Some Cities Are Requiring Alarm Verification for Response – What It Means for the Security Industry

alarm verification concept

The Seattle, Washington, Police Department recently released a letter notifying stakeholders of an abrupt decision to stop responding to most security alarms, effective as of Oct. 1, 2024. This news has prompted many recent inquiries from Security Industry Association (SIA) members.

Steve Keefer headshot
Steve Keefer is deputy executive director of the Security Industry Alarm Coalition.

The policy, known as verified response, requires audio, video or human verification of a crime in progress before police respond. The letter gave less than three weeks’ notification of this dramatic policy change.

Unlike other communities, the city held no public hearings or community meetings and did not ask for input or assistance from alarm providers.

The Security, Integration, & Life Safety Association of the Northwest (SILSA NW) asked for assistance from the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC), which is supported by SIA and other industry organizations. SIAC has helped local alarm associations address this type of issue for more than 20 years.

Verified Response

Beginning in 2000 in Salt Lake City, Utah, similar verified response policies have been heavily promoted by some local law enforcement agencies. At that time, police were concerned about the growing number of false alarms, as systems then were not as reliable as they are today.

Despite these efforts by proponents, the fact is that most communities that have considered this idea have rejected it. Around that same time the security industry created SIAC, which works with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs’ Association to create, test and prove the value of a model alarm ordinance that has significantly reduced the strain on resources from unnecessary calls for service while ensuring police response for emergencies.

Thanks to these efforts, the Seattle Police Department is only the 19th agency out of 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to adopt this policy in 24 years. Fifteen other agencies throughout the U.S. broadcast alarms to officers but do not guarantee a response.

Eleven agencies have experimented verified response and then later rejected it after citizen complaints and concerns about crime. These include South Salt Lake City, Utah; Summit, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; Cathedral City, California; Washoe County, Nevada; Indio, California; Henderson, Nevada; Chico, California; West Valley, Utah; and San Jose, California.

SIAC is working to address concerns about Seattle’s new policy, urging that it be modified or reversed. The effort is headed by Steve Keefer, a retired chief of police and SIAC deputy executive director and law enforcement liaison. In addition, SIAC staff are working with SILSA NW to provide support in the form of letters to elected officials and customers, media outreach and social media messages to alert alarm owners and citizens to the sudden unexpected change.

SIAC’s ongoing work with law enforcement leaders throughout the United States has been instrumental in guiding agencies away from adopting verified response policies before they are put into place and potentially create safety and security vulnerabilities. Its model ordinance has been adopted by approximately 1,000 public safety agencies.

One consequence of this success is a lack of awareness due to verified response not coming up as often as it once did, and it is important that the industry is not complacent with its response. SIA has generously supported this important work, but SIAC needs additional industry support to continue. When a city of significant size like Seattle decides to halt alarm responses, the implications are considerable, and it is crucial to have a well-funded team in place to act quickly and persuade them to reconsider this harmful policy.

Follow SIAC for announcements and updates on LinkedIn and Facebook. And learn more about SIAC and donate here.

The views and opinions expressed in guest posts and/or profiles are those of the authors or sources and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Security Industry Association.