BSIA: the case for monitored systems

08 Dec 09

Historically the burglar alarm was introduced to provide early warning of a break in, either through the transmission of secure signals to a remote location and/or by the operation of audible devices within or externally to the protected premises.

Today the audible devices are still there and are a useful deterrent, but any really effective system is monitored 24/7 by an alarm monitoring station. Anecdotally we know that external devices act as a visual deterrent, but it’s the monitoring function that’s made the real difference.

Monitored systems are not new but they have now, with continuous advancements in technology, become far more established as the most reliable systems with fewer false alarms.

Not only can they self interrogate and filter out many a false alarm, they can also make sure the genuine alarm is transmitted quickly and efficiently to the alarm receiving centres.

The ARCs are heavily regulated with standards of construction and operation and have third party accreditation which preserves and enhances the high standards required to operate such a critical infrastructure.

Installed to standard

Today in the UK there are just under 1.2m systems monitored by alarm receiving centres with live police reference numbers that signify they have been installed to standard, and contrary to popular myth the likelihood of a false alarm today is just once every five years (ACPO statistics 2007).

This has been achieved through a combination of new technology, strict installation and maintenance standards and a third party inspection regime which collectively have brought the false alarm numbers down from just under 2 per annum per system in 1992 to just 0.24 per system per year in 2007.

The benefits of a monitored alarm can be seen with police forces who are far more confident today that a call will be genuine, with some 38K genuine calls per year resulting in 3,300 people arrested in 2007.

In addition, the cost of theft for the insurance industry has been in decline, with 2006 being one of the lowest ever with for losses of just £366m for commercial premises and £150m for residential (ABI and BIBA 2006).

Looking at the trends, what leaps out is the way in which the trends over the last ten years have steadily improved.

In 1997 intruder losses for the insurance industry were £738m. However, the number of monitored alarm systems installed then were far fewer at just 772K, and false alarms were at a staggering 1053K per annum (1.36 per system per annum).

We raised our game

The industry recognised that we had to raise our game. Led by our trade association, the British Security Industry Association, and in conjunction with our partners – the police, third party inspectorates and the insurance companies, developed a suite of standards at both a European level (the EN501 series) and supplemented by a complementary set of UK standards.

Of these, the most important was the requirement for sequential alarms, e.g. the operation of two devices – a requirement within the Association of Police Officers (and, in Scotland, ACPOS) policy.

These standards raised the quality of monitored alarm systems and, to ensure compliance, the industry accepted the principle of third party accreditation – not just of the alarm installation and maintenance companies involved but also for the individual systems through a system of certification.

These certificates confirm that a system has been individually risk assessed, graded by risk and had the appropriate system design completed and equipment installed all in accordance with the standards.

Preventative maintenance

Within the standards there was also a very clear commitment for ongoing preventative maintenance to keep the systems operating effectively and, in the event of a problem, very tight engineer attendance requirements.

This has also developed further with the advance of electronics and of the security standards so that much of this is done remotely with electronic support and interrogation.

Today the engineer support levels are far higher than for other emergency services with a requirement for the problem to be identified and resolved over the telephone or, if that can’t be done, for an engineer to be on site within four hours of the problem occurring.

Over the ten years since 1997, the numbers of monitored systems have substantially increased to 1.2m.

The majority of these are of a much higher quality with sequential alarm signalling and are being installed and maintained by third party accredited companies in accordance with the new standards.

False alarms fallen

In the same period false alarms have fallen to 278Kper annum or 0.24 per system per annum.

This increased reliability has become an increasing deterrent for the criminal community. Today there are actually far fewer activations from monitored systems that are due to genuine burglary attempts – only 38K per annum.

Furthermore, with the introduction of IP signalling technology, information can be transmitted which allows the ARC to establish whether there has been a genuine intrusion or a staff generated false alarm.

The keyholder or police are provided with far more information when attending site, allowing them to exercise greater caution while investigating the cause of the activation.

Going back ten years, the police could have genuinely criticised the performance of intruder alarms, but not today.

The improvements continue and further developments brought about by the industry will see improvements to the equipment both in its reliability but also in detection capability which will see false alarms fall further.

We are now in the deepest recession anyone can remember and crime rates anecdotally are trending upwards. The test for intruder alarms is: Will attacks on protected premises increase or will the reputation of high standards stand the test?

Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup

Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:

What is this?

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine