City of Santa Monica Panhandling Education Campaign:

Campaign Research and Development

Presentation to the Santa Monica City Council

May 13, 2008

Objective

• Develop a campaign that will:– Reduce giving directly to panhandlers– Provide alternative giving mechanisms

• Aiming to:– Visibly reduce panhandling in Santa Monica– Reduce perceived seriousness of

homelessness and panhandling – Increase awareness of Santa Monica’s

existing services

Campaign Development Process

• Conduct research– Input from stakeholders and experts

• Focus group and one-on-one interviews

– Motivations for giving to panhandlers • Intercept survey

– Message research • Focus groups

• Build and leverage community support • Educate key targets: residents, business,

tourists, panhandlers

Stakeholder Research

• Community focus group conducted April 16, 2008

• One-on-one interviews held April 4-May 12, 2008

• Research included 31 individuals from:

– Business (Bayside, Chamber, CVB, etc.)

– Social service providers

– Police and Fire Departments

– Faith leaders

– City residents / neighborhood associations

– Hospitals

– Homeless individuals

Stakeholders: Key Findings

Overall Feedback

• Generally broad support for campaign

• Great concern for panhandling’s impact on tourism

• Desire to frame campaign with compassion, avoiding judgment and stereotypes

• Some doubt the campaign can be effective

• Concern about unintended consequences

• Universal praise for Santa Monica’s work on homelessness, but need for greater awareness

Stakeholders: Key Findings

Alternative Giving

• Want to discontinue the dolphin program, and create broader point-of-contact program

• Want process to be transparent and results to be clear and highly publicized

• Divided on keeping funds in Santa Monica vs. distributing regionally

Community Support

• Stakeholders want to help support the campaign

• Willing to use existing networks

Intercept Survey

• Survey conducted March 25 – April 2, 2008

• Promenade, Ocean Ave, pier, farmers’ market

• Convenience sample of n=314 respondents

• Respondents:

Santa Monica

Greater LA

CA (not LA)

U.S.A.

Int'l

Santa Monica

n=64

Greater LA

n=136

U.S.A

n=50

International

n=30

CA (not LA)

n=31

Intercept Survey: Key Findings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

HomelessnessSeriousness(Residents)

PanhandlingSeriousness(Residents)

HomelessnessSeriousness(Aggregate)

PanhandlingSeriousness(Aggregate)

Very orextremelySomewhat

Not at all orslightlyNot sure

How serious a problem is panhandling / homelessness?

70.3%

50.1%

42.1%

28.6%

Intercept Survey: Key Findings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Santa MonicaResidents

Greater LAVisitors

Non-LA CalifVisitors

Out-of-StateVisitors

Int'l Visitors

Always orfrequentlySometimes

Rarely orneverNever asked

In the past year, have you ever given money to panhandlers?

16.7%

0%

12.9%

13.3%

12.5%

Intercept Survey: Key Findings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Respondentswho never give

Respondentswho always give

Santa Monicaresidents

All respondents Engage innegativebehaviorsNot sure

Meet basicsurvivalneedsBetter theirsituation

What would you guess most panhandlers do with the money they collect?

*

* Note: very small

sample size

45.3%

51.5%

34.7%

27.3%

Intercept Survey: Key Findings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

City residents(in the future)

All respondents(in the future)

City residents(in the past)

All respondents(in the past)

Hasinfluenced

Has notinfluenced

Does the presence of panhandlers influence your decision to visit?

14.1%

15.9%

25%

9.9%

Intercept Survey: Key Findings

Other key findings• Panhandlers not all viewed as homeless• Low awareness of current efforts to address

homelessness– 42.2% of Santa Monica residents and 45.8% of Santa Monica

workers aware of efforts vs. 20.7% of aggregate

• Encountering panhandlers makes people feel annoyed, sad, sympathetic or uncomfortable

• High receptivity to giving to alternative mechanisms located on or around the Third Street Promenade

• Santa Monica residents and workers and frequent visitors to Downtown are less receptive to alternative giving

Moving Forward: Takeaways

• Show the negative impact of direct donations• Redefine compassion

– More compassionate not to give directly

• Address the emotions brought up:– Annoyance, sadness, guilt and discomfort

• Provide alternative giving opportunity at the point of potential encounter with panhandlers

• Educate Santa Monica residents that the campaign can make a real difference

• Identify additional advertising opportunities– Current vehicles extremely limited

Next Steps

• Message development and testing → Spring 2008

• Continue building community support → Spring-Fall 2008

• Leverage partnerships → Summer 2008 / Ongoing

• Educate residents → Fall 2008 / Ongoing

• Launch public education campaign → Fall / Winter 2008

Success depends on long-term support,

investment and momentum