CONTACT THE CAA
California Alarm Association
3401 Pacific Avenue
Suite 1C
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
tel_ 310.305.1277
800.437.7658
fax_ 310.305.2077
|
|
info@caaonline.org |
| |
 |
|
|
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
|
|
Alarm Response Information- There is Cause for Alarm:
- The Truth About Verified Response
By Jon Sargent
In the 1970’s my career path crossed with a man named Tom
Houchins and we became great friends. Tom was a living legend;
during the war he was a Marine Corps fighter pilot who had
survived a crash in his Corsair plane. After serving our country
he served over 30 years in law enforcement and moved up the
ranks in the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. A natural
leader and politician, Tom was elected Sheriff of Alameda
County, became a teacher, and strongly felt in government for
the people. He successfully pursued legal matters he believed in
that he carried all the way to the US Supreme Court. When he
retired, Tom and I spent a couple years together running a full
service security company and he became my mentor. I also had the
privilege of sharing his office every day with him for over a
year and learned all about the partnership that was obviously
necessary between law enforcement and private security in the
interest of Public Safety.
Tom had very set notions about alarm systems based on his
professional experience. He felt they were a proven deterrent to
crime, and, in certain circumstances they could occasionally be
an effective mousetrap to catch a criminal but only with the
right application (silent, unadvertised installations). False
alarms were also a part of the picture then, but Tom believed in
always responding and that punishment by fines for excessive
false alarms was appropriate. I still remember debating
non-response with him in those days as Oakland and neighboring
communities began to create new alarm ordinances, which cut off
police response after a generous number of calls. Tom used to
say he felt law enforcement had to respond because you could
never know for sure what was happening and he didn’t want alarm
users checking their own alarms; either in businesses or homes.
That was a big public safety concern for him.
Today, we know from having so many cities operating successful
alarm management programs that there are things which
dramatically reduce requests for police dispatch to burglar
alarms. Law enforcement agencies continue to win awards for
mandating Enhanced Call Verification, upgrading equipment to the
CP-01 standard, and utilizing other management techniques such
as working on their “dirty dozen” or “terrible twenty” worst
alarm offenders on a monthly basis in their community.
Contacting 12, or 20 alarm users and their alarm companies can
easily be done on a monthly basis and in most cases the
unnecessary alarms cease. A basic alarm management program such
as this is a key part of the solution. It’s not a burden; its
community service and logical problem solving.
Now, in the limited instance where false alarms continue those
specific locations could be then placed on a form of Verified
Response. This should only occur after its clear the problem
can’t be solved any other way. There is a legitimate, but
limited purpose for Verified Response, and it’s at the end of
the line after exhausting all proven methods and nothing else
seems to work.
To impose Verified Response (or a form of it like Broadcast &
File or “BOLO”) across an entire community punishes everyone
including the alarm owner who doesn’t have false alarms, it
creates “ill will” in a community, and opens the possibility for
trouble by diluting the deterrent value of alarms which police
are expected to respond to.
Why does the lion’s share of false alarms come from schools and
government buildings?
Why have just a tiny number of municipalities chosen to
secretively plot and surprise-launch a form of Verified
Response, which is really denial of service, rather than work
mutually and cooperatively on the issues with their citizens who
have chosen to protect life and property at their own expense?
Why have the great majority of others discarded Verified
Response and worked cooperatively and eagerly with their
citizens and the alarm industry, and found success.
In just a few years technology will have solved much of the
false alarm puzzle. Video and audio technology, intelligent and
more sophisticated detection equipment and the public’s
willingness to purchase and incorporate this into their everyday
lives is expanding. But you can’t just throw a light switch and
turn on Verified Response in a city and expect success. In
addition, no law enforcement agency has terminated anyone as a
result of implementing Verified Response so there is not even
one dollar of cost saving for a city. Those statements about
saving money are false.
Alarms support and touch everyone’s lives, not just the people
who own them. In the stores we do business, in our banks,
hospitals, churches and schools, and government buildings. They
are without a doubt a most valuable tool in every community.
Imagine what it would be like if all alarms ceased to exist?
- (Reprinted from CAA MIRROR April 2008)
- This is a ten minute audio of City of Los Angeles
Councilmember Bernard Park's statement to the Burglar Alarm Task
Force on March 28, 2003. It includes his viewpoint on the
impact of alarm response by the LAPD on deployment, use of police
resources, and whether more serious crimes are ignored because of
alarm response. Councilman Parks is the former Chief of
Police of the LAPD. The complete audio is available at
www.lacity.org/batforce
including Q & A with the members of the Task Force.
Los Angeles
Rejects Verified Response,
Adopts Balanced Alarm Response Policy
After more than 18 months of debate that produced one of the
most comprehensive studies of alarm response policies, the
Los Angeles Police Commission voted 4 to 1 on July 22, 2003
to abandon verified response and approve an alarm response
policy brought forward by Mayor James Hahn. The Mayor's
policy was developed with representatives of the City
Council and City departments based in large part on the
recommendations of the City of Los Angeles Burglar Alarm
Task Force, which issued a 50-page report in April.
The policy adopted by the Commission includes allowing
dispatch to two false alarms in a twelve-month period
without physical verification and provides for escalating
fines to the alarm owner. Also, on subsequent activations,
if the LAPD did not receive physical or video verification,
they would dispatch the alarm activation as a broadcast and
file response.
The policy also addressed the permit issue, requiring an
alarm permit prior to installation of an alarm system, and
providing increased penalties to alarm owners who do not
maintain a valid alarm permit. The Mayor also requested an
amnesty period for citizens to come into compliance with the
permit policy. The City will add permits to its website to
further aid citizens who are seeking alarm permits.
The 4-1 vote rejected verified response, which is
non-response without physical verification of a crime in
process or evidence that a crime occurred, preserving the
public safety component of alarm systems. Members of the
Task Force and several Commissioners spoke about the need to
be responsive to the community and support the crime
prevention aspects of alarm system technology.
The Mayor's proposals asks that the City Council seek the
assistance of the City Attorney in drafting amendments to
the City's alarm ordinance to support enforcement of the
policy requirements for permits and fines. A timeline for
implementation was not announced.
Council members Janice Hahn and Wendy Greuel addressed the
Commission and expressed their support for the Mayor's
policy as one that is balanced and fulfills the obligation
to protect and serve the community. Councilwoman Hahn said
the policy would preserve police response for 81% of the
alarm owners who had no calls for service in 2002, and
establishes a method to address the 19% of alarm owners
responsible for dispatches to false alarms.
Councilwoman Greuel reminded the Commissioners that she
supported the Task Force because the community had a right
to be heard on this important public policy issue. She said
the 50% immediate reduction in calls for service provided by
the Mayor's proposal would still maintain public safety.
Several members of the Task Force asked the Commission to be
responsive to the needs of the community and spoke in
support of the Mayor's policy. The Task Force had
recommended three false alarms before requiring verified
response and a more modest fine for the first false alarm.
The Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association,
represented on the Task Force by George Gunning, supported
the withdrawal of verified response. Verified response has
proven to result in increased burglaries, overall crime as
well as a drain on police resource in the handful of
communities where it has been implemented. After more than
a year of study, debate and analysis, Los Angeles clearly
rejected verified response based on a commitment to public
safety and the need to be responsive to the citizens of the
community. The report can be found at
www.lacity.org/batforce.
MORE ALARM RESPONSE NEWS
Oakland Rejects Verified Response
Salt Lake Reports Significant Increase In Burglaries
CAA/LAPD Legal Fund
The Myths Surrounding Alarm Response
Bring Them the Real Facts
LA POLICE COMMISSION OPPOSE COUNCIL, CITIZENS, COMMUNITY TASK
FORCE
The Los Angeles Police Commission gave signs they would disregard the citizens and elected officials who oppose the Commission's move to verified response. In a June position paper written by Commission Executive Director Dan Koenig, the Commission did say it would recommend moving unverified alarms to broadcast and file, a policy which accepts a call for service from unverified alarm activations but does not ensure police response. Koenig recently joined the Commission staff, and was the author of the November, 2002 position paper supporting the verified response policy when he was a Commander for the LAPD.
