False alarms have long been a significant challenge for central stations, installing security contractors and law enforcement agencies. Each year, millions of false dispatches strain resources, erode customer trust and jeopardize relationships with public safety officials. Despite advancements in technology, the industry continues to grapple with the financial and operational impact of false alarms, making their reduction a top priority for stakeholders across the security ecosystem.

“Outside of pressures from things like the economy, false alarms are the largest problem we have ever had in the intrusion detection industry,” says Morgan Hertel, vice president of technology & innovation, Rapid Response Monitoring, Syracuse, N.Y. “Studies have found that it’s the number one concern for subscribers. It’s also one of the biggest concerns that public safety has with respect to alarms, but we finally have the tech to solve this now.”

Today, a combination of cutting-edge technologies and evolving best practices is reshaping the landscape of false alarm management. From enhanced verification solutions like video and audio analysis, to the integration of machine learning and predictive analytics, central stations are finding new ways to verify threats more accurately and respond more efficiently. At the same time, mobile app integration is empowering end users to play a more active role in preventing false alarms, signaling a shift toward greater collaboration between monitoring providers and their customers.

This report delves into the latest trends and challenges in false alarm reduction, drawing on the expertise of industry leaders at wholesale central stations. Through their insights, we explore how innovative tools and practices are addressing this persistent issue and what steps are needed to advance false alarm mitigation efforts further. Whether it’s leveraging AI, optimizing verification protocols or educating users, the path forward will require both technological innovation and a unified approach across the industry.

Enhanced Verification Solutions

Video and audio verification technologies are redefining how central stations tackle the challenge of false alarms. By delivering critical context through real-time visuals and sound, sources tell SDM these tools empower operators to distinguish genuine threats from harmless triggers with greater accuracy than ever before.

When asked about the types of alarm scenarios where video and audio verification are most beneficial for reducing false dispatches, Jim McMullen, president and COO of COPS Monitoring, Williamstown, N.J., states that video verification is essential for both residential and commercial applications.

“There’s strong evidence that video helps reduce false alarms, enhances security and deters crime,” he points out. “Monitored video is also a good source of revenue from new and existing customers.”

Regarding audio verification, McMullen notes, “It is more prevalent in commercial settings because monitored video systems often support integrated two-way audio and talk-down features.” In residential applications, while some alarm panels offer two-way audio, it is often integrated into keypads, which can be situated away from the point of intrusion. He also says, “Two-way audio integrated with cameras has a bigger impact than either of the technologies deployed alone.”

Having the ability to see the site when an activation occurs is a game changer, and it won’t be long before video devices are installed on every installation. Video deployments add value in every single market vertical.

COPS Monitoring central stations
COPS Monitoring central stations utilize advanced video and audio verification technologies, along with AI-driven analytics, to effectively reduce false alarms and ensure accurate threat assessment. Image Courtesy of COPS Monitoring

AI & Smart Devices Set to Transform False Alarm Management

Looking ahead, industry leaders are identifying emerging trends and next steps that could further revolutionize false alarm management. From advancements in AI-driven analytics to deeper integration with smart devices, these innovations promise to enhance central station operations and strengthen their ability to combat false alarms effectively. 

For these innovations to come to fruition, education will be crucial, says Jim McMullen of COPS Monitoring. He explains informing both commercial and residential end users on their role in reducing false dispatches and teaching them how to use their system and the tools available to them properly is critical for reducing false dispatches. 

“Providing homeowners with clear guidelines and support for proper camera placement can help them avoid common mistakes,” he says. “Offering professional installation services as an option for residential customers is another way to achieve better outcomes.” 

Additionally, McMullen continues, most monitoring companies support important tools such as SMS notifications, MyAlarmChat and panel apps that allow users to cancel alarms, as well as the option for electronic cancellation directly from the panel. However, these tools are often offered by alarm companies as options, rather than as standard features. 

