Communications Services · Home · Know when to call 9-1-1 · False Alarm and Cost Recovery · Combined Learning Network · Selection Process - Communications Operator

Introduction | History | Current | Verification | Methods of Verification | Cost Recovery Initiative | Alarm Response Policy | Suspension Policy | Appeal Process | Conclusion | Contact

Introduction

Police response to "burglar" alarms dates back decades in many major communities, to the days when such alarms rang directly into the local station or precinct. Today the monitored alarm industry in North America is a huge multi-million dollar sector employing thousands of people across the continent.

We have seen the growth of alarmed locations across the country spurred on by elevated "crime fear" indexes, and by the perception of elevated property crime levels. The growth in this industry has had a direct impact upon the demand for police services in our communities.

The monitored alarm industry is a private sector anomaly. The alarm customer is afforded the right, in most communities, to free access to police services. However, they chose to employ a third party, the alarm monitoring company, to monitor their electronic alarm, and then to activate the services of the police, when required. It is an unfortunate historic fact that this activation is almost always improper, with 95% of the alarms responded to being false. For providing this service, the alarm company obtains a fee, and notifies the public policing agency who then attend the site of the alarm.

In this time of fiscal restraint, many police agencies across North America have looked at this scenario, and posed several questions:

 
• Alarm calls make up between 5-10% of the calls for service in many major communities. However, the vast majority of these calls are false, occupying valuable police resource time;
• Despite the low accuracy of the industry performance, the alarm industry continues to reap huge financial rewards;
• The demand on public police resources is paid for by the general public, yet alarm system owners obtain preferential use of those resources.

History

In 1977 the Toronto Police alarm response accounted for 10& of the requests for police service. The alarms attended were false 98% of the time. In that year the Toronto Police Service initiated a suspension program to try to reduce the number of false alarms being attended.

In 1988 the Toronto Police Service attended 130,000 calls for service for alarm signals. This accounted for 13% of the total demand for request for service. Of the 130,000 calls attended 98% were false alarms.

On January 1, 1990, the Toronto Police initiated their current suspension program. The decline was dramatic. Attended alarm calls dropped to 70,000. The percentage of false alarms dropped slightly to 95%.

In 1991 there was a further decline to 60,000 alarm calls. Since that time there has been a gradual increase in the number of calls attended. The alarm industry has been growing at about 10% per year since the 1980's.

In 1995 72,518 alarm calls were responded to, of which 95.2% were false alarms. The police arrested 106 persons related to alarm calls in 1995. It was apparent that there was no improvement within the industry to reduce the number of false alarms.

In the first quarter of 1996 there was a significant increase in alarm calls compared to the same period in 1995. In the first quarter of 1995 Toronto Police Service responded to 16,662 alarm calls. In the first quarter of 1996 Toronto Police Service responded to 18,488 alarm calls, an increase of more than 10%, the percentage of false remaining constant at about 95%.

The demand on Toronto Police Service responding to false alarms was growing while police resources and budgets were being stretched to the limit. The alarm industry was not able to control the number of false alarms. The Service started to look at other ways of reducing the demand and costs to the Police Service responding to alarm calls.

Current

It is the current policy of the Toronto Police Service to respond to requests from alarm monitoring stations to investigate alarmed premises where an alarm signal has been activated, under the following conditions:

 
• The monitoring station is not suspended from requests for police response to premises monitored by them;
• The premises is not suspended from police response to an alarm signal;
• The monitoring station has followed the approved verification process.

Verification

Verification of an electronic alarm has been a long standing, and sometimes contentious issue between the alarm industry and police services. Since an electronic alarm is merely a signal from a device within a premise advising that something has occurred to cause it to generate a signal. Since the cause of an alarm activation can range from a valid cause through to technical problems. As a result, the police have been pressuring the industry to develop a comprehensive verification system that will ensure the validity of the alarm prior to the activation of police. If the electronic signal is viewed as an indicator that something may be wrong at the premise, the next step of the alarm company is to confirm that there is a condition that requires the attendance of the police.

Herein lies a significant argument within the history of the alarms industry, that is: Who is responsible for finding out what set off the alarm?

It is a historical fact that this responsibility has fallen to the police, who validate this electronic signal by sending a police officer to the premises to see if everything is in order. However, with the rapid advancement of technology in the electronics sector, electronic verification methods such as audio and video systems are now available to provide information to the monitoring station.

However, despite the continued dropping prices on such products, the question is still one of cost. Is it not still cheaper for the customer, and the alarm company, to ask for the dispatch of a police officer, rather than install an appropriate verification system?

However, with the increase cost and reduced availability of police resources, and the institution of "cost recovery" programs, alarm verification systems have now become more "cost effective" and will likely continue to grow in popularity.

In Toronto, the alarm industry, and other stake holders, have worked with the police service to reduce the number of false dispatch requests being submitted. A verification process was developed in co-operation with the Canadian Alarm and Security Association (CANASA), The Underwriters Laboratory of Canada (ULC) and the Insurance Advisory Organization (IAO).

The policy of the Toronto Police Service requires that all alarm signals, including Hold-up and Panic, be verified before a request to dispatch is forwarded to us from the monitoring station. A verified call will be dispatched to the first available unit at a very high priority level. A non-verified request will be processed at a much lower level which could result in a minimum delay of thirty (30) minutes before a dispatch is made.

To ensure the safety of officers attending Hold-up and Panic alarms as well as the people at the alarmed premises, the Toronto Police Service will not accept a request to cancel any Hold-up or Panic alarm.

Acceptable Methods Of Verification

Audio Communication

 
• The establishment of voice communication with an authorized person at the premises who may indicate that no emergency exists.

