Item No. 11 - REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION FROM COUNCIL WOMAN DIAZ REQUESTING FOR STAFF TO REVIEW AND IMPLEMENT A GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAMAGENDA ITEM NO. 11
xft
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina I Office of the City Manager
DATE: June 1, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Carmany
City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION FROM COUNCILWOMAN DIAZ REQUESTING FOR
STAFF TO REVIEW AND IMPLEMENT A GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff.
DISCUSSION:
Per the City Council Standing Rules, Councilwoman Diaz is seeking the City Council's consensus to instruct staff
to review the current graffiti program and, if necessary, implement the following: cash reward for those reporting
the graffiti crime, institute a city graffiti fine, and program for restitution for those that can't pay the fee.
Councilwoman Diaz has provided a report on California Graffiti Removal Programs for reference (Attachment No.
Prepared by: Paulina Morales, Assistant City Manager
Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - California Graffiti Removal Programs
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Enhance the City Image and Effectiveness
Protect Public Safety
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
San Jose State University
SJSU ScholarWorks
Master's Projects
Spring 5-2014
Master's Theses and Graduate Research
California Graffiti Removal Programs: Benchmarking San Jose's
Graffiti Abatement Program against Best Practices in the Cities of
Long Beach, San Diego, and Santa Ana
Samantha Silva Tavares
San Jose State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/eld_projects
& Part of the Public Administration Commons
Recommended Citation
Tavares, Samantha Silva, "California Graffiti Removal Programs: Benchmarking San Jose's Graffiti
Abatement Program against Best Practices in the Cities of Long Beach, San Diego, and Santa Ana"
(2014). Master's Projects. 371.
DOI: https:Hdoi.org/l0.31979/etd.9y9q-szhf
https:Hscholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd-projects/371
This Master's Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at
SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects by an authorized administrator of SJSU
ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.
California Graffiti Removal Programs:
Benchmarking San Jose's Graffiti Abatement Program against Best Practices
in the Cities of Long Beach, San Diego, and Santa Ana
by
Samantha Silva Tavares
A Thesis Quality Research Project
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Masters Degree in
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Prof. Frances Edwards, Ph.D.
Adviser
The Graduate School
San Jose State University
May 2014
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Findings
City of San Josh
City of Long Beach
City of San Diego
City of Santa Ana
Analysis
Conclusion
Appendix A
References
It
5
16
20
20
27
34
42
52
60
62
63
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1: Evaluation of Graffiti Removal Programs 19
Figure 2: City of San Jose Graffiti Eradication Costs 21
Figure 3: PRNS Budget FY 2008-2013 25
Figure 4: Higher than expected contract costs with 2 years of 5 year contract 25
Figure 5: GPC Invoice Requirements 32
Figure 6: Decentralization of the City of San Diego Graffiti Abatement Efforts 40
Figure 7: Sanitation Enterprise Fund: Graffiti Abatement Program
Performance Measures 48
Figure 8: GPC Fee Schedule 48
Figure 9: Summary of Graffiti Removal Programs 52
Tables
Table 1: Graffiti Terns 6
Table 2: Anti -Graffiti Program Recommendations 18
Table 3: City of San Josh Anti -Graffiti Program Downsizing 21
Table 4: Time of Graffiti Removal, 2007-2011 22
Table 5: Timeline of Graffiti Removal, 2011-2013 22
Table 6: A Comparison of the Anti -Graffiti Program: Before and After Outsourcing 23
Table 7: Long Beach Graffiti Removal Program: Funding History FY 2008-2014 29
Table 8: Long Beach Graffiti Removal Times 31
Table 9: Vendor -Reported Totals Comparison 36
Table 10: Graffiti Control Program Budget and Staffing, FY 2008-2013 37
Table 11: Groups Conducting Abatement Efforts in San Diego 41
Table 12: Santa Ana Graffiti Abatement: Agencies and Responsibilities 44
Table 13: Santa Ana Graffiti Abatement Program 47
Table 14: City of Santa Ana Graffiti Removal Program Activity 50
Table 15: Four Cities Comparison 56
I. INTRODUCTION
Graffiti removal costs may be a financial burden to a municipality, especially one located
in California where public agencies face tax -draining constraints due to the impact of Proposition
13 on local revenue sources. A graffiti abatement program's expenditures include capital
equipment costs, staff costs, costs associated with criminally prosecuting and civilly suing a
graffiti writer, and societal costs (community impacts), which are not easily quantified.
Repairing the damage caused by graffiti is a financial burden on any locality, but failure to abate
the nuisance that graffiti represents can lead to property devaluation and community blight. The
purpose of this research is to use performance data from three benchmark cities and to determine
what practices may be best suited for the City of San Jose's Anti -Graffiti Program, and to
evaluate whether the recommendations given by the City Auditor's Office for enhancing the
graffiti abatement program follow best practices of other cities in California.
The City of San Jose's City Auditor's Office completed a comprehensive audit of the
City's Anti -Graffiti Program in June 2013. After their analysis, the Auditor's Office concluded
by recommending 20 enhancements to improve the program. This research will analyze whether
four of the recommendations are essential for the success of San Jose's graffiti abatement
program, based on widely accepted best practices of graffiti removal. The paper will specifically
analyze the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Ana, and the City of San Diego in California.
It is important to understand the recent history of San Jose's graffiti battle, and how the
current structure of their Anti -Graffiti Program evolved. During the mid-1980s, San Jose
communities began experiencing increases in drug -use, gang violence, and other criminal
activity (Action Collaboration Transformation: Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force Strategic
Work Plan Update, 2011). Mayor Susan Hammer launched Project Crackdown in response to
community members voicing their concerns to the Mayor and City Council. San Jose's Parks,
Recreation, and Neighborhood Services Department (PRNS), Police Department, and Code
Enforcement division worked together to improve the safety of San Jose neighborhoods. During
this time, offenders were referred to (PRNS) for community service, which entailed litter pick-up
and graffiti removal. In 1991, collaboration and coordination efforts were expanded to include
schools, community groups, law enforcement agencies, and the Santa Clara County Probation
Department, which led Mayor Hammer to create the Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force
(MGPTF). MGPTF responded to the "root causes of violence and anti -social behavior" (Action
Collaboration Transformation: Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force Strategic Work Plan
Update, 2011, p.13). The MGPTF structure includes a Policy Team, which monitors emerging
trends and facilitates collaboration, and a Technical Team, which executes policy direction set
out by the Policy Team and provides services to youth and families.
San Jose's Bringing Everyone's Strengths Together (B.E.S.T.) program was created in
1992 to allocate funding specifically for services in prevention, intervention, and law
enforcement (Action Collaboration Transformation: Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force
Strategic Work Plan Update, 2011). The grant program played a critical role in funding programs
impacting youth to reduce gang activity, violence, and criminal activity. Today, the program
allocates funds to reflect the City's changing needs. In 2010, B.E.S.T. lost its entire $4.7 million
budget but fortunately stayed afloat due to Mayor Chuck Reed's provision of $2.8 million from
the City's general fund to keep B.E.S.T. running (B.E.S.T. Evaluation Report and Summary of
Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force, 2011).
Mayor Ron Gonzales in 1999 began San Jose's extensive graffiti abatement program.
Mayor Gonzales is accredited with reducing graffiti by 94percent over an eight -year period in the
City. The program relied on community volunteers. Recruitments and trainings were held in San
Josh and by 2001, Mayor Gonzales announced the City had over 1,000 volunteers who helped to
paint over graffiti or otherwise remove graffiti from the community. That same year, San Jose
conducted its first citywide survey to measure the activity and progress of the MGPTF ((Action
Collaboration Transformation: Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force Strategic Work Plan
Update, 2011).
Despite significant budget challenges in 2006 to 2011, Mayor Chuck Reed and the City
Council continued to support MGPTF and the B.E.S.T Program because of the positive public
value both programs had on communities. PRNS addressed the need for more social programs to
stop the trend of anti -social behavior in San Josh, and the Anti -Graffiti Program was expanded to
help beautify the City through prevention and removal of graffiti. Wilson and Kelling have noted
that visual blight generally leads to additional neighborhood deterioration and crime, as
discussed in their The Atlantic article on "Broken Windows"(1982). Reducing graffiti and other
minor infractions tends to reduce overall crime. (Wilson & Kelling, 1984; Gladwell, 2002). From
2000 to 2007, San Jose experienced a steady decline of the number of tags reported and removed
in neighborhoods. In 2008, the trend reversed and the number of tags increased.
MGPTF in 2011 produced a Strategic Plan Update. One objective from "Part of Strategic
Goal 1- Service Delivery" is for the force to "continue and monitor strategies to reduce and
remove graffiti throughout the City" (p. 24). An outcome of this objective is for all gang -related
graffiti to be removed within 24 hours of being reported. One objective from "Part of Strategic
Goal 2-Education and Public Awareness" is for the force to "deploy information regarding crime
reporting options, restor[e] property damage (i.e., graffiti), and foster healthy neighborhoods
throughout the City of San Josh" (p. 28). It is evident that graffiti removal is a component of
MGPTF's path to achieve their mission: ensuring safe and healthy opportunities for San Jos6's
youth (Action Collaboration Transformation: Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force Strategic
Work Plan Update, 2011).
The District Attorney works closely with the Anti -Graffiti program through mandatory
sentencing of graffiti vandals. Penalties are based on the amount of damage an individual caused.
The California Penal Code states that if the cost of damage is four hundred dollars ($400) or
more, prosecutors have the option of charging an individual with a misdemeanor or felony.
Prior to 2011, the service model of the Anti -Graffiti Program prioritized tag removal on a
case -by -case basis and evaluated each case by size of the reported tag and the availability of
equipment (Graffiti Eradication Services Business Case Analysis, 2011). The program's
objective is to ensure timely eradiation of graffiti in coordination with enforcement activities that
address the monitoring and overall prevention of gang -related activity. PRNS used in-house staff
to facilitate community involvement and coordinate enforcement with the Police Department and
the Code Enforcement division (Graffiti Eradication Services Business Case Analysis, 2011). In
2010, the City employed 21.13 full-time employees in the Anti -Graffiti Program, but in 2011
reduced the number to 17.13 full-time employees, because of budget restrictions. A 24-hour
Hotline was available for community members to report graffiti in the City. The Anti -Graffiti
Program is a partner with Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Santa Clara County, Caltrans,
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Union Pacific Railroad, and the San Josh Downtown
Association.
In FY 2010-2011, the City of San Josh spent $553,564 on graffiti abatement. This
included labor, material costs, and City overhead costs. San Josh experienced a thirty-eight
percent increase in graffiti tags from the previous year. There were 16,755 incidents of graffiti
and it cost an average of $33.04 per incident to remove (SJ City Auditor Report, 2013). Some
funds were recovered using the approved restitution rate. These high costs associated with the
program, along with changes in staff and other resources, ultimately lead to San Jose hiring an
outside contractor, Graffiti Protective Coatings (GPC) in June 2011, to provide the graffiti
removal services.
In the spring of 2013 a large graffiti — RIP Tommy — was scrawled across the Union
Pacific trestle over I-280 near downtown San Jose. Just the most glaring in a string of vandalism,
the graffiti spurred the California Highway Patrol to develop a graffiti abatement patrol to try to
cut down the vandalism and related costs to public agency owners of the infrastructure. The
County District Attorney has agreed to seek the maximum penalties for the taggers.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
By the 1970s, graffiti writers began gaining fame in the United States, especially in New
York with the emergence of the famous graffiti artist, Taki 183 (Dickinson, 2008). Official
legislation on graffiti materialized during this time, but it was very difficult to convict graffiti
writers to stop the vandalism. Dickinson (2008) notes that in early 1973, only about 30 percent of
arrested graffiti writers were convicted in New York. Presently, city ordinances categorize
graffiti writers as vandals and city officials continue to push for tougher punishments. Graffiti
has evolved in the last forty years, and there is a contemporary perspective among some elements
in society that views graffiti as a form of artistic expression. Early graffiti writers viewed their
work as a means of communication. This is especially true in the United States, as gangs have
been known to use graffiti to communicate among themselves (Koon-Hwee Kan, 2001; Hasley
& Young, 2008; Taylor, 2012; Ten Eyck & Fischer, 2012).
Throughout history, the meaning and techniques of graffiti have evolved. Information
provided by the US Department of Justice, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(Weisel, 2004), describes the types of graffiti, their features, and the motives behind them. Table
1 summarizes how graffiti is defined for the purpose of this research.
Table 1: Graffiti Terms
Types of Graffiti
Features
Motives
■ Gang name or symbol, including
hand signs
• Gang member name(s) or
nickname(s), or sometimes a
Mark turf: Threaten violence;
Gang
roll -call listing of members
Boast if achievements; Honor
■ Numbers Distinctive, stylized
the slain; Insult/taunt other
alphabet
gangs
■ Key visible locations
• Enemy names and symbols, or
allies' names
• High -volume, accessible
locations
■ High -visibility, hard -to -read
Notoriety or prestige;
Common Tagger
locations
Defiance of authority
■ May be styled but simple name
or nickname tag or symbols
Tenacious(keep reta in
Artistic Tagger
■ Colorful and complex pictures
Artistic; Prestige or
recognition
Conventional
■ Sporadic, isolated, or systematic
Play; Rite of passage;
Graffiti
incidents
Excitement; Impulsive
Conventional
■ Sporadic, isolated, or systematic
Anger; Boredom; Resentment;
Graffiti:
incidents
Failure; Despair
Spontaneous
• Offensive content or symbols
• Racial, ethnic, or religious slurs
Ideological
■ Specific targets, such as
Anger; Hate; Political;
synagogues
Hostility; Defiance
■ Highly legible
■ Slogan
Source: Weisel, 2004
Weisel (2004) generalizes graffiti as the "wide range of markings, etchings and paintings
that deface public or private property" (p. 1). Although the essence of graffiti may be subjective,
it is still largely illegal in the United States, and municipal sociological theories are similar
across the nation: graffiti's initial appearance in neighborhoods tends to attract more graffiti and
leads to the perception of blight. Section 594 of the California Penal Code (Vandalism and
Malicious Mischief) is the most common code that law enforcement officials and prosecutors use
against graffiti offenders. Graffiti stakeholders have a difficult time defining the proper meaning,
use, and appearance of urban space; it is seen as owned in the form of property and territory
(Docuyanan, 2000). The appearance of graffiti tends to be perceived by residents as a sign of
urban decay and can lead to revenue loss for cities, such as reduced ridership on public
transportation, reduced retail sales, and declines in property value (Weisel, 2004). It is also a
public safety issue for municipalities, as residents may feel that graffiti is a sign that other
serious crime occurs in the area and residents may be inclined to avoid said areas. (Wilson &
Kelling, 1082; Gladwell, 2002)
City Implications
Graffiti defaces public and private property, and is found in a variety of jurisdictions.
