False Alarm Reduction

The False Alarm Reduction Unit (FARU) of the Department of Police once again reports that there was a significant reduction in the incidence of false alarms in calendar year 1998. The continued reduction clearly shows that the alarm law is an effective tool in reducing false alarms.

False alarms, to which police officers were required to respond, were reduced by an additional 11.4% in 1998. This reduction was achieved despite a 12.8% increase in the number of overall alarm systems in use in Montgomery County during the same time period. Since enforcement of the alarm law began in 1995, alarms to which police officers respond have been reduced by a total of 39.6%. These statistics are extremely encouraging and clearly show that substantial false alarm reduction is being achieved.

The above graph shows that the number of requests for dispatch has actually risen since 1994. However, the number of actual alarm calls to which police officers have responded has decreased significantly, while the number of alarm users has steadily increased within the same time period. In 1998, there were a total of 46,839 requests for dispatch to alarm activations. However, police responded to only 25,877 of those requests. There were a total of 19,371 alarm activations to which the police were not required to respond.

One of the most effective tools within the alarm statute is the requirement for an alarm company to cancel a police response when it is determined that an alarm activation is false. The high number of non-responses were due, in part, to that required cancellation by

alarm companies. Almost 7,000 requests for dispatch were cancelled in 1998, which provided officers with more time to engage in other police related activities. The FARU continued its strict enforcement of all requirements for requesting dispatch, including providing the correct alarm user registration and alarm business license numbers. Police officers were not dispatched when an alarm business failed to provide all of the required information to ECC calltakers. Additionally, no dispatch occurred if an alarm user was in a violation status for failure to register, failure to pay a false alarm response fee, or failure to upgrade the system to meet county installation standards. The legally mandated non-response provisions in the alarm law resulted in another 4,000 requests for dispatch that were denied as a result of the violation status of an alarm user or an alarm business.

Another measure of the effectiveness of the False Alarm Reduction Program is the continued increase in the number of alarm users, both residential and commercial, that have reduced their total number of false alarm dispatches. Alarm dispatches are the number of police responses to alarm locations divided by the total number of alarm users within any given period of time. In 1998, the overall dispatch rate for both residential and commercial alarm users for Montgomery County was .48 dispatches per alarm system per year. This is one of the lowest reported dispatch rates in the entire country. The residential dispatch rate was .36. The commercial dispatch rate was 1.06. These significant reductions are illustrated in the following chart.

Chart 1 – False Alarm Dispatch Rates

	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998
Residential	N/A	.66	.54	.45	.36
Commercial	N/A	2.29	1.82	1.32	1.06
Both	1.43	.98	.78	.61	.48

In projecting the number of alarm activations to which police would have responded in 1998, absent any enforcement of the alarm statute, statistics show that police officers would have actually responded to 77,470 alarm activations. This number assumes that the 1.43 dispatch rate present in 1994 would remain constant through and including 1998, which is highly unlikely. A more accurate assumption would be that, absent any enforcement of the amended alarm law, the dispatch rate would continue to rise each year, and the number of actual responses in 1998 would be closer to 100,000. This projection clearly shows just how significant the .48 dispatch rate and the 25,877 (as opposed to an estimated 100,000) actual responses to alarm activations in 1998 really are.

In 1998, 19.4% more residential alarm users and 12.3% more commercial alarm users experienced no false alarms at all. Almost 19,000 alarm users had zero false alarm activations. As the following pie graphs show, each year, more alarm users achieve the zero false alarm threshold. This statistic is indicative of the success of the false alarm reduction program. These reductions also become more significant when viewed with the steady increase in the number of alarm users each year.

1995 Alarm Users = 36,436 1996 Alarm Users = 42,150

1997 Alarm Users = 48,008 1998 Alarm Users = 54,175

As a direct result of the FARU’s strict enforcement of the alarm legislation, there were 19,371 alarm calls to which police officers were not required to respond in 1998. This equates to savings in 1998 of approximately $968,550 and 12,914 hours of police officer time, or 6.21 police work years. (Monetary savings are based on a conservative cost of $50.00 per response. Work year savings are based on an average of 20 minutes per alarm response by two officers.) This time savings allow police officers more time to engage in proactive crime prevention efforts, neighborhood patrol, and community policing initiatives.

The following charts illustrate the revenues, hours, and work years saved as a result of the false alarm reduction program.

Revenue

The following two charts reflect revenue collected by the FARU for alarm user registration fees, false alarm response fees, alarm business license fees, civil citations, and appeal filing fees. The first chart covers calendar year 1998. The second chart covers fiscal year 98. The FY98 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 1998 chart, as false alarms and the resultant false alarm response fees are calculated on a calendar year basis.

