What's "ECV" ?
Ken,
'ECV' is an acronym thought up by the same folks who would have changed the
name of the 'National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association' to the
'Electronic Life Safety & Systems Association'.
'ECV' means 'Enhanced Call Verification', and I bet most intelligent
persons would think this means using a reliable landline instead of a
scratchy cell phone connection to make the call.
'Enhanced' is a marketing word that sounds good, but means nothing. Kinda
like: New, Now, How, Free or Amazing (other words long favored in marketing
blitzes).
What they meant to say, and should have said, was 'Two Step Verification'
(or TSV), which more accurately describes the process, following receipt of
a burglary alarm signal, of first calling the premises, then Call List
person(s), prior to police notification.
But 'Enhanced' sounds, so, like, you know, more better marketing.
So, let's all agree to call it 'Two Step Verification', which, in fact, it
is.
Nick Lawrence
Red Alarm
Comments on the above email article.....
It is funny that Nick knows what we meant to say!
To bad that Nick was not there when the many volunteers came together and
developed ECV along with many of the other tools that are used everyday in
the industry’s efforts to maintain police response to the systems that we
as an industry (including Nick) install, monitor and maintain everyday?
I invite Nick to join me at the ISC East NBFAA committee meetings this year
so he will participate in what NBFAA does for the benefit of everyone in
our industry.
It happens better and faster when more are involved in the process than
just a few.
Nick, (and anyone else who wants to make a difference in THEIR industry)
please feel to e-mail me at bdidden@usacentralstation.com
Bart A. Didden
Past President
NBFAA
********************************
First I want to state that I understand alarm verification, I know it is
the only way we know so far how to reduce false alarms, and I'm not writing
to dispute the process - be it one call, two calls, or a "list call".
I want to point out the part which all the "alarm associations",
"municipalities", "lawmakers politicians" and alarm dealers totally missed.
Design and install the alarm system correctly. Burglary doesn't stop at
broken window. If it does, then the burglar gave up when he heard the
siren. Burglar usually trips all motion sensors all the way to bedroom.
When a Central Station receives signals on multiple zones one after
another, they can actually tell the difference between a fault and a
burglary. If your system is installed correctly, you can pinpoint the
burglar's location and movement throughout the house. That's verification.
Not calling someone on a list who isn't even there. You just give the
burglar more time to leave without getting caught.
I see alarm installations where all windows around the perimeter are on the
same zone, or a section of a house on one zone. If you can't or don't want
to run more wires, use addressable devices, or wireless system.
Our alarm system installations usually have 30+ zones. Each window, each
door, motion sensor or glassbreak is on separate zone and we run only few
wires. The keypad shows the zone number and text description of the
location. We even give the user printed map of all zones. When the user is
arming the system the keypad clearly shows "Bathroom Skylight" or "Bedroom
Window", so they go upstairs to close it without calling tech support that
there is blinking light and they can't arm the system. If there was a
burglary, the zones would trip one after another as you move throughout the
house, so there is no question that someone is roaming around. You can even
put contacts on a dresser drawer, or put a $20 into wired money clip if you
want to be sure of burglary. (Write down the serial number of the $20 bill
want to be sure of burglary. (Write down the serial number of the $20 bill
- it may help if the burglar is caught). The Central Station still has to
follow legal procedures and make the calls, but they know it is not a joke.
Be creative, desing the system correctly, using technology which will save
your time and make money for you. Don't wait until someone designs it for
you and make it law you'll have to follow.
Design and sale should be your strong point - not a weak link.
Dusan
Helltek, Inc.
************************
Actually Nick I think you have a few things missing, Here is the verbiage
about “enhanced” from the actual standard itself
1.1.4.2. Enhanced Verification. Enhanced Verification is the attempt by
monitoring personnel to verify that no emergency exists, at the monitored
premises, by means of more thorough procedures such as 2 verification
calls, live audio or video, cross zoning, other means or a combination of
these procedures.
The enhanced term was used because it described enhanced or better services
such as video, audio, cross zoning not because of marketing hype
The standard leaves room for multiple ways of verifying that an alarm does
NOT exist on the site, One of which as you pointed out is calling a cell
