Comments On Does Verified Response Impact Crime Rates / Answer To Strap Key System Replacement
August 20, 2013
*******************
comments on does Verified Response impact crime rates from August 13, 2103
*******************
Ken
Need to change the question. Are any more or less crooks caught compared to before? I would guess the numbers would go up with VR, of caught crooks per response, since they will only respond to verified alarm. Over all, are more crooks getting away now then before?
Jack
**********************
Hi Ken,
I believe it was me that asked the question regarding no response a little while ago. I respect lee Jones remarks and do agree with VR but my question was to municipalities that practice no response and there are a number of them out there. VR does make sense, no response is what those words imply and I wondered if the burglars have taken advantage or are even aware of the practice and if that practice effected the crime rate in any of those cities? As far as Lee Jones remarks I agree, VR is the future of this business whose time is now.
Thanks,
Bob
***********************
Ken
In regards to VERIFIED RESPONSE, what it IS and IS NOT.
Lee Jones is correct. VR is not to impact CRIME RATE but incidences of of FALSE DISPATCH.. (Usually alarms caused by USER ERROR, POOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, IMPROPER APPLICATION OF EQUIPMENT, etc.)
VR was developed by SIAC, (Security Industry Alarm Coalition) as one of a number of initiatives to combat the false alarm problem and HEAD OFF NON RESPONSE. Municipal and now State Police (Vermont for 1) are threatening NON RESPONSE unless there is a serious reduction in false dispatched. In some cases they will not respond unless you can assure them that there is CRIMINAL ACTIVITY on site. ( Video and audio response.).
By using VERIFIED RESPONSE, (In which we ask the monitoring center to call MORE THAN ONE NUMBER to verify that it was NOT user error) we have made a serious dent in the FALSE DISPATCH problem. VR Combined with the other SIAC initiatives (USING CP-01 Panels, PIR o1 Pirs) We are making progress. The areas in which we still have difficulty is in USER ERROR accounts for a large number of calls. (Using improper code, not understanding HOW to operate the system etc. User training is the responsibility of the Installing COMPANY. you can't give client the book and say go learn. As for improper application of equipment, this is the responsibility of the system designer. If the SALES PERSON does not understand the technology and the INSTALLER does not catch the error and installs the equipment where the manufacturer says not to then false alarms will result. The lack of technical education is one area that companies should explore when putting installers in the field.
To get the full story on Verified Response, False alarm RATE, False Alarm Factor and the full story of UL/ CP-01 take an NTS level I course or AIS course.
Joel Kent
FBN Windsor CT
*******************
Dear Ken:
I have a couple of thoughts on this thread:
1) A) Regarding Verified response. Here are my thoughts: In the ‘old days’ UL had stats on the ability for the apprehension of an intruder due to a silent alarm. Granted, these stats were for commercial premises. Now a days most of the systems include a local bell or siren to let the thief know he/she has been detected. SO, we are basically causing the burglars to NOT be apprehended but driving them to another area. SO, we are no longer in the apprehension end of the business, just scaring thieves away.
B) While I personally do not like VR as it gives the thief additionally time to do their dirty work, for the companies that do not train their customers it is a way to lower the false alarm rate. When you have a lower false alarm rate you then have more responding authorities available to respond. Just do the math. What is the highest generator of unfounded alarms – PEOPLE. SO…….with verified response eliminating most of the false alarms caused by people you get more officers available.
2) Regarding the question about an employee stealing from a customer? A) Get BONDING – if you can prove the employee did this, then the bonding company will be the ‘insurance company’…..BETTER YET….our Director of Internal Security retired from the Polygraph unit as Section Chief. DON’T HAVE THAT PROBLEM!!! Chat with your local law enforcement personnel, find out who does their polygraphs – even if in your area they can or cannot run charts on a private citizen (it really is voodoo and does not work – HA! THAT IS WHY FBI, NSA, CIA, Secret Service, and Local Law Enforcement use it!) the ‘polygrapher’ can ‘chat’ with the person during the interview process…..
Just my 2 cents, more or less….
Joseph (Joe) Pfefer, President
Jade Alarm CO.
KC, MO
*******************
another comment and question
******************
Hi Ken,
Just a comment and some questions on Enhanced Call Verification (ECV)/Verified Response. Our monitoring station has typically called the premise after a burglary alarm and then the police. This varies by alarm dealer but it has been a standard practice. After police they call responding parties (owners, neighbours, friends…) to give police access. We are currently contemplating changing our standard practice to what we call complete verification. That is to say the station would call the premise and responding parties before calling police. Although ECV will reduce false dispatches for our clients, it certainly opens the doors for responding parties to tell us not to dispatch police and to put themselves in harm’s way should there be an actual intruder in their premise. With the trend moving towards ECV, monitoring stations will have to be very careful to warn clients of the potential dangers of responding to alarms without the presence of authorities or they could find themselves in court. Let’s face it, they could find themselves in court anyway but if they have a recorded conversation where the client was warned about the dangers of responding themselves it’s likely to be less painful, I’m guessing.