Although largely associated with gangs, research has proven graffiti offenders come in all shapes
and sizes. Graffiti continues to be a problem for many local government agencies due to the high
costs associated with cleanup and prevention. In the U.S., an estimated $12 billion has been
spent on cleanup alone (Silver, 2013). Public entities and taxpayers sustain the costs for cleaning
public spaces, and residents and businesses pay to remove graffiti from private property.
Residents endure other issues from graffiti, such as feeling intimidated when entering graffiti -
ridden areas or using public transportation covered in graffiti (Skogan, 2008; Silver, 2013).
Graffiti consumes the limited resources of cities. Hasley and Young (2008) note that graffiti may
be associated with low-income areas because local agencies have fewer funds to remove the
graffiti quickly, not because persons from a low-income segment of the population "carry out
quantitatively more graffiti" (p. 7).
There has been increased acceptance of graffiti in popular culture and, simultaneously,
cities have been imposing harsher penalties on crime and vandalism associated with graffiti
(Hasley & Young, 2006; McAuliffe, 2012; Silver, 2013, Gee, 2013). Legislation has been passed
in multiple states that targets potential vandalism at the point of purchase, such as regulating the
sale of spray paint to persons twenty-one and older (Gee, 2013).
The Broken Windows Theory and Social Disorder
In the early 1980s, two social scientists, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, promoted
the view that graffiti is a criminal activity (1982). Wilson and Kelling argue that individuals are
more likely to commit crimes in neighborhoods that appear to be forgotten in their community.
There is link between order -maintenance crime -prevention, that "...serious street crime
flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked" (Wilson & Kelling, 1982, p. 5).
Wilson and Kelling (1982) claim that the signs of physical decay on property, such as broken
windows and graffiti, lead to social disorder as people interpret these neighborhood appearances
to mean that the community is indifferent to such decay. To avoid social disorder, William and
Kelling (1982) advise cities to "identify neighborhoods at the tipping point where the public
order is deteriorating but not unreclaimable, where the streets are used frequently but by
apprehensive people, where a window is likely to be broken at any time, and must quickly be
fixed it all are not to be shattered" (p. 10).
Furthermore, Malcolm Gladwell (2002), in his book, The Tipping Point: How Little
Things Can Make a Big Difference, introduces a concept that describes epidemics to be
"sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of the times and places in which they occur" (p.
139). Gladwell (2002) refers to this concept as the "Power of Context," which describes
"behavior [as] a function of social context" (p. 140), and he insists that graffiti removal played a
role in reversing New York's crime epidemic in the 1990s. During the 1980s, graffiti, public
disorder, and panhandling were invitations to more serious crimes. At this time, David Gunn,
president of the New York Transit Authority, used the Broken Windows Theory and focused on
minor offenses as he was driven to battle graffiti and become victorious. New methods of
removing graffiti were implemented. Gunn made certain that no graffiti -ridden train would be
mixed with new trains; a cleaning station was set up so that if a subway car became covered in
graffiti and the train would not be put back into service until the graffiti was removed. Gladwell
(2002) asserts that both the Power of Context and the Broken Windows Theory argue, "the
criminal ... is actually someone acutely sensitive to his environment, who is alert to all kinds of
cues, and who is prompted to commit crimes based on his perception of the world around him"
(p. 150).
Wesley G. Skogan (2008), a professor at Northwestern University, states social disorder
"undermines the capacity of neighborhoods to defend themselves" and that "criminogenic effects
of disorder stem from the attendant decline of informal social control" (p. 196). Although many
anti -graffiti city codes and ordinances are developed from this theory, recent studies have argued
that the perceptions of neighborhoods stem from their racial make-up. And yet, researchers and
residents would all agree: graffiti invites crime regardless of the location (Skogan, 2008; Gee,
2013; Silver, 2013).
Art versus Vandalism
Erik Wahl is internationally recognized as a thought -provoking graffiti artist. In his
recent book, Unthink: Rediscover Your Creative Genius, Wahl (2013) claims that in the last
century, graffiti has been "hijacked by vandals and tagged with the perception of [property]
destruction" (p151).
Contemporary graffiti can be categorized in a variety of ways. It is important to
separately categorize "graffiti" and "vandalism", as the two terms tend to be discussed in the
same context. It is widely accepted that graffiti involves damage to public and private property,
which leads to how a community is perceived (Koon-Hwee Kan, 2001;Hasley & Young, 2002,
Skogan, 2008). Hasley and Young (2008) argue that academic research does not demonstrate
that individuals who engage in graffiti also engage in other types of vandalism. Also, it cannot be
said that people committing acts of vandalism are always engaged in graffiti. As shown in Table
1, there are different dimensions of graffiti that include a variety of motivations for an individual
to produce graffiti. Graffiti is subjective to the public; it can be perceived as art or vandalism.
There is a blurry line between graffiti as an art and graffiti as property damage. Urban
areas have been attempting to decrease the problem of graffiti by using creative concepts to drive
urban change and regeneration (Koon-Hwee Kan, 2001; McAuliffe, 2012). There has been
development of legal graffiti programs to promote an avenue for graffiti writers, such as mural
art programs. Craw and her colleagues' (2006) research study determined that murals indeed
help to discourage graffiti from occurring. A cost -benefit analysis performed proved property
owners had a lower -cost of removing graffiti from a wall if a mural existed. However, Taylor
and Marais (2009) from the University of Western Australia conclude that murals do not solve
the graffiti proliferation problem. They find that if the artwork has a relationship to the viewers
and the graffiti artist in the neighborhood, it may have long-term benefits for society by lowering
the probability that graffiti would occur in the area. As Taylor and Marais (2009) claim, this type
of mural would "enhance, rather than detract, from property values" (p. 68).
10
According to Hasley and Young (2006), aesthetics is an important factor in determining
the thresholds dividing art from vandalism. How their artwork is perceived in a certain
environment is important to graffiti artists, and has little to do with the status they may receive
for partaking in an illegal activity (Koon-Hwee Kan, 2001; Khan, 2001). From various
interviews with graffiti writers, Hasley and Young (2006) concluded that it is rare for graffiti
writers to mention any thrill accompanying the breaking of the law. Graffiti writers see their
actions "governed by stringent ethical limits" (Hasley & Young, 2006, p. 297).
A current example of the division of whether graffiti artist are producing artwork or
engaging in a criminal activity is a battle the City of Oakland, California is enduring. The City is
grappling with a graffiti epidemic, and property owners are unfortunately on the losing side. In
2012-2013 the City spent $1 million on graffiti abatement (Artz, 2013). Property owners do not
want tagging or murals on their establishments. Many individuals are frustrated over the fiscal
impact of graffiti abatement programs on the ability to provide other services. Renowned city
graffiti artists, such as Ernest Doty, are charging storeowners a fee to paint a mural on their
property to discourage future tagging. City graffiti removers have reported that there is mixed
data on whether the murals deter graffiti (Koon-Hwee Kan, 2001; Artz, 2013). The City of
Oakland cannot clearly define whether graffiti is seen as a piece of art or vandalism. The City
Council passed a law that criminalizes tagging but also set aside $400,000 for mural projects
(Artz, 2013).
The Person Behind the Spray Can
Nathan Glazer (1979), an American sociologist, has claimed that graffiti appears to an
individual on the subway as "inescapable knowledge that the environment he must endure for an
hour or more a day is uncontrolled and uncontrollable, and that anyone can invade it to do
whatever damage and mischief the mind suggests"(p. 4). This idea insinuates that it is an innate
feeling graffiti writers have to create graffiti. Hasley and Young (2006) found graffiti writers
continued their work because of a sense of "pride, pleasure, the enjoyment derived from sharing
of an activity with friends, as well as the recognition obtained from the writing community" (p.
279).
Society has categorized graffiti offenders as deviants, youth, offenders, troublemakers,
and artists. Most creators in the United States have been estimated to be between the ages of 12
to 30, the majority younger than 18 years old (Khan, 2001). Hasley and Young (2002) note that
policies against graffiti writers are stereotyped and do not accommodate the complexity of the
culture. Surveying public discourse on graffiti, Hasley and Young found the same idea
throughout media reports, policy documents, academic writing, and public opinion: graffiti is the
work of teenaged boys, is the result of boredom, is associated with lower -income areas, and is
associated with other criminal activity. However, when graffiti culture is explored closely, the
stereotypes listed above are unsubstantiated. The motivations of graffiti, as shown in Table 1,
vary, as do the individuals who carry out the writing. As noted above, graffiti may be associated
with low-income areas because local agencies have fewer funds to remove the graffiti quickly -
not because persons from a low-income are "carry out quantitatively more graffiti" (Hasley &
Young, 2002, p. 7).
Contemporary graffiti has been showcased in multiple museums and art shows. Although
it may be true that certain graffiti artists have made a career out of their work, Dickinson (2008)
notes that a large majority of practitioners are still seen as illegitimate. In addition, he claims that
areas, in which graffiti has been routinely placed, are disappearing because of heavy policing and
privatization. Ducuyanan (2000) claims that graffiti writers engage in such activities to fulfill
12
their own "personal desires, needs, and motivations" (p. 105). On the West Coast during the
1970s and 1980, a phenomenon of hip -hop graffiti emerged. Distinct from other types of graffiti,
Lombard (2013) contends that hip -hop graffiti writers see themselves as "urban artists" as they
create tags, throw -ups, and pieces. As "cultural producers" (Dickinson, 2008, p. 39), graffiti
artists desire an enclosure to present their work and since this area is a shared, public place, it is
seen as intolerable by public and private agencies.
Myra Frances Taylor (2012) describes the social -psychological problem that leads
adolescents to become involved in graffiti writing: they are addicted to risk, recognition, and
respect that the graffiti lifestyle provides. Taylor (2012) asserts in her findings that current
research is shifting away from the causes of addiction to a greater understanding of the factors
that underpin addictive behaviors. She concludes her study by claiming, "treatment programs can
be proposed that effectively rehabilitate rather than simply punish recidivist graffiti offenders"
(p. 66). Other researchers, such as Ten Eyck and Fischer (2012), also argue that creating graffiti
includes risks such as arrest, gang activity, and stealing supplies. Their research finds that graffiti
writers are also communicating risk through their work by using walls as an area to express their
feelings.
Graffiti Management
California state and local governments continue to feel the effects of Proposition 13. In
1978 California voters agreed to limit the property tax rate to one percent of the initial purchase
price of a property, roll back property values and limit growth in assessed value, which meant
local governments were limited in raising local property tax rates or assessed property values to
raise additional revenues (Hoene, 2004). This loss of capacity, as well as control over the
property tax, hurts municipalities' ability to provide services demanded by their residents.
13
Without the ability to increase the revenue capacity generated by property tax, cities are "less
able to tie revenue decision to local needs" (Hoene, 2004, p. 70) and residents are "less likely to
understand how their tax revenues pay for local services and benefits to them" (Hoene, 2004, p.
70). Graffiti removal programs have been downsized in a majority of California local
government agencies as a result of shrinking revenue sources.
Municipalities have engaged in contemporary graffiti management programs. McAuliffe
(2012) points to three primary practices of graffiti management: enforcement, removal, and
engagement. The first two involve coordination with law enforcement officers, reporting and
recording mechanisms, as well as efforts to physically remove graffiti from property. The latter
involves engagement with graffiti writers to limit their involvement in such acts of perceived
vandalism (Barnard, 2006; McAuliffe, 2012).
In San Josh, California, the "graffiti war" is improving in city neighborhoods but they
have encountered a typical problem in urban areas. As a 2013 San Josh Mercury News article
lamented, "[a]s San Josh officials report progress scrubbing graffiti from city neighborhoods,
taggers have taken to freeways and rail trestles where their spray -painted scrawlings are more
visible and harder to clean, leading many to feel the vandals are winning" (Woolfolk, 2013).
In California, Caltrans is responsible for graffiti removal on the freeways. Cities are left helpless
as graffiti encompasses their communities on freeways and privately owned rail road tracks,
jurisdictions where the city has no legal right to demand the removal of graffiti.
Using the City of Sydney as a case study, McAuliffe (2012) points to an ambiguity in the
City's graffiti management program. Although graffiti is illegal, it became city policy to not
remove certain graffiti art from public places because of their perception as public art. This has
14
lead to barriers for the City to implement successful incorporation of an effective graffiti
management program.
Best Practices
Research shows it is important for cities to confront the criminal behavior of graffiti writers
by creating a comprehensive city ordinance based on state law. Matthew Silver (2013), a lawyer
in Irvine, California, believes an effective city ordinance should include the following:
• Graffiti writers and guardians be held equally responsible for the costs and expenses of
graffiti abatement
• Define graffiti broadly and include a standard for determining liability for graffiti
violation
• Other enforcement remedies, such as the ability to recover civil penalties of up to $1,000
for each incident
• Cost associated with property cleanup paid by the graffiti writer or guardian through a
lien or special assessment
• Establish an effective enforcement system for the ordinance among the city departments
Silver (2013) assures that after cities have implemented such an ordinance, they may see that it
"reduce(d) the economic and societal costs of graffiti in the community, while providing an
effective deterrent for taggers and impetus for their... guardians" (p. 19).
The Graffiti Consultants, a consulting company focused on the development and
implementation of highly successful graffiti reducing strategies, has helped a variety of U.S.
cities combat in graffiti through removal. For a municipality to be successful, the company
prescribes 10 steps that should be implemented:
1. City -Wide Anti -Graffiti Survey
2. Volunteers and Free Supplies
3. What Not to Do (avoid group paint outs, newsletters, community conferences, mass
postal mail outs)
4. Juvenile Justice System that Treats Graffiti Violations Seriously
5. Police Officers Dedicated to Graffiti Cases
6. Graffiti Hotline and Proactive Graffiti Abatement
15
7. Strong Anti -Graffiti Ordinance
8. Alternatives to Graffiti
9. Grab Bag of General Graffiti Related Information
10. Cooperation with Other Agencies
Graffiti Hurts- Care for Your Community is a grassroots community education program
developed in 1996 through a grant from The Sherman -Williams Company. The purpose of the
program is to raise awareness about the negative effects of graffiti and this is done through
education and prevention activities. Their recommendations for graffiti removal are in line with
best practices from scholars: it should be done in 24 hours, use the same paint color when
painting over a surface to avoid the patchwork effect, and protect the surface from further graffiti
with protective coatings (Graffiti Hurts, 2013).
III. METHODOLOGY
As California continues to climb out of recession, public expenditures are continuously
analyzed to ensure that funds are being used efficiently and effectively. Graffiti removal
programs, whether staffed by city -paid workers or by community volunteers, are important to
cities. In 2007, graffiti removal costs in Los Angeles County were nearly $30 million; this does
not include the societal costs, which are the hardest to quantify. The first part of this research
used elements of the Literature Review above to create a list of best practices in graffiti removal.
The second part analyzed graffiti removal programs in three similarly situated cities in
California: the City of Long Beach, the City of Santa Ana, and the City of San Diego, and then
compared them to the City Auditor's suggested enhancements of the City of San Jose's program.
This research benchmarked the City of San Jose's Anti -Graffiti program against the cities
of Long Beach, Santa Ana, and San Diego. The purpose is to identify and measure differences in
16
organizational practices for the purpose of undertaking relevant comparisons between groups.
The actual functions performed by the three cities were gathered. These functions were
compared with the four recommendations from the City of San Jose's Auditor's Office to
determine whether these recommendations are essential for the success of a city's graffiti
abatement program.
Although all four local government agencies are experiencing different budget limitations
or local issues, each jurisdiction functions under Section 594 of the California Penal Code and
shares similar socioeconomic and demographics factors. In examining each graffiti abatement
program, it is crucial to understand the political and economic conditions of each city and how
each city was coping under budget limitations in California. This required research drawn from
newspaper articles, staff reports, budget documents, and other city -related documents. These
documents are available on each agency's website. Interviews were conducted with city staff to
obtain further information about each organization's program, as well. Only eight questions in
length, the interviews provided another perspective on the programs and created a better
understanding of staff s varying roles in their respective graffiti removal programs.
The fundamental part of the analysis is to determine whether the San Jose's City
Auditor's recommendations, seen as best practices standards, are imperative for a successful
graffiti removal program. Academic articles and information provided by graffiti removal
experts on best practices were used to create criteria to determine which recommendations from
San Jose's audit report were selected for the purpose of this paper.
17
Below are the four recommendations:
Table 2: Anti -Graffiti Program Recommendations
Recommendation # 7
PRNS should propose amending the Municipal Code to specify and
reduce the number of days that graffiti is allowed to persist on
property before action is taken, with special consideration for urgent
graffiti.
Recommendation # 11
To address graffiti on freeways, railways, and expressways, the City
should continue building relationships by:
• Continue meeting periodically with large property owners
(e.g. Caltrans and Union Pacific Railroad) who also have a
graffiti problem, to address their joint areas of concerns; and
• Explore possible Memoranda of Understanding between
parties
Recommendation # 17
To improve its community involvement goals, PRNS should
dedicate additional staff time to increasing volunteer efforts.
Recommendation # 19
PRNS should work to improve the Anti -Graffiti Program's visibility
and accessibility through:
• Brochures
• Language accessibility
• Physical accessibility
• Unifying contact information
• Website information
Source: City of San Jose, Office of the City Auditor, June 2013.
In order to effectively analyze each program and benchmark them against the stated
recommendations, a logic model was used to evaluate the structure of graffiti removal programs.
Figure 1 displays the logic model used in this research. It depicts the programs' similarities and
differences based on: goals and objectives, inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts.
Inputs refer to the financial and human resources needed to operate the program. Activities refer
to how said resources are used. Outputs refer to the units of service resulting from activities.
Outcomes refer to the changed conditions for communities, as a result of inputs and activities.
There are both short-term and long-term activities. Impacts are changes in the organization or
communities. External factors affect all five categories and vary between jurisdictions.
18
Figure 1: Evaluation of Graffiti Removal Programs
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS) OUTCOMES5Changa
How are the
Financial
Units of Changed
and human
resources
service conditions for
resources
used:
resulting communities:
needed to
-Public
from
•Short-term
operate the
activities:
i
program:
Ouh
efforts
-Graffiti
-Less •Less ur
-Budget
-Graffiti
removal data
blight
-Staff
removal
-Materials
process
•Contracts
ITS COMPLIES
WITH BEST
s in PRACTICES
ition o
) List of best
practLces the
lance the pro r
'S I
pan
EXTERNAL FACTORS
u u (Budgetaryandlorsocietalfact..) u u
The goal of this benchmarking research is to provide best practices recommendations to
California cities encountering graffiti removal issues. Performance data from each of the four
cities was collected in a matrix to permit comparison, and to determine which factors are more
likely to predict success (Figure 1). Performance data from the three benchmark cities were used
to determine what practices may be best suited for San Jose, as all four cities simultaneously face
budget restraints, and the Analysis will determine if one City's strategies are more effective than
another, leading to a recommendation for structuring a successful city graffiti removal program.
19
IV. FINDINGS
City of San Jose
Known as the capital of the Silicon Valley, the City of San Josh covers 176 square miles
in the Bay Area with a population nearing one million. Over 80 percent of San Josh residents
have graduated from high school and almost 40 percent of residents hold a Bachelor's degree
(US Census Bureau, 2012a). According to the US Census Bureau, the City's racial make-up is 43
percent White, 4 percent Black or African American, 32 percent Asian, and 33 percent
Hispanic/Latino of any race. Males ages 18 to 24 make up 31 percent of the population and San
Jose's median household is $81,349 (US Census Bureau, 2012a).
San Jose's Anti -Graffiti Program is found in the PRNS Department. Prior to San Jose's
contract with Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. (GPC), city crews performed graffiti abatement.
Services were provided Monday through Friday on city property. Service requests were sent to
the program's office and their target goal was to remove graffiti within 24-48 hours (City of San
Josh, Office of the City Auditor, 2013).
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc.
Facing financial constraints, PRNS performed an analysis in 2011 to outsource graffiti
removal services. The City entered into a five-year contract with GPC and total funds are not to
exceed $3,159,505. Under the new vendor model for graffiti removal, the City estimated a total
$600,000 in cost -savings. Figure 2 shows decreasing graffiti eradication costs in FY 2012-2013
compared to FY 2011-2012 and Table 3 compares costs before and after the City contracted out
graffiti abatement services, resulting in significant program downsizing.
20
Figure 2: City of San Josh Graffiti Eradication Costs
CPC Eradication
Casts
5100,000.00
580,000.00
tFY11112
$20,O00.00 - FY12113
WOO
Month of Service
Source: City of San Jose Memorandum, 02/25/2013
Table 3: City of San Josh Anti -Graffiti Program Downsizing
FY 2008-2009
FY 2012-2013
Budget Total
$1.66 billion
$1.2 million
FTE
18
3.75
Source: City of San Josh Office of the City Auditor, 2013
San Jose's goals of beginning a new vendor model for removal services were to abate
100 percent of graffiti requests in 24 hours, remove graffiti in unassigned areas within 48 hours,
and abate gang tags within 24 hours. An outcome goal of GPC's abatement is to eliminate
secondary graffiti by color matching. A second outcome goal is using an online work order and
database system, known commonly as the San Jose Clean Smartphone application (Edmond -
Mares, 2011). The application allows the user to upload a photo of the graffiti, and the phone's
GPS then adds location information. This is used to manage response routes for GPC.
Graffiti removal response times prior to contracting out services are shown in Table 4.
Starting in 2007, City crews were able to improve removal efforts each fiscal year, removing 86
percent of hotline reports within 48 hours and 89 percent of gang graffiti within 24 hours, and
ending FY 2010-2011 with removal percentages of 99 and 100 respectively. Table 5 depicts
21
results from 2011-2013, when the City entered into a contract with GPC; outputs were not as
expected. An overwhelming positive response from the San Josh Clean Smartphone application
and limited funding resulted in challenges for the vendor to reach the goal of graffiti removal
within 24-48 hours (City of San Josh, Office of the City Auditor, 2013).
Table 4: Time of Graffiti Removal, 2007-2011
Tar et
FY 2007-
2008
FY 2008-
2009
FY 2009-
2010
FY 2010-
2011
Hotline Graffiti
100% within 48 hours
86%
84%
99%
99%
Gang Graffiti
100% within 24 hours
89%
92%
99%
100%
Source: City of San Jose Office of the City Auditor, 2013
Table 5: Timeline of Graffiti Removal, 2011-2013
Target
Actual
Assigned Areas
100% within 24 hours
63% within 24 hours
84%within 48 hours
Unassigned Areas
100% within 48 hours
88% within 48 hours
Citywide, Urgent
100% within 24 hours
85% within 24 hours
Citywide, All
None
67% within 24 hours
86% within 48 hours
Source: City of San Josh Office of the City Auditor, 2013
According to San Jos6's five-year contract with GPC, a new service delivery model was
implemented. GPC focuses eradication in an assigned area to restore the area to a manageable
maintenance level. Preliminary assigned areas were selected based on 2011 graffiti survey results
and gang activity data. Once the assigned areas were contained, GPC would become assigned to
another area. The new system created a centralized work order management system and digital
filing system that supports law enforcement investigative activities and continued utilizing the
24-hour hotline (City of San Jos&, Office of the City Auditor, 2013).
Table 6 compares the Anti -Graffiti Program before and after contracting out services.
Program components include community involvement, enforcement eradication, budget and
staffing, and performance targets. As stated previously, budget and staff were reduced. It is
22
important to note police investigators are no longer dedicated to graffiti cases and community
involvement has weakened.
Table 6: A Comparison of the Anti -Graffiti Program: Before and After Outsourcing
Program
comp—M
Bffare
After
Outreach to private property owners
o to advise property owners on Meir odtpoons
to remove graffiti
a to encourage voluntary comprunce v to free
paint
oto seek permission for gremtl removal
Annual Volunteer Recognition Event
C i,
P�blk service announcements
Progam in( oration provided on website and
brvolvennent
A—] Volunteer Recognition Event
local civic television channel
Partnerships with "San Jose Beautiful" and
the Strong Neighborhoods Initatne
Volunteer rec-ictnent and training at
schools, neighbafood associations
Program information provided on webste
and local r i television channel
2 dedicated pobce e t gators + occasional
additional support though approved
6rforcanerrt
overtime
Ongoing coordination with the District
When needed, coordination with the District
Atoorney, s Office
Attorney's Office
Expedited Code Enforcement process to
Forwarding problem sites to Code Enforcement
address problem sites and hardto., —
graffiti
10-12 minter once wakens
Proactive routes + woprk rag to service
3 - 4 tedsnicians
requests
Covers entire City footprint
Assigned areas: Proactive + responding to
Monday through Friday.
_Kit � �
Unassigned areas: Responding to service
`Uadiation"
• Specific weekend routes of i—ile Offers end
supervised by County proti baon staff
requests
7 days a week
• Specific weekend routes of juvenile offenders
Speck weekend routes of juvenile oflenders
supervised by City staff through the County
supervised by County Probation staff
Sentencing Alternatives Program
Oow�nersoi g coordination with major property
• Ongoing coordination with major property
(e.g. Car— and Union Paces) and
ff owners (e.g. Carans and Union Pacific) and
« casional partnerships to address specific c sits
occasional partnerships to address specific
Budget and
$1.7 Million
$1.1 Milion
Sam
1a13 FWltime equivalents
3.75 FWltime equivalents
• Assigned area: Service requests completed
• Service requests completed within 48 hours
within 24 hours
• Unassigned area: Service requests competed
Paf a
(goal of 95%)
Gang Graffiti r—ed within 24 hours (goal
within 48 h—
Ta
of 100%)
Gang Graffiti nert—red within 24 hos s (goal of
• Percentage of graffiti occurrences in City
parks mrscs ed within 24 hours (goal of 99%)
100%)
Percent of astaners rating City d is A
removing V-%b as goad a better (god of
90%)
Source: City of San Jose Office of the City Auditor, 2013
The Graffiti Services Review Committee was established in October 2011 to observe and
provide feedback of GPC's services tocity staff and City Council. The committee is responsible
for the submission of semi-annual reports that analyze GPC's work output. Since their inception,
23
the committee has produced four reports. All four reports continually reported a volunteer
network of 3,600. One report claims there are "...plans to use a new volunteer data management
system..." (Edmonds -Mares, 2013, p. 6). Unfortunately, San JOWs anticipated large base of
volunteers did not materialize. In addition, the Committee's semi-annual reports contradict
information from Table 5. The reports state that GPC abated 96-98 percent of graffiti incidents
within 48 hours, which included all work orders, even those not done by GPC (Edmonds -Mares,
2013).
A majority of service reports in 2012 were made through the San Josh Clean Smartphone
application: from July 1, 2012 to December of the same year, there were 6,610 reports, compared
to 1,228 email and 2,276 calls to the hotline (Edmonds -Mares, 2013). As a result of the escalated
use of the San Josh Clean Smartphone application, GPC's budget quickly increased as orders
were completed in unassigned areas. Figure 3 displays the high costs the program sustained in
2011-2013 after contracting out. As shown in Figure 4, the City estimated $63,901 in annual
costs for graffiti removal. Actual costs in 2011 and 2012 were closer to $800,000. The City
underestimated square footage of the restorative model, and the language found in the contract
specifying removal efforts was not detailed (City of San Josh, Office of the City Auditor, 2013).