Chart 2 – Calendar Year Revenue

CALENDAR YEAR 1998

ACTUAL REVENUES

Registration Fees

Residential

Commercial

TOTAL

$211,079

31,870

$242,949

False Alarm Response Fees

Residential

County Attorney Collections

Total Residential

Commercial

County Attorney Collections

Total Commercial

TOTAL

$ 68,436

7,425

$ 75,861

$326,260

73,948

$400,208

$476,069

Alarm Business Fees

License

Civil Citations

TOTAL

$ 37,400

3,000

$ 40,400

Appeal Filing Fees

Residential

Commercial

TOTAL

$ 1,245

540

$ 1,785

GRAND TOTAL

$761,203

Chart 3 – Fiscal Year Revenue

FISCAL YEAR 1998

ACTUAL REVENUES

Registration Fees

Residential

Commercial

TOTAL

$200,128

33,412

$233,540

False Alarm Response Fees

Residential

County Attorney Collections

Total Residential

Commercial

County Attorney Collections

Total Commercial

TOTAL

$ 33,676

5,275

$ 38,951

$253,956

83,338

$337,294

$376,245

Alarm Business Fees

License

Civil Citations

TOTAL

$ 39,700

8,500

$ 48,200

Appeal Filing Fees

Residential

Commercial

TOTAL

$ 390

195

$ 585

GRAND TOTAL

$658,570

Collection of false alarm response fees was again a priority for the FARU in 1998. The FARU increased its collection rate to 79.7% of all false alarm response fees billed. This is an increase from 77.1% in 1997, 67.2% in 1996, and 49.9% in 1995. The suspension of police response provision in Chapter 3A, Alarms, for failure to remit false alarm response fees enhances the FARU’s ability to collect on unpaid bills.

The following chart reflects the amount billed for false alarm response fees versus the amount collected for both residential and commercial alarm users. It should be noted that statistics for calendar year 1998 include billings for December, 1998, which were not due until January, 1999. Therefore, a portion of the uncollected $103,800 constitutes amounts billed in 1998 but not yet due as of December 31, 1998.

Chart 4 – Calendar Year 1998 Billed vs. Collected

False Alarm Response Fees

False Alarm Response Fees	Billed	Collected	Uncollected
Commercial	$416,375	$333,025	$ 83,350
Residential	95,825	75,375	20,450
TOTAL	$512,200	$408,400	$103,800
Collections from Outstanding Balance from Previous Years		$67,669
GRAND TOTAL COLLECTIONS		$476,069

A total of $35,925 was billed in December, 1998, but was not yet due by December 31, 1998. Therefore, actual delinquencies through December 31, 1998 totaled only $67,875 of the $103,800 uncollected monies referenced in the above chart.

Major Accomplishments

Updated Brochures

As a result of the law and executive regulation amendments, which became effective January 1, 1998, the FARU updated and reissued its two brochures, i.e., Burglar Alarm Law and False Alarm Reduction Tips. The updated brochures include information regarding the required “soak” period, new fee schedules for false alarm response fees, and the imposition of response fees upon the third false alarm instead of the fourth, among other things. Copies of the updated brochures are attached at the end of this annual report.

Updated Alarm User Registration Forms

Chapter 3A, Alarms, requires that the FARU notify all alarm users of the basic provisions of the alarm law at the time of registration. The FARU has chosen to perform this notification by means of a summary directly on the alarm user’s copy of the registration form. When the alarm law was amended, the FARU prepared an informational sheet that was provided to all alarm companies. The FARU required that the alarm companies give the sheet to each new customer, have it signed to signify receipt and understanding, and return it with the registration form.

The informational sheet contained the basic amendments to the law, which include:

1. non-refundable registration fees,

2. imposition of false alarm response fees upon the third false alarm instead of the fourth in a calendar year,

3. requirement to upgrade the system upon the sixth false alarm instead of the eighth in a calendar year,

4. inspection certificates must be filed within 21 days of notification ,

5. only alarm companies licensed in Montgomery County may perform required alarm system inspections,

6. requirement to provide point of identification or zoned systems for any new commercial installation,

7. authorization for the FARU to waive an inspection or upgrade if a sufficient number of false alarms were not the result of system malfunction or defect,

8. imposition of $l5 filing fee on informal appeals to the FARU,

9. provision for the return of an appeal filing fee should the Hearing Examiner grant an appeal at that level,

10. prohibition from requesting police dispatch for seven days after registration of an alarm system, unless a waiver is provided, and

11. removal of exemption for federal, state and local government facilities.

A copy of the “Alarm Law Changes” information sheet is attached.

The residential and nonresidential alarm user registration forms were also amended to include a summary of all of the new provisions. The FARU still provides the informational sheet to those alarm companies that have outdated registration forms.

