Jonathan Williams - Unlocking Better Ratio Studies with RatioPal & Will Jarvis

Ratio Studies Aren't About Compliance. They're About Trust.

Every assessor knows the moment.

You run the numbers, and something doesn't feel right.

The median looks acceptable. The COD might pass. But when you break the data down—by price decile, by neighborhood, by vintage—you see the imbalance. Lower-value properties are carrying more than their share. Certain market areas aren't lining up the way experience tells you they should.

In a recent conversation with Jonathan, a former assessor who has worked across jurisdictions of all sizes, that tension surfaced quickly—not as a technical defect, but as a professional obligation.

Ratio studies aren't just statutory artifacts. They're one of the few places where internal judgment meets external reality. How we respond when the data challenges us matters.

Vertical Equity: The Profession's Hardest Problem

When asked about the most persistent challenges in ratio studies, Jonathan didn't hesitate.

“Definitely vertical equity,” he said. “That's the nemesis of all assessors.”

That framing will resonate across offices large and small. Vertical equity issues rarely announce themselves loudly. They appear quietly—in decile analysis, in PRD and PRB results, in regressivity that hides behind acceptable global statistics.

Jonathan wasn't describing a lack of diligence. He was describing the reality of human systems.

Different appraisers emphasize different things: condition, quality, effective age. Over time, those stylistic differences compound, especially in offices with decentralized review. Vertical inequity becomes less a technical mistake and more an organizational challenge.

Sales Chasing Isn't Always Intentional

When regressivity appears, sales chasing is often the first explanation offered—internally or externally. Sometimes that's accurate. Often, the cause is more structural.

As Jonathan noted:

“There's usually a lot more volume at the lower end of the market than there is at the higher end.”

Lower-value properties sell more frequently. They generate more data, more reviews, more opportunities for refinement. Higher-value properties may go years without a confirming sale. The system naturally pays more attention where there is more information.

Over time, that imbalance can produce over-correction at the lower end of the market—even when everyone involved is acting in good faith.

Neighborhood Review Still Matters

When vertical equity issues surfaced in his offices, Jonathan's first step was almost always neighborhood analysis.

Grading. Effective age. Condition. Those variables tell important stories.

“Grade and effective age really are the biggest drivers,” he explained. “That's usually indicative of sales chasing.”

This reflects standard best practice. Neighborhood-level review remains essential to credible mass appraisal. It's where inconsistency often reveals itself first.

But Jonathan also acknowledged the limitation: neighborhoods can be internally consistent and still misaligned with one another. Vertical equity problems don't respect boundary lines.

Equity Is a Management Issue

One of the quieter themes in Jonathan's comments was workflow.

In many offices, ratio studies are difficult to access. Running them requires specialized knowledge, coordination, or exporting data into external tools. As a result, analysis becomes centralized, and appraisers engage with results indirectly—if at all.

When equity analysis is siloed, problems linger longer than they should. Not because staff don't care, but because feedback loops are slow.

Equity improves when appraisers can see how their work performs across value ranges and market areas, not just within a single neighborhood.

Transparency Starts Inside the Office

Jonathan also spoke candidly about the importance of internal transparency.

Every office has “warts” during analysis. Outliers appear. Early runs don't always look good. The question isn't whether those issues exist—it's whether staff can explore them honestly.

That mindset reframes ratio studies from judgment to learning. Equity work becomes iterative rather than punitive, encouraging correction before problems become public.

Shared Data, Shared Responsibility

Drawing on his experience in Forsyth County, Jonathan described coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions to share sales data during periods of rapid growth.

That collaboration wasn't mandated, but it was effective.

It reflected a professional truth many assessors understand intuitively: assessment quality isn't competitive. Improving uniformity in one jurisdiction strengthens trust in the system everywhere.

Why Leadership Should Care

For administrators and elected officials, ratio studies can feel technical—reports produced to satisfy oversight requirements.

But Jonathan's perspective underscores something broader. Vertical inequity disproportionately affects lower-value properties and taxpayers with the least ability to navigate appeals. Left unaddressed, it erodes confidence quietly but steadily.

From a leadership standpoint, equity analysis is risk management as much as best practice.

Key Takeaways

• Vertical equity remains, in Jonathan's words, “the nemesis of all assessors”
• Sales volume imbalance often drives regressivity more than intent
• Neighborhood consistency alone won't resolve cross-market inequities
• Equity outcomes reflect management systems as much as appraisal skill
• Accessible ratio analysis strengthens accuracy and professional culture
• Collaboration across jurisdictions reinforces public trust

The work is complex. The responsibility is real. And when assessors engage honestly with their data—as Jonathan's experience makes clear—the system moves closer to the fairness it promises.