Code Enforcement
Operational Assessment
May 13, 2025
Presenters:
Chris Burton, Director, PBCE
Rachel Roberts, Deputy Director, PBCE
Nichole Ederer, Associate Director, Guidehouse
Kristen Jensen, Associate Director, Guidehouse
Operational
Assessment for the
Code Enforcement
Division
M A Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 5
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Presented by Guidehouse
Agenda
Project Background and Approach
Our Understanding of Code Enforcement
Peer City Leading Practices
Future State Recommendations
Implementation Roadmap
Next Steps
Topic name
Topic name
Project Background
and Approach
3 Project Background and Objectives
Discovery and Current State Analysis
Identify gaps and challenges in current services, organizational structure,staffing levels, and processes Operational Analysis
Understand customer experience and expectations from residents and City leaders Leading Practices Research
Identify leading practices from peer cities to support the Division in meeting its goals Future State Recommendations
Develop future state recommendationsand implementationroadmap that refine and strengthen the way Code Enforcement serves the public
The City engaged Guidehouse over 12 weeks to conduct an operational assessment of the Code Enforcement Division Project Purpose
The operational assessment of the Code EnforcementDivision includes the rapid analysis of processes and resources against the Division’s current workload, a review of alignment between customer and City Council expectationsand Division objectives, and identifying opportunities to streamline, prioritize, or invest in services Key Objectives
4 Project Approach and Inputs
We engaged over 30 city stakeholders, 72 customers, and 3 peer cities, and analyzed 1,134 customer survey data points Project Approach:Facilitated and collected City staff and community feedback through stakeholder engagement methods.
Leveraged current state and operational analysis findings to develop recommendationsfor the Division.
Project Inputs
Documents and Data Council and Staff
Interviews Customer Touchpoints Survey Analysis Peer City Engagement 80+ Documents
• Reviewed internal
documents
• Conducted workload
analysis based on 2024
Division caseload data
• Mapped key General Code
processes
30+ City Touchpoints
• Spoke with 39 City staff
members through dedicated
interviews and 5 working
sessions
• Spoke with Mayor Mahan’s
team and 3 City Council
District Offices
72 Participants
• Spoke with 8 customers
through in-depth 1:1
interviews
• Observed 64 customer
interactions through call
listening, front desk
observations, and
inspection ridealongs
1,134 Survey Respondents
• Reviewed and analyzed
data spanning ten years of
Customer Surveys,
highlighting pain points,
strengths, and trends
• Survey results taken from
2013-2014, 2019-2020,
and 2023-2024
• Responses came from all
regions of San José
3 Peer City Interviews
• Landscape desktop
research to understand
comparative
characteristics and data
points
• Spoke with representatives
from Code divisions in San
Diego, Seattle,and Austin to
understand practices and
innovative ideas
Our Understanding
of Code
Enforcement
The Division’s Key Challenges
The Division is facing key challenges across the following five areas, leading to expanding duties, overwhelming staff workloads, challenges in prioritizing strategic work, and barriers to effective communication1 Staffing Gaps
& Workload
Staffing and workload challenges
lead to vacancies, a reactive
management approach, and long
processing times
Process
Inefficiencies
Primarily engaged in operationaland
reactive work, taking away time for
strategic, proactive pursuits to
support an optimized organization
Overextended
Scope
Division is assigned tasks beyond primary
program responsibilities,expanding scope
of work without corresponding increase in
funding, staffing, or authority
Technology
Gaps
Division’scase management
system and available devices
prevent inspectors from working
as effectively as possible
Communication
Breakdowns
Communication breakdowns
cause frustration among
stakeholders and prolong case
lifecycles
1Detailed findings can be found in the Appendix 6
Current State Estimated Staffing Gap
To close Code Enforcement’s2024 General Code caseload1 in one year without any operational improvements, the Division would need an additional ~26 General Code inspectors
12024 data include open (4,289), new (3,404), and closed cases (3,088).1,300 inactive cases were subtracted from caseload 2Required staffing level based on estimated workload volume demand 3Number of funded positions
4Formula: Total Workload Volume Demand – Authorized Staffing 7 Authorized Staffing (PYs)3
15 Staffing Gap (PYs)4
26.09 Total Workload Volume Demand (PYs)2
41.09 • Managing and closing the current caseload is not feasible with the existing staffing levels, processes, scope, and technology available
• Operationalimprovements,training, etc. can help reduce the number of staff required to close all cases
The Customer Experience
Five key themes emerged from customer observations and interviews, which highlight frustration with the time it takes to close cases, concern with quality of service and consistency of enforcement, and confusion around Code Enforcement’spurview1 Time to
Close
Many customersfeel that case
timelines are overly long,
causing frustration and
inefficiencies
Communication
Inconsistencies
Communication is inconsistent, with
some customers highlighting this as a
strength and others expressing
frustration with gaps
Service
Quality
Survey analysis demonstratesthat over
time, customers’satisfaction with Code
Enforcement’sservice quality has
decreased
Complexity of
Scope & Cases
Customers are often confused by Code’s
purview, which can be exacerbated by the
Division’s wide range of programs and the
general complexity of cases
Inconsistent
Enforcement
Some customers feel enforcement is
inconsistent across inspectors,
regions, and socioeconomic status
1Detailed findings can be found in the Appendix 8
9 Survey Analysis Key Trends
Three key trends in residents’ Code Enforcement concerns and service satisfaction were identified through a review of 1,134 responses from three survey years (2013-2014, 2019-2020, and 2023-2024) 1 Regional differences in Code Enforcement concerns exist The top concern across all areas of residence in San José is blight (e.g., overgrownvegetation, 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.
2Although overall most respondents indicated their reported Code Enforcement issue was corrected, public perception of Code Enforcement’s effectiveness has declined, and trends vary by region
Since 2013-2024, positive ratings on effectivenesshave declined across all San José areas of residence except for North San José, where positive ratings have increased by 20 percentage points. 3Although customer service satisfaction is still mostly positive or neutral, satisfaction has also declined over the time frame analyzed
For example, agreement that Code Enforcementstaff 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’sresponsivenessand helpfulness.
Peer City Leading
Practices
San José San Diego Seattle Austin
Code EnforcementDivision Attributes
Total Code EnforcementBudget (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 EnforcementFTEs 70.5 90 60.5 116
TotalInspector FTEs 49 57 22 76
Total Manager / Supervisor FTEs 11 18 9 15
Number of Programs 16 11 6 8
Workload Assigned by Census Tract Council District Region Region Case ManagementApplication CES Accela Accela AMANDA
Use of Tablets -
Formal Succession Planning -
Community EngagementProgram - -
Key - does not exist in the Division
• > ~10% or more exists in the Division
• < ~10% or more
11 Peer City Benchmarking | Overview
The Guidehouse Team analyzed data and interviews with three cities to identify leading practices for code enforcement operations
Peer City Benchmarking | Key Strategies & Initiatives
Peer departments and divisions in Austin, San Diego, and Seattle exhibited several key leading practice strategies and programmatic initiatives that San José may consider1
Succession
Planning
Facilitate succession planning by
allowing staff to substitute YOE for
educational requirements and
staffing multiple tiers of inspectors
Focused
Scope
Maintain a narrower program scope
aligned with building/zoning compliance
and have additional support staff to enable
inspectors to focus on new scope
Streamlined
Enforcement Process
Create a strict, automatic case
prioritization process that escalates to
enforcement efficiently
Robust Community
Engagement
Use community engagement initiatives to
raise awareness and employ a
Community Engagement Manager
Strategic
Roles
Employ roles such as Chief Strategy
Officer,Legal Liaison, and Strategic
Advisor to coordinate strategic pursuits
1Detailed findings can be found in the Appendix 12
Future State
Recommendations
14 Recommendations Overview
Current state gaps map to three recommendations themes to support Code Enforcement’smission and objectives • Staffing Gaps and
Workload
• Communication
Breakdowns
• Process Inefficiencies
• Overextended Scope
• TechnologyGaps
• Decreasing Service Quality
• Inconsistent Enforcement
• Complexity of Scope &
Cases
• Long Case Closure Times
Current State Gaps OutputsRecommendation Theme
Streamline Service Delivery
Prioritize Services
Opportunities to Invest
Improve
Operational &
Program
Performance
7 Recommendations
Increase Customer
Service &
Communication
3 Recommendations
Develop & Optimize
Workforce
5 Recommendations
Theme 1 | Develop & Optimize Workforce
Theme Recommendation Description Level of
Impact
Level of
Effort Output
Develop &
Optimize Workforce
1.1 Modify organizational
structure and hire in key
areas
• Modify the Division’s organizational structure to better align operations with Division functions
• Hire temporary TransformationProgram Manager to
implement recommendations
• Increase Division capacity by creating four new staff positions in key areas
High High
1.2 Conduct classification
assessment
• Conduct a classification assessment to understand current inspector job levels and staff capabilities
• After resolving cases pending clearing from General Code backlog, conduct a detailed workload analysis considering case complexity and priority. Hire additional General Code
Inspectors based on updated workload analysis
High Low
1.3 Increase training
opportunities
• Introduce new training opportunities and reinforce existing training to empower staff and improve performance High Low
1.4 Optimize recruitment
and retention
• Review recruitment practices to optimize and maximize reach and build talent pipeline
• Review talent management and retention practices
High Medium
1.5 Establish a succession
planning process
• Prioritize succession planning and prepare staff to take over additional tasks when inspectors or leadership exit the organization
Medium Low
15 Key: Council Action Low: 4 - 6 Medium: 7 - 9 High: 10+ Streamline Prioritize Invest 16 Theme 2 | Improve Operational & Program Performance
Theme Recommendation Description Level of
Impact
Level of
Effort Output
2.1 Set strategic vision for Division • Establish strategy to align on vision, goals, outcomes, and metrics High High
2.2 Realign and narrow program
scope • Identify programs that need realignmentand/orresource planning High High
2.3 Expand pilot programs • Expand current pilot programs and introduce new programs to take a more proactive approach to violations and increase accountability High High
2.4 Update policies to support
strategic enforcement
• Revise existing and implement new policies to support strategic enforcement and encourage compliance High Low
Improve
Operational &
Program
Performance
2.5 Streamline processes, reduce
manual tasks, and implement
quality controls
• Update process steps for complaints intake,inspections, scheduling, citations, Compliance Orders, and Appeals Hearing Board preparation
High Low
2.6 Enhance performance metrics
and accountability
• Assess current KPIs, assess gaps, and select KPIs in support of the Division’sgoals
• Establish benchmarks and targets for each metric
High Medium
2.7 Expedite and prioritize
adoption of CodeX
• Prioritize the adoption of CodeX as a new Case Management system, identifying opportunitiesto expedite this timeline where possible • Ensure CodeX meets specific requirements and needs of the inspectors and customers
• Identify which mobile technologies are best suited for each group, position, and duty and procure/expanduse of chosen technologies High High
Key: Council Action Low: 4 - 6 Medium: 7 - 9 High: 10+ Streamline Prioritize Invest Theme 3 | Increase Customer Service & Communication
Theme Recommendation Description Level of
Impact
Level of
Effort Output
Increase
Customer Service &
Comms.
3.1 Optimize communication
and improve self-service
• Create internal reference tools and templates to standardize customer service processes and support effective communications
• Update call center scripts to include instructions on accessing the self- service portal
• Require inspectors to leave a voicemail when calling back a customer and develop a standard script for what information inspectors should share
High Low
3.2 Invest in community
education and partnerships
• Offer educational workshops to inform residents about local codes, rules, and regulations
• Distribute informational flyers and newsletters through various channels to inform the public about code violations and offer materials in multiple languages
• Host public meetings and explore hosting office hours to discuss enforcement issues, upcoming changes in regulation, and gather feedback from residents
• Tailor community outreach to the needs of the specific neighborhood
Medium Medium
3.3 Improve cross-
departmental coordination
• Explore strengthening and formalizing partnerships with other City organizations High Medium
17 Key: Council Action Low: 4 - 6 Medium: 7 - 9 High: 10+ Streamline Prioritize Invest Implementation
Roadmap
Recommendation Roadmap Phases
19 Below are the three phases for implementing the recommendations Now Phase
The first implementation phase focuses on 1)
strategic recommendations that will impact how
other recommendations are implemented and 2)
recommendations that can be implemented relatively
quickly with lower effort and limited dependencies.
Next Phase
The second implementation phase focuses on 1) high
impact recommendations that are dependent on
recommendations in the “Now” phase and 2)
medium to high-impact but lower effort
recommendations with no dependencies.
1.1 Modify organizational structure/hire in key
areas (strategic)
2.1 Set strategic vision for Division (strategic)
2.7 Expedite and prioritize adoption of CodeX
(strategic)
1.4 Optimize recruitment and retention (quick
win)
2.4 Update policies to support strategic
enforcement (quick win)
3.1 Optimize communication and improve self-
service (quick win)
1.3 Increase training opportunities (quick win)
1.5 Establish a succession planning process
(medium impact, lower effort)
3.2 Invest in community education (medium
impact, medium effort)
Later Phase
The final implementation phase focuses on the
remaining recommendations that are dependent on
recommendations outlined in the previous
phases.
Priority Level
1.2 Conduct classification assessment
(dependent on 1.1)
2.2 Realign and narrow program scope (high
effort, high impact)
2.3 Expand pilot programs (dependent on 1.1)
2.5 Streamline processes, reduce manual tasks, and
implement quality controls (high impact,
medium effort)
2.6 Enhance performance metrics and
accountability (dependent on 2.1)
3.3 Improve cross-departmental coordination
(high impact, medium effort)
20 Council Actions and Support
City Council can support Code Enforcement improvements by enabling key recommendations Key Recommendation Key Council Action
Enable Code Enforcement to create 4-5 new positions: TransformationProgram Manager (temp), Strategy & Engagement Manager,General Code Manager, Community Engagement Manager,and Support Analyst
Consider Code Enforcementrecommendationsaround reclassifying inspectors to support internal career pathways and retention
1.1 Modify org structure
and hire in key areas
1.2 Conduct classification
assessment
Phase
Now
Next
Dependency
Budget for Program
Manager in FY 25/26
Rec 1.1 modify org
structure
Either 1) dedicate funding and/or 2) transition certain special programs that are beyond the Division’sscope to other departmentsin the City
2.2 Realign and narrow
program scope Next Rec 2.1 set strategic
vision
Allocate funding to support expansion of FAST and Enhanced Vacant Buildings and Storefrontspilots, and initiation of new pilot program for repeat offender properties2.3 Expand pilot programs Rec 1.1 hire in key areas
Next
Thank you
Nichole Ederer
Associate Director
[email protected]
Kristen Jensen
Associate Director
[email protected]
Code Enforcement Implementation Roadmap
Boosted organizational
effectiveness/ workforce
capacity
Streamlined processes/
Improved prioritization,
enforcement, accountability,
and overall community
impact
Strengthened community
collaboration, compliance,
and neighborhood
relationships
Develop and
Optimize
Workforce
Increase
Customer Service
and
Communication
Improve
Operational and
Program
Performance
Near Term
FY 2025-2026
Midterm
FY 2026-2027+
• Hire Transformation
Manager
• Classification Assessment
• Increase Training
• Optimize Recruitment/
Retention
• Modify Organizational
Structure
• Hire in Key Areas
• Establish Succession
Planning Process
Key Outcomes
• Realign/Narrow Program
Scope
• Expand Pilot Programs
• Enhance PMs and
Accountability
• Optimize Communication/
Self-Help
• Improve Cross
Departmental
Coordination
• Invest in Community
Partnerships
• Set Strategic Vision
• Streamline Processes
• Escalated Intervention
Program
• Expedite CodeX Adoption
Code Enforcement Implementation Roadmap
• Escalating Enforcement Policy Implementation- In progress • Aged Case Triage/Reduction Project- In progress
• Increased Fines Ordinance – Summer 2025
Near Term Initiatives
• FY 2025-2026 Manager’s Budget Addendum to allocate 400k ongoing General Fund Earmarked Reserve to begin implementation work
Next Steps
• Provide implementation updates as part of Code Enforcement’s Annual Report to the Neighborhood Services and Education Committee
Evaluation and Follow up
Appendix: Key
Findings Details
Code Enforcement Division Key Challenges
FindingsExamples
The Division is facing key challenges across the following five areas, leading to expanding duties, overwhelming staff workloads, challenges in prioritizing strategic work, and barriers to effective communication Communication Breakdowns
Communicationbreakdowns
cause frustration among
stakeholdersand prolong case
lifecycles
• Inspectors have difficulty
keeping up with necessary
customer follow-ups
• Though communicationhas
improved with key City partners,
there is an opportunity to
further improve and formalize
collaboration
• Inconsistent communication
back to complaining parties
causes frustration and leads
residents to engage elected
officials as mediators
Overextended Scope Process Inefficiencies Technology Gaps Staffing Gaps and Workload Division is assigned tasks beyond
primary responsibilities,expanding
scope of work without
corresponding increase in funding or
authority
Primarily engaged in operational
and reactive work, taking away
time for strategic, proactive
pursuits to support an optimized
organization
Division’scase management
system and available devices
prevent inspectors from working
as effectively as possible
Staffing and workload challenges
lead to vacancies, reactive
management approach, and long
processing times
• FireworksProgram, added to
assist the Fire Department,has
received no dedicated funding
• Illegal Dumping Enforcement
Program and ADU Amnesty
have been absorbed by General
Code resources and lacks
dedicated funding
• Massage Program, added to
assist Police Department,but
has resulted in significant
increase of work for inspectors
• Mobile Vendors Program,
overseen by supervisors, with
inspectors from all functions
volunteering based on interest
• E3 and Soft Story Programs, are
future programs with no
dedicated funding
• Complaint intake process is
decentralizedand Code often
fields complaints for other
departments/divisions
• Inconsistentcase prioritization
can lead to high-priority cases
not being addressed in timely
manner
• Lenient processes and fees may
disincentivize compliance
• Responsibleparties can deny
inspections,forcing inspectors
to request a warrant from a
judge through the CAO (~2-4
weeks)
• Hearing packets are
burdensome to assemble and
review, and simple errors can
lead to the case being thrown out
• Case management system (CES)
does not reflect
complexityof most cases (e.g.,
only allows one type of violation
per case, when many cases have
multiple related violations)
• CES does not provide
workflow/notifications for
efficient case management
• Inspectors are not set up to
manage cases on the go, which
requires them to take hand-
written notes in the field and
transcribe notes in CES at later
time
• Self-service portal for
complainingor responsible
parties to check complaint
status is not leveraged
• Many inspectors are new to the
position, and therefore
encounter challenges in
operating independently
• Several vacancies in key
leadership positions causes
leaders to spend more time on
operations and less on strategy
• No strong pathway for internal
promotions,exacerbated by
differences in requirements for
staff at different levels
• Case volume is higher than the
staff available to process cases
leading to significant backlog
and long processing times
• Inconsistentreporting structures
lead to accountability issues
23 24
Customer Experience | Key Takeaways
Five key themes emerged from customer observations and interviews, which highlight frustration with the time it takes to close cases, concern with quality of service and consistency of enforcement, and confusion around Code Enforcement’spurview Time to Close Service Quality Communication
Inconsistencies Complexity of Scope & Cases Inconsistent Enforcement Many customers feel the amount
of time it takes to close a case is
longer than necessary
Survey analysis demonstrates that
over time, customers’ perception of
Code Enforcement’scustomer
service quality has decreased
Communicationis inconsistent, with
some customers highlighting this as
a strength and others expressing
frustration with gaps
Due to Code Enforcement’s wide
range of programs and the general
complexity of cases, customers are
often confused by Code’s purview
Some customers feel enforcement
is inconsistent,due to regional
variations, complex cases, and
reliance on inspectors’ discretion
• Some customers referenced
frustrationsabout long-
standing violating properties.
In addition to the hazards that
these properties pose,
customers felt that this
represented a reluctance to
enforce on complaints
• Many customers expressed
frustrationand confusion about
delays in enforcement,
noting they had complained about
the same cases for several years
without any real movement
• Since 2013-2014, overall
positive responses in customer
experience surveys have
decreased by 14%
• However, most surveyed
customers had positive
impressions of the courtesy and
timeliness of their inspectors in
each surveyed year (70%, 61%,
and 52% in each year)
• Some customers expressed
frustration with inconsistent,
extended, or poorly
communicated timelines
• Most customers from
observationscalled to seek
informationabout cases,
violations,or laws, often due to
confusion about the website or
redirectionsfrom other
divisions and organizations
• Most customers called to seek
informationabout cases,
violations, or laws, often due
to confusionabout the
website or redirectionsfrom
other divisions
• Support staff frequently
received calls for another
division (for example, Building
& Permitting)
• Cases are nuanced and
violations within a single code
can vary significantly, which
can make it difficult to maintain
consistent processes and
service
• Inspector discretion allows for
more personalized experience;
however, this can result in
perceptions of inconsistent
enforcement
• Customers feel some residents
receive preferential treatment;
For example, one customer
was frustrated with punitive
enforcement for their permits,
while a neighbor with safety
complaints had no
enforcement
• According to survey data,
positive perceptions of the
Division have increased in
North San José by 20% and
decreased in all other regions
FindingsExamples
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 prioritizationprocess to ensure severe and high-priority cases are closed in a timely manner (Austin, Seattle, San Diego)
• Escalate to enforcementmore 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/zoningcompliance 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 Technicians,and Code Review Analysts (Austin, Seattle)
25 Robust
Community
Engagement
• Leverage community education initiatives such as public relations campaigns, hotlines,and social media activation to increase resident awareness of enforcementprocesses 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 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’sOffice and other City departments (Seattle)