False Alarm Program
Enhanced Call Verification (EVC)
(206) 684-7713

ABOUT ENHANCED CALL VERIFICATION

On January 1, 2009, the Seattle Police Department implemented new protocols that are supported by existing Seattle Municipal Codes requiring Enhanced Call Verification (ECV) compliance and Unique Identifying Number (UIN) reporting for all alarm calls.  Through a vast array of outlets, reasonable efforts were made to notify all alarm companies of these changes prior to the end of 2008.  Below are common questions asked about the changes.

Why is this a critical issue to the Seattle Police Department?
What is Enhanced Call Verification (ECV)?
What is the difference between types of alarms?
What is a Unique Identifying Number (UIN)?
Why is this being implemented?
Who pays for False Alarms?
What are my options if my alarm company isn't using ECV?
Will these changes really make a difference?
What types of calls will and will not be accepted?

Why is this a critical issue to the Seattle Police Department?

Effective January 1, 2004, the City of Seattle adopted an ordinance to help reduce false alarm response to automated burglar alarms. Prior to 2004, the Seattle Police Department responded to an average of 25,000 alarm calls a year. Currently, we respond to almost 15,000 alarm calls a year. Almost 98% of these alarms are false, sending officers away from areas that they are needed to locations that do not require an emergency police response. This cost to the city is approximately 1.2 million dollars in 2007 and effectively took 12 full time patrol officers off the street. To provide better police service, the Seattle Police Department needs to further reduce responses to events where police services are not needed.

[Back to Top]

What is ECV?

Effective January 1, 2009, any alarm company reporting a burglary/intrusion alarm that has not made two phone calls attempting to verify the validity of the alarm will not have their call accepted.  They will be told to make the two phone calls and then call back.  The False Alarm Reduction Association (FARA) reports that, “Communities where Enhanced Call Verification is required have seen reductions of unnecessary law enforcement response between 30 and 50 percent.”  This policy does not affect robbery/panic/duress (RPD) alarms, which do not require ECV.  More information on ECV is available at http://www.faraonline.org/ECV_Bulletin.pdf

[Back to Top]

What is the difference between Burglary/Intrusion Alarms vs. Robbery/Panic/Duress(RPD) Alarms?

The primary difference between a burglary/intrusion alarm and RPD alarms is that RPD alarms are intentionally activated by an individual to notify police of a potentially life threatening incident, where as burglary/intrusion alarms are passive and detect only motion or a broken contact.

[Back to Top]

What is a Unique Identifying Number (UIN)?

Also effective January 1, 2009, any alarm company reporting a burglary/intrusion alarm that does not (or cannot) provide their unique identifying number (UIN) to the 911 call-taker will have their call refused.  The City’s Department of Revenue and Consumer Affairs issues a UIN to an alarm company when it is properly licensed with the City.  This number is used to facilitate billing for false alarms.  Any company that cannot provide a UIN is presumed to be unlicensed, and the Seattle Police Department will not respond to unlicensed alarms.  Alarm subscribers and companies can check if their alarm company is properly licensed by clicking here.  Information at the top of that web page tells companies who to contact if they are not listed.

[Back to Top]

Why is this being implemented?

The intent of these new protocols is to reduce false alarm calls and hold alarm subscribers and companies accountable for false alarms. 

[Back to Top]

Who pays for False Alarms?

The City of Seattle bills the alarm company for the false alarm. To recover the cost of a false alarm fee, the alarm companies commonly pass this fee onto the subscribers. Alarm company customers that disagree with their billing should dispute this with their alarm company. Alarm companies have several options to obtain a one time waiver from the City of Seattle, including switching to private guard response, sending their customer to an alarm user workshop, or disputing the false alarm in an administrative hearing.

[Back to Top]

I don't believe my alarm company is using Enhanced Call Verification. What are my options?

If you feel the alarm company has made a mistake or has not followed the ordinance, you will need to dispute that with the alarm company. You may attempt to request that they send you a call-log verifying that they used ECV.  Please note, your agreement with the alarm company is a private civil contract between you and your alarm company. The Seattle Police Department’s False Alarm Unit will work with both alarm subscribers and alarm companies to ensure that these standards are upheld, but the actual resolution of any billing dispute will be between the alarm company and the subscriber.

[Back to Top]

Will these changes make a difference?

Between July and December of 2008, only 77% of all alarms called into the Seattle Police Department complied with the law. In those six months 1,496 alarms were called in without a UIN.  Those are alarms that cannot be automatically billed through the City’s computer systems, and thus require an individual to research the call, contact involved parties and manually prepare an invoice.  This is a time consuming and unnecessary effort, which has resulted in approximately $100,650.00 in delayed collection or lost fees due to improper licensing and reporting during that 6-month period.

Further, in those six months 812 alarms were called in without utilizing ECV.  Using alarm industry studies that indicate 30% - 50% of alarm calls to the police could be avoided by utilizing ECV, it stands to reason that 244 - 406 of these alarms should not have been called in.  That would have been an additional reduction of 2.9% - 4.8% of the alarm calls.  During that time period, based on other procedures implemented since April 2008, there was an 11.2% reduction in false alarms and a 9.3% reduction in alarm dispatches.  Had ECV been utilized, using the 30%-50% estimates of the study, the reductions could have been between 13.9%-15.7% for false alarms and 12%-13.8% for alarm dispatches.  Each alarm that is prevented from being called into 911 allows for better service to all citizens of Seattle.

[Back to Top]

What types of calls will and won't be accepted? EXAMPLES (to include, but are not limited to):

• The monitoring company calls two numbers and gets no answer at either number. 
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted.
• The monitoring company calls one number, gets subscriber who says dispatch the police. 
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted.
• The monitoring company calls a business and gets a person that does not know the cancellation code.  This is not proper ECV and the call will not be accepted.  The monitoring company needs to make the second call to try to verify the person inside (i.e. Bob, the new employee closing up, answers the phone but doesn’t know the code.  The monitoring company should call the second number and find out if Bob is supposed to be there before calling 911). 
  Once a second call is made, the ECV requirements have been met and the call will be accepted.
• The monitoring company calls in after making zero or one verification attempts, but there is an exigent reason, sensitive location or other reason to dispatch the call. 
  This is an exception to ECV and the call will be accepted at the discretion of the call-taker.
• The monitoring company calls in stating they have real time audio or video on a site and their review of the audio/video indicates that a crime is in progress (not just someone on site)
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted
• The monitoring company calls in after making zero or one verification attempts. 
  This is not proper ECV and the call will not be accepted 
• The monitoring company calls in and says they were refused dispatch because they had not made two calls, but now they have and they are requesting dispatch.
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted
• The monitoring company calls in a robbery/panic/duress alarm but has not made any verification attempts. 
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted – robbery/panic/duress calls do not require verification.   
• The monitoring company calls in a burglary/intrusion alarm but does not have UIN.  The call will not be accepted 
• The monitoring company calls in a robbery/panic/duress alarm but does not have UIN. 
  This call will be accepted and the False Alarm Unit will follow up with the monitoring company after the fact to get them licensed.
• The monitoring company calls in stating they have a note on the file not to call the subscriber first, but to dispatch the police immediately. 
  This is not proper ECV and the call will not be accepted – the alarm company needs to talk to their customer and advise them that this is not an option for them.   

MORE INFORMATION

Your Alarm Company and/or Monitoring Center is your primary point of contact for all false alarm questions.

SEE LIST OF LICENSED COMPANIES

For additional information, visit the City of Seattle's alarm-system monitoring law web site

Other questions concerning -false alarms issues may be directed to Seattle Police Department Alarm Unit at (206) 684-7713 or e-mail at false.alarms@seattle.gov