SR-300-002-01 (8)~ ~ ~~
~esearch Anal i
Codbe s s
Y
Public Opinion Survey
Conducted for the City of Santa Monica
November 1999
Ta6le o[ Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i
............................................................................. ii
List of Tables ................................................. ..
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ iv
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7
Methodology ............................................................................................................................11
City Services -- General ............................................................................................................19
Issues of Importance ............................................................................................................... 23
Status of Neighborhoods ......................................................................................................... 24
Collection Services ................................................................................................................... 29
Parks and Recreatian .............................................................................................................. 31
Library Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 37
Public Safety ............................................................................................................................ 40
City-Resident Communication ................................................................................................ 52
Social Services .......................................................................................................................... 56
Sample Demographics ............................................................................................................ 76
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Pagei
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 1. Methodology ................................................................................................ .....11
Table 2. Naming and Abbreviation Conventions ...................................................... .....13
Table 3. Guide to Statistical Significance ................................................................. .....15
Table 4. Provision of Services: Impact of Zip Code .................................................. ..... 20
Table 5. Provision of Services: Impact of Service Use, Gender and Age .................. ..... 20
Table 6. Provision of Services: Impact of Length of Residence and Parental Statu s... 21
Table 7. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Zip Code ......................... ..... 25
Table 8. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Homeowner Status and
Length of Residence .................................................................................... ..... 25
Table 9. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Ethnicity ........................ ..... 26
Table 10. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Age ................................... ..... 26
Table 11. Collection Services: Impact of Zip Code ..................................................... ..... 30
Table 12. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Service Use and Parental Status ...... ..... 32
Table 13. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Ethnicity ........................................... ..... 32
Table 14. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Type of Home .................................... ..... 32
Table 15. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Income ............................................. ..... 33
Table 16. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Zip Code ............................................ ..... 33
Table 17. Recreation Opportunities: Impact of Recreation Use and Zip Code ......... ..... 34
Table 18. Parks and Recreation Facilities: Impact of Recreation Use and Zip Code ..... 36
Table 19. Public Library Use: Impact of Service Use, Parental Status and
Homeowner Status ...................................................................................... ..... 38
Table 20. Public Library Use: Impact of Ethnicity ..................................................... ..... 38
Table 21. Public Library Use: Impact of Zip Code ..................................................... ..... 38
Table 22. Availabiliry of Library Materials ................................................................. ..... 39
Table 23. Public Library Services ................................................................................ ..... 39
Table 24. Personal Securiry: Impact of Zip Code ........................................................ ..... 41
Table 25. Personal Securiry: Impact of Gender, Age and Parental Status ................. ..... 41
Table 26. Personal Securiry: Impact of Ethnicity ....................................................... ..... 42
Table 27. Crime Victim: Impact of Zip Code .................................................................... 43
Table 28. Contact with Police: Impact of Zip Code .......................................................... 47
Table 29. Police Contact Experience: Impact of Nature of Contact ................................ 48
Table 30. Job of Adressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Zip Code ....................... 50
Table 31. Satisfaction with Ciry's Communication Efforts: Impact of Zip Code ............. 53
Table 32. Information Sources: Impact of Satisfaction with Ciry's Communication
Efforts ................................................................................................................ 54
Table 33. Unmet Need for Services: Impact of Service Use (Top Tier) ........................... 57
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Researrh & Analysis
Page ir
List of Tables
Table 34. Unmet Need for Services: Impact of Service Use (Bottom Tier) ..................... 58
Table 35. Unmet Need for Services: Impact of Zip Code (Top Tier} ................................ 58
Table 36. Unmet Need for Services: Impact of Zip Code (Bottom Tier) .......................... 59
Ta6le 37. Service Use: Impact of Parental Status ............................................................ 60
Table 38. Service Use: Impact of Ethnicity ...................................................................... 60
Table 39. Service Use: Impact of Income ......................................................................... 61
Table 40. Service Use: Impact of Zip Code ....................................................................... 61
Table 41. Obstacles to Receiving Services: Impact of Service Use and Zip Code ............. 63
Table 42. Obstacles to Receiving Services: Impact of Income ......................................... 63
Table 43. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Parental Status and
Length of Residence ......................................................................................... 65
Table 44. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Age .................................. 66
Table 45. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Income ............................ 66
Table 46. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Zip Code .......................... 66
Table 47. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Other Community
Activism ............................................................................................................ 67
Table 48. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Parental Status and
Length of Residence ......................................................................................... 68
Table 49. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Age ........................................ 68
Table 50. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Income .................................. 69
Table 51. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Zip Code ................................. 69
Table 52. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Parental Status and Length of Residence.... 70
Table 53. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Age ............................................................... 71
Table 54. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Income .......................................................... 71
Table 55. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Zip Code ........................................................ 71
Table 56. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Parental Status and
Length of Residence ......................................................................................... 72
Table 57. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Age .............................. 73
Table 58. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Income ........................ 73
Table 59. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Zip Code ....................... 73
Table 60. Service Funding Priorities: Impact of Service Use and Age ............................ . 75
Table 61. Service Funding Priorities: Impact of Parental Status and Zip Code ............. . 75
Ciry of5anta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page iii
_ _ - _
_____ __ . _
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1. Provision of Services .........................................................................................19
Figure 2. Suggested Improvements (Top Tier) ...................................................... ......... 21
Figure 3. Suggested Improvements (Bottom Tier) ................................................ ......... 22
Figure 4. Issues of Importance ............................................................................... ......... 23
Figure 5. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns ....................................................... ......... 24
Figure 6. Condition of Neighborhoods ................................................................... ......... 27
Figure 7. Condition of Neighborhoods: Impact of Zip Codes ................................ ......... 27
Figure 8. Collection Services ........................................................................~----.....- --....... 29
Figure 9. Park and Recreation Use ......................................................................... ......... 31
Figure 10. Recreation Opportunities ................................................................................. 34
Figure 11. Parks and Recreation facilities ............................................................... ......... 35
Figure 12. Public Library Use ........................................................................................... 37
Figure 13. Personal Security .............................................................................................. 40
Figure 14. Traffic Law Enforcement .................................:.........................:............ .......... 42
Figure 15. Crime Victim ..................................................................................................... 43
Figure 16. Report Crime .......................................................................................... .......... 44
Figure 17. Ca11911..--~-~~----~~ ..................................................................................... .......... 44
Figure 18. Department Responded .......................................................................... .......... 45
Figure 19. Response experience ............................................................................... .......... 46
Figure 20. Contact with Police ................................................................................. .......... 46
Figure 21. Nature of Police Contact ........................................................................ .......... 47
Figure 22. Police Contact Experience ...................................................................... .......... 48
Figure 23. Jo~ of Adressing Neighborhood Concerns .............................................. .......... 49
Figure 24. Suggestions for Police Improvements .................................................... .......... 50
Figure 25. Satisfaction with Ciry's Communication Efforts .................................... .......... 52
Figure 26. Information Sources .............................................................................. .......... 53
Figure 27. Seen Traffic Safety Commercial ............................................................. .......... 55
Figure 28. Unmet Need for Services- Top Tier ......................................................... .......... 56
Figure 29. Unmet Need for Services- Bottom Tier ................................................... .......... 57
Figure 30. Service Use .............................................................................................. .......... 59
Figure 31. Obstacles to Receiving Services .............................................................. .......... 62
Figure 32. Helpfulness of Other Community Resources ......................................... .......... 64
Figure 33. Volunteer for a Social Service Program ................................................. .......... 65
Figure 34. Donate to Social Service Programs ........................................................ .......... 67
Figure 35. Volunteer at Schools .............................................................................. ........... 70
Figure 36. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association ...............:............................. ........... 72
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Pageiv
List of Figures
Figure 37. Service Funding Priorities .............................................................................. .. 74
Figure 38. Farmer's Market ............................................................................................. .. 76
Figure 39. Length of Residence ....................................................................................... .. 76
Figure 40. Age ................................................................................................................... .. 77
Figure 41. 18 years or older in Household ...................................................................... .. 77
Figure 42. 17 years or younger in Household ................................................................. .. 78
Figure 43. Zip Codes ......................................................................................................... .. 78
Figure 44. Type of Home .................................................................................................. .. 79
Figure 45. Homeowner Status .......................................................................................... .. 79
Figure 46. Ethnicity ......................................................................................................... .. 80
Figure 47. Income ............................................................................................................ .. 80
City of Santa Monica Resideni Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page v
Introduction
Introduction
Godbe Research & Analysis is pleased to present the results of a public opinion research
project conducted for the City of Santa Monica. This report is organized into the following
sections:
Execurrve Summary The Executive Summaryincludes a summary of the key findings from the survey and a
Conclusions & Recommendations section, which details our recommended course of
action based on the survey results.
Methodology The Methodologysection explains the methodology used to conduct this type of survey
research. This section also explains how to use the detailed crosstabulation tables in Appen-
dix C.
Summary oFResults In the Summary of Results section, we present a question-by-question analysis of the sur-
vey. The discussion is organized into the following sections:
^ City Services -- General
^ Issues of Importance
^ Status of Neighborhoods
^ Collection Services
^ Parks and Recreation
^ Library Facilities
^ Public Safery
^ Ciry-Resident Communication
^ Social Services
^ Sample Demographics
Appendices We have included the following three Appendices
^ AppendixA, which presents the questionnaire
^ Appendrx B, which presents the computer-generated crosstabulations
^ Appendix C, which presents the verbatim responses to the open-ended questions in the
survey
Ciry of Santa Monica Reside~t Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 6
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Based on an analysis of the survey data, Godbe Research & Analysis offers the City of Santa
Monica the following key findings and conclusions:
Cr'ty Serv,ces -- General ^ When asked whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the City of Santa Monica's
efforts to provide municipal services, 38.5 percent reported that they are very satisfied,
49.7 percent indicated that they are somewhat satisfied, 7.1 percent stated that they are
somewhat dissatisfied, three percent offered that they are very dissatisfied, and two per-
cent were undecided.
^ Addressing the homeless problem in the City, establishing better communication with
residents and more parking were the three top specific issues mentioned by respondents
as ways the City could improve the quality of its services.
Issues oflmportance ^ When asked to state the one or two most important issues facing the City of Santa Mon-
ica, respondents most frequently mentioned the 'Homeless Problem' (40%), followed by
`Growth' (21.2%), `Traffic' (16.4%), 'Rent Control' (13.8%) and `Crime' (12.5%).
Status ofNeighborhoods ^ A substantial majoriry of respondents rated the City's performance in addressing neigh-
borhood concerns as either `Excellent' (15.3%) or `Good' (53.4%), with 21.7 percent stat-
ing that it is `Fair', 4.5 percent indicating it is 'Poor' and six percent undecided.
^ When asked to rate the condition of local streets and roads, sidewalks, street lights and
alleys, respondents rated the condition of locals streets and roads the highest, followed by
sidewalks, street lighting and alleys.
Collectron Services ^ Overall, respondents rated the garbage collection services and recycling collection ser-
vices that their households receive as `Good'.
Parks and Recreation ^ Approximately 63 percent of respondents stated that they or someone living in their
household has used a Santa Monica park, recreation facility or recreation program dur-
ing the past 12 months.
^ Overall, respondents rated both the qualrtyand the rangeof Santa Monica's recreation
opportunities as slightly better than `Good'.
a Respondents assigned equally high ratings to the appearance and accessibility of Santa
Monica's parks and recreation facilities, although they assigned somewhat lower ratings
to the safety of the parks and recreation facilities.
City of Santa Monica Resident Scrrvey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 7
Executive Summary
LibraryFacilitles ^ Over 64 percent of respondents reported that they or someone living in their household
has used a Santa Monica public library or library service during the past 12 months.
^ Among those who reported that their household used a library facility or service, 31.8
percent stated that the availability of the materials they wanted was `Excellent', whereas
49.2 percent indicated is was 'Good',16.3 percent offered that it was `Fair', 2.7 percent
stated it was 'Poor'.
^ A clear majority of respondents indicated that the overall quality of Santa Monica's pub-
lic library services is either 'Excellent' (27.2°~) or `Good' (38.4%). Approximately eight
percent stated that it is `Fair',1.2 percent offered that it is `Poor', and about a quarter
(75 7~/~ ctatP~ that thou r~n nnt knn~ai nr rln nnt havn an nnininn
~,.,,... ..~ ........ ~..,., ~. .,f ., ..,,..~ ...... ... .... ..... ....... .... ..Y.....,...
Public Safery ^ Stark differences in perceived safery of walking alone can be found among residents
denendin~ on the area of the Citv and time of dav. Overall. residents feel most safe walk-
1 V J J '
ing in business areas during the day, followed by their neighborhood during the day,
;~.l,l,.,rl,.,~a ;,, r.,l „ ;rtL,l,.,rh,,.,.1 .,t ,,:.thr .,,,~1 l.,~rl„ .,~..1L;.,,, .,1,,..,. ;., 1,,,~;.,..~..
iici~iiwiiivuu ui ~cii"ciai, u"ci~iiuuiiiuuu ai iii~iu aiiu, ia~uy, vvcuniii~ ai~iic iii vu~uica~
areas at night.
^ Almost two-thirds of respondents stated that the enforcement of traffic laws in the City is
either `Excellent' (20.7%) or 'Good' (45.6%) . Approximatelv 20 nercent stated that the
enforcement is `Fair', eight percent indicated it is `Poor', and five percent were undecided
nr imuri~Iinrt tn ctoto thoir nnininn
vi uiivriuui~ iv ~~uii. i~ii.u vru~i~ii. .
^ Slightly more than 10 percent (10.5%) of respondents reported that they or someone liv-
ing in their household has been the victim of a crime in Santa Monica during the past 12
months.
^ Of those who indicated that their household was victimized during the past year, 76.3
percent stated that they reported the crime(s) to the police.
^ Approximately 15 percent of respondents indicated that they have called the police or 911
in an emergency during the past year.
^ Of those who called the police or 911 during the past 12 months, 79.8 percent indicated
that the police responded, 23.9 percent stated that the Fire Department responded,12.2
percent indicated that emergency medical vehicles responded, and 16.6 percent replied
that no one responded to their call. Multiple responses were allowed for this question.
^ Overall, respondents rated both the response timeand the qualrtyof the services that
they received to their request for police assistance or call to 911 as between 'Good' and
`Excellent'.
^ Among those who did not already report contact with the Santa Monica police in an
emer~encv in Question 23, apnroximatelv 29 nercent of resaondents stated that thev had
contact with the Santa Monica Police during the past 12 months.
~___--'----`-i- ~~ _ ~ /~n ini\ _r _ ~~ . _~_._ _ i ,i. .> >. ~ n ~ ..
^ n~,~,rux~~~~d~ery ~c peiceii< <~~.iro~ ui saiu iespuriuer-is siatea inat me poiice nanaiea me
contact in an `Excellent' manner, whereas 30.3 percent stated it was `Good',10.7 percent
CitvofSanta Monica ResidentSuruev Gndhe Reseamh ~ Analvsrs
~ ., - _ .,
Page 8
Executive 5ummary
offered it was 'Fair',12.2 percent stated it was `Poor', and 4.7 percent were undecided or
unwilling to answer the question.
^ The vast majority of respondents stated that the Santa Monica Police do an `Excellent' ~
(28.9%) or 'Good' (47.6%) job of addressing neighborhood concerns. Approximately 12
percent (11.8%) indicated the police do a`Fair' job in this area,l.5 percent stated the
police do a'Poor' job, and 10.2 percent were undecided or unwilling to answer the ques-
tion.
^ When asked what the Santa Monica Police Department could do to improve the quality
of its service, 42 percent stated that the Department should increase police presence in
~ the City. Other suggestions included that officers should develop better interaction skills
and attitudes (18.5%) , the Department should address the homeless problem in the City
(8.7%) , be more responsive (7.1~0) and increase traffic control (6.2%) .
Ciry-Residenr Commun~carion ^ Overall, just over 80 percent of respondents indicated that they are either `Very Satisfied'
(42~0) or 'Somewhat Satisfied' (38.7%) with the City's efforts to communicate with resi-
dents through newsletters, the Internet, and other means.
^ When asked to indicate the information sources they rely on for information about City
news, events and programming, 43.6 percent of respondents stated Our Times (the local
supplement to the Los Angeles Trmes) , 29.2 percent indicated the Seascape newsletter,
19.5 percent indicated City television,15.2 percent reported using Santa Monica Sun and
approximately 14 percent (14.1%) reported that they rely on special postcard mailings.
Multiple responses were allowed for this question.
^ Just over eight percent (8.1%) of respondents reported that they have witnessed the com-
mercial on television on driver and pedestrian safety in the City that features a bullfighter
in traffic.
Social Services ^ Among the variety of social services tested in this survey, respondents identified the great-
est unmet need for the following services: 'Affordable housing assistance', `AIDS/HIV ser-
vices' and `Recreation for persons with disabilities'.
^ Almost 20 percent (18.9~0) of respondents stated that they or someone living in their
liousehold has used one of the social services tested in this survey (Q.35) during the past
12 months.
^ When asked to rate the role that a variety of factors play in preventing some individuals
from receiving the social services for which they are eligible, respondents indicated that
`Long waiting lists for the services', 'Childcare is not available' and 'Fees for the services
are too expensive' are the top three explanatory factors.
^ When asked to indicate whether a particular group or resource is currently helpful or
unhelpful in addressing community needs, respondents rated `Residents as volunteers',
`City Government' and `Neighborhood Associations' as being the most helpful.
Crry of Santa Monica Reside~t Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 9
Executive Summary
^ Approximately 18 percent (17.6%) of respondents volunteer for a Santa Monica based
social service program, agency or community,
^ approximately 41 percent (41.1%) reported that they contribute or donate to a Santa
Monica based social service program, agency or community.
^ Almost 13 percent (12.7%) of respondents indicated that they volunteer at a Santa Mon-
ica school.
^ Just over 13 percent (13.2%) of respondents reported that they are currently an active
member of a neighborhood association in Santa Monica.
^ When asked to assign a variety of programs a priority level for funding by the City,
respondents assigned the highest prioriry to `Juvenile crime prevention', followed closely
by 'Health care', `Services for youth' and `Childcare'.
i,onciusions
Uverall, the vast majority ($$.l~/o) of residents in Janta Monica are satisfied with the City's
efforts to provide municipal services. Indeed, City Government was rated as among the most
helpful agencies in addressing community needs, second only to `Residents as volunteers'.
Nevertheless certain .eervire areac ~tanrl rnrt as area~ where the f.itv hac an nnnnrtimitv anri
-•- ---------~ -------- °__ ._..., __.,_....__-__ _--_ --_ ____... ..--°-° ---- °-•r --~.. ~.. .,rr.,--~---•r+ ----~
a need, for service improvements. Among the most important of these are addressing what
residents perceive as a homeless/transient problem in the City, improving the condition of
local streets and roads, alleys and sidewalks, increasing the police presence in the City,
improving personal securiry in neighborhoods and business areas during the evening hours,
improving the interaction skills of police officers, improving City-resident communication
and limiting growth in the City.
As residents identified most of the social services tested in this survey as having a'Low' to
`Moderate' amount of unmet need in the City, the City appears to have balanced its resources
in meeting the various needs serviced by these programs. Nevertheless, assistance in provid-
ing affordable housing was widely perceived by respondents as having the highest level of
unmet need among the services tested. The results also indicate that residents perceive that
long waiting lists for services, the lack of childcare options and the high expense of certain
social services collectively prevent many individuals from receiving services for which they
are eligible. The survey results thus suggest that the City should consider focusing resources
., tl....... .. ., tl.,. .~ .. F..t....,, s.. ,.,7,7..,..... ~L.,...,. .. ,.,1 .~ ,..1,. ,.....1 ,.L.,....,.i,.,.
111 111WG Q1GQJ 111 L11C I1CQ1 lULU1C lU QLLl11CJJ LIICJC ~/C1l,C1VCLL 11CCUJ Q11LL UUJLQl,1CJ.
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analvsis
Page 10
Methodology
Methodology
Research Objectl~es At the outset of this project, GRA met with representatives of the City of Santa Monica to dis-
cuss the research objectives for the study. It should be noted that many of the research objec-
tives (and specific survey questions) identified for the study were adopted as part of the City's
efforts to actively contribute to the ICMA Comparatiue Performance Measurement Con-
sortium. Viewed broadly, the City was interested in using survey research to:
^ Identify residents' level of satisfaction with the Ciry's efforts to provide a variety of munic-
ipal services,
^ Assess which i~sues residents feel are the most important facing the City,
^ Profile residents use of Ciry services, including recreation, library and social services,
^ Characterize residents' experiences and opinions in the area of public safety,
^ Profile residents use of information sources for City news, events and programming,
^ Identify residents' opinions and priorities for a variety of social services offered by the
City, and
^ Collect additional attitudinal, behavioral and demographic information.
Sample Table 1 briefly outlines the methodology employed in this project. Four hundred adult Santa
Monica residents were sampled using a random digit dial (RDD) sampling design and a
standard screening question. The RDD sample was drawn by determining the active phone
exchanges within the City's jurisdiction and then producing a random list of all active resi-
dential phone numbers in the area proportionately by exchange. Telephone interviews were
conducted during the evening hours between the dates of October 25 and November 5,1999.
Each interview typically lasted 20 minutes.
Table 1. Methodology
Technique Telephone Interviewing
Interview Length 20 Minutes
Universe Adult residents of Santa Monica
Field Dates October 25 - November 5, 1999
Sample Size 402
RDD ~ Welghring The Random Digit Dial (RDD) method of sampling for telephone interviewing is considered
to be state of the art in public opinion research when the goal is to be inclusive of residents of
an entire community, not just registered voters. The RDD sample is drawn by determining
the active phone exchanges within a given sampling area (typically by zip code) and then
producing a random list of all active residential phone numbers in the area. Although this
method produces both listed and unlisted phone numbers and thereby eliminates the bias of
Ciry of Santa Monica Resider~t Survey Codbe Research & Analysis
Page 11
Methodalogy
unlisted phone numbers, it cannot match names with each number. However, the respon-
dent's name, address and other demographic information are easily acquired during the
actual telephone interview.
A known limitation of the RDD sampling method is its tendency to slightly underrepresent
members of the Latino comm~niry. Researchers find that underrepresentation of Latinos
usually occurs for one (or more) of three reasons: in some communities, reluctance by Lat-
inos to participate in government sponsored surveys; in others, monolingual Spanish-speak-
ing households unable to respond to a survey administered in English; and in some
communities, a higher density among Latino households (i.e., higher number of individu-
als associated with a given phone number).
When the professional expectation is that the disparities will be small, researchers com-
monly adjust for under- or oversampling through a statistical procedure referred to as
'weighting' to create a representative sample. Weighting was employed for the 1999 Santa
Monica survey to adjust for a seven percent undersampling of Latinos. The weights were
assigned based on the reported percentages for Santa Monica in the 1990 Census. Respon-
dents who did not report a specific ethnicity (either `Don't Know' or `Refused') were not
weighted.
Prior to weighting, the percentage of respondents in each of the ethnicity categories was as
follows: 74.1°~ Caucasion/White, 7.0% Latino, 6.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 4.2% 'Other',
3.7% Black, 3.0% ' Refused',1.0% Native American and 0.5% `Undecided'. After weighting,
the percentages, as reflected in this report, are: 72.5% Caucasion/White,13.6% Latino, 5.9%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.1% `Other', 4.1% Black, 3.0% 'Refused', 0.3% Native American and
0.5°/o 'Undecided'. The analyses presented in this report were performed on the data after it
was weighted according to respondent ethnicity.
Types ofAnalysis The survey questions are presented with comments highlighting the important findings.
Often these findings are presented in tables that include the percentage of all respondents
who gave each type of response. These figures are followed by distributions from various sub-
groups identified by a descriptive label.
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 12
Methodology
Naming Convenr~ons The following naming and abbreviation conventions are referred to frequently in the sub-
stantive section of the report:
Table 2. Namins~ and Abbreviation Conventions
Parental Status Respondents were grouped according to whether they have a
person under the age of 181iving in their household or not.
Those who do are labeled 'parents' for convenience, although
GRA recognizes that some respondents may not actually be the
parent of the child.
Ethnicity Respondents' ethnic identity was coded according to the follow-
ing categories: Caucasian/White, Asian, Latino/Hispanic, Afri-
can American/Black, Native American and Other.
Age Age was coded into the following categories: 18-24, 25-44, 45-
64, and 65 or older.
Gender Interviewers recorded either'Male' or `Female' at the comple-
tion of the interview.
Neighborhood Respondents were grouped by zip cade into the following 'neigh-
borhoods': 90401, 90402, 90403, 90504, 90405 East (of Lin-
coln), 90405 West (of Lincoln). See map below
Understanding a Mean' In addition to analysis of response percentages, many results will be discussed with respect to
a descriptive `mean'. `Means' can be thought of as `averages'. To derive a mean that repre-
sents satisfaction, for example, a number value is first assigned to each response category
(e.g., `Very Satisfied' _ +2, `Somewhat Satisfied' _ +1, `Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied' _
0, and 'Somewhat Dissatisfied' _-1, `Very Dissatisfied' _-2) . The answer of each respondent
is then assigned the corresponding number (from -2 to +2 in this example) . Finally, all
respondents' answers are averaged to produce a final number that reflects average satisfac-
tion level.
Means conveniently express the results of scale items (e.g., Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,12,
13,14,16,17,18,19, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 37 and 43) in a single numeric figure, thereby
making interpretation of the data considerably easier. Means always adhere to the scale used
to construct them and can be interpreted accordingly. For example, a satisfaction mean of
`+1' indicates that respondents, as a group, are `Somewhat Satisfied'.
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysls
Page 13
Methodologv
Zip Code Map Because the survey measures opinions with respect to city services by neighborhood as well
as overall, the results have been crosstabbed by zip code as a proxy for neighborhoods. Santa
Monica neighborhoods and zip codes correspond as follows:
^ 90401 is Downtown Santa Monica and the Civic Center.
^ 90402 is the North of Montana Neighborhood.
^ 90403 encompasses the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood west of 20th and Mid-City
Neighborhood east of 20th.
^ 90404 is primarily the Pico Neighborhood, with a portion of Mid-City Neighborhood on
the north.
^ 90405 east of Lincoln is the Sunset Park Neighborhood.
^ yU4U5 west oi Lincoln is the Ucean Yark 1Veighborhood.
At the time of this survey, non-profit neighborhood groups were active for all of the above
neighhnrhnnc~.e ~nci new ac~nriatinn~ were fnrmino in 9(14f11 (llnwntnwn draa Racirlantcl in
----o -- --- ---~~ -------~----- "--- -°-----•-a -•- _ ° _°_ ~_ ....................................~ , ...
90403 (Northeast Neighbors), and in 90405 (South Beach Neighbors). Other infoimal resi-
a,..,« ,. ..i..,. ,. ~ nn~nc iD.._a,._i:_,, ar..:_ c._.._. __a ar--'_- n--'-~
LLCIIL ~1V1.1~.1J Q1JV CAl~I 1L JU`fUJ ~lluiueiwie, 1V1d111 Jl1CCL dllU 1V1d11I1C rd1RJ.
Zipcode ~----~ , -
~- : } ~
._ -' ~ ~ , r~~ ~~ ~ ~ J
~ no+
°'ox ~-~= - t ~
Map _ .~ ~~ ~ ~Y~-.~ - ~ ~~ _ l
~.~. ~~ ~~ .~ ~, -
w.u.m , ~- :.. F }-.--_~ ',rt ~ --f ... : a_ /,,+1~ - ,
-- i ~-~ E ~ r 1 , r._. ^~ - ~ ~ -!:
_ ar* , ~s
-~~:~ ~ ~}7(j-- . ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~{ y ~~
~~ ~ =--•l-'l~i~ ~ r+ [r + i
- ~ . j. ~ _.° ~ ~ I
, ~~ -_a~-__. ~-r J.._, ~' ~~:'~'~ ~ Z ~T~~ ` t a g i
~{' ~ _A= Y _ 1 ~' ~ "~:..,~ t € /y1 ~.
, ~
~~
~S _-'if L ~~~:. -~a~T~'^~ ' L
. _
r
~~ ~.~_' I" `~`~-~~ ~~ ~ 4r-~'_"'F~~~ (~ y~
~
~:, ~~ _ . _ , ,~ --~ ~ ~~ J , _ ~"~ ~f ~ i .
_ ~.- ~ ; .
. _ -~--_-. ti-~ -~ - , _
,, _ ~ - ~~ - _ ,~ ~~ , :~~~ ~~,.
~ . ~,-i
4 ~ ~~ ~~V~ - rN~~~ - ~k~~~~r ~ ~~~~~~~~
~-~- f--=~-~ t~-~ =F-I - ~) i ~ ~ :~ ~:..
_ -~ - _ ,~ ~--- _ , ;~~ 1w,v. ,r.
. --
-~-~ -=- _ - T , ~ ~
_ ~ ~ - .- --r ,-~' ~'~~,,~ ! ~ ~;~ .
~ ~-_ -=~--~=-c---.= z ~ ~ ~ ~ r a f,~~ ~.
~
~ - _~ ~ ._; __ ~ : ~
~,. ~ -~ _ -~ - -: ~ _ , ~ ~`i.,'~ ~ " '
,. --- --c-- :
.~ ~
~,`+,._J ~ ~ A .___~,~ _ ~~i _ ~ ~jFv,f ~ ~rf ~
.~ ! ''1 `~' `
_ - - -- ~
~ ,.~ -. i a -r--E-_I- __' : _ _ _ , - '1.t ~ e~;.~ ?a.t,,~i_t!_ , ["~ ~_
~ ~ } ~ ~ -~ ~ . -` ~ _ -- ~:~ ~ 'i~~ ~ ' ~~' ~.
,
E , i ~ ~ ; F ~,-: ~_ -, ~ ; J~ _ ~"`~ ~ ~~, ,~1} ~t ~ r~
:
, ; ~ ` ~ --_ ~ ~n~m~ ~~,.~
i -~s.~vr- r :__I .t,l~ ~
, t i ~ ~ 1 ~-~-~f .~i ~ `_ ~ f'- ~F~-I I ~_ a.~,r ~ h ~ „~ ~ . ri V ~ _}~~ ~
; • - =~- -~ t - - ._: ,u:~+ i ~ ~..r = `" „r„ .~~
i _ }-Fti.:~:.._~ ~ ~' ~~[~
L~~ ~ -~ .
~'~.~..~..r 1 ~ ~.~~
. . P8C1~C ~~. Q~gg~ ~ ~ ~~ q.a
SaW l1Nl~i
CIIV Of.SB(7(d 1~~0l7IC8 PtPSlC~P!]l.S1111'PV (:nrlfw Racuarrh R, Analvcic -
- ~ ......... .............. ._ ......y.,..
Page 14
Methodology
Understandmg the ~Ylargin o!'Error' Because a survey only interviews a limited number of people who are part of a larger popula-
tion group, by mere chance alone there will always be some difference betrveen a sample and
the population from which it was drawn. For example, researchers might collect informa-
tion from 400 adults in a town of 25,000 people. Because not all people in the population
were surveyed, there are bound to be differences between the results obtained from interview-
ing the sample respondents and the results that would be obtained if all people in the popu-
lation were interviewed. These differences are known as `sampling error', and they can be
expected to occur regardless of how scientifically the sample has been selected. Sampling
error is determined by four factors: the size of the population, the chosen sample size, a con-
fidence interval and the dispersion of responses to a survey. Of the four factors, sample size is
the most influential variable.
Table 3 shows the possible sampling variation that applies to a percentage result reported
from a probability type sample. The table shows that if a sample of 400 respondents is ran-
domly drawn from the estimated 70,000 adult residents in the City of Santa Monica, one can
be 95 percent confident that the margin of error due to sampling will not vary by more than
the indicated number of percentage points (plus or minus) from the result that would have
been obtained if the interviews had been conducted with all people in the universe repre-
sented in the sample.
Table 3. Guide to Statistical S
Sample Distribution of Responses
Size
0 0 0 0 oi oi 6 0% / 40% o~
1000 1.85% 2.46% 2.82% 3.01% 3.08%
900 1.95% 2.60°~ 2.97% 3.18% 3.25%
800 2.07% 2.76% 3.16% 3.38% 3.44%
700 2.21% 2.95% 3.38% 3.61% 3.69%
600 2.39% 3.19% 3.65% 3.90% 3.98%
500 2.62% 3.49% 4.00% 4.28% 4.37%
~~~ ~E~ ~ ~.~~°!a; - ,, ~:9~1~ _ ; . ..: 4.~8°~ .. ~'~~~'~E ~; . : 4 ~~~ ' ,
300 3.39% 4.52% 5.17% 5.53% 5.65%
250 3.71% 4.95% 5.67% 6.06% 6.19%
200 4.15% 5.54% 6.34% 6.78% 6.92%
100 5.88% 7.83% 8.98% 9.60% 9.79%
50 8.31% 11.08% 12.70% 13.57% 13.85%
As the table indicates, the ma~cimum margin of error for all aggregate responses is between
2.93 and 4.89 percent for the sample of 400 adult Santa Monica residents. This means that
for a given question with dichotomous response options answered by all 400 respondents,
one can be 95 percent confident that the difference between the percentage breakdowns of
the sample population and those of the total population is no greater than 4.89 percent. The
Ciry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 15
Methodology
percent margin of error applies to both sides of the answer, so that for a question in which 50
percent of respondents said 'yes', one can be 95 percent confident that the actual percent of
the population that would say 'yes' is between 54.89 percent and 45.11 percent.
The actual margin of error for a given question in this survey depends on the distribution of
the responses to the question. The 4.89 percent number refers to questions, such as a'yes' or
'no' question, where opinions are evenly split in the sample with 50 percent of respondents
saying `yes' and 50 percent saying `no'. If that same question were to receive a response in
which 10 percent of respondents say `yes' and 90 percent say 'no', then the margin of error
would be no greater than 2.93 percent. As the number of respondents in a particular sub-
group (e.g., gender or age) is smaller than the number of total respondents, the margin of
error associated with estimatin~ a~iven sub~roun's resnonses will he higher_
- - ~ ~ ~ . ~ - - -o --
Rotation of Questions To avoid the problem of systematic position bias - where the order in which a series of ques-
tinns is ackerl infliiPnrac tha ancwars tn cnma nf thP miastinnc - cavaral nf tha miactinnc in
._..___ __ _.,---- -----_ .......... ..... ~........... ... ....__.., ... ...., .,~.,..------.. .,.,..,.~. .,. ...., .~~....~..,..., ...
this survey were rotated such that respondents were not consistently asked the questions in
~L_ __...__ __.l__ TL"__e'_ _f'`'~'_ ".s.L:~ !1"_'`e_~_ 1 A ~ O O[ ~1'7 00 _._ J AO ______ __`_`_~ f_._
uie ~aiiie uiuei. iiie ~erie~ ui i~eiiis wiuiiii ~uesuui-s i~t, ia, ~~, ~r, ~a dnu ~t~ were ru~a~eu iur
each interview
Now to Read a Crosstabulation The questions discussed and analyzed in this report comprise a subset of the various
Tab1e crosstabulation tables available for each question. Only those subgroups that are of particu-
lar interest or that illustrate a particular insight are included in the discussion on the follow-
ing pages. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups for a given
question, the complete breakdowns appear in Appendix B. These crosstabulation tables pro-
City ofSanta Monica Reside~t Survey Codbe Research & Analysis
Page 16
Methodalogy
vide detailed information on the responses to each question by all demographic groups that
were assessed in the survey. A typical crosstabulation table looks like this:
A short description of the item appears at the top of the table. The sample size (in this exam-
ple, N=400) is presented in the first column of data under ' Overall'. The results to each pos-
sible answer choice of all respondents are also presented in the first column of data under
'Overall'. The aggregate number of respondents in each answer category is presented as a
whole number, and the percentage of the entire sample this number represents is just below
the whole number. For example, among overall respondents,135 people indicated that they
would `definitely' vote yes on the measure, and 135 represents 34 percent of the total sample
size of 400. Next to the 'Overall' column are other columns representing opinions of males
and females. The data from these columns are read in exactly the same fashion as the data
in the 'Overall' column, although each group makes up a smaller percentage of the entire
sample.
In the tables for Questions 4-8, 9-10,12-13,14,18, 24-25, 35, 37 and 43, mean scores appear
in the table cells rather than response frequencies and percentages. These means represent
the average response of each group. The means are derived from the numerical scale
assigned to each set of response categories.
A Nore on the Tables To present the data in the most accurate fashion, we display the results to the first decimal
point in the tables and figures. However, for the purposes of discussion, conventional round-
ing rules are applied, with numbers that include .5 or higher rounded to the next highest
whole number and numbers that include .4 or lower rounded to the next lowest whole num-
ber. Because of this rounding, the reader may notice that the percentages in the discussion
may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding conventions. Moreover, the decimal numbers
shown in pie charts may vary somewhat from the decimal numbers shown in the tables due
City of Santa Monica Resldent Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 17
First Ballot Test
Methodalogy
to the requirement that pie charts sum to exactly 100 percent. These disparities are confined
to the first decimal place.
Ciry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 18
City Services -- General
City Services -- General
GRA presents the survey results by common theme, which may deviate from the chronologi-
cal order in which the questions were asked of respondents. This first section addresses the
questions that pertain to the City's performance in general.
Q.Z.~ Generally speaking, are you The first substantive question of the survey asked respondents whether, in general, they are
satisfied or dissatistied with the job satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Santa Monica is doing to provide city services.
the City ofSanta Monica is doing to Because this question does not reference a specific program, service or facility and requests
provide city servlces.~ that the respondent consider the City's performance in general, the responses to the question
can be viewed as a general performance rating for the City. The responses to the question
were coded according to the following scale: `Very Satisfied' _+2, `Somewhat Satisfied' _
+1, 'Somewhat Dissatisfied' _ -1 and 'Very Dissatisfied' _ -2.
As shown in Figure l, an overwhelming majority of residents report that they are either `Very
Satisfied' (39%) or 'Somewhat Satisfied' (50%) with the City's efforts to provide municipal
services. Approximately 12 percent reported that they are either `Somewhat Dissatisfied'
(7%) or `Very Dissatisfied' (3%), with two percent of respondents indicating that they are
undecided. When compared to the satisfaction ratings that GRA's many other municipal cli-
ents have received in recent surveys, the combined satisfaction rating exhibited by residents
of Santa Monica is slightly above average.
1. Provision of Services
Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the distribution of the responses to this question according to the zip
code `neighborhood' in which a respondent lives, whether a member of their household uses
one or more of the social services tested in the survey (Q.36) , the respondent's gender, age,
length of residence in the City and their 'parental' status (i.e., whether they have a person
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 19
City Services -- General
under the age of 18 living in their household). Combining the 'Very Satisfied' and 'Some-
what Satisfied' response categories, overall satisfaction is highest among respondents in the
90405 West neighborhood, respondents from households who do not use the City's social ser-
vices, those who have lived in the Ciry for less than five years, males, individuals between the
ages of 25 and 44, and those who have two or more children.
Table 4. Provision ot Se~vices: Impact of Zip Code
Table 5. Provision ot Services: Impact of Service Use, Gender and Age
C~ry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysls
Page 20
City Services -- General
Table 6. Provision of Services: Impact ot Length of Residence and Parental
Status
Q.34: Thr'nking ot rhe C,ry overall, Approximately two-thirds through the interview, respondents were asked to indicate what
what do you feel the City ofSanta they feel the City could do to improve the quality of services. The question was presented in
Monica could do to improve the an open-end format, which means that respondents' answers were recorded verbatim and
qualr'ty ofrts services? respondents were not constrained to choose from a list of response options. For convenience,
GRA grouped the responses into logical categories (shown below), with low frequency
responses being grouped into the `Other' category. The interviewers were instructed to record
up to the first three suggestions from a respondent. The percentages shown in Figures 2 and
3 thus represent the percentage of respondents who offered a given response (and thus sum
to greater than 100 percent).
Figure 2. Suggested Imp~ovements (Top Tier)
Other
Nothing
Homeless problem
Better communication w ith the city
More parking
Stop grow th
Traific satety
Reduce traffic congestion
Pedestrian safety
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Ciry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 21
City Services -- General
Figure two presents the most commonly mentioned responses to this question. Among the
specific problems mentioned that warranted a separate group, 15 percent suggested `Noth-
ing'. Thirteen percent of respondents indicated that the City could improve its performance
with respect to the homeless problem. Other suggestions included ' Better Communication
with City' (12.4%) , `More Parking' (6.8%) , `Stop Growth' (6.4%) , `Traffic Safety' (6.2%) and
`Reduce Traffic Congestion' (6.1%) . All of the responses presented in Figure 3 were men-
tioned by less than three percent of respondents.
Figure 3. Suggested Improvements (Bottom Tier)
Parks
Public transpatafion
SVeet improrements
Reduce crime
Palice services
Rec.yding
Ciry services
Affordable housing
Education
Better to businesses
Clean up aty
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Because a similar question was posed to residents in the 1998 opinion study conducted by
the City, one can meaningfully compare the results of the 1998 survey to those of the present
survey to identify significant shifts in opinions (keeping in mind the margin of error due to
sampling for both studies). Whereas the top three specific responses for the present study
are `Nothing' (15.0%) ,'Homeless Problem' (13.1%), and 'Better Communication with City'
(12.4°~), the top three responses in the 1998 study were 'Nothing' (19.5%), `Reduce Home-
lessness' (12.6%) and Public Works concerns with respect to alleys, sidewalks, streets, and
cleaning graffiti and debris (8.9%). This suggests that although addressing homeless issues
remains a primary concern for residents, public works issues have become comparatively
less important, and City-resident communication has become comparatively more impor-
tant, in the past year.
Ciry ofSanta Montca Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 22
Issues of Importance
Issues of Importance
Q.3: What woUld you say are the Question 2 asked respondents in an open-end fashion to identify the one or two most impor-
one or two mostimporrantissUes tant issues facing the City of Santa Monica today. Once again, respondents were not con-
Facing the Ciry of Santa Mon~ca strained to choose from a list of issues, but rather were free to offer any response which was
today? then recorded verbatim by the interviewer. For the reader's convenience, GRA coded and
grouped the verbatim responses into logical categories, with issues that were mentioned by
less than 0.8 percent of respondents being grouped into the 'Other' category. Interviewers
were instructed to record up to trvo issues per respondent Thepercentages shown in Figure 4
reflect the percentage of respondents who mentioned a given issue and thus sum to greater
than 100 percent.
Figure 4 displays the overall results for this question. Consistent with residents' suggestion
that the Ciry can improve its services by addressing the homeless problem (Q.34) , 40 percent
of respondents cited the `Homeless Problem' as being the most important problem facing the
City today. Other specific problems mentioned by at least 10 percent of respondents include
`Growth' (21.2%), 'Traffic' (16.4~0), `Rent Control' (13.8%) and `Crime' (12.5%).
Figure 4. Issues ot Importance
Ftrrele~ piablerr
Qvv~1h
TiaEfic
Ctlier
Rentcortd
~Yirrie
~9
Nbre affac~Lie hnisig
Edc~cn
Too midi carstrudion
T2ffic safety
Street rteidenanoe
Less affordable Fioisig
Pdoeaggessroeness
Paks aM reaeaition faciRies
0.0% 20.0% 40.G°h
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident 5urvey Godbe Research & Malysis
Page Z3
Status of Neighhorhoods
Status of Neighborhoods
The next series of questions were grouped together under the common title 'Status of Neigh-
borhoods' because the questions address neighborhood issues and/or the reference point for
the question is the respondent's neighborhood.
Q.4.~ In general, would you say that The first question asked respondents to rate the Ciry's performance in addressing neighbor-
the City ofSanta Monica does an hood concerns. As shown in Figure 5, a substantial majoriry of residents rated the Ciry's per-
excellent, good, talr or poor job oI formance as either ' Excellent' (15.3%) or `Good' (53.4%) , with 21.7 percent statin~ that it is
addressingneighborhood concerns? 'Fair', 4.5 percent indicating it is `Poor' and six percent undecided.
Figure 5. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns
reu. una.cwna
Fsk
21.7X
75.3%
Good
33.4%
Tables 7-10 illustrate how responses to this question vary according to select respondent
characteristics. Table 7 is of particular interest in that it disaggregates the responses accord-
ing to the zip code `neighborhood' of the respondent. Ratings for the City's efforts to address
neighborhood concerns are most positive in the 90402, 90403, 90404 and 90405 West neigh-
borhoods. It is worth noting that respondents from the 90401 neighborhood rated the Ciry's
performance in addressing neighborhood concerns markedly lower than respondents from
the remaining neighborhoods. Among the other subgroups represented in Tables 8-10, rat-
„ h;,.t,,,~* .,,,,,,,,.. r,.,,t,.r~ ;,,a;.,;a,,.,i~ ,,,~,,, t,.,,,,, i;,,,,a ;,, *h,, r;~.. ~,.,,,,,,.,,., i n.,,,a i n
iii~S Pr'cic iiisiiwi aiiivii~ iciiici~, iuuiviuuaio vvii~ iiavc iircu ui uic ~,iiy ucivrccii iv atiu i7
years, Asians, and individuals between the ages of 45 and 64.
Citv ofSanta Monica Resident Survev Godbe Research & Anal~sis
Page 24
Stams of Neighborhoods
Table 7. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact ot Zip Code
Table 8. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact ot Homeowner Status
and Lenath of Residence
City of Santa Monica Resrdent Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 25
Status of Neighborhoods
Q.5-8.~ Wou1d you say that the
in your neighborhood
are In good condition a11 over, are
rn mostlygood condition with a few
bad spots here and there, or have
many bad spots?
Table 9. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Ethnicity
Table 10. Addressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impact of Age
~E({ i~~ ~~~~ `€'
~ 3~ ~~~ ` 403
' 38 193 105 62
~
,
~i€~ ~..:.
62 7 23 25 7
~~~~1~$~~
15
3%
~
'
` ``
§
~~
~
' 18
1 % 12
1 % 23.6°k 11
0%
.
;
,
,
1 ~t.•y>
~
~
..3;' 3
~~~ ~~ . . .
~( ~~~ ~
~ ~~~~~~ ~~ g~= 215 17 107 54 34
~
~
~:.~g. 53.4% 45.9% 55.6% 51.2% 54.3%
~ 87 12 41 20 13
~~~~~
~
' ~A~~' :
~
~
'~~~ 3
(
21
7°/a
30
9%
21
0°/a
19
3%
20
5%
E ~ ~
~z~
~
~, ~~~~~ ~~~ ,
.
€ . . . .
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 18
~ ~ ~~4
d ~ ~S€i
~ - 10 3 5
.
~ '~~
~; 4.5°k
?~~ ,.. . ~. ..~ s,
-
5.2%
3.1%
7.9%
u~ ~ ~~~ ~'~ ~~1~A 3~~r_£~ g~ @3~ E~`j x Z ~
~~T~`~~@~ 3 ~ 2 ~ Z .~ 4
.
3, i 5.1°k
5.1°/a
6.1%
2.8%
6.3%
Figure 6 combines the responses from Questions 5-8 that share a common root question but
vary the specific reference items in the question. In each case, respondents are asked if the
in their neighborhood are in good condition all over, are in mostly good condi-
tion with a few bad spots here and there, or have many bad spots? The reference items are
`sidewalks', `alleys', `street-lighting' and 'streets and roads'.
The responses to each question were coded according to the following scale: `Good Condi-
tion AllOver' = 2, `Mosfly Good' =1, `Many Bad Spots' _-l. The responses were then
aggregated and averaged to derive the means score for respondents as a whole and for vari-
ous subgroups. The means adhere to the scale above and can be interpreted accordingly.
Thus, for example, a mean of ' 1' indicates that respondents, as a group, rate the condition of
the specific item as `Mostly Good'.
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 26
Status of Neighborhoods
Figure 6 displays the mean scores for each of the public works areas tested. Overall, respon-
dents rated the condition of local streets and roads the highest (1.22), followed by sidewalks
(1.06), street lighting (0.87) and alleys (0.68).
Figure 6. Condition of Neighborhoods
^ saeess a Roaaa
~ 3ldewalks
~ Street Ilghb
. Alleys
Figure 7 displays the mean scores for respondents separated by the zip code `neighborhood'
in which they live. Clearly, location of residence has an important impact on how respon-
dents rate the condition of their neighborhood streets and roads, sidewalks, street lighting
and alleys. For example, respondents in 90403 had a mean score of 0.54 for street lighting,
whereas respondents from 90402 assigned street lighting a mean score of 1.12.
Figure 7. Condition of Neighborhoods: Impact of Zip Codes
~ ~ £ ~?~ .s, ~~ It
~ ~~ 3 ; ~ ~ ~ ~. ; t~ ~ rt ~~
.~ $ ~d~~.:~~~~ T_ .
~~~~~.N~'~.
+~Q'~ ' ~ `~88~~j q§ ~s@d p ~
~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~Rf~
:~ ~ 3 ~.~~~~F'p~,
. . . ~iR
. .
. -. >-. . ... ..
. ....r .. . ..... .
. .. ..
'~~t~ ~?,31.1~+ ~~g~ ~'3@F~~~~ ~s c' e~a~ 0.96 0.78 1.14 0.94 1.02 0.92 0.81
~~~~,,~~~~~t~'-
a { ~' 1.22 1.14 1.29 1.31 1.26 1.04 1.04
~ ~~~ ~~? $~~~t~ ~} ~~~~ 1.06 0.81 1.23 1.15 1.09 1.05 0.74
$~$e~ 1~[~ '~`~~~€~>': 0.87 0.72 1.12 0.54 1.00 1.03 0.75
y E ~~~~~ S`,;~ ~i'~£ E~~ , 0.68 0.46 0.90 0.74 0.69 0.43 0.67
The 1998 study asked similar questions, although the results are presented in percentage
form rather than means as shown above. Nevertheless, a comparison of the percentage
results for these questions in the present study (see Appendix C) to those reported for the
1998 study reveals that respondents perceive the condition of alleys, streets and roads and
sidewalks in the City to have deteriorated during the past year. In each case, the percentage
of respondents stating that these are in `Good Condition All Over' has declined substantion-
ally. For example, in the 1998 study 49 percent of respondents indicated that the streets and
Ciry of Santa Mo~ica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 27
5tatus ot Neighborhoods
roads in their neighborhood are in good condition all over. In the present study, the corre-
sponding figure is 37 percent. The 1998 study did not include a question about street light-
ing.
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survev ' Godbe Research & Analvsis
Page 28
Collection Services
Collection Services
Q.9-10: Thinking now about your The survey next turned to respondents' perceptions of the quality of service their household
hovsehold, would you say that the receives in the areas of garbage collection and recycling. Because these two questions shared
collecrion service rhar the same root question and response categories, GRA chose to present the results in a com-
your household receives rs excellenr, Parative format. In both cases, respondents were asked to rate the collection service as
good, farr or poor?
`Excellent', 'Good', `Fair' or `Poor'. The response categories were assigned the following
numerical scale: `Excellent' = 3, 'Good' = 2, `Fair' =1 and 'Poor' = 0. The responses were
then aggregated and averaged to provide a mean score for each service. As always, the
means adhere to the original scale and can be interpreted accordingly. Thus, for example, a
mean of ' 2' indicates that, overall, respondents perceive the service they receive to be `Good'.
Figure 8 displays the mean scores for the two services tested: garbage collection and recy-
cling collection. Both services received a mean slightly above or slightly below '2.0', which
means that respondents, as a group, perceive the service to be `Good'.
Figure 8. Collection Services
~ Garbage eollectlon
~ Recycling edleetlon
Table 11 displays the means scores for each service across zip code neighborhoods in the City.
As is apparent from the table, the location of a respondent's residence has a significant
impact on his/her perception of the service they receive. Respondents from 90401, for exam-
ple, assigned a comparatively high rating to garbage collection (2.37) , whereas respondents
from 90404 assigned a comparatively low rating to the service (1.94) .
City ofSanta Montca Resldent Survey Codbe Research & Analysis
Page Z9
Collection Services
Table 11. Collection Services: Impact of Zip Code
w ,~~~~ ...: , E~~ €~~~, ~~~~~y~~~~ , s~~ ~. ~s ~~ ~
3 ~~~~
~'
~[
~~~ 6
~ P~~B~
~
~
~ '~~ E
~ 3~£ ~ - ~ ~
~ ~~ :
,.
~ 4~'~~~'1 ~ C€F ~.'3 '
3 ~. ~
I
~ .. ~~~8~ .M` : ,F4::,
~ M,"~~~ ~' ~~~~''`~~~~' 2.03 2.18 2.20 1.92 1.82 2.14 2.33
~ ~P[i'Etilge ~o1~8CtIot#~~~ ;; 2.11 2.37 2.26 2.10 1.94 2.10 2.33
j F } •~. ; ~ ~ ~~ ! j $E~i:
l~~~j~~~i~ ~~~~ . :
1.93
1.93
2.14
1.71
1.68 2.19 2.34
The 1998 study did not include a question about recycling services, although it did ask a
similar question about garbage collection services. Comparing the percentage results for
this question from Appendix C to the 1998 report reveals that the overall rating for this ser-
vice has declined somewhat during the past year. For example, the number of respondents
who rated the service as 'Excellent' in 1998 was 39 percent, whereas the corresponding figure
for the present study is 31 percent.
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 30
Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation
The next series of questions addressed residents' attitudes and behaviors with respect to Parks
and Recreation in the City of Santa Monica. When reviewing the results, it is important to
keep in mind that several of the questions ask the respondents to report for the hocrsehold,
not just for themselves.
Q.11: Has anyone in your Question 11 asked respondents to indicate whether they or someone in their household vis-
household used any Sanra Monica ited a Santa Monica park or recreation facility or participated in a Santa Monica recreation
parlc, recreation facility or program during the past year. As shown in Figure 9, 63 percent of respondents indicated that
recreation program during the past someone in their household has visited a facility or used a program at least once during the
12 months?
past year. The usage rate is slightly higher than that reported in the 1998 report, although
the difference is not statistically significant.
9. Park and Recreation Use
w,a.~mea
osx
Ye~
62.8
No
372X
Because this question asks the respondent to report whether they or someone in their house-
hold has used a facility or program, it is not appropriate to examine the data across individ-
ual level characteristics of the respondent, such as age or gender. It is, however, useful to
examine the usage rates across household level variables or variables that one can reason-
ably assume apply to the household. Accordingly, Tables 12-16 shows how usage rates vary
according to whether the respondent's household uses one or more of the social services
tested in the survey (Q.36), whether they have children in the home, ethnicity, type of home,
family income and zip code neighborhood. Overall, use of City recreation facilities and pro-
grams is highest among households that also use one or more of the social services tested in
the survey, individuals living with one or more children in the household, Blacks (although
the small number of respondents warrants using caution when generalizing this result) ,
individuals who reside in a townhome or a condo, respondents with family incomes of
$50,000 or more per year, and individuals who reside in the 90405 East and West neighbor-
hoods.
Ciry o£Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Researc6 & Analysis
Page 31
Parks and Recreation
Table 72. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Service Use and Parenlal
Status
Table 13. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Ethnicity
Table 14. Park and Recreation Use: Imoact of Tvoe of Home
(EE~~a }~d~~. ~d;~.``,`,r~`,~., ~ i :r b ~~~: {~ "~: N £~.
~intt~j,~e.~ , xx~,,: } g~'~.
~~
~
~
~ ~1'#kT~BM if~ ~~ QtI~ ~h~T`S~a S
~3
''
E~. '~ ~~;E8111IIy ~- ,,,:. . F
~ ,E~r .. .: _ ,, s..
~~"' s<~ ~~ '~' df ~( 403
~~;.a 105 211 53 24 3
~ ' ~ ' ~~ ~~~~~~
~~ 252
'~ 68 123 39 16 2
~
~
~l
.
~ iEidE
~~
r ~ r
~
EE
,
F`
s2.
J%
. . . :na ~ .43~~ I' .... ~_'- ~.6% JB.6% 72.
J
~O 67.~% 66.7%
"~~ t~ ~~'? ~~€ 150
~
~
~~
~ 36 87 15 8 1
~; ~~
~
~~~
~~
~ 3~ ,~~~- 37.2%
~~ a~s~d'. 34.4% 41.4% 27.5% 33.0% 33.3%
€ tt€j
. ~~€~i ~
',t~
3
3 tit~i i€~ ~~
a
f~
~
~
_
'
' '
j
. j
, ~
~
3
~
[#'z~iE~~E ..
~~iiF4~
~~~i 3
~
„
.
~'
O.~L~IO 0.9~~0 ' ' ' '
C(ty ofSanta Monica Reside~t Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 32
Parks and Recreation
Table 15. Park and Recreation Use: Impact of Income
Table 16. Park and Recreation Use: Impact ot Zip Code
Q.12-13: Would you say that rhe Questions 12 and 13 asked respondents to rate the range and qualityof Santa Monica's rec-
ofSantaMonica'srecreation reation opportunities. Because these questions shared a common root question and identi-
opportunities Is excellent, good, fair, cal response categories, GRA chose to group them together for a comparative presentation.
orpoor? The responses to the question were coded according to the following scale: `Excellent' = 3,
`Good' = 2, `Fair' =1 and 'Poor' = 0. Once again, the responses were aggregated and aver-
aged to develop a single mean score for each item, which can be interpreted according to the
scale above. A mean score of ' 1', for example, means that respondents overall rated the item
as `Fair'.
Figure 10 displays the mean scores assigned to the range of recreation opportunities and to
the qualityof recreation opportunities in the City by respondents as a whole. Both items
received a mean of slightly over `2', which indicates that respondents, as a group, view the
quality and range of these services as slightly above `Good'.
Ciry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 33
Parks and Recreation
Figure 10. Recreation Opportunities
~ Range ot recreation opportunities
~ Quality oi recreation opportunitlea
Table 17 displays the mean scores assigned to the range and quality of recreation opportuni-
ties in the City according to whether the respondent reports that they or someone in their
household has used a recreation facility or program during the past year and the respon-
dent's zip code neighborhood. For both the range and the quality of recreation opportuni-
ties, the differences in ratings are not significant based on household recreation use.
Although somewhat larger differences can be found in the ratings assigned by respondents
from different zip code neighborhoods, the most striking aspect of the results is the similarity
across subgroups.
The 1998 study did not ask a question that can be directly compared to these questions.
