1 City of San José:
Neighborhood Association
Engagement Model
Final Report
2 Agenda
Project Overview 3
Engagement Findings 6
Recommendations 9
Appendix 14
3 Project Overview
4 Project Overview
Project Purpose: Develop a Neighborhood Association Model that facilitates City outreach to Neighborhoods and provides Neighborhoods the opportunity to engage with the City.
Project Goal: Develop a Neighborhood Association Engagement Model that increases access, communication, and understanding of City services and ties into the City’s Customer Service Vision and Standards. › Recommendations to be
presented to City Council
› City Council approved the temporary suspension of
the Neighborhoods Commission while staff develop
a neighborhood association engagement model
April 2023
› Recommendations to be presented to the
Neighborhood Services and Education
Committee
April 2024
› Guidehouse began work on the new
neighborhood association service order
March 2023 August 2023
› City Council approved the Customer
Service Vision, Standards, and
Recommendations
Project Timeline:
October 2023
› Annual Neighborhoods
Conference
Council and Staff Interviews Community Meetings Community Survey Neighborhoods Conference • Spoke with 13 City staff
members through dedicated
interviews, regular status
meetings, and a Visioning
Workshop.
• Spoke with the Mayor and 6 City
Council Offices.
• Spoke with 48 community
members through three inperson community meetings.
• Participants came from 20
Neighborhood Associations and
9 Council Districts.
• Received responses from 122
community members.
• Surveys were administered
virtually and in-person and in 4
different languages.
• Responses came from 47**
Neighborhood Associations and
all 10 Council Districts.
• City facilitated two engagement
model activities at the
Neighborhoods Conference.
• 40-50 people participated in two
activities (participants were given
two dots for each activity, each
activity had around 80 dots).
5 Project Approach and Inputs
We engaged 238* stakeholders over 4 engagement methods over the course of the project. 48 Participants 122 Survey Respondents 40-50 Conference Activity Participants* 28 City Touchpoints
Project Approach: Facilitate and collect City staff and community feedback through four engagement methods. Leverage input to synthesize findings into recommendations in collaboration and iteration with City staff.
Project Inputs
** Approximate estimate based on survey analysis.
*Approximate estimate based on activity results.
6 Community
Engagement Findings
7 Community Engagement Findings – Model Themes
The project inputs revealed 5 themes for the new Neighborhood Association (NA) Model.
Community Engagement Finding Model Themes
Stakeholders expressed that the mandate of the former
Commission was confusing but felt that there should still be a forum or channel through which community voices can be
elevated on key issues.
Advising
Facilitating formalized processes for NAs to make recommendations on City policy and issue decisions (e.g., budget allocation).
Stakeholders expressed that NAs lack formalized venues for information sharing and feedback. Additionally, individuals expressed concern that they rarely hear back or receive followup when they do engage with the City.
Two-Way Communication
Providing information to and soliciting information from NAs so communities are well-informed, and the City understands the needs of neighborhoods.
Capacity Building
Providing support to enable all neighborhoods to create self-sufficient Associations (e.g., grants support, administrative support, leadership training).
Stakeholders expressed that NAs need more City resources so that they have the training, resources, and knowledge they need to lead their Associations effectively.
Stakeholders indicated that community members often struggle to navigate various City services and get their issues resolved in a timely manner.
Issue Support
Providing information and resources to enable NAs to navigate City services (e.g., ad hoc training on how to report graffiti, etc.).
Stakeholders cited that NAs lack avenues to connect with other NA’s. When opportunities to connect are created, NA leaders benefit greatly from shared knowledge and resources.
Connectivity
Connecting NAs to one another so they can build community, learn from one another, and strengthen self-sufficiency (e.g., NA mentorship programs). 8 Community Engagement Findings – Model Purpose
The five model themes signify a desire for an expanded and comprehensive purpose for the new Neighborhood Association Engagement Model.
Though the engagement work
revealed confusion amongst
stakeholders about the purpose
of the former Neighborhoods
Commission and its
replacement, it also revealed
that the new model should
incorporate elements of the five
model themes.
The five themes can be broken
into two potential functions of
the model: NA Advising and NA
Engagement.
