SIAC Alert: Seattle’s Lesson on Verified Response

The letter came as a shock to companies that provide electronic security in Seattle as well as to the 65,000 customers they serve.

The Seattle Police Department provided less than a month’s warning that they were implementing verified response. The process that normally provides some warning to the industry and customers of this type of controversial proposal was completely absent. There were no city council briefings, public hearings or request for any input from industry experts. An interim chief of police who will not be accountable for the fallout simply announced the policy.

Like many public safety agencies, Seattle is chronically short of police officers and is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals. So, unless our industry continues its proactive stance to offer proven alternatives to verified response, we are likely to see a trend that died down in recent years once again rear its ugly head.

The lure of verified response is that it plays well in PowerPoint presentations and sound bites, even though in practice it has shown to be unpopular and deeply flawed. Only a handful of the nation’s 18,000 public safety agencies have utilized the verified response approach to alarm management, and many cities such as Dallas, Madison, Wisc., and San Jose, rescinded the policy due to opposition from businesses and homeowners.

SIAC and local alarm organizations can provide impressive statistics that argue for the Model Alarm Ordinance vs. verified response. The data demonstrates only a tiny portion of alarm sites are the cause of most false alarms. Achieving a successful alarm management program occurs when a strict alarm ordinance is adopted, coupled with strict enforcement. Data from four major regions — Phoenix; Montgomery County, Md.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Atlanta — demonstrates an average of 87 percent of alarm users achieved zero law enforcement dispatch requests in a 12-month period.

“This information can be very effective if delivered to public safety agencies and elected officials when they consider alarm management issues,” said Stan Martin, executive director, Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC). “However, if minds have already been made up with no industry input, confirmation bias sets in and the information is discounted or ignored.”

The challenge our industry faces going forward is that many public safety agencies are just now starting to address serious recruitment and retention issues. Many departments, including Seattle, are raising salaries, offering bonuses and changing standards and other practices to try to get more recruits. But these are long-term solutions.

As we move forward in 2025 and beyond, it is more important than ever that our industry continues to build relationships with law enforcement and elected officials at every level.

SIAC will continue its role of providing expertise and working directly with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and related state organizations as well as the National Sheriff’s Association. SIAC needs ongoing strong financial support from the industry to continue these efforts.

Sadly, Seattle won’t be the only city to fall for the allure of verified response as a quick fix to serious public safety issues. If companies want to donate in support of SIAC’s mission, they can do so via PayPal online or mail a check.