City of Tempe
Loud Party and
Neighborhood
Disorder Report

Prepared by
Presented by
Chief of Police Tom Ryff
August 2013

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Goal to Reduce Loud Party Calls for Service..................................................................................................................... 5
Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Density of Loud Parties ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
ASU Fraternity Houses and Loud Parties.................................................................................................................... 10
Association with Other Nuisance Calls for Service ................................................................................................. 11
Association with Crime ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Likelihood of Crime in the Loud Party Corridor ...................................................................................................... 13
Sexual Assault Synopsis ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Tempe/ASU Compared to Similar College Communities ..................................................................................... 13
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Response ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Interdepartmental Work Team....................................................................................................................................... 14
University Initiatives ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
Back to School: “Operation Safe and Sober: Youth and Alcohol Task Force”............................................... 16
Appendix-A: IWT Loud Party Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix-B: Loud Party CFS Time of Day – Day of Week ......................................................................................... 18
Appendix-C: Loud Party Buffers around ASU ................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix-D: Loud Party Calls by RD ................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix-E: Correlation between Loud Party Calls & Crime/CFS ........................................................................ 21

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past year, several high profile party-related incidents that occurred in Tempe have received
national media attention. In conjunction with these incidents, concerns have been raised suggesting
that Tempe neighborhoods are experiencing increased problems related to noise, loud parties,
alcohol use, debris, public urination, code violations, general disorder, and physical assaults. The
purpose of this report is to identify and address the scope of the problem by describing efforts to
address these concerns to date, provide a comprehensive analysis to drive further decision-making,
and detail an upcoming initiative to further impact the behaviors that serve as catalysts to these
issues. Highlights of this report are provided below.

Loud Party Calls for Service Overview






An analysis of the past five years of calls for service data shows loud parties1 are the fifth most
frequent call for service responded to by the Tempe Police Department.
A conservative analysis of costs shows the Department expends approximately $127,000 per year
in patrol officer resources responding to these calls. This does not include costs for equipment,
dispatching, administering the City’s loud party ordinance, investigating calls that lead to crimes,
or other indirect costs.
Historically, loud party calls for service peaked in 2009 (6,537) and decreased over the past four
years to an overall average of 6,051.
Much of the loud party activity coincides with the Arizona State University (ASU) schedule, by
semester, and by week. The busiest month for loud party calls for service is October with an
average of 663 calls as compared to monthly average of 500 calls. October corresponds to ASU’s
Fall Break and Homecoming, as well as Halloween.

Loud Party Calls for Service and Density





Analysis of loud party locations shows that 43% of loud parties occur within one mile of campus.
Specifically, there is a very high concentration of activity just east of ASU’s Tempe Campus.
While this small geographic area is one of the most densely populated areas of Tempe, there are
other densely populated areas of the city that do not experience a comparable high concentration
of loud party calls.
Five Reporting Districts2 were identified as having 10 times more loud party calls than the typical
Reporting District.
An emerging pattern exists with the association of loud party calls for service and the relocation
of ASU fraternities off campus and into Tempe’s neighborhoods. Over the past four academic
semesters, loud party calls have consistently migrated in conjunction with fraternity relocation.

Loud Party Calls for Service Association with Other Nuisance Calls for Service
and Criminal Activity



Loud party calls are correlated with other nuisance calls such as disturbance calls, code
violations, public intoxication, indecent exposure, etc. In other words, areas of the city with
higher levels of loud party calls tend to have higher disturbance calls as well.
Loud party calls are highly correlated geographically with serious crime (e.g., murder, rape,
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson).

Loud Party calls for service include Loud Music/Noise, Loud Party in Progress, and Loud Party Notify call
types.
2 Reporting Districts represent the smallest geographic area that the Police Department uses for statistical
analysis. Tempe is comprised of 412 reporting districts.
1

3




An even stronger relationship exists in areas highly concentrated with loud parties and violent
crime. Subsequently, geographic areas with fewer loud party calls for service tend to have lower
rates of reported violence.
It is important to note that the correlation, or relationship, between loud party calls for service
and other behaviors does not mean that one causes the other. Instead, this information tells us
that where there is a higher level of one behavior (e.g., loud party calls for service), a higher level
of the other can also be seen (e.g., violent crime).

