CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Operational
Analysis for the
Code Enforcement
Division
OPERATIONAL REPORT
M A R C H 1 8 , 2 0 2 5
Guidehouse
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
46-86
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Peer City Benchmarking
City Leadership & Partner Interviews
Customer Experience Activities
Appendix A-D
3-8
9-18
19-22
23-43
44-45Next Steps
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Executive Summary
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
3 The City is engaging Guidehouse over four tasks to conduct an operational assessment of the Code Enforcement Division to identify opportunities to streamline, prioritize, or invest in services. The focus of this report is Task 3: Operational Analysis Operational Analysis | Purpose & Methodology
Purpose: The purpose of the Operational Analysis is to understand the Code Enforcement Division from an external perspective by exploring the experience and expectations of customers, City leadership, and Division partners, as well as seeking practices from peer cities
Objectives and Methodology:
Objective Methodology
Peer City Benchmarking. What leading practices can
San José learn from peer cities?
Desktop research and in-depth interviews with the cities of Austin, Seattle, and San Diego
City Leadership & Partner Interviews. What are the
expectations of City leaders and Division partners, and are they being met?
Eight in-depth interviews with a cross-section of City leadership and external partners
Customer Experience Activities. What is the
experience of customers?
• Eight in-depth customer interviews
• 57 customer observations
• Four inspector ridealong sessions
• 1,134 customer survey responses over three survey years, representing a 10-year span
• Web-based and phone channel mystery shopping
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Succession
Planning
• Allow experienced inspectors to substitute years of experience for education requirements to promote to leadership positions from within and retain talented staff (Austin, Seattle, San Diego) • Have up to three tiers of inspectors supporting a Division Manager, such as Inspector A-C, Code Investigator , and Inspection Supervisor to enable upward mobility and opportunities for growth (Austin) Streamlined
Enforcement
Process
• Enable an automatic and/or strict case prioritization process to ensure severe and high-priority cases are closed in a timely manner (Austin, Seattle, San Diego)
• Escalate to enforcement more rapidly and have less steps from complaint to enforcement – usually after first inspection if resident does not correct violation – to support an efficient case management process (Austin, Seattle, San Diego) Peer City Benchmarking | Key Strategies & Initiatives
Peer cities exhibited several key leading practice strategies and programmatic initiatives that San José may consider Focused Scope
• Maintain narrower program scope, primarily focused on building/zoning compliance to align with Code mission and help manage workload (Austin, Seattle, San Diego)
• Enable inspectors to focus on inspections through support roles such as Program Managers, Permit T echnicians, and Code Review Analysts (Austin, Seattle)
4 Robust
Community
Engagement
• Leverage community education initiatives such as public relations campaigns, hotlines, and social media activation to increase resident awareness of enforcement processes and their rights (Austin, Seattle) • Have Engagement Manager role to focus on community and stakeholder engagement (Austin) Strategic Roles
• Have Chief Strategy Officer to oversee the Corporate Strategy, Marketing & Outreach, and Community Engagement functions in Development Services Department to keep the Division grounded in the City’ s strategy and customer-centric culture (Austin)
• Have Legal Liaison and Strategic Advisor to advise on legal and policy issues, manage Director’s rule process, and coordinate with Attorney’s Office and other City departments (Seattle)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
The below takeaways emerged from conversations with nine 1 key City leadership and partner stakeholders, including elected officials and leaders in organizations that work closely with the Code Enforcement Division City Leadership & Partner Interviews | Key Takeaways
• Mayor’s Office
• Vice Mayor
• Councilmembers (2)
City Leadership
• Fire Department
• Economic Development
• Parks, Recreation, and
Neighborhood Services
• Appeals Hearing Board
• San José Chamber of
Commerce
Partners
Support for
Change and
Improvement
• Motivation to support Code Enforcement in implementing changes to improve service • Interest in reevaluating scope, fee structures, organizational structure, legal involvement, and case escalation
Span of Control
• Acknowledgement that enforcing on private property is difficult with due process restrictions • Notice an increase in compliance when traditional enforcement symbols (e.g., uniforms, badges) are present, which is highlighted when Police and Fire are present at inspections. This can lead to cooperation that inspectors do not as easily receive Lenient and
Inefficient
Process
• Interest in increasing penalties enforcement to support expedited case escalation timeline • Dissatisfaction with slow processes and inconsistent case prioritization • Frustration around cases restarting when there is inspector turnover 1 Eight additional external stakeholder interviews included in Customer Experience Section 5
Communication
and Transparency
• Appreciation for inspectors’ community involvement, which has led to positive outcomes • Frustration with inconsistent communication back to complaining parties and need to leverage elected officials as mediators, and desire for a public reporting tool for updates Major Focus on
Downtown
• Interest in expanding Abandoned Shopping Carts program • Concern with blighted building cases downtown, especially those that have remained unresolved for months/years
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Across phone, in-person, website, and desk interactions, customers referenced concerns about case timelines and enforcement strategies but satisfaction with inspectors’ engagement and community involvement Customer Experience Activities | Key Takeaways (1 of 2) 6 Time to Close
While most individual interactions with Code Enforcement were relatively short, some customers feel that closing cases could take months or years Code’s Purview
Many customers were confused by Code Enforcement’s purview. Many calls received by support staff were for another Division (for example, Building & Permitting) Problematic
Properties
Some customers highlighted the stress of dealing with problematic long-term owners Inconsistent
Enforcement
Customers feel that some residents receive preferential treatment. For example, Customer 2 was frustrated with punitive enforcement for their permitting process, while a neighbor with solid waste and other safety issues received no enforcement Inspectors Who
Care
Many customers highlighted the strengths of individual inspectors, including their empathy, care, and effort
Resolving
Customer Issues
When many customers interacted with Code Enforcement, their mood often improved, attributable to staff’ s engagement with their problems and knowledge Growth Areas Strengths
“It was just the most basic
request that could have been
done quickly, but it took nine
months… eventually, I reached
out to my City Councilmember
directly. That's how I finally got
my permits. I had to literally get
an elected official involved." –
Customer 2
“I can't complain about anything
when their attitude is so sterling.
We will work with them to get
results. ” - Customer 5
“We have the same problems as
we had ten years ago. It's
frustrating...They tell me that
they’re trying really hard, but the
burnt down building has been
sitting there for three years. “ –
Customer 6
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Across four ridealongs and ten years of customer surveys, customers indicated satisfaction with the focus on customer experience and case resolution, but expressed varied regional experience and concerns about inconsistent enforcement Customer Experience Activities | Key Takeaways (2 of 2) • Emphasis on Customer Experience. Customers received a high-touch approach from inspectors, including touchpoints about their experience • Technological & Staffing Limitations. Inspectors are limited by practical constraints like driving time, staffing shortages, and technological limitations. These limitations extend enforcement and inspection timelines
• Inspector Discretion. Inspectors can exercise their own discretion about cases, which allows for a more personalized experience. This can result in perceptions of inconsistent enforcement
Ridealongs
• Regional Variations. Positive perceptions of the Division have increased in North San José by 20% and decreased in all other regions. Across years and regions, 66%-77% of residents stated that blight was their top concern. Zoning or Building violations were the second most common concern, in the North, Central, West, and South, whereas illegal occupancy was the second most common concern in the East
• Service Quality. Since 2013-2014, overall positive responses have decreased by 14%.
However, most surveyed customers had positive impressions of the timeliness, courtesy, and timeliness of their inspectors in each surveyed year (70%, 61%, and 52% in each year) • Declines in Satisfaction. Overall impressions of the Division remain positive or neutral, with 50% rating the Division as “excellent” or “good” in 2023-2024. However, impressions of the Division’s overall efficacy, responsiveness, and timeliness have declined in the past decade Customer Experience Survey
Overall Response Distribution by
Year
26% 35% 38%
10%
10% 13%
64% 56% 50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2013-2014 2019-2020 2023-2024
Positive (Strongly Agree or Agree)
Neutral
Negative (Strongly Disagree or Disagree)
Key
General Code
Multiple Housing
Special Programs (Vacant
Buildings)
Ridealongs Map
7 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Peer City
Benchmarking
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
The Guidehouse T eam analyzed data and interviews with three cities to identify leading practices for code enforcement operations. The selection attributes below provide context for qualifying comparisons between San José and the peer cities Peer City Benchmarking | At-a-Glance
` San José San Diego Seattle Austin
City Attributes
State California California Washington Texas
Population (2023) 969,655 1,388,320 755,078 979,882
Annual City Budget (FY24-25) $6.1B $5.8B $8.5B $5.9B
Per Capita Spend (City Budget) $6,291 $4,178 $11,257 $6,021 Median Household Income (2023) $141,565 $104,321 $121,984 $91,461 Monthly Bill Expense Per Household $3,695 $3,324 $3,049 $2,612 Land Area (square miles) 177.80 325.90 83.90 319.9
Housing Units (2020) 342,037 548,934 368,308 444,426
Key
• > ~10% or more
• < ~10% or more
• Nearly Equal
9 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
San José San Diego Seattle Austin
Code Enforcement Division Attributes
Total Code Enforcement Budget (FY24-25) $13.38M $12.3M $15M $32.5M Per Capita Spend (Code Budget) $13 $9 $20 $33
Number of Residents Per Inspector 19,789 24,356 34,322 12,893 Total Code Enforcement FTEs 70.5 90 60.5 116
Total Inspectors FTEs 49 57 22 76
Total Managers / Supervisors FTEs 11 18 9 15
Number of Programs 16 11 6 8
Workload Assigned by Census Tract Council District Location Location Case Management Application CES Accela Accela AMANDA
Use of Tablets - ✓ ✓ ✓
Formal Succession Planning - ✓ ✓ ✓
Community Engagement Program - - ✓ ✓
Key
✓ exists in the Division
- does not exist in the Division
• > ~10% or more
• < ~10% or more
10 Peer City Benchmarking | At-a-Glance
The Guidehouse T eam analyzed data and interviews with three cities to identify leading practices for code enforcement operations. The selection attributes below provide context for qualifying comparisons between San José and the peer cities CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
11 Across three highlighted peer cities, fine/fee structures are typically scalable based on property value, size, and type to maximize equity for property owners while still aligning fines/fees to the LOE required of Code Enforcement staff Peer City Benchmarking | Fine Structures Key Takeaways
• Customizability. All three peer cities employ some form of scalable fines/fees based on property size, type, and contractor’s fees, allowing for fees to grow in accordance with the value of a property and the LOE required of inspectors. 1 • Self Service and Customer Experience. To support a positive customer experience, peer cities leverage self-service opportunities, providing documentation to help customers understand how, why, and where they must pay fines/fees. 2 • Equity and Efficiency. Other cities use hourly and base fee rates to improve procedural efficiency by ensuring that time-consuming processes result in accordingly higher fees.
3 Example 1: While San José charges a $1,250 fine for the first violation on a development permit, Seattle’s Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) uses a sliding scale, which includes $274 for the first $1,000 of a property, and the scale increases in proportion to the value of a property. This means that a property worth $200,000,001 would pay $534,573.
Example: Austin’s Development Services Department provides a short, user-friendly guide to fees and San Diego’s Building & Land Use Division gives customers information on how to pay/calculate fees online.
Example: Seattle’s SDCI cites ‘equity’ as a major driving factor behind its base and hourly fee structures. • Overall fines. In comparison to other cities, San José’s fines seem to fall within a normal range; however, its limited use of scalable, flexible fines means the City is limited in how much it can charge for more time-consuming or challenging properties. 4 Example 2: For a 3,000 square foot building, San Diego charges a base rate of $3,791 for plan checks and $1,304 for inspections, plus an increment rate of $1.30 and $0.40 respectively. For a 50,000 square foot high rise, San Diego charges a base rate of $9,605 for plan checks and $8,594 for inspections, plus an increment rate of $0.20 for each.
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
City of San Diego Building & Land Use | Overview
121See Appendix A for detailed org charts
The City of San Diego Building & Land Use Enforcement Division is part of the City’s Development Services Department (DSD). The Building & Land Use Division investigates and enforces code violations related to land use, development regulations, building and housing codes, abandoned properties, disabled access, and noise regulations.
• Total Staff: 90 staff members, 57 of which are
inspectors1
• Funding: All are general fund except for LEA, which
are grant funded
• Organized by function: Building Inspections (22
FTEs), Administration (11 FTEs), LEA (5 FTEs), Zoning
Investigations I (18 FTEs), Zoning Investigations II (20 FTEs), Code Enforcement Coordination (4 FTEs), Short
T erm Residential Occupancy Investigations (8 FTEs), 1
Manager over Building Inspections, Admin, and LEA, 1
Deputy Director
Organizational Structure
• Inspectors can use smartphones,
laptops, or tablets in the field
• Most utilize phones or laptops
• Accela for case management
Technology Key Metrics & Processes
• General Code
• Multiple
Housing
(Substandard
Housing)
• VBS
• Building Code
Compliance
• Massage
• Cannabis
• LEA
• ADU
• E3
• Soft Story
(Unreinforced
Masonry)
Core Programs
• Rebranding for scope management: Intentionally changed name from Code Compliance to Building & Land Use to prevent unrelated code programs moving to Division
• Partnerships: Lean into partnerships with the Police Department, Fire Department, and Parks and Recreation due to overlapping case violations. Partnership with City Attorney’s Office allows them to quickly respond to tenants’ needs
• Succession planning: Flexibility with education requirements for leadership roles in the Division to support career growth • Support roles: Various coordinator roles for hearings, training, and liaising with Attorney’s Office to help inspectors focus on core work Key Takeaways
10 of 13 San José Programs
Other programs: STRO Program
Enforcement Process
• Once violation is reported, may issue
Notice of Violation or citation immediately
for severe cases. If Responsible Party does
not reach compliance: Abatement, Civil
Penalties, or Judicial Remedies
Metrics
• Utilize three-tiered prioritization system, with specific compliance and timelines goals for each: P1-Imminent Health and Safety Hazards (1 day), P2-Significant Violations (5 days), P3-Other Code Violations (20 days) • Goal for P3 is to reach 90% of time, but currently ~60% of time due vacancies
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
City of San Diego Building & Land Use | Innovative Ideas 13 Job Education/Experience Requirements
• Staff can replace educational requirements with years of experience to support staff retention and succession planning
Community Engagement
• In the aftermath of environmental disasters like floods and wildfires, Building & Land Use goes into the community to conduct outreach, support City Departments, and assist with emergency permitting
Program Scope
• The Department runs a short-term rental program
• Do not enforce on any form of blight unless it is aligned to building or zoning code violations
• Mobile Vendors program successfully moved to Police Department as a result of Building & Land Use’s advocating efforts
oProgram originally assigned to Building & Land Use due to “enforcement” nature, but when Code would attempt to cite vendors, they would leave their belongings. Many mobile vendors were part of cartel or claimed they were trafficked, and due to complexity and challenges with enforcing with citations, City leaders realized it was a better fit for Police Department Innovative Ideas
Website Snapshots
STRO Violation Portal
Explanation of B&LU Scope and links to other resources
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
City of Seattle Code Compliance | Overview
141See Appendix A for detailed org charts
The City of Seattle Code Compliance Division lies within the Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI). The division enforces community standards and ensures all rental housing is registered and code-compliant, and that landlords follow tenant protection regulations for Seattle’s renters who make up more than half of their residents. • Total Staff: 60.5 staff members, 22 of which are Inspectors1 • Funding: Code Compliance roles are funding by a combination of the General Fund (~60%) and fees (~40%)
• Organized by programs: Rental Housing (15 FTEs), Code Compliance Operations (12.5 FTEs), Code Compliance Building (11 FTEs), Housing & Zoning (8 FTEs), LU, Trees, Weeds, and Shoreline (10 FTEs). Additional roles include: 1 Code Compliance Manager, 1 Legal Liaison and Strategic Advisor, 1 Budget/Dev Analyst, and 1 Division Director
Organizational Structure
• T ablets and laptops provided to
Inspectors, with some individual
discretion
• Accela for case management
Technology
Enforcement Process
• Issue Notice of Violation and customers typically given 30 days to comply (sometimes less for severe cases). If
customers do not comply, penalties automatically begin, and the case may be escalated to law enforcement
• Issue fewer warning notices
Case Prioritization
• Utilize ‘triage’ model where they prioritize closing emergency cases and high-impact situations first
• After top tier cases, aim to close middle tier cases within approximately 20 days. Tier 3 is reserved for non-emergency cases, which are deprioritized
Key Metrics & Processes
• General Code (LU, Trees, Weeds, and
Shoreline)
• Multiple Housing (Rental Housing
Programs)
• Vacant Buildings and Storefronts
• Building Code (Code Compliance
Building)
• Illegal Dumping Enforcement
• ADU Amnesty
Core Programs
• Focus on culture: Investment in employee events
and continuing education to celebratee their
team’s work and establish themselves as a
professional organization
• Succession planning: Received support of City to
reclassify manager positions to allow experience
to substitute education - most managers worked
their way up from beginning with City as inspectors
• Strategic roles: Have Budget/Dev System Analyst
and Legal Liaison and Strategic Advisor
Key Takeaways
6 of 13 San José Programs
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
City of Seattle Code Compliance | Innovative Ideas
15 Community Engagement
• Offer website translations in 15 languages
• Provide optional video inspections to increase accessibility for customers • Outreach Lead role for landlord and tenant education
oConduct landlord training several times a year, attends community events • Interdepartmental Renting in Seattle Program – outreach and training for renters and landlords. Code Compliance hosts program hotline
Succession Planning
• Prioritize on-the-job experience over formal education to help create clearer pathways to promotion for existing inspectors, resulting in improved succession planning and higher retention rates
• Encourage inspectors to prioritize continuing education and certifications, which has laid a clear pathway to increase inspector salaries down the line • Place continuous emphasis on the unique skills and challenges associated with Code Enforcement, including need for problem solving skills, community engagement work, and on the job experience
Innovative Ideas
Community Engagement &
Renter Information Snapshots
Interactive Renters’ Portal & Handbook
SDCI Introduction Video
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
161See Appendix A for detailed org charts
The City of Austin Code Compliance Division is housed within the Development Services Department (DSD). It is a reactive organization, responding to reports via Austin 311.
T op violations include tall weeds and grass, trash and debris/unsanitary conditions, substandard and dangerous structures, and work without a permit. • Total Staff: 116 staff, 76 of which are
inspectors/investigators1
• Funding: All Code Compliance positions are funded
by Austin’s Clean Community Fee (garbage and
electricity)
• Organized by: Region - Central East, Downtown,
South, North Central, North (53 FTEs), and by
Program - Extended Hours (9 FTEs), Illegal Dumping
(5 FTEs), Repeat Offender (16 FTEs), Licensing &
Registration (6 FTEs), Code Enforcement (8 FTEs),
Case Review & Escalation (11 FTEs)
Organizational Structure
• Cases are generated through
Austin’s 311 app
• AMANDA for case
management
• T echbooks and iPhones for
case management
Technology
Enforcement Process
• Upon confirming a violation, a Notice of Violation is provided to the property owner. If compliance is not reached upon follow-up inspection, four potential paths: License/Registration Suspension or Revocation, Building and Standards Commission, Municipal or District Court, Administrative Hearing
• All cases submitted through 311 – automatically prioritized into three tiers based on safety
Metrics
• Expected to complete at least five inspections per day • Meet prioritization goals ~95% of time
Key Metrics & Processes
• General Code
• Multiple Housing (Repeat Offender)
• Vacant Buildings and Storefronts
• Building Code Compliance
• Illegal Dumping Enforcement
• ADU Amnesty
• E3
Core Programs
• Staffing levels: Have ~20 more Inspectors for a population of ~10,000 more people than San José
• Community engagement: Emphasis on community education around code violation complaint process, tenant rights, etc. • Multi-dwelling units: Inspected through Repeat Offender Program (sole proactive program)
• Strategy and support roles: Chief Strategy Officer who oversees Marketing, Outreach, and Community Engagement. Staff focused on technical/admin include Permit Technicians, Revenue Analysts, and Program Specialists, and Business Process Specialist and Administrative Assistant supporting Division Manager
Key Takeaways
7 of 13 San José Programs
Other programs: Licensing & Registration
City of Austin Code Compliance | Overview
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
City of Austin Code Compliance | Innovative Ideas
17 Strategy and Community Engagement
• Have Department-level Chief Strategy Officer that oversees Engagement Manager and Marketing role
• Engagement Manager (stakeholder and community) role for DSD that is solely focused on external stakeholders and complex/high-visibility cases oThese efforts are largely a result of special interest groups that have looked at Code Compliance with a critical eye and encouraged internal audits. These audits have led to positive changes in programming and strategic roles within the Division
• Marketing role that focuses on educational campaigns for residents - YouTube channel, podcast, digital and print materials
• Citizen Connect tool allows anyone to search code complaint cases on a user- friendly map
Technology
• Work with techbooks from their pickup trucks
• T ake case photos with iPhone app that date/time stamps photos • Inspectors receive notifications when inspection and compliance are due Repeat Offender Program
• Rental registration program for properties with multiple code violations. Created in response to structural failures that endangered public health and safety in multifamily residences
Innovative Ideas
Community Engagement
Snapshots
YouTube Channel & Podcast Interactive Map
Educational Materials
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
City Leadership &
Partner Interviews
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
19 City Leadership & Partner Interviews | Key Themes (1/3) • Frustration around inefficient and ineffective processes. Many stakeholders cited that some cases take years and repeated complaints to resolve and expressed frustration with the perceived lack of urgency and inconsistent compliance. “If you talk to Code Enforcement, they say they are
understaffed. But if you look at efficiencies in the
Department – they don’t need more employees, they just
need to do it more efficiently…Inspectors don’t do work that they are getting done well. ”
“There's no silver bullet here. The balance is that the City wants to get to compliance, not necessarily just to impose harsh penalties. The political alignment is shifting, but that's not really Code Enforcement's job exactly - that's for the Council. The overall experience is a mixed bag. I don’t even know how the funding works in practice. "
"Y ou need to increase your fees to hire more people… I know we are bound by capacity, and we can't really move anything without the Legal team. The most frustrating thing is that people can really skirt the system…. It's not the case for everyone, if you're a small business owner who can't afford it, but it's frustrating to see the people who can afford it just punt the ball down the road."
Support for change and improvement initiatives. Stakeholders expressed interest in supporting Code Enforcement in improving its efficacy, citing interest in reevaluating the Division’s scope, fine structures, organizational structure, legal involvement, and case escalation. “I don’t think [the Division’s organizational structure] is focused on addressing the high priorities…I don’t know if there is an evaluation mindset. ”
During eight leadership and partner interviews, stakeholders shared frustrations with Code Enforcement’s services, while expressing motivation for change and improvement
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
20 City Leadership & Partner Interviews | Key Themes (2/3) • Focus on downtown blight. The Division has made progress on addressing the downtown area through the Vacant Buildings and Storefronts pilot program and collaboration with other Departments; however , stakeholders emphasize that downtown is still a major area of concern.
“When you see blighted buildings, it leads to opinions of public safety. I don’t understand why things aren’t escalating faster…It would be helpful to have a Council-facing system [to track egregious cases]. ”
“Communication is frustrating for the complaining
party…they are not receiving a lot of communication. Elected officials become mediators. Residents should have a dashboard to see when inspectors are going out – would be more responsive to the community. ”
"I think they do a really good job of giving us everything that we need [for Appeals Board]. The only thing that I have seen, is that there are cases that are lingering for years and years… Sometimes we have customers that are a little confused, maybe English isn't their first language. So it's helpful… for inspectors to make themselves available for assistance. ” Appreciation for inspectors, but lack of organizational transparency. Several stakeholders noted that inspectors’ attitudes and levels of service have improved over time, but there remains a void of communication and transparency for the public.
During eight leadership and partner interviews, stakeholders shared frustrations with Code Enforcement’s services, while expressing motivation for change and improvement
"Our downtown needs to have quality buildings…But if you look at our business owners, you have property owners that can't and don't … stand up a building… if you can't afford it, you can't get around historic preservation requirements…It's very important that property owners that are simply skirting the system should not be allowed to do so. "
“[Inspector] has been great for downtown - super curious, knowledgeable, approachable, and great customer rapport. The program is up for review this year, and I would like to see it continue... ”
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
21 “[There] seems to be a little bit more pressure when Fire goes into the field with Code Enforcement because they are uniformed. [It] gives a little more formality and pressure. ” “Private land is much more difficult [to enforce on than public property] because of due process [and other restrictions]. [Our team] has a lot of empathy for Rachel and her team as we have learned more about the process and the requirements Code Enforcement must adhere to versus our department on private versus public land. ”
Acknowledgement of span of control challenges. Some stakeholders expressed understanding and empathy for Code Enforcement, and the challenges that come along with limited control on private property. Partnerships with departments like PRNS, Fire, and Police are helpful, and these could be bolstered to help reduce these challenges.
City Leadership & Partner Interviews | Key Themes (3/3) During eight leadership and partner interviews, stakeholders shared frustrations with Code Enforcement’s services, while expressing motivation for change and improvement
“We worked with Code Enforcement on unpermitted street vendor [enforcement] over the holiday. They were good partners, but we only had two tools to enforce. One was the County Health Department because they can confiscate food, and [the other was] Code Enforcement because they can write citations. We learned that the administrative citations were not super effective. ”
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Customer
Experience
Activities
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
The Guidehouse T eam conducted an analysis of 72 customer interactions, 1,134 survey data points, and two different mystery shopping channels to develop a holistic understanding of the customer experience at Code Enforcement Customer Experience Activities | Approach & Methodology Customer
Interviews (8)
Customer
Observations (57) Ridealongs (7) Survey
Analysis (1,134)
Mystery
Shopping
In-depth 1:1 interviews with
highly engaged customers in
the community, identified
based on the duration or
nature of their relationship
with the Division
• Listened to live calls fielded by
Support Staff and Inspector on
Office Duty to understand
procedures, customer issues,
and how assistance is
provided to customers
• Conducted short intercepts
front desk visitors
Accompanied
inspectors conducting
code enforcement
visits and observed
customer interactions
Reviewed and analyzed ten
years of Customer Surveys,
highlighting pain points,
strengths, and trend lines
Conducted
research from the
“eyes of the
customer” to
understand key
touchpoints and
pathways for
common inquiries
Customers from:
• SoFA Committee
• ARVAC- Alum Rock Village
Action Committee
• Mt Pleasant NA
• All District Leadership Grp.
• Valley Water
• Non-affiliated Customers
• Average call duration: 4.4 min
• Emotion: 13 (+), 25 Neutral, 8
(-)
• Top Inquiry: Information
Seeking
• Average observation
duration: 5.7 minutes for
desk, 14.0 minutes for
intercept
• Emotion: 3 (+), 6 Neutral, 2(-)
• Inspectors
shadowed: General
Code (2), Multiple
Housing, and Special
Programs
• # of sites visited: 16
• # of customer
interactions: 7
Highlighted questions:
• Where do you live?
• What CE issue is of greatest
concern to you?
• Was your issue corrected?
• Was CED responsive and
helpful? (1-5)
• Was staff service courteous
and timely? (1-5)
Channels:
• Web
• Phone
Scenarios:
• Graffiti on
private property
• Illegal fireworks
• Accessory
Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
23 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
During eight one -on-one customer interviews, customers expressed satisfaction with Code Enforcement’s community engagement, hard work, and knowledge
Customer Interviews | Strength Themes
• Customers feel that most inspectors and hard working and knowledgeable. Most customers have a positive impression of Code Enforcement’s dedication to their field and knowledge of the Municipal Code. “I can't recall any cases where their knowledge has been wanting. ” – Customer 8
“[Our neighborhood] tends to get ignored or forgotten by the city… One of the county supervisors approached one of my friends and said, 'If you put together a community group, I will support you. ' And he did… so I saw it and I joined in 2016. Our little group has accomplished a lot of things. We are working with [different Departments] who don’t always work together very well, but they both come to our meetings, because they've gotten to know each other . So that's really great. " – Customer 4 Appreciation of how inspectors engage with the community. Many customers expressed gratitude for Code Enforcement’ s engagement with residents, often acknowledging that this community engagement came in addition to their other responsibilities. 24 "I've lived in the neighborhood for twenty-five years. It's a very close neighborhood… We have a close, tight bond. In our case, we had a house that wasn't so nice, and after a while, you can only take so much. I work full time, I have grandbabies, and taking on something full time, it's draining! But we got the community together and we got something done. And a lot of that was Code Enforcement. ” - Customer 3
“Code Enforcement does as well as it can. [I
know] they are reliant on other teams...They do a
great job of communicating and have fast
responses and don’t let them linger a long
time. ” – Customer 1
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
During eight one -on-one customer interviews, customers raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement, staffing shortages, delays, and recurring ‘problem properties’
Customer Interviews | Pain Point Themes (1 of 2)
• Perceptions of inequitable enforcement. Many customers felt that their concerns were not being taken seriously, while members of their community were made the targets of selective enforcement for comparatively minor complaints. • Concerns about staff shortages. Customers understood that low resources may cause enforcement delays, inefficiencies, and negative experiences. Generally, they felt that these staff shortages were most problematic in Code Enforcement, but also referenced vacancies in the Police Department, Fire Department, and Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services. “The white community, they're treated well, but my
community, it's a disaster. Working together to clean
things up, would be helpful. But today, it's rock bottom… In my community , they'll write up misdemeanor crap,
for the most trivial things. ” - Customer 7
“We are concerned about fire. We continued to report it. The city would come out and not do anything. But I'm going back to [my situation]. Look how punitive you were to me about my permit process. But over here, this is totally fine, totally normal stuff. This guy who isn't even the order, you're allowing him to obstruct the process… [It's almost like] 'I can be punitive with you because you won't fight back. ' Any other citizen would be held to different standards." - Customer 2 “[The] Department is working hard to address concerns we have. I would like to see more encouragement for [Code Enforcement] employees.
