0 Teempee Policce an nd Firre Dep partm mentss Com mmuniity Assessmeent and d Work kload A Analysis Januaary 20 014 P Prepared by: Presen nted by: Chief Tom Ryff Police Deparrtment City of Temp pe Chie ef Greg Ruiz Fire,, Medical, Re scue Departm ment City of Tempe 1 Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Demographic Overview............................................................................................................................. 4 Economic Growth and Development ........................................................................................................ 5 Police Workload Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 5 Fire Workload Indicators........................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Demographics ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Population ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Age and Sex ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................... 10 Education ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Income, Poverty and Unemployment ..................................................................................................... 11 Housing ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Demographic Summary .......................................................................................................................... 13 Tempe ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Zip Code Highlights ............................................................................................................................. 14 Public Safety Implications ................................................................................................................... 14 Economic Growth & Development ............................................................................................................. 15 Tempe ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Arizona State University.......................................................................................................................... 17 Police Workload Indicators ......................................................................................................................... 19 Staffing Levels ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Calls for Service ....................................................................................................................................... 20 CFS Comparison: Other Valley Cities .................................................................................................. 21 Time Spent On Calls ............................................................................................................................ 22 Call Dispositions .................................................................................................................................. 23 Call Types ............................................................................................................................................ 23 Response Time .................................................................................................................................... 23 2 Traffic Accidents.................................................................................................................................. 24 Calls for Service Summary ................................................................................................................... 24 Crime ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Valley‐wide Violent Crime................................................................................................................... 27 Valley‐wide Property Crime ................................................................................................................ 28 Fire Medical Rescue Indicators ................................................................................................................... 29 Calls for Service ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Staffing, Infrastructure & Future Development ...................................................................................... 31 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 References .................................................................................................................................................. 36 3 List of Tables Table 1: Population Change .......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Daytime City Population.................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3: Median Age ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: 2010 Male/Female Snapshot .......................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Ethnicity......................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Median Household Income Change .............................................................................................. 11 Table 7: Unemployment ............................................................................................................................. 12 Table 8: Individuals in Poverty .................................................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Housing Units ................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 10: Vacant Housing ........................................................................................................................... 13 Table 11: City of Tempe Development Projects (as of Dec. 2013) ............................................................. 16 Table 12: Sworn/Civilian Ratios .................................................................................................................. 19 Table 13: CFS by Zip Code ........................................................................................................................... 21 Table 14: CFS per 1,000 Residents .............................................................................................................. 21 Table 15: 2004‐2013 Crime in Tempe ......................................................................................................... 24 Table 16: 2013 Tempe Crime by Zip Code .................................................................................................. 25 Table 17: Violent Crime Rates ..................................................................................................................... 27 Table 18: Property Crime Trends ................................................................................................................ 28 Table 19: 2009‐2013 TFMRD Data .............................................................................................................. 29 Table 20: CFS by Fire Station ....................................................................................................................... 31 List of Figures Figure 1: City of Tempe Zip Code Boundaries ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: 2010 Racial Breakdown ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3: Median Household Income Graph ............................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Bachelor's Degree Attainment ..................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Owner‐Occupied Housing ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6: Renter‐Occupied Housing ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 7: Future Economic Development Locations ................................................................................... 17 Figure 8: ASU Future Development ............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 9: Sworn/Civilian Personnel ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 10: Calls for Service, 2004‐2013 ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure 11: Calls for Service by Source ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 12: CFS per 1,000 Residents ............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 13: CFS per Sworn Position .............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 14: On Call Time, Hours per Day ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure 15: CFS Disposition Trends ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 16: Response Time ........................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 17: Traffic Accidents......................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 18: 10‐year Tempe Crime Trend ...................................................................................................... 25 Figure 19: 2013 CFS & Crime Map .............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 20: Violent Crime Trends ................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 21: Property Crime Trends ............................................................................................................... 28 Figure 22: 2009‐2013 FMR Calls for Service in Tempe .............................................................................. 29 Figure 23: Medical Calls for Service by Type............................................................................................... 30 Figure 25: CFS by Fire Station ..................................................................................................................... 