A major premise of that analysis is that new-widening is an unintended consequence of a broadly based and theoretically homogeneous 'destructuring' movement. The present work argues, in contrast, that there were competing and contraditory perspectives about how the destructuring alternatives should be constituted. While an expansion of social control might be inconsistent with the intent of a small number of writers (primarily academic) arguing for alternatives to formal justice processing, the close examination conducted here of the theoretical premises of some of those who actually controlled such programs as diversion or deinstitutionalization suggests that net-widening is a direct consequence of how programs were initially conceived, rather than being a case of good ideas that 'went astray' as they were implemented. (Author abstract)