Comparison to Similar Communities



When compared to similarly sized cities with a college or university, Tempe ranks in the middle
as it relates to UCR Part I crime.
A comparison of seventeen like cities shows Tempe ranked eleventh for overall crime rate (i.e.,
one being the fewest crimes per capita) and ninth for violent crime.

Response








The Tempe Police Department has continued to collaborate with other City departments and ASU
in response to this problem. Significant effort has been made through this collaboration on nine
strategies to reduce loud party calls for service and associated disorder.
ASU has revoked recognition of a fraternity and the Arizona Board of Regents has requested the
National Associations of Fraternities and Sororities to report how they intend to deal with and
prevent serious misconduct as a result of this past year’s significant events.
The Tempe Police Department, in collaboration with other City departments, will be initiating an
updated “Back to School” program this fall to further impact behavior.
Phase one of this initiative will focus on unsafe behaviors around the city’s primary, middle, and
high schools.
Phase two of this operation will educate the community about the risks associated with hosting
and attending loud parties. Further, phase two will proactively focus resources on high density
loud party locations throughout the city.
Over this past year, the Police Department has received $170,000 in youth alcohol grant funding
from the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety to help fund such initiatives. The Department will
continue to seek out these funding sources as it addresses loud parties and associated disorder.
The Department will continually assess its efforts and make necessary resource adjustments in
preparation for October, the peak month of loud party activity.

4

INTRODUCTION
Over the past year, issues of loud party and related disorder calls3 in our neighborhoods have caused
concern among residents of Tempe, City Council members, and public safety officials. Much of this
increased awareness is due to the following incidents that received national attention.





November 30, 2012: ASU fraternity student Jack Culolias drowned after attending a
sorority/fraternity event.
March 23, 2013: Two women were severely burned at a fraternity party after a man threw a
bottle of liquor into a bonfire.
April 28, 2013: Five people were arrested for a brawl at an apartment complex that houses
the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity.
May 11, 2013: An ASU student was left unconscious at an emergency room after participating
in a drinking contest. He had a 0.47 blood-alcohol content.

In conjunction with these incidents, it has been perceived that Tempe neighborhoods have been
experiencing increased problems related to noise, loud parties, alcohol use, debris, public urination,
code violations, general disorder, and physical assaults. Contributing factors seemingly related to
these problems include the relocation of ASU fraternity houses off campus and into the community,
and that loud parties tend to be a source for more severe violent acts such as robbery, aggravated
assault, and sexual assault.
While the above listed incidents reflect the tragedy that can occur in association with this type of
behavior, a more thorough analysis is required to better understand the scope and nature of the
issue, the context in which it occurs, and its relationship to crime and disorder. As such, the following
report provides a greater understanding of loud parties and related disorder as they relate to crime,
proportion of all calls for service, dedication of resources, and costs to respond. The purpose of this
report and its subsequent findings is to facilitate informed decision-making, strategic planning, and
operational plans to address these issues in the future.

