Sign In

Valley Benchmark Cities FY 2018-19 Trend Report (combined)

Executive Summary

The purpose of the Valley Benchmark Cities initiative is to improve local government performance in Arizona by working collaboratively to identify and share resources, best practices, and common demographic, financial, and performance information to better understand the complex and diverse operations of the 11 participating cities (Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe).  Annually, since FY 2013-14, the Valley Benchmark Cities initiative publishes a report to share 24 Valley-wide measures with city leadership and the public.  This report includes measures in the following service categories: Demographics, Fire Services, Police Services; Library Services; Parks and Recreation Services; Water, Sewer, and Trash Services; Finance and Administration Services.

 

In FY 2016-17 the report has moved away from individual community trends to a report based upon regional trends using the maximum, minimum, and median of the 11 cities’ data. The definition of each metric is listed beneath the chart title.  Notes detailing the regional trends identified and explanations of what caused any changes are included beneath the chart for each measure.  Each city’s individual data can be found in the Appendix.

The most recent changes to the FY 2017-18 report include the addition of three new Library measures. Physical Item Turnover Rate, Operating & Maintenance per Square Foot, and Operating & Maintenance per Visitor were added to last year’s report per the recommendation of the Valley City Managers. 

In FY 2018-19 the report began adding notes to the "Appendix" to record any changes in individual cities that affect this year's data collection, but do not necessarily affect trends throughout the region. Additionally, the data definition for Water, Trash, and Sewer measures were refined to replace the term "typical monthly bill" with "standardized monthly bill" to describe water and sewer rates in the Valley.

1 - Valley Benchmark Cities Demographics

The trends tracked for this section are Population Percent Change, Median Household Income and Poverty Rates. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report.

Influencing Factors

Access to Developable Land: Certain cities are able to pursue a strategy of population and development growth because they are able to acquire undeveloped land. This acquisition can be done through annexation of unincorporated land, or through developing unused land within existing city boundaries.

Tourism and National Recognition: The extent to which a city is nationally recognized (rather than regionally) as a resort or tourism destination might impact population trends or cost of living.

Natural Environment and Cultural Attractions: Communities that offer more cultural and recreational activities, or attractions that are unique and native to that city, may see a greater number of people wishing to reside in those communities.

Economic Health: The economic activity in a community, measured by jobs, job growth, and average salary, impacts the resilience of a community and is tied to the fiscal health of its government.

Cost of Living: The average home value, cost of transportation, and cost of consumer goods affect desirability of a community for potential residents.

Citizen Initiatives: Services and amenities can vary across jurisdictions based on voter-approved initiatives such as arts and culture, athletics, transportation, parks, preservation, and public safety.

Populations across the Valley have generally been rising, though currently at slightly lower rates than prior years. Percent change in populations appear to be steady throughout the region, although some cities experienced notable increases from past years in their population growth rates.

As the population of the Valley increases, the base upon which percentage change is calculated increases, so the percent rate of population increase will likely decrease over time. 

Median household income is rising ( see above) and poverty is falling (see below) across the region, continuing the trend of the last five years. In FY 18-19, more cities saw an increase in their median household income and a decrease in their rates of poverty compared to FY 17-18. Some variations in the data may be the result of margin of error due to small sample sizes for individual cities. 

2 - Valley Benchmark Cities Fire/Medical Services

The trends tracked for this section are Top Priority Fire/Medical Response Times and Fire/Medical Calls for Service per Resident. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report.

Influencing Factors

Facilities and Staff Composition: The number of fire stations and firefighters available at any given time and available specialties such as HazMat, Technical Rescue, Wildland Fires, aviation rescues, etc. may impact response times.

Risk of Fire Activity: Residential density, aged infrastructure, composition of building types, and number of large impact developments (i.e., stadiums, convention centers, airports, etc.) in the community influence fire services and management.

Community Characteristics: The geographic size and density of the development, as well as the built environment within the community, impacts areas service needs - i.e., a rural community with more land area may have increased response times and limited number of calls, whereas a densely populated community with older buildings and infrastructure may have a higher number of calls with a lower response time.

Demand and Type of Calls: The type and priority of calls received (e.g., high priority such as cardiac arrest) also impacts response time and resources needed.