24
Figure 3: PRNS Budget FY 2008-2013
■ Gra2d Removal is Other
$2,000.000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1.400.000
$1.200.000
$1,000.000
$800,000
$600.000
$400.000
$200.000
$
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
*This graph does not include additional funding Gom other City resarces that contributed
to PRNS' efforts.
Source: City of San Josh Office of the City Auditor, 2013
Figure 4: Higher than expected contract costs with 2 years of 5 year contract
EatlmatedAnnual Cow ;631,901 1631190i 1631,901 r
Annual Spending $800.000 $815.000 $1.544,503
09 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: City of San Jose Office of the City Auditor, 2013
San Jose Municipal Code
Graffiti is defined as creating a condition of blight and as a public nuisance in San Jose's
municipal code (2005), which focuses on property owners' responsibility to remove graffiti
within a timely manner. Section 17.02.060 states that once an abatement order is issued, the
owner has fifteen days to complete the removal. Citation procedures and administrative remedies
are described in Chapter 1.15 and 1.14 respectively. Chapter 1.08 details the enforcement
provisions of all codes in the City. The City has been removing graffiti from private property
without receiving consent or reimbursement, leading to a lack of voluntary compliance and a
25
continued use of funds that were not directed for such work (City of San Jose, Office of the City
Auditor, 2013).
Collaboration and Public Outreach
San Jos6's Anti -Graffiti Program strives to remove graffiti through community involvement,
eradication, and enforcement, with the help of volunteers, SJPD, city staff, GPC and outside
agencies:
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• Santa Clara County Probation Department
• Caltrans
• Caltrain
• California Highway Patrol
• Valley Transportation Authority
• Union Pacific Railroad
The city's improved graffiti model contacts Caltrans local managers, thus bypassing Caltrans'
work order system. The use of Caltrans' automated service request system resulted in average
response times of 30 days (Edmonds -Mares, 2012). The increased coordination efforts have led
to the removal of graffiti from private property, and are providing public education as to which
appropriate agency to report graffiti to (Edmonds -Mares, 2012). For example, the city has been
coordinating with the police department, California Highway Patrol, and Union Pacific Railroad
to remove graffiti from the 13t' Street rail bridge over US Highway 101, which is owned by
Union Pacific Railroad (O. Williams, personal communication, April 1, 2014). This will require
public notification of highway lane closures and is set to occur sometime in April 2014.
Referring back to Table 6, it is clear that public outreach efforts began dwindling after
San Josh entered into a contract with GPC. A positive outcome from contracting out is the
increased use of the San Josh Clean Smartphone application, which became available to the
public in January 2012. Also, public outreach materials are available in various languages, but
26
the program still struggles to retain volunteers. The 3,600 volunteers stated in the semi-annual
reports is an arbitrary number and it does not state how many volunteers actually engaged in
graffiti removal annually; it is only the number of volunteers registered in the database. Table 6
also shows before outsourcing, the Anti -Graffiti Program outreached to private property owners
and recruited volunteers through schools and neighborhood associations. Similar efforts are not
expressed on the table as elements occurring after outsourcing.
Currently, the City is working to greatly improve the Anti -Graffiti Program's public
outreach. Current efforts are listed below (O. Williams, personal communication, April 1, 2014).
• San Josh Clean Smartphone application available in English, Spanish and Vietnamese
• Updated graffiti abatement information on the program's website
• New hard -copy outreach materials in English, Spanish and Vietnamese
• Outreach campaign team to attend schools and resource fairs to provide graffiti
abatement information to the community
• Build community engagement and increase volunteer base
City of Long Beach
Twenty-two miles south of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach covers 50 square miles
with a population nearing 500,000. Similar to San Jose, 25 percent of Long Beach residents are
under the age of 18 (US Census Bureau, 2012b). The U.S. Census Bureau (2012b) reported the
City's racial make-up as 46 percent White, 14 percent Black or African American, 13 percent
Asian, and 41 percent Hispanic/Latino of any race. In addition, males ages 18 to 24 make up 30
percent of the population and the median household income in the City is $52,900 (US Census
Bureau, 2012b). Relying on one-time revenue sources since the 1990s, in 2003 Long Beach
public managers and elected officials worked towards fiscal sustainability to close their structural
deficit. The city reorganized and consolidated bureaus and divisions to reduce administrative
costs and addressed the fiscal challenge of pension liabilities (McGrath, 2012).
27
The purpose of Long Beach's Graffiti Abatement Program is to provide a system to keep
all privately owned real property within the City free of graffiti (City of Long Beach Public
Works Department, Public Service Bureau, 2010). Although Long Beach currently contracts out
for graffiti removal services to GPC, various City departments continue to be involved in graffiti
abatement: Streets Operations, Traffic Operations, which are both under the Public Works
Department, and the Parks, Recreation & Marine Department (City of Long Beach Public Works
Department, Public Service Bureau, 2010)
Since Long Beach signed its contract with GPC in 2006, the city has downsized their
abatement crew and GPC performs all graffiti removal (City of Long Beach, 2006). Table 7
displays the City's last six years of funding history for the graffiti abatement program. Prior to
2011, graffiti removal was a large function of Long Beach's Redevelopment Agency and the
Community Development Department. After 2011, redevelopment agencies were dissolved in
the state (California Department of Finance, 2014) and the Community Development
Department consolidated into two departments: Public Works and Development Services.
Funding for the program comes from the General Fund and Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG). Currently, graffiti removal staff is concentrated in the Public Works Department
and run by the Street Maintenance Supervisor and one administrative analyst (A. Cox, personal
communication, March 3, 2014). The Public Works Department coordinates with other agencies,
such as school districts and Caltrans, by contracting the appropriate individual to help remove
graffiti for the respective property (A. Cox, personal communication, March 3, 2014).
28
3
a
o, w
a
:44 n
q
a� U
o v
o o a
.-• x o o.
'�
� � �
ern �' °
�
� w � o c,
•� ,
o q q �'•« � a°i
W
aoi
G b
a.
o ;�
a c
A CD E
a a
E�w ,�
�P
dN'G pO�a
y
� u j u
.�
� 0. �
� j Pa u � O
tm. O
� iC bONq :..) � o .�
Zw
aAwdu
•p
d a gm
N
y
�
M
0o
O
V�
N
00
lD
N
W
n
p
N
M
M
a\
h
00
M
M
l0
N
N
p
On
M
N
W
vi
N
O
I
O
IR
of
N
M
00
M
7
o
N
D\
D\
00
r
N
N
r
l�
ss
o�
G
N
0o
l�
N
r
7
O
yj
O
M
b
O
oo
lD
16
r
h
C
N
y
W
N
N
M
Vi
M
M
V3
N
M
l�
V1
N
Vi
�D
O
lc
o
o
m
o
0
O
7
N
00
O
1p
N
69
pp
V
O
to
oo
D
W
r
1
M
N
O
O
O
N
M
7
lc
N
00
h
M
O
CyN
1p"
69
�
Vf
O
t
�Y�rr
i
A
AZT
w
aka`
w
a�
w
H
Uz sa`
w
H
acGw'
w
Long Beach Municipal Code
Long Beach's graffiti municipal code focuses largely on the property owner's
responsibility to keep graffiti -free premises and not on the individual committing the crime.
According to Title 8: Health and Safety, Chapter 8.58: Graffiti Abatement, the purpose of the
City of Long Beach's program is to "provid[e] a system to keep all privately owned real property
within the City free of graffiti and provid[e] a system for levy and collection to cover the cost of
such removal by the City" (Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.58.010, 1990).
Similar to other ordinances, it supplies definitions of terms used throughout the
ordinance. Declaring graffiti as a public nuisance, the ordinance clearly states that the owner of
the vandalized property has the responsibility to keep it clean. Owners have seven days to
remove the graffiti and must obtain a certificate from the City stating that the graffiti has been
removed. An individual can appeal the removal within five days of the notice. If the owner fails
to remove the graffiti within the appropriate days, the Building Official has authority to remove
the graffiti and expenses will be incurred by the City of Long Beach: the charge becomes "an
indebtedness of the owner and tenant of such premises" (Long Beach Municipal Code Section
8.58.100, 1990). The ordinance continues to describe what would occur to property owners who
fail to abate graffiti and pay the City. A civil penalty, a debt of the person charged to the City, is
given to the owner if the same property continues to be a target and the graffiti is not removed.
Long Beach uses state law against graffiti vandals. Long Beach Municipal Code Section
9.36.020 (1990) asserts it is unlawful for any person to loiter around public or private property
and engage in graffiti activity. If this occurs, the individual is subjected to Section 594 of the
Penal Code (Long Beach Municipal Code Section 9.36.020, 1990).
30
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc.
In 2006, the City of Long Beach contracted out graffiti services with GPC to "form a
more aggressive and proactive street team" (Richardson, 2010). Prior to the city's contract with
GPC, city staff, community service workers, and contractors managed graffiti removal within the
city and on private property. The 2006 contract focused removal services on privately owned
properties (City of Long Beach, 2006). A monthly invoice of removal documentation included
location of graffiti, square footage, method of removal, number of tags removed, and costs by
unit measurement (City of Long Beach, 2006). The city's goal is to remove tags within 48 hours,
with the ideal output of removal within 24 hours. Five days a week, one truck is assigned to each
quadrant in the City and an extra truck patrols targeted thoroughfares. Table 8exhibits the
successful outcome the city has experienced with graffiti removal: for the past six years, GPC
has consistently removed graffiti within 24 hours of the initial report. Currently, the city's
primary abatement method is color matching, but GPC also uses industrial -strength chemical
solvents, pressure washing, and water blasting in certain areas. Tags on private property continue
to be a challenge for the city, as well as tags on multiple -storied buildings and on billboards (A.
Cox, personal communication, March 3, 2014).
Table 8: Long Beach Graffiti Removal Times
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
YTD:
FY 2014
Total Number of
Reports
55,562
50,086
58,851
67,576
66,605
67,050
23,131
Same Day Removal
99.0%
99.1%
99.9%
99.9%
98.1%
97.5%
98.8%
1-2 Days
0.62%
0.46%
0.06%
1.61%
1.61%
2.14%
1.03%
Source: City of Long Beach Public Works Agency, N.D.
In 2012, the city adopted a resolution to amend their contract with GPC to provide graffiti
removal services on the same terms and conditions as the County of Orange. Under the section
i
titled Special Requirements, bullet 2 reads: "Response time requirements: All standard service
requests to be completed within 24 hours. All emergency requests must be responded to within 1
hour" (City of Long Beach, 2012b). Color matching and the Go Long Beach Smartphone
application are also key services provided by the vendor, clearly indicated in the contract. As
seen in Figure 5, invoices must include precise information once an area is serviced.
Figure 5: GPC Invoice Requirements
I. Al invaices for work performed under this contract shall be submitted electronically in an Excel
formal or other format approved by the GPM.
2. The invoice shall include the following:
a. Contract number
b. Purchase order number
G. GPM invoice number
d. Abatement Site address
a. Work order number
f, "Before" and "after" photographs
g. Beginning and ending dates For services
h. Square footage removed for each method of removal
i. Total square footage removed
j. Funding source
k. Council district
I. Census tract
m. Unit cast, subtotals and total for invoice
Source: City of Long Beach Contract 32952, 2012
Community Programs and Public Outreach
The City of Long Beach has multiple community programs to fight the war on graffiti. In
the FY 2013- 2014 Action Plan, the city proposes many goals to combat graffiti (City of Long
Beach, 2014d). For five years, the city hopes to clear 30,000 sites of graffiti and restore 10
murals each year. The Neighborhood Services Bureau provides free graffiti removal to single-
family homes, apartment buildings of 4 units or less, and small neighborhood serving
commercial/retail buildings of less than 2,000 square feet. Only the property visible from the
street and within 100 feet of alley entrances will be removed. In addition, private property
owners and tenants are eligible for Long Beach's Free Paint Program (City of Long Beach,
32
2014a). Individuals are asked to call the graffiti hotline to receive a voucher number and follow
instructions to pick up their free paint.
Launched in 1985, the Mural and Cultural Arts Program works closely with the Parks,
Recreation and Marine Department and the Community Development Department to encourage
social and artistic abilities. The Mural and Cultural Arts Program sponsors the Neighborhood
Mural Program where each piece reflects the "City's diversity... stand as a force for unity" (City
of Long Beach, 2014c, paragraph 2). The mural projects help to deter graffiti as it brings together
the community and promotes community pride.
Although the city does not have a formal volunteer program for residents interested in
removing graffiti, there are a number of other programs for community involvement to decrease
blight. Long Beach became a Safe Streets Now! chartered site since 1993. The program trains
neighborhood volunteers in how to reclaim their neighborhoods from nuisance conditions,
including graffiti abatement. Assistance is provided to residents with the support of
communication from various city departments, such as Code Enforcement and the Health
Department (City of Long Beach, 2014a).
Established in 1987, Conservation Corps of Long Beach (CCLB) recruits and trains more
than 200 at -risk youth each year. Their mission is to "raise self-esteem, develop basic work
skills, work ethics, education, and promote teamwork for Long Beach area at -risk youth through
a combination of work, conservation and education programs" (Conservation Corps of Long
Beach, 2014). The program is partnered with neighboring cities of Long Beach, such as Belmont
Shore and Signal Hill. The Long Beach Beautiful Program, launched in 2001 by City Council, is
one program where CCLB helps to reduce litter and graffiti in the community. In 2011, CCLB
removed over 800 incidents of graffiti (Conservation Corps of Long Beach, 2011). The CCLB
33
has not been involved in the past three years with graffiti abatement in the City of Long Beach.
Residents are encouraged to report graffiti to Long Beach's 24-hour hotline or to use the
popular Go Long Beach Smartphone application. Launched in 2010, Go Long Beach grew in
popularity; in two years, the City received over 22,000 service requests (Editor, 2012). Similar to
other Smartphone applications, Go Long Beach allows its users to upload a photo of graffiti and
the GPS tracking technology reports the location. Further information about reporting graffiti
and related information can be found on the Department of Public Work's website (City of Long
Beach, 2014b). Residents are encouraged to find removal information on the website, which is
available in English, Spanish and Khmer. Information has not been updated on the Public
Work's Graffiti Removal page since 2004.