The City should give [them] the tools that they need to do their job... But I am very satisfied with their attitude. ” – Customer 5
“Staffing has been downsized, whether it's through retirement or through lateral moves. “ – Customer 8
25 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
During eight one -on-one customer interviews, customers raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement, staffing shortages, delays, and recurring ‘problem properties’
Customer Interviews | Pain Point Themes (2 of 2)
• Problem properties deepen the perception of reluctance to enforce. Customers referenced frustrations about long-standing violating properties. In addition to the hazards that these properties pose, customers felt that this represented a reluctance to enforce on complaints. This appeared to reduce faith in the overall system and made residents less likely to report on other violations. "All my properties are clean, well-kept, you know, and it's frustrating, because there's lots of illegal dumping happening elsewhere… We've worked on many buildings in San José…. Y ou do get jaded after a while. We had a meeting on blight this morning and everyone’s [complaining] and I said ‘I've been in these meetings before and you talk about all these problems… where's the solution? We really came away with nothing. I'm not going to waste my time. ’” – Customer 6 “There was a big undercover bust and we were told 34 people were living in that house. We had initially got them involved when there were ten, fifteen cars… fast forward years later, and now I'm making a new complaint to the new person, and nothing had changed, and that was weird. How can there be so many years that went by and nothing had changed?” – Customer 3
"They've admitted that they're behind, and that they have no way of addressing 700 new cars coming into the area. It's really annoying. For one residential home, it's like 400 parking spots. There's a school there, there's a library… that's just ridiculous. " – Customer 4
"I can show you cars that have there for fifteen, twenty years.. .The trash I called in last night has been there for fifteen years. ” - Customer 7 Frustrations with persistent delays. Customers expressed frustration and confusion about delays in enforcement. These customers often expressed that they had complained about the same cases for several years without any real movement. 26 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
27 The Guidehouse T eam observed 57 distinct customer interactions with Code Enforcement through desk observations and phone call observations with support staff and inspectors Customer Observations | Overview
Observation Highlight
39 15
3 Customer’s Primary Language 1
English Non-English Unclear
11 46
Customer Interaction
Desk Call
• 7 of the 11 customers who were observed
during front desk support completed a
follow-up interview with the Guidehouse
Team
• 57% of surveyed customers had previously
interacted with Code Enforcement
• 43% of surveyed customers said they were
there to check in on the status of their case
“It's good for one, two, three months, but then
the problem comes back, because they didn't
fix the problem all the way down to the root. ” –
Desk 10
1 Customers primary language’ corresponds to perceived first language, as opposed to the language of the interaction itself CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
58% of customers called to receive additional information, 28% called to check in on the status of their case, and 14% called to schedule an appointment or inspection
Customer Observations | Inquiry Purpose
“I received a letter from the City regarding [address]. I am selling that house and the report said there was an illegal home auto repair operating there...I live in another state and I am relying on my relative to do this for me… so do I need to do anything?” - Call 4
28 58%
Information Seeking. Most customers called to seek out
information about cases, violations, or laws, often due to confusion about the website or redirections from other
Divisions and organizations.
28%
Case Status. When customers checked in on their case
status, 69% were the complaining party. Among responsible parties, many noted they were acting on behalf of someone else and were unsure if they were the responsible party. 14%
Scheduling. Code Enforcement support staff are currently scheduling inspections and appointments on behalf of
Building & Permitting, taking time away from other key tasks. 17 4
1 4
1 2 3
1 11
3 2
7 1
Process
Policy
Inspections
Permit
Invoice
Property History
Complaint
Citation
Complaining Party
Responsible Party
Plans
Inspection
Appointment
Information Seeking Case Status Scheduling
Reason for Customer Inquiry
Information Seeking Case Status Scheduling
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Customers felt positively about inspectors’ empathy, engagement, and community care, often noting that they understood the staffing and resourcing stresses the Division is under Customer Observations | Positive Emotions
"You’ve provided very good
information. I don't like it, but it's good
information. You've been very kind and
that goes a long way with me. “ – Call 7
• Gratitude and appreciation. Even when faced with significant delays and other procedural inefficiencies, customers were grateful for their inspectors’ care and follow -through. Customers emphasized their inspectors’ deep understanding of the Code and their ability to build relationships with residents. • Customers’ moods were often improved by interacting with inspectors. While many customers were frustrated at the start of their calls, many appeared to have improved their mood by the end, often referencing inspectors’ help as a major factor. 2 1
“[My inspector] is pretty good, I have no issue, [it’s] impressive that he conducted the inspection by [date]. This is a plus. ” – Call 6
29 Customer Emotion
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
• Customer confusion. Customers frequently expressed
confusion about Code Enforcement’s scope, the status of their case, and their legal responsibility to act. This confusion was sometimes, but not always, resolved through conversations with inspectors.
When customers expressed negative emotions, they typically referenced frustration, confusion, and impatience. They often attributed these feelings to the impression that Code Enforcement had deprioritized their case Customer Observations | Negative Emotions
• Frustration and impatience. Many customers expressed
frustration that their cases were subject to significant wait times.
For customers dealing with life and safety concerns, these lags represented a failure to prioritize and often appeared to erode overall faith in the Division.
30 Customer Emotion
“Why are we doing everything we can
to make these people happy at the
expense of tax-paying citizens?”
– Customer 2
"It's not about Code Enforcement. It's about the people who are not doing what they are supposed to do. I want you to know where we stand and we will demand action... [My inspector] is a good lady. I know she cares for the City . I don't want to point fingers…It's just frustrating. “ – Call 6
2 1
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Most customers had an appropriate level of effort during their interactions with Code Enforcement, with 81% appearing satisfied with their interaction
Customer Observations | Ease & Effectiveness
55 2
Was the Level of Effort appropriate for the
conversation?
Yes No
46 3
8 Did the customer seem satisfied with the
interaction?
Yes No Somewhat “I first came here two months ago, my
husband was also here, but no one told
him that we emailed the wrong person.
I'm really, really confused. If we emailed
the wrong person, why didn't they tell
us? Everyone I’ve talked to here, the
people are very good, but the
processes, they're just confusing. “ –
Desk 11
• Duration and level of effort. 1 Most customers were
able to get answers to their pressing inquiries
quickly, making the process more efficient and
improving their experiences.
2• One-off vs. long-term interactions. While customers
were generally satisfied with their individual
interactions with the Division, they had more mixed
impressions of the timeline of their long -term
interactions.
1 31
1 “Level of Effort” is a subjective measure of how much time and energy customers expended in an interaction, where “yes” corresponds to a brief, simple, or conclusive interaction and “no” corresponds to a confusing or overly long one.
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
• Clarity through calling. Most customers called to get answers to basic questions or check in on their case status. 93% of these simple inquiries were resolved through the phone, but most customers were also given next steps to advance their inquiry.
Most interactions were resolved quickly, with an average length of approximately 4.7 minutes. Most customers received clarity on their immediate questions, but few were able to resolve the entirety of their case through a single interaction Customer Observations | Call Length & Resolution
1 Duration (minutes)
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 Interaction Duration
32 • Most interactions were relatively short . Most customer interactions were short and simple, with only 11% of interactions lasting ten minutes or more.
2 Inquiry Resolution Status
Resolved Not Resolved
7%93%
• Resolution of cases. In the 7% of unresolved cases, customers were not given the next steps they needed. 100% of these customers appeared frustrated by the lack of clarity.
3 Observation
Highlight
The average
interaction length
was 4.7 minutes,
with the average
call lasting 4.4
minutes.
Average
Length
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
18 customers were able to resolve their main inquiry without additional next steps. For those who did receive next steps, 14 were asked to call/email back later, 13 were transferred to another Division, 4 were transferred to an inspector, 3 opened a case, 3 were referred to another organization, and 2 were transferred to a supervisor Customer Observations | Next Steps & Direction
18 14 13
4 3 3 2
Inquiry Next Steps
None
Customer or inspector directed to call/email back
Customer transferred to different City Division/Department Customer transferred to inspector
Customer transferred to different external organization Case Opened
Customer transferred to supervisor
• Redirections back to Code Enforcement. Many customers were instructed to try calling/ emailing Code Enforcement at a different time, typically because the relevant inspector was busy. 33 • Next steps and movement. When customers were in the wrong place, Code Enforcement referred them in the right direction.
While these calls were typically resolved quickly, they indicate customer confusion about Code Enforcement’s purview.
2 “I’ve been a squeaky wheel since October. I can only do so much and I have a day job… I was just hoping that someone would say, ‘Yeah, I can look into it. ’” - Call 22
1 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
The Guidehouse team visited sixteen sites and observed seven customer interactions while on ridealongs with Inspectors from General Code, Multiple Housing, and Special Programs Ridealongs | Activity Overview
2 General
Code
1 Multiple
Housing
1 Special
Programs
8 General
Code
3 Multiple
Housing
5 Special
Programs
4 General
Code
3 Multiple
Housing
4 Ridealongs
16 Sites visited
7 Interactions
34 Key
• General Code
• Multiple Housing
• Special Programs (Vacant
Buildings)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Key takeaways emerged from ridealongs around the complexity of cases and the human aspect, communication inefficiencies, and technology barriers
Ridealongs | Overall & General Code Takeaways
Overall
• Technology Limitations. Inspectors do not have tablets/laptops and take handwritten notes in the field, which then are entered into CES later. Due to the shortage of electrical vehicle chargers, it is difficult to take advantage of electrical option • Inspector Discretion. Inspectors have significant discretion in citing properties, follow-ups, and case escalation. Leads to inconsistencies in enforcement, timelines, and citations, which can be confusing for customers • Driving and Customer Interaction Time. Driving and customer interaction times can be lengthy (i.e., up to 30-minute drive to Alviso from City Hall). Important to consider this when determining workload capacity • Staffing and Resource Allocation. Other cities with similar Census numbers have lower case volumes and more inspectors 35 General
Code
• Resident Rapport. Inspectors are patient and allow residents to take time to share what is happening in their lives that is causing delays in compliance. They know residents’ history and work with them when they are experiencing hardships • Case nuances and wide scope of violations. Cases are nuanced and violations within a single code can vary significantly - e.g., common blight violations can include inoperable vehicles on lawns, living in RVs on a business property, and excess materials in backyards. This makes it difficult to maintain consistent processes • Reliance on Complainants. Inspectors rely on complainant descriptions, which can be insufficient and lead to extra research time (e.g., incorrect addresses and vague descriptions)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Multiple
Housing
• Unique Service for Community. Offering inspections for multifamily dwellings provides tenants with more support to call and report violations. This beneficial service gives tenants recourse with unresponsive or inattentive landlords • Communication About Complaint Process. No requirement for landlords to post complaint contact information; tenants learn about program through word of mouth
• Communication Channels with Housing. Lack of communication between Code and Housing for subsidized housing inspections may lead to inconsistencies or double work
• Follow-up Process. Inspectors often face delays when property managers do not address issues in a timely fashion or are not onsite during a scheduled inspection, necessitating return visits and wasting valuable time Special
Programs
Vacant
Buildings
& Storefronts
• Proactive Approach for Downtown is Effective. Proactive approach enables the Division to address cases more quickly, reducing number of high-visibility cases downtown
• Temporary Nature of Some Special Programs. Temporary/pilot programs create momentum for change that loses impact if the program does not continue/successful pilot is not implemented Key takeaways emerged from ridealongs around the complexity of cases and the human aspect, communication inefficiencies, and technology barriers
Ridealongs | Multiple Housing & Special Programs Takeaways 36 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
37 The Guidehouse T eam reviewed 1,134 responses from three survey years (2013-2014, 2019-2020, and 2023-2024) to identify themes and trends in residents’ Code Enforcement concerns and service satisfaction Survey Analysis | Key Takeaways
Regional differences in code enforcement concerns exist The top concern across all areas of residence in San José is blight (e.g., overgrown vegetation, storage of items/debris, graffiti, lawn parking, and inoperable vehicles). However, illegal occupancy is a larger concern in East and South San José than other areas, while sub-standard housing conditions is a larger concern in North, Central, and West San José than other areas.