phone, but that is not the only option. It could be calling a back line at
a facility, calling a home phone or using another technology to verify that
an alarm does not require the police to respond.
On another note if you don’t like the way that standards are written or
what they are called then get involved in the standards writing process.
UL, NFPA, SIA, ANSI are all made up for the most part of industry people
volunteering there time, money and efforts for the betterment of the
industry. Don’t armchair quarterback after the real work was done.
Morgan Hertel
The Command Center Inc
Corona CA
************************
Ken,
ECV is the best thing to happen to the alarm industry in years. Whether or
not you think it's a marketing ploy, or some political rhetoric, I can tell
you it works. As the person resposible for industry relationships for my
company, I can tell you that we implemented ECV in April of 2004 and we
have reduced false alarms by 40-50%. We did it before it was required by
law, and because of that it was substantially questioned as to our
liability and responsibility. In Florida at least 1 verification call has
always been required since 1988.
We not only make the first call, and then a second call, but if possible
and sufficient time a third call. In the thousands of alarms we have
recieved we have only had 3 instances of a question or complaint.
As President of the Alarm Association of Florida I can tell you that our
association lobbied long and hard to get ECV into law. It passed and was
signed by the Governor last month. Now there is no reason for any alarm
company not to do it.
Roy Pollack, CPP SET
Compliance Manager
Devcon Security Services, Corp.
********************************
I just want to add a personal note on this topic. How the central station
handles a signal should be dictated by one of three standards: the contract
terms for monitoring, statute or industry standard if there is no contract
or statute which may override the contract.
It's all very well to promote this lofty goal of reducing false alarms to
hold at bay the police departments who pressure the legislature to impose
more and more laws for permits and fines [all revenue raising].
But what about the real alarm? What is the amount of time actually spent by
an illegal intruder once the premises has been penetrated and the alarm
signal activated? I live in a community with its own police force. Response
time is usually fast. Last year my neighbor was burglarized when he wasn't
home. The police arrived within 4 minutes and the burglars were gone,
taking with them jewelry and case from the master bedroom. I guess it
wouldn't have mattered if there had been ECV and it took longer for the
police to respond?
But what about a situation where there is a break in and someone is home.
Even one minute may be too long to wait. You don't often have the opinion
of a subscriber expressed here, but allow me that liberty. My alarm is
monitored. Ok, I have a little more influence at the central station than
the average subscriber. I made sure that my records at the central station
had no call numbers; they are to dispatch the police or fire departments
immediately upon receipt of a signal. I don't want any delay in that
dispatch. As it is there is usually at least one minute that passes before
the police are called.
I've had perhaps close to 10 false alarm within the last year. We were
always home and it was subscriber error most of the time - there had been a
faulty screen contact. But each time I was able to contact either the
central station to stop the dispatch or called the police directly to tell
them to ignore the call. No fines imposed.
I know that there are probably stats out there evaluating the cost of
responding to false alarms and the cost of property stolen or lives lost
because of verification processes. I suppose someone has decided that the
risk of loss is justified by the savings in responding to false alarms.
Well guess what? I don't want any verification or delay if my alarm goes
off, and New York doesn't have any verification process yet, just fines.
I'll take that risk.
--------------
alarm verification, ECV, is generating lots of 
comments: 
*****************  
ECV was used as opposed to 2 call verification 
because there may be instances when your 
monitoring station operators would like to go beyond 
2 call verification. For those of us that run monitoring 
stations of a more “local” flavor and receive ALL 
signals (including residential openings and closings) 
an alarm followed closely by a closing may merit more 
than a call to the first user’s office number on a 
weekend. Since most Clients have cell phones we 
normally would attempt those numbers as well. 
As Bart so accurately points out it is easy to sit on 
the sidelines and take potshots at the dedicated 
individuals that toil on their volunteered time so that 
many can enjoy the advantages of their labor. It sure 
is a lot more gratifying to be involved. And Bart – see 
you there as usual.
Ivan Spector
Sentinel Alarm Co.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken,
 
