are responsible for securing external grants for the research that they do. In this budget climate, we will have less and less internal funding over the next 5 years for all initiatives.” 88 AF Credit 24: External Funding for Sustainability Research Pilot Version Credit Criteria 1) Institution demonstrates a three‐year upward trend in sustainability research funding from external sources. (1 point possible) 2) A specified percentage of the research grant money an institution receives goes towards funding sustainability research. (3 points possible) ∙ 1 pt: Between 0 and 1 percent of the institution's external research funds are devoted to sustainability research. ∙ 2 pts: 1 to 5 percent of the institution's external research funds are devoted to sustainability research. ∙ 3 pts: More than 5 percent of the institution's external research funds are devoted to sustainability research. This credit does not apply to institutions where research is not a core component of the institution's activities. Results Credit Results 3 points 2 points 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
5 4 2 16 17 44
Percentage of Total 11.4 9.1 4.5 36.4 38.6 100 Those claiming points for this credit include public, private, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. All associate’s, most baccalaureate, and some master’s institutions selected that the credit did not apply. Of the 16 institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 14 (87.5 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Four institutions reported both the total amount of external funding for research and the amount of external funding for sustainability research. Among this group, an average of 34.5 percent of internal funding was allocated to sustainability research. Responses ranged from 1.8 to 100 percent; the standard deviation was 45.0 percent. Among this group the total amount of external funding for research ranged from $150,000 to $113 million. One of these institutions reported that data were incomplete, another reported expenses instead of funding received, and another reported that the institution had received only one external grant for research and the research project was for sustainability research. 89 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 3 1 5 3 8 24
Percentage of Responses 16.7 12.5 4.2 20.8 12.5 33.3 100 *All institutions that selected “Very Easy” also selected that the credit did not apply Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
14 8 1 1 24
Percentage of Responses 58.3 33.3 4.2 4.2 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Define Sustainable Research better” • “Change this credit so that if an institution has not received external funding for research that this credit does not apply.” • “I would recommend removing ‘external’ from the funding sources.” • ʺUp point values ‐‐ research has HUGE impacts, and collecting the data for these ER credits could take up all your STARS time!!!” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Credits that eliminate certain institutions because of their very nature seem unfair and could lead to unfair comparisons.” • “[Institution] participates in an overwhelming amount of research, none of which is centrally tracked outside of the limited amount of externally sponsored research that the Office of Sponsored Research tracks (and just dollar amounts, not types of research). In order to discover which of the funds OSR tracks went to sustainability related projects, over 2,500 projects were reviewed. Although many were reviewed, this does not encompass the extent of research being funded at [Institution]. One of our research stations did not wish to issue information to STARS about ongoing projects.” • “Same dependency on judgments about what qualifies as ‘sustainability research’.” • “The research credits seem aimed at institutions that research as a primary component. However there are a number of comprehensive institutions where research is a component (but not big $$). Perhaps some separation of credits.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “It is very difficult to measure sustainability research dollars.” 90 ER Credit 25: Sustainability Research Incentives Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers incentives or programs to encourage faculty to conduct sustainability research. Incentives may include, but are not limited to, fellowships, financial support, and faculty development workshops. This credit does not apply to institutions where research is not a core component of the institution's activities. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
8 19 17 44
Percentage of Total 18.2 43.2 38.6 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 5 are public and 3 are private. This represents 26 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 50 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 5 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. This represents 100 percent of eligible associate’s, 50 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 29 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 20 percent of eligible master’s schools. The institutions that claimed this credit described incentives and programs to encourage faculty to conduct sustainability research. Sample responses include: • “College offers Sustainability Mini‐grants up to $750 for research into principles, practices and applications of all aspects of sustainability.” • Granting faculty sabbaticals for sustainability research • A grant program for faculty in the business school • The institution received an externally funded grant that aims to increase sustainability research and teaching; faculty can apply for grants through the program • The sustainability office provides funding and other support for sustainability research • A research center provides support in preparing grant proposals and administering grants related to sustainability Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
5 7 4 4 1 2 23
91 Percentage of Responses 21.7 30.4 17.4 17.4 4.3 8.7 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
21 4 1 0 26
Percentage of Responses 80.8 15.4 3.8 ‐‐ 100 Reasons the credit should be changed • “Credits that eliminate certain institutions because of their very nature seem unfair and could lead to unfair comparisons.” • “Fellowships are a little hard to track down since every department has their own set of fellowship programs and so the information is very decentralized. Beyond a few student fellowships available from specific departments for students in their department, we donʹt offer any such incentive programs and we donʹt offer any fellowships to faculty.” • “It is difficult to interpret this credit. For example, [institution] does have a [research institute] that offers research incentives for research directly related to equity, livelihood, poverty, and related issues. The program is not explicitly focused on sustainability, nor do the current faculty recipients use that language, but their work would nevertheless fall under the ‘equity’ component of the 3Es. Similar incentives appear in other parts of our strategic plan. Whether these programs would count or whether the credit is intended for only an organized program focused just on sustainability is open to interpretation.” • “Same dependency on judgments about what qualifies as ’sustainability research’.” • “This is another category where our teaching institution might receive some credit but is not able to do so because it narrowly relates to research institutions. We have a program which provides ʺmini‐
sabbaticalsʺ to faculty (a one‐course load reduction), which is in essence a type of ‘financial support’. These mini‐sabbaticals are granted for various purposes, including time for conducting research. If one of these mini‐sabbaticals was granted for the purpose of allowing the faculty member to conduct sustainability‐related research (or even a sustainability related activity, such a course development), this credit does not allow our institution to be recognized for that effort.” Other Comments • “What about staff and student research? What about creative inquiry?” 92 ER Credit 26: Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution does not penalize interdisciplinary, trans‐disciplinary, and multi‐disciplinary research during faculty promotion and tenure decisions. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 9 14 44
Percentage of Total 47.7 20.5 31.8 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 13 are public and 8 are private. This represents 62 percent of eligible public institutions, compared to 89 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 baccalaureate, 10 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 100 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 59 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 75 percent of eligible master’s institutions. All 9 institutions that did not claim points for this credit reported that the credit was too difficult to measure or that data were not available. Institutions that claimed this credit described various ways they recognize inter‐disciplinary, trans‐
disciplinary, and multi‐disciplinary research. Sample responses follow. • “There is no formal statement made to faculty colleagues about interdisciplinary research, but there is no question that this research is treated as equally valuable by the Promotions and Reappointments Committees. Many professors have affiliations, joint appointments, or contractual obligations to interdisciplinary programs, and interdisciplinary research is seen as a natural reflection of these connections to interdisciplinary programs.” • “[Institution] has a long tradition of accommodating interdisciplinary work in its campus‐wide evaluation of candidates for promotion and tenure, and of encouraging such work in many of the primary unit criteria that determine standards by department. However, last fall, the campus went beyond this mostly informal tradition when the faculty voted to adopt the report of a task force charged with the re‐examination of promotion and tenure. The campus is currently engaged in a comprehensive re‐write of all primary unit criteria for promotion and tenure to address the recommendations of the task force, including those around interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary scholarship.” • “Tenure and promotion at [Institution] are based on three criteria: (1) Quality of Teaching, (2) Professional Development, including research, and (3) Service to the College Community. As an undergraduate liberal arts college, our primary emphasis is on teaching, but research is strongly encouraged. Rather than being penalized, reaching across interdisciplinary boundaries in teaching and research is strongly encouraged. These values are conveyed to untenured faculty through a new faculty mentoring program, communications from the Dean of the College (including the Faculty Handbook), and a series of formal departmental evaluations of progress toward tenure.” 93 •
•
•
•
•
“Interdisciplinary research is not treated any differently than any other form of research in promotion and tenure decisions. Departments may vary in the extent to which they emphasize interdisciplinary research, however, and individual faculty appointments also vary in the extent to which interdisciplinarity is emphasized.” “Strengthening interdisciplinary studies at [institution] is part of a strategic plan that was launched in 2001, and since then the College has established a number of new interdisciplinary programs, some of which have been granted dedicated FTE. Faculty who are hired directly into interdisciplinary programs are assigned an evaluation committee comprising senior colleagues from relevant departments who actively encourage interdisciplinary research. Junior faculty members from other fields are also encouraged to participate in teaching, research, and service in the interdisciplinary programs, several of which have a direct connection to sustainability research. At tenure time, faculty are typically evaluated according to the standards for advancement in their own field, but it is safe to say that making research connections to other fields or collaborating with colleagues in other departments are not negatives.” “Interdisciplinary research is evaluated with the same standards that are used for all other research. To evaluate interdisciplinary work, an interdisciplinary committee is often assembled at the department level to review the work and/or external reviewers who are experts in the interdisciplinary area of research are asked to review the work. The current Provost is exploring ways of better supporting and encouraging interdisciplinary research.” “While research at [institution] is part of the tenure and promotion process, we are not research intensive. As such, we value all research and creative activity, especially if it engages students and provides opportunity for faculty development. Each academic department defines the criteria for what they value in research and scholarly work. To date, interdisciplinary research has not been identified specifically, however cross disciplinary research and cooperation is encouraged. Therefore [institution] treats the quality of interdisciplinary research the same as other forms of scholarship.” “Treatment of all research activities is handled at the departmental‐level. There is no university policy that either encourages or discourages inter‐disciplinary research.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
5 8 7 2 0 2 24
Percentage of Responses 20.8 33.3 29.2 8.3 ‐‐ 8.3 100 Number of Responses
22 2 2 1 27
Percentage of Responses 81.5 7.4 7.4 3.7 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 94 Reasons the credit should be changed • “This credit is worded in the negative, which makes it difficult to ascertain whether or not we meet the criteria.” • “It’s hard to determine how this really plays into the tenure decision but it has been stated that interdisciplinary research is encouraged in the tenure process.” • “The question is, is it enough to ‘not’ include disciplinary‐focused language in research, tenure, and promotion guidelines, or should interdisciplinary be explicitly ‘encouraged’ in the guidelines?” • “While every institution could probably produce examples of interdisciplinary researchers who got tenure, it would be near impossible to ascertain whether departments and personnel committees do or donʹt penalize interdisciplinary work in judging qualifications for promotion, especially since some kinds of interdisciplinary work are in fact quite acceptable, e.g. biogeochemistry.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This is an important component of fostering sustainability research, but it will be very difficult to interpret claims with any validity.” Other comments • “[Institution] has an informal policy of not discriminating against multi‐disciplinary research because such policies are generally assumed to be in place; a guarantee of credit – even though our policy is informal – might be appropriate.” • “General information is easy to provide for this credit, but due to confidentiality issues it would be difficult to be more specific.” 95 Operations OP Prerequisite 1: Recycling Program Pilot Version Prerequisite Criteria Institution provides a means for recycling bottles, cans, paper, and cardboard. There are designated and clearly labeled recycling receptacles for all occupied buildings or building clusters. Results Prerequisite Results* Number of Institutions
Percentage of Total Met prerequisite 49 77.8 Did not meet prerequisite 14 22.2 Total submissions received 63
100 *The online reporting tool used during the pilot project did not have a clear way for institutions to indicate whether or not they met the prerequisite. For this table, institutions that “met prerequisite” were those that selected that they recycle at least the following materials: office paper, newsprint, cardboard, glass bottles, plastic bottles, and metal cans. Of the institutions that met this prerequisite, 31 are public and 18 are private. 70 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 95 percent of eligible private institutions. Those meeting the prerequisite include 6 associate’s, 10 baccalaureate, 21 doctorate‐granting, and 12 master’s institutions. This represents 46 percent of eligible associate’s, 91 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 88 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 80 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not meet the prerequisite reported that they were working to expand their recycling programs to include additional materials and cover more areas of the campus. Institutions were asked to select the materials that are collected for recycling at the institution. The following table presents the results of those responses. 96 Collection of Materials for Recycling Material Percentage of Institutions that Collect this Material Cardboard Electronics 96.8% 85.7% Glass bottles and jars 82.5% Magazines Metal cans Motor and/or other oil Newsprint Office paper Pallets Plastic bags / film Plastic bottles Plastic tubs / cups Printer / toner cartridges Scrap metal Scrap paper 92.1% 90.5% 58.7% 100.0% 100.0% 55.6% 39.7% 96.8% 58.7% 85.7% 73.0% 92.1% Institutions also reported additional materials collected for recycling. Responses include: • Batteries • Laboratory solvents • Books • Mulch • Carpet • Universal waste batteries • Ceiling tiles • Packing peanut and bubble wrap • Cell phones • Phone directories • CDs • Polystyrene packing • Compost • Shredded paper • Construction and demolition waste • Tires • Diskettes • Transparencies • Fluorescent light bulbs • Windshield glass • Furniture, clothing, and other textiles Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
23 16 11 1 0 0 51
97 Percentage of Responses 45.1 31.4 21.6 2.0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Prerequisite Recommendation Maintain prerequisite as it is Change prerequisite slightly Change prerequisite significantly Eliminate prerequisite Total Number of Responses
44 6 0 0 50
Percentage of Responses 88.0 12.0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the prerequisite should be changed • “Include more check boxes for ʹotherʹ and drop down menus for quantity of each material.” • “Add category for junk mail reduction program.” • “Provide information about how much of each item is being recycled, and opportunities for recycling. Recycling batteries is not available everywhere – possibly provide students with more information about where things can be recycled. Also, possibly be more specific about each item being recycled or possibly more clear in definition.ʺ • “Breaking the recycling components down by different types of plastic etc. seems unnecessary since the credit is for simply having a recycling program.” • “If I were going to ask for different types of plastics – I would list the number of the plastic as most places recycle certain materials based on the number. For example, many plastic tubs are different numbers of plastic. Therefore, the number of plastic would be more accurate gathering of information then asking if universities recycle plastic tubs or plastic film etc.” • “Unclear to me how much having a web site (demonstrated information program in place) weighs in. If this weighs heavily or is treated as ‘essential’, then it does not fairly reflect the level of effectiveness of our recycling program. We have put all of our time into the operation on the ground and communication on the program occurs mostly via email announcements and special programs during RecycleMania.” • “In ʹmaterials collected for recyclingʹ section, add an open field so that more than two other categories can be reflected.” • “Not sure how I would word it, but the word ‘bottle’ is somewhat dated as it applies to colleges and universities. Perhaps stating ‘plastic bottles’ would be more appropriate, as most of our bottles are of the soda pop variety.” Reasons the prerequisite should be changed • “[The city in which the institution is located] has no market to speak of for glass recycling, and the University would be required to pay for glass hauling. This is the primary reason that there is no comprehensive glass recycling option. [Institution] has investigated lab glass recycling in addition to regular jar and bottle recycling, and has elected to reduce the overall amount of glass on campus rather than attempt a recycling program at this time.” • “In the case of our institution, we have a single source contract with Pepsi. It would be more meaningful to me to require that any containers provided by single‐source contracts were recyclable through the existing campus program or that the provider will, by contract, provide recycling services for these.” 98 Buildings Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit OP 1: New Construction, Renovations, and Commercial Interiors* 4 0.20 0.50 0.92 0.80 0.69 OP 2: Building Operations and Maintenance 5 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.13 OP 3: Potable Non‐Irrigation Water Consumption Reduction 3 0.58 0.11 0.65 0.73 0.58 OP 4: Green Cleaning Service 1 0.23 0.10 0.48 0.43 0.35 0.5 0.21 0.19 0.33 0.40 0.30 2.36 2.05 Buildings Buildings Tier Two Credits Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 13.5 1.22 0.90 2.71 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. OP Credit 1: New Construction, Renovations, and Commercial Interiors Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s new buildings, major renovations, and interior improvements meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for New Construction, Core & Shell, or Commercial Interiors. 1 pt: All new buildings, major renovations, and interior improvements meet LEED certification criteria (at any level). 2 pts: All new buildings, major renovations, and interior improvements meet LEED Silver or higher certification criteria and at least 25 percent of new building square footage is certified LEED Silver or higher. 3 pts: All new buildings, major renovations, and interior improvements meet LEED Gold or higher certification criteria and at least 25 percent of new building square footage is certified LEED Gold or higher. 4 pts: All new buildings, major renovations, and interior improvements meet LEED Platinum certification criteria, and at least 25 percent of new building square footage is certified LEED Platinum. For this credit, buildings completed during the past three years are considered ‘new.’ Institutions may use the version of LEED‐NC, LEED‐CS, or LEED‐CI that was available at the time of the building construction, significant renovation, or interior improvement. Institutions in the United States should use the versions of LEED put forth by the U.S. Green Building Council. Canadian institutions may use the versions of LEED Canada put forth by the Canada Green Building Council. This credit does not apply to institutions that have not constructed any buildings during the last three years. 99 Results Credit Results Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 3 10 9 33 5 60
Percentage of Total ‐‐ 5.0 16.7 15.0 55.0 8.3 100 5 institutions (2 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, and 2 master’s) selected that the credit did not apply because they had not constructed any new buildings or completed any major renovations during the previous three years. Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 17 are public and 5 are private. 43 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 33 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 12 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 20 percent of eligible associate’s, 25 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 50 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 46 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not claim points for this credit reported that some, but not all, of the new buildings and major renovations on campus earned LEED certification or were built to equivalent standards. About half of the institutions that claimed points for this credit provided documentation about building square footage in each LEED category that indicated they should have claimed fewer points than they did. Some institutions included projects that were under construction in their totals, while other institutions reported that such buildings were excluded. Likewise, treatment of LEED registered buildings that had not been certified yet were not treated consistently. Some institutions included such projects under the “certified” category, others included it in the “equivalent” category, and other institutions omitted such buildings from their totals. One of the documentation fields for this credit was, “A brief description of the institutionʹs process for determining LEED equivalence for non‐certified buildings.” Responses include: • Many institutions indicated they did not have a program or system in place for determining LEED equivalency. • Several institutions reported that they did not need to determine equivalency because they are committed to certifying all new buildings and major renovations. • A couple institutions said they were developing standards and guidelines for determining equivalency. • One institution provided details about an education and outreach program about green building that is directed at building property managers. • One institution provided details about the green features of a non‐certified building on campus. • “Architects review the LEED for New Construction v 2.2 Project Checklist from US Green Building Council.” 100 •
•
•
“[Institution] used the LEED process to guide construction [for a building on campus], and measures taken qualified the building to obtain 37 LEED credits, equivalent to LEED Silver. [Institution] did not have funding available to obtain 3rd party certification for obtaining LEED Silver.” “Our Sustainable Design Guidelines have been based aroundthe LEED Silver certification but were adapted to [institution’s] specific needs and strengths.” “Project managers and building design teams use the LEED standards as a guide in the design process.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 15 15 6 5 2 47
Percentage of Responses 8.5 31.9 31.9 12.8 10.6 4.3 100 Number of Responses
26 14 6 0 46
Percentage of Responses 56.5 30.4 13.0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Six institutions suggested that AASHE “separate new construction and renovations into two separate credits.” • “Define ‘major renovation’.” • “The language should be revised to apply only to new buildings or revised as follows or similar: ‘All new buildings, major renovations, and interior renovations should be designed and constructed in accordance with LEED principles and 25 percent of new building square footage is certified LEED ______ or higher.’” • ʺAdd a section to incorporate future potential for LEED EB equivalency.” • ʺAdd a section to incorporate infrastructure upgrades, if not already in another section of the pilot.ʺ • ʺThe documentation section of this credit should allow for more input than a single URL [for green building policy]. The university operates under a state law that requires all new buildings receiving at least 25% in state funding must achieve a LEED Silver certification (or equivalent) or higher. As well, the university is in the process of developing campus guidelines and standards for buildings – when that is available, it will be posted on the campus web site.” • Two institutions recommended that the “Credit should include LEED building projects that are in the process of being built, or have plans to being renovated to fit LEED standards.” 101 •
•
•
•
•
•
“Expanding the time frame from 3 years to 5 years would provide a better representation of how our institution has performed in designing and constructing high‐performance buildings, and might yield AASHE better data on green building practices overall.” “I think it is onerous to limit this to all new buildings and renovations within the last 3 years. It should be a shorter time frame and also reflect on the commitment of the school. We are technically not eligible for this point for another 3 years because one of the buildings we renovated last year (2007) was not LEED, even though we have four LEED projects either completed or in progress.” “The ‘all buildings in the last three years’ requirement is a burden for universities that are relatively new to the sustainability issues. It would mean that sustainability criteria would have had to be in place 5 or 6 years ago at the beginning of planning of projects completed in the last 3 year period. This should be modified to refer to buildings completed in the last year, not three years.” Two institutions suggested ʺSome point value should be given for an institution that has a large percentage of its buildings ‐‐ but not all ‐‐ LEED certified or equivalent.” Two institutions “Suggest opening‐up this credit to other standards besides LEED. This would allow institutions to demonstrate their unique programs involving all types of conservation practices (i.e. water, energy, building materials).ʺ “The assessment does not take into account smaller scale renovations (light fixture replacement, faucet replacement, etc) that may take place in some buildings. These should not be overlooked because on their own they donʹt meet all of LEED criteria. We urge AASHE to consider being more sensitive to the fact that promoting physical and structural change may have to occur incrementally and those that are taking a gradual approach should be rewarded as well for smaller efforts.” There were differing opinions on how STARS should address LEED equivalence. • “Since LEED is a significantly new concept, it is hard to determine what would be considered LEED equivalent. Criteria should specify what exactly is LEED equivalent, as some campuses are not suited for LEED, and being LEED equivalent is hard to decipher.” • “The goal of LEED‐certified buildings is reasonable, and a good goal for institutions. But, in cases such as ours where LEED certification is not an allowable building cost, we should be allowed to demonstrate LEED ‘Certifiable’‐‐ e.g., that buildings WOULD meet the LEED requirements, even though they have not been formally certified.” • “I would consider having a second category for buildings which were built to LEED Silver standards, but not certified. There is a strong apprehension among many that certification is an unnecessary expense. Further, some LEED standards appear to be in conflict with sustainability principles. In the case of sustainably harvested ponderosa pine from [a nearby forest], FSC will not consider it because it came from National Forest land. They donʹt have a problem with wood harvested from ‘sustainably managed’ forests abroad, however.” • “We believe that giving any credit for ‘LEED certifiable’ but not actually certified buildings is opening the door for too much interpretation on the part of participating institutions, or requiring vast amounts of documents (on par with LEED certification) to prove that a building was certifiable. We ourselves have several buildings which were designed to the LEED standards, but which we question whether would have passed certification itself, which makes us skeptical about the ability of other schools to maintain high standards without the actual ‘test’ of LEED certification. We suggest eliminating the first point for ‘certifiable’ buildings.” 102 Reasons the credit should be changed • “The wording is confusing: (‘This credit does not apply to institutions that have not constructed any buildings during the last three years.’), because our institution has no new buildings but has done some major green renovations, which cannot be included in the rating system.” • “The insurance office is provided with a partial list of renovations and construction projects but not all. Total project square footage would be difficult to track.” • “This credit has a large impact on the operations section, giving a maximum of four points. The fact that this credit makes up the large part of the entire section, leads to a large pitfall for institutions that do not meet LEED certification.” • “The criteria are too broad to be achievable. LEED certification at any level is dependent upon the number of points achieved. Many smaller projects (‘interior improvements’) simply do not have the opportunity to achieve the number of points required.” • “[Institution] has many buildings that have historical value being that the University was founded in the 1800ʹs. This type of heritage can interfere with LEED renovation criteria. In addition, for historical buildings funding processes and legislative processes along with the community reaction can cause complications when looking to advance toward LEED standards. These kinds of situations may cause regional interference and can create an unequal playing field in terms of measuring universities nationwide.” • “[Institution] does not own many of the buildings that we occupy, and so much of our space is not directly controlled by the university. This has presented a complicated reporting problem.” • “[Institution’s] Project Management and Construction Services (PMCS) has cited the general conditions of the universityʹs infrastructure and systems as barriers to LEED‐certification. There are logistical obstructions and policy restrictions, such as requirements to ‘bid’ off all university property items rather than donating them. Secondly, projects remain largely under‐funded. Upgrading to mechanical and electrical equipment necessary for the LEED‐renovation process is extremely difficult to address without surpassing budgetary restraints. Such renovations would also require maintenance upgrades, further reducing the universityʹs ability to integrate LEED‐renovations to building projects. Furthermore, the culture of the building industry is such that low‐scale projects may encounter problems in successfully finding bidders if the university were to narrow its requirements on these projects. Third, departments in the university are generally opposed to the interruptions that would be necessary for renovation projects, and resistant to providing the extra funds to implement these projects correctly. Finally, and most importantly, the historical significance of the [institution] campus and its buildings demand the preservation of important historic elements, which limit our ability to earn the necessary points necessary for LEED‐certification in renovations.” Other Comments • Several public institutions indicated that they were required by state law to build to LEED standards. In contrast, one public institution reported that “State has disallowed LEED certification costs as part of building contract bidding.” • “While we donʹt feel that this credit should be changed, LEED‐NC was only released in Canada in December 2004 making it far less likely for Canadian institutions to have completed a certified building.” 103 OP Credit 2: Building Operations and Maintenance Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the institution’s eligible buildings meet the certification criteria outlined in the LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED‐EB) certification system and/or are certified under the LEED‐EB system. 1 pt: Any portion of the institution’s buildings are LEED‐EB certified (at any level). 2 pts: At least 10 percent of the institution’s building square footage is LEED‐EB certified (at any level) and at least another 40 percent of the institution’s building square footage meets the criteria for LEED‐EB certification (at any level). 3 pts: At least 15 percent of the institution’s building square footage is certified LEED‐EB Silver or higher and at least another 60 percent of the institution’s building square footage meets the criteria for LEED‐EB Silver or higher certification. 4 pts: At least 20 percent of the institution’s building square footage is certified LEED‐EB at the Gold level or higher and at least another 70 percent of the institution’s building square footage meets the criteria for LEED‐EB Gold or higher certification. 5 pts: At least 20 percent of the institution’s building square footage is LEED‐EB Platinum certified, and at least another 75 percent of the institution’s building square footage meets the criteria for LEED‐EB Platinum certification. This credit applies to all buildings eligible for LEED‐EB certification. Institutions should use the most recent version of LEED‐EB to determine if non‐certified buildings meet LEED‐EB certification criteria. Institutions in the United States should use the versions of LEED put forth by the U.S. Green Building Council. Canadian institutions may use the versions of LEED Canada put forth by the Canada Green Building Council. Results Credit Results Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 0 0 2 4 54 0 60
Percentage of Total ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.3 6.7 90.0 ‐‐ 100 All of the institutions that claimed points for this credit are doctorate‐granting. 2 are private and 4 are public. Several institutions that did not claim points for this credit selected that data were not available; many of these institutions indicated that they had not compared their building operation procedures to LEED criteria. Three institutions reported that they were participating in the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance Portfolio Program Pilot. 104 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
8 9 10 4 2 0 33
Percentage of Responses 24.2 27.3 30.3 12.1 6.1 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
27 10 3 0 40
Percentage of Responses 67.5 25.0 7.5 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The combination of percentages for certified buildings and those which meet equivalent criteria does not make sense for this credit. Decoupling these two indicators and assigning a certain point value to each would provide much more flexibility in meeting this credit, and would not preclude a very green institution from a high score if that institution should decide not to pursue LEED EB certification.” • “Opening the certification equivalency beyond simply LEED offers the institution the ability to demonstrate other programs that meet sustainability requirement in its operations and maintenance. The [institution‐specific green building] program has been designed and implemented to fit within the historical and operational contexts of this institution.” • “I would concentrate more on the programs that are in place that align with LEED, especially water, IAQ, and energy saving. LEED EB is very difficult to obtain for older buildings, unless a major systems renovation is budgeted. The important thing is that the energy use is monitored and controlled, maintenance is scheduled, occupant health and safety is maintained, transportation alternatives and recycling is provided and encouraged.” • “Allowance for modifications to existing facilities that make the operation/maintenance more sustainable even though it may not fully meet the LEED‐EB criteria.” • “While keeping the environment in mind, it would make sense to reward institutions that are still using older buildings instead of demolishing them, and constructing new LEED certified buildings to receive the credit.” • “Change to include credit for LEED‐NC (future planning and new and renovated buildings).” • “Consider adding Energy Star Building as a category. It only applies to housing for higher education, but is another tool that can be effective.” • “We recommend that this credit provide the ability for universities to earn points for EITHER LEED‐EB or LEED CI certifications.” • Several institutions said “It might be worthwhile to give some sort of credit for maintaining buildings at a LEED‐EB level even if they are not certified. As the credit is currently written, you can only get points if at least some buildings are actually certified.” Some of these institutions cited the increased costs of certification as an obstacle to ever earning this credit. 105 Reasons the credit should be changed • “This credit has a large impact on the operations section, giving a maximum of five points. The fact that this credit makes up the large part of the entire section, leads to a large pitfall for institutions that do not meet LEED certification.” • “For institutions of our size it would be difficult if not impossible to find any that are systematically approaching LEED‐EB at this time, not due to lack of interest, but because budgets are generally set by university as a whole and not the project managing departments and there is a consequent lack of both staff and dollars. LEED‐EB would be considered ʹenhancementʹ at this time.” Other Comments • “Agree that the 20% is definitely worth the 5 points.ʺ • “LEED‐EB Canada has not yet been launched.” 106 OP Credit 3: Potable Non­Irrigation Water Consumption Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution achieves a specified reduction in potable, non‐irrigation water consumption per gross square footage of building space. The reduction is measured against a baseline year of AY 2000‐01. 1 pt: Institution reduces potable, non‐irrigation water consumption per square foot of building space by at least 10 percent. 2 pts: Institution reduces potable, non‐irrigation water consumption per square foot of building space by at least 25 percent. 3 pts: Institution reduces potable, non‐irrigation water consumption per square foot of building space by at least 50 percent. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
4 6 10 39 0 59
Percentage of Total 6.8 10.2 16.9 66.1 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 15 are public and 5 are private. 37 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 28 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 3 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 10 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 25 percent of eligible associate’s, 11 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 43 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 40 percent of eligible master’s institutions. About half of the institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Some of these institutions were unable to obtain water consumption data from the baseline year and others were not able to separate irrigation water consumption from indoor, non‐irrigation water consumption. Two institutions reported that they are located in a city that does not meter or charge for water consumption, which means the institutions do not track the data. Several institutions that claimed points for this credit did not have complete data. For example, some institutions did not have separate water consumption totals for irrigation and indoor water consumption and so they excluded a percentage of the total from both the baseline and performance year. Similarly, other institutions did not have data for the specified baseline year (2000‐01) and so they reported on the earliest year for which data were available. Most institutions (both those that did and did not claim points for this credit) provided thorough documentation of “A brief description of policies, practices, and programs the institution has implemented to reduce potable, non‐irrigation water consumption.” Examples include: • Using water from on‐campus wells for some facilities 107 •
•
•
•
•
•
Outreach and education campaigns about reporting leaks, taking shorter showers, running only full loads of laundry, and other water conservation behaviors. Monitoring meters to make sure there aren’t leaks Retrofitting buildings and labs for efficiency Capturing rainwater for use in toilets and urinals Implementing closed‐loop water sourced cooling systems Using water efficient fixtures, faucets, toilets, urinals, etc. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 7 12 14 5 6 45
Percentage of Responses 2.2 15.6 26.7 31.1 11.1 13.3 100 Number of Responses
25 18 3 0 46
Percentage of Responses 54.3 39.1 6.5 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “There is a threshold that will be reached where campuses cannot become more efficient and consume less water per square foot, and once they reach this threshold, they will be unable to obtain this credit. It may be worth exploring setting a 3‐tiered standard for water consumption per square feet ‐ a range of efficiency for each credit. A credit would be awarded if a campus reaches a level of efficiency per square foot.” • “Modify timeframe” • “Include irrigation water. Not sure why it isnʹt included.” • ʺWould break down the increments for the percentage and points to small ranges. Suggest maybe: 10% Reduction = 1 pt.; 20% Reduction = 2 pt.; 30% Reduction = 3 pt.ʺ • “The percentage goals outlined in the criteria are very hard to reach ‐ one suggestion would be to reduce the goals.” • “These type of credits need to have some consideration for growth in size and population.ʺ • “[Institution] has policies about effective stormwater usage with many policies mandating it and effective stormwater usage should be recognized in this credit.” • “Broaden the point values to give some credit to those institutions that are trying to upgrade older, historic buildings ‐‐ a process that takes a lot of time and resources and is usually done incrementally. We got no points for this credit as is although we averaged a 5.6% reduction in water use per sq foot of building space between 2000‐2001 and 2007‐2008.” 108 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“It is necessary to specify the date that is required for the information. A range of 2000‐01 was somewhat confusing since it was not specified whether it was the school year 2000‐01, or the years 2000/2001.” “Non‐potable water is hard to gauge. Thus, asking for just the amount of potable water would be easier data to obtain.” “I recommend having more benchmark years to compare data with. The gap between the baseline of 2000 and 2007 is huge. To show real progress, it would be beneficial to see the years in between, or follow the format of other credits: the past 3 years.” “Rather than use total floor area, we suggest that this credit ask for total conditioned area. This would be consistent with the energy intensity credit and the normalization data.” “Should also consider breaking building square footage according to the ACUPCC Carbon Inventory Reporting Tool (building space, lab space, health care space, residential space) as some areas have more significant water demands.” “Wording change: the requirement for intensity values in cubic feet and then for total consumption in gallon seems odd.” “There should be more flexibility in the baseline year used and the potential credits earned based on the time period. Perhaps the reduction rate could be normalized for the period of time used for the calculation.” “Perhaps the 25% and 50% levels are too far reaching. Recommend putting in a few more credits at say the 20% and 35% levels.” Several institutions suggested, “It might be better to pick a closer year as many institutions do not keep records this far back.” “We were also unable to obtain the potable non‐irrigation water consumption data in gallons. We did however obtain dollar amounts and we were able to calculate a percentage in the reduction of potable non‐irrigation water consumption using this information. This should be recognized as an acceptable alternative for reporting this data for institutions who cannot obtain a figure in gallons.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “All buildings have different water uses: an expansion that includes wet research chemistry center vs. business school vs. residence hall will all be different, distorts water use/sq foot. A new building could be quite efficient for its purpose and this would not reflect in the credit.” • “There are no individual water meters at all the buildings, and thus no way to measure what is used for building use, landscape, or other uses.” • “We are somewhat penalized because we took significant action prior to the reporting period listed.” • Several institutions indicated “We do not currently have the capability of separately monitoring potable non‐irrigation water and water used for irrigation.” 109 OP Credit 4: Green Cleaning Service Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s in‐house or contracted cleaning service is Green Seal certified or meets the certification criteria for the Green Seal Environmental Standard for Cleaning Services (GS‐42). Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 39 0 60
Percentage of Total 35.0 65.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 17 are public and 4 are private. 40 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 24 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 3 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 11 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 23 percent of eligible associate’s, 10 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 48 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 43 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Of the institutions that claimed this credit, two indicated that their cleaning service was Green Seal certified. It was unclear from the documentation whether these cleaning services met GS‐42 certification criteria, or if their Green Seal certification was limited to the products they used. Other institutions that claimed points for this credit reported Green Seal equivalence in various ways (some of these practices were equivalent to the programs described by institutions that did not claim points for this credit. Examples include: • “We consider compliance with OS1 program standards and exceeding an 80% score on third party progress audits preformed by ManageMen Inc. to exceed Green Seal standards.” • Several institutions reported “While we do not have the time or resources to document Green Seal equivalency, we are claiming it here due to the detailed and strict policies and practices that [institution’s in‐house and contracted cleaning services] have put in place.” • A couple institutions said they use only Green Seal certified products • Several institutions reported that they use some Green Seal certified products, but did not mention cleaning practices. In some cases, these products were used in one or two specific buildings, but not most of the campus. In other instances, institutions provided a percentage (typically 60‐80 percent) of cleaning products used that are Green Seal Certified. One institution reported making Green Seal certified or equivalent products available alongside non‐equivalent or certified products. A couple institutions selected that the credit did not apply because they have in‐house cleaning services and do not use contractors. These responses were changed to “Did not earn credit” because the credit applies to both in‐house and contracted providers. Several institutions mentioned that they have multiple cleaning service providers (some contracted and some in‐house) that serve different buildings or perform different tasks. In some cases, these institutions indicated 110 finding the practices from several providers made determining whether or not the institution earned the credit challenging. A couple institutions that did not claim this credit wrote that they have implemented some green cleaning practices and are moving toward GS‐42 equivalence, with the hope of achieving it within the next couple years. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 10 19 11 2 0 46
Percentage of Responses 8.7 21.7 41.3 23.9 4.3 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
26 16 2 0 44
Percentage of Responses 59.1 36.4 4.5 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Allow for measurement/points towards progress in establishing GS‐42 certification. For campuses that have in‐house custodial staff, there are many milestones to achieving full certification. For example, incorporating products, equipment, practices, training, and policy toward a full green program. Although a campus might develop a comprehensive green cleaning program, staff, time, and budget may be barriers to meeting full certification as an in‐house Green Seal service provider.” • “This credit seems somewhat redundant with OP 21. Perhaps this should be reclassified as an Operations Credit or combined with OP 21 in a manner that captures both the use of green chemicals and the practices to ensure that they are being used according to this standard.” • “AASHE should absolutely keep this credit. One idea would be to possibly set this up more like LEED credits. As I review the requirements of GS‐42, some are directly in conflict with staffing levels and budgets. Although we would like to do more floor care, vacuuming, and other routine maintenance, unfortunately, some of our schedules are less dictated by need, than by available resources. For instance, although a waxed and sealed floor may actually require re‐finishing or stripping once a year, we may only be able to provide this service once every two to three years. Providing a menu to choose from in order to achieve a certain point total may allow participants to customize this section. Similar to water use, landscaping, and pest control, the region you live in can affect your choice of cleaning products, especially those related to floor care. For example, some schools may use more sand and rock salt for ice control whereas some use Mag Chloride. Those that use Mag Chloride may have more damage to their entry way carpets or floor finishes, as we do here. To this point, our division is using 111 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
mostly GS certified cleaning products. The glaring exception tends to be floor care (waxes, strippers, sealers). Although these products have improved significantly in recent years, the chemistry is different. One cannot use a green stripper on a traditional wax…one is zinc based, the other calcium based. Until we remove all our old wax with the traditional strippers, we cannot begin to add new green waxes on top of that. This is again a product of our staffing levels. The lack of adequate staffing over the years has lead to a significant build up of old wax. Once again, a menu of options with points may help.” “I would prefer stricter standards with more options and a minimum point requirement. I would be happy to develop this points system/menu if needed.” “Credit could be given if institution is trying to follow Green Seal standards or use Green Seal supplies. Could allow percentage of Green Cleaning products used determine the points, and those with Green Seal certification gain the maximum allow of points possible.” “The Green Seal Certification link does not actually link to the website indicated.” “Requiring a campus to be Green Seal Certified, I believe, is asking a bit much. Perhaps giving extra points for those that are, but donʹt penalize campuses who donʹt. Similar to LEED certification, you can have a green cleaning program without having to incur the cost of certification.” “We have worked with our suppliers to find environmentally preferable choices. I think what we want to know is: 1) What % of current cleaning chemicals are Green Seal certified. 2) What % reduction in chemicals have institutions been able to achieve? (reducing the need for sewering).” “It is important to note that while institutions may implement Green Seal standardized procedures they may not have the funding or staff capabilities of retrieving actual certification. Points should be awarded to those institutions for their efforts toward creating a green cleaning environment, even if they do not have Green Seal certification or even equivalency. (Determining equivalency between current practices and Green Seal, which must be done on a building by building basis, is currently too time consuming and costly for [Institution] to undertake. So at least 1 point should be given for Green Seal equivalency or some other significant set of policies and practices on a campus, even if Green Seal equivalency cannot be determined at this time.)” “If (OS1) is a generally acceptable standard for Green Cleaning and several institutions use it, AASHE might want to say as much in the guidance paragraph.” “Partial credit should be considered if some goals are met. The rules for acquiring services vary based on the rules for bidding. For example larger awards almost always go to the lowest bidder, and criteria for the contractor to be Green Seal certified may be a negotiable item if the cleaning service does comply with many green cleaning practices and products.” “It seems relevant to do this credit by breaking down the amount of green cleaning products across the university into percentages of how much used as some other credits are done.” “Allow for partial credit, as institutions not on the program may be close to achieving the standards/certification.” “I would suggest that this credit be changed to include other certification schemes besides Green Seal. Currently there are no cleaning services that are Green Seal certified in California. Additionally, I would add as an option simply using Green Seal (or other certifications) products.” “Green Seal is a very stringent standard. We suggest making this a two point credit. The first point would be achievable through having non toxic/environmentally friendly cleaners to some degree. The second point would be awarded to institutions who meet Green Sealʹs standards.” “The certification is the issue here ‐ we do the work, but donʹt have the certification” 112 •
“Provide options for other green cleaning supplies that would meet other major certification programs, i.e. Environmental Choice. Narrowing the field to only one certification program does not reflect common operational structures.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “We have made concerted efforts recently to purchase green cleaning products. Many brands now being purchased are certified as environment friendly. However, several products have not yet been replaced for green ones. AASHE’s point system does not grant partial credit, although our efforts to date are significant.” • “Section 4.1.1 speaks of ‘environmentally preferable products.’ In the world of cleaners, this means nothing. We must better define this. I’m surprised by the lack of detail considering that GS has done so much work on this. This is another opportunity for great discrepancies between two ‘certified’ programs. If I use a cleaner that is a neurotoxin but it comes in recycled and recyclable packaging, is this more or less ‘environmentally preferable’ than the non‐toxic cleaner in a PVC bottle. I think this one is a bit clearer than some of the options but it can be confusing to the lay person.” • “It also appears that Green Seal does not include residential buildings (p.7 1.0) which then confuses the scope of this credit, as residential buildings are a main part of many institutions.” Other comments • “Some of the items requested are not under the control of our custodial division. For instance, all recycling is done by a separate crew, including the outreach, collection, and cleaning of bins. Although the section for indoor plants offers a contingency in the event the custodians are not responsible for plant care, it does not address how to ensure compliance with these standards. Unlike the plant care section, the recycling and trash section does not offer a contingency in the event that the custodians do not handle these materials. In the end, you may have certain campuses that are following GS‐42 that do handle plants and recycling and others that are claiming full compliance that do not directly deal with plant care and/or recycling. In the latter example, these areas may be overlooked despite a claim of meeting the criteria. We need a way to catch these situations and make someone responsible for them.” • “We do not have a specific date on record for Green Seal certification. It is unclear whether this is a requirement to obtain this STARS credit.” • “Green Seal and Ecologo do not offer certification for cleaning services in Canada.” • “This is a rapidly changing field, especially in the area of the chemical products. At least in our case, we have reviewed and tested over 300 products in the last 8 years or so. As they continue to improve and replace known toxic substances, I hope STARS will continue to tighten the criteria for Green Cleaning. We should keep this flexible yet demanding.” 113 Buildings Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback Suggestions for Tier Two Credits to add to this section: • “If the LEED‐based credits are not modified to allow institutions to demonstrate similar sustainability practices which are outside of LEED only certification, then we suggest opening up the Tier Two Building credits to other methods of building practices.” • “It might be useful to include some credit related to historic preservation of buildings. As an institution established in 1870, there are several historic buildings which require special attention in the master plan for the future of the campus.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has systems in place to detect and repair water leaks. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