Local Service Standards: Any special operating standard or target may affect department outcomes. 

Community Education and Engagement: The extent to which residents are aware of the Fire Code and take precautions and the amount of department involvement in the community are also influencing factors.

Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreements: These partnerships are designed to assure that the closest appropriate fire department resources are deployed in emergencies, no matter the jurisdictional boundaries. In addition to automatic aid, mutual aid agreements provide additional assistance that may be dispatched from a neighboring agency.

Since FY 2013-14, Fire response times have generally decreased as a whole amongst the Valley Benchmark Cities. This overall decrease may be attributed to new fire stations being constructed by a number of municipalities.  A few cities experienced increases in response times due to new developments being constructed in outlying areas and increasing demand for calls.

Since FY 2013-14, fire calls per resident have generally increased as a whole amongst the Valley Benchmark Cities. Much of this increase is due to a higher volume of medical calls, not property fires. 

Fire Response Times do not account for dispatch time, whereas Police Response Times are measured the moment the call is received. 

3 - Valley Benchmark Cities Police Services

The trends tracked for this section are Police Response Times, Total Police Calls per Resident, Officer and Citizen Initiated Calls per Resident, Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents, Property Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents, Violent Crime Clearance Rate, and Property Crime Clearance Rate. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report.

Influencing Factors

Community Characteristics: The geographic size, diversity of landscape, and developed environment of a community can impact the amount and type of areas a police department needs to serve. 

Impact of Non-Residents: Visitors to a particular city who do not maintain a formal residence impact the need for public safety services. These visitors could be seasonal residents, commuters from neighboring cities, tourists, or students not counted in population figures. 

Citizen Engagement with Police: Police services are influenced by the extent to which police officers are involved in the community and residents are aware of the services provided by the department. In many communities, police forces utilize civilian staff to provide additional resources and support in the community. 

Demographics: This factor considers the socioeconomic status of community residents, along with race, gender, age, and economic health of the community as potential predictors of demand for police services. 

Deployment Strategies: How police resources are utilized within a community can vary based on multiple community factors. For example, some agencies place an emphasis on non-sworn roles in police support that can offset the cost of more traditional sworn officer positions.

Trend data suggests that on average top priority response times have remained relatively stable over the past three years. Annual variations seem to affect the median, minimum, and maximum, possibly due to higher than average vacancy rates within the patrol officer ranks across the region. Includes time from call receipt by the dispatching agency to arrival.

Police Response Times are measured the moment the call is received whereas, Fire Response Times do not account for dispatch time.

Total calls per resident has remained steady over the last 6 years; variation in individual city day may be related to population changes and community policing “eyes and ears” efforts. 

Officer initiated and citizen initiated calls provides some insight into the ability for certain cities to take a more proactive policing approach rather than a reactive response approach seen in increasing ratios of citizen iinitiated calls to officer initiated calls. Staffing levels, deployment practices, and community policing efforts likely have an impact on the individual cities results. 

Violent and property crime rates have remained relatively stable over the trend period, with a slight upward trend in violent crime and a slight downward trend in property crime.  Some variation is noted year over year, which may be explained by growth in population and patrol efforts.

 

Violent crime clearance rates and property crime clearance rates both show a slight downward trend indicating a lower percentage of cases cleared on average. However, as with other police indicators, regional staffing shortages may be a driving factor for the slight shift.  Clearance rates include cases "cleared by arrest," or "submitted to prosecutor" and cases "cleared exceptional." Clearance rates are calculated by dividing the number of crimes that are cleared via a charge being assessed by the total number of crimes reported in a given year. Considering the special complexity of some cases, some charges will be included outside of the year when the crime occurred. Our definition of a clearance rate is consistent with the definition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

4 - Valley Benchmark Cities Library Services

The trends tracked for this section include: Average Hours Libraries are Open per Week, Physical Item Turnover Rate, Operation & Maintenance per Square Foot, and Operation & Maintenance per Visitor. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report.

Influencing Factors

County Policy for Library Reciprocal Borrowers Program: Exchange among library branches and between cities allows for greater access to materials that citizens request and reduces costs of new materials. Residents of Maricopa County may obtain a library card from any county or municipal library. 