This second call really works. Studies have shown 
that the second call can eliminate more than 30% of 
the false dispatches which would have otherwise 
have been made. We even go one step further for 
our dealers, in that we make a third call after the 
dispatch, which allows us to cancel another 10%+ of 
the dispatches. We as an industry must do 
everything possible to reduce the number of false 
dispatches. 
 
It also helps if the dealer will give the central station 
the owner's cell phone number and indicate to them 
that it is a cell phone. Often when that number is 
called, the owner will know the cause of the alarm 
and be able to cancel what would be a false 
dispatch.
 
Lets all do everything we can to eliminate false 
dispatches, or else our industry and our clients will 
suffer when the various police departments cease to 
respond to alarms because so many of them are 
false.
 
Gary Dawkins, CEO
Response Center USA
11235 Gordon Rd Ste 102
San Antonio, TX 78216
866-489-4105
*********************
Ken:
Why is it that we as an industry seem to want to 
confuse the issues we encounter?  I am not 
disagreeing with the concept of verification - it does 
work.  However  what are we really "verifying?"  By 
making one or two or more telephone calls we are 
not "verifying" that an emergency condition exists.  
(Unless of course the intruder answers the phone and 
says - yes I have just broken in to this place!")  In 
reality we are attempting to determine that an 
emergency DOES NOT exist by contacting someone 
who can identify themselves to our satisfaction and 
say that there is no emergency.
 
I agree with Nick Lawrence about the need to change 
the name, but maybe there is something better than 
a reference to "verification"
 
Maybe we can do something good here by coming up 
with an appropriate name for this procedure.  
 
Dave Currie
Damar Security Systems
Sarnia Canada
********************
Dear Ken:
I read with great interest your comments on ECV 
and  admit I rarely respond to such comments. 
Having used your services when I owned my own 
alarm company I personally know just how much 
influence your stature in the industry and your 
knowledge of liability issues within our industry has 
over many people. As such I feel mandated to 
convince you of the errors in your thoughts less that 
influence serve a negative purpose.
Having been a contributor in the developmental phase 
of ECV I initially shared some of your concerns. 
However, having spent considerable time in 
various police communications centers around the 
country I saw just how unimportant alarm calls have 
become.  This is due in part from a misconception 
that alarms are designed to capture criminals and 
rarely deliver, but mostly from the sheer volume of 
alarm calls that stack up, generally at the busiest 
times of the day.  
When ECV was being tested we found that by 
reducing qualitatively the number of alarm calls on 
hold we actually stood to improve the overall 
response time. Therefore It stands to reason that if 
we reduce the pending calls by 50%, then response 
should be bettered by 50%.
In your message you admitted to having 10 false 
alarms last year, mostly due to your own error. You 
further stated that you have no contact numbers on 
your account so that police and fire MUST be 
dispatched if you fail to initiate contact with your 
alarm company. If the entire of the 35,000,000 alarm 
population took such a elitist view virtually every 
police agency in the country would have been forced 
to cease ALL response to alarms long ago. 
There are a very few jurisdictions in the country 
that, because of very low call rates, can afford to 
provide a higher level of service. These are also the 
jurisdictions that would not likely ever consider a rash 
policy such as non response or even a two call 
requirement. Obviously you live in such an area and I 
am happy for you. But the other 34,900,000 alarm 
users don't have that luxury. The remaining alarm 
users must do everything reasonable to reduce the 
call load by working with their alarm companies to 
severely minimize abuse of public resources.
I am a firm believer in police response versus private, 
but I am also educated in the facts well enough to 
know that the alarm industry has not done its fair 
share, at least not until the last decade. 
I stated earlier that there was a misconception of 
what an alarm is designed to do. Alarms systems are 
valued as a deterrent. They have rarely been 
designed as a capture tool. Looking at the 
communities that have developed non response 
policies has shown that the deterrent value of the 
alarm is greatly diminished when the police don't 
come. If our industry fails to counter the non 
response threat then we are doing a disservice to the 
alarm users. We MUST reduce dispatches to insure 
the vital deterrent that only comes from having a well 
trained police officer respond to a potential alarm
You admitted that your neighbor received a 4 minute 
response that still failed to capture the criminal. 
What would the risk to life and property have been if 
the criminals had no fear of police response? Would 
they have stayed longer, stolen more, or worse yet 
remained until a resident came home? What would 
have been the harm if the response was five minutes 
instead of four? Or if our studies hold true if response 
was reduced would a capture have been made?
Again, I respond only because of the influence you 
have over many people in this great industry. Your 
actions are predicated on the unique police service 
that you receive in your community. Don't negate 
something as important as ECV based on your good  
circumstances. 
I highly encourage you to restate your position based 
upon your extreme good fortune to live in a special 
circumstance. 
With Best Regards
Ron Walters
This topic continues to generate comments - and I apologize in advance if
it's getting too much, but I like to give everyone a chance to express
themselves here.
********************
Ken, Several years ago, I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee made
of sereral respected alarm company representatives in south Florida. The
reason for the committee was to head off a "no response" policy ready to go
into effect by the then sheriff of Palm Beach County. The residents of Palm
Beach County, Florida are amoung the wealthest in the country and many of
the homes sit vacant as their owners travel the world. Yet, Sheriff Neuman
was willing to put those homes up as a target by implementing his policy.
Through the next year, these committee members worked with the county
government to build a working ordinance and salvage police response in Palm
Beach County, FL. At the same time, the industry cemented a "partnership
with law enforcement to further reduce "unnecessary dispatches", which that
partnership has continued to grow around the state of Florida. We have seen
dramatic reductions, as much as 70+%, in areas that once had serious
problems. Starting with the CPO1 standard, ECV was the next step in the
process which will continue to prove its effectiveness and lessen the
burden on the PD's.What many companies chose to do voluntarily, by
implementing ECV as their standard, the State of Florida, through
legislation, has chose to make ECV mandatory. Also, the industry has a
working committee with the Florida Police Chiefs Association and our
"partnership with law enforcement" continues to grow. For the first time,
on a state wide basis, we are all on the same page, working together to
reduce unnecessary dispatches. In continueing to partner, hopefully, we can
say goodbye to the idea of "no response".
Bob Worthy, CPP
President
Secur Technologies, Inc.
******************************
Comment on verification:
We have been using the “cancel” or “abort” from a users panel for almost 5
years now. We do not dispatch the PD if we receive one, but we do “verify”
at the premises, and if we do not receive a password, we call the call list
to “notify” of the false alarm. Logically, if a user disarms with a
authorized user code, the alarm is false. If we cannot get password from
premises either because of a busy, machine, or no answer, as a added step
we will notify the call list. Usually the first call is a cell and is
usually the culprit. When it is not, many times it is a family member with
a keypad code only or domestic worker or such. The homeowner knows who it
was and acknowledges the mistake. The point here is that these have ALL
been un-necessary, user activated alarms that were not dispatched on.
Obviously if the alarm system is not disarmed, or we do not receive a
cancel/abort, we verify and dispatch as normal, then notify. This policy
has proven to work and has reduced our un-necessary police dispatches
caused by user error by more than 90%
Robert Davis

