Model answers & discussion guide — youth centre case study

Below are structured, ready-to-write answers you can copy into your notes and use when you discuss with colleagues. I give: (A) a short recommended course of action, (B) a clear set of options with pros/cons, (C) who/what to prioritise and why, (D) how to balance competing interests, and (E) sample reflective answers to Q5–6 you can adapt from your own experience. Finish with a few group discussion prompts.

1) What should the worker do?

Recommended approach (practical & ethical):

1. Carry out a quick risk assessment — is anyone (especially anyone under 18) at immediate risk of serious harm (violence, exploitation, overdose)?

2. Check organisational policy and legal duties (safeguarding, mandatory reporting, confidentiality limits).

3. Consult a supervisor or safeguarding lead immediately (without naming individuals in unsafe ways), present the facts and the concerns.

4. Use a graduated response: before making a police report, try to address the problem through the relationships and structures that protect young people — e.g. speak with the group about the dealer’s presence, reinforce centre rules, increase supervision, invite a youth-police liaison or an outreach worker who specialises in drug harm reduction.

5. If there is an immediate or significant risk (serious violence, exploitation, drugs being sold to minors, imminent overdose) — report to appropriate authorities (safeguarding/police) as required by policy and law.

6. Document everything (date, time, what was observed, consultations, decisions). Continue harm-reduction work with the group to protect health and maintain engagement.

Why: This preserves the worker’s relationship with the young people where possible (essential for harm reduction), but also honours legal/safeguarding responsibilities and the safety of the group and the wider community.

2) Is there a range of options?

Yes. Here are realistic options with pros/cons:

1. Report to police immediately

   • Pros: Could remove a dangerous dealer, satisfies management and community expectations.

   • Cons: Likely destroys trust; young people may disengage; could increase risk if dealer retaliates; may reduce worker’s ability to do harm-reduction work.

2. No report; manage internally (warnings, greater supervision)

   • Pros: Preserves trust and ongoing harm-reduction influence.

   • Cons: Dealer remains free to harm/traffic; centre could be seen as tolerating criminal activity; legal/safeguarding obligations may be breached.

3. Consult management/safeguarding lead and escalate to multi-agency support (youth outreach, police youth liaison, drug services)

   • Pros: Shared responsibility, can protect young people while using less punitive police approaches; retains some trust if handled sensitively.

   • Cons: Requires coordination; not guaranteed to remove dealer quickly.

4. Gather more information / use anonymous tip or third-party reporting

   • Pros: May lead to action without directly exposing the worker as the source.

   • Cons: Can delay action; may not be sufficient if immediate danger exists.

5. Talk directly with the young people and the dealer (if safe) to negotiate boundaries

   • Pros: Strengthens empowerment and responsibility among young people; aligns with harm reduction.

   • Cons: Dangerous for worker if the dealer is aggressive; may be ineffective.

Most ethical practice is a mix: consult, assess risk, involve specialist agencies, and escalate to police only when necessary or when other routes fail.

3) Whose interests are most important to you as a worker?

Prioritise—in this order:

1. Welfare and safety of the young people (particularly minors and those at risk of exploitation or severe harm).

2. Duty of care and legal/safeguarding obligations (your employer’s policy and the law).

3. Community safety (other users of the area/centre).

4. The worker’s professional integrity and safety (including ability to continue working effectively).

5. The dealer’s (limited) rights — but not at the cost of others’ safety.

Rationale: As a youth worker you have a duty of care to the young people who have placed trust in you; legal and safeguarding obligations may legally override promises of confidentiality.

4) Is it possible to balance these competing interests?

Yes — but it requires deliberate steps:

• Use transparent procedures: explain to the group what the centre can and cannot keep confidential (preferably at intake and reinforcement during programme), and that safety concerns may require sharing information.

• Adopt a staged response: try lower-impact interventions first (engagement, boundaries, referrals, liaison officers), escalate to authorities only when necessary.

• Use multi-agency working: involve drug outreach teams, youth police liaison officers, safeguarding leads — this shares responsibility and can reduce the punitive feel.

• Maintain trust through process: be honest (as much as possible) with the young people about actions being taken for their safety, and involve them in solutions where appropriate.

• Record decisions and reasoning so that any action can be justified and reviewed.

Balancing is often pragmatic: protect immediate safety first, then preserve long-term engagement where possible through non-punitive options.

5) Have you faced similar situations in your own work?

(Use this template to frame your answer — adapt with your own details.)

Sample response / reflection:
Yes — I once worked with a street-based group where an adult was selling to several regulars. I struggled between preserving trust and protecting the group. I raised the concern with my line manager and the safeguarding lead, and we agreed to involve the local outreach drug service and the police youth liaison officer together. That coordination allowed an approach that prioritised diversion and support rather than immediate arrest. The dealer was disrupted through a combination of outreach and targeted police action; the young people stayed engaged and several accepted referrals to drug support services. APA

6) How have you solved these dilemmas?

(Practical steps you can copy into your notes.)

1. Immediate risk assessment → determine whether urgent reporting is required.

2. Consultation → line manager/safeguarding lead without publicly naming people until you have to.

3. Multi-agency meeting → invite outreach services, police youth liaison, housing or social services depending on the risks.

4. Offer alternatives → harm reduction education, counselling referrals, safer-use information, and routes out of involvement with dealers.

5. Clear communication with the group → restate ground rules and the reasons for changes in a non-judgmental way.

6. Safety planning → contingency if a member is under the influence, if violence occurs, or if a young person is being exploited.

7. Document and review → note what worked and what didn’t for organisational learning.

Quick list of action points to write down now (one-line each)

• Do a safety/risk assessment.

• Check policy/legal duties (safeguarding).

• Consult line manager/safeguarding lead.

• Try non-punitive, multi-agency options first (youth-police liaison, drug outreach).

• Report to police immediately if there is immediate risk/illegal activity involving minors or risk of serious harm.

• Keep detailed records; be honest with young people about limits of confidentiality.

• Continue harm-reduction work and offer referrals.