City of San Diego
Encompassing 325 square miles, the City of San Diego has a population exceeding 1.3
million. Similar to San Jose, over 80 percent of San Diego residents graduated from high school
and approximately 40 percent of persons 25 or older hold a Bachelor's degree (US Census
Bureau, 2012c). Over 58 percent of San Diego's population is White, 7 percent Black or African
American, 16 percent Asian, and 29 percent Hispanic/Latino of any race (US Census Bureau,
2012c). Two-thirds of San Diego's population is under the age of 35 and the City of San Diego
has a median household income of $63,990 (US Census Bureau, 2012c). Toby Ten Eyck and
Brette Fischer (2012), professors from Michigan State University, investigated how the media in
multiple cities perceived graffiti. Out of 15 articles, 13 articles written in the San Diego Tribune
wrote negatively about graffiti (Ten Eyck & Fischer, 2012).
The city's current Strategic Plan (City of San Diego, 2014) establishes that customer -
focused services are a key component of the City's goal to provide effective government; this
34
includes timely response to graffiti complaints to avoid the detrimental impact graffiti has on
communities. San Diego's Graffiti Control Program, consisting of graffiti abatement, law
enforcement, and community outreach, was created in 1992 and works closely with businesses
and private property owners to ensure quick removal of graffiti. The following year, the
Neighborhood Code Compliance section (NCC) in the Development Services Department was
created to address violations primarily associated with primary property, ensuring that residents
live in a safe environment (NCC Budget, 2006). Other participatory departments include the
Transportation and Storm Water Department's Street Division (TSWD), Urban Corps of San
Diego County (Urban Corps), and the San Diego Police Department (SDPD). Staff and
contractors are responsible for abatement and the Police Department's Graffiti Task Force
implement deterrent sentencing of individuals guilty of graffiti vandalism. Restitution collected
by the city has increased tremendously since the Graffiti Strike Force aggressively pursued
graffiti vandals with the help of the NCC (NCC Budget, 2006). Property owners and volunteers
are encouraged to receive free recycled paint from the Paint and Materials Exchange Bank to
help abate graffiti.
San Diego Urban Corps Contract
Similar to the LBCC, Urban Corps participate in community projects to increase the
overall quality of life in San Diego County. The city's 2006 contract with Urban Corps contained
quantifiable performance measures, including a requirement for the vendor to remove graffiti
within three working days after receiving a service request, and to remove any obscene, racist, or
extremely threatening graffiti within 24 hours (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor,
2014). However, the city is in the process of finalizing a new contract with Urban Corps that
eliminates these performance standards, and only states that graffiti removal should be
35
completed "in a timely and efficient manner" (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor,
2014, p. 42).
The Office of the City Auditor (2014) claims in their report that because the city's
oversight and management of Urban Corps' contract is limited, it is difficult for the city to
ensure taxpayers that the vendor is fulfilling performance obligations and or reporting accurate
information. Under the city's provided work order system, Urban Corps staff logs complaints on
paper forms and does not conform to performance standards (City of San Diego, Office of the
City Auditor, 2014). There is no data available on key performance response times. Table 9
compares abatement sites reported by Urban Corps and the actuals seen on log sheets. In the
selected four months, graffiti abatement totals are consistently higher than the totals reflected in
the log sheets.
Table 9: Vendor -Reported Totals Comparison
Totals Reported by Urban Corps 702 983 604 869 3158
Totals on Urban Corps Log Sheets 667 755 487 786 2695
Difference -5.0% -23.2% -19.4% -9.6% -14.7%
Source: City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, Urban Corps Information, 2014
The 2014 audit claims Urban Corps "is only required to provide monthly totals of graffiti
abatement work completed by source of complaint and property type. These reports contain only
aggregate numbers, and do not contain information about individual work orders completed,
which makes it impossible to determine response times" (p. 41). Unfortunately, the new contract
outlines additional removals of services: the automated 24/7 hotline will no longer be staffed and
Urban Corps will not be required to use Graffiti Tracker (City of San Diego, Office of the City
Auditor, 2014).
36
Graffiti Control Program Downsizing
Over the past six years, the City has continued to downsize the Graffiti Control
Program's budget and staffing, dedicating fewer resources to graffiti control and limiting public
outreach and abatement efforts. San Diego currently budgets $0.61 per resident for graffiti
abatement, which is extremely low, despite having a larger population than comparable cities:
the City of San Josh budgets $1.41 per resident and Long Beach budgets $2.30 per resident (City
of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014). Table 10 shows that budgeted expenses have
declined approximately 50 percent and staffing has declined nearly 40 percent.
Table 10: Graffiti Control Program Budget and Staffing, FY 2008-2013
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
CityFTEs*, **
12.5
12.5
9
4
4
Urban Corps FTEs
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
713.5
Total FTEs
22
22
18.5
13.5
13.5
City Budget
$1,007,086
$1,035,042
$747,792
$377,960
$338,474
$332,654
Urban Corps
Budget
$480,000
$480,000
$480,000
$480,000
$538,494
$463,000
Total Budget
$1,487,086
$1,515,042
$1,227,792
$857,960
$876,968
$795,654
* These positions were part of NCC until their transfer to TSWD at the start of FY 2014.
** The City does not currently have budgeted positions dedicated specifically for the intake of graffiti complaints
and supervision of abatement crews. Certain staff, in addition to other job duties, carries out those responsibilities.
As a result, the staff resources the City allocates to graffiti control are slightly higher than budgeted figures shown
here.
Source: City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014
San Diego Municipal Code
The San Diego Municipal Code sets forth abatement and enforcement provisions to
achieve the City's graffiti control policy goals of "reducing blight and deterioration, protecting
public health and safety, avoiding detrimental impacts of graffiti, preventing the further spread of
graffiti, and strengthening the City's efforts against gang activity" (City of San Diego, Office of
the City Auditor, 2014, p. 5). In the fall of 2007, the Public Safety & Neighborhood Service
Committee voted to approve a zero tolerance policy update to the current city graffiti ordinance.
37
In May 2008, City Council amended Chapter 5, Article 4, Division 4, of the San Diego
Municipal Code by amending Sections 54.0401, 54.0405 and 54.0414, and deleting 54.0412, all
relating to graffiti (Maland, 2008). The Municipal Code was updated, requiring that graffiti
vandals be charged under state anti -graffiti laws: this expressed the Council's intent that graffiti
vandals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, punishable as a felony or a misdemeanor,
depending the cost of damage and the judge's decision (Section 594 Penal Code).
In the updated ordinance, graffiti is identified as a crime and a nuisance, and limits public
access to materials to carry out graffiti: state law grants authority to San Diego to regulate the
sale and display of graffiti tools, such as marking pens and aerosol paint containers (San Diego
Municipal Code, 2008) The ordinance states it is "unlawful for any person, firm or entity
engaged in a commercial enterprise, to display for sale, trade, or exchange, any aerosol paint
container, marking pens ... or glass etching product except in an area from which the public shall
be securely precluded without employee assistance" (San Diego Municipal Code Section
54.0414, 2008, p. 5).
Section 54.0407 through Section 54.0410 (2008) describes the City's removal process on
private and public property. The City removes graffiti on private property that is "visible from
public streets, property or right-of-ways" (San Diego Municipal Code Section 54.0407, 2008, p.
3). The city only seeks cost recovery when the location has been abated more than five times in a
year.
Graffiti Tracker Program
First implemented in 2006 by the City of Escondido, Graffiti Tracker has grown in San
Diego County with the push for cities to participate in a coordinated regional effort to better
document graffiti and identify and convict offenders by building stronger cases for prosecution
38
(SANDAG, 2012). Agencies are equipped with GPS-enabled cameras to take photographs of
graffiti in their jurisdictions. Afterwards, images are uploaded into a centralized database to
enable sharing of intelligence, and investigators can use Graffiti Tracker to generate reports that
include statistics and information about group monikers, location and size of incidents, trends or
paths of damage, migration of vandals, and arrest information.
An 18-month pilot program began in San Diego in January 2011. Costing approximately
$101,250, AT&T, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Cox Communications contributed funds for the
digital GPS cameras, and the County covered a portion of the contract costs (SANDAG, 2012).
The San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 2012 report concludes that
jurisdictions using Graffiti Tracker effectively make robust cases for prosecution and increased
restitution awards. The program has been instrumental in the SDPD opening hundreds of cases
and receiving court -ordered restitutions since its inception. SANDAG's 2012 report claims
jurisdictions using Graffiti Tracker effectively make robust cases for prosecution and increased
restitution awards.
At the end of 2011, 22,563 graffiti incidents were entered into San Diego's Graffiti
Tracker system. Although there were fewer graffiti cases prosecuted in 2011 than 2010, court -
ordered restitution increased by 359 percent, from $170,626 in 2010 to $783,412 in 2011
(SANDAG, 2012). In FY 2013, the City received over $250,000 in restitution, a positive
outcome for the program (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014).
City Abatement Efforts
Graffiti Tracker does not capture all abatement requests in San Diego because not all
participating groups use Graffiti Tracker (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014).
Despite the impressive outcomes SDPD has had with using Graffiti Tracker, Urban Corps are the
39
only abatement crew using Graffiti Tracker. Current division of responsibilities is complex, as
each group has different property rights, there is no centralization for customers to report graffiti,
and graffiti abatement response times are prolonged because of re-routing of service requests
amongst TSWD, NCC, and Urban Corps, as seen in Figure 6. As a result of this decentralization,
performance reporting has been inaccurate and customer service has been inconsistent. Various
departments manage graffiti abatement in convoluted manners, and consequently it is difficult to
generate statistically significant data, such as response times and the amount of time required to
abate graffiti (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014). As a consequence, residents
are not clear what reporting channels are available and there is no live operator for customers to
contact (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014).
Figure 6: Decentralization of the City of San Diego Graffiti Abatement Efforts
Infake/R.U.9 Abatement Data capture
Aar swrarosa �
dire bnn
"Rdb
•Yea
S
eheel Uirviion Rybc)way
;wN=
s s :
E
—gh—h—d
toes—pr—e
SGadea�ms .s Ps'^y^sy Iuaw mtle 6bwib
�e �a oomem �P•.Me 2
a
(NCC)
res0•nse•iry i
Ulilily canPany
dr Cem+
e� ev�ipe�ry•
Nam RNcc NCC • " tlxvb f •raivla � rye �
�i fetlbaGde mrsMl„ua�J
i sees i i
U�Uecusps qi•W •
fL
u
ICI P1OP•n✓• 1 =Yea • � ,nor i
ii
Y.
6
s s
Source: City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014
40
Public Outreach and Coordination Efforts
Due to recent downsizing, the City has decreased its outreach efforts. The Office of the
City Auditor (2014) recommends that the Graffiti Control Program create posters, public service
announcements, flyers, brochures, and other media to educate the public on graffiti abatement.
Previous community involvement included volunteer paint -outs, school presentations, and Urban
Corps outreach. The Graffiti Control Program is not currently partnered with outside
organizations. Although equipped with a reward program known as the Spray and Pay Program,
only 16 rewards have been given out in the last three fiscal years due to limited public
knowledge, amounting to $4,025 (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014).
The 2014 San Diego Office of the City Auditor's report affirmed that the city lacks
coordination with other groups conducting graffiti abatement within city limits. Table 11
specifies groups involved in abatement efforts. It is possible that these groups would not want to
partner with the city, but the possibilities have yet to be explored.
Table 11: Groups Conducting Abatement Efforts in San Diego
City Groups
Non -City Groups
• TSWD Street Division
• Downtown Partnership
• Urban Corps of San Diego
• San Diego Gas &Electric
• City departments other than
• AT&T
TSWD (Park & Recreation,
• Cox Cable
Library, etc.)
• Time Warner Cable
• Metropolitan Transportation System
(NITS)
• Caltrans
• United States Postal Service
Source: City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014
41
City of Santa Ana
Located in Southern California, the City of Santa Ana covers 27 square miles and has a
population of 330,920 (US Census Bureau, 2012d). According to the US Census Bureau
(2012d), Santa Ana's demographic make-up is 46 percent White, 2 percent Black or African
American, 11 percent Asian, 78 percent Hispanic/Latino of any race, and 9 percent non -Hispanic
Whites. Only 12 percent of male residents in Santa Ana are between the ages 18 and 25 and the
median household income for Santa Ana is $54,387 annually (US Census Bureau, 2012d). About
30 percent of their population is under the age of 18 and approximately12 percent of persons 25
and older hold a Bachelor's degree or higher (US Census Bureau, 2012d).
The City's stakeholders in the graffiti removal program include the Public Works
Department, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Building, the City Attorney, Community
Development, the Police Department, and the Santa Ana Unified School District.
Representatives from these agencies collaborate together to accomplish goals for the Graffiti
Task Force, whose mission is "to improve the quality of life for those who live, work and visit
our city, by removing urban blight and effectively sharing resources by coordinating multi -
agency efforts for: graffiti abatement, enforcement, and public education" (Santa Ana Police
Department, 2008a).
The Graffiti Task Force began in 1992 when tagger graffiti began to grow considerably in
southern California. Its presence alarmed the city because "no public or private space was free
from vandals" (Santa Ana Police Department, 2008a). Tagging crews continue to be an issue for
the city since many are involved in criminal gang activity, and it is easy for individuals to shift
allegiance to other crews, thus forming new identities. Focusing on eradication, the city in recent
years has focused on community programs to help deter juveniles from criminal activity. Santa
42
Ana's graffiti removal program's goal is to continue strong coordination with involved agencies
and remove graffiti within 48 hours (Santa Ana Police Department, 2008b). Table 12 displays
the specific responsibilities for each Santa Ana agency involved in abatement.
43
Table 12: Santa Ana Graffiti Abatement: Agencies and Responsibilities
Agency
Responsibilities
• Remove reported and observed graffiti within 24 hours of hotline calls
• Provide 7 days a week removal service.
Public Works
Manage GPC weekend removal work and color matching contract performance.
• Update GTF Web page with current information.
• Attend community meetings to promote Anti -Graffiti Program.
• Provide monthly graffiti update rorts to Council.
• Develop plan to implement the Graffiti Tracker program.
• Attend community meetings/school meetings to promote anti -graffiti related programs.
