LACP.org
.........
Commission Investigation Division
Analysis of Burglar Alarm Task Force
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Analysis of Recommendations
from the Burglar Alarm Task Force

May 22, 2003

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSE
Police Response/Dispatch
1. Request Police Commission to adopt a dispatch policy permitting up to three false alarm activations on a non-verified basis per 12-month period. Oppose. Under this proposal, the LAPD will continue to respond to nearly 60%, or approximately 61,000 alarm calls, for which there is no need for police service. Creates a “two-tiered” dispatch system for alarm calls, those who have 3 or fewer prior false alarm incidents, and those who have more than 3. Burden for determining dispatch protocol rests with LAPD, and is dependent on current, reliable data in the automated system currently used to track false alarms, the False Alarm System (FAS). (See additional FAS concerns in Recommendation No. 2). May present a liability issue for the City if an LAPD dispatcher fails to dispatch a patrol unit because of inaccurate information in the database.
2. Request Police Commission and Information Technology Agency (ITA) to design, acquire and implement a false alarm computer tracking system that may be integrated with the Department’s dispatch system. Conditionally Support. The FAS is a computer-based system which performs the monthly billing of excessive false alarm occurrences, generates delinquency notices, and tracks the subsequent processing of delinquent accounts. FAS also has online capabilities, which display the false alarm history, billing detail and payment history. FAS provides for the data entry of bill adjustments and changes to the permit status. FAS was not designed to track information on non-permitted alarm locations.

When an alarm company fails to provide the valid alarm permit number to the dispatcher (which occurs in two thirds of all alarm calls), FAS creates a “suspense” file because the system is unable to connect the false alarm activation to an existing permit account. This file must be reconciled manually by an Alarms Section analyst. A false alarm may also be inadvertently attributed to a specific account or permit number that may be valid or invalid. Consequently, the efficacy of any integration between FAS and the Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch System to determine the appropriate alarm dispatching protocol under the Task Force proposal, is impacted by the inherent unreliability of FAS data.

Another important consideration is the number of false alarms for which a “waiver” of the false alarm has been requested of the Commission. In 2002 alone, the Alarms Section processed 1,454 waiver investigations. A waiver request can take several months to process, during which time the subscriber’s account continues to reflect the false alarm incident. Consequently, staff supports this recommendation for the purpose of facilitating billing for false alarm fees, but not for determining whether an alarm incident does or does not support a Department response.
3. Request Greater Los Angeles Security Alarm Association (GLASSA), as well as other monitoring companies operating in the City, to advise their membership to not request dispatch of LAPD resources for alarm calls for the first 7 days from the time the alarm installation is completed. Support. The alarm industry indicated they would bill the alarm user for the entire month of monitoring service even though the user may not request dispatch for the first week. Therefore, this recommendation will place no financial burden on the monitoring companies. This is a practice that all alarm companies operating in Los Angeles should adopt immediately, although the City has no power to enforce this request.
4. Request the alarm companies to provide their State “Alarm Company Operator” (ACO) permit numbers when they request LAPD dispatch, and that ITA be directed to develop system changes to track ACO data. Limited support. Ostensibly, the Task Force supported inclusion of the ACO number to track and analyze the false alarm rates of individual companies. The value of such data is limited, as the City cannot regulate or sanction alarm companies based on their comparative false alarm rates. The ACO numbers have little practical use in the intake of alarm calls, where the truly essential information is related to the legal name, and other identifying data pertaining to the responsible party for billing purposes.
Verification Protocols
5. Endorse the Police Commission’s proposed policy requiring visual or video verification of any alarm activation prior to LAPD dispatch beginning with the fourth false alarm in a 12-month period, as well as providing for an adequate appeals process. Oppose. While the Task Force found that “27% of the total false alarm calls involved addresses that experience 4 to 9 calls each and 16% of the total calls were in the 10 or more calls category” it also determined that the majority (57%) of addresses experienced 1 to 3 false alarms. The best case scenario under the Task Force proposal is a 43% reduction in alarm calls for service. This is in contrast to the more than 80% reduction anticipated under the Commission’s more stringent Verified Response Alarm policy.
6. Strongly recommend that the Police Commission evaluate additional modes of verification, including enhanced telephonic, audio, cross-zoning, and impact-activated stored audio devices. Item for Future Consideration. The Commission has always supported the development of new, innovative technology that has strong potential to reduce the incidence of false alarms. While the Commission has already taken a position on the methods recommended by the Task Force, staff acknowledges that future improvements to existing technology should allow for reconsideration of approved verification modes. Consequently, Commission Investigation Division will work with the alarm industry to evaluate and provide recommendations on emerging technology that might qualify as an acceptable verification method.

The Task Force suggested several additional modes of verification. Enhanced telephonic verification relies solely on alarm monitoring centers for compliance, as the Department has no ability to confirm completion of a second or third attempt to reach an authorized party. Audio technology is the establishment of voice communication with an authorized person at the premise. The level of technology varies widely from “listen in” devices to two-way audio monitoring. Sound quality is impacted by equipment quality and background noise. Monitoring center operators are often unable to effectively interpret the limited audio transmission information. Some companies have enhanced audio technology (impact-activated stored audio devices) that holds promise as an acceptable form of verification. However, this technology currently is only available through authorized “Sonitrol” dealers and is designed primarily for commercial locations. Cross-zoning is the configuration of alarm equipment to require the activation of multiple zones (two or more motion sensors at an alarm site), or activation of a perimeter sensor and an interior motion sensor. Lack of compatibility with installed equipment can render this form of verification unreliable. It does not reduce user error, such as the homeowner or business owner entering the location and activating multiple zones. Cross-zoning that is supported by audio and/or video devices (such as the policy of the City of Toronto) may be an acceptable method of verification.
False Alarm Fees
7. Request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend the LAMC to eliminate “free” false alarms. Support. Staff is cognizant that elimination of all free false alarms will likely increase the volume of waiver requests from alarm users who see no downside to disputing each and every false alarm billing. With a current staffing level of 6 analysts and more than 17,500 telephonic inquiries and 1,400 waiver requests in 2002, staff is ill equipped to process the increased waiver burden. With a potential waiver workload of 60,000 disputed billings, the Alarms Section, at a minimum, would need to triple its current staffing level.
8. Approve the concept of an appropriate escalating fee schedule based on the number of false alarms and request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for approval by the City Council and Mayor. Limited Support. As proposed by the Task Force, an escalating fee would not address full cost recovery until the third false alarm. Currently, the City charges a $95 fee for every billable false alarm, an amount that addresses patrol costs in responding to false alarms, but does not fully recover administrative costs associated with billing and collection of false alarm fees. An escalating fee does assess increased fees for “chronic” offenders, but has limited effectiveness in reducing false alarms.
9. Request the Police Commission, in coordination with the Office of Finance and the City Attorney, to refer uncollectable false alarm billings that are older than 120 days to the collection agencies under contract with the City. Support. The Task Force Report indicated that Commission staff collects about 50% of false alarm charges owed to the City and attributed the low rate of collection to “a lack of complete and essential information required to identify the responsible party.” They speculated that a “collection agency may be better equipped to handle this task and may improve collection rates.” However, the core problem is identifying a responsible person to whom the billing should be directed. The stark reality is that Alarms Section personnel must meet specific requirements before a delinquent account is referred to a collection agency. This requires a comprehensive investigation for each individual billing to determine the identity of the person responsible for the false alarm charge. The collection agency merely acts on the information provided to it by Commission staff and facilitates payment of the charges after staff has identified the responsible party. This may improve collection rates but will require additional staffing.
10. Request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend the LAMC to establish penalties and interest charges for delinquent permits and false alarm fees. Support.
11. Request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to provide for an amnesty program for penalties and interest on both delinquent permits and false alarm fees, and all false alarm fees incurred prior to the previous 12 months for those who come forward to comply with the permit requirements. Request Police Commission to conduct public education on the amnesty program. Support. The alarm industry estimates there are approximately 300,000 alarm systems in operation Citywide. With only 115,000 alarm permits on file, the Department has a material interest in bringing the 60% of non-permitted systems into compliance with the City’s Alarm Ordinance. An amnesty program would likely promote voluntary compliance, especially among those users who have incurred multiple false alarm charges and have failed to pay their fees. However, the City may suffer significant negative feedback from alarm users (permitted and non-permitted alike) who have already paid false alarm fees and permit fees for incidents occurring prior to the amnesty period. This is especially true for those alarm subscribers who were referred to the Misdemeanor Program and paid their false alarm and permit fees under threat of criminal prosecution. Since 1999, there are uncollected false alarm charges totaling $7,102,561 (not including 2002 charges), which the City will fail to collect under this amnesty program. As the Alarm Ordinance does not currently allow for penalties and interest it is impossible to predict both the amount of potential revenue from penalties/interest charges, and the potential amount that will be lost under an amnesty program.