Table 17. Recreation Opportunities: Impact of Recreation Use and Zip Code
~~*. ~ ~1 1 >~t'~~~~~~~i. ~~~~ ..~ ~t t~ ~~~~ <
s~ a .a:~ ~~~o- ;
~q E~~ ~
~1~~ ~1 & ~3'~s.,
'~ -.
~~~tj~ ~ I~ 3g
~t~~7' -
~ r i ~i
~ g~
3~f~
~c ~ ~~~ :
~• ' $jr
~~. ~ , , ~
?
?58~ . ~~ ~ €
5
. .. ~ ,
~E~~~ ~€ ~~,~„;~ ~~$~4s. ,~, ~,~~', 2.10 2.10 2.11 2.25 2.07 2.13 2.09 2.16 1.99
(€ ~~ vt~f ~C~~~ ~
l~i t ~= w-„ ~~ ~
~
~
2.13
2.13
2.15
2.17
2.04
2.11
2.15
2.21
2.10
,
$iS,
, ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ R ia~
{~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~1i~~,y~~~. .i_~~[.: ~~ ~ ~
E.~..2~<~~~p.~FFA€I~IN~g ~E~„ 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.33 2.09 2.16 2.03 2.1 D t .88
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 34
Parks and Recreation
Q.14: In general, would you rate Question 14 asked respondents to rate Santa Monica's parks and recreation facilities on three
the Santa Monlca's different dimensions: appearance, accessibility and safety. As each item was tested using a
parks and recreation facr'litres as common root question and standard response categories, GRA grouped the responses
excellent, good, Farr or poor? together for presentation. The responses for each dimension were coded according to the fol-
lowing scale: 'Excellent' = 3, `Good' = 2, `Fair' =1 and `Poor' = 0. The responses were
then aggregated and averaged to derive a mean score for each dimension which can be
interpreted according to the aforementioned scale.
As shown in Figure 11, respondents assigned the highest rating to the appearance of the
parks and recreation facilities (2.14) , followed closely by the ease of getting to the parks and
facilities (2.11). Although the rating is still reasonably positive, respondents are compara-
tively less positive about the safety of Santa Monica's parks and recreation facilities (1.86) .
Figure 11. Parks and Recreation facilities
~ Appearanae
~ Ease oi getling to
~ Saiaty of
Table 18 displays the results for Question 14 according to whether someone from the respon-
dent's household has used a Santa Monica recreation facility or program during the past
year and their zip code neighborhood. Use of a recreation facility or program during the
past year does not significantly impact a respondent's perception of the parks and facilities
on any of the three dimensions tested. There are some significant differences across neigh-
borhoods, however, for each dimension tested. Most notably, respondents from the 90405
West neighborhood assign a substantially lower rating to the safety of parks and recreation
facilities in the City when compared to their counterparts in other neighborhoods.
Ciry ofSanta Mo~ica Reside~tSurvey Godbe Research & Malysis
Page 35
Parks and Recreatinn
Table 78. Parks and Recreation Facilities: Impact ot Recreation Use and Zip
Code
Although similar questions were employed in the 1998 study, the numerical scale used to
derive the mean scores is somewhat different than that used in the present study and the
1998 report does not indicate if responses of 'Don't Know/No Answer' were included in calcu-
lating the means. Nevertheless, GRA has compared the results after adjusting the numerical
scales and finds that the results are, statistically speaking, the same for both studies. In other
words, the ratings for Santa Monica's parks and recreation facilities in terms of appearance,
safety and accessibility have not changed significantly in the past year.
Ciry ofSanta Monica ResidentSurvey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 36
Li6rary Facilities
Library Facilities
The survey ne~ asked respondents several questions relating to library services offered by the
City of Santa Monica. When interpreting the following figures, please note that one of these
questions was only asked of a select group of respondents.
Q15.~ Has anyone In your Question 15 asked respondents whether they or someone living in their household has used
household used any Santa Monica the public library or a library service during the past year. As can be seen in Figure 12,
publiclibraryorllbraryservice approximately 64 percent of respondents answered `yes' to this question.
during the past 12 months?
Figure 12. Public Library Use
u~a~a,a
o.ax
Ye~
W.
No
94.9%
Question 15 asked respondents to report on their household's use of the library facility and
services, so it is appropriate to examine usage rates in relation to household characteristics,
but not the individual characteristics of the respondent. Tables 19-21 reveal that use of the
library facility or services during the past year is highest among households that also use one
or more of the social services tested in this survey (Q.36) , individuals with children, house-
holds who own their home rather than rent, Whites and members of `Other' ethnic groups,
and households that are located in the 90405 East and West neighborhoods.
It is worth noting that the aggregate results for this question in the present study are, statisti-
cally speaking, the same as found in the 1998 study.
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research &~nalysis
Page 37
Library Facilities
Table 19. Public Library Use: Impact of Service Use, Pa~ental Status and
Homeowner Status
Table 20. Public Library Use: Impace of Ethnicity
Table 21. Public Library Use: Impact of Zip Code
Clry o!'Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Researc6 & Analysis
Pa~e 38
Library Facilities
Q.16: Would you say that the For those respondents who reported that their household has used the library or a library ser-
availabrlrty of the materials you vice during the past year, the survey ne~t asked them to rate the availabiliry of the materials
wanted at the Iibrary was excellent, at the library. Overall, a large majority (80%) of respondents indicated that the availability
good, fair or poor? Was either 'Excellent' (31.8%) or `Good' (49.2%). Approximately 16 percent stated that the
availability was `Fair' and 2.7 percent indicated that is was `Poor'. These results are essen-
tially unchanged from the results found in the 1998 study.
Table 22. Availability of Library Materials
Q.17.~ O~era11, would you say that Question 17 asked all respondents how they would rate Santa Monica' public library services
Santa Monica 's public library overall. As shown in Table 23, a clear majority rated them as either `Excellenf (27.2%) or
services are excellent, ~ood, falr or `Good' (38.4%) , with 8 percent stating that they are 'Fair',1.2 percent responding that they
poor? are 'Poor', and over a quarter (25.?.%} of respondents indicating that they do not know or
are undecided. These results essentially rnirror the results from the 1998 study once one
takes into account the possible margin of error due to sampling.
Table 23. Public Library Services
~~~
u.
Poor
12%
Fab
B.O%
EswIMM
I'!2%
Gootl
aswx
C!ry ofSarrta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 39
Public Safety
Public Safety
This section presents the results from several questions relating to public safety. As in the
previous section, the reader should take care when interpreting the results as several of the
questions were only asked of a select group of respondents based on their answers to previous
questions.
Q. I8: When you are walking alone Question 18 asked respondents to rate how safe they feel when walking alone in several dif-
In (your/Santa Monlca's) , ferent areas of the City at different times of the day. For each area and time tested, the
would you say that you feel very responses were coded according to the following scale: `Very Safe' _+2, ' Reasonably Safe'
saFe, reasonablysafe, somewhar =+1, `Somewhat Unsafe' _-1 and 'Very Unsafe' _-2. The responses were then aggregated
unsafe, or very unsafe?
and averaged to derive a mean perceived safery score for each area and time. As always, the
means adhere to the original scale such that a mean of `+1', for example, indicates that
respondents as a whole feel `Reasonably Safe' in the area.
Figure 13 displays the mean perceived safety scores for each of the areas and times tested. As
is obvious from the Figure, perceived safety varies significantly depending on both the area
of the Ciry and the time of day. Overall, respondents feel most safe in business areas during
the day (1.82) , followed closely by their neighborhood during the day (1.62). Walking alone
in your neighborhood in general (without reference to time) received a mean score of 1.30,
whereas walking alone in your neighborhood at night received a ranking of 0.67. Respon-
dents felt the least safe walking in business areas at night as indicated by a mean score of
0.16.
Figure 1S. Personal Security
~ susiness areaa (aaY1
~ Neighbwhoods ~daY)
~ Neighborhoods (general)
^ Nelghborhoods (night)
~ Busineaa areaa (nlght)
City of Santa Monrca Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 40
Public Safety
Tables 24-26 display the mean perceived safety scores for various subgroups of respondents
for the readers' reference. It is worth noting that although large differences in mean scores
do not exist between neighborhoods for areas during the day, substantial differences exist in
the mean scores for walking alone in one's neighborhood at night and walking in business
areas at night. For example, respondents from 90401 assigned a mean score of 0.19 for per-
ceived safety at night on their neighborhood, whereas the corresponding figure for respon-
dents from 90402 is 1.01.
The 1998 report employed a substantially different numerical scale than that employed in
the present study to derive the means, which limits GRA's ability to directly compare the
results. Nevertheless, a comparison of the results suggests that perceived safety in the City's
business areas during evening hours has declined significantly during the past year,
although perceived safety in the business areas during the day has increased somewhat.
Table 24. Personal Security: Impact of Zip Code
Table 25. Personal Security: Impact of Gender, Age and Parental Status
Clty of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Researcb & Analysis
Page 41
Pu6lic Safety
Table 26. Pe~sonal Security: Impac! of Ethnicity
Q.19: In general, would you say Respondents were next asked to rate the enforcement of traffic laws in the City of Santa Mon-
that the enForcemenr oFrrat'Fc laws ica. As illustrated in Figure 14, almost two-thirds of respondents stated that the enforcement
in Santa Monica is excellent, good, nf traffir lawc i~ either `RxrPllent' (2(17%1 nr 'C:nnr~' (45 fi°~,l Annrnximatalv 2(1 narrant
--- --------- -_.... _.. ..------ ----~~__~--- ~-.... ..., .._ ____ ~ __.....,~ • --rr-~•----_u..,_~ .... r.,_...,...
t'arr or poor? stated that enforcement is `Fair', eight percent indicated it is `Poor', and five percent were
.._a....:a..a .._.._._.:ii.__ ._ _._._ .~._:_ __:_:__ mG_.._ __....i.......:____ ~L--- -r.L_ i nno -~--~--
U11UC~lUCl1 Ul U11W11llIl~ LU JLdIC LilCll U~J1111U11. 1I1CJC 1CSUILS ll1111U1 LIIUSC Ul tlle 1~~0 SLUUy
once one considers the possible margin of error associated with sampling.
Figure 7 4. Traf~c Law Enforcement
FaY
20.3%
ExcelleM
zo.ix
Gootl
43.6%
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 42
u~a~ima
Poor 5.2%
Public 5afety
Q.ZO: During the past 12 months, Question 20 asked respondents whether they or someone living in their household has been
have you or anyone in your the victim of a crime during the past year. Overall, slightly more than 10 percent (1~.5%)
household been the victim ofany answered this question 'yes'.
crime rn Santa Monica?
Figure 15. Crime Victim
Yes
1D.5%
From statistics gathered and published by the Department of Justice, including Uniform
Crime Reports and National Crime Surveys, we know that crime is not evenly distributed
across the population. Indeed, certain groups (males, ethnic minorities, youth) are dispro-
portionately the victim of personal crimes, especially violent crimes. Given the limited sam-
ple size for this study and the frequency of victimizations, a detailed comparison of
victimization experiences across respondent characteristics would not provide precise and
reliable estimates. Put simply, there are not enough cases of victimization to generalize to
the larger population. Nevertheless, Table 27 does provide some insight into how the victim-
izations reported in this survey are distributed across the City of Santa Monica. Once again,
one should use caution, given the limited number of cases, in generalizing these findings to
the larger population. It is worth noting, however, that this figures are, statistically speak-
ing, the same as reported in the 1998 study for the City.
Table 27. Crime Victim: Impact of Zip Code
t ~ ~• . ~; . ~ , ~ ~~ = .
~ ~~~i ~~ ~~ a~t ~a.
EB ' 3 #jt
?+ie~i ~/ ~'~. ~~g,yIj~~~~SN ~'~ 6
<:
~: a~r, ~~Y. :~`&'.A42~l~~} j ,.,-~4 ¢.9 ~~~
,.. ..
~ .
r [
~~i
~
~
. ., n~~:
. . .. . e ., , . ~€ ~'!42.95'AA~~ ~ @oS£&~A`~~ _ ~fY,1B`a~.~E>` .~-.:t
. , £h~
Y_ : .
, .
.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~r~ ~~~~~~, .`: 403 22 50 108 101 55 45
fiu~ F H1T [ f9 ~g~¢f -
~j 1 ST~+~ s~j ~F~ ~(~~~a~' ~
~~~ '
41 - 4
7 1 'I %
%
3
~t11 tP~?.~€€ p~~g~=~~~~~t~~,S,,.~ll~{£Sdt: 10.5% - 8.0°/a 10.0% 17.3% 12.6°k 6.6°k
~;
€~~ `~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~`
l
'~
~a{s ~~~ 89.5% I100.0%I 92.0% I 90.0% I 82.7% I 87.4% I 93.4% I
Ciry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 43
Public Safety
Q.Zl: Did you or a member ofyour For those respondents who reported that they or someone in their household has been be vic-
household report the crime(s) to the tim of a violent crime during the past 12 months, Question 21 asked them whether they or a
police? member of their household reported the crime (s) to the police. As shown in Figure 16, 76
percent of those who indicated they were victimized during the past year also reported the
crime to the police. The corresponding figure for the 1998 study was substantially less (55%)
although, once again, one should use caution in generalizing this finding due to the small
number of respondents who reported a victimization.
Figure 16. Report Crime
~
Q.22: During the past 12 months Question 22 asked all respondents whether they have called the police or 911 during the past
have you called the police or 911 in year. Overall, just 15.1 percent of respondents indicated that they have done so. The corre-
an emergency? sponding figure for the 1998 study was similar (15%).
17. Call 811
u~ana
ra. osx
~s.~x
ea.~x
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 44
Public Safety
Q.23: Did the police, Fre For those respondents that indicated they had called the police or 911 during the past year,
department, and or emergency the survey next asked them whether the police, fire department and/or emergency medical
medical vehicles respond tc~ your vehicles responded to the call. In some emergencies, multiple departments will respond to a
call? call, so the interviewers were instructed to mark more than one response if appropriate. Fig-
ure 18 displays the percentage of respondents that mentioned a particular response. As
shown in Figure 18, for those occasions that someone responds to the call, Police were the
most common (79.8%), followed by the Fire Department (23.9%) and Emergency Medical
Vehicles (12.2%). Seventeen percent of respondents indicated that nobody responded to their
call.
r:_..__ ~ e ~~~__.~_._. ~~~~~.~J~J
r~aY~C ^O• YCF/O~i~~~C~~4 RCir/V~~Y6Y
Police
rire uep[.
Nobodyresponded
Emergency medical
0.0% 40.0% 80.0%
Q.Z4-ZS.~ Overall, how would you For those individuals who indicated that the police, fire department and/or emergency med-
rare the ~n yoUr response ical vehicles responded to at least one of their calls during the past 12 months, the survey
to your call(s)? next asked them to rate the response tlme and the overall qualJtyof service they received in
response to their call. As these questions shared a common root question and set of response
options, GRA chose to present the results in a comparative format. The responses were coded
according to the following scale: `Excellent' = 3, `Good' = 2, 'Fair' =1 and `Poor' = 0. The
responses were then aggregated and averaged to derive a mean score for respondents overall.
