Controlling Police Use of Excessive Force: The Role of the Police Psychologist.

MENU TITLE: Controlling Police Use of Excessive Force    
Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: October 1994
14 pages
29,857 bytes

NCJ 150063

Controlling Police Use of Excessive Force:  
The Role of the Police Psychologist

by Ellen M. Scrivner 

-----------------
Issues and Findings

Discussed in the Brief: The role of police
psychologists in identifying officers at risk for
excessive force and in preventing its use; the
factors that contribute to use of excessive force
by the police. 

Key issues: Police psychologists were surveyed to
examine the types of services they provide and how
those services are used to counter police use of
excessive force. The psychologists were also asked
to characterize the types of officers who abuse
force and to suggest psychology-based intervention
strategies that could help police managers reduce
excessive force. Of particular interest is whether
police departments should rely almost exclusively
on preemployment screening to identify violence-
prone candidates. 

Key findings: 

o  Psychologists' services consist of counseling
and evaluation more than training and monitoring
of police behavior. Counseling is more likely to
be a response to excessive force incidents than a
preventive step. 

o Not one but several distinctive profiles were
created on the basis of the psychologists'
descriptions of officers at risk. The multiplicity
of profiles belies the popular stereotype of a few
"bad apples" being responsible for most excessive
force incidents. 

o For periodically evaluating incumbents,
psychologists supported using methods other than
routine psychological tests. They recommend
increasing behavioral monitoring and better
training. 

o Excessive force needs to be considered a result
not only of individual personality traits but also
of organizational influences. It is symptomatic of
a systemwide problem that implicates
administrative policies as well as such human
resource components as selection, training, and
supervision.

o Current screening methods to evaluate police
candidates are limited almost exclusively to
psychological tests and preemployment clinical
interviews. 

New screening technologies could enable
psychologists to examine such areas as a
candidate's decisionmaking and problem-solving
abilities and quality of interaction with others.
These dimensions are important for resolving
situations without using excessive force and are
particularly relevant to hiring officers who will
work in community policing. 

Target audience: Police officials and
administrators, police psychologists, researchers.

_______________________________

Police departments have used the services of
psychologists for more than two decades. In the
1980's, police psychology began to be recognized
as a distinct field, with psychologists'
activities expanding beyond screening job
applicants to include a broader range of
psychological support services. These included
counseling to help officers cope with the unique
stresses inherent in police work, training in
human relations and general stress management,
debriefing after traumatic incidents, and such
operational interventions as forensic hypnosis and
assistance in negotiations with hostage holders or
barricaded persons. Psychological support services
for officers who used lethal force were more
prevalent than interventions for managing
nonlethal, excessive force. 

Control of excessive force by police officers is a
major challenge for the departments they work for,
and it will be increasingly important to the
success of community policing initiatives. In two
of the most recent examples, excessive force
triggered riots in Los Angeles and has been
associated with charges of police corruption in
New York City. In controlling the problem, the
police psychologist can play a key role. This
Research in Brief discusses that role and presents
ways in which psychologists can identify officers
at risk and create remedial interventions, both at
the level of the individual and the department
level, to prevent the use of excessive force. 

This article summarizes one of the studies
sponsored by the National Institute of Justice as
part of a Justice Department effort to identify
additional means to control police use of force.
The beating of Rodney King that precipitated the
Los Angeles riots was the event that prompted the
Justice Department initiative. On the basis of
input from psychologists working in police
departments in the Nation's largest cities,
profiles of officers who abuse force were
developed. The study also identified the functions
of psychologists that had relevance to officers'
mental health, specifically their use of excessive
force, and presented their recommendations on how
best to predict, remedy, and prevent excessive
force.

The highly experienced police psychologists
interviewed for the study had worked a long time
either as salaried employees or as consultants to
police departments. One out of four were on police
command staffs, a measure of the extent to which
police psychological services had become
established in law enforcement agencies. 

