The number of reported false alarms in Hong Kong has dropped by 25,030 over a period of six years between 1998 and 2004, as a result of the initiatives taken by Crime Prevention Bureau (CPB), and the hard work of its Intruder Alarms Inspection Unit (IAIU).

In 1998, there were 48,839 false alarms from 24,699 intruder alarm installations, but the figure has been reduced during subsequent years to 23,809 from 26,384 installations by the end of 2004, a staggering decrease of 51.3 per cent.

CIP Slater hopes to see a further drop in false alarm calls in 2005

This substantial reduction has also been reflected in a corresponding decrease in the ratio of false alarms per installation per year. In 1998, the ratio was 1.65, which eventually dropped to 0.9 by the end of 2004, comparing favourably with those of developed countries such as UK and Singapore, and represents a major breakthrough for CPB in that for the first time in many years the number of false alarms has dropped below the number of alarm installations.

Many man-hours saved

CPB's achievement has apparently saved the Force hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of man-hours spent in responding to false alarms. By CPB's estimate that handling a false alarm in day time would on average take five man-hours on the part of 10 officers, a total of 125,150 man-hours have been saved for other police duties.

To date, there are 26,384 alarm systems registered with Police, which are installed in banks, goldsmiths, jewellery and watch shops, offices, factories, restaurants, supermarkets, education institutions, and homes, etc. As a result, Hong Kong has its fair share of the long-standing and worldwide false alarm problem, which has been causing considerable wastage of police resources.

To address the problem and reduce wastage, CPB introduced, in August 1989, a three-tier "Phased Response Scheme for Intruder Alarms (PRS)", under which all registered alarm systems were divided into three levels and police response to alarm activations was related to their records of reliability.

The PRS was changed in April 2004 by a new four-tier scheme, which is more stringent, by adding a fourth level of no response for an alarm activation. An alarm installation will be downgraded to this level if it has 10 false calls in 365 days; or the key holder, without reasonable excuse, fails to return to reset the alarm system within two hours, twice in 365 days. Alarm systems downgraded to the fourth level will not receive a police response for 90 days.

Chief Inspector Dave Slater, who is in charge of CPB's Security Companies Inspection Unit, is very pleased with what the new PRS has achieved so far. "The new PRS has put more responsibility on the alarm subscribers to prevent false alarms by ensuring that their alarm installations function properly. They also see the need to engage professionals to install and maintain their alarm systems. So far, we've had good response from the subscribers who are adopting a more positive approach to their alarm installations and responsibilities," he said.

Looking ahead, Mr Slater said CPB hoped to achieve a lower ratio in 2005. "We're aiming at a ratio of 0.8 per alarm installation. For this, we'll continue working closely with the alarm subscribers, installation companies, the Central Alarm Monitoring Stations (CAMSs) and the insurance industry. This will allow our stretched resources to be deployed to genuine incidents!" he noted.

Apart from the PRS, the false alarm reductions can also be attributed to the efforts made by IAIU, which was set up in 1989.

More initiatives taken

Senior Inspector Frankie Chung, OC of IAIU, has spoken to OffBeat of some of the initiatives taken by his unit.

He said that in late 1998, IAIU started discussions with the Hong Kong Security Association (HKSA) to look for ways to improve the situation regarding false alarms. As a result, the HKSA initiated a Code of Practice in April 1999, which required CAMSs to verify alarm calls before a report is made to the police. The Code also requires the CAMSs to submit monthly analysis of all alarm activations reported to the police, and this requirement has proved invaluable in pinpointing problem areas and reasons for false alarms.

Since January 2001, Mr Chung added, his officers have undertaken a major campaign to inspect all alarm systems in Hong Kong, with the objectives of enhancing alarm subscribers' knowledge of the operations of their alarm systems, reminding them of the PRS and promoting awareness of crime prevention.

The officers are also visiting licensed installation companies and CAMSs with a view to forging closer co-operation and liaison, and offering technical advice and suggestions where necessary.

During visits to CAMSs, IAIU officers make sure that they comply with the Code of Practice in reporting alarm activations to the police, and that their monitoring equipment is adequate and updated. In addition, they also offer advice on signal transmission technology that would help them in alerting RCCC of alarm activations.

Over the last four years, CPB has presented certificates to the five top CAMSs of the year as recognition of their good performance.