GOAL TO REDUCE LOUD PARTY CALLS FOR SERVICE
The Tempe Police Department’s strategic plan consists of four goals. The most important of these
goals is to “Fight Crime and Enhance Community Safety.” As concern over loud party and associated
disorder calls elevated in our community this past year, the Department brought this issue to the
City’s Interdepartmental Work Team (IWT) in order to focus the City’s resources effectively and
efficiently toward a timely resolution.
An initial assessment was conducted in December 2012 which showed that a high volume of loud
party calls for service are concentrated in a small geographic area within the city. Specifically, over a
three year period, 36% of all loud party calls occurred in an approximate two square mile area of the
City. This figure continued to hold true after adding Spring Semester 2013 data to the analysis.
Through the partnership between the IWT and ASU, nine specific strategies (see Appendix-A: IWT
Strategies) were crafted that encompass community outreach, education, enforcement, policy, code
enforcement, and data sharing between the City and ASU. Each of these strategies was created with
the overarching goal to reduce loud party and related disorder calls for service and to ultimately
address and prevent more serious crimes that can occur as a result of loud parties.
Loud Party calls include Loud Music/Noise, Loud Party in Progress, and Loud Party Notify call types. Disorder
calls include Disturbance calls, Code Violations, Public Intoxication/Liquor Violations, etc.
3

5

ANALYSIS
A comprehensive analysis of the past five years of loud party calls for service shows the Police
Department responded to an average of 5,940 calls per year (see Table 1). Loud parties are the fifth
most frequent call type that the Police Department responded to. The Department dedicates on
average 2,632 officer hours each year responding to loud parties, and each loud party call averages
27 minutes. A conservative estimate of cost shows that the Department expends approximately
$127,000 per year in patrol officer resources responding to these calls. This estimate does not
include costs for equipment, dispatching, administering the City’s loud party ordinance, investigating
calls that lead to crimes, or other indirect costs. The average number of officers responding to loud
party calls for service has remained consistent at approximately 1.33 officers per call over the past
five years.
Table 1: Loud Party Calls for Service4

Loud
Party CFS JAN
2009
554
2010
491
2011
494
2012
579
2013
448
Average 513

FEB MAR
542 693
455 575
479 629
539 584
479 537
499 604

APR MAY
603 510
578 607
550 549
550 375
439 386
544 485

JUN
454
379
411
306

JUL AUG
386 480
309 429
342 459
315 347

388 338

SEP
486
452
441
420

OCT NOV
718 603
674 472
735 587
524 527

429 450 663

DEC Total*
508 6,537
542 5,963
528 6,204
435 5,501
5,494
547 503 5,940

Avg
Units to
Avg time
respond Total time spent per
to each
spent on
incident
$ per
call
calls (min)* (min)
year*
1.31
188,803
29 $ 151,483
1.33
182,476
31 $ 146,407
1.29
148,038
25 $ 118,776
1.34
126,188
24 $ 101,245
1.39
144,074
27 $ 115,595
1.33
157,916
27 $ 126,701

*2013 values extrapolated from current year data
**Red Cells represent Loud Party Calls greater than 1 Standard Deviation from the average

Figure 1: Loud Party Calls for Service per Month by Year

800
700

Loud Party CFS

600
500
400
300

2009
2010
2011

200

2012

100

2013

0

AVG

Standard deviation is a statistical technique that measures the distance or amount a given value is from the mean or average value. Twothirds or 68% of all cases fall within one standard deviation, and 95% of all cases fall within two standard deviations. For our purposes
here, those values in red are out of the ordinary or higher than normal compared to an average month for loud party counts.
4

6

Historically, loud party call counts peaked in 2009 and have decreased over the past four years.
Temporal analysis shows October to be the peak month for loud parties (see Figure 1). This peak
corresponds with ASU’s Fall break, Homecoming, as well as Halloween. The average number of loud
party calls per month over the past five years is 500. While loud party calls have gradually declined
the past Fall (2012) and Spring (2013) semesters, much of the loud party activity coincides with the
ASU schedule, by semester and by day of week.
Using 2012 data, temporal analysis illustrates a peak Time of Day/Day of Week: Friday and Saturday
nights from 10pm-3am (early Sunday morning). See Appendix-B for temporal results. Over onethird (36%) of loud party complaints are registered with the Tempe Police Department during these
two, five hour windows on Friday and Saturday nights.