A shift in police department focus 

Attention by researchers and psychologists to
police use of nonlethal excessive force
represented a change in emphasis. For the first
two decades in which police departments employed
psychologists, the use of lethal force was the
prime concern. Shootings by police were traumatic
incidents that created strong emotional reactions
from the officers who did the shooting. The need
to provide psychological support for these
officers was clear. Departments gradually
recognized the need to provide such services
immediately following these incidents.

That same level of concern did not generally carry
over to the use of nonlethal excessive force.
Officers who used excessive force in making
arrests or handling prisoners might be evaluated
for their fitness for duty, but psychological
support services were not widely available.

Over the past few years, however, greater
attention has been given to the issue. Recent
research has identified multiple determinants of
the use of excessive force, raising questions
about whether police departments should rely
exclusively on preemployment screening to identify
violence-prone candidates and predict future
officer performance. In fact, two reports that
followed the Rodney King beating--the 1991 report
of the Independent Commission To Study the Los
Angeles Police Department and the 1992 Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Report by James G. Kolt and
staff--questioned the effectiveness of existing
psychological screening to predict propensity for
violence. 

Profiles of violence-prone officers

Psychologists interviewed in the NIJ survey were
asked about the characteristics of officers who
had been referred to them because of the use of
excessive force. Their answers did not support the
conventional view that a few "bad apples" are
responsible for most excessive force complaints.
Rather, their answers were used to construct five
distinct profiles of different types of officers,
only one of which resembled the "bad apple"
characterization. 

The data used to create the five profiles
constitute human resource information that can be
used to shape policy. Not only do the profiles
offer an etiology of excessive force and provide
insight into its complexity, but they also support
the notion that excessive force is not just a
problem of individuals but may also reflect
organizational defficiencies. These profiles are
presented in the following sections in ascending
order of frequency, along with possible
interventions. 

Officers with personality disorders that place
them at chronic risk.

These officers have pervasive and enduring
personality traits (in contrast to characteristics
acquired on the job) that are manifested in
antisocial, narcissistic, paranoid, or abusive
tendencies. These conditions interfere with
judgment and interactions with others,
particularly when officers perceive challenges or
threats to their authority. Such officers
generally lack empathy for others. The number who
fit this profile is the smallest of all the high-
risk groups. 

These characteristics, which tend to persist
through life but may be intensified by police
work, may not be apparent at preemployment
screening. Individuals who exhibit these
personality patterns generally do not learn from
experience or accept responsibility for their
behavior, so they are at greater risk for repeated
citizen complaints. As a consequence, they may
appear to be the sole source of problems in police
departments.

Officers whose previous job-related experience
places them at risk. 

Traumatic situations such as justifiable police
shootings put some officers at risk for abuse of
force, but for reasons totally different from
those of the first group. These officers are not
unsocialized, egocentric, or violent. In fact,
personality factors appear to have less to do with
their vulnerability to excessive force than the
emotional "baggage" they have accumulated from
involvement in previous incidents. Typically,
these officers verge on burnout and have become
isolated from their squads. Because of their
perceived need to conceal symptoms, some time
elapses before their problems come to others'
attention. When this happens, the event is often
an excessive force situation in which the officer
has lost control.

In contrast to the chronic at-risk group, officers
in this group are amenable to critical-incident
debriefing, but to be fully effective, the
interventions need to be applied soon after
involvement in the incident. Studies recommend
training and psychological debriefings, with
followup, to minimize the development of symptoms.

Officers who have problems at early stages in
their police careers.

The third group profiled consists of young and
inexperienced officers, frequently seen as
"hotdogs," "badge happy," "macho," or generally
immature. In contrast to other inexperienced
officers, individuals in this group are
characterized as highly impressionable and
impulsive, with low tolerance for frustration.
They nonetheless bring positive attributes to
their work and could outgrow these tendencies and
learn with experience. Unfortunately, the positive
qualities can deteriorate early in their careers
if field training officers and first line
supervisors do not work to provide them with a
full range of responses to patrol encounters.