City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who led the fight against the commission's January action, said the modification is unacceptable. "It's a step backward," Hahn said. "It was disappointing to me that they took the best recommendations, the best compromise, the best thinking" and did not use them. "But I haven't given up," she said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Councilman Dennis Zine, a former LAPD officer who is often supportive of the Police Commission, called the broadcast-and-file option "window dressing" that makes a response essentially optional for nearby patrol units. Zine said the alternate plan backed by Koenig would result in officers ignoring alarms altogether. "If they implement this policy, 99.9 percent of those calls will be filed and no one will respond," he said. The LAPD lowered the alarm response policy in 1999 which has resulted in a 25% increase in burglaries.
The Commission and the LAPD continued to use data proven to be false by the Task Force as a basis for their proposal. They also said the Task Force requires a two-tiered response system, and they are not able to track the information in their communications center. Hahn said the claims that police can't track the false alarms on their computer systems ring false. "That makes me nervous that our Police Commission is saying it's too difficult, it's too hard to track this kind of information," Hahn said. "That is not a Police Department that's into the next millennium."
Commission President Rick Caruso is advocating that area captains be allowed to make decisions on alarm response. Caruso, a commercial developer, has a LAPD substation at his newest development in Los Angeles.
Sherry Lopez, a small-business operator in San Pedro, said she and her co-members of the Burglar Alarm Task Force thought the alternative was better for everyone in the city because it allowed three false alarms in a year before police ignore further alarms at that address. The council agreed.
"Not only am I surprised, I'm disappointed," Lopez said Wednesday after learning of the position taken by police commission officials. She vowed to keep fighting for the alternative policy.
Hahn and other councilmembers have indicated they will address the Commission on Tuesday, June 17 at 9:30 a.m. when the issue is scheduled to be reviewed by the Commissioners. The meeting will be held at City Hall, 150 N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles.
Commission Report www.lapdonline.org
NEWSPAPER REFERENCES
Daily Breeze: http://dailybreeze.com/content/news/nmpalarm5.html
Daily News: http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1435737,00.html
LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-alarm5jun05,1,7112357.story?coll=la-
ACTION
The Los Angeles Police Commission should adopt the Task Force Report in whole. Urge them to support the adoption of the Task Force Report which will result in a safer community, a savings of police resources and the promotion of public safety. Citizens can urge adoption by contacting the following:
Mr. Rick Caruso, President
Los Angeles Police Commission
150 North Los Angeles St., Rm 150
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-485-3235 213-485-3531
Fax 213-485-8861
kirkd@lapd.lacity.org
Mayor James Hahn
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213/978-0600
FAX 213/978-0656
MayorHahn@Mayor.lacity.org
Chief William Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles St., Rm 619
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-485-3202
lapdonline@earthlink.net
OAKLAND REJECTS VERIFIED RESPONSE
On June 5, 2003 after a series of public hearings, the Oakland, CA City Council rejected verified response and unanimously passed the new alarm ordinance. The ordinance has a final reading on June 17th, and will then become law. This is the successful conclusion of several months of work with Deputy Chief Michael Holland, Graham Westphal (Bay Alarm), Mike Salk (Past President, East Bay Alarm Association), Keith Buerke (President, East Bay Alarm Association), and CAA Northern Vice President John Sargent of ADT Security Services. Bill Moody and Ron Walters of the Security Industry Association Coalition and CARE also assisted.
The city originally stated they were going to verified response and would consider no other options. The associations worked directly with the Chief of Police, utilized a public affairs consultant to initiate individual meetings with city council members, and we informed Oakland alarm owners and encouraged them to contact their councilmember and voice their opinion. One council member mentioned being contacted by so many of her constituents about their concerns about verified response. As a result, Oakland will never go to verified response.
We now have a strong ordinance we can live with, a great relationship with Oakland Police Department, and Chief Holland will support and help us as we work with other municipalities in the future. The ordinance is also the first of its kind to incorporate "good faith standards," a list of suggested consumer protection and equipment standards for all new installations in the City of Oakland.
CAA/LAPD LEGAL FUND
The legal initiative related to LAPD non-response continues to await a final judgment from Superior Court Judge David Yaffe. The final judgment was expected before June 1 but has not been issued. The CAA Legal Fund established to support the LAPD effort continues to receive funds form alarm companies, suppliers and associations around the nation. The purpose of the effort is to have the courts issue legal findings on several issues common to alarm response policies in all municipalities. To support this effort, please send your check to: CAA Legal Fund - LAPD, 3401 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1C, Marina del Rey, CA 90292. VISA/MC donations can be made by calling the CAA Office at 800/437-7658.
The Myths Surrounding Alarm Response
The City Of Los Angeles Burglar Alarm Task Force conducted a review of the verified response policy proposed by the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Police Commission. The review was led by Chairman Ronald Deaton, Chief Legislative Analyst, City Of Los Angeles and the final Burglar Alarm Task Force Report is available at WWW.LACITY.ORG/BATFORCE.
The report, adopted unanimously by the Task Force comprised of 19 citizens and representatives of the LAPD, fire department and Police Commission, rejected verified response as an acceptable policy. Two committees of the City Council, along with the entire City Council, also adopted the report as submitted in late April. The community and Council are still waiting for the Los Angeles Police Commission to consider the report.
At the Task Force as well at the Council, there was agreement that many of the myths surrounding alarm response, and especially those used to support non-response, had been dispelled by the City of Los Angeles Task Force. Their report addressed Los Angeles, but their findings also found no basis for supporting non-response in any community committed to enhancing public safety. The following are some of the findings of the Task Force.
MYTH: Alarm response drains police resources.
REALITY: The Task Force found that the manpower used for police response is equal to less than 20 officers per year from a total patrol force of more than 4,000 officers. They found that alarm systems provide protection to 250,000 or more of the most vulnerable properties in the city and deter crime, therefore reducing the demand for police resources. The Task Force found that the average time for an alarm response was approximately 10 minutes, not the one hour that the Commission and LAPD had based their policy on and is used almost uniformly by proponents of verified response
MYTH: Verified response, non-response will allow police to be reassigned to respond to serious crimes and prevent crimes.
REALITY: The Task Force found that the actual time for all alarm response in Los Angeles was less than ½ of one percent of all patrol resources. They were also told by the LAPD and former Chief Bernard Parks that if they never responded to any alarms at any time, there would be no change in where officers were deployed. Parks specifically warned the community not to be misled if told by the police department that not responding to alarms could prevent crimes and even murder, a claim made by the LAPD to the City Council.
MYTH: Alarm response is a special service to the wealthy.
REALITY: The Task Force found that the use of alarm systems to deter crime was similar in all areas of the City of Los Angeles regardless of economic scale.
MYTH: Alarms only serve a small portion of the population.
REALITY: The LAPD based their policy on the fact that only 1% (later revised to 6%) of the community benefits from alarm systems. The Task Force found that 20-30% of the population is directly involved in protected properties, and this increases dramatically if you include commercial facilities that protect members of the community who patronize those businesses.
MYTH: Verified response (non-response without verification) is successful in reducing crime.
REALITY: The Task Force found that verified response, as proposed by the LAPD and based on the Salt Lake City Police Department policy, resulted in increased burglaries and overall crime and, in fact, the burglary rate in Salt Lake City was nearly double that of Los Angeles. The Task Force found that Las Vegas, which adopted the policy in 1991, abandoned verified response in 1994 apparently due to an increase in burglaries and overall crime.
MYTH: No program has ever been successful in reducing false dispatches to alarm activations.
REALITY: LAPD Chief William Bratton based his support for verified response on his belief that no program has ever been proven to reduce false dispatches. The Task Force found that the International Associations of Chiefs of Police have a model program that has proven to be effective in hundreds of cities large and small.
MYTH: Few burglars are arrested by the LAPD when responding to an alarm activation.
REALITY: LAPD Chief Bratton supported verified response by saying only one burglar had been arrested during a response to an alarm. The community responded with scores of arrests related directly to LAPD responding to alarms. The Task Force was informed that arrests would be difficult because the LAPD has a low priority to alarm response and promotes an average response of 45 minutes to gain support for their policy. The Task Force found that to maximize the contribution of alarm systems, there must be an appropriate response from the LAPD.
Contributing to Public Safety
The Task Force report reflects the following principles for effective alarm management in a community to ensure that they continue to contribute to public safety:
Professionally installed, maintained and monitored alarm systems make a positive contribution to public safety.
To enhance public safety and maximize the positive impact provided by alarm systems requires an inclusive and cooperative effort among the representatives of the public agency, alarm users and alarm companies.
Police Resources: Alarm response, to both true alarms and unknown alarms, does not use 15% of the patrol services of the LAPD. There were approximately 106,000 unknown, or false, alarms in 2002 which required patrol services of a fraction of the time that what was claimed by the Los Angeles Police Commission. The Task Force data suggests that the time was equal to less than 20 full time patrol officers over the course of a year from their patrol force of 4,000 officers. The LAPD and the Task Force both concluded that the impact on deployment of officers, or the availability of officers, would not be impacted by adopting verified response. Councilman Bernard Parks, who studied the alarm response issue for more than 10 years, stated that if the LAPD did not respond to any alarms at all, there would be no impact on police resources.
Service to the Citizens: The number of properties in the City of Los Angeles relying on alarm systems to deter crime and reduce losses is approximately 25%, and if you include the number of residents in a home or number of employees in a workplace, the total number of citizens being served by alarm systems and expecting police response is well above that percentage. In any case, the myth that 1% of the citizens are using police resources for alarm response is false according to the Task Force.
The LAPD Policy: The Los Angeles Police Commission stated that they were developing their policy of verified response for more than two years, and we know now they did this in private, excluding the community and the alarm industry in the discussions.
False Alarms: The Task Force determined that the LAPD process of recording what a false alarm was is not valid and did not provide accurate data, and that continuing to say that 90% of alarms were false was not relevant in determining sound public safety policy. The Task Force, not the Commission or the LAPD staff, used real data and real facts for their analysis. The Task Force found that if the Commission and the LAPD would enforce their current ordinance, they would eliminate nearly 40% of all calls for service. The community believes this is the responsibility of the Commission and the LAPD to do their jobs and enforce their own ordinance. The community should not be put at risk because of their failure of the LAPD to properly manage and administer their own program.
The Task Force: The Task Force was comprised of 19 citizen members along with representatives of the LAPD, Police Commission, Los Angeles Fire Department, Chief Administrative Officer and two members from the alarm industry. They were appointed by the City Council, their work was studious and serious and in no way political. They struggled to obtain the facts from the Commission and the LAPD, and it was noted by the members that the agencies did not fully participate in the process. In fact, the Task Force found that almost all the data brought to the committee by the Commission and LAPD had no basis in fact.
Verified Response: The Task Force found that Salt Lake City Police Department, the only city that has utilized the policy for more than two years, has a burglary rate nearly double that of Los Angeles. The members reasonably asked why LAPD would consider a policy that clearly will result in increased burglaries and overall crime in the City. The LAPD presented Las Vegas as a role model, but the facts are that Las Vegas has a policy almost identical the LAPD policy of the past few years, and found that Las Vegas' burglary rate was significantly higher than the City of Los Angeles. Las Vegas abandoned verified response in 1994, and it appears it was due to an increase in burglaries and overall crime due to the denigration of alarm systems due to the lack of appropriate police response. The data, the facts, and published studies consider verified response a flawed solution. The International Association of Chiefs of Police recently issued a position paper that urged caution to any agency considering the policy.
The Task Force Report: The report presented to the joint committees of the City Council was the result of serious study, and with full consideration for the effective use of resources of the LAPD and the role of alarm systems in public safety policy. In the end, they developed a reasonable and common sense approach to effective alarm management that will preserve police resources, maintain the deterrent effect of alarm systems with police response, and a system to hold chronic abusers of public services accountable.
Bring Them the Real Facts
By Bob Neely, Executive Director, Alarm Association of Florida, Inc.