Although overall most respondents indicated their reported code enforcement issue was corrected, public perception of code enforcement effectiveness has declined, and trends vary by region
Since 2013-2024, positive ratings on effectiveness have declined across all San José areas of residence except for North San José, where positive ratings have increased by 20 percentage points.
Although customer service satisfaction is still mostly positive or neutral, satisfaction has also declined over the time frame analyzed
For example, agreement that Code Enforcement staff are courteous and timely fell from 72% in 2013- 2014 to 54% in 2023-2024, reflecting concerns about service delivery. This concern is also reflected by the ratings provided on the Code Enforcement Division’s responsiveness and helpfulness. 1 2
3 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Q: Code Enforcement Issue of Most Concern (Top 3)
38 North
1. Blight (66%)
2. Zoning or Building Violations (17%)
3. Sub-Standard Housing Conditions
(10%)
Notes:
• Self-reported data from 2024-2024 Customer Survey
• Blight: overgrown vegetation, storage of items/debris, graffiti, lawn parking, inoperable vehicles, etc.
• Zoning or Building Violations: unpermitted construction work, illegal land uses, etc.
• Sub-Standard Housing Conditions: faulty plumbing, hazardous wiring, floors in disrepair, pest control, etc.
• Illegal Occupancy: unpermitted garage conversions, illegal living units, etc.
Central
1. Blight (77%)
2. Zoning or Building Violations (10%)
3. Sub-Standard Housing Conditions
(7%)
East
1. Blight (70%)
2. Illegal Occupancy (13%)
3. Zoning or Building Violations (12%)
South
1. Blight (76%)
2. Zoning or Building Violations (11%)
3. Illegal Occupancy (8%)
West
1. Blight (62%)
2. Zoning or Building Violations (20%)
3. Sub-Standard Housing Conditions
(9%)
Not a Resident
1. Sub-Standard Housing Conditions
(36%)
2. Zoning or Building Violations (27%)
3. Blight (27%)
Across all five regions, blight was the top concern, comprising of a significant 66 -77% of the reported concerns
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
39 While overall positive responses have decreased by 14 percentage points (pp) since 2013 -2014, trends vary by residence area
Q: The Code Enforcement issue I reported was corrected
Percent of Respondents with a Positive Response (Strongly Agree or Agree) by Year and Area of Residence in San José
Overall Response Distribution
by Year
26% 35% 38%
10%
10% 13%
64% 56% 50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2013-2014 2019-2020 2023-2024
Positive (Strongly Agree or Agree)
Neutral
Negative (Strongly Disagree or Disagree)
Note: Percentage points (pp) is the simple differen ce between percen tage values. 47%
63%
56%
74%
68%
49%
42%
60%
54%
65%
25%
67%
41%
44%
48%
53%
50%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
North Central West East South Not a Resident
2013-2014 2019-2020 2023-2024
+20 pp -21 pp -12 pp -26 pp -15 pp +25 pp
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
40 A smaller share of respondents have provided favorable or positive ratings on service -related questions since 2013 -2014 Public perception of service quality has decreased over time 23% 27% 34%
21% 22% 28%
5%
7%
12%
9% 16%
20%
72% 66%
54%
70% 61% 52%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2013-2014 2019-2020 2023-2024 2013-2014 2019-2020 2023-2024 Q: I have generally found the Code
Enforcement Division to be responsive and
helpful.
Q: Code Enforcement staff provided courteous
and timely service.
Overall Response Distribution by Question and Year
31%
25%
25%
36%
35%
25%
19%
21%
24%
14%
20%
26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013-2014
2019-2020
2023-2024
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Q: I have generally found the Code
Enforcement Division to be
responsive and helpful.
Q: Code Enforcement staff provided
courteous and timely service.
Q: How would you rate the overall quality of service you received from Code Enforcement?
Positive (Strongly Agree or Agree) Neutral Negative (Strongly Disagree or Disagree) Overall Response Distribution
by Year
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Mystery Shopping | Approach
Purpose: Assess customer channels/touchpoints to understand customer service experiences and standards Approach and Methodology:
• Conducted general searching/navigation across two customer service channels to inform a high -level understanding of customers’ experience in reporting common Code violations. Mystery shopping took place between 2/17 and 3/28 • Common Code violations were chosen in conversation with Division leadership. Because graffiti consistently ranks as customers’ top Code Enforcement concern 2, the Guidehouse T eam used both customer channels to evaluate this complaint • For each scenario and channel, the priority was to capture objective and subjective observations on duration of the interaction, ease of channel navigation, satisfaction of the issue resolution, and clarity of customer next steps • All mystery shopping was conducted in English, but attention was paid to language access options for non -English speaking customers
Channels
Mystery Shopping Scenarios Phone Web
Scenario 1: “How can I report graffiti on a private property?” Scenario 2: “How can I report illegal fireworks?”
Scenario 3: “How can I report an unpermitted Accessory Dwelling Unit?” 2See Customer Service Analysis section for additional details on common customer complaints
The Guidehouse T eam conducted mystery shopping for three different common scenarios to develop a high -level understanding of common customer pathways through the Code Enforcement process 1 1See Appendix D for detailed information on Mystery Shopping findings 41 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
• Interactive and intuitive design. When researching larger questions such as how to register an unpermitted ADU or report an illegal fireworks display, there were several options for customers to report violations, seek additional information, and interact with the City • Clear and accessible language. Across various websites, language used was generally clear and well-communicated. Language was accessible but detailed enough to answer commonly asked questions. Most websites offered translations to Spanish and Vietnamese • Multiple pathways towards the same answer. When searching common violations, other San José websites often appeared first.
However , these websites would typically link to applicable Code Enforcement forms and policies, resulting in a streamlined process • Lack of follow-through. Calling and submitting complaints via the Code Enforcement “Request a Service Form” resulted in follow-ups from the Division within approximately three weeks, but customers are not given self-service options in the meantime Mystery Shopping | Observations Key Takeaways
Across three common Code complaints and two evaluated channels, customers can find high -level answers to their questions and concerns, but receive limited follow -up interaction from the Division 1 42 Takeaways:
Graffiti Fireworks ADU
Called, submitted a request
through Code Enforcement’s
“Request a Service” form, and
researched on the website2
Used Fire Department’s “My
Illegal Fireworks Report” to
learn more information
Researched San José’s
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) policy across several
official channels
1See Appendix D for detailed information on Mystery Shopping findings 2Also included information about other common violations, including Building, Development Permit, Housing, Law Parking, Solid Waste, and Vacant Building and Storefronts
Pain PointKey:
Love Point
Neutral
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendices
Additional information located below:
Appendix A: Peer City Research
Appendix B: City Leadership & Partner Interviews
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log
Appendix D: Mystery Shopping
Appendix E: Process Maps
Appendix F: Workload & Staffing Analysis Support
Appendix G: Peer City Research Sources
47-58
59-60
61-78
79-86
59-63
64-71
72-74
43 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix A: Peer
City Research
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
45 Appendix A: Peer Cities at-a-Glance
Metric San José San Diego Los Angeles Santa Cruz Fresno Seattle Austin Dallas Baltimore Philadelphia State California California California California California Washington Texas Texas Maryland Pennsylvania Land Area
(Square miles) 177.80 325.90 469.00 12.70 114.70 83.90 319.9 339.7 80.90 134.18 Population (2023) 969,655 1,388,320 3,820,914 61,501 545,716 755,078 979,882 1,302,868 565,239 1,550,542 Annual Budget $6.1B $5.8B $12.8B $230M $1.99B $8.5B $5.9B $4.9B $4.2B $6.3B Code Enforcement
Budget $13.38M $12.3M $63.8M $6.2M $27.9M $15M $32.5M $44.6M $70.6M $43.2M Per Capita Spend
(Annual Budget) $6,049 $4,196 $3,283 $3,653 $3,687 $11,533 $6,134 $3,810 $7,171 $3,928 Median Household
Income $141,565 $104,321 $80,366 $111,427 $66,804 $121,984 $91,461 $67,760 $59,623 $60,698 Monthly Bill
Expense/Household $3,695 $3,324 $3,113 $3,670 $2,313 $3,049 $2,612 $2,370 $2,287 $2,060 Housing Units 342,037 548,934 1,496,453 24,014 184,226 368,308 444,426 572,194 259,385 726,797 Interesting Highlight
Large scope and
advanced customer
dashboarding
Publishes priority case
tiers on website
Redesigned website in
Dec. 2024;
Dashboards focused
on outcomes rather
than timelines
Prioritizes cases 1-4
based on
importance
School Area Team –
proactive
enforcement
Offers video
inspections
Repeat Offender
program est. In
2013
Received CC Dept.
of the year in 2024
Can request CE
representatives at
meetings; proactive
enforcement
program
L&I has a tiered
response time
The Guidehouse T eam drafted a list of potential peer cities, with a focus on key factors in blue. These numbers are based on publicly available data and may not be representative of the most up -to-date metrics Indicates City selected for Benchmarking
Key • > ~10% or more
• < ~10% or more
Nearly Equal
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
46 Appendix A: Peer City Comparable Programs
Programs San José San Diego Los Angeles Santa Cruz Fresno Seattle Austin Dallas Baltimore Philadelphia General Code ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Multiple Housing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Vacant buildings
and storefronts ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Abandoned
Shopping Carts ✓
Building Code
Compliance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Cannabis ✓ ✓
Local Enforcement
Agency ✓ ✓ ✓
Fireworks ✓ ✓ ✓
Massage ✓ ✓
Mobile Vendors ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Illegal Dumping
Enforcement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Amnesty ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
E3 ✓ ✓ ✓
Soft Story ✓ ✓
In scope, San Jos é’s Code Enforcement stands apart from its peers. Based on an initial review, the following programs were not the purview of peer Code Enforcement programs: Tobacco Retail License and Off -Sale Alcohol Indicates City selected for Benchmarking
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
47 SDCI Department
Director
(1 FTE)
Code Compliance
Division Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: Seattle Code Compliance Org Chart
Code Compliance
Manager
(1 FTE)
Rental Housing
Programs
Manager
(1 FTE)
Housing
Compliance
Manager
(1 FTE)
Rental
Registration
Inspection
Ordinance and
Tenant Landlord
Resource Center
(4 FTEs)
Property Owner &
Tenant Assistance
(9 FTEs)
Legal Liaison and
Strategic Advisor
(1 FTE)
Budget/Dev
System Analyst
(1 FTE)
Code Compliance
Building Manager
(1 FTE)
Vacant Building,
Inspection
Support Analysts,
and Electrical
Compliance
(10 FTEs)
Code Compliance
Operations
Manager
(1 FTE)
Supervisor(s)
(2 FTEs)
Admin Support
(6 FTEs)
Housing/Zoning
Techs
(4 FTEs)
Housing/Zoning
Inspection
Manager
(1 FTE)
Land Use, Trees,
Weeds, and
Shoreline Insp.
Manager
(1 FTE)
South
Housing/Zoning
Inspectors
(7 FTEs)
North
Housing/Zoning
and Shoreline
Inspectors
(9 FTEs)
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
48 Director
(1 FTE)
Assistant Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: Austin DSD Code Compliance Org Chart (1 of 5) Code Division
Manager
(1 FTE)
Business Process
Specialist
(1 FTE)
4.1 | Code Field Operations
Commercial and Residential Neighborhood
Enforcement: Central, Downtown, and South
Districts.
Case
Management
(1 FTE)
Central East
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Case Escalation
(1 FTE)
Downtown
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
South
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector B
(5 FTEs)
Permit & Licensing
Review Analyst
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(3 FTEs)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector B
(3 FTEs)
Program Specialist
(1 Role Temporary)
Code Inspector C
(5 FTEs)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector A
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector B
(2 FTEs)
Code Inspector C
(5 FTEs)
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
49 Director
(1 FTE)
Assistant Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: Austin DSD Code Compliance Org Chart (2 of 5) Code Division
Manager
(1 FTE)
4.2 | Code Field Operations
Commercial and Residential Neighborhood
Enforcement: North Central, Extended Hours,
North T eams
North Central
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
North
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector A
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(4 FTEs)
Code Inspector B
(3 FTEs)
Administrative
Assistant
(1 FTE)
Business Process
Specialist
(1 FTE)
Permit & Licensing
Review Analyst
(1 FTE)
Extended Hours Illegal Dumping
Code Inspector C
(7 FTEs)
Permit & Licensing
Review Analyst
(1 FTE)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector B
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(2 FTEs)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Administrative
Specialist
(1 FTE)
Extended Hours &
Illegal Dumping
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector B
(4 FTEs)
Code Inspector C
(4 FTEs)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Acting
Division
Manager
On Temp.
Assignment
With ACE
Acting
Supervisor
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
50 Director
(1 FTE)
Assistant Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: Austin DSD Code Compliance Org Chart (3 of 5) Code Division
Manager
(1 FTE)
5.2 | Code Field Operations
Repeat Offender Program
Lodging & Other
Repeat Offender
Program
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Lodging & Other
Code Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(9 FTEs)
(3 Roles Vacant)
(1 Role Temporary)
Permit & Licensing
Review Analyst
(1 FTE)
Research Analyst
(1 FTE)
Program Specialist
(1 Role Temporary
& Vacant)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(5 FTEs)
(1 Role Temporary)
Permit & Licensing
Review Analyst
(2 FTEs)
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
51 Director
(1 FTE)
Assistant Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: Austin DSD Code Compliance Org Chart (4 of 5) Code Division
Manager
(1 FTE)
5.1 | Code Field Operations
Licensing & Registration
Short-T erm Rental Enforcement
Alarm Administration
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
Licensing & Registration
Administrative
Manager
(1 FTE)
Permit & Licensing
Review Analyst
(4 FTEs)
(1 Role Temporary)
Code Enforcement
Code
Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector A
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(4 FTEs)
Administrative Senior
(1 Role Temporary)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
52 Director
(1 FTE)
Assistant Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: Austin DSD Code Compliance Org Chart (5 of 5) Case Review &
Escalation Code
Division Manager
(1 FTE)
6.3 | Code Field Operations
Case Review & Escalation
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
Code
Supervisor
(1 FTE)
Code Investigator
(1 FTE)
Code Inspector C
(1 FTE)
Field Casework
Code Review Analyst
(1 Role Temporary)
Municipal Court
Lead Program
Specialist
(1 FTE)
Code Review
Analyst
(1 FTE)
Building Standards
Commission
Code Review
Analyst
(3 FTEs)
Administrative
Hearing Program
Code Review
Analyst
(1 FTE)
Program
Compliance
Coordinator
(1 FTE)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
53 Director
(1 FTE)
Appendix A: San Diego Building & Land Use
Supporting Personnel Directors
Line Staff
Managers
Key
Supervisors
Vacant Role
Temporary Employee
Assistant Director
(1 FTE)
BLUE Building
Inspections
Senior/Lead
(4 FTEs)
BLUE Building
Inspector
(18 FTEs)
BLUE
Administration
Senior
(1 FTE)
BLUE
Administrator
(7 FTEs)
BLUE
Administration
Lead
(3 FTEs)
BLUE Local
Enforcement
Agency
Senior/Lead
(1 FTE)
BLUE Building
Inspector
(4 FTEs)
BLUE Zoning
Investigations I
Manager/Lead
(1 FTE)
BLUE Zoning
Investigations I
Senior/Lead
(3 FTEs)
BLUE Zoning
Investigator I
(14 FTEs)
BLUE Zoning
Investigations II
Manager/Lead
(1 FTE)
BLUE Zoning
Investigations II
Senior/Lead
(3 FTEs)
BLUE Zoning
Investigator II
(16 FTEs)
1 Role Vacant
Code Enforcement
Coordinators
Manager/Lead
(4 FTE)
(1 Role Vacant)
BLUE Short-Term
Residential
Occupancy
Investigations
(1 FTE)
BLUE Short-Term
Residential
Occupancy
Investigations
Senior/Lead
(2 FTEs)
BLUE Short-Term
Residential
Occupancy
Investigator
(5 FTEs)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix A: Peer City Research Sources (1 of 2)
54 Information Source
Land Area, Number of Housing Units (2020) https://data.census.gov/profile/ Population, Median Household Income (2023) https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ Monthly Bill Expense Per Household (2024) https://www.doxo.com/w/insights/report-the-most-expensive-and-most-affordable-largest-u-s-cities-2024/ San José Budget for City and Code Enforcement (FY
24-25) www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/115762/638659772555570000 San Diego Budget and Code Enforcement
Information
www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/iba-budget-guide-eng.pdf https://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/building-land-use-enforcement/priority-cases https://getitdone.sandiego.gov/TSWNewReport?type=STRO%20Violation Seattle Budget and Code Enforcement Information
https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/about-us/who-we-are/code-compliance https://openbudget.seattle.gov/#!/year/default
https://www.seattle.gov/rentinginseattle/renters/moving-in/renters-handbook https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=FXQWx07_PKM
Austin Budget and Code Enforcement Information
https://www.austintexas.gov/news/austin-city-council-approves-fiscal-year-2024-2025-budget https://www.austintexas.gov/department/dsd-code-compliance https://www.austintexas.gov/department/code-compliance-resources https://www. youtube.com/@developmentservicesdepartment https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=MxOyqFNcV9I
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix A: Peer City Research Sources (2 of 2)
55 Information Source
Baltimore Budget and Code Enforcement
Information
https://dhcd.baltimorecity.gov/ce/code-enforcement
FY2025-PRELIM BUDGET-FINAL 1.pdf
Dallas Budget and Code Enforcement Information
https://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/district-offices.aspx https://dallascityhall.com/departments/budget/financialtransparency/AnnualBudget/FY%202024- 25%20Adopted%20Annual%20Operating%20and%20Capital%20Budget.pdf https://dallascrm.my.site.com/public/s/
Fresno Budget and Code Enforcement Information
https://www.fresno.gov/cityattorney/codeenforcement/school-area-team/ https://www.fresno.gov/cityattorney/codeenforcement/
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FY-2025-ADOPTED-BUDGET .pdf Los Angeles Budget and Code Enforcement
Information
https://dbs.lacity.gov/
https://cao.lacity.gov/budget24-25/ProposedBudget/
Philadelphia Budget and Code Enforcement
Information
https://www.phila.gov/departments/department-of-licenses-and-inspections/inspections/code-enforcement/ rental-enforcement-in-philly.pdf
https://www.phila.gov/media/20240829150436/budget-in-brief-FY2025-approved.pdf Santa Cruz Budget and Code Enforcement
Information
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/100559/638560511765030000 https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-community- development/code-compliance
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix B: City
Leadership &
Partner Interviews
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix B: External Stakeholder Conversations
# Interviewees Category Role/Issue
1 Pam Foley City Leadership Vice Mayor
2 Emily Munguia, Mackenzie Mossing,
Michael Lomio City Leadership Mayor Matt Mahan’ s Team
3 Nathan Donato-Weinstein City Leadership Assistant to the City Manager 4 Lucas Ramirez
Kiyomi Yamamoto City Leadership Councilmember Pamela Campos’ s Team 5 Peter Ortiz City Leadership Councilmember
6 James Dobson Partnership Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall, Fire 7 Andrea Flores Shelton Partnership Assistant Director, PRNS 8 Karen Parsons Partnership Chairperson, Appeals Hearing Board 9 Leah Toeniskoetter Partnership President and CEO, San José Chamber of Commerce Note: Eight additional external stakeholders were included in the customer experience analysis. More details on these external stakeholders can be found in Appendix C.