Density of Loud Parties

A spatial analysis of loud parties demonstrated a high concentration in the area just east of ASU’s
Tempe Campus. The area bound by University to Broadway and Rural to Price accounts for
approximately 33% of the loud party calls, referred to throughout this document as the Loud Party
Corridor. While this area consists of a two-mile square area, the high density area, shown in Figure 2,
is less than one square mile. Additional analysis showed that 43% of loud parties occur within one
mile of campus and 75% of this activity is within two miles. See Appendix-C for a visual illustration of
this buffering effect. Other areas of high density loud parties can be seen east of Downtown, along
West Baseline Road, and in the apartment complexes along Grove Parkway.
Figure 2: Loud Party High Density Areas

7

While much of the phenomenon is near ASU in general, there appears to be a large geographic
relationship between loud party locations and population density. High concentrations of loud party
calls geographically coincide with population density, as seen in the Population Density Map below
(Figure 3). Further, much of the density is a result of apartment complexes and student housing
facilities in these regions of the city.
Figure 3: Population Density – 2010 Census5

Of the top 40 hotspot locations, nearly 87% (35 out of 40) of the premises represent multi-housing
establishments6. Given the close proximity of occupants within apartment complexes, when parties
become loud, neighbors call the police.
5
6

Source: 2010 U.S. Census Bureau
Based on an analysis of loud party calls for service over a 5 year period.

8

As a result of this finding, a
closer analysis compared
these apartment complexes on
a per unit basis. Figure 4
displays the top ten loud party
addresses; all but one are
apartment complexes. Table 2
provides greater context to
these addresses by identifying
the apartments associated
with each address, their total
number of units, and a ratio of
loud party calls for service per
100 units. In summary, areas
with a greater number of
apartments are also high
density population areas.
These areas drive these
numbers up, but it does not
change the fact that these
addresses are locations where
the police repeatedly respond
to loud party complaints. We
are not making a claim that
these apartments are bigger
culprits on a per capita basis,
just that they require greater
police resources per address.

Figure 4: Top Ten Loud Party Addresses

Table 2: Top Ten Loud Party Addresses

Complex

Address

1

LP CFS

Units

LP CFS/100 Units

THE DOMAIN

1900 E Apache Blvd

441

299

147

2

922 PLACE

922 E Apache Blvd

368

132

279

3

BLOCK 1949

1949 E University Dr

253

250

101

4

SAN MARBEYA APARTMENTS

1720 E Broadway Rd

245

276

89

5

GRIGIO TEMPE TOWN LAKE

1001 E Playa Del Norte

243

523

46

6

VERSANTE APARTMENT HOMES

1330 W Broadway Rd

239

240

100

7

SAGO GARDENS APARTMENTS

1015 S Stanley Pl

236

33

715

8

CHAPARRAL MOBILE VILLAGE

400 W Baseline Rd

233

n/a

n/a

9

APACHE STATION APARTMENTS

2323 E Apache Blvd

230

400

58

999 E Baseline Rd

227

244

93

10 LAKEFRONT APARTMENTS

9

ASU Fraternity Houses and Loud Parties

One particular concern for the City is the emerging pattern of loud parties in neighborhoods that are
now home to ASU Fraternities. Over the past four academic semesters, during the time when ASU
Fraternities moved off campus, loud party calls have consistently migrated in conjunction with their
re-location. Figure 5 displays the hotspot analysis showing the density of loud party calls overlaid
with relocated fraternity housing.
Figure 5: Emerging Pattern – ASU Fraternity Houses

A

Frat_Houses

It is noteworthy that five Reporting Districts (RD)7 within the Loud Party Corridor each had over 500
loud party calls since 2009 (RDs 1004, 1106, 1101, 1003, and 1012; see Appendix-D). While the
average number of loud party calls per RD for the entire city is 64, these five RDs had more than 10
times as many loud party calls than the typical RD. Of significance, RD 1004 (just east of ASU on
Rural) had 24 times more than average. Further, one out of every three loud party calls occurs within
the Corridor. One in six loud party calls occurred in these select RDs, which cover less than one-half
square mile, or 1.25% of the city’s total geographic area.
A Reporting District represents the smallest geographic area that the Police Department uses for statistical
analysis. There are 24 RDs within the Corridor; these five have significantly more loud parties.
7