These inexperienced officers were described as
needing strong supervision and highly structured
field training, preferably under a field training
officer with considerable street experience.
Because they are strongly influenced by the police
culture, such new recruits are more apt to change
their behavior if their mentors show them how to
maintain a professional demeanor in their dealings
with citizens. 

Officers who develop inappropriate patrol styles. 

Individuals who fit this profile combine a
dominant command presence with a heavy-handed
policing style; they are particularly sensitive to
challenge and provocation. They use force to show
they are in charge; as their beliefs about how
police work is conducted become more rigid, this
behavior becomes the norm.

In contrast to the chronic risk group, the
behavior of officers in this group is acquired on
the job and can be changed. The longer the
patterns continue, however, the more difficult
they are to change. As the officers become
invested in police power and control, they see
little reason to change. Officers in this group
are often labeled "dinosaurs" in a changing police
world marked by greater accountability to citizens
and by adoption of the community policing model. 

If these officers do not receive strong
supervision and training early in their careers,
or if they are detailed to a special unit with
minimal supervision, their style may be
reinforced. They may perceive that the
organization sanctions their behavior. This group
would be more responsive to peer program or
situation-based interventions in contrast to
traditional individual counseling. Making them
part of the solution, rather than part of the
problem, may be central to changing their
behavior.

Officers with personal problems. 

The final risk profile was made up of officers who
have experienced serious personal problems, such
as separation, divorce, or even perceived loss of
status, that destabilized their job functioning.
In general, officers with personal problems do not
use excessive force, but those who do may have
elected police work for all the wrong reasons. In
contrast to their peers, they seem to have a more
tenuous sense of self-worth and higher levels of
anxiety that are well masked. Some may have
functioned reasonably well until changes occurred
in their personal situation. These changes
undermine confidence and make it more difficult to
deal with fear, animosity, and emotionally charged
patrol situations. 

Before they resort to excessive force, these
officers usually exhibit patrol behavior that is
erratic and that signals the possibility they will
lose control in a confrontation. This group, the
most frequently seen by psychologists because of
excessive-force problems, can be identified by
supervisors who have been properly trained to
observe and respond to precursors of problem
behavior. Their greater numbers should encourage
departments to develop early warning systems to
help supervisors detect "marker behaviors"
signifying that problems are brewing. These
officers benefit from individual counseling, but
earlier referrals to psychologists can enhance the
benefit and prevent their personal situations from
spilling over into their jobs.

Steps in prevention 

Because the profiles reveal different reasons for
the use of excessive force, police departments
need to develop a system of interventions targeted
to different groups of officers and at different
phases of their careers. The types of profiles
also reveal that individual personality
characteristics are only one aspect of excessive
force and that risk for this behavior is
intensified by other experiences. Some of those
experiences implicate the organizational practices
of the police departments in which the officers
work. To the extent this is true, it indicates the
need for remedial intervention at the level of the
department as well as the individual level. 

Preemployment screening. 

The first step in prevention logically entails not
hiring officers who would present a problem. Such
deselection is the aim of preemployment screening,
a function in which the police psychologist has a
role. Of the psychologists who perform
preemployment screening, almost all rely on fairly
traditional assessment tools--psychological tests
and clinical interviews. By contrast, they make
limited use of more innovative approaches. 

There are sound reasons for using the traditional
screening tools. They are valid and reliable
measurements, and because they are standardized
they can serve as the foundation for data bases
useful for further analysis. But because the tools
are used to prevent problem behaviors, including
use of excessive force, screening has become
psychopathology-driven. It is focused on
identifying the characteristics of "bad" officers,
and as a result, less is known about the
characteristics of "good" officers or about how
career experiences mitigate or reinforce these
characteristics. 

Although information about potential
psychopathology is essential to making employment
decisions for highly sensitive jobs, this focus
has dictated the use of a single model, one that
screens out. Reliance on this model makes
innovation more difficult. The psychologists
interviewed made limited use of other screening
approaches--risk assessment models, situational
testing, or job simulations--even though these
approaches could incorporate a wider range of
information for making decisions about the best
candidates for police officers.
   