A mean of `2', for example, indicates that respondents, as a group, rated the response time or
nualitv nf servir.e as 'Gnnd'_
z - --~ - -
~;rt„r., 1 a a;~„1~.,~ rh„ ..-,....., ~....r,... f..r },.,rl, r„~,,...,~,. *;,,,~ ~.,a ., ,..l;r„ .,F ~.,,<,;,... Tl,,. ..,~~„~
i i~uic i~ uiaYiay~ iiic iiicaii ~~uiw ivi wui iwYuii~c uiiic aiiu yuauiy vi aci vi~c. i iic iiicaiia
for both are above '2', which indicates that, as a group, respondents rated both the response
iime and ine quaiiry oi service they received in response to iheir caii~sj as between 'UOOd'
and `Excellent'. Although a question pertaining to response time was asked of respondents
City of Santa Monica Resldent Survey Godbe Research & Analysts
Page 45
Public Safety
in the 1998 study, the question wording is significantly different such that a direct compari-
son with the results of the present study is not possible.
Figure 19. Response experience
^ rteaponae chn.
^ Quality o( reaponae
Q.26: Have you had any contact Based on the results of Question 23, the interviewer knew whether respondents had contacted
with the Santa Monica police during Santa Monica police in an emergency during the past 12 months. For those who did not
rhe pasr IZmonths? already state that they had contact with the police in an emergency situation, Question 26
inquired as to whether they have had any contact with the Santa Monica police during the
past 12 months. As shown in Figure 20, approximately 30 percent (29.1~0) of the remaining
respondents indicated that they have had contact with the police during this time period.
Fiaure 20. Contact with Police
u~a.~wbd
0.6%
b
o.ax
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 46
Public Safety
Table 28 displays the percentage of respondents from each zip code neighborhood that
reported contact with the police. Respondents from the zip code neighborhoods 90404 and
90405 East and West reported the highest incidence of contact.
Table 28. Contact with Police: Impact of Zip Code
f~~~ _~~~~~ ~~4,~ - 356 20 46 95 83 48 43
~~ ~~ ~~
~~`~~ ~~v~ 104 4 9 28 28 17 14
~
t'~ y
4.
£ ~?~+.., 29.1% 20.0% 19.0% 29.7% 33.5% 36.0% 31.6%
...
.v37ifY~..~~3vA
-
_?~ E;, y~;~, ' '; 250 16 36 67 54 30 30
k q ,~u
~~~ ~~
"`
70.3°h
80.0%
78.6%
70.3%
65.4%
64.0%
68.4%
E
~~~
< .,
`~
~7~1 ~~~
~~~ 2 - ~ - ~ - -
.
,3
~ . ~ ...
~...r
.
iaS ? I~=~''~`S ;'iT i€€ ~'.:~ 0.6% I - ' 2.4% I - ' 1.2% ' - ' - '
Q.27.~ What was the nature of the For those individuals who reported having contact with the police in Question 26, Question
conracr rhar you had wirh rhe Sanra 27 inquired as to the nature of the contact. Respondents were free to answer this question
Monica police? withn>>t hPino rnnstrainPr~ tn a nartiriilar ~et nf resnnnse cateanriec Tnterviewers internreted
.._.....~. _.,--- -----__ _.. _ --- -- -- ---- ------ --~~-- -----
and then recorded their responses according to a pre-set list of response options. As is appar-
_ r..----- ~i . Ic~ roi~ _r.L_ _ ..cr.._..,i t_. _...._.._a.._~.. _. ..u,. ~,. ~..
eill lIl P1~Ule Ll, 111UJ1 ~JL.J%OJ Ul LI1C 1CJ~1U11JCJ U11C1CU Uy 1CJ~JUllUC11lS WC1C IIUI QU1C LU UC
classified into the pre-set categories and thus were coded into the `Other' category. Among
the remaining responses,l6 percent indicated they were a victim of a crime,11.5 percent
reported that they needed assistance or witnessed a crime,10.6 percent stated that they were
suspected of a traffic violation, 4.7 percent were undecided or unwilling to answer the ques-
tion, and 4.7 percent offered that they were suspected of breaking a law.
Figure 21. Nature ot Police Contact
^ ane.
~ vkum ot ~
^ Needea a..IsaKa w
~ Su~pnctW of traftk v4
~ Undeelded
~ 9wpectedoTcrlms
Ciry of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 47
Public Safety
Q.ZB: Would you say that the way For those respondents who reported having contact with the police during the past 12
the police handled the contact was months (Q.26) , Question 28 asked them to rate the way the police handled the contact.
excellent, good, fair, or poor? Overall, the vast majoriry (72%) rated the conduct of the police as either `Excellent' (42.1°~)
or `Good' (30.3%) . Approximately 11 percent stated that the conduct of the police was `Fair'
whereas approximately 12 percent indicated it was `Poor' and 4.7 percent stated they were
unsure or unwilling to answer the question. These results are, statistically speaking, the
same as those found in the 1998 study.
Figure 22. Police Contact Experience
u~axwsa
~.~x
Fak
70.7%
Fzxlbnt
{Y.7%
iooa
30.3X
Table 29. Police Contact Experience: Impac! of Nature of Contact
Naturally, one would suspect that the nature of the contact with the police may shape the
way a respondent perceives the conduct of the police. Put simply, a respondent whose con-
tact involved reporting a crime to the police will likely have a different experience than a
respondent who was suspected of breaking a law. Table 29 shows how the responses to Ques-
tion 28 are distributed across the nature of contact reported by the respondent. Although one
City ofSanta Monica Resldent Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 48
Public Safety
should be cautious in generalizing the results due to the small number of respondents in
several of the categories, the highest rating was provided by respondents who were in need of
assistance or witnessed a crime, whereas the lowest ratings were provided by individuals who
were victims of a crime or suspected of violating a law (traffic or other) .
Q.29: In general, would you say Question 29 asked all respondents to rate the qualiry of the Santa Monica Police Depart-
that the Santa Monica police do an ment's efforts to address neighborhood concerns. As shown in Figure 23, the vast majority of
excellenr, good, fair, or poorjob of respondents rate the Department's efforts as either `Excellent' (28.9%) or `Good' (47.6%).
addressingneighborhood concerns.~ Approximately 12 percent stated that the police do a`Fair' job,1.5 percent indicated the
police do a`Poor' job, and approximately 10 percent were undecided or unwilling to answer
the question. Compared to the results of the 1998 survey, residents appear to have not
changed their assessments of the Departmenfs efforts in this area.
Figure 23. Job of Adressing Neighborhood Concerns
Pmr
Fak
++ax
unasaa.a
iosx
oooa
17.8%
Table 30 shows how the answers to Question 29 are distributed across zip code neighbor-
hoods. Respondents from 90401 show lower than average ratings, whereas respondents from
90402 offered higher than average ratings.
City ofSanta Monica ResidentSurvey Codbe Research & Analysis
Page 49
Public 5afety
Table 30. Job ot Adressing Neighborhood Concerns: Impac! of Zip Code
Q.30: What could the Santa Monica Respondents were next asked, in an open-end format, to state what they feel the Santa Mon-
Pollce Deparr~~lerly do to lmprove;rs ica Police Department could do to improve its service. Up to three of the participants' verba-
servlce? tim responses were recorded by the interviewers, and GRA has coded and grouped the
responses for the readers' convenience. Because a respondent could offer more than one
suggestion, the percentages shown in Figure 24 reflect the percentage of respondents who
offered a given answer.
Figure 24. Suggestions for Potice Improvements
Irx~eased poGce presenoe
Better inleracfion skils and atfiWde
OCier
Flart~eless prablan
~vbre responsive
Traffic contrd (rrnre)
Wsi~ue corrrrenfs
Equal e~orcertentfa a9
Betler pri«ifies
Traffic mntrd (less)
Paking erfacefred
Nbre outreadi
0.0% 15.0°/a 30.D% 45.0%
City of Santa Monica Resideni Su~vey Godbe Reseat'ch & Analysts
Page 50
Public Safety
By far the most common suggestion was that the Santa Monica Police Department should
increase its presence in the City (42%) , followed by improve officer interaction skills and atti-
tude (18.5%), address the homeless problem (8.7%), be more responsive (7.1%) and
increase traffic control (6.2%). It is worth noting that approximately six percent of respon-
dents offered positive comments about the police rather than a specific suggestion for
improvement.
Although the 1998 study coded the responses into somewhat different categories, a compari-
son of the 1998 results with those of the present study indicate a consistent pattern to the
responses. The issues of police presence, the homeless and the attitude of officers topped the
lists in both studies.
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 51
City-Resident Communication
City-Resident Communication
One of the main research objectives of this study was to identify the sources of information
that residents use to find out about City events, news and programming, as well as their level
of satisfaction with the City's efforts to communicate with residents. This section of the
report presents the results of those questions in the survey that addressed Ciry-resident com-
munication.
Q.31: Are you satisfied or Question 31 asked respondents to identify their level of satisfaction with the City's efforts to
dr'ssatrsfed wrth rhe Clty's eft'ons to communicate with residents. As this question does not reference a particular means of com-
communicate with Santa Monica munication, it can be thought of as a general approval rating for the City's current commu-
residents rhrough newslerters, the nication efforts. As shown in Figure 25, just over 80 percent of respondents reported that they
Internet, and othermeans.~
are either `Very Satis~ed' (42%) or 'Somewhat Satisfied' (38.7%) with the City's efforts to
communicate with residents. Twelve percent of respondents indicated that they are dissatis-
fied with the City's efforts in this area (7.6°/o `Somewhat Dissatisfied, 4.6% `Very Dissatisfied') ,
whereas seven percent indicated that they did not know or refused to answer the question.
Although this question was not asked in the 1998 study, GRA has asked a similar question in
many other surveys that GRA has conducted for dozens of cities throughout California. In
comparison to these previous studies, the residents of Santa Monica express typical levels of
satisfaction with City-resident communication.
Figure 25. Satisfaction with Cily's Communication Efforts
unaeaaea
v.~x
sw~ u.,awn.a
7.6X
u.ox
SwtutYfbd
7&TX
Table 31 reveals how satisfaction with the City's efforts to communicate with residents varies
by zip code neighborhood. Several of the neighborhoods (90405 West and 90404) show sig-
nificantly higher satisfaction levels when compared to their counterparts. Nevertheless, sat-
isfaction levels exceed 70 percent among residents in each of the neighborhoods.
Clty of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 52
very ar..u.nea
City-Resident Communication
Table 31. Satisfaction with City's Communication Etforts: Impact of Zip Code
""'
a .Fa9 ( t . ~~ a
403
22
50
108
101
55
45
£ F y,F£ f t~t 3 E ~~g
j t
3£§f ~i~ ~
~3
~~
~
169
9
20
43
44
30
14
j
~"
€.>' ~
~~ ~.
a...~ 42.0% 40.9°h 40.8°h 40.2% 43.2% 54.6% 30.7%
a~ ~ e ?~i~~ 1~~ 4~~ ¢
~~~
~~~13~~1
d 156 7 19 38 45 16 20
~
b
i
w ~t~ 38.7°h 31.8% 37.3% 35.3% 45.1% 29.4% 43.4%
`~ '~' ~ 31 1 3 12 6 3 6
3;~~t ~~i~i~~~'~
~ , ,.,,a ~~~ a 7.6% 4.5% 6.1% 10.9% 5.9% 5.4% 13.0%
`~ ~ `~'
' 19 4 2 3 3 2 4
i{
#~lt1i#~~~ ~;
1~
~
~
~2j~j ~„~ ~ta~ s{t :~
.,,~..~ .. ,:y 4.6% 18.2% 3.9% 2.7% 2.9% 3.5% 8.7%
y '
tt~
I
~~~~
~ ~~~~1 29 1 6 12 3 4 2
.
t
~ ~~d
p~~~€ ~3j}~~~{ ~~ ~ E{€ p1'.r3t~iiii "' 7.1% 4.5% 11.8% 10.9°/a 2.9% 7.1% 4.2%
Q.32.• wharlnformation sources do Question 32 asked respondents, in an open-end fashion, to identify the information sources
you use to find out about Citynews, that they rely on for information about City news, events and programming. As respondents
information and programming? could rely on multiple sources, interviewers were instructed to record up to three sources per
respondent. Accordingly, the percentages shown in Figure 26 reflect the percentage of
respondents who mentioned the given information source.
26. Information Sources
ar nrres
Seascape new sletter
City N
Other
Undeaded
Santa Mmica Sui
Special postcard rraidngs
ary~s web site
Lookout
Aigonaut
Clty Car~ rrtgs (in person)
Nirror
Streetbanners
ary H~ «, csi
o.ar ie.or ao.o^r a5.o~r
The most commonly mentioned information source (43.6%) used by Santa Monica resi-
dents to obtain information about Ciry news, events and programming is Our Times, the
local supplement in the Los Angeles Times. Other frequently mentioned sources include the
Seascape newsletter (29.2%) , City television (Cable channel 16) (19.5%) , the Santa Monica
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 53
City-Resident Communication
Sun (15.2%) , special postcard mailings (14.1%) , and the City's web site (10.9%). It is also
worth mentioning that a significant percentage of respondents (17.4%) did not know where
they receive infarmation about Ciry news and events.
Table 32 displays the top information sources cited by respondents according to whether the
respondent indicated that they are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to
communicate with residents.
Table 32. Information Sources: Impact of Satisfaciion with Ciiy's
Communication Efforls
3~~ F€~ , nEE; . E3.n~ ~~~~i~!i~:
~ . ~~~~•$~: . ~~~..
Y Y ..~~ ~~ ~... 9:: ~,.~. ' ~Y
EJ 3~ ~~ ~ ` ~` €~t . . ~: P: 377 334 37
~~~~
C1
Ti
l$
~~~~~ 164 142 20
lEr
~
~
~ ~s~,gtt~ 43.6% 42.4% 54.2%
~ g~a ~p~ ~ ~~~~~~
~~~~
~~~
~~~ 110 97 10
~
§{
~~~ gl~;, 29.2% 29.2% 26.8%
;~ ~ g` ,a,
E~
~~~
` ~
~~
~~~ 74 60 12
i
,
~
~
,
; ,~ ~~~~ ~~,€~ ~ . 19.5% 18.0% 32.2%
~ ~ [[ e
~ E 66 56 10
~~r
3~~ '~
j
?. ., t
t~~t€ , =,~.E 17.5% 16J% 27.1 %
.~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~°
~ 65 62 3
t'
~ t ~ 1 i~ ~ i3 ~„~3 ~~~df 17.4% 18.4% 8.1 %
° a~~ ~
.€
~~
~ ~
g
57
49
8
~
~
at ~ 3
s~ °
F a~~~ ~ ~~ ~~?. 15.2% 14.8% 21.4
/a
~ ~~~ e ~ ~ ~
~
~
Fd ~ 53 50 3
t ~ ~~ ve ~ ~Ijjl~
~~
~ ~.'
