IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjpaxx/v82y2016i1p22-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Unexamined Staff Report: Results From an Evaluation of a National Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Bonnie J. Johnson
  • Ward Lyles

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Municipal planners write staff reports reviewing development applications to submit to planning and zoning commissions. Staff reports are probably planners' most common, but least studied, work products. A small literature provides -guidance on writing better staff reports, but questions remain: What makes a quality staff report; what are their contents; and what is the state of today's staff reports? We summarize the literature on writing staff reports and develop a tool to assess the content of a national sample of staff reports. We analyze whether staff reports include traditional and modern elements. We find that many staff reports provide traditional basic information, but do not summarize that information or use modern formatting tools to make text more comprehensible. Most staff reports reference the comprehensive plan but rarely cite the future land use map or plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Many mention checking traditional public facilities like roads, but rarely list parks or pedestrian or cycling facilities. Most do not include maps, arguments for recommendations, or references to soliciting public input. Takeaway for practice: Planning departments can improve staff reports through simple changes in report organization and graphics. Planners can use this assessment tool to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their staff reports, and scholars can use this approach to analyze how staff reports affect the quality of decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonnie J. Johnson & Ward Lyles, 2016. "The Unexamined Staff Report: Results From an Evaluation of a National Sample," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 82(1), pages 22-36, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:82:y:2016:i:1:p:22-36
    DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1109471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2015.1109471
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01944363.2015.1109471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:82:y:2016:i:1:p:22-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.