Since the election of the New Labour government in 1997, the landscape of youth justice policy and practice has altered dramatically. A variety of significant changes illustrates a continued trend towards a ‘corporatist’ or ‘managerialist’ approach to youth justice provision within the UK, characterised by a new mode of governance for youth crime (see, for example, Pickford, 2000; McLaughlin et al, 2001; Muncie and Hughes, 2002; Smith, 2003; Grimshaw, 2004).

Significant reform of the infrastructure of the system has seen the ‘simultaneous centralisation and devolution of state responsibility’ for youth justice (Muncie and Hughes, 2002: 5). The establishment of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) as a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Home Office to oversee the performance and functioning of the system is paralleled by changes to the local organisation of youth justice services, requiring each local authority to set up multi-agency Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to coordinate the provision of services (Gordon et al, 1999: 26–7).

Since its inception, the YJB has overseen a proliferation of initiatives, ranging from early interventions aimed at preventing the onset of offending, through to significant changes to disposals for persistent and serious offenders. Each initiative is implemented by local YOTs or associated agencies through grants awarded by the YJB, typically accompanied by substantial guidance and explicit performance management targets (Muncie and Hughes, 2002: 5).

The implementation of a managerialist approach to youth justice provision is clearly problematic. The translation of standardised programmes and prescribed practices within complex local contexts brings unavoidable challenges, contradictions and tensions. Such an agenda has clear potential to conflict with existing practice within an institution, as professional identities, priorities and assumptions about desirable outcomes intersect with managerialism, rather than being replaced by it. This conflict is evidenced in Michael Lipsky's (1980) theorisation of ‘street-level bureaucracies’, in which he emphasises the role of the individual professional in implementing law and policy through the provision of services. Such conflict is further complicated where different professional or stakeholder groups are involved in the implementation of a policy or initiative – as is so commonly the case. Here the possibilities for contradiction and tension are multiplied, with each group potentially prioritising different objectives or purposes.