R 4, r § :M'~ 3 ~t . 14.1 °h 15.0% 8.0°/a
~ E, ~.:~ ~ a t~~§~~ s~i ` v€
~S~{ ~~~~~~
f$
~~' 41 38 3
~
p ~g 10.9% 11.2% 7.9%
~~~~~~~st3 ~~, 24 21 3
~ ~~ jg
€ s ~~:.:33 i ~:.,. 6.5% 6.4% 8.0%
€t~++ ;~~~1'~t~~l ikf ~1€(i'
~ 20 16 4
:' ~~~ 5.4% 4.7% 107%
' ~ ~ ~~I~ ~'t1#}~E ~l#t ~ ~' 20 19 1
t~~ ~..: ~~~. :€ ~~ ~...d.fi"•' 5.2°h 5.6% 2.7%
,<`:
1~~i`~tl~ ~ 3ti
9
9
: _ ~a. .,°' ~~ , .::. ',; 2.4% 2.7°/a -
,g _? ca a~a ~ ~~ ~
~~t It1~~~~
'
~~~
~~ ~ ~~~~1
8°
s~
~
~
f,n~ Peti~9~ E ~ ~ . ,. . ££'~@{.". 2.1
/a 2.4% -
}$ y3 J
i ~~£~~1~#~d ~t~~ .: ~l~~t~~sE)I,'
~ C
V C
V
44~ .~;~t~~. ~.s% ~.8% -
City ofSanta Monlca Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 54
City-Resident Communication
Q.33.' Have yov seen the television Question 33 asked respondents if they have seen the television commercial featuring the
commercral on driver and bullfighter in traffic that addresses driver and pedestrian safety in the City. Overall, just over
pedesrrian saFery r'n rhe Ciry rhat eight percent of respondents recalled having seen the commercial.
features a bull~ghter in tr~c?
Figure 27. Seen Traf~c Safety Commercial
u~a.oww
9.TX R~~
•Oi osw
e.~ x
ea.ox
Cilv ofSanta Monlca Restde~t Survev
(:n~lhP Rasaar~h ~Z Analvsir
. --
Page 55
Socia] Services
Social Services
The final series of substantive questions in the survey were designed to gather information
about respondents' attitudes and behaviors with respect to volunteer work in the City as well
as a variety of social services offered by Santa Monica.
Q.35.~ The Clry ofSanta Monlca Question 35 first informed respondents that the City provides a number of social services to
provides a numberofsocial services residents. The question then asked the residents whether they perceive that there is a low,
ro resldenrs ofrhe Crry. I'm moderate or high unmet need for the service in the City or if all the needs are currently being
interesred in wherher you perce,ve met. Because the services shared a common root question and set of response categories,
that there are needs that are not
currenrly being met In cerraln GRA chose to present the results in a comparative format. The responses to this question
servrce areas....Is the unmetneed for were coded according to the following scale: 'High Unmet Need' _-3, `Moderate Unmet
thls servlce area low, moderate or Need' _-2, `Low Unmet Need' _-1, 'All Needs Met' = 0. The responses were then aggre-
high rn the Clty, or are a11 the needs gated and averaged for all respondents, thereby producing a mean score that reflects the
beingmet? average perceived unmet need for each service. A mean of `-1', for example, indicates that,
as a group, respondents perceive the unmet needs for a particular service to be `Low'.
Figure 28. Unmet Need for Services- Top Tier
~ Tranaportation
~ AdulteducaGon
~ Recreatlon (senlas-
^ SeH-helpsupport
~ Health eare access
^ ParenOng educatlon
~ Legal counseling
. Tutoring (young chlldren)
~ Counaeling
^ Adult care
Figures 28 and 29 display the mean scores for each of the services tested. Overall, respon-
dents did not perceive large differences in the amount of unmet need across most of the ser-
vices, and all of the services received mean scores that indicate respondents generally
perceive a'Moderate/Low' to 'Low' level of unmet need. Nevertheless, some differences are
noteworthy. The services that respondents' perceived the least amount of unmet need are
`Transportation' (-0.62), 'Adult Education' (-0.94), and 'Recreation for Seniors' (-1.02).
The remaining services were quite similar in the level of unmet need identified by respon-
City o£Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Malysls
Page 56
Social Services
dents, although respondents did assign a comparatively high mean score to `Affordable
housing assistance' (-1.54).
28. Unmet Need for Services- Bottom Tier
~ Domeatic Violence
~ ChitlWM
~ Tutoring (older youth)
. Emergency shelter aervicea
~ Job trolning
Recreatlon (persons wlth dkabllidw
~ Drug & alcohd
~ Reereatlon (teens)
~ AIDSIHN
^ Affwdable housing assiatance
For those readers who are interested in comparing the perceived level of unmet need for each
service across subgroups of respondents, Tables 33-36 show the mean perceived unmet need
scores according to whether someone in the respondent's household uses one or more of the
services tested and their zip code neighborhood.
Table 33. Unmet Need for Services: Impact ot Service Use (Top Tier)
~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~i~
~rir~Citl[ 1f~ ~ l~~s
_
'
~~
~~~~ -1.04 _1.03 _1.07
,
.
~
~~~~~ 3 ~1~'RRt~pSS7'~8#1tt E i ~!
r_: ~.~c.... -0.62 -0.51 -0.66
A~iUi~ at~i~ ~ € ~ ~~ : -0.94 -0.85 -0.98
~~~~~~ ~~~i~~{~~tt~~i~ -1.02 -0.91 -1.07
~siP~is~[ ` y
'_;
-1
09
21
-1
-1
07
,. ~,~ ~ ,~ . . .
i~ .. ~~~. ~E~ . . . F ~ ~ 2~:.
~
~~
-1.14
-1.20
-1.14
~ a '
~~` _1.18 -'1.25 -1.17
}~ ~3~j~d7~t4uT~ ~"~~~ ~.: -1.19 -1.13 -1.25
~
~ ~~ ~~~
~ ~~~5~
k ~
"`~~~~$ ~ -1.19 -1.26 -1.18
~
.,-§~: ~~~.
~ ~„ +~ ~l ?
~~~~ ~
' -1.20 -1.26 -1.21
,
~
,
i Stl~aG~Cdtdt`a ~`fa~c€ '~
[
[ -1.24 -1.22 -1.27
a>:~ ~
r1l
E
Ciry o!'Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 57
Social Services
Table 34. Unmet Need for Services: Impact oi Service Use (Bottom Tier)
.,.t S~~ `~~~~i
~ ~
` ; 8~88 ~ -1.33 -1.38 -1.33
{~5 1 ~ ~~ s~~~ f`;
~, ~ -1.23 -1.19 -1.30
~ hi~d~~r.l~ ~~~3,(Sr -1.24 -1.14 -1.29
k ~" "f ~ ~{
~ E,.. ~ ~ ~t~.?~ ^"'~'~~~. _1.25 -1.34 -1.25
£~ ~ ~n
~t ~ ~ ~
~
-128
-'I
OS
-'1
35
~
,
~~~aa~ ~'. . .
~1~3 fC~tlt1~~1~~ dy ~~~~ a~ -1.29 -1.50 -1.27
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ii~d~~R~lttft~t}~~~~ ~ ;' -1.31 -1.34 -1.33
~ CtkS~~ ~ v Q i~t~~~ ~ ~, -1.33 -1.53 -1.30
~l' _:~ $~5~ ,: -1.33 -1.43 -1.30
t~ ~~~~~ F ~~i ~~ ; ~~`t}~ 3 i r. ~ ^1.35 -1.32 -1.36
g~OI1i~~~$i~G~S! E~
~`~~~i~ ~4 fi:
4r4
~tu.~
'~.Sa
-~.~6
-~.rJ2
q
~~
~f~7R
~i3'€~, .~
Table 35. Unmet Need for Services: Impact of Zip Code (Top Tier)
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 58
Social Services
Table 36. Unmet Need for Services: Impact of Zip Code (Bottom Tier)
Q.36: Of the services 1 just Question 36 asked respondents whether they or someone in their household has used one or
mentioned, are there any services more of the services identified in Question 35 during the past 12 months. Overall, approxi-
thatyou ora memberoFyour mately 19 percent of respondents reported that one or more individuals in their household
householdha~e used during thepasr has used at least one of the identified services during the past year.
12 months?
30. Service Use
City ofSarata Monica Resident S~rrvey Godbe Research & Analysts
Page 59
unaaewea reetww
aax osx
Social Services
Tables 37-40 display the relationship between certain household characteristics and reported
use of social services offered by the City. Among the subgroups shown, reported household
use of at least one of the listed services is highest among households with one or more chil-
dren, households in which the respondent is Black or identifies him/herself as being of an
`Other' ethnic identity, households with a family income between $35,000 and $49,000 per
year, and households located in the 90405 East neighborhood.
Table 37. Service Use: Impact of Parental Status
Table 38. Service Use: Impact of Elhnicity
Citv ofSanta Monica Resldent Survev Gnrlhe Re.rearch ,6 Analvris
/ / Page 60
Social Services
Table 39. Service Use: Impact of Income
Table 40. Service Use: Impact of Zip Code
Q.37.~ I'm going to read several Respondents were next asked to indicate the role they perceive a variety of factors may play
factors that people occasionallysay in preventing some individuals from receiving social services for which they are eligible.
are why they do not receive services,
' Specifically, respondents were presented with a variery of factors and, for each one, asked
and I
d like you ro te11 me wbether
you feel each factor is a big problem, Whether they feel the factor is a big problem, a moderate problem, a small problem, or not a
a moderare problem, a sma11 problem in preventing people from receiving social services. As each of the services shared a
problem, or not a problem in common root question and standard set of response options, GRA has presented the results in
prevent~ngpeople From receivrng a format that allows for easy comparison across factors. The response categories were coded
servlces. according to the following scale: 'Big Problem' _-3, 'Moderate Problem' _-2, 'Small
Problem' _-1, 'Not a Problem' = 0. The responses were then aggregated and averaged to
provide a mean score which reflects the extent to which respondents as a group felt the factor
is a problem in preventing some individuals from receiving social services. A mean score of
'-2', for example, indicates that respondents, as a group, felt that the factor is a'Moderate
Problem'. The greater the negative score, the farther to the left the bar extends in Figure 31,
the more respondents felt the factor is a problem.
City o£Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 61
Social Services
As shown in Figure 31, respondents felt the top three problems (of those tested) which pre-
vent some individuals from receiving social services are 'Long waiting lists for services'
(-1.53), `Childcare is not available' (-1.38), and'Fees for services are too expensive' (-1.33).
On the other hand, `Lack of transportation' (-0.80) received a comparatively low negative
mean score, thus indicating that among the factors tested, respondents felt lack of transpor-
tation is the least important factor in explaining why some individuals do not receive ser-
vices.
Figure 31. Obstacles to Receiving Services
^ ~.a~k or o-a~P«~ano~
^ Inaonvenlenthours
~ Infamadon about servkes
. People provlding servkea are unsklll
~ Languaye barrkr
^ Too expensNe
~ Childcare unavallable
. Long waking Ilsb
Tables 41 and 42 display the means scores for various subgroups of Santa Monica residents
so that the reader can compare how the perceptions of a factors' role in explaining why some
individuals do not receive services vary according select characteristics. For example,
respondents who reported that someone in their household uses at least one of the social ser-
vices provided by the City felt that 'Inconvenient service hours', 'Fee for services are too
expensive' and ' Long waiting lists' were slighdy more important factors than did their coun-
terparts.
City of Santa Monica Resident Sttrvey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 62
Social Se~ices
Table 41. Obstacles to Receiving Services: Impact of Service Use and Zip
Code
Table 42. Obstacles to Receiving Services: Impact of Income
Q.38.~ As Iread each o1'thegroups or The next series of questions in the survey asked readers about their opinions and behaviors
resources, please tellme wherheryou with respect to community groups. Question 38 identified several different community
feel thegroup or resources is groups and resources active in the City of Santa Monica and asked the respondents to indi-
currenrlyhelpful or unhelpfulin
addressln~ communltyneeds. cate whether they feel each group/resource is currendy helpful or unhelpful in addressing
community needs. Figure 32 presents the results for each of the groups/resources tested.
The light grey bar indicates the percentage of respondents who indicated the group/resource
is helpful, the white bar represents the percentage of respondents who felt that the group/
resource is unhelpful, and the dark grey bar indicates the percentage who did not have an
opinion or refused to answer the question.
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 63
Social Services
Overall, the group/resource that received the highest percentage of `Helpful' mentions is
`Residents as volunteers' (71%) , followed closely by `City Government' (69%) ,`Neighbor-
hood Associations' (67%) and `Religious Congregations' (65%). It is also worth noting that
less than a majority of respondents perceive that the `County Government' (45%) and
`Entertainment Industry' (43%) are currently helpful in addressing community needs.
Figure 32. Helpfuiness of Other Community Resources
Rocirlcn4c ~c \/nliin4oorc
C~ty GOVt.
Neighborhood Assocs.
Religious Congregations
Retired ~rsons
Business Communiry
County Govt.
EnteRainment Industry
~Helpful
^Unhelpful
~Undecided
~-~
Crtv ofSanta Monrca Resident Survev Godbe Research X~ Analvsis
J J Page 64
0% 50% 100%
Social Services
Q.39: Do you vo~unteer for a Sanra Question 39 asked all respondents whether they volunteer for a Santa Monica based social
Monlca based social service service program, agency or community group. Overall, Approximately 18 percent of respon-
program, agency or community dents reported that they do volunteer for said type of group or program.
group?
Figure 33. Volunteer for a Social Service Program
872X
To provide the City of Santa Monica with a better understanding of the demographic and
behavioral profile of those that volunteer for a social service program, agency or community
arrn~n. Tahles 43-47 disnlav the nerr.enta~e nf vnlimteers ar.rn~.~ varirn~s suharnims nf Santa
o- --r ~ r-r --- r o o- -r
Monica residents. Among those surveyed, volunteering was most prevalent among individu-
als with one child in the household, those who have lived in Santa Monica for at least five
years, individuals 65 years of age or older, respondents with a family income of $100,000 per
year or more, those who reside in the 90405 West neighborhood, and those who are active in
other ways in the community, including donating or contributing to a Santa Monica based-
social service program, agency or community group, volunteering at a Santa Monica school,
or being an active member of a Santa Monica based neighborhood association.
