The double hat issue for youth workers

04/04/2024 - Determining who is responsible for processing personal data within the youth care process can cause confusion for the youth worker. When the municipality and the youth team work together, the situation could arise where the youth worker processes personal data on behalf of both the municipality and the youth team. As a result, the youth worker collects personal data from the youth and family ‘wearing two hats'.

Division of tasks in youth care

In the Dutch Youth act (de Jeugdwet), there is a division of tasks in the youth care process. A distinction is made between the municipality's task to guide the client to the correct provision on the one hand (‘the guidance task’), and the youth worker’s task to provide actual care and help to the client on the other hand. When carrying out its guidance task, the municipality must ensure that the young person is guided to the right help or provision (for example a referral to a paediatric psychologist). The task providing actual care and help involves the actual provision of help to the youth and the family.

To perform these tasks, the municipality and the youth team must, for their own responsibility, collect health data and the Citizen service number (BSN) of clients. In practice, the municipality’s guidance task is often passed on (e.g. via mandate or delegation) to the youth team of the relevant municipality. Exactly how they organize this, varies per municipality. For instance, the municipality may set up a private limited company (BV) or foundation (Stichting), where both the guidance task and to provide actual care are carried out. Alternatively, municipalities may also choose to organize the guidance tasks within their own municipal organization. Passing on the municipality's guidance task to the youth team is more practical. The client and its family then have a single point of contact for their request for help. On the other hand, confusion may arise as to whom bears responsibility for the processing of personal data.

The youth aid provider wears two hats

If the municipality's guidance task is passed on to the youth worker, he or she will perform both the guidance task and provide actual care. It is then often unclear to the youth worker at what point during the process, and for which task, personal data is collected. One could even say that data is collected simultaneously for both tasks. This creates the so-called ‘double hat issue’. The youth worker has a hat on for the guidance task, where he or she is only allowed to collect the necessary data to be able to refer the client to the right help or provision. In addition, the youth worker wears a second hat for providing actual care where he or she collects more detailed information to be able to provide appropriate help to the client and its family. More in-depth information on the youth's request for help is then necessary to perform this task. For this information, the youth aid provider has a confidentiality obligation.

The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG)) has made clear distinctions for these tasks:

*source: Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, wijkteams en pettenvraagstuk, als hulp en toeleiding samenkomen, 11/2020.

For this issue, it is important for the youth worker to keep in mind that it performs not one, but two different tasks under the Youth Act. From a privacy point of view, it is then desirable that two files, namely a ‘guidance file' and 'assistance file', are drawn up. However, on the practical side, this creates extra (thinking) work for the youth worker and increases the administrative burden. Often the difference in roles between counsellor and youth worker is not easily distinguished. The youth worker must constantly make sure which hat he or she is wearing and which file must contain what information. While the youth worker should be mainly focusing on supporting the client and its family.

Starting points and practical solutions

Starting points that can be included for this issue are:

• As a municipality, ensure that when organizing the youth team, privacy implications are considered. What privacy-related advantages and disadvantages does mandating or delegating the guidance task have? What are the privacy inplications for setting up a foundation (Stichting) or a private limited company (BV)?
• It is important to decide how and when the two hats are to be 'switched', so that it is clear to the youth worker how to deal with this issue. Drawing up two different files for guidance and assistance is recommended.
• A technical solution can also be chosen. For example, within a filing system, a label ‘guidance’ or 'assistance' could be attached to the information. The labels can then be used to easily distinguish which information, for which task, has been collected.

Clarity in advance

In short, an appropriate solution to this issue will vary from municipality to municipality, depending on how youth care is organized within a given municipality. Privacy issues should be resolved between the municipality and the youth team. In doing so, the responsibilities from the GDPR must be clearly divided beforehand. Also, the preparation of files should remain workable for the youth care worker so that he or she is not limitied by this issue in his or her daily work.