MONTGOMERY COUNTY
MARYLAND
FALSE ALARM REDUCTION PROGRAM
ANNUAL REPORT
FOR YEAR ENDING 2000
False Alarm Reduction
The False
Alarm Reduction Unit (FARU) of the Montgomery County Department of Police
completed its fifth year of enforcement under the amended Chapter 3A, Alarms,
of the Montgomery County Code. In
calendar year 2000, the FARU exceeded several of its goals for the year, as
well as maintained false alarm dispatch rates, even with an increase of almost
8,000 newly registered alarm sites.
The false
alarm dispatch rate is perhaps the truest measure of false alarm reduction, as
it calculates the number of false alarm dispatches relevant to the total number
of alarm users. The false alarm dispatch
rate is the only rate, which takes into account the growth of the alarm user
base. Montgomery County has the lowest residential false alarm dispatch rate
of any jurisdiction in the country at .32.
This means that overall, residential alarm users experience, on average,
only 1 false alarm every three years, which is a remarkable statistic. The commercial false alarm dispatch rate is
1.09, a slight increase over 1999. Combined residential and commercial false
alarm dispatch rates remained at .44, and is one of lowest combined reported
dispatch rates in the entire country.
Chart 1 – False Alarm Dispatch Rates
|
Type
|
1994
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
Residential
|
N/A
|
.66
|
.54
|
.45
|
.36
|
.35
|
.32
|
Commercial
|
N/A
|
2.29
|
1.82
|
1.32
|
1.06
|
1.04
|
1.09
|
Both
|
1.43
|
.98
|
.78
|
.61
|
.48
|
.44
|
.44
|
Reported false alarm dispatch rates
are as high as 4.0, which means that every
alarm user has four actual responses every
year. If Montgomery County’s false
alarm dispatch rate was 4.0 instead of its current .32, it would mean that
police officers would respond to 245,336 alarm activations each year. That would require 79 police officers to do
absolutely nothing but respond to burglar alarms at a staggering cost of
approximately $12,000,000.
In
projecting the number of alarm activations to which police would have responded
in 2000, absent any enforcement of the alarm statute, statistics show that
police officers would have actually responded to 87,707 alarm activations
instead of 26,877. This number assumes
that the 1.43 dispatch rate present in 1994 would remain constant through and
including 2000, 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 2000 would be more than 150,000. This projection clearly shows just how
significant the .44 dispatch rate and the 26,877 (as opposed to over 150,000)
actual responses to alarm activations in 2000 really are. Estimated costs to respond to 150,000 alarm
calls would be $7,500,000; clearly a cost that no local jurisdiction can
absorb.
Since
enforcement of the alarm law began in 1995, alarm activations to which police
officers must respond has been reduced by a total of 37.2%. Despite a growth in alarm users of 31,578,
police responded to almost 16,000 less
alarm calls in 2000 over 1994. Actual
responses to alarm calls between 1999 and 2000 rose slightly.
In
reviewing Graph 1 above, it reveals that requests for dispatch continue to
rise, as do the total number of alarm users in Montgomery County. Absent enforcement of the alarm statute,
coupled with the increase in alarm users, one would expect that the actual
dispatches to alarm activations would increase substantially, or at least as
the same rate of growth. However, actual
responses to alarm activations increased by a mere 1.4% between 1999 and
2000. Chart 11 on page 15 and Chart 12
on page 16 indicate that the increase in false alarms occurred most often in
commercial locations. Statistical
analysis of the commercial false alarms indicate that banks are a major
contributor to the false alarms in Montgomery County, yet account for a very
low percentage of the total number of commercial alarm users. The FARU will be focusing on bank facilities
in the coming year, looking at any unique security needs, problems and/or
circumstances, which may contribute to their false alarm problems.
Graph 1
also shows that the County continues to maintain a reduction relative to the
total number of requests for dispatch vs. the total number of alarm users. For example, in 1994, Montgomery County
police officers responded on 97.5% of all requests for dispatch (43,936
requests for dispatch with 42,821 actual responses). However, in 2000, police officers responded
on only 55.3% of all requests for dispatch (48,603 requests for dispatch with
only 26,877 actual responses). This
represents a 42.2% reduction between requests and dispatches, even with 31,578 more alarm users, and correlates to
significant savings in police officer time.
Graph 2 and
Chart 2 below depict the difference between the requests for dispatch and the
actual responses since 1994. While there
was a slight increase (1.4%) in the percentage of total calls responded to
between 1999 and 2000, the number of requests for dispatch and the total number
of alarm users increased as well, which makes this slight increase less
significant.
