Citty of Teemp
pe
Op
peraation
n Saafe and
d
Sob
ber Asssesssmeent

Prepaared by
y
Presented by
R
Chief of Policee Tom Ryff
JJanuary
y 2014

Page 1 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 3
Enforcement Activity........................................................................................................................... 3
Calls for Service...................................................................................................................................... 3
Crime .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Operation Overview ................................................................................................................................. 4
Results of Safe and Sober Operations ............................................................................................... 6
Phase One (Back to School) – August 5‐9 ................................................................................... 6
Phase Two – August 15‐18 / August 22‐25 / August 29‐September 1 ......................... 6
Unlawful Gathering & Nuisance Fines ......................................................................................... 7
Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Safe and Sober Phase Two: A Closer Look at Calls for Service (CFS) and Crime ........... 8
Calls for Service...................................................................................................................................... 8
ASU Fraternity Houses and Loud Parties ................................................................................. 10
Crime ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
Rape ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Aggravated Assault ........................................................................................................................ 13
Robbery .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A – Loud Party Statistics .................................................................................................. 16

Page 2 of 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to a recent loud party and neighborhood disorder analysis, the Tempe
Police Department carried out Operation Safe and Sober over four consecutive
weeks from August 5th through September 1st. The intent was to reduce loud party
calls for service and to prevent Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault through
education and enforcement. This assessment reports on data collected during the
months of August and September in an attempt to measure the effects of this
initiative. Highlights of this assessment are provided below.

Enforcement Activity




5,171 contacts/vehicle stops
1,331 total arrests
309 DUI arrests




2,747 citations
Issuance of 525 Minors in
Possession/Consumption cases

Calls for Service




Tempe experienced a 10.4% reduction in loud party calls during the study
period, with a 17.2% reduction for the month of August alone.
In October‐2013, 211 fewer loud party calls occurred when compared to the
typical October over the previous four years.
o The Loud Party Corridor—an area just east of ASU campus—experienced
38 fewer (‐14.2%) loud party calls compared to the same time period in
2012. This reduction accounted for 52% of the City’s total reduction in
loud party calls.
o This past Fall 2013 semester loud parties continued to occur near
fraternities, albeit less pronounced.

Crime







Citywide Part I crime increased by 2% (1346 to 1370) during the study period.
Violent crime— Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault—was reduced by 10%
(141 to 124) when compared to 2012.
o In the corridor alone, Part I crime went down 8%.
o The majority of that reduction can be attributed to violent crime (‐28%).
o This decrease is a result of robberies being curtailed 76% (17 to 4) in the
targeted area of the operation.
Street‐Jump Robberies went from 30 to 15 in the City and from 10 to 2 in the
corridor. This type of robbery targets individuals in a public place (i.e., street,
alley, light rail platform, bus stop), and it was a point of emphasis for this
operation.
Unfortunately, this initiative did not impact Sexual or Aggravated Assaults.

The Department will continue to monitor loud party calls and crime, and assess the
extent to which operations like Safe and Sober have a sustained impact. It appears
that addressing the loud party issue will require a sustained ongoing effort by the
Department in the months and years to come.
Page 3 of 16

OPERATION OVERVIEW
An in‐depth analysis was conducted in the summer of 2013 to assess the impact of
loud party calls for service on the residents of Tempe. Findings indicated that
approximately 33% of loud party calls in 2012 occurred within what was referred to
as the “Loud Party Corridor.”1 Additionally, loud party calls were found to be
correlated not only with other nuisance calls, but also with violent crime. The
resulting report2 was published and provided to City Council in August 2013 and an
operational plan, “Safe and Sober,” was developed to address calls for service and
crime in the corridor in conjunction with regular back to school initiatives.
The Safe and Sober Operation was carried out during August and September 2013
over four (4) consecutive weeks from August 5th through September 1st. Several
tactics remained in place through September 15th. This assessment recap focuses on
data collected during the months of August and September in an attempt to measure
the ongoing effect of this initiative. The first phase, Back‐to‐School—which
occurred during August 5‐9—focused on driving and pedestrian safety around
elementary and middle schools within the city, with a goal of enforcing traffic and
pedestrian violations near Tempe schools. The second phase of the initiative
targeted weekend loud party, neighborhood disorder, and quality of life concerns,
with a goal of reducing associated calls and select violent crime.
Funding was obtained primarily through grants awarded by the Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety (GOHS).
The following figure shows the long term Loud Party trends in the City of Tempe.
The efforts of the Tempe Police Department over the past year have significantly
impacted the number of loud party calls for service in comparison to the previous
five‐year pattern. Most noteworthy is the fact that loud party calls, on average, have
been reduced by 100 per month from the previous years. In October‐2013, the
citizens of Tempe experienced over 200 fewer loud party calls than they typically
did during the previous four years. As that number diminishes in November, it
appears that addressing the loud party issue will require a sustained ongoing effort
by the Department in the months and years to come.

1
2

The area bound by University Dr to Broadway Rd and Rural Rd to Price Rd.
“City of Tempe Loud Party and Neighborhood Disorder Report,” August 2013

Page 4 of 16

Page 5 of 16

RESULTS OF SAFE AND SOBER OPERATIONS
Phase One (Back to School) – August 5‐9

Because pedestrian and driver awareness is low at the start of a school year, phase
one was implemented to remind drivers in neighborhoods and around schools to be
aware that school is back in session and the safety of our children is paramount.
Focus included:
 Speed enforcement
 School zone enforcement
 Child safety seat enforcement (CAPP)
 Seatbelt enforcement
 Pedestrian violations
 Impaired driving due to DUI and drug impairment (illicit and medical)
 Parking violations
 Any criminal activity encountered during officer contacts
Enforcement activity resulted in:
 506 speeding citations
 711 other traffic/pedestrian violations

Phase Two – August 15‐18 / August 22‐25 / August 29‐September 1

Because quality of life in Tempe is impacted by crimes related to underage drinking
and associated disorder calls, focus in the second phase was placed on the nights
heavily inundated with loud party calls, i.e. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights.
This phase also incorporated educating the community about the risks associated
with hosting and attending loud parties. The primary concern was alcohol and drug‐
related incidents that perpetuate around large party events and the subsequent
crime and victimization that can result from poor judgment due to alcohol and drug
consumption ‐ specifically Rape, Street Robberies, and Aggravated Assault.
Focus included:
 Loud party calls
 DUI arrests
 Liquor violations
 Outstanding warrant
 Other associated quality of life calls
Enforcement activity resulted in:
 5,171 contacts/vehicle stops
 309 DUI arrests
 Issuance of 525 Minors in Possession/Consumption cases
 2,747 citations
 1,331 total arrests
Page 6 of 16

Unlawful Gathering & Nuisance Fines

The City passed a new ordinance this past year to address shortcomings in the
Police Department’s ability to serve notice of loud parties and increased the
penalties to provide an adequate deterrent to loud parties. These new tools were
put into effect during Operation Safe and Sober.
Unlawful gatherings are social host events where individuals over 21 years of age
are providing alcohol to individuals who are under the age of 21. The first offense
allows for a diversion program in lieu of a $250 fine. All other subsequent violations
are a $250 fine.
Nuisance incidents are events where individuals are disturbed by noise, illegal
parking or loud parties. There are no age restrictions on a nuisance violation and
any host, resident, party goer or other participant can be assessed a fee. The first
offense fee is $250; the second, $1,000; and the third, $1,500—as it applies to
subsequent notices. The new ordinance allows the police to post the citation at the
residence rather than to a person. Aggravating circumstances include Minors in
Possession, Minors in Consumption, and where weapons or drugs are present.
Table 1 offers some preliminary figures that benchmark the extent to which this
new ordinance was put to use.
Table 1: Loud Party Ordinance Notices
Unlawful Gathering/Social Host
Notices Issued
August
16
September
8

Amount Billed
$4,000.00
$2,000.00

Nuisance/Loud Party3
Total Notices Issued

Amount Billed

August
September

70
112

# of Notices Issued
to Unknown RP
14
21

$17,750.00
$27,815.00

3 Some Nuisance notices have not been billed due to lack of responsible party information on the
citation. This is due to refuse to answer situations in which the notice was placed on the property
and not served in person. The Crime Prevention Unit is following up with apartment complexes to
identify responsible parties for these notices so they can be billed accordingly.

Page 7 of 16

Cost

Over two thousand hours of overtime (see Table 2) were worked during the
operation. Nearly 97% of the operation was paid for by grant funds awarded by the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. The remaining amount was paid from the
Police Department’s Operating Budget.
Table 2: Overtime Funds
Program
Back‐to‐School
Safe and Sober

OT Hours
121.0
1,892.5
2,013.5

Total

$
$

Cost
3,319.62
143,356.23

Funded by GOHS
$
3,290.71
$
138,463.93

$

146,675.85

$

141,754.64

SAFE AND SOBER PHASE TWO: A CLOSER LOOK AT CALLS FOR
SERVICE (CFS) AND CRIME
The remainder of this report focuses on the impact of Phase Two of Safe and Sober
by examining its effect on calls for service and select violent crime.

