During the Fall meeting of WASPC, a number of cities and counties in Washington State volunteered to participate in this false alarm reduction effort. They agreed to follow our suggested guidelines for participation. 17 law enforcement agencies that desired to participate in this project were contacted and profiled as to a number of factors in order to provide a base year for comparison. The years selected were 1996 and 1997.

Each agency presented a unique challenge, in that no two were at the same stage in the process at the same time. Differences ranged from no ordinance being in place to having extremely cumbersome and unenforceable statutes that caused resentment between the alarm industry, law enforcement and the customers.

Using the NBFAA Model Ordinance and IACP resolution for alarm reduction as a guideline, helped with changing past practices. Where possible, I helped with installing and training personnel on the use of software provided by the alarm industry for tracking false alarms (False Alarm Analysis Program, or FAAP), identifying alarm dealers and monitoring centers with clients in Washington State. I also worked with law enforcement and legislative bodies to change and update ordinances.

Generally, those cities/counties receiving the highest alarm company responses achieved the largest reductions in false alarms. While this does not appear to hold true for Cowlitz County (with a 29% reduction during 1998), one must consider that this agency experienced a 24% increase in false alarms during 1997, creating a turn around of 53% with 100% alarm company participation. In other jurisdictions, however, it is clear that an alarm company’s active participation plays a major role in alarm reduction. Snohomish County made no major changes in its approach to alarm reduction other than providing the coordinator with needed alarm company information. With 91% alarm company participation, this populated county reduced false alarms by 45% in one year.

During 1998, the coordinator attended 14 alarm dealer functions, with a specific effort at updating and encouraging dealers to participate in their portion of the reduction efforts. There were 202 alarm companies contacted in writing--many on a monthly basis--and presented with corrective action reports. If reports were not returned within two weeks, a follow-up telephone call would be made. Responses ranged from a low of 57% to 100%, with a monthly average of 77% response by the alarm industry.

Law enforcement agencies agreed to participate in this Model States Program with the best of intentions. It is important to note that as the leadership changes in departments, so can the priorities placed on programs such as alarm reduction. Municipalities with systems of public participation in changes in ordinances may require more lead time to change ordinances, and should be encouraged to make these changes before becoming active participants in this alarm reduction effort, particularly if there is great