Field Safety Is an Industry Responsibility

Field safety is not just a vendor issue. It is not just a contractor issue. It is not just a client issue.

It is an industry issue.

NAMFS recently completed a review of the 2026 NAMFS Field Safety Survey, and the message from field-level service providers is clear: professionals performing inspections, property preservation, maintenance, and repair work are facing real risks in the field — and they are asking the industry to respond with better information, stronger support, and safer standards.

The majority of survey responses came directly from the professionals doing the work every day. Their feedback provides important insight into the unpredictable environments they encounter and the practical steps that could help reduce unnecessary danger.

What the Field Told Us

A significant number of respondents reported feeling unsafe while performing field work.

80% of respondents said they feel unsafe at least sometimes.

Nearly all respondents reported some level of exposure to verbal hostility, threatening behavior, unsafe properties, animals, or other job-site risks.

The survey also shows that field professionals are making safety decisions in real time. More than half of respondents — 58% — said they have left or suspended a work order at least sometimes because they felt unsafe, threatened, or in danger.

That statistic should get everyone’s attention.

When a field professional decides to leave a property, suspend work, or pause an assignment due to safety concerns, that decision should be supported — not questioned, minimized, or penalized.

Key Findings from the Survey

Several important themes emerged from the survey results.

Aggression and hostility remain serious concerns

Nearly 79% of respondents reported encountering verbal hostility at least sometimes, while 66% reported experiencing threatening behavior at least sometimes.

In addition, 75% rated their most serious aggression-related incident as moderate, severe, or extremely severe.

These are not isolated concerns. They reflect the reality that field professionals often enter uncertain environments where emotions, misunderstandings, occupancy questions, and property conditions can quickly increase risk.

Information before arrival matters

One of the clearest findings from the survey is that field professionals want better information before they arrive on-site.

90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that knowing about prior risk events at a property would reduce the risk of violence or injury, or help them better prepare.

79% agreed or strongly agreed that having the name of the mortgagor and mortgagee, bank, or servicer would reduce risk.

In plain terms: the more information a field professional has before approaching a property, the better prepared they are to make safe decisions.

Door knocks and door-card inspections are viewed as higher risk

Nearly 89% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that door-card or door-knock inspections increase the level of threat or risk.

This does not mean these activities cannot be performed safely. It does mean the industry must recognize that any task requiring direct contact or perceived contact with an occupant requires careful communication, clear identification, and strong safety protocols.

Current protections may not be enough

Only 16% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that current safety protocols sufficiently protect them from harm.

By contrast, 61% disagreed or strongly disagreed that current protocols are sufficient.

That gap should be a call to action for every organization involved in mortgage field services, asset management, inspections, preservation, and maintenance.

Support from clients is a critical issue

Only 24% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel supported by clients when reporting threats or safety risks.

More than half — 53% — disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Field professionals need to know that when they report a safety concern, the system will support them. Safety reporting should not feel like an obstacle to production. It should be part of a responsible, mature field services process.

Production pressure is affecting safety decisions

Nearly 64% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel pressured to complete work even when feeling unsafe.

This may be one of the most important findings in the survey.

When production pressure outweighs safety judgment, the industry creates conditions where shortcuts become more likely. A safer system must make it clear that completing the work is important — but completing it safely is non-negotiable.

What This Means for the Industry

The survey results point to several practical opportunities for improvement.

1. Better risk information on work orders

Field professionals need access to known property risk history, prior hostile encounters, occupancy concerns, animal issues, and safety flags before arriving on-site.

This information can help them make better decisions about approach, timing, communication, and whether additional support is needed.

2. Clearer identification and communication

Field staff need to be able to clearly explain why they are at a property and who authorized the work.

Clear identification, consistent documentation, and better communication can reduce confusion and help de-escalate potential confrontations before they occur.

3. Stronger stop-work protections

Field professionals must be empowered to pause, leave, or reschedule work when conditions are unsafe.

That decision should not result in penalties, reduced scoring, or unnecessary pushback when the concern is legitimate and documented.

4. Client alignment on safety expectations

Safety cannot be treated as only a vendor-level responsibility.

Clients, national providers, regional vendors, subcontractors, and individual field professionals all have a role in creating safer standards. Alignment across the chain matters.

5. Practical safety and de-escalation training

Respondents showed mixed confidence in current training.

That indicates a need for realistic, field-specific training that addresses the actual encounters professionals face — including hostile communication, uncertain occupancy, animals, unsafe structures, rural locations, and when to safely disengage.

NAMFS Next Steps

NAMFS will continue collecting and reviewing survey feedback to help inform industry discussion, member resources, and best-practice recommendations.

The goal is simple: turn field-level experience into meaningful action that improves safety for everyone working in inspections, preservation, maintenance, repair, and asset management.

We encourage all members and industry stakeholders to review their own safety protocols, escalation procedures, training programs, and client communication practices. Most importantly, we encourage every organization to reinforce one clear message:

Field professionals deserve the information, support, and authority needed to make safe decisions.