SOMAD REPORT

Systematic Observation of Mask Adherence & Distancing

 CONTENTS

Executive Summary 2-3

Study Sites 4-5
SOMAD Results Table 6-7
Mask Use Overview 8-9
Mask Use by Location 10-11
Commercial Streets 12-13
Neighborhood Parks 14-15
Playgrounds 16-17
Next Steps 18-19

2 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 1

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY DESCRIPTION

This report provides a description of the initial findings from the Philadelphia Study of Mask Adherence and
Distancing (SOMAD) study conducted in August 2020. Masking is a vital part of the strategy to control the
COVID-19 pandemic, as masks limit the spread of the air droplets that contain the virus.The public, however, has
received mixed messages about wearing masks and the issue has become politicized, compromising the ability to
end the pandemic in the United States.

Based on prior research and modeling studies, mask adherence greater than 80% may be needed to reduce
COVID-19 spread and related mortality1-3. As of August 2020, the City of Philadelphia recommended that people
wear masks if they leave their homes. In order to understand the ways in which people adhere to the City’s
masking recommendations, we conducted an observational study to document the characteristics of individuals
in 30 public spaces across all 10 councilmanic districts in the City.

This study seeks to answer these main questions:

• Are people in outdoor public spaces adhering to mask and physical/social distancing guidelines?
• Are there observable differences in perceived demographic (age, gender, race/ethnicity) and neighborhood
adherence to mask and physical distancing guidelines?
• Does level of physical activity engagement impact mask adherence?

Public areas for observations were identified based the potential for people to be near, and interact with others.
Trained observers identified the date, time and location of the observation and whether the ratio of space to
people is sufficiently large to enable people to maintain a 6-foot distance. Documentation of mask adherence and
distancing was done on an individual basis.

FINDINGS

We observed a total of 4613 individuals in the City of Philadelphia from between August 11th, 2020 and August
30th, 2020. Among our 30 study sites, 7 had visible signage with information on mask use. Only 43% of individuals
observed wore masks correctly, 40% of individuals had no masks, and 17% wore their masks incorrectly. There
were differences in mask adherence by all the factors we observed, including gender, age, and race. We found
the highest percentage of mask adherence in individuals in District 1, 2, and 3 sites. Commercial street sites had
higher percentage of mask adherence compared to parks and playgrounds.

To improve adherence and address disparities, we offer the following initial recommendations:

• A targeted informational campaign is needed to remind people of the importance of adherence. It may be
worthwhile to point out that the many groups with high mortality rates from COVID-19 have lower mask
adherence, especially males and minority groups.
• Increased signage in parks and playgrounds around the city to encourage higher mask adherence.

2 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 3

 STUDY SITES
PHILADELPHIA SOMAD OBSERVATION SITES In order to understand the ways in which people adhere to the City
of Philadelphia’s masking recommendations, we conducted observations
in three types of outdoor public spaces in each councilmanic district of
the City of Philadelphia – commercial streets, neighborhood parks, and
playgrounds. These three types of spaces provided a range of data across
varying scales of space size, density, and expected activity levels.

10 COMMERCIAL STREETS
Bustleton Ave & Grant Ave
We selected a major commercial
intersection in each councilmanic
Fox Chase Playground
district. Commercial streets, e.g.
Germantown Ave & Highland Ave Burholme Park
8th Street & Market Street and
Finley Playground Broad Street & Girard Ave, were
Rising Sun Ave & Levick St expected to be densely populated
8 Fisher Park with individuals engaged in
Frankford Ave & Cottman Ave
Gorgas Park Playground Vernon Park 9 Pennypack on the Delaware Park moderate levels of physical activity.
Wister Playground
6
Main St & Green Ln Russo Park Playground
Northwood Park
Pretzel Park Hunting Park
E Hunting Park Ave & G St
7 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
4
Jose Manuel Collazo Playground
Neighborhood Parks, e.g. Clark
Park and Vernon Park, were
expected to not be as populated
5 as commercial streets, with more
N Broad St & Girard Ave
Francisville Playground individuals engaged in sedentary
as well as moderate to vigorous
3
Franklin Square levels of physical activity.
47th St & Baltimore Ave Schuylkill River Park 8th St & Market St
1
Kingsessing Park Playground
Clark Park
Chew Playground Weccacoe Playground Commercial Street
S Broad St & Washington Ave Neighborhood Park
Playground PLAYGROUNDS
# District Number
2 Similar to commercial streets,
District Boundary playgrounds, e.g. Russo Park
playground and Wister Playground,
were expected to be densely
populated. However, we expected
0 1 2 mi to observe children engaged in
moderate to vigorous physical
activity and caregivers to be more
sedentary.

