Sign In

Valley Benchmark Cities FY 2019-20 Trend Report - Phoenix Data

This custom report shows Phoenix data alongside the data from municipalities reporting the minimum, median and maximum values for each measure. In order to collect and report data reflecting the full fiscal or calendar year, the annual VBC Trend Report is published one year in arrears.

The purpose of the Valley Benchmark Cities initiative is to improve local government performance in Arizona.

We do this by working collaboratively to identify and share resources, best practices, and common demographic, financial, and performance information. In doing so, we're able 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.

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

FY 2017-18: The report added three new Library measures per the recommendation of the Valley City Managers: Physical Item Turnover Rate, Operating & Maintenance per Square Foot, and Operating & Maintenance per Visitor.

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 definitions 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.

FY 2019-20: Significant efforts were made to clarify definitions Diagram, mapDescription automatically generatedand measure titles to ensure consistency in data reporting across all cities. Among the measures adjusted were: [Fire/Medical] Top Priority Fire Response, [Police] Top Priority Police Response, Police Calls - Officer Initiated, [Parks & Recreation] Miles of Trails, [Finance & Administration] FTE Positions for Fiscal Year, FTE Positions Authorized, Part Time FTEs Authorized for Fiscal Year, Seasonal (Temp) FTEs Authorized for Fiscal Year, [Water, Sewer & Trash] Percent of Waste Diverted through Recycling, Total Waste (Landfill) in Tons, Total Recycled in Tons.

With these clarification efforts, several measures were identified as having been reported inconsistently across cities in past fiscal years. The historical data for these measures has been recollected and updated in the report, and the affected measures are noted in the appendix.

Navigate through the below service areas to explore our performance over the past few years: 

Demographics
Fire/Medical Services
Police Services
Library Services
Parks & Recreation Services
Water, Sewer & Trash Services
Finance & Administration Services
Appendix

Demographics

The trends tracked for this section are Population Percent Change, Median Household Income and Poverty Rates. All of the influencing factors accounted for in past reports 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 continue to increase, with the median reaching its highest rate of increase in the last five years. In FY 2019-20, one city showed a greater than 1% increase, and one city showed a greater than 1% decrease in population growth rate from FY 2018-19.

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 long-term.

Median household income has been rising (left) for the past four years, with a steady increase across the valley since FY 2013-14. The median poverty rate has simultaneously fallen (right) by about 1% annually, until FY 2019-20 brought a 0.9% median increase in households living in poverty, and the first average increase in poverty among the eleven Valley Benchmark Cities since FY 2013-14. 

Some variations in the data may be the result of margin of error due to small sample sizes for individual 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 accounted for in past reports 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 (e.g. stadiums, convention centers, airports, etc.) in the community influence fire services and management.

Community Characteristics: The geographic size and density of development and the built environment within a community impacts its service needs. For example, a rural community with more land area may have increased response times and fewer 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 (improved) among the Valley Benchmark Cities. This overall decrease may be attributed to new fire stations being constructed by a number of municipalities. In FY 2018-19, a few cities experienced increases in response times due to new developments being constructed in outlying areas and increased demand for service. In FY 2019-20, most cities saw a slight increase in response times.

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

Since FY 2013-14, Fire Calls per Resident have generally maintained an upward trend among Valley Benchmark Cities. Much of this increase is due to a higher volume of medical calls. In FY 2019-20, most cities saw a slight decrease in per capita fire/medical calls.

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 accounted for in past reports 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 shows that Top Priority Response Times have fluctuated for most cities within a 20-30 second variance over the past three years. The majority of cities decreased (improved) their response times. Annual variations are possibly due to higher-than-average vacancy rates within the patrol officer ranks across the region.

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

Total Police Calls per Resident for almost all cities have held steady or maintained a slight decline over the past four years. Variation in individual city data may be related to population changes and community policing “eyes and ears” efforts.

The majority of cities show a trending decline in both Citizen and Officer Initiated Calls for FY 2019-20.

Along with the decrease in total calls, some cities show a trend of increasing ratios of Citizen Initiated Calls to Officer Initiated Calls. This can provide some insight into the more-proactive policing approach taken by these cities in place of a reactive response approach.

Staffing levels, deployment practices, and community policing efforts likely have an impact on the individual cities results. 

Both violent and property crime are trending downward among the majority of cities for the past 3 years. 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 an overall downward trend, and both rates are at their lowest on average across the Valley Benchmark Cities since FY 2013-14. This indicates a lower percentage of cases cleared on average, and likely is not affected by the changes in total number of cases. As with other police indicators, regional staffing shortages may be a driving factor for the slight shift. 

In FY 2019-20, Property crime clearance rates have a range of 12.4% (between 10-22.4%), and seem to be narrowing toward an average of 16.4%.

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.

Library Services

The trends tracked for this section include: Average Hours Libraries are Open per Week, Physical Item Turnover Rate, Operation & Maintenance Expenditures per Square Foot, and Operation & Maintenance Expenditures per Visitor. All of the influencing factors accounted for in past reports 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 five years. 

In FY 2019-20, library hours were drastically reduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring many facilities to close their doors. During this time, many libraries continued providing services via drive-through or lobby-only borrowing, as well as through virtual events. The values above only account for those hours during which the library was fully open for normal operations.

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.

O&M Expenditures per Square Foot have been relatively stable since 2016. Over that same period, however, O&M Expenditures per Visit appear to be gradually increasing across the valley. This is likely due to an increase in electronic borrowing and decrease in physical visits. Both of these trends are reflected in almost all Valley Benchmark Cities since 2016.

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 2019-20, the City of Surprise O&M Expenditures per square foot decreased substantially due to the new Asante Library, a 10,000 square foot addition which opened in February 2020 and then halted operations in mid-March due to the pandemic.

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 accounted for in past reports 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 influence the extent to 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 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 include only those trails separated from the roadway and also include miles of trails in preserves.

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. In the FY 2019-20 report, "Market Rates" and "Consumer Behavior" were added as influencing factors.

Influencing Factors

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

Density: The 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 types of services included in collection fees vary by community and affect trash tonnage; e.g. uncontained and bulk trash collection.

Consumer Behavior: Consumer behaviors surrounding recyclable products are constantly changing. These changes can impact waste streams, and thus supply and demand in the recycling market. As an example, as people do more communicating, reading, and shopping online, paper/mail/newspaper/magazine waste has been declining while cardboard has been increasing. Because paper is heavier/denser than cardboard, the weight in tons of recyclable waste will decrease even if the amount in volume remains the same. 

Market Rates: The market for recycled materials impacts the production and net cost of recycling in a city. Historically, foreign nations have been the primary consumers of recycled materials, but changes in recycling requirements and acceptable commodities are affecting the amount of household waste diverted to recycling.

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

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 2013-14, cities have diverted about 22% of single family residential waste through recycling each year. 

In FY 2019-20, four cities ceased or reduced their recycling services, resulting in a significant drop to the recycling rates shown in the charts. The reduction was caused in large part by a decline in market rates for recycled materials in 2018.

An additional blow was dealt when the Salt River Pima Indian Community's Republic Services recycling plant burned down in October 2019. This plant provided 100% of the City of Scottsdale's recycling services, and 60% of the City of Mesa's, and its loss significantly increased the amount of recyclables sent to landfill in these cities.

The remaining cities showed slight declines in their service levels, and declines are expected to continue across all cities as they seek innovative solutions to waste reduction and diversion.

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 accounted for in past reports remain the same for this report.

Influencing Factors

Population: As a city’s population increases, so do the demands for service and corresponding staffing levels. Cities with a larger population 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 are influenced by whether services are performed by internal staff or provided by contract, which can vary between 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 time, cities have decided to enhance or improve certain services, thus requiring additional revenue sources. For example, some cities use a Primary Property Tax to generate additional operating funds.

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. A high bond rating is an indicator of financial health, 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.

FTE per 1,000 Residents has remained relatively stable, with a few exceptions. In FY 2019-20, two Valley Benchmark Cities saw significant increases of 1.37 and .63 FTE per 1,000 Residents. In FY 2018-19, one city increased by .57 FTE per 1,000 Residents. 

Despite these exceptions, the great majority of annual fluctations are minor and are likely due to employee attrition and population change. 

Note: All charts are sorted from highest to lowest based on FY 2019-20 data.
               
Demographics
               
Population
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20
United States 316,498,000 318,857,000 321,419,000 323,128,000 325,719,000 327,167,400 328,239,500
Arizona 6,581,000 6,667,000 6,758,000 6,836,000 6,966,000 7,171,600 7,278,700
Phoenix 1,491,300 1,511,600 1,536,000 1,560,000 1,579,300 1,597,700 1,617,300
Mesa 453,300 459,000 466,500 473,800 481,300 488,900 497,400
Chandler 240,900 242,200 245,200 251,400 257,900 262,300 266,800
Gilbert 222,400 228,400 233,900 240,300 246,400 253,000 259,400
Scottsdale 223,400 227,100 233,500 239,500 242,500 245,400 247,900
Glendale 231,900 233,600 236,200 238,300 239,900 241,800 243,300
Tempe 166,700 170,800 173,900 176,600 179,800 185,300 188,600
Peoria 157,300 159,000 162,100 167,000 171,600 176,100 180,200
Surprise 122,100 124,200 126,300 128,400 130,100 132,900 136,200
Goodyear 70,800 72,900 75,600 78,700 81,400 84,700 88,900
Avondale 77,900 78,500 79,500 80,600 81,600 82,600 84,600
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 FY 2019-20
Goodyear N/A 2.97% 3.70% 4.10% 3.43% 4.05% 4.96%
Gilbert N/A 2.70% 2.41% 2.74% 2.54% 2.68% 2.53%
Surprise N/A 1.72% 1.69% 1.66% 1.32% 2.15% 2.48%
Avondale N/A 0.77% 1.27% 1.38% 1.24% 1.23% 2.42%
Peoria N/A 1.08% 1.95% 3.02% 2.75% 2.62% 2.33%
Tempe N/A 2.46% 1.81% 1.55% 1.81% 3.06% 1.78%
Mesa N/A 1.26% 1.63% 1.56% 1.58% 1.58% 1.74%
Chandler N/A 0.54% 1.24% 2.53% 2.59% 1.71% 1.72%
Arizona N/A 1.31% 1.36% 1.15% 1.90% 2.95% 1.49%
Phoenix N/A 1.36% 1.61% 1.56% 1.24% 1.17% 1.23%
Scottsdale N/A 1.66% 2.82% 2.57% 1.25% 1.20% 1.02%
Glendale N/A 0.73% 1.11% 0.89% 0.67% 0.79% 0.62%
United States N/A 1.08% 1.95% 3.02% 2.75% 2.62% 2.33%
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. 
  *Note: In FY 2019-20, a correction was made to the City of Goodyear's FY 2018-19 population % change.
               
Median Household Income
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20
Gilbert $81,589 $84,153 $86,045 $91,576 $84,699 $99,866 $102,793
Scottsdale $69,690 $73,387 $75,346 $81,381 $88,407 $88,071 $86,097
Goodyear $72,219 $69,883 $73,164 $73,960 $87,481 $89,959 $85,147
Chandler $71,545 $73,062 $75,562 $75,369 $76,860 $85,527 $83,709
Peoria $59,377 $66,371 $66,308 $68,882 $72,142 $72,050 $77,368
Surprise $55,857 $58,923 $65,688 $60,521 $65,898 $70,280 $76,405
Avondale $51,206 $55,664 $54,686 $58,404 $55,468 $63,242 $71,296
Tempe $48,565 $47,118 $51,688 $56,365 $51,986 $60,330 $66,297
United States $52,250 $53,657 $55,775 $57,617 $60,336 $61,937 $65,712
Mesa $47,561 $47,675 $49,177 $52,393 $55,014 $58,247 $63,836
Arizona $48,510 $50,068 $51,492 $53,558 $56,581 $59,246 $62,055
Phoenix $46,601 $47,929 $48,452 $52,062 $53,468 $57,957 $60,931
Glendale $41,037 $46,453 $45,812 $51,022 $53,753 $54,789 $57,137
Source United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-Year estimates.
               
Poverty Rate (% of Population Below Federal Poverty Level)
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20
Glendale 26.3% 21.0% 22.5% 16.4% 16.7% 16.6% 18.9%
Tempe 21.5% 23.3% 20.0% 20.3% 22.1% 17.4% 17.2%
Phoenix 23.6% 23.3% 22.3% 20.3% 16.8% 15.6% 15.6%
Arizona 18.6% 18.2% 17.4% 16.4% 14.9% 14.0% 13.5%
United States 15.8% 15.5% 14.7% 14.0% 13.4% 13.1% 12.3%
Mesa 16.6% 15.1% 17.2% 16.8% 15.0% 13.9% 11.6%
Avondale 19.1% 19.3% 16.2% 14.4% 13.5% 11.5% 10.1%
Peoria 11.5% 9.2% 7.0% 7.7% 6.6% 6.7% 8.8%
Goodyear 10.8% 12.1% 9.0% 4.5% 9.0% 6.6% 8.3%
Surprise 10.5% 12.2% 7.3% 9.7% 6.7% 5.4% 7.3%
Chandler 10.4% 10.4% 9.2% 7.1% 8.1% 7.9% 6.7%
Scottsdale 9.3% 9.1% 11.0% 8.0% 7.8% 5.8% 6.0%
Gilbert 5.9% 6.8% 6.0% 5.0% 5.6% 5.2% 4.6%
Source United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-Year estimates.
               
Fire/Medical Services
               
Top Priority Fire Response Times
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20
Avondale 7:18 6:14 6:12 6:09 6:35 6:31 6:45
Peoria 5:56 5:34 5:46 5:31 5:24 5:17 5:35
Mesa 5:01 5:05 5:18 5:09 5:41 5:17 5:21
Scottsdale 5:26 5:25 4:32 4:37 4:46 6:09 5:16
Glendale 4:30 4:44 5:01 4:49 4:28 4:04 5:14
Surprise 5:47 5:28 5:50 7:25 5:44 5:34 5:11
Goodyear 5:52 5:03 6:27 6:20 6:17 6:09 5:04
Gilbert 4:57 4:59 5:18 5:09 4:48 4:44 4:46
Tempe 4:07 4:13 4:16 4:15 4:15 4:31 4:31
Phoenix 4:48 4:48 4:29 4:08 3:57 4:00 4:11
Chandler 3:58 3:58 3:48 3:49 4:01 4:07 4:09
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 FY 2019-20
Scottsdale 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Mesa 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Tempe 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.14
Phoenix 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14
Glendale 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Avondale 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13
Surprise 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12
Goodyear 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11
Peoria 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.11
Chandler 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09
Gilbert 0.07 0.08 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 FY 2019-20
Phoenix 170,713 173,090 195,767 201,290 212,869 213,324 219,395
Mesa 57,505 57,538 65,518 66,688 67,421 68,650 70,074
Scottsdale 28,132 32,365 35,098 36,407 36,872 37,750 37,457
Glendale 27,715 29,505 30,978 31,312 31,693 32,255 32,763
Tempe 24,559 23,378 23,928 31,835 26,221 26,506 26,085
Chandler 20,656 22,797 23,996 25,072 25,715 24,964 24,504
Gilbert 15,659 18,133 18,923 19,422 20,506 20,903 20,680
Peoria 14,802 16,744 23,511 23,726 24,932 19,252 19,148
Surprise 13,768 11,266 16,896 16,546 14,713 16,282 15,986
Avondale 6,557 9,449 10,654 10,578 11,008 9,572 11,218
Goodyear 5,052 4,903 6,854 5,641 7,298 8,650 9,674
Source Self-reported by participating Valley Cities
               
Police Services
               
Police Response Times
  FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20
Peoria 6:26 6:41 7:01 6:38 7:22 7:22 7:03
Phoenix 5:32 5:50 6:12 6:26 6:29 6:29 6:25
Glendale 4:42 6:32 5:53 6:14 6:47 6:47 6:23
Tempe 6:23 6:19 6:32 6:22 6:36 6:36 6:14
Scottsdale 5:25 5:12 5:11 4:52 5:11 5:11 5:29
Surprise 4:44 4:36 5:03 4:59 5:08 5:08 5:00
Chandler 6:15 6:21 6:09 6:06 6:01 6:01 4:28
Goodyear 4:05 3:30 3:15 4:28 4:45 4:45 4:24
Gilbert 4:18 4:22 4:11 4:29 4:13 4:13 3:59
Mesa 3:48 4:00 3:36 3:28 4:12 4:12 3:45
Avondale 4:32 3:42 3:30 3:44 3:34 3:34 3:38
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 FY 2019-20
Scottsdale 1.02 0.98 1.10 1.13 1.11 1.10 1.00
Gilbert 0.82 0.74 0.77 0.74 0.68 0.67 0.81
Avondale 0.69 0.71 0.64 0.68 0.67 0.68 0.68
Surprise 0.77 0.78 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68
Glendale 0.59 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.77 0.68 0.66
Tempe 0.91 0.87 0.77 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.64
Chandler 0.60 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.61 0.55
Phoenix 0.41 0.43 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.53
Mesa 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.62 0.57 0.53
Goodyear 0.92 0.68 0.61 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.45
Peoria 0.64 0.61 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.00
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 FY 2019-20
Phoenix 609,158 647,769 824,725 852,060 867,638 865,782 861,767
Mesa 252,174 291,563 300,246 291,982 296,374 280,219 263,344
Scottsdale 228,879 223,441 255,711 270,778 269,544 269,649 257,573
Gilbert 182,082 169,555 180,320 177,058 166,489 169,600 210,307
Glendale 138,665 176,837 183,977 192,518 183,977 164,307 159,732
Chandler 145,256 139,677 145,485 156,186 154,920 159,038 146,859
Tempe 151,945 149,186 133,584 131,793 134,357 139,150 120,597
Surprise 93,654 96,562 86,030 86,644 86,699 90,555 92,376
Peoria 101,143 96,661 86,969 86,481 89,297 88,599 85,348
Avondale 53,483 55,444 50,756 54,643 54,289 56,180 57,475
Goodyear 65,048 49,330 46,029 54,945 53,034 50,592 39,929
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 FY 2019-20
Gilbert N/A N/A 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.40 0.55
Surprise N/A N/A 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.36
Scottsdale N/A N/A 0.53 0.55 0.50 0.41 0.34
Glendale N/A N/A 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.23
Avondale N/A N/A 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.20
Tempe N/A N/A 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.20
Goodyear N/A N/A 0.29 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.19
Peoria N/A N/A 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.19
Mesa N/A N/A 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.18
Chandler N/A N/A 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.16
Phoenix N/A N/A 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11
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 FY 2019-20
Phoenix N/A N/A 158,608 166,442 185,347 185,745 180,932
Gilbert N/A N/A 111,714 104,771 94,521 102,174 143,899
Mesa N/A N/A 133,676 119,118 120,413 104,768 87,601
Scottsdale N/A N/A 123,242 132,913 121,424 101,000 87,389
Glendale N/A N/A 66,599 64,678 67,887 62,464 56,242
Surprise N/A N/A 46,479 45,735 45,651 48,014 49,550
Chandler N/A N/A 41,193 48,412 45,885 50,149 42,160
Tempe N/A N/A 34,086 43,278 44,340 49,832 37,840
Peoria N/A N/A 33,713 31,345 35,723 37,472 34,267
Avondale N/A N/A 16,936 19,915 18,887 19,108 17,316
Goodyear N/A N/A 21,665 28,845 26,282 23,355 17,275
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 FY 2019-20
Scottsdale N/A N/A 0.57 0.58 0.61 0.69 0.66
Avondale N/A N/A 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.47
Tempe N/A N/A 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.44
Glendale N/A N/A 0.50 0.54 0.48 0.42 0.43
Phoenix N/A N/A 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.42
Chandler N/A N/A 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.39
Mesa N/A N/A 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.35
Surprise N/A N/A 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31
Peoria N/A N/A 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.29