Innovation on the horizon.

Opportunities for developing new screening
techniques that may be better able to predict
violence are arising for reasons that have nothing
to do with excessive force. In particular, recent
developments related to the Americans With
Disabilities Act will change screening procedures.
According to EEOC enforcement guidance issued in
May 1994, some tests administered before a
position is offered are now allowable only after a
conditional job offer has been made. Tests that
might detect mental impairment or disorder are
included in this category. 

As a result of the ADA-driven changes, "preoffer"
testing could undergo substantial change, from
which will emerge new screening technologies and
analytic methods. These will be used to measure
how prospective police officers are likely to
interact with people under stressful conditions,
make decisions, and solve problems consistent with
community policing practices. Automated assessment
systems, interactive video testing, assessment
centers, job simulations, and role playing
exercises all hold promise to meet these goals. 

Testing incumbent officers.

The psychologists were divided on the use of
psychological tests to routinely evaluate
incumbent officers for a propensity toward
violence. Overall, they supported alternatives to
testing because the evidence is still not
conclusive that all officers at risk for excessive
force could be identified. Although significant
strides have been made in methods to predict
behavior, psychologists are mindful that human
behavior is complex; they are cautious in claiming
the accuracy of scientific prediction. 

Thus, recommended alternatives to testing need to
be considered. At the level of the individual,
these should include increased attention to the
availability of counseling and support for it. At
the level of the department, alternatives should
include increased attention to management
strategies to improve training, monitoring, and
screening. 

Training

Some of the training described by the
psychologists interviewed represents innovative
and promising trends. The models are based on
principles of adult learning that require class
participation, using such techniques as patrol
simulations and role playing. They emphasize the
development of nonphysical skills as well as
physical ones in a community policing environment
that assumes frequent interaction between citizens
and police. (See box, "Innovations in Excessive
Force Training.")

For a majority of the psychologists, the excessive
force training they offered was in the context of
stress management only. To be sure, stress
management training is important; it would be
difficult to argue that police work in general,
and use-of-force confrontations in particular, are
not stressful. However, framing excessive force as
a stress issue raises several questions, among
them whether the notion is supported by research
and whether the approach encourages the perception
that stress justifies the use of excessive force. 

Stress management training in police departments
has not been evaluated systematically, and this
raises an additional concern. Beyond anecdotal
evidence and limited research data, there is
little to indicate how stress consistently affects
general police performance. A more viable training
focus would reflect departmental policy statements
that clarify the tolerance limits for use of force
and perceive excessive force as a patrol risk that
needs to be managed through a range of specialized
skills.

First line supervisors received less instruction
on excessive force than did recruits. Yet the
psychologists indicated that first line
supervisors have greater influence on officers
prone to excessive force than other police
personnel. Police departments may need to shift
the emphasis in supervisor training to one that
incorporates larger behavioral issues in order to
improve the management of excessive force. This
level of supervisory training could also
incorporate instruction on early warning
behavioral monitoring. 

Monitoring

Monitoring officers' behavior to detect precursors
of excessive force was the function used least
often by psychologists. (See box, "Core Functions
of the Police Psychologist.") Although a majority
of the police departments represented in the study
sample used some form of monitoring, 58 percent
did not include the psychologists in these
efforts. Computer tracking of complaints appeared
to be the most prevalent form of early warning.
However, while computer tracking may provide
useful management information, it is not as
helpful in changing behavior because the behavior
is relatively well developed by the time it is
flagged by the computer. 

Monitoring police behavior can serve other
purposes in addition to early identification and
intervention. It can involve a sustained level of
contact between supervisor and officer to
reinforce policy and training on excessive force.
Because it involves supervisors, monitoring can
provide valuable information to help police
managers evaluate the effectiveness of their
policies. Thus it can change the behavior of the
organization overall in addition to that of the
individual officer.

