False Alarms and Non-Response
an opinion by Mike McIntosh

    The security alarm industry is faced with the prospect that law enforcement agencies may no longer respond to burglar alarm signals.  Behind this push is a report by the United States Department of Justice which recommends "requiring alarm companies to visually verify alarm legitimacy before calling the police."  The department also recommends "charging a fee for service for all false holdup, duress and panic alarms."  The root of the problem is a perception by law enforcement that responding to burglar alarm signals is not a productive use of their time.  This is based on the 96 to 98% false alarm rate and the huge number of alarm activations (over 38 million per year nation-wide).

    Salt Lake City , Utah adopted this policy in December of 2000.  The number of alarms dropped over 90% from an average of 9,400 per year to 850 per year and is being touted as a huge success.  According to Shanna Werner, Alarm Administrator, Salt Lake City burglaries increased by 3.8% in 2001 and by 7% in 2002.  She attributes the increase to the economic downturn and cites 2002 increases of 11% and 14% in two major cities that continue to respond to alarms ( Arlington , Texas and Seattle , Washington ).

    The alarm industry needs to attack this problem on two fronts.  First we need a better image with law enforcement.  Second we need to muster the political power of our subscribers when a policy of this kind is proposed in a new jurisdiction.

    There are a number of things that can be done to reduce false alarms.  As an industry we need to let law enforcement know we are doing them.  But reducing the number of false alarms by twenty per cent will not change the perception by law enforcement that responding to burglar alarm signals is a waste of time.  We need to restore police interest in responding to alarms.  It is time to start selling silent commercial burglar alarms in high crime areas.  Commercial systems protect only property and silent alarms give the police the capability of actually apprehending the burglars.  When the apprehension rate starts to climb the police perception will change.

    The second thing we need to do applies only when a jurisdiction is about to adopt a non-response or “verified response” policy.  Alert the affected subscribers and provide them with the address and telephone numbers of the elected officials they should immediately contact to protest the change.  Alarm association leaders have done a good job of filling public meetings with industry people opposed to the policy.  We need to stuff these meetings with ordinary citizens too!  Politicians already know the alarm industry will oppose them and probably considered this opposition manageable before adopting their stance.  A large number of voting citizens who demand a police response will surely soften their position.