( Approx. time to complete item in parenthesis)

1.     Detailed explanation of the program to prospective cities/Chiefs – with the help of the SACOP/law enforcement liaison Chief - multiple meetings were held in each (Model) state to solicit interest and participation in the program. Criteria for participation were reviewed, questions answered, and willing agencies were asked to confirm their interest in writing. (1-3 months)

2.     Decision on which cities will participate – the SACOP/law enforcement liaison Chief made follow-up calls, selected and confirmed agencies that would participate. (1-2 months )

3.     Alarm Industry leadership meeting – local alarm associations and respective leaders were briefed on process and agencies that had signed up. (1-2 months)

4.     Initiate process to change city ordinance and/or department policies as needed – a review of suggested ordinance changes, software/tracking issues and potential problems were reviewed with Chiefs and department heads as required. (3-18 months; ordinance change process can be very slow based on politics, elections, budgets, priorities, etc)

5.     Data compilation by Alarm Industry/Police on active accounts in each city – each city installed the alarm industry provided software "FAAP" (False Alarm Analysis Program) or initiated changes to their tracking system to accommodate program requirements. (1-8 months; some departments had great difficulty in changing or implementing tracking systems)

6.     Worst accounts determined for each city – list was compiled from software or manually of worst dispatch abusers and associated responsible alarm company. (1-6 months; based on process utilized)

7.     By Chiefs invitation, a joint meeting of Alarm Dealers/Chiefs held – alarm companies that had users identified in item 6 above were strongly encouraged to attend meetings where "report cards" listing worst offenders by alarm company were given to each attendee. We found dealer attendance at these meetings doubled when the invitation came from a Police Chief /Sheriff versus a letter only from the alarm coordinator or local association. Police Chief/Sheriff participation in the meeting was paramount in getting alarm dealers motivated. (I-3 months)

8.     Alarm company action utilizing checklist – dealers were asked to visit customers listed and fax back a checklist (see reference documents) to confirm action was taken. (I-3 months; dealer compliance varied from 29%-76%, coordinators had to