The evidence showing the current emphasis on
referrals to counseling and on fitness evaluations
provides further support for increasing the
monitoring function. The need for earlier
interventions, which monitoring would provide,
parallels the metaphor of "broken windows," which
in a community are signs of deterioration viewed
as forerunners of more serious criminal problems.
The metaphor could be applied to human behavior
within the police organization. Police managers
should pay attention to the signals of
deterioration in officer behavior, the behavioral
equivalent of "broken windows," before it results
in excessive force complaints. 

Rethinking the role of police psychologists 
  
The study findings indicate the lack of a coherent
strategy to systematically integrate the functions
performed by psychologists that are relevant to
the use of excessive force. Police departments do
not appear to use psychologists as a consistent
resource; rather, they use them on an "as needed"
basis and as protection against liability from
charges of negligence. There should be a greater
emphasis on involving the police psychologist in a
proactive approach to managing human resources.
Screening out potential violators, counseling
problem officers, and evaluating them for fitness
to perform their duties are critical activities,
but there is a strong need for ongoing prevention
activities that lead to early identification of
problems and timely intervention.

Within this context, the prevalence of excessive
force needs to be considered as symptomatic of a
systemwide problem that implicates administrative
policies as well as key elements of the human
resource system: selection, training, and
supervision. These services should be integrated
into a structure that maximizes the impact on the
individual officer and on the department overall. 

Simply using a new screening test or trying a new
training program will only continue the piecemeal
approach. It will not achieve the balance needed
in the structure between predicting excessive
force and managing it. A more balanced approach
encourages attending to the front end of the
system (selection) while building in safeguards
throughout (monitoring, training, and
supervision). 
_____________________________________

History of Police Psychological Services

Psychologists began to work with police agencies
in the late 1960's, following urban riots in
several major cities. The 1968 National Advisory
Commission On Civil Disorder Report called for
screening methods that would improve the quality
of the police officers hired. These
recommendations, and the availability of
discretionary funds through the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, encouraged police
departments to seek the expertise of psychologists
to help them select emotionally stable candidates
with personal characteristics suitable for police
work. 

Thus, one of the first police psychology functions
involved preemployment screening of applicants,
using psychological tests and assessments, a
fairly traditional responsibility for
psychologists but one that was new to police.
Later, clinical services were requested and, by
1980, psychologists were not only screening
applicants but also counseling officers on how to
cope with the stress of policing.

Psychologists brought new sets of skills to police
agencies in areas such as a critical incident
response for police shootings, hostage or
barricade negotiation, criminal profiling, and
forensic hypnosis. They also offered training in
how to manage the personal stress unique to law
enforcement.

The use of police psychologists' services
continued to grow. By the latter part of the
1980's, according to one survey, a substantial
proportion of police agencies were using these
services. Psychologists were screening police
recruits, counseling officers for job-related
stress and personal and family problems, and
conducting training in human relations. 

Currently, although preemployment screening and
counseling still command a major share of police
psychologists' attention, several departments have
adopted a broader role for psychologists, using
their services for consultation on policy and
planning.
_______________________________________

Innovations in Excessive Force Training

Some of the psychologists interviewed in the study
have developed training models that take into
account how people function under adverse
conditions and in highly charged situations.
Components of these models include: 

o    Cultural sensitivity and diversity.

o    Intervention by fellow officers to stop the
     use of excessive force. 

o    The interaction of human perception and
     threat assessment.

o    Decisionmaking under highly charged
     conditions.

o    Psychological methods of situation control.

o    Patrol deescalation and defusing techniques
     that not only teach a tactical response but
     also respond to the fear stimulated by
     confrontations.

o    Anger management programs that use self-
     assessment and self-management techniques for
     providing individual feedback to officers on
     how variable levels of legitimate anger
     influence judgment. 

o    Training in verbal control and communication,
     including conflict resolution.