12. Request the City to sponsor/support legislation to exempt alarm companies’ customer information lists from the California Public Records Act. Support. Even with such legislation, voluntary compliance on the part of alarm companies would be required.
Burglary Alarm Permits
13. Request the Police Commission to send an alarm permit application when billing an address and/or individual for a false alarm. Support. Within 30 days of a false alarm incident, an original bill created by the Office of Finance through its vendor, Standard Register, is mailed to the alarm user. If, after 60 days the fees have not been paid, a delinquent notice is sent via the same process. As this is not a Commission responsibility, any inclusion of an alarm permit application with a billing statement must be approved and coordinated through the Office of Finance.
14. Request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend the LAMC to require that an approved alarm permit must be on file with the City prior to the installation of any new burglary alarm system. For any existing alarm systems, require an approved alarm permit prior to the connection of the system to an alarm monitoring company. Support.
15. Instruct the Office of Finance and the LAPD to develop the capability of on-line registration and payment processing for burglary alarm permits. Support. The Commission is committed to ensuring that alarm users fully comply with the City’s Alarm Ordinance. Staff has already prepared, in draft form, correspondence to be included in every DWP billing advising residential and commercial alarm users of the alarm permit requirement. Due to the critical need to achieve full compliance with the Alarm Ordinance in order to facilitate billing on false alarm incidents, the Ordinance will require revision to allow for issuance or renewal of alarm permits irrespective of any service charges due. Currently, the Alarm Ordinance does not allow a permit to be issued or renewed if there are any false alarm fees owed to the City.
16. Form a City-staff working group to determine the appropriate permit and false alarm fee structure to ensure cost recovery to implement the recommendations contained in the Task Force Report. Conditionally Support. The Department is currently reviewing all police permit fees, including the alarm permit fee. Staff recommends postponing the formation of a working group until Fiscal Operations Division (FOD) has completed its study. Any recommendation by the Department and the Police Commission to raise alarm permit fees is subject to several levels of review including the CAO, CLA, various Council committees and the full City Council.
17. Request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the LAMC to impose a $40 fee for an initial burglary alarm permit and $20 to renew the permit on an annual basis. Ordinance will also provide that each alarm company will insert a notice in its billing statements at least once each year to remind its customers of the date on which the alarm permit fee renewal is due. Contingent on Recommendation No. 16. The $31 alarm permit fee has been in effect since 1987. The fee is designed to cover the administrative costs associated with the processing and issuance of alarm permits. Salary costs have likely increased significantly since the permit fee was last evaluated. Based on the findings of the pending FOD study, a revised permit fee may be justified.
18. Request the Office of Finance, with the assistance of the LAPD, to review the assignment of alarm permit numbers to determine the feasibility of including the year the permit is active, whether the location is residential or commercial, and the ACO number associated with a particular permit. This will improve tracking and analysis of data. Support.
19. Request the Office of Finance, with the assistance of the LAPD, to send delinquent unrenewed permits to the appropriate alarm company operators so that they may determine whether an alarm is still active at that location or whether there are new owners. Alarm company owners are requested to cooperate by responding to these inquiries. Oppose. Beginning in 1998, Commission staff implemented a Chronic Alarm Notification program in which monthly correspondence was sent to ADT and Protection One, the two largest security companies operating in the City. Between them, these two companies account for approximately 50% of all alarm dispatches. The letters indicated locations (both permitted and non-permitted) which incurred 4 or more false alarm activations in a month. Of the two companies, only ADT responded regularly to the Commission’s inquiries by faxing back the letters with notations of “fixed” or “out of service” next to each customer’s name. In October 2002, the program was evaluated to determine its effectiveness in reducing chronic false alarms. Based on the information that ADT provided on their customers with “fixed” alarm systems, 55% continued to experience false alarms. This program was the full time responsibility of one Alarms Section analyst. Based on the evaluation, the program was deemed ineffective, and was discontinued in December 2002.
