Page 341 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology

9781412934633-Chap-21 1/10/09 8:54 AM Page 312

312 THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY

influences which are commonly identified as mobility, population growth, proportion of
sources of disorganization, such as popula- single-parent households, home ownership and
tion change and population turnover. Hence, race heterogeneity of the local population.
that is the normal state of things. In addition, However, of greater import was their clus-
we start anew with the notion that at every ter analysis (Jobes et al., 2004). First, they
place, representations of both crime and law- found that their set of 123 rural LGAs could
abiding behaviour are the products of varying cluster statistically into six types or profiles,
forms of organization (Barclay et al., 2004). which could be arrayed on a continuum by
population size. Second, they discovered that
population size and rates of crime showed
some relationship, but two clusters or types
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND of rural LGAs exhibited noticeably higher
RURAL CRIME crime rates, and the distinctiveness of both
clusters suggests that something other than
As mentioned, it was long assumed that rural urbanism (or conversely, rurality) was at
communities had less crime because their work. One was the cluster of LGAs with the
social structures were more homogeneous, largest average population, that is, rural
cohesive and integrated than those in urban LGAs which were service centres to their
places; that is, rural places manifested less surrounding hinterland (cluster 1– ‘Urban
social disorganization. Recent research has Centres’). This cluster showed above average
shown that rural communities are not crime educational levels and income, but below
free. Rural rates may be higher in particular average levels of married couples and higher
types of rural places and for specific kinds of proportions of indigenous people and of
crime than urban rates (DeKeseredy and immigrants, that is, people born overseas.
Joseph, 2006; Jobes et al., 2004; Weisheit The other cluster (cluster 5 – ‘Medium
and Donnermeyer, 2000), as Vold (1941) Declining Communities’) was the second
tried to make plain to an earlier generation of smallest in average population size, but
criminology scholars. Simply put, rurality showed a different set of characteristics,
does not imply the sociological equivalent of including net out-migration, below average
immunity from crime. educational levels, low income, a higher than
At this point, it appears that social and cul- average proportion of indigenous people, but
tural factors may be more important in the only a small percentage of the population
explanation of crime variations in rural com- was born in another country and immigrated
munities than in urban areas, where eco- from overseas. The social structure or organ-
nomic conditions show greater weight (Jobes ization of the first cluster was distinctive
et al., 2004, 2005; Osgood and Chambers, based on population or demographic charac-
2000; Wells and Weisheit, 2004). For exam- teristics. The fifth cluster was unique for
ple, in a study of local government areas what today would be called social capital
(LGAs) of rural New South Wales (LGAs are (Recker, 2005). In comparison to the other
equivalent, to some degree, to counties in the clusters, the first showed the highest or
USA), Jobes et al. (2004) found that various second highest rates of crime for motor vehi-
economic indicators did not statistically cle theft, malicious damage and burglary. The
explain variations in crime rates. Their fifth cluster exhibited the highest rates
regression analyses of official crime rates for between all six clusters for assault and burglary.
assault, breaking and entering, motor vehicle Third, each of the four crime types varied
theft and malicious property offences (i.e., across the six clusters of communities in
vandalism) found statistically significant rela- somewhat different ways. In other words,
tionships only for certain demographic and different kinds of rural places demonstrated
social characteristics, including population different crime profiles. Furthermore, rural