Cutting back on false alarms
False personal attack alarm rates on the High Street are now as high as 96% due to retail sector employees pushing their ‘panic buttons’ for the wrong reasons.
In many ways, this isn’t surprising. Violent crime is both a real and perceived threat for front line shop workers, many of whom may be part-time or students earning an extra bit of money. The British Retail Consortium’s annual Retail Crime Survey continually points to substantial percentage rises in reports of violent robbery at UK stores, with one-in-five smaller retailers firmly believing that they’re in constant danger of losing staff members due to actual violent crime or the threat of it.
Indeed, perceived violence and aggressive behaviour is a huge cause for concern. A survey by UK Retail Recruitment suggests that 95% of retail staff questioned had experienced an increase in bad manners from members of the great shopping public, while 59% had been on the receiving end of aggressive behaviour and/or swearing. National shop workers Trade Union USDAW’s statistics state that, during every minute of every working day, a shop worker in the UK is verbally abused or attacked.
It’s this perceived and real threat that may prompt staff to hit the personal alarm or panic buttons under the counter and, thus, run the risk of that store being ‘blacklisted’ in terms of future police response if officers arrive on scene and the incident has ended.
Current response policy
The police service operates a policy on personal alarms whereby response is withdrawn for anything up to three months after two false activations within a rolling 12-month period. Typically, it will cost the retailer somewhere between GB pound 1,500 and GB pound 2,000 to upgrade their systems such that they have the right verification or ‘intervention’ technology in situ, but they must then also provide written confirmation that the fault has been remedied within the three-month ‘notice period’ in order that police response is reinstated.
An average call-out to a false personal alarm results in a police officer spending up to 45 minutes away from other front line duties. That being the case, ACPO is ‘getting tough’. The full amendment to its response policy will be detailed on the ACPO web site (www.acpo.police.uk) come the end of this month, alongside calls for the industry to be more transparent in its dealings with retailers.
From 1 April – when the amended policy is enforced across the 43 constabularies in England and Wales – retailers will have to better educate their store employees on the correct procedures and use of personal alarms, at the same time introducing verification technology that can prove a genuine incident is in progress or has occurred.
ACPO wants retailers to introduce that technology through their Alarm Receiving Centres (ARCs) or by manual telephone call-back to stores. The verification technology, which may be audio or video-linked, can even incorporate a ‘talk back’ facility allowing two-way conversation. This may be used by staff to confirm the correct deployment of the system.
Audit trail of incidents
Importantly, the audio or video also provides an audit trail of genuine incidents even after criminals have fled the scene. Evidence that’s more likely to allow a given store to maintain its future police response levels.
The new ACPO policy follows on from two successful trials of verification technology carried out by SSS Managed Services in conjunction with The Co-operative Group and The Carphone Warehouse, the results of which we shared with ACPO. During the trials, audio verification was employed to filter 97% of personal alarm activations across selected stores run by both organisations. Of more than 270 alarm activations, the police attended only ten incidents.
We have calculated that this would result in a police service time saving of 246 hours – freeing-up more than five full manpower days for overstretched officers.
The Co-operative Group was recently singled out for praise by ACPO in relation to its ARC audio verification response system, and Philip Willsmer – group operations manager for asset and property protection – is intent on further talks with ACPO representatives (he has already been involved in “a number of positive meetings”) to encourage all stores to make a move towards managed systems.
“The telephone line and monitoring system we installed in conjunction with SSS is proving a real success in terms of reduced false alarms, and has assisted us in retaining police response in every location,” comments Willsmer. “During the three-month trial numerous activations were filtered by the ARC, with the police attending the four genuine incidents that occurred. This proves beyond all doubt the benefits of such a system.”
Willsmer continues: “The system has made a real difference because we can now provide officers with verification to assist them in securing prosecutions in some of our higher risk stores where we might previously have been in danger of losing our police cover altogether. Where appropriate, it also means that the ARC operators can broadcast messages to offenders, letting them know that they’re being monitored.”