We recently purchased your “Commercial All In One” contract. I have taken a quick look at the terms and don’t see anything very specific to clients putting themselves in harm’s way when responding to alarms. Maybe I missed it. I realize that this is covered generally with the limitation of liability and other clauses. The question becomes should we add something to specifically address this if we change our procedures?
And a quick follow up… If a business owner signs the agreement with or without specific verbiage about responding parties being at risk, how likely do you think a judge would be to uphold the terms of the agreement (ie:indeminity/waiver of subrogation rights”) should an employee act as a responding party and be injured or worse while responding to the alarm? Would a judge be likely to toss indemnity clause if the employee was not verbally warned by the station of the danger of responding without authorities?
Regards,
KB
*******************
Response
******************
The Commercial All in One and the Commercial All in One come with a Call List Directive - basically a call list. The contracts also expressly provide that the central station will dispatch if it believes an alarm condition exists. Every central station should have written procedures in place, and every one of its dealers needs to have a copy of those procedures so the dealer knows what can be represented to the subscriber both during the sales pitch and in the contract.
The contract however cannot anticipate every conversation a central station operator may have with a subscriber, and that's where the problem begins. Any conversation the operator engages in must be carefully controlled by CS policy. This is where the Monitronics case ran into trouble.- because of the conversation with the operator.
Though I suspect central stations handle the calls differently. Operators can confine themselves to a simple script: announcing that an alarm signal was received; asking if dispatch is necessary or is everything OK; advising that dispatch will be or won't be made; goodbye. A chatty operator is more likely to cross a line and risk exposure. Before Monitronics case I would have felt more comfortable that the protective provisions of the contract would protect the alarm co and central station even from a chatty operator, but the Monitorics Court found a way around the contract protection because of the operator conversation.
I am not going to include something so obvious that anyone with common sense would be offended, and I probably can't come up with every scenario - sort of like the saying fact is stranger than fiction and I can't make this stuff up. Does an alarm contract really need to warn subscribers that they should not confront an intruder, or try and put out a fire, or administer medical care before calling for help? How about the case I am handling where the subscriber jumped out a second story window when the alarm sounded [no intruder of course - phone line went out] - should the contract warn subscribers that they can't fly?
In all seriousness, central stations need to fine tune their procedures and start sharing them with the dealers.
******************
answer to Strap Key System replacement
******************
Ken
In reference to the question about strap key system replacement.
The FDNY came out with a memorandum some time ago about a replacement system for a a strap key system which is no longer required by code. I will be glad to send Errol a copy .
More importantly l encourage him and others with technical questions to participate in the process by joining their local alarm assocation in this case the NYFAA. They will be able to get the latest
Information, share their views and help to financially support the associations mission.
Regards,
Bob Williams
****************
Ken
With regard to replacing a system, there are several factors which make it impossible to give a definitive answer. The best I can do is identify all the factors that must be taken into consideration, and the salesperson must do their homework first.
First he must contact the AHJ and determine the applicable codes in force. ( Life Safety 101 or iInternational Building code... NFPA 72 or IFC...) Once you know how the AHJ will define the property you can than go about design. Some of the areas to be careful of are AUDIBILITY of notification devices, (75db at the pillow) with doors closed and or air conditioners on.
Wire paths and cable must comply with the current code. (Usually when replacing a complete system, the new system must comply with all current codes.) Is there an access control system on site? That must comply with the door release requirements etc.
Best piece of advice is to dust off the books, read up and design the system. Submit the application well in advance of the old system dying. Prepare to explain your methodology and related code references. When in doubt, follow the more stringent requirements. No surprises.
Joel Kent
NTS Education
***************
Ken,
You had a technical portion on your posts for a short while. I imagine there wasn’t enough interest to keep it going. This post would have been good for it. Mr. Williams is looking for an access control system programmed for guard tour function, or he can also use one of the many electronic guard tour systems on the market, dedicated for this purpose. Mr. Williams also mentioned “classification” which raises my antenna to a possible fire watch and patrol system. Whoever he speaks with should be astute enough to ask all of the appropriate questions before recommending any specific solution.
Mitch Cohen
Bric Security
**************************