Neighborhood Association
Engagement
Neighborhood
Association
Advising
Intended Mandate of the
Neighborhood Commission
Newly Identified
Elements for the Model
Advising
Two-Way
Communication
Capacity
Building Issue Support
Connectivity
Expanded Purpose of the New Model
9 Recommendations
10 Recommendation Overview
A three-pronged model was designed to address the engagement findings.
Neighborhood Engagement
Engagement model recommendations address the themes of capacity building, connectivity, two-way communications, and issue-support.
Neighborhood Advising Structure
Advising Structure options address the engagement finding theme of advising.
Engagement Method 1: Create a
Neighborhood Association Forum that
meets quarterly, expanding on the existing
annual Neighborhoods Conference hosted by
PRNS.
Engagement Method 2: Create a new
Neighborhood Support Team with dedicated
staff members called Neighborhood
Navigators that are assigned a portfolio of
Neighborhood Associations.
Neighborhood Services Advisory Group: Create a new
Issue-Based group that focuses on Neighborhood
Services CSA topics not currently addressed through
other City forums. Members provide recommendations to
relevant Department leadership.
11 Engagement Method 1: Neighborhood Association Forum
Engagement method 1 includes the creation of a quarterly Neighborhoods Association Forum that is run by PRNS staff.
Phase Impact*
Capacity Building Connectivity Issue Support Two-Way Communication • The Forum provides a centralized
venue for NAs to learn about City
resources for NA operations as
well as seek support in accessing
the resources they need.
• Additionally, NAs will have the
opportunity to learn best practices
from one another on how to
optimize their NA.
• The Forum enables NAs to get
together on a more regular basis
and establish relationships with
one another. This can lead to a
greater sense of community
between NAs as well as increased
information and best practice
sharing.
• Bringing NAs together will also
help the City identify common
issues across neighborhoods.
• NAs will have the opportunity to
learn about City services during
these meeting, familiarizing them
with how to navigate certain
services and resolve issues.
• Issue-specific trainings will also
give NAs the opportunity to meet
with Department staff responsible
for resolving some of these issues
to answer questions and increase
trust with the City.
• The Forum provides a regular and
centralized venue for the City to
share information, solicit feedback,
facilitate discussions, and provide
follow-up with NAs.
• A consistent venue for
communication with the same City
staff members can enable better
relationship building between the
City and NAs.
Considerations
• Existing staff may not have the capacity to add additional responsibilities to their workload. • The phase only provides a formal venue for engagement between NAs and the City quarterly, but NAs may need or want direct support more frequently. • High responsibility is placed on PRNS staff to identify issues that need escalating or further attention based on their engagement with the NAs. • This phase does not provide dedicated resources that can focus on underserved communities or NAs that might need extra support.
Considerations
*For more information on structure and logistics, please go to slide 53. 12 Engagement Method 2: Neighborhood Support Team
Engagement method 2 includes the creation of new Neighborhood Support Team with dedicated PRNS staff members called Neighborhood Navigators.
Phase Impact*
Capacity Building Connectivity Issue Support Two-Way Communication • Neighborhood Navigators will hold
regular meetings with their
assigned NAs, providing a smaller
venue for NAs to learn about City
resources for NA operations as
well as seek support in accessing
the resources they need in a
personalized capacity.
• Additionally, these meetings will
provide NAs the opportunity to
learn best practices from one
another on how to improve and
optimize their operations.
• More frequent meetings between
Navigators and their assigned
NAs enable NAs to gather on a
more regular basis and establish
better relationships with one
another, leading to a greater
sense of community between NAs
as well as increased information
sharing.
• Navigators will allow for greater
connectivity between City
resources and neighborhoods.
• NAs will have the opportunity to
learn more about City services
during meetings with their
Navigators, familiarizing them with
how to navigate certain services
as well as how to resolve issues.
• Issue-specific trainings will also
give NAs the opportunity to meet
w/ Dept. staff to answer questions
and increase trust with the City.
• NL’s can answer questions and
connect residents with resources
throughout the City.
• Meetings provide a regular and
standard venue for the City to
share information, solicit feedback,
facilitate discussions, and provide
follow-up with a smaller group of
NAs.
• A consistent City point of contact
and venue for communication can
enable better relationship building
between the City and NAs.
• Navigators can elevate concerns,
common themes, and community
feedback to City Departments.
• The City will need to ensure there are adequate NLs so that they have capacity to address different levels of NA maturity as well as provide specialized attention to underserved NAs and communities. • Navigators will be given responsibility to establish trust, make themselves a well ingrained feature of the community, and manage a large cohort of residents. • Navigators will need significant training to act as central hubs of information for City services and be experts in all Department resources.
Considerations
*For more information on structure and logistics, please go to slide 55. 13 Advising Structure: Neighborhood Services Advisory Group Neighborhood Navigators can help facilitate the creation of and support the operation of a Neighborhood Services Advisory Group.
Phase Impact
Advising
• Provides a forum for NAs to weigh in on salient issues in their communities and gives NAs and participants a shared purpose for the Group/Roundtable.
• The volunteer process decreases barriers to involvement and can encourage those who are passionate about the topic to participate. • The changing topics each year provides opportunity for different voices to participate each time.
• Leverages existing City processes for Advisory
Groups/Roundtables, making it easier for staff to stand-up this new forum.
• The yearly nature of these groups ensures they are action-oriented. • Considerations
• The City will need to consider the logistics of the topic voting process at the all-NA meetings. • There is a risk of the same individuals volunteering for the Advisory Group/Roundtable every year. • The structure may come with the same strengths and challenges that are persistent in all City Advisory Groups and/or Roundtables. • The City should consider compensation for the participants to help address systemic barriers to participation. • While this is being implemented, the City can evaluate creating the Issue-Based Commission based on additional stakeholder feedback.
Considerations
Additional Information*
Role of Participants Role of City Staff
• Represent NA and community
perspectives on specific issues.
• Provide policy and budget
recommendations to relevant
stakeholders on the given issue using
input from their community.
• Help direct community members to
existing Commissions, Advising
Groups, and other forums when
relevant.
• Facilitate the selection of the yearly
topic during with hall NAs.
• Topics should be narrowed to
issues of neighborhood
services (e.g., beautification or
community engagement)
• Provide administrative support.
*For more information on structure and logistics, please go to slide 66.
Appendix
15 Engagement Findings: Key
Themes
16 Community Meeting Themes
The Community Meetings revealed several ideas on how the City could improve engagement with Neighborhood Associations in the future.
Administrative
Support
Centralized resource (e.g.,
dedicated Neighborhood
Association website) that
can provide administrative
support for the operations
of the Neighborhood
Association including
grants and financing
support, technical
administrative services,
and organizational support.
Dedicated
Resources
Designated City
representative that can
act as the point of contact
for the Neighborhood
Association within the
City, Liaison for the
neighborhood on behalf
of the Association for City
operations and conduct
outreach and follow-up.
Formalized
Communication
Channels
Regular and frequent
communications from the
City across channels
(e.g., in-person meetings,
paper newsletters,
emails, physical banners,
website updates) on
issues affecting their
neighborhood (e.g., new
construction, street work,
etc.) including regular
follow-up.
Issue-specific
Support
Forum or channel for
issue-specific assistance
(e.g., targeted guidance
on safety, housing, and
other issues in the
neighborhood).
17 Internal Interview Themes
Internal interviews revealed several goals for the new Engagement Model.
Problem Solving
Setting or channels where
Neighborhood Associations
bring their issues to City
staff and City staff help
them resolve the issue or
provide specific guidance
on next steps.
Capacity Building
Opportunities for the City
to educate Neighborhood
Associations on how to
navigate City services,
address their communities
needs, and access
resources. Neighborhood
Associations can then use
this information to act
accordingly.
Connectivity
Opportunities for all
Neighborhood Associations
to get together with City
employees and receive
updates, share information
with each other, and build
relationships across
communities.
Information Sharing
and Feedback
Gathering
Opportunities for the City
to share information with
Neighborhood
Associations and solicit
feedback from
communities on City
services and issues.
18 Councilmember Interview Themes
Councilmember interviews reinforced some themes while also introducing new ones.
Advising
Forum or process where
Neighborhood Association
leaders or representatives
can collaborate with the City
directly and provide
recommendations on
relevant policies and issues
(e.g., safety, quality of life
issues, the budget).