Ken,

'ECV' is an acronym thought up by the same folks who would have changed thename of the 'National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association' to the'Electronic Life Safety & Systems Association'.'ECV' means 'Enhanced Call Verification', and I bet most intelligentpersons would think this means using a reliable landline instead of ascratchy cell phone connection to make the call.'Enhanced' is a marketing word that sounds good, but means nothing. Kindalike: New, Now, How, Free or Amazing (other words long favored in marketingblitzes).What they meant to say, and should have said, was 'Two Step Verification'(or TSV), which more accurately describes the process, following receipt ofa burglary alarm signal, of first calling the premises, then Call Listperson(s), prior to police notification.But 'Enhanced' sounds, so, like, you know, more better marketing.So, let's all agree to call it 'Two Step Verification', which, in fact, itis.

Nick Lawrence

Red Alarm

Comments on the above email article.....

It is funny that Nick knows what we meant to say!To bad that Nick was not there when the many volunteers came together anddeveloped ECV along with many of the other tools that are used everyday inthe industry’s efforts to maintain police response to the systems that weas an industry (including Nick) install, monitor and maintain everyday?I invite Nick to join me at the ISC East NBFAA committee meetings this yearso he will participate in what NBFAA does for the benefit of everyone inour industry.It happens better and faster when more are involved in the process thanjust a few.Nick, (and anyone else who wants to make a difference in THEIR industry)please feel to e-mail me at bdidden@usacentralstation.comBart A. DiddenPast PresidentNBFAA

********************************
First I want to state that I understand alarm verification, I know it isthe only way we know so far how to reduce false alarms, and I'm not writingto dispute the process - be it one call, two calls, or a "list call".I want to point out the part which all the "alarm associations","municipalities", "lawmakers politicians" and alarm dealers totally missed.Design and install the alarm system correctly. Burglary doesn't stop atbroken window. If it does, then the burglar gave up when he heard thesiren. Burglar usually trips all motion sensors all the way to bedroom.When a Central Station receives signals on multiple zones one afteranother, they can actually tell the difference between a fault and aburglary. If your system is installed correctly, you can pinpoint theburglar's location and movement throughout the house. That's verification.Not calling someone on a list who isn't even there. You just give theburglar more time to leave without getting caught.I see alarm installations where all windows around the perimeter are on thesame zone, or a section of a house on one zone. If you can't or don't wantto run more wires, use addressable devices, or wireless system.Our alarm system installations usually have 30+ zones. Each window, eachdoor, motion sensor or glassbreak is on separate zone and we run only fewwires. The keypad shows the zone number and text description of thelocation. We even give the user printed map of all zones. When the user isarming the system the keypad clearly shows "Bathroom Skylight" or "BedroomWindow", so they go upstairs to close it without calling tech support thatthere is blinking light and they can't arm the system. If there was aburglary, the zones would trip one after another as you move throughout thehouse, so there is no question that someone is roaming around. You can evenput contacts on a dresser drawer, or put a $20 into wired money clip if youwant to be sure of burglary. (Write down the serial number of the $20 billwant to be sure of burglary. (Write down the serial number of the $20 bill- it may help if the burglar is caught). The Central Station still has tofollow legal procedures and make the calls, but they know it is not a joke.Be creative, desing the system correctly, using technology which will saveyour time and make money for you. Don't wait until someone designs it foryou and make it law you'll have to follow.Design and sale should be your strong point - not a weak link.

Dusan

Helltek, Inc.

************************
Actually Nick I think you have a few things missing, Here is the verbiageabout “enhanced” from the actual standard itself1.1.4.2. Enhanced Verification. Enhanced Verification is the attempt bymonitoring personnel to verify that no emergency exists, at the monitoredpremises, by means of more thorough procedures such as 2 verificationcalls, live audio or video, cross zoning, other means or a combination ofthese procedures.The enhanced term was used because it described enhanced or better servicessuch as video, audio, cross zoning not because of marketing hypeThe standard leaves room for multiple ways of verifying that an alarm doesNOT exist on the site, One of which as you pointed out is calling a cellphone, but that is not the only option. It could be calling a back line ata facility, calling a home phone or using another technology to verify thatan alarm does not require the police to respond.On another note if you don’t like the way that standards are written orwhat they are called then get involved in the standards writing process.UL, NFPA, SIA, ANSI are all made up for the most part of industry peoplevolunteering there time, money and efforts for the betterment of theindustry. Don’t armchair quarterback after the real work was done.

Morgan Hertel

The Command Center Inc

Corona CA

************************

Ken,

ECV is the best thing to happen to the alarm industry in years. Whether ornot you think it's a marketing ploy, or some political rhetoric, I can tellyou it works. As the person resposible for industry relationships for mycompany, I can tell you that we implemented ECV in April of 2004 and wehave reduced false alarms by 40-50%. We did it before it was required bylaw, and because of that it was substantially questioned as to ourliability and responsibility. In Florida at least 1 verification call hasalways been required since 1988.We not only make the first call, and then a second call, but if possibleand sufficient time a third call. In the thousands of alarms we haverecieved we have only had 3 instances of a question or complaint.As President of the Alarm Association of Florida I can tell you that ourassociation lobbied long and hard to get ECV into law. It passed and wassigned by the Governor last month. Now there is no reason for any alarmcompany not to do it.

Roy Pollack,

CPP SETCompliance Manager

Devcon Security Services, Corp.

