75% in six months after such a meeting. (3-6 months)9. Second meeting of dealers/chiefs that missed first meeting - required in some states with poor attendance or dealers with poor follow-up on customers. (1-6 months based on progress)
10. Review of resistive/difficult accounts requiring additional dealer/ police interaction – feedback through dealers/coordinator of customers who were difficult or not cooperative in taking corrective action on their system sometimes required a letter, call or meeting (see below) to resolve. (3-6 months)
- Some departments dispatched a patrol officer to speak with citizens reluctant to cooperate.
- Some Chiefs made personal calls to the worst of non-compliant alarm dealers urging their participation.
11. By Chiefs invitation, separate group meetings with Banks, Schools, and Community facilities – some departments held group meetings with these unique – high dispatch rate users. Alarm industry leaders participated in these meetings explaining solutions and supporting law enforcement. The City of Elgin reduced bank dispatches
12. Progress meeting with Chiefs (Alarm Dealers) – various follow-up meetings were held depending on local need. Some meetings were held at scheduled association events to give dealers a progress report and encourage more participation. At minimum – leadership communicated every 30-45 days to evaluate program progress. (monthly)
13. Data sent to and processed by State Coordinator monthly – all participating departments sent monthly data to coordinator for compilation and progress analysis by SACOP and AIREF National Coordinator. (monthly)
| |
MODEL STATES REPORT Best Practices in Reducing False Dispatches | |
-117- |