Calls for Service

The city experienced a 10.4% (74) reduction in loud party calls during the operation
compared to the same time frame in 2012, with a 17.2% reduction for the month of
August alone. One major finding was the manner in which officers proactively
sought out and addressed loud parties. Four times more parties were averted by an
officer before a party got out of hand and a citizen called the police for assistance. In
August and September of 2013, 1 in 14 loud party calls were identified by an officer
on‐view, compared to only 1 out of 60 loud party calls being proactively identified
during the same 8 weeks in 2012. Appendix A offers greater detail of loud party
statistics.
As officers aggressively focused on loud parties within the corridor, this area
experienced 38 fewer (‐14.2%) loud party calls during the operation compared to
the same time period in 2012. This reduction accounted for 52% (38 of 74) of the
City’s total reduction in loud party calls during this timeframe. More specifically,
focusing on underage drinking and minors in possession in the most prevalent area,
along with media and educational efforts, achieved double digit reductions both
within the corridor and the city as a whole.
The following Loud Party CFS maps depict the spatial distribution between 2012
and 2013 for both August and September (see Graph 1). These charts clearly show
that the dispersion and extent of loud parties were diminished in 2013. Graph 1
shows that while loud parties were more broadly dispersed throughout the City in
2012, a more stark concentration around the Apache and Rural corner to Dorsey
and University emerged in 2013. It would appear that the loud party issue was
more acutely contained as a result of the Safe and Sober Operation.
Page 8 of 16

Graph 1: Spatial Comparison of Loud Party Density – 2012 to 2013

Page 9 of 16

ASU Fraternity Houses and Loud Parties
Graph 2: Loud Party Corridor and Fraternities
A

Frat_Houses

One particular concern for the City has
been the emerging pattern of loud parties
in neighborhoods that are now home to
ASU Fraternities. In the past, loud party
calls have consistently migrated in
conjunction with the re‐location of
fraternity houses.
The series of maps
included in Graph 2 display the hotspot
analysis showing the density of loud party
calls overlaid with relocated fraternity
housing. This past Fall 2013 semester
loud parties continued to occur near
fraternities, but since the Safe and Sober
Operation, this overlap is less pronounced.

Page 10 of 16

Crime

A primary objective for the Safe and Sober Operation was to reduce Rape,
Robberies, and Aggravated Assaults. The following analysis compared Part I Crime
statistics4 in 2013 to the same timeframe in 2012.
Table 3 shows that overall citywide Part I crime increased by 2% (1346 to 1370)
during the study period. In regard to the crimes that were specifically targeted
during the operation— Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault—the city
experienced a 10% (141 to 124) reduction in violent crime in 2013 when compared
to 2012.
Table 3: Select Crime Comparison During the Study Period

Select Violent Crime
Rape
Robbery
Street‐jump Robbery5
Aggravated Assaults
Total Select Violent Crime
Citywide Part I Crime

2012
2013
Aug/Sept Aug/Sept
6
8
47
27
30
15
85
89
138
124
1,346

1,370

2012
2013
Aug/Sept Aug/Sept
Rape
1
1
Robbery
17
4
Street‐jump Robbery
10
2
Aggravated Assaults
21
23
Total Select Violent Crime
39
28

Select Violent Crime In Corridor

Corridor Part I Crime

277

254

%
Change
33%
‐43%
‐50%
5%
‐10%
2%
%
Change
0%
‐76%
‐80%
10%
‐28%
‐8%

More specifically in the corridor, Part I crime went down 8%. The majority of that
reduction can be attributed to the reduction in violent crime (‐28%). This decrease
is a result of robberies being curtailed 76% (17 to 4) in the targeted area of the
operation. Street Jump robberies, a crime specifically targeted during the operation,
went from 30 to 15 in the City and from 10 to 2 in the corridor when compared to
the same timeframe in 2012.
This analysis is based upon occurred date, not reported date. It also focuses on the number of
incidents, rather than number of victims. Therefore, note that these figures do not reflect official UCR
statistics, which follow different Federal guidelines.
5 Street Jump Robbery target individuals in a public place (i.e., street, alley, light rail platform, bus
stop) versus commercial robberies which target banks, convenient or liquor stores and the like.
4

Page 11 of 16

Rape
There was an increase of two Rape incidents (6 to 8) during the study period.
Further spatial analysis demonstrated that Rape incidents tend to occur in the
northern part of Tempe, albeit not completely (see Graph 3 below). Without
controlling for other factors, it does not appear that the operation had a direct
impact on occurrences of Rape.
Graph 3: Sexual Assault Comparison