New Program Specialist Position

During the entire 1998 calendar year, the FARU experienced severe staff shortages, with all three clerical staff moving on to other positions within the Police Department. A careful review of the FARU’s needs, demonstrated that some of those clerical positions were no longer necessary, as the bulk of registration and alarm incident backlogs had been handled. However, in order to more fully enforce the newly amended alarm law, and to implement new programs and initiatives to combat false alarms, it was necessary to obtain an additional professional level position. As such, the FARU recommended, and the Office of Management and Budget approved, the abolishment of one clerical position and the reclassification of another clerical position to a Program Specialist.

The FARU staff developed a job description, advertised the position, and interviewed six well-qualified candidates for the position. A candidate was selected and a background investigation was successfully completed. An offer of employment was made and the candidate will start work on February 8, 1999.

The new Program Specialist will assist in the development and implementation of the FARU’s “Major Offender Project,” which is intended to target those alarm users who have the highest numbers of false alarm activations. The Project entails dealing with problem accounts through a cooperative effort among FARU staff, the alarm user, the alarm company, and the patrol officers who respond to the alarm activations. Problem areas will be identified, patterns of practice will be discussed, the impact of false alarms on law enforcement will be reinforced, and the responsibilities of both alarm users and alarm companies will be discussed. Finally, a plan of action will be put into effect to reduce the number of false alarms at the alarm user's site.

Y2K Efforts

The FARU developed and completed extensive Y2K testing on all of its hardware and software products. The hardware was deemed to be non-compliant, and has been replaced. Most of the “off the shelf” and custom software products utilized by the FARU were determined to be compliant. However, those that were not have either been updated/replaced or a plan is in place to perform procedural “work arounds” that will deal effectively with the Y2K issue at minimal or no cost. A contingency plan has been developed and tested should there be failures outside of the FARU that will affect the FARU’s operation.

Government Facilities

The alarm law amendment, which removed exemption for any government facility from the provisions of Chapter 3A, Alarms, became effective January 1, 1998. The FARU worked extensively to implement a procedure to handle payment of registration and false alarm response fees by journal entry into the ADPICS/FAMIS computer system. At this point, all known government facilities have been registered with the FARU. Collection of the false alarm response fees, should any be imposed, will begin in 1999.

Chapter 3A, Alarms – Model Legislation

Montgomery County’s burglar alarm law has been used by countless jurisdictions across the country as a model for strong, effective legislation to reduce false alarms and its concurrent drain on law enforcement resources. In the Washington-Metropolitan area alone, three jurisdictions modeled their new alarm laws after Montgomery County. An additional three are in the process of enacting false alarm reduction ordinances, which are also being modeled after Montgomery County.

Hearing Examiner Appeal

Chapter 3A, Alarms, provides for a second level of appeal for an alarm user to appeal the decision of the FARU regarding the imposition of false alarm response fees to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. Only two cases since 1995 have actually been adjudicated through the Office of the Hearing Examiner. A nonresidential alarm user filed the initial case in 1996. The FARU prevailed and the nonresidential alarm user was required to pay all outstanding false alarm response fees.

In 1998, a residential alarm user filed an appeal with the Office of the Hearing Examiner disputing the FARU’s denial of his original appeal. After hearing testimony from both the appellant and the county, the Hearing Examiner again ruled in the county’s favor and recommended that all outstanding false alarm response fees be paid.

The hearings are significant, as they reinforce the provisions of the alarm statute and further enhance the FARU’s ability to strictly enforce the alarm statute thereby reducing false alarms.

Publication of Dispatch Rates

The FARU worked throughout the year to design and develop a report that would list the dispatch rates for each licensed alarm company. Using data contained within the False Alarm Tracking and Billing system, the FARU can now produce reports for both alarm companies and monitoring stations. The reports have the capability of grouping alarm businesses by small-, medium- and large-sized companies based on its number of customers. This grouping should allow consumers to make meaningful comparisons between alarm companies. The periodic publication of this information will begin in 1999.

General Statistics

Chart 5 shows false alarm reduction statistics from 1994, when the new alarm law was in effect but false alarm response fees were not yet being imposed, through 1998, when the most recent alarm law amendments were enacted. The chart reveals the actual number of requests for dispatch, the number of calls that were ultimately dispatched and responded to, requests where no response was required or was refused, verified calls and the percentage of false alarm reduction. Circumstances under which no response may occur include cancellation of response by the alarm company, duplicate calls for the same location, blanket cancellations by supervisory police personnel, and refusals where the alarm company or alarm user was in a violation status.

Chart 5 – False Alarm Reduction

Year

Requests for Dispatch

Dispatched

No Response

VerifiedCalls

% Reduction

% ReductionFrom Base

1998

46,839

25,877

19,371

1,591

-11.4%

-39.6%

1997

45,791

29,219

15,057