10

The five select RDs, mentioned above, experienced almost 50% of the Loud Party CFS within the 24RD Loud Party Corridor over the 5-year period. In contrast to the decreasing trend since 2009 for all
loud parties, loud party calls did not peak until 2011 within the Corridor. So far in 2013, these five
RDs have resulted in a slight increase in the proportion of loud party calls since 2011. These results
demonstrate that a focused approach to responding to loud party calls within the Corridor,
specifically these five RDs, merits attention.

Association with Other Nuisance Calls for Service
Figure 6: Nuisance Hotspots

Further analysis shows
that loud party calls are
also correlated with other
nuisance calls8. Of the top
10 RDs for other nuisance
calls within the city, five
are Downtown and four
are in the Loud Party
Corridor where loud
parties are most
prevalent (see Figure 6).

Nuisance calls include: Abandon Vehicles/Illegal Parking, Disturbance calls, Code Violations, Public
Intoxication/Liquor Violations, Indecent Exposure, Suspicious Activity, Transients and Unwanted Guests, etc.
8

11

Association with Crime

In addition to assessing loud party calls and associated nuisance behavior, analysis was conducted on
the correlation between loud party calls and crime. Loud party calls were compared to a number of
crime classifications (i.e., all crime, Part I crime9, violent crime, and other crime categories; see
Appendix-E for the correlation matrix). This pattern is geographically observable in Figure 7. The
results from this analysis shows that loud party calls were highly correlated with all Part I crimes by
RD. In addition, a stronger correlation resulted when compared to violent crime by RD. In essence,
RDs with a higher volume of loud party calls tend to have high rates of violent crime, and vice versa.
RDs with fewer loud party calls also tend to have lower rates of violence. Note that correlation does
not equate to causation.
Figure 7: 2012 Loud Party & Crime Comparison

Loud Party

9

Crime

Part I Crimes: Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson.

12

Likelihood of Crime in the Loud Party Corridor

Given this high correlation with crime, a more in-depth analysis of crime within the Loud Party
Corridor was conducted. Specifically, information below describes the proportion of criminal activity
in the Loud Party Corridor compared to the entire city.







3 of 8 homicides
1 in 3 sexual assaults
1 in 5 robberies
1 in 4 aggravated assaults
1 in 5 simple assaults
1 in 5 residential burglaries







1 in 4 bike thefts
1 in 4 identity thefts
1 in 5 trespasses
1 in 5 vandalisms
1 in 5 weapons violations

Sexual Assault Synopsis

As part of a larger assessment of sexual assaults, nearly one-third of all sexual assaults over the past
three years occurred in the Loud Party Corridor. As a result of this high concentration, an in-depth
review of the 24 sexual assaults that have occurred between January and May 2013 found that:




25% (6) were party-related incidents
71% (17) involved alcohol or drugs (voluntary or involuntary)
50% (12) occurred in the Loud Party Corridor

Tempe/ASU Compared to Similar College Communities

Tempe falls in the middle when compared to similar cities across the country. College cities with a
population between 100,000 and 200,000 that have a large school within their city limits were
selected for comparison. Table 3 shows the number of Part 1 Crimes in each of these cities, along
with their subsequent crime and violent crime rates. Overall, Tempe ranks eleventh out of
seventeen for the overall crime rate (one being the fewest crimes per capita), as well as ninth for
the violent crime rate.
Table 3: Uniform Crime Index Comparison10
2012
City/State

Population

Ann Arbor, MI
Norman, OK
Fort Collins, CO
Cambridge. MA
Columbia, MO
Athens, GA
Gainesville, FL
Billings, MT
Syracuse, NY
Peoria, IL
Tempe, AZ
Eugene, OR
South Bend, IN
Tallahasse, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Dayton, OH
Springfield, MO