• Assist with the design of anti -graffiti marketing materials to be distributed at community
Police
meetings and anti -graffiti presentations.
Department
• Three full-time GTF detectives work proactive graffiti suppression citywide.
• Provide mediation references for first-time offenders.
• Conduct weekly probation searches to ensure probationers are in compliance.
• Promote the Ci 's Graffiti Rewards Program and facilitate its regular use.
• Inspect, identify, and eradicate graffiti on park sites, bike trails, recreation centers, and senior
centers each day using a variety of methods.
• Manage the Youth Court Referral and Graffiti Removal Program. The program provides first time
Parks &
juvenile graffiti offenders with the opportunity to complete their assigned community service hours
Recreation
in a supervised setting.
• Provide Court Referral and Graffiti Removal Program orientation to youth and parents.
• Track completion hours for the Court Referral and Graffiti Removal Program and prepare reports
for referral agencies and program participants.
• Enforce new anti -graffiti ordinance, conduct citywide proactive enforcement.
• Address calls for service for graffiti enforcement and graffiti hotline referrals within 48 hours.
• Recommend building modifications to property owners and business owners to prevent
Planning &
recurrence of graffiti; refer business owners' graffiti concerns to SAPD.
Building
• Promote anti -graffiti program through presentations at schools, parent -teacher associations,
neighborhood association meetings, Communication Linkage, and business associations.
• Participate in the Public Education/Marketing Subcommittee to promote the Anti -Graffiti
Campaign.
Community
' Establish neighborhood volunteer program.
Development
' Discuss the activities of the GTF at neighborhood association meetings.
• Produce marketing materials.
• Enforcement of Santa Ana Municipal Codes designed to prevent the proliferation of graffiti
throughout Santa Ana.
• Criminal prosecution of individuals and businesses charged with violations of Santa Ana's anti -
City Attorney
graffiti ordinances.
• Review and research pertinent to Santa Ana Municipal Code and California Penal Code sections
to be used in anti -graffiti enforcement.
• Educate the Police, Community Preservation, and other enforcement agencies on the legal tools
available for enforcement and prosecution in the fight against graffiti.
• Remove graffiti from School District property.
Santa Ana
• Work with SAPD to set up graffiti presentations at school sites.
Unified School
• Continue truancy program.
District
• Work proactive graffiti suppression at all school sites.
• Provide mediation references for first-time offenders.
Source: Graffiti Task Force Annual Report, 2008
44
Santa Ana Municipal Code
Santa Ana's Municipal Code, Chapter 10: Crimes and Miscellaneous Law Enforcement
Provisions, Article IV Graffiti Regulations, begins by defining eleven graffiti terms. The
ordinance then addresses the sale and possession of graffiti implements by minors and that it is
"unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess any graffiti implement
while on school property..." (City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 10-222,2009). Santa
Ana's ordinance also states that it is unlawful for any person to help another individual plan to
apply graffiti. Sec. 10-224 (2009) addresses the penalties and describes the violation as a
misdemeanor. Individuals will be punished with restitution and if the individual is a minor, this
penalty falls on the shoulders of the individual's legal guardian.
In lieu of such penalties, there is also the consequence of community service. Santa Ana's
municipal code describes the minimum requirements:
• First Offense: 40 hours
• Second Offense: 80 hours
• Third Offense: 120 hours
o If the individual is a minor, a legal guardian must be present for a minimum of 50
percent of the assigned community service
Sec. 10-225 (2009) describes the City's Anti -Graffiti Trust Fund. All monetary penalties
from violators will be placed in the fund as well donations from outside sources that wish to
contribute to the fund. The City also offers rewards for "information leading to the apprehension
and conviction of any person who places graffiti on any public or private property..." (City of
Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 10-226, 2009).
45
According to Santa Ana's ordinance, graffiti constitutes a public and private nuisance.
The City is authorized to remove graffiti on City property by using public funds and can do so by
painting, repairing, water blasting, or use any other reasonable graffiti removal technique. Private
property owners have ten days to remove graffiti. The City can enter into consent with the owner
to remove the graffiti and recover the costs pursuant to California Penal Section 594. Chapter 17
of Santa Ana's municipal code states the City Council has the ability to adopt a resolution to
specify the amount assessed against each offender, using information from the report filed by the
officer that records the expenses used in abatement, as well as the assessment against each parcel
of land exposed. A hearing is held and collection is due to the Director of Finance.
Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc.
Santa Ana's Police Department's website (2014a) claims tagging "is not an art form or
about expressing oneself. It is vandalism and the destruction of private and public property ... the
difference between graffiti being art or a crime is permission" (Paragraph 1 & 2). Santa Ana has
contracted out graffiti removal services to GPC since 1999 (R. Ruiz, personal communication,
February 21, 2014). In 2008, the City Council approved a Monday through Friday color -
matching program in the commercial corridors of the City with GPC (Santa Ana Police
Department, 2008a). This was added to GPC's contract of graffiti removal on the weekends. In
February 2011, City Council entered into an agreement with GPC, for a one-year period with
provisions for 4 one-year renewals, for seven days a week, including weekends and holidays
(City of Santa Ana, City Council Minutes, 2011).
GPC is responsible for removing graffiti within 24 hours based on requests received from
City staff and residents through the City's graffiti hotline and the mySantaAna Smartphone
application. Since the inception of the contract, GPC has "consistently demonstrated the ability
46
to meet contract specifications by providing color matching and daily upper -level graffiti
removal, and facilitating graffiti crime analysis citywide" (City of Santa Ana, Request for
Council Action, 2014). In 2014, the City reported that the graffiti removal program realized a 30
percent decrease in calls for service, as well as a 65 percent decrease in Code Enforcement
referrals. This is attributed to the proactive performance by GPC and the removal of graffiti from
windows and commercial signs (City of Santa Ana, Request for Council Action, 2014). The City
has realized a 90 percent success rate for responding within 24 hours of receiving service
requests.
The City of Santa Ana has downsized their graffiti abatement program as a result of their
contract with GPC. As depicted in Table 13there are currently 1.5 full-time equivalents and 2
part-time equivalents. The city's abatement program is funded as part of the Sanitation
Enterprise Fund. Court restitutions from graffiti violations are placed in the Graffiti Abatement
Enterprise Fund. Performance measures found in the city's annual budget are based on service
level provided by past City abatement crews and the contractor (Figure 7). Since 2011, GPC is
the sole provider of graffiti removal in the city.
Table 13: Santa Ana Graffiti Abatement Program
FY 08-09
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FTE
12
7
7
1
1.5
1.5
PTE
7
7
7
7
2
2
Sanitation
$2,317,558
$2,381,710
$2,240,829
$1,539,085
$1,711,455
$1,488,060
Enterprise
Fund
Graffiti
$53,529
$32,106
$35,304
$48,419
$35,000
$30,000
Restitution -
Courts
Source: City of Santa Ana Budget Documents, FY 2008-2014
47
Figure 7: Sanitation Enterprise Fund: Graffiti Abatement Program Performance Measures
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Actual
Actual
Estimated
Objective
FY 09-10
FY 10.11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
Service Level
By City crews
2,990,890
2,239,982
N/A
N/A
By Contractor
1,520,980
2.952,740
6,100,000
6.000,000
# of graffiti locations cleaned
By City crews
100,660
88,353
N/A
KA
By contractor
67,100
54,728
122,153
120,000
Total painted
4,060,600
4.673,344
5,490,000
540,000
Total water -blasted
451.270
519,378
610,000
600,000
# of signs (graffiti removal)
10,716
8,044
5,372
6,000
Source: City of Santa Ana FY 2012-2013 Annual Budget
As previously stated, after 2011, the City's abatement crew began to include GPC during
weekday services. The Crew works seven days a week, from 6a.m. to 4p.m. The 2014 Request
for Council Action included GPC's fee schedule, depicted in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: GPC Fee Schedule
Contractor will provide five (5) graffiti removal personnel- Paint and water blast combo, each
working 40 hours per week.
Contractor shall schedule personnel such that graffiti removal occurs seven (7) days per week,
including weekends and holidays.
Contractor employees working pursuant to this Agreement will perform approximately 2,500 to
3,000 removals per month and remove 50,000 to 60,000 sq. ft. of graffiti per month.
City shall pay $10,000 per Contractor employee assigned to City graffiti abatement (40 hours per
week) for a total not to exceed amount of $50,000 per month.
City may increase the number of graffiti removal personnel at no additional increase in the unit bid
price.
Said fee shall include all Contractor costs including direct and indirect labor costs, overhead,
materials, printing, travel, and mileage.
Source: City of Santa Ana Request for Council Action February 4, 2014
48
The City of Santa Ana is pleased with GPC because of their outstanding work. GPC has
demonstrated the ability to provide a high standard of service(R. Ruiz, personal communication,
February 21, 2014). Santa Ana continues to renew the contract annually with no increase in
pricing. In 2014, the city reported that GPC provided additional services at no cost, which
included support at city park cleanup days; a sixth maintenance truck for 20 hours a week to help
with graffiti abatement in parks; unlimited upgrades and support for the graffiti tracking
software; a 4G network for the Gang Task Force to access the graffiti tracking system in the
field; and a free Smartphone application for reporting and managing graffiti service requests.
Graffiti Removal Data
Table 14 displays graffiti removal data for the City of Santa Ana. The inconsistent dates
and data are a result of limited data available in the past five calendar years.
49
Table 14: City of Santa Ana Graffiti Removal Program Activity
2008
07/2009
12/2009
07/2010
12/2010
2011
2012
2013**
Graffiti Removal
Hotline Calls
15,546
6,225
6,470
5,935
9,709
7,421
mySantaAnna App
Orders
-
-
-
400
542
573
Locations responded to
by Abatement Crew
14,591
5,540
5,768
6,162
10,294
7,994
Volunteers
35*
19
17
12
28
4
Average Response
Time
Same Day
58%
65%
49%
Within 24 Hours
-
-
-
25%
20%
38%
Within 48 Hours
-
-
-
13%
11%
10%
Police
Arrests by SAPD
339
151
103
112
152
145
Restitution received for
graffiticases
$42,301
$17,455
$18,270
$22,102
$31,573
$23,661
Outreach
Presentations
41
3
2
0
0
0
Anti -graffiti poster
distributed
415
-
-
-
-
-
*March 08-Dec 08
** Missing December information
Source: City of Santa Ana, Graffiti Task Force Monthly Reports, 2008-2013
Public Outreach and Coordination
Santa Ana encourages efficiency and faster graffiti removal response times with its
mySantaAna Smartphone application. It allows residents with iPhones and Android phones to
immediately report graffiti. The built-in global positioning system allows the application to add a
location to the picture and send the information to the Public Works Department for resolution.
Aside from Santa Ana's graffiti hotline, mySantaAna is growing in popularity as it continues to
be marketed to Santa Ana residents. Also available to residents is a 25 percent discount for paint
through Vista Paints for color matching.
50
In 1994 the City adopted a reward program to encourage individuals to inform the police
graffiti taggers. The City of Santa Ana will pay $500 for information leading to the arrest and
prosecution of suspects for graffiti related vandalism (City of Santa Ana, 2014b). Information is
reported to the Graffiti Task Force Investigative Unit and once the case is successfully
prosecuted, the investigator involved prepares a recommendation for payment of reward.
The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) has an education strategy to help decrease
blight. The strategy includes graffiti education information aired on cable television, local news
media articles in Spanish, community education seminars to help legal guardians recognize the
signs that their children are involved in graffiti activity, marketing the graffiti hotline, and
meetings with business owners regarding the proper steps to reduce the likelihood of graffiti
(Santa Ana Police Department, 2008). Currently, educational information to the public is
available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
As seen in Table 14, the number of volunteers has declined in recent years. Santa Ana's
abatement program is working well and removal consistently takes place within 24 to 48 hours.
Volunteers are not a necessary component of their program and graffiti Clean -Up Days are for
educating the community on their efforts to remove graffiti and to have the community help in a
specific area during the events, which are held in parks and walking trails (R. Ruiz, personal
communication, February 21, 2014).
The City refers all freeway and highway graffiti to Caltrans. Employees report graffiti
incidents to Caltrans' Graffiti Hotline. The City does not have any history of issues with Caltrans
removing graffiti (R. Ruiz, personal communication, February 21, 2014).
51
V. ANALYSIS
The intent of this analysis is to determine whether the San Jose's City Auditor's
recommendations, seen as best practices standards, are imperative for a successful graffiti
removal program. Performance data collected from the three benchmark cities suggest what
practices may be best suited for San Jose. This analysis will determine if one city's strategies are
more effective than another's, leading to a recommendation for structuring a successful city
graffiti removal program in San Jose.
Based on these findings, it is clear that municipalities approach graffiti abatement in
various forms. The logic models below summarize each city's graffiti removal program
structure.
