Montgomery County Police

False Alarm Reduction Unit

1996 Annual Report

False Alarm Reduction

The False Alarm Reduction Unit (FARU) of the Department of Police reports that the incidence of false alarms continued to decrease in calendar year 1996. The continued decrease clearly shows that the alarm legislation is having its intended effect; i.e., reduction of false alarms. As evidenced in various statistical charts throughout this report, the FARU was more successful in 1996 in collecting false alarm response fees, garnering compliance with the inspection and upgrade requirements of the law, and generally enforcing, to the fullest extent possible, all provisions of Chapter 3A, Alarms.

False Alarms were reduced by 8.1% in 1996 over 1995. This 8.1% reduction was achieved despite a 15.7% increase in the overall number of alarm systems.

There are several reasons local governments across the country develop and implement false alarm reduction programs. One reason is to save police officer time, thereby allowing officers time to engage in proactive crime prevention measures and pursuit of actual criminals. Another obvious reason for false alarm reduction is to save millions of dollars annually in response to unjustified requests for police response. Therefore, true false alarm reduction calculations should be based on the actual savings to police officers in not having to respond to false alarms. By calculating false alarm reduction on actual response, rather than on requests for dispatch, a better perspective is realized of the time savings for police officers and the monetary savings to the county.

The following chart depicts the number of requests for dispatch where response actually occurred, the number of requests for dispatch where no response occurred, total number of requests for dispatch regardless of response, and the percentage of false alarm reduction attributable to each. Circumstances under which no response may occur include cancellation of response by the alarm company, duplicate calls for the same location, and blanket cancellations by supervisory police personnel.

False Alarm Reduction

Year	Actual Responses	No Response	Percentage Reduction (Actual #'s)	Total Requests for Dispatch	Percentage Reduction (Raw #'s)
1996	33195	7339	-8.1%	40534	-1.0%
1995	36112	4855	-15.7%	40967	-6.7%
1994	42821*	1115*		43936

*Does not include dispatch vs. non-dispatch for January, February or March, 1994, as statistics for those months are not available.

The "False Alarm Reduction" chart shows that there was a 1.0% reduction in requests for dispatch in 1996 over 1995. However, the actual number of requests for dispatch to which police officers responded was reduced by 8.1%. Of the total 40,534 requests for dispatch, responses were made to only 33,195. As a direct result of our alarm legislation and the strict enforcement of that legislation, there were 7,339 alarm calls to which police officers were not required to respond in 1996. This equates to a savings in 1996 of approximately $366,950 and 4892 hours of police officer time, or 2.35 police work years. (Monetary savings is based on $50.00 per response, which is a very conservative estimate. Work year savings is based on an average of 20 minutes per alarm response by two officers.)

Of the total 33,195 requests for dispatch to which police officers actually responded, only 805 were actual verified events; i.e., burglary, vandalism, suspicious situations, robbery, etc. This represents a ratio of 97.6% false alarms to 2.4% verified events. There were a total of 42,150 registered alarm users in calendar year 1996, which reflects .78 police responses per alarm user per year. This is down from .99 police responses per alarm user per year in calendar year 1995.

Total Number of Alarm Users

	1995	1996
Residential	29,387	34,048
Commercial	7,049	8,102
TOTAL	36,436	42,150

Revenue

The following two charts reflect revenue collected by the FARU for alarm user registration fees, false alarm response fees, alarm business license fees and civil citations. The first chart covers calendar year 1996. The second chart covers fiscal year 1996. The FY96 chart is included as a reference, because budget projections are based on fiscal rather than calendar years. The more accurate chart is the calendar year 1996 chart, as false alarms and the resultant false alarm response fees are calculated on a calendar year basis.

Calendar Year 1996

CALENDAR YEAR 1996	ACTUAL REVENUES
Registration Fees Residential Commercial TOTAL	$163,610 $ 38,430 $202,040
False Alarm Response Fees Residential County Attorney Collections Total Residential Commercial County Attorney Collections Total Commercial TOTAL	$ 58,519.66 9,385 $ 67,904.66 $498,003.50 51,208 $549,211.50 $617,116.16
Alarm Business Fees License Civil Citations TOTAL	$ 35,400 500 $ 35,900
GRAND TOTAL	$855,056.16

Fiscal Year 1996

FY96	ESTIMATED	ACTUAL
Registration Fees Residential Commercial TOTAL	$240,000	$164,895 40,040 $204,935
False Alarm Response Fees Residential County Attorney Collections Total Residential Commercial County Attorney Collections Total Commercial TOTAL	$815,000	$ 84,605 2,650 $ 87,255 $457,006 10,750 $467,756 $555,011
Alarm Business Fees License TOTAL	$35,000	$36,400 $36,400
GRAND TOTAL	$1,090,000	$796,346

In calendar year 1995, the FARU billed $861,050, but only collected $429,930 in false alarm response fees, less than one-half of the billed amount. The following chart shows that, while the FARU billed less because there were less false alarms, they collected a much greater proportion of the actual billings (67.2%). It should be noted that statistics for calendar year 1996 include billings for December, 1996, which are not due until January, 1997. Therefore, a portion of the uncollected $225,550 constitutes amounts billed in 1996 but not yet due as of December 31, 1996.

Calendar Year 1996 Billed vs. Collected

False Alarm Response Fees

False Alarm Response Fees	Billed	Collected	Uncollected
Commercial	$627,650	$416,800	$210,850
Residential	$60,200	$45,500	$14,700
TOTAL	$687,850	$462,300	$225,550
Outstanding 1995 False Alarm Response Fees		$154,816.16
GRAND TOTAL COLLECTIONS		$617,116.16

Major Accomplishments

Educational/Informational Brochures

The FARU developed and published two new brochures in 1996 designed to assist alarm users reduce the incidence of false alarms and educate them regarding the provisions of the alarm law. Copies of these brochures are attached at the end of this report.

The publication entitled "Burglar Alarm Law" provides background information on the false alarm epidemic which precipitated enactment of alarm legislation in Montgomery County. It provides an overview of the FARU and its function and explains in broad terms how the alarm law works. The publication also defines a false alarm, explains the registration process, details false alarm response fees, and describes alarm company responsibilities under the law.

The second publication entitled "False Alarm Reduction Tips" is designed to show alarm users, through the use of cartoon-type graphics, how to avoid the most common mistakes that cause false alarms. All alarm users who have three false alarms, thereby requiring inspection of their alarm system, are sent this brochure by the FARU, along with the notice requiring inspection.

Both of these publications are provided en masse to alarm companies for distribution to their customers when selling, installing or servicing an alarm system.

FARU/CAD Interface

A main focus of the FARU this year was to complete the FARU/CAD interface. The portion of the interface that allows CAD to transfer alarm call data to the FARU was installed, tested, and implemented. The electronic exchange of information, i.e., FARU sends alarm user and alarm business data to CAD and CAD sends alarm incident data to the FARU, is fully operational.

FARU staff electronically send alarm user and alarm business data, including those alarm users who are in a "non-response" status, to CAD on a daily basis. The FARU can send as many files each day as is practical to ensure the most up-to-date information is housed in CAD. Once each day, the FARU downloads the alarm incident data from the previous day. Provided all specified criteria match, the alarm user records are automatically populated with appropriate alarm incidents. Those where all specified criteria do not match are handled on a case by case basis by FARU staff.

The download of alarm incident data has greatly streamlined the process of tracking false alarms. No longer is it necessary for the FARU to duplicate efforts by performing data entry of alarm data, as information is exchanged electronically. This has allowed the FARU staff to focus more of their efforts on enforcement and collection of false alarm response fees, rather than on duplication of process.

Additionally, the upload of alarm user and alarm business data has facilitated dispatch on alarm calls for service. Call takers simply key in the alarm user's registration number, as required by law and provided by the alarm company, and relevant data about the alarm user populates the new Catalog Alarm screen. Call takers now only verify the majority of information on the screen rather than having to key it to facilitate dispatch. This has reduced the number of keystrokes required to log alarm calls for service.

Licensing and Joint Marketing Agreement

With the advent of false alarm reduction programs throughout the country, the FARU anticipated the need for other jurisdictions to require an automated mechanism to maintain databases of alarm users, track false alarms, and create bills for excessive false alarms. Since the county had already expended the funds and work years developing and implementing such a system, the FARU began a project on the legality/feasibility of selling or licensing their own False Alarm Tracking and Billing System (FATB) to others with like mandates. To that end, the FARU was successful in initiating state legislation that allows governments to license custom software programs designed by or for the government entity. Once this legal hurdle was met, the FARU, along with the Office of the County Attorney and CACI, Inc., developed a contract that provides for a vendor to market the FATB system, either jointly with the county or independently, where 60% of every sale is returned to the county.