Page 12 of 16

Aggravated Assault
Aggravated Assault incidents increased by 5% (85 to 89) from August/September
2013 when compared to the same months in 2012. This analysis also examined
Aggravated Assault cases which occurred at a residence as opposed to a public
place, and those involving domestic violence. Aggravated Assault incidents taking
place in a residence increased by only 2% from 2012 to 2013 during the targeted
months; and virtually made up the same percentage of all Aggravated Assaults (50%
of 2013 incidents and 49% of 2012 incidents). The percentage of Aggravated
Assault incidents involving domestic violence remained relatively the same as well,
at 40% in 2013 compared to 41% in 2012 within the study period (a 2% reduction).
The geographic distribution of Aggravated Assaults appears to be randomly
dispersed throughout the city during August/September in both years, implying the
operation had little to no effect on Aggravated Assaults. Graph 4 shows this random
dispersion of Aggravated Assaults for the study period during both years.
Graph 4: Aggravated Assault Comparison

Page 13 of 16

Robbery
In contrast, the City of Tempe experienced a 43% decrease in Robberies (47 to 27)
in the 2013 months compared to those in 2012. More specifically, there was a 50%
reduction in Street‐Jump Robberies (30 to 15)—a crime targeted for reduction
during the operation.
The Robbery Comparison map (Graph 5) depicts the operation’s greatest impact
spatially, where the city experienced a significant drop in Robbery in the north. In
2012, 75% of all Robberies occurred north of Broadway Road (35 out of 47), with a
concentration in the downtown area and within the Loud Party Corridor. In 2013,
the number of Robberies north of Broadway Road dropped to 12 (a 66% reduction);
with only two occurring in the downtown and four in the corridor. This indicates a
stark shift both in the number and the location of Robberies as a result of the Safe
and Sober Operation.
Graph 5: Robbery Comparison

Page 14 of 16

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while it is very difficult to ascertain the absolute impact of an
operation such as Safe and Sober, the Tempe Police Department can celebrate the
overall reduction in loud party calls and the substantial reduction in Robberies
during the initiative. Citywide loud party calls were reduced by 10.4% compared to
the prior year. Further, there appears to be a lasting effect as October 2013 data
shows 211 (‐31.8%) fewer loud party calls than the previous four year average for
that month. In addition, robbery numbers were significantly reduced and dispersed
compared to 2012. Unfortunately, it does not appear that an operation addressing
loud parties—as well as alcohol and drug consumption—reduces Sexual or
Aggravated Assaults, at least in the short term. Other innovative approaches must
be tested and assessed in the future to determine more effective strategies for those
behaviors. The Department will continue to monitor loud party calls for service and
crime (i.e., rape, robbery and aggravated assault) and assess the extent to which
operations like Safe and Sober have a sustained impact.

Page 15 of 16

Appendix A – LOUD PARTY STATISTICS

Week by Week Breakdown with Self‐Initiated Calls for Service
Comparison of Loud Party Calls in AUG & SEP between 2012 and 2013
Metric
TOTAL 2012
TOTAL 2013
‐10.4 % Change
714
640
AUG'12
AUG'13
‐17.2 % Change
338
280
376
360
SEP'12
SEP'13
‐4.3 % Change
AUG'12
AUG'13
66
50
Week1
Week1
‐24.2 % Change
Self‐Init
0
0 in 66
Self‐Init
2
1 in 25
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
N‐S
35
31
53%
N‐S
27
23
54% % of LP Calls in the North District
81
63
Week2
Week2
‐22.2 % Change
Self‐Init
6
1 in 14
Self‐Init
1
1 in 63
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
N‐S
40
41
49%
N‐S
40
23
63% % of LP Calls in the North District
117
99
Week3
Week3
‐15.4 % Change
Self‐Init
1
1 in 117
Self‐Init
6
1 in 17
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
N‐S
64
53
55%
N‐S
63
36
64% % of LP Calls in the North District
74
68
Week4
Week4
‐8.1 % Change
Self‐Init
0
0 in 74
Self‐Init
8
1 in 11
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
N‐S
45
29
61%
N‐S
43
43
63% % of LP Calls in the North District
SEP'12
SEP'13
107
75
Week1
Week1
‐29.9 % Change
Self‐Init
1
1 in 107
Self‐Init
7
1 in 11
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
N‐S
64
43
60%
N‐S
49
26
65% % of LP Calls in the North District
95
86
Week2
Week2
‐9.5 % Change
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
Self‐Init
2
1 in 48
Self‐Init
9
1 in 10
N‐S
44
51
46%
N‐S
59
27
69% % of LP Calls in the North District
88
81
Week3
Week3
‐8.0 % Change
Self‐Init
1
1 in 88
Self‐Init
5
1 in 16
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
N‐S
51
37
58%
N‐S
60
21
74% % of LP Calls in the North District
86
118
Week4
Week4
37.2 % Change
Self‐Init
7
1 in 17
Ratio of Self‐Init LP CFS to Citizen Generated
Self‐Init
1
1 in 86
N‐S
46
40
53%
N‐S
80
38
68% % of LP Calls in the North District

Page 16 of 16