Measuring and Reporting UW’s Sustainability Performance

1. Measuring and Reporting UW’s Sustainability Performance Presentation by: Suzanne Zitzer Project Team Members: Annika Eberle, Lars Madsen, Matt McNair, NegashZewdie Faculty Advisor: Beth Bryant EM Keystone Sponsor: UW Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office Thursday May 24, 2012 UW Program on the Environment

2. How is Campus Sustainability Measured? Sustainability surveys: • Enable rating and ranking of institutions • Allow for internal progress tracking and external comparison against peers UW currently reports to: • Sustainable Endowments Institute • Sierra Club • Princeton Review Introduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria Recent Developments Conclusion

3. What is STARS? Pilot released in 2007 by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Based on Brundtland definition “…meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

4. Data Acquisition Project Approach and Goals Overall goal: Evaluate the feasibility of adopting STARS • Recommendation • Evaluation • Criteria Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

5. How does the UW currently perform? Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

6. Why are we interested in STARS? Environment Environment Environment Environment Economy Economy Economy Equity Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

7. Why are we interested in STARS? Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

8. How does STARS scoring work? Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

9. How well do other schools score using STARS? From http://www.stars.aashe.org Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

10. How was the audit conducted? • Data requirements were determined for all 135 STARS credits • UW data content owners were identified by ESS Office • Data requests were sent to these individuals • More than thirty individuals were contacted • Once obtained, data was input into STARS Reporting Tool Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

11. How does UW perform using STARS? Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

12. How would improvements affect UW score? Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

13. How did we create our recommendation? Evaluation criteria categories • Transparency • Accuracy • Repeatability • Accountability • Popularity • Sustainability definition robustness • Ease of participation • UW performance • Survey cost to UW Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

14. How does STARS compare to other surveys? Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

15. Assessment • Survey Evaluation and STARS Audit • STARS is the most valuable survey • All surveys have value • The UW is capable of excelling at STARS • Recommendation • Adopt STARS and report to all four surveys Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Survey Review Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit STARS Audit Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Recent Developments Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

16. Acknowledgments ESS Office Claudia Frere Aubrey Batchelor Jennifer Perkins Faculty Advisor Beth Bryant Survey Contacts David Soto Jillian Buckholz Mark Orlowski Audit Contacts Alex Credgington Ann Sarna Bethany Staelens Brian Davis Clara Simon Claudia Christensen Audit Contacts (cont.) Helen MacQueen Howard Nakase Jennifer Petritz Jim Angelosante Josh Kavanagh Katie Stultz Luis Fraga Megan Kogut Michelle Hall Mike Meyering Jodene Davis Randy West Stephanie Harrington Susan Templeton Teresa Seyfried Dave Fields Erin Rice Gary Bangs GuarrinSakagawa Peer School Contacts Allen Doyle Camille Kirk Cindy Shea Dave Weil David Woodruff Evan Lewis Jack Byrne Julie Hampel Karen Leland Kristin Hansen Lisa McNeilly Moe Tabrizi Nan Jenks-Jay Steve Mital

17. Questions

18. Survey Participation Trends

19. Table 23: UW score on Tier One STARS credits in Education and ResearchMaximum possible points; small policy change or moderate investment; credit has other issues; score is difficult to change

20. Examples of Sustainable Compensation Definitions

21. CU Boulder - Sustainable Compensation • It is the policy of the state to provide prevailing total compensation to employees in the state personnel system to ensure the recruitment, motivation, and retention of a qualified and competent work force. Total compensation includes, but is not limited to, salary, group benefit plans, retirement benefits, performance awards, incentives, premium pay practices, and leave. The reference to “prevailing” reflects the State’s desire to not only enable employees to meet their basic needs but to provide total compensation that is competitive with its defined labor market; specifically, to compensate at a level that falls in the middle of market (even beyond basic rather than to lead or lag the market. To achieve this, an annual compensation survey is conducted in an effort to maintain an integrated and prevailing compensation package.CU-Boulder has reviewed the hourly wages for classified staff titles on our campus and determined that 100% of the positions, with a margin of error of +/- 1%, earn greater than $8.29 per hour which has been ascertained as the living wage for Colorado*. We have determined that this, in conjunction with group benefit plans, retirement benefits, performance awards, incentives, premium pay practices, bus pass, and leave benefits enables employees to meet their basic needs. • *http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/states/08

22. UC San Diego - Sustainable Compensation Wages for the lowest paid workers are negotiated through the collective bargaining process.

23. Arizona State University - Sustainable Compensation • Arizona State University has established a minimum wage rate that exceeds the state and federal minimum wage for entry level (non-student) employees. Annually, the market relationship of wages for employees is reviewed with recommendations prepared to address changes to local economic conditions. The University has adopted the position to target wages of employees at the market average as appropriate. • Additionally, the University contributes roughly 75% to the overall cost of employee health and welfare benefits to offset the cost to the staff. As employees of the University, staff and members of their family are eligible to enroll in degree programs at a 75% reduction of tuition cost or enroll in individual non-degree classes of their interest for a very nominal fee. • The University has also established a Values Based Standard for Business Relationships with University Service Providers which states that the institution will seek business relationships with companies who provide a compensation system that is sensitive to a competitive marketplace while enabling employees to meet basic needs, and provide employees opportunities to improve skills in order to raise social and economic well being.

24. Details about STARS Audit

25. STARS Audit: Operations

26. STARS Audit: Operations

27. STARS: Operations Proposed actions to improve Operations score: • Buildings • Gather data for newly constructed LEED certified buildings (1 – 2 points) • Implement specified operation and maintenance policies for all buildings (7 points) • Create and implement indoor air quality plan (2 points) • Energy • Implement electricity metering in each building (1 – 2 points) • Waste • Gather data on new construction waste diversion (0.5 – 0.8 points) • Purchasing • Gather data on Silver and Gold certified computer purchasing (0.5 – 1 points) Demonstrates ability to increase STARS score by 4-5%

28. STARS Audit: Operations

29. STARS Audit: Planning, Administration, and Engagement (PAE)

30. STARS Audit: PAE

31. STARS Audit: PAE Proposed actions to improve PAE score: • Human Resources • Create definition of sustainable compensation and assess the number of employees covered (4 – 8 points) • Create a hand-out about sustainability for new employees (2 points) • Create a sustainability educators program reaching 50 % of staff (2.5 points) • Coordination and Planning • Create sustainability plan for the UW including measurable goals (3 points) Demonstrates ability to increase STARS score by 3-5%

32. STARS Audit: PAE

33. STARS Audit: Education and Research

34. STARS Audit: Education and Research

35. STARS Audit: Education and Research Proposed actions to improve score: • Education • Develop sustainability definition for courses (1 point) • Perform inventory of sustainability courses (2 – 4 points) • Research • Develop sustainability definition for research (1 point) • Identify sustainability research on campus (1 – 3 points) • Co-curricular education • Create sustainability educators program (2 – 4 points) • Perform sustainability literacy assessment and follow-up (2 points) Demonstrates ability to increase STARS score by 3-5%

36. STARS Audit: Education and Research