The Licensing and Joint Marketing Agreement with CACI, Inc. to market the FATB system was finalized and signed on October 25, 1996. This Agreement allows the county to license the FATB system to interested parties in an attempt to recoup some of the costs of developing and implementing the system. This innovative project is the first of its kind in the county.

A color brochure was developed and produced, which contains information on the FATB system's features, benefits, hardware specifications and available customization. This brochure was distributed at the International Association of Chief's of Police convention in Phoenix and continues to be the first document sent or given to interested parties. CACI, Inc. has developed a web page on the Internet describing the availability of the system. The brochure is attached at the end of this report.

While no sales have yet been consummated, the county and CACI, Inc. have had some very promising discussions with several jurisdictions that are interested in licensing the FATB system.

Imaging

One of the five main components of the FATB system is the imaging component. Imaging allows the FARU to scan registrations, correspondence, payments, etc., into the system for immediate retrieval without the necessity of maintaining paper copies of the multitude of documentation that filters through the FARU each day. FARU staff began the process of scanning the backlogged registration forms in mid-1996.

This scanning allows FARU staff to be more responsive to our customers when questions arise regarding an account, as all information relevant to a particular account is housed within the computer system.

Collection Efforts

Based on 1995 statistics, where less than one-half of the total monies billed to alarm users in false alarm response fees was actually collected, one of the FARU's main goals for 1996 was to develop a collection strategy to force greater compliance with that provision of the statute. The FARU and the Office of the County Attorney (OCA) jointly developed a plan to collect delinquent payments from recalcitrant alarm users who failed to remit false alarm response fees. The revenue chart on page 3 of this report shows that the OCA collected over $60,000 in false alarm response fees, revenue which otherwise would not have been collected.

When an alarm user account becomes delinquent, FARU staff refer the case to the OCA for collection. A letter is sent under Charles Thompson Jr.'s signature requesting payment of the overdue amount within 10 days. The letter advises that if payment is not received, suit will be filed in District Court to recover the overdue amount. Approximately 50% to 60% of all alarm users who receive such a letter remit payment without the necessity of going to trial.

A total of 108 lawsuits were filed by the OCA for collection. Of those, 38 suits were filed against residential alarm users and 70 suits were filed against commercial alarm users. The act of filing suits against alarm users garnered payment, without necessity of trial, in 68 cases; 26 residential and 42 commercial. Thirty-nine collection lawsuits are awaiting trial at this time.

Only one lawsuit has actually gone to trial. The suit was against a residential alarm user in the amount of $1,200. The county prevailed in this suit, and payment was received from the alarm user.

Civil Citations

The FARU began issuing $500 civil citations late in 1996 to alarm companies that failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter 3A, Alarms. A total of 23 citations were issued to 8 different alarm companies for requesting dispatch to unregistered alarm user locations. FARU staff advised each of the 8 companies in writing on two separate occasions that the specific customers in violation were not registered and advised the alarm companies to cease requesting dispatch until such time as registration occurred. Despite these communications to the alarm companies, requests for dispatch still occurred. At that point, citations were issued.

One citation was paid in 1996 and none went to trial. By the end of the year, the process was still in its infancy. Therefore, more in depth statistics are not available. The FARU will be able to provide more detailed information on the success and impact of issuing civil citations in the next annual report.

Formal Appeals

The first and only formal appeal of false alarm response fees was filed by a major hardware chain with the Chief Administrative Officer for Montgomery County. The case was referred to the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings for a written report and recommendation. The hearing was held by Philip J. Tierney, Hearing Examiner, on September 16, 1996.

FARU staff testified that the Appellant accrued 34 false alarms in calendar year 1995. The Appellant appealed 4 of those activations informally to the Department of Police. All four appeals were denied. The total dollar amount appealed was $13,500.

The Appellant alleged that birds had infested his store and caused the alarm to activate on numerous occasions. The Appellant stated that the infestation occurred sometime in 1993 or 1994, and that remedial action to correct the problem was initiated on May 9, 1995. The Appellant contended that the fees should not be owed, as the problem was corrected.

