Graph 1 – False Alarm Reduction, provides information on the number of requests for dispatch vs. actual responses (dispatched).  If the false alarm reduction program is successful, the responses should continue to decrease relative to the number of total alarm users, and this fact is evident in the graph.  The graph also provides information on calls where no response was made, as well as the total number of alarm users.  The number of actual alarm calls to which police officers respond has continued to decrease.  Police responded to only 19,190 of the total 38,248 requests made, or 49.8%.  There were a total of 17,492 alarm activations to which the police were not required to respond in 2004. 

            Additionally, the number of requests for dispatch is at an all-time low.  In 2004, there were a total of 38,248 requests for dispatch to alarm activations, down by a staggering 6,425 over the previous year.  Requests for dispatch remained fairly static between 1994 and 2003 and results were measured in how many less responses police officers were required to make.  While this is still the most important measure of the success of the program, 2004 marked a huge decrease in the number of requests for dispatch, which has far-reaching benefits for the Police Department beyond savings measured in police officer time.  Less actual alarm calls into our Emergency Communications Center means time recovered for Police Telecommunicators to handle other requests for service from Montgomery County citizens.  This is an extremely positive measure, which is directly attributable to the alarm industry’s Enhanced Call Verification (ECV) initiative. 

            Chapter 3A, Alarms, of the Montgomery County Code requires alarm companies to attempt to verify the validity of an alarm signal prior to requesting police dispatch.  This attempted verification generally requires one telephone call be made to the site to determine the cause of the alarm signal.  The alarm industry has instituted Enhanced Call Verification in which alarm companies make the initial call to the site, and if unable to reach a responsible party, make at least one additional telephone call to another phone number, usually the customer’s cell phone.  This voluntary initiative has dramatically reduced the number of requests for dispatch made to  9-1-1 centers across the nation.  The alarm industry, and those alarm companies that have voluntarily enacted ECV within their own companies, should be congratulated on developing and implementing a false alarm reduction strategy, which has dramatically reduced false alarms. 

            Absent enforcement of the alarm statute, coupled with an overall increase in alarm users, one would expect that the actual dispatches to alarm activations would increase substantially, or at least at the same rate of growth.  However, actual responses to alarm activations were reduced by an additional 10.5% between 2003 and 2004. 

            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 2004, police officers responded to only 49.8% of all requests for dispatch (38,248 requests for dispatch with only 19,190 actual responses).  This represents a 50.2% reduction between requests and dispatches, even with 33,992 more alarm users and correlates to a significant savings in police officer time. 

            One critical enforcement 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.  This is achieved through telephone or other electronic verification with the alarm user at the time of alarm system activation.  The high number of non-responses (17,492) 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 respond.  In 2004, alarm companies cancelled a very impressive 9,028 requests for dispatch, which represents 24% of the total requests for dispatch.  These cancellations provide officers with more time to engage in other more critical law enforcement related activities and community policing initiatives. 

            The FARS also 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 Emergency Communications Center call-takers.  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 alarm system when required to do so.  The legally mandated non-response provisions of the alarm law resulted in only 2,258 requests for dispatch that were denied as a result of the violation status of the alarm user or alarm business.  This represents only 6% of the total requests for dispatch.  The FARS will continue to work to reduce this percentage to negligible numbers. 

Graph 2 and Chart 1 – Requests for Dispatch vs. Actual Responses depict the difference between the requests for dispatch and the actual responses since 1994.  As stated previously, requests for dispatch in 2004 declined by a significant 6,425 calls, while the actual responses (19,190) to requests fell below 20,000 for the first time since statistics were captured.  This, coupled with 6, 575 new alarm users, is incredibly positive and demonstrates the effectiveness of Montgomery County’s alarm law.