Population / Library Patrons and Customer Demand: Local population and number of people using library materials and facilities drive the demand for library availability. 

The number of hours a library is open is influenced by whether it is operated by the municipality or Maricopa County.  Hours at Valley libraries have remained relatively static, with only minor fluctuations over the last six years.  Average weekly hours city libraries are open for operation is a calculation of the total number of public service hours divided by the number of branches and 52 weeks.

Physical item turnover represents the number of items checked out over the fiscal year relative to the number of items available. This number may be greater than 1 if items are checked out repeatedly. Since 2016, turnover has generally remained steady.

In FY 2017-18 City of Phoenix O&M expenditures increased significantly due to the reconstruction of Burton Barr Central Library and the replacement of damaged items after the library had a severe flooding incident. In FY 2018-19, expenditures have began to return to original levels.

Across the region, "O& M Expenditures per square foot" have been relatively stable since 2016. "O& M Expenditures per visit" appear to be gradually increasing across the valley.

5 - Valley Benchmark Cities Parks & Recreation Services

The trends tracked for this section include Park Acreage by Type, Total Park Acreage for Public Use per 1,000 Residents, and Miles of Trails per 1,000 residents. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report. 

Influencing Factors

Services Offered by Private Sector: At times, recreation programs, parks, trails, and pools are offered by private organizations, such as homeowner associations. The availability and quality of private programs and amenities influences the extent which cities consider offering similar programs and amenities. 

Customer Feedback: Feedback from the community is vital to understanding what services are desired and what the community values most in parks and recreation services. 

Social Demographics: The socioeconomic and demographic make-up of a community can influence recreation centers and other amenities. Communities with larger low-income populations have a higher demand for low-cost or free recreation programs, public pools, and recreation centers for people of all ages.  

Geography/Open Space Recreation Areas:  Geography helps shape how cities define recreational activities and what amenities are offered.  Individuals who live closer to outdoor recreation areas than developed municipal parks influence the demand for parks in a city.  If recreation exists in close proximity for citizens, such as preserves, trails and open spaces, their need to visit a developed park is diminished, which influences developed park acreage.

Park acreage has not seen significant change among VBC cities since FY 2014.  There is a slight downward trend in park acreage per 1,000 residents among some cities likely due to population growth. As population continues to increase and communities approach full build-out, this trend is expected to stabilize.

Park acreage includes developed park acreage, golf course acreage, and stadium acreage. Natural preserve acreage, applicable to Avondale (130 total acres), Gilbert (182), Glendale (1,112), Peoria (1,133), Phoenix (36,243), Scottsdale (30,560), and Tempe (321), is not included. Planned park acreage is also not included. 

The average miles of trails per 1,000 residents has remained relatively stable among VBC cities from FY 2014 through FY 2019. Changes to this trend may occur when an individual municipality adds and opens new trails, as observed in FY 2019 when City of Scottsdale opened 10 miles of new hiking trail from their local preserve.

A community's geography influences its ability to add miles of trails. As the population continues to increase and communities approach full build-out, this trend is expected to continue stabilizing.  Miles of trails includes only those trails separated from the roadway and also includes miles of trails in preserves.

6 - Valley Benchmark Cities Water, Sewer & Trash Services

The trends tracked for this section are Typical Monthly Bill for Water (both High and Low Use), Typical Monthly Bill for Sewer (both High and Low Use), and Percent of Residential Waste Diverted to Recycling. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16,  FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report. 

Influencing Factors

Drinking Water Source: The water source (ground water or surface water, e.g., Salt River Project or Central Arizona Project) impacts costs of production due to different treatment requirements.  Environmental conditions, seasonal demands, and the number of independent water supply and distribution systems also affect treatment costs. 

Service Area: The size and conditions of the geographic area serviced, the elevation gain, and the number and density of customers affects water, sewer, and trash costs. 

Conservation Programs: Programs and rate structures can provide incentives or disincentives for water consumption, waste reduction, and recycling.

Facilities: The size of the facility, technology used, and ownership of the facility (joint/shared or local) impacts the cost of water, landfills, and recycling centers provided to customers.

Density: Size and type of residential, agricultural, and commercial properties influence water consumption and trash tonnage collected.