Mr. Tierney's written report, dated October 4, 1996, states that the Appellant had prior knowledge of the bird infestation problem, took no action to correct the problem in a reasonable period of time, and was remiss in not instituting preventive measures to negate the need for the police to needlessly respond to his store. Mr. Tierney's recommendation was that the appeal be denied. On October 24, 1996, the Appellant submitted a check for the full outstanding amount due.

Major Offenders

The director of the FARU met with three major retailers in the county who had amassed a significant number of false alarms. FARU staff worked with these retailers to obtain payment of false alarm response fees totalling $37,000. More importantly, however, FARU staff worked with the retailers and their alarm companies to identify the causes of the false alarms and to suggest methods that could be employed to reduce or eliminate the need for police to respond unnecessarily. Through these efforts, all three retailers have become responsible, aware alarm users that no longer have a false alarm problem.

A major offender project will be implemented in 1997 that targets more alarm users with severe false alarm problems. The project will include participation by FARU staff, alarm users, alarm companies, and police patrol officers and seeks to address the causes of false alarms and solutions to unique problems. With input from all interested parties, there should be an even greater reduction of false alarms.

False Alarm Reduction Association (FARA)

FARU staff continually receive telephone calls from across the country requesting information on developing false alarm reduction programs. False alarms have reached epidemic proportions in this country over the last ten years, and many local jurisdictions are scrambling to implement successful programs that will reduce false alarms.

With that in mind, the director of the FARU gathered like-minded individuals from the Washington-Metropolitan area and proposed developing an association of government false alarm reduction managers. The purpose of the association is to act as a clearinghouse for the exchange of information regarding what works and what doesn't in false alarm reduction. The FARA hopes to create an environment in which alarm users and businesses alike understand the gravity of the false alarm situation, and start to take responsibility for the millions of dollars wasted in police resources annually. FARA members also hope to assist each other in creating false alarm reduction programs that work. It is clear that there is a need for such an association; already FARA has over 100 members from across the country.

Montgomery County's FARU was instrumental in getting the association off the ground and is working on programs that will assist other jurisdictions just starting to enact false alarm reduction legislation. Once again, Montgomery County has identified a need and has taken the initiative to address a significant problem, which occurs not only in Montgomery County, but all across the country.

General Statistical Data

Registrations

As of December 31, 1996, there were a total of 42,150 alarm users (34,048 residential and 8,102 commercial) registered with the FARU. In calendar year 1996, the FARU registered 1,341 new commercial and 5,424 new residential alarm users for a total of 6,765 new registrants. This equates to over 560 new registrations received by the FARU per month and reflects a 15.7% growth in registered alarm systems for the year.

Inspection and Upgrade Certificates

The following charts reflect the number of residential and commercial alarm users that reached either the 3 or 8 false alarm plateau, which requires inspection or upgrade of an alarm system, respectively. Inspection requires a licensed alarm company to visit the alarm user's site, thoroughly inspect the system for malfunction or defect, and afford the alarm company an opportunity to re-educate all alarm users on the proper use of the alarm system. Upgrade requires that the alarm system either be overhauled or replaced to meet County installation standards as specified in Executive Regulation 46-93AMII. The charts reflect statistical data for calendar year 1995 and 1996 for comparison purposes.

Inspections Required

.. Inspections	Commercial 1995	Commercial 1996	Residential 1995	Residential 1996	Total 1995	Total 1996
Requested	1659	1608	1519	1424	3178	3032
Performed	1059	1052	989	935	2048	1987
Not Performed	600	556	530	489	1130	1045
Compliance Rate	63.8%	65.4%	65.1%	65.7%	64.4%	65.5%
% +/- Compliance		+1.6%		+.6%		+1.1%

Upgrades Required

Upgrades	Commercial 1995	Commercial 1996	Residential 1995	Residential 1996	Total 1995	Total 1996
Requested	206	156	19	11	225	167
Performed	103	85	7	6	110	91
Not Performed	103	71	12	5	115	76
Compliance Rate	50.0%	54.5%	36.8%	54.6%	48.8%	54.5%
% +/- Compliance		+4.5%		+17.8%		+5.7%

