Numerous attempts have been made to provide local and national frameworks for a youth work curriculum (Newman and Ingram, 1989; Middlesbrough Council, 1998; Durham Council, 2000). Youth work has been offered a process curriculum, similar to the practice curriculum discussed by Grundy (1987). Rhetoric is often supplied as justification or appeasement for the necessity of curriculum in youth work. For example suggesting that the curriculum is `an organic process … not just a list of subject areas, a syllabus or a statement of aims or objectives` (Newman and Ingram, 1989: 1). Ultimately the curriculum serves one purpose in youth work, that is to enable measurement of process and of outputs. In doing this, youth work becomes as controlling as formal education, limited in usefulness and indeed shifts away from being informal education at all. Moreover, curricular based youth work falls into the same trap as formal education in treating young people as homogenous, when diversity and difference should be acknowledged and celebrated. Contemporary youth work is becoming engulfed in an obsession for measurable outputs.