Putting safety first

While we have become accustomed to seeing war correspondents or police officers decked out in body armour, its use in social housing is a huge departure.

It wasn’t so long ago that police officers began to use protective clothing. In fact, in some London boroughs, wearing the so-called “Met vest” only became compulsory for officers in February this year. Their increased need is of course a response to more and more threats to safety and the rise in gun crime.

Now housing associations are responding to a heightened possibility of attack in the same way.

And, honestly, who can blame them? Housing staff operate in the same society as the police and while there are numerous differences in their roles, there are also similarities.

Which of us would want to evict the occupants of a crack house without as much protection as possible, or without the body armour worn by the other authorities involved in such an operation?

It goes almost without saying that preventing attacks is preferable to dealing with the aftermath of a serious assault or even the death of a housing colleague. Such an event would inevitably lead to calls for greater protection, so London & Quadrant’s decision (as we report on page 7) is responsible and proactive.

Preventing attacks must be preferable to dealing with the aftermath of a serious assault or even the death of a housing colleague

However many precautions are taken, it is impossible to create a risk-free working environment for all housing staff. L&Q has carried out a risk assessment and concluded that this is the way to go. A bulletproof vest is the last resort, but it is preferable to compromising the safety of housing workers.

We welcome the move, but remain conscious that it could have some unintended consequences. For instance, what would be the reaction of tenants? Would the sight of housing officers going about (even some) of their duties in protective clothing heighten fears of crime among residents? Would this create a barrier between staff and the communities they serve?

The government is planning a “blitz” on crack houses early next year, so the number of incidents against which frontline staff need protection is likely to rise.

The need for staff to defend themselves against gun or knife attacks may indicate a decline in society, but it is also a development beyond the powers of the housing sector to solve.

So until we see reductions in armed attacks, L&Q has taken a bold step to guarantee the safety of its staff. It may prove to be the least bad option open to many working in frontline social housing.