 
• The utilization of a feature in the control panel that permits the system user to send a unique signal to the station that will cancel an alarm signal after it has been sent.

 
• The installation of a video system that provides the monitoring station with the ability to confirm criminal activity when a signal is received.

Cost Recovery Initiative

The Toronto Police Service's "Cost Recovery" Program was commenced to address the issues of reduced fiscal and human resource availability, and continued increase in demands for response to monitored alarms. Effective February 1, 2010, the program allows the Service to charge a fee of $130.00 for alarm calls accepted by a police unit that are determined to be a false alarm. The User Fee Program commenced on September 26, 1996. The fees are invoiced monthly to the central monitoring station that had requested police response to the alarm call.

The program had an immediate and profound impact upon the calls for service. The number of alarm calls responded to has decreased dramatically upon the commencement of this program (a reduction of approximately 50% over the same period in 1995). The demand on Police resources for response to False Alarms has remained static since 1996 and presently represents 3% of the total number of calls for service. This compares to rates as high as 10% in other Police juristictions in Canada. 

The program also had an impact upon the number of alarm telephone calls that were received at the Communications Centre, seeing a reduction of 50%  which was reflected in the total number of telephone calls that the police service received (a reduction of approximately 3%).

The Chief of Police of the Service or his designate may discontinue responses to calls from an alarm business when payment of all or part of any fees and interest owing under this By-law is outstanding for a minimum of four (4) months from the date the invoice was issued.

When the User Fee Program was instituted, the requests for police response dropped 50% and continues to fall. Today in we are responding to 65% less alarm calls than we were in the same period of 1995.

Alarm Response Policy

The Toronto Police Service will respond to an intrusion alarm signal* provided the following is understood and agreed to.

 
• The number which identifies the Alarm Company for which the call is being placed is immediately given to our call takers;
• The number which identifies the Premises is provided as soon as the alarm company number has been entered into our computers;
• Efforts to verify that the alarm signal is a valid alarm have been completed by the central monitoring station. (This includes technological forms of verification as well as personal contacts being made to the premises and to all persons in authority associated with that premises).

A dedicated telephone number, strictly for the use of monitoring stations, has been established at the Toronto Police Communications Centre. This line is for calling in an intrusion alarm or for calling back with additional information concerning a previously given call.

When a call is taken by our police operators a confidential Event Number will be given to your operators for the exclusive use of the monitoring station when calling back with additional information.

Suspension Policy

When a premises has had two (2) false alarms, Toronto Police will fax a caution notice to the monitoring station. It is then the responsibility of the appropriate alarm company to contact the customer and advise them of the false alarm. The alarm company is responsible for working with the customer to determine the cause of the false alarm, and what steps can be taken to prevent a re-occurrence. This may include re-training in the operation of their alarm system or upgrading or replacing their hardware.

If the police service responds to four (4) false alarms within a twelve (12) month period, commencing on the date of the first false alarm, the police response service to the alarm system at that premises will be suspended for 365 days.

When a premises enters the suspension mode a notice will be mailed to the premises and an advisory notice will immediately be faxed to the monitoring station advising them which premises will be going under suspension and the effective date. It is the responsibility of the alarm company to notify their customer to forewarn them of the impending suspension notice and establish alternate response arrangements for them.

Appeal Process

The Toronto Police will, under certain circumstances, review an appeal against the suspension. This appeal process includes examination of the circumstances of the alarm activation, the subsequent steps taken by the customer, the alarm company and the monitoring station to prevent a repetition of the activation.

If the premise is reinstated before the completion of the 365 day suspension period as a result of an appeal, further appeals will not be accepted if the premises once again goes under suspension within the twelve (12) month period commencing on the date of the appeal reinstatement.

Because of the large number of premises having an alarm device and the high number of alarm companies with a customer base in Toronto, the police service will only administrate issues concerning alarmed premises through the respective central monitoring station.

An alarm is classified as being false when police are dispatched to one where there exists no emergency or any evidence of criminal activity that the alarm system was installed to detect. It is strongly recommended that the alarm holder be encouraged to use 9-1-1 rather than using the alarm system when something suspicious is occurring. This provides them with direct access to the police who in turn can assist them in an appropriate manner as dictated by the circumstances. It could also prevent a false alarm call being dispatched.

* For the purpose of this policy, an intrusion alarm includes any alarm device used to detect criminal activity at a premises and includes any hold-up and panic alarms as well as interior and exterior detection equipment.

Conclusion

Police involvement with the alarms industry has been a long and sometimes bumpy road. However, the relationship has never been more dynamic than of late, with greater fiscal restraint on public police services, lower profit margins for private industry, and a technological boom that continues to accelerate. These factors continue to have a profound impact upon both the public and private sectors.

There can however be no doubt that the two industries have a dependent and symbiotic relationship, and the alarm industry will continue to be a significant stakeholder in the public policing sector. However, as we see improvements in verification methods, and the advent of private response agencies, the public police community relationship with the alarms industry will continue to change and evolve.

Police Services must be aware of the changes, have the vision to look forward to see where the future will lie with this industry, for they cannot afford to stand on the sideline and let the alarm response issue pass them by. We are all stake holders and must take our seat behind the "steering wheel" of this issue.

Contact

Please direct any questions regarding the Toronto Police Alarm Cost Recovery Program to Sergeant Carolyn Sweenie #2506 at Toronto Police Service - Communications Services, Telephone: 416-808-8860, Fax: 416-808-8862, or via e-mail at carolyn.sweenie@torontopolice.on.ca.