Chart 2 – Requests for Dispatch vs. Actual Responses
Year
|
Requests for
Dispatch
|
Actual
Responses
|
Percentage of Total Calls Responded To
|
|
2000
|
48,603
|
26,877
|
55.3%
|
|
1999
|
48,434
|
25,951
|
53.9%
|
|
1998
|
46,839
|
25,877
|
55.3%
|
|
1997
|
45,791
|
29,219
|
63.8%
|
|
1996
|
40,534
|
32,390
|
79.9%
|
|
1995
|
40,967
|
35,624
|
87.0%
|
|
1994
|
43,936
|
42,821
|
97.5%
|
One
critical timesaving measure in the alarm statute is the requirement that an
alarm company cancel a police response when it is determined that an alarm
activation is false. The high number of
non-responses was due, in part, to that required cancellation by alarm companies. The higher the number of cancellations, the
better the job the alarm companies are doing of reducing the number of false
alarms to which police officers are required to respond. In 2000 alarm companies cancelled 7,424
requests for dispatch, an increase of more than 200 cancellations from 1999. These cancellations provided officers with
more time to engage in other law enforcement 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. Nor were police
dispatched 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 3,282
requests for dispatch that were denied as a result of the violation status of
the alarm user or alarm business. It is
significant that this number is down from 3,651 in 1999, which represents a
full 369 fewer requests for dispatch that were in violation of the statute. This is directly attributable to the FARU’s
enforcement initiative in 2000 that cited alarm businesses that were illegally
requesting dispatch. (See Major
Accomplishments on page 10 for further information on this initiative.)
In 2000,
almost 7% more residential and commercial alarm users experienced no false
alarms at all. A total of 45,684 alarm users had zero false alarm activations
in 2000. As the following pie graphs
show, each year, more alarm users achieve the zero false alarm threshold. This statistic, which is supported by the low
false dispatch rate, is indicative of the success of the overall false alarm
reduction program. These reductions
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
1999 Alarm Users = 58,143 2000
Alarm Users = 61,334
As a direct
result of the FARU’s strict enforcement of the alarm legislation, there were 20,172
alarm calls to which police officers were not required to respond in 2000. This
equates to savings in 2000 of approximately $1,008,600 and 13,448 hours of
police officer time, or 6.47 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 timesaving allows police
officers more time to engage in proactive crime prevention efforts,
neighborhood patrol, and community policing initiatives.
The
following graphs illustrate the revenues, hours, and work years saved as a
result of the false alarm reduction program.
Graph 3 shows that the actual revenue saved in 2000 as a result of
police officers responding to 20,172 less false alarms was $1,008,600. Since the FARU began enforcement of the alarm
statute, the total revenue saved by Montgomery County has been $4,442,050.
Graph 4 shows that the actual hours saved in 2000 as a result of
police officers responding to 20,172 less false alarms was l3,448 hours. Since the FARU began enforcement of the alarm
statute, Montgomery County has recovered 59,215 hours in police officer time.
Graph 5 shows that 6.47 actual work years were saved in 2000 as a
result of enforcement of the alarm statute.
Since enforcement began, Montgomery County has recovered a total of
28.47 work years of police officer time.
The total
savings in dollars, hours, and work years since 1994 have been significant, and
are depicted in Chart 3 below. As stated
previously in this report, absent strict enforcement of the alarm statute,
Montgomery County would have paid
more than $5,000,000 in 2000 alone responding to false alarms. The $4,442,050 savings to the county is,
therefore, even more significant.
Chart 3 – Cumulative Savings
Year
|
Revenue
Saved
|
Hours
Saved
|
Work Years
Saved
|
|
1994
|
$ 55,750
|
743
|
.35
|
|
1995
|
$ 242,750
|
3,236
|
1.56
|
|
1996
|
$ 366,950
|
4,892
|
2.35
|
|
1997
|
$ 752,850
|
10,038
|
4.82
|
|
1998
|
$ 968,550
|
12,914
|
6.21
|
|
1999
|
$1,046,600
|
13,954
|
6.71
|
|
2000
|
$1,008,600
|
13,448
|
6.47
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
$4,442,050
|
59,215
|
28.47
|
In calendar
year 2000, the FARU had 459 registered government facilities, all of which were
held to the same strict standards as all other alarm users. Of the 459 government alarm users, 104, or
23%, had a least one false alarm. This
is down from 113, or 25.4%, government alarm users in 1999. Those 104 alarm users collectively had 213 false
alarms. The good news for government
alarm users is that 355, or 77%, had zero
false alarms in 2000. This percentage is
slightly better than the percentages shown for all other alarm users
(74.5%). The following chart reflects
government alarm user activity for 1999 and 2000.