57 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C:
Customer
Observations Log
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
1 24-
Feb 23.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes None Positive Yes Yes
2 24-
Feb 4.0 English Scheduling Inspection Yes None Neutral Yes Yes 3 24-
Feb 3.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Maybe
4 24-
Feb 3.0 English Case Status Responsible
Party Yes None Neutral Yes
“I received a letter from
the City regarding
[address]. I am selling
that house and the report
said there was an illegal
home auto repair
operating there...I live in
another state and I am
relying on my relative to
do this for me… so do I
need to do anything?”
Yes
5 24-
Feb 5.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party No None Negative Yes No
59 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
6 24-
Feb 27.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party No
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Negative No
"It's not about Code
Enforcement. It's about
the people who are not
doing what they are
supposed to do. I want
you to know where we
stand and we will
demand action... [My
inspector] is a good lady.
I know she cares for the
City. I don't want to point
fingers…It's just
frustrating.“ AND "David
is pretty good, I have no
issue, very impressive
that he conducted the
inspection on the 30th.
This is a plus."
Yes
60 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
7 24-
Feb 25.0 English Information
Seeking Policy Yes None Positive Yes
"You’ve provided very
good information. I don't
like it, but it's good
information. You've been
very kind and that goes a
long way with me."
Yes
8 24-
Feb 7.0 English Information
Seeking Invoice Yes None Positive Yes Yes
9 24-
Feb 2.0 English Scheduling Inspection Yes None Neutral Yes Yes 10 24-
Feb 1.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Yes
11 25-
Feb 1.0 English Case Status Plans Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
61 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
12 25-
Feb 10.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes None Negative Yes Yes
13 25-
Feb 6.0 Non-
English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes None Negative Yes Yes
14 25-
Feb 4.0 English Information
Seeking
Property
History Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Positive Yes Yes
15 25-
Feb 4.0 Non-
English
Information
Seeking
Property
History Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Yes
16 25-
Feb 3.0 English Scheduling Inspection Yes None Positive Yes Yes 17 25-
Feb 8.0 English Information
Seeking Inspections Yes None Neutral Yes Yes
62 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
18 25-
Feb 1.0 English Scheduling Appointment No
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Negative Yes Maybe
19 25-
Feb 3.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Maybe
20 25-
Feb 3.0 English Information
Seeking Complaint Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Maybe
21 25-
Feb 3.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Negative Yes No
63 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
22 25-
Feb 6.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Negative Yes
I’ve been a squeaky
wheel since October. I
can only do so much and
I have a day job… I was
just hoping that someone
would say, ‘Yeah, I can
look into it.’”
Maybe
23 25-
Feb 1.0 English Information
Seeking Permit Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
external
organization
Positive Yes Yes
24 25-
Feb 3.0 English Information
Seeking Policy Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Positive Yes Yes
25 25-
Feb 1.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
64 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
26 25-
Feb 1.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
27 25-
Feb 2.0 English Scheduling Inspection Yes None Positive Yes Yes 28 25-
Feb 1.0 English Information
Seeking Policy Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Positive Yes Yes
29 25-
Feb 1.0 Non-
English
Information
Seeking Policy Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Positive Yes Yes
30 3-Mar 2.0 English Scheduling Inspection Yes None Neutral Yes Yes 31 3-Mar 3.0 English Scheduling Inspection Yes None Neutral Yes Yes 65 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
32 3-Mar 2.0 Non-
English
Information
Seeking Permit Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
33 3-Mar 2.0 N/A Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to Inspector
Neutral Yes Yes
34 3-Mar 8.0 Non-
English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes None Neutral Yes Yes
35 3-Mar 1.0 N/A Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to Inspector
Neutral Yes Yes
36 3-Mar 4.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes None Positive Yes Yes
37 3-Mar 1.0 N/A Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to Inspector
Neutral Yes Yes
66 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
38 3-Mar 1.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Negative Yes Yes
39 3-Mar 2.0 English Case Status Complaining
Party Yes
Customer
transferred
to Supervisor
Neutral Yes Yes
40 3-Mar 2.0 Non-
English
Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to Supervisor
Neutral Yes Yes
41 3-Mar 2.0 English Information
Seeking Citation Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Maybe
42 3-Mar 5.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes Case opened Positive Yes Yes
67 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Calls
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
42 3-Mar 5.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes Case opened Positive Yes Yes
43 3-Mar 1.0 English Information
seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
44 3-Mar 3.0 English Information
Seeking Complaint Yes None Positive Yes Yes
45 3-Mar 2.0 English Information
seeking Complaint Yes Case opened Neutral Yes Maybe
46 3-Mar 1.0 English Information
Seeking Process Yes
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division
or Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
68 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Desk
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
1 24-
Feb 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Customer
transferred
to different
City Division/
Dept.
Neutral Yes Yes
2 24-
Feb 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Negative Yes Maybe
3 24-
Feb 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Yes
4 24-
Feb 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Customer
transferred
to different
external
organization
Neutral Yes Yes
69 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Desk
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
5 24-
Feb 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Negative Yes No
6 24-
Feb 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Customer
transferred
to different
external
organization
Neutral Yes Yes
7 25-
Feb 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Positive Yes Yes
8 25-
Feb 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 None Positive Yes Yes
9 3-Mar 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Customer or
inspector
directed to
call/email
back
Neutral Yes Yes
70 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Observations Log - Desk
# Date Duration Primary
Language
Inquiry
Category
Inquiry
Subcategory
Was the
inquiry
resolved?
Inquiry Next
Steps
Overall
Emotion
Was the LOE
appropriate for
the inquiry?
Quote Used
Effectiveness:
Did the
customer seem
satisfied with
the interaction?
10 3-Mar 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Case opened Neutral Yes
“It's good for one, two,
three months, but then
the problem comes
back, because they
didn't fix the problem all
the way down to the
root.”
Yes
11 3-Mar 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Customer
transferred
to inspector
Positive No
“I first came here two
months ago, my husband
was also here, but no
one told him that we
emailed the wrong
person. I'm really, really
confused. If we emailed
the wrong person, why
didn't they tell us?
Everyone I’ve talked to
here, the people are very
good, but the processes,
they're just confusing."
Yes
71 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Log - Interviews
# Quote #1 Quote #2 Major Themes and Insights Recommendations Customer Insights 1 “Code Enforcement does as well as it can. [I
know] they are reliant on other teams...They
do a great job of communicating and have
fast responses and don’t let them linger a
long time.”
- • Concerns about
escalation timelines and
enforcement capabilities
• Concerns about excess
trash, illegal dumping,
and encampments
• Increased
accountability
• Increased
enforcement
• Frustration with blight and
solid waste in neighborhood
• Satisfied with response times
and communication
2 “We are concerned about fire. We
continued to report it. The city would come
out and not do anything. But I'm going back
to [my situation]. Look how punitive you
were to me about my permit process. But
over here, this is totally fine, totally normal
stuff. This guy who isn't even the order,
you're allowing him to obstruct the
process… [It's almost like] 'I can be punitive
with you because you won't fight back.' Any
other citizen would be held to different
standards."
“It was just the most basic request that
could have been done quickly, but it
took nine months… eventually, I
reached out to my City Councilmember
directly. That's how I finally got my
permits. I had to literally get an elected
official involved."
• Frustration with slow
escalation timelines
• Unequal treatment
• Desire for increased
enforcement
consequences
• Dramatic changes
to the Division,
particularly for
enforcement
processes
• Increased
accountability for
inspectors
• Lack of follow-through
• Concern that individuals
need to be politically savvy to
receive attention
• Unequal treatment for
different customers
• Frustration about misused
funds
72 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Log - Interviews
# Quote #1 Quote #2 Major Themes and Insights Recommendations Customer Insights 3 "I've lived in the neighborhood for twenty-
five years. It's a very close neighborhood…
We have a close, tight bond. In our case, we
had a house that wasn't so nice, and after a
while, you can only take so much. I work full
time, I have grandbabies, and taking on
something full time, it's draining! But we got
the community together and we got
something done. And a lot of that was Code
Enforcement.”
“There was a big undercover bust and
we were told 34 people were living in
that house. We had initially got them
involved when there were ten, fifteen
cars… fast forward years later, and now
I'm making a new complaint to the new
person, and nothing had changed, and
that was weird. How can there be so
many years that went by and nothing
had changed?“
• Frustration with slow
timelines, unequal
enforcement and
inconsistent
consequences
• Concerns about long-
term problematic
properties
• Satisfaction with
inspector attitudes, and
interest in additional
community engagement
• Improved follow-
up for inspectors
• Quicker escalation
for problem
properties
• More staff
• Interacting with Code
Enforcement can feel like a
full-time job
• Delays to enforcement
• Lack of resources for evicted
persons
• Concern that individuals
need to be politically savvy to
receive attention
• Excellent empathy and great
experience working with
inspectors
4 "They've admitted that they're behind, and
that they have no way of addressing 700
new cars coming into the area. It's really
annoying. For one residential home, it's like
400 parking spots. There's a school there,
there's a library… that's just ridiculous."
