Preventing False Alarms
In most communities, when a burglar alarm is activated, emergency responders are dispatched to the business location to determine the cause of the signal and check on the well-being of occupants.
However, some cities are experimenting with a practice called Verified Response. That means monitoring companies or alarm-system owners must confirm there is an actual intrusion that requires police response.
This policy is also referred to as "Non-Response."
Enhanced Call Verification is the Best Solution
As an alternative to this dangerous policy, the security industry developed a widely accepted procedure called Enhanced Call Verification (ECV), which helps reduce false dispatches while still protecting tax-paying citizens. ECV requires central-station monitors to attempt to verify the alarm activation by making a minimum of two phone calls to two different numbers before dispatching law enforcement.
The first alarm-verification call is to the location where the alarm originated. If contact with a person is not made, a second call is placed to a different phone number. The secondary number, best practices dictate, should be to a telephone that is answered at all hours, preferably a cell phone of a decision maker who is authorized to request or bypass emergency response.
Available to alarm-system owners even in areas that do not require it, ECV service is an excellent way to guard against municipal fines for false dispatches. For proof that ECV is the best solution for false-alarm reduction while maintaining the safety of tax payers, Florida has drastically cut false alarms by requiring ECV practices.
In fact, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department reduced its false dispatches from 12,712 between October 2005 and December 2005 to 8,802 during the same time in 2006. Palm Beach County Deputy Charlie Mosher estimates that 80 percent of the dispatch reduction can be attributed to ECV.
Following Florida's lead, in May 2007, Tennessee passed legislation that requires the practice of ECV, as have metropolitan areas such as St. Louis, MO, Boulder, CO, Reno, NV and Phoenix, AZ.
Simply put, ECV provides the best balance between citizen safety and proper allocation of police resources.
Cross-Zoning is Another False Alarm Solution
Cross-zoning is an innovative alarm-system strategy that does not require a new keypad. Using multiple sensors to monitor activity in one area, advanced software analyzes input from all the sources.
For example, if a motion detector trips in one area, the signal is recorded and the central station monitor notifies the customer. A second alarm signal - received in an adjacent zone in close time proximity - is the confirmation the central station monitor needs to request a dispatch immediately. This builds in increased protection and a fail safe should a door blow open or a bird rattle an exterior window.
New CP-01-2000 Control Pad is an Alarm Solution
Homeowners should ask their EMERgency24 Alarm Dealer about a new type of keypad control panel designed to help reduce false alarms and dispatches.
Based on a standard called CP-01-2000 developed by the Security Industry Association, the new generation of keypad control panels takes aim at user error by building in extra precautions that will minimize unwarranted dispatch of emergency responders.
One of the key features of CP-01-2000 keypad control panels include is a progress annunciation function that emits a different sound during the last 10 seconds of delay. This is a prompt for homeowners to hasten exiting. Also, the exit time doubles if the homeowner disables this pre-warning feature.
Other CP-01-2000 "rules" address failure to exit the premises, which results in arming all zones in Stay Mode. There is also a one-time, automatic restart of the exit delay. However, if there is an exit error, an immediate local alarm will sound.
Verified Response is a Failed Policy
Dallas, Texas, and Madison, Wisconsin, have abandoned the dangerous policy of Verified Response due to the rightful concern of citizens and documented increases in crime.
During the first month of Verified Response for business burglar alarms in Dallas, a key statistic showed the failure of the policy. Commercial burglaries in March 2006 shot up 17.9 percent compared to March of 2005.
This increase in crime is typical for cities that have experimented with or currently follow Verified Response. In Fremont, California, police reported a 14.4 percent increase in burglaries following the first year of Verified Response. Similar increases in crime were also seen in Salt Lake City after it adopted a Verified Response program.
Chris Russell, president of the North Texas Alarm Association, which fought Dallas Verified Response policy said, "Since it was enacted, the policy has pretty much failed. You have private citizens responding to their own alarms and that's a dangerous situation."