Chart 1 – Requests for Dispatch vs. Actual Responses

            The false alarm dispatch rate is perhaps the truest measure of false alarm reduction, as it calculates the number of false alarm dispatches relative 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.  The Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC), which represents the four major alarm industry associations in North America, states that Montgomery County has the lowest reported residential, commercial and combined false alarm dispatch rates of any jurisdiction in the country.  The residential false alarm dispatch rate decreased once again in 2004 and was .21.  This means that overall, residential alarm users experience less than one false alarm every four years, which is a remarkable statistic.  The commercial false alarm dispatch rate for 2004 was .89, which marks a negligible 1/100% increase over 2003 levels, but still reflects four years running that the commercial rate was well below the 1.0 mark.  Combined residential and commercial false alarm dispatch rates fell to an all-time low of .30 and is the lowest combined reported dispatch rate in the entire country.

Chart 2 – False Alarm Dispatch Rates
 

            Nationwide statistics often reveal reduction in false alarms for the first several years after enactment and enforcement of a false alarm reduction ordinance begins.  However, after the first few years, the numbers generally either level off with no further reduction or actually start to increase.  Since the Montgomery County false alarm reduction program has been in effect, it has consistently reduced the false alarm dispatch rate (with the exception of 2000, which remained constant) and has done so for a full nine years.  Few, if any, other jurisdictions can boast such a phenomenal success rate.

            Commercial false alarm dispatch rates have been reported as high as 4.0 and residential false alarm dispatch rates as high as 1.0 or above.  A dispatch rate of 4.0 means that every alarm user has four actual responses every year.  Using 2004 statistics, that would equate to 35,152 actual responses to alarm activations for commercial alarm users alone; a figure almost 16,000 over the total responses for residential and commercial alarm users combined in 2004. 

            Assuming Montgomery County’s dispatch rate would have risen a modest amount to 2.0 without enforcement of the alarm law, police officers would have actually responded to 127,496 false alarm activations in 2004, which would represent a 564% increase in response to false alarms.  At $90 per dispatch, those 127,496 alarm activations would require approximately 41 police officers to do absolutely nothing but respond to burglar alarms at a staggering cost of $11,474,640.  This is clearly a cost that no local jurisdiction can absorb.

The following pie charts (Graphs 3, 4 and 5) graphically depict the significant reductions in residential, non-residential and combined false alarm dispatch rates.

Graph 3

Graph 4

Graph 5

            In 2004, an impressive 80.7% of all residential and commercial alarm users experienced no false alarms at all.  A total of 51,454 alarm users, had zero false alarm activations to which police officers responded in 2004.  The following pie graphs show that each year more alarm users (as a percentage of total alarm users for a given year) 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.

Threshold Statistics

2004 Alarm Users = 63,748	2001 Alarm Users = 64,836
1998 Alarm Users = 54,175	1995 Alarm Users = 36,436

          As a direct result of the FARS’s strict enforcement of the alarm law, there were 17,492 alarm calls to which police officers were not required to respond in 2004. This equates to savings in 2004 of approximately $1,574,280 and 12,794 hours of police officer time, or 12.30 police work years.  (Monetary savings are based on a cost of $90 per response.  Work year savings are based on an average of 20 minutes per alarm response by two officers.)  This timesaving is substantial, particularly when the department is being asked to do more with less each year. 

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

Graph 6 shows that the actual revenue saved in 2004 as a result of police officers responding to 17,492 less false alarms was $1,574,280.  Since the FARS began enforcement of the alarm statute, the total revenue saved by Montgomery County has been $10,887,310. 

(The dramatic difference in 2002 savings and subsequent years is due to using a more realistic figure of $90 per response, as opposed to $55 in 2001 and $50 for previous years.)

Graph 8 shows that 12.30 actual work years were saved in 2004 as a result of enforcement of the alarm statute.  Since enforcement began, Montgomery County has recovered a total of 74.12 work years of police officer time.  

(The dramatic difference starting in 2002 vs. previous years is due to erroneously using a full 2080 hours as a work year measure between 1994 and 2001, which is not an accurate figure.)