115,008
113,969
148,792
106,981
110,646
117,457
127,036
106,371
145,934
115,288
166,061
158,043
101,398
185,461
170,827
142,139
160,962

10

Student Crime ViolCrime Total Violent
Agg Property
Larceny
Murder Rape Robbery
Burglary
MVT Arson
Enrollment Rate
Rate
Crime Crime
Assault Crime
Theft
42,716
31,753
30,450
30,766
33,805
34,816
49,913
14,153
20,829
5,640
58,404
24,977
20,389
41,087
29,290
11,045
20,276

25.7
28.3
30.3
32.9
42.5
43.0
47.6
48.7
50.4
51.5
52.4
53.4
53.7
55.0
67.3
68.7
100.0

2.0
1.5
2.6
4.0
4.3
3.9
6.7
3.5
9.4
8.0
5.3
2.7
6.1
8.5
9.0
9.7
9.9

2,954
3,223
4,513
3,522
4,697
5,055
6,052
5,180
7,348
5,941
8,703
8,434
5,449
10,199
11,503
9,769
16,100

228
173
388
431
476
454
851
370
1,372
919
878
430
622
1,582
1,543
1,384
1,596

1
1
2
1
3
5
6
4
14
10
11
0
18
12
16
24
16

36
52
43
20
41
47
74
38
75
25
44
72
55
115
48
112
141

50
54
38
135
162
158
171
68
454
324
253
196
316
525
835
633
353

141
66
305
275
270
244
600
260
829
560
570
162
233
930
644
615
1,086

2,726
3,050
4,125
3,091
4,221
4,601
5,201
4,810
5,976
5,022
7,825
8,004
4,827
8,617
9,960
8,385
14,504

714
629
598
502
784
1,150
1,009
793
1,896
1,420
1,251
1,515
1,744
2,630
2,951
3,043
2,215

1,898 114
23
2,252 169
7
3,385 142
16
2,482 107
8
3,294 143
14
3,208 243
20
3,953 239
9
3,606 411
14
3,698 382
41
3,370 232
52
6,085 489
25
6,054 435
82
2,798 285
34
5,463 524
9
6,419 590
40
4,649 693 129
11,238 1,051 n/a

Source: US News & World Report (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/harvard-university-2155).
ASU states they have 55,000 students enrolled at the Tempe Campus.

13

CONCLUSION
This analysis demonstrates a geographic concentration of loud parties. Where loud party activity is
predominant, crime appears to flourish, as well. It does not imply that loud parties, in fact, cause
crime per se. This type of inquiry calls for a much more robust research effort.
Overall, concerns about crime and disorder in relation to loud parties appear to be substantiated.
Areas in which loud parties are prevalent coexist with locations high in other disorders, Part 1
Crime, particularly violent crime and sexual assault. Loud parties and related activity co-locate
where there is a higher density of apartments and condo rentals, typically near ASU, but not
exclusively. Hotspot analysis shows an emerging pattern in areas where fraternity houses have
relocated. The area most prevalent for loud parties and the subsequent disorder is bordered by
University to Broadway and Rural to Price—referred to as the Loud Party Corridor. Much of this
activity is concentrated in five (5) Police Reporting Districts that make up less than 2 percent (5 out
of 412 RDs) of the city. One third (33%) of this activity appears to be concentrated in a one square
mile area within the Loud Party Corridor. When compared to other college cities across the nation
with approximately the same population, Tempe falls in the middle in regard to crime rates.
Our collective efforts in the coming months should focus on these facts and merit follow-up
assessments of operational and crime prevention strategies developed in partnership with ASU and
Tempe Neighborhoods.

RESPONSE
Our response to the loud party and associated nuisance disorder is twofold. First, much
collaboration between the Police Department, other City Departments, and ASU has already taken
place as part of the Interdepartmental Work Team (IWT). Second, the Department is proactively
developing a back to school initiative entitled “Operation Safe and Sober: The Youth and Alcohol
Task Force.”

