Aggressive members of the public: Councils reveal extent of injuries and illnesses
By Lyn Fraser
Research Officer
Jul 30, 2010
In June 2010, the United Services Union sent a survey to each council in
NSW relating to council rangers, parking patrol officers and animal
control officers. The survey requested a range of information including:
➤ the role of the officers ➤ number of officers ➤ whether risk assessments have been done for the positions ➤ type of injuries and illnesses officers suffered as a result of violence or aggressive behaviour directed at them by members of the public while they performed their duties.
This report provides an overview of the findings of the survey. It is hoped that the findings will assist councils and the local government industry to determine what strategies and resources are needed to help improve the safety of the officers.
By the 19th July 2010, the United Services Union received survey responses from 67 councils. Of these, 3 indicated that they did not employ rangers, parking patrol officers or animal control officers.
Number of responding councils
67
Number that do not employ officers
3
Balance (respondents less those with no officers)
64
Number of Officers As can be seen from the table below, around 678 officers were employed by the 64 councils in the following categories:
Parking Patrol Officers
269.6*
Generalist Rangers
177
Ranger Supervisor/ Team Leader
74
Animal Management/ Control
40.75*
Other Rangers/ Regulatory/ Law Enforcement Officers
59
Other - Specified (includes Compliance Officers e.g. environmental, health, RID Squad )
36
Specified Admin and admin coordinators
18
Other (Unspecified)
4
Total
678.35
*Note, some councils employ officers on a part-time basis or share officers with other councils.
Risk Assessments Based on information from the 64 responding councils that employ officers:
➤ 45 councils undertook risk assessments for the positions. The assessments may have included risk of slips, trips, falls etc.
➤ 38 said they undertook risk assessments which considered possible exposure to violence and aggression from members of the public. This equates to 59% of the councils.
Illnesses and injuries The following question was asked of councils:
Qn 6. “What physical or psychological injuries or illnesses have the officers suffered as a result of violence, aggression or other forms of abuse directed at them by members of the public?
A total of 58 councils responded to this survey question. Of these:
➤ 19 indicated “none” of the listed injuries or illnesses were reported.
➤ 39 indicated there were illnesses or injuries and provided information about them. This equates to 67% of the responding councils.
Detail of illnesses or injuries resulting from violence, aggression or other forms of abuse by members of the public
Number of councils
Broken/fractured or dislocated bones
2
Cuts
10
Bruises or swelling
16
Head or facial injuries
9
Internal injuries
3
Anxiety or depression
27
All of the above
2
Other – specified e.g. glass splinters in the eye, shoulder charging, minor assault, stress from verbal abuse, muscular injury, scratches etc.
8
Unknown
2
Note that some councils indicated officers had received multiple injuries and 2 councils indicated that all the injuries listed had been experienced by staff.
Lost work time Councils were asked whether injuries or illnesses always resulted in work time lost.
Most councils advised that it did not result in lost work time. See table below.
Have the illnesses or injuriesalways resulting in work time lost?
Number of councils
Yes
8
No
40
Not sure
5
Unclear response
1
Response not provided or marked N/A
10
Strategies to reduce risk from aggressive members of the public A total of 39 councils advised the Union of strategies which they put in place to reduce/ eliminate exposure to risks from aggressive members of the public.
Policies, procedures and work methods Some of these councils provided very brief comment such as “implement aggressive customer policy - requires officer to disengage.” Other councils provided more detail and attached procedure and policy documents with lists of action they are implementing to reduce risks. Some councils indicated the value of having Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) which are used by staff to “mitigate potential workplace violence with aggressive members of the community.” Other councils are in the process of engaging an independent organisation to assist with the development of their SWMS.
Working in pairs A total of 19 of the 39 councils specifically mentioned that they had in place some form of ‘working in pairs’ arrangement. While some councils simply said officers are to “work in pairs”, other councils added qualifiers such as “in high risk areas or times”, “in peak periods”, “after dark and weekends”, “when completing some tasks”. Others simply said “work in pairs at all times”.
One rural council noted that “all assaults have been when working alone”. Similarly a metropolitan council noted “working alone – concern this may contribute to increase risk of verbal and physical assault”. This latter council then outlined various strategies to increase safety for officers and their SWMS statement included the requirement that when working in pairs officers are to maintain line of sight with their partner at all times.
Training Approximately 25 councils specifically mentioned issues relating to training and others included comment on training needs in their policies. The type of training referred to included “dealing with difficult people”, “verbal judo”, “self defence” as well as other training.
Communications systems Many councils advised the Union of various communication systems they had in place for example, duress buttons, digital 2 way radios, mobiles and other forms of communication.
In some councils, the technology used was found to be unsuitable in all areas where the officers worked. This was of particular concern where officers worked alone. For the protection of their staff and to avoid possible prosecution, some councils indicated that they have updated there technology to more appropriate and reliable communication devices.
Other strategies A range of other strategies were mentioned by councils. The following list provides a few examples:
➤ Closer working relations with the police: sometimes involving a council officer being accompanied by a police officer to perform certain duties. ➤ Reduced patrol expectations: e.g. elimination of patrols after dark, near pubs and clubs; officers don’t patrol where they think it is unsafe or there was a previous violent incident. ➤ Encouraging more supportive work teams and staff consultation. ➤ Management follow up and reporting back on safety issues and prosecution of violent offender. ➤ Encouraging rangers to participate in regional rangers groups, conferences and workshops. ➤ Review policies and procedures in consultation with employees.
The Union wishes to thank all those councils which participated in the survey. The Union will continue to work with the local government industry in an effort to improve safety outcomes. For any enquiries about the survey or the findings, please contact Lyn Fraser, USU Research Officer.