“[Our neighborhood] tends to get
ignored or forgotten by the city… One of
the county supervisors approached one
of my friends and said, 'If you put
together a community group, I will
support you.' And he did… so I saw it
and I joined in 2016. Our little group has
accomplished a lot of things. We are
working with [different Departments]
who don’t always work together very
well, but they both come to our
meetings, because they've gotten to
know each other. So that's really great."
• Concerns about
encampment issues
• Frustration with
perception of unequal
treatment for less
engaged citizens
• Frustration with lack of
solutions from the
Division
• Improved
coordination
between different
City Departments
• Concern that individuals
need to be politically savvy to
receive attention
• East San José residents feel
deprioritized
• Encampments continue to
grow larger and unregulated
• Satisfaction with strong
community connection and
creative solutions from City
Council
73 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Log - Interviews
# Quote #1 Quote #2 Major Themes and Insights Recommendations Customer Insights 5 “[The] department is working hard to
address concerns we have. I would like to
see more encouragement for her and her
employees. The City should give her and her
employees the tools that they need to do
their job... But I am very satisfied with their
attitude.”
“I can't complain about anything when
their attitude is so sterling. We will work
with them to get results.”
• Concerns about lack of
staff across Police
Department and Code
Enforcement Division
• Frustration with uneven
enforcement for different
communities
• Encampment concerns
• Concerns about fireworks
enforcement
• Interest in creative
and innovative
thinking for
fireworks
enforcement,
including
expanding to the
use of drones to
catch violators
• Frustration that fireworks are
poorly regulated and
dangerous to the community
• Satisfaction with inspector
attitude, knowledge, and
involvement with the
community
6 "All my properties are clean, well-kept, you
know, and it's frustrating, because there's
lots of illegal dumping happening
elsewhere. We do historical building
renovation and we've worked on many
buildings in San José…. You do get jaded
after a while. We had a meeting on blight
this morning and everyone’s [complaining]
and I said ‘I've been in these meetings
before and you talk about all these
problems… where's the solution? We really
came away with nothing. I'm not going to
waste my time.’”
“We have the same problems as we had
ten years ago. It's frustrating...They tell
me that they’re trying really hard, but
the burnt down building has been sitting
there for three years.“
• Frustration with
contradictory
departmental philosophy
• Concerns about unequal
enforcement and lack of
progression
• Frustration with poor
enforcement with regards
to business needs
• Poor cross-departmental
collaboration and low
accountability within the
City
• Improved
department
philosophy
• Better
coordination and
faster movement
on problematic
cases in the
Downtown
• Poor reputation amongst
business community
• Frustrating departmental
philosophy and stagnation of
long-term problematic cases
74 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Customer Log - Interviews
# Quote #1 Quote #2 Major Themes and Insights Recommendations Customer Insights 7 “The white community, they're treated well,
but my community, it's a disaster. Working
together, to clean things up, would be
helpful. But today, it's rock bottom… In my
community, they'll write up misdemeanor
crap, for the most trivial things.”
""I can show you cars that have there for
fifteen, twenty years.. .The trash I called
in last night has been there for fifteen
years.”
• Frustration with unequal
treatment for minority
communities in East San
José
• Poor prioritization of life
safety cases
• Frustration with unequal
enforcement
• Greater
enforcement and
accountability
• Racially differentiated
policies and enforcement
• Slow enforcement for white
and affluent residents
8 "I can't recall any cases where their
knowledge has been wanting."
"Staffing has been downsized, whether
it's through retirement or through lateral
moves."
• Struggles with managing
various process due to
limited staffing
• Limited and lenient
enforcement on violators
• Delays to enforcement
• Lack of staffing
• Frustration that the
community must take on
additional tasks on a
volunteer basis due to
Division's limited
capacity
• Reimplement the
FAST Pilot program
• Delays to enforcement,
lenience, and lack of follow-
up
• Increases in blight
• Frustration with the need to
proactively report, as a
member of the community
• Professionalism and
thoughtfulness from
inspectors
75 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix D:
Mystery Shopping
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Report Process
• Step 1: San José government websites were the top three search results (Graffiti Removal Program, Police Department, and Report Issues for Code Violations) and all three search results linked, directly or indirectly, to Code Enforcement’s “report issue” form • Step 2: Click on the first link, “Beautify SJ Graffiti Removal Program” 1 2
Step 1: Search “report graffiti in San José” in Google Search Step 2: Click the link to Sanjoseca.gov webpage “Graffiti Removal Program”
Scenario 1: “How do I report graffiti?”
Channel Website
77 Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Report Process
• Step 3: The Anti-Graffiti webpage has large headings and clear explanations of how to report graffiti on different building types • Step 3: The webpage clearly explained the different channels that customers can use to report different graffiti types • Step 3: The webpage presented the three options for reporting graffiti on private properties (SJ311, phone, and online form) in a concise way with respective contact information and links
• Step 4: The “Code Enforcement Form” link takes the user directly to the “Code Enforcement Service Request” Form 3 4
Step 3: Scroll down to the “How to Report – Someone else’s property or Abandoned properties” section
Step 4: “Code Enforcement Form”
Scenario 1: “How do I report graffiti?”
Channel Website
78 Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Report Process
• Step 5: The fields on the “Service Request” form were straightforward and asked for only required information • Step 5: The customer must fill out all sections of the form to submit any complaint, which results in more comprehensive complaints but may also discourage some customers from completing the form
• Step 5: Customers have an option to provide more information at the bottom of the form • Step 6: Customers submits the form
5 6
Step 5: Complete sections on the “Code Enforcement Service Request Form”
Step 6: Customer submits “Report Issue” Form
Scenario 1: “How do I report graffiti?”
Channel Website
Total time
elapsed ~15
min; blight
reported and
next steps
semi-clear.
Inspector
followed up
via email 17
days later to
inform that
case was
closed
Form
submitted
79 Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Initial Steps
1. Received information on a sample open case from Code Enforcement Leadership
2. Dialed 408-535-7770 to reach Code Enforcement Division phone line (3/10/2025 at 2:05 PM)
3. Listened to a list of potential options and Frequently Asked Questions, pressed the appropriate option, and was on the line with a Code Enforcement representative in less than two minutes Scenario 1: “How do I report on graffiti?”
Channel Phone
• Very fast response time; call was
concluded in ~ 3 minutes
• The representative stated that an
inspector would be in touch, but did
not provide additional next steps or
an estimated timeline
• The recorded message at the
beginning of the call provided
listeners with answers to a list of
commonly asked questions
• The representative asked if the
property was private, which
customers may not know
• The representative asked for the
customer name, which could be
uncomfortable for some
First Call: 408-535-7770
3/10/2025
80 Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
• Very fast response time; call was
concluded in ~2 minutes
• Based on the address provided, the
representative could immediately
identify the case and associated
inspector
• The representative transferred the
customer to the appropriate
inspector’s number, but the phone
line was busy. The customer
needed to record a message rather
than speak to the inspector
• The representative did not provide
specific next steps or tell the
customer how to check their case
status online
Second Call: 408-535-7770
3/26/2025
• Inspector called
customer on 3/26, but
customer missed call
• The customer made
two additional
attempts to contact
the inspector assigned
to the case, but the
line was busy
• Lacking additional
information, the
customer did not know
how to check on their
case online
• Resolution: Customer
gave up
Third Call & Fourth Calls
3/26/2025 & 3/27/2025
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Scenario 1: “How do I report on graffiti?”
81 Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
Channel Phone and Website
• Utilizing the website was simple, effective, and clear • Initial calls to Code Enforcement were fast, easy, and productive, with minimal wait times and a knowledgeable representative waiting to take customer calls
• Searching for information about blight on private residences yielded three top Google search results from the City of San José, all of which linked to the same Code Enforcement form • The inspector made attempts to reach the customer via phone, but did not leave voicemails or provide additional steps • Generally, inspectors and support staff did not provide suggestions on how to the customer could perform self service (i.e, check on their case status online)
Key Takeaways: reporting on graffiti across channels
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Initial Steps
1. Googled “report illegal fireworks San José” and clicked the Sanjoseca.gov Accessory Dwelling Units link
2. Reviewed available information about illegal fireworks, including emergency links, report dashboard, and fireworks policy
3. Clicked on “Submit as a Guest (Non-Actionable Report)” and reviewed available documentation Scenario 2: “How can I report illegal fireworks?”
Channel Website
• San José government websites were the top two search
results (Fire Department and San José news), and both
led to the same link to report illegal fireworks on the 311 App
• There is a simple user interface to provide information about firework locations, including a drag and drop pin integrated with Google Maps
• Customers are clearly informed about the difference
between a logged in and guest user report, and can
choose the option that best aligns with their privacy
preferences and desire for enforcement
Strengths
• To submit a report, customers must know the date,
time, and address of the reported fireworks display ,
which may be more information than many customers
have
• Customers must report firework violations in English
• When customers elect to use the ‘submit as a guest’
feature, they do not receive any follow -up information or next steps from the City
Pain Points
82 Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Initial Steps
1. Googled “report ADU San José” and clicked the Sanjoseca.gov Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) link
2. Reviewed available information about ADUs, including checklist, permit process and FAQs
3. Reviewed available presentations, including “Helpful Tips for an ADU Project” and “Amazing Tiny Home on Wheels Seminar” • FAQs, videos, and presentations use clear and
accessible language
• There are language options in English, Spanish, and
Vietnamese
• The City provided presentations in a variety of different formats, including YouTube videos, checklists,
permits, and PowerPoint presentations
• For customers with additional questions, an email
address and phone number are featured prominently
as additional sources of information
Strengths
• Language on the checklists (for Tiny Homes on Wheels
and ADU compliance) utilize more advanced and
specialized language (for example: ‘egress’ rather than exit, ‘easement’ , ‘demolished’)
• The page listed two synonyms for ADUs (secondary
units and granny flats), but did not provide an
exhaustive list of potential synonyms, potentially
reducing site volume for customers who are not
familiar with the technical term
Pain Points
Scenario 3: “How do I report an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)?” Channel Website
Key: Pain Po int Love Point Neutral
83