26 21 0 47
Percentage of Total 55.3 44.7 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Those earning the credit cited a variety of programs in place to detect water leaks. A couple institutions that did not claim this credit said “We rely on our housekeeping staff and the building occupants to report plumbing problems, such as water leaks.” This was the same system cited by some institutions that claimed the credit. Feedback •
•
•
“What are some examples of this? Is it just a reporting by anyone who sees a leak? Is it watching meter readings for anomalies?” “Type of system expected for repair of water leaks unclear. Please clarify what is needed to meet this credit.” “For number 1, what is meant by ‘systems’? Greater clarity is needed.” 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a green building policy. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
31 16 0 47
114 Percentage of Total 66.0 34.0 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The types of policies cited for this credit varied. Examples include: • An institutional policy focused on green building • Having green building included in the campus master plan • Including green building in the overall sustainability plan • A green building policy that covers the university system of which the institution is a part • A green building policy for the state in which the institution is located • An on‐campus research center that’s dedicated to green building One institution that did not claim this credit wrote, “The University has a commitment to green building but no policy beyond the overall campus Sustainability Policy.” Feedback •
“This is a good credit for institutions that are seeking and applying new policies. Could be expanded to include more categories on green building policies, as there is a lot more that could be said and a broad range of subjects that could be applied to this topic.” 115 Dining Services Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit OP 5: Local Food* 3 0.17 1.00 0.82 0.62 0.72 OP 6: Food Alliance and Organic Certified Food* 3 0.00 0.22 0.10 0.17 0.13 OP 7: Fair Trade Coffee* 1 0.29 0.14 0.13 0.53 0.38 0.87 0.36 0.63 0.32 0.64 Dining Services
Dining Services Tier Two Credits* 1.75 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8.75 0.6 1.88 2.17 1.78 1.81 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. General Feedback and Notes • “There is no mention of sustainable seafood in Tier 1 credits, and as this is an area of ever‐growing concern, I think it should be addressed similarly to other Tier 1 credits (by %) (ie, Monterey Bay Seafood Watch guidelines).” • “Residential dining is not limited to procurement. Dining services oversees operations of the dining facilities and is involved in all aspects of the dining system from procurement to waste. Therefore, other aspects need to be accounted for in terms of sustainability such as energy efficiency in facilities, waste reduction and management, recycling and composting.” • “STARS should include both residential dining and non‐residential dining to reflect overall sustainability of campus dining.” OP Credit 5: Local Food Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s dining service purchases a specified percentage of local food*. 1 pt: Five percent of food expenditures go toward local food*. 2 pts: Twenty percent of food expenditures go toward local food*. 3 pts: Fifty percent of food expenditures go toward local food*. For this credit, institutions should include food purchases for the institution’s residential dining halls and on‐site catered events provided by the institution’s dining services provider and for which the institution is the client. On‐site franchises, convenience stores, vending machines, or concessions are not included in this credit. *Local food is defined as food that is grown and processed within 150 miles of the institution, for this credit. This credit does not apply to institutions without residential dining halls or an on‐site, institution‐affiliated catering service. 116 Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 10 13 26 7 57
Percentage of Total 1.8 17.5 22.8 45.6 12.3 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 15 are public and 9 are private. 44 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 56 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 5 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 17 percent of eligible associate’s, 56 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 59 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 38 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions that did not claim points • A couple institutions that did not claim points mentioned setting up systems to start tracking the data for future years and/or incorporating sustainable food procurement into future dining services contracts. • Of the institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 4 indicated that the credit was “Too difficult to measure” and 12 reported that data were not available. • 6 institutions that did not claim points had purchased at least some local food (0.05% to ~1.5%), but it was less than the 5 percent required to earn the first point in this credit. The highest percentage cited was 53 percent. 117 Results by EPA Region 3 Region 1 and Quebec (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) Regions 2 and 3 (DC, MD, NJ, NY, OA, VA, WV) Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, MS, KY, TN, NC, SC) Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV) Region 10 and British Columbia (AK, ID, OR, WA) Institutions in this region that claimed points Total institutions for which the credit applied Percentage of institutions that claimed points 5 6 83.3 1 4 25.0 2 5 40.0 5 13 38.5 1 2 50.0 1 3 33.3 1 3 33.3 3 9 33.3 5 5 100.0 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 2 7 10 12 9 41
Percentage of Responses 2.4 4.9 17.1 24.4 29.3 22.0 100 3
In order to assess how regional and climatic variations affect institutions’ abilities to earn this credit, institutions were asked to report the USDA plant hardiness zone in which they are located. However, these submissions were incomplete (due, in part, to an error with the reporting form for this credit). In addition, as a result of the distribution of institutions across plant hardiness zones, results by plant hardiness zone could not be presented anonymously. AASHE understands that EPA Region is an imperfect proxy for local growing conditions and the availability of local food. 118 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
22 14 7 0 43
Percentage of Responses 51.2 32.6 16.3 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Factor in business segments that have very little opportunity to achieve viable percentages. In industries such as concessionaires most of our expenditures are on very few items and rely heavily on beverages.” • “Specifying what products are bought fair trade is too specific and too hard of information to obtain. Perhaps having this be optional would be more effective/easier for participants to complete.” • “With institutions just starting to purchase local, fair trade, and organic products the amount spent on each category is not separated.” • “Suggest re‐calibrating the point criteria to ranges: e.g. 5‐15; 15‐20, 20‐35; etc. [Institution’s] Food Services spends up to 16.5% on local food but is only eligible for 1 pt.” • “The credit should be adapted for universities with contracted food services and self‐operated units.” • Several institutions suggested that STARS “Differentiate locally processed/packaged vs. locally grown ‐ award points accordingly.” • “The requirement for ‘Local Food’ to be grown and processed within 150 miles of the institution will likely affect many participants ability to meet this creditʹs requirements. Many of the food products used at [Institution] can be purchased locally, but not all of the ingredients can be grown within 150 miles. The biggest example of this at [Institution] is bakery products. Wheat is not grown within 150 miles of [Institution]. However, we give preference to purchasing bakery goods from a locally owned and operated bakery. This credit should be modified to recognize institutions that prefer products that are locally produced, even if the ingredients arenʹt grown within 150 miles. The credit could be modified slightly to add 1 point for a certain percentage of food that is purchased from locally owned and operated businesses but not with 100% locally produced ingredients.” • “Expand the scope to incorporate other food services such as Grab‐and‐Go items and other retail dining locations that are operated in‐house; this would still exclude franchises, subcontractors, and convenience stores.” • “Credit should include other economic and social aspects such as purchasing from small farms or within ones state or region.” For the pilot project, institutions were asked to report local and total expenditures in the following food categories: bakery goods, beverages, fresh and frozen produce, grocery items, meat and seafood, milk and other dairy, and other. In addition, the reporting form requested the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone in which the institution is located, so that the pilot results can be compared across growing regions. Several institutions suggested changing the reporting form for this credit. • “If you are asking people to put in their plant hardiness zone you should provide a link to the website where the information can be obtained.” • “I suggest that you offer the option of putting down percentages or dollar amounts of the food purchased that is in each category.” 119 •
•
•
•
•
“It may be more useful for a campus to list local vendors that they support and to have invoice totals but not subcategorize the food type bought.“ “Reporting Forms need to be designed better to accommodate multiple entries from separate entities.” “Perhaps reducing the number of categories asking for expenditures. Specific items are hard to track.” “Include percentages similar to criteria.” “Since there are no additional points given by purchasing a large amount of a specific type of local food, it seems unnecessary to report the figures by category rather than as a whole or gross expenditure.” Several institutions commented on the definition of local food and suggested accommodating regional variation. • “Provide different definitions of local depending on the region where the institution is located, rather than setting the 150 mile radius across the nation. Some institutions are located in areas that are naturally more fertile while others, such as [institution], are in areas with limited water, harsh growing conditions, and questions on the sustainability of growing in the desert.” • “Rather than 150 miles, I would like to see credits given for regional also (400‐500 miles) which would provide [institution] with potentially more products.” • “STARS needs to take into account institutions that exist in highly urbanized regions as well as rural regions. [City’s] famous sprawl makes agriculture within 150 miles more expensive and thus relatively rare, except for small ʺboutiqueʺ organic farms. We want to encourage [agricultural] expansion in regions [of the state], where frost is rarer and soils more appropriate for many crops. Good railroad and highway transportation exists to bring food efficiently into [the city] from these regions, so the environmental costs of statewide transport may not be as great as for some schools that source within 150 miles, where farms are dispersed in isolated rural settings. We encourage flexibility in definitions, allowing some school autonomy in setting sensible geographical goals for local food.” • “This favors greatly locations where food can be grown or harvested with a significant geographic advantage. I suggest a multiplier be used to level the playing field.” • “Perhaps some way to reconcile Hardiness Zone with expected percentage? Some institutions may be doing more or less to get local food than others based on location, and their score may not reflect that.” • “The 150 miles is a challenge, especially in a state [with the geography of the one in which the institution is located]. For example, we have no access to grains or stone fruits in this boundary whereas we would in a more regional definition of local.” • “In temperate climates, meeting the requirement for local food at 150 mile radius would be difficult during colder months.” • “It is very tough to meet the boundary guidelines for ʺlocalʺ as this credit is written. We do emphasize regional food in our sustainability goals, and we define that as within 250 miles. Particularly for grains, this makes a doable target.” Reasons credit should be changed • “Most of the dining service providersʹ expenditures would be proprietary information. It would be interesting to see if other institutions with the same service providers are provided expenditure information. If the information is indeed proprietary, the question should be changed. Perhaps working with the vendors to see what type of information they can release may help revise the question.” • “Realize that some schools may have many different departments who order food, and many different suppliers.” 120 •
•
•
•
“These particular questions are time consuming and difficult to be accurate when viewed after purchasing. If a tally is done when the order is placed then more significant data can be compiled. A chef putting together an order is in a far better position to tally these categories correctly. Simply put, vendors do not supply post‐order invoices that cooperate with this goal. Some vendors can give us a velocity report on purchases within a given category of food type (ex: produce vs. dairy) but it wonʹt necessarily be broken down to more specific categories (ex: milk vs. cheese).” “Meats (seafood especially) is extremely difficult to source. Raised/Caught where? Processed where? Distributed where?” “The category ‘grocery’ is too ambiguous. Was this flour, spices?” “Any familiarity with regional variation of depletion of fisheries reveals that local seafood is not always the most sustainable option.” Other Comments • “What is the purpose of the breakdown by food category? Are institutions awarded different point totals depending on the content of individual food categories? Will general patterns be relayed back to participating institutions?” • “We were able to complete this credit ONLY because we had a full‐time intern who spent the summer of 2008 working with dining services to determine the breakdown of expenditures on local foods by teasing out FY2008 purchases from each individual vendor. To maintain this credit as is, food service providers would need to have a way of coding a vendor as local within their purchasing system and automatically generating reports.” • “I think it is good that they require the USDA hardiness zone because as we all know in [state] we do not have as much access to local produce (primarily) as areas of the US that have warmer climates.” 121 OP Credit 6: Food Alliance and Organic Certified Food Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s dining service purchases a specified percentage of Food Alliance and/or organic certified food. 1 pt: Five percent of food expenditures go toward Food Alliance and/or organic certified food products. 2 pts: Twenty percent of food expenditures go toward Food Alliance and/or organic certified products. 3 pts: Fifty percent of food expenditures go toward Food Alliance and/or organic certified products. For this credit, institutions should include food purchases for the institution’s residential dining halls and on‐site catered events provided by the institution’s dining services provider and for which the institution is the client. On‐site franchises, convenience stores, vending machines, or concessions are not included in this credit. Food items that are made with at least 70 percent organic ingredients are considered organic for this credit. According to USDA organic labeling requirements, products labeled 'made with organic' must contain at least 70 percent organically produced ingredients. This credit does not apply to institutions without residential dining halls or an on‐site, institution‐affiliated catering service. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 1 4 43 8 56
Percentage of Total ‐‐ 1.8 7.1 76.8 14.3 100 Twelve institutions indicated that they had purchased some organic products, ranging from approximately 0.001 to 1.5 percent of total purchases, but did not purchase at least 5 percent required to earn the first point for this credit. Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 2 are public and 3 are private. 6 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 19 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 baccalaureate, 2 doctorate‐granting, and 2 master’s institutions. This represents 11 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 10 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 17 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 122 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
0 4 5 9 6 10 34
Percentage of Responses ‐‐ 11.8 14.7 26.5 17.6 29.4 100 Number of Responses
17 10 4 1 32
Percentage of Responses 53.1 31.3 12.5 3.1 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Recognize partnerships with small‐medium farms that are known to have organic practices, although they may not be certified organic.” • “Expand the scope to incorporate other on‐campus food services such as Grab‐and‐Go items and retail dining locations that are operated in‐house, similar to residential dining halls; this would still exclude franchises, subcontractors, and convenience stores.” • “I would suggest that you provide information/website links to the different certification systems so that people can inform themselves on these different systems.” • “I also recommend including a category for organic food retail purchasing so that these efforts can be measured.” • “I would recommend clarifying what is required for the points (e.g. Does certified organic encompass the ‘100% organic’ and ‘organic’? what about getting credit for the ‘made with organic ingredients’). I know too little about the Food Alliance certification at this time to comment on it. Due to the time frame for farms to become certified organic, possibly include points for transition (time frame, usually 2‐3 years in which farm is in the process of becoming certified)” • “Consider using quantity of food rather than dollars, since the dollar amount for certified organic tends to buy less food.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “’Organic Markets Overview: Prices rise as growing consumer demand, increased competition from biofuels worsen supply squeeze for organic farmers and manufacturers.’ Nutrition Business Journal March 1, 2008. Lack of supply ‐‐> organics being imported from overseas, increasing food mileage. Increase in price reduces accessibility to low‐income students on meal plans. This should be a Tier 2 credit.“ Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “Very difficult to gather, since there are many food vendors on campus that operate independently.” 123 Comments on Food Alliance • “We are unclear as to why Food Alliance certification is the preferred certification by STARS. There are other forms of certification that are perhaps more regionally relevant (i.e., CCOF) but are not mentioned in the tool. We suggest that the tool expand to include other forms of certified organic.” • “Food Alliance certified items have little penetration in this area of the country. Availability seems to be concentrated in the western half of the U.S., so purchases were close to none. Although this is a national program/certification, results may be skewed in favor of institutions in states where more of these products are available. Buying Food Alliance certified products right now will translate to non‐
local purchases.” • “Food Alliance Certified products are currently not available in [state] or within 150 miles. Institutions should not be penalized for not purchasing Food Alliance products when they are not yet available in the area.” • “Expand the Food Alliance areas available.” • “I donʹt believe that Food Alliance is active nationally, so perhaps this credit should be limited to ‘organic’ only.” Comments about reporting and data availability • “Data for this question was gathered from Vendor supplied invoices and the invoices do not outline whether purchases are Fair Trade certified or if they are organic. The best way to ensure easy data collection for this type of question is to purchase exclusively organic or fair trade from one vendor or to gather data at time of purchase.” • “It seems unnecessary to divide expenditures into categories rather than using the total amount spent on the items.“ • “I would offer the option to people to use percentages instead of specific dollar amounts. Although this is not as accurate, it might be easier for people that are just beginning to gather these numbers. They can give percentages for a smaller number of points, and can work towards putting into place accounting systems that will gather this information.” • “It is very difficult to obtain financial data for categories of food purchasing. I recommend allowing the option for schools to provide percentages of total food purchased instead of dollar amounts because it is easier to obtain these numbers.” 124 OP Credit 7: Fair Trade Certified Coffee Pilot Version Credit Criteria All of the institution’s coffee purchases are Fair Trade Certified. For this credit, institutions should include coffee purchases for the institution’s residential dining halls and on‐site catered events provided by the institution’s dining services provider and for which the institution is the client. On‐site franchises, convenience stores, vending machines, or concessions are not included in this credit. This credit does not apply to institutions without residential dining halls or an on‐site, institution‐affiliated catering service. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 32 8 55
Percentage of Total 27.3 58.2 14.5 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 11 are public and 4 are private. 34 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 27 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 8 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 29 percent of eligible associate’s, 13 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 38 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 36 percent of eligible master’s institutions. For institutions that claimed points for this credit, the reported percentage of coffee purchases that was Fair Trade certified ranged from 24 to 100 percent. Twelve institutions that did not claim the credit purchased some Fair Trade coffee, but not 100 percent. For these institutions, Fair Trade coffee comprised eight to 88 percent of total coffee purchases. In the interest of gathering additional information to help shape future versions of this credit, institutions were asked to report Fair Trade purchases for other food products. Six institutions (3 that claimed the credit for coffee and 3 that did not) indicated they purchased at least some Fair Trade certified bananas, tea, and/or sugar. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 3 10 9 7 5 36
125 Percentage of Responses 5.6 8.3 27.8 25.0 19.4 13.9 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
21 10 1 1 33
Percentage of Responses 63.6 30.3 3.0 3.0 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Include Rainforest Alliance Certification: fair treatment and good conditions for workers, national minimum wage per country, ecosystem & wildlife conservation, community relations, integrated crop management, waste management, conservation of water resources, soil conservation, and planning and monitoring systems.” • “Extra credit should be given to institutions that strive to purchase fair trade products beyond coffee, such as sugar and cocoa.” • “I would open this credit up to stores and other retail locations, not limit it to just residential and catering.” • “We suggest separating coffee from other fair trade products. In order to achieve the first .5 credits a school would need to have 100% fair trade coffee. To achieve the second .5 credits, a school would need to have other fair trade products.” • “Expenditures for specific items are hard to come by. Perhaps broaden the categories.” Several institutions suggested changing the requirement that 100 percent of coffee purchases be fair trade in order to earn the point. • “All or nothing is seldom beneficial when your goal is to change culture. There should be an intermediate (perhaps half a point?) for some of each of the above listed materials being fair trade. Availability in our area makes this virtually impossible at the current time. Result, I doubt weʹll even try to make any progress.” • “[Institution’s] new food service vendor has subcontracted with [a coffee company] on our campus who provides an option for purchasing Fair Trade coffee. This business arrangement appears to not be within the realm of the Fair Trade STARS Credit.” • “We believe that 100% is a bit unreasonable; in many institutions, there are areas that ‘fall through the cracks’ due to how they fit in to the organizational structure, and tracking down and altering that last 5% can sometimes entail much more time and political capital than itʹs worth in the larger picture. We suggest changing the threshold to 95% or 99%.” • ”Set a point scale (similar to local and organic) based on different percentage levels of Fair Trade purchases to recognize institutions that are making the transition to Fair Trade, but may not have completely converted.ʺ • “The credit could allow half a point for a significant amount of an institutionsʹ coffee purchases being Fair Trade‐certified ‐ say, over 50%, and award the whole point for 100%.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “There are few fair‐trade specific vendors however it is not efficient or cost‐effective to purchase from them for this sized institution. As a result all fair‐trade items are mixed into invoices across several vendors. Additionally, there are now higher/better grades for socially‐beneficial coffee purchasing. 126 Examples of this can be seen with finding ʹDirect‐Tradeʹ products where products are bought directly with a farmers co‐op. ʹRelationship Coffeeʹ is a new standard that ensures fair prices, sustainable practices, and a more transparent view of the travel from bean to cup. Sugar, Cocoa, Rice, Vanilla are all items that are regulated through Trans Fair and FLO (the Fair Trade certifiers) but are even less likely to be indicated as Fair Trade on a regular vendor invoice as they are not as high profile as coffee or tea. In terms of sustainability conversations, itʹs very important for organizations like AASHE to base their assessments on a higher consciousness level, which I think is often a much more complicated view of the situation. This credit should be changed to ʺSustainably Cultivated Coffeeʺ or ʺSocially Responsible Specialty Foodsʺ to include items other than coffee. Itʹs interesting the credit is titled ʺFair Trade Coffeeʺ but it concerns 6 products besides coffee. It is incorrect to assume Fair Trade coffee is the best choice in terms of sustainability, and Iʹm not sure thatʹs true.” 127 Dining Services Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
“For further verification, it might be acceptable to put a place for someone in Dining Services to sign off on this information. In our case, there was not a lot posted online to verify our ʹyesʹ answers.” “These credits for the institution are dependent upon the dining services provider. While policies do exist, they are not available for the public.” Suggestions for Tier Two Credits to add to this section • “Policies and procedures, in addition to practices to decrease energy and water usage in operations” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution does not use trays in its dining service operations. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 27 4 46
Percentage of Total 32.6 58.7 8.7 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s One institution that claimed credit wrote, “we don’t meet criteria of 100% trayless; 3/5 of the dining centers not set up correctly (they require separate tray conveyor to bring trays to dish room).” Another institution wrote, “[Institution’s] dining services participate in TRAYLESS TUESDAYS where all the on‐campus dining halls are trayless.” The rest of the institutions that claimed this credit indicated that trayless dining is a campus‐wide practice. Several institutions reported cost savings, decreases in food waste, and other resource savings (reporting this information was not required or specifically requested). From institutions that did not earn the credit: • “The resident dining program is designed so that the seating is located on three tiers of tables all connected by stairs and therefore not all seating areas are ADA accessible. We have not eliminated trays because of that fact.” • “We do use trays, but we are a la carte, which encourages smaller portions even more than a system that does not use trays. Students are allowed to take only the size portion that they need and are charged only for what they take. Different sized plates are available at all times. Therefore [institution] exceeds the intention of this credit, while not meeting it exactly.” • Two institutions mentioned they either were doing it now (but it didn’t fit in the “reporting period”) or will launch with fall 2009 Feedback “The negative [phrasing of the credit] rendered the question difficult to answer, due to the fact that both a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would have been appropriate: i.e., ‘yes, we do not use trays in the dining areas’ and ‘no, we do not use 128 trays in the dining areas’ have virtually the same meaning. For schools that do use trays, it makes it difficult to answer this question without sounding as though we are affirming a lack of trays.” 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers complete‐protein vegan and vegetarian dining options for every meal. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
32 10 3 45
Percentage of Total 71.1 22.2 6.7 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Several institutions reported that they were recognized by PETA for being vegan and vegetarian friendly. An institution that did not claim this credit wrote, “We offer vegetarian meals at every dining hall at every meal. We cannot guarantee complete‐protein vegan meals at every meal.” Another such institution wrote, “Students have the option of choosing protein only or choosing from the salad bar options, but specific menus targeted to a protein‐only, vegan and vegetarian diet are not available.” Feedback “We could have claimed this credit, as our dining options would have allowed students to hand‐pick to fill their plates with items that met those criteria, but I think the real intent for this credit was for dining halls to offer menus targeted to these audiences, rather than providing a general salad bar and a standard meal meat option. I would recommend modifying the word ‘Options’ to ‘Menu Options’ for this credit.” 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution does not use trans fats or ingredients that include trans fats in its dining operations. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
23 19 3 45
Percentage of Total 51.1 42.2 6.7 100 Comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “In April of 2008 [institution] switched to 0% trans‐fats in all fryer oils. This is the biggest area where trans‐fats were used. [Institution] is also in the process of reducing trans‐fats as an ingredient in all foods.” • “All oils are non trans fat, we make every effort to look at labels (e.g., French fries) and to purchase the one without, but not every pre‐prepared product we purchase is going to be completely free. The 129 •
•
general policy is non trans fat, but there are a few exceptions on occasion. Since the providers are jointly responsible for sending us the right product we also rely on them to be honest and consistent with us; if they run out of something then we are at their discretion. Students are allowed to come into the storeroom and check the labels of all products that we use.” “[Institution] has no program addressing trans fats. [Institution’s food service contractor] is working with its culinarians, dietitians, supply management personnel and vendors to provide customers with trans fat free foods as well as products used in food preparation, while still maintaining the overall taste and quality of the food. This effort includes, but is not limited to the use of shortenings and oils, margarines and spreads, pan and grill oils and salad oils that do not contain trans fatty acids.” ”[City in which the institution is located] has banned the use of trans fats in prepared food.” Feedback The credit “is worded in a confusing manner.” 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a sustainable food buying policy. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 27 3 45
Percentage of Total 33.3 60.0 6.7 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not claim the credit wrote that such a policy was under development. Among the institutions that claimed this credit, four institutions cited the policies of their contracted food service provider (Chartwells, Aramark, SODEXO, and Bon Appétit). One institution wrote, “Purchases local when available.” Others cited detailed policies and goals that were developed by the institution. 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has sustainability policies for franchisees operating on campus. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
5 26 14 45
Percentage of Total 11.1 57.8 31.1 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. 130 Comments from institutions that claimed the credit: • “Must follow all national brand Franchise policies.” • “Purchases products with recyclable packaging and with reduced packaging.” • “All Franchisees must sign a management agreement which includes environmental policies. This includes using products and conducting activities in a manner that has the least negative impact on the environment.“ • “Sodexo has sustainable policies for franchisees operating on campus” Comments from institutions that did not claim the credit: • “While national brands do participate in Dining Servicesʹ initiatives (e.g., reusable cup program, recycling), there is no formal written policy.” • “Not all franchisees are covered under the sustainability program.” Policy is under development and/or consideration at three institutions that didn’t claim the credit. 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has guidelines for seafood buying. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 20 4 45
Percentage of Total 46.7 44.4 8.9 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Sample comments from institutions that claimed the credit: • “We use the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch guidelines. It offers choices based on location of purchasers. While there are no binding rules governing our purchasing, we follow them regularly.” • “We purchase some sustainable seafood most notably through our commitment to Alaska MSC certified line caught salmon. We do not necessarily follow the Monterey Bay list but do stay far from the endangered or ʺno buyʺ fish lists. We have used many of the ʺformerly known as garbage fishʺ rather than cod or haddock.” • “Bon Appétit participates in the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program. Also, our sushi vendor is required to abide by those guidelines.” • “All seafood vendors go through a stringent approval process.” 131 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution participates in The Real Food Challenge. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
6 35 5 46
Percentage of Total 13.0 76.1 10.9 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. A couple institutions reported that they had not heard of the Real Food Challenge. A couple others reported that they were exploring the possibility of joining. 132 Energy and Climate Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit OP 8: Energy Intensity Trend 3 0.92 0.56 0.78 1.33 0.92 OP 9: Renewable Electricity 5 0.20 0.22 0.39 0.33 0.32 OP 10: On‐Site Combustion with Renewable Fuel 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OP 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions 5 0.00 0.33 0.42 0.29 0.30 2.75 1.21 1.14 1.85 1.52 1.56 3.47 3.10 Energy and Climate Energy and Climate Tier Two Credits* Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 18.75 2.33 2.25 3.44 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. OP Credit 8: Reduction in Energy Intensity Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has achieved a three‐year downward trend in energy intensity, normalized for heating or cooling degree days. For this credit, energy intensity is calculated by dividing total energy consumption (electricity plus temperature control) by the amount of conditioned floor space. 1 pt: Institution reduced energy intensity up to two percent. 2 pts: Institution reduced energy intensity by more than two percent. 3 pts: Institution reduced energy intensity by more than four percent. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
12 6 7 35 0 60
Percentage of Total 20.0 10.0 11.7 58.3 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 18 are public and 7 are private. 43 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 39 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 7 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 9 doctorate‐granting, and 7 master’s institutions. This represents 54 percent of eligible associate’s, 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 39 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 47 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 133 8 of the 35 institutions that did not claim this credit (23 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Most institutions did not submit complete data for this credit. As a result, no benchmarking data are available. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
0 11 11 14 8 5 49
Percentage of Responses ‐‐ 22.4 22.4 28.6 16.3 10.2 100 Number of Responses
24 19 2 0 45
Percentage of Responses 53.3 42.2 4.4 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several institutions suggested adding guidance on how to normalize for heating and cooling degree days. One institution wrote, “Heating and cooling days are too difficult to report.” • “Keep temperature control energy designation to facilitate normalizing data for HDD and CDD.” • “Using enthalpy in place of Heating and Cooling Degree Days would account for humidity, which is a challenge for some regions.” • “The first entry field should read ‘Total Electricity Purchased’ versus ‘Total Energy Consumption’ to allow for on‐campus energy generation from efficient cogeneration systems.” • “Give examples of non‐electric building energy consumption.” • Several institutions requested additional guidance on how to calculate trends. • “Reporting form should provide for percent reduction information and a blank to explain efforts taken to achieve the reduction.” • “We believe that energy and emissions related points should be weighted higher, especially considering how many total points are in the STARS system and how critical emissions and energy issues are to sustainability and climate change.” • “STARS might consider including a glossary of terms, conversion factors (MMBtu to Btu, kWh to Btu), or an example of an actual calculation. Also, consider including automatic calculations that act as a mini‐Excel spreadsheet.” • Three institutions suggested changing the unit of measurement from Btus to MMBtus. • “Consider revising the measurement BTU to something else like Joules.” • “Provide some guidance on converting energy uses to the common Btu units requested here.” 134 •
•
•
•
•
“Use constant units. Therefore, include the calculated EUI and use Btu or kBtu for electricity and non‐
electricity consumption. Also, use analogous column headings such as ‘Electricity Consumed’ and ‘Non‐electric Building Energy Consumed’.” “Should also consider breaking building square footage according to the ACUPCC Carbon Inventory Reporting Tool (building space, lab space, health care space, residential space) as some areas have more significant energy demands. This is important when comparing the carbon footprint of universities as an R1 institution with many labs should not be compared to a liberal arts college with mostly classrooms, office space, and dorms. Potentially weight point values for reduction of energy use in more energy‐intensive spaces.” “You should ask for changes over the same three years to measure intensity by square foot changes. Our energy use went up because we added LOTS of building space over these 3 years. Our energy intensity, however, went down.” “Clarify conditioned floor space (either for an individual building or an entire campus).” “Conditioned space is a different data item than was requested by CACP calculator for physical size. Also, since we have a cogeneration plant our data in the CACP calculator was for purchased electricity, generated electricity and BTUs used to run co‐gen plant. I needed to go back to raw data and extract gas and diesel oil inputs that were used to operate boilers. Does it really matter ‐ could I have reported the electricity purchased and the BTUs for running to cogen plants since total energy is the same? If so change the reporting requirements to reflect that.” Feedback about the use of a three‐year trend for this credit • “Consider factoring in long‐term trends in the future. (In other words, a university might get credit for a reduction over the first three year period, then not get it for a few years if their trends flatten out or grow, and then get the credit again in later years when they trend down again…all the while their performance in year 10 might be no better than their performance in year 1, but they sporadically received credits during that period.)” • “Consider using the three (or five?) previous years’ floating average as the comparison benchmark for each new reporting year, in case of unique circumstances in one year disrupting the trend.” • “Looking at a downward trend in energy intensity of 2%‐4%/3 years sustained over time may be unrealistic, and assumes an eventual net‐zero energy consumption. In non‐sunny or non‐wind productive states, net zero would not be realistic.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Obtaining all this information is not easy.” 135 OP Credit 9: Renewable Electricity Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution derives a specified percentage of its total electricity consumed from institution‐catalyzed renewable sources, or purchases the environmental attributes of electricity generated off‐site from renewable sources in the form of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and other similar renewable energy products. 1 pt: More than 5 percent of electricity consumed is from institution‐catalyzed* renewable energy sources, or the environmental attributes of more than 15 percent was purchased in the form of RECs and other similar renewable energy products. 2 pts: More than 15 percent of electricity consumed is from institution‐catalyzed* renewable energy sources, or 100 percent was purchased in the form of RECs and other similar renewable energy products. 3 pts: More than 35 percent of electricity consumed is from institution‐catalyzed* renewable energy sources. 4 pts: More than 65 percent of electricity consumed is from institution‐catalyzed* renewable energy sources. 5 pts: 100 percent of electricity consumed is from institution‐catalyzed* renewable energy sources. For this credit, the following sources of renewable electricity count: wind, concentrated solar power, solar photovoltaics, geothermal, low‐impact hydropower, clean biomass, and B100 biodiesel. Renewable energy technologies that are not used to generate electricity do not count for this credit. RECs and other similar renewable energy products used to achieve this credit must be Green‐e certified or meet the Green‐e standard’s technical requirements. *“Institution‐catalyzed renewable energy sources” refers to on‐site sources as well as off‐site renewable energy sources developed for the institution and for which the institution holds the rights to the associated emissions reductions. An institution may not apply electricity generated toward this credit if it sold RECs for the same electricity. Likewise, if the on‐site renewable energy generating devices are owned and maintained by another party, the institution must have contractual rights to the associated emissions reductions for the electricity to count towards achieving this credit. Results Credit Results Earned 5 points Earned 4 points Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 0 0 8 2 47 0 57
Percentage of Total ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14.0 3.5 82.5 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 5 are public and 5 are private. 13 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 28 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 5 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 10 percent of eligible associate’s, 11 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 22 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 20 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 4 of the 47 institutions that did not claim this credit (9 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. 136 Several institutions that did not claim this credit generated some renewable electricity on‐site, but it was less than the 5 percent required for the first point. Three institutions that claimed points for this credit reported a combination of on‐site generation and REC purchases. Two institutions claimed points for hydropower’s contribution to their utilities’ fuel mixes. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 10 10 5 4 0 33
Percentage of Responses 12.1 30.3 30.3 15.2 12.1 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
20 16 1 0 37
Percentage of Responses 54.1 43.2 2.7 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several institutions commented that “There is a large jump from 1 point to 2 points for this credit regarding purchase of blocks of renewable energy – a jump from a requirement of 15% to 100%.” One suggested, “Perhaps moderating this jump to 50% for 2 points, 100% for 3 points.” • “Credit should be received for having an onsite cogeneration plant as (1) this is much more efficient than other standard power generation methods and (2) our onsite cogeneration plant has allowed us to use less electricity from the [grid], which has a high percentage of coal power generation ‐‐ much ‘dirtier’ and more carbon intensive than the natural gas and distillate oil we are using.” • “I would suggest rewording the credit to something other than ‘renewable’ if hydropower other than low‐impact is going to be excluded. While there are certainly environmental concerns regarding the use of large‐scale hydro, technically it is renewable.” • Several institutions requested a clearer definition of ‘institution‐catalyzed renewable energy sources’ and an explanation of how they differ from RECs and on‐site renewable energy generating devices. • “Given the amount of electricity that campuses consume, AASHE might consider reallocating the point spread so that 1% of electricity coming from renewable sources could merit a point.” • “Since many schools won’t separately meter their on‐site renewable energy, you should provide some guidance for estimating kWh from PV systems or other renewable energy sources.” • “The benchmarks for the renewable power are high for large universities. Lower the benchmarks to give universities making some effort a little credit.” 137 •
An institution that gets utility‐supplied electricity that is generated primarily from hydropower suggested incorporating the grid mix into the credit. Reasons the credit should be changed • “A question worth exploring is whether or not institution‐catalyzed electricity should be preferable over purchasing blocks of renewable energy. Large‐scale renewable energy farms may be able to more efficiently generate electricity than small‐scale, institutionally installed technology.” • “A large institution consuming a large amount of energy would need to correspondingly generate a larger total amount of renewable energy to earn the same proportional percentage. This means [institution] would have to spend significantly more money to earn this credit than a small institution to ‘buy’ this credit. Would it be fairer to give credit on total renewable kWh generated period?” 138 OP Credit 10: On­Site Combustion with Renewable Fuel Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the institution’s on‐site energy combustion for heating and cooling is from renewable sources, such as biomass. 1 pt: Institution derives 15 percent or more of its on‐site combustion for heating and cooling from renewable sources. 2 pts: Institution derives 50 percent or more of its on‐site combustion for heating and cooling from renewable sources. 3 pts: Institution derives 100 percent or more of its on‐site combustion for heating and cooling from renewable sources. For this credit, renewable energy technologies that are used to generate electricity and renewable fuels used for transportation do not count, as those benefits are captured in OP Credit 9 and OP Credit 25 respectively. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 0 0 42 16 58
Percentage of Total ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 72.4 27.6 100 Although no institutions claimed this credit, two institutions did report that some of their buildings are heated with B5 and/or B20 biodiesel. The percentage of heating and cooling energy that came from on‐site renewable sources for these institutions was 0.2 and 0.4 percent respectively. For the institutions that selected the credit did not apply, it was not clear if they did not have any on‐site combustion for heating and cooling or if they did not earn the credit. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 8 9 4 1 0 25
139 Percentage of Responses 12.0 32.0 36.0 16.0 4.0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
24 7 3 0 34
Percentage of Responses 70.6 20.6 8.8 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Add a point for heating (or cooling) from renewable sources (e.g., solar thermal) of water that is not used directly for heating or cooling of structures.” • “Credit should both on‐site and off‐site renewable energy. A majority of [institution’s] energy use comes from hydro‐electric sources that meet a high standard in renewable fuel.” • “I would not give this credit so many points. It is a relatively difficult thing to achieve and some schools are geographically‐limited in their ability to procure biomass.” • “I would suggest leaving the percentages and points alone, but removing entirely the reference to on‐
site. Because of the burden of emissions monitoring and testing, and given the academic focus of our institutions, it does not serve the masses (nor the environment) well to expect we can do this in a safer and cleaner manner than utility companies whose sole function is to provide such utilities.” • “It would be beneficial if universities were not penalized for this credit because they are unable to burn anything other than the material for which the plant was designed.” • “It would be interesting to explore the different types of on‐site combustion. Even on‐site combustion could have environmental impacts.” • “Credit should be received for having an onsite cogeneration plant as (1) this is much more efficient than other standard power generation methods and (2) our onsite cogeneration plant has allowed us to use less electricity from the [grid], which has a high percentage of coal power generation ‐‐ much ’dirtier; and more carbon intensive than the natural gas and distillate oil we are using.” • “Perhaps join this credit with the renewable energy criteria. It would be easier than to separate the two, as many view the two of one of the same thing.” • “The credit on renewable fuel should also include transportation along with heating and cooling.” • Two institutions suggested that “The units should be in millions of Btus, MMBtu” 140 OP Credit 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution achieved specified net reductions in its Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a 2005‐06 academic year baseline. For this credit, purchasing carbon offsets that have been verified by a third party may count towards a portion of the reduction. 1 pt: Institution reduced GHG emissions by at least 5 percent, or purchased carbon offsets to achieve a net reduction of at least 50 percent. 2 pts: Institution reduced GHG emissions by at least 20 percent, or purchased carbon offsets to achieve a net reduction of 100 percent. 3 pts: Institution reduced GHG emissions by at least 40 percent. 4 pts: Institution reduced GHG emissions by at least 65 percent. 5 pts: Institution reduced GHG emissions by 100 percent (carbon neutrality), with carbon offsets comprising no more than 15 percent of the reduction. To conduct a GHG emissions inventory, campuses may use any methodology and/or calculator that is consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standards. Results Credit Results Earned 5 pts Earned 4 pts Earned 3 pts Earned 2 pts Earned 1 pt Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 0 0 2 8 46 0 57
Percentage of Total 1.8 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.5 14.0 80.7 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 6 are public and 5 are private. 15 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 29 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 baccalaureate, 6 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 25 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 21 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 18 of the 46 institutions that did not claim this credit (39 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. The institution that claimed 5 points wrote that it “did not collect data prior to 2005. Results indicate a 90 percent reduction in emissions since the new campus‐wide boilers were installed.” 27 institutions provided data for both the baseline and performance year. These institutions exhibited an average greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 0.99 percent (the standard deviation was 8.5 percent). 141 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
0 7 11 9 7 4 38
Percentage of Responses ‐‐ 18.4 28.9 23.7 18.4 10.5 100 Number of Responses
26 4 5 0 35
Percentage of Responses 74.3 11.4 14.3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “This credit should perhaps be modified to ensure that a technical standard exists and is used so that accurate comparison of results among institutions can occur. Currently, different calculators and methodologies can be used, institutional boundaries are open for interpretation, and the amount and quality of data can vary widely among universities. This does not allow for a true one‐to‐one comparison between institutions, particularly those of similar size and offering similar services (e.g., healthcare inclusive).” • “Perhaps rather than looking at total GHG reduction, credit can be provided for reducing certain Scope emissions, or each source could be examined individually. It seems counter intuitive to not get at least some credit for efforts that are being taken even though we are not trending towards carbon neutrality.” • “Give some clarification on fuel mix issues from purchased electricity and natural gas.” • “In order to be realistic about those of us who have not made significant progress, start by offering a credit for doing a GHG inventory, charting a plan for reducing inventories in the short term (5 years), then meeting the goals above.” • “Consider inclusion of credit for progress toward reduction of emissions. For example, completion of GHG inventory, number of years inventories have been conducted, development of implementation plans, etc.” • “We believe that RECs used to reduce emissions from electricity should be treated in the same way as carbon offsets ‐ weighted lower than reductions from other actions.” • “If carbon offsets are to be considered legit, they will have to be much more comparative than described above. At the least, they should be counted as half compared to GHG reductions.” • “The criteria for the 5pts is ambiguous due to the carbon offset statement. Suggest clarifying the statement.” • “The baseline year should precede the reporting year. The wording of this credit is off. Should ask for current year and baseline year data.” 142 •
“2006‐2007 will have to be our baseline year because [institution] did not account for their GHG emissions in 2005‐2006. Therefore, setting this as the across the board baseline seems not be the best choice. I see this as a problem in the future, when new universities want to join this process, and cannot look back that far to get data. I would suggest having a sliding baseline where the percent improvement is by year. However, I would caution that people might be more apt to wait until their numbers are exceptional in order to start this process which we do not want either.” There were several suggestions that STARS should accommodate growth and specific space uses. • “To account for campuses experiencing growth, AASHE may want to consider calculating emissions on a square foot basis rather than total emissions. Potentially calculate using square footage, normalized according to space use types (i.e. difference in lab space, healthcare space, residential space, etc.)” • “It’s not clear whether you are asking for absolute reductions or reductions in GHG emission per square foot? Since many schools are growing or planning to grow, absolute emissions may initially increase, although more efficient buildings will bring down the emissions per square foot.” • Several institutions commented that although their emissions increased over the time period, emissions per square foot of building space decreased. Reasons the credit should be changed • The credit does not recognize “colleges that aggressively reduced emissions pre‐2005, and thus achieve smaller reductions or those that simply use less carbon/student or /square foot in the first place!” • “Some concerns about the point distribution in this area: 2 points for a carbon neutral vehicle fleet but only 5 points offered for a carbon neutral campus?...This is a very disproportionate point allocation compared to the effort required. It is a similar situation with the OP Credit 9: Renewable Energy where the 5 points for 100% renewable energy seems disproportionate compared to the effort required.” • “Eligibility for maximum points (5) can only be achieved by an 85% reduction in GHG emissions with a 2 year time frame, this is not realistic.” 143 Energy and Climate Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
•
•
•
“These credits seem very generic and do not seem to provide enough detail for a thorough answer and/or a way to compare one university to another. For example, Question #3 states, ‘Institution uses LED lighting … ’, but doesn’t quantify to what extent, in what locations, etc. For credits 1, 2,3, 4, and 8 AASHE may want to consider giving credit based on a % of campus that the technology is used. (0‐25% 25‐50% 50‐75% 75‐100%). As written, a campus could claim to have all of the above, even if it is only in one or two locations on campus. These credits should include a threshold of at least 25% or 50%. In credit 3, LED lighting could refer to traffic lights, indoor, or other lighting. It should be clearer if the credit is targeting LED lighting in a specific application, or in many.” “Consider using different examples for ʹnon‐applicableʹ credits rather than the same residence halls example. For example, use an energy related example for the energy areas or a dining related example for food service criteria.” “Lots of information in a small package!” “Where possible, give some credit for progress made. Ex.‐ T‐12s and incandescents have been eliminated from campus. Some credit should be given for progress in this direction (to the extent that people are incented to move that way). They should also be split, as their use (and therefore their replacement) are completely separate. Technology has also made it easy to replace T‐12s with T‐8s or T‐5s, but we are still working on finding affordable AND dimmable replacements for incandescents.ʺ “Some of these categories seem too vague and not really an indicator of real progress. For example, a university may have installed one LED light or a few photocell sensors and qualify for credits, but not have made a big difference in the overall picture with regard to energy savings. That said, these do belong in Tier 2 as they mostly just give some support (.25 points) to get universities to start thinking about these strategies. Also, we have a question about how effectively BAS systems are being used to save energy. Many institutions have these systems, but what are the strategies engaged to use the systems to maximize energy savings.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses timers to regulate temperatures based on occupancy hours. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