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 $11,000,000 in 2004 alone responding to false alarms.  The $10,887,310 savings to the county is, therefore, even more significant.

Chart 3 – Cumulative Savings 

            In calendar year 2004, the FARS had 515 registered federal, state and local government facilities, all of which were held to the same strict standards as all other alarm users.  Of the 515 government alarm users, 161 or 31.3%, had at least one false alarm.  This shows an increase of 11.3% over 2003.  Those 161 alarm users collectively had 318 false alarms.  A total of 354 different government alarm users (68.8%) had zero false alarms, which is down from a high of 400 in 2003.

            As is evident in Chart 4 – Government Alarm Users, false alarms in government facilities rose fairly dramatically in 2004.  Some of this increase is due to the registration of certain federal facilities, which are currently learning about the costs of false alarms, both in terms of dollars spent and in officer safety issues .  FARS staff will work more closely with all government alarm users in the coming year to effect reduction in police responses to those alarms.  The following chart reflects government alarm user activity for 1999 through 2004.

Chart 4 – Government Alarm Users 

Revenue 

            The following two charts reflect revenue collected by the FARS for alarm user registration and renewal fees, false alarm response fees, alarm business license and administrative fees, civil citations and appeal filing fees.  The first chart covers calendar year 2004.  The second chart covers fiscal year 04.  The FY04 chart is included only as a reference, because budget projections are based on fiscal rather than calendar years.  The more accurate chart is the calendar year 2004 chart, as false alarms and the resultant false alarm response fees, are calculated on a calendar year basis.

Revenue 

            The following two charts reflect revenue collected by the FARS for alarm user registration and renewal fees, false alarm response fees, alarm business license and administrative fees, civil citations and appeal filing fees.  The first chart covers calendar year 2004.  The second chart covers fiscal year 04.  The FY04 chart is included only as a reference, because budget projections are based on fiscal rather than calendar years.  The more accurate chart is the calendar year 2004 chart, as false alarms and the resultant false alarm response fees, are calculated on a calendar year basis.

Chart 5 – Calendar Year Revenue 

Chart 6 – Fiscal Year Revenue 

             Collection of false alarm response fees is always a priority for the FARS.  Strict enforcement of this aspect of the alarm law clearly shows that Montgomery County is serious about false alarms.  The FARS collection rate in 2004 was an extraordinary 90.5% of all false alarm response fees billed.  This is down slightly from last years collection figure of 91.5%.  The suspension of police response provision in Chapter 3A, Alarms, for failure to remit false alarm response fees greatly enhances the FARS’s ability to collect on unpaid bills. 

            The following chart reflects the amount billed for false alarm response fees in 2004 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 2004.  The actual collection of monies for those calendar year 2004 false alarms extended into calendar year 2005, and, therefore, reflects different totals from the Calendar Year Revenue Chart.

Chart 7 – Calendar Year 2004 Billed vs. Collected False Alarm Response Fees
 

*Represents fees collected in 2004and 2005against false alarm response fees billed in 2004

            The FARS is in the process of attempting to collect the past due amounts listed above.  The FARS has sent overdue notices to all affected alarm users.  The $14,575 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.

General Statistics

            Chart 8 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 2004.  The chart shows 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.  Verified calls include actual criminal activity, as well as suspicious situations such as an open door with no other evidence of criminal activity.  Circumstances under which no response may occur include cancellation of response by the alarm company, duplicate calls for the same alarm activation, blanket cancellations by supervisory police personnel and refusals where the alarm company or alarm user was in a violation status.

Chart 8 – False Alarm Reduction 

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

             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.  The FARS received 6,575 new alarm user registration forms in 2004.  This increase, coupled with the 55.2% 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.

