Understanding ECV and VR / ECV Precaution / Why Law Enforcement Leaders From Around the Country Support Police Response /
Guard Response As Form of Verification
August 29, 2013
**********************
understanding ECV and VR
************************
Ken
There seems to be some confusion between these acronyms and it’s important for everyone to know the difference between ECV and VR.
ECV or Enhanced Call Verification is a method by which the CS (Central Station) makes two or more calls to either the premises or RP’s (Responsible Parties) to try and determine if there is a known reason why the alarm is going off. This process typically reduces calls for service up to 60% more than just a single call the premises.
VR or Verified Response is a method where the CS has to verify either through Audio, Video or eye witness that a “crime” is being committed. This is very different from ECV.
Everyone should also be aware that neither of these methods are intended for the RP (Responsible Party) to be the responding party. Subscribers should not typically be responding to these alarms for very good reasons. They may come up against the burglars or they may come up against law enforcement who doesn’t know the difference between the owner and the burglar, either way you have a potentially bad combination of armed and unarmed people in the same space.
In addition to using and not turning off CP01 (ANSI/SIA Control Panel Specification 01) features alarm dealers should be instructing central stations to process alarms with Cancel/Abort/Openings differently than alarms without them.
Our industry has done a good job of reducing calls for service as most central stations scrub and filter at least 75% of all intrusion alarms today but we still have a ways to go and we need everyone’s help and cooperation in the effort.
Thanks for what you do…
Morgan Hertel | VP of Operations
Rapid Response Monitoring
******************
ECV precaution
*******************
Ken,
Coming from a law enforcement background, please realize almost 100% of property crime is driven by drugs, and almost all offenders are high at the time of the crime. So, sirens and alarms in general don’t deter them in their quest to support their drug addiction. “Deterrence doesn’t deter the determined”. One other key point, municipalities realize property crime is covered by insurance, and that is why police resources are tasked with crimes against people, as opposed to crimes against property. Murder is solved in some cities at a nearly 80% rate, where property crime is resolved around 10% of the time.
Because a growing number of alarm locations don’t have land lines, if Centrals Stations using ECV protocols call subscribers cell phones, more and more subscribers will be doing their own response, and potentially encountering drug addicted intruders. This could be really ugly. And, because most crime is committed by repeat offenders, they know police response to burglar alarms is slow at best, and non-existent in some cities. The challenge of the alarm industry is managing the subscriber’s expectation, in that we are in the detection business, not the prevention business.
Dave
*************************
Why Law Enforcement Leaders From Around the Country Support Police Response
*************************
Ken
Please let us know if we can provide you with additional information on this issue.
SIAC can also be the source of a great deal of other information on issues facing the alarm
industry.
David Margulies
SIAC
****
Excerpts from article by Stan Martin of SIAC
*****
Across the country, police agencies are adopting alarm policies based on research and best practices that dramatically reduce false alarms while maintaining response by highly trained police officers. In many cases, these policies pay for the cost of police response. Fewer than 18 of the nation’s approximately 18,000 public safety agencies (or .001%) have adopted the extreme approach of verified response. We are not aware of any national public safety organizations supporting this approach.
Studies from Rutgers University and UNC Charlotte Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology show that alarm systems are a highly effective deterrent. The study delivers empirical data on the value of alarms to the community, reporting that crime is reduced and not moved to another area and, after removing other factors, that the reduction in burglaries extended geographically far beyond the protected premises. The study is further validated by another study conducted by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where they interviewed prison inmates that are serving time for burglary. According to the study 83 percent of burglars said they would try to determine whether there was an alarm present before attempting a burglary and 60 percent said they would seek an alternate target if there is an alarm on site.
Another study showed that alarm owners often do bear the full cost of police response. Montgomery County, Maryland not only saved $6 million through use of best practices in alarm management, but also generated $500,000 in revenue above the cost of the program.
A Model Alarm Ordinance requires registration of alarm systems with local police, a fine structure, new equipment standards, suspension of response to chronic abusers and Enhanced Call Verification (ECV). ECV (two-call verification) requires that alarm monitoring stations attempt to confirm an alarm by calling the site and the alarm user to determine whether the signal is valid before requesting dispatch. Statistics from public safety enforcing model ordinances report that 85 percent of all alarm users have NO responses in any given year and another 8-9 percent have only one. When the Model Ordinance is adopted and enforced with no free responses it has delivered as high as a 90 percent reduction in dispatches. While verified response may have seemed like the only solution when it was first proposed more than two decades ago, modern technology, research and new best practices have made it a non-starter for public safety agencies and citizens when they are offered a better alternative.
**************************
guard response as form of verification
********************
Ken
Ken
Many companies, in Tucson, have gone to guard response to burglar alarm response. This has provided a private sector response, guaranteed response and a much faster response to burglar alarms. Once the guard has verified a criminal, or suspicious activity, then the guard reports it to the Police, resulting in a faster Police response.
Veterans Security Guards respond for about $30 per response, much less than paying permit fees and false alarm fines. Instead of Government immunity, they provide a 5 Million Dollar insurance policy. Hands down, private response to burglar alarms beats Government using Police as security guards. This is proven in how many clients are switching to companies who provide private guard response.
arizonaalarmdealers
*********************
Response
*********************
There is a lot to be said for responding guard service. Though I don't know how good an idea it is for guards to get involved with site searches or attempted apprehension of criminals, on site verification of an emeregency situation should result in less crime and police response. Obviously police response only after guard confirmation, or other ECV or other confirmation is going to delay that response, at least theorectically. Reality is different, since too many police are putting alarm signals at the bottom of priority response, often leading to no response. Private guards may be gaining popularity and may soon be a necessity. Guard Response is one of the covered services in the Standard All in One contracts - residential and commercial forms.
********************