Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | peter-gibson |
View: | 16 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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