“When these tools are collectively used as the default solution, we have observed a reduction in false dispatches by up to 80 percent,” McMullen says. “Therefore, instead of presenting these false alarm tools as optional services, we recommend implementing them together as a standard solution.” 

While technology advancements and end-user education are essential components in reducing false alarms, Caroline Brown of Security Central points to a growing operational reality that central stations must also address. 

“This is less of an emerging trend and more of a stark reality,” Brown notes. “In larger cities especially, false alarms without video or audio support to verify the event in question are not going to be responded to, allowing true emergencies to take precedence. Resources are too limited for municipalities to spend valuable energy where there is no data available.” 

This shift underscores the increasing importance of video and audio verification as municipalities adapt their response protocols to prioritize verified events. Central stations must be prepared to meet this demand by leveraging technologies that provide the necessary context to ensure legitimate alarms are handled swiftly and efficiently. 

As municipalities adapt their response protocols, the industry is also moving toward greater data integration to enhance emergency response. Trey Alter of Dynamark Monitoring highlights one initiative that is paving the way for more efficient alarm handling and dispatch. 

“I believe TMA is doing a terrific job with the ASAP to PSAP program, and this will play a vital role in our industry’s continued expansion,” Alter says. He envisions a future where central stations synthesize multiple data streams — including video, alarm signals, geolocation data, and environmental information — simultaneously. 

“This approach will allow us to provide first responders with contextual data to help them deploy the right amount and type of resources safely for the problem at hand,” he explains. 

By combining these advancements with programs like ASAP to PSAP, he says, central stations can ensure more precise and effective responses, ultimately reducing the impact of false alarms while improving outcomes for true emergencies. 

In addition to advancing technology and refining processes, fostering collaboration across the security ecosystem is critical to the success of false alarm reduction efforts. Jason Caldwell of Immix emphasizes the importance of clear communication between all stakeholders to achieve meaningful progress. 

“Communication between all levels of the security ecosystem is essential to create the outcomes we all desire as an industry,” Caldwell says. “Whether it is from the monitoring center to the integrator, integrator to client, or integrator or center to law enforcement, communication of what technologies and procedures can be and are being used will result in faster, safer responses for law enforcement and foster better relationships between all stakeholders.” 

This collaborative approach not only improves response times but also strengthens partnerships, he says, ensuring a unified effort to tackle the ongoing challenge of false alarms. 

Caroline Brown, president of Security Central in Statesville, N.C., highlights the importance of video and audio verification in accurately assessing threat levels at both residential and commercial sites, emphasizing that these tools are indispensable across all scenarios.

Security Central categorizes threat levels into three categories: environmental, person non-threat, or a true threatening situation. Brown explains, “After the initial determination is made, the dispatch team is able to determine the most appropriate next steps.” She highlights the importance of providing detailed information to law enforcement, saying, “The more information we can provide to law enforcement, the better we are able to partner with their agencies and help eliminate wasted resources at locations without true emergencies or high-level threats.”

Brown also mentions AVS-01, the new TMA alarm dispatching standardization protocol, as an instrumental tool. She notes that this protocol allows monitoring centers to “provide the criticality of an event to emergency dispatch centers allowing those centers to determine the best allocation of resources.”

Trey Alter, president and CEO of Dynamark Monitoring, Hagerstown, Md., comments that video has effectively supplanted audio-based technology as today’s modern cameras can both see and hear.

“Having the ability to see the site when an activation occurs is a game changer, and it won’t be long before video devices are installed on every installation,” he says. “Video deployments add value in every single market vertical.”

While video and audio verification technologies have transformed alarm management, they are not without their challenges. Industry leaders continue to identify limitations that impact their effectiveness and are exploring innovative solutions to overcome these obstacles and enhance their capabilities.

Brown explains that while video technology — particularly with the addition of analytics and AI layering — has made significant advancements, it is not flawless. She notes that these systems can still misinterpret objects, such as mistaking an item resembling a crouching person with a weapon for an actual threat.

“We still must have human intervention to verify the information reported or gather additional details with other information available at the location,” she says.