Alarm Users in Violation (Non-Response) Status

A violation, or non-response status, is one in which the alarm user has failed to comply with the alarm law, after notification by the FARU to do so. An alarm user is considered to be in violation or non-response status if the alarm user fails to remit a false alarm response fee, fails to upgrade the alarm system to meet County installation standards, or fails to register the alarm system with the FARU. Alarm users are given an initial 30-day time period in which to pay a false alarm response fee or upgrade the alarm system after notification by the FARU to do so. Once the initial 30-day time period for payment of false alarm response fees has elapsed, a delinquency notice is mailed to the alarm user providing for an additional 20-day period in which to remit the required payment. Alarm users who have failed to register are mailed a registration form and given 10-days in which to return the completed registration form and fee to the FARU. If the alarm user fails to comply with the County's request to pay a false alarm response fee, upgrade the alarm system, or register the alarm system, the FARU notifies the alarm user's alarm business that it may no longer request police dispatch to alarm activations from that particular alarm user until such time as the alarm user satisfies the violation. The alarm user is notified by mail of the "non-response" status. Finally, the alarm user's account is electronically flagged at the Emergency Communications Center so that call takers and dispatchers are aware of the violation status of the accounts.

The following charts reflect the number of alarm users that were placed in a violation status for various reasons in 1996 compared to 1995 and the compliance rates commensurate with each.

Failure to Pay False Alarm Response Fees

	Commercial 1995	Commercial 1996	Residential 1995	Residential 1996	Total 1995	Total 1996
Failure to Pay Response Fee	210	379	89	161	299	540
Reinstatement After Compliance	102	335	39	120	141	455
Compliance Rate	48.5%	88.3%	43.8%	74.5%	47.1%	84.3%
% +/- Compliance		+39.8%		+30.7%		+37.2%

Failure to Upgrade Alarm System

	Commercial 1995	Commercial 1996	Residential 1995	Residential 1996	Total 1995	Total 1996
Failure to Up- grade System	43	58	2	4	45	62
Reinstatement After Compliance	3	80	1	4	4	84
Compliance Rate	6.9%	137.9%*	50.5%	100.0%	8.8%	135.5%*
% +/- Compliance		+131%*		+135.5%*		+126.7%*

*Greater than 100% compliance is due to the fact that statistics reflect upgrade certificates that were submitted to the FARU in 1996, but which were actually required in 1995.

Failure to Pay False Alarm Response Fee AND Upgrade Alarm System

	Commercial 1995	Commercial 1996	Residential 1995	Residential 1996	Total 1995	Total 1996
Failure to Pay & Upgrade	62	35	8	7	70	42
Reinstatement After Compliance	12	52	1	6	13	58
Compliance Rate	19.3%	148.6%*	12.5%	85.7%	18.6%	138.1%*
% +/- Compliance		+129.3%*		+73.2%		+119.5%*

*Greater than 100% compliance is due to the fact that statistics reflect upgrade certificates that were submitted to the FARU in 1996, but which were actually required in 1995.

Failure to Register Alarm System

	Commercial 1995	Commercial 1996	Residential 1995	Residential 1996	Total 1995	Total 1996
Failure to Register	107	280	73	289	180	569
Reinstatement After Compliance	32	201	17	130	49	331
Compliance Rate	29.9%	71.8%	23.3%	45.0%	27.2%	58.2%
% +/- Compliance		+41.9%		+21.7%		+31.0

Informal False Alarm Appeals

Section 10, False Alarm Appeal Process and Filing Fee, of Executive Regulation 46-93AMII, Policies, Procedures and Fees for Alarm Businesses and Alarm Users, provides for an informal appeal process through the Chief of the Department of Police or her designee. The Chief has designated the Director of the FARU to review all appeals and provide a decision based on the facts of each case. An alarm user who wishes to appeal the false determination of an alarm signal must make such appeal in writing to the director of the FARU within 30 days after a notice of a false alarm is mailed to the alarm user. The written appeal must give sufficient information to determine the events surrounding the police response.

FARU staff continue to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing, investigating and responding to appeals. In 1996 there were 1085 informal appeals filed with the FARU. Of those, 620 were denied as unfounded and 465 were granted. Amendments to Executive Regulation 46-93AMII have been proposed which would require a nominal $15.00 fee for filing an informal appeal. The purpose of the fee is to discourage unfounded appeals and to help offset the cost of handling the appeal.