********************************
I just want to add a personal note on this topic. How the central stationhandles a signal should be dictated by one of three standards: the contractterms for monitoring, statute or industry standard if there is no contractor statute which may override the contract.It's all very well to promote this lofty goal of reducing false alarms tohold at bay the police departments who pressure the legislature to imposemore and more laws for permits and fines [all revenue raising].But what about the real alarm? What is the amount of time actually spent byan illegal intruder once the premises has been penetrated and the alarmsignal activated? I live in a community with its own police force. Responsetime is usually fast. Last year my neighbor was burglarized when he wasn'thome. The police arrived within 4 minutes and the burglars were gone,taking with them jewelry and case from the master bedroom. I guess itwouldn't have mattered if there had been ECV and it took longer for thepolice to respond?
But what about a situation where there is a break in and someone is home.Even one minute may be too long to wait. You don't often have the opinionof a subscriber expressed here, but allow me that liberty. My alarm ismonitored. Ok, I have a little more influence at the central station thanthe average subscriber. I made sure that my records at the central stationhad no call numbers; they are to dispatch the police or fire departmentsimmediately upon receipt of a signal. I don't want any delay in thatdispatch. As it is there is usually at least one minute that passes beforethe police are called.I've had perhaps close to 10 false alarm within the last year. We werealways home and it was subscriber error most of the time - there had been afaulty screen contact. But each time I was able to contact either thecentral station to stop the dispatch or called the police directly to tellthem to ignore the call. No fines imposed.I know that there are probably stats out there evaluating the cost ofresponding to false alarms and the cost of property stolen or lives lostbecause of verification processes. I suppose someone has decided that therisk of loss is justified by the savings in responding to false alarms.
Well guess what? I don't want any verification or delay if my alarm goesoff, and New York doesn't have any verification process yet, just fines.I'll take that risk.

--------------

alarm verification, ECV, is generating lots of comments: 

*****************  
ECV was used as opposed to 2 call verification because there may be instances when your monitoring station operators would like to go beyond 2 call verification. For those of us that run monitoring stations of a more “local” flavor and receive ALL signals (including residential openings and closings) an alarm followed closely by a closing may merit more than a call to the first user’s office number on a weekend. Since most Clients have cell phones we normally would attempt those numbers as well. 


As Bart so accurately points out it is easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at the dedicated individuals that toil on their volunteered time so that many can enjoy the advantages of their labor. It sure is a lot more gratifying to be involved. And Bart – see you there as usual.


Ivan Spector
Sentinel Alarm Co.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ken,
 This second call really works. Studies have shown that the second call can eliminate more than 30% of the false dispatches which would have otherwise have been made. We even go one step further for our dealers, in that we make a third call after the dispatch, which allows us to cancel another 10%+ of the dispatches. We as an industry must do everything possible to reduce the number of false dispatches. 
 It also helps if the dealer will give the central station the owner's cell phone number and indicate to them that it is a cell phone. Often when that number is called, the owner will know the cause of the alarm and be able to cancel what would be a false dispatch.
 Lets all do everything we can to eliminate false dispatches, or else our industry and our clients will suffer when the various police departments cease to respond to alarms because so many of them are false.

Gary Dawkins, CEO

Response Center USA

11235 Gordon Rd Ste 102

San Antonio, TX 78216

866-489-4105
*********************

Ken:

Why is it that we as an industry seem to want to confuse the issues we encounter?  I am not disagreeing with the concept of verification - it does work.  However  what are we really "verifying?"  By making one or two or more telephone calls we are not "verifying" that an emergency condition exists.  (Unless of course the intruder answers the phone and says - yes I have just broken in to this place!")  In reality we are attempting to determine that an emergency DOES NOT exist by contacting someone who can identify themselves to our satisfaction and say that there is no emergency.
 I agree with Nick Lawrence about the need to change the name, but maybe there is something better than a reference to "verification"
 Maybe we can do something good here by coming up with an appropriate name for this procedure.  
 Dave Currie
Damar Security Systems
Sarnia Canada
********************

Dear Ken:

I read with great interest your comments on ECV and  admit I rarely respond to such comments. Having used your services when I owned my own alarm company I personally know just how much influence your stature in the industry and your knowledge of liability issues within our industry has over many people. As such I feel mandated to convince you of the errors in your thoughts less that influence serve a negative purpose.

Having been a contributor in the developmental phase of ECV I initially shared some of your concerns. 
However, having spent considerable time in various police communications centers around the country I saw just how unimportant alarm calls have become.  This is due in part from a misconception that alarms are designed to capture criminals and rarely deliver, but mostly from the sheer volume of alarm calls that stack up, generally at the busiest times of the day.  

When ECV was being tested we found that by reducing qualitatively the number of alarm calls on hold we actually stood to improve the overall response time. Therefore It stands to reason that if we reduce the pending calls by 50%, then response should be bettered by 50%.

