CITY OF OLYMPIA SECURITY ALARM PROGRAM

Transcription

1 AWC Municipal Achievement Awards 2006 CITY OF OLYMPIA SECURITY ALARM PROGRAM Summary The Olympia Security Alarm Program addresses the long-standing problem cities have had with the waste of resources associated with police response to false alarms. The Olympia program is a police-alarm industry partnership that continues to offer unverified alarm response by police, but also holds alarm owners truly accountable for using their systems responsibly. In the first nine months of operation, the program has reduced false alarms by 70% while recovering 87% of the operational costs and 100% of the administrative costs associated with the program. Other cities around the State and nation are using the program as a model. Ramifications of Police Response to False Security Alarms The issue of false alarms has been high on the list of concerns of many jurisdictions around the nation for a number of years. Efforts to address false alarms have ranged from plans that rework, but still maintain the historic relationship between the alarm industry and police to major out-of-the-box thinking that essentially eliminates police from the alarm response equation. In Olympia, we knew anecdotally that our police resources were being dramatically impacted by responding to false alarms. In order to quantify the problem, we examined four years worth of calls for service data, The numbers confirmed our suspicions. The Police Department was responding to nearly 3,000 false alarms per year, and less than one alarm call in a hundred was valid (see Figure A). Using the call data, we also determined the average amount of time needed to answer a false alarm call. Putting the two pieces together, we found that responding to false alarms required the equivalent time of two full-time officers each year. In light of ever-tightening budgets, we could not justify false alarm response as a core service we would provide to the community. Instead, it was important to find a different way to do police response to security alarms. Solutions

2 Early in 2003, we formed a working group to address the issue. The committee represented a number of target constituencies: residential alarm users, commercial alarm users, school and other government alarm users, citizens who didn't have alarms, alarm installers, alarm monitoring companies, emergency dispatchers and the police department. With citizen representatives, we tried to involve a broad spectrum of perspectives, ranging from those who viewed alarm response as a core police service to those who viewed it as a "luxury extra." The Olympia City Council developed a list of guidelines for the Committee that described the essential features they expected a new security alarm plan to contain. The program must pay for itself; the City must recover the cost of police response to false alarms; the program must be acceptable to the community and the alarm industry; the program must clarify the relationship between alarm users, the alarm industry and the Police Department. The committee developed two ordinances that were subsequently passed by the City Council. Highlights of the two ordinances include: All alarms and alarm businesses must be registered. Registration fees completely pay for program administration. Alarm businesses must install ANSI certified equipment, train alarm users, and notify them of the City of Olympia Security Alarm ordinance. Alarm users are charged a response fee for every false alarm with no freebies. The fee reflects the actual cost of providing police response. Alarm registration is suspended after three false alarms in a calendar year for at least 90 days. During a suspension, police will only respond to verified alarms. An appeal process is available to appeal either false alarm charges or registration suspensions. Failure to pay fees results in suspension of service until accounts are settled. (see appendix for full text of the ordinances) Implementation Implementing the new program required considerable time and planning. First, we hired a company to administer the tracking and billing of false alarms. The Police Department recognized that such tasks w ere not core to their m ission and so outsourced the w ork to alarm tracking and billing experts through a competitive contracting process. Alarm Tracking and Billing Services (ATB), of Colorado Springs, CO, was the successful bidder. To implement the program, we met with the alarm industry and ATB to discuss options for alarm registrations, false alarm billing procedures, and communications between the City, ATB and the industry. Together, we developed a system for exchanging data and information that was simple, yet effective.

3 Communication was the key to a successful implementation. To reach alarm companies, the City sent notices to all companies it knew might have customers within the City limits. ATB used its database of major alarm companies to send notices to corporate offices, alerting them to the upcoming changes to the Olympia program. We also did considerable outreach to the community, both before the program got under way and at later intervals as the program reached milestones. We held public meetings, aired radio spots, and took out space in the local newspaper. In addition, we provided alarm companies with a brochure to send to their customers. Finally, the new security alarm program requires officers to complete a False Alarm Report each time they respond to a false alarm. Officers volunteered to help design the form and to solicit feedback from their peers. The result is a form that m eets officers needs for brevity while providing the information the department may need to justify that an alarm was false.

4 Results The Olympia Security Alarm program has been fully operational for ten months. As the attached chart shows, the results have been phenomenal. False alarms have dropped by approximately 70%. (See Figure B) In addition, we have recouped 87% of our response costs for false alarms and 100% of our administrative costs. (See Figure C) Our officers report a noticeable change in their workload due to false alarms and enjoy responding to fewer of them. The community has responded positively to the Security Alarm program. With implementation, a few citizens expressed concern about paying a fee for false alarms and to register their alarms. However, a greater number of citizens praised the program. The local newspaper has run several articles about the reduction in false alarms in Olympia, including an editorial encouraging neighboring jurisdictions to adopt similar measures (see attachments). From June, 2005 to March, 2006, we billed 170 alarm users for false alarms. Only ten people have chosen to appeal the charge. The program has also succeeded in taking the Police Department out of the middle of the alarm company and customer relationship. Alarm companies have responsibility for fully training their customers and customers are motivated to learn. By recouping the cost for false alarm responses, the City is no longer subsidizing those in the community who have alarm systems and who do not use them responsibly. Unexpectedly, a few other positive results have been noted. The community has responded very favorably to our selection of Appeals Officers. Our Appeals Officers are members of the community who have volunteered to hear false alarm appeals. Citizens have commented that the use of volunteers has strengthened their perception about the fairness of the appeals process. Another benefit has been the cooperation between the alarm industry and their customers to reduce false alarms. Since the program was implemented, several alarm companies have worked with their customers to train them how to use their systems responsibly and have also upgraded equipment. The result has been significantly fewer repeat false alarms. Lastly, many other jurisdictions have contacted Olympia for information about the program in an effort to duplicate our success. Because the program is designed to be politically acceptable as well as financially feasible, it holds promise for implementation in other municipalities. Attachments: Charts A, B, and C Published Articles About the Olympia Security Alarm Program Olympia Municipal Code Chapters 5.55 and Alarm Registration Form with Disclosure Customer Brochure Olympia Police Department False Alarm Report

5 Avg False Alarm Calls/Month Alarm Calls Alarm Call Distribution Fig. A Valid False Year Average Monthly False Alarm Calls Fig. B Year/Half/Quarter (1H) 2005 (3Q) 2005 (4Q) 2006 (1Q)

6 Percent of Costs Recovered False Alarm Cost Recovery Rate Fig. C (3Q) 2005 (4Q) 2006 (1Q) Quarter Response Cost Admin Cost

7

8

9

10

11

12