This study builds on a range of earlier research analysing aspects of youth work as an occupation (Harland et al., 2005; McCready and Warm, 1991; McCready and Morgan, 2014; Monaghan, 2013; Youthcert, 2000), and others that have explored the perspectives of youth workers using qualitative approaches (Cluskey, 2025; Hammond, 2018; Hammond and McArdle, 2023; Noonan, 2020). However, this research is distinctive in that it is the first study to combine the systematic mixed-methods collection of empirical data on youth workers’ perceptions and experiences with the analytical and interpretative lens(es) of the sociology of the professions, including Evetts’s (2003-2013) framework of occupational and organisational discourses of professionalism. It is also situated in the European and international scholarly, professional and policy literature on youth work (e.g. Cooper 2013, 2018; Council of Europe, 2017; Tilsen, 2018). The study set out to examine (a) the perceptions of paid Irish youth workers of the nature and characteristics of youth work as an occupation and (b) the implications of these perceptions for the development of youth work as a profession. Based on a combination of ‘purposive’ and ‘convenience’ sampling, the study gathered data from 141 survey respondents and 18 focus group participants. Given the sampling strategy (a matter of practicality and indeed necessity) the findings do not provide the basis for generalisations about the broader youth worker population but they certainly raise questions that should be addressed in future research and suggest a number of recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders. Youth workers in the study sample are predominantly female and almost entirely white, working mostly in UBU projects or IYJS youth diversion projects. There are gender differences across a wide range of findings, including salaries, with women earning considerably less than men. Roughly evenly divided in terms of those with and without professional qualifications in youth work, they are in broad agreement about many things (the rewards of working directly with young people; the sense that they have a high degree of autonomy in exercising professional judgements (although less so among women than men); the view that the administrative aspects of their work is a burden; the perception that they are highly trusted by young people and their families and their own employers but much less so by policy makers; the belief that their work has a low public image and they make much less of a contribution to national policy than they should). They are also generally agreed - specifically reflected in the focus group discussions – that pay, conditions and career structures are unsatisfactory compared with ‘cognate’ professions (a view that the salaries reported in the survey sample seem to support) and that there are widespread frustrating inconsistencies relating both to employment conditions and administrative and reporting arrangements between different funders. There is therefore a ‘hybrid’ (Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2008) combination of professional discourses: considerable occupational autonomy in some respects but in others a lack of recognition and respect and a sense of professional identity being undermined and ‘voice’ ignored. In the focus groups, those with and without a background in professional education and training in youth work appear to see things differently and use different language and concepts, especially regarding the fundamental question of whether youth work is a form of education. I suggest this may be because of a lack of shared professional socialisation processes (Pusztai and Csók, 2020). I argue that this situation – if it applies more generally, something that is very important to find out - is detrimental to the achievement of positive outcomes for young people and that it requires attention from all stakeholders, most importantly and immediately the Department of Education and Youth in its preparation of a workforce development strategy for youth work.