The crime distribution of the sample consisted of: “burglary, arson, theft, and other property offenses
[representing] the largest proportion of current profiles (24%)…robbery or assault with a weapon (20%);
technical violations or other offenses (20%); public disorder or assault without a weapon (17%); murder, rape,
or kidnapping (10%); and drug offenses (9%; which included driving a car under the influence of drugs or
alcohol)” (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018).
Kopak measured acute and chronic alcohol and substance abuse and asked questions pertaining to the
youth’s usage during crimes committed. It has been well-proven that delinquent behavior is deeply rooted in
social connections through co-offending with peers, so the survey measured co-offending, as well as,
demographics like age (as some crimes are age-specific), sex, educational attainment, race and ethnicity
(Kopak et al., Accessed 2018). The mean age of the study was 16.15 years and 47% had no prior convictions
(Kopak et al., Accessed 2018). It is no surprise that 54% of participants admitted there were co-offenders
present during the crime (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018). However, it is quite alarming, that on average, the
youth used alcohol once a week and drugs more than once a week (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018). Although
56% of youth were not using drugs or alcohol during their crime, another 21% of participants were under the
influence of both, alcohol and drugs at the time of their offense (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018). An additional
5% admitted to being under the influence of alcohol, and 18% were under the influence of drugs during their
offense (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018).
Kopak explains that the objective of the study was to find the correlation between acute and chronic
effects of substance use and certain types of offenses among committed youth (et al., Accessed 2018). The
study found a clear indication that, “acute and chronic effects of substance use significantly influenced the
types of offenses for which juvenile offenders were detained” (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018). Most
significantly, offending while under the influence of drugs was widely linked with a lower probability of
commitment for any crime besides a drug offense and was more likely to increase the likelihood of
commitment primarily for a drug offense than all other crime types (Kopak et al., Accessed 2018).
RESEARCH DESIGN
Collection of Data
This research primarily focused on federal and state government reports. In addition,
preliminary research was conducted using research journals for risk factors, protective factors, effective
diversion programming, commitment outcomes, rehabilitation strategies, etc. Statistics were gathered from
government sources online like the State Attorney’s Office, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, and the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
All of the resources used were online public records, therefore no personal data of juveniles was used
such as identifying information (names, addresses, etc.). Since this study does not have access to personal
information, no information needed to be protected.
Research Justification
More research is surfacing which proves the effectiveness of diversion in reducing recidivism for
juvenile offenders. Despite diversion’s proven effectiveness in reducing both recidivism and cost to taxpay-
ers for juveniles who have committed misdemeanors, many are hesitant to extend the same opportunity to
non-violent felony offenders.
The aim of this research is to prove that diversion programming in the state of Florida is
effective in reducing recidivism and cost and to demonstrate the need for diversion programming for non-vi-
olent felony offenders within the state of Florida. Without the opportunity for rehabilitation for these youth,
Florida taxpayers will only be doing themselves, their community and their children a disservice.
Sample Size and Selection of Sample
This study reviews information across all judicial circuits within the state of Florida. The specific ar-
eas that the study aims to measure is diversion programming costs per day per child, diversion programming
recidivism rates, commitment costs per day per child, and commitment recidivism rates for burglary, auto
theft, felony vandalism, and felony drug offenses.
54