Chart 4 – Government Alarm Users
|
# of False Alarms
|
# of Alarm Users
1999
|
# of Alarm Users
2000
|
|
0
|
332
|
355
|
|
1
|
72
|
54
|
|
2
|
22
|
17
|
|
3
|
13
|
14
|
|
4
|
2
|
7
|
|
5
|
1
|
1
|
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
|
7
|
1
|
0
|
|
8
|
0
|
1
|
|
9
|
1
|
2
|
|
13
|
1
|
0
|
Collection
of false alarm response fees is always a priority for the FARU, as it shows
alarm users that Montgomery County is serious about false alarms and does, in
fact, enforce its alarm statute. The FARU’s collection rate in 2000 was 81.5
% of all false alarm response fees billed.
The suspension of police response provision in Chapter 3A, Alarms,
for failure to remit false alarm response fees greatly 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. Please note that the “collected” amount in
the following chart reflects payments made against false alarms that occurred
in 2000. The actual collection of monies
for those calendar year 2000 false alarms extended into calendar year 2001,
and, therefore, reflects more revenue than was actually received in 2000.
Chart 7 – Calendar Year 2000 Billed vs. Collected
False Alarm Response Fees
|
False Alarm Response Fees
|
Billed
|
Collected
|
Past Due
(>30 & <60 days overdue)
|
Delinquent
(>50 days overdue)
|
|
Commercial
|
$ 80,600
|
$ 73,225*
|
$ 4,300
|
$2,725
|
|
Residential
|
$580,350
|
$533,825*
|
$35,950
|
$9,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$660,950
|
$607,050*
|
$40,250
|
$12,625
|
*Represents fees collected in 2000 and 2001 against false
alarm response fees billed in 2000.
The FARU is
in the process of attempting to collect the past due amounts listed above. The FARU has sent overdue notices to all
affected alarm users. The $12,625 listed
above has been referred to the Office of the County Attorney for collection and
the affected alarm users have been placed in a non-response status until
payment is received.
Major
Accomplishments
Enforcement
One of the
FARU’s main goals in calendar year 2000 was to increase enforcement of the
alarm law with relation to alarm companies.
To that end, our goal was to issue 200 Class A civil citations to alarm
companies for violation of Chapter 3A, Alarms. The intent of this initiative was for alarm
companies to change their behavior and become more responsible and compliant
with the mandates of the law.
The FARU
exceeded its goal by 72, issuing an impressive 272 Class A ($500) civil
citations to 72 different alarm companies for violation of the alarm law. Most violations involved requesting dispatch
on alarm users who were in a non-response status, requesting dispatch without
providing the alarm user’s registration number, and requesting dispatch when
the alarm company was not licensed or had an expired license.
The
initiative proved very successful in changing behavior, as well as obtaining
better compliance with the law. In
January 2000, the FARU wrote 52 Class A civil citations, yet in January 2001,
only 7 were necessary. The enforcement
initiative implemented in 2000 will continue as a regular part of the false
alarm reduction program.
Denial of License
The FARU
was successful in denying the issuance of an Alarm Business License to an
individual, who had prior criminal offenses, and who misrepresented those
convictions on the Alarm Business License application.
The FARU initially denied the
request for a license and offered the applicant an opportunity to show cause
why the license should be granted. A
hearing was set before the Montgomery County Hearing Officer to hear testimony
from both the applicant and the County.
While the applicant received proper notice of the hearing, the applicant
failed to appear at said hearing. The
County presented its case against the applicant, and the Hearing Officer ruled,
in part, that:
1. criminal
convictions against the applicant occurred within the prescribed 7-year period
outlined in Chapter 3A, Alarms,
2. the
applicant falsely stated on the application for an Alarm Business License that
the applicant had not been convicted of “any felony or a misdemeanor involving
theft,” and
3. based
on the falsification of information on the application, the license should not
be granted.
Major Offender Program
The Major
Offender Program implemented in 1999 by the FARU, was designed to identify
those alarm users who have the highest number of false alarms and to then meet
with them, their alarm companies and patrol officers in an effort to determine
the cause(s) of and appropriate solutions to their false alarm problems.
The FARU’s goal in 2000 was to
reach 15 different alarm users. Far
exceeding that goal, in calendar year 2000, the FARU identified and worked with
50 different alarm users, who were experiencing false alarm problems. The FARU’s supportive intervention resulted
in very positive outcomes for 45 of the original 50 alarm users. Specific problem areas were identified in all
cases and the alarm users and their alarm companies took corrective action. Of the 5 accounts that did not show positive
results, 4 were banks. The FARU plans to
focus more closely on banks in general in calendar year 2001 to identify
specific, unique issues inherent in a bank environment and to develop a plan of
action to address their problem false alarms.
FARU Web Site
The FARU
moved into the 21st century and started to get its message out via
the world wide web. Visitors to the FARU
site, located at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/services/police/faru, receive
background information on the need for false alarm reduction legislation and
enforcement, an overview of the alarm law and how it works, false alarm
reduction tips, information for consumers on what to look for when purchasing
an alarm system and the pertinent questions to ask, as well as copies of the
FARU annual reports, among other things.
The web site is a work in progress and will continue to be updated and
added to throughout the year. The FARU
is currently working on redesigning the page to make navigation easier and more
meaningful for users.
Collection Efforts
When an
alarm user fails to pay a false alarm response fee, the FARU advises the alarm
user’s alarm company that it may no longer request dispatch for that user and
refers the account to the Office of the County Attorney for collection action. In 2000, the FARU referred 344 different
alarm user accounts to the Office of the County Attorney for collection of
outstanding/
delinquent fees that totaled $74,760.
Public Relations
Montgomery
County’s alarm law has long been a benchmark that other jurisdictions try to
attain. In the spirit of cooperative
working relationships with our area cities and counties, the FARU staff spent
considerable time with area law enforcement officials assisting them in
their attempts to enact false alarm reduction
legislation. The FARU helped Frederick,
Howard and Fairfax Counties, as well as Baltimore City, enact new alarm
laws. Additionally, FARU staff assisted
Arlington and Harford Counties in their efforts to pass false alarm reduction
legislation. Finally, ongoing contact is
maintained with Prince George’s, Charles, and Baltimore Counties, as well as
those mentioned above, to answer procedural and policy questions, act as a
sounding board for new ideas, and provide assistance with unusual circumstances
or situations that arise.
Industry Committees
Due to the
wide exposure of Montgomery County’s alarm law, as well as the national
association of law enforcement officials created by the FARU’s director, FARU
staff sit on several alarm industry boards and committees to offer advice from
a law enforcement perspective, develop initiatives to reduce false alarms at a
national level, and maintain good working relationships between law enforcement
and the industry.
The FARU director was appointed as
a law enforcement representative and a voting member of the National Burglar
and Fire Alarm Association’s False Alarm Committee. Past successes of the FAC include development
and implementation of the “False Alarm Network.” The FAN is a network of industry, national
company, and law enforcement representatives, who work closely in most states
to inform interested parties of the enactment of new laws, the development of
new alarm equipment, and the dissemination of proven false alarm reduction
methods and techniques. The False Alarm
Committee develops programs for false alarm reduction on a national level. Additionally, the FARU director is a member
of the IQ Certification Board, which is an industry program that seeks to raise
the bar on the quality of alarm system installations in terms of equipment
used, how it is installed, and the level of training needed for alarm
technicians. Participation in committees
like these help keep Montgomery County in the forefront of false alarm
reduction efforts.
Emergency Communications Center Training
The first
point of contact with the Police Department when attempting to request dispatch
to an alarm activation is with the Emergency Communications Center. While police officers only responded to
26,877 requests for dispatch, the ECC call-takers and dispatchers handled all
48,603 attempts to dispatch. It is
critical that ECC personnel obtain specific training to handle these types of
calls. Over the past year, the FARU
staff have provided specialized training to new ECC recruits as part of their
overall training for the position. The
training includes an overview of the alarm law and executive regulation, why
the law and regulation were enacted, the scope of the problem, ECC and FARU
SOP’s, review of actual calls and what was done correctly or incorrectly, and
discussion of the successes of the false alarm reduction program. The FARU is grateful to ECC training
supervisors for including them in the training of new recruits, as it provides
for more seamless program operation.
Chart 9
reflects the number of alarm users each year since 1994. Alarm user registrations have more than
doubled since implementation and enforcement of the false alarm reduction
program began in 1994. On average, the
FARU receives 8,000 new alarm user registrations each year. (The chart below does not reflect an increase
of overall alarm users of 8,000 because some users each year move out of the
area or remove their alarm systems and are no longer required to have an alarm
user registration.) This increase
coupled with the 37.2% decrease in alarm activations to which police officers
must respond each year is truly remarkable.
The success and results of this program are what make it a model for
other municipalities across the country.
Type
|
1994
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
Residential
|
|
29,398
|
34,048
|
39.129
|
44,827
|
48,654
|
51,743
|
Commercial
|
|
7,049
|
8,102
|
8,879
|
9,348
|
9,489
|
9,591
|
Both
|
29,756
|
36,436
|
42,150
|
48,008
|
54,175
|
58,143
|
61,334
|
The following charts depict the number of alarm users
that had a specific number of false alarms from 1995 through 2000 and the
percentage of change from year to year and from the base year of 1995. Chart 10 shows residential alarm users. Chart 11 shows commercial alarm users, and
Chart 12 reflects total alarms (both residential and commercial combined.)
As stated earlier in this report, each year an increasing
number of alarm users have no false alarms at all. In
2000, 45,684 alarm users had ZERO false alarms to which police officers
were required to respond. This is up
from 42,800 in 1999. Therefore, the most
compelling statistic in these charts is in the number of alarm users that
appear on the 0 row (meaning they have had no false alarms for the entire
calendar year).
