[data-wf-bgvideo-fallback-img] { display: none; } @media (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce) { [data-wf-bgvideo-fallback-img] { position: absolute; z-index: -100; display: inline-block; height: 100%; width: 100%; object-fit: cover; } }

Prevent Car Break-ins: Cloudastructure’s multi-family residential remote surveillance

Child Safety Survey Insights 2026

Q1: In the Past Year, Has Your Property Had an Incident Involving a Child (Injury, Close Call, or Unauthorized Access to a Pool or Gym)?

Poll Results

Hover over the chart to interact.

Click For Raw Data

Poll Results – Q1: In the Past Year, Has Your Property Had an Incident Involving a Child (Injury, Close Call, or Unauthorized Access to a Pool or Gym)?

Not that we know of — 21 (51%)
Not sure — 8 (20%)
Yes, more than once — 10 (24%)
Yes, once — 2 (5%)

Key Takeaways

✔

Child safety incidents are more common than most assume. Nearly a quarter of properties reported an incident involving a child happening more than once, showing this isn't a rare edge case but a recurring risk factor at multifamily communities.

✔

Uncertainty is almost as high as confirmed incidents. One in five respondents said they weren't sure whether an incident occurred, revealing a significant visibility gap that could leave property managers unaware of real risks on their own grounds.

✔

Repeat incidents outweigh one-time events. Among properties that reported an incident, the "more than once" group was five times larger than the "once" group, suggesting that when child safety issues happen, they tend to happen again rather than being isolated.

✔

Roughly half report no known incidents, but that's not the same as no risk. While 51% said "not that we know of," this response still leaves room for unreported or undetected incidents, especially in high-traffic areas like pools and gyms.

Summary: Nearly half of surveyed properties report either a confirmed or uncertain child safety incident within the past year, with a notable share experiencing repeat occurrences involving pools and gyms. The high rate of "not sure" responses points to a broader visibility gap that leaves property managers unable to fully assess risk or respond proactively. As these incidents often center on high-traffic amenity areas, this data highlights a clear need for stronger monitoring at access points. AI video surveillance and remote guarding solutions can help close this gap, giving property managers real-time visibility into pool and gym areas, deterring unauthorized access, and supporting a safer, better-documented multifamily security posture.

Q2: When Something Like That Happens After Hours, With No Staff On-Site, How Does Your Team Typically Find Out?

Poll Results

Hover over the chart to interact.

Click For Raw Data

Poll Results – Q2: When Something Like That Happens After Hours, With No Staff On-Site, How Does Your Team Typically Find Out?

A resident reports it — 32 (82%)
Honestly, we might not know — 6 (15%)
Staff reviews surveillance/access control daily — 1 (3%)
We have real-time AI alerts and live monitoring — 0 (0%)

Key Takeaways

✔

Reactive discovery is the norm. At 82%, the overwhelming majority of teams only learn about after-hours incidents when a resident reports them, meaning discovery depends entirely on someone else noticing and speaking up.

✔

A meaningful share may never find out at all. 15% admitted they honestly might not know if something happened, pointing to a real blind spot in after-hours coverage.

✔

Proactive review is nearly nonexistent. Just 3% said staff actively reviews surveillance or access control footage daily, showing that even where cameras exist, they're rarely being checked in a timely way.

✔

Zero properties have real-time detection. No respondents reported having real-time AI alerts or live monitoring in place, meaning every single property is relying on delayed, human-dependent discovery methods.

✔

The gap between incident and awareness is the core risk. With 97% of teams learning about issues only after the fact (via residents or none at all), the real vulnerability isn't just incidents happening — it's how long they go unnoticed.

Summary: The data shows a clear reliance on residents to flag after-hours incidents, with no properties currently using real-time monitoring to catch issues as they happen. This gap between when something occurs and when staff actually finds out leaves teams consistently playing catch-up rather than responding in the moment.

Q3: If a Child Got Into a Restricted Area at 2 A.M., How Confident Are You That Your Team Would Know in Time to Act?

Poll Results

Hover over the chart to interact.

Click For Raw Data

Poll Results – Q3: If a Child Got Into a Restricted Area at 2 A.M., How Confident Are You That Your Team Would Know in Time to Act?

Not confident — 16 (52%)
Somewhat confident — 9 (29%)
Very confident — 6 (19%)

Key Takeaways

✔

Confidence is the exception, not the rule. Only 19% of respondents said they'd be very confident their team would know in time to act, meaning roughly 4 in 5 teams have doubts about their after-hours response readiness.

✔

More than half admit outright uncertainty. At 52%, the majority selected "not confident," signaling a widespread lack of trust in current systems to catch a fast-moving, high-stakes situation in real time.

✔

Combined doubt affects the vast majority. Adding "not confident" and "somewhat confident" together, 81% of respondents have some level of uncertainty about timely awareness, showing this isn't a fringe concern but a shared industry-wide gap.

✔

A meaningful chunk of respondents skipped the question. With 10 of 41 people (24%) not answering, some teams may find this question especially difficult to confront, possibly reflecting discomfort with the honest answer.

✔

The "very confident" group is a clear minority. At just 6 out of 31 respondents, high confidence is rare enough to suggest that most current monitoring setups aren't built for split-second, after-hours scenarios involving children.

Summary: Confidence in catching a 2 a.m. incident in time is low, with the majority of respondents unsure their team would know quickly enough to act. This points to a real gap between the incidents that can occur after hours and the systems currently in place to detect them fast enough to matter.

Q4: Do Your Leases Include Any Restriction on Charging E-Bikes, Scooters, or Other Lithium-Ion Devices Indoors or Inside Units?

Poll Results

Hover over the chart to interact.

Click For Raw Data

Poll Results – Q4: Do Your Leases Include Any Restriction on Charging E-Bikes, Scooters, or Other Lithium-Ion Devices Indoors or Inside Units?

No, we don't currently address this — 16 (50%)
We have general language but nothing specific to charging — 6 (19%)
Yes, we have a specific policy or lease clause — 5 (16%)
Not sure — 5 (16%)

Four Key Takeaways

✔

Half of properties have no policy at all. At 50%, exactly half of respondents said they don't currently address lithium-ion charging in their leases, leaving a significant gap given the known fire risks associated with these devices.

✔

Only a small minority have specific language. Just 16% have a dedicated policy or lease clause covering e-bike, scooter, or lithium-ion charging, meaning most properties with any language at all are relying on something less targeted.

✔

General coverage isn't the same as specific protection. 19% have general language that doesn't specifically address charging, suggesting some properties may believe they're covered when their leases don't actually speak to this particular risk.

✔

A third are unsure or under-covered by combination. Combining "not sure" (16%) with "general language" (19%), roughly 35% of respondents are in a gray zone where it's unclear whether their lease terms would hold up if a charging-related incident occurred.

✔

Specific policies are the exception, not the norm. With only 5 of 32 respondents having dedicated clauses, the vast majority of properties surveyed have some degree of exposure tied to unaddressed or vaguely addressed lithium-ion charging practices.

Summary: Most properties surveyed have little to no specific lease language addressing lithium-ion device charging, despite the fire risks tied to e-bikes and scooters. With half of respondents saying they don't address this at all, and another third unsure or relying on general wording, this is an area where policy gaps are common across the industry.

Q5: If a Liability Claim Were Filed a Year or Two After an Incident, How Confident Are You That Your Video and Incident Documentation Would Still Exist to Support Your Case?

Poll Results

Hover over the chart to interact.

Click For Raw Data

Poll Results – Q5: If a Liability Claim Were Filed a Year or Two After an Incident, How Confident Are You That Your Video and Incident Documentation Would Still Exist to Support Your Case?

Somewhat confident — 13 (45%)
Not confident — 10 (34%)
Very confident — 6 (21%)

Key Takeaways

✔

Full confidence is rare. Only 21% said they'd be very confident their video and documentation would still exist a year or two later, meaning most teams have some level of doubt about long-term record retention.

✔

Doubt outweighs confidence. At 34%, more respondents said they're "not confident" than "very confident," highlighting retention and archiving as a real weak point in current documentation practices.

✔

Nearly half are in the middle ground. The largest group, 45%, chose "somewhat confident," suggesting many teams have some documentation practices in place but aren't fully certain those records would hold up over time.

✔

Combined uncertainty affects the majority. Adding "not confident" and "somewhat confident" together, 79% of respondents have at least some doubt about whether their records would still be available and usable for a liability claim.

✔

Nearly a third skipped the question entirely. With 12 of 41 respondents (29%) not answering, this is one of the higher skip rates in the survey, suggesting many teams may be uncertain enough about their retention policies that they weren't ready to answer.

Summary: Long-term retention of video and incident documentation is a clear vulnerability for most properties, with the majority expressing some level of doubt that their records would hold up a year or two after an incident. This is where Cloud-Based Surveillance makes a measurable difference — reliable, accessible storage ensures footage and documentation remain available exactly when a liability claim requires it. Paired with AI Video Surveillance and strong Multifamily Security practices, properties can move from uncertain retention to dependable records that support Real-Time Crime Deterrence and stand up to scrutiny long after the incident occurred.

Prevent Car Break-ins: Cloudastructure’s multi-family residential remote surveillance

Child Safety Survey Insights 2026

Little Residents Webinar Survey 2026

Q1: In the Past Year, Has Your Property Had an Incident Involving a Child (Injury, Close Call, or Unauthorized Access to a Pool or Gym)?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Q2: When Something Like That Happens After Hours, With No Staff On-Site, How Does Your Team Typically Find Out?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Q3: If a Child Got Into a Restricted Area at 2 A.M., How Confident Are You That Your Team Would Know in Time to Act?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Q4: Do Your Leases Include Any Restriction on Charging E-Bikes, Scooters, or Other Lithium-Ion Devices Indoors or Inside Units?

Poll Results

Four Key Takeaways

Q5: If a Liability Claim Were Filed a Year or Two After an Incident, How Confident Are You That Your Video and Incident Documentation Would Still Exist to Support Your Case?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Know Your Law

Turn Insights Into Action

Prevent Car Break-ins: Cloudastructure’s multi-family residential remote surveillance

Child Safety Survey Insights 2026

Little Residents Webinar Survey 2026

Q1: In the Past Year, Has Your Property Had an Incident Involving a Child (Injury, Close Call, or Unauthorized Access to a Pool or Gym)?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Q2: When Something Like That Happens After Hours, With No Staff On-Site, How Does Your Team Typically Find Out?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Q3: If a Child Got Into a Restricted Area at 2 A.M., How Confident Are You That Your Team Would Know in Time to Act?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Q4: Do Your Leases Include Any Restriction on Charging E-Bikes, Scooters, or Other Lithium-Ion Devices Indoors or Inside Units?

Poll Results

Four Key Takeaways

Q5: If a Liability Claim Were Filed a Year or Two After an Incident, How Confident Are You That Your Video and Incident Documentation Would Still Exist to Support Your Case?

Poll Results

Key Takeaways

Know Your Law

Turn Insights Into Action

This Site Uses Cookies