31 4 Executive Summary The Tempe Police Department’s 2013 strategic plan includes the completion of a comprehensive community assessment and staffing plan. As such, the purpose of this report is to proactively look at a wide range of factors that influence service delivery and then establish an appropriate response through a staffing plan. In collaboration with the Tempe Fire Department, a holistic approach was undertaken to ensure that this report is both comprehensive and responsible. As such, data was gathered from informal conversations, federal statistics repositories, and department records management systems. In brief, some areas researched support a greater need for staffing, others identify changing needs for service delivery, and others simply provide greater context. This project began by gathering knowledge from Police Department personnel through informal conversations and a structured focus group. Throughout each conversation, three specific themes continued to be voiced. First, police personnel were concerned that the Department was not prepared to address the potential challenges with the number and magnitude (i.e., square footage and high rises) of recent/new development. Second, police personnel continued to express the negative impacts of increased workload due to the Department’s recent budget reduction cuts and elimination of personnel. Third, Investigations is facing a growing complexity of cases and changing mandates, which require additional resources and time. To assess these concerns, it was apparent that additional data was necessary to understand the community we serve, forecast impacts of future development, and evaluate workload measures. This report provides a comprehensive review of the city’s demographics to identify significant trends in population characteristics and socioeconomic status. Changing demographics influence the amount and type of service required. Second, the City is recovering from the recent economic crisis. As a result, economic growth and development is on the rise. A thorough analysis of current and future development, inclusive of Arizona State University (where available), is provided. Third, a historical assessment of department workload measures gives insight on current and future service delivery levels. This report concludes with a detailed list of public safety staffing needs which are based on this assessment. Highlights of this report are provided below. Demographic Overview        Tempe’s residential population growth is slower than the state and national rates over the past 10 years. However, its population increases by 46.1% each day due to commuting patterns (164,147 to 239,861 persons). Annually, the city attracts hundreds of thousands of attendees to special events, like the Buffalo Wings Bowl, Iron Man, New Year’s Eve Block Party, the Rock & Roll Marathon, and ASU sporting events, which further impact Tempe’s service population and traffic congestion. Tempe is a younger community (mean age 28.1 years) compared to the nation and state, and trending younger overall. Individuals living in Tempe are more likely to be a high school graduate or higher, and to have received a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to national and state averages. Tempe’s median household income is increasing at a significantly slower rate than the nation and state. Further, Tempe’s median household income is lower than the nation and state medians. Twenty‐one percent of Tempe residents are living below the poverty level. This is a 48% increase from 2000 to 2010. Tempe’s housing unit growth of 10% from 2000 to 2010 lagged behind the nation and state. 5  The percentage of owner‐occupied housing units is decreasing over time. As of 2010, more housing units are renter occupied (55% renter occupied compared to 45% owner occupied). Economic Growth and Development           As of December 2013, the City of Tempe’s Community Development Department lists 41 hotels, multi‐family, mixed use, and select large‐scale commercial projects in some form of development city‐wide. In total, these projects will add over 7,266 new residential/hotel rooms. Eighty percent (33 out of 41) of these developments are planned for the northern portion of the city. Forty‐four percent are listed as mixed use developments. In general, most are residential developments mixed with other forms of development (e.g., commercial, retail, restaurant, etc.). Large structures with multiple stories provide distinct challenges to first responders. Looking at these new developments, building square‐footage ranges from 6,150 square feet to over 3 million square feet. The average building size is 447,607 square feet. Further, one in five of the proposed developments have a maximum height above 10 stories. Arizona State University’s on‐campus student population is expected to increase gradually while student makeup and housing arrangements are expected to change significantly. ASU is concentrating its efforts to recruit out of state and international students. This change increases the number of students living on, or near, campus; thus increasing the ASU student population served by the Tempe Police Department. ASU development is expected to increase in the near future. With a planned refurbishment of ASU’s football stadium, ASU plans to create an associated stadium district. This district will blend academic research facilities, student classrooms, and commercial development. There is no clear understanding of who will have law enforcement jurisdiction, municipal or campus police, for ASU planned developments. As such, Tempe Police and Fire Departments are assuming that they will provide public safety services to these developments. Historical changes have already impacted public safety services. As an example, ASU’s Fraternity Housing moved off campus as a result of construction plans on campus. As noted in the Loud Party Report, loud party and other nuisance calls for service increased in relationship to their locations within Tempe neighborhoods. See this report for further details. Police Workload Indicators       1 Since 2008, the Police Department has reduced its staffing level by 84 positions (20 sworn and 64 civilian). Calls for service for the Department have declined since 2004. However, they have remained relatively stable over the past three years. This trend is consistent with other valley agencies. While overall calls for service have declined, the amount of time required to complete a call for service has increased since 2010 (152 hours per day in 2010 to 176 hours per day in 2013). Response times for “top priority” calls for service have significantly increased from 5.6 minutes per call in 2010 to 6.8 minutes per call in 2013. Part I crime1 has decreased citywide by 38% over the last decade. This is consistent with the nation and other valley agencies. Property crime has decreased 39% and violent crime has decreased 15% over the last decade. Part I crime include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 6  Compared to other valley agencies in 2012, Tempe has the second highest rate of property crime and violent crime per 1,000 residents. It should be noted that this rate does not take into account Tempe’s day time population increase. Fire Workload Indicators     Since 2009, the Tempe Fire Medical Rescue Department (TFMRD) has experienced a steady increase in calls for service within Tempe. Between 2009 and 2013, the number of emergency incidents to which the Department responded increased by 16.1%, while emergency medical incidents increased by 16.3%. While the number of medical assistance calls for service has increased, so have the changes in the nature of the medical calls within the community. There are specific increases in incidents requiring paramedic skills and life support. Between 2013 and 2018, TFMRD will experience known vacancies of 22 positions or 15.6% of front line staff due to retirements. The increase of calls for service between 2009 and 2013 and anticipated growth in density due to multi‐story buildings demonstrates an anticipated increase in demands for service. 7 Introduction The following assessment was developed as a planning tool to identify future public safety resource needs for Tempe. This assessment furthers our understanding of the changing demands for public safety over the next three years. It provides a snapshot of resident demographics and how they have changed over the past 10‐12 years. These indicators and the changing needs of the community influence workload demand. This assessment also reviews current and planned developments in the city and their impact on:     Traffic patterns and congestion; Police calls for service and crime; Fire and crime prevention efforts; and Fire, Medical, and Rescue calls for service. Further, Tempe is home to one of the largest universities in the nation. As such, this assessment includes a discussion on the impact to City public safety services as it relates to Arizona State University’s Tempe Campus. Current and forecasted growth specific to on, and off, campus populations are reviewed as an indicator for future needs. Finally, an analysis of Department workload indicators is provided that includes trends in police, fire, medical, and rescue calls for service and crime. It analyzes the data by type of activity, as well as spatially across the city. The purpose of this document is to provide an accurate image of Tempe today while projecting into the future to effectively determine the public safety needs of our community, and strategically plan for resources and service delivery over the next three years. Background Tempe has grown from a small eclectic college town to a dynamic urban center. Tempe’s General Plan 2040 provides a vision for its future: “…elevating Tempe as the regional leader in urban living; expanding commercial and employment hubs; championing sustainable practices; enhancing quality of life and preservation of neighborhoods; and ensuring livability by keeping the community safe and secure.” (City of Tempe General Plan 2040, 11/21/2013) Public safety executive staff is fully committed to sustainable practices that ensure the safety and security of our community. Tempe public safety departments have continued to maintain the high levels of service in spite of deep budget cuts over the past decade. Implementation of technology and changes in operational policy have improved efficiencies. The 2012 Tempe Community Survey demonstrated that over 82% of residents were “satisfied or very satisfied” with the quality of Police, Fire, Medical and Rescue Services. It also pointed out that their highest priorities were improving Police Services and Neighborhoods. However, with the existing and projected increase in population density and urban development, addressing staffing and resource deficits today will ensure that preventative and emergency service delivery continues to meet citizen expectations tomorrow. 8 Demogrraphics The follow wing demograaphic analysiss provides an a overview of o the populaation served today compared to ten years ago to provide a greater context for underrstanding current an nd future servvice needs an nd associated d methods off service delivvery. For example, changes in th he residential on at the city level l and with hin populatio smaller ge eographic reggions provide distinct knowledgge to forecast future workload demands.. In addition to population n counts, this sectio on reviews co ommunity trends with age, sex, race/ethnicity r y, education, income, poverty, and a housing preferences p (ii.e., own vs. rent). The following review com mpares each dem mographic indicator at the national, state, cityy, and Tempe zip code leve el between the t years 200 00 and 2010. As a reference e, Figure 1 displays the geo ographic boundarie es for the zip codes that co omprise the city off Tempe. Population Comparin ng 2010 to 2000, the national Figure 11: City of Tempee Zip Code Boun ndaries populatio on has grown by 10%. During this same time e period, Arizzona experien nced a greater grrowth rate off 25%. Even with w Arizona’s population bboom, Tempee’s growth ratte was slowerr than both regio ons at just 2% %. Fluctuation ns in populatiion among zipp codes are o of particular in nterest. The northernm most zip code e for the city had h the greattest increase in population n (12%) and the southernm most zip code had h the greatest decrease in population n (6%) betwe en 2000 and 2010. One of the unique qualities of Temp pe is the pulation Pop changing nature of its population. Seasonal S 2000 0 201 10 %chan nge populatio on as a result of Arizona Staate United Statees 281,421,,906 308,74 45,538 10% % Universityy (ASU) and sttudent attend dance, 5,130,,632 Arizona 6,39 92,017 25% % daytime population p as a result of co ommuting 16 61,719 2% % Tempe 158,,625 to work, and a event attendance all play p a 51,,051 5 57,348 12% % 85281 significantt role in the city’s c changing dynamics 4 48,671 ‐5% % 51,,244 85282 over time e. ASU’s schoo ol attendance e has made 43,,999 4 44,813 2% % 85283 ASU the laargest university in the country at 2 ,550 1 16,479 ‐6% % 17, 85284 73,000 plu us full time sttudents . Wh hile the Universityy brings manyy positive opp portunities Table 1: Populaation Change for its pattrons, it also presents p uniq que challenges for public saafety. Collegge sports are a big draw for current sttudents and alumni. a As a major m employyer, ASU playys a significantt role in increeasing the dayytime 2 This figurre includes all ASU A campuses US News and World Report 9 population3 within the city, as well. Table 2 shows that Tempe experiences the largest daytime percent increase when compared to other Valley cities. Table 2: Daytime City Population While Tempe grows 46.1% during the day Daytime Population Change Estimated Daytime as compared to Scottsdale’s 26.2% and Resident daytime population Phoenix’s 9.1%, all other valley cities City population population change experience a reduction in population Apache Junction 33,956 29,565 ‐12.9% during the day. As a college destination, Avondale 70,274 51,959 ‐26.1% ASU attracts hundreds of thousands of Chandler 229,531 210,423 ‐8.3% attendees to ASU football, basketball, 195,046 151,563 ‐22.3% baseball, track and other sports throughout Gilbert town 229,687 207,663 ‐9.6% the school year. In addition, Tempe special Glendale Mesa 439,639 408,028 ‐7.2% events, like the Buffalo Wings Bowl, Iron Peoria 148,702 117,228 ‐21.2% Man, New Year’s Eve Block Party, and the Phoenix 1,450,206 1,582,418 9.1% Rock & Roll Marathon impact the service Scottsdale 218,770 278,218 27.2% population and traffic congestion. While 164,147 239,861 46.1% these events bring revenue and tourism to Tempe the city, they continue to require additional resources to plan for, organize and host these events. This influx in daytime populations and special event attendance significantly increase service delivery needs. Age and Sex From 2000 to 2010, the national and state median age Median Age (Years) has increased by 5% (see Table 3). In comparison, Tempe 2000 2010 %change seems to be trending younger (2% decrease over the past United States 35.3 37.2 5% ten years). Further, as of 2010 Tempe has a much 34.2 35.9 5% younger median age (28.1 years) compared to the nation Arizona (37.2 years) and the state (35.9 years). This distinction in Tempe 28.8 28.1 ‐2% median age is primarily due to the low median age of 85281 24.9 23.5 ‐6% residents in the northern part of the city (23.5 years), a 85282 30.6 30.6 0% 6% decrease compared to 2000. Conversely, the median 85283 31.0 31.4 1% age of residents in the most southern zip code increased. 85284 38.2 45.1 18% As this age gap has widened, the southernmost zip code’s Table 3: Median Age median age (45.1 years) is almost double that of the northernmost zip code. Nationally, 51% of the population is female (see 2010 Male/Female Snapshot Table 4). Both Arizona (50%) and Tempe (48%) Male Female %Female have a lower percentage female population. In United States 151,781,326 156,964,212 51% Tempe the proportion of female residents increases from north to south. This is interesting Arizona 3,175,823 3,216,194 50% in that the zip code having the most significant Tempe 84,200 77,519 48% growth over the past ten years (85281), and most 85281 31,214 26,134 46% populated, is only 46% female. The 2010 85282 24,983 23,688 49% proportions for all geographic areas are 85283 22,640 22,173 49% consistent with those seen in 2000. 85284 8,134 8,345 51% Table 4: 2010 Male/Female Snapshot 3 Daytime population is calculated by the US Census Bureau to be the number of commuters entering and exiting a given city per day. 10 Race and Ethnicity Consistent with the U.S. trend, Figure 2: 2010 Racial Breakdown Tempe’s population is becoming 2010: Racial Breakdown (%) more racially diverse. In other words, all four geographic regions (i.e., the 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 U.S., Arizona, Tempe, and Tempe zip codes) reflect a decrease in the US proportion of the population that is white (see Appendix A for 2000 racial Arizona breakdown). Further, 2010 figures Tempe show Tempe mirroring the state and national proportions (see Figure 2). 85281 Focusing specifically on Tempe, the central zip codes have seen the 85282 largest change over the past 10 years 85283 in the proportion of residents who are white (85282, ‐6%; 85283, ‐10%). 85284 The most southern zip code of the city reflects the smallest proportion of racial diversity (85.4% white) in Tempe. White Black Amer. Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2+ races A review of ethnic trends shows the percentage of Hispanic or Latinos increasing nationally, at the state level, and in Tempe (see Table 5). Arizona has a much higher proportion of its community describing themselves as Hispanic or Latino than the U.S. (29.6% compared to 16.3%). Tempe’s proportion is lower than Arizona, but still higher than the U.S. Similar to the above review of race, Tempe’s southernmost zip code has the lowest proportion of Hispanic or Latino community members compared to the other zip codes, Table 5: Ethnicity the city, and the nation. Overall, the data shows the proportion of Hispanic or Latino community in Tempe growing. Small change is seen in the northernmost zip code of the city where the proportion of Hispanic or Latino community members has declined by 2% between 2000 and 2010. However, this area has had, and still has, one of the highest proportions of Hispanic or Latino residents. Ethnicity: % Hispanic or Latino 2000 2010 %change United States 12.5 16.3 30% Arizona 25.3 29.6 17% Tempe 17.9 21.1 18% 85281 25.2 24.6 ‐2% 85282 16.5 20.6 25% 85283 22.1 26.7 21% 85284 6.9 8.9 29% Education While Arizona is pacing with the nation in the percentage of residents that are high school graduates or higher (see Appendix B), it lags slightly behind in Bachelor’s degree or higher graduates (see Figure 3). Tempe, on the other hand, is well above the nation and state for both. Over 90% of Tempe residents are a high school graduate or higher, with Arizona and the U.S. at 85.2% and 85.4%, respectively. Further, in Tempe, 41.3% of those 25 and older hold a Bachelor’s degree or higher, with Arizona and the U.S. at 26.4% and 28.2%, respectively. 11 The highest percentage of respondents with a Bachelor’s degree or higher are located in the southernmost area of the city (65.3%). Income, Poverty and Unemployment Bachelor's Degree or Higher 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 2000 20.0% 2010 10.0% While Tempe’s median household 0.0% income increased by 15% from 2000 to 2010 (see Table 6), the nation and state’s median household income had a far greater increase (26% and 25%, Figure 3: Bachelor's Degree Attainment respectively). Further, Tempe’s Figure 4: Median Household Income Graph median household income ($48,618) is over $2,000 less than $140,000 Median Household Income the state’s median ($50,752). $120,000 Within Tempe there is great disparity of median household $100,000 income from north to south. $80,000 Similar to median age, median household income increases $60,000 2000 incrementally from north to $40,000 2010 south. The southernmost area of $20,000 the city showed the greatest increase (35%) from 2000 to 2010, $0 and has a median household income over 3.5 times greater than the northernmost area of the city. Table 6: Median Household Income Change Median Household Income 2000 2010 %change United States $41,994 $52,762 26% Arizona $40,558 $50,752 25% Tempe $42,361 $48,618 15% 85281 $29,605 $33,937 15% 85282 $42,258 $48,263 14% 85283 $51,208 $55,633 9% 85284 $89,396 $120,949 35% 4 Amidst the recession, unemployment4 has increased across the country in the last decade (see Table 7). In 2000, unemployment in Arizona (5.6%) and Tempe (4.3%) were below the national rate (5.7%). In 2010, both city and state rates were at 9.7% unemployment, above the nation’s at 9.2%. The northernmost zip code had the highest unemployment rate in both years (6% in 2000 and 12% in 2010), while the southernmost zip code had the lowest (2.2% in 2000 and 5.1% in 2010. Unemployment calculated by number of persons 16 years of age and older in the labor force who are unemployed. 12 Table 7: Unemployment United States Arizona Tempe 85281 85282 85283 85284 Unemployment 2000 2010 5.7% 9.2% 5.6% 9.7% 4.3% 9.7% 6.0% 12.0% 4.1% 9.2% 3.6% 9.7% 2.2% 5.1% %change 61% 74% 127% 101% 125% 169% 133% Table 8: Individuals in Poverty % of Individuals below the Poverty Level 2000 2010 %change United States 12.4 14.3 15% Arizona 13.9 16.2 17% Tempe 14.3 21.1 48% 85281 26.5 33.4 26% 85282 12.1 21.3 76% 85283 10.1 16.3 61% 85284 2.9 4.2 45% Between 2000 and 2010, there was a 15% increase in the proportion of individuals living below the poverty level5 in the U.S. (2000, 12.4%; 2010, 14.3%) (see Table 8). Arizona’s proportion of individuals living below the poverty level and the change from 2000 to 2010 closely resembled the national trend. Conversely, Tempe showed a drastic difference from both the nation and state, with over 21% of Tempe residents living below the national poverty level in 2010, a 48% increase from 2000. Similar to income levels, the percentage of residents living below the national poverty level increase from the southernmost zip code to the northernmost zip code. Values range from 4.2% in the southernmost zip code to 33.4% in the northernmost zip code. The smallest change (26% increase) in residents living below the national poverty level occurred in the northernmost zip code, which is not surprising since that zip code contained the highest proportion in 2000. Housing The number of housing units in Arizona has Table 9: Housing Units grown by 30% from 2000 to 2010, compared Housing Units to a 14% increase nationally (see Table 9). 2000 2010 %change However, Tempe’s housing unit growth has 115,904,641 131,704,730 14% only seen a 10% increase over the same time United States Arizona 2,189,189 2,844,526 30% period. Significant differences in housing unit growth are seen amongst Tempe’s zip Tempe 67,068 73,462 10% code boundaries. While most of the city has 85281 21,511 26,011 21% only seen single digit percentage increases, 85282 22,816 23,136 1% the northernmost part of the city has seen a 85283 17,807 19,320 8% 21% increase in housing units from 2000 to 85284 6,122 6,407 5% 2010. Tempe’s percentage of vacant housing units (10.2 %) has remained lower than the national (11.4%) and state (16.3%) levels in 2010 (see Table 10). However, the percentage change from 2000 to 2010 shows a significant trend. Specifically, the proportion of vacant housing units from 2000 to 2010 has seen a 27% increase nationally and 24% at the state level. In stark contrast, Tempe's proportion of vacant housing 5 The national poverty level threshold is established on an annual basis. In 2000, the poverty level threshold was set at $8,794 per year. In 2010, the threshold was $11,139. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html 13 units has almost doubled. The largest increase in the percentage of vacant housing units is found in the northernmost part of the city (from 6.2% to 15.1%), while each of the remaining three zip code areas also reflects increases higher than the national and state level. However, the proportion of vacant housing units is still much lower in the three southern zip codes than at the state and national levels. Tempe's proportion of owner‐occupied housing units (44.5%) is much lower than the national (65.1%) and state (66.0%) proportions (see Figure 5). A review of the trend data shows Tempe’s 13% decrease in owner‐occupied housing from 2000 to 2010 shows Tempe moving to a more renter‐ occupied community at a faster pace than the nation (2% decrease) and state (3% decrease). Figure 5: Owner‐Occupied Housing % Vacant Housing Units 2000 2010 United States 9.0 11.4 Arizona 13.1 16.3 Tempe 5.2 10.2 85281 6.2 15.1 85282 4.7 8.7 85283 5.4 7.0 85284 2.7 3.8 %change 27% 24% 96% 144% 85% 30% 41% Table 10: Vacant Housing % Housing Units Owner‐Occupied 100 80 60 2000 40 2010 20 0 While owner‐occupied housing unit proportions have decreased in all areas examined (and conversely, renter‐ occupation has increased across the board), the percentage of owner‐ occupation increases from north to south Tempe. For example, the northernmost zip code has an owner‐occupied rate of only 24.9 percent, while the southernmost zip code has an owner‐occupied rate of 90.7 percent. Figure 6: Renter‐Occupied Housing % Housing Units Renter‐Occupied The proportion of renter‐occupied housing units in the northernmost zip code is over three times the proportion of the southernmost zip code (see Figure 6). Finally, the trend data suggests renter‐ occupation is growing slowest in the southernmost zip code of the city. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 2010 Demographic Summary Tempe Tempe’s population growth is slower than the state and national rates over the past 10 years. However, this demographic indicator may not take into account changes in Arizona State University’s student population, and does not take into account the significant day time population change based on commuting workers. Further, Tempe is the host of a multitude of special events throughout the year with attendee numbers surpassing 100,000 people for any given event. Tempe is a 14 younger community (mean age 28.1 years) compared to the nation and state, and trending younger overall. It is incrementally becoming a more diverse community specific to race and ethnicity. Unlike the nation and state, in which slightly over 50% of the population is female, females account for 48% of Tempe’s population. Individuals living in Tempe are more likely to be a high school graduate or higher, and to have received a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to national and state averages. A review of economic indicators shows Tempe’s median household income increasing at a significantly slower rate than the nation and state. Further, Tempe’s median household income is lower than the nation and state medians. The percentage of individuals living below the poverty level in Tempe (21%) is over 48% and 30% greater than the nation and state ratios. This is a 48% increase compared to 2000 in the proportion of Tempe residents living below the poverty level. Tempe’s housing unit growth of 10% from 2000 to 2010 lagged behind the nation and state. As housing unit growth remained low, the percentage of vacant houses in Tempe also doubled from 2000 (5.2%) to 2010 (10.2%). It should be noted that Tempe’s vacant housing ratio remains lower than the nation and the state. Finally, the percentage of owner‐occupied housing units is decreasing over time. As of 2010, more housing units are renter occupied (55% to 45% owner‐occupied). Zip Code Highlights The northernmost zip code (85281) is growing the fastest, has the youngest residential population, is one of the more diverse areas of the city (specific to race and ethnicity), has the highest percentage of male residents (54%), has the lowest population achieving a high school diploma and/or bachelor’s degree or higher, has the lowest median income, has the highest percentage of individuals living below the poverty line, has the highest number of housing units, has the highest percentage of vacant housing units, and has the highest percentage of housing units renter‐occupied (75.1%). The north central zip code (85282) is decreasing in population, is retaining its median age, has the most significant increase in the percentage of individuals living below the poverty line (76% increase), and has the smallest increase in housing units between 2000 and 2010. The south central zip code (85283) is increasing in population, is retaining its median age, and is showing the greatest demographic change (specific to race and ethnicity). The southernmost zip code (85284) has the largest percent reduction in population, has the oldest median residential population, is the least diverse (specific to race and ethnicity), has the highest percentage of female residents (51%), has the highest percentage of residents achieving a high school diploma and/or bachelor’s degree or higher, has the highest median household income, has the lowest percentage of individuals living below the poverty line, has the lowest number of housing units, has the lowest percentage of vacant housing units, and has the highest percentage of owner‐occupied housing units. Public Safety Implications The implications of these demographic changes suggest that Tempe will have a higher proportion of residents who are in their crime prone years, particularly in the north. The northern portion of the city is growing younger, more male and, as a result of being land‐locked, is becoming more densely populated (e.g., high rises). Conversely, as the residents in southern Tempe grow older, more medical and paramedic services may be required. Increases in poverty and rental occupancy in the north require a different approach to service delivery. Research suggests that levels of crime and victimization 15 occur at higher rates in lower income areas. Further, the transient nature of individuals living in rental communities creates unique challenges for ongoing crime prevention efforts. Economic Growth & Development Tempe Economic growth significantly influences public safety resource needs through increased population, traffic congestion, and response complexity (e.g., high rise development, hazardous materials, special needs residents, etc.). Major changes over the past 10‐15 years have already impacted the scope and nature of service delivery. Tempe has experienced the development of Arizona Mills Mall, Tempe Market Place, other major retail businesses (e.g., Tempe Autoplex, IKEA, and the Walmart Superstore), an expanded transportation system (e.g., freeway, light rail and other mass transit), Tempe Beach Park and Tempe Town Lake, and has experienced the opening of recent high rise student housing developments (e.g., West 6th, University House, 922 Place, the District, and Grigio). Further, Downtown Tempe6, inclusive of Mill Avenue, is the destination for residents and visitors looking for a great place to live, work, and play. The downtown continues to be a priority for public safety. The Tempe Police Department prides itself on making downtown a safe destination through assigned bike patrols, proactive enforcement details, and quality partnerships. Significant effort has been placed to promote a safe environment; however, the downtown is still facing issues. A recent analysis shows Part I crime increasing in this area (21.5% from 2010 to 2012), while decreasing city‐wide. Disorderly conduct associated with the homeless is also a growing concern. In addition, the development of light rail has added complexity to the downtown due to issues associated with mass transit. These challenges require a more sustainable response than current practices. With the recovery of the economy and solid construction plans in place, Tempe anticipates further growth and development. A current example is the new State Farm development located at 300 E Rio Salado Parkway. This development covers a footprint over 20 acres and includes a building structure over 2 million square feet. Its height will reach 253 feet, or approximately 25 stories. It is estimated that this development will bring over 8,000 new jobs to Tempe. As this project is developed, traffic congestion will increase due to road closures and restrictions for construction. Once developed, there will be a significant impact on the daily population density in the downtown area. As density increases so will public safety needs. Also of importance is the specific challenge this type of development provides to first responders as a high rise building. Responding to a multi‐story structure requires a different/more complex form of response compared to a single story residential or commercial dwelling. As of December 2013, the City of Tempe’s Community Development Department lists 41 hotels, multi‐ family, mixed use, and select large‐scale commercial projects in some form of development city‐wide. Table 11 lists these projects by stage of development, estimated units/rooms, and maximum height. In total, these projects will add over 7,266 new residential/hotel rooms. 