McMullen highlights that the effectiveness of video verification technologies can be hindered by factors such as camera placement, positioning, obstructions, lighting, and maintenance. He notes that in commercial environments, these challenges are often mitigated by licensed professionals who are well-versed in video surveillance best practices.

“The situation can be different in residential applications. Many homeowners install their own cameras, often without a full understanding of optimal placement,” McMullen says. “This can lead to increased false alarms due to irrelevant activity rather than focusing on potential intruders.”

The more information we can provide to law enforcement, the better we are able to partner with their agencies and help eliminate wasted resources at locations without true emergencies or high-level threats.

Security Central monitoring center operator
A Security Central monitoring center operator assesses real-time alarms using advanced verification methods to quickly identify and respond to legitimate threats, helping to reduce false alarms and improve operational efficiency. Image Courtesy of Security Central

How False Alarms Have Changed Over the Last Five Years

False alarms continue to pose a major challenge for the security industry, consuming valuable resources, straining relationships with law enforcement, and frustrating end users. To explore how this issue has evolved over time, SDM asked executives from leading wholesale monitoring centers to share their perspectives on the current state of false alarms compared to five years ago. Have advancements in technology and shifting user behaviors helped to mitigate the problem, or are new challenges emerging? Following are their insights, reflecting both progress and the work still to be done. 

“False alarms per activation have been trending down significantly over the last few years due to advances in technology. Tier 1 monitoring centers, including Dynamark, are utilizing alarm chat and other tools to make it easier for customers to take an active role in false alarm reduction. The downside is that this technology is not universally available to all alarm dealers, and there is more that can and should be done to alleviate the burdens false alarms put on first responders.” — Trey Alter, Dynamark Monitoring 

“We’ve noticed a significant reduction in false alarms over the past five years. This improvement can largely be attributed to a combination of raised awareness, technological advancements, monitored video and dealers’ strategic use of the tools available to their subscribers. —  Jim McMullen, COPS Monitoring 

“The issue of false alarms is a significant challenge for monitoring stations to combat, daily. Compared to a few years ago, you have more jurisdictions not providing response without a verified alarm. Therefore, as technology advances, it is key for monitoring centers work with integrators to layer services providing more information than a simple burglar alarm activation. One solution that has progressed rapidly in the last five years is video verification. It is a great tool to help determine if there is a threat at the site and if so, what is such threat.” —  Caroline Brown, president, Security Central

He adds that the portability of residential cameras may give consumers peace of mind by allowing them to move the cameras to surveil different areas at different times, although it could come at the cost of detecting and deterring intrusions effectively.

While video and audio verification technologies have transformed alarm management, they are not without their challenges. Industry leaders continue to identify limitations that impact their effectiveness and are exploring innovative solutions to overcome these obstacles and enhance their capabilities.

Jason Caldwell, director of marketing, Immix, Tampa, Fla., underscores that improper implementation of video monitoring systems often contributes to false alarms. “False alarms are a significant hindrance to a monitoring center’s operational and cost efficiencies,” he explains. “Because of the nature of how video works and how it is often not properly implemented in the field from a monitoring perspective, the false alarm issue is most often the biggest challenge our monitoring center partners face.”

This insight, as noted by Caldwell, emphasizes the importance of proper setup and alignment of video systems with monitoring protocols to maximize their effectiveness and reduce unnecessary alerts.

Hertel cautions that no one or two technologies can fix the false alarm issue. Rather, a combination of many things is needed.

“It’s not just audio and video that is part of the new ecosystem; it’s putting things together to give monitoring centers enough data points to make good decisions,” he says. “The new paradigm has to include things like biometrics, voice recognition, device detection like cell phones and watches, network status, and Wi-Fi sensing.

“It’s also important for the subscriber to be an active participant in the process to identify safe people and review audio and video as part of the alarm response. On top of that, good AI that can learn patterns and behaviors needs to be implemented.”