Chart 9 – Alarm Users 

            Chart 9 does not reflect an increase of overall alarm users by 6,575 (the number of new registered alarm users), because some alarm users each year move out of the area or remove their alarm systems and are no longer required to have an alarm user registration.  Additionally, with alarm user registration renewal, the FARS is much better able to keep the alarm user database current by removing those alarm users, who no longer have an alarm system or have moved.  This allows the FARS to perform statistical analysis using more accurate numbers, which provides for more meaningful and accurate reporting.

            The following charts depict the number of alarm users that had a specific number of false alarms from 1995 through 2004.  The charts also show the percentage of change between 2003 vs. 2004, as well as the percentage of change between the base year of 1995 and 2004, which shows the reduction of false alarms since inception of the program.  Chart 10 shows residential alarm users.  Chart 11 shows commercial alarm users, and Chart 12 reflects total alarms (both residential and commercial combined.)

            In 2004, 51,454 alarm users had ZERO false alarms to which police officers were required to respond.  This represents 80.7% of all alarm users, which is up from 2003 statistics where 79.4  alarm users had zero false alarms.  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).

            While the number of residential alarm users, who had no false alarms actually decreased from 2003 to 2004, the total number of alarm users also decreased, making this figure appear somewhat skewed.  As a percentage of the total, 83.9% of residential alarm users had no false alarms in 2004, which reflects an actual increase of 1.5% over 2003.  When viewing any of the statistical data in this report, it is important to look at those numbers in relation to the total number of alarm users.  Since 1995, 154.5% more residential alarm users were able to remain within the zero false alarm threshold, and they continued to reduce their false alarms at every threshold level.

General Statistics

            Chart 8 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 2004.  The chart shows 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.  Verified calls include actual criminal activity, as well as suspicious situations such as an open door with no other evidence of criminal activity.  Circumstances under which no response may occur include cancellation of response by the alarm company, duplicate calls for the same alarm activation, blanket cancellations by supervisory police personnel and refusals where the alarm company or alarm user was in a violation status.

Chart 8 – False Alarm Reduction 

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

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.  The FARS received 6,575 new alarm user registration forms in 2004.  This increase, coupled with the 55.2% 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.

Chart 9 – Alarm Users 

            Chart 9 does not reflect an increase of overall alarm users by 6,575 (the number of new registered alarm users), because some alarm users each year move out of the area or remove their alarm systems and are no longer required to have an alarm user registration.  Additionally, with alarm user registration renewal, the FARS is much better able to keep the alarm user database current by removing those alarm users, who no longer have an alarm system or have moved.  This allows the FARS to perform statistical analysis using more accurate numbers, which provides for more meaningful and accurate reporting.

            The following charts depict the number of alarm users that had a specific number of false alarms from 1995 through 2004.  The charts also show the percentage of change between 2003 vs. 2004, as well as the percentage of change between the base year of 1995 and 2004, which shows the reduction of false alarms since inception of the program.  Chart 10 shows residential alarm users.  Chart 11 shows commercial alarm users, and Chart 12 reflects total alarms (both residential and commercial combined.)

            In 2004, 51,454 alarm users had ZERO false alarms to which police officers were required to respond.  This represents 80.7% of all alarm users, which is up from 2003 statistics where 79.4  alarm users had zero false alarms.  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).

            While the number of residential alarm users, who had no false alarms actually decreased from 2003 to 2004, the total number of alarm users also decreased, making this figure appear somewhat skewed.  As a percentage of the total, 83.9% of residential alarm users had no false alarms in 2004, which reflects an actual increase of 1.5% over 2003.  When viewing any of the statistical data in this report, it is important to look at those numbers in relation to the total number of alarm users.  Since 1995, 154.5% more residential alarm users were able to remain within the zero false alarm threshold, and they continued to reduce their false alarms at every threshold level.

Chart 11

Commercial Alarm Users With Specific Numbers of False Alarms

Chart 12

Both Residential and Commercial Alarm Users With Specific Numbers of False Alarms