Social Structure and Informal Social Control in Rural Communities

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between social structure and crime in rural counties of the United States. Social structures are assumed to be associated with informal control of crime, and as well, it is assumed that structural changes in rural communities influence changes in the level of informal social control of crime, hence, crime itself. Social disorganization theory provides a useful macro-level study frame for this study. The county is the study unit. Data from 2,050 non-metropolitian counties were collected, using three different sources: the census, the FBI Uniform Crime Report, and the USDA Economic Research Service. US Counties data files of the US Bureau of Census provide the demographic and social economic variables for 1990 and 2000.The results show that social structural change in rural communities reduces social control in rural communities to some extent. The applications of findings are discussed in terms of future research on crime in rural communities.

Civic Community Theory and Rates of Violence: A Review of Literature on an Emergent Theoretical Perspective

“…Low socioeconomic status, one of the main structural variables of classic social disorganization theory by Shaw and McKay (1942), is thought to be positive and significantly related to crime. However, several researchers have failed to find a statistically significant association between measures of low socioeconomic status and violence in rural areas (Lee et al 2003;Li 2011;Osgood and Chambers 2000;Petee and Kowalski 1993). Even more unexpected is the negative relationship between poverty and rape, robbery, and assault in rural areas found by Bouffard and Muftić (2006), which indicates that higher levels of poverty actually reduce these crimes.…”

“…Even more unexpected is the negative relationship between poverty and rape, robbery, and assault in rural areas found by Bouffard and Muftić (2006), which indicates that higher levels of poverty actually reduce these crimes. However, noneconomic indicators of social disorganization theory have been found to perform fairly consistently in the rural context (Bouffard and Muftić 2006;Lee et al 2003;Li 2011;Osgood and Chambers 2000;Wells and Weisheit 2004).…”

“…However, the relationship within the rural context is not as obvious. Research has found conflicting results, with some studies finding the expected relationship, while others find the opposite or no relationship (Barnett and Mencken 2002;Bouffard and Muftić 2006;Li 2011;Osgood and Chambers 2000;Petee and Kowalski 1993;Wells and Weisheit 2004). In addition, one study examined the effects of the spatial concentration of poverty on violence in rural and urban communities and found that poverty concentration was related to violence only in urban counties (Lee, Maume and Ousey 2003).…”

Systematically Addressing Inconsistencies in the Rural Social Disorganization and Crime Literature

“…Bouffard and Muftić (2006) found ethnic diversity, female-headed households, and density to be associated with assaults in rural counties. Most recently, Li (2011) utilized data on all non-metropolitan counties in the United States (excluding those with populations less than 500 or that had too much missing crime data) to test the effects of the structural antecedents of social disorganization on a variety of property and violent crime rates. While Li followed the social disorganization approach, he used a combination of operationalizations of the independent variables that make it difficult to directly compare results with other studies.…”

How Rural Criminology Informs Critical Thinking in Criminology

“…The Seydlitz et al (1993) article was the beginning of a steady parade of published studies of rural communities and crime utilizing social disorganisation theory or a closely related variant (Barnett and Mencken 2002;Bouffard and Muftić 2006;Cancino 2005;Ceccato and Dolmen 2011;Deller and Deller 2010; Donnermeyer, Jobes and Barclay 2009;Jobes 1999;Jobes Barclay, Weinand and Donnermeyer 2004;Jobes, Donnermeyer and Barclay 2005;Kaylen 2010;Kaylen and Pridemore 2011Lee 2006Lee , 2008 Bartkowski 2004A, 2004b;Lee, Maume and Ousey 2003;Lee and Ousey 2001;Lee and Thomas 2010;Li 2012;Mencken and Barnett 1999;Osgood and Chambers 2000;Ousey and Lee 2010; Resig and Cancino 2004;Spano and Nagy 2005;Tunnell 2006; Weisheit 2004, 2012). To a great extent, this 2 Portions of this paper are from two sources: (1) …”