Mobile Integration

The rise of mobile app integration has given end users unprecedented control over their alarm systems, transforming how false alarms are managed. By enabling real-time notifications and interactive features, these technologies empower users to verify or dismiss alarms quickly, significantly reducing the frequency of user-triggered false alarms.

Alter asserts that mobile alerts have had a transformative impact on reducing false dispatches, calling them “the most impactful technology in the history of our industry” for this purpose. He notes that Dynamark saw a 42 percent drop in dispatches among users who adopted mobile alert technology.

“We have heard from other peers they have experienced similar results,” Alter says. “This is another technology enhancement we have been offering at no cost for years because it benefits everyone from the customer all the way through to the 911 centers.”

He adds that Dynamark has found SMS-based alerts have the highest adoption rate, since no apps or downloads are required. “An SMS message with a click-through to an intuitive user interface gets results. The vast majority of customers now use their phone to cancel alarms.”

McMullen highlights the significant role mobile apps and end-user notifications have played in reducing false dispatches. Reflecting on past strategies, he explains that Enhanced Call Verification (ECV), which required making at least two verification calls before dispatching authorities, was initially effective in cutting down unnecessary responses.

“Over time, however, ECV lost its impact as user behavior shifted,” McMullen notes. He attributes this decline to the rise of smartphones, caller ID and the flood of robocalls, which led many users to ignore calls from unknown numbers. “Monitoring centers found themselves making multiple calls and leaving voicemails instead of addressing false alarms or focusing on real emergencies,” he adds, emphasizing the challenges this created for traditional ECV methods.

As end-user preferences shifted, McMullen continues, SMS and push notifications emerged as a more effective alternative to voice calls. These methods align better with user behavior, offering instant and non-intrusive communication coupled with panel control and the ability to video.

“By leveraging these technologies, end users can now receive alarm notifications in real time and take immediate action directly from their mobile devices,” he says. “This includes the ability to communicate and cancel false alarms electronically, providing a simple and efficient way to prevent unnecessary dispatches with minimal effort.”

McMullen says by adapting to these preferences, the industry has seen substantial reductions in false dispatches and increased user satisfaction.

Taking end user preferences into account is critical, Hertel says. “We feel strongly that we have to meet the person where they are at. If they prefer to use SMS then that’s how events should be delivered to them. But if they are in other parts of the world where SMS is less prevalent than things like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp, we need to support those. You can’t make people use a technology they either can’t, won’t or is cost prohibitive to use in order to communicate with them. It’s important to be flexible in delivery methods.”

Brown explains that end-user apps help reduce false alarms by keeping customers more engaged with their security systems. She notes that push notifications sent to smartphones are more effective at prompting user interaction compared to traditional phone calls about alarms.

“Many of the manufacturers have end-user apps allowing the client to view cameras, activate or deactivate the system, cancel an alarm, and more,” she says. “These apps, again, are connecting the end user to their system making them sticky to security versus having to turn on the system physically. Security apps are providing convenience and becoming more of a lifestyle function.”

Machine Learning & Predictive Analytics

The integration of machine learning is becoming a game-changer in the effort to reduce false alarms, enabling more intelligent and efficient alarm verification. By analyzing patterns and adapting to user behaviors, machine learning is refining response protocols, offering a glimpse into the future of smarter, more accurate alarm management systems.

Caldwell of Immix says there is no doubt that the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has been a crucial factor in tackling false and nuisance alarm reduction. While video analytics have existed for some time, he says, the rapid advancements in machine learning technology today are having a significant, positive impact on the industry.

“The ability to get much more granular and specific on the type of objects or behaviors that a client may be looking to detect reduces the number of unnecessary alarms that central station or SOC operators must process,” Caldwell explains. “It is far more than just people and vehicles now. AI technologies can now detect things like direction of movement, speed or aggressive movement, crowd sizes, people counting, weapons, colors, loitering and more. That enables centers to offer more specialized services that often draw higher margins while at the same time reducing operational costs.”

Some limitations of video verification technologies are the placement, positioning, obstructions, lighting, and maintenance of cameras, all of which directly impact their effectiveness in detecting intrusion and reducing false alarms.

How False Alarms Have Changed Over the Last Five Years

Morgan Hertel of Rapid Response Monitoring, offers the following advice for any central station trying to reduce false alarms: approach it as a “crawl, walk, run” project and break this down into strategic steps: 

Step 1. The first step, which is often overlooked, is that a lot can be done by managing how accounts are currently being monitored and responded to. As I travel around, I ask people what their “clearance rate” is. I usually get the proverbial “deer in the headlights” look. This tells me that many managers and operational people are not even managing their monitored accounts today. Remember, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. 

The “clearance rate” is the percentage of alarms you receive and don’t wind up dispatching on. So, if you have a 100 alarm events and dispatch a first responder five times, you have a clearance rate of 95 percent. A good goal for intrusion alarms, handled by a well-managed company, is about a 93 percent or better clearance rate. 

Step 2. The next step would be to carefully plan your approach for tackling false alarm activity. Start by doing your research on the technologies that are available. CES is weeks away and ISC West is not too far after. Use those events to immerse yourself in the opportunities. Make a point to check out things like audio, video, and analytics etc. at the shows. Test them out first with your home and office, not a customer. Get to a point where you are fully comfortable with the technology and how to solidly install it, only then should you start to sell it. 

Step 3. Work with your vendors and monitoring centers to formulate a “rinse and repeat” solution. Then be sure to track it and watch its performance and always be adjusting to make the biggest impact. 

Jay Autrey, chief customer officer for Guardian Alarm, Southfield Michigan (SDM’s 2024 Dealer of the Year), says AI gives them the ability to scale parts of their business like their Virtual Guardian remote video monitoring offering. “Unlike having to monitor video real-time for multiple cameras, the AI part has improved so much it is identifying and triggering on the right events and not on the false events,” he says. This makes that type of offering far more cost effective for both large commercial and smaller customers, he says. “Things that would trigger false alarms in the past are reduced.”

McMullen of COPS Monitoring expresses that integrating machine learning, particularly AI, into professionally monitored video has fundamentally transformed false alarm response protocols, making them far more efficient and scalable.

“Before the adoption of AI, video verification provided valuable insights for reducing false dispatches, but it came at a cost — an overwhelming increase in activity routed to monitoring centers,” he says. “Cameras without AI triggered all motion events indiscriminately, leading to alerts triggered by meaningless activities such as animals, passing delivery trucks, pedestrians, swaying trees, or even insects and spiders. While these events did not pose a security threat, they significantly taxed monitoring resources and created inefficiencies.”

McMullen explains that AI can analyze motion events in real time, filtering out routine occurrences before they reach a dispatcher, and only forwarding those that truly require further attention. He notes that this capability greatly reduces the number of alerts sent to monitoring centers, allowing human operators to concentrate on more meaningful and actionable incidents.

“Further evolution of AI will not only continue to improve response but will also keep labor costs down, helping to ensure that professionally monitored video remains an affordable and sustainable option,” he says.

At Dynamark, Alter says that AI has enabled the processing of far more data than was previously possible, allowing for the extraction of valuable insights that were once hidden.

“Understanding how weather, time of day, user behavior and other factors impact alarm traffic can help us get better outcomes,” he says. “We are using many sources of data to create probability scores which will further reduce false dispatches and accelerate intervention before crimes take place.”

As for what the future holds for machine learning in false alarm reduction, Alter believes AI will impact the industry in a multitude of ways. One will be the continued decline of smaller monitoring centers.

“Today’s most sophisticated monitoring centers have become technology powerhouses. Dynamark and others are investing exponentially more into R&D, artificial intelligence tools and new technology,” he says. “It has taken on a bit of a cold war-style arms race feel. In periods like this earlier adopters thrive, and those who fail to make the investments struggle to survive.”