Alarms by Count

Statistical data on how many alarm users reach certain thresholds is important in determining if the number of "free" false alarms is appropriate and to use as a gauge for determining how many alarm users can meet certain standards. As we see in the next chart on page 16, entitled "Alarm Users with Specific Numbers of False Alarms," the most false alarms attributed to a single commercial alarm user in 1996 is 25 compared to 29 in 1995. The most false alarms attributed to a single residential alarm user in 1996 is 9, compared with 16 in 1995. Residential alarm users significantly reduced the number of multiple police responses to the same home. For example, only 540 residential alarm users had three false alarms in 1996, as compared to 1171 in 1995, a 54% reduction. This pattern repeats itself throughout the residential comparison. Commercial alarm users generally reduced multiple police responses to the same location, but to a lesser degree than residential.

One of the most compelling statistics on this chart is the number of alarm users, both commercial and residential, who experienced zero false alarms in 1996. Almost 72% more commercial and 29% more residential alarm users had zero false alarms. This shows that alarm users are becoming more conscientious with their alarm usage.

Alarm Users with Specific Numbers of False Alarms

# of False Alarms	1995 Com	1996 Com	% Change	1995 Res	1996 Res	% Change	1995 Total	1996 Total	% Change
0	2352	4020	+71.7%	18116	23328	+28.7%	20468	27348	+33.6%
1	4697	4082	-13.1%	11271	10720	-4.9%	15968	14802	-7.3%
2	2699	2480	-4.4%	4153	3852	-7.2%	6852	6432	-6.1%
3	1435	1019	-29.1%	1171	540	-54.0%	2606	1559	-40.2%
4	1113	1039	-6.6%	668	513	-23.2%	1781	1552	-12.8%
5	763	648	-15.1%	292	168	-42.5%	1055	816	-22.6%
6	490	403	-17.7%	128	57	-55.5%	618	460	-25.6%
7	331	250	-24.4%	50	25	-50.0%	381	275	-27.8%
8	217	177	-18.4%	19	12	-37.0%	236	189	-19.9%
9	145	120	-17.2%	9	4	-55.5%	154	124	-19.5%
10	109	84	-22.9%	7	0	-100%	116	84	-27.6%
11	75	57	-24.0%	6	0	-100%	81	57	-29.6%
12	49	40	-18.4%	3	0	-100%	52	40	-23.1%
13	35	33	-5.7%	1	0	-100%	36	33	-8.3%
14	30	25	-16.7%	2	0	-100%	32	25	-21.9%
15	24	23	-4.2%	2	0	-100%	26	23	-11.5%
16	18	20	+11.0%	1	0	-100%	19	20	+5.3%
17	11	15	+36.4%				11	15	+36.4%
18	11	10	-9.1%				11	10	-9.1%
19	8	7	-12.5%				8	7	-12.5%
20	5	6	+16.7%				5	6	+16.7%
21	5	4	-20.0%				5	4	-20.0%
22	4	3	-25.0%				4	3	-25.0%
23	2	4	+100%				2	4	+100%
24	2	4	+100%				2	4	+100%
25	2	2	0%				2	2	0%
26	1	0	-100%				1	0	-100%
27	1	0	-100%				1	0	-100%
28	1	0	-100%				1	0	-100%
29	1	0	-100%				1	0	-100%

The "1996 False Alarm Response Fee Collections" chart shows that the FARU's increased collection efforts have been successful. As previously stated in this report, procedures were developed whereby the FARU refers delinquent accounts to the Office of the County Attorney for collection action. This, coupled with enforcement of the non-response provision contained in the alarm law for failure to pay false alarm response fees, has increased the collection rate for 1996. The chart on the next page shows collection rates for 1995 and is included for comparison purposes.

1996 False Alarm Response Fee Collections

# of False Alarms	Commercial Billed	Commercial Collected	Collection Rate	Residential Billed	Residential Collected	Collection Rate
4	1039	849	81.7%	513	424	82.7%
5	648	513	79.2%	168	129	76.8%
6	403	313	77.7%	57	41	71.9%
7	250	184	73.6%	25	16	64.0%
8	177	126	71.1%	12	7	58.3%
9	120	90	75.0%	4	1	25.0%
10	84	57	67.8%
11	57	37	64.9%
12	40	25	62.5%
13	33	19	57.6%
14	25	14	56.0%