Figure 9: Summary of Graffiti Removal Programs
A. City of San Jose
CITY OF SAN JOSE: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
)Non -enforced ordinance; Goal to abate 100'. of graffiti requests in 24 hours)
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
• Voluntecr
IMPACTS
Performance
rY71 M M%
%ITH REST
PRi�I['ES
• GPC contract
Daily gratliu
88`of
need
indicator:
W,,.k ord.—
inotspecific);
abat—ra
removal
Blurry
gradic
PRNS staff
Public
within _4, 48
contractual
eradication
Absent
Absentent
• Budget:
Outreach
hours
services
within 48
volunteer group
PRNS
Materials
Weak non-
Increased use
hours
Weak
• Budget
HotlineSan
City' group
of Icchnologc
Graftiti Clean
st akeholder
dollars per
resident:
Jane Clean app
Spmfr
coordination
WeakUp
nays-
communication
Vistbriny of
YI.41
perfom rance
aheteent
m
educational
outreach
program
through
m • Progra
targets
Nercentages
.,thin 24
Less urban
education
dou•natzmg
hours
blight
mat<nals
2011
4
,
r EXn•ERVALFACTORS
u Budget
constraints, decreased volunteer participation
u
u
52
B. City of Long Beach
CITY OF LONG BEACH: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
(Strong City ordinance against graffiti on private property)
j�p{ag
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
IMPACTS
WITH NNITH R E\
REST
• No volunteer,
Performance
PRACTICES
• GPC contract
Daily graffiti
Continuous
lncrcascd
indicator:
Ordinance
(detailed,
abatement
99% graffiti
gm
contm<tual
graffiti
fo
detailed for
specific)
Public Outreach
removal in 24
services
atthrn
on
• Budget:
Materials
sod asc
2a
24
private property
privatesteer
Public Works
Free graffiti
Stronhoursg
Strong non-
of te,
hours
hours
No volunteer
• Budge
removal
City group
St't<chnology
Strong
Graffiti Clc.ui
group
dollars per
rrstdrnt:
free
servt program
paint program
coordination
abatement
Up nays-
Stakeholder
S2.30
Mural & C'ultural
Color
percentages
hm tx
educational
communication
• Public wo
Arts program
matching
g
ours
hours
outreach
Less urban
Minimal
vrsibrhfv of
suit
Hotline. Uo
Mightprogram
through
Long Beach pp
educator
materials
4
EXTERNALFACTORS
No budget constraints:
Satisfied community
C. City of San Diego
CITY OF SAN DIEGO: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
(Updated City Ordinance 2008, Graffiti Tracker Program)
INP tTS
• NCC. Urban
ACTIVITIES
Dailygraffili
OLTTPUTS
OUTCOMES
Weak
IMPACTS
No
LUMPt LLi
WITH REST
PRACTICES
Corps. Street
abatement
No graffiti
community
performance
Updated
Division
Hotline, San
removal
awareness
indicators
ordinance
abatement
Diego 311 app
response
De cnti,sh"d
Lack of civic
No volunteer
effort
Graffiti Tracker
times
abatement
engagement
group
• Budget
Spray and Pay
recorded
effort
Less urban
weak
(NC•C')dollars
Program
. Weak
Unsatisfied
blight
stakeholder
Pe r resident:
coordination
communuy
communication
Lack of
SO.b I
with non -City
visNiny of
• Graffiti
groups
program
Tracker
Decentralized
through
Decreased
• outreach
reporting
education
malcnals
efforts
4 EXTERNALFACTORS
Weak budget, uniformed resident
53
D. City of Santa Ana
CITY OF SANTA ANA: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
(Strong City Ordinance and Mission Statement; Graffiti Task Force)
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
Absent
IMPACTS
Pcrfonnan::
N t11P t c
1V7TH BEST
PRACTICES
• GPC contract
Daily graffiti
+501/, of
volunteer need
indicator:
Dcudcd
• Santa Ana
abatement
remoV'al
Increased
graffiti
Stair. Graffiti
Public
occurring
contractual
eradication
Nnaltnco
Penalty for
task Force
Outreach
same day;
services
-thm 48
pmatc owners
—.be.
Materials
97" n of
Increased use.
hours
Absent
• Budget
Graffiti
lmoval In aii
oftcchnolo g�
fimfllu C'Ic.in
volunteer need
funterpnsr
Removal
hours
Increased
Up Days-
fund)
Techniques
Strong
public
educational
stakeStronholder
cummunicauon
• Budget
(imliin Reward
awareness
outreach
dollars per
Program
departmental
• Strong
Less urban
Vmbdtty of
resrdrnC
Programs for
coordination
abatement
Night
program
through
S4.50
terns from
perccnwgcs
cd—uducauon
Recreation
within 48
materials
UcpartmcN
hours
4 EXTERNALFACTORS
No budget constraints; Satisfied community
It is important to note the size of each jurisdiction: San Josh, 176 square miles, Long
Beach, 50 square miles, San Diego, 325 square miles, and Santa Ana, 27 square miles.
Intuitively, a larger jurisdiction has a larger arena to combat graffiti. Based on the provided data,
both San Jose and San Diego are working hard to improve their graffiti removal programs to
obtain positive outcomes. San Josh is striving toward 100 percent of requests to be removed
within 24 hours and San Diego is aiming to record response times for future analysis. Long
Beach and Santa Ana report strong graffiti abatement data with 99 percent and 97 percent of
graffiti removed within 24 hours of reporting, respectively.
Graffiti is a cyclical trend that is affected by weather, gang graffiti, and the
aggressiveness of a jurisdiction's police department and district attorney. California has
experienced warmer temperatures and a lack of rainfall in the past few years. These
contingencies create a welcoming environment for graffiti artist (O. Williams, personal
54
communication, April 1, 2014). The appearance of gang graffiti also increases the chances of
future vandalism, thus it is good practice for an agency to remove gang graffiti within 24 hours, a
primary goal of San Josh. In addition, aggressiveness from police and district attorneys help to
decrease the appearance of graffiti, as both agencies work towards the reduction of blight and
increased safety in communities.
Contracting Services: Cost -Benefit Analysis
Although San Diego is the largest city in this research, it spends the least amount of
money annually on outsourcing (City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor, 2014). It is
difficult to analyze the impact this may have on the community because of the lack of response
time data available. Table 15 compares all four cities based on population size, the dollar amount
allocated for removal, and time response outcomes. Long Beach and Santa Ana completely
outsource for removal, and city staff helps manage the reporting system and provide resources to
residents (police departments in both cities play a large role in graffiti vandalism cases). Both
cities have consistent graffiti removal response times and do not need a volunteer program to
support removal.
As illustrated in Figure 4, San Josh estimated $631,901 per year on graffiti removal
services, but actual annual spending was over $800,000. Equipment and employee salaries are
fixed costs that did not change in San Josh. However, variable costs were tied to the amount of
square feet abated, and because GPC abated unassigned areas more effectively due to the lack of
a robust volunteer program (88 percent within 24 hours) and incorrectly logged abatement
efforts, San Josh exceeded estimated costs. The larger annual costs did not result in effective
graffiti removal response times.
55
In order to decrease spending in the remaining contract period (2 years), the City of San
Josh may need to reevaluate its current contract with GPC, and create stronger language, to
ensure that the contractor is removing graffiti in assigned areas first. Increased community
outreach may help build its volunteer program to assist the City in its abatement efforts. The
ultimate goal of any city's abatement program is to decrease blight in its communities and
improve the overall livability in a community, and as seen in Table 15, higher costs do not
necessarily result in a strong, positive benefit to the community. Rather, the target is
effectiveness and efficiency, the ultimate goal of contracting services.
Table 15: Four Cities Comparison
2013
Annual
Cost for
City
FTE
Contractor
Contractor
Population
Response Times
Assigned Areas: 63% within 24 hours
Unassigned Areas 88% within 24 hours
$631,901
Citywide, Urgent 85% within 24 hours
San Jose
3.75
GPC
$800,000)*
982,765
Citywide, All 67% within 24 hours
Long
Beach
1.5
GPC
$1,077,660
467,892
98.8% within 24 hours
Urban
$463,000
San Diego
4
Corps
$795,654 *
1,338,000
No data available
Santa Ana
1.5
GPC
$1,488,060
330,920
87% within 24 hours
* Actual annual spending
**Total annual budget
The use of restitution towards a city's graffiti abatement program can be effective and
another source of revenue for a municipality. However, it can be challenging to prosecute the
cases and collect the funds. For example, San Josh Police Department continues to experience a
shrinking budget and low recruitment levels. It is difficult to capture restitution at its highest
potential without a designated officer assigned to graffiti vandalism. The City of Santa Ana has
assigned two investigators to graffiti -related cases and continues to use restitution to fund their
program.
56
City Municipal Codes
San Jose's Municipal Code states that property owners are responsible for graffiti
removal on their property. However, the City continues to remove graffiti from private property
without consent from the owner, without notifying the owner, and without seeking
reimbursement. Long Beach, San Diego, and Santa Ana seek cost recovery when removing
graffiti from private property, or public property not owned by their respective cities. As noted in
the findings, San Diego will abate a location five times in one year before proceeding to
reimbursement. Santa Ana only allows owners ten days to remove graffiti from private property.
Similarly, Long Beach allows owners seven days before they are faced with a civil penalty and a
debt charged against each individual.
As recommended by the City of San Jose City Auditor's Office, San Jose needs to
enforce its current ordinance to penalize private property owners when graffiti appears and is not
removed, which requires amending the current Code to specify a number of days before
consequences ensue (Recommendation #7). Notification will help solve this issue and
reimbursement will help with the administrative costs associated with notifying owners. San
Jose's current ordinance states it needs consent prior to graffiti removal on private property, but
this has not been done in practice. Enforcement of a strong, detailed Municipal Code is part of
best practices of graffiti abatement, and as proven by the Cities of Long Beach, San Diego, and
Santa Ana, it is necessary to continue to decrease blight in communities.
Non -City Group Coordination
Long Beach does not have strong partnerships with non -City groups. When removal is
required by Caltrans, the City contacts the appropriate individual and uses the agency's
designated hotline. Santa Ana also contacts Caltrans for graffiti on its property, and reports that
57
they have not had issues in the past when working with the state agency. As stated in the
Findings section, the City of San Diego Office of the City Auditor claims the city has the
potential to improve its abatement efforts if it could strengthen its partnerships with various non -
City groups, including Caltrans and the United States Postal Service. San Jose also struggles with
working with non -City groups but has improved in terms of meeting with involved parties,
including Union Pacific, Caltrans, San Jose Police Department, and California Highway Patrol
Cooperation among all stakeholders involved in graffiti removal is essential for optimal
outcomes (Recommendation #11). During the interviews, the benchmark cities did not express a
high need for coordination among other agencies within its jurisdiction. San Diego is expected to
follow the audit's recommendation to explore options of working with non -City groups to help
abatement efforts. It is evident that the City of San Jose has made this a high priority, and the
administration stated in the audit that they would seek out memorandums of understanding with
the appropriate groups to improve abatement efforts. No further headlines of such cooperation
have appeared in the present fiscal year.
City Volunteer Programs
As stated in the Literature Review, volunteers and free supplies are an aspect of best
practices for an efficient and cost effective graffiti removal program. San Jose assumed that its
large pool of graffiti removal volunteers would continue to work with the new vendor, which
was a factor in the decision to downsize and outsource the program. The volunteer force did not
materialize and the City was faced with a program that exceeded its budget for the first two years
(Recommendation #17).
San Diego currently has a weak volunteer program due to its decrease in public outreach
efforts. The City may benefit in its abatement efforts if it improves its outreach efforts and
58
sustains a volunteer program. The Public Works Department of Long Beach does not have a
special volunteer program for graffiti removal. Rather, the City depends on GPC to complete all
graffiti removal reports. The City does provide programs for residents to become informed in
ways to clean up graffiti, such as Safe Streets Now! and the Mural and Cultural Arts program.
Santa Ana depends on GPC for all removal and does not need a volunteer force. Both Long
Beach and Santa Ana use cleanup and paint -out days to educate the public on graffiti related
topics.
Volunteers are an unstable labor force and it is difficult to be certain of their future input.
It is in San Jose's best interest to increase volunteer efforts, but the administration has already
indicated that there will be limitations in budgetary resources and staffing. This is a conflicting
remark published in the 2013 audit with the 2013-2014 adopted PRNS budget. The Anti -Graffiti
Program received $75,000 to increase its "market volunteer efforts" because "[v]olunteers are a
vital part of the service delivery" (2013-2014 adopted budget, p. 204). With this challenge, San
Jose may want to research further why municipalities, such as Long Beach and Santa Ana, are
not dependent on a volunteer force and still reach impressive goals of 99 percent of graffiti
removal within 24 hours. San Jose's contract with GPC was designed with volunteers doing non -
emergency removals in non -target areas, but with the lack of volunteers the contractor answered
more non -assigned area calls. The city may want to work with GPC to alter the contract to
include more areas for removal and analyze the cost -benefit.
Visibility of Program
Downsizing significantly affects the degree to which cities can supply education
materials to the public. Referring to Table 15, all four cities have endured significant downsizing
in staffing and budgetary resources, limiting their capabilities of producing and maintaining up-
59
to -date educational materials. Public outreach information is an important piece for cities to
incorporate in their graffiti removal program. It is listed as a component in best practices and
increases a city's visibility of its program (Recommendation #19). With the advent of social
media outlets the anti -graffiti message could become part of a city's Facebook, Twitter and
website outreach in multiple languages at little incremental cost.
Although Long Beach only provides information online, the city maintains information in
English, Spanish, and Khmer and clearly displays multiple ways for the public to report graffiti:
through email, use of the hotline, or use of the Go Long Beach Smartphone application. Santa
Ana's Public Works Department and SAPD work together to effectively display graffiti
information for the City. Presently, San Diego is working towards reaching previous public
outreach efforts. This is required to inform residents of available resources and ways to report
graffiti in the City.
According to the Anti -Graffiti Program 2013 audit, San Jose PRNS claims in FY 2013-
2014 the program will improve its public outreach efforts. The department will work towards
updating its website with new outreach materials. Additionally information will be available
online; the depth is dependent on staffing and budgetary resources. Materials will be available in
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese and will be located in areas deemed accessible to the public,
which is a best practice for graffiti removal.
VI. CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, graffiti removal programs tend to be among the first to experience budget
cuts in the wake of a financial crisis. As a result of the 2008 recession, all four municipalities
discussed have experienced significant program downsizing due to shrinking budgets. Practicing
cost -saving strategies, staff is eliminated and positions are contracted out. San Diego is currently
60
working towards a more efficient contract with Urban Corps to improve response times of
removal and the overall effectiveness of their program.
Referring back to The Graffiti Consultants' 10 steps to a successful graffiti removal
program, and based on the results of this research, an effective abatement program should
include a strong anti -graffiti ordinance, constant cooperation and coordination with affected
agencies, and active civic engagement efforts, such as the creation of brochures, language
accessibility, physical accessibility, unified contact information, and a user-friendly website. A
robust volunteer program is not necessarily required for the success of a program, if the contract
can be funded adequately.
The cities of Long Beach and Santa Ana are examples that a municipality can succeed in
obtaining positive response times for graffiti removal with the absence of a strong volunteer
force. This may be due to the size of the municipality, but this would require further research to
determine if this is a significant contributing factor. However, for the success of the San Jose
Anti -Graffiti Program, a strong volunteer basis is necessary, thus the current increased efforts for
public outreach and a focus on prevention to tackle the cyclical nature of the City's graffiti
dilemma.
Appendix A
California Graffiti Removal Program Interview Questions
1. What is your role in relation to the City's graffiti removal program?
2. How long have you been in this role?
3. Please describe a typical day in your job position.
4. What would you describe as the successes of the City's graffiti removal program?
5. Is the program facing any issues in regards to funding?
6. Are there internal or external factors that help the growth of the program? Hinder the
growth of the program? Please explain.
7. Does the City's program work well with other agencies such as Caltrans? In what type of
capacity?
8. Have you seen any particular changes regarding graffiti removal in the past five years?
9. What are the goals of programs (i.e. remove graffiti within 24 hours) and recent
outcomes?
10. What languages is graffiti abatement education material provided in to the community?
62
References
Artz, Matthew. (2013, October 26). Art or extortion? Many say murals can halt tagging, but
some disagree. Bay Area News Group, p. 1, p. 10.
Barnard, L. (May 2006). Graffiti abatement and management. Law & Order, 54(5), 115-117.
California Department of Finance.(2014). Redevelopment agency dissolution. Retrieved from
www.dofca.gov/development/.
California Penal Code §594.Vandalism and Malicious Mischief.Retrieved September 12, 2013
from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=0000l
01000&file=594-625c
City of Long Beach. (2006). Contract (29591) with Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. Retrieved
from http://citydocs.longbeach.gov/CityContracts/DocView.aspx?id=1295378&searchid
=4d2ec311-93b5-48d9-bccf-a9a2d03feald&dbid=0.
City of Long Beach. (2008). FY 2008 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmance/budget/documents/2009_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach. (2009). FY 2009 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmanceibudget/documents/2009_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach. (2010). FY 2010 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmance/budget/documents/2010_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach (2011). FY 2011 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmance/budget/documents/2011_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach. (2012a). FY 2012 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmanceibudget/documents/2012_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach. (2012b). Contract (32952) with Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. Retrieved
fromhttp://citydocs.longbeach.gov/CityContracts/Doc View.aspx?id=1249852&searchid
4d2ec 311-93b5-48d9-bccf-a9a2d03feald&dbid=0.
City of Long Beach. (2013). FY 2013 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmance/budget/documents/2013_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach.(2014a). Neighborhood Services graffiti removal information. Retrieved
from http://www.longbeach.gov/cd/neighborhood_services/free_ffaffiti_removal.asp.
City of Long Beach.(2014b). Public Works graffiti removal information. Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/pw/street_maintenance/anti_graffiti.asp.
City of Long Beach.(2014c). Mural & Cultural Arts Program. Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/about/murals/cultural.asp.
City of Long Beach. (2014d). FY 2013-2014 Action Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebankiblobdload.asp?BlobID=37815.
City of Long Beach. (2014e). FY 2014 Adopted Annual Budget Retrieved from
http://www.longbeach.gov/fmance/budget/documents/2014_adopted.asp
City of Long Beach Public Works Agency, Public Service Bureau.(2010). Graffiti abatement
63
program [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://Iongbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=665839&GUID=DAB5E69D
FEOC-4E62-84EF-B978B2888843 &Options=&Search=.
City of Long Beach Public Works Agency. (N.D.). Graffiti response time. Personal
communication.
City of San Diego, Neighborhood Code Compliance Division.(2006). Fiscal year 2006 budget.
Retrieved September 12, 2014 from
http://www.sandiego.gov/fin/annual/pdf/fy06/28v3neighborcode.pdf.
City of San Diego, Office of the City Auditor. (2014, March). Performance Audit of the Graffiti
Control Program Retrieved from
http://www.sandiego.gov/auditor/reports/fyl4_pdf/audit/ 14014_Graffiti_Control_Progr
m.PDF.
City of San Diego.(2014). Fiscal Year 2014 adopted budget. Retrieved from
http://www.sandiego.gov/fm/annual/pdf/fyl4/fyl4adoptedbudget full.pdf.
City of San Jose. (2011, May 27). Action Collaboration Transformation: Mayor's Gang
Prevention Task Force Strategic Work Plan Update 2011-2013. Retrieved September 16,
2013 from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/1358.
City of San Jose. (2011, December 31). B.E. S.T. Evaluation Report and Summary of Mayor's
Gang Prevention Task Force. Retrieved December 4, 2013 from
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3982
City of San Josh, Office of the City Auditor.(2013, June). Graffiti abatement: Implementing a
coordinated approach. Retrieved from
http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/I 8369.
City of Santa Ana.(2009). FY 2009-2010 Annual Budget. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/finance/budget/2009-2010/default.asp.
City of Santa Ana.(2010). FY 2010-2011 Annual Budget. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/finance/budget/2010-201I/default.asp.
City of Santa Ana.(2011). FY 2011-2012 Annual Budget. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/finance/budget/2011-2012/default.asp.
City of Santa Ana.(2012). FY 2012-2013 Annual Budget. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/finance/budget/2012-2013/default.asp.
City of Santa Ana. (2013). FY 2013-2015 Adopted Annual Budget. Retrieved from
http://www. ci. santaana.ca.us/finance/budget/2013-2015/documents/2013
2015_adopted _budget.pdf.
City of Santa Ana. (2014a). Police Department: graffiti. Retrieved from Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid..
City of Santa Ana (2014b). Police Department: graffiti reward program. Retrieved from
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/pd/documents/GraffifiRewardFlyer OOO.pdf.
City of Santa Ana, City Council Minutes, February 7, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/coc/documents/cc_minutes_20110207.pdf.
64
City of Santa Ana City Request for Council Action. (2014, February 4). Retrieved on February
23, 2014 from
http://santaana.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=38&meta_id=4661.
Conservation Corps of Long Beach. (2011). 2010-2011 annual report. Retrieved from
http://www.cclb-corps.org/about_annreport.html.
Conservation Corps of Long Beach. (2014). Conservation Corps of Long Beach Mission
Statement. Retrieved from http://www.cclb-corps.org/.
Crew, P. J. (2006).The mural as graffiti deterrence.Environment and Behavior, 38(3),
422.doi:10.1177/0013916505281580
Dickinson, M. The making of space, race and place: New York City's war on graffiti, 1970--the
present. Critique of Anthropology, 28(1), 27.doi:10.1177/0308275X07086556
Docuyanan, F. (2000). Governing graffiti in contested urban spaces.PoLAR: Political and Legal
Anthropology Review, 23(1), 103-121. doi:10.1525/pol.2000.23.1.103.
Editor. (2012, October 26). Two years, 22,000 service requests, 97 percent closure rate; `Go
Long Beach App' proving useful for residents. Everything Long Beach. Retrieved on
January 4, 2014 from http://www.everythinglongbeach.com/go-long-beach-app-proving
useful -for -residents/.
Edmond -Mares, J. (2011, August 22).Anti-Graffiti/Anti-Litter Program status update,
memorandum to Neighborhood Services and Education Committee. Retrieved from
http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20110920/20110920_0209.pdf.
Edmonds -Mares, J. (2012, May 25). Graffiti program update, memorandum to the Mayor &City
Council. Retrieved from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/2950.
Edmonds -Mares, J. (2013, February 25). Anti -Graffiti and Litter Program semi-annual report,
memorandum to Neighborhood Services and Education Committee. Retrieved from
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14298.
Fischer, B., & Ten Eyck, T. (2012). Is graffiti risky? Insights from the internet and newspapers.
Media, Culture & Society, 34. doi: 101177/0163443712452771.
Gee, E. (2013). City walls can speak: The street art movement and graffiti's place in first
amendment jurisprudence.Effrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, 20(1), 209.
Gladwell, M.. (2002). The tippingpoint: How little things can make a big difference. New York,
NY. Back Bay Books.
Glazer, N. (1979).On subway graffiti in New York. Public Interest, (54), 3-11.
Graffiti Eradication Services Business Case Analysis. (2011, March 18). Retrieved on December
4, 2013 from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2859.
Graffiti Hurts- Care for Your Community. (2013). Graffiti removal and restoration. Retrieved
from http://www.graffitihurts.org/rapidremoval/removal.jsp.
Halsey, M., & Young, A. (2002).The meanings of graffiti and municipal administration.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology (Australian Academic Press), 35(2),
165-186. Retrieved on October 6, 2013 from
65
http://search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sj library.orgllogin.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31
730132&site=ehost-live
Hasley, M., & Young, A. (2006). 'Our desires are ungovernable': Writing graffiti in urban
space. Theoretical Criminology, 10(3), 275.doi: 10. 1177/1362480606065908
Hoene, C. (2004). Fiscal structure and the post -Proposition 13 fiscal regime in California's cities.
Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(4), 51-72. doi:10.1111/j.0275-1100.2004.00347.x
Khan, K. (2001).Adolescents and graffiti.Arts & Humanities, 54(l), 18.
Koon-Hwee Kan. (2001). Adolescents and graffiti. Art Education, 54(1), 18-23. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sj library.org/docview/ 199421145?accountid=10361
Kuhney, L. (2011, January 27). Program launched to use GPS to track graffiti. U-T San Diego.
Retrieved on September 12, 2013 from
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/201 I/Jan/27/program-launched-use-gps-track-graffiti/
Lombard, K. (2013). Art crimes: The governance of hip hop graffiti Journal for Cultural
Research, 16(3), 255.
Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.58.010 - 8.58.210. (1990). Retrieved from
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientld=16115.
Long Beach Municipal Code Section 9.36.020. (1990). Retrieved from
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientld=16115.
Maland, E. (2008, May 13). The city of San Diego, California minutes for regular council
meeting. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from
http://docs.sandiego.gov/councilminutes/2008/min200805l3rm.pdf.
McAuliffe, C. (2012). Graffiti or street art? Negotiating the moral geographies of the creative
city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(2), 189-206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00610.x
McGrath, M. (2012). Case study H. Fiscal sustainability and political culture in Long Beach,
California John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10. 1002/ncr.21065
Request for Council Action. (2014, February 4). Agreement renewal with Graffiti Protective
Coatings Inc., for graffiti removal services. Retrieved from
http://santaana.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip—id=38&meta—id=4661
Richardson, L. (2010, July 7). Graffiti abatement program has three successful years. Gazettes.
Retrieved on January 4, 2014 from http://www.gazettes.com/gaffiti-abatement-program
has-three-successful-years/article b5719284-ffc5-5463-aalf-f4f6deae54f3.html.
San Diego Municipal Code Section 54. 0401 — 54.0414. (2008, July). Retrieved from
http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter05/Ch05Art04Division04.pdf.
San Josh Municipal Code Section 9.57.010 — 9.57.400. (2005). Retrieved from
http://sanj ose.atnlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/sanj ose_ca/title9healthandsafety/c
hapter957graffitiprohibitions?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal: sanj ose_ca.
SANDAG. (2012, June). Graffiti Tracker: An evaluation of the San Diego County multi -disciple
graffiti abatement program. Retrieved from
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid 1667_14466.pdf.
66
Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 10.221- 10.233.(2009, August). Retrieved from
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientld=14452.
Santa Ana Police Department. (2008a). Graffiti Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/pwa/documents/GraffitiAnnualReport2008.pdf.
Santa Ana Police Department. (2008b). Graffiti Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.ci.santa
ana.ca.us/pd/documents/GraffitiTaskForce.pdf.
Santa Ana Public Works Agency.(2009). Graffiti Task Force monthly report. Retrieved from
http://www.santa-ana.org/pwa/documents/GraffitiMonthlyReportJanuary2010.pdf.
Santa Ana Public Works Agency.(2010). Graffiti Task Force monthly report. Retrieved from
http://www.ci. santa-ana.ca.us/pwa/documents/GraffitimonthlyReportJanuary2Ol I .pdf.
Santa Ana Public Works Agency.(2011). Graffiti Task Force monthly report. Retrieved from
http://www.ci. santa-ana.ca.us/pwa/documents/GraffitiTaskForce-December2O l I .pdf.
Santa Ana Public Works Agency, (2012). Graffiti Task Force monthly report. Retrieved from
http://www.ci. santa-ana.ca.us/pwa/documents/GraffitimonthlyReport
December2012.pdf.
Santa Ana Public Works Agency.(2013). Graffiti Task Force monthly report. Retrieved from
http://www.ci. santa-ana.ca.us/pwa/documents/GraffitiMonthlyReport
November2013.pdf.
Silver, M. R. (August 2013), How cities can remove and deter graffiti and maximize cost
recovery. Western City, 89, 11.
Skogan, W. G. (2008). Broken windows: Why and how we should take them
seriously. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 195-10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00501.x.
Taylor, M., & Marais, I. (2009). Does urban art deter graffiti proliferation? An evaluation of an
Australian commission urban art project.British Criminology Conference, 9, 57.
Taylor, M., (2012). Addicted to the risk, recognition and respect that the graffiti lifestyle
provides: Towards an understanding of the reasons for graffiti engagement. International
Journal of Mental Health &Addiction, 10(1), 54-68. doi: 10. 1007/s 11469-010-9301-6
Ten Eyck, T., & Fischer, B. (2012),Is graffiti risky? Insights from the internet and
newspapers.Media Culture Society, 34(7), 832.doi:10.1177/0163443712452771
US Census Bureau.(2012a). City of San Jose. Quick Facts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06/0668000.htm1.
US Census Bureau.(2012b). City of Long Beach. Quick Facts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06/0643000.html.
US Census Bureau.(2012c). City of San Diego. Quick Facts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06/0666000.htm1
US Census Bureau.(2012d). City of Santa Ana, Quick Facts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06/0669000.htm1.
Wahl, Erik. (2013). Unthink:Rediscover your creative genius. New York, NY. Crown Business.
67
Weisel, D. L. (August 2004). Problem -oriented guides for police; problem -specific guides series
no. 9: Graffiti. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e07O42448_09update.pdf
Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982, March). Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood
safety. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/ 1982/03/broken-windows/304465/
Woolfolk, John. (2013, April 7). Freeway and railroad tagging frustrates San Josh graffiti fight.
San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved on December 4, 2013 from
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_22975743/freeway-and-railroad-tagging-
frustrates-san Jose -graffiti.
68