Empowerment
Opportunities or processes
for Neighborhood
Associations and community
members to make changes
in their own neighborhood
and/or feel co-ownership
over certain City
projects/initiatives.
Resource Support
Event funding and
incentives so that the City
and/or Neighborhood
Associations can create
an environment to make
participating in a
Neighborhood
Association more
accessible.
Capacity Building
Tools and resources to
better equip
Neighborhood
Associations to serve
their communities (e.g.,
succession planning
resources, central
repository of relevant
information, trainings,
administrative support).
Survey Key Takeaways
The 122 respondents reinforced many of the themes found through other engagement methods. 19 • Need for greater financial support.. Most respondents indicated that the City provides NA’s “some” support and listed financial resources are the highest need (61%). This resonates with community meeting finds as most respondents listed resources for events and communications as a top concern.
o Community members want to host their own events and connect with their neighborhoods but need consistent and reliable resources to do so. o This supports the Engagement Model Phase 3 to provide coalitions with consistent grant funding. • Preference for in-person resources. Respondents indicated that in-person consistent meetings with City staff were of top concerns (35%) and that their NA’s need dedicated support (56%).
o Through community meetings and council interviews stakeholders expressed difficultly building community trust without assigned and consistent representation.
o The City should explore options that provide City resources to connect with, provide resources to, and act as a liaison to neighborhoods.
Engagement models 1 through 3 explore various levels of dedicates support. • Community members want to feel empowered in their interactions with the City and while advocating for their communities. 81% of responses for ‘why you participate in your neighborhood association’ included advocating for their neighborhood and for those that are not current members indicated that third most likely reason they would join is to advocate for their community. o The City should explore options that allow neighborhoods to have an active voice to inform City decisions. o Advising Models 2 and 3 provide formalized avenues to which community members can advocate for their neighborhood and provide input on City action.
Note for Consideration: Between all three engagement methods, the community meetings, survey, and neighborhoods conference, many of the same NA’s were represented. Note that there might be some overlap in representation within this data set due to lack of control over single unique inputs. 20 Engagement Findings:
Neighborhoods Conference
Neighborhoods Conference Key Takeaways
21 • Support and excitement for the Neighborhoods Support Team. The Neighborhoods Support Team received the most votes of the model options (26%).
o Participants were most interested in the Neighborhood Support Team, expressing that it could give them the access and resources they need. o This feedback is consistent with the feedback received from other engagement methods – community members want dedicated support from the City. This is also consistent with the purpose voting results, as capacity building and two-way communication received the most votes (both with 25% of the votes).
• Contradictory advising preferences. Advising received the least number of votes (14%) during the purpose activity, however the Issue-Based Commission Received the second most votes (20%) overall of the six model options. The third most voted model option was also Issue-Based Advisory Group (16%).
o Engagement has consistently revealed contradictory preferences on the role of advising in the New Model (Advising also received the least number of votes during the staff Visioning Workshop).
o This information signals that stakeholders do want Advising to be an aspect of the new Model, but the City may need to conduct additional analyses to determine the best fit Advising model option in the long-term. • Need for further exploration. The Neighborhood Coalitions received the lowest number of votes of the options (12%), signaling the need for additional analyses on potential long-term organizational structures. o Though Coalitions received the least number of votes of the model options, participants saw value in the Coalition model such as its potential to partner with Project Hope and the potential prevention of City-staff burn-out. However, participants also expressed concern on if this structure would create potential conflicts with existing Coalitions. o As the City considers adding additional dedicated resources in the long-term, it may need to conduct additional analyses to determine the best structure for organizing NAs and staff resources (i.e., Coalition structure or other organization method).
The ~40 participants reinforced many of the themes found through other engagement methods. 22 Neighborhoods Conference – Activity 1
The first activity asked participants to vote for their preferred purpose for the new Engagement Model.
Two-way communication and
capacity building were the most
important areas for
Neighborhood Associations.
20 20
16 13
11 0 5 10 15 20 25
Capacity Building
Two-Way Communication
Issue Support
Connectivity
Advising
Which two key areas are the most important to
your Neighborhood Association?