36 10 0 46
Percentage of Total 78.3 17.4 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Many institutions (both those that claimed the credit and those that did not) explained that timers were used in some, but not all, buildings. One institution commented that it did very little temperature control as a result of its Mediterranean climate. 144 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses motion, infrared, and/or light sensors to reduce energy use for lighting. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
38 8 0 46
Percentage of Total 82.6 17.4 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. How widely institutions had implemented sensors varied considerably across institutions. One institution that did not claim the credit wrote, “Very limited on campus. Mostly located in classrooms.” Responses from institutions that claimed the credit include: • “Only in large classrooms” • “When cost‐effective during building retrofits” • “In a common area on campus” • “In new construction, as specified by state requirement” 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses LED lighting. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
28 17 0 45
Percentage of Total 62.2 37.8 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Sample comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “[Institution] has limited applications of LED lighting on campus, so we do not claim this credit.” • “LEDʹs are not proven to be viable in our applications.” Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “Exit lighting only” • “Lighting is being converted to LED or CFL as renovations occur. All exit lamps have been converted to LED.” • “Not all lights have been replaced, but we are currently participating in CREEʹs LED University program.” • ʺPilot project: Christmas lights” 145 •
“[Institution] has installed LED lighting in several locations on campus to test their quality of light and reliability.” 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has installed vending machine motion sensors or uses ENERGY STAR vending machines. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
20 21 4 45
Percentage of Total 44.4 46.7 8.9 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The institutions that selected that the credit did not apply wrote: • “Vending is controlled by an outside contractor.” • “The contract purchasing has with its vending provider includes a requirement that all, except for one, vending machine front panels will not be lighted. The one exception is in a dimly lit location where the extra lighting exists as an additional safety measure.” • “Vending machines are set to turn off at night (arrangements made by Food Services).” Sample comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “Tested, but the energy savings were not there for the small number of vending machines we have on campus.” • “Have begun a program to turn off vending machine lighting.” Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “All vending machines are equipped with motion sensors.” • “200+ vending misers on campus” • “Approximately 50% of all beverage machines are Energy Star certified.” • “The College has 44 beverage and 20 snack vending machines. A majority of the machines are Coke and Pepsi which have sleep modes. Currently, no vending companies have Energy Start equipment. We anticipate stipulating Energy Star equipment in an upcoming 2009 vending RFP.” • “All vending machines were converted over to include sensors or be ENERGY STAR certified over a year ago.” 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has engaged in energy‐related performance contracting. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Number of Institutions
20 22 146 Percentage of Total 47.6 52.4 Credit did not apply Total submissions received 0 42
‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Sample comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “We have our own PEʹs as well as student projects to cover most engineering projects.” • “Under [state] law, [institution] is not allowed to engage in performance contracting.” • “[Institution] is not planning on engaging in performance contracting for many reasons. We do not have the financial organization in place that would allow shared ownership of equipment, so it is easier to own outright. Also, many companies that would contract this work require certain operational environments, which sometimes conflict with our normal operations. Performance contracting may be necessary if institutions do not have the necessary capital available for improvements but should be used only after all other means are exhausted.” The scope of projects that were conducted through performance contracting that were described for this credit varied considerably. In addition to working with outside contractors, one institution wrote, “We actually operate as our own contractor in energy projects. We coordinate scope, installation and retain all savings ourselves.” 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a centralized energy management system. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
35 11 0 46
Percentage of Total 76.1 23.9 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The scope of the energy management systems cited varied across institutions. Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “[Institution’s] Campus Metabolism is an interactive web tool that displays real‐time energy use on campus.” • “Campus‐wide control of lighting, ventilation, HVAC, seasonal ventilation and occupancy sensors.” • “22 buildings out of 108 buildings. Covers 75% of campus building square footage. Located in most of the larger building on campus.” • “The energy management system exists, but there is not adequate staff to monitor it.” 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses geothermal energy. 147 Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 36 1 46
Percentage of Total 19.6 78.3 2.2 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The institution that indicated the credit did not apply wrote, “There is no geothermal energy readily available.” Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “We have one system on operating for a 53,000 sq. ft. building and are completing a 13,000 sq. ft. building that will be occupied Feb. 2009. We also plan to have a geothermal boiler system designed and built in the next two years that will supply hot water for heating and domestic water for four building (three resident halls and one theater).” • “Ground source heat pump for heating and cooling swimming pool.” • “New LEED buildings have partial savings of heating and cooling via ground geothermal.” 8. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has implemented measures to minimize energy usage associated with computers, including load sharing, sleep modes, and ENERGY STAR devices. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
30 14 1 45
Percentage of Total 66.7 31.1 2.2 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. One institution that did not claim the credit wrote, “There are some programs around campus, but this isnʹt institutionally required.” Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “Using sleep modes (both as policy and part of outreach campaigns)” • “Purchasing EPEAT and ENERGY STAR equipment” • “Use of Virtual Servers” • “The Energy Office and Computing & Information Services (CIS) have launched a power management program to reduce energy waste caused by the use of screen saver programs and are well on their way to their goal of activating power management on 5,000 computers on the campus. Hereʹs how the Energy Office has been encouraging participation in the computer power management 148 program. 1. CIS asks all purchasers of new computers from the [institution] Computer Store if they would like power management activated as part of the network setup on their new machine. From October through March, CIS activated power management on 282 new computers with this method. 2. CIS asks all customers bringing computers in for repair if they would like power management activated as part of the repair process. From October through March, CIS activated power management on 506 computers with this method. 3. We ran a contest drawing with two Palm Pilots as prizes last fall. Approximately 300 members of the [institution] community voluntarily activated power management on their computers as part of that contest. 4. Power management has been activated in all computers in CIS‐operated and College for Lifelong Learning computer clusters. 5. Information Technology Liaisons (ITLʹs) in the Business Service Centers (BSCʹs) received training on activating power management and were encouraged to activate power management on all BSC computers. 6. Several [institution] departments activated power management on all departmental computers. We estimate that approximately 2,000 computers now have power management activated as a result of this program.” 9. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has eliminated T‐12 and incandescent lighting. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
24 20 1 45
Percentage of Total 53.3 44.4 2.2 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not claim this credit reported that they have made significant progress toward eliminating such lighting, but it still existed in some places. Similarly, most of the institutions that claimed this credit wrote that they had some remaining T‐12 or incandescent lighting. One institution wrote that it was built within the past 10 years and has never had such lighting. Feedback •
“I feel this is really a stringent category. I can see eliminating T‐12 but incandescent lighting and the cost associated with it is still pricey and this does not create an even field for those schools that cannot 149 •
switch over or change out. This is especially true with dimming lighting system that use incandescent lighting with dimming system. Yes there are dimmable CFLʹs but they are still not too reliable for the cost.” “Question 9 is very difficult to answer; while we (like many college campuses) work to replace inefficient lighting, it can be nearly impossible on a complex campus to be certain that all such lighting is ‘eliminated.’ For example, does student task lighting count? While students are strongly encouraged to use CFLs and our student environmental activist group conducts light bulb exchanges, thereʹs no way for us to be 100% certain that there is no incandescent lighting on campus.“ 10. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses a combined heat and power system. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 28 1 44
Percentage of Total 34.1 63.6 2.3 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, and doctorate‐granting institutions. The institution that selected that the credit did not apply wrote, “I donʹt even know what this is, and it isnʹt defined.” Sample comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “[Institution’s] heating is a campus loop with natural gas.” • “We do not generate our own electricity on campus due to our small size.” • “At this time, our central plant provides only heat and no electricity. There is a feed water pump in the heating plant that is co‐generation (replaces an electric pump, and uses steam to power the pump).” • Institution has “no heating cycle.” Sample responses from institutions that claimed this credit: • “The campus operates two cogeneration plants that are fueled primarily by natural gas. The east campus is supplied with electricity and high temperature hot water. The west campus is supplied with electricity and steam.” • “Our cogeneration plant uses waste heat from a natural gas fired gas turbine engine to generate 100% of campus steam. Generates 46 MW electricity as a by‐product that is sent back to the Progress Energy grid. Reduces emissions by avoiding redundant plants to generate steam and electricity.” • “Our HVAC system uses boilers for both heat and cooling.” Feedback “I think you are referring to co‐generation? This should be modified especially when you have a cheaper source of renewable power like hydropower or wind. Cogeneration is not even in the picture.” 150 11. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has real‐time energy monitoring and feedback systems Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
32 10 1 43
Percentage of Total 74.4 23.3 2.3 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The scale (how many buildings were covered by the systems) and audiences (energy managers versus building occupants) varied across institutions that claimed this credit. 151 Grounds Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit OP 12: Organic Campus 1 0.18 0.00 0.29 0.21 0.21 OP 13: Irrigation Water Consumption 2 0.00 0.78 0.33 0.27 0.31 Grounds Tier Two Credits 2.5 1.38 1.19 1.50 1.56 1.44 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 5.5 1.56 0.66 0.71 0.68 0.65 Grounds
OP Credit 12: Organic Campus Pilot Version Credit Criteria The institution applies to its grounds only pesticides and fertilizers that are allowable under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s standards for organic crop production. For this credit, campus grounds do not include on‐campus farms. This credit does not apply to institutions with cultivated grounds comprising less than one percent of the institution’s total area. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
12 46 0 58
Percentage of Total 20.7 79.3 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 9 are public and 3 are private. 22 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 18 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 associate’s, 7 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 18 percent of eligible associate’s, 29 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 21 percent of eligible master’s institutions. The institutions that claimed this credit are located throughout the United States and Canada; they were not grouped in one region. The sizes of maintained grounds for all reporting institutions ranged from 6 to 1,955 acres. 152 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 9 18 3 2 2 38
Percentage of Responses 10.5 23.7 47.4 7.9 5.3 5.3 100 Number of Responses
24 14 3 0 41
Percentage of Responses 58.5 34.1 7.3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several campuses recommended pointing to integrated pest management as a “first step to organic management” or “a more realistic goal.” • “For this credit, we would recommend that on‐campus farms be included.” • “Typical athletic field maintenance is a more intense form of maintenance and we recommend creating a separate category for athletic field maintenance.” • “Specify whether Athletic Grounds are included as part of the grounds.” • Several institutions recommended that “this credit could be adjusted to give recognition for organic campus practices in a graduated fashion.” • “Iʹm not sure what is meant by ’cultivated’ grounds ‐ does it mean ‘landscaped’ or ’productive’ or something else? This should be clarified.” • “This credit needs to be judged differently based on which part of the country the university or college is located in. Here in the south, it is much harder to grow crops organically.” Several institutions commented on the use of USDA Organic Standards • “One size does not necessarily fit all. Using an organic food standard for maintenance of non‐food grounds seems problematic from the beginning. Although there are some obvious benefits (such as the elimination of known toxins from runoff), there are some obvious drawbacks as well. I would prefer a credit that emphasizes natural and native plant selection and use, one that minimizes the use of turfgrass or non‐native energy or maintenance‐intensive plantings, and spot‐treatment of weeds or pests, rather than a one‐size fits all credit.” • “This credit needs a little more clarity regarding the definition of an organic campus and the standards to meet that definition. For example, the USDAʹs prohibition of potassium chloride fertilizer says it is prohibited ’unless derived from a mined source and applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil,’ but it not clear how to determine the source and the proper method for application.” • “Use of the term ‘organic’ is controlled by the USDA, and it is not legal to use without their permission.” 153 •
Several institutions commented that “The pesticides and fertilizers that are allowable under the U.S. Department of Agricultureʹs standards for organic crop production are perhaps not the most applicable to University Grounds maintenance.” One institution added, “The PLCAA (Professional Landscape Contractors Association of America) is currently developing sustainable guidelines for landscape maintenance. In the future, these guidelines may be more applicable to University Grounds maintenance operations.” 154 OP Credit 13: Non­potable Water Usage for Irrigation Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution meets a specified percentage of its irrigation water needs with non‐potable water. 1 pt: Institution meets 50 percent of its irrigation water needs with non‐potable water. 2 pts: Institution meets 100 percent of its irrigation water needs with non‐potable water. This credit does not apply to institutions with cultivated grounds comprising less than one percent of the institution’s total area. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
5 9 47 0 61
Percentage of Total 8.2 14.8 77.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 9 are public and 5 are private. 21 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 28 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 4 baccalaureate, 7 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 44 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 29 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 20 percent of eligible master’s institutions. In addition to the institutions that claimed points for this credit, several others reported using some non‐
potable water. The cited sources of non‐potable water used for irrigation include: • Reclaimed water (6 institutions) • Harvested rainwater (4 institutions) • Well water (6 institutions) • Irrigation water diverted from a river, under the terms of historic water rights. • Lake water • “Raw Water Ditch Rights” • “Combination of reclaimed groundwater, air conditioning condensate, swimming pool water, and cooling water from hundreds of different pieces of research equipment throughout the campus.” • “Two ponds were constructed on the golf course that capture urban/rural watershed runoff and supply 50‐70% of the irrigation needs of the golf course. Remaining water is drawn from wells and not from potable city water supplies.” • “Untreated, raw water” 155 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 5 12 10 4 2 36
Percentage of Responses 8.3 13.9 33.3 27.8 11.1 5.6 100 Number of Responses
21 16 3 0 40
Percentage of Responses 52.5 40.0 7.5 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Irrigation is not the only possible use for reclaimed water or non‐potable water. The focus should be equally on conservation and all types of re‐use.” • Several institutions said “We would like to see this point somehow reflect overall irrigation water use, not just non‐potable water use. Reducing demand for irrigation water can have just as much of an impact as switching to non‐potable water ‐ more, in fact, from an energy perspective, since water not used for irrigation is water not pumped at all.” • “Combine criteria for potable and non‐potable water as this information is not usually separated.” • A couple institutions suggested that STARS “Break percentage segments into smaller increments by either increasing total number of points or subdividing points (e.g., a school with 75% recycled water irrigation would earn 1.5 points).” • “100% may be an unattainable goal. Setting the criteria for 90‐95% is more realistic.” • An institution that reported in kilogallons recommended “changing the unit of measurement.” • “I would recommend changing the metric to gallons or cubic feet.” • “Count acres irrigated rather than acre feet. [Institution] does not always have detailed meter records of raw water use, but consistently uses the same methods for the same space.” • “In my opinion well water should not count for this credit. There are much better ways to irrigate campus grounds.” • “It should be important to include on site well water since it only requires electrical power once and does not need to be chemically treated and filtered.” • “Some institutions donʹt irrigate at all ‐ should be a category for folks who donʹt irrigate.” • “I believe this is a crucial credit to have when evaluating campuses and their use of irrigation. I think there could be more questions asked such as... What type of irrigation control system do you use? because you could have a lot of ditch rights but yet still use flood irrigation to irrigate with. This of course is a very bad method. Or they could use stand alone controllers like the ones in residential landscape and this will not account for rapid changes to weather during an irrigation cycle and also without the use of a weather station there is not a clear way to know what is going on at the exact location. Another one would be to ask about the delivery method of the water since there can be a lot 156 of energy used to deliver the water if they may be using out dated fixed speed motors and controls instead of taking advantage of Variable Frequency Drive technology. Just a couple ideas to help get a better feel if a place is truly committed to being efficient.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “[Institution] uses so little water for irrigation compared with other water uses on campus that we have not invested substantially in this sustainability measure. Though this does technically apply to us, the percentage of irrigation water consumption vs. other areas of water consumption should have some bearing on this credit.” 157 Grounds Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
“Please provide examples (or links to examples) of these credits. Ex. Integrated Pest Management, rainwater management plan, pervious paving, etc. Some STARS liaisons might not know of or understand some of these credits, though their university might do them. Also, since STARS is a learning opportunity for campuses, guidance sections would be helpful in all Tier Two credits as well.” “Many of these questions need to be answered with percentages rather than yes or no. I think very few places would landscape solely with natives or use only pervious pavements for example.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses integrated pest management. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
30 16 1 47
Percentage of Total 63.8 34.0 2.1 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. One institution that did not claim the credit wrote, “Internal programs within Grounds Maintenance follow many IPM principles, but [institution] does not have a comprehensive plan for Integrated Pest Management” The approach to IPM varied across institutions that claimed this credit, as illustrated by the following sample of comments. • “The use of insecticides is limited only to spot treatment of problem areas. It is not used as a broadband for preventative maintenance.” • “Grounds keepers use some aspects of integrated pest management.” • “Plant pest and disease resistant species. Monitor for insects and mechanical removal when possible. Prune and remove diseased plant materials. Use safer chemicals such as dormant oils over other insecticides.” • “Pesticides are used very infrequently (almost never). Our lawns receive no pesticide treatments. Organic gardening methods are used whenever possible.” • “The Integrated Pest Management Policy was revised to include reductions of high risk pesticide and fertilizer usage.” • Institution practices integrated pest management for all pest management needs. • “No pesticides are used until there is an economic impact from a pest population i.e., the loss of a plant or tree. Cosmetic damages to a plant are accepted if there will not be long term effects.” • “We donʹt formally do IPM, but we basically do. We donʹt do preventative spraying with the exception of treating for fire ants. For the most part we spray only when pests reach damage levels that are not acceptable.” 158 •
•
“All full‐time permanent employees have been certified by [a training program], which includes Integrated Pest Management.” “[Institution] uses IPM four to six times per year through the use of a contractor who comes to our campus and sprays as needed with environmentally friendly pest products.” 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution landscapes with native plant species. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
39 6 1 46
Percentage of Total 84.8 13.0 2.2 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The approach to landscaping with native plant species varied across institutions, as the following sample comments illustrate. • “Of all trees and shrubs planted in the past 5 years, 90 percent were natives. Currently eradicating exotic and invasive species.” • “[Institution] has a native prairie; all landscaping purchases attempt to incorporate native species.” • “[Institution] uses only locally grown plants” • “Some areas of campus are left in their natural state. Other areas are planted with native, low‐water or xeriscape plant species.” • “The entire campus is not landscaped with native plant species, however they are given preference and the campus has an arboretum and has just seeded a new 70‐acre native coneflower prairie.” • “All plantings on campus are native plant species.” Feedback •
“The University horticulturalist selects plants that are suitable to the local soil and climate conditions, which have evolved so that native species could actually require higher maintenance, not less. His strategy therefore is a combination of using native plants wherever necessary, splitting existing plants on campus instead of purchasing new ones, and preserving biodiversity (acquisition of flora that would flourish in campus climate/soil conditions; could be rare or exotic, non‐invasive species).” 159 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution protects, restores, and/or creates habitat on campus. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
37 7 2 46
Percentage of Total 80.4 15.2 4.3 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. There were significant differences in the type of habitat cited by institutions that claimed this credit. Some of the variation can be attributed to differences between urban and rural locations. Sample responses follow. • “New plantings contain plants which are aesthetically pleasing while also providing shelter and food source for small animals and birds throughout the year.” • “We are an urban campus, so the density of our grounds makes habitat creation a challenge. However, we do use birdhouses in the trees, plant with native plants, have a community garden, are creating a permaculture garden and are working to increase the vegetative cover. The canopy of elm trees [on campus] also provides habitat for birds.” • “Approximately half of the main campus acreage is maintained as forest.” • “The institutionʹs efforts to protect a creek that is a natural waterway through the campus qualify us for this credit.” • “We do not allow public hunting or dead wood removal from our forested properties. Wetland mitigation has occurred up to 3 acres for the half acre we filled in. Natural grass areas are left un‐
mowed along with a 4 foot un‐mowed buffer around all forested lands and ravines.” 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution inventories and maps all campus trees and other landscape assets. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
29 16 0 45
Percentage of Total 64.4 35.6 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The scope and audience of the landscape inventories cited for this credit varied across institutions. Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit follow. • “The University produces a written walking tour of the trees on the campus. We also have identification labels on most trees.” • “Landscapers keep maps of all campus plants.” 160 •
•
•
•
•
“Trees are mapped and labeled through college engineering. Folders are kept listing each tree, monitoring health and pruning of each tree.” “A graduate student used AutoCAD to record the number and size of trees on campus for the Sustainability Coordinator in 2006.“ “Institution has identified and inventoried heritage oaks and other significant landscape assets.” “[A campus group] has mapped the entire campus using GPS and GIS technology. Rather than map individual trees in the extensive 1000 acre forest preserve, the [group] has mapped the habitat types and the plant associations found within the forest preserve. “[Institution] is in the process of identifying, mapping and creating an on‐line data base and searchable map of all campus plant resources due to the unique array of species planted on campus. 2000 of the 4000 individual specimens on campus have been mapped and are being catalogued.” Sample comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “There are thousands of trees on the campus, really.” • “Individual areas of campus have been surveyed, but a comprehensive map of all campus trees and landscape assets is not available.” • “We map all campus trees, but no other landscape aspects.” 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution uses pervious paving. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
18 27 1 46
Percentage of Total 39.1 58.7 2.2 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The institution that selected that the credit did not apply wrote, “During the evaluation phase of the Collegeʹs stormwater management project, pervious pavement was planned in the initial design. However, during soil analysis, it was determined the clay in the soil content did not provide adequate porosity to support the process intended by pervious pavement.” There was some confusion regarding how widespread usage of pervious pavement needed to be in order to earn this credit. Some institutions did not claim the credit because not all pavement was pervious while others claimed the credit because they were testing it in one site. 161 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has developed and implemented a rainwater management plan to filter and mitigate rainwater runoff. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
28 18 1 47
Percentage of Total 59.6 38.3 2.1 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Some institutions provided detailed descriptions of their plans while others mentioned that they employ one or two strategies to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff (e.g., a bioswale at one building). 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution follows best management practices for snow and ice removal. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
26 6 15 47
Percentage of Total 55.3 12.8 31.9 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. While most comments focused on the products used, some responses addressed maintaining ADA compliance with snow and ice removal. Sample program descriptions from institutions that claimed this credit follow. • “Sidewalks are treated with magnesium chloride; sodium chloride is used on streets. “ • “Corn starch‐based deicers are used on our streets and major pathways. Salt or sand are used only sparingly and in such a way as to minimize stormwater runoff and damage to surrounding plants.” • “Grounds Maintenance is employing an environmentally sound approach to snow removal on the two‐
lane campus roads. By taking advantage of the road contour and applying salt only to a narrow strip along the centerline, they can avoid salting the entire road surface. This pattern quickly gives vehicles clear pavement under at least two wheels while using less salt. As traffic passes, salt is moved off the centerline, begins melting, and dissolves into liquid brine which drains toward both road shoulders for added coverage across the entire road. This method provides for vehicle safety yet reduces operating costs, supplies, and materials and redirects labor time to concentrate on clearing parking lots and sidewalks.ʺ • “Mostly sand is used for traction, but an ice‐melt compound is used when there is a lot of ice.” • “We have several glycol loop snow melt systems installed on campus.” 162 •
“Sidewalks are treated with liquid de‐icer materials (Ice Ban) and roads, intersections, and stop signs are treated with a 50/50 mix of road salt and washed road sand. Drive lanes in housing parking lots are cleared during the daytime using front end loaders.” The institutions that selected the credit “Does not apply” are located in areas where it does not snow. Feedback “This credit needs a definition for Best Management Practices ‐ I could not identify whether we could get this credit.” 8. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution is recognized by the Arbor Day Foundation’s Tree Campus USA program. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
3 37 5 45
Percentage of Total 6.7 82.2 11.1 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate and doctorate‐granting institutions. Those earning the credit indicated they were part of the first group to be certified by the program. The Tree Campus USA program is not available in Canada and therefore this credit did not apply to Canadian institutions. 9. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution grass‐cycles grass trimmings. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
32 11 1 44
Percentage of Total 72.7 25.0 2.3 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Sample comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “University alternates between leaving grass on the fields and picking it up in order to retain nutrients on site and reduce waste.” • “Approximately half of our mowers are total recycling units where 100 percent of the grass mowed is recycled. The grass cut with bagged mowers is processed to a green waste bin to be composted off‐
site.” 163 •
•
•
“Grass trimmings are not bagged during mowing, but left to lie on the ground.” “[Institution] recycles grass trimmings throughout campus and makes trimmings available for staff gardens.” “We use mulching blades on mowers and cycling back into turf (self‐fertilizing). In addition we do use an electric mower with special blades. Feedback •
“Please include the word ‘mulching’.” 10. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution composts yard waste. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
34 10 1 45
Percentage of Total 75.6 22.2 2.2 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Institutions that compost on site, compost through their municipal programs, and/or mulch yard waste claimed this credit. 164 Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit OP 14: Waste Minimization 1 0.10 0.25 0.39 0.47 0.34 OP 15: Waste Diversion 3 0.92 0.56 1.29 1.33 1.12 OP 16: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion* 1 0.20 0.14 0.32 0.40 0.30 OP 17: Electronic Waste Recycling Program 1 0.36 0.88 0.58 0.64 0.60 OP 18: Hazardous Waste Minimization 1 0.55 0.88 0.80 0.79 0.76 2.5 1.03 1.47 1.79 1.63 1.56 5.26 4.68 Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization
Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization Tier Two Credits* Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 9.5 3.16 4.18 5.17 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. OP Credit 14: Waste Minimization Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution demonstrates a three‐year downward trend in waste generated per capita. Total waste generation is measured by weight, and includes all materials recycled, composted, and disposed of as trash except construction, demolition, hazardous, universal and non‐regulated chemical waste. Volume measurements may be converted to weight using the conversion factors provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the College and University Recycling Council that are used for the RecycleMania competition. Results Credit Results Earned Credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
19 37 0 56
Percentage of Total 33.9 66.1 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 14 are public and 5 are private. 35 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 31 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 9 doctorate‐granting, and 7 master’s institutions. This represents 10 percent of eligible associate’s, 25 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 39 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 47 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 165 Eighteen of the 37 institutions that did not claim this credit (49 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Likewise, several other institutions submitted data for only one or two years or submitted incomplete information. Responses indicated that there was some confusion about how to calculate trends. In addition, a couple institutions reported waste diversion rates instead of overall waste generation. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 6 15 7 11 2 44
Percentage of Responses 6.8 13.6 34.1 15.9 25.0 4.5 100 Comments about data availability • “Note on my selection of ‘moderately easy’ to obtain data: while moderately easy, the data Iʹm using is a small ‘sample’ (during 10 week RecycleMania) that is used to estimate a full academic year. The summer session would not fit the pattern and it was decided to simply exclude. We are relying significantly on estimates here.” Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
27 12 1 0 40
Percentage of Responses 67.5 30.0 2.5 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several institutions suggested that STARS should “award points by ratio of waste to building space so that a growing campus is not penalized. Going further, it would be nice if some credit possible for maintaining or reducing the ratio as well as reducing the total poundage.” • “Clarify this credit by specifying it as Source Reduction and ask for a report on campus policies and practices that promote source reduction to more clearly differentiate from Waste Diversion efforts through composting, recycling, reuse or repurposing.” • “Suggest using IPEDS to either replace or use as alternate population formula. Obtaining information about part‐time enrollment or employments was difficult.” • “Suggest differentiating between disposed waste and total materials generation.” 166 •
•
•
For the pilot project, institutions were asked to report recycling, compost, and garbage separately. Two institutions wrote that these figures are not tracked separately and it would be easier to report a total weight. Several institutions suggested reporting units should be tons instead of pounds. One institution recommended reporting waste by volume instead of weight. Several institutions commented on the use of a three‐year trend for this credit. • “Although we have made leaps and bounds in our progress toward meeting this goal in the last two years, the credit calls for a three‐year trend. Although that may work best for campuses already leading in this category, it seems a ridiculously long waiting period to be able to claim credit for what is being done now. Short‐term credit must be given for having a program currently, and perhaps having reduced per‐capita generation in the last year.” • “Clarify how to calculate trends” • “Three years may not be a large enough window of time to properly judge if amount of waste has been reduced.” • “Suggest maintaining the credit as a trend analysis. Three year horizon is appropriate. This is suggested to account for changes between years and results of new programs.” 167 OP Credit 15: Waste Diversion Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution achieves a specified landfill diversion rate. 1 pt: Institution achieves a 15 percent diversion rate. 2 pts: Institution achieves a 35 percent diversion rate. 3 pts: Institution achieves a 50 percent diversion rate. Landfill diversion rate is calculated by dividing the weight of materials diverted from the landfill or incinerator by the sum of the weight of materials sent to a landfill or incinerator and the weight of the materials diverted from the landfill or incinerator. For this credit, calculations do not include construction, demolition, hazardous, universal, and non‐regulated chemical wastes. Volume measurements may be converted to weight using the conversion factors provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the College and University Recycling Council that are used for the RecycleMania competition. ‘Materials diverted from the landfill or incinerator’ includes any solid waste that was destined for disposal in a municipal waste landfill or incinerator but was diverted by recycling, composting, donating, re‐selling, or reusing. ‘Materials sent to landfill or incinerator’ includes any solid waste that was sent for disposal in a municipal waste landfill or incinerator. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
11 9 16 24 0 60
Percentage of Total 18.3 15.0 26.7 40.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 25 are public and 11 are private. 58 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 65 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 6 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 16 doctorate‐granting, and 10 master’s institutions. This represents 50 percent of eligible associate’s, 44 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 67 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 67 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Thirteen of the 24 institutions that did not claim this credit (54 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available 168 Diversion Rates by Institution Type* Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s Total Average Diversion Rate
29.1 19.8 37.9 43.4 34.6 Standard Deviation
11.3 14.5 24.2 21.0 21.1 Number of Responses
7 7 16 10 40 *Includes all institutions that submitted values for total waste generation and total waste diverted. Note that some institutions claimed points but did not provide these data. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 4 19 9 7 5 47
Percentage of Responses 6.4 8.5 40.4 19.1 14.9 10.6 100 Number of Responses
37 6 1 0 44
Percentage of Responses 84.1 13.6 2..3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Break diversion rate segments into smaller increments by either increasing total number of points or subdividing points (e.g., a school with 25% waste diversion would earn 1.5 points).” • “Suggest a trend measurement for this credit in order to measure programs’ progress over time and account for anomalous years.” • “Suggest raising the point value of this credit to reflect waste diversion’s importance relative to other campus sustainability initiatives.” • “This credit should also track how much compostable products are purchased each year, such as soy and corn based utensils. A large amount of waste from college and university dining services comes from plastic utensils, cups, plates and Styrofoam products. This credit should not only look at how much products are recycled or reused, but how the purchase of non‐recyclable materials are being reduced.” • “Ask for the percentage of total waste diverted. Criteria is in percentage, thus, it would be easy to include the percentage of total waste diverted for more complete data, and may be easier to find than individual item diversion (in pounds).” 169 Reasons the credit should be changed • “Until we can weigh materials separately we will not be able to report this.” • “A good credit, but the equation is more complicated in cases such as ours where the incinerator is a power generation station for the community.” 170 OP Credit 16: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution diverts at least 75 percent of its non‐hazardous construction and demolition waste from the landfill and/or incinerator. Soil and organic debris from excavating or clearing the site do not count for this credit. The diversion rate is calculated by dividing the weight or volume of materials recycled, donated, or otherwise recovered by the sum of the weight or volume of materials landfilled or incinerated and the weight of materials recycled, donated, or otherwise recovered. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
17 40 1 58
Percentage of Total 29.3 69.0 1.7 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 12 are public and 5 are private. 29 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 31 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 8 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 20 percent of eligible associate’s, 14 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 32 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 40 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 26 of the 40 institutions that did not claim this credit (65 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. In addition, several institutions that did submit data indicated that it was only for the LEED certified projects on campus, not all construction and demolition waste. Likewise, one institution limited data to the previous two major construction projects. The average diversion rate reported was 87.4 percent (14 institutions provided data; 10.6 was the standard deviation). There was some confusion about the applicability for this credit. One institution wrote, “We require that contractors deal with all construction and demolition waste as part of the contract bid. We have no control over what the individual contractors choose to do with that waste.” Another institution wrote, “We do not have any in‐house construction projects. All of a major construction is outsourced.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 4 10 5 10 7 38
171 Percentage of Responses 5.3 10.5 26.3 13.2 26.3 18.4 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
29 6 2 1 38
Percentage of Responses 76.3 15.8 5.3 2.6 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The question seems very vague. More definition of terms and quantities.” • “Define the types of projects that this credit is applicable to.” • “Credit shouldn’t include minor renovations as this waste is included in the same place as the rest of the materials.” • “A starting point would be nice. Perhaps a 1.5 point spread, with 0.5 pts. for diverting 25%, 1 for 50%, and 1.5 for 75% diversion. We have to start somewhere.” • A couple institutions suggested that the reporting form request the diversion rate instead of the quantity of materials recycled/salvaged and the quantity of materials landfilled and/or incinerated. Reasons the credit should be changed • “[Institution] has not constructed any major renovations since the 1990s.” • “Too much paperwork to calculate this” • One institution indicated that it was difficult to separate construction and demolition waste from the rest of the institution’s waste. Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “Since STARS is already collecting information on the LEED projects, and each LEED project must respond to MR credit 2.1/2.2. Granted some project may not attempt these credits or be denied. But why isolate this credit among all of them? It is also relatively impossible to obtain the quantity of construction/demolition material recycled or land‐filled on non‐LEED renovations or small shop projects.” 172 OP Credit 17: Electronic Waste Recycling Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a comprehensive electronic waste (e‐waste) recycling and/or reuse program. The program includes collecting all institution‐owned electronic products and, at least annually, electronic materials from students. All of the e‐waste collected is refurbished, donated, or recycled domestically. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
34 23 0 57
Percentage of Total 59.6 40.4 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 22 are public and 12 are private. 54 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 75 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 4 associate’s, 7 baccalaureate, 14 doctorate‐granting, and 9 master’s institutions. This represents 36 percent of eligible associate’s, 88 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 58 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 64 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 6 institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated that data were not available. Several institutions reported that although they had an electronics recycling program, they either did not collect materials from students and/or they could not guarantee that materials were recycled domestically. How materials were disposed varied across institutions. • Several institutions mentioned re‐use programs in which electronic materials are redistributed within the institution. • One institution cited participation in a manufacturer’s take‐back program. • Several institutions reported that they participate in their cities’ or counties’ e‐waste recycling program. • A couple institutions said they auctioned or sold materials and some others cited the fees they paid in order to have materials recycled. • A couple institutions cited donation programs in which used electronics were donated to non‐profit organizations, low‐income families, and/or local K‐12 schools. About half of the institutions that submitted were able to report either the weight, volume, or count of disposed materials. The other half indicated that such information was not available. In addition to collecting institution‐owned and student‐owned materials, a couple institutions reported that they host electronics recycling events for their surrounding communities. 173 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
5 11 14 6 3 2 41
Percentage of Responses 12.2 26.8 34.1 14.6 7.3 4.9 100 Number of Responses
31 11 0 0 42
Percentage of Responses 73.8 26.2 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Clarify the requirements in a bulleted list. It is unclear what requirements there are for providing recycling services for students. It is also difficult to determine if 100% of electronic waste is recovered from departments as there are multiple IT divisions and individuals may dispose of equipment on their own.” • “Specify timeframe for institutional‐owned products.” • Six institutions wrote, “Do not require program to include recycling of student items or separate the criteria into two credits.” One institution added that recycling student items is especially impractical for commuter schools. • “Give more points to Universities that send their e‐waste to responsible recyclers, ideally those registered/certified as such.” • “Possibly, one point could be received if there is a program in place and two points could be received if information can be provided that determines that the e‐waste is refurbished, donated or recycled domestically.” • “Allow reporting of e‐waste in multiple units to account for differences in reporting data. Large items are typically tracked by item, while small items are tracked by weight.” • “As a state institution, we canʹt expend state resources to recycle studentʹs personal computers. However, we do plan on instituting outreach to students in 2009 in support of the new state law that requires manufacturers to offer free computer and television recycling. It would be helpful to receive credit for streamlining recycling of students’ personal e‐waste even if we are not the generator or recycler of the waste.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The one portion [of the credit] that must be changed or legitimized is ‘recycled domestically.’ I would imagine most materials are given, sold, or delivered with payment to domestic recyclers, however, a huge portion of these materials are processed overseas. There are very few exceptions, if one considers the ultimate destination of all materials included.” • “Having many destinations for items makes tracking this difficult.” 174 OP Credit 18: Hazardous Waste Minimization Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution tracks and safely disposes of all hazardous, universal, and non‐regulated chemical waste. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
44 14 0 58
Percentage of Total 75.9 24.1 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 31 are public and 13 are private. 74 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 81 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 6 associate’s, 7 baccalaureate, 20 doctorate‐granting, and 11 master’s institutions. This represents 55 percent of eligible associate’s, 88 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 80 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 79 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Three institutions that did not claim this credit indicated that their environmental health and safety department was not willing to disclose this information. Four additional institutions reported that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 4 17 10 4 0 41
Percentage of Responses 14.6 9.8 41.5 24.4. 9.8 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
28 7 2 0 37
Percentage of Responses 75.7 18.9 5.4 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 175 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed ”For Radioactive Waste – [Institution] and likely other institutions do not track radioactive waste disposed of by weight, but rather by level of radioactivity and the type of radioactive material. We suggest for radioactive waste, STARS asks 4 questions: 1. How much material is currently in stock, and how much does the institutions license allow at any one time. 2. What radioactive isotopes are in stock and allowed under the license. 3. What level of radioactive material was disposed of in the last 5 years using the following methods, a. down a ‘Hot’ drain b. Waste aging then disposed of as garbage, c. Into long term storage, d. Shipped off site. 4. How many violations of the license have occurred and what type of violations. This type of information would allow AASHE to better gauge the danger posed by use of radioactive material at institutions, and tracking disposal by amount level of radioactivity, rather than weight is a more accurate way to track this.” • “Provide a checklist for programs maintained by the institution (Right to Know, Mercury Reduction, etc.) and award points for program development and implementation.” • “Categories of hazardous waste listed and tracked should be substantially more flexible.” • “Expand time frame to 3 years to accommodate year‐to‐year fluctuations.” • “Provide drop down windows to indicate time period (Calendar, Rolling Year, etc.) from which the data are being reported.” • “Is ‘safely tracking and disposing of all hazardous waste’ really MINIMIZATION? To me, this credit measures something valuable, but has nothing to do with minimizing waste ‐ just with minimizing the ‘hazard.’ I would rename this what it is, or incorporate standards or reduction thresholds for points.” • “Separate chemical waste reporting into regulated chemical waste, spent fluorescent lights, used batteries, mercury thermostats and other misc. universal waste and allow multiple reporting units for each. We manage regulated chemical waste separately from universal waste (fluorescent lamps and batteries). Regulated chemical waste and batteries are tracked by weight, while spent lamps are track by number of lamps.” • “Try to better align reporting categories with description above. For example, Universal Wastes were described, but did not have a category of their own for reporting. Does chemical waste include non‐
RCRA TSCA wastes such as PCB‐containing ballasts?” • “We also track volume information for Biohazard waste, not weight in pounds. In order to make this easier on reporting bodies, some optional units would be helpful. For most carriers, kg are used vs. lbs.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Environmental Health folks werenʹt happy about this info being shared on the web.” • “Do not want to disclose regulatory visit numbers when info will be made public.” • “The chemical waste volumes are only required to be submitted to the Federal Government biennially. If the data was for a year that was not reported to the Federal Government, then it would be extremely time consuming and expensive to generate the chemical waste volumes.” 176 Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
•
“These credits should be kept as it is because they are reflective of some of the innovative policies that institutions are trying to implement.” “Tier two credits capture food based waste, but this should be integrated as full credits in the dining services category. [Institution’s] food service excels in the food waste management with a variety of sustainability based programs including innovative vessel systems, binning systems, biodegradable products and energy conservation strategies.” One institution expressed concern that the Tier Two credits in this section are the purview of diverse departments on campus (e.g., EH&S handles chemical waste while dining services manages food composting and the library limits free printing), which made reporting and gathering responses difficult. Suggestions for Tier Two Credits to add to this section • “Special events like stadium events, concerts, picnics, etc” • “Collection of Automotive wastes (tires, batteries, scrap metals, fluids)” • “Internal recycling of materials (i.e. art from scrap, trash fashion, paper‐making, etc)” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a surplus department or office supplies exchange that facilitates reuse of materials. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
39 8 0 47
Percentage of Total 83.0 17.0 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. While institutions of all sizes did earn the credit, it was less popular at small institutions. The programs cited varied in how formal they were. One institution that did not claim this credit wrote, “For used equipment such as monitors, printers, miscellaneous office furniture the campus uses all faculty and staff emails to offer these items to the rest of the campus. Usually items are gone within 15 minutes of the emails.” 177 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a pre‐consumer food waste composting program. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
20 27 0 47
Percentage of Total 42.6 57.4 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The scope of the composting programs cited varied. Institutions claimed this credit for operating a composting pilot program, having composting available in one dining hall, and having a broad composting program that covers the institution. Likewise, the destination for the compost varied. For example, institutions documented that they • Take food waste to an on‐campus farm or otherwise compost on‐site • Take food waste to a nearby farm • Participate in the municipal food waste compost collection program of the city in which they are located 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a post‐consumer food waste composting program. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
17 30 0 47
Percentage of Total 36.2 63.8 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. There was a high level of overlap between the programs cited in Tier Two Credit 2 and this credit. 178 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Campus dining operations offer discounts for reusable mugs. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
33 13 1 47
Percentage of Total 70.2 27.7 2.1 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The extent and scope of programs at institutions that claimed this credit varied. In some instances one or a couple on‐campus vendors offer discounts. In other instances the discounts are consistent across all vendors operating on campus. One institution that did not claim this credit raised concerns about reusable mugs being unsanitary. 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Campus dining operations use bulk condiment dispensers and decreased packaging for to‐go food service purchases. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
29 12 4 45
Percentage of Total 64.4 26.7 8.9 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Many of the institutions that claimed points for this credit cited areas where bulk condiments were used as well as individually packaged condiments. 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution limits free printing in computer labs and libraries. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
35 12 0 47
179 Percentage of Total 74.5 25.5 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Approaches to limiting printing varied across institutions. Some set a quota (typically about 500 sheets) of pages/person/semester and then charged for sheets printed beyond the quota. Others charged per sheet. Prices ranged from $0.07 to $0.13 per sheet. Some mentioned a discount for duplexing ($0.06 per single‐sided sheet vs. $0.08 for double‐sided sheet and $0.07 and $0.11 were the prices cited). The prices, quotas, and practices sometimes varied among computer labs or departments at the same institution. 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has replaced paper materials, such as course catalogs, registration, and directories, with online alternatives. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
42 5 0 47
Percentage of Total 89.4 10.6 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. While every institution mentioned that most materials were available online, it was not clear whether materials had to be available online exclusively in order to qualify for this credit. Many institutions cited documents that were no longer printed or were printed in smaller quantities as a result of moving materials online. 8. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has implemented a chemical inventory system. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
34 12 0 46
Percentage of Total 73.9 26.1 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The scope and sophistication of chemical inventory systems cited varied across institutions. In some instances, institutions mentioned a detailed online program and in other cases institutions mentioned using an Access database or Excel spreadsheet. 180 One institution that did not claim points for this credit indicated that purchasing was decentralized which made it difficult to track chemicals centrally. Other institutions claimed points for inventories that were conducted at the department level. 9. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a program to reuse chemicals. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
18 25 0 43
Percentage of Total 41.9 58.1 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Two institutions that did not claim this credit wrote that it wouldn’t be practical because they are low‐volume generators. Three other institutions wrote that storing chemicals for re‐use would trigger additional regulatory requirements. The scope and sophistication of chemical reuse programs cited varied across institutions. At some institutions the reuse program was supported with staff time and involved an online interface through which researchers and academic departments could request materials and see what was available. Other programs cited included a list‐serv on which available chemicals were announced and a program to collect solvents from the art department. Feedback ”Research demands that chemicals be pure. A chemical reuse program would not be in the best interest for researchers at [Institution]. Once a bottle of chemicals is open, the second hand user does not know if the contents are pure or contaminated. Research can be lost due to contaminated chemicals.” 181 10. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a program to reduce move‐in and move‐out waste for residence halls. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
27 10 9 46
Percentage of Total 58.7 21.7 19.6 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The programs cited for this credit were fairly similar across institutions. Most involved student outreach and education as well as a partnership with a charity to re‐use the collected materials. 182 Purchasing Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Purchasing
OP 19: ENERGY STAR Purchasing 1 0.36 0.38 0.48 0.21 0.38 OP 20: EPEAT Purchasing 1 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.19 OP 21: Purchasing Green Cleaning Products 1 0.11 0.25 0.32 0.57 0.34 OP 22: Environmentally Preferable Paper Purchasing 1 0.30 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.27 OP 23: Environmentally Preferable Furniture Purchasing 1 0.22 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.13 OP 24: Vendor Code of Conduct 1 0.22 0.00 0.41 0.07 0.22 Purchasing Tier Two Credits 0.75 0.21 0.28 0.45 0.35 0.36 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 6.75 1.42 1.04 2.39 1.84 1.89 Total Possible Points Associate’s Average Points per Credit General Feedback and Notes Many respondents said that purchasing was a decentralized operation at their institutions and commented on the difficulty or impossibility of tracking purchasing information. Suggested credits to add to this section • “We strongly recommend that a credit on HUB be added as this is an important component to socially responsible purchasing.” • “Suggestion to possibly have a vendor questionnaire to ascertain sustainability compliance.” OP Credit 19: ENERGY STAR Purchasing Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution purchases ENERGY STAR qualified products, or the equivalent, for all product categories covered by the program. This credit applies to all purchases that the institution has a central mechanism for tracking. For this credit, non‐certified products that are equally or more efficient than similar ENERGY STAR qualified products are considered "equivalent." Results Credit Results Earned Credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 35 0 56
183 Percentage of Total 37.5 62.5 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 16 are public and 5 are private. 40 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 31 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 4 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 11 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 36 percent of eligible associate’s, 38 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 48 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 21 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 18 of the 35 institutions that did not claim this credit (51 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 3 5 9 9 10 37
Percentage of Responses 2.7 8.1 13.5 24.3 24.3 27.0 100 Number of Responses
24 11 4 0 39
Percentage of Responses 61.5 28.2 10.3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several institutions suggested that the credit should not be all or nothing. In other words, AASHE add additional points to this credit or break the credit into fractional points to recognize institutions that purchase some, but not exclusively, ENERGY STAR products. • “This credit could be reworked to be more accessible to universities that lack centralized purchasing or tracking.” • Two institutions suggested that STARS “give credit for including ENERGY STAR in RFP language and having policies in place, even if central tracking of percentage of expenditures and total expenditure amounts are not feasible” • “It may be more useful to measure how actively you solicit participation in the Energy Star program your campus adopts.ʺ • “Look at additional energy efficiency ratings like Energy Smart.” • “Identify time‐frame for data submittal on credit forms.” • “Restrict this credit to products categories containing qualifying products.” 184 Reasons the credit should be changed • Several institutions commented on how difficult it was to track the information required for this credit. The ENERGY STAR descriptor is not typically included in invoices and it’s hard to determine if already purchased products qualify. The reporting form requested the dollar amount of expenditures on ENERGY STAR products and the total number of ENERGY STAR products purchased. • “Dollar amounts for products vary from year to year and are not necessarily a valid indicator (e.g., decreasing prices as technology improves, increasing prices due to inflation or higher gas prices that add to processing/transport costs). Products (e.g., copiers) are leased or rented (not purchased) but are specified ENERGY STAR.” • “’Number of E S products purchased’ is a strange question ‐ it assumes equivalence of various types of products (1 computer, 1 printer, 1 water cooler, etc.) and adds no new useful information over expenditures.” 185 OP Credit 20: EPEAT Purchasing Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution purchases Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) Silver registered products, or the equivalent, for all products covered by the standard. This credit applies to all purchases that the institution has a central mechanism for tracking. For this credit, non‐registered products that meet EPEAT Silver criteria are considered "equivalent." Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
10 43 0 53
Percentage of Total 18.9 81.1 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 7 are public and 3 are private. 18 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 20 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 6 doctorate‐granting and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 27 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting and 27 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 15 of the 43 institutions that did not claim this credit (35 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Several institutions that did not claim the credit reported purchasing some, but not exclusively, EPEAT Silver or higher electronic products. Institutions were asked to report the “percentage of expenditures on electronic products that are eligible for EPEAT that are registered EPEAT Silver or higher.” Among the institutions that claimed this credit, 1 institution reported 100 percent. The other responses ranged from 45 to 95 percent. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 5 5 5 3 6 26
186 Percentage of Responses 7.7 19.2 19.2 19.2 11.5 23.1 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
23 4 4 0 31
Percentage of Responses 74.2 12.9 12.9 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Colleges and universities should be given credit for supporting the ENERGY STAR Program.” • “Allow credit for other non‐EPEAT certified products.” • “Perhaps include all EPEAT levels.” • “Credit should apply only to campuses where purchases may be centrally tracked.” • “Clarify what materials are covered by credit (research electronics not available EPEAT).” • “The credit seems to imply that all purchases of electronic equipment and appliances meet the EPEAT certification. This should be clarified and perhaps points awarded if a significant percentage of the purchases meet the certification as well as progress toward achieving that 100 percent goal.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “EPEAT is uncommon in Canada.” • “EPEAT doesn’t address servers or other equipment that uses more energy than PCs.” 187 OP Credit 21: Purchasing Green Cleaning Products Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution purchases environmentally preferable cleaning products, as outlined below. This credit applies to all purchases that the institution has a central mechanism for tracking. All cleaning products are certified by, or meet the criteria required for certification, for the appropriate product categories as outlined below. For cleaning products o Green Seal GS‐37 Environmental Standard for General‐Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used for Industrial and Institutional Purposes o Environmental Choice CCD‐110 for Cleaning and De‐greasing Compounds o Environmental Choice CCD‐146 for Hard Surface Cleaners o Environmental Choice CCD‐148 for Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners For disinfectants, metal polish, floor finishes, strippers, and other products not covered by the standards outlined above o Green Seal GS‐40 Environmental Standard for Industrial and Institutional Floor‐Care o Environmental Choice CCD‐112 for Biological Digestion Additives for Cleaning and Odor Control o Environmental Choice CCD‐113 for Drain and/or Grease Trap Additives o Environmental Choice CCD‐115 for Odor Control Additives o Environmental Choice CCD‐147 for Floor Care Products Institutions with contracted cleaning and/or painting services qualify for this credit if the use of only the products specified above is specified in their contracts and their contractors use only these products. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
18 35 0 53
Percentage of Total 34.0 66.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 14 are public and 4 are private. 37 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 27 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 7 doctorate‐granting, and 8 master’s institutions. This represents 11 percent of eligible associate’s, 25 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 32 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 57 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 5 of the 35 institutions that did not claim this credit (14 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Among the institutions that claimed this credit, the reported percentage of cleaning products that met the specified standards ranged from 60 to 100 percent. 188 Several of the institutions that did not claim this credit reported that they purchased some, but not all, green cleaning products. The reported percentage of cleaning products that were green ranged from 0 to 76.5 percent for institutions that did not claim the credit. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 4 10 12 6 1 37
Percentage of Responses 10.8 10.8 27.0 32.4 16.2 2.7 100 Number of Responses
27 11 1 0 39
Percentage of Responses 69.2 28.2 2.6 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Many institutions suggested that “points should be given based upon percentages of items purchased.” One institution asked, “Would 95 percent of all purchases meeting the standard count for 1 pt or 0?” • ʺSuggest offering more than simply chemical based products as green purchasing goal. [Institution] has several non‐chemical sustainable cleaning initiatives including: 100 percent biodegradable garbage bags, special entrance‐way matting to reduce dirt and necessary cleaning in all buildings; 100 percent recyclable paper towel and bathroom tissues, etc.” • “Evaluate the ManageMen (OS1) protocol for inclusion in the criteria alongside Green Seal and Environmental Choice standards.“ • “Allow for other green cleaning products provided data on their eco‐friendly characteristics can be documented.” • “Allow for use of traditional cleaners due to location issues such as hard water, the use of salt for snow removal, lime, etc. Also, the age of a building makes a difference in product choices.” Reasons the credit should be changed • A couple institutions said that it was difficult to determine Green Seal equivalence. 189 OP Credit 22: Environmentally Preferable Paper Purchasing Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution purchases or has a policy to purchase only environmentally preferable copy paper and bathroom paper products. For this credit, environmentally preferable paper meets one of the following criteria. o 100 percent post‐consumer recycled content and processed chlorine free or o Certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and total chlorine free or o 100 percent tree‐free material or o Any combination of the above such that 100 percent of the paper is comprised of environmentally preferable materials. This credit applies to all purchases that the institution has a central mechanism for tracking. The environmentally preferable paper purchasing requirement may be a stand‐alone policy or part of a broader policy. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 41 0 56
Percentage of Total 26.8 73.2 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 12 are public and 3 are private. 30 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 19 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 3 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 7 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 30 percent of eligible associate’s, 13 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 29 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 29 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 8 of the 41 institutions that did not claim this credit (20 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 6 9 9 5 1 33
190 Percentage of Responses 9.1 18.2 27.3 27.3 15.2 3.0 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
22 12 5 0 39
Percentage of Responses 56.4 30.8 12.8 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Two institutions suggested that copy paper be treated separately from bathroom paper. • “Develop separate credit for other environmentally preferable office products.” • Many institutions suggested that this credit incorporate a gradient to recognize progress toward purchasing 100 percent environmentally preferable paper. • Several institutions wrote that the credit should recognize 30 and 50 percent post‐consumer recycled content. • “Credit could be based on upward trend in recycled content purchases.” • “Recognize policy as starting point.” • “It would be good if we could have a credit for Universities that have printing presses as they are a large consumer of paper and ink and they have a big impact.” • Several institutions said the credit should recognize paper reduction strategies. • Institutions were asked to report dollar expenditures on paper. One institution suggested that the reporting units should the number of sheets purchased. • “Identify time‐frame for data submittals on credit forms.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “It is hard to quantify what exactly is environmentally preferable ‐‐and perhaps beyond what I can write here. What I do know is that reusing paper from a qualified local reclamation program (perhaps one that is connected to the place where we send our recycled goods) is a lot better than importing bamboo paper from China. Furthermore, there should be preference given to materials locally resourced, rather than just FSC certified (lest we think importing paper from other countries is a good idea).” 191 OP Credit 23: Environmentally Preferable Furniture Purchasing Pilot Version Credit Criteria At least 50 percent of institution’s furniture expenditures go towards products that meet at least one of the following criteria. o Product contains at least 10 percent post‐consumer or 20 percent post‐industrial material, or o Product contains at least 70 percent of salvaged materials, or o Product contains at least 50 percent rapidly renewable material, or o Product contains at least 50 percent Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)‐certified wood, or o Product contains at least 50 percent material harvested/extracted and processed within 500 miles of the institution This credit applies to purchases that the institution has a central mechanism for tracking. A single piece of furniture can be counted more than once if it meets multiple criteria. For example, a $100 chair made with 50 percent FSC‐certified wood that was harvested and manufactured within 500 miles of the institution would count for $200 in environmentally preferable furniture purchases. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
7 46 0 53
Percentage of Total 13.2 86.8 ‐‐ 100 All of the institutions claiming points for this credit are public. 18 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 associate’s, 4 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. This represents 22 percent of eligible associate’s, 17 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 8 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 30 of the 46 institutions that did not claim this credit (65 percent) indicated that the credit was too difficult to measure or data were not available. Many of the institutions that did not claim this credit reported that they purchased some environmentally preferable furniture, but that the exact quantity was difficult to track. 192 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
0 1 6 8 8 8 31
Percentage of Responses ‐‐ 3.2 19.4 25.8 25.8 25.8 100 Number of Responses
21 5 6 1 33
Percentage of Responses 63.6 15.2 18.2 3.0 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “There should be a section included to describe efforts to increase sustainable furniture purchasing policies and practices at the institution, even if expenditures cannot be tracked.” • The criteria “should be more generic and less specific.” • “Why 50%? This seems to be an overstatement. Would give graduated scoring (i.e., 10, 25, 50%)” • “The most sustainable furniture is that which you do not purchase at all. Begin with giving credit for furniture redistribution/surplus property.” • “While sourcing of material is paramount, HEALTH is probably a MUCH greater problem when it comes to furniture. Use of no‐formaldehyde‐added products in some percentage is of much greater interest to me than using FSC certified Brazilian Cherry. While rapidly renewable material sounds good, I feel strongly that less credit should be given to importing bamboo than sustainably harvested ponderosa pine from the Black Hills (which is not FSC certified, as they have yet to certify lumber harvested from public land).” • “Although it is desirable to meet several categories, does giving double credit really incent people to improve their furniture purchasing behavior, or does it simply favor those who live near manufacturing centers?” • “May want to include categories for Indoor Air Quality Certification and recyclable content (cradle‐to‐
cradle products).” • “Give credit for having a policy.” • “Do not double count for meeting multiple criteria.” • “Perhaps change it to be more similar to report dollar amounts for each category.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Extensive consultation with the furniture industry is both recommended and advised. No approved listing of products exists for any of the above criteria.” • “When contacting our furniture suppliers they felt these percentages were not realistic based on material science and physical properties. They felt recycled content ignored other important criteria. 193 •
•
•
For some materials, recycled content actually degrades the physical and structural properties of that material such that the product would be of inferior quality.” “Due to the complex multi material nature of furniture, it was not possible to determine from which mines the steelmakers extract their ore, where the petroleum to make plastics comes from, or where the aluminum makers get their raw materials.” Several institutions commented that data were difficult or impossible to find. One institution wrote, “These items are hard to track, especially if a piece of furniture can be accounted more than once if it meets multiple criteria. “ “The type of material from which an item is made does not necessarily reflect how it is made (i.e., under appropriate working conditions).” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “It is too difficult to gather information for this credit because environmentally preferable furniture purchasing isnʹt centrally tracked. In addition, many of the purchasing decisions are made by individual academic departments, and as a result there is not much uniformity in this area.” Other comments • “We have a policy to reupholster rather than buy new furniture when possible. Almost no dormitory or classroom furniture item is younger than a decade old. Recent purchases of outdoor furniture and fixtures have given preference to those made from recycled plastics. “ • “LEED EB states that ‘At least 40% of institutions furniture […]’, how did AASHE decide on 50%?” • “Participation in this effort would have been easier if known about in October 2007 when furniture was ordered.” • “The university acquires most of its furniture from companies that are going out of business or relocating from the area ‐‐ one can argue that this furniture is 100% recycled.” 194 OP Credit 24: Vendor Code of Conduct Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has and acts on a vendor code of conduct that sets expectations about the social and environmental responsibility of vendors with whom the institution does business. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
12 42 0 54
Percentage of Total 22.2 77.8 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 10 are public and 2 are private. 26 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 13 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 2 associate’s, 9 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. This represents 22 percent of eligible associate’s, 41 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 7 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions were asked to provide “A brief description of instances when vendor code of conduct has changed purchasing behavior within the last five years.” Many institutions indicated that this information was difficult to ascertain. One institution described an investigation into Coke’s labor practices in Colombia that resulted from the vendor code of conduct. Others described adding new information‐gathering steps to the purchasing process to ensure that vendors meet higher standards. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 9 7 5 3 1 29
Percentage of Responses 13.8 31.0 24.1 17.2 10.3 3.4 100 Number of Responses
22 4 1 1 28
Percentage of Responses 78.6 14.3 3.6 3.6 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 195 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Include points for those institutions who are trying to establish policies that could be considered equivalent or similar to a Vendor Code of Conduct.” • “This credit could include the submittal of any programs that support the social and environmental responsibility of the vendors with whom the institution does their business. Programs that are either in place on campus or programs that are in operation by the vendor or their suppliers should be included.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Date on which it was adopted is hard to find and slightly irrelevant.” • Two institutions commented that “It is difficult to demonstrate how vendor code has changed purchasing behavior in the last five years.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “As we are following the state mandates, it is not possible to adopt this policy. This credit should be eliminated because some institutions cannot adopt the policy independently due to the conflicts that may occur with state mandates.” 196 Purchasing Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
•
•
“These credits each need further level of detail with regard to intent and what qualifies as a yes or no.” “Maintain the credit as it is. It is reflective of the policies that are being implemented in these institutions and the strides institutions are taking to achieve sustainable goals.” “I believe that AASHE should specify at least some criteria for what constitutes ’adopting’ a sustainable purchasing policy, and also for what a ‘policy’ should at minimum contain (e.g., one of the following: recycled paper min. standard; vehicle fuel efficiency standard; non‐toxic paints and cleaning products standard; etc.). There is too much potential for assembling a series of non‐mandatory, non‐
comprehensive recommendations and referring to these as an adopted policy, here.” “Guideline seems acceptable and easily reported on.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has adopted a sustainable purchasing policy. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
14 32 0 46
Percentage of Total 30.4 69.6 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not claim this credit wrote that they are in the process of developing a purchasing policy. One institution said it has policies covering certain products, but it is not comprehensive enough to constitute an overall sustainable purchasing policy. The institutions that claimed this credit cited a variety of policies and practices, including: • A policy that pertains to one product (e.g., recycled‐content paper) • A purchasing “directive” • Policies specific to certain departments (e.g., Dining Services), but not an overall policy for the entire institution • Broader purchasing policies that include sustainability considerations (i.e., not a stand‐alone sustainable purchasing policy) • A policy that was developed by the university system office • Inclusion of sustainability criteria in RFPs 197 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution seeks to do business with historically underutilized businesses, minority‐owned businesses, and women‐
owned businesses. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
32 14 0 46
Percentage of Total 69.6 30.4 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. 75 percent of public institutions earned this credit, compared to 61.5 percent of private institutions. The approaches of the institutions that claimed this credit varied. Some participated in a state program to support these businesses. Other institutions allowed selecting proposals from these businesses as long as their prices were with 5 percent of the lowest bid. Several institutions cited outreach efforts (vendor fairs, trainings on doing business with the institution, etc.) that helped these businesses sell products and services to the institution. 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution gives preference to local products and businesses. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
20 26 0 46
Percentage of Total 43.5 56.5 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. It was not clear to participants whether having a formal policy about giving preference to local businesses was required to earn this credit. Some institutions that informally give preference to local vendors did not claim the credit because they do not have a formal policy; other institutions with the same practices claimed the credit. Likewise, it was not clear how widespread the practice of giving preference to local products had to be in order to count for this credit. For example, one institution claimed this credit for purchasing local food, but did not have other local purchasing initiatives. 198 Transportation Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit OP 25: Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2 0.00 0.13 0.32 0.08 0.18 OP 26: Commute Modal Split 3 0.09 0.75 1.17 0.64 0.77 OP 27: Commuter Options 1 0.09 0.00 0.58 0.40 0.36 OP 28: Air Travel 1 0.10 0.38 0.46 0.38 0.36 Transportation Tier Two Credits* 1 0.04 0.16 0.44 0.06 0.23 1.56 1.90 Transportation
Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8 0.32 1.42 2.97 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. OP Credit 25: Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s motorized fleet emits specified levels of greenhouse gases per passenger mile traveled. 1 pt: 0.5 or fewer pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per passenger mile traveled. 2 pts: Zero pounds of CO2e per passenger mile traveled (carbon neutral fleet). For this credit, the institution’s motorized fleet includes all institution‐owned and operated vehicles. Fleet emissions should be calculated in a way that is consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standards. Only emissions generated directly by vehicle operation are counted in this credit, and carbon offsets may not be applied to this credit. To calculate passenger miles traveled by each vehicle, multiply the number of miles each vehicle traveled by that vehicle’s average occupancy. Fleet passenger miles are calculated by taking the sum of the passenger miles traveled by each vehicle in the fleet. If regular vehicle occupancy data are unavailable, data may be gathered by a survey conducted during regular school session, as long as the survey incorporates seasonal, weekend, and out‐of‐session variability. This credit does not apply to institutions without a motorized fleet. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 10 46 0 56
199 Percentage of Total ‐‐ 17.9 82.1 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 8 are public and 2 are private. 20 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 13 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 baccalaureate, 8 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. This represents 13 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 32 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 8 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Of the 46 institutions that did not claim this credit, 27 (59 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Fifteen institutions reported their average fleet greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile traveled. The average was 0.68 pounds of CO2 equivalent per passenger mile (the standard deviation was 0.46). Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
0 2 6 10 6 13 37
Percentage of Responses ‐‐ 5.4 16.2 27.0 16.2 35.1 100 Number of Responses
21 14 6 1 42
Percentage of Responses 50.0 33.3 14.3 2.4 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “I think it is more important to measure overall emissions from each collegeʹs vehicle fleet rather than some measure of efficiency. Perhaps a better way to measure this would be to determine the average emissions per vehicle since most institutions know the emissions from their college fleet AND the number of vehicles they have. Then, as the fleet becomes more efficient the average emissions per vehicle decreases.” • “Separate this credit into two‐ one focused on fuel purchased (with credit for renewable fuels), and one for fleet efficiency. Blending the two into one credit may detract from focusing on each indicator.” • “It might be easier to base the credit on a total university fleet reduction compared to a 2005‐2006 baseline. OR change/add a credit to allow universities that are trying to improve their fleet to receive credit.” • “It may be easier to normalize this based on the FTE staff for fleet vehicles and ridership for bus systems.” 200 •
“Emissions from our Fleet were already calculated for fuel consumption as a part of the Greenhouse Gas emissions calculation (Credit 11), however this creditʹs calculation is based on passenger miles traveled. Keeping the methodology consistent when calculating the same source emission(s) in different credits may want to be considered.” • A couple institutions suggested that STARS, “Clarify instructions or include formulas and examples” and “Provide assistance in creating/conducting the recommended survey/data collection method to obtain this data.” • “Modify to allow for per vehicle GHG emissions as we do not calculate occupancy data but do calculate data for each vehicle.” • “Finding the greenhouse gases from the amount of gas purchased should be sufficient. Even if we are carpooling currently, there will be the same amount of emissions. It seems best to want a reduction in CO2 emissions. If carpooling increases year to year we will see the reduction through the amount of gas purchased and CO2 emissions.” • “This credit should remain consistent with the inventory reporting specified by the Presidentʹs Climate Commitment.” • “This credit, as written, favors campuses who operate shuttle fleets over those who contract those services. Contracted transportation services should be included in this credit.” • “Perhaps there should be a couple of additional point categories added instead of only for zero and 0.5 pounds of CO2e/ passenger mile.” • “Consider points for things like increased fleet fuel efficiency, use of alternative fuels, and increase in shuttle bus ridership.” • “University Transportation Services (UTS) would recommend maintaining this credit however it needs to be done from a specific start date so we can report on a year’s data to be useful.” • “Another suggestion would be to track the number of alternate fuel vehicles, such as hybrids, flex fuel, electric, CNG, hydrogen, etc., that the university has as a percentage of their fleet and identify the passenger miles associated with those vehicles.” Reasons the credit should be changed • Several institutions raised concerns that data on passenger miles traveled are difficult or impossible to find. • “[Institution] uses cleaner fuels, fuel efficient vehicles, and multi‐passenger vehicles, which are all criteria for this credit. Based on the formula presented for use, however, we cannot get recognized for our efforts. For example, the calculation for fleet GHG does not take into consideration the reduction in personal vehicle trips and miles avoided through the University’s extensive commuter shuttle program.” • “This oneʹs a ‘reach’ goal for most institutions, I would presume. 0.5 lbs CO2e per passenger mile requires something like 40 passenger mpg, on average. Given the number of work/service vehicles operated by anyone with a significant campus, this seems unlikely to be achieved. (Even a typical city bus gets less than 40 pmpg ‐‐ and thatʹs operating at the efficient end of most fleets.) Iʹd say any IHE with a non‐vertical campus who gets to carbon‐free fleet ought to get at least 5 points, maybe 10. That would leave room for fewer points, at lower (but still above average) levels of fleet efficiency.” • ”We do not have odometers on electric carts and human powered vehicles.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This is too difficult to measure.” 201 OP Credit 26: Commute Modal Split Pilot Version Credit Criteria A specified percentage of the institution's faculty, staff, and students get to and from campus by a means other than single occupancy vehicle for the majority of their daily trips. Alternatives to single‐occupancy vehicle transportation include walking, bicycling, van or carpooling, taking public transportation, or riding a campus shuttle. 1 pt: More than 25 percent of institution’s population primarily uses preferable modes of transportation. 2 pts: More than 50 percent of institution’s population primarily uses preferable modes of transportation. 3 pts: More than 95 percent of institution’s population primarily uses preferable modes of transportation. Commute modal split data may be gathered anytime within the last five years. If data for faculty, staff, and students were collected separately, they may be aggregated based on full‐time equivalent populations. Results Credit Results Earned 3 pts Earned 2 pts Earned 1 pt Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 14 13 29 0 57
Percentage of Total 1.8 24.6 22.8 50.9 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 20 are public and 8 are private. 49 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 50 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 15 doctorate‐granting, and 9 master’s institutions. This represents 9 percent of eligible associate’s, 38 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 63 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 64 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Of the 29 institutions that did not claim this credit, 17 (59 percent) indicated that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Thirty institutions provided data on commute modal split. Of this group, the percentage of the population that used preferable modes of transportation (i.e., did not drive alone to campus) ranged from 7 to 97 percent. The average was 49 percent with a standard deviation of 26. 202 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 3 8 11 6 8 37
Percentage of Responses 2.7 8.1 21.6 29.7 16.2 21.6 100 Number of Responses
22 12 3 1 38
Percentage of Responses 57.9 31.6 7.9 2.6 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Achieving a 95% rate of community members using preferable modes of transportation is completely unrealistic. Any institution that achieves this rate deserves more than 3 points.” • “At this time most institutions do not accurately maintain records about percentages of community members that ride buses or walk, which might create many institutions to fudge this information and requires many assumptions. It might be easier to lump driving alone and separate this from all other forms of alternative transportation. Since, the credit does not distinguish points from walking or taking the bus it does not seem necessary to distinguish between them. Otherwise, make credit points distinguishable in the same way, but again this information is probably difficult for many institutions to produce.” • “Conducting a survey of this nature would be a major and costly undertaking, and we suggest that there be alternate methods for earning this credit that would not be so difficult for large universities to achieve.” • “I would like to see more gradual increments for this credit. We get 2 points given our current mode split data and we will likely never get to 3 points because the criterion is too high for us to reach attainment. Perhaps have fractions of points as a campus strives toward the stated goal (e.g., 2.25 points). Incremental improvement currently yields no additional points with the current system design.” • “Suggest add field for percentage of population riding public transit as primary mode of transportation.” • A couple institutions recommended that STARS “suggest ways to track this information” and provide greater guidance on standardizing methodology. • Several institutions recommended that “There should be a way to submit separate data for students, faculty and staff, since all campusʹ policies may differ for these groups, since programmatic responses to change these groupsʹ behavior DEFINITELY differ, and since data may only be available for one and not all groups.” 203 •
“In major cities with reliable public transportation, this credit will be much easier to attain. In smaller municipalities and rural areas it will be far more difficult. Therefore the percentages should be in relation to where the campus is located.” • “There should be some sort of calculation or standardized way of collecting this information.” • “Students who live on‐campus should not be considered zero‐emissions students because they still drive off‐campus.” • “This credit should be divided into Faculty/Staff/On campus students/Off campus students. • “To improve the measure, I would suggest the report permit gathering of this information in two six month blocks, so the differences between warm and cool seasons in northern climates can be considered.” • “Use ‘transit’ instead of ‘campus shuttle’ – most of our transit is not on the campus shuttle.” • “Consider including ‘work at home/telework/telecommute’ as another mode choice.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “95% seems to be a very high standard. I wonder if any major campus can obtain 95%.” • “Since percentages on the types of transportation change so often it is neither accurate nor documentable what percentage use which form of transportation.” • “Determining how commuter students arrive to campus is difficult data to collect.” • “[Commuting habits] is an area that is difficult for an institution to change as it depends on city planning and transit service to be adequate.ʺ • “Surveys are difficult because there is a low response rate when there is no reward. Are other schools getting accurate results?” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “It was extremely difficult to collect the data required to answer this credit.” Other comments • “This question, as worded, includes on‐campus students and others living in university‐owned housing adjacent to campus. That may or may not have been the original intent (after all, if campus housing eliminates the need to commute, isnʹt that the least‐emitting option available?).” 204 OP Credit 27: Commuter Options Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution meets the criteria for being recognized by the Best Workplaces for Commuters program. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 37 0 58
Percentage of Total 36.2 63.8 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 16 are public and 5 are private. 39 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 29 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 14 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 20 percent of eligible associate’s, 58 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 40 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Twelve of the institutions that submitted for this credit (21 percent) had achieved the Best Workplaces for Commuters designation. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 14 9 2 3 1 35
Percentage of Responses 17.1 40.0 25.7 5.7 8.6 2.9 100 Number of Responses
32 6 2 0 40
Percentage of Responses 80.0 15.0 5.0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “This credit should be changed to reflect the different circumstances between suburban and downtown campuses.” 205 •
•
•
•
•
“The credit as it is written only allows for points if the university provides payment of a transit subsidy to employees. Therefore our universityʹs practice of giving ’universal access’ to all id holders does not qualify. This should be adjusted.” “The only improvement would be a link to the program website and the application form.” Two institutions suggested that STARS “Provide additional guidance regarding how many of these criteria must be met and/or if the institution must be formally recognized by the Best Workplaces for Commuters program.” “For this credit, I believe it is very important to understand a campus’ location, parking situation, and level of transit service. The credit should ask questions that help AASHE define a campuses level of transit service and how the campus is working with transit agencies to increase or improve service. The credit should also take into account data collection and whether or not the College is collecting and using commuter data to tailor its programs.” “Allow for different standards/options based on the location of a campus. “ Reasons the credit should be changed • “The circumstances of commuters are significantly different on a downtown campus versus a suburban campus. Over 85% of [institution’s] community members choose non‐SOV commuting options. It is unlikely that a $30 incentive per employee would reduce the number of SOV trips further. Also, while providing incentives to employees who leave their cars at home may be beneficial, it does not solve the holes in the [city’s] public transit system. Unfortunately, some suburban areas of [the city] are vastly under‐serviced by public transit and as such, no amount of financial incentive (within reason) will persuade residents of those areas to take public transit.” • “The greatest role an alternative transportation program can have at a university is informing community members and reinforcing positive commuting habits so that they continue even after graduation.” • “Although the Best Workplaces for Commuters program seems to be a good measure of commute options, using only one designation is constricting for the employer.” 206 OP Credit 28: Air Travel Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution calculates greenhouse gas emissions from institution‐funded air travel Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
20 35 0 55
Percentage of Total 36.4 63.6 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 12 are public and 8 are private. 31 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 50 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 11 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 10 percent of eligible associate’s, 38 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 46 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 38 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions reported diverse methodologies for tracking emissions from air travel. Sample methodologies are included below. • “Travel information was gathered through People Soft, which captures point to point travel regardless of the mode. The [institution’s] GHG Inventory software is set up to configure flight distances based on the latitude and longitude of IATA codes. Calculations are based on the Atmosfair methodology (https://www.atmosfair.de/). This calculator converts airport locations to latitude and longitude coordinates; classifies trips as short haul, medium haul, or long haul; assumes an average number of stops between locations over long distances; and estimates emissions/passenger typical of the aircraft used, altitude flown, and occupancy rates for flights between given points.” • “We used a combination of four methods. o 1) In a survey of commuter travel we asked if participants travelled by air on university business. If so, how many trips were < 4 hours and how many were > 4 hours. Those responses were extrapolated to the total campus population by sector (faculty, staff, students). Assuming, a <4 hours flight was equivalent to 1000 miles and a >4 hour flight was equivalent to 5000 miles. We calculated miles travelled. o 2) We ran an accounting report for air travel expenses using appropriate accounting codes. We used a yield per passenger mile of 13 cents and a tax rate of 20%. However, this number is believed to be low because people do not accurately report that data. This number was about 1/3 the amount calculated through method 1. o 3) For study abroad we received a list of numbers of students and destinations. We calculated the air travel distance to those locations multiplied by 2 and totalled. o 4) For athletic travel, we received a list of expenses for air travel (separate coding from method 2 above) and calculated miles travelled as in method 2.” • “[Institution] tracks airline travel consistently by dollars spent. Fiscal year money spent on airline travel is divided by $.13 per mile to obtain an estimate of miles traveled.” 207 •
•
•
•
“We selected a random sample of employee expense reports and determined a ratio of air travel miles per dollar of expense report amounts and applied the ratio to total expense report reimbursement to arrive at total air travel miles per year.” “We acquired expenditure records for air travel billed to the college (either through purchase cards or other means). About 20% of the individual records had a meaningful ‘destination’ designation. We calculated emissions based on those destinations (using straight line distance, which is definitely an underestimate. We all know that very few flights go direct, but we could not determine a good conversion factor between straight line distance and actual distance flown), and then multiplied by 5. We believe that this gave a decent ball‐park idea of air travel emissions, though certainly an underestimate. Weʹre hoping to get access to paper records of expenditures to determine how close our estimate was. Hopefully in the future the destination will be entered for all expenditure records, though that doesnʹt solve the problem of determining the actual distance flow based on straight line distance.” “Air travel mileage is tracked by the universityʹs travel agency.” “[Institution] reserves 60% of air travel through contracted travel agencies. Agencies are able to provide origin/destination reports for all booked travel. The data from these reports is extrapolated to include 100% of air travel.” Institutions were asked to describe steps they have taken to reduce air travel emissions. Most institutions reported that they have not taken any reduction steps yet or that they were focused on improving emissions inventorying methodologies. Some institutions cited additional programs, a sample of which follows. • Reducing travel budgets and imposing travel restrictions • Implementing a local offsets program • Improving facilities for teleconferencing and videoconferencing • “[Institution] entered into agreements with airlines to provide a rebate to [institution] which is used to offset carbon emissions” • “[Institution] has recently modified our standard travel policy to include the following statement: ‘In an effort to keep travel expenditures low as well as reduce air emissions, before committing to a trip, use best judgment as to whether or not the trip is necessary. Evaluate if the trip could be replaced by teleconferencing, webinars or video conferencing instead. If applicable, evaluate if it is necessary for multiple staff and faculty members to attend or just one member instead.’ʺ • “We have begun the process of determining available facilities and needs in order to realize a reduction in travel for research collaboration needs.” • “Our recruiting department has been much more conscientious about grouping regional trips to reduce the number of unnecessary flights.” 208 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 6 7 4 8 11 38
Percentage of Responses 5.3 15.8 18.4 10.5 21.1 28.9 100 Number of Responses
27 8 2 1 38
Percentage of Responses 71.1 21.1 5.3 2.6 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Several institutions commented, “Simply because the university tracks GHG emissions from airline travel, it does not mean that anything is being done to reduce emissions specifically with regard to air travel. Perhaps there should be a second credit available here to reward programs, or campaigns to lessen air travel.” One institution added, “Make the criteria a checklist of ways an institution is working to reduce airline travel emissions (offsets, videoconferencing, incentives, tracking emissions, etc.) and make a point scale based upon implementing a certain number of reduction methods.” • Several institutions requested clearer guidance on methodology. For example, one institution suggested, ʺInclude a standard accepted calculator for emissions from air travel. There can be a lot of variation in emissions reported based on the methodology used.” • Two institutions suggested that STARS “unify reporting across ACUPCC & STARS. This credit calculates air travel in pounds of CO2e while the ACUPCC Carbon Inventory calculates it in metric tons of CO2e.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “While this is a significant issue to be addressed, we are not ready to approach it yet. About all we can report at this time is that faculty and staff are encouraged to communicate electronically, or travel regionally rather than go greater distances to conduct business.” • “This question does not take into account fiscal issues (and cycles) an institution may face. Currently, Travel budgets have been reduced significantly at the College due to economic pressures. When those economic pressures ease (hopefully), travel will increase back to ’normal’ levels. This may cause greenhouse gas emissions from air travel to rise, simply due to a normal level of travel volume being resumed, regardless of reduction methods that might be instituted.” • Several associate’s colleges mentioned that air travel was not a significant portion of the institutions’ operations and comprised an insignificant portion of total emissions. 209 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “Campus air travel is decentralized and highly difficult to control.” 210 Transportation Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
“These were good credits and relatively easy to find information for – institution either had it or did not.” • “For suburban and rural institutions in districts without access to mass transportation, and especially for two‐year institutions serving part‐time students, almost all of whom drive cars, these credits seem quite out of reach.” • “There are developing initiatives to put some of these programs in place but they have not been implemented yet. Had the criteria been different (allowed for plans in progress) partial credit may have been achievable.” Suggestions for Tier Two Credits to add to this section • “Provide levels of planning and development to include phases toward the implementation of non‐
motorized transportation (e.g., green trail development, installation of bike racks, etc.)” • “[Institution] also uses a few electric and hybrid vehicles for campus vehicles but there was no credit for these.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a bicycle‐sharing program. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
14 33 0 47
Percentage of Total 29.8 70.2 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The bicycle‐sharing programs cited for this credit varied in how they operate. Sample responses follow. • “The bike shop collects broken and abandoned bikes over the years. Students may repair these bikes and keep them for free.” • “Bike Share utilizes a registration system where participants register online to sign out bikes. Users reserve bicycles for a specific time from one of two locations, and then swipe their [institution ID] card in an onsite electronic key dispenser to obtain a key to unlock the assigned bike. They swipe again upon returning it to either of the two locations.” • “[Two] programs offer free check‐out of bicycles for 48 hours. Adopt‐a‐bike program offers semesterly bike check‐outs.” • “Anyone can drop by and check out a bike for a day or two to ride around the campus and nearby town. Bikes can be checked out online, or in person.” One institution that did not claim the credit wrote that it “does not have a bicycle‐sharing program, but does have a bicycle‐lock‐sharing program.” 211 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has incentives for employees to live close to campus. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
6 40 0 46
Percentage of Total 13.0 87.0 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate and doctorate‐granting institutions. Most institutions that claimed this credit described transit incentives. One institution wrote, “The Strategic Plan includes strategies that enable more College employees to live closer to campus. A few small houses now used by students might gradually be converted to housing for new faculty and staff.” One institution that did not claim the credit wrote that it “is currently in collaboration with a private developer for a Mixed Use project that will include an opportunity and possible incentive for employees to live close to campus. The development will be completed in the next three to five years.” 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has adopted policies prohibiting idling. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 34 1 44
Percentage of Total 20.5 77.3 2.3 100 The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Four of the nine institutions that claimed this credit cited the policies of the cities in which they are located. In addition, the institution that selected that the credit does not apply wrote that it defaults to the policy of the state in which it is located. Some of the cited policies restrict idling to a certain amount of time (3 minutes) for all vehicles. Others policies prohibit idling in certain areas on campus and other policies prohibit idling for the institution’s fleet. One institution commented, “We are basically a commuter campus, located in the suburbs. A no idling policy would be impossible to establish or enforce.” 212 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has developed a bicycle plan. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 30 0 45
Percentage of Total 33.3 66.7 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Several institutions said that the campus master plan includes a section about bicycling. A couple institutions reported that their bicycle plans were completed as student projects. Feedback Three institutions requested additional clarification on what a “bicycle plan” is and should include. 213 Administration & Finance AF Prerequisite 1: Sustainability Committee Pilot Version Prerequisite Criteria Institution has a standing sustainability committee or other entity that meets at least once per semester or term. The committee advises on and/or implements policies and programs related to sustainability. The committee has multi‐
stakeholder representation, which means its membership includes students, faculty, and staff, and may include other interested parties. The committee may be an informal group or officially appointed by the institution’s administration. Results Prerequisite Results Met prerequisite Did not meet prerequisite Total submissions received Number of Institutions
53 4 57
Percentage of Total 93.0 7.0 100 Two doctorate‐granting, one baccalaureate, and one master’s institution did not earn this credit. In addition, four associate’s colleges indicated that although they had sustainability committees, the committees do not include students. Several institutions indicated that they have multiple committees, each focused on a sustainability issue (e.g., food systems, climate change). Similarly, a couple institutions noted that they had several committees with each focused on an area or aspect of the institution (e.g., curriculum, operations, research). Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
25 16 7 0 0 0 48
Percentage of Responses 52.1 33.3 14.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
42 3 1 0 46
Percentage of Responses 91.3 6.5 2.2 ‐‐ 100 Prerequisite Recommendation Maintain prerequisite as it is Change prerequisite slightly Change prerequisite significantly Eliminate prerequisite Total 214 Suggestions for how the prerequisite should be changed • “Recommend moving this from a prerequisite to a regular credit. Committee structures may not be part of the institutional culture across all colleges, or may have been replaced by an office of sustainability that gathers input from the campus community through other means.” • “Since this is a prerequisite to even participate in the STARS program, a clearer definition of what does and does not qualify as a sustainability Committee might be needed. If a school does not qualify for this prerequisite, they may benefit from tips or specific instructions or a link to instructions on how to form such a committee.” • “Ask for accomplishments/progress. Some way to determine that committees are actually being productive.” • “Multiple sections for sustainability committees would be helpful and help institutions clearly outline how each group contributes.” 215 Investment Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit AF 1: Investment Transparency* 1 0.20 0.09 0.24 0.20 0.19 AF 2: Committee on Investor Responsibility* 1 0.00 0.27 0.10 0.14 0.14 AF 3: Screening for Negative Investments* 1 0.00 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.26 AF 4: Positive Sustainability Investments* 4 0.75 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.40 AF 5: Shareholder Engagement* 1 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.5 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 Investment Investment Tier Two Credits* Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8.5 1.02 1.21 1.25 0.81 1.11 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. Institutions participating in the pilot project represented a wide range in endowment size and activities. The size of endowments reported ranged from $550,000 to $5.5 billion. General Feedback and Notes • A number of institutions didn’t receive responses from their investment or business office, and in several instances cited the financial downturn in fall 2008 as a reason the information wasn’t available. • Several institutions noted that STARS should consider, “some recognition for relatively new universities and small endowment funds.” • A couple respondents noted that institutions’ ability to achieve certain credits may be limited, as donors often impose restrictions on how their funds are to be used. • Several participating institutions have policy against disclosing information about their investments, and so were unable to determine or verify if they earned most of the credits in this section. • Several institutions noted that AASHE needs to “Specify the scope of assessment for State‐System institutions which may centralize investment at the system level” and “Clarify how multi‐campus units should count these credits.” 216 Applicability All of the credits in this section included the following statement about applicability: This credit does not apply to schools that do not have an investment pool. For each credit, multiple institutions selected that the credit did not apply. Of those, most indicated that investment decisions were made at the district or university system level, and not by individual campuses. Not all institutions approached being part of a university system with a shared investment pool in this way, however; some institutions claimed points or indicated that they did not earn points based on the investment activities of the system. Other institutions indicated that the credits did not apply because their investment pools were limited to CDs or deposit accounts at local banks. 217 AF Credit 1: Investment Transparency Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes a snapshot of its investment pool and proxy voting records (including abstentions) publicly available on the internet. The snapshot and voting records are updated at least annually. The snapshot includes a listing of all direct investments and a summary of amount held in all other asset classes, including names of all funds held. STARS uses the definition of “investment pool” used by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) in their annual endowment survey: "the predominant asset pool or grouping of assets that is organized primarily to support the institution and reflect its investment policies." This may include funds managed by a foundation associated with the institution. This credit does not apply to schools that do not have an investment pool. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 38 8 55
Percentage of Total 16.4 69.1 14.5 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 7 are public and 2 are private. 23 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 12 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 5 doctorate‐granting, and 2 master’s institutions. This represents 20 percent of eligible associate’s, 9 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 24 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 20 percent of eligible master’s institutions. A couple institutions indicated that they meet some, but not all, of the credit criteria. For example, one respondent wrote, “the university makes a list of endowment holdings and its shareholder voting record available to […] individuals upon request. However, this does not meet the criteria of being available on the internet.” Several respondents stated their institutions’ opposition to or policy against making this information publicly available. Institutions were asked to provide the website URL where investment information was available. Most of the URLs provided by institutions that claimed this point were summaries of endowment performance and did not include the information required by the credit criteria. 218 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 9 7 8 2 3 33
Percentage of Responses 12.1 27.3 21.2 24.2 6.1 9.1 100 Number of Responses
22 4 3 1 30
Percentage of Responses 73.3 13.3 10.0 3.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed The most common suggestion for how the credit should be changed was to offer multiple points for meeting some of the credit’s criteria. For example, one institution wrote, “the university met one criterion for this credit, publishing information on its investment pool, but not the other, publishing proxy voting records. Perhaps there should be two points awarded: one for each criterion.” Another participant suggested that AASHE “make this credit a point system so schools that make records available on upon request get partial credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “A snapshot of investments at any given time may or may not be representative.” • Several institutions said that university foundations “yield proxy voting to outside managers vs. making those decisions internally.” • A couple institutions wrote that “contracts with outside managers specifically prohibit acknowledging our status as an investor. And as you can imagine, some of the best managers have some of the strongest language on this. Bottom line – if we disclose, they kick us out of the investment. So there is little incentive from a performance perspective to do that.” • “Since our endowment is fairly small and managed using a fund of funds approach, it is often difficult to provide more specific information, especially in terms of proxy voting. We have a lesser degree of control over which companies our money will support. It would be nice to see credits that could [allow] more flexibly be geared toward institutions with both large and small endowments. Or, maybe some sort of scale filter could be employed so as not to penalize smaller institutions (financially speaking)?” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[Institution name] has had a sustainability coordinator only since [date within previous year].” 219 AF Credit 2: Committee on Investor Responsibility Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a formally established and active body that makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees, or sub‐committee thereof, on responsible investment opportunities across asset classes, including proxy voting. The body has multi‐stakeholder representation, which means its membership includes faculty, staff, and students and may include alumni, trustees, and other interested parties. This credit does not apply to schools that do not have an investment pool. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
6 38 11 55
Percentage of Total 10.9 69.1 20.0 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 2 are public and 4 are private. 2 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 24 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 3 baccalaureate, 2 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. This represents 27 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 10 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 14 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Two additional respondents said their institutions (both public) were in the process of developing such committees. Several others indicated their institutions were considering it. One institution that claimed the point for this credit noted that students had purview on responsible investing for the student government endowment, but a separate committee that does not include students advises on the institution’s overall endowment. Many institutions that did not earn the point indicated that they had an investment committee, but it either didn’t include students or focused on investment broadly, and not socially responsible investment. Another respondent wrote, “There are student groups involved that ‘keep heat’ on our investment pool but nothing formal.” The largest source of confusion in responding to this credit was the documentation field requesting “A summary of the committee’s activities”. One participant wrote, “Clarification is needed as to whether this refers to a summary of what the committee aims to do in general, or a summary of specific actions taken by the committee in the past.” Another respondent wrote, “Summary of activities was difficult to gather. In our case most information is contained in other documents e.g. minutes and reports of committees that are charged with responsibility for investment […] Perhaps ask for both a ‘committee report’ that contains documentation of activities related to sustainable investment and also the ‘investment portfolio report’.” 220 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 8 8 3 4 2 29
Percentage of Responses 13.8 27.6 27.6 10.3 13.8 6.9 100 Number of Responses
21 2 3 1 27
Percentage of Responses 77.8 7.4 11.1 3.7 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Reasons the credit should be changed • “Having a body that makes recommendations on responsible investment opportunities is missing the issue if the charge is to perform. If an institution mandates that investments will have some level of social responsibility, then CIOʹs will carry that out. But absent that clear direction from the institution, there is little incentive to limit the pool of potential investments to only those that meet some committeeʹs view of the world – especially a committee that may be short on investment horsepower.” • “This credit seems much more applicable to institutions with endowments large enough to enable direct investments into either mutual funds or companies. It makes sense for this credit to not apply to institutions operating with a fund of funds approach.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[Institution name] has had a sustainability coordinator only since [date within previous year].” 221 AF Credit 3: Screening for Negative Investments Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has conducted a negative screening of its entire investment pool within the last three years. This could take the form of prohibiting investment in an industry (e.g., tobacco or weapons manufacturing) or participating in a divestment effort (e.g., companies operating in South Africa during apartheid). The negative screen includes selling all affected direct holdings and writing a letter to all fund managers encouraging them to remove affected holdings as well. This credit does not apply to schools that do not have an investment pool. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
10 29 14 53
Percentage of Total 18.9 54.7 26.4 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 5 are public and 5 are private. 21 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 33 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 3 baccalaureate, 5 doctorate‐granting, and 2 master’s institutions. This represents 33 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 28 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 29 percent of eligible master’s institutions. For those that earned this credit, the most popular divestment target was the Sudanese government and companies doing business with the Sudanese government. In addition, one institution divested from tobacco holdings and companies doing business with Burma, and another applied a broad policy consistent with the institution’s religious affiliation. There was some confusion regarding the criteria for this credit and inconsistency in how it was applied. One institution did not claim points for this credit although it had sent letters to fund managers encouraging divestment from Sudan. This institution wrote, “We do not believe that this goes far enough. Please specify whether taking a stance against investments in one or two specific cases is worth receiving a credit when there are numerous possible investments that are not sustainable.” Another respondent wrote, “It was hard to determine whether or not we qualify for this credit. [Our investments] are overseen by an investment manager who is involved with ‘choosing securities in accordance with our investment policy and the cycles of the market.’ The actively managed segment of our portfolio is constantly being screened for positive performance. So while it seems there is some degree of oversight, it seems like it is not the negative investment screening that this credit is looking for.” Of the 29 institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 9 (31 percent) indicated that data were not available. 222 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 8 8 4 5 2 29
Percentage of Responses 6.9 27.6 27.6 13.8 17.2 6.9 100 Number of Responses
16 8 1 2 27
Percentage of Responses 59.3 29.6 3.7 7.4 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “I would add more weight to this credit, given the difficulty at least we have had with accomplishing this.” • “It might be better to have this credit focus on whether or not the school has some kind of general oversight than specific negative investment screening policy.” • “Give credit to those institutions whose investment committees make recommendations for their foundation boards to consider ‐‐ and whose boards approve them ‐‐ re: sending letters to their fund managers urging them to work with the mutual funds and other investment pools they manage to encourage those funds to put in place negative filters.” • “This credit should be based on a point system to give credit to institutions with an investment manager.” • “AASHE should provide links to institutions or organizations that can provide professional assistance in achieving the screening/investment credits. A school that lacks an investment committee or investment manager which is knowledgeable about sustainability and socially responsible investment might be at a total loss for achieving this credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • Several institutions noted that, “some of the information requested here is too specific and may be too sensitive to publish; in particular, correspondence sent to fund managers encouraging divestment or negative screening.” • “Iʹm not sure why our Sudan divestment should get our institution credit in a sustainability assessment ‐ perhaps the criteria should be more focused on sustainability.” • “Most CIOs are asked to outperform a benchmark with no consideration given to other issues – protecting the environment, safeguarding human rights, etc.” • “The only alternative in a complete divestment strategy might be to eliminate entire pools of investments. As an example, if a mutual fund that we own has a half percent position in an offending company, my only opportunity to eliminate that is to sell the entire fund. I canʹt require a fund manager to sell an individual holding in a pooled account.” 223 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[Institution name] has had a sustainability coordinator only since [date within previous year].” • “Far too vague to be of any real value. Should specificity be added that the screening be conducted for unsustainable investments, it would still be very subjective, but would not allow a screening for unrelated values.” 224 AF Credit 4: Positive Sustainability Investments Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution invests in any of the following: sustainable industries, such as renewable energy or sustainable forestry; businesses with exemplary sustainability performances; a sustainability investment fund, such as a community development financial institution (CDFI) or a renewable energy investment fund; and/or a socially responsible mutual fund with positive screens. A positive screen means that the fund managers select businesses based on positive social and environmental performance. Investment in a socially responsible mutual fund with only negative screens (i.e., excluding egregious offenders or certain industries, such as tobacco or weapons manufacturing) does not count for this credit. 1 pt: Up to 5 percent of the institution's investment pool is invested positively to advance sustainability. 2 pts: More than 5 percent of the investment pool is invested positively to advance sustainability. 3 pts: More than 15 percent of the investment pool is invested positively to advance sustainability. 4 pts: More than 30 percent of the investment pool is invested positively to advance sustainability. This credit does not apply to schools that do not have an investment pool. Results Credit Results Earned 4 pts Earned 3 pts Earned 2 pts Earned 1 pt Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 1 2 5 31 13 53
Percentage of Total 1.9 1.9 3.8 9.4 58.5 24.5 100 Of the institutions claiming points for this credit, 4 are public and 5 are private. 16 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 33 percent of eligible private institutions. Those claiming points for the credit include 1 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 4 doctorate‐granting, and 1 master’s institutions. This represents 16 percent of eligible associate’s, 33 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 22 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 11 percent of eligible master’s institutions. A couple of the institutions that claimed points did not provide an exact percentage or dollar value of investments held in sustainable industries, but instead offered an estimate or percentage range. Institutions claiming points for this credit cited the following sustainable industries in which they have direct holdings: real estate, forestland, renewable energy, clean technology, sustainable timber, energy infrastructure (including water), agriculture (including farming and timber management), clean tech technologies and materials. In addition, institutions claiming points for this credit cited various sustainability investment funds, CDFIs, and positively screened mutual funds in which they hold investments. An institution’s position on investment transparency and disclosure influenced reporting on this credit. Some of the institutions that claimed points did not specify the value of holdings or the names of industries, firms, or funds in which they have holdings and stated that the information was confidential or proprietary. A couple 225 other respondents specified that their institutions have holdings in sustainable industries, but due to policies against disclosing such information, they weren’t able to report the amount or names of the holdings. Of the 31 institutions that did not claim points for this credit, 15 (48 percent) reported that data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Finally, one institution that did not claim points for the credit wrote, “The College invests in organizations with sustainable initiatives such as renewable energy, but does not have a percentage of its assets or a fund committed to such investments at this time.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 8 5 3 9 4 30
Percentage of Responses 3.3 26.7 16.7 10.0 30.0 13.3 100 Number of Responses
18 3 4 1 26
Percentage of Responses 69.2 11.5 15.4 3.8 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Include investments in local/community real estate with sustainable features/purposes. For example, much of our real‐estate holdings are near the university, and plans are in place to convert some holdings into commercial development in order to make the area more of a walkable community for students.” • “It is our recommendation that it be a requirement for this credit and AF‐3 that schools be evaluated by a third party agency who is experienced in sustainability related investing. Otherwise it is just seems very difficult to make an accurate determination of a schools sustainability investment practices.” • “Asking for specific investment and mutual fund names may be difficult for campuses without a completely transparent investment policy. Fund managers may be willing to provide percentages for this credit, but not specific names of investments.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “There was also not a single school that I spoke with that wouldʹve gotten more than 2 points on this category, and the majority got only 1 point. A pretty high bar on this one.” • “Largest issue here was a definition of what is ‘sustainable’. Who decides to what degree a company qualifies?” 226 •
“Vetting businesses with ‘exemplary sustainability performances’ could be a full‐time job in and of itself” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[Institution name] has had a sustainability coordinator only since [date within previous year].” 227 AF Credit 5: Shareholder Engagement Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution filed or co‐filed one or more shareholder resolutions that address sustainability, or submitted one or more letters about social or environmental responsibility to a company in which it holds investments, during the previous three years. This credit does not apply to schools that do not have an investment pool. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
2 36 15 53
Percentage of Total 3.8 67.9 28.3 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 1 is public and 1 is private. Both are doctorate‐granting institutions. These two institutions comprise 11 percent of all doctorate‐granting institutions that submitted for this credit. An institution that did not claim points for this credit wrote, “Though the president of the college has made multiple phone calls to one company in which we have shares, on issues of social justice, we have not written letters.” A couple institutions noted that filing resolutions would be too time‐consuming with current staff capacity. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 4 8 2 9 1 28
Percentage of Responses 14.3 14.3 28.6 7.1 32.1 3.6 100 Many institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated that they did not pursue this credit because data were not available or the credit was “too difficult to measure” Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
16 4 2 2 24
228 Percentage of Responses 66.7 26.7 8.3 8.3 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “This, again, is a very important practice and should have more weight.” • “I would recommend changing the applicability for this credit so that institutions that donʹt invest directly in companies or even mutual funds arenʹt penalized.” • One institution suggested changing the reporting requirements depending on the control (public versus private) of the institution. Reasons the credit should be changed • “The bias was that it was easier to sell a company than to file resolutions that address sustainability. Itʹs OK to vote with your feet, but most of us have razor‐thin staffs relative to the asset size and complexity and there just arenʹt resources to spend timing filing resolutions.” • “[Institution Name] does business with thousands of companies.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[Institution name] has had a sustainability coordinator only since [date within previous year].” • “Simply choosing to invest or not invest/divest in a company would seemingly send a stronger message than any form of engagement between the school and the possible investment.” 229 Investment Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback One institution suggested adding a Tier Two credit to recognize institutions that work with the Responsible Endowments Coalition. 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a responsible investment policy Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
14 26 3 43
Percentage of Total 32.6 60.5 7.0 100 A couple institutions that claimed points for this said they are responsible investors in that they responsibly work for a strong rate of return on investments; their responsibility policies did not relate to social responsibility or sustainability. Two institutions that did not claim this credit said they have policies about investing with certain countries, but that “no formal, overarching ‘responsible investment’ policies have been adopted as of yet.” Feedback •
“There needs to be a more complete explanation of ‘responsible investment’ and how this differs from some of the other investment ‐related credits.” 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution is a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
0 41 3 44
Several institutions indicated that they were not aware of UNPRI. 230 Percentage of Total ‐‐ 93.2 6.8 100 Planning Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit AF 6: Strategic Plan* 1 0.82 0.55 0.64 0.67 0.66 AF 7: Master Plan* 1 0.30 0.56 0.59 0.55 0.52 AF 8: Sustainability Plan 1 0.38 0.20 0.61 0.57 0.48 AF 9: Climate Plan 1 0.10 0.40 0.38 0.31 0.32 2.10 1.98 Planning
Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 4 1.60 1.71 2.22 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. AF Credit 6: Strategic Plan Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s current formally adopted strategic plan or equivalent guiding document includes sustainability at a high level. The strategic plan covers the entire institution. An amendment to the strategic plan may count for this credit, as long as the institution always presents the amendment with the original plan. Neither a master plan (which is covered in AF Credit 7) nor an independent sustainability plan (which is covered in AF Credit 8) counts for this credit. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
37 19 2 58
Percentage of Total 63.8 32.8 3.4 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 27 are public and 10 are private. 71 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 56 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 9 associate’s, 6 baccalaureate, 14 master’s, and 8 doctorate‐granting institutions. This represents 82 percent of eligible associate’s, 55 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 64 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 67 percent of eligible master’s institutions. 231 Two institutions selected that the credit did not apply since they did not have a strategic plan. Five institutions that claimed points for this credit did not have a strategic plan, but pointed to an academic plan, strategic directions document, future directions plan, or other strategic plan equivalent. Four institutions that claimed points for this credit referenced a plan specific to the physical campus or facilities in the plan description. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
15 14 8 5 0 0 42
Percentage of Responses 35.7 33.3 19.0 11.9 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
34 7 2 0 43
Percentage of Responses 79.1 16.3 4.7 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Two institutions recommended that “this be a credit universities can opt out of without it counting against them if they do not have such a plan.” • “Itʹd be nice to consider whether thereʹs value in the university pursuing this process as itʹs a multi‐year one. […] we donʹt receive the points until the process is complete and posted.” • Two institutions said, “define what it means to have sustainability included at a ‘high level’.” • Two institutions said, “it is very hard to distinguish between the Strategic plan and the Master plan. Perhaps it would be more efficient to combine the two criteria or eliminate one of the two” • “Perhaps add levels within each dimension of sustainability (environment, social, economic) that relate to the extent to which sustainability is considered in the strategic plan at the institutional, local and global level. Inherently sustainability is local and global in context but perhaps it could be more explicitly recognized as both including and beyond the institution in strategic plans.” • “Sustainability may be addressed in strategic plans, however it is when these sustainability goals are tied to budget and fully supported that they are more meaningful. Perhaps we should give some credit to plans that do this. This may be considered covered within the sustainability funding section.” • “Make accommodations for campuses that do not have a specific sustainability plan” 232 AF Credit 7: Master Plan Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution’s current master plan or equivalent guiding document includes sustainability at a high level. The master plan covers the institution’s entire physical campus. An amendment to the master plan may count for this credit, as long as the institution always presents the amendment with the original plan. Neither a strategic plan (which is covered in AF Credit 6) nor an independent sustainability plan (which is covered in AF Credit 8) counts for this credit. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
27 25 2 54
Percentage of Total 50.0 46.3 3.7 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 18 are public and 9 are private. 50 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 56 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 3 associate’s, 5 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 30 percent of eligible associate’s, 56 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 59 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 55 percent of eligible master’s institutions. A couple institutions that did not earn the credit said that their current master plans were about 20 years old, and were intended to last for 25 to 30 years. One institution that did not claim points for this credit noted that master planning was done by the district office, not by individual institutions. One institution that claimed this credit wrote, “Facilities Management revised their mission statement to include sustainability several years ago. The master plan [is] the action plan for the department to fulfill this mission. […] The Master Plan is considered a confidential document as it outlines the strategic plan of the university’s real estate holdings. As such, it is not publicly posted, nor was it available for review in the completion of this assessment.” Two institutions indicated that the credit did not apply. One respondent did not have a master plan and the other respondent did not provide additional information. 233 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
9 16 10 4 0 0 39
Percentage of Responses 23.1 41.0 25.6 10.3 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
30 7 2 2 41
Percentage of Responses 73.2 17.1 4.9 4.9 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Including sustainability at a high level in the plan is important, but there should also be specific guidance as well. General statements do not always result in implementation.” • “Provide additional guidance on what ‘a high level’ entails.” • Several institutions indicated, “it is very hard to distinguish between the Strategic plan and the Master plan. Perhaps it would be more efficient to combine the two criteria or eliminate one of the two.” • “Would be helpful to identify areas where AASHE would expect a master plan to include sustainability. For example, orientation of buildings, etc…” • “Capture specific sustainability concepts as master plans may not address sustainability efforts directly, such as: do you have a master plan that addresses sustainability explicitly?, does your master plan address social engagement?, does it address design elements appropriate to your geographic location/climate?, etc.” • “Itʹd be nice to consider whether thereʹs value in the university pursuing this process as itʹs a multi‐year one. […] we donʹt receive the points until the process is complete and posted” • “Master Plans may be written with a spirit of sustainability infused in the document. However some underlying concepts that are necessary to ensure sustainable development (especially for significant growth) are accompanying energy and transportation plans. These may be separate or integrated, but are integral. […] Perhaps there could be additional points for plans that have specific planning regarding energy development and multi‐modal transportation.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The campus master plan is strong on sustainability issues. However, sustainability issues are dispersed throughout what is a rather long document. Evaluating the plan for sustainability issues is therefore not especially easy.” • “Even though we donʹt have [sustainability in our master plan] we are committed to building the first LEED building in our county. [There] should be some credit for commitment and intentions.” • “An institutionʹs master plan is a sensitive document, especially for universities that have real estate holdings and where making this document public could compromise the acquisition and competitive 234 sale of these holdings. As this plan is the action plan for the department that oversees the maintenance and operations of the campus, its mission statement or other policy may be a better indication of a commitment to integrate sustainability into the institutionʹs operations.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • Both institutions that suggested the credit be eliminated said they did not have a separate Strategic and Master plan. Thus, this credit seemed to duplicate AF Credit 6. 235 AF Credit 8: Sustainability Plan Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a sustainability plan that was developed with input from faculty, staff, and students. The plan includes measurable goals with corresponding strategies and timeframes to achieve the goals. The plan need not be formally adopted. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
29 31 0 60
Percentage of Total 48.3 51.7 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 23 are public and 6 are private. 53 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 35 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 8 master’s, and 14 doctorate‐granting institutions. This represents 38 percent of eligible associate’s, 20 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 61 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 57 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Eight institutions that did not earn this credit said that they were in the process of developing a sustainability plan. Several institutions mentioned that participating in the STARS pilot project was serving as a starting point for developing their sustainability plans. A couple institutions already had a plan, but the plan was being revised to incorporate either measurable goals or broad stakeholder engagement. One institution that did not claim this credit indicated that the sustainability plan is incorporated into the campus master plan and is not a stand‐alone document. The sustainability plans referenced by those claiming points for this credit include diversity in scope, formality, and detail. The plans referenced by two institutions were specific to the sustainability office or program. Two other institutions cited that their president had signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) as the grounds for earning the point and did not provide additional documentation about a separate plan. One institution claimed the credit for having sustainability included in the master plan. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
16 17 4 3 0 0 40
236 Percentage of Responses 40.0 42.5 10.0 7.5 0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
39 2 0 0 41
Percentage of Responses 95.1 4.9 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Allow for the incorporation of sustainability planning combined into the overall campus master plan” • “It might be worthwhile to ask for documentation on the process for developing the plan. Gaining input from a variety of stakeholders is extremely important.” 237 AF Credit 9: Climate Plan Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a formal plan to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions. The plan includes a measurable, numerical goal or goals and a corresponding date or dates by which the institution aims to achieve its goal(s). A formal sustainability plan that includes climate change goals, strategies, and timeframes counts for this credit. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
18 39 0 57
Percentage of Total 31.6 68.4 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 11 are public and 7 are private. 28 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 41 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 9 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 10 percent of eligible associate’s, 40 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 38 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 31 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Just over half of the institutions that did not earn this credit indicated that they were in the process of developing climate plans, many to be completed by the end of 2009. One institution that did not earn the credit indicated that there was a climate plan, but it had not been formally adopted. The plans cited by the institutions that claimed this credit were diverse. Three of the referenced plans deal exclusively with on‐site building energy consumption. Three other cited plans included only the “Tangible Actions” that the institution has adopted as part of signing the ACUPCC. Three other institutions cited signing the ACUPCC as grounds for earning the credit and indicated that their formal plans were still under development. One institution cited its sustainability officer’s participation in a statewide initiative on climate as the only documentation for earning this credit. The climate goals for four of the institutions that claimed points for this credit were to meet local or state greenhouse gas emissions reduction mandates. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
7 16 6 3 1 0 33
238 Percentage of Responses 21.2 48.5 18.2 9.1 3.0 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
36 2 0 0 38
Percentage of Responses 94.7 5.3 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Clearer distinctions between the different plans in this section and more specific/accurate guidelines of what plans can, and cannot be counted toward multiple credits would be helpful. It is possible for a school to have one plan that covers everything and schools should not lose points for this.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The ACUPCC document isnʹt due until September 2009 for most schools, so perhaps this should be taken into consideration “ . 239 Sustainability Infrastructure Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit AF 10: Sustainability Officer 3 1.15 1.40 2.22 2.00 1.80 AF 11: Sustainability Recognition Program 1 0.40 0.10 0.63 0.29 0.41 AF 12: Inter‐Campus Collaboration on Sustainability 1 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.77 0.88 AF 13: Specialized Sustainability Staffing 1 0.14 0.44 0.62 0.38 0.46 Sustainability Infrastructure Tier Two Credits 1.25 0.11 0.25 0.36 0.23 0.27 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 7.25 2.80 3.19 4.69 3.67 3.82 Sustainability Infrastructure AF Credit 10 and 11 were included in Phase One of the pilot project. AF Credit 12 and 13 and the Tier Two credits in this section were released with Phase Two. AF Credit 10: Sustainability Officer Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a paid sustainability officer who addresses multiple issues. An employee who focuses on just one issue, such as a diversity officer or alternative transportation coordinator, would not count toward this credit. 1 pt: Any percentage of a paid staff member’s time is dedicated to coordinating sustainability initiatives and this responsibility is included in the individual’s job description. 2 pts: Institution has a full‐time paid sustainability officer. 3 pts: Institution has a full‐time paid sustainability officer with both academic and operational purview who reports directly to the institution’s president, a vice president, or equivalent. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
21 13 19 7 0 60
240 Percentage of Total 35.0 21.7 31.7 11.7 ‐‐ 100 Results by Institution Control and Type Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s No points 3 (17%) 4 (10%) 1 (8%) 2 (20%) 1 (4%) 3 (21%) 1 point
4 (22%) 15 (36%) 10 (77%) 4 (40%) 3 (13%) 2 (14%) 2 points 4 (22%) 9 (21%) 1 (8%) 2 (20%) 9 (39%) 1 (7%) 3 points
7 (39%) 14 (33%) 1 (8%) 2 (20%) 10 (43%) 8 (57%) Total 18 (100%) 42 (100%) 13 (100%) 10 (100%) 23 (100%) 14 (100%) Several institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated that sustainability activities were coordinated by a committee. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
33 11 2 0 0 0 46
Percentage of Responses 71.7 23.9 4.3 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
37 9 1 0 47
Percentage of Responses 78.7 19.1 2.1 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “We recommend including options for colleges and universities that have multiple sustainability officers.” • “Offer another point or two for separate sustainability coordinators for campus versus outreach.” • “Add data entry options for other office employees (part time, student employees, volunteers, etc.). Allow entries for varied employee make up and reporting structures.” • “Allow for option of someone who functions as sustainability officer although it is not listed in their job description.” • “Consider school size. For example [an institution] with tens of thousands of students can more easily afford a sustainability director than could a school of a few thousand.” 241 •
•
•
“Defining ‘academic purview’ is a VERY tricky issue, worthy of substantial clarification in the final version of STARS. If it means authority to weigh in and make recommendations about academic decisions, where ‘academic’ refers to ‘teaching, learning and research activities,’ then I qualify. If it means ‘authority to set academic policies, or credentials to carry out formal teaching, learning or research responsibilities,’ then I do not ‐ Iʹll need a few more letters after my name before I can do that. I do recommend including staff that can demonstrate the ability to influence or recommend changes to academic policies (and not just the authority to ‘set’ them), for the final point.” “In large universities, having someone in any capacity report directly to the Chancellor (or President) is extremely rare. […] So perhaps the question should say, ‘reports to senior management,’ which [at my institution] includes the Chancellor and all his/her Vice Chancellors.” “For smaller Universities and College accommodations should be made for those of us that have and do many things which include sustainability. Also those that have various departments that are doing partial work toward sustainability.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “We feel that the Council, consisting of five administrators representing all areas of the college, is a unique and very productive way of addressing our institutionʹs sustainability endeavors. This signals a total college commitment (across the board) to Sustainability at [our institution].” • “While only the supervisor of [the sustainability officer] reports directly to the president, there is plenty of contact between the officer and the President; the distinction between the 2pt criteria and the 3pt seems too specific to apply broadly across differing institutions.” • “It seems it would be difficult to have one person with both academic and operational purview. The academic front is especially dicey albeit important of course.” 242 AF Credit 11: Sustainability Recognition Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an awards program that recognizes sustainability achievements. Awards and recognition may be granted to individuals, buildings, departments, colleges, or other organizations within the campus community. Awards and recognition are publicized throughout the institution and are granted at least annually. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
24 34 0 58
Percentage of Total 58.6 41.4 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 18 are public and 6 are private. 44 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 35 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 4 associate’s, 1 baccalaureate, 15 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 40 percent of eligible associate’s, 10 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 63 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 29 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated they were in the process of developing an awards program. Two institutions that did not earn this credit said they had a sustainability awards program previously, but it either was no longer active or was a one‐time occurrence. The types of awards programs referenced in the documentation section for this credit were diverse. • Several institutions listed multiple awards, including awards for individual students, student organizations, faculty members (for curriculum initiatives), vendors, research projects or initiatives, staff members, and departments. • A couple institutions cited competitions that include awards (e.g., a dorm vs. dorm energy conservation competition in which the winning dorm wins a prize). • Two other institutions documented highlighting sustainability accomplishments in the sustainability newsletter, website, and/or annual report as their awards programs. • Two institutions mentioned that there was a sustainability award granted as part of the institution’s larger awards program for faculty and/or staff. • Two institutions described a grants program that provides funding for sustainability research. • One institution cited a program that provides grants for students to launch sustainability projects. The office or group that administers the sustainability awards also varied across institutions. The most common award granter was the sustainability office or committee. Other institutions documented awards granted by the President, a student organization, or an academic department. Most awards programs recognized overall sustainability leadership, but some programs focused on a specific sustainability issue (e.g., a transportation award for model use of alternative modes of transportation or a community service award for engagement with the local community). 243 One institution that does not have an awards program indicated that “staff are evaluated annually on actions demonstrating commitment to [sustainability].” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
18 17 3 1 0 0 39
Percentage of Responses 46.2 43.6 7.7 2.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
38 4 0 1 43
Percentage of Responses 88.4 9.3 ‐‐ 2.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Change credit to allow for ʹnon‐sustainability specificʹ award structures.” • “Perhaps credits should be given for when the school does sustainability awards at all ‐ at least if it is on a consistent yearly basis. Iʹm not sure if it has to be from the administration although I can see the institutionalization aspect that is the intent of this credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “We donʹt keep a posting about [our award] permanently on our website. When the awards are announced, we do a press release and have articles about the awards in our primary internal newsletters. We also have a ceremony. However, we donʹt keep the information on our website year‐
round, and I donʹt think that should be required for this credit.” • “Because sustainability is inherent across all sectors of the campus and is one of the collegeʹs guiding principles, it will be incorporated as criterion within the existing award structure rather than establishing a separate award.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This credit is not representative of a clear commitment to sustainability. A credit that is focused on governance that includes transparent and participatory decision making would be better suited to this framework.” 244 AF Credit 12: Inter­Campus Collaboration on Sustainability Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution collaborates with other colleges and universities to support and help build the campus sustainability community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
45 6 0 51
Percentage of Total 88.2 11.8 ‐‐ 100 All of the institutions that did not claim this credit were public. Three were master’s and three were doctorate‐
granting institutions. Most of these institutions indicated that the data were not available or that the credit was “too difficult to measure.” Likewise, several institutions that did earn this credit indicated that they do “not keep this information in a centralized location or track data,” so submissions may not have been complete. Even without complete information, most institutions listed several ways in which they collaborate with other colleges and universities. Cited strategies for building the campus sustainability community include: • Participating in regional campus sustainability networks and consortia • Participation in AASHE and other higher education associations working on sustainability • Hosting and participating in local, regional, and national conferences • Participating in regional groups focused on specific issues (e.g., state recycling networks or chapters of the U.S. Green Building Council) • Collaboration on research initiatives and sharing research facilities • Publishing how‐to guides on a wide variety of topics • Making sample RFPs and contracts available online • Participating in monthly community college sustainability calls • Offering or serving as a trainer for webinars, workshops, and other events • Making sample curriculum and syllabi for sustainability courses available online • Hosting radio programs about sustainability • Writing newspaper, journal, newsletter, and Web articles about sustainability activities • Sharing an academic program in sustainability between a community college and neighboring 4‐year institution • Bulk purchasing consortia for environmentally preferable products • Responding to frequent questions about their sustainability programs from other institutions • Offering tours and hosting visitors from other institutions 245 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
8 12 13 4 1 0 38
Percentage of Responses 21.1 31.6 34.2 10.5 2.6 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
33 5 0 0 38
Percentage of Responses 86.8 13.2 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “I wonder if you couldnʹt make the specifications for this credit more specific. It was difficult to think of all the ways that we ʺcollaborateʺ with other campuses, and that information is generally decentralized.” • “In this credit or in a separate credit, it would be helpful to account for the impact that a campus sustainability office may have on the wider community, region and state if the office is focused more broadly on supporting both on‐campus and off‐campus initiatives and entities.” • “Provide additional guidance on what qualifies as ʺcollaborationʺ (i.e. participating in regional networks, publishing detailed guides, etc.)” • “This credit covers two kinds of activities that might be better separated: (1) collaboration with other local colleges on sustainability efforts, and (2) sharing of information at regional and national conferences.” • “This question seems fairly vague‐‐was this intentional? Iʹm still not entirely sure what would need to be done to get the credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • In response to the documentation field that requests, “The names of local, state, regional, national, and other campus sustainability organizations or consortia in which the institution participates and/or is a member,” an institution wrote, “It is enough to know that a university participates in sustainability organizations or consortia. It is not necessary to know the names of those organizations or consortia. The only reason to know the names is to make distinctions among such organizations. Surely this is going overboard.” 246 AF Credit 13: Specialized Sustainability Staffing Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has at least one full‐time equivalent, permanent, specialized sustainability staff per 5,000 students or 5 or more full‐time equivalent staff dedicated to sustainability. Specialized sustainability staff may include, but are not limited to the following positions: sustainability communications and outreach coordinator, recycling coordinator, energy coordinator, alternative transportation coordinator, sustainable food procurement coordinator, sustainable procurement coordinator, social responsibility coordinator, environmental justice coordinator, and green building coordinator. General sustainability officers, who are covered in AF Credit 10, do not count for this credit. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
23 27 0 50
Percentage of Total 46.0 54.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 14 are public and 9 are private. 41 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 56 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible associate’s, 44 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 62 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 38 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Treatment of student employees was inconsistent between institutions. While some institutions claimed this credit based on student employees, several other institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated that they would qualify for the credit if student employees count. Likewise, clarification is needed as to whether sustainability staff who work for on‐site contractors (e.g., dining services provider, energy service company) and student government are eligible for this credit. A couple institutions have more than one staff person who would best be characterized as a “general sustainability officer.” These general sustainability officers who weren’t cited in AF Credit 10 (which requested only one name) were cited for this credit. The positions documented for this credit include: • Outreach Coordinator (Sustainability Office) • Research Associate (Sustainability Office) • Program Coordinator (Sustainability Office) • Development Director (Sustainability Office) • Marketing Manager (Sustainability Office) • Administrative Coordinator (Sustainability Office) • Executive Assistant to the Sustainability Officer • Energy Officer • Eco‐Reps Coordinator • Sustainable Landscaping Supervisor 247 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recycler Sustainability Internships Coordinator Alternative Transportation Coordinator Recycling Manager Manager of Integrated Pest Management Green Building Advisor Climate Action Coordinator Director of Social Sustainability Sustainable Food Coordinator Sustainable Purchasing Coordinator Compost Program Coordinator Academic Sustainability Officer Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator Director of Diversity Director of Community Engagement Community Development Center Director Student Government Sustainability Coordinator Director of Environmental Health & Safety Organic Farm Manager Environmental Analyst Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
9 14 10 3 0 0 36
Percentage of Responses 25.0 38.9 27.8 8.3 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
24 10 2 1 37
Percentage of Responses 64.9 27.0 5.4 2.7 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Add clarification about how to account for part‐time equivalents (i.e., add them up to FTE).” • “Clarify how to determine whether a full‐time employee is fully a SUSTAINABILITY staff person. For instance, you list ʺrecycling coordinatorʺ as an example, and we have a person with that job title. Nonetheless, that person has responsibilities that do not advance sustainability ‐ for instance, they manage the solid waste hauling contract more generally, including the non‐recycled waste stream.” 248 •
•
•
“Add check boxes for specialty categories with points available for each specialty.” “Allow for some tabulation of ʺnon‐traditionalʺ sustainability staff.” “Maybe have a minimum FTE that qualifies for this credit. We have several people with sustainability in their job descriptions for 10‐15% of their duties ‐ I only included people who were 50% or higher.” • “Sustainability Officers should count for this credit.” • “There should not be overlap with AF credit 10” • Several institutions indicated that “this credit should include graduate assistants or other student staffing since sustainability programs generally have a mission of engaging students in their work. These graduate students provide similar support or better (due to their enthusiasm) than staff would provide.” • In response to the documentation field that requested the year positions were created, one respondent wrote, “While knowing of the existence of these positions is appropriate, it is crossing the line into being intrusive to ask about the dates on which positions were created. A university may have had these positions for ages yet be lagging in sustainability initiatives. This is intrusive, overboard, and unnecessary.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “1 credit is an absurdly low figure for the value of ‘additional sustainability staff.’ Staffing is the single most essential and effective outcome‐in‐itself in terms of successful implementation of a comprehensive university sustainability initiative. Without question, this is the single attribute of a universityʹs initiative that most determines outcomes. Perhaps it could be reframed as a Tier Two, in that sense... but either way, itʹs of infinite value. Personnel seem to be the main, and only, limiting factor on the success of [our] initiative and our ability to move forward. We have the will, cooperation, funding and expertise, but not the personnel on the ground to manage everything that we COULD do. This needs to be captured better than in one single STARS point.” • “Is this data interpreted with reference to the size of the school and how much money it has? For smaller schools, it just doesnʹt make sense to have additional positions for all of these things when, due to the size of the school, one or two people would be sufficient.” • “Perhaps this credit, as written, is appropriate in the first years of this assessment, however I wonder how we begin to credit further institutionalization which points toward including sustainability within job descriptions and performance reviews across the campus, rather than focused within one department.” • “Requirement is too difficult, especially for community colleges. The hiring of our energy officer was a significant event that easily matches the efforts of large 4 year institutions who may hire more such staff.” • “Titles are always tricky things, especially when the ʺGuidanceʺ section doesnʹt offer much suggestion about the job that goes with the title. At [institution name], often multiple people work on social justice and/or environmental justice issues, but they donʹt have that specific title. Perhaps it will be better to examine ʺduties and responsibilitiesʺ and allow for FTE (perhaps two people who devote 50% of their time to the duty).” • “We have faculty and staff across campus who spend some part of their time focused on advancing sustainability across curriculum, operations, research and engagement. […] Too difficult to count them all!” • “The existence of such positions does not necessarily demonstrate a universityʹs commitment to sustainability.” 249 •
“The goal of the Sustainability Office is to encourage the uptake of sustainability throughout the community by being a resource and facilitator rather than feed the perception that sustainability is only to be effected by specialized staff. Existing staff members outside of the Sustainability Office already include sustainability as part of their regular duties.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “I donʹt believe both this credit and a sustainability officer credit need to be included. The criteria for both could be included in one credit.” 250 Sustainability Infrastructure Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
“These seem to be fair tier 2 credits, even though we are not eligible for them.” “This section as well as the other Tier Two credits could use explanation and clarification. It is often unclear what is meant by the given titles of the credits. For example, [institution name] currently has a fund set up for sustainability efforts but may not meet the criteria of being an ʺalumni sustainability fundʺ since anyone can donate money to the fund. Descriptions of what each credit means or implies would be very beneficial and helpful in ensuring consistency among the reports received from different schools, and ensuring more accurate representations of sustainability efforts of different campuses.” Suggestions for Tier Two Credits to add to this section • “There are regional and statewide sustainability commitments [that the institution has signed]. Additionally we have signed the United Nations Global Compactʹs Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). I donʹt know how to change it the credit, but because so many declarations and compacts exist, there should be some effort made to acknowledge them.” • “Consider adding a tier‐two credit for involvement with sustainability within professional groups, such as NACUBO and SCUP.” • “Consider a tier‐two credit for a Student Government committee or agency addressing sustainability.” • “Would like to see credit for opportunity for individual choice to donate to fund.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an alumni sustainability fund. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 36 0 43
Percentage of Total 20.0 80.0 ‐‐ 100 The institutions earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s Three institutions that did not earn this credit said an alumni sustainability fund was in development. The alumni sustainability funds at the institutions that claimed this credit finance various initiatives, including: an endowment for the sustainability office, a scholarship for a graduate student in sustainability, grants for student projects, and the activities of the sustainability committee. 251 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an alumni sustainability network. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
7 38 0 45
Percentage of Total 15.6 84.4 ‐‐ 100 Feedback The institutions earning this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. One institution that claimed the credit said the network was limited to alumni of certain academic programs within the university. One institution that did not claim this credit indicated that the institution had a network previously, but due to lack of personnel or financial support, the network was inactive. 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a student government position focused on sustainability (e.g., an environmental affairs commissioner). Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
17 30 0 47
Percentage of Total 36.2 63.8 ‐‐ 100 Institutions that earned this credit included associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The nature of the student government position varied among institutions. Cited examples include: • “Associated Students Commissioner of Environmental Affairs” • “[Student Government Name] Sustainability Coordinator” • “There is an active student Environmental Club and several students serve on the Collegeʹs Environmental issues Council.” • “Our student government has an Intercultural Senator (social/global sustainability) as well as a Commuter Council that acts as an advocate for alternative transportation program and infrastructure for commuter students.” Feedback •
“At least one member of the Student Senate (as well as the faculty senate, administrative management council, etc.) is asked to serve on the Sustainability Task Force at all times. It would be redundant and unhelpful to have a separate student government position, when dozens of students play a leadership 252 role in the Task Force and shape policy, and when the Student Senate is formally included in this process.” 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a payroll deduction option for campus sustainability projects. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 43 0 44
Percentage of Total 2.3 97.7 ‐‐ 100 The institution that earned this credit is a doctorate‐granting university. Feedback •
“It is not clear what is being asked.” 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution is a signatory to the Talloires Declaration. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
16 30 0 46
Percentage of Total 34.8 65.2 ‐‐ 100 Those that earned the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. One institution that did not earn this credit indicated that the student body had voted to sign and the initiative was waiting for approval from the faculty senate. Another indicated there was an active campaign to convince the administration to sign the declaration. Feedback One institution indicated that it had not heard of the Talloires Declaration. 253 Community Relations and Partnerships Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit AF 14: Community Service Staffing 1 0.43 0.90 0.81 0.92 0.80 AF 15: Student Participation in Community Service 3 0.14 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.84 AF 16: Student Hours Contributed in Community Service 3 0.00 1.50 1.27 0.55 0.96 AF 17: Financial Incentives for Public Service Careers 2 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.04 AF 18: Community Sustainability Partnerships 1 0.71 0.56 0.95 0.75 0.80 AF 19: Public Policy Engagement 1 0.29 0.22 0.61 0.58 0.48 Community Relations and Partnerships Tier Two Credits 2.25 1.39 1.13 1.63 1.57 1.49 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 13.25 2.96 5.56 6.18 5.37 5.41 Community Relations and Partnerships
General Feedback and Notes In response to several credits in this section, one institution wrote, “It would be beneficial to tie this credit to the institutionʹs status under the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachingʹs Engaged Institution elective classification. If the institution has earned the elective classification, either for outreach and partnerships or curricular engagement or both, then the institution can state that and would not have to provide all of this information, which is exactly what must be provided to earn the Carnegie classification. This also must be reported as part of the application for the Presidentʹs Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll sponsored by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the US Dept. of Education and the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Campus Compact, the American Council on Education, and Learn and Serve America. Perhaps STARS could join with this group and tie this section with the Honor Roll application.” AF Credit 14: Community Service Staffing Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has at least one permanent, full‐time equivalent community service coordinator per 5,000 students or 5 or more full‐time equivalent staff dedicated to community service. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
41 10 0 51
254 Percentage of Total 80.4 19.6 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 25 are public and 16 are private. 74 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 94 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 3 associate’s, 9 baccalaureate, 17 doctorate‐granting, and 12 master’s institutions. This represents 43 percent of eligible associate’s, 90 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 81 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 92 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not earn the credit indicated that they did have some community service staff but “did not meet the requirement to have one FTE staff per 5,000 students.” Community service activities cited include: • Service‐learning course development • Internship placement • Administering service requirements for academic programs • Connecting students, faculty, staff, and/or community members to service opportunities • Organizing service trips for spring break or new student orientation Institutions that did not have a centralized community service office coordinated service through the career center, library, department of student affairs, student groups, and/or academic departments. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 10 19 10 0 0 42
Percentage of Responses 7.1 23.8 45.2 23.8 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
33 4 1 1 39
Percentage of Responses 84.6 10.3 2.6 2.6 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 255 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The term community service may need to be explained ‐ we have a variety of roles that might fit this term.” Several suggested changes for this credit focus on the required documentation (Documentation fields were: Total FTE of community service staff; A brief description of the full‐time equivalent community service staff, including names, job titles, and the dates the positions were created; A brief description of the community service office including its mission, a brief summary of its activities, and the date it was founded, if applicable; and, A brief description of other programs, policies, or systems in place to foster community service). • “The question about other activities is challenging. There so many organizations, clubs, fraternities, sororities, and possible groups doing community service that it becomes very hard to measure. It is virtually impossible to gather the data on these groups”. • “The documentation requested requires far too much information. With a campus this size and the myriad of community service programs/projects occurring, this type of documentation would take innumerable hours/days/weeks to collect. It’s good information, but not worth the time to collect. The documentation should be limited to #s and a brief overall description.” • “I am not sure why asking when a position was created will affect a yes/no credit. Either we have community service positions or we don’t – when they were created seems like unnecessary information and requires a lot of investigating into historical information that may or may not exist.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The Criteria seems a bit restrictive – ‘one permanent, full‐time equivalent community service coordinator per 5,000 students or 5 or more full‐time equivalent staff dedicated to community service’ may be asking a bit much especially in tight budget times.” • Several institutions noted that staff members who work on community service are often distributed throughout the institution, which makes it difficult to count FTE or provide details about their positions. Reasons the credit should be eliminated None provided 256 AF Credit 15: Student Participation in Community Service Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution engages a specified percentage of its student body in institution‐organized or coordinated, unpaid community service activities, including, but not limited to, service that earns academic credit. 1 pt: Between 25 and 50 percent of the student body participates in community service. 2 pts: 50 to 75 percent of the student body participates in community service. 3 pts: Over 75 percent of the student body participates in community service. For this credit, the student body does not include non‐credit students. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
3 7 18 21 0 49
Percentage of Total 6.1 14.3 36.7 42.9 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions that claimed points for this credit, 17 are public and 11 are private. 50 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 73 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 6 baccalaureate, 14 doctorate‐granting, and 7 master’s institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible associate’s, 67 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 64 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 64 percent of eligible master’s institutions. About half of the institutions that did not earn points indicated that they did not pursue this credit because data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Likewise, many institutions that did claim points for this credit indicated that data were incomplete, estimations, or otherwise imperfect. Some institutions did track data centrally and acknowledged the tracking system didn’t cover all activities. Other institutions reported results from surveys, many of which were conducted outside of the STARS performance period. Institutions did not treat service that is required for an academic program or athletic program consistently. Some claimed credits based on these service hours and others did not. One institution reported participation levels only for students living on campus. The institutions that earned 3 points have a community service requirement for all undergraduate students. 257 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 3 14 12 6 1 38
Percentage of Responses 5.3 7.9 36.8 31.6 15.8 2.6 100 Number of Responses
25 4 5 0 34
Percentage of Responses 73.5 11.8 14.7 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “There are multiple projects, community leadership programs, student service organizations, and much more that provide assistance to the community. This question does not sufficiently explore the number of diverse ways that [institution] stays committed to serving its local, national and international communities. It would be unfortunate for those who work towards these goals to go unnoticed in STARS because of the difference in evaluating community service ‐‐ number of ways to get involved as opposed to numbers of students involved.” • “Community service needs to be defined. Can a service requirement (for entrance into a club/organization or to graduate) be considered community service? Or does community service refer to something that is voluntary?” • “Integrate with credit 16 in an ʺeither/orʺ format. Having two credits measuring the same element seems to put extra emphasis on community service time, when other areas are underrepresented.” • “We focus on community‐based learning where students are engaged in community based work in conjunction with their courses. We recommend you change the language to reflect this kind of community‐based work rather than just community service. We also recommend you inquire about the number of faculty and community partners engaged in these activities.” Reasons the credit should be changed • Several institutions noted that “We have no central mechanism for tracking the numerous community service related activities that students, faculty, and staff participate in on campus.” • “Even at events requesting registration, many students may have participated without doing so.” • “This question cannot be accurately measured at [institution]. There is no metric in place to track student service university‐wide. Such a metric would be extremely difficult to establish unless there was a university requirement for students to do, and report on, a set number of community service hours in order to graduate.” • “I think that measuring service by a percentage gives an unfair advantage to smaller schools that need to get less of their student body involved.” 258 •
Two community colleges commented that, “The percentages required for credit seem very high, particularly for a community college population, which consists of a large number of non‐traditional students who work, care for families, etc. while going to college.” 259 AF Credit 16: Student Hours Contributed in Community Service Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution engages students in a specified number of hours of institution‐organized or coordinated, unpaid community service per full‐time equivalent student per year. 1 pt: Institution engages students on average in at least 5 and less than 12.5 hours of community service per full‐
time equivalent student per year. 2 pts: Institution engages students on average in 12.5 to 20 hours of community service per full‐time equivalent student per year. 3 pts: Institution engages students on average in more than 20 hours of community service per full‐time equivalent student per year. For this credit, the student body does not include non‐credit students. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 4 11 24 0 48
Percentage of Total 18.8 8.3 22.9 50.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions that claimed points for this credit, 14 are public and 10 are private. 41 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 71 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 baccalaureate, 14 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 63 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 64 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 45 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Over two‐thirds of the institutions that did not earn points indicated that they did not pursue this credit because data were not available or the credit was too difficult to measure. Several institutions that did have data to report mentioned shortcomings with that data. For example, at one institution the tracking system only includes instances of volunteerism and not hours spent in service. Another institution’s tracking system records up to 30 hours per student; additional hours of service are not recorded. Several institutions indicated that they track only activities coordinated by one office, but service is coordinated by numerous other entities on campus that do not track participation. One institution that did earn this credit wrote that it “is fortunate to have conducted a professional survey in recent years. Other large universities may have trouble securing this data if they have not done something similar.” Likewise, at least one small baccalaureate institution did not track the data but reported results from a survey of graduating seniors. 260 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 4 14 9 7 0 35
Percentage of Responses 2.9 11.4 40.0 25.7 20.0 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
22 6 2 1 31
Percentage of Responses 71.0 19.4 6.5 3.2 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Change it so it can account for the hours of students participating in the programs versus an average of hours including students NOT participating.” • “Have this credit reflect the number of hours based on the size of the student population on campus.” • “Indicate FTE or raw number of students to calculate average. Having many part time students pulls [our] average down.” • “Integrate with credit 15 in an either/or format. Having two credits measuring the same element seems to put extra emphasis on community service time, when other areas are underrepresented.” • “It is not clear to me which student population should be used in calculation the average number of hours for community service: the number of students who participated in community service, the number of residential students, or the number of undergraduate students.” • “It might be just as relevant to determine the total number of student hours contributed to community service than the average.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “There is no accurate measure as to how many students and how much community service is being done, as it is not a graduation requirement.” • “Measuring by the number of students on the overall campus gives an unfair advantage to smaller universities. Perhaps there is a better way to measure what a university contributes to the community that would provide a more accurate representation for all universities.” 261 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “The credit does not show what kind of community service is ongoing across campus. As community service at [institution] is run through many different organizations on campus, there is no central way of tracking the amount of student community service credit hours or how many students actually participate. There are also a few classes on campus where community service is mandatory for credit. Whatʹs more, community service is not just available to students but also to faculty and staff. If we were able to provide specific numbers to STARS, we might be losing sight of many campus activities. Even if we could get a number of hours for every accounted student, this credit still does not offer any explanation as to what kind of activities are happening, which other groups we are working with outside of the University, and how the community benefits from the programs and agencies operating at [institution].” Other comments • “We think that this is a very valid question to ask, however, [institution] does not track the number of hours engaged in community service. We do track the number of students engaged in community based learning (reported in AF Credit 15). According to the office of Institutional Research tracking the number of hours engaged in community service would be a very hard undertaking as it would require numerous people across campus to report on this.” 262 AF Credit 17: Financial Incentives for Public Service Careers Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution grants financial incentives to a specified percentage of its graduate and undergraduate alumni who graduated within the past three years and who enter public service careers. 1 pt: More than 0 and up to 1 percent of all alumni who graduated within the past 5 years received financial incentives from the institution for entering public service careers. 2 pts: 1 or more percent of all alumni who graduated within the past three years received financial incentives from the institution for entering public service careers. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
1 0 48 0 49
Percentage of Total 2.0 ‐‐ 98.0 ‐‐ 100 One private baccalaureate institution claimed points for this credit. A couple other institutions indicated that they have such programs, but do not have data on the number of participants. Several institutions that did not claim this credit described programs that provide support to students to pursue public service careers. Sample responses include: • “Federal loan programs, such as the Perkins Loan Program or the Federal TEACH Grant Program are available to students, but these programs are federally administered.” • “The state of California provides incentives to go into fields such as teaching and nursing, so I am not sure if that is why the campuses do not have this type of program. Unless a donor provides money for this type of program, this will not be funded by public monies through the Universities.” • “Reserve Officers’ Training Core (ROTC) is available to help students pay for college expenses if they wish to serve the military in the future. However, public service careers as defined in this Credit excludes the military. Similarly, there is a program within the Medical School to provide financial support to medical students who intend to practice in rural [areas of the state].” • One institution wrote that it “has numerous scholarship programs for students who wish to enter fields of public service (public administration, social work, teaching, etc.). However, these are scholarships for students and do not carry through into alumni years or provide incentives to necessarily commit time or work to public service careers. In addition, we have not been able to gather the data on how many students receive these scholarships, nor the number of alumni that have graduated and entered public service careers. The data simply isnʹt there.” 263 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
0 6 1 5 3 2 17
Percentage of Responses ‐‐ 35.3 5.9 29.4 17.6 11.8 100 Number of Responses
8 3 2 5 18
Percentage of Responses 44.4 16.7 11.1 27.8 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Perhaps this should be a tier‐two credit.” • Several institutions wrote, “Define ‘public service’ career in greater detail.” One institution added, “the scope of this credit should more narrowly define public service. To put it simply, many universities have ROTC programs and there is such a variety of possible sources of financial incentives (state and federal governments included) that, as it is currently written, almost all universities should meet this credit to some extent or another.” • “This credit does not distinguish between financial incentives and/or their sources. Financing at institutions is always a challenge. Therefore universities that are committing their own funds to provide financial incentives for public service careers should receive additional recognition or credits.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “The definition of public service careers is not given and is too broad without giving an explanation of what public service is. Does it include medical professions, social services, teachers, etc? The university has programs that offer tuition reimbursement from various sources. The Federal Government through the ROTC program, the [local] Public School system helps reimburse loans as well for teachers who agree to work in their school system for a set time, as well as the National Endowment for the Sciences which helps future math and science teachers, and numerous others.” • “While it is great if colleges and universities can offer this kind of incentive to graduates to enter public service careers, this credit is biased towards private institutions with large endowments. State schools like [institution] cannot afford to do this kind of thing, but that does not mean that we donʹt encourage our students to strongly consider public service careers ‐‐ or to engage in community service in general, regardless of their chosen career path.” • “[Institution] has been offering a ʹno loanʹ financial aid policy. Therefore all students are indirectly provided assistance in pursuing public service careers through this ʹno loanʹ policy. They do not have significant debt when they graduate. It will be difficult to evaluate how schools who directly support public service careers by offering loan repayment assistance compare to those that offer more generous financial aid policies to all students.” 264 •
“I cannot imagine any community college (and certainly most public institutions as well) that would have the resources to provide financial incentives of this type.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “How would an undergraduate institution find the funds necessary to so grossly interfere in its graduates’ lives, especially in this economy? This is a frivolous credit that has little to do with ‘sustainability.’ It seems to imply ‐ slightly ‐ that students who choose private sector paths are somehow ‘inferior’ or have made the wrong choice.” • “I donʹt believe this should be a part of an institutions sustainability rating. Itʹs volunteer/service work for a reason.” • “This would favor heavily schools established for such purpose, but unfairly punish public institutions who respond to the needs of their students and community outside of this obligation.” • “This credit seems totally arbitrary; what is being measured?” • “Given the ongoing financial challenges and budget constraints that brick and mortar campuses are faced with, it may not be realistic to single‐out the public service career field and provide financial incentives to graduating seniors for pursuing careers in the field. A funding source would be difficult to identify, and there are campus political ramifications.” 265 AF Credit 18: Community Sustainability Partnerships Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has formal partnership(s) with the local community, including school districts, government agencies, non‐
profit organizations, or other entities, to work together to advance sustainability within the community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
40 10 0 50
Percentage of Total 80.0 20.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 30 are public and 10 are private. 86 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 67 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 associate’s, 5 baccalaureate, 21 doctorate‐granting, and 9 master’s institutions. This represents 71 percent of eligible associate’s, 56 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 95 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 75 percent of eligible master’s institutions. The types of programs cited for this program varied widely. Most institutions mentioned many programs through which they partner with the community on sustainability issues. Sustainability topics covered include: • Global warming • Habitat restoration • Wetlands protection • Affordable housing • Civic engagement • Redevelopment of brownfields • Green building • Conflict resolution • Sustainable food systems Organizations with which the institution partners include: • K‐12 School Districts • Other colleges and universities • City, county, state and federal government agencies or departments • Local businesses • Non‐profit organizations Sample partnerships include: • Composting organic waste generated by the local community • Serving on community advisory boards, including those focused on sustainability • Holding competitions or challenges to engage students in solving community challenges 266 •
Holding courses in which students provide a service for a non‐profit (e.g., a marketing class developed outreach materials) • Convening a sustainability roundtable for local businesses • Participating in a community partnership around sustainability • “A town‐gown relationship designed to provide educational outreach, foster economic empowerment, bridge the digital divide, partner with other service groups and local agencies, and strengthen local culture.” • Providing grants to “non‐profit co‐beneficiaries (in partnership with students of faculty on campus).” • Placing student interns and work study students with community groups • Operating research centers whose purpose is to serve the community and solve local sustainability challenges One institution that did not claim this credit wrote, “We have some engagement with the local community, but not enough to qualify for this credit.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 8 23 3 1 0 41
Percentage of Responses 14.6 19.5 56.1 7.3 2.4 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
33 6 1 0 40
Percentage of Responses 82.5 15.0 2.5 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total 267 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Provide some additional guidance regarding what qualifies as a partnership. Individual courses may have a semester‐long service‐learning partnership with the community, or the university may have a long‐standing formal agreement.” • “This is a very important credit. But thought needs to be given as to what is considered significant and therefore deserving of credit and what should be considered common sense and therefore expected.” • “Iʹd like to see more examples and framing of ‘partnership’, and what constitutes one. Maybe there should be a threshold of investment in such a partnership (x joint projects, x dollars spent, x organizations partnered, etc.)?” • “Perhaps requesting 3‐5 project samples from different disciplines. With so much engagement going on at our campus, it is difficult to understand the immense impact that we have on our community.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “This is a very qualitative question. To what degree do you want to see engagement between the campus and community? There may be formal agreements, but zero collaboration could have taken place. The credits need to be spelled out more clearly.” 268 AF Credit 19: Public Policy Engagement Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution advocates for federal, state, or local public policies that support campus sustainability or that otherwise advance sustainability. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
22 24 0 46
Percentage of Total 47.8 52.2 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 16 are public and 6 are private. 52 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 40 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 2 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 11 doctorate‐granting, and 7 master’s institutions. This represents 29 percent of eligible associate’s, 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 61 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 58 percent of eligible master’s institutions. The “descriptions of how the institution engages in public policy advocacy for sustainability, including the issues, bills, and ordinances for or against which the institution has advocated” provided by different institutions varied considerably. Most respondents cited multiple examples of advocacy work and/or government partnerships. Several institutions noted that their presidents or government affairs offices had lobbied for the Higher Education Sustainability Act of 2008. Other policy advocacy examples cited include: • No Child Left Inside • Changes to state procurement policy to encourage and facilitate the purchase of locally grown food • State legislation to provide current and former foster care youth with educational planning, information, institutional support, and financial resources for them to succeed in higher education • State green building, recycling, climate change, and green jobs policies • Appropriations to fund renewable energy projects on the institution’s campus • H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which contains a section (SEC. 491) authorizing universities to serve as models for green building initiatives. • Appropriations for campus sustainability and education funding generally Other cited examples of public policy engagement include: • Providing public comment on local transportation, sustainability plans. • Advocating for policies within the state university system of which the institution is a part • Faculty participation in advocacy groups • Faculty taking students to lobby at the state capitol • Coordinating meetings between students and legislators • Staff, faculty, and administrator participation in local and state task forces on energy, climate change, and/or sustainability 269 •
•
•
•
•
Faculty participation in IPCC research Partnerships with non‐profit organizations around sustainability issues Publicly funded partnerships with local businesses Partnerships with state, local, federal agencies Participation in a state recycling coalition One institution mentioned tracking activities of legislative committees that work on topics of interest (e.g., Organic agriculture). Another institution cited tracking the activities of the municipal planning commission. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 7 9 5 3 1 31
Percentage of Responses 19.4 22.6 29.0 16.1 9.7 3.2 100 Number of Responses
26 2 1 1 30
Percentage of Responses 86.7 6.7 3.3 3.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The question is broad, vague, and difficult to measure and compare. An institution could advocate for sustainability in a very generalized manner or by advocating for very specific legislation. A revised credit would set a more specific standard to achieve beyond just generally advocating, and be tied to the concrete examples.” • “Perhaps this credit could have two levels or points: To qualify for maximum credit, a campus should be required to show that sustainability‐related advocacy is an official part of the legislative agenda. One point could be awarded for campuses that perform ad hoc efforts in support of sustainability policies and laws. But a campus that embeds this advocacy into official policy—such as the legislative agenda—should receive more points.” • “Identify how an institution could engage in public policy advocacy. Numerous faculty are involved in public policy, but they donʹt necessarily represent the University.” 270 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This should maybe become a tier‐two credit ‐ not all institutions have the bravado and funding necessary to actively advocate for certain legislation. Is a college that encourages and supports individuals within its community to engage public policy without doing so institutionally somehow ʺworseʺ at sustainability? There are a multitude of philosophies of advocacy, and this credit seems somewhat limited in requiring that the institution become an advocate itself.” 271 Community Relations and Partnerships Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
“These credits seem only tangentially related to sustainability.” One institution expressed confusion about the points available for Tier Two Credits 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution includes community service in its mission, vision, and/or strategic plan. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
38 6 1 45
Percentage of Total 84.4 13.3 2.2 100 Those earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. The institution that indicated the credit didn’t apply wrote that it “does not have a vision or mission statement for the entire university ‐ most of its individual colleges or schools do have mission or vision statements. [The institution’s] strategic planning initiative is not yet complete.” The missions, visions, and strategic plans cited in documenting this credit varied in audience (service to the state, religious tradition, urban environment, region, humanity) and focus. Feedback •
“We need a better definition of community service with regard to inclusion in mission and vision for the institution. Our assumption is that serving the community may not equate with the intention of community service.” 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a campus‐wide awards program to recognize community service. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
27 18 0 45
Percentage of Total 60.0 40.0 ‐‐ 100 Those earning this credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Many institutions that claimed points for this credit referenced several awards. The service awards documented for this credit were given to individual students, student organizations, faculty and staff 272 members, a fraternity or sorority, and alumni. The awards programs recognize service in various categories, including incorporating service learning into the curriculum (faculty), service to the community through research activities (faculty), service to the campus/institution, service to the broader community, most hours completed in service, and overall community impact. 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution includes community service achievements on student transcripts. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
8 33 0 41
Percentage of Total 19.5 80.5 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Only one of these institutions was able to provide a URL where information about this activity was available (one of the requested documentation fields). 3 respondents indicated that they did not know if their institutions earned this credit. Those that indicated they earned the credit include: • Institutions that print community service hours and achievements on all transcripts • Institutions whose law schools include pro bono work on transcripts • Institutions that issue a separate “co‐curricular achievements” transcript • Institutions that indicate which courses on the transcripts include a service learning component • An institution that does not issue letter grades, but whose narrative evaluations make note of community service achievements in the context of internships and coursework. • Institutions with majors, minors, or other academic programs that include a significant service component. • Institutions with active student service organizations that provide certificates to students that recognize achievements. • An institution that offers service learning courses. 273 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has developed tutoring, training, extension, and/or professional development programs for the community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
37 8 0 45
Percentage of Total 82.2 17.8 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include 7 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 16 doctorate‐granting, and 11 master’s institutions. This represents 100 percent of associate’s, 37.5 percent of baccalaureate, 84.2 percent of doctorate‐
granting, and 100 percent of master’s institutions. In addition, 93.8 percent of public institutions earned this credit, compared to 46.2 percent of private institutions. Institutions cited various programs that serve different groups including K‐12 students, retirees, working professionals, and homeless community members. Feedback •
•
“It might be helpful to expand or clarify this credit to include continuing education as a part of professional development.” “[Institution] has an in depth extension program offering development, training, tutoring, for the community. Actually it goes well beyond just a Tier II credit!” 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes library resources available to the community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
39 6 0 45
Percentage of Total 86.7 13.3 ‐‐ 100 Associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions earned this credit. Several institutions indicated that, “While some services are exclusive to faculty, students and staff, the library is open to the community.” 274 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes technology resources available to the community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
24 18 0 42
Percentage of Total 57.1 42.9 ‐‐ 100 Associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions earned this credit. Many institutions wrote that, “Computer labs are open to the public by presenting identification and being offered a public pass.” One institution wrote that it “has placed some 60 personal computers at public access points directly in the community, including in local churches, public organizations, and shelters.” Feedback •
“Perhaps if you include an example of what resources you are referring to ‐ I am not sure what this credit would include.” 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes cultural and/or athletic offerings available to the community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
41 3 0 44
Percentage of Total 93.2 6.8 ‐‐ 100 Most respondents cited many examples of cultural and athletic offerings they make available to the community. Examples cited include: • “All of the community members are invited and encouraged to attend the multiple sporting events held on campus.“ • “[Institution] invites community members to art exhibitions, dialogues, panel discussions, musical and theatrical performances, celebrity series, meditation series, seminar series, support groups, and much more!ʺ • Hosting arts and athletics camps for youth. • “[Institution] has a comprehensive athletic center that community members can join.” • Book readings at the university bookstore • Outdoor adventure activities open to the community • Eco Festival for the community 275 8. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes meeting and/or event space available to local community groups. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
43 2 0 45
Percentage of Total 95.6 4.4 ‐‐ 100 Two baccalaureate institutions did not earn this credit. Most institutions indicated that, “There are numerous facilities on campus available for meetings and special events, most require a small fee, depending upon the nature of the event. This fee is often waived if there is even a modest connection to university activities.” 9. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution hosts a farmers’ market for the community. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
11 34 0 45
Percentage of Total 24.4 75.6 ‐‐ 100 Those claiming this credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “There is no agriculture program.” • “Vending restrictions have made this so far unsuccessful, but not for lack of trying.” • “Although [institution] doesnʹt host a community wide farmersʹ market, the organic farm does sell produce at a farm stand every Tuesday and Thursday.” Feedback •
Two institutions indicated that “A weekly farmersʹ market takes place with 1/4 mile from campus. It would not make sense to host a competing farmersʹ market.” 276 Diversity, Access, and Affordability Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit AF 20: Diversity and Equity Committee 1 0.86 0.70 0.81 0.67 0.76 AF 21: Diversity and Equity Officer 1 0.71 0.40 0.86 0.67 0.70 AF 22: Diversity and Equity Attitudes Assessment 1 0.71 0.22 0.62 0.33 0.49 AF 23: Diversity and Equity Plan 1 0.57 0.22 0.81 0.83 0.67 AF 24: Support Programs for Under‐represented Groups 1 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.96 AF 25: Support Programs for Future Faculty 1 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.25 0.33 AF 26: Affordability and Access Programs 1 1.00 0.78 0.89 0.83 0.87 Diversity, Access, and Affordability Tier Two Credits 1.5 0.93 0.66 1.03 1.14 0.97 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8.5 6.07 4.42 6.32 5.64 5.75 Diversity, Access, and Affordability
AF Credit 20: Diversity and Equity Committee Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a diversity committee, equity committee, or other body with broad stakeholder representation, including students and administrators, that meets at least once per semester or term, and is charged by the administration or board of trustees to advise on and implement policies and programs related to diversity and equity on campus. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
38 12 0 50
Percentage of Total 76.0 24.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 27 are public and 11 are private. 77 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 73 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 6 associate’s, 7 baccalaureate, 17 doctorate‐granting, and 8 master’s institutions. This represents 86 percent of eligible associate’s, 70 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 81 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 67 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Institutions that did not have a diversity and equity committee but did have a diversity and equity office did not evaluate themselves consistently. Two such institutions claimed points for this credit and two did not. 277 One institution that did not claim points wrote, “Stakeholders are now engaged through the extensive programming offered by the [diversity office].” An institution that did claim the credit wrote, “[Institution] had a Diversity committee about two‐three years ago, but have since stopped meeting. The Diversity Center, however, functions much the same as would an official committee as need arises.” Several institutions indicated that, in addition to a broad diversity committee, they had several committees with each focused on a diversity or equity issue (e.g., a committee on women in the sciences, committee on the status of persons with disabilities). Four institutions (two associate’s, one doctorate‐granting, and one master’s) that claimed points for this credit reported that their committees did not include students. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
7 14 17 2 1 1 42
Percentage of Responses 16.7 33.3 40.5 4.8 2.4 2.4 100 Number of Responses
36 5 2 0 42
Percentage of Responses 83.7 11.6 4.7 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “In this case, [institution] is penalized somewhat for having moved well beyond a committee and having established a comprehensive, university‐wide series of programs and initiatives to address diversity and equity. This may be true for other universities as well.” • “Split diversity and equity into two separate reporting modules.” • “May not need to ask for all members and affiliations, but simply to describe how all groups and divisions on campus are represented, including top level administrators.” • “Ask if the committee is more than Ad Hoc, if it is a standing committee. How long‐standing? Ask for demonstration of impacts and accomplishments. How are members selected?” • “[Institution] has two departments one for Faculty of Equity and another for diversity. If there was some way to distinguish between the two departments, for example, having two distinct credits, it would alleviate the confusion to decide which committeeʹs information to include.” 278 Reasons the credit should be changed • “This credit is based on the diversity practices of the United States. To be applicable to Canadian institutions more feedback should be sought out from institutions to see what would be appropriate to evaluate diversity in a more Canadian context.” Other comments • “In 2008, we also have other committees on campus such as the Equity and Affirmative Action, Faculty Senate Disability Advisory Committee, and the Diversity Awareness Committee. Would it be helpful to track these as well in this credit?” 279 AF Credit 21: Diversity and Equity Officer Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a diversity and equity officer who reports to the president or provost, and has responsibility for directing or coordinating diversity and equity initiatives. For institutions with 5,000 or fewer students, the diversity officer is at least 0.5 full‐time equivalent. For institutions with more than 5,000 students, the diversity and equity officer is full‐time. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
35 15 0 50
Percentage of Total 70.0 30.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 27 are public and 8 are private. 77 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 53 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 18 doctorate‐granting, and 8 master’s institutions. This represents 71 percent of eligible associate’s, 40 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 86 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 67 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Seven institutions that claimed this credit indicated that their diversity officer does not report to the president, chancellor, or provost. The diversity officers at these institutions report to: • University’s General Counsel • Director of Human Resources • Vice President or Chancellor • Director of Student Affairs • Associate Provost Several institutions that earned this credit indicated that the diversity officer has joint reporting, typically to both the provost and vice president for administration. Two institutions reported that they have two diversity officers: one with academic and the other with operational purview. For several institutions that earned this credit, the job descriptions cited indicate that the diversity and equity officers’ roles extend beyond diversity and equity issues. Cited job titles from institutions claiming points for the credit include: • Assistant to the President and University Ombudsman • Vice President for Institutional Planning & Diversity • Vice President of Human Resources • Senior Vice President of Administration • Executive Director, Human Resources Of the institutions that did not earn this credit, four reported that they have a Diversity and Equity Officer but the position is less than full‐time. One such institution wrote, “Because of limited funding at the community [college] level, many employees fill dual roles and while we fulfill the intent of the position we do not have the resources for a person to do only this.” Likewise, two additional institutions have a Diversity and Equity 280 Officer, but did not claim this credit because the officer does not report to the President, Chancellor, or Provost. One institution wrote that the tasks of the Diversity and Equity Officer are handled by a multi‐
stakeholder committee. Another institution reported that it was in the process of hiring its first Diversity and Equity Officer. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 18 13 5 0 0 40
Percentage of Responses 10.0 45.0 32.5 12.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
35 4 2 0 41
Percentage of Responses 85.4 9.8 4.9 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “To recognize that many institutions fulfill the intent of this position, but also have that person committed to other duties at the college. It may not be equivalent to 1/2 or full time position.” • “Points should be awarded to part time CDOs for institutions with students of 5,000 or more.” • “Points should be awarded when the job title is separated in to two distinct jobs ‐ one appointee for diversity and another for equity.” • “Separate diversity and equity into two categories.” • “Take out the requirement for full time versus part time based on number of students; this would make institutions like our own community college better able to meet the requirements for the credit.” • In response to a documentation field requesting the year the position was created, one institution wrote, “It is not easy to find when the position was created exactly. Is this information necessary to get credit for this section? We have a very high level person overseeing diversity on our campus, when the position was created seems irrelevant.” • An institution with fewer than 5,000 for‐credit students but many more non‐credit students wrote, “based on the type of our student population, we should qualify for this credit.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “This credit is based on the diversity practices of the United States. To be applicable to Canadian institutions more feedback should be sought out from institutions to see what would be appropriate to evaluate diversity in a more Canadian context.” 281 AF Credit 22: Diversity and Equity Attitudes Assessment Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution systematically assesses attitudes about diversity and equity on campus and uses the results to guide policy, programs, and initiatives. The assessment can cover the entire institution or can be a set of separate assessments at the school, department, or unit level, as long as all sectors, units, and departments of the institution are covered. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
24 25 0 49
Percentage of Total 49.0 51.0 0 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 18 are public and 6 are private. 51 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 43 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 5 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 13 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 71 percent of eligible associate’s, 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 62 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 33 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Notes about institutions that claimed the credit: • Many institutions cited multiple surveys and methods for gathering data about diversity and equity attitudes. For example, one institution wrote, “During a typical academic year, the University gathers diversity‐related data from three main sources. They include: 1) Success findings using institutional research, such as retention or graduation rates; 2) Student perception findings using a wide variety of survey information, such as the locally developed Campus Climate Survey, the national freshman Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), and local program level surveys (e.g., advocacy offices); and 3) Program planning and evaluation findings.” • Some institutions cited surveys focused on diversity and equity, while others referenced broader surveys (e.g., employee satisfaction, student engagement) that include questions about diversity and equity. • It was difficult to determine whether or not three of the institutions that claimed this credit had conducted an attitudes assessment. The reported documentation was a summary of diversity initiatives on campus that did not mention any survey. • Two institutions indicated that their surveys were specific to faculty and staff (students were not surveyed). • The timeframe in which the survey was conducted varied widely. Some surveys referenced were conducted in 1999. In general, the older surveys cited by institutions tended to be focused on diversity and equity issues (instead of part of a broader survey) and to have lead to significant changes within the institution (e.g., creating new staff positions, re‐organization of departments). Notes about institutions that did not claim the credit: • Two institutions indicated that “A climate survey including questions on diversity is given to staff, however there isnʹt necessarily follow up and implementation of the responses in school policy.” 282 •
•
Two other institutions wrote that they were working on their first assessment and would qualify for this credit in future years. Several respondents mentioned that data weren’t available, they didn’t receive responses from those they contacted on‐campus about this issue, or they otherwise did not know whether or not the institution earned the credit. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 10 17 6 1 0 35
Percentage of Responses 2.9 28.6 48.6 17.1 2.9 ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
25 6 0 1 32
Percentage of Responses 78.1 18.8 ‐‐ 3.1 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Ask if there is a reassessment mechanism or plan. In addition to the initial assessment, the school should have a technique to evaluate progress.” • “We are in the process of implementing an assessment, but we do not have the data. Possibly have a piece of this credit talk about what assessments are in place and then another part of the credit talk about the outcomes of the assessment. Possibly even have a piece of this credit be a place to report some of the actual data from the assessment. What were the general themes?” • “This credit could also look at the results of assessments conducted in subsequent years to gauge the success of programs or initiatives put in place.” • “A little bit more guidance on the meaning of ‘systematically’ would be helpful.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “It is hard for us to determine what directly has come from the assessment that [institution] conducts. We recognize the value in turning data into action, but that said, it is hard for us to determine since we only track the data and not the implications and consequences of what the data suggests.” • “[Institution] has a very active and dynamic [diversity office]. Its programs are too numerous to describe. We go far beyond a simple survey of campus climate.” 283 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “I recognize that sustainability on college campuses needs to be more than a focus on ecology; that being said, I canʹt help but think that this credit, while important, addresses an entirely different issue than the broader focus of sustainability. This is not to say that all diversity credits should be eliminated from STARS, but maybe the more specific ones that seem to lose sight of that ‘truly sustainable campus’ goal, like this one, ought to be.” 284 AF Credit 23: Diversity and Equity Plan Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a diversity and equity plan or plans that cover the entire institution. The diversity and equity plan may be a stand‐alone document, part of the strategic plan, or a set of separate plans at the school or department level, as long as all sectors, units, and departments of the institution are covered by a plan. The plan addresses recruiting for student, faculty, and staff diversity as well as creating an inclusive campus culture. Results Credit Results Earned Credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
33 16 0 49
Percentage of Total 67.3 32.7 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 26 are public and 7 are private. 74 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 50 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 4 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 17 doctorate‐granting, and 10 master’s institutions. This represents 57 percent of eligible associate’s, 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 81 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 83 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Comments about institutions that did not claim points for this credit: • Two institutions reported that such plans are in development and they would qualify for this credit in future years. • Two institutions did not have diversity and equity plans, but said these issues were covered in either the institution’s sustainability or strategic plan. • An institution reported that some departments (e.g., Athletics, Enrollment) have diversity plans, but there isn’t a plan for the entire institution or separate plans that cover each department. Comments about institutions that claimed this credit: • Four institutions referenced the section of their strategic or academic plans that cover diversity and equity issues. • Two institutions cited plans focused on student recruitment and retention and one institution cited a plan focused on employment. • One institution cited the diversity and equity plan for the university system of which the institution is a part. • It was difficult to determine whether or not five of the institutions that claimed this credit had a diversity and equity plan. These respondents reported the mission statement of the diversity office or a summary of accomplishments, but did not mention a plan or provide a link to a plan. • One institution wrote that it “does not have a Diversity and Equity Plan per se, but it does have policies on Harassment and Discrimination, Disability and Holy Days, as well as the Handbook of Student Rights and Responsibilities, Employment Equity Policy, Post Graduate Student Societyʹs Policy on Equity and Diversity” and adheres to local guidelines about diversity and equity. • One institution documented the annual report of the diversity office. 285 •
While most cited plans were developed or updated within the past 5 years, the oldest plan referenced was from 1997. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 17 14 3 0 1 39
Percentage of Responses 10.3 43.6 35.9 7.7 ‐‐ 2.6 100 Number of Responses
34 2 2 0 38
Percentage of Responses 89.5 5.3 5.3 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The credit focuses on a plan for the entire institution. While that is ideal, it does not provide for recognition that in a highly decentralized University, significant initiatives can be undertaken at the faculty or department level that service to create an inclusive campus.” • “Diversity and equity could be separated into two distinct departments. Perhaps creating separate credits for diversity and equity would be beneficial in eliminating the confusion as to which departmentʹs mission statement we should include.” • “Require specific elements to be part of the plan.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “This credit is based on the diversity practices of the United States. To be applicable to Canadian institutions more feedback should be sought out from institutions to see what would be appropriate to evaluate diversity in a more Canadian context.” 286 AF Credit 24: Support Programs for Under­Represented Groups Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has mentoring, counseling, peer support, affinity groups, academic support programs, or other programs in place to support under‐represented groups on campus. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
46 2 0 48
Percentage of Total 95.8 4.2 ‐‐ 100 One private doctorate‐granting and one public master’s institution did not earn this credit. Almost all institutions that earned this credit provided many examples of student groups, committees, programs, scholarships, special events, research programs, and offices that meet this credit’s criteria. For example, the underrepresented groups served by programs mentioned include: • First generation college students • GLBTQ students • Veteran students • International students • Students with learning differences • Adult students • Muslim students • Single parents • Blank, Filipino, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, American Indian, and Latino students • Students older than 60 years • Disabled students • Women in science and engineering In documenting counseling programs for underrepresented students, many institutions described counseling services that are available to all students, including underrepresented groups. One such institution wrote it “has a variety counseling, peer support, affinity groups and academic support programs that are available to the entire student body to ensure the success of all groups.” The level of detail in reporting varied significantly among institutions. While some institutions provided a detailed description of each such program on campus, others simply listed the relevant groups and programs. Many institutions did not report on the date the programs were started, and several others indicated that this information was difficult to find. 287 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 15 15 7 0 0 39
Percentage of Responses 5.1 38.5 38.5 17.9 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
31 3 0 1 35
Percentage of Responses 88.6 8.6 ‐‐ 2.9 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • In response to a documentation field requesting the date the program began, one institution wrote, “Finding dates in which all the programs were started is often difficult and likely unavailable. Also, the point of the credit is to determine whether the school has made progress in having these clubs/if they have them, as long as they are available the date should not matter.” • “Possibly incorporate categories or checklists of the type of programs sought for this category.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “It is unclear as how to define a program. Is a program an on‐going service that the campus provides for students, or is it a one‐day event? Or both? I took it more as an on‐going service for this campus. If this credit is looking more for all the programming, then it would turn into a difficult credit to fill out, but maybe that is necessary.” • “What do you mean by support? Academically?” • “If an institution is involved in advertising conferences and grant opportunities, should this also be included here? If not, where?” • “Is there a place to track support programming for underrepresented faculty and staff? I donʹt know that we have that on our campus, but it might be something that other campuses do indeed have.ʺ Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “This credit seems repetitive. Very similar to credits in Diversity Section.” 288 AF Credit 25: Support Programs for Future Faculty Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has or participates in a mentoring or other program that supports doctoral or terminal degree candidates from under‐represented groups, so as to build a diverse faculty throughout higher education. Both institutions that support their doctoral and terminal degree students and institutions that sponsor or support candidates at another institution who will teach at the institution upon completing their degrees are eligible for this credit. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 30 0 45
Percentage of Total 33.3 66.7 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 10 are public and 5 are private. 32 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 36 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 2 associate’s, 4 baccalaureate, 6 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 29 percent of eligible associate’s, 44 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 35 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 25 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Several institutions that did not earn this credit indicated that data were not available and they did not know if they had such programs. One institution that claimed this credit referenced a program to build diversity among K‐12 educators. Several institutions selected that the credit “does not apply” because they do not offer terminal degrees. These responses are counted as having not earned the credit because the credit did not include an applicability criterion (institutions of all types, including those that do not offer terminal degrees, earned the credit). Sample programs at associate’s institutions: • “[The internship program] gives ethnic underrepresented persons who are either graduate students or holders of graduate degrees an opportunity to gain experience teaching in a community college. It provides on‐the‐job training experiences, including teaching, course planning, student testing and evaluating, student advisement and related academic responsibilities. Each intern is assigned to a senior faculty member, who serves as mentor. [Participants in the program] may teach one or two courses a semester, at the base salary for an adjunct instructor plus a small stipend. The internship may be renewed for a second semester. The Internship has two goals: 1) To encourage talented underrepresented persons to consider a career in community college education; 2) To enhance the education of [institution] students by providing opportunities for them to learn from an ethnically‐
diverse faculty.” • Community college partners with a local doctorate‐granting university “to provide fellowships for minority students who are enrolled in doctoral programs at [the University]. [The University] provides tuition waivers and books (scholarships) and [the community college] provides practical teaching opportunities and compensation in a part‐time capacity as they complete their doctoral program. The 289 intent is for minority students who participate in this program to join [the community college] faculty as full time assistant professors upon completion of their terminal degree. [The program] has approximately 4 participants each term.” Programs at baccalaureate institutions: • The “Collegeʹs Board of Trustees established a separate fund several years ago to promote hiring of minority faculty. At least two new faculty members have been hired under this initiative.” • “The Dissertation Fellows Program is one of the College’s important faculty diversity initiatives. This program stems from a partnership with the Northeast Consortium on Faculty Diversity. The goal of the Consortium is to increase the diversity of the nation’s college and university faculties. The College currently admits two fellows per year into this program. The fellows can be selected into different departments as they follow a teaching, research and mentoring program during their time here.” • The college hosts a dissertation and Post‐MFA fellowship program. “The Fellowships are designed to promote diversity on college faculties by encouraging students from underrepresented groups to complete a terminal graduate degree and to pursue careers in college teaching. At present, the Fellowships are two‐year residencies at [Institution], and three scholars or artists are appointed each year. Fellows devote the bulk of the first year to the completion of dissertation work—or in the case of MFA applicants, building their professional portfolios—while also teaching one course as a faculty member in one of the Collegeʹs academic departments or programs. The second year of residency (ideally with degree in hand) is spent on academic career development while again teaching just one course. The fellows receive a stipend and full benefits, plus a research account, computer, office, and dedicated mentoring from senior colleagues.” Example programs at doctorate‐granting institutions • “The Doctoral Enrichment Fellowship (DEF) is a graduate fellowship designed to support underrepresented students in their field of study. The department nominates students in the first year of their doctoral program. The Graduate College supports the DEF Fellows during the first year of their doctoral degree program with a $15,000 stipend, resident tuition, and non‐resident fee award (if applicable). The students’ academic unit provides student health insurance in the first year. In the second year, the fellow’s academic unit will provide them with a TA or RA position, or financial equivalent.” • A program at the university for women in science, technology, and engineering “has a faculty focus. [The program] offers postdoctoral research associates for academic diversity to provide women, particularly from under‐represented groups, to prepare for faculty careers at [institution] or other academic institutions.” • “The Graduate Division has a staff of Diversity Coordinators who are committed to increasing diversity on our campus through recruitment efforts and by supporting our continuing students as they work toward their academic goals.” • Institution “participates in the NSF‐funded AGEP (Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate) program with the goal of increasing the number of underrepresented minority students earning doctorates in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and eventually entering the professoriate” • Institution has a program that “provides research training, mentoring, and skill development for economically and/or educationally disadvantaged undergraduate students from [the institution] and partner institutions throughout [the state] ‐ with the goal of preparing students to competitively apply and complete for Ph.D. programs, preferably in the [state university system]” 290 • Institution offers “Graduate Diversity Fellowships for doctoral students.” Example program at a master’s institution: • “Each year, twelve to fifteen new undergraduate McNair Scholars are selected for two years of intensive mentoring, specialized seminars, collaborative research, and a paid summer research internship, all of which prepare them for graduate school. McNair Scholars include promising students from groups traditionally underrepresented in doctoral programs.” • “The Faculty Minority Affairs committee offers a program which is intended to orient new faculty to resources on campus with a particular focus on diversity aims and supports.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 6 11 2 2 1 26
Percentage of Responses 15.4 23.1 42.3 7.7 7.7 3.8 100 Number of Responses
19 3 0 2 24
Percentage of Responses 79.2 12.5 ‐‐ 8.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Programs for new faculty, not just terminal doctoral degree students, should be included in this credit.“ • “Include staff positions.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “[Institution] has a support program for dissertation students, but it is for all students, not just students from underrepresented groups. To have a support program and restrict it to members of underrepresented groups seems harsh and unfair.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “It awards doctoral‐granting institution credit for participating in mentoring and faculty development programs that many doctoral‐granting institutions are motivated to participate in for reasons other than sustainability.” • “Since we are exclusively an undergraduate institution, we do not offer support for doctoral candidates.” 291 AF Credit 26: Affordability and Access Programs Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has policies and programs in place to make the institution accessible and affordable to low‐income students. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
41 6 0 47
Percentage of Total 87.2 12.8 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 30 are public and 11 are private. 91 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 79 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 7 associate’s, 7 baccalaureate, 17 doctorate‐granting, and 10 master’s institutions. This represents 100 percent of eligible associate’s, 78 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 89 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 83 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Four of the institutions that did not earn this credit indicated that data were not available or that the requested information was “too difficult to measure.” Another institution wrote, “No extensive funding program exists for underrepresented students beyond what the Federal government provides.” A couple of institutions documented programs to make the institution accessible to students with learning and physical disabilities. One university wrote that programs are administered at the school level, which makes gathering comprehensive information about the programs and their impacts difficult. Most institutions listed several programs, policies, and initiatives. Listed below is a sample of cited programs, policies, scholarships, services for current students, recruitment initiatives, partnerships with middle and high schools and pre‐college students, and services for parents. Programs: • Several institutions referenced their participation in Federal TRIO Programs, including Upward Bound, KEY Student Support Services, and the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program. • Institution offers a workshop titled ʺWorking with Low‐income, First‐Generation College Students” to all faculty and staff to enable them to better serve low‐income students. Policies: • Institution has a policy that “the University ensures that all assessed, unmet financial need will be made available to those students who are eligible for student loans.” • “Through a combination of financial aid resources that do not require repayment, [Institution] covers the annual cost of tuition, fees, books, room and board for eight semesters of full‐time enrollment” for students from families whose annual household income is less than $25,000. 292 •
•
“As a community college, [Institution] is committed to the principle of open access to higher education, and this tenet is actually included in the college mission statement as a core institutional value. Full‐
time tuition and fees for a 4‐course semester at [Institution] costs approximately $800 for in‐state students, and the college strives to keep that tuition price as low as possible. Nevertheless, because even $800 is significant for many individuals and families in our service district, the college‐‐through its Department of Development and the Endowment Corporation‐‐provides dozens of full and partial scholarships every semester, in order to increase student access to [Institution].” The “College maintains a ‘need‐blind’ admissions policy to ensure that applicants to the College will not be affected by their applications for financial aid. [The college] offers aid packages that meet 100 percent of calculated financial need as determined by the Office of Student Financial Services. If a familyʹs financial situation does not change, [the college] is committed to providing a similar package each year that their child attends [the college]. Moreover, student loans that are part of the financial aid package are offered at graduated levels, depending on family income and the Student Financial Services Office has compiled lists of lenders whom it considers excellent in the educational lending field for additional loans.” Scholarships: • Most institutions provided details about scholarships that are available to low‐income students. • At one institution, a portion of student fees are allocated to scholarships for low‐income students. Services for Current Students: • Institution offers “Free financial planning and credit workshops for current students.” • Several institutions mentioned programs that combine financial aid with academic support for low‐
income and first generation college students. • Institution provides “individual or group tutoring/counseling in all core academic subjects, effective time management, study skill enhancement, campus social networks, and other support” for low‐
income students. Recruitment Initiatives: • “There are workshops and labs provided on campus and at outreach locations to assist families with the [financial aid and application] process and to provide further information.” • “[Institution] works with organizations such as QuestBridge to identify and attract low income students.” Partnerships with Middle and High Schools and Pre‐College Students: • “[Institution] brings in guidance counselors from low‐income schools to educate them about [the Institution’s] programs and support for low income students.” • Institution has partnerships with high poverty high schools that engage “teachers, administrators, students and parents through campus visits, college access seminars, career exploration institutes, leadership and professional development institutes for teachers and administration staff, middle school college awareness seminars, and parental involvement strategies. The culmination of the Partnership is the awarding of five to seven 4‐year scholarships to each participating high school. To date over 300 students have been awarded scholarships.” • Several institutions mentioned programs that work with middle and high school students from low‐
income communities to help them prepare for, apply to, and succeed at their institutions. 293 •
“[Institution] runs summer research programs in science, humanities and social sciences to provide opportunities for low income students.” Services for Parents: • “In addition to traditional college visitation programs, the admission office sponsors a program designed strictly for parents. This program is especially valuable for parents who have not had a student in College before.” • Institution has a “Parent Program that subsidizes the travel and overnight visit of parents of admitted students of low‐income backgrounds.” Many institutions that claimed this credit did not respond to the documentation field requesting “A brief summary of the impact of such programs within the past three to five years.” Several institutions indicated that this information was difficult to measure and report. In addition, some institutions noted that it was difficult to limit responses to impacts from the past three to five years, since some programs track impact over their entire lifespan and some programs work with students for longer than five years. Institutions that did complete this reporting field approached it in different ways. Sample documentation includes: • Percentage increase in enrollment of students of color • Percentage increase in the number of students receiving or eligible for Federal Pell grants • Percentage increase in graduation rate for students of color • Increased yield for admitted students • Number of students served (e.g., number of students participation in programs, number of students receiving scholarships or aid) • Increased graduation rate for students participating in programs • Dollars allocated through scholarship programs • Percentage of students participating in middle and high school programs that enroll in the institution • Average financial aid award and total amount awarded • Percentage of students receiving aid • Percentage of students who are first‐generation students Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
2 5 19 11 0 2 39
294 Percentage of Responses 5.1 12.8 48.7 28.2 ‐‐ 5.1 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
24 11 1 0 36
Percentage of Responses 66.7 30.6 2.8 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Information should be included such as discounting, financial aid provided as the number of Pell grant recipients should be measured.” • “The credit needs to distinguish between university contributed funds and those that the university disseminates from the state or federal government.” • “Guidance needs to be more direct if Federal programs count or if the schools are to have self‐funded programs for low‐income students.” • Three institutions wrote, “Some more guidance on what ʺimpactʺ means in the second part of this credit would be helpful, because that particular question is posed in a very broad sense. You might want to even eliminate that part of this credit, because determining the direct, individual impact of each affordability and access programs is difficult.” • “It’s hard to determine the impact of these types of programs over 5 years. This should be eliminated for this credit.” • “What exactly is meant by strategies? I looked at this from the recruitment standpoint in terms of what we are doing to recruit students of color to this campus. Also ‘improve accessibility and affordability,’ is this in terms of scholarship dollars that are given to students? What are some examples of ways to improve accessibility and affordability?” • “Providing examples for each credit may be a good idea.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “I think this is going to vary between public and private schools, and on how well‐endowed the programs are. [Institution] does not receive additional funding from the state, and students rely mainly on FAFSA scores for additional grants and loans from the federal government. There may be some programs through the state, but as far as I can tell, they are not administered through the individual universities.” • “This question is very broad. I think if you provide more guidance into what you are looking for with this credit, that would be helpful. For example, when I talked with the Director of Admissions about ‘A brief summary of the impact of such programs within the past three to five years’, he said that it would be a 50‐page document that hasnʹt been assembled.” 295 Diversity, Access, and Affordability Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
“These credits seem only tangentially related to sustainability.” Suggestions for Tier Two Credits to add to this section • “Do all students have access to all housing options? (or are some groups isolated? i.e. honor students, sports teams, or international students).” • “Are faculty and staff rewarded for diversity efforts? Does the institution provide incentives or points on evaluation? This is particularly important for those in higher level positions, hiring others.” • “Is diversity a part of employee job descriptions? And if it is, are they evaluated on it?” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers gender neutral housing options. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
15 19 7 41
Percentage of Total 36.6 46.3 17.1 100 Those earning the credit include baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. This credit did not apply to 7 institutions that do not provide housing, including all associate’s colleges that submitted a form for the credit. Institutions that earned this credit did so in various ways. Examples include: • “Gender Neutral theme housing provides a living situation on campus where one’s gender is not the means by which one is assigned to college housing making it a comfortable and safe living environment for members of the LGBTQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer, Ally) community.” • “The Department of Student Housing accommodates students seeking gender neutral housing on a case by case basis. There is not specific housing set aside for gender neutrality but space is made available as needed. There are future renovation plans for gender neutral specific housing.” • “We do not have an explicit gender neutral housing policy, but the entire housing program and all facilities are set up to be gender neutral. In additional to being all co‐ed housing, the university respects all mutual requests for roommates. Most rooms have private bathroom facilities, but shared restrooms in campus housing are gender neutral.” • “Here is an excerpt from the housing contract: Transgender Options: Roommates are assigned by same biological gender. Students in transition with special needs should contact the Department of Residence Life as early as possible. A limited number of accommodations with access to gender‐neutral bathrooms/showers are available if arrangements are secured prior to final housing assignments.” Two institutions that claimed this credit provided documentation that indicates they interpreted the credit differently. 296 •
•
“The space available for either gender depends on the number of students applying – there is no discrimination for housing based on gender.” “Gender ratios are balanced in dorms.” Feedback There was no feedback on this credit. 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a comprehensive non‐discrimination policy. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
43 0 0 43
Percentage of Total 100 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 In documenting how they earned this credit, some institutions indicated that they were signatories of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or that they complied with relevant federal and local laws. Some non‐discrimination statements cited cover only employees of the institution, while others explicitly mentioned students and treatment of participants in all the institution’s programs. The protected classes mentioned in institutions’ statements were not consistent. Protected classes that were covered in some statements and not others include: • Gender identity and expression • Pregnancy • Sexual orientation • Political beliefs • Language • Ethnic or national origin • Veteran status • Marital status • Parental status • Height • Weight • Arrest record Feedback •
•
“A comprehensive non‐discrimination policy should be expected. Does the school have programs that move beyond statutory requirements?” A couple institutions questioned what “comprehensive” means in the context of this credit. 297 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes cultural competence trainings and activities available to all staff. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
27 14 0 41
Percentage of Total 65.9 34.1 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Institutions documented a variety of trainings, events, conferences, and workshops that help faculty and staff members develop cultural competence. A couple institutions indicated that such trainings were required for all staff. One institution that claimed this credit cited a program exclusively for residence hall staff. Feedback •
“Simply ‘making trainings and activities available to all staff and students’ doesnʹt really ‘push the envelope’ as I interpreted tier two credits to do. I think it is the subject of the trainings and the numbers of trainings more‐so that I see being a tier two credit. Possibly even the number of students and staff that attended the trainings that should be recorded.” 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution makes cultural competence trainings and activities available to all students. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
35 7 0 42
Percentage of Total 83.3 16.7 ‐‐ 42 Thos earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Institutions documented a variety of trainings, events, conferences, courses, and workshops that help students develop cultural competence. One institution indicated that cultural competence was part of new student orientation for all students. One institution that claimed this credit documented only orientation to host countries’ cultures for students prior to studying abroad. 298 Feedback •
“Simply ‘making trainings and activities available to all staff and students’ doesnʹt really ’push the envelope’ as I interpreted tier two credits to do. I think it is the subject of the trainings and the numbers of trainings more‐so that I see being a tier two credit. Possibly even the number of students and staff that attended the trainings that should be recorded.” 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution includes diversity as a criterion in search processes. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
33 6 0 39
Percentage of Total 84.6 15.4 ‐‐ 100 Thos earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. How diversity is incorporated into search processes varied across the institutions that claimed points for this credit. A sample of referenced programs follows. • Members of each search committee receive orientation about diversity and receive a charge from the President to increase diversity among faculty and staff. • A couple institutions mentioned special outreach efforts to attract diverse candidates • One institution wrote about faculty recruitment procedures designed to increase the overall pool of applicants. • “Each individual job posting references diversity. For example: ‘Commitment to supporting an inclusive environment on campus. Evidence of respect for and understanding of people with diverse backgrounds, abilities and needs while maintaining appropriate academic standards.’ is found on all current academic services job postings.” • “In addition to the Universityʹs non‐ discrimination policy, [Institution] has adopted an Opportunity Hire Program, which is intended to increase the number of underrepresented faculty at [Institution]. The Opportunity Hire Program provides temporary financial support that facilitates the employment of individuals who contribute to the diversity profile of [Institution] faculty. Possible uses of funds include: providing support to hire a faculty member who is a possible candidate for a tenure track position, supporting recruitment and retention of faculty members from the targeted groups, or supporting unusual expenses associated with early recruitment, such as bringing an individual to the campus for a colloquium or consultation. [Institution] is also in the process of identifying a diversity champion within all search committees.” Feedback •
•
•
“We found question 5 to be basically unanswerable because it was so vague. We understand the need for brevity in the tier 2 questions, but they need to be clear enough to be useful.” “This data is not available” “It is not clear in what sort of search processes.” 299 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution includes diversity in employee performance evaluations. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
14 21 0 35
Percentage of Total 40.0 60.0 ‐‐ 100 Associate’s, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions earned this credit. Two institutions that did not earn this credit indicated that employee evaluation procedures are determined by the departments or units; there was not an overall directive to include diversity in the evaluations for all university employees. One of these institutions wrote that the evaluations used to include diversity, but do not currently. Examples of how institutions documented that they earn this credit: • “Completion of Intercultural Competency requirements are monitored and reviewed at each employeeʹs annual Progress Discussion.” • “All academic administrators and senior administrators at [Institution] are evaluated by their peers and supervisors in regards to their efforts to increase the representation of women and minorities through recruitment, retention, development, promotion and issuance of continuing contract. This is documented in each personnel file at the institution.” • “For all employees that work on diversity issues as some component of their jobs, even if in a peripheral level, diversity is included in the annual job evaluations. However, the institution has not mandated that diversity be included in all employee performance evaluations.” A couple institutions provided a sample of the employee performance review question about diversity. For example: “Diversity and Pluralism: Supports Departmental and University diversity initiatives. Contributes to building a community with a climate of openness and inclusiveness. 0 Exceptional: Works diligently to foster an open and inclusive environment. Actively seeks out opportunities to enhance the openness and inclusiveness of the community. Always displays behaviors that respect and value individual differences. 0 Above Expectations: Provides support for an open and inclusive environment. Encourages diversity initiatives and frequently displays behaviors that demonstrate respect for all individuals. 0 Meets Expectations: Accepts diversity initiatives and sometimes participates in activities that promote a climate of openness and inclusiveness. 300 0 Improvement Needed: Needs encouragement to support a diverse and inclusive environment. Fails to display behaviors that demonstrate respect and value for individual differences.” Feedback •
•
•
•
“This question was too vague for us to answer. We looked at employee performance evaluation forms and procedures, but we could not determine if we met the criteria to claim this credit. Could the explanation be more explicit in its meaning of ‘diversity’? Does this relate to employee attitudes and action towards diverse groups of people? Are we talking only about minorities, or everybody? It’s a bit unclear.” “We found question 6 to be basically unanswerable because it was so vague. We understand the need for brevity in the tier 2 questions, but they need to be clear enough to be useful.” “Seems slightly unclear on what it is asking.” “Interesting that there is a question about diversity in performance evaluations, but not sustainability in performance evaluations???” 301 Human Resources Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Human Resources
AF 27: Sustainable Compensation 1 0.29 0.33 0.71 0.33 0.49 AF 28: Faculty and Staff Health Care* 3 2.29 2.10 2.60 2.67 2.47 AF 29: Graduate Student Employee Health Care* 2 n/a 0.67 0.94 0.09 0.61 AF 30: Family Leave* 1 1.00 0.90 0.84 0.67 0.83 AF 31: Domestic Partner Benefits* 1 0.29 0.60 0.80 0.42 0.59 AF 32: Employee Satisfaction Survey 1 0.86 0.22 0.40 0.50 0.46 Human Resources Tier Two Credits 1.75 1.07 1.22 1.50 1.57 1.40 6.25 6.85 Total Possible Points Associate’s Average Points per Credit Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 10.75 5.80 6.04 7.79 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. AF Credit 27: Sustainable Compensation Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution periodically evaluates, and updates as appropriate, its wages and benefits policies to ensure that total compensation (wages plus benefits) for the lowest‐paid employees is sufficient to enable these employees to meet their basic needs, as defined by the institution. Student workers are not covered by this credit. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
24 25 0 49
Percentage of Total 49.0 51.0 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 16 are public and 8 are private. 47 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 53 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 2 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 15 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 29 percent of eligible associate’s, 33 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 71 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 33 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Many institutions provided information about their overall compensation philosophy and benefits packages as well as details about compensation procedures for administrators and faculty (i.e., not the lowest paid workers). 302 Many institutions that claimed this credit indicated that they use market comparisons to determine wages and salaries: • “While [Institution] has not adopted a ʺliving wageʺ philosophy per se, our pay practices, specifically, the commitment to pay at the 80% percentile of the market, is intended to address the same issue. It is problematic to link institutional pay for work performed to an individualʹs personal circumstances. Individual needs are personal in nature.” • “Each salary range has four parts: Minimum ‐ the lowest amount that the university would pay an employee assigned to that grade; Maximum Hiring Rate ‐ the highest amount the university would pay a new employee; Midpoint ‐ the 50th percentile of the range that typically represents the market rate for a fully qualified employee; Maximum ‐ the maximum amount the university usually would pay an employee assigned to that grade.” • “In 2008, the State conducted a salary survey which identified civil service job titles that were 10 percent or more below the minimum market average in similar positions throughout the private sector and state system. As a result of the salary survey data, the state provided increases to specifically identified positions earlier this year.” A couple institutions that claimed this credit addressed equity issues in their responses: • “In addition to review of employee compensation at the time of negotiation, an annual review for equity of salaries is conducted. Any employee who is found to be paid below the mean salary of their peers, at the same rank, with the same number of years of service will receive a salary adjustment.” • “Limited Term Employees (LTE) are our lowest wage earners and pay increases are not mandatory. Yet, [Institution] has a policy of adjusting pay to that of at least the base pay of an equivalent permanent position title, if the state increases its rates.” Several institutions that claimed this credit specifically mentioned local “Living Wage” rates: • “Beyond the federal labor and minimum wage requirements, the university has determined to meet at least the living wage rate for the” city in which the institution is located. • “[Institution] follows Living Wage Policy [from a nearby city] wherein all workers are paid a wage which enables them to not live in poverty. It is the policy of the [nearby city] that persons doing work on, for or on behalf of the City should be paid a living wage, be provided with or able to afford health insurance, have reasonable time off, not be subject to lay off merely because the City changes contractors and should work in an environment of labor peace.” • “The methodology [Institution] used to calculate and adjust the salary of the lowest paid employees is through salary surveys and living wage indicators. For example, [Institution] conducts annual salary surveys of its job classifications. One of these surveys is devoted to blue collar and service workers at [Institution]. These include our lowest paid employees. For example, in 2006, [Institution] provided a ’Living Wage’ increase to its lowest paid employees. The Living Wage is an indicator of an adequate enough salary to meet basic economic needs. [Institution] annually monitors the Living Wage index to gauge the salaries of its lowest paid employees.” • “Although the university system is striving towards a minimum standard by providing a ‘living wage’, we have no official policy regarding a ‘living wage’, nor do we have a metric to measure how we are doing in this regard.” 303 Several institutions mentioned that they paid wages higher than the state or federal minimum wage or that compensation was above the state’s poverty line: • “The College’s lowest paid workers are paid above the state minimum wage rate which is higher than the Federal minimum wage rate. Compensation rates are reviewed annually.” • “The university minimum wage exceeds the state minimum wage by more than $2/hour. The university seeks to ensure that contractors affiliated with the university meet or exceed the wage policy established for university employees.” • “The lowest paid workers at [Institution] will receive no less than a $22,000 a year salary which is above [the state’s] Poverty Line.” • “A minimum pay rate above the state/federal minimum wage was established recognizing the importance of providing a sustainable living standard. The rate is set to reflect the wage necessary for a family of four to remain eligible for state sponsored assistance for child care/health care.” Several institutions said some workers’ wages are determined by union agreements: • “The university regularly evaluates the hourly rates during union negotiations, typically every 3 years, and utilizes local and regional market data to ensure the rates are competitive and fair.” • “Food Service and Maintenance (who are among some of the College’s lowest paid workers) are paid based on their union negotiated contract and annual increases are applied as such.” Notes and comments from institutions that did not earn this credit: • Eight institutions that did not claim this credit indicated that data were not available. One institution wrote, “Due to the current economy, our business office is focused on stabilizing our institution’s finances and did not have time to return this information.” • “There are various employee categories at [Institution] each of which has its own types of pay structures, disciplinary/employment protection structures, etc.” • “The staff in our Food Service and Janitorial areas are our lowest paid staff. Those services are contracted out, and we donʹt set a minimum wage with those employers. If we count our contracted services as our own staff, we donʹt meet the requirement of the credit.” • One institution indicated that the credit was “too controversial.” The respondent wrote, “[Institution] has no formal, public policy on compensation for the lowest paid workers on campus, and they were not comfortable commenting on it in detail for this rating system. We do have a minimum wage we offer, which is higher than the federal and state minimum wage, but again, whether that is considered livable can vary from person to person.” • “In 2008, as required by several collective bargaining agreements, the State Department of Personnel conducted a comprehensive market based salary survey to look at compensation for similar work conducted by both public and private businesses throughout the state and the region. However, this survey did not evaluate whether or not compensation was sufficient to enable employees to meet their basic needs, but only to compare how others doing similar work are compensated.” • “A major salary equity adjustment focused primarily on the lowest‐paid workers on campus, e.g. custodial and other facilities staff, was initiated in 2001. Since that date, the institution has worked to ensure the compensation for all employees is in‐line with CUPA and other national and state benchmarks” • “[Institution] is a publicly funded, not for profit institution that expends 80% of its limited budget on salary and benefits. However, the uncertainty of our continued increase in funding makes it impossible to maintain an on‐going program of compensation review.” 304 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
1 11 10 9 2 0 33
Percentage of Responses 3.0 33.3 30.3 27.3 6.1 ‐‐ 100 One institution wrote “Finding specific information in regards to employee pay scales is somewhat difficult. It is hard to gain access to complete information because some of it is classified by either the [state university system] or the labor union.” Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
26 3 3 0 32
Percentage of Responses 81.3 9.4 9.4 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “This credit should look at how much a university outsources positions. We do not outsource any of our positions. [Institutions] that outsource facilities, dining, [and other functions do not have to include those staff in their review]. An indicator or extra credit should go to those that do not outsource at all.” • “Add an additional credit about wage practices across the board: chances to advance in careers, chances to increase wages, etc.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “This is a difficult and complex question, particularly for an institution like [Institution] that has a medical center and a variety of employment classes, including faculty. It is easier to comment on civil service employees but to address compensation policies for all employee classes is not practical. Perhaps the question should be more specific or target a generally accepted employee class.” • “Institutions often have several different ways of compensating employees. Often negotiated contracts direct compensation and benefits and are too detailed to describe here.” • “[Institution] does not approach employment with a ‘basic needs’ mindset, but its policies still support the same ends. Perhaps some degree of recognition, or some gradient of credit, would be appropriate here.” 305 AF Credit 28: Faculty and Staff Health Care Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution provides medical and dental benefits to employees. 1 pt: All full‐time employees are eligible to receive medical and dental insurance. 2 pts: All employees with at least 0.75 full‐time equivalence are eligible to receive medical and dental insurance. 3 pts: All employees with at least 0.5 full‐time equivalence are eligible to receive medical and dental insurance. This credit does not apply to Canadian institutions. Results Credit Results Earned 3 points Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
31 10 8 0 3 52
Percentage of Total 59.6 19.2 15.4 ‐‐ 5.8 100 Results by Institution Control and Type (Eligible Institutions) Private Public Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s No points 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 0 (‐‐) 1 point
2 (11.8%) 6 (18.8%) 1 (14.3%) 2 (20%) 4 (20%) 1 (8.3%) 2 points 5 (29.4%) 5 (15.6%) 3 (42.9%) 5 (50%) 0 (‐‐) 2 (16.7%) 3 points
10 (58.8%) 21 (65.5%) 3 (42.9%) 3 (30%) 16 (80%) 9 (75.0%) Total 17 (100%) 32 (100%) 7 (100%) 10 (100%) 20 (100%) 12 (100%) This credit did not apply to three Canadian institutions. Beyond making medical and dental insurance available to employees based on full‐time equivalency, institutions reported other factors that influence the reach of their benefits plans. • Some institutions indicated that benefits were available to temporary staff and other institutions indicated that temporary staff members are excluded. The same is true for adjunct faculty. • The percentage of premiums paid by employees varied across and within institutions. For example, at some institutions the employee premium was fixed, at others it varied based on full‐time equivalency, job classification, the plan selected by each employee, or some combination of these factors. • Several institutions reported on deductibles, which sometimes varied based on employees’ position type or job classification. 306 •
•
The time it takes a new employee to become benefits‐eligible was not consistent across institutions. For instance, at some institutions there was a three to 12 month waiting period before employees became benefits‐eligible (waiting period duration varied based on FTE), and at other institutions employees became benefits‐eligible at the start of the month following the month in which they began. The choices available to employees varied. At some institutions there was one plan available to everyone and at others employees could choose from several plans. An institution that claimed 1 point makes medical insurance available to all employees regardless of full‐time equivalency, but does not offer dental insurance to any employees. Other responses addressed medical coverage, but did not mention dental insurance. One institution reported on benefits for faculty and administrators, but not all staff. Many institutions provided links to the employee benefits handbook and/or copied excerpts from such documents. How full‐time equivalency is measured was not always clear. One institution that claimed 3 points for this credit wrote that benefits are available to a staff member who “is regularly scheduled to work either at least 37.5 hours per week for at least 8.5 months during the Universityʹs academic year, or at least 20 hours per week for 12 months during the Universityʹs fiscal year.” Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 23 12 1 0 0 42
Percentage of Responses 14.3 54.8 28.6 2.4 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 One institution wrote that it was unable to find information about benefits from the reporting year and instead reported current offerings. Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
33 6 0 0 39
307 Percentage of Responses 84.6 15.4 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Separate points for medical and dental coverage.” • “Also consider how much of the premium the university/ college covers ‐ faculty and staff may have access to medical and dental insurance, but if the university/ college does not cover much of the premium, faculty and staff may not be able to afford it.” • “Points should be awarded to those who offer part time employees medical care benefits only.” • “Clarify whether the institution must pay full benefits or simply provide a program.” • “Indicate whether the university uses its own health‐care or a state program. This may not apply to non‐public schools.” • “Guidance doesnʹt speak to dental, health only.” 308 AF Credit 29: Graduate Student Employee Health Care Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution provides graduate student employees (e.g., GRAs and TAs) health insurance benefits. 1 pt: Institution covers 75 percent of graduate student employees’ health care premiums. 2 pts: Institution covers 100 percent of graduate student employees’ health care premiums. This credit does not apply to Canadian institutions. Results Credit Results Earned 2 points Earned 1 point Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
6 7 18 18 49
Percentage of Total 12.2 14.3 36.7 36.7 100 Results by Institution Control and Type (Eligible Institutions) Private Public Baccalaureate Doctorate‐granting Master’s No points
6 (66.7%) 12 (54.5%) 2 (66.7%) 6 (35.3%) 10 (90.0%) 1 point
1 (11.1%) 6 (27.3%) 0 (‐‐) 6 (35.3%) 1 (9.1%) 2 points 2 (22.2%) 4 (18.2%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (29.4%) 0 (‐‐) Total
9 (100%) 22 (100%) 3 (100%) 17 (100%) 11 (100%) This credit did not apply to three Canadian institutions and 15 associate’s, baccalaureate, and master’s institutions that either don’t have or don’t employ graduate students. Notes and comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • Several institutions indicated that graduate students were able to purchase the insurance coverage that is offered to all students. • “Graduate student employees only receive benefits if they are a regular full‐time employee. An eligible employee is a member who works a minimum of 20 hours per week for the University.” • “[Institution] only has two small graduate programs, with ~50 graduate students. Only a small portion of them are employees of the college, and are not a significant part of the work force. [Institution] treats them essentially as students rather than as employees with regards to health insurance.” • “[Institution] has covered 50% of graduate student employees health insurance since at least 2000.” • “[Institution] does not offer health care plans to graduate students. The idea, however, is under intense consideration.” 309 Most of the institutions that claimed points for this credit indicated that benefits were provided to graduate students who were research or teaching assistants, and not all graduate students. In some instances, the students needed to be employed at a specified level of full‐time equivalence in order to be eligible for coverage. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 6 8 3 2 1 24
Percentage of Responses 16.7 25.0 33.3 12.5 8.3 4.2 100 Number of Responses
18 4 0 1 23
Percentage of Responses 78.3 17.4 ‐‐ 4.3 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Modify credit to allow for universities that donʹt rely heavily on graduate research assistants or teaching assistants. All classes at [Institutions] are taught by professors. Graduate student employees function similarly to undergraduate student employees, neither of which receives benefits.” • “Clarify whether entire cost of health coverage or only a percentage must be covered (i.e. it is unclear in the language whether a certain percentage of graduate students must be covered or a certain percentage of their health care coverage be paid for).” • “In credit ER11 (Sustainability Focused Graduate Academic Programs), the point didnʹt apply if an institution had fewer than 5 graduate programs. We believe that something similar should happen with this credit ‐ perhaps with the number of graduate students or graduate student employees as the cut‐off for applicability.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Do you mean for graduate student appointments of all types? [Institution] has many types of appointments.” Reasons the credit should be eliminated • None provided, though the recommendation came from an institution that “usually does not hire grad student employees.” 310 AF Credit 30: Family Leave Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution grants family leave to all employees, including graduate students. This credit does not apply to Canadian institutions. Results Credit Results Earned Credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
40 8 3 51
Percentage of Total 78.4 15.7 5.9 100 Three Canadian institutions selected that this credit did not apply. Of the institutions earning this credit, 27 are public and 13 are private. 84 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 81 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 7 associate’s, 9 baccalaureate, 16 doctorate‐granting, and 8 master’s institutions. This represents 100 percent of eligible associate’s, 90 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 84 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 67 percent of eligible master’s institutions. There were no noticeable differences between the leave policies of institutions that claimed this credit and institutions that did not. Most of the institutions that did not claim this credit indicated that they comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but that the policy does not cover graduate students. One institution did not claim this credit because it “follows FMLA and currently does not offer benefits above and beyond that.” Most of the institutions that claimed this credit indicated that they follow FMLA requirements. Some institutions that claimed this credit stated that graduate students were exempt from FMLA requirements and thus were not eligible for family leave. Two institutions that claimed this credit wrote, “Employees may take up to 6 weeks off for parental leave,” which is shorter than the 12‐week unpaid, job‐protected leave stipulated by FMLA. A couple institutions mentioned policies that exceed FMLA requirements (e.g., granting up to six months of unpaid leave, offering paid leave). 311 Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
5 19 12 3 0 0 39
Percentage of Responses 12.8 48.7 30.8 7.7 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Number of Responses
26 10 1 0 37
Percentage of Responses 70.3 27.0 2.7 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • Three institutions wrote, “Is it important to know when the policy was adopted? Or is it enough just to say that, yes, our institution has this policy and therefore recognizes and values the issue.” • “Need to clarify if the policies should be those mandated by federal or state law or policies that employers have regarding time off for family issues.” • Two institutions wrote, “Make FMLA leave for graduate students a credit separate from FMLA for employees. We did not get this credit for this reason.” • “Points should be awarded for institutions that have family leave for employees only, or graduate student employees only.” • “Partial credit for amount of eligible employees.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Is this not required by federal and state law?? Should it even be a credit?” • “If a university offers these benefits to all but graduate students, is there not some needed threshold for achievement? Maybe not, but this should be considered and evaluated.” • “The requirement for family leave for graduate students is not clear. Is this for graduate students who are not also employed by the university? If so, this seems like a requirement that is not likely to be met by many institutions of higher education.” 312 AF Credit 31: Domestic Partner Benefits Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution provides equal benefits to employees’ same‐sex domestic partners as to employees’ spouses. This credit does not apply to Canadian institutions or to institutions located in states that prohibit the provision of equivalent domestic partner benefits. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
29 20 3 52
Percentage of Total 55.8 38.5 5.8 100 Three Canadian institutions selected that this credit did not apply. Of the institutions earning this credit, 17 are public and 12 are private. 53 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 71 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 2 associate’s, 6 baccalaureate, 16 doctorate‐granting, and 5 master’s institutions. This represents 29 percent of eligible associate’s, 60 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 80 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 42 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Two institutions that did not claim this credit indicated that they offer some, but not all, benefits to employees’ same‐sex domestic partners as to employees’ spouses. Treatment of opposite‐sex domestic partners was not consistent among institutions. Some institutions that claimed this credit offer domestic partner benefits only to same‐sex couples and other institutions offer benefits to both same and opposite sex couples. Several institutions provided details about how the institution determines eligibility for domestic partner benefits. In most instances, the partners either need to sign an affidavit attesting to their partnership or need to be registered with the state, municipality, or equivalent. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 18 9 1 1 0 35
313 Percentage of Responses 17.1 51.4 25.7 2.9 2.9 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
