2006-2007 marks the first occasion when the ACPO alarm statistics have been based on the traditional financial and planning year as opposed to the calendar year. Irrespective of this change, the results remain very encouraging indeed.
A grand total of 1,149,077 security systems were reported as having a Unique Reference Number (URN) provided by police during the past 12 months. Those same systems generated 329,071 false alarms in 2006-2007, representing a drop of 51,578 on the reported 2005 figures.
Last year, the number of false alarms per system was at a record low of 0.28 – the corresponding figure for 2005 being 0.33 – (‘False alarms: a decade of progress’, Briefing Papers, SMT, May 2006, pp59-60). This compares to 0.42 just three years ago, and 1.2 ten years ago.
The total number of genuine alarms remained reasonably steady (at 39,243) while the number of alarm activations resulting in arrest dropped by just 85 to 1,815.
As with any statistics, it’s possible to interpret these figures in many different ways. As chairman of the ACPO Security Systems Working Group, my aim has been to ensure that we appreciate the value of security systems for crime reduction, detection and reassurance. We have had to balance this with the need to minimise the wasteful use of police resources – and the enhanced public risk – involved in providing attendance to false alarms. These latest statistics show that we are continuing to improve the balance.
It’s always difficult to be precise in linking this particular cause to a particular effect in crime reduction. As insurers know only too well, crime figures can relate to a number of different sociological factors. However, there’s also evidence that sound crime reduction techniques – including positive policing – can also have an impact on peoples’ behaviour and, therefore, the likelihood that they will commit (or be the victim of) crime.
Some evidence exists of the link between alarm systems and crime reduction and deterrence and, to be brutally honest, I have nothing to add to that.
It’s interesting to look at these figures in the context of the wider prevalence of certain types of crime, particularly the crime which alarms are most likely to prevent. This needs to be done with a health warning. It is very difficult to establish a direct relationship that sits behind any reduction or increase in crime. Sociological factors have an impact, so too different policing tactics and a host of other elements.
Burglary in dwellings has fallen significantly over the last ten years, from over 600,000 incidents nationally in 1996 to under 400,000 in 2005-2006. Burglaries in buildings other than dwellings – which would include commercial premises, but also the garden shed – have also fallen, though less sharply.
Unfortunately, the limitations of police data mean that it’s not possible to be clearer about levels of commercial burglary, although ACPO is negotiating with the Home Office about introducing this as a separate crime category (for understandable reasons). Nor have I seen recent work assessing the relative risk of burglary between alarmed and non-alarmed premises. The fact that burglary is a less frequent ‘problem’ than it was ten years ago, though, is nonetheless welcome.
Four years of progress
After four years as chairman of the ACPO Security Systems Working Group, I am now moving on to other work on behalf of the service. This year’s alarm figures, then, are published at a time when I can look back on several years in the chair and reflect on some of the progress made during that period.
The development of new technology continues at breathtaking speed. The biggest drop in false alarms over the last ten years happened when confirmation was introduced to the ACPO Policy. Now, the word is taking on a new meaning.
Rather than just signifying when two or more detectors are being activated during one incident, it is increasingly likely that a detector activation can be followed up through live CCTV or sound monitoring of the alarmed location. In turn, this improves the ability of an Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) to distinguish suspicious activity.
Developments in mobile technology have created new market opportunities for portable personal attack devices which should be able to provide the same functionality as installations. These will be a boon to lone workers and, potentially, increase the confidence of a number of public servants working in the field.
Some of this new technology is presenting us with different and challenging dilemmas. If someone views a crime taking place via a CCTV system, whether it’s appropriately licensed or not, should the police decline to attend when that person calls us to report it?
If the technical capability exists to immobilise a vehicle, what protocols should be in place to ensure that this is done with the minimum risk to other road users and the vehicle’s occupants? These are issues with which the Security Systems Working Group continues to grapple.
Standards: making an impact
In addition to new technology, the development of new standards continues to have an impact, although more noticeably on the industry rather than the ACPO Group. We have been pleased to support the industry by adopting a pragmatic approach to the introduction of European Standards, understanding that this can take time and that all aspects of the chain of design, supply, installation and monitoring need to be appropriately aligned.
There have been some other times when, for the right reasons, we have resisted requests from the industry to change our Security Systems Policy. Two or three years ago the concept of opening ARCs in other countries – in turn making good use of international networks to provide a monitoring and contact service at lower cost – found much favour.
On a personal level, I took the view then that, while it was perfectly acceptable for the industry to set up its ARCs anywhere in the world, ACPO would not recommend to police forces that we should attend activations passed to us through this route. This related to our – and the Inspectorates’ – ability to ensure standards applicable under the ACPO Policy were being rigorously enforced, and account for the complexities involved by taking remedial action. Some time later, a number of scandals involving misappropriation of information – particularly in the banking sector – prompted a loss of confidence in this approach, and the debate seems to have died.
Is self-regulation robust?
One of my remaining concerns regarding the industry is whether or not the current regime of self-regulation is sufficiently robust to ensure compliance with standards?
This is not a critique of the Inspectorates, rather of the system within which they are forced to operate. At their best, the dynamics of inspection seem to be positive, with a collaborative approach to addressing any drop in standards and a structure which should encourage quality and excellence. The downside could be that the relationship between Inspectorates and companies is unduly influenced by the dependence of the former on the subscriptions of the latter.
All forms of regulation have their pros and cons and, contrary to an article published in the last year in another periodical, I am not proposing that the security systems industry falls under the remit of the Security Industry Authority (though I do think it’s a debate worth having). I do feel quite strongly that it’s important to manage this tension positively and acknowledge that it’s there.
I have had the pleasure of addressing several industry conferences (and hopefully will continue to do so), and have been struck by the repeated calls for a sense of unity and strength, not just in the security systems area but also in others. One of the issues which I think the industry has yet to resolve satisfactorily is that of representation.
A strategically-minded industry needs to present a coherent outward face to the world and to its partners, such as the police service. This cannot be achieved when there is an excess of factionalism, nor when there is a burgeoning number of – occasionally conflicting – groups claiming to be representative. I feel the industry creates a vulnerability for itself by being unable to speak with a single voice. Perhaps that’s not possible.
Security industry liaison
On behalf of ACPO, I will be continuing my lead role on security industry liaison. I very much look forward to maintaining and developing an excellent and productive working relationship between the police service and the industry in its other sectors. Rest assured that I shall not lose sight of security systems issues.
Richard Childs – former chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and a very familiar name to regular readers of SMT – is resuming the chairmanship of the Group. We shall maintain regular contact to ensure that the relationship with ACPO is correctly co-ordinated.