6 Downtown Tempe is roughly defined by University Drive to the North bank of Tempe Town Lake, and Ash to College. 16 Table 11: Ciity of Tempe De evelopment Projjects (as of Dec. 2013) 17 Spatially, as can be seen in Figure 7, over 80% (33 out of 41) of these developments are planned for the northernmost zip code of the city. Forty‐four percent are listed as mixed use developments. In general, most are residential developments mixed with other forms of development (e.g., commercial, retail, restaurant, etc.). Figure 7: Future Economic Development Locations Looking at these new developments, building square footage ranges from 6,150 square feet to over 3 million square feet. The average building size is 447,607 square feet. Further, one in five of the proposed developments have a maximum height above 10 stories. In short, the projected square footage of these developments, in addition to the number of multi‐story structures, poses significant challenges to first responders in the future. Arizona State University During a conversation with Arizona State University’s Planner, a vision of Arizona State University’s future was provided with regard to student population/demographics and economic development7. Arizona State University’s on‐campus student population is expected to increase gradually while student makeup and housing arrangements are expected to change significantly. Specifically, ASU planners expect a 1% increase in the on‐campus student population per year for the next several years. While campus foot traffic is expected to grow slowly overtime, changes in recruitment practices and policy changes with student housing expectations are more substantial. First, ASU is concentrating its efforts to recruit out of state and international students. As a result of these efforts, ASU is realizing a greater proportion of out of state students than in the past. This change increases the number of students living on, or near, campus; thus increasing the ASU student population served by the Tempe Police Department. Second, ASU requires all freshman students to live in University housing. This emphasis in recruitment and policy expectation for freshman students means more students living in and engaging our community without consistent parental involvement. These changes create challenges for the 7 ASU’s development information is based on informal meetings with ASU staff. The Department was unsuccessful in collecting official planning data from ASU. 18 Departme ent respondin ng to inappropriate behaviior (e.g. loud parties, nuisaance activity, victimization n, crime, etcc.) associated with this dem mographic. ASU development is exxpected to increase in the near future. With a t of ASU’s planned refurbishmen r football sttadium, ASU plans to create an associated sttadium T district will w blend district. This academic research facilities, studen nt classroom ms, and comm mercial developm ment. This devvelopment will replacce what is currrently vacant property, parking lots, and a golf course (se ee Figure 8). As such, pedestrian and bike traavel will increase significantly s in n this area, ass well as inccreased traffiic congestion. While the ese issues must be addressed d through pro oactive Figure 8: ASSU Future Devellopment planning with w engineers, of greater concern iss jurisdictionaal authority. To date, therre is no clear uunderstandin ng of who will have law enforcement jurisdictio on, municipal or campus police, p for theese and otherr ASU planned d developments. This decission will greattly impact the e number and d type of resoources needed d to respond to activity in this area. As such, s Tempe Police and Firre Departmen nts are assum ming that theyy will providee services to these developm ments for public safety nee eds. A will continue to devellop throughout the city as needs arise. The In addition to the stadium district, ASU planned USA U Basketbaall complex is one example e. At the souttheast cornerr of Mill and U University, this complex includes an Olympic O baske etball venue that includes ssix courts and d 4,500 seats,, a conferencce center, offfice and retail space, luxury residential units, and a hotel. Centeerpoint will co ontinue to be an asset for ASU, A as well as a the ASU Re esearch Park. Currently, G GoDaddy is bu uilding a two‐‐story, 150,00 00 sq. 8 ft. Global Technology Center C at the research parrk inclusive off 1,300 emplo oyees . Alongg with the new w State Farm m Insurance Company C devvelopment on n Rio Salado PParkway, ASU’s developmeent greatly impacts service needs.. Historical changes have already imp pacted public safety servicces. As an exaample, ASU’s Fraternity Housing moved m off cam mpus as a ressult of constru uction plans oon campus. A As noted in th he Loud Partyy Report, lo oud party and other nuisan nce calls for service increassed in relationship to their locations wiithin Tempe ne eighborhoodss. See this rep port for further details. 8 Source: http://www.ggodaddy.com m/news/article/godaddy‐gllobal‐technollogy‐center‐b breaks‐ground d‐in‐ tempe.aspx 19 Police Workload Indicators Core components of police work include responding to calls for police service, documenting and investigating criminal activity, apprehending offenders responsible for these crimes and assisting in their prosecution. The demand for police services include responding to 911 emergency calls and non‐ emergency calls for help from citizens. A small proportion of calls for service are crime‐related where a police report is taken, typically 15‐20%. Historical trends in sworn and civilian staffing, calls for service, response times, and crime are included in this section to help predict their future impact on police work. In an attempt to put this data into a comparative perspective, data—where available—was used to contrast crime and arrest information across cities within the Phoenix metropolitan area, as well as across the state and nation. Staffing Levels # of positions Since a major factor that contributes to Personnel Police workload is staffing levels, this section begins with an overview of police Sworn Civilian Patrol Officer personnel since 2004. Figure 9 illustrates 400 that both sworn and civilian ranks began to grow gradually between 2004 and 2008 to 300 support mission critical functions. Between 2004 and 2008, the Department added 29 200 sworn positions and 30 civilian positions. 100 In 2009 the U.S. economy faced its worst recession since the Great Depression. As a 0 result, the Department was directed to cut $7.25 million in their operating budget as part of the City’s budget reduction process. Figure 9: Sworn/Civilian Personnel At that time, the Tempe Police Department was comprised of 575 employees (363 sworn and 212 civilian). Since 2008, the Police Department reduced its staffing level by a total of 84 positions (20 sworn and 64 civilian), and experienced significant decreases in its operating base budget (see Table 12). Authorized Patrol Officer Sworn Civilian Sworn:Civilian Ratio 2004 143 334 182 1.84 2005 145 339 190 1.78 Police Department Staffing 2006 2007 2008 2009 146 153 152 146 335 356 363 355 189 211.5 212 207 1.77 1.68 1.71 1.71 2010 149 342 152 2.25 2011 144 342 146 2.34 2012 149 343 148 2.32 2013 150 343 148 2.32 %change '04‐'13 5% 3% ‐19% 26% Source: Tempe Annual Budget ‐ Personnel Schedule / Sworn Includes patrol officers Table 12: Sworn/Civilian Ratios Through these reductions, the Department attempted to minimize the impact of direct police services to the community by maintaining sworn officer staffing levels in patrol (i.e., emergency responders). Table 12 shows patrol officers have remained relatively constant (152 to 150 between 2008 and 2013). However, The Department made significant cuts in investigations, support services, and civilian patrol staff (e.g., Community Service Officers (CSO), park rangers, records clerks, and first line supervision). The ten CSO positions eliminated from Patrol provided support to the community through response to non‐emergency calls for service and by writing an estimated 30% of the reports taken in Patrol 20 operation ns. Today, patrol officers answer a these non‐emerge ncy calls and write associaated reports. Further, when w the city’’s park ranger program waas eliminated , 17 full‐timee patrol suppo ort employees were lost.. Elimination of this program has required patrol off fficers to resp pond to calls ffor service within city parks and to provide proactive patrols when n available. Ass such, the Deepartment is no longer able to proactively patrol city parks and address concern ns before beccoming signifficant issues. Another area a impacted d by the budgget cuts was the t Records B Bureau. Reco ords personneel were cut byy five positions between 200 08 and 2010, and as a resu ult public acceess hours to R Records were reduced. Th hese e shifted to Co ommunications personnel already taskeed with manaaging calls forr after hourr duties were service. With W this reduction of civilian support sttaff (i.e., CSOss, park rangers, records), tthe Departmeent’s ability to provide field support was eliminated or significantlyy reduced. Finally, th he Departmen nt’s ability to advance its te echnology inffrastructure rrests on adeq quate staffingg and training of professionaal staff. Due to t significant cuts in the Ci ty’s Informattion Technolo ogy Departmeent, the Police e Departmentt is lagging be ehind industryy standards tooward maintaaining and en nhancing policce technologgy. In an attempt to addre ess this gap, the Departmeent reassigned d one sergean nt, two officeers and one records r clerk to t support th his function. Further, F a Burreau Manageer’s scope of rresponsibilityy was shifted to manage tech hnology on a full time basiis. While the Department has turned to o technologyy solutions to improve efficiencies, ad dditional supp port staff is reequired to ad dequately leverage and sustain this techn nology. For more information on Department’s tech nology infrastructure, see 2014 Technical Services Unit U Proposal. Figure 10: Callss for Service, 200 04‐2013 Calls forr Service As seen in n Figure 10, to otal calls for 9 service (C CFS) have bee en on a steady decline ovver the last de ecade, with an a overall 23 3% decrease (192,141 ( in 20 004 to 147,928 in 2013). Figure 11: Callls for Service byy Source 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 9 200 0,000 150 0,000 100 0,000 Call C Source Citizzen Total Calls for Service Officer 50 0,000 0 Citizen‐‐generated caalls have geneerally been on the declinee until 2011, w when they inccreased for tw wo years, tthen decreaseed in 2013 (seee Figure 11). From 22004 to 2013, there has beeen an overall 24% decreasse in citizen C CFS. Officer geenerated CFSS were stteady, peaked d in 2009, theen declined. FFrom 2004 too 2013, theree has been an overall 21% decreasse in officer ggenerated CFSS. Total calls for service en ncompass both h citizen generated (i.e., callss where citizen ns contact the p police for enerated (i.e., calls where offficers proactiveely view and reespond to an aactivity that req quires assistance)) and officer ge a police response). 