Conclusion

The principles of social disorganization theory, developed in studies of urban neighborhoods, can be applied to rural communities. In the nonmetropolitan counties that made up the study sample, per capita rates of juvenile arrest for violent offenses were significantly and consistently associated with residential instability, ethnic diversity, and family disruption. Based on the strength and consistency of the findings, family disruption, in particular, appears to be a critical element of social disorganization in nonmetropolitan communities.

The study results diverged from the standard findings for urban areas in that they indicated no association between poverty and delinquency. When the correlates of poverty for this sample of nonmetropolitan communities are considered, however, this finding is consistent with the core logic of social disorganization theory. Shaw and McKay (1942) concluded that the relationship of poverty to delinquency in urban areas is produced by the connection of poverty with the combination of residential instability and ethnic diversity. This urban population dynamic does not exist in small towns and rural areas; outside the city, the populations of poorer communities are more stable than average, not less. Thus, these findings support Shaw and McKay’s contention that it is not poverty per se but an association of poverty with other factors that weakens systems of social relationships in a community, thereby producing social disorganization.

Population Size and Density

The findings concerning the relationship of juvenile violence to the size and density of the juvenile population have interesting implications. Based on social disorganization theory, the authors hypothesized that high population density would interfere with social organization by creating anonymity and by increasing the difficulty of supervising children and adolescents. This reasoning implies that problems would intensify in areas with especially high population densities. The findings show the opposite: after reaching the modest density of about 4,000 juveniles in an entire county, population size makes little difference in the rate of juvenile violence. Clearly, another dynamic must be at work.

The relationship between population size and juvenile violence is more likely due to increased opportunities for offending in areas with larger populations (Sampson, 1983). A small population reduces the chances that a potential robber will randomly encounter a likely victim or that two rivals will meet in an unguarded setting conducive to an assault (Cohen and Felson, 1979). Furthermore, the company of peers provides support for engaging in delinquent behavior (Osgood et al., 1996), and a very low population density makes it more difficult for peers to get together.

Consistency Across Violent Offenses

The findings are consistent across the set of violent offenses. Many researchers limit their analyses to a few offenses that they presume to be most reliably recorded, such as homicide and robbery. Indeed, there can be little doubt that law enforcement officers have less discretion about whether to make arrests for these offenses or that victims and bystanders are more likely to report them. Nevertheless, the relationships of community characteristics to the rate of simple assaults are nearly identical to those for the other violent offense categories such as rape and aggravated assault. Thus, instead of finding inconsistent results for less serious offenses, the data provided additional confirmation for the overall pattern of results.

Community Correlates of Rural Youth Violence	OJJDP Bulletin • May 2003