ABSTRACT
Following the themes of the previous chapters, it seems that competing portrayals of youth justice are available. In their idealised (Weber 1957) forms, they can be formulated as two diametrically opposed viewpoints. One suggests that the extensive reform programme of the late 1990s and beyond established, perhaps for the first time, a sound and sustainable basis for the delivery of interventions which can be shown to ‘work’ building on a substantial body of international evidence (Burnett and Roberts 2004). This evidence includes policy analysis (Audit Commission 1996, 2004), systematic reviews (Goldblatt and Lewis 1998), and copious research carried out into the new schemes put in place in parallel with the Crime and Disorder Act (for example, Holdaway et al. 2001; Newburn et al. 2002; Baker et al. 2002; Campbell 2002; Farrington et al. 2002; Baker et al. 2005; Youth Justice Board 2005e). This body of knowledge, it is believed, provides the soundest possible grounding for the implementation of new models of practice which are most likely to deliver effective outcomes (see, for example, Goldblatt and Lewis 1998). This perspective has clearly taken hold with those at the centre of policy-making in ‘contemporary UK youth justice’ (Bateman and Pitts 2005: 252).