21 Table 13 shows the current geographic distribution of calls for service by zip code. As shown, a greater proportion of calls for service is found in the northern most zip code and decreases moving south. When accounting for population, Tempe received 497 citizen calls per 1,000 people in 2013 (Table 13). Zip code 85281 had a much higher rate at 717 calls per 1,000. The proportion decreases moving south, with 85283 and 85284 well under the city rate (280 and 289 per 1,000). Table 13: CFS by Zip Code 2013 Citizen CFS by Zip Code % of City Rate (per Zipcode Count CFS 1,000 pop)* 85281 41,140 51% 717 85282 21,948 27% 451 85283 12,539 16% 280 85284 4,755 6% 289 Tempe 80,382 100% 497 *ba s ed on 2010 cens us popul a ti on CFS Comparison: Other Valley Cities It is important to examine call for service trends around the Valley to gauge how activity in surrounding areas10 may impact Tempe’s activity (see Appendix C for detailed table). As shown in Table 14, changes vary greatly among different cities’ CFS rates (per 1,000 residents). Tempe has experienced a 26% decrease on a per resident basis since 2004, similar to those of Glendale (‐21%) and Mesa (‐24%). All Calls for Service per 1,000 Residents‐ Select Cities City/Year Chandler Gilbert Glendale Mesa Scottsdale Surprise Tempe 2004 611 590 712 2005 642 621 662 2006 681 813 652 847 780 1,213 744 1,217 745 1,225 2007 690 803 659 839 1,058 734 1,147 2008 672 859 612 757 1,049 801 1,085 Table 14: CFS per 1,000 Residents 1,400 2010 608 908 567 712 1,029 787 970 2011 589 828 564 724 1,067 804 938 2012 556 819 562 704 1,032 988 916 2013 589 832 563 646 1,051 818 896 ‐4% 41% ‐21% ‐24% ‐1% 5% ‐26% Calls for Service ‐ Select Cities 1,200 CFS per 1,000 Residents The average CFS per 1,000 residents for select cities over the decade decreased by 1.3%, from 781 calls per 1,000 residents in 2004 to 771 in 2013 (see Figure 12). Tempe’s CFS per 1,000 residents decreased by 26% over the same period, from 1,213 to 896 calls per thousand. While Tempe had the highest CFS volume per 1,000 residents in 2004, they had the second highest CFS per 1,000 in 2013, behind Scottsdale at 1,051 calls per 1,000. It must be stressed that the rate takes into consideration CFS per resident population, and does not reflect the large population surge of visitors and workers experienced in the daytime. 2009 635 891 581 724 1,061 861 1,066 % change 2004‐2013 Chandler 1,000 Gilbert 800 Glendale Mesa 600 Scottsdale Surprise 400 Tempe 200 0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Figure 12: CFS per 1,000 Residents 10 Select cities are based on cities that provided Tempe PD with CFS, crime, and staffing data. 22 Figure 13: CFS C per Sworn Position When consid dering worklo oad per sworn personnel11, the average CFS for the select cities decreaased by 3.3% over the decade, from 475 in 2004 to 556 in 2012 (see Figure 13). TTempe’s calls per sworn decreased b by 20% over th he same timee period. In 20012, Tempe ranked directly in the middle o of the select ccities at 450 ccalls per sworn. SSurprise had tthe most at 9 916 calls, and Glendale had th he least at 32 24 calls per swo orn. 1,000 CFS per Sworn n Position 900 800 700 Chandler C 600 Gilbert G Glendale G 500 Mesa 400 Scottsdale S Time Spent On Calls Another imp portant indicaator of officerr 200 Tempe T workload is the amount o of time spentt on calls12 on a ttypical day. Data13 indicatees 100 that the hou urs per day sp pent on calls w went down for sixx years in a ro ow and have 0 gradually beegun to rise over the past tthree (3) years (seee Figure 14). In 2004, patrol spent 189 ho our per day o on citizen generated d calls for servvice, dipped to t 152 hours per day in 20010, and havee since rebounded to 176 h hours per day in n 2013. From 2004 to 2013, the numbe er of hours sppent on calls h has decreased d by 7%, but has increased by 16% since e 2010. 300 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Surprise S Figgure 14: On Calll Time, Hours peer Day On Call C Timee Hours per Day 200 189 187 187 171 161 154 152 2008 2009 2010 161 174 176 2012 2013 150 100 50 0 2004 11 2005 2006 2007 22011 Data com me from the Fe ederal Bureau of Investigatio ons, Table 71. 22013 data is no ot yet availablee. Calculate ed based on diispatch to clear, using both citizen and officcer generated calls for servicce. This only reflects the time frrom the call waas dispatched to t the time the e last officer le ft the call (clossed the call). It does not reflect the full am mount of time officers o spent on o the call – wh hen multiple oofficers respond ded. 13 2011 datta may be inacccurate. The Po olice Departme ent transitione d to a new Com mputer Aided Dispatch (CAD D) system mid d‐year. 12 23 Call Dispo ositions Call dispositions, or the e resulting action a taken for each call, is also a good d officer wo orkload indicator. As shown in Figure 15,, Incident rep ports have declined by 36% 4. Calls for since 2004 service re esulting in arre est or citation n have declined by 64% from 2004 to 2013. Callls resulting in other or no n further acttion have incre eased by 3%. Caall Dispositio on 90,000 0 Report 80,000 0 70,000 0 Accident Report 60,000 0 Arrest/Citaation 50,000 0 40,000 0 Street Check 30,000 0 20,000 0 Other Agen ncy 10,000 0 Other/No P Police Action 0 Figure 15:: CFS Disposition n Trends Call Typess Further an nalysis was co onducted to investigate i th he scope and nature of varrious call typees and to asceertain any trends in specific call c categoriess. Sixty‐three different cal ls types durin ng the years 2 2004 to 2012 were analyzed during this efffort. The folllowing call types have seeen significant increases since 2010: city code violationss (39%), civil standby s (57%), welfare che ecks (19%), annimal‐related d (36%), drunk‐disturbing ((8%), injured‐sick person (18 8%), drug‐relaated (49%), orders of proteection (20%) and accidentt (24%). Likew wise, simple asssaults (27%), burglary from m vehicle14 (243%), and figght (7%) calls for service arre on the uptick since 2010. Of greaterr concern is th he increase in n strong‐armeed robberies (16%) and assault with a eapon (97%) calls c that havve climbed above 2004 lev els and are of critical conccern. Clearly,, deadly we other seriious calls type es have been on the declin ne since 20044. Calls like arrmed robberyy, shots fired,, burglary, motor vehicle e theft, criminal damage, prowlers p andd endangermeent calls havee all declined. Response TTime 8..0 6..0 Minutes e Time Response Response times for priority 115 callss have incre eased over th he decade, from 5.4 minutes m in 20 004 to 6.8 minutes in n 2013, a 26% % increase (se ee Figure 16)). Additionallyy, priority calls, as a propo ortion of all CFS, C have increased from 46.3% in 2004 to 65.6% in 2013 2 (see App pendix D). 6.1 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.9 5.77 5.6 5.6 6.7 6.8 4..0 2..0 0..0 Figure e 16: Response Time T 14 These nu umbers may re eflect a change e in coding or classification c si nce 2004. Priority 1 (previously known k as Prioriity 0 calls in the old RMS) aree considered emergency resp ponse CFS, or ““hot calls”; Prio ority 2 (previously Priority 1) are a considered d “Top Priority..” This analysiss considers botth types. Time calculated from Entry to Arrive. 15 24 Traffic Accidents Tempe experienced an increase in traffic accidents from 2004 to the decade’s peak in 2006, with a steady decline afterwards that has remained relatively consistent since (see Figure 17). Overall, Tempe has seen a 27% decrease in traffic accidents since 2004. Traffic Accidents 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Calls for Service Summary 0 Over the past decade, both citizen and officer calls for service have decreased. The city’s service population during the day increases greatly, which is generally unaccounted for Figure 17: Traffic Accidents when examining calls and crime on a per resident basis. Response times have increased, time spent on call has increased, and the percentage of top priority16 calls has significantly increased, as well. As future development adds to call complexity and time associated with each call, patrol deficiencies, particularly with the loss of CSOs and park rangers, will need to be addressed to ensure the deployment of adequate resources for every citizen call received. Crime Crime is another indicator of patrol workload, as a reflection of incidents responded to and reports written as a result of criminal activity in the city. Tempe reclassifies crimes according to Federal guidelines and definitions17 in order to standardize crime activities, enabling comparison with other cities, states, and nationwide. Part I crimes are considered the most serious, as listed below in Table 15. Part I crime has decreased citywide by 38% from 2004 to 2013 (see trend line in Figure 18). Similarly, violent crime has decreased by 15% and property crime has decreased by 39% over the last decade. Table 15: 2004‐2013 Crime in Tempe Reported Part I Crimes in Tempe: 2004 ‐ 2013 Type of Crime Homicide Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Arson Total Violent Crime Property Crime 16 17 2004 8 86 263 623 1,793 8,838 2,411 36 14,058 980 13,078 2005 4 72 326 658 1,835 8,260 2,305 57 13,517 1,060 12,457 2006 6 71 426 592 1,795 8,374 2,420 74 13,758 1,095 12,663 2007 10 63 330 513 1,866 7,958 1,599 69 12,408 916 11,492 2008 6 34 323 505 1,534 7,562 1,116 54 11,134 868 10,266 2009 2 64 306 548 1,478 6,692 816 68 9,974 920 9,054 2010 12 43 268 460 1,416 6,412 650 42 9,303 783 8,520 2011 7 45 237 500 1,579 6,804 550 28 9,750 789 8,961 This may be due to changes in how we code or classify top priority and hot calls for service. Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). 