In your message you admitted to having 10 false alarms last year, mostly due to your own error. You further stated that you have no contact numbers on your account so that police and fire MUST be dispatched if you fail to initiate contact with your alarm company. If the entire of the 35,000,000 alarm population took such a elitist view virtually every police agency in the country would have been forced to cease ALL response to alarms long ago. 

There are a very few jurisdictions in the country that, because of very low call rates, can afford to provide a higher level of service. These are also the jurisdictions that would not likely ever consider a rash policy such as non response or even a two call requirement. Obviously you live in such an area and I am happy for you. But the other 34,900,000 alarm users don't have that luxury. The remaining alarm users must do everything reasonable to reduce the call load by working with their alarm companies to severely minimize abuse of public resources.

I am a firm believer in police response versus private, but I am also educated in the facts well enough to know that the alarm industry has not done its fair share, at least not until the last decade. 

I stated earlier that there was a misconception of what an alarm is designed to do. Alarms systems are valued as a deterrent. They have rarely been designed as a capture tool. Looking at the communities that have developed non response policies has shown that the deterrent value of the alarm is greatly diminished when the police don't come. If our industry fails to counter the non response threat then we are doing a disservice to the alarm users. We MUST reduce dispatches to insure the vital deterrent that only comes from having a well trained police officer respond to a potential alarm

You admitted that your neighbor received a 4 minute response that still failed to capture the criminal. What would the risk to life and property have been if the criminals had no fear of police response? Would they have stayed longer, stolen more, or worse yet remained until a resident came home? What would have been the harm if the response was five minutes instead of four? Or if our studies hold true if response was reduced would a capture have been made?

Again, I respond only because of the influence you have over many people in this great industry. Your actions are predicated on the unique police service that you receive in your community. Don't negate something as important as ECV based on your good  circumstances. 

I highly encourage you to restate your position based upon your extreme good fortune to live in a special circumstance. 
With Best RegardsRon Walters
This topic continues to generate comments - and I apologize in advance ifit's getting too much, but I like to give everyone a chance to expressthemselves here.
********************

Ken,

Several years ago, I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee madeof sereral respected alarm company representatives in south Florida. Thereason for the committee was to head off a "no response" policy ready to gointo effect by the then sheriff of Palm Beach County. The residents of PalmBeach County, Florida are amoung the wealthest in the country and many ofthe homes sit vacant as their owners travel the world. Yet, Sheriff Neumanwas willing to put those homes up as a target by implementing his policy.Through the next year, these committee members worked with the countygovernment to build a working ordinance and salvage police response in PalmBeach County, FL. At the same time, the industry cemented a "partnershipwith law enforcement to further reduce "unnecessary dispatches", which thatpartnership has continued to grow around the state of Florida. We have seendramatic reductions, as much as 70+%, in areas that once had seriousproblems. Starting with the CPO1 standard, ECV was the next step in theprocess which will continue to prove its effectiveness and lessen theburden on the PD's.What many companies chose to do voluntarily, byimplementing ECV as their standard, the State of Florida, throughlegislation, has chose to make ECV mandatory. Also, the industry has aworking committee with the Florida Police Chiefs Association and our"partnership with law enforcement" continues to grow. For the first time,on a state wide basis, we are all on the same page, working together toreduce unnecessary dispatches. In continueing to partner, hopefully, we cansay goodbye to the idea of "no response".

Bob Worthy,

CPPPresident

Secur Technologies, Inc.

******************************
Comment on verification:We have been using the “cancel” or “abort” from a users panel for almost 5years now. We do not dispatch the PD if we receive one, but we do “verify”at the premises, and if we do not receive a password, we call the call listto “notify” of the false alarm. Logically, if a user disarms with aauthorized user code, the alarm is false. If we cannot get password frompremises either because of a busy, machine, or no answer, as a added stepwe will notify the call list. Usually the first call is a cell and isusually the culprit. When it is not, many times it is a family member witha keypad code only or domestic worker or such. The homeowner knows who itwas and acknowledges the mistake. The point here is that these have ALLbeen un-necessary, user activated alarms that were not dispatched on.Obviously if the alarm system is not disarmed, or we do not receive acancel/abort, we verify and dispatch as normal, then notify. This policyhas proven to work and has reduced our un-necessary police dispatchescaused by user error by more than 90%

Robert Davis