NCJ Number
206065
Journal
Criminal Justice Review Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Dated: Spring 2004 Pages: 1-22
Editor(s)
Michael S. Vaughn
Date Published
2004
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Using national county-level data, this study examined whether variables commonly used to predict urban crime patterns could be applied similarly to more rural settings.
Abstract
Limited studies have focused on differential crime patterns among rural communities suggesting that social factors were the most important predictors of crime. This pattern was seen as very different from what was seen in urban communities which presents economic deprivation as one of the most distinguishing characteristics of high-crime communities. These studies tend to indicate that there was good reason to question whether explanatory models of crime developed for urban areas would fit rural areas. Given the lack of documented knowledge about structural correlates of rural crime and the possibility that crime in rural and urban areas might be influenced by different factors or differently by the same factors, this study analyzed the dimensions of the social context by which rural crime occurs. The study drew on prior studies of urban crime patterns to identify a diverse set of contextual variables that should account for variations in crime rates. The focus was on identifying general patterns of association or variations that apply across a variety of community settings. The study utilized national county-level data from three different sources. Study findings indicate that the influence of variables relevant to both urban and rural areas differed in urban and rural areas. Contextual variables were generally more predictive of crime patterns in metropolitan counties and became less powerful predictors as less urban counties were considered, with the least predictive power found in the most rural counties. The data also provided empirical evidence to challenge two common assumptions about rural crime. The magnitude assumption was the presumption that the differences between rural and urban processes are essentially a matter of sizes, numbers or amounts. The homogeneity assumption was the common assumption that rural areas were very similar in their social conditions and dynamics and because of this they could be treated as the undifferentiated or what was true of one rural area was generally true for them all. The findings suggest that processes in the social environment that generate crime might be different in urban and rural areas. Tables and references