2012 11 47 253 576 1,251 6,099 497 27 8,761 887 7,874 2013 3 62 224 542 1,271 6,115 487 50 8,754 831 7,923 25 # Incidents Annual Part I Crime in Tempe 15,000 12,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Figure 18: 10‐year Tempe Crime Trend Table 16: 2013 Tempe Crime by Zip Code 2013 Crime by Zip Code % of City Rate (per Zipcode Count* Crime 1,000 pop)** 85281 5,241 51% 91 85282 2,918 28% 60 85283 1,641 16% 37 85284 535 5% 32 Tempe 10,335 64 Figure 1918 shows the current geographic distribution of crime by zip code. As shown, the greatest number of crimes is found in the northern most zip code and decreases moving south. When accounting for population, Tempe experienced 64 Part I crimes per 1,000 people in 2013 (see Table 16). Zip code 85281 saw much higher at 91 per 1,000. Moving south, the rate decreases to 32 per 1,000 in zip code 85284. Three (3) times as many people are victimized in the northern area as compared to the southern area. *ma y not i ncl ude a l l cri mes , wi th s ome una bl e to geocode due to unknown l oca ti on **ba s ed on 2010 cens us popul a ti on 18 For geocoding purposes, 2013 crime for this chart is based on Arizona Revised Statutes, not UCR. 26 Figure 19: 2013 CFS & Crime Map 27 Valley‐wide Violent Crime From 2004 to 2012, Tempe’s violent crime rate (per 1,000) decreased by 11.7%. However, in 2012 it was ranked second compared to other valley agencies at 5.3 violent crimes reported per 1,000 residents, only behind Phoenix at 6.4 per 1,000 (refer to Table 17 and Figure 20). The US and Arizona had lower violent crime rates than Tempe, at 3.9 and 4.0 per thousand, respectively. As stated previously, it is important to note that the rate takes into consideration crimes per 1,000 residents. It does not reflect the population influx experienced due to visitors and workers. Table 17: Violent Crime Rates United States Arizona Phoenix Tempe Glendale Mesa Apache Junction Avondale* Chandler Peoria Scottsdale Gilbert 2004 4.6 4.9 6.6 6.0 5.9 5.6 3.6 2005 4.7 4.9 7.3 6.4 5.8 5.0 3.3 3.3 2.3 2.1 1.1 3.6 2.1 2.0 1.3 Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000) 2006 2007 2008 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.6 4.3 7.4 7.2 6.6 6.5 5.3 4.9 6.2 6.0 5.2 4.4 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.5 3.9 5.4 3.9 3.3 3.2 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 2009 4.3 3.9 5.5 5.2 4.5 4.2 3.2 4.0 2.9 2.0 1.7 0.8 2010 4.0 3.7 5.2 4.5 3.9 4.0 3.3 2.4 2.9 1.8 1.5 1.0 2011 3.9 3.8 5.5 4.8 4.8 4.1 2.3 3.2 2.8 1.9 1.8 0.8 *Avondale did not submit UCR data to the FBI for years 2004‐2007 8.0 Violent Crime Rate United States 7.0 Incidents per 1,000 persons Arizona 6.0 Phoenix Tempe 5.0 Glendale Mesa 4.0 Apache Junction 3.0 Avondale* Chandler 2.0 Peoria Scottsdale 1.0 Gilbert 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 20: Violent Crime Trends 2012 3.9 4.0 6.4 5.3 4.9 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.0 28 Valley‐wide Property Crime Tempe’s property crime rate has seen a 41% reduction from 2004 to 2012, from 79.8 per 1,000 residents in 2004 to 47.1 in 2012. Tempe ranked second in the property crime rate across the valley in 2012, behind Glendale at 64.1 per 1,000 residents (see Table 18 and Figure 21). Overall, the US and Arizona property crime rates were much lower, at 28.6 and 34.6, respectively. Table 18: Property Crime Trends United States Arizona Glendale Tempe Avondale* Phoenix Mesa Peoria Apache Junction Chandler Scottsdale Gilbert 2004 35.1 52.0 56.7 79.8 66.1 52.5 43.2 48.4 44.0 40.1 35.8 Property Crime Rate (per 1,000) 2005 2006 2007 2008 34.3 33.5 32.8 32.1 46.2 44.7 42.6 39.5 51.0 48.7 49.7 52.3 74.6 75.2 66.7 58.1 55.1 63.6 59.3 58.3 52.1 53.2 46.3 43.9 38.3 43.7 39.9 39.4 35.2 46.4 50.0 54.2 45.9 35.9 35.8 31.6 31.5 33.7 35.4 34.6 33.1 27.5 27.3 24.0 22.4 2009 30.4 34.7 49.0 50.6 49.4 41.1 34.2 29.6 36.5 29.1 28.4 19.7 2010 29.5 35.4 55.1 49.0 45.2 39.7 32.9 29.3 31.4 31.1 28.5 19.0 2011 29.1 35.4 64.1 54.5 50.7 44.0 34.0 30.6 34.1 31.0 30.5 18.2 2012 28.6 34.6 64.1 47.1 47.0 40.9 31.3 29.5 27.7 27.1 27.1 15.8 *Avondale did not submit UCR data to the FBI for years 2004‐2007 90.0 Property Crime Rate 80.0 United States Arizona Incidents per 1,000 persons 70.0 Glendale 60.0 Tempe Avondale* 50.0 Phoenix 40.0 Mesa Peoria 30.0 Apache Junction Chandler 20.0 Scottsdale 10.0 Gilbert 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 21: Property Crime Trends 29 Fire Me edical Resccue Indicattors The prese ent organizational structurre of the TFMRD encompa sses four coree divisions: M Management Support, Administratio A on Services, Emergency Services and Firre Prevention n/Public Education. These divisions and a sections provide a varriety of prograams and servvices includingg Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Services, S Fire Prevention an nd Public Edu ucation, Haza rdous Materiials, Technical Rescue, Dive Team, Me edical Supporrt Unit, Suppo ort Services an nd Recruitmeent and Trainiing. The following workloaad indicatorss track core se ervices at a macro m level off: calls for servvice, responsse time, fire in nspection acttivity and the associated perrsonnel to acccomplish thesse services. Essential workload w indicators for Firre, Medical, Rescue R Deparrtment includ des fire and m medical calls, response time, line and d admin personnel, and civilians (see T able 19). Table 19: 20 009‐2013 TFMR D Data Total Callss Fire Calls Medical Calls C Responsee Time (min) Line Perso onnel Admin Peersonnel Civilians Fire Demographic D cs 2009 2010 2011 20,540 18,747 19,563 2,208 2,126 2,232 15,264 16,261 16,919 6:58 7:10 6:52 145 125 143 12 13 12 29 22 29 2012 2 20 0,924 1 1,874 17 7,420 7 7:59 141 12 29 20 013 21,772 1,9 959 17,759 7:51 14 41 1 12 2 29 Calls forr Service Since 2009, the Tempe e Fire Medical Rescue Department (TFM MRD) has exp perienced a stteady increasee in calls for se ervice within Tempe, as illustrated in Fiigure 22. Betw ween 2009 and 2013, the number of emergenccy incidents to o which the Department D responded r inccreased by 166.1%, while emergency meedical incidents increased by 16.3% (see Table T 19). Of the t 21,772 em mergency incidents to whiich the Figure e 22: 2009‐2013 FMR Calls for Service S in Tempe e TFMRD Callls for Servicce 23,0 000 21,772 22,0 000 21,0 000 20,924 2011 2012 1 19,563 20,0 000 19,0 000 20,540 18,7 747 18,0 000 17,0 000 16,0 000 15,0 000 200 09 2010 3 2013 30 Departme ent responded in 2013, 81.6% were me edical in naturre. While the e number of medical m assisttance calls forr service has iincreased, so have the chaanges in the nature of the medical calls c within th he community19. From 20009‐2013, therre was a 26.4% increase off ervention of paramedic p levvel skills from m 7,912 to 9,9998 (see Figurre 23). The incidents requiring inte number of o basic life su upport inciden nts increased by 10.4% ov er the five yeears, from 7,0 028 to 7,761. 2013 Medical M Callls for Servicee by Type* 12,000 9,432 10,000 9,593 9,998 8,71 18 8,000 7,912 7,028 7,204 146 7,1 7,4336 7,761 Advanced d Life Support 6,000 Basic Lifee Support 4,000 2,000 ‐ 2009 20 010 2011 1 2012 2013 * There is a slight variance in the numbe er of dispatches due a change inn the final disp position of the in ncident. Figure F 23: Mediccal Calls for Servvice by Type The TFMR RD and Tempe e St. Luke’s Hospital H collab boratively impplemented a successful (unfunded) pro ogram in December 2013 kno own as Patient Advocacy Services. Withh this service, patients known to call forr services on o a daily or weekly w basis are a visited by a paramedic or nurse. Thee visits are deesigned to educate patients p on th heir medical conditions c and d prescribed treatments, tthus reducingg the need for repetitive e calls for servvice, ambulan nce transportaation for emeergency hospital care, and d costs associaated with hosp pital treatmen nt. In 1995, Engine E 275 waas added to offer o enhance ed service by providing parramedic coveerage and reduce response time in the northern section of Tempe. The TFMRD did not add aany additionaal fire compan nies until Engine 278 was placed p into service at Fire Station S 1 duri ng the first quarter of 200 09 to support an increase of o calls for serrvice in the Apache Boulevvard area andd east side of Arizona Statee University. However, during the first six month hs of 2009, En ngine 278 wass not in‐servicce for the maajority of the d days due to staaffing deficien ncies on other fire trucks. Before the adddition of Enggine 278, the number of caalls for service e for Engine 271 2 resulted in i fire companies from othher stations responding to o this area. 19 As a side e note, the Affo ordable Health h Care Act provvides mandatess for medical in nsurance coveerage for thosee individualss who do not have a plan. The e impact on caalls for service ddue to the add ditional peoplee with medical coverage on o the Tempe Fire F Medical Re escue Departm ment is unknow wn. 31 As noted in Table 19, the addition of o Engine 278 is apparent iin the reductiion of respon nse times for 2 2010 and 2011. Anecdotally, the improve ement in the economy res ulted in increeased constru uction, density of off‐campu us residenciess, and rise in demands for service, all reesulting in higgher responsee times during 2012 and 2013. Figure 24 4: CFS by Fire Staation 2 2009 ‐ 2013 CFS by Fire Station 6,000 1 4,781 5,000 4,125 4,000 3,967 3,536 66 4,06 3,765 5 3,697 3,374 3,000 200 09 2,000 1,684 1,845 5 1,80 06 201 13 1,317 1,000 ‐ Fire Station 1 Fire Station 2 Fire Station 3 Fire Stationn 4 Fire Station n 5 Fire Statio on 6 Between 2009 and 201 13, as seen in Figure 24,eaach Fire Statioon in Tempe h has experiencced an increase in calls for se ervice. As notted in Table 20, 2 Fire Statio on 5 in north TTempe has exxperienced th he greatest percentagge increase in n calls for servvice. As previo ously noted, Fire Station 11, which housses both Engin ne 271 and Engine E 278, haas experience ed the largestt increase in tthe number o of calls for serrvice. Table 20: CFS by Fire e Station Firre Station 1 Firre Station 2 Firre Station 3 Firre Station 4 Firre Station 5 Firre Station 6 CFS by b Fire Station 2009 2013 Difference 4,125 4,781 656 3,536 3,967 431 3,374 3,765 391 1,684 1,845 161 1,317 1,806 489 3,697 4,066 369 %change 16% 12% 12% 10% 37% 10% ure Development Staffing,, Infrastruccture & Futu In addition to the incre ease in calls fo or service, be etween 2013 and 2018, TFMRD will exp perience know wn vacanciess of 22 positio ons or 15.6% of o front line staff s due to reetirements. TThe increase o of calls for serrvice between 2009 and 201 13 and anticip pated growth h in density duue to multi‐sttory buildingss would suggeest a continuing increase in demands forr service. 