Interdepartmental Work Team

As described above, the Police Department has already engaged the IWT and ASU to develop a plan
of action. Some significant outcomes of the IWT include these completed and ongoing efforts:
Police Department
 ASU will use calls for service data to identify fraternities/sororities and Tempe apartments
that are generating the highest number of calls for service within our neighborhoods. Once
identified, a representative from ASU will visit the fraternity/sorority and meet with
apartment managers to discuss the problem and the potential consequences of their
behavior. This representative has already met with several fraternity members and
apartment managers.
 ASU will also meet with the apartment complex managers where fraternities and/or
sororities are located that generate the greatest number of calls for service to discuss
options to mitigate the problem. An ASU representative has already met with several
apartment complex managers.
 At the beginning of each semester, representatives from the Tempe and ASU Police
Departments will attend the ASU President’s Forum, which is attended by the Presidents of
every fraternity and sorority associated with ASU. PD representatives will be provided with
a one-hour block to discuss appropriate law-abiding behavior and the consequences of
14








behavior that violates City and State law. Additional crime prevention information such as
sexual assault prevention pamphlets may also be distributed at this meeting.
The joint Tempe PD/ASU PD bike detail will focus some of their unobligated time patrolling
neighborhoods where party complaints are most prevalent.
Both Tempe PD and ASU PD have grant funding for the purposes of enforcing underage
drinking violations. This funding will be utilized to respond to loud party complaints and to
enforce liquor law violations.
The Tempe and ASU Police Departments will examine the potential of utilizing the Covert
Underage Buyer Program (CUB) to ensure that local retailers are checking for proper
identification before selling alcohol to minors.
Tempe PD has incorporated Crime Free Multi Housing (CFMH) efforts at Loud Party
locations and multi-housing complexes as part of the CFMH program.

Fire Department
 Look more closely at and share data on EMS fire calls.
City Attorney
 Change fee structure.
 Providing alternative means of service for officers.
 Identify and hold accountable all entities involved with the loud party (host, participant,
organization, management company, and/or owner of property).
 Add an aggravated loud party section to increase penalty when other crimes are being
committed at the loud party.
Community Relations/Community Services
 Tempe Areas and Situations of Concerns (TASC) will meet with elite property managers to
find out best practices and then share those in a meeting with high CFS properties by
August 31, 2013.
ASU Police
 ASU PD will provide one officer to work the Party Patrol on Thursday and two officers to
work the Party Patrol on Friday and Saturday.
 Tempe PD, Code Enforcement and Fire Department will perform regular inspections at all of
the known fraternity and sorority houses that are located within Tempe residential
neighborhoods. Two inspections will be conducted each semester. ASU will tour with this
group as the inspections are conducted.
Data Sharing
 Share appropriate police reports with ASU on a weekly basis to help identify ASU students
in violation of their code of conduct.
 Conduct a monthly TASC meeting on the second Tuesday of each month to discuss and
share data and related issues.
 Create a single point of contact at ASU for addressing loud party and related issues.

15

University Initiatives11

In addition to the IWT efforts described above, entities associated with the University have taken
steps to address misconduct. ASU revoked recognition of a fraternity due to improper conduct.
This fraternity is not eligible to reapply for recognition until the Fall 2017. In addition, the Arizona
Board of Regents has sent letters to nearly 70 National Headquarters of Fraternities and Sororities
outlining safety concerns. The letter is said to recommend that these National Associations provide
information on their responsibilities in dealing with and preventing serious misconduct.

