Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

WHAT 1'O DO The sin!~le most important step is to acknowl- edge the Deed ID evaluate, make a clear com- mitment to do so, and then mandate that commitment in the code. Planners often talk about murfitoring and evaluation, but a plan to do so [s often IDs[ in the shuffle of code revision and the morass of codesmithin§ paper,~w][k, not to mention the hoverin§ anxi- ety ~]f trying to finish a revision project· Further, the focus on administering the new code immediately after adoption-and after the long f~ndurance run of drafting-often obliterates any thoughts of evaluation. ]'he mentality is, "Let's just get it done." No one really wants to shop the day after Christmas, but those who do reap the benefits when the next holiday season rolls around. When plan- nih3 for a comprehensive code revision, think about a code evaluation plan with the same energy. Mendel:ins an evaluation report with a deadline (~r at fixed inten/als following adop- tion is necessary. It ensures that the evalua- tion will not be ignored or forgotten. It also provides for a concrete expression of the com- mitment to monitor and evaluate. It can also be helpful in §aining consensus on some of the more contentious issues associated with the new re§ulations. It assures both the public. and decision makers that there is a clear, a§reed-,Hmm time after implementation when there will he more discussion--and proof of wna[ is working and ,Nhat is not. Al[hou§h ,Me mandated a review after 24. months, r)ur code did not specify review meth- ods, nor did it ~ive direction as to how the repmt ,A,n~; [o be approached. A plan for con- rJucting file monitoring arid evaluation of a code will .,u~gest ,nays that data can be goner- ated during the regular course of administra- tion. If the evaluation plan is given the same . attention as drafting the regulations, it is easy enou§h to specify up front what the parame- ters of the report should be. I suggest that requests for proposals for code revision assis- tance include specifications for a continuing evaluation plan following adoption. Of course, such proposals may not always be popular. New codes can often be controversial or contentious. Politically, com- munity leaders may be averse to putting the cards on the table at a specified time, particu- larly if failure must be acknowledged, in addi- tion, some code provisions may inherently be difficult to measure in terms of success or fail- ure, and the effect of external forces or devel- opments on code performance needs to be assessed and accounted for or discounted, depending on the circumstances. Every effort should be made during the adoption process to define what is to be measured and how. Different methods may work for certain regula- tions than for others. The devil lies in the details. MORETHAN NUMBERS Effective evaluation and monitoring of a code consists of more than producing' reports in a specified format and at certain intervals. It is not just a numbers game. It should go beyond numerical data and percentages and attempt to took carefully at individual cases and experi- ences. While there is a place for quantitative analysis, particularly for certain code provi- sions, it is the qualitative analysis that lends itself best to an understanding of how the code is affectio§ the community and effect[ns the plan. Numbers and percentages alone can- not account for motivations, social situations, market sensitivities, or the human condition. A qualitative evaluation should pay close atten- tion to the results that the code was intended to achieve. It should consider experience and try to reduce the gap between theory and prac- tice. Planners can obtain data from experience, personal contact, discussions, interviews, and detailed document analysts. They should. emphasize the particulars, meanings, and descriptions. To this extent, evaluating a code is more art than science, more craft than calcu- lation. Explanation replaces measurement and understanding replaces statistics. The process should be participatory and engage all players and stakeholders. The evaluation should chal[en§e the the- eries, policies, and objectives upon which the code is based and consider the experience of actual practice. It may lead to a reconsidera- tion of the theory or an adiustment to the tools, or both. The idea is to understand how ' things are working and whether the code is meeting its expectations. Did we do what we said we would do? Could it have been approached differently? 8ut even this is not enough. A useful recommendation must be part of any evaluation. The recommendation may be directed toward things that are going well or that are not; it may suggest curative action or state that the code feature is "right on" at that point. It may simpty suggest a wait-and-see approach and concede that more time for analysis arid understan~ling is needed before a recommendation can be made. In our case, 24 months proved to be too soon to analyze . fully all aspects of the code. It was, however, enough time to gain a level of comfort that the new approaches were conceptually the ria'ht ones. ZONING PRACTICE 7.05 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ZZl ~'~::7%:: , , ,: :.~.:..: