25
Timing Evidence
Observed average, published average/expectation, service-level target, or project-specific/statutory timing.
Alliance Permit Intelligence · Launch Edition · Verified September 4, 2026
2026 U.S. Permit Approval Index
A transparent benchmark of how clearly selected U.S. jurisdictions publish and digitize the administrative path toward permit review. The index combines timing transparency, digital submission maturity and process visibility — without pretending that a score predicts whether a specific project will be approved.
What This Index Measures
Administrative transparency — not approval probability.
The word “approval” describes the public permit path being benchmarked. The score itself measures the quality and visibility of the administrative environment around review, not whether plans meet code or whether an authority will approve a project.
7launch jurisdictions
5weighted evidence dimensions
100maximum index points
0approval guarantees
Critical interpretation rule: a score of 95 does not mean a 95% chance of approval, a 95-day process or a guaranteed faster permit. It means the jurisdiction earned 95 of 100 points under the published administrative-transparency rubric below.
Published Methodology
Five evidence categories produce the 100-point score.
Each category is scored from official public information. The method intentionally rewards jurisdictions that publish measurable timing, clear filing paths and usable post-review information.
25
Digital Submission
Digital-first, multi-system digital, hybrid digital or substantially manual intake.
20
Review-Path Clarity
How clearly the authority defines size bands, lanes, project classes and clock-start rules.
15
Post-Review Visibility
Published resubmission timing, online tracking, inspection visibility or similar next-step information.
15
Source Quality & Recency
Current official agency pages, reports and dated guidance with a clear verification trail.
Index formula
Index Score = Timing Evidence (25) + Digital Submission (25) + Review-Path Clarity (20) + Post-Review Visibility (15) + Source Quality & Recency (15)Targets and observed averages are never treated as the same evidence class. The timing category gives the strongest weight to observed performance and less weight to targets or statutory limits.
Launch Index
Seven source-backed jurisdiction scorecards.
The launch sample uses jurisdictions already normalized in Alliance's 2026 commercial review-time and digital-permitting benchmarks. This is a selected research sample, not a ranking of every U.S. city.
| Jurisdiction | Score | Band | Timing evidence | Digital workflow | Why the score landed here |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phoenix, AZ | 95 | High transparency | Observed monthly commercial averages by project size; goals also published. | Digital-first via SHAPE PHX. | Strongest evidence mix in the launch sample: observed performance, size bands, broad digital workflow and current official reporting. |
| Jacksonville / Duval County, FL | 93 | High transparency | 25–30 business-day first-review expectation; resubmissions about 10 business days or less. | Digital-first; electronic submission required for all permit types through JaxEPICS. | Excellent first-review and resubmission visibility paired with mandatory electronic filing. |
| Tucson, AZ | 88 | Strong | Standard Lane 20 business days; Fast Lane 10 for defined scopes. | Digital-first through TDC Online. | Clear lane-specific targets and a complete online process, but timing is a performance goal rather than observed average. |
| Nashville / Davidson County, TN | 80 | Strong | 4–6 weeks average for most commercial reviews; revision timing also published. | Hybrid digital. | Strong timing transparency and revision guidance, offset by a less unified digital filing path. |
| Austin, TX | 78 | Moderate | Current commercial service-level targets vary by project size. | Hybrid digital; AB+C covers some workflows while others use alternate paths. | Excellent scope-specific review targets, but the filing environment remains split across multiple intake methods. |
| Mecklenburg County, NC | 75 | Moderate | 5-day performance goal for qualifying Small Commercial Plan Review. | Digital / multi-system with AccelaMeck and electronic plan review. | Strong digital tools and a measurable specialty lane, but the published benchmark is not a general commercial average. |
| Orlando, FL | 63 | Limited comparability | Project-specific review timing and statutory response guidance rather than a general published average. | Digital / multi-system with electronic intake and ProjectDox review. | Good digital access, but lower score because comparable public timing data is more project-specific and less standardized. |
Do not use this table as a speed ranking. A jurisdiction can have a high transparency score and still experience long reviews on complex projects. Conversely, a lower score may reflect limited published data rather than poor agency performance.
Key Findings
What the launch sample shows.
01
Transparency is measurable
Jurisdictions that publish numeric first-review ranges, size bands and revision timing are easier for project teams to plan around.
02
Digital does not mean simple
A city can be highly digital while still requiring multiple systems, outside approvals or project-specific review paths.
03
Observed data is more valuable
Phoenix demonstrates the value of publishing both goals and actual recent averages; those are different data types and should stay separate.
Interpretation Guardrails
Three things the score must never imply.
Not code compliance
The index does not evaluate whether a design complies with building code. Licensed professionals and reviewing authorities remain responsible for technical design, code interpretation and approval decisions.
Not approval probability
No score estimates the odds that a permit will be approved. Project completeness, design, corrections, workload and other approvals all affect outcomes.
Not guaranteed timing
Published averages and targets are planning inputs, not promises. Alliance may use them to support administrative scheduling but should not guarantee jurisdiction turnaround.
Official Source Register
Every launch score is traceable to public agency information.
Monthly commercial goals and prior-month observed averages.
Official report →City information on the current digital permitting and inspection platform.
Official source →Published first-review and resubmission expectations.
Official FAQ →Electronic submission requirements through JaxEPICS.
Official source →Fast, Standard and Complex review goals.
Official source →City-described complete online permit process.
Official source →Average commercial review and revision timing.
Official FAQ →Current service-level targets by project size and scope.
Official source →Published 5-day performance goal for qualifying projects.
Official source →Project-specific timing and statutory response guidance.
Official source →FAQ
How to read the Permit Approval Index.
What does the U.S. Permit Approval Index measure?
The launch index measures published permit-review transparency, digital submission maturity, review-path clarity, post-review visibility and source recency. It does not measure an applicant's probability of approval.
Does a higher score mean a permit will be approved faster?
No. A higher score means the published administrative process is easier to research and navigate under this methodology. Actual review and issuance depend on the project and authority.
Why are targets and observed averages both included?
Because jurisdictions publish different metrics. The index preserves the evidence class and gives observed performance stronger timing evidence than a target or statutory limit.
Is this a national ranking of every U.S. city?
No. This is a launch edition using selected jurisdictions with sufficiently documented public data. The benchmark should expand only as additional records are normalized and verified.
Use permit intelligence before the filing starts.
Search local permit requirements in Alliance's permit guides or have Alliance research, prepare, submit and track the administrative permitting workflow for your project.