(This article appeared in the May, 2003 issue of the AAF Handshake and is reprinted with permission.)
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." - Abraham Lincoln
It is interesting to view this quote in relation to the Los Angeles NO RESPONSE policy and from the perspective of the security industry in general. Once the City Council was shown the horrendous increase in burglary figures from those cities that have tried NO RESPONSE (including Salt Lake City and Las Vegas), they are now strongly urging the Police Commission to reconsider their position. New Britain, CT and Arlington, TX have both rejected NO RESPONSE as a result of these reports.
Once the City Council was given to understand the relatively low statistics of manpower allocated for alarm response against general patrol activity (less than ½ of 1%), they then realized why the citizenry were frightened. And again when they verified that insurance companies were not writing in jest about canceling insurance for commercial and residential structures, they immediately rethought their situation.
Every single aspect of this issue in some way has a financial, political and criminal impact upon the fair citizens of these metropolises. This is NOT as simple as decreeing that the response is no longer being extended. The weight of the issue is far too heavy to treat it in such an off-handed fashion.
Just as a gemstone is cut to reflect the light from all angles, so too must the issue of NO RESPONSE be examined from every single point of view before decisions are rendered and policies written or passed into law. Not the least of which is the fair treatment of the common citizenry. It is not enough that financial institutions, art galleries and government complexes be protected for the common good.
Security systems are a great equalizer among the populace. Statistics prove that there are just as many alarm systems by percentage in lower socioeconomic areas as there are elsewhere. Everyone deserves attention and response on an equal basis when available manpower is managed properly. It was proven that no crimes were being allowed or ignored as a result of alarm response as previously claimed. Also the average response time was ten minutes, not the one-hour claimed in labor time. Additionally there were NO deployment problems for other criminal activity as a result of response to alarms.
When dealing with the FACTS and not the hysteria so often fueled by the media (who are either too busy or simply no longer bother to investigate and report factually), we are led to a significant conclusion and to make rational, sensible decisions regarding our industry and ones that are fair to law enforcement and government resources as well. Last month our State President Ron Toole called for calm on these issues to be able to fairly solve them. Perhaps our councils have heeded this advice and we can now move forward.
To contribute to the California Alarm Association contact Jerry Lenander, Executive Director @CAA Legal Fund, 3401 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1C Marina del Rey CA 90292 or pledges/VISA/MC at 800/437-7658.
Salt Lake Reports Significant Increase in Burglaries
The Salt Lake City Police Department is reporting a significant increase in burglary attacks on alarmed properties in the two years since they adopted a policy they call verified response, which is non-response to alarm activations unless a person on the scene has confirmed a crime in progress or a crime has occurred. From 2001 to 2002, commercial burglaries at alarmed properties went up 15%, from 215 to 248. Residential properties with alarms increased 29% during the same period, from 79 to 102, according to the May 9, 2003 memorandum from the Salt Lake City Police Department to the members of the City Council.
The report also noted that in 1999, the last year that Salt Lake City responded to alarm activations, there were only 23 burglaries at an estimated 12,000 alarmed properties. The department report attributed the increase from 23 burglaries in 1999 to 350 in 2002 to a "downturn in the economy."
While the department advocates their policy of non-response to alarm activations as a means to increase patrol resources, the report noted that city Administrative Services Manager referred to this as "opportunity savings," referring to staff resources saved by the elimination of tasks. The department noted they had not reduced their staff or realized actual budget reductions. The department maintains that the average alarm response utilizes one hour of patrol officer time, although the City of Los Angeles Task Force study recently put the actual average at closer to 10 minutes.
The report shows that verified response, non-response policies do not save police resources, but according to the Salt Lake City Police Department, the policy does result in a significant increase in burglaries against alarmed properties, from 23 in 1999 to 350 in 2002. In spite of the increased crime and negative impact on public safety, the Salt Lake City Police Department continued to note the program had received recognition for awards from national organizations.
The City Council had requested the report from the department as part of their concern about the impact of the verified response, or non-response, policy was having on the community of 180,000 residents. The Council will most likely include the policy as part of a future round of Council audits.
|
|
|