Willsmer is “delighted” that The Co-operative Group has been able to contribute to the new Best Practice approach, and the fact that it will become an industry standard from the beginning of April.
Roll-out at high risk sites
Philip Mead – head of security at The Carphone Warehouse – has also piloted the new verification technology and is now rolling this out at high risk stores across the company’s UK estate. “False alarms are simply no longer an issue for us. If we are confronted with a genuine incident, we can demonstrate this to the police and retain our cover at that store.”
In a speech to the National Security Inspectorate, Ken Meanwell (company approval officer at ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives and an authority on intruder alarms policy) spoke of cases where the police service has sent unarmed officers to armed situations or armed officers were sent unnecessarily. Visual or audio confirmation of personal attack is important to guarantee police response.
“Interventions by ARCs calling back to make sure staff hadn’t let alarms off by mistake is the way forward,” suggested Meanwell.
At the tail end of last year, SSS published a report entitled ‘Security Outsourcing in the Retail Industry’. The report was based on a telephone survey involving 50 heads of security at leading retailers, in addition to assimilated data from 14 national retailers responsible for no less than 1.5 million square metres of retail space.
Key findings included the fact that 98% of all alarms were being falsely triggered. Monitoring Centres typically filter only one-in-four alarms, resulting in a staggering 73% of police responses being unnecessary. A managed service can reduce that figure below 10% by ensuring that equipment is properly maintained, combining proactive alarm filtering and verification procedures to ensure a fully-effective alarm management system and the maintenance of effective relationships with local police forces.
Staggeringly, 31% of retail sites are ‘blacklisted’ by the police at any given moment (a managed service would reduce that figure to below 12%). The report states: “Unfortunately, most retailers don’t know how widespread the removal of police response is within their business because their security solutions suppliers don’t tell them.”
A conflict of interests
At the moment, it could be argued that the security industry has a conflict of interests in the area of false alarms because it’s perceived to be benefiting financially from a problem that could be seen to be of its own making. Each time a store has police response removed, as stated it will cost the retailer anything up to GB pound 2,000 for a systems upgrade, often from the same security supplier whose previous system may have been at fault (or who may not have adequately filtered for false alarms).
The report also suggests that only 62% of inspection visits specified in contracts actually happen. The cost implication is clear because retailers pay for the visits that never take place. More worrying is the fact that uninspected systems may fail, leaving retailers’ premises and employees unprotected by the police.
In addition, the study found that security contractors only complete 71% of repair calls within the time specified in a contract. Sites and employees are left vulnerable because security contractors are failing to meet contractual obligations that have already been paid for in full. A managed service would guarantee that 96% of repair calls are completed on time, and that retail clients only pay for calls actually carried out.
The foundation of any effective outsourcing agreement is a realistic, flexible and enforceable contract detailing service levels in addition to the penalties that will be imposed for poor performance. The SSS report highlights the fact that retailers don’t enforce contracts rigorously because they lack full management reports. This means security suppliers are afforded a level of freedom unknown in other areas of the retail industry.
However, a managed service would guarantee that delivery tracking is enforced, so too contract failure penalties and that payment integrity is 100% (complete with invoice checking and validation).
Levels of cover and premiums
The SSS report has been seen by the Association of British Insurers (ABI). That organisation, not surprisingly, is adamant that the loss of police response will have serious implications for retailers’ levels of cover and their premiums. An ABI spokesperson explained: “We actively encourage any initiative that promotes industry Best Practice and safety and security, while at the same time reducing business exposure to risk.”
Above all, then, there is an overriding need for a single point of management control as retail outsourcing to security systems suppliers is far less effective than it might be. Underperformance stems mainly from a lack of transparency in the relationships between retail clients and security suppliers.
Retailers are forced to tolerate poor levels of service delivery from their suppliers because they cannot analyse what’s being done on their behalf. Without clarity, it’s fair to say that control is impossible.