Posted By John Haywood Working within the security industry, I can only vouch for the employees genuine fears, or percieved threat of violence upon their person. To my regret, I have seen many instances of violance in these area's, in particular where benefits, council tax payments etc are concerned. These acts have varied from verbal assualt to stab injuries. Despite the thorough assessment you have done please consider the following. If you are using CCTV has there been a Privacy Assessment and do you comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. If you feel you can justify the use of CCTV for the safety of workers, then I would consider there is also an equal need for safety screens. The use of security officers is a good idea, but what provisions would be in place whilst he/she was on a rest break or dealing with another incident elsewhere. Perhaps most importantly, you state yourself that many workers had been used to having safety screens before. Might I ask why these measures where introduced in the first place? Was there a percieved risk of injury? If so, despite your assessment, then the risk is still evident and control measures (safety screens) should be used. Many people will no doubt argue the case of 'what is practicable', with both the costs and type of control measures applied. I would personally have to argue that where there is a real risk to life, as there is in this scenario, it does not apply. Forgive my long post and biased view, but I have seen far too many people injured for the sake of 'a few quid'. Not to mention the security officers who are injured as a result of having to deal with some of societies more violent people.

Posted By Ken Taylor Is there a continuous counter so high and wide that the would-be assailants cannot reach the staff with their hand-held weapons and is the area free of potential 'missiles'? The theory seems to rely upon getting slightly happier public/clients at the expense of less happy and more vulnerable staff. Might one suggest that, within a public authority, this could be motivated by political considerations?

Posted By Mark Preston John Large District Council - (no social services or education responsibility) We have three one stop shops out of the centre of town. None have screens. Initial contact (and assessment) with clients is made over a reception counter that is sufficiently wide and tall to offer safety by distance (though sloped away from the client from 1 metre height to appear a less forbidding barrier - nothing that might be used as a missile or weapon is kept on these counters. The counter area is laid out to allow rapid retreat into the back office should this be necessary. Where possible we try to maintain line of sight between this area and the back office - though this is often resisted by the back office staff who don't want to be called out by particular clients. The reception counter has a panic alarm that sounds in the back office. Interview rooms/booths lead immediately off the reception area and are designed to be as welcoming and unthreatening as possible but we ensure that there's a table between clients and staff if we have any concerns about the client (we also interview two up in these cases). Staff are trained to ensure that the client isn't ever between them and the exit. Panic buttons are provided but discreetly placed. Line of sight to the back office is not immediate - to ensure that the client doesn't feel like a golfish in a bowl - but vision panels in the door or close to it allow back office staff to observe should they deem it necessary (eg raised voices, alarms etc.) Each time we have done this there has been staff concern - because they feel more vulnerable - but incidents involving threats abuse and assault have reduced - and people on both sides of the transaction seem to appreciate and respond to a more civilised environment. Our central benefits office - which has a double reception desk and a dozen interview booths is a high volume variation on this theme - there has been a marked reduction in aggressive incidents involved with these transactions as we have moved towards this model from one originally closer in spirit to the dole offices of "Boys from the Blackstuff" days The one thing that is crucial is to ensure that all staff - not just front line - know how to respond if an incident starts - and (OK - two things) that front line staff have the confidence to terminate an interview and/or withdraw when their instinct tells them something is amiss.

Posted By Chris Winstanley Hi John, I also work for a local authority and we are currently in the planning stages of implementing a one stop shop. I would be very grateful if you could forward a copy of your design risk assessment, as we are only just starting to undertake ours. We are planning to remove our screens also and have involved external consultants in designing an appropriate environment. I'll let you know how we get on. The responses you have received to date are very interesting. Many thanks to all.

Posted By Nick Higginson John, Not an expert in your area by any means, but I have noticed that the removal of the screens in job centres has kicked up one heck of a fuss with employees and unions alike, resulting in severe strike action. This has been heavily publicised in the TUC Risks E-ZIne (free subscription). IN the spirit of true employee consultation, if the employees are dead set against removal of screens, then perhaps this should be seriously considered. From another angle, have you provided training to your staff in dealing with abuse, diffusing violent situations, breakaway techniques etc. I have recently arranged some training for our staff who deal with the public and the course has been excellent and thoroughly enjoyed by all. Another important point is the level of support given to staff after an abusive event (either physical or verbal). Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss. Nick