29 3 1 0 33
Percentage of Responses 87.9 9.1 3.0 ‐‐ 100 Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “The initial sentence in the Criteria section makes mention of ‘same‐sex domestic partners’, which should be revised to read ’same‐sex or opposite sex domestic partners’. Or, the words ’same‐sex’ could be deleted altogether.” • “The date the policy was implemented should be eliminated. This information is hard to find.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “If I were to share this credit with our campus community, it would likely be split down anticipated lines. My question to you is this: Is this a sustainability‐related area, or is it opportunistic? My assertion is that, while important, it is not related to sustainability.” • “The University provides compensation for new faculty spouses or domestic partners if they are obligated to relocate to [state]. I do not believe this applies to staff or other employees, but it may be something to consider.” 314 AF Credit 32: Employee Satisfaction Survey Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution conducts a survey at least once every three years to measure employee satisfaction. The survey may be conducted institution‐wide or may be done by individual departments as long as all departments are covered by a survey. The institution has a mechanism in place to address issues raised by the survey. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
22 26 0 48
Percentage of Total 45.8 54.2 ‐‐ 100 Of the institutions earning this credit, 16 are public and 6 are private. 48 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 40 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 6 associate’s, 2 baccalaureate, 8 doctorate‐granting, and 6 master’s institutions. This represents 86 percent of eligible associate’s, 22 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 40 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 50 percent of eligible master’s institutions. Three institutions that did not claim points for this credit indicated that they had conducted surveys recently, but that the surveys were not completed on a regular, 3‐year schedule. One institution did not claim points because there was no mechanism for following up on the survey’s findings. Several institutions that did not claim this credit provided examples of other strategies the institution uses instead of surveys to gauge employee satisfaction. Strategies include: holding town hall meetings, formal processes through faculty and staff unions, one‐on‐one meetings with supervisors, and annual performance reviews. Comments and notes from institutions that earned this credit: • “Rather than conduct institution wide employee satisfaction surveys, employee satisfaction is gauged through individual one‐on‐one listening tours that are conducted by all department Vice Presidents. On a regular basis, VPʹs sit down with employees to gauge the employees satisfaction and the employers performance. These focused conversations also provide an opportunity for employees to provide recommendations and suggestions to the department VPʹs, and to discuss what is working and what is not. The institution recently considered conducting another employee satisfaction survey, it was determined that the listening tours conducted by the VPʹs are more effective at gauging employee satisfaction and also ensure that the employees concerns and ideas are being presented directly to the Vice Presidents.” • Many institutions’ surveys are not available online. Some results that were posted online were password restricted to institution’s staff. • Some surveys were administered by third parties, either contractors hired by the institution to conduct the survey or independent parties conducting the survey for their own analysis (e.g., The Chronicle of Higher Education’s “Great Colleges to Work For” survey or a survey for best workplaces in a city or region). 315 •
•
A couple institutions indicated that the institution hadn’t conducted a comprehensive survey of all employees, but that surveys were handled by each department. Several institutions that claimed points for this credit said that surveys were not completed on a regular, 3‐year schedule, but that surveys had been completed recently. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
4 13 10 5 2 1 35
Percentage of Responses 11.4 37.1 28.6 14.3 5.7 2.9 100 Number of Responses
24 4 3 0 31
Percentage of Responses 77.4 12.9 9.7 ‐‐ 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Employee engagement surveys are very expensive for organizations. I would recommend the criteria be changed to every 5 years instead of every 3 years.” • “Institutions should get credit for conducting these surveys at all, not ONLY every three years.” • “Define what constitutes a survey. Do exit interviews count? How often do surveys need to be conducted? Does it have to be a formal university survey or does a class project count?” • “The focus for this credit should be on Employee Engagement. While satisfaction can be a useful measure, the measure of engagement is more likely to be an indicator of employee retention and productivity. Key measures in engagement should include: purposeful selection of talent, meaningful work and design of work and associated resources, work impact and accountability, inspired leadership, continuous learning, sense of community and results‐based recognition.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “We donʹt believe that a survey is necessarily the best method for gathering information about employee satisfaction. Our HR department believes that surveys are less reliable than more informal face‐to‐face feedback methods, and we suspect that different methods of feedback. We would prefer to see inclusion of other measurements of employee satisfaction.” • “Several surveys are done every year on a range of different topics related to faculty, student, and staff satisfaction with the university. This question may be too specific in asking for one survey covering ʹsatisfactionʹ.” 316 •
“Question: is it important that the results are favorable or improving over time. Also does it matter what the university does with this information? Does the university administer survey just to indicate that it cares or is there concrete follow up to problem areas?” 317 Human Resources Tier Two Credits Overall Feedback •
•
•
•
“These are helpful ways to gain more credits and are important aspects to a college/universityʹs human resources department.” “These credits seem only tangentially related to sustainability.” “In addition to the above, [Institution] offers: tuition reimbursement for its employees; starting in 2007, [Institution] began conducting background checks on all new employees; [Institution] facilitates a charitable donation campaign that allows payroll‐deducted giving for a wide array of causes.” “Some of these credits seem to simply focus on compliance, such as having a whistle‐blower policy and fair treatment policy.” 1. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an on‐site child care facility or partners with a local facility to meet the child care needs of all students, faculty, and staff. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
31 14 0 45
Percentage of Total 68.9 31.1 ‐‐ 100 Associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions earned this credit. Comments from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “Unlikely to set up on‐site child care due to small size of institution.” • “[Institution] has two child care facilities, but combined they do not meet the needs of all faculty, staff and students. This has been an issue that many stakeholder groups on our campus have been working to remedy. We hope to have child care facilities for ALL that need them in the future.” • “[Institution] does not currently offer on‐site child care; however, employees do receive a 10% discount at [a nearby facility].” Comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • Most institutions that claimed this credit provided information about an on‐site program or programs. Several indicated that the children of students, faculty, and staff have priority for placement, but that placement is not guaranteed. • One institution wrote that the credit is “difficult to evaluate. ‘On‐site’ has a very different meaning on an urban campus.” • “It would be impossible for [Institution] to provide on‐site child care to meet needs of ALL students, faculty and staff.” • “The college posts the information of local child care centers and baby sitters.” • The ages of children served by on‐site facilities varied across institutions. 318 2. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a whistle‐blower policy and established methods to raise complaints and concerns without fear of reprisal. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
32 12 0 44
Percentage of Total 72.7 27.3 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Comments from institutions that claimed this credit: • “College uses campus wide ethics reporting line ʺEthicspoint.comʺ that allows for anonymous reporting of ethics violations by any employee.” • “As a state institution, the University shares the stateʹs whistleblower policy.” • Institution has “a toll‐free, 24‐hour, 7 day‐a‐week, telephone resource that allows employees to report fraud, misconduct, and financial or policy violations in a confidential manner.” • “We have two full‐time staff that oversee the Whistle‐blower program on campus.” • A couple institutions noted that whistle‐blower protections are included in union contracts. Feedback •
“More clarity on the types of actions that would be covered in this policy is needed.” 3. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution offers optional part‐time schedules and job share arrangements for employees who require flexibility. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
31 13 0 44
Percentage of Total 70.5 29.5 ‐‐ 100 Those earning the credit include associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions. Several institutions that claimed this credit pointed to language in the Employee Handbook or Personnel Manual about the institution’s approach to flexible scheduling. There were no noticeable differences between the approaches of several institutions that did not claim this credit and most of the institutions that did. The approach at most schools was that flexible schedules can be negotiated on a case by case basis or determined by departments independently, but there was not an overall policy for the entire institution. One institution that claimed this credit wrote, “we have a Work Life coordinator on campus who assists departments will flexible schedules and other work‐family issues.” 319 4. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an ombudsperson who investigates and helps achieve fair resolution to reported complaints from employees. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
27 16 0 43
Percentage of Total 62.8 37.2 ‐‐ 100 Associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions earned this credit. Sample responses from institutions that did not claim this credit: • “[Institution] does not currently have an ombudsperson; however, Employee Relations is available to consult and advise all employees on Non‐EEO related concerns or complaints. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is available to consult and advise faculty and staff on concerns or complaints related to EEO.” • “The Collegeʹs union officers investigate and attempt to come to fair resolutions to complaints from employees.” Sample responses from institutions that claimed this credit: • “The specific ombudsman depends on whether the person initiating the grievance is faculty, staff or student.” • “The University employs an HR Director and two HR Managers whose roles include employee relations. The University also employs a Diversity Officer whose role includes investigation of racism, discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment.” • “Members of the campus community have alternative avenues to raise a complaint or concern, including their department head or supervisor, other higher‐level University officer, Human Resources or the University’s Director of EEO & Diversity.” • “[Institution] has a Conflict Resolution Officer that is appointed by the President from a pool of candidates.” • “We have an ombuds office that provides an array of services to faculty, staff and students.” • “Each department at the [Institution] is assigned a Human Resources Partner who investigates and helps achieve fair resolution to reported complaints from employees.” • “The ombudsperson is authorized by [Institution’s] president to confidentially receive complaints, concerns or inquiries about alleged acts, omissions, improprieties, and/or broader systemic problems within the [Institution] community and to listen, offer options, facilitate resolutions, informally investigate or otherwise examine these issues independently and impartially. The ombudsperson assists people with complaints involving interpersonal misunderstandings or disputes as well as those with complaints about academic or administrative issues and attempts to help individuals resolve their concerns fairly. To achieve maximum independence, the ombudsperson reports only to [Institution’s] President and then only for administrative and budgetary purposes; that is, no names or specific grievances are released and absolute confidentiality is maintained. The ombudspersonʹs function is 320 •
located outside the ordinary line management structure of [Institution] and operates as a supplement to existing administrative or formal grievance procedures, and has no formal decision‐making authority. Its process is informal and bringing a concern or complaint to the ombudsperson does not constitute serving legal notice to [Institution]. The ombudsperson does not act as advocates for either side in a dispute. The ombudsperson has access to anyone in the organization.” “There is only an Ombudsperson available for students. Complaints [from faculty and staff] can be brought to relevant staff associations.” Feedback •
“[Institution] has an official Open Door Policy which negates the need for an ombudsperson. [Institution] places great importance on promoting and maintaining a climate of open communication and mutual trust between employees and leadership. This Open Door Policy provides for timely resolution of employee problems, misunderstandings, and complaints while allowing sufficient time for fact finding and clarification. No employee will be reprimanded, harassed, or retaliated against for utilizing the policy. This open door policy is not a substitute for the University’s Equal Opportunity and Discriminatory Harassment Policy.” 5. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has an employee assistance or wellness program that provides counseling, referral, and well‐being services to employees. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
43 2 0 45
Percentage of Total 95.6 4.4 ‐‐ 100 Associate’s, baccalaureate, doctorate‐granting, and master’s institutions earned this credit. There was slight variation in the services covered by the employee wellness programs cited, but most programs were very similar. 321 6. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has a fair treatment policy that protects staff from discrimination, racism, bullying, and sexual harassment. Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
44 0 0 44
Percentage of Total 100 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 In addition to policies, several institutions mentioned that they offered or required trainings on this topic for faculty and staff. 7. Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution has clear grievance procedures that are communicated to all employees Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
44 0 0 44
322 Percentage of Total 100 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Trademark Licensing Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Average Points per Credit AF 33: Independent Monitoring of Logo Apparel* 1 0.17 0.43 0.57 0.36 0.44 AF 34: Designated Suppliers Program* 1 2 0.00 0.14 0.26 0.27 0.21 0.63 0.65 Trademark Licensing
Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 0.17 0.57 0.83 *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. AF Credit 33: Independent Monitoring of Logo Apparel Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution is a member of an organization that conducts monitoring and verification to ensure that products bearing the institution's name or logo are produced under fair conditions (e.g., the Worker Rights Consortium or the Fair Labor Association). This credit does not apply to schools that do not have their logo on apparel. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
20 25 3 48
Percentage of Total 41.7 52.1 6.3 100 Three institutions (one associate’s, one private master’s, and one private baccalaureate) selected that the credit does not apply. One wrote, “[Institution] does not have their logo on apparel.” Of the institutions earning this credit, 15 are public and 5 are private. 45 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 42 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 associate’s, 3 baccalaureate, 12 doctorate‐granting, and 4 master’s institutions. This represents 17 percent of eligible associate’s, 43 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 57 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 36 percent of eligible master’s institutions. One institution that did not claim this credit indicated that their bookstore is run by Barnes & Noble wrote, “Barnes and Noble College Booksellers does have a screening process for all vendors which includes signing a code of conduct.” 323 Of the institutions that claimed points for this credit: • One wrote that it self‐monitors licensees (and provided examples of vendors that have been excluded due to human rights violations) • Seven reported membership in both the Fair Labor Association and the Worker Rights Consortium • Four reported membership in only the Worker Rights Consortium • Eight reported membership in only the Fair Labor Association In addition, two institutions reported working with the Licensing Resources Group in order to meet WRC and/or FLA standards. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
3 11 11 3 1 1 30
Percentage of Responses 10.0 36.7 36.7 10.0 3.3 3.3 100 Number of Responses
26 4 0 1 31
Percentage of Responses 83.9 12.9 ‐‐ 3.2 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Combine with Credit 34.” • “I keep reiterating this, but I donʹt think the dates joined should be included in the credits. It requires extra work when you receive the credit based merely on whether or not you have joined verification organization.” • “In state institutions, or institutions having more than one campus, logo usage is directed by two different entities. [State University] logo apparel and merchandise is subject to [the University system’s] policies, but specific [Institution] logos are not subject to the same policies. This credit should have (at least) two tiers ‐ one tier for system‐wide policies and another tier for specific institutionsʹ policies.” Reasons the credit should be changed • “Exploring other programs the university is involved with would give a better picture of the universityʹs commitment/level of concern with social justice. An example would be an endorsement of the United Nationʹs Global Compact.” 324 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • None provided, though the institution recommending that the credit be eliminated wrote, “[Institution] is not a member of FLA. However, approximately 90% of apparel with university logos is sold through the university bookstore, in‐store and online. The bookstore is wholly managed by Follett Higher Education Group. Follett has been a member of FLA since April 2008. Today 95% of Follett’s clothing providers and more than 50% of its gift vendors are associated with the FLA.” 325 AF Credit 34: Designated Suppliers Program Pilot Version Credit Criteria Institution participates in the Worker Rights Consortium’s Designated Suppliers Program. This credit does not apply to schools that do not have their logo on apparel. Results Credit Results Earned credit Did not earn credit Credit did not apply Total submissions received Number of Institutions
10 37 2 49
Percentage of Total 20.4 75.5 4.1 100 Two institutions (one private baccalaureate and one public associate’s) selected that the credit does not apply. Of the institutions earning this credit, 6 are public and 4 are private. 18 percent of eligible public institutions earned this credit, compared to 31 percent of eligible private institutions. Those earning the credit include 1 baccalaureate, 6 doctorate‐granting, and 3 master’s institutions. This represents 14 percent of eligible baccalaureate, 26 percent of eligible doctorate‐granting, and 27 percent of eligible master’s institutions. One institution that has agreed to participate in the DSP, did not claim this credit because the DSP is, “Not an active program [it’s] just a proposal, currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposal violates any US Anti‐Trust laws.” Another institution that did not claim the credit wrote, “The reason the school is not a member is that the school is smaller and feels that the program is geared more towards larger schools that have a large fan base for their teams.” Most of the institutions that claimed points for this credit wrote that their institutions had issued official public statements affirming their support of the DSP. One institution is, “working on pressuring other universities to sign onto the Designated Suppliers Program” in order to help the program become “fully functional; it requires a critical mass of participating schools before we can receive supplies through the program.” Several institutions that claimed this credit indicated they were waiting until the program becomes fully operational in order to start getting apparel through the DSP. One institution that had affirmed support of the program wrote they were waiting for the DSP to: “‐‐ get a Department of Justice statement that it is not a restraint of trade; ‐‐ assure that it will not put more workers out of a job than it might help; ‐‐ assure that it can meet the demands of hot markets and championships; ‐‐ define a living wage as something that can be defined and enforced; ‐‐ get support of host countries; and ‐‐ include environmental concerns as part of the responsibilities as specified in [Institution’s] Code of Conduct for licensees.” 326 One institution that claimed this credit documented that the student government had affirmed support of the program but did not indicate if the administration had also issued a statement of support. One institution indicated that it was a member of the WRC and FLA, but did not mention the DSP. Feedback Data Availability Very Easy Easy Moderately Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Very Difficult Total Number of Responses
6 6 9 4 1 1 27
Percentage of Responses 22.2 22.2 33.3 14.8 3.7 3.7 100 Number of Responses
24 4 0 2 30
Percentage of Responses 80.0 13.3 ‐‐ 6.7 100 Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Suggestions for how the credit should be changed • “Combine with Credit 33.” • “Suggest creating equivalency for this credit. [Institution] monitors suppliers but is not affiliated with the Designated Suppliers Program. For example, [Institution] has fair trade for athletics and central purchases.” • In response to the documentation field requesting “A brief description of the institutionʹs efforts to add factories to be included under the program,” one institution wrote, “This question is not clear. What information are you looking for here?” Reasons the credit should be changed • “While [Institution] is not part of the Worker Rights Consortium we do support their goals and initiatives. It would be good if the credit could be changed to reflect our effort to honor workers rights ‐ even though we do not belong to the Worker Rights Consortium. The company we work with on licensing also screens our vendors to determine whether or not they honor workers rights.” • “There are a number of issues related to the WRC DSP. Concerns include supply disruption; limited merchandise variety; negative impacts on workers at factories not under the DSP, which as a result lose business; higher licensing fees; political backlash; antitrust issues; and changes to collegiate licenseesʹ ability to source products. A white paper from our national association [National Association of College Stores] that identifies many of these issues in a more specific way is available at: http://www.nacs.org/whitepapers/DesignatedSuppliersProgram06.pdf.” • “You could consider enumerating the various components of the DSP and grading efforts and accomplishments in those areas rather than considering the full package. This is not yet legal; it might create more sweatshops by downward pressures on price and rejection of small factories.” 327 Reasons the credit should be eliminated • “[DSP is] not an active program, [it’s] just a proposal, currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposal violates any US Anti‐Trust laws [and] submitted to Universities for review. Until adopted by member Universities I would not include in STARS. From the University Licensing perspective I would remove the [credit and] I would replace with Licensing Advisory Committee (LAC).” 328 Innovation Credits Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Total Possible Points Average Points per Credit 4 0.57 1.50 1.82 1.64 0.44 Innovation
Innovation Credits Guidelines for Innovation Credits Innovation credits are reserved for new, extraordinary, unique, ground‐breaking, or uncommon outcomes, policies, and practices that either 1) Greatly exceed the highest criterion of a current STARS credit. 2) Are not covered elsewhere in STARS. Projects that were once innovative but are now widely adopted do not count for this credit. Timeframe To earn an innovation credit, ongoing projects or achievements may have started during the performance period or earlier. One‐time events or occurrences must have happened during the performance period (i.e., the three previous years). Results Innovation Credits Results Claimed 4 innovation credits Claimed 3 innovation credits Claimed 2 innovation credits Claimed 1 innovation credit Did not claim innovation credits* Total submissions received Number of Institutions
9 3 4 12 15 43
Percentage of Total 20.9 7.0 9.3 27.9 34.9 100 * Includes institutions that submitted forms for all other credits but did not upload any forms for innovation credits. Institutions claimed innovation credits for a variety of programs, policies, and practices. Areas covered by innovation credits include: • Academic programs and partnerships • Diversity achievements • Community partnerships • Student research programs • Student training and career development programs • Planning initiatives • Experimentation with new technologies and strategies • Transportation projects • Habitat restoration and maintenance 329 Feedback Credit Recommendation Maintain credit as it is Change credit slightly Change credit significantly Eliminate credit Total Number of Responses
21 1 0 0 22
Suggestions for how the credit should be changed None provided 330 Percentage of Responses 95.5 4.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ 100 Appendix A: Institutions that Participated in the STARS Pilot Project Associate's Colleges Large (more than 12,500 students) Cedar Valley College – Lancaster, Texas Dallas County Community College District – Dallas, Texas De Anza Community College – Cupertino, California Eastern Iowa Community College District – Davenport, Iowa Eastfield College – Mesquite, Texas Grand Rapids Community College – Grand Rapids, Michigan Monroe Community College – Rochester, New York Mountain View College – Dallas, Texas North Lake College – Irving, Texas Richland College – Dallas, Texas Santa Barbara City College – Santa Barbara, California Santa Fe Community College – Gainesville, Florida Medium (3,000 to 12,500 students) Delta College – University Center, Michigan Northwest State Community College – Archbold, Ohio Baccalaureate Colleges Small (fewer than 3,000 students) College of St. Benedict – St. Joseph, Minnesota Dickinson College – Carlisle, Pennsylvania Gustavus Adolphus College – St. Peter, Minnesota Middlebury College – Middlebury, Vermont Mount Union College – Alliance, Ohio Northland College – Ashland, Wisconsin Randolph College – Lynchburg, Virginia St. Johnʹs University – Collegeville, Minnesota University of Minnesota, Morris – Morris, Minnesota Williams College – Williamstown, Massachusetts Canadian Institutions Large (more than 12,500 students) Concordia University – Montreal, Quebec McGill University – Montreal, Quebec University of British Columbia – Vancouver, British Columbia Medium (3,000 to 12,000 students) Acadia University – Wolfville, Nova Scotia 331 Doctorate­granting Universities Large (more than 12,500 students) Arizona State University – Tempe, Arizona Ball State University – Muncie, Indiana Colorado State University – Fort Collins, Colorado Illinois State University – Normal, Illinois Iowa State University – Ames, Iowa New York University –New York, New York Portland State University – Portland, Oregon Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – New Brunswick, New Jersey Syracuse University – Syracuse, New York University of California, San Diego – San Diego, California University of California, Santa Barbara – Santa Barbara, California University of Central Florida – Orlando, Florida University of Colorado at Boulder – Boulder, Colorado University of Florida – Gainesville, Florida University of Illinois at Chicago – Chicago, Illinois University of Kansas – Lawrence, Kansas University of New Hampshire – Durham, New Hampshire University of Texas at Austin – Austin, Texas Worcester Polytechnic Institute – Worcester, Massachusetts Medium (3,000 to 12,000 students) Case Western Reserve University – Cleveland, Ohio Emory University – Atlanta, Georgia Small (fewer than 3,000 students) State University of New York, College of Environmental Science & Forestry – Syracuse, NY Master's Colleges and Universities Large (more than 12,500 students) Appalachian State University – Boone, North Carolina Boise State University – Boise, Idaho California State University, Chico – Chico, California California State University, Sacramento – Sacramento, California Eastern Kentucky University – Richmond, Kentucky Grand Valley State University – Allendale, Michigan University of Nebraska at Omaha – Omaha, Nebraska 332 Medium (3,000 to 12,000 students) Florida Gulf Coast University – Fort Meyers, Florida Pacific Lutheran University – Tacoma, Washington Santa Clara University – Santa Clara, California Seattle Pacific University – Seattle, Washington The Evergreen State College – Olympia, Washington University of Colorado at Colorado Springs – Colorado Springs, Colorado University of Wisconsin ‐ River Falls – River Falls, Wisconsin Small (fewer than 3,000 students) Monterey Institute of International Studies – Monterey, California Special Focus Institutions Small (fewer than 3,000 students) Rose‐Hulman Institute of Technology – Terre Haute, Indiana 333 Appendix B: Final Survey Results In February 2009, following the conclusion of the pilot project, AASHE distributed an online survey using Survey Monkey to participants. Participants were asked to complete one survey per institution. AASHE received 46 responses (70 percent of all participants, assuming one response per institution). The aim of the survey was to get participants’ feedback on their overall experience participating in the pilot project – from suggestions on how to improve customer service and the online reporting tool to overall benefits and challenges of participation. A summary of survey responses follows. STARS Pilot Project Logistics 1. Who was the primary person leading or coordinating your institution’s participation in the pilot project? Response Count Response Percent
Administrator 15 32.6 Consultant 0 ‐‐ Faculty member 5 10.9 Staff member 19 41.3 Student 4 8.7 Other 3 6.5 Total 46 100
Other (please specify) 1. “Administrator and student employee, jointly” 2. “Professional and scientific employees” 3. “2 staff members” 4. “Student intern” 5. “Assisted up to 20 hours/week since June 2008 by an undergrad” 2. Who was the primary person who gathered data for your institution? Response Count Response Percent
Administrator 12 26.1 Consultant 0 ‐‐ Faculty member 1 2.2 Staff member 13 28.3 Student 15 32.6 Other 5 10.9 Total 46 100
Other (please specify) 1. “The coordinator(s) were two primary people” 2. “We created a STARS committee comprised of students, staff, and administrators to collect the data.” 3. “A committee of administrators collaborated on data collection and formulating the responses.” 4. “A committee” 5. “Student intern” 334 3. Please select other groups that were involved in gathering data for your institution: Response Count
Administrator 21 Consultant 1 Faculty member 20 Staff member 33 Student 14 None (only the primary person gathered data) 6 Other 1 Total 46
Response Percent
45.7 2.2 43.5 71.7 30.4 13.0 2.2 100
Other (please specify) 1. STARS Task Team 4. Use this space to share other information about your institution’s approach to gathering and submitting information. Would you recommend this approach to similar institutions? Are there other lessons learned that youʹd like to share? ‐ Identify a STARS Team • “Point of contacts and responsible parties” • “Could include the department directors in addition to sustainability team” • “Include the people that know the information or how to get it” • “If possible, include STARS data collection into one (or more) job descriptions” ‐ Identify a Timeline • “Start early” • “Build in time for approval of submissions” ‐ Data Collection • “Google docs helped share information between departments” • “Use a spreadsheet to track progress and any/all conversations with departments” • “Create a process for data collection with the intent to automate the system to streamline STARS at the institution.” • “Develop a routine of data collection that would include a database of campus‐wide contacts involved in supplying data.” • “Track the number of hours; this will help identify areas for improvement and increasing efficiency” • “Assign various departments as responsible parties; more efficient than sustainability team interpreting information and inputting to the STARS forms.” 335 Online Reporting Tool and Customer Service 1. Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience using the online reporting tool? Response Count
Very Satisfied 3 Satisfied 29 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6 Dissatisfied 5 Very dissatisfied 1 Not applicable 0 Total 44 Response Percent
6.8 65.9
13.6 11.4 2.4 ‐‐ 100
2. Overall how satisfied were you with your ability to get questions answered and issues resolved? Response Count Response Percent Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Not applicable Total 9 31 2 1 0 1 44 20.5 70.5
4.5 2.3 ‐‐ 2.3 100
Goals and Benefits of Participation 1. What was your institution’s primary goal in participating in the STARS pilot project? (select one) Response Count Response Percent
Use STARS as a framework for preparing a written sustainability report 3 6.8 Identify strengths and areas for improvement for the institution 18 40.9 Provide feedback to AASHE about how STARS should change 10 22.7 See how the institution compares to other schools 4 9.1 Prepare for participating in STARS 1.0 3 6.8 Earn recognition for sustainability leadership 4 9.1 Collaborate with other campuses interested in sustainability assessment 0 ‐‐ Begin sustainability initiatives at the institution 1 2.3 Communicate sustainability goals and achievements with others 0 ‐‐ Not sure 1 2.3 Other 0 ‐‐ Total 44
100
Other (please specify) 1. “Benchmark with other community colleges” 336 2. What were your institution’s other goals for participation? (select all that apply) Response Count Response Percent
Use STARS as a framework for preparing a written sustainability report 14 31.8 Identify strengths and areas for improvement for the institution 23 52.3 Provide feedback to AASHE about how STARS should change 11 25.0 See how the institution compares to other schools 24 54.5 Prepare for participating in STARS 1.0 22 50.0 Earn recognition for sustainability leadership 20 45.5 Collaborate with other campuses interested in sustainability assessment 14 31.8 Begin sustainability initiatives at the institution 14 31.8 Communicate sustainability goals and achievements with others 26 59.1 Not sure 1 2.3 Other 0 ‐‐ Other (please specify) 1. “Student STARS coordinator using process as part of Master’s Thesis” 3. How well were your goals met by participating? Response Count Response Percent
Fully met 6 14.3 Mostly met 20 47.6 Partially met 13 31.0 Not at all met 0 ‐‐ Not sure 3 7.1 Total 42 100 4. What were the primary benefits to your institution’s participation in the STARS Pilot Project? ‐ Collaboration • “Identified institution‐wide contacts on sustainability” • “Learned what is happening at other institutions” • “Worked together with faculty and staff across campus” • “Developed thematic groups across campus” • “Reduced the disconnect” • “Created an opportunity for learning and organizational change” ‐ Communications and Awareness • “Administrators are now familiar with sustainability” • “Identified new/more topics to consider than ever before” • “Educated us on what a sustainable campus looks like” • “Identified areas for concern or opportunity” • “New knowledge, insight” ‐ Framework and Guidelines • “Gathered comprehensive data” • “Identified sources of data” • “Began the conversation about developing internal systems to maintain and report data” • “Created a template to assess ourselves” 337 •
•
•
•
“Helped set new goals” “Identified strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement” “Helped develop a sustainability report” “Helped data collection occur within a specific time period” ‐ Improvements to STARS • “Influenced the outcome of STARS framework” • “Participating with the national organization helped bring credibility to our efforts” • “Played a role in the development of STARS credits” • “Prepared us for STARS 1.0” • “It is critical to develop a comprehensive assessment tool that will enable all institutions to weight their progress individually and collectively” • “Helped develop a realistic, peer‐developed, transparent pioneering campus rating system” • “Having a say in how smaller, non‐flagship public institutions would be evaluated.” 5. What were the primary drawbacks to your institution’s participation in the STARS Pilot Project? ‐ Time, Energy & Resources • “Needed more help with reporting” • “Lack of understanding about STARS” • “Logistical difficulties” • “A lot of work for unclear outcomes (e.g. low score)” • “Pushback from departments” • “Competing assessments or surveys” • “Didn’t allow for institution to include all of their sustainability work” • “Difficult to identify limits or boundaries in the assessment process” • “Lack of institutional knowledge” • “Lack of collaboration” • “No staff; volunteer effort” • “Information isn’t readily accessible; unclear of who to go to for what information” • “Underfunded and understaffed” • “Opportunity to recognize future strategies” • “Difficult to get participation and information from various departments and upper management” • “Lack of committed leadership and resources” • “Small schools don’t have the capacity to complete; create a STARS Lite option?” 338 Planning for STARS 1.0 1. Which of the following would you recommend? Response Count
Significantly reduce the number of credits included 6 Slightly reduce the number of credits included 16 Maintain the current number of credits included 10 Slightly increase the number of credits included 4 Significantly increase the number of credits included 0 Not sure 7 Total 43
Response Percent 14.0 37.2 23.3 9.3 ‐‐ 16.3 100
2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is your institution to submit for a STARS rating sometime in the next two years? Average response = 7 Response Count Response Percent
1 –Definite NO 0 ‐‐ 2 2 4.8 3 2 4.8 4 4 9.5 5 3 7.1 6 3 7.1 7 7 16.7 8 10 23.8 9 4 9.5 10 – Definite YES 7 16.7 Total 42 100
3. How frequently do you think your institution would resubmit for a rating? Response Count
Every year 7 Every 2 years 17 Every 3 years 8 Every 4 years 0 Less frequently than every 4 years 2 Not sure 8 Will not participate again 0 Total 42 Response Percent
16.7 40.5 19.0 ‐‐ 4.8 19.0 ‐‐ 100
4. What are the biggest obstacles to future participation? • “Budget restrictions, time restrictions, staffing limitations” • “The evolution of STARS and how institutions are compared” • “The amount of documentation required” • “How useful the online system will be and if we can collect data for multiple years at a time” • “Convincing decision‐makers (including upper management) that STARS is the best tool available” • “Lack of motivation” 339 •
•
•
“Apathy” “Lack of understanding” “Competition with the requirements (and associated work) of the Higher Learning Commission” 5. Use this space to share other information or feedback that AASHE should consider when planning for STARS 1.0. • “Be sensitive of timelines around holidays and school breaks” • “Scale down STARS – time consuming and difficult” • “Redistribute credits” • “Do not compare large institutions with small ones” • “Provide a repository for sharing resources” • “Create forms for tracking several campuses at a time” • “Consider shortening the 3 year rating cycle to 1 or 2 years” • “Host a STARS conference after 1.0” • “Create a visual reporting system” • “Create AASHE regions and regional appeal boards” • “This is a great program!” Wrap­Up 1. What is the single best thing about STARS? • “Using STARS as a tool for open communication between various campus departments” • “Comprehensive” • “Credible because it is a product of AASHE” • “Self‐evaluation” • “Provides a framework , guidance, and components of sustainable institutions” • “Transparent” • “Holistic rating system that includes quantitative data, qualitative data, as well as environmental, social, and economic factors.” • “A standard reporting tool for all colleges and universities” • “Learning best practices” • “A collaborative project designed to help institutions evaluate and monitor their program” • “Subjective” • “Serves as a catalyst for institutional learning” • “Provides a single source of info on what we’re doing” • “Developed specifically for educational institutions” • “Helps galvanize sustainability activity on campus” • “Provides the ability to benchmark between institutions” • “Gaining knowledge from the research” • “Evaluates how sustainable your institution is in almost every department” • “It covers everything about sustainability at an institution – teaching, research, operations, outreach, etc.” • “The scope. STARS measures sustainability thoroughly” • “The ability to identify areas for improvement” • “The meeting at the AASHE conference” 340 2. What is the single worst thing about STARS? • “Having to save the pdfʹs for upload.” • “Intellectually flimsy approach to point allocation, no approach yet to weighting.” • “No standardized objective‐setting ‐ what is an appropriate absolute or relative improvement threshold to ‘get a point’ ‐ etc.” • “Lack of clarity about definition of Tier I and Tier II objectives.” • “Blending of social, economic and environmental considerations in a way that is not consistent, rational, or directly comparable.” • “Not every credit applies well to every university.” • “It takes a lot of time, and therefore money, to complete STARS.” • “It took a really long time to finish, and the deadlines were all at once. It was very hard to balance multiple credit areas at the same time.” • “Does not measure progress over time without making major improvements” • “The timeframe from which data is collected should be specified and consistent” • “Coming up with all of the data required for reporting is a pain in the butt.” • “It is very comprehensive, which makes its implementation somewhat unwieldy. Having more direction, resources and tools as guidance for how to approach completing such a daunting task would be helpful.” • “Our institution has really struggled with the STARS definition of Local Food.” • “It’s all great!” • “Since a lot of the categories are ‘all or nothing’ getting credit is often hard for a large multi‐campus institution” • “Not having enough help to get ALL of the documentation completed accurately.” • “Like any tool of its type, individual achievements or specific situations cannot always be rewarded or taken into account” • “Too much information needed ‐ for example some percentages requested etc. might be better off as a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ the university does this” • “Extension to social/political issues” • “Challenging to make standard guidelines apply for such varied campuses, by size, region, public/private, etc.” • “Confusing credits, lack of detail, lack of information the credits ask for” • “The time it takes to complete” • “Canʹt think of one” • “Size and specificity” • “Some of the information was inaccessible to students” • “Ranking system will dilute AASHEʹs status as an umbrella sharing organization entirely.” • “It favors heavily flagship institutions and heavyweights” 3. Feel free to use this space to share anything else youʹd like AASHE to know. • “This was a helpful exercise for us, but also very disappointing because there are no intermediate standards for many of the credits. A system that used changes over time as a metric for more credits (as opposed to Yes/No responses) would be welcome.” • “We appreciate the contribution and commitment by AASHE staff.” • “Great program!” • “For our institution, where there is no full‐time sustainability officer but rather a volunteer leadership committee, participation was viewed as a bit of a burden and a distraction.” 341 •
•
•
•
•
•
“STARS does not cover campus Career, Counseling and Student Health Services, and does not cover promotion of green careers.” “I thought it would be great if a more in‐depth time line could be set for each individual section, helping participants stay on track” “Given that 2005‐2014 is the UNDESD, should probably give more weighting to education‐related credits.” “Some of the information requested was either difficult to track or had never been tracked before. Perhaps, giving a lower number of points for an effort of estimation would give newly participating institutions incentive without discouraging them with a low score.” “We look forward to continued active participation in AASHE. We attended a few sessions at the Raleigh conference on sustainability at liberal arts colleges, and would welcome other opportunities to learn from othersʹ experiences. Would an AASHE roundtable for small college be possible?” “This is a good program. I hope you can continue to refine it and use it to advance sustainability in higher education.” 342 Appendix C: Survey of Institutions that Withdrew from the Pilot Project Several institutions that applied and were accepted to participate in the pilot project did not submit any data and/or confirmed that they were withdrawing from participation. AASHE surveyed these institutions in order to understand their reasons for not participating and the obstacles colleges and universities face when attempting. AASHE contacted the designated STARS liaison at each institution up to three times by telephone. Telephone interviews took place in January 2009. AASHE spoke with liaisons from 14 institutions (about half of the total institutions that withdrew). 1) “To help us understand your experience, can you briefly describe why your institution didn’t submit?” 11 of the 14 respondents cited lack of staff time and having too many other commitments as the reason the institution wasn’t able to participate. One institution cited the turnover of the staff person designated to coordinate their STARS participation and another institution said the program was too complicated. Finally, one STARS liaison said the change in AASHE’s Executive Director caused uncertainty about the overall direction of the program that made him decide to not participate. 2) “What would enable you to participate in STARS 1.0? Is there anything AASHE could do or is there something that needs to happen internally at your institution?” The most popular response to this question was that additional staff capacity at the institution would help make participation easier. Other responses include: certainty among our academic peers that STARS will be the evaluation tool of choice; third‐party verification of some type, and; a nexus with program accreditation and other market value added aspects. 3) “How likely is your institution to participate in STARS sometime in the next two years, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a definite no to 10 being a definite yes?” Response Count Response Percent
1 –Definite NO 1 8.3 6 0 ‐‐ 7 2 16.7 8 3 25.0 9 2 16.7 10 – Definite YES 4 33.3 Total 12 100
Comments: • Participation is likely if our concerns are addressed • Desire to participate is 10, actual likelihood to participate depends on manpower and staff capacity 4) “Any other comments or feedback you’d like us to consider?” • “Very enthusiastic about helping in the future.” • “STARS should be a lot easier to do; it is way too complicated.” • “The hardest piece is documentation.” • “If you just ask for on‐site emissions, you will capture many more people. Needs to be student‐
directed. Focus on residential life.” • “I felt sometimes the bar was set too high for achieving points. I think the system should be designed to reward most all sustainability efforts, no matter how small. 343 Appendix D: Average Number of Points Earned per Credit The following table presents the results from all submissions received for each credit. In addition to the 37 institutions that completed and submitted every credit form, 29 institutions submitted data for some credits. Of this group, some institutions focused their responses on the credits for which they were able to obtain data, others reported only on the credits the institution earned, and others reported on one or two categories (e.g., AF and OP). Responses from institutions that indicated that the credit did not apply were omitted from this table. Results for each institution type are presented as long as there was at least one applicable response for that institution type. In instances when all institutions of a certain type selected that the credit did not apply, the table reads “n/a”. The totals presented in this table are sums of the average points earned from each credit. Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Education & Research (ER)
ER 1: Student Sustainability Educators Program 1 0.14 0.36 0.62 0.38 0.44 ER 2: Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign 1 0.00 0.91 0.76 0.85 0.71 ER 3: Sustainability in New Student Orientation 1 0.00 0.60 0.59 0.50 0.49 Co‐Curricular Education Tier Two Credits* 2.75 0.57 1.22 1.54 1.41 1.30 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 5.75 0.71 3.09 3.51 3.14 2.94 ER 4: Sustainability Course Identification 1 0.43 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.43 ER 5: Sustainability‐Focused Academic Courses 6 0.57 1.50 1.00 0.92 1.00 ER 6: Sustainability‐Related Academic Courses 6 1.29 1.38 1.12 1.31 1.24 ER 7: Sustainability Courses by Academic Department* 3 0.86 2.22 1.05 1.58 1.38 ER 8: Academic Sustainability Courses by Student Credit Hours 6 0.86 0.75 0.65 0.92 0.78 ER 9: Sustainability Learning Outcomes* 5 0.17 1.38 0.13 0.91 0.60 ER 10: Sustainability‐Focused Undergraduate Program* 2 0.20 1.10 1.00 0.45 0.80 ER 11: Sustainability‐Focused Graduate Academic Program* 2 n/a n/a 0.83 0.57 0.76 ER 12: Sustainability Immersive Experience* 1 0.17 0.67 0.72 0.33 0.54 ER 13: Non‐Credit Sustainability Courses* 3 0.29 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.71 ER 14: Non‐Academic Sustainability‐Focused Certificate Program* 2 0.00 0.67 0.27 0.25 0.26 ER 15: Sustainability Literacy Assessment 2 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.09 Curriculum Tier Two Credits* 0.5 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.07 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 39.5 5.02 9.87 8.31 8.88 8.66 Co-Curricular Education
Curriculum
344 Faculty and Staff Development and Training
ER 16: Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses 1 0.14 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.30 ER 17: Staff Professional Development in Sustainability 1 0.71 0.22 0.56 0.42 0.48 ER 18: Sustainability in New Employee Orientation 1 0.14 0.33 0.53 0.25 0.36 ER 19: Employee Sustainability Educators Program 1 0.14 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.20 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 4 1.13 0.66 1.86 1.17 1.34 ER 20: Sustainability Research Inventory* 1 0.00 0.20 0.41 0.33 0.34 ER 21: Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research* 3 0.00 3.00 1.33 0.88 1.28 ER 22: Departments Involved in Sustainability Research* 5 n/a 5.00 2.72 2.38 2.79 ER 23: Internal Funding for Sustainability Research* 4 n/a 2.00 0.50 1.60 0.87 ER 24: External Funding for Sustainability Research* 3 n/a 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.93 ER 25: Sustainability Research Incentives* 1 1.0 0.50 0.29 0.20 0.32 ER 26: Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion* 1 n/a 1.00 0.59 0.75 0.70 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 18 1.00 12.70 6.78 7.00 7.23 67.25 7.86 26.32 20.46 20.19 20.17 Research
Total *Institution(s) selected that the credit did not apply. Not applicable responses are omitted from totals. Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Operations (OP)
0 OP 1: New Construction, Renovations, and Commercial Interiors* 4 0.20 0.50 0.92 0.80 0.69 OP 2: Building Operations and Maintenance 5 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.13 OP 3: Potable Non‐Irrigation Water Consumption Reduction 3 0.58 0.11 0.65 0.73 0.58 OP 4: Green Cleaning Service 1 0.23 0.10 0.48 0.43 0.35 Buildings Tier Two Credits 0.5 0.21 0.19 0.33 0.40 0.30 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 13.5 1.22 0.90 2.71 2.36 2.05 OP 5: Local Food* 3 0.17 1.00 0.82 0.62 0.72 OP 6: Food Alliance and Organic Certified Food* 3 0.00 0.22 0.10 0.17 0.13 OP 7: Fair Trade Coffee* 1 0.13 0.53 0.38 0.87 0.36 0.63 0.32 0.64 1.88 2.17 1.78 1.81 OP Prerequisite 1: Recycling Program Buildings Dining Services
Dining Services Tier Two Credits* 1.75 0.29 0.14 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8.75 0.6 345 Energy and Climate OP 8: Energy Intensity Trend 3 0.92 0.56 0.78 1.33 0.92 OP 9: Renewable Electricity 5 0.20 0.22 0.39 0.33 0.32 OP 10: On‐Site Combustion with Renewable Fuel 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OP 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions 5 0.00 0.33 0.42 0.29 0.30 Energy and Climate Tier Two Credits* 2.75 1.21 1.14 1.85 1.52 1.56 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 18.75 2.33 2.25 3.44 3.47 3.10 OP 12: Organic Campus 1 0.18 0.00 0.29 0.21 0.21 OP 13: Irrigation Water Consumption 2 0.00 0.78 0.33 0.27 0.31 Grounds Tier Two Credits 2.5 1.38 1.19 1.50 1.56 1.44 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 5.5 1.56 0.66 0.71 0.68 0.65 OP 14: Waste Minimization 1 0.10 0.25 0.39 0.47 0.34 OP 15: Waste Diversion 3 0.92 0.56 1.29 1.33 1.12 OP 16: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion* 1 0.20 0.14 0.32 0.40 0.30 OP 17: Electronic Waste Recycling Program 1 0.36 0.88 0.58 0.64 0.60 OP 18: Hazardous Waste Minimization 1 0.55 0.88 0.80 0.79 0.76 Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization Tier Two Credits* 2.5 1.03 1.47 1.79 1.63 1.56 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 9.5 3.16 4.18 5.17 5.26 4.68 Grounds
Materials, Recycling, and Waste Minimization
Purchasing
OP 19: ENERGY STAR Purchasing 1 0.36 0.38 0.48 0.21 0.38 OP 20: EPEAT Purchasing 1 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.19 OP 21: Purchasing Green Cleaning Products 1 0.11 0.25 0.32 0.57 0.34 OP 22: Environmentally Preferable Paper Purchasing 1 0.30 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.27 OP 23: Environmentally Preferable Furniture Purchasing 1 0.22 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.13 OP 24: Vendor Code of Conduct 1 0.22 0.00 0.41 0.07 0.22 Purchasing Tier Two Credits 0.75 0.21 0.28 0.45 0.35 0.36 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 6.75 1.42 1.04 2.39 1.84 1.89 OP 25: Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2 0.00 0.13 0.32 0.08 0.18 OP 26: Commute Modal Split 3 0.09 0.75 1.17 0.64 0.77 OP 27: Commuter Options 1 0.09 0.00 0.58 0.40 0.36 OP 28: Air Travel 1 0.10 0.38 0.46 0.38 0.36 Transportation Tier Two Credits* 1 0.04 0.16 0.44 0.06 0.23 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8 0.32 1.42 2.97 1.56 1.90 Transportation
Total 70.75 10.61 12.33 19.56 16.95 16.08 346 Total Possible Points Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Administration & Finance (AF)
0 AF 1: Investment Transparency* 1 0.20 0.09 0.24 0.20 0.19 AF 2: Committee on Investor Responsibility* 1 0.00 0.27 0.10 0.14 0.14 AF 3: Screening for Negative Investments* 1 0.00 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.26 AF 4: Positive Sustainability Investments* 4 0.75 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.40 AF 5: Shareholder Engagement* 1 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.05 Investment Tier Two Credits* 0.5 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8.5 1.02 1.21 1.25 0.81 1.11 AF 6: Strategic Plan* 1 0.82 0.55 0.64 0.67 0.66 AF 7: Master Plan* 1 0.30 0.56 0.59 0.55 0.52 AF 8: Sustainability Plan 1 0.38 0.20 0.61 0.57 0.48 AF 9: Climate Plan 1 0.10 0.40 0.38 0.31 0.32 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 4 1.60 1.71 2.22 2.10 1.98 AF 10: Sustainability Officer 3 1.15 1.40 2.22 2.00 1.80 AF 11: Sustainability Recognition Program 1 0.40 0.10 0.63 0.29 0.41 AF 12: Inter‐Campus Collaboration on Sustainability 1 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.77 0.88 AF 13: Specialized Sustainability Staffing 1 0.14 0.44 0.62 0.38 0.46 Sustainability Infrastructure Tier Two Credits 1.25 0.11 0.25 0.36 0.23 0.27 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 7.25 2.80 3.19 4.69 3.67 3.82 AF 14: Community Service Staffing 1 0.43 0.90 0.81 0.92 0.80 AF 15: Student Participation in Community Service 3 0.14 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.84 AF 16: Student Hours Contributed in Community Service 3 0.00 1.50 1.27 0.55 0.96 AF 17: Financial Incentives for Public Service Careers 2 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.04 AF 18: Community Sustainability Partnerships 1 0.71 0.56 0.95 0.75 0.80 AF 19: Public Policy Engagement 1 0.29 0.22 0.61 0.58 0.48 Community Relations and Partnerships Tier Two Credits 2.25 1.39 1.13 1.63 1.57 1.49 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 13.25 2.96 5.56 6.18 5.37 5.41 AF Prerequisite 1: Sustainability Committee Investment Planning
Sustainability Infrastructure Community Relations and Partnerships
347 Diversity, Access, and Affordability
AF 20: Diversity and Equity Committee 1 0.86 0.70 0.81 0.67 0.76 AF 21: Diversity and Equity Officer 1 0.71 0.40 0.86 0.67 0.70 AF 22: Diversity and Equity Attitudes Assessment 1 0.71 0.22 0.62 0.33 0.49 AF 23: Diversity and Equity Plan 1 0.57 0.22 0.81 0.83 0.67 AF 24: Support Programs for Under‐represented Groups 1 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.96 AF 25: Support Programs for Future Faculty 1 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.25 0.33 AF 26: Affordability and Access Programs 1 1.00 0.78 0.89 0.83 0.87 Diversity, Access, and Affordability Tier Two Credits 1.5 0.93 0.66 1.03 1.14 0.97 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 8.5 6.07 4.42 6.32 5.64 5.75 Human Resources
AF 27: Sustainable Compensation 1 0.29 0.33 0.71 0.33 0.49 AF 28: Faculty and Staff Health Care* 3 2.29 2.10 2.60 2.67 2.47 AF 29: Graduate Student Employee Health Care* 2 n/a 0.67 0.94 0.09 0.61 AF 30: Family Leave* 1 1.00 0.90 0.84 0.67 0.83 AF 31: Domestic Partner Benefits* 1 0.29 0.60 0.80 0.42 0.59 AF 32: Employee Satisfaction Survey 1 0.86 0.22 0.40 0.50 0.46 Human Resources Tier Two Credits 1.75 1.07 1.22 1.50 1.57 1.40 Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) 10.75 5.80 6.04 7.79 6.25 6.85 AF 33: Independent Monitoring of Logo Apparel* 1 0.17 0.43 0.57 0.36 0.44 AF 34: Designated Suppliers Program* 1 2 0.00 0.14 0.26 0.27 0.21 0.17 0.57 0.83 0.63 0.65 Trademark Licensing
Subtotal (sum of average points per credit) Total 54.25 20.40 22.70 29.28 24.47 25.57 Associate’s Baccalaureate Doctorate‐
granting Master’s All Responses Total Possible Points Innovation
4 0.57 1.50 1.82 1.64 0.44 Innovation
Innovation Credits 348