Rural Crime and Community Safety Conference -- Stock holm

1. 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

2. The Social Organization of Rural America and Crime This presentation is not about “social disorganization” & crime, but about social organization and crime

3. 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)

4. 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.)

5. 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 crime mostly official police / criminal justice data mostly census and other sources

6. 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 crime survey data, observations, interviews – alternatives to census measures

7. 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. 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. antecedents local networks crime

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. The Social Organization of Rural America and Crime 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 Community and other outside influences Community and other outside influences School Parents Self Peers

14. 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)

15. 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”

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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”

19. Community (Liepins, 2000) 2. Outside influences Outside influences 1. Meanings Practices People 1. Meaning legitimate practices 2. Practices enable circulation & challenging of meanings 3. Practices occur in space & through structures, & shape those spaces & structures 5. 4. Space & structures affect how practices can occur 5. Spaces & structures enable the materialization of meanings 6. Meanings are embodied in spaces & structures 4. 3. Spaces and Structures 6

20. 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)