Table 43. Voluntee~ for a Social Service Program: Impact of Parental Status
and Lens~th of Residence
Ciry ofSanta Montca Resldent Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 65
undeeaea p,~,..d
o.~x aex
Ye~
Socia] Services
Table 44. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impaci of Age
T~~~~ w~ •i~~...~.~~_ e__ _ c_~c~^ c~..."'~~ °~~~..~..~' •.Y___. _~ ~~__~_
^CY~Q 7~. YVtY~~~CCf~ ~Vf O~lV4~d~ ~1CfY~{iQ rrvararr~. ^f~~F/Y4L V~ ^fl{4Vf~7C
F
~ ~L ~~
~
~ 3 ~§
~
~ ~
~ ~~ ~
::;~, ~1"
.;.
F1H~t}~. . .::.
~
~~r~ .
,
4 ... ~
?,~ 'r.s" ~..r '
~ ~ ~& s ~~ ~
ffrsa~sIY
~ £E'sre
e.z., n
. ~~~~~~€
, . ~s A
sa.~,
~ ~~Y~
. .. .. ~~R r
..~~lP+a
.. . ~~3,.
~~ E
,,..,...
,
.., ..
.n. S
.
~ £
. ~c .e
~
~.;
~~ ~~'
j ~~~~{;' 403 42 61 58 52 39 54
3$~
~
~~
,
13 } €Ci ~IH3 E ~JI~~~~~ '~ }
~~~~~+
~
71
9
11
8 . _. .
7
7
12
~$a
€
~£~~ ~g~ ' 17.6% 21.1% 17.8% 13.5% ~
13.8% 17.6% 21.7%
~;~ `~€
~(~ '~~
~~a ~: 327 33 48 50 44 32 42
~
~
E 3 ~E ~~ E 81.2% 78.9% 78.9°/a 86.5% 84.4% 82.4% 78.3%
£i ~ x
y~
1~
t~~ ~r~~ll~~~ll~~~i~
-
-
~i~~I 0.7% - 3.3% - 1.9% - -
s~
sii `t ~1}AId ; i~~1~8i~ia~
Z
rr it~~,
0.5% - - - - - -
~:,~~~+a~ .
Table 46. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Zip Code
CiryofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 66
Social Services
Table 47. Volunteer for a Social Service Program: Impact of Other
Communitv Activism
Q.40: Do you donate or contribute Whereas Question 39 asked residents whether they volunteer for a social service program or
ro a Santa Monlca based soc;al agency in Santa Monica, Question 40 asked them whether they donate or contribute to a
servrce program, agency or Santa Monica based social service program, agency or community group. As one might
communltygroup? expect, the percentage of respondents answering `yes' to this question is significantly higher
than for Question 39. Overall, 41 percent of respondents indicated that they donate or con-
tribute to a Santa Monica based social service program, agency or community group.
Figure 34. Donate to Social Service Programs
r..
~t.
Mo
a~wx
Tables 48-51 show how the tendency to donate or contribute to a Santa Monica based social
service program, agency or community group varies according to a variety of resident char-
acteristics. This tendency is greatest among respondents with at least two children in the
household, individuals who have lived in the City for at least 5 years, respondents over the
age of 64, and individuals in the 90405 East and 90403 neighborhood. Given that donating
or contributing resources to a cause involves transferring personal income or assets to
another group, it should not be surprising that there is a strong relationship between family
Ciry of Santa Montca Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 67
u~a.~w.s n.n~.w
+.mc o.sx
Social Services
income and the act of donating or contributing. In short, the higher the family income of a
respondent, the more likely they are to have donated or contributed to a local social service
program, agency or community group.
Tabfe 48. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Parental Status and
Length of Residence
~ ~~~(
~ €
~ ': ~ ~~
~~
; 403 48 40 315 122 80 59 142
~~3
~
3
~~ £
EP 3 (
~~g~2~~ Q~~~~ E a ~~~! ~j~ ~~~ 165 21 21 124 42 36 27 61
~~'
,«:€sF. ~ ~~:,, ,, n, 41.1°/a 42.8% 52.5°/a 39.4% 34.1% 45.1% 45.1% 43.1°h
231 28 18 186 79 42 32 78
~~ p
33~4~~ ;
,., ~
~ 57.4% 57.2% 44.7% 59.0% 65.1% 52.3% 54.9% 54.7°k
{E1j~ ~`I33 €
333~~jR
€~ £~
~~ 4 ~ 3 ~ 2 ~ ~
~
.~~~ ~ 1 a~ n ,
~ s? ~~.~ ~~~
1.0% =
2.8%
1.0%
0.8%
2.6%
0.8%
'~`
[tdfua~tl 2 - - 2 - - ' 2
~~ ~~~;
. < : s. :r~'.. O.S% - - O.6°IO _ _ _ 1.4%
Table 48. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Age
City ofSanta Monica Resrdent Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 68
Social Services
Table 50. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact of Income
Table 51. Donate to Social Service Programs: Impact oi Zip Code
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysls
Page 69
5ocial Seryices
Q.41: Do you volunteer at a Santa Question 41 switched the focus away from local social service groups and agencies to local
Monica school? schools. Specifically, the question asked respondents whether they volunteer at a Santa Mon-
ica school. Overall, just 13 percent of respondents answered `yes' to this question.
35. Volunteer at Schoois
Undecided RNused
Yes OA% 0.9%
14.7%
8&S%
Table 52. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Parental Status and Length of
Residence
Tables 52-55 display how the tendency to volunteer at a Santa Monica school varies by a host
of demographic characteristics. Naturally, one would suspect that the strongest determinant
of volunteering for a local school is the presence of at least one child in the home. This is
indeed the case. Respondents with at least one child in the home are approximately five
times more likely to report having volunteered at a Santa Monica based school than their
counterparts without children. Volunteering was also found to be most prevalent among
respondents who have lived in the City between 10 and 14 years, individuals between the ages
City ofSanta Monica Resident Sctrvey Godbe Researc6 & Analysis
Page 70
Social Services
of 45 and 64, those with family incomes between $75,000 and $99,000, and those who reside
in the 90405 East neighborhood.
Table 53. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of
~` ~` "~~~` 403 38 193 105 62
t~~~~~ ~~ < ~~~ 51 4 24 ~ 19 5
~~ ?
12.7% 10.4% 12.4% 17.7% 7.9%
~~
~a..,,.x~:~ .~€I~ 3dA 3d ~R7 AR 57
p
3 ~3I `~~~~ ~~~
~~ ~
~~~~~~~
I~1~~~
~ EB
3~I0 ~ G%'
H9 8F)
6~Io I BZ.3~I0 I 92.1 ~~D I
I
p
3
yt;
j ~h €(31 i . . .
4~ €tt R~~ EP E ~~ & C~~~S~~ ~ 'Z _ '2 ' _
I una~crc~a ~ o
s~~o' - I ~
o% I - ' - I
t~ Pt wy,
i€i€i4t~4
n,r
7~liri . .
~
~
~
f ,.... ~. ~~. ~}~' ~E ~ 3~~E~ Sl)t~~~~+...,:
2
-
-
- +
- 1
]
(, ~~[ ni~t~~~si~rt~,~ )t~l`.[;<:~,3~i1 0.5% ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~
Table 54. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Income
Table 55. Volunteer at Schools: Impact of Zip Code
Ciry ofSanta Monlca Resldent Survey Godbe Research & Anal~sis
Page 71
Social Services
Q.41: Are you an active member of Question 41 asked respondents whether they are an active member of a Santa Monica neigh-
a Santa Monica neighborhood borhood association. Overall, just 13 percent of respondents indicated that they are an active
association? member of such an association.
Figure 36. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association
unasuma nen.ea
v~ o.sx o.sx
732%
~.8%
Tables 56-59 show how active participation in a neighborhood association varies according
to a host of resident characteristics in the City of Santa Monica. Overall, participation is
highest among individuals with two or more children, those who have resided in the City for
more than 5 years, individuals with family incomes of $75,000 per year or more, as well as
respondents from the 90401 and 90405 East neighborhoods. It is also worth noting that the
older a respondent is, the more likely they are to participate in a neighborhood association
in the Ciry.
Table 56. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Parental Status
and Lenath of Residence
Ciry of Santa Monica Resldent Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 72
Social Services
Table 57. Santa Monica Neighborhood Associalion: Impact of Age
Table 58. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Income
Table 58. Santa Monica Neighborhood Association: Impact of Zip Code
City of Santa Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 73
Social Services
Q.43: The City ofSanta Monica has The final substantive question of the survey first informed respondents that the City of Santa
l,mlred money to prov,de the variety Monica has limited funding with which to provide a variety of services. It then asked respon-
ot'services ot't'ered ro Its resldents, dents to indicate whether a given service should receive low, medium or high prioriry for
which means that some programs
must be given priority for funding funding given that there is not enough money to make every service a high priority. As each
over others... Do yov think ttris service shared a common root question and a standard set of response categories, GRA chose
service should receive low, medium, to present the results in a comparative format. The responses to this question were coded
orhigh prroriryForfcrnding.~ according to the following scale: `Low Priority' = 0, `Medium Priority' =1, 'High Priority'
= 2. The responses for all respondents were aggregated and then averaged to provide a
mean score which represents the priority level assigned to the service by respondents. A
mean score of ' 1', for example, indicates that respondents, as a group, think the service
should receive `Medium Priority' for funding.
As shown in Figure 37, all eight services tested received a mean score of at least ' 1', thus indi-
cating that respondents viewed each of the services tested as warranting at least `Medium
Priority' for funding. Nevertheless, respondents did differentiate between the services in
assigning priority for funding such that some services are seen as being slightly higher in
priority for funding than others. Overall, 'Juvenile Crime Prevention' (1.54) was the service
viewed as the highest priority, followed closely by 'Health Care' (1.50) ,'Services for School
Aged Youth' (1.44), 'Childcare' (1.43), 'Services for Seniors' (1.42), 'Services for the Dis-
abled' (1.39), `Affordable Housing' (1.34) and 'Employment Services' (1.21).
Figure 37. Service Funding Priorities
~ Jwenlle crime prevention
^ Heakh care
~ Services for youth
^ Chlldcare
~ 3ervices for senlors
^ Services for dkabled -
~ Attwdable houa~g
^ Employment aervkes
For those interested in how the mean priority scores assigned to each service tested in Ques-
tion 43 vary by respondent characteristics, Tables 60 and 61 present the scores for several
subgroups of Santa Monica residents. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that respon-
dents from households that currently use one or more of the social services provided by the
City assign very similar priority levels to each of the services tested when compared to their
City ofSanta Monica Resident Survey Godbe Research & Analysls
Page 74
Social Services
counterparts who do not use the services. Age also plays a significant role in determining
how respondents assign priority to certain services, most notably `Juvenile Crime Preven-
tion', 'Services for School Aged Youth', `Services for Seniors' and 'Employment Services'. Zip
code neighborhood and the presence of children in a home also had important effects on the
priority levels assigned to several services.
Table 60. Service Funding Priorities: Impact of Service Use and Age
€ d , , ~.i.,"M~?' g,
~,~'S..~}„ .: E
x ~ E'~:3~~
..7, }3 ~
~, ° j
s.. ~. ~ .~~ ~i
YY@Ca~i~: ~ P ~9':° F :P. ~ 9~.,.
~
41
~ ~8t3~ } ~~~ 1 1
38 1
40 1
37 1
41 1
44 1
39
. . . . . . .
~ ££
~t~if'9E1~[8 ~~~ ~ ~` ~
.
;
,,,g 1.54
1.49
1.54
1.36
1.50
1.66
1.59
€,.
' F[~11}h ~t9' j ~~ > 1
50 48
1 1.48 1
58 1
55 1
48 1
33
. . . . . .
~et'~f[G@s:f~tytlElfFk ~;~ 1.44 1.39 1.43 1.61 1.39 1.52 1.35
~~~~~~ 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '. 1.43 1.35 1.44 1.27 1.48 1.45 1.34
$~I'1t~G~B ~D!` ~~@tt#D1"~~ 1.42 1.37 1.42 1.21 1.38 1.51 1.49
Se~~~~~~3~~8b14~d ~; 1.39
~~~ 1.36 1.39 1.21 1.42 1.37 1.48
,~. `' 1
34
~ 1
45 129 L33 1
31 9
40 1
36
.
°
'.p>. . ~.,,. R; :. a . . . .
~
~~ ~' 1~ ~~,.es .; 1.21
1.15
1.20
1.41
1.24
1.14
1.15
Table 61. Service Funding Priorities: Impac! of Parental Status and Zip Code
City of Santa Monica Residenc Survey Godbe Research & Analysis
Page 75
Sample Demographics
Q.H.~ In the past IZmonths, about
hnw manv timec have vni~ attenrlerl
--.... ------v -----__ -~_ _, _ _ -------
the Farmer's Market in Santa
Nfnnica7
Sample Demographics
The questions presented in this final section of the report served dual purposes in the study.
On the one hand, they were useful for subdividing respondents and examining how the
answers to many of the other questions varied across certain demographic and behavioral
characteristics. Indeed, this was their primary purpose. On the other hand, however, the
answers to these questions also provide valuable information about the demographic and
behavioral profile of adult residents in the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, GRA has
elected to provide summary statistics for each of these questions for those readers who are
_a
iiiieie~ieu.
38. Farmer's Ma~ket
u~aseaed
92X
Did no1 al0e~d
t127
S3
7l.4%
7d
15A%
Q.i: Howmanyyearshaveyou
lived in Santa Monrca?
Figure 39. Length of Residence
s.
More A~n 74
352%
1
iax
i~.ax
n,~._to'_" ~i__,__ n__,~__'r.._____ n_1'__ n______i o i.__'__,_
~~~y uf ~a«~a ~v~uiuca iceafuer~i ~u~ vey vuuue nesearcu ar nira~yu~
Page 76
16 or......_
27.4% 77.7'J
8.1X
;/
Q.1.• WhichofthefollowinBcategories
best describesyour ethnicity? Wor~ld
you say thatyou are Caucasian or
White, Asian, Latino orHrspanic,
African Amerrcan orBlack, Native
American, orsome other ethniclty.~
" ~ ~ '" ~CL,o~
Sample mographics , ``/''""''
C _
~--~~ ~
Figure 46. Ethnicity
^ wnm
Latlno
~ ~~
Black
~ Roluaad
Undecidad
~ Haflve Nna~lCer
ana
Q.J.~ What was the total income of
your household before taxes in
1998?
47. Income
^ ~~a
sas,ooa~s~e.ssa
^ s~oo,ooo ~a an
ssaooos~a~~
^ t~s.ooo-ses,~s
Sj5~000~94,999
~ Utwkcidatl
$20~OOQ~24,999
~ S75.p0o-s19,999
5~0.00D,i~4~999
. 55~000-~B.9S9
Undar ~5,000
Ciry ofSanta Monica Resident Survey
Godbe Research & Malysir
Page 80