4 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 5

 SOMAD RESULTS TABLE

MASK MASK
PARTIALLY PARTIALLY
MASK NOT P -VALUE MASK NOT P -VALUE
MASK ON ON/OR MASK ON ON/OR
VISIBLE (CHI-SQ) VISIBLE (CHI-SQ)
NOT ON NOT ON
AND VISIBLE AND VISIBLE

N = 1988 N = 768 N = 1850 Group Size

MASK ON Gender Not in a group
46.9% 19.2% 33.9% 0.0001
Male 36.6% 17.7% 45.7% 0.0001 (alone)
2 43.8% 14.2% 42.0%
Female 51.4% 15.5% 33.1%
Non-Binary/ 3 to 5 34.0% 14.6% 51.4%
15.9% 4.5% 79.5%
Unknown 6 to 9 28.2% 8.5% 63.4%
Age Group 10 or more 48.1% 0.0% 51.9%
Toddler 6.5% 2.6% 90.8% 0.0001 At Least Six Feet From
Child 28.3% 8.7% 63.0% Other People
Yes 43.2% 17.3% 39.5% 0.5530
Teen 21.0% 15.2% 63.8%
No 43.2% 16.2% 40.6%
Adult 46.2% 18.7% 35.1%
MASK PARTIALLY ON Setting
Senior 60.3% 16.8% 22.9%
Commercial Street 51.3% 20.9% 27.8% 0.0001
Apparent Race/Ethnicity
Neighborhood Park 43.4% 12.7% 43.9%
Non-Hispanic White 47.0% 14.3% 38.7% 0.0001
Playground 22.3% 13.5% 64.2%
Non-Hispanic Black 35.2% 21.1% 43.7%
Setting
Non-Hispanic Asian 63.0% 14.0% 23.0%
Weekday (M-F) 39.2% 17.6% 43.2% 0.0001
Hispanic/Latinx 35.0% 13.3% 51.7%
Unknown/Unable to Weekend 46.9% 15.8% 37.3%
38.3% 9.2% 52.5%
Determine City Council District
Physical Activity Levels District 1 55.2% 22.6% 22.2% 0.0001
Sedentary 21.7% 18.4% 59.9% 0.0001 District 2 57.3% 9.9% 32.8%
MASK NOT ON, BUT VISIBLE Moderate 48.6% 17.1% 34.2% District 3 51.7% 14.4% 33.9%
Vigorous 20.4% 8.5% 71.1% District 4 33.1% 14.1% 52.8%
Mode of Transport District 5 25.3% 21.1% 53.6%
On Wheels 24.7% 17.1% 58.2% 0.0001 District 6 28.4% 22.2% 49.3%
Not on Wheels 45.0% 16.7% 38.2% District 7 35.8% 15.3% 48.9%
District 8 47.6% 18.4% 34.0%
District 9 33.6% 15.6% 50.8%
District 10 27.5% 8.5% 64.0%

MASK NOT ON, BUT VISIBLE

6 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 7

 MASK USE OVERVIEW
A summary of the findings from differences in mask adherence by 77% of sites
the data collected in August is all the demographic variables we
presented in the SOMAD results collected including gender, age, observed did not
table. and race as shown in the images
below.
have signage
We observed a total of 4613 related to mask
individuals, across 30 sites in the In addition, we found that only 7 of
City of Philadelphia, between the sites we visited – 4 playgrounds or distancing
August 11th, 2020 and August and 3 parks – had posted signage guidelines
30th, 2020. Observations were with mask requirements. While
conducted for an hour on both a there were no signs in the
weekday and weekend at each site. commercial streets we visited, we
observed that some buildings on
Overall, 43% of individuals the street have signage requiring MASK USE IN PHILADELPHIA MASK USE IN PHILADELPHIA
observed wore masks while masks for individuals entering BY RACE BY AGE
40% of individuals observed them.
were without masks. There were WHITE TODDLER
47% 9% 39% 91%
5% n = 2290 2% n = 153
7%
BLACK CHILD
40% of people MASK USE IN PHILADELPHIA MASK USE IN PHILADELPHIA 35% 13% 44% 28% 63%
BY GENDER n = 1652 n = 520
observed at all 9% 4%
4%
sites were not MALE ASIAN TEEN
37% 11% 46% 63% 9% 23% 21% 11% 64%
seen with a mask 7% n = 2437 5% n = 300 4% n = 224

40% TOTAL FEMALE LATINO ADULT

MASK USE 43%
51% 10% 33% 35% 57% 46% 11% 35%
n = 4613
6% n = 2123 n = 204 7% n = 3224
4%
3%
NON-BINARY/UNABLE TO DETERMINE UNABLE TO DETERMINE SENIOR
10% 6% 16% 80% 38% 53% 60% 11% 23%
2% n = 44 4% n = 120 5% n = 481
2% 5%

Mask on Mask on Mask on Mask on

Mask partially on Mask partially on Mask partially on Mask partially on
Mask not on, but visible Mask not on, but visible Mask not on, but visible Mask not on, but visible
Mask not visible Mask not visible Mask not visible Mask not visible