Participants were given two dots for voting
23 Neighborhoods Conference – Activity 2
The second activity asked participants to vote for the model they are most excited about. 22 17
14 11
11 10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Neighborhood Support Team
Public Life Commission
Issue-Based Advisory Group
Neighborhood Association
Forum
Direct Feedback Collection
Neighborhood Association
Coalitions
Which engagement and advising models
resonate the most with you.
While participants ranked
advising as the lowest
need for Neighborhood
Associations, developing
a Issue-Based
Commission received the
second most votes in
activity two.
Participants were given two dots for voting
24 Model Research
25 Model Research – Approach
Desk research was conducted to understand how other cities structure their neighborhood engagement models.
Purpose:
Understand alternative neighborhood engagement models between public (community run organizations) and City sponsored groups.
Approach:
1. Identify cities of similar size, organizations, and/or goals.
2. Conduct desk research to collect information on other City’s neighborhood engagement practices.
3. Summarize findings.
City Models Evaluated:
Model Considerations:
Clearly Defined
Programs and models for
community engagement are
clear in purpose and goals.
Optimizes City Resources
The organization employs
innovative strategies that
are a good use of the City’s
time and resources.
Empowers the Community
Community members feel
heard and like their time
and energy will be
recognized and turned into
action.
Equity Based
All identities are included,
heard, and represented
equally. Providing those
with higher needs
necessary resources.
Adequate Training
Adequately training on how
to be the most proactive
members in facilitating and
contributing to the model.
26 Los Angeles – Department of Neighborhood Empowerment • The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (EmpowerLA) oversees multiple engagement opportunities for the City.
• The Neighborhood Councils are advisory bodies, who advocate for their communities with City Hall on important issues like development, homelessness, and emergency preparedness. Neighborhood Councils are part of the Los Angeles City government, and have annual budgets funded by City funds.
Seattle – Department of Neighborhoods
• The Department of Neighborhoods is charged with advising on engagement for all city departments and managing the city’s engagement needs. • There are four city funded full-time staff operating as Community Engagement Coordinators who are each assigned to different regions. • There are 53 Community Liaisons who act as a bridge between the community and city. They ensure underserved and underrepresented groups have access to City information, resources, and decision-making power.
Boston – Office of Community Engagement
• The Office of Neighborhood Services has 20 employees (“Community Liaisons”) that each represent and serve a designated neighborhood. • They serve to disseminate information and facilitate delivery of City services.
The department provides a forum for both groups and individuals to express concerns, request services, and extend opinions..
Portland – Department of Community & Civic Life
• Portland is organized into seven District Coalitions. Each coalition contains approx. 12 neighborhood associations. The City’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement oversees the Coalitions with approximately 8 full time staff. • The primary focus of Coalition work is building capacity for civic engagement.
Model Research – Summary
Neighborhood Council
Program
Board of Neighborhood
Commissioners
Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
Seattle Department of Neighborhoods
Community Engagement
Coordinators
Community
Liaisons
Community Involvement
Commission
Leadership & Administration Community Building Community Grants Neighborhood
Program Grant Program
Department of Community and Civic Life
Advisory Bodies
Program
Immigrant & Refugee
Program
Cannabis Neighborhood
Livability
Community & Neighborhood
Involvement Center Administration
Office of Community Engagement
Neighborhood
Services
Office of Neighborhood
Services
Administration
SPARK Boston Office of Civic
Organizing Boston 311
Boston 311 Office of Civic
Organizing
Model Research – Themes
• Continuity in dedicated liaisons
who interact with community
groups is essential in
maintaining trust, understanding
community needs, and
holistically identifying the needs
of the community.
• Many models provide dedicated
resources that act as the
community’s point of contact in
the City.
Theme 3:
Continuity in
City Personnel
• Many models are community
orientated but maintain City
sponsored resources to do
direct community engagement.
• These resources are available
through central offices with
either satellite locations or
floating personnel who meet
people in the City where they
are.
Theme 1:
Meeting the Community
where they are
• Forums are meant to
supplement other community
engagement work.
• Many committees focused on
neighborhood groups are one
piece of a broader neighborhood
engagement model – helping
organize the forum but also
provide visibility to it via other
staff obligations in the City.
Theme 2:
Multidimensional
Engagement