Real Hope for False Alarms
For many, the topic of false alarms has become about as fun and exciting as a trip to the dentist – and often just as painful. What’s more, the long legacy and seeming inevitability of false alarms as well as the endless debate surrounding the issue has created a numbing effect not unlike a jaw full of Novocain. But false alarms continue to decay the industry, and the only way to ensure the future health of installing and monitoring companies is to drill down deep to the root of the problem.
With increasing outcries from law enforcement as to the drain on resources caused by false alarms and more of them looking at or adopting verified response policies (verifying an alarm event prior to police dispatch), it is clearly time for alarm dealers to give the problem more than mere lip service. It has become imperative to examine the situation from all angles, extract the key causes, foster better communications and implement best practices that will give teeth to false alarm reduction programs.
To that end, Security Sales & Integration recently picked the brains of some of the finest minds in the realm of false alarm reduction to determine once and for all how the industry can stop the bleeding. This group includes leading figures from the alarm and law enforcement communities, as well as the heads of the foremost false alarm management associations. Those from the alarm industry include large national operators and established regional firms.
Bob Allen, president of Brink’s Home Security; Norma Beaulien, director of Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department’s False Alarm Reduction Section and president of the False Alarm Reduction Association (FARA); Robert Bonifas, president of Alarm Detection Systems Inc.; Tom Chronister, commander of Oxnard (Calif.) Police Department’s Patrol Support Division; Michael Hanley, vice president of Customer Monitoring Centers for ADT Security Services Inc.; Stan Martin, executive director of the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC); and John Murphy, president of Vector Security, are all battle-tested veterans of the war on false alarms.
These experts offer their takes on verified response, enhanced call verification (two calls to alarm system owners prior to police dispatch), how the alarm industry and law enforcement can more effectively communicate and cooperate; the roles played by monitoring stations; larger dealers, end users, trade associations, equipment manufacturers and municipalities; as well as installation standards and training practices. Their incisive opinions will strike a nerve in those hungering for viable solutions.
Verified Response Frees Up Cops But Shortchanges Public Safety
Are you in favor of verified response to burglar alarms? Why or why not?
Martin: No, I am not. Verified response as originally defined means no initial response to alarm signals by sworn personnel unless a person on site has physically witnessed criminal or attempted criminal activity. Put simply, on a personal basis I want a sworn officer to respond to my home for my family. They are trained for nearly all situations and have backup if the situation should warrant it.
From testimony I have witnessed all over this country, most citizens feel the same way. It’s too dangerous for friends, neighbors or relatives to respond. That leaves you with privately paid responders and brings up qualifications and training issues. Although some companies exist that are capable of doing the job, it seems very unlikely the average person could afford that level of service.
The cost issue can be burdensome to those in rural areas or those on fixed incomes. Additionally, it is likely that not everyone will have private response available. It only makes business sense in high-density areas where alarm use is prevalent. Under our U.S. Constitution, we are all guaranteed ‘equal protection’ when local law enforcement responds. Police cannot pick and choose whom to respond to, unlike private responders that have no obligation to cover all parts of a city or county.
Beaubien: Verified response is a divisive issue, which generally pits one side against the other. With that said, I know of no quicker way to get the alarm industry to react than to suggest a verified response policy. Where there is no communication between law enforcement and the alarm industry in a particular area and where a verified response policy is suggested, the alarm industry comes out in droves to oppose it.
Whether I am personally in favor or opposed to verified response is really irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not my employer is in favor or opposed. The Montgomery County Police Department favors denying police response under certain circumstances. FARA neither supports nor opposes verified response to burglar alarms but does recognize it as a method utilized by some jurisdictions. The FARA/NBFAA [National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association] Model Burglar Alarm Ordinance calls for suspending response after a certain number of false alarms from the alarm user in a given time period.
The bottom line on verified response is that some jurisdictions will use it and tout it as the panacea of all ills and other jurisdictions will refuse to ever consider it with a ‘not in my town, not ever’ philosophy. Which side of the fence a jurisdiction chooses to come down on when addressing verified response lies primarily in its politics.
Dealers, Police, Users Share Blame as Well As Successes
Why are more municipalities going to or seriously considering verified response? How much responsibility should be laid at the feet of installing alarm dealers? Monitoring stations? Law enforcement? Municipal funding? Consumers?
Murphy: Police officers, as a group, want to respond to the needs of their citizens. However, municipal officials operating with no false alarm ordinance, ineffective ordinances or ordinances with poor enforcement, and no state or local guidelines in place to ‘weed out’ irresponsible alarm dealers lead to municipalities taking the harshest measures available to reduce municipal costs and better deploy their officers.
The alarm industry is a group of private, for-profit companies that rely on free public service to make their system services effective. Ignorance of this reality by the alarm industry is intolerable. Irresponsible alarm system installers and service providers must become accountable but in a way that is not detrimental to all.
If alarm dealers are installing substandard equipment, using careless system designs and not providing training to their customers, and not using some form of enhanced call verification, all responsibility should rest with them on a very focused basis. However, if local government is not taking an active role in forcing alarm dealers to only sell equipment that meets CP-O1 standards, then responsibility must be shared.
Dealers should also be instructing owners on the existence of local false alarm ordinances and provide follow-up with their customers to ensure they are operating their system properly. That responsibility begins anew each time a protected property is turned over and a new owner now operates the system. Both alarm companies and consumers should become educated that the cost of self-imposed false dispatch reduction programs is far less than the economic costs of nonresponse.
When monitoring stations are not working together with alarm installers in identifying problem accounts, working with industry to develop standards, they must share responsibility with alarm installers. Every monitoring and/or central station must institute an ongoing false alarm management plan by better controlling all aspects of the service delivery system.
As an industry, we must use the res
ources of organizations such as SIAC to provide ‘educational’ support to municipalities so administrators and law enforcement leaders must consider the ways in which alarm companies actually save them time and money. As for municipalities, with the benefit of a per-system analysis of dispatches, an estimate can be made of the savings that result from controlling the growth of crime and their ability to deploy their police more effectively. An effective ordinance properly administered will pay for itself so municipal funding should not be an issue.
If proper equipment and training are provided to the consumer but false dispatches continue, beyond some reasonable limit, it is the consumer’s responsibility to reduce false dispatches. Ultimately, if the appropriate costs are imposed on them, alarm companies must evaluate if it can afford to retain such a customer.
Response Debate to Continue, But Tools Available to Turn the Tide
Will the trend toward verified response continue? What can alarm companies do about it?
Hanley: Yes, I believe so. I don’t believe the gap in municipal funding and the needs of the taxpayer are going away. Alarm companies need to stop talking about false alarm reduction and do something about it like implementing ECV, making sure every alarm panel is installed properly and educating customers. Additionally, alarm companies must be willing to accept change and the imposition of false alarm reduction standards in order to maintain the police as first respondents for their customers.
Beaubien: I believe the trend will definitely continue. As resources available to local governments continue to shrink, budgets get more and more scrutiny.
At the same time, more attention is required to homeland security and preparing for emergencies. In the aftermath of recent hurricanes, this trend will only intensify. To many in public safety, verified response provides public safety with the ability to immediately shift resources to these new priorities.
Without proper licensing and an enforced local ordinance, there are just too many alarm companies that are more interested in the bottom line to effect any real, substantive change. Alarm companies should make the initial contact with public safety agencies in their areas before frustration with false alarms, budgeting or resource requirements cause the agency to confront the issue.
Better Equipment Standards, Interfaces, Training Could Help
There is a lot of talk about better training for end users and making products more idiot-proof, as well as establishing equipment an/or installation standards. Are these the solutions, and if so, how can they best be accomplished?
Hanley: I prefer the term user-friendly vs. idiot-proof, but yes, for too long alarm controls have been designed for alarm dealers, not our customers. This has to change. If we can make it possible for people to record the proper television show on a VCR or DVR, we should be able to have an alarm control that people can use without creating a false alarm.
We continue to work with our customers to identify their needs and our manufacturers to develop and bring to market new technologies and products that are both sophisticated and user-friendly. The industry has also worked with the manufacturers and introduced the CP-01 standards, forcing known best practices to be implemented on new systems. The CP-01 requirement has also been added to the industry’s model ordinance.
Chronister: I believe alarm systems are underpriced, underinstalled and overly complicated for the average user. Two door contacts and a motion detector does not constitute a true security system in most American residences.
Most systems that require keystrokes at a panel are too difficult to operate for the typical consumer. Keychain fobs and wireless transmitters should be the norm, not the exception. Systems must be designed for the least common denominator – the least technically proficient alarm owner anyone could imagine.
Too many alarm dealers are more concerned about low price points than high reliability. The mentality of installing a $5 PIR vs. a $40 dual-tech PIR/microwave motion detector has got to change.
Bigger Firms, Associations Could Use More Industry-Wide Support
Are the trade associations doing enough? Are the large national and regional companies doing enough? What more could they do for the industry in this regard?
Murphy: The trade associations are working diligently at identifying problems, trying to get the word out, recruiting companies to become active participants in finding a resolution. But alarm industry trade associations have two shortcomings: they cannot compel other associations to join in a cooperative effort and they lack the realistic power over their members to ‘force’ the issue. Trade associations have to rely on persuasion. It is not likely any company would clean up its false alarm act to avoid getting expelled from a state or national alarm association, but maybe it’s worth a try.
Our associations currently lack the pull through consumer recognition necessary to impact the alarm buying public’s choice. With that being said, the impact of trusted groups like Consumer Reports or even local Better Business Bureaus may have an effect that the alarm associations just don’t have today. If those consumer watchdog groups begin qualifying alarm companies based on how well they handle false alarms, I suspect you’ll see the industry begin lining up to solve the problem.
I believe the larger national companies are more active in searching for solutions than the average alarm company that believes it’s too small to make a difference. Many of the large companies are involved in false dispatch reduction.
It also depends whether national and regional alarm companies can effectively build alliances in cities where they have no easily recognized core business and community roots. While the ‘local alarm guy’ may lack the sophistication and resources to build strong programs and mobilize local support, he can work with larger companies that are eager to share their expertise, such as our company’s false dispatch management software.
Is there any cure for industry apathy?
Martin: We need higher standards, tougher ordinances and higher educational requirements. As a profession that involves life safety, we must raise the bar and give companies an opportunity to grow professionally, or let them move on to some other industry that is less demanding or less critical to public safety.
Communication Is Key as Police See Alarm Companies as Allies
How do you believe the law enforcement community views the alarm industry? How can both sides more effectively collaborate?
Bonifas: The vast majority of law enforcement views the alarm industry as a very effective tool in reducing burglaries. A few in law enforcement believe the alarm industry is wasting their resources. The best models of success are where both industries continually meet and find ways to make the other more effective.
People of goodwill will find the path to mutual success. The best way to collaborate is for the alarm industry to continue to strategize solutions to the false alarm problem, and when tested and proved – such as ECV – to get law enforcement educated in the results and to mandate compliances through the power of law.
Beaubien: Where false alarm management programs are being enforced today, I believe the alarm unit staffs are generally supportive of the alarm industry and of alarm systems – when properly designed, installed and operated. However, I do not believe the same can be said from a patrol officer perspective. Some of this is ignorance of what is being done, but most of it is
because they are the ones who respond to all the false alarms.
Getting to patrol officers earlier in their careers and educating them on everything that is being done to reduce the number of false alarm calls to which they must respond will help move the collective law enforcement attitude in a more positive direction.
For the complete story, see the November 2005 issue of Security Sales & Integration magazine.
If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!
Related Content
Security Is Our Business, Too
For professionals who recommend, buy and install all types of electronic security equipment, a free subscription to Commercial Integrator + Security Sales & Integration is like having a consultant on call. You’ll find an ideal balance of technology and business coverage, with installation tips and techniques for products and updates on how to add to your bottom line.
A FREE subscription to the top resource for security and integration industry will prove to be invaluable.