32 The City of Tempe currently has 7,382 commercial, mercantile, retail, health care, industrial, manufacturers, and warehouse occupancies totaling more than 130 million square feet. The Fire Prevention/Public Safety Education Division of TFMRD currently has seven Senior Fire Inspectors, two of which are permanently assigned to Community Development to review building plans, and one who oversees the Department’s records management system on a full‐time basis. Since 2008, the Fire Prevention Division has lost two inspector positions, but has recovered one position by reclassifying a Public Education position to a Senior Fire Inspector. There are currently 41 new building projects in Tempe that will have a tremendous impact on the Fire Prevention/Public Safety Education Division. The addition of over 13 million more square feet to the current 130 million square feet will demand the reassignment of an inspector full‐time to certain development projects and will increase the frequency cycle for fire code inspections of occupancies and buildings. As an example, due to the complexity of several projects, such as Marina Heights, the division will need to reassign an inspector to construction sites on a full‐time basis, essentially removing that person from inspector duties. Overall, the increase in calls for service, anticipated growth in density due to multi‐story buildings, current workload demands, and prior budget reductions will result in the Department requesting additional resources over the next three years through the supplemental process. 33 Appendix 2010 2000 Appendix A: Racial breakdown comparison, as percentage of population; percentage of population that is white to easily compare change from 2000 Census to 2010 Census populations. Race as Percent of Population US Arizona Tempe White 75.1 75.5 77.5 Black or African American 12.3 3.1 3.7 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.9 5.0 2.0 Asian 3.6 1.8 4.7 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1 0.1 0.3 Some other race 5.5 11.6 8.5 Two or more races 2.4 2.9 3.3 White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some other race Two or more races US 72.4 12.6 0.9 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9 Arizona 73.0 4.1 4.6 2.8 0.2 11.9 3.4 Tempe 72.6 5.9 2.9 5.7 0.4 8.5 3.9 85281 71.1 3.0 2.6 6.2 0.4 12.9 3.8 85282 78.8 4.3 2.2 3.4 0.4 7.6 3.3 85283 71.9 4.2 6.7 3.6 0.2 9.8 3.6 85284 88.0 1.8 0.4 6.4 0.1 1.6 1.7 85281 69.1 5.5 3.0 7.0 0.3 10.9 4.2 85282 74.0 6.3 3.2 3.8 0.6 8.0 4.0 85283 64.4 6.9 9.1 4.7 0.4 10.2 4.3 85284 85.3 2.0 0.6 7.6 0.1 1.9 2.5 Percent of Population that is White 2000 2010 %change US 75.1 72.4 ‐4% Arizona 75.5 73 ‐3% Tempe 77.5 72.6 ‐6% 85281 71.1 69.2 ‐3% 85282 78.9 74 ‐6% 85283 71.9 64.4 ‐10% 85284 88.1 85.4 ‐3% Appendix B: Educational attainment comparison, as percentage of population. % High School Graduate or Higher 2000 2010 United States 80.4 85.4 Arizona 81.0 85.2 Tempe 90.1 90.2 85281 83.6 84.7 85282 90.8 90.0 85283 87.5 88.1 85284 96.5 97.4 % Bachelor's Degree or Higher 2000 2010 United States 24.4 28.2 Arizona 23.5 26.4 Tempe 39.6 41.3 85281 32.4 35.0 85282 37.1 38.5 85283 38.0 36.2 85284 58.9 65.3 34 Appendix C: Calls for service in select (participating) Valley cities; CFS per 1,000 residents, CFS per sworn position. Calls for Service & Population ‐ Select Cities Chandler Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 215,705 131,783 611 294 448 2005 225,187 144,561 642 297 487 2006 230,029 156,563 681 306 512 2007 234,607 161,972 690 314 516 2008 236,658 159,073 672 336 473 2009 236,371 150,039 635 329 456 2010 236,123 143,540 608 320 449 2011 238,381 140,366 589 319 440 2012 241,214 134,122 556 316 424 2013 246,197 145,083 589 n/a n/a Gilbert Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 156,412 92,348 590 143 646 2005 166,919 103,642 621 187 554 2006 179,602 145,953 813 191 764 2007 196,602 157,860 803 221 714 2008 206,264 177,129 859 224 791 2009 207,783 185,228 891 225 823 2010 208,453 189,291 908 214 885 2011 213,519 176,849 828 220 804 2012 219,666 179,814 819 222 810 2013 227,603 189,416 832 n/a n/a Glendale Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 229,501 163,512 712 331 494 2005 231,126 153,056 662 365 419 2006 230,455 150,242 652 370 406 2007 230,643 152,084 659 370 411 2008 230,658 141,272 612 372 380 2009 229,241 133,275 581 419 318 2010 226,721 128,515 567 408 315 2011 227,446 128,336 564 401 320 2012 229,008 128,630 562 397 324 2013 231,109 130,087 563 n/a n/a Mesa Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 434,952 n/a n/a 795 n/a 2005 436,945 n/a n/a 801 n/a 2006 438,232 371,198 847 829 448 2007 440,670 369,503 839 831 445 2008 441,523 334,117 757 831 402 2009 440,627 318,873 724 801 398 2010 439,041 312,479 712 776 403 2011 441,160 319,462 724 750 426 2012 444,856 313,221 704 780 402 2013 450,310 290,853 646 n/a n/a Scottsdale Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 218,984 n/a n/a 367 n/a 2005 221,030 n/a n/a 389 n/a 2006 220,907 n/a n/a 382 n/a 2007 221,031 233,831 1,058 433 540 2008 220,410 231,241 1,049 421 549 2009 218,888 232,177 1,061 426 545 2010 217,385 223,653 1,029 423 529 2011 217,965 232,593 1,067 406 573 2012 219,713 226,832 1,032 401 566 2013 222,213 233,533 1,051 n/a n/a Surprise Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 71,328 55,659 780 77 723 2005 89,488 66,546 744 95 700 2006 102,901 76,631 745 95 807 2007 110,741 81,333 734 106 767 2008 115,626 92,597 801 134 691 2009 117,230 100,972 861 126 801 2010 117,517 92,542 787 124 746 2011 118,349 95,173 804 123 774 2012 119,530 118,142 988 129 916 2013 121,629 99,490 818 n/a n/a Tempe Population All CFS CFS/1,000 pop Sworn CFS/sworn 2004 158,421 192,141 1,213 341 563 2005 157,711 191,914 1,217 329 583 2006 156,271 191,408 1,225 323 593 2007 156,522 179,494 1,147 338 531 2008 159,336 172,844 1,085 358 483 2009 159,762 170,315 1,066 356 478 2010 161,719 156,889 970 338 464 2011 162,503 152,392 938 336 454 2012 164,659 150,861 916 335 450 2013 165,158 147,928 896 n/a n/a % change 2004‐2013 14% 10% ‐4% 7% ‐5% % change 2004‐2013 46% 105% 41% 55% 25% % change 2004‐2013 1% ‐20% ‐21% 20% ‐34% % change 2006‐2013 3% ‐22% ‐24% ‐2% ‐10% % change 2006‐2013 1% 0% ‐1% 9% 5% % change 2004‐2013 71% 79% 5% 68% 27% % change 2004‐2013 4% ‐23% ‐26% ‐2% ‐20% 35 or Service per 1,00 00 Residents‐ Sele ect Cities All Calls fo City/Year Chandlerr Gilbert e Glendale Mesa Scottsdale Surprise Tempe 2004 611 590 712 2005 642 621 662 2006 6 681 813 652 847 780 1,213 744 1,217 745 1,225 2007 690 803 659 839 1,058 734 1,147 2008 672 859 612 757 1 1,049 801 1 1,085 2009 635 891 581 724 1,061 861 1,066 2010 608 908 567 712 1,029 787 970 20 011 58 89 82 28 56 64 72 24 1,0 067 80 04 93 38 2012 556 819 562 704 1,032 988 916 2013 589 832 563 646 1,051 818 896 or Service per Swo orn Position ‐ Sele ect Cities All Calls fo City/Year Chandlerr Gilbert e Glendale Mesa Scottsdale Surprise Tempe 2004 448 646 494 2005 487 554 419 2006 6 512 764 406 448 723 563 700 583 807 593 2007 516 714 411 445 540 767 531 2008 473 791 380 402 549 691 483 2009 456 823 318 398 545 801 478 2010 449 885 315 403 529 746 464 20 011 44 40 80 04 32 20 42 26 57 73 77 74 45 54 2012 424 810 324 402 566 916 450 Appendixx D: Tempe prriority 1 and 2 calls, as a pe ercent of all ccalls for servicce. % Prio ority 1 & 2 Callls % 65.6% 70.0% 56.9% 60.0% 50.0% % 48.6% 46.3% 46.3% 46.2% 46.3% 47.4% % 50.5% 51.1% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a % ch hange 2004 4‐2013 4% ‐4 41% 21% ‐2 ‐2 24% ‐1 1% 5 5% ‐2 26% % ch hange 2004 4‐2012 5% ‐5 25 5% ‐3 34% ‐1 10% 5 5% 27 7% ‐2 20% 36 References Decennial Census: The census of population and housing, taken by the Census Bureau in years ending in 0 (zero). Article I of the Constitution requires that a census be taken every ten years for the purpose of reapportioning the U.S. House of Representatives. For more information, visit: http://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_Decennialcensus American Community Survey: The ACS replaced the decennial census long form in 2010 and thereafter by collecting long form type information throughout the decade rather than only once every 10 years. Questionnaires are mailed to a sample of addresses to obtain information about households. The American Community Survey produces demographic, social, housing and economic estimates in the form of 1‐year, 3‐year and 5‐year estimates based on population thresholds. The strength of the ACS is in estimating population and housing characteristics. For more information on the ACS, visit: http://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_AmericanCommunitySurveyACS For more information on the Daytime Population Estimate, the ACS sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates), visit: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample_size_and_data_quality/ Data Tables from the Census and ACS: www.census.gov The 2010 Decennial Census provided data sets for the following: Population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, households (numbers, occupancy, vacancy rate, owner vs. renter occupied) The 2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates provided data sets for the following: median household income, educational attainment, poverty The 2008‐2012 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates provided data sets for the following: labor force/unemployment The Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100‐Percent Data provided data sets for the following: Population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, households (numbers, occupancy, vacancy rate, owner vs. renter occupied) The Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) ‐ Sample Data provided data sets for the following: median household income, educational attainment, poverty, labor force/unemployment Tempe Crime Data was retrieved from ICIS Records Management System for crime prior to December 1, 2012; crime from this date going forward was retrieved from Versadex, with Uniform Crime Reporting numbers adjusted to follow UCR definitions by the UCR Records Specialist. Crime Data used for geographic comparison purposes was retrieved from the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Uniform Crime Reporting. 37 Tempe Calls for Service Data and all related data (response time, time on call, etc.) was retrieved from ICIS prior to June 6, 2011, and from Versadex thereafter. Police Department Staffing numbers were from the Tempe Annual Budget – Personnel Schedule