Back to School: “Operation Safe and Sober: Youth and Alcohol Task Force”

The goal of Operation Safe and Sober is to promote a safe environment as our youth and young
adults begin the new school year. To reach this goal, Operation Safe and Sober is comprised of two
phases. Phase one targets unsafe behaviors around the city’s primary, middle, and high schools. Of
great concern is the safety of our youth as it relates to traffic/pedestrian movement in the
congested areas around our schools. This concern is heightened at the beginning of the school year
when pedestrian and driver awareness of traffic safety is low. The focus of phase one is to enforce
traffic and criminal violations in and around Tempe schools such as:









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

Phase two places emphasis on protecting our youth and young adults from crime and the inherent
dangers associated with underage drinking. Quality of life in Tempe is impacted by crimes related
to underage drinking and associated disorder calls resulting from poor judgment of young adults
under the influence. Phase two also incorporates educating the community about the risks
associated with hosting and attending loud parties. The Department will proactively focus
resources on high density loud party locations throughout the city. In all, phase two will focus on
DUI arrests, party calls, liquor violations, outstanding warrant, and other quality of life issues.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation, the Department will: (1) have operational
units involved with the initiative collect activity indicators, to include enforcement efforts, calls for
service types, citations and arrests; (2) have Patrol Commanders provide a detailed after action
report discussing strategies and significant events related to the initiative; and (3) have the
Department’s Strategic Planning, Analysis and Research Center (SPARC) conduct a follow-up
assessment providing a temporal and spatial analysis for before, during and after the initiative.

11

Source: Arizona Republic, “Regents express concerns on frats.” azcentral.com (July 17, 2013)

16

APPENDIX-A: IWT LOUD PARTY STRATEGIES
Strategy 1: Police Department – At the beginning of each semester, PD staff, in concert with ASU
staff, will attend a meeting with all the fraternity and sorority chapter presidents. At the meeting,
appropriate law-abiding behavior will be discussed and encouraged. The consequences of behavior
that violates City and State law will also be discussed. PD will also continue aggressive enforcement
of the Nuisance Parties/Unlawful Gatherings Ordinance, disorderly conduct, alcohol violations, and
parking violations.
Strategy 2: Community Services – Community Services will assess the effectiveness of their Minor
in Possession (MIP) Program on preventing repeat offenders through a recidivism study.
Strategy 3: Prosecutor's Office – Continue with aggressive prosecution of Minors in Possession/
Consumption, Disorderly Conduct and charges associated with unruly/loud parties. Also explore
more aggressive penalties for repeat offenders.
Strategy 4: Community Development – Enhance Code Enforcement’s ability to enforce fraternity
regulations in multi-housing dwellings.
Strategy 5: Fire Department – Enforcement of “sprinkler requirement” and inspections to address
access and occupancy violations.
Strategy 6: City Attorney – Work with stakeholders (including the Courts and ASU) to amend the
City Party/Gathering Ordinance and address loopholes by imposing service fee for Nuisance Parties
on first offense. Also, determine legality of criminal sanctions.
Strategy 7: Community Relations – Community messaging and education of how residents can work
together to hold neighbors accountable for nuisance behaviors.
Strategy 8: ASU PD – Assign three officers to the Party Patrol during designated days/hours. Also
assign a Crime Prevention Officer to work with TPD CPU on inspections, and an Investigations
Detective embedded with TPD Investigations to investigate crimes by and against ASU Students.
Strategy 9: Data Sharing – Collect and share information regarding Quality of Life issues (to include:
calls for service, crime, citation, arrest, code violations and nuisances) with City of Tempe
Departments and ASU. Our primary objective is to build shared accountability with ASU, by (1)
measuring the impact of addressing quality of life issues on city services; and, in the end, (2)
measuring the effectiveness of our efforts towards improving the quality of life within Tempe
Neighborhoods.

17

APPENDIX-B: LOUD PARTY CFS TIME OF DAY – DAY OF WEEK

18

APPENDIX-C: LOUD PARTY BUFFERS AROUND ASU

19

APPENDIX-D: LOUD PARTY CALLS BY RD

20

APPENDIX-E: CORRELATION BETWEEN LOUD PARTY CALLS & CRIME/CFS

21