Alarmed in America

For as long as anyone can remember, the U.S. alarm industry has depended upon local police for response to residential and commercial security alarms … that is until recently. Police response to privately owned alarms is an important alarm industry selling point and the ADT Security Services Website is but one example. The site asks readers, "Why should you protect your home and family with a monitored security system? Because, if something happens, you'll probably need help — from the police…"

As of this writing, "Verified Response" is now policy in over 50 American cities and is under consideration in countless more. It requires eye-witness confirmation (video verification is allowed in some jurisdictions) of criminal activity before police are dispatched. Although a neighbouring resident or businessperson can verify an alarm, most alarm companies rely upon private patrol operators (security guard companies) to conduct an initial evaluation of the alarmed premises to determine if police response is necessary.

Verified Response does not come without controversy. Some industry members think security guards are not qualified to handle alarm calls while others believe that responding to alarms is the responsibility of the police. Private response also adds additional costs for the alarm owner.

Conventional Approaches
False alarms have been an American problem for decades. Over the years, there has been lots of talk but little progress in reducing the burden on law enforcement. Some of the biggest industry associations have tried their best to address the problem, including the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association (http://www.alarm.org/).

NBFAA represents the electronic life safety, security and systems industry and is arguably the leader in false alarm prevention and education.

One of NBFAA's major initiatives is a cooperative effort with the False Alarm Reduction Association (http://www.faraonline.org/). FARA is an association of 250 governmental and law enforcement employees working in false alarm reduction programs in the U.S. and Canada.

  "The NBFAA/FARA Model Burglar Alarm Ordinance is a comprehensive package which requires, among other things, multiple call verification prior to requesting dispatch, cancellation once it is determined that a signal is false, escalating fees, fines, and penalties for false alarms, education, and inspections," says FARA president Norma Beaubien. "We (at FARA) are very proud of our joint effort with the alarm industry and know that the Model Ordinance contains successful components as numerous jurisdictions are using it as a guide to enact their own ordinances." The Model Ordinance can be adopted as written or modified to meet the needs of individual communities. It is available for download on the FARA Website at (http://www.faraonline.org/ModelBurg.htm).

Risk analysis is a foreign concept to most (USA) alarm installers. Commonplace systems in the UK — replete with crossover detectors, setting and unsetting protocols, and system testing and inspections — are nearly unheard of here.

It is unfortunate that not more security installers show interest in reducing the false alarms. The influence of 3,500 NBFAA members is marginal at best considering there are now over 20,000 alarm installation companies in the United States.

Verified Response Gains Ground
While some U.S. communities have no alarm reduction program in place, many have enacted local alarm ordinances and have tried customary approaches to reduce the burden of false alarms with little results.

Salt Lake City, Utah, first implemented an alarm ordinance in 1981 and strengthened the provisions in 1994 in response to information gleaned from the Model States project, a highly touted study of false alarm reduction programs conducted by the Alarm Industry Research & Educational Foundation (AIREF) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (available online at http://www.adialarm.com/msr1999/001.htm).

Similar to the NBFAA/FARA Model Burglar Alarm Ordinance, Model States recommends the following "best practices" to reduce false alarms:

• Agency accepting cancellations of alarms from central stations
  
• Strict enforcement of alarm ordinance
  
• Requiring registration/alarm permits
  
• Fines – escalating and meaningful
  
• Restricting response to chronic abusers
  
• Requiring attempted verification by central stations
  
• Notification to user of all dispatches
  
• Alarm user training classes

In addition to implementing these best practices, the Salt Lake City Police Department also held monthly meetings with alarm companies. Says Shanna Werner, Salt Lake City's False Alarm Coordinator: "After two years of meetings, it became very apparent to me that the industry took very little responsibility for the problem." In 2000, it became the first sizable municipality to implement Verified Response. Within six months, Salt Lake City realised a 90 percent reduction in false alarm calls and no increase in burglaries.

Werner added, "What really amazes me is that after two years of Verified Response there is a national alarm dealer that still promises potential customers in Salt Lake City that the police are the first responders to burglar alarms. This is the mentality of an industry that is in complete denial about the reality of false alarms."

Verified Response is an intriguing option for American law enforcement because of its clean implementation and low overheads. Conventional false alarm prevention programs are labour intensive requiring one or more police personnel dedicated solely to alarm permitting, tracking, and billing processes.

Los Angeles is the latest metropolis to adopt Verified Response. Citing 15 per cent of all calls for police service are false alarm related costing city taxpayers $11 million each year, Los Angeles abandoned all hope of influencing false alarms rates through less drastic means.

The task is a monumental one. Indeed, we could learn much from European and United Kingdom standards like DD243.

No Accountability
Michael Betten, CPP, Crime Prevention Officer with the Overland Park (Kansas) Police Department, is concerned about the public's expectation of police response, how some companies sell alarms as a panacea against home invasion attacks, and the potential of Verified Response: "We have allowed the alarm industry to sell their services without any accountability. Law enforcement should take a proactive response in educating alarm users or go to Verified Response. If you look at the alarm industry's security recommendations, there is no mention of more effective 'target hardening' approaches such as reinforced doorframes and doors, laminated glass, chain link fencing, or appropriate lighting ..."

Security salespeople who walk into a home through an un-reinforced doorway to pitch the sale of an alarm system without considering additional steps the homeowner can take to make a home safer do a real disservice to the potential customer. It takes only seconds to defeat a standard door or window. No alarm system can protect a family or business when entry can be made so quickly.

Low Cost Alarms
In an analysis of suburban home security, Dr. Simon Hakim of Temple University (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) studied points of entry in residential burglaries. Based upon his findings, a typical U.S. mass-marketed alarm system (comprised of a control panel, keypad, sounder, battery backup, front and rear door contacts, one passive infrared detector, telephone connection, and lawn sign or window decals) offers only minimal protection and may actually offer a false sense of security.

There is only a 46 percent chance that a mass-marketed alarm will detect an intruder before entry is made and such systems offer no fire protection. Security salespeople claim that a free or low cost alarm system is 100 percent better than no alarm system at all, but do they mention to prospective clients that the odds of detecting an intruder before they are actually inside their home is only a 50-50 proposition?

Lessons to be Learned
The U.S. alarm industry is fighting the wrong fight. Instead of developing a nationwide alarm management program and rallying for quality control among alarm companies and the inspection of new installations, it is fighting to stave-off the spread of Verified Response in cities like Los Angeles. While our nation's fire alarm industry is tightly regulated, electronic security systems are not. Risk analysis is a foreign concept to most alarm installers. Commonplace systems in the UK— replete with crossover detectors, setting and unsetting protocols, and system testing and inspections — are nearly unheard of here.

In response to an industry nearly out of control, there are several independent standards development efforts underway at the national level, but the task is a monumental one. Indeed, we could learn much from European and United Kingdom standards like DD243.

False alarm fines
Although alarms reduce both the likelihood of criminal activity and the level of fear for both property owners and inhabitants, those numbers are intangible. The adverse impact of false alarms is not. Because of the inherent unreliability of security systems, alarm response by police transcends the provision of public safety services. It also becomes a business proposition and service should not be rendered without proper remuneration, hence the existence of alarm fines, fees, and penalties in many U.S. jurisdictions.

Statistics show that when an alarm rings, the overwhelming likelihood is that it is false. False alarm fines rightfully hold those persons accountable for the unnecessary police response but the tracking of permits and alarm fines comes with its own costs. Even with a comprehensive cost recovery program in place, police response to alarm calls is a costly proposition as not all associated costs can be recovered.