Social Disorganization and Rural/Urban Crime Rates: A County Level Comparison of Contributing Factors

Abstract

Social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay, 1929) is a common explanation for crime. However, few studies have examined its significance for the explanation of crime in rural areas. The current study utilizes county level data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services to examine common characteristics of social disorganization for both rural and urban areas and which of these factors greater contribute to crime rates. The findings are consistent with previous research that finds significant differences between urban and rural areas regarding causes of crime. Overall, this study found that common measures of social disorganization such as income, racial heterogeneity, and migration do play a significant role in predicting the crime rate for both urban and rural areas. However, births and international migration play a significant role only in rural areas.

More than just a 'city problem': Drugs and alcohol (mis)use in rural and regional Australia

“…In juxtaposition to the intimacy and solidarity, or gemeinschaft, portrayed about these communities, there is simultaneously considerable physical distances between people and a perceived 'hardness' associated with rural living, emotional and social isolation, as well as pressure to adhere to sociocultural norms (Buikstra et al, 2010). The weight of these pressures is emphasised in towns dominated and, in many ways, reliant on the prosperity of one industry (such as timber, manufacturing, wool and so on) (Ward et al, 2018), where narratives of 'community' are especially strong. It is argued that these pressures create a series of social expectations, shaping displays of community-mindedness and collective efficacy (i.e.…”

“…A common feature of rural communities' capacity to deal with crime, or their collective efficacy, is the prevalence and impact of poverty, manifest through various factors, including but not limited to, high unemployment, low wages, levels of low or unskilled labour and broader community hardship (Ward et al, 2018;Weisheit, Falcone & Wells, 2006). These conditions often serve to marginalise vulnerable individuals, with risk of problematic AOD use disproportionately experienced by those already suffering from disadvantage (Seddon, 2006), which, in turn, increases exposure to the criminal justice system (CJS) and the stigma associated with criminalisation.…”

“…Most research regarding crime and criminality has primarily focused on urban settings, exposing a lack of rural crime scholarship in criminology and criminal justice literature (Ward, Kirchner and Thompson, 2018;Carrington & Scott, 2008). By the same token, while considerable research has examined the misuse of alcohol and other drugs (AODs), much of the extant literature has either concentrated on major cities and regional centres (see Groves, 2015;Hutton, 2010;Measham & Moore, 2009;Degenhardt & Topp, 2002), and/or nascent hedonistic night-time economies (see Peacock et al, 2016;Groves, 2014;Miller et al, 2013;McCambridge et al, 2005).…”