The Net-Widening Effect of AID Panels and Screening Panels in the South Australian Juvenile Justice System

Abstract

Motivated by growing doubts about the juvenile court's ability to deal effectively with young offenders, countries such as the United States and Australia have established informal treatment programs ostensibly designed to divert youths from formal court prosecution. Such programs, however, have been criticised on the grounds that, rather than fulfilling a diversionary function, they have widened the net of social control. By focusing on the two-tiered Panel system currently in operation in South Australia, this article presents inferential evidence that net-widening did occur after the introduction firstly, of Aid Panels in 1972 and secondly, of Screening Panels in 1979. However, in both instances, this net-widening was restricted to a relatively short time period, after which the numbers of youths selected for processing by the juvenile justice system stabilised.

Civil Citation

“…However, several studies have shown that diversion programs are often used with juveniles and their family members who would not have been subject to formal sanctions in the absence of diversion programs (Blomberg 1977, 1980; Klein 1979; Van Dusen 1981). As a result, one of the most common criticisms associated with diversion is the occurrence of what has been termed, net widening (Austin and Krisberg 1981; Blomberg 1983; Potter and Kakar 2002; Ray and Childs 2015; Wundersitz 1992). Very importantly, net widening does not mean diversion does not work but rather that it was not implemented as intended.…”

“…Several studies have found support for the presence of net widening in the implementation of diversion programs (Blomberg 1977, 1980, 1983; Decker 1985; Macallair and Males 2004; Pogrebin et al 1984; Van Dusen 1981; Wundersitz 1992). One of the earliest demonstrations of net widening was a case study by Blomberg (1977) on the implementation of a diversion program in a California juvenile court.…”

“…Although this literature indicates the potential for net widening is a valid concern (Blomberg 1977, 1980, 1983; Decker 1985; Dunford et al 1982; Klein 1979; Lipsey et al 1981; Mears et al 2016; Pogrebin et al 1984; Wundersitz 1992), very few diversion programs currently in use have been evaluated for this particular outcome (Ray and Childs 2015). Diversion policies are increasingly popular, especially in juvenile justice.…”

“…Nonetheless, despite these declining crime and arrest rates, juvenile justice policies from the 1990s and early 2000s were largely characterized by more punitive, tough-love, and zero-tolerance approaches. However, recent policy has taken a different approach, placing more emphasis upon rehabilitative and intervention-driven practices rather than earlier punitive practices (Benekos and Merlo 2016; Butts and Mears 2001; Jenson, Potter, and Howard 2001; Wundersitz 1992). A prominent example of this policy shift, particularly in juvenile justice, is the rediscovery and increasing the use of an array of diversion programs.…”

Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, Research Findings, and Prospects

“…The only two Australian jurisdictions having Children's Panels 10 in the 1960s through the 1980s -South Australia and Western Australia -were the earliest to proclaim legislation to establish conferencing. However, as discussed in Wundersitz (1992; as cited in the South Australian Parliamentary Select Committee Report 1992: 25), the two states utilised panels quite differently: a substantially higher share of juvenile cases were disposed of "informally" (that is, diverted from court) in South Australia (about 62 percent over 1979-91) than in Western Australia (30 percent in the early 1980s, dropping to 20 percent or less by 1991).…”