Net‐Widening

Abstract

The number of people under correctional or criminal justice supervision in the United States has continued to grow over the past several decades, despite a decline in the overall crime rate. This can be attributed to what is known as net‐widening. Net‐widening occurs when correctional programs are implemented as supplements to one another rather than as alternatives, thereby increasing the total number of people who are subject to correctional control. In this entry, we describe the past, present, and future of net‐widening in the United States.

Ethical Concerns About Private (and Public) Corrections: Extending the Focus Beyond Profit- Making and the Delegation of Punishment

“…Net-widening—that is, individuals who otherwise would not have experienced formal social control are being placed under correctional supervision (Blomberg & Mestre, 2014)—is a common concern in corrections that directly bears on discussions about cost. When net-widening occurs, there may be harms caused to individuals who should not be targeted by correctional efforts (see, generally, Bowditch & Everett, 1987; Feeley, 1991).…”

Civil Citation

“…Diversion programs rose in popularity during the late 1960s, largely in response to the recommendations from the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) and associated funding assistance from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The Commission recommended the use of decentralized alternatives to formal sanctions to reduce the contact of minor juvenile offenders with the justice system (Blomberg and Mestre 2014; Mears et al 2016; President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967). As the name suggests, diversion programs are intended to serve as alternatives to traditional sanctions by “diverting” individuals away from further penetration into the justice system (Ray and Childs 2015).…”

“…Although diversion programs vary in their form and implementation, in general, they strive to achieve three primary goals: (1) reducing the likelihood of future delinquency, (2) reducing the number of juveniles within the juvenile justice system or the extent to which they penetrate the system, and (3) reducing strain upon justice system resources (Blomberg and Mestre 2014; Cocozza et al 2005; Mears et al 2016; Ray and Childs 2015; Skowyra and Powell 2006). These three goals are interrelated.…”

“…Failures in implementation, such as the use of a program with a group other than the intended population, can have negative consequences. For example, several studies have documented that less punitive punishments, such as diversion, can result in a net-widening effect through inappropriate client targeting, effectively bringing more juveniles into the system rather than less (Barnhorst 2004; Blomberg 1983; Blomberg and Mestre 2014; Klein 1979; Mainprize 1992; Mears et al 2016; Polk 1984; Ray and Childs 2015).…”