False Calls Still Alarming

Burglar alarm calls to the Los Angeles Police Department dropped 21% in January and February, the first months under a new city policy aimed at reducing false alarms. Trouble is, even with fewer calls overall, the proportion that was false remained steady at 96%. The understaffed LAPD dispatched officers to 14,304 false alarms over the two months, an average of 234 a day. Police departments nationwide are swamped by false alarms. The only approach found so far to substantially stem them is one in which cops are dispatched only after a witness or video camera verifies signs of a real break-in.

The Los Angeles Police Commission approved such a policy last year but backed down after alarm companies -- alarmed that they’d have to actually do something for the money they’re paid -- rallied their customers to protest. Under the compromise adopted, the LAPD requires verification after the second false alarm in a year.

By the end of February, 80 locations had generated more than two false alarms, and the LAPD stopped automatically dispatching police units. But Dan Koenig, the Police Commission’s executive director, attributes the 21% drop in calls overall to something else: a new pressure on alarm companies to make a second phone call.

It’s standard for alarm companies to call the location when an alarm goes off. If the homeowner has set it off by mistake -- and is there to say so -- the company cancels the call to the LAPD.

But, as Koenig explains it, owners often trip alarms as they’re leaving the house and aren’t home when the company calls. In these cases, police are dispatched, only to find the alarm had gone off accidentally. Now, knowing that homeowners get just two false alarms a year, more alarm companies have begun requesting and calling second numbers, often cellphones. The companies have been able to catch some owners in time to have them return, fix the problem -- and cancel the call to the police.

Why didn’t the alarm companies do this before? Well, why should they have? Cops did the work for free, subsidized by taxpayers.

We supported the tougher policy and are not convinced that the compromise will reduce false alarms enough, especially considering the extra work the LAPD has to do to keep track of two calls per location and to try to collect fines -- which the City Council has yet to increase as promised. But if the current policy is to be successful, the city must keep up the pressure on alarm companies. The Police Commission should set a concrete goal and date for reducing false alarms, with the tougher policy as a fallback.