Comparison of report quality, information organization, and format across two reports

¶ … quality information, organization report. Body Two: Discuss Format report, quality information, and organization report.

Report analysis: Comparing two police reports 'Just the facts, ma'am.' On the surface, compiling an effective police report may seem to be just that: an effective presentation of the facts. However, to create a 'simple' factual report is seldom easy. Clarity, brevity, and high-quality organization of information is essential to make a report readable and valuable to other members of the force and to members of the public. To create a report that reads easily takes a great deal of effort. This can be seen in the comparison of the two following police reports, the second of which is far more carefully written than the first.

The first report is problematic even in its subject heading. Its title is nondescript and vague, and merely states 'crimes.' Given that the report is submitted by a member of the Springdale Police Department, the subject is general and obvious. A better subject title is manifest in the second report, which reads "Crime Rate for Second Quarter of 2011." The first report is also written in vague, narrative language, and includes phrases like "this report will let you know what happened" and "this report is based on statistics." In contrast, the clarity of the title of the second report immediately informs the reader what the subject matter is, namely the specific types of crimes that will be catalogued and described in the report.

The first report is difficult to follow because it presents the figures about crime statistics in paragraph form. This makes comparing the different violations very challenging. Although the information regarding the change in different crimes from one quarter to the next is present in the first report, the numbers are offered in such an amorphous fashion it is difficult to compare the increase or decrease from month to month or between different categories of crime severity.

In contrast, the second report offers the results in tabular form, and then discusses the results of the report in paragraphs. The information is written in a professional-sounding tone, in contrast to the colloquial language of the first report, which uses such phrases as "let the facts speak for themselves." Of course, facts never truly "speak for themselves" but rather have to be placed into a meaningful context, which unfortunately the first report fails to offer. The first report, when recording information about robberies mentions that four of them involved heirlooms, which is a piece of information that is of little consequence except to the individual victims. The first report also gives great attention to minor, petty offenses like misdemeanors and a lack of attention given to major crimes such as rape. This might create an impression that the police are callous and do not appreciate what is important to the general public.

In contrast, the second report focuses on serious offenses, such as the fact that three of the reported rapes were attributed to the same suspect, who is now in custody. This suggests that the police are doing an effective job in curtailing this serious crime, despite the elevated number from last quarter. It also helps provide a feasible explanation for the apparent spike in numbers and suggests that an increase in rape can be attributed to the actions of a single individual more than a general crime trend.

Not only is the second report more readable because of the greater amount of significant information included, but it is also divided into subtopics with headings that enable the reader to swiftly find the data in which he or she is most interested. For readers most interested in robberies and theft, felonies, misdemeanors, or traffic violations there are separate, bold-headed topic headings directing him or her to this content.