Irrigation or Use of Reclaimed Water: Consumption can be impacted if customers use water from separate irrigation districts for landscape watering.

Type of Services: The type of services included in collection fees vary by community and affect trash tonnage; e.g., uncontained and bulk trash collection.

Water and sewer combined monthly rates for both higher and lower use continue to increase gradually throughout the region.

Water and sewer rates are set individually by each community and have many variables. This chart does not compare the average or typical customer in each community, but rather visualizes what a standardized monthly bill would be for a customer with the same meter size and water usage. Because rates differ based on higher or lower water use, both charts are provided to reflect the range of customers serviced.

Please note that even customers with the same water usage may have different sewer rates because of variation between how each community calculates those charges. The higher use is calculated using the equivalent of a 1" meter with water use of 17,000 gallons and sewer flow of 12,000 gallons.  The lower use is calculated using the equivalent of a 3/4" meter with water use of 9,000 gallons and sewer flow of 8,000 gallons.

Waste diversion is the prevention and reduction of landfilled waste through the recycling of collected residential waste. Diversion rate is calculated by dividing the recycling tonnage by the total waste and recycling tonnage combined, or total tonnage collected. 

Since FY 2014, cities have diverted about 22% of single family residential waste through recycling each year. In FY 19 market trends impacted the collection of recycled waste and economic returns for metro areas. 

The Environmental Protection Agency reports the national recycling rate at about 35%.  The national average includes yard trimmings, food, wood, rubber, leather and textiles to the total rate diverted.  Most Valley cities do not include these in their recycling calculations. Many Valley cities have also set goals to increase their recycling rates, but the change in market is expected to affect many cities' abilities to meet desired recycling rates in future years.

7 - Valley Benchmark Cities Finance & Administration Services

The trends tracked for this section are each city’s Full-Time Equivalents per 1,000 Residents and most recent Bond Rating. All of the influencing factors applied in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16,  FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 remain the same for this report.

Influencing Factors

Population: As a city’s population increases, so too do the demands for service and corresponding staffing levels. Cities with a larger population base are often able to generate more revenue to support these services, providing increased flexibility for unique or enhanced programs. In addition to a city’s resident population, a community’s non-resident daytime population can influence the amount and level of services required.

Service Methods: Staffing levels between cities are influenced by the fact that certain services may be performed by internal staff in some municipalities and provided by contract in other cities.

Regional Responsibilities: Some cities (primarily Phoenix) have regional responsibilities that require additional staffing. Examples include Sky Harbor Airport and Phoenix Convention Center. 

Paying for Service Delivery: Over the course of time, cities have made decisions to provide enhanced levels of services than are normally provided. For example, some cities use a Primary Property Tax to provide additional operating funds, while others do not.

Financial Health: The fiscal health of a community can be difficult to summarize with one measure, but a commonly accepted approach is to compare bond ratings. Since rating agencies look for acceptable financial practices, consistent revenue streams, expenditure control, healthy fund balance reserves, socioeconomic composition of the community, and value of the tax base, a high bond rating is an indicator of financial health.

FTE per 1,000 residents has remained relatively stable.  Minor fluctuations occur due to employee attrition and population change. 

Bond ratings are stable or increasing year over year for all Valley-area cities. Cities reported highest bond rating regardless of rating agency. Bond ratings range between D and AAA. D and C ratings are not shown, but are assumed.

8 - Valley Benchmark Cities Appendix

Appendix
*All charts are sorted from highest to lowest based on FY 2018-19 data.
Population
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
United States 316,498,000 318,857,000 321,419,000 323,128,000 325,719,000 327,167,400
Arizona 6,581,000 6,667,000 6,758,000 6,836,000 6,966,000 7,171,600
Phoenix 1,491,300 1,511,600 1,536,000 1,560,000 1,579,300 1,597,700
Mesa 453,300 459,000 466,500 473,800 481,300 488,900
Chandler 240,900 242,200 245,200 251,400 257,900 262,300
Gilbert 222,400 228,400 233,900 240,300 246,400 253,000
Scottsdale 223,400 227,100 233,500 239,500 242,500 245,400
Glendale 231,900 233,600 236,200 238,300 239,900 241,800
Tempe 166,700 170,800 173,900 176,600* 179,800 185,300
Peoria 157,300 159,000 162,100 167,000 171,600 176,100
Surprise 122,100 124,200 126,300 128,400 130,100 132,900
Goodyear 70,800 72,900 75,600 78,700 81,400 84,700
Avondale 77,900 78,500 79,500 80,600 81,600 82,600
Source Population estimates from Arizona Office of Employment and Population Statistics and Maricopa Association of Governments.
  *Note: In FY 2017-18, corrections were made to population data from FY 2013-14 through FY 2016-17. In FY 2018-19, these corrections resulted in further updates to all measures calculated per resident for FY 2013-14 through FY 2016-17.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data. 
             
Population % Change
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Goodyear N/A 2.97% 3.70% 4.10% 3.43% 3.90%
Tempe N/A 2.46% 1.81% 1.55% * 1.79%* 3.06%
Arizona N/A 1.31% 1.36% 1.15% 1.90% 2.95%
Gilbert N/A 2.70% 2.41% 2.74% 2.54% 2.68%
Peoria N/A 1.08% 1.95% 3.02% 2.75% 2.62%
Surprise N/A 1.72% 1.69% 1.66% 1.32% 2.15%
Chandler N/A 0.54% 1.24% 2.53% 2.59% 1.71%
Mesa N/A 1.26% 1.63% 1.56% 1.58% 1.58%
Avondale N/A 0.77% 1.27% 1.38% 1.24% 1.23%
Scottsdale N/A 1.66% 2.82% 2.57% 1.25% 1.20%
Phoenix N/A 1.36% 1.61% 1.56% 1.24% 1.17%
Glendale N/A 0.73% 1.11% 0.89% 0.67% 0.79%
United States N/A 0.75% 0.80% 0.53% 0.80% 0.44%
Source Population estimates from Arizona Office of Employment and Population Statistics and Maricopa Association of Governments.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data. 
             
Median Household Income
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Gilbert $81,589 $84,153 $86,045 $91,576 $84,699 $99,866
Goodyear $72,219 $69,883 $73,164 $73,960 $87,481 $89,959
Scottsdale $69,690 $73,387 $75,346 $81,381 $88,407 $88,071
Chandler $71,545 $73,062 $75,562 $75,369 $76,860 $85,527
Peoria $59,377 $66,371 $66,308 $68,882 $72,142 $72,050
Surprise $55,857 $58,923 $65,688 $60,521 $65,898 $70,280
Avondale $51,206 $55,664 $54,686 $58,404 $55,468 $63,242
United States $52,250 $53,657 $55,775 $57,617 $60,336 $61,937
Tempe $48,565 $47,118 $51,688 $56,365 $51,986 $60,330
Arizona $48,510 $50,068 $51,492 $53,558 $56,581 $59,246
Mesa $47,561 $47,675 $49,177 $52,393 $55,014 $58,247
Phoenix $46,601 $47,929 $48,452 $52,062 $53,468 $57,957
Glendale $41,037 $46,453 $45,812 $51,022 $53,753 $54,789
Source United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-Year estimates.
             
Poverty (% of Population Below Federal Poverty Level)
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Tempe 21.54 23.30 20.00 20.30 22.10 17.40
Glendale 26.30 21.00 22.50 16.40 16.70 16.60
Phoenix 23.60 23.30 22.30 20.30 16.80 15.60
Arizona 18.60 18.20 17.40 16.40 14.90 14.00
Mesa 16.64 15.10 17.20 16.80 15.00 13.90
United States 15.80 15.50 14.70 14.00 13.40 13.10
Avondale 19.09 19.30 16.20 14.40 13.50 11.50
Chandler 10.41 10.40 9.20 7.10 8.10 7.90
Peoria 11.51 9.20 7.00 7.70 6.60 6.70
Goodyear 10.78 12.10 9.00 4.50 9.00 6.60
Scottsdale 9.32 9.10 11.00 8.00 7.80 5.80
Surprise 10.48 12.20 7.30 9.70 6.70 5.40
Gilbert 5.91 6.80 6.00 5.00 5.60 5.20
Source United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-Year estimates.
             
Top Priority Fire Response Times
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Avondale 7:18 6:14 6:12 6:09 6:35 6:31
Goodyear 5:52 5:03 6:27 6:20 6:17 6:09
Scottsdale 5:26 5:25 4:32 4:37 4:46 6:09
Surprise 5:47 5:28 5:50 7:25 5:44 5:34
Mesa 5:01 5:05 5:18 5:09 5:41 5:17
Peoria 5:56 5:34 5:46 5:31 5:24 5:17
Gilbert 4:57 4:59 5:18 5:09 4:48 4:44
Tempe 4:07 4:13 4:16 4:15 4:15 4:31
Chandler 3:58 3:58 3:48 3:49 4:01 4:07
Glendale 4:30 4:44 5:01 4:49 4:28 4:04
Phoenix 4:48 4:48 4:29 4:08 3:57 4:00
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities
             
Fire Calls for Service per Resident
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Scottsdale 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Tempe 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.14
Mesa 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Phoenix 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Glendale 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Avondale 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12
Surprise 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.12
Peoria 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.11
Chandler 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Goodyear 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.10
Gilbert 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, all measures calculated per resident from FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, and FY 2016-17 were updated to reflect corrections made to population data in FY 2017-18 across all cities. 
Total Fire Calls
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix 170,713 173,090 195,767 201,290 212,869 213,324
Mesa 57,505 57,538 65,518 66,688 67,421 68,650
Scottsdale 28,132 32,365 35,098 36,407 36,872 37,750
Glendale 27,715 29,505 30,978 31,312 31,693 32,255
Tempe 24,559 23,378 23,928 31,835 26,221 26,506
Chandler 20,656 22,797 23,996 25,072 25,715 24,964
Gilbert 15,659 18,133 18,923 19,422 20,506 20,903
Peoria 14,802 16,744 23,511 23,726 24,932 19,252
Surprise 13,768 11,266 16,896 16,546 14,713 16,282
Avondale 6,557 9,449 10,654 10,578 11,008 9,572
Goodyear 5,052 4,903 6,854 5,641 7,298 8,650
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities
             
Police Response Times
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Peoria 6:26 6:41 7:01 6:38 7:22 7:15
Tempe 6:23 6:19 6:32 6:22 6:36 6:41
Glendale 4:42 6:32 5:53 6:14 6:47 6:25
Phoenix 5:32 5:50 6:12 6:26 6:29 6:22
Chandler 6:15 6:21 6:09 6:06 6:01 6:04
Scottsdale 5:25 5:12 5:11 4:52 5:11 5:11
Surprise 4:44 4:36 5:03 4:59 5:08 5:05
Goodyear 4:05 3:30 3:15 4:28 4:45 4:41
Mesa 3:48 4:00 3:36 3:28 4:12 4:12
Gilbert 4:18 4:22 4:11 4:29 4:13 4:07
Avondale 4:32 3:42 3:30 3:44 3:34 3:34
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities 
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, City of Glendale submitted corrections to Police Response Data for FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18 to include dispatch time.
             
Total Police Calls per Resident
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Scottsdale 1.02 0.98 1.10 1.13 1.11 1.10
Tempe 0.91 0.87 0.77 0.73* 0.75 0.75
Glendale 0.59 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.77 0.68
Surprise 0.77 0.78 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.68
Avondale 0.69 0.71 0.64 0.68 0.67 0.68
Gilbert 0.82 0.74 0.77 0.74 0.68 0.67
Chandler 0.60 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.61
Goodyear 0.92 0.68 0.61 0.70 0.65 0.60
Mesa 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.57
Phoenix 0.41 0.43 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.54
Peoria 0.64 0.61 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.50
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data. This also resulted in updates to FY 2016-17 measures calculated per resident.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, all measures calculated per resident from FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, and FY 2016-17 were updated to reflect corrections made to population data in FY 2017-18 across all cities. 
             
Total Police Calls
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix 609,158 647,769 824,725 852,060 867,638 865,782
Mesa 252,174 291,563 300,246 291,982 296,374 280,219
Scottsdale 228,879 223,441 255,711 270,778 269,544 269,649
Gilbert 182,082 169,555 180,320 177,058 166,489 169,600
Glendale 138,665 176,837 183,977 192,518 183,977 164,307
Chandler 145,256 139,677 145,485 156,186 154,920 159,038
Tempe 151,945 149,186 133,584 131,793 134,357 139,150
Surprise 93,654 96,562 86,030 86,644 86,699 90,555
Peoria 101,143 96,661 86,969 86,481 89,297 88,599
Avondale 53,483 55,444 50,756 54,643 54,289 56,180
Goodyear 65,048 49,330 46,029 54,945 53,034 50,592
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities
             
Police Calls per Resident - Officer Initiated Calls
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Scottsdale N/A N/A 0.53 0.55 0.50 0.41
Gilbert N/A N/A 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.40
Surprise N/A N/A 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.36
Goodyear N/A N/A 0.29 0.37 0.32 0.28
Tempe N/A N/A 0.20 0.25* 0.25 0.27
Glendale N/A N/A 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.26
Avondale N/A N/A 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.23
Mesa N/A N/A 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.21
Peoria N/A N/A 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.21
Chandler N/A N/A 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.19
Phoenix N/A N/A 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities.       
  Note: N/A – Specific data point not collected for the selected year (cities provided only total number of calls).  
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data. This also resulted in updates to FY 2016-17 measures calculated per resident.
  * Note: In FY 2018-19, all measures calculated per resident from FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, and FY 2016-17 were updated to reflect corrections made to population data in FY 2017-18 across all cities. 
             
Total Police Calls- Officer Initiated Calls
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix N/A N/A 158,608 166,442 185,347 185,745
Mesa N/A N/A 133,676 119,118 120,413 104,768
Gilbert N/A N/A 111,714 104,771 94,521 102,174
Scottsdale N/A N/A 123,242 132,913 121,424 101,000
Glendale N/A N/A 66,599 64,678 67,887 62,464
Chandler N/A N/A 41,193 48,412 45,885 50,149
Tempe N/A N/A 34,086 43,278 44,340 49,832
Surprise N/A N/A 46,479 45,735 45,651 48,014
Peoria N/A N/A 33,713 31,345 35,723 37,472
Goodyear N/A N/A 21,665 28,845 26,282 23,355
Avondale N/A N/A 16,936 19,915 18,887 19,108
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities.       
  Note: N/A – Specific data point not collected for the selected year (cities provided only total number of calls). 
             
Police Calls per Resident - Citizen Initiated Calls
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Scottsdale N/A N/A 0.57 0.58 0.61 0.69
Tempe N/A N/A 0.57 0.50* 0.50 0.48
Avondale N/A N/A 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.45
Phoenix N/A N/A 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.43
Glendale N/A N/A 0.50 0.54 0.48 0.42
Chandler N/A N/A 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42
Mesa N/A N/A 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.36
Goodyear N/A N/A 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.32
Surprise N/A N/A 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32
Peoria N/A N/A 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.29
Gilbert N/A N/A 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.27
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities.       
  Note: N/A – Specific data point not collected for the selected year (cities provided only total number of calls). 
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data resulting in updates to FY 2016-17 measures calculated per resident.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, all measures calculated per resident from FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, and FY 2016-17 were updated to reflect corrections made to population data in FY 2017-18 across all cities. 
             
Total Police Calls- Citizen Initiated Calls
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix N/A N/A 666,117 685,618 682,291 680,037
Mesa N/A N/A 166,571 172,864 175,961 175,451
Scottsdale N/A N/A 132,469 137,865 148,120 168,649
Chandler N/A N/A 104,292 107,774 109,035 108,889
Glendale N/A N/A 117,378 127,840 116,090 101,843
Tempe N/A N/A 99,498 88,515 90,017 89,318
Gilbert N/A N/A 68,606 72,287 71,968 67,426
Peoria N/A N/A 53,256 55,136 53,574 51,127
Surprise N/A N/A 39,551 40,909 41,048 42,541
Avondale N/A N/A 33,820 34,728 35,402 37,072
Goodyear N/A N/A 24,364 26,100 26,752 27,237
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities.       
  Note: N/A – Specific data point not collected for the selected year (cities provided only total number of calls). 
             
Violent Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix 6.37 5.88 6.03 6.86 7.92 7.58
Tempe 4.98 4.67 4.15 5.11* 4.91 4.93
Glendale 3.91 4.17 3.99 5.05 5.06 4.83
Mesa 3.98 4.62 4.23 4.33 4.25 3.76
Avondale 2.59 3.48 3.51 2.89 3.15 3.46
Goodyear 1.33 1.53 1.89 3.94 2.68 2.40
Chandler 2.39 1.96 2.01 2.22 2.51 2.31
Peoria 1.61 1.50 1.75 2.10 2.41 2.20
Scottsdale 1.51 1.62 1.86 1.54 1.63 1.72
Surprise 1.23 1.59 1.33 1.05 1.01 1.00*
Gilbert 0.87 0.92 0.76 0.83 0.84 0.92
Source  FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) crime data. Calendar year.     
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, City of Surprise submitted corrections due to a clerical error to DPS and FBI for total violent crime data in 2018.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data resulting in updates to FY 2016-17 measures calculated per resident.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, all measures calculated per resident  from FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, and FY 2016-17 were updated to reflect corrections made to population data in FY 2017-18 across all cities. 
             
Total Violent Crime
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix 9,494 8,888 9,261 10,700 12,511 12,110
Mesa 1,806 2,118 1,972 2,051 2,047 1,837
Glendale 906 973 943 1,204 1,214 1,167
Tempe 831 798 721 902 883 913
Chandler 576 474 490 558 647 606
Scottsdale 338 368 434 369 396 422
Peoria 254 239 283 351 414 388
Avondale 202 273 279 233 257 286
Gilbert 193 210 177 200 207 234
Goodyear 94 111 143 310 218 203
Surprise 150 198 168 135 131 133*
Source  FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) crime data. Calendar year. 
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, City of Surprise submitted corrections due to a clerical error to DPS and FBI for total violent crime data in 2018.
             
Property Crime Rate per 1,000 Residents
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Glendale 58.76 57.27 54.85 53.73 43.64 42.34
Tempe 47.52 47.35 43.94 46.12* 42.65 42.10
Phoenix 40.29 38.67 35.45 37.53 38.22 36.13
Avondale 46.96 38.60 38.94 40.47 41.02 33.16
Goodyear 24.23 21.74 23.60 26.21 28.11 24.57
Scottsdale 25.81 23.75 22.84 23.67 22.65 23.16
Chandler 24.49 23.99 21.99 24.47 22.52 20.70
Mesa 28.49 28.39 25.52 23.67 22.21 20.50
Peoria 24.35 20.30 20.78 22.28 19.77 18.40
Surprise 17.36 22.23 17.28 19.38 17.04 15.65*
Gilbert 15.61 15.21 13.97 14.02 13.62 12.93
Source  FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) crime data. Calendar year.     
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, City of Surprise submitted corrections due to a clerical error to DPS and FBI for total property crime data in 2018.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, corrections were submitted to the City of Tempe's FY 2016-17 population data resulting in updates to FY 2016-17 measures calculated per resident.
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, all measures calculated per resident from FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, and FY 2016-17 were updated to reflect corrections made to population data in FY 2017-18 across all cities. 
             
Total Property Crime
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Phoenix 60,084 58,450 54,456 58,552 60,353 57,732
Glendale 13,626 13,379 12,955 12,805 10,469 10,186
Mesa 12,915 13,029 11,905 11,214 10,692 10,024
Tempe 7,921 8,087 7,642 8,144 7,669 7,802
Scottsdale 5,766 5,394 5,332 5,698 5,493 5,683
Chandler 5,899 5,812 5,393 6,152 5,809 5,430
Gilbert 3,471 3,474 3,267 3,368 3,355 3,273
Peoria 3,831 3,227 3,368 3,721 3,392 3,241
Avondale 3,659 3,030 3,096 3,262 3,347 2,739
Goodyear 1,716 1,585 1,784 2,063 2,288 2,081
Surprise 2,120 2,761 2,182 2,489 2,217 2080*
Source  FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) crime data. Calendar year. 
  *Note: In FY 2018-19, City of Surprise submitted corrections due to a clerical error to DPS and FBI for total property crime data in 2018.
             
Violent Crime Clearance Rates (%)
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Peoria 62% 60% 57% 57% 55% 59%
Surprise 72% 58%