20. Request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend the LAMC to require alarm companies to collect the initial permit fee prior to installation of any new alarm system. Oppose. This strategy has been attempted in the city and county of San Francisco. The San Francisco ordinance provides for collection of alarm permit fees and renewals by alarm installation and monitoring companies. During the Task Force proceedings, GLASSA supported a similar proposal that would require alarm companies to collect the initial alarm permit fee on new installations in the City of Los Angeles. However, on April 17, 2003, the California Alarm Association, represented by the same legal counsel retained by GLASSA, filed suit against the city and county of San Francisco seeking to invalidate this very alarm ordinance.
Public Education
21. Endorse the planned public education information campaign as outlined by the Police Commission and request the Commission, with the assistance of ITA, to expand the effort to include the use of the City’s web site and Channel 35. Includes electronic distribution to the network of Neighborhood Councils and Community Police Advisory Boards. Support.
22. Request the LAPD to develop a pilot program which focuses on locations with excessive numbers of false alarms with the goal of determining the causes of the false alarms and assisting those locations in developing appropriate measures to mitigate the problem. Oppose. This is precisely the type of activity in which the alarm companies should be engaging rather than having police officers removed from patrol to evaluate alarm problems. It is the alarm companies’ duty to properly install and service their equipment.
Fire Department
23. Request the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) and the City Attorney to draft policies or regulations that require monitored burglary alarm systems with alarm devices and/or medical alert devices be regulated to minimize false alarm activations and response of the incorrect type of emergency resource. This may require a new fire permit process or affidavit process, which ensures that the fire alarm devices, medical alert devices and burglary alarm devices are on separate alarm zones. Not an LAPD issue.
24. Require that alarm monitoring companies be able to easily determine if the device type is for fire, medical, or burglary before requesting the LAFD. Require that all residents with burglary alarm systems with fire alarm devices and/or medical devices be provided with simple directions for its use on a periodic basis. Support. This is properly the subject of industry self-regulation.
25. Request the LAFD and the City Attorney to draft policies and/or regulations that prevent Fire Department resources from being dispatched to burglary alarms. Not an LAPD issue.
26. Request the LAFD, LAPD and the City Attorney to draft policies and/or regulations that provides for a police response to “dual” alarm activations to help ensure firefighter safety. Include provisions that will reduce potential abuses or intentional dual alarm activations. Support. Due to the infrequent nature of such occurrences and concerns for firefighter safety, LAPD should continue responding to dual alarm activations.
Other
27. Request the Police Commission to prepare periodic reports for the City Council, Neighborhood Councils and Community Police Advisory Boards (CPAB) regarding the impact of alarm policy changes recommended by the Task Force. At a minimum, the report should be prepared on a semi-annual basis and include statistics regarding calls for service and false alarms, administration of the permit process, collection of fees, and dispatch policy implementation. Support. The Board of Police Commissioners directed staff to prepare quarterly reports on the effects of the Verified Response Alarm policy. As with all public documents, these reports are available to the City Council, Neighborhood Councils and CPAB’s.
28. Request the City to investigate the feasibility of implementing a dedicated telephone line for the cancellation of burglary alarm dispatches. Further, that the City address all staffing and funding issues relative to this proposal. Support. Staff is supportive of any effort to streamline the intake/processing of alarm calls into Communications Division. Additionally, it is imperative that sufficient funding for increased personnel and equipment be approved.
29. Recommend that alarm companies, as recommended by GLASSA, perform enhanced telephone verification. Support. The Alarms Section has always supported a more proactive role by the alarm industry in reducing false alarms.
30. Recommend that no person should request service from police dispatch for an address that has more than 3 false alarms in a 12-month period without visual, video or other verification, as defined by the Police Commission. Oppose. Reasons articulated previously.
31. Recommend that multiple false alarm activations at the same address within a 24-hour period shall be subject to the false alarm fee schedule, but shall count as a single incident with regard to the proposed dispatch policy, provided that the multiple false alarms were due to the same cause. Oppose. Multiple activations in the same day usually occur as a result of equipment failures, but still result in the dispatch of LAPD to each separate incident. The Commission should have the ability to charge for each activation that results in a police response. The alarm user, through their respective alarm company must resolve billing disputes arising from multiple activations due to equipment-related issues.