Rural Crime and Community Safety
Conference -- Stockholm
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Joseph F. Donnermeyer
Professor Emeritus
School of Environment and Natural Resources
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA
1 614 582 4710
donnermeyer.1@osu.edu
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
This presentation
is not about “social
disorganization”
& crime, but about
social organization
and crime
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
US criminology is prominent as the
origin of or prominent in developing
many theories, such as social
learning, routine activities, social
control, and theories from the
Chicago School, especially
social disorganization and its
newest version – collective efficacy –
despite criticism of American
criminology as the epicenter of
“abstracted empiricism” (Jock Young, 2011)
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
What does social disorganization theory say?
“A central element of the theory is that communities can be
characterized along a dimension of organization; at one end are socially
organized communities and at the other are socially disorganized
communities. This is fundamental to the theory because social
organization is key to combating crime. Socially organized communities
have solidarity (internal consensus on important norms and values such
as a crime-free community), cohesion (strong bonds among neighbors),
and integration (social interaction among residents), which collectively
help to lower crime rates. Socially disorganized communities, however,
lack these characteristics and thus have higher crime”
(Kubrin, 2009, “Social disorganization theory: Then, now and in the
future” p 227. Chapter 12 in MD Krohn, AJ Lizotte, and GP Hall (eds.),
Handbook of Crime and Deviance. Springer.)
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Two versions of social disorganization theory
1. Structural antecedents model – aggregated/collective
properties of a specific area (neighborhood, town, city,
village etc.) are indicators of the ability of social
institutions which exist there to maintain a social order
which reduces crime.
Population instability
Race/ethnic heterogeneity
Poverty
Percent divorced/single-parent families
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
mostly census and other sources
crime
mostly official police /
criminal justice data
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Two versions of social disorganization theory
2. Systemic version – the antecedents are only
“proxies” and are mediated by more direct indicators of
internal social cohesion and control through three types
of local networks – private, parochial, and public –
especially the former two.
antecedents
local networks
survey data, observations, interviews –
alternatives to census measures
crime
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Two versions of social disorganization theory
2. Systemic version – because the antecedents are only
“proxies” and are mediated by more direct indicators of
internal social cohesion and control through three types
of local networks – private, parochial, and public –
especially the former two.
antecedents
local networks
crime
Collective efficacy is essentially an extension of the
systemic version. Collective efficacy is defined as
collective expectations of social control of behavior derived
from cohesion among people who live at the same place.
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Rural U.S. – 50-55 million
residents, and about 63%
of the 3,150 (approx.)
counties
*Poverty rates – higher
(about 70 of the poorest
US counties are rural)
*Unemployment is higher
*Out-migration is higher
*More likely to be losing
population or gaining
population more slowly
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Rural U.S. – 50-55 million
residents, and about 63%
of the 3,150 (approx.)
counties
*more dense networks
of close acquaintances
*family-based reciprocity/
mutual aid
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Although
many antecedent
Indicators would predict
higher crime for rural US
the systemic factors
would predict
lower crime for rural US
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Rural research using social disorganization /
collective efficacy models
*inconsistent results with urban studies – especially regarding economic
factors (interaction with population stability)
*lower variance explained as places under study
become more rural
*even though official crime rates (especially those
from police records), are lower for rural areas,
large variation in rates for rural counties remains, plus questions
about reliability/validity of police statistics, such as under-reporting….
*….rates of adolescent substance use are equivalent when comparing
rural and urban populations
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
…..rates of adolescent substance use
are equivalent when comparing
rural and urban populations
Theories of adolescent substance use
emphasize cohesive networks, but
unlike social disorganization / collective
efficacy, they do NOT assume a one
dimensional approach to the ecology of youth – peer, family, schools,
and other bonds – may either constrain or facilitate illicit substance use
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
School
Parents
Self
Peers
Example:
Primary Socialization
Theory – Tri-Ethnic
Center for Prevention
Research at Colorado
State University
(partially rural based
in its development)
no “single dimension”
assumptions about
causality
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Other rural research – more qualitative – demonstrating a
positive relationship between collective efficacy and crime
Van Gundy – “Substance Abuse in Rural and Small
Town America” (Carsey Institute, U. of New Hampshire)
Haight et al – parent methamphetamine abuse – rural Illinois
Weisheit – marijuana & methamphetamine production in
the rural context
Garriott – “Policing Methamphetamine” – rural West Virginia
DeKeseredy & associates – intimate partner violence, male
peer support, and constraint on reporting crime -– rural Ohio
Plus Australia (work by Barclay & associates, and
Carrington, Scott and associates), England (Smith and associates), Shetland
Islands (Stallwitz) and northern Wales (Smith)
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
One dimensional thinking persists
Sampson 2012 Presidential Address to the
American Society of Criminology, labels
community norms which constrain
residents from calling the police
as “anti collective efficacy”
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
Rural – the better laboratory for place-based criminology
theory to be advanced? – diversity of place
“New Criminology of Crime and Place” – 5 steps
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
“New Criminology of Crime and Place” – 5 steps
First – there is no such thing as social “disorganization”
Second – same social networks/social capital which
produce collective efficacy can simultaneously constrain
some crimes even as the occurrence /
expression of other crimes is facilitated
Third – there are multiple forms of social organization /
collective efficacy at the same place and same time (i.e.,
social ecology), allowing individuals to simultaneously
participate in multiple networks / forms of collective efficacy
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
“New Criminology of Crime and Place”
Fourth – begin to recognize the influence of “social media”
on creation of collective efficacies at the local level
Fifth – start with a model of place or community which
recognizes both outside influences and structural
inequalities
Example – Liepins (2000 – Journal of Rural Studies) –
“temporally and locationally specific terrains of
power and discourse”
2.
1.
People
1. Meaning legitimate
4.
practices
2. Practices enable
circulation &
challenging of
meanings
3. Practices occur in space
& through structures,
& shape those
spaces & structures
5.
3.
Spaces and
Structures
6
4. Space & structures
affect how practices
can occur
5. Spaces & structures
enable the materialization
of meanings
6. Meanings are embodied in
spaces & structures
The Social Organization of
Rural America and Crime
(Jock Young – The Criminological Imagination)
“It is not more and fancier statistical testing that will solve
the problems of numbers in the social sciences, rather it is
theory and conceptualization…..that give numbers
relevance, utility and their place.” (p. 58)