8 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 9

 MASK USE BY LOCATION
Across all districts, we found MASK USE IN PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA COUNCILMANIC
differences in mask adherence BY COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT DISTRICTS OVER MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
with the highest adherence INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT
(>50%) occurring in Districts 1, 2, DISTRICT 1
and 3 and the lowest adherence
55% 9% 13% 22%
(<30%) in District 5, 6, and 10 sites. n = 857
Preliminary findings suggest that
socioeconomic differences across DISTRICT 2 10
districts, such as income level, may 57% 33%
contribute to mask adherence. 7% n = 727
3%
In comparing each district, we DISTRICT 3
also found consistent variations 52% 34%
in mask adherence by type of n = 550
7%
location. 8%
DISTRICT 4 8
MASK USE IN PHILADELPHIA 33% 53% 9
BY LOCATION TYPE 7% n = 462 6
7%
PLAYGROUNDS DISTRICT 5
21% 9% 65% 25% 14% 54% 7
n = 865 n = 403
4
4% 7%

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS DISTRICT 6

44% 43% 28% 11% 15% 49%
8% n = 1582 n = 450 5
5%
COMMERCIAL STREETS DISTRICT 7
51% 12% 29% 36% 14% 49% # District Number
3
8% n = 2166 1% n = 229
District Boundary
1
DISTRICT 8 Median income by census tract
Mask on 47% 11% 34% No data
Mask partially on 7% n = 377 Over $59,300
Mask not on, but visible $43,700 - $59,300
Mask not visible DISTRICT 9 2 $26,200 - $43,700
34% 11% 51% Under $26,200*
5% n = 322 * Below poverty level
Mask on
Mask partially on
DISTRICT 10
Mask not on, but visible
Mask not visible 28% 64% 0 1 2 mi
5% n = 236
3%

10 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 11

 50% of people COMMERCIAL STREETS
observed on
commercial streets MASK ADHERENCE AT COMMERCIAL
wore masks SITES OVER MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT
55.29%

10

66.33%

42.71%

9
6

27.50%
7 37.31%
4

5
49.63%

3 31.28% X% Percent Observed with Mask On

1 Median income by census tract

59.11% No data
47.06% Over $59,300
$43,700 - $59,300
67.94% $26,200 - $43,700
2 Under $26,200*
* Below poverty level

0 1 2 mi

12 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 13

 Only 23% of NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
people observed
engaging in vigorous MASK ADHERENCE AT PARK SITES
activity at parks OVER MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT
wore a mask

14.56%
29.58% 10

35.04%

9
6

12.05%
52.49% 7
4
18.00%

19.15%
5

3 X% Percent Observed with Mask On

56% of people 1 Median income by census tract

observed not
54.03% No data
56.03% Over $59,300
distancing at $43,700 - $59,300

parks were also not

$26,200 - $43,700
2 Under $26,200*
wearing a mask * Below poverty level

0 1 2 mi

54.88%

14 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 15

 Only 15% of PLAYGROUNDS
children under the
age of 12 observed MASK ADHERENCE AT PLAYGROUND
at playgrounds wore SITES OVER MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT
masks
6.25%

10

3.85%
2.27%

9
6

11.57% 7 18.18%
4

13.64%

3 8.89% X% Percent Observed with Mask On

1 Median income by census tract

No data
14.74%
Over $59,300
$43,700 - $59,300
44.65%
$26,200 - $43,700
2 Under $26,200*
* Below poverty level

0 1 2 mi
43.84%

16 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 17

 NEXT STEPS
FURTHER RESEARCH

We plan to collect additional data from all sites in September and October.This will allow us to capture changes in
mask adherence over time in the City of Philadelphia. In addition, we intend to further examine the relationships
between observed mask adherence and a range of socioeconomic and neighborhood factors including income
and population density.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the preliminary findings, we offer the following recommendations to address disparities in observed
mask use:
• A targeted informational campaign is needed to remind people of the importance of adherence. It may be
worthwhile to point out that the many groups with high mortality rates from COVID-19 have lower mask
adherence, especially males and minority groups.

• Increased signage in parks and playgrounds around the city to encourage higher mask adherence.

LIMITATIONS

The data collected represent a small fraction of all the sites in the 10 council districts and it is not clear whether
these sites are representative of the entire city. Moreover, the sampling was done at specific days and times and
the degree to which these are representative is also unknown.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research presented in this report is funded in part by NHLBI # R01HL145145. Contributors to the study
design and data collection and analyses include Meghan Talarowski and Dr. Olaitan Awomolo of Studio Ludo,
Dr. Deborah Cohen of Kaiser Permanente, Dr. Thom McKenzie, Professor Emeritus of SDSU, Dr. Bing Han and
Stephanie Williamson of RAND Corporation. Field staff include Emily Galfond, Krithika Mohan, and Tiffany
Durkson.

1. Mancuso M, Iboi E, et al. To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Dis
Model. 2020;5:293-308.
2. Teslya A, Pham TM, Godijk NG, Kretzschmar ME, Bootsma MCJ, Rozhnova G. Impact of self-imposed prevention measures and short-term government-imposed
social distancing on mitigating and delaying a COVID-19 epidemic: A modelling study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(7):e1003166.
3. Worby CJ, Chang HH. Face mask use in the general population and optimal resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature communications.

18 SOMAD REPORT | PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA | SOMAD REPORT 19

SOMAD PHILADELPHIA
PRELIMINARY REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2020
© STUDIO LUDO