Then one of the contributions to the analysis of what has been going on in London and Manchester in relation to gun and knife crime was made by "youth worker" Shaun Bailey. Bailey has risen to prominence for his alleged espousal of one form of "underclass" theory, which has taken many people by surprise because he is black. He runs a youth charity, but is he a youth worker? I pondered on their credentials. Can anyone who engages with young people be depicted as a "youth worker"?
With the 10-year youth service strategy coming on stream, a major plea has been to strengthen the "youth work" workforce, with perhaps some kind of registration process for those deemed suitably qualified. There has always been some lobby for this approach, just as there has been resistance from the many who do not want to see the formation of some exclusive "club" at the expense of others who work equally purposefully with young people. But with many varieties of "youth work" springing up and many different levels of practice, some grading and boundary setting is more critical than ever. There is already a literature and a case for circumscribing the profession, even if some issues may be disputed at the edges. There is a generally agreed body of knowledge, there is a value base, and there are principles for practice.
I have to admit to having often described myself as a "youth worker" long before I secured my Joint Negotiating Committee national qualification in 1985. I was proud of the name and believed that, even as a volunteer, I could use it. But the Dunblane massacre was perpetrated by "youth worker" Thomas Hamilton. If we want to stop the name becoming a meaningless label or one associated with irresponsibility and even tragedy, then we need to do something about it.
Howard Williamson is professor of European youth policy at the University of Glamorgan, and a member of the Youth Justice Board. Email howard.williamson@haymarket.com.