_______________________________

Core Functions of the Police Psychologist 

The survey on which this study is based revealed
that psychologists' functions in police agencies
fell into the categories of evaluation
(preemployment screening and fitness for duty),
monitoring police behavior, training, and
counseling. The breakdown of functions is as
follows:

o    77 percent provided counseling services. 
o    71 percent conducted preemployment screening.
o    54 percent conducted training classes. 
o    52 percent conducted evaluations of fitness
     for duty.
o    42 percent monitored officers' behavior
 
Functions of police psychology as they relate to
excessive force

The psychologists were also asked what types of
functions they directed specifically toward the
use of excessive force. Counseling, noted above as
the intervention used most often, was also used to
respond to excessive force more frequently than
were other functions. Of particular significance
is the limited amount of training specifically
directed to excessive force and the low level of
monitoring. The breakdown of functions is as
follows:

o    79 percent counseled officers charged with
     excessive force.
o    51 percent covered excessive force in stress
     management training. 
o    25 percent conducted training specific to
     excessive force.
o    23 percent monitored behavior for signs of
     excessive force.
_________________________________

Ellen M. Scrivner, Ph.D., was a Visiting Fellow at
the National Institute of Justice. The second
phase of her research, now under way, consists of
case studies that demonstrate how police
departments, working with psychologists, have
established model programs to improve their
capacity to respond to officers at risk for
excessive force. The report of this study will be
available through NIJ. 
__________________________________

The full report of the research discussed in this
Research in Brief, The Role of Police Psychology
in Controlling Excessive Force, can be obtained
from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS), Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850
(800-851-3420). Ask for NCJ 146206.
__________________________________

Findings and conclusions of the research reported
here are those of the researcher and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

__________________________________

The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.
MENU TITLE:94-95 Progran Plan Opportunities                       
Series: NIJ
Published:August 1994
2 pages
2,764 bytes

1994-95 NIJ Program Plan Introduces 
New Grant Opportunities

It's not too late to apply for fiscal year 1994-95
criminal justice research and evaluation grants
sponsored by the National Institute of Justice.

The next date for submission of grant proposals is
October 15, 1994. An additional round of proposals
will be accepted January 15, 1995.

Solicitations and instructions for submitting
proposals are described in the National Institute
of Justice's 1994-95 Program Plan, available now
from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (NCJRS).

Solicitations fall within the six long-range goals
developed by the Institute in 1993 to:

o     Reduce violent crimes and their consequences.

o     Reduce drug- and alcohol-related crimes. 
o     Reduce the consequences of crimes to
individuals, households, organizations, and
communities.
o     Develop household, school, business,
workplace, and community crime prevention programs.

o     Improve the effectiveness of law enforcement,
criminal justice, correctional, and service
systems' responses to offenses, offending, and
victimization. 
o     Develop, promote, and use criminal justice
research, evaluation, and technology. 

The Program Plan also lists NIJ's awards for fiscal
year 1993.

-----------------------------------
Applying for Grants and Fellowships

Persons submitting proposals must observe the
application instructions outlined in the Program
Plan. These instructions not only cover submission
deadlines (generally October 15, 1994, and January
15, 1995, for research and evaluation grants) but
also page limitations and maximum and minimum
dollar amounts within each category of
solicitation. For instance, grant applications for
$50,000 or more should not exceed 30 double-spaced
pages. Any proposal under $50,000 will be
considered a Small Grant application and be subject
to a 15 double-spaced page limit. These page limits
do not include budget information, references,
resumes, or appendixes.

Additional instructions for submitting applications
and proposals, such as fellowship and internship
deadlines and required attachments, together with
names and telephone numbers of resource people at
NIJ who can answer questions, are also supplied in
the Program Plan. Please note that the resource
person for Science & Technology and Forensics
should be changed to Richard Rau, 202-307-0648.

-----------------------------------

Obtain the 1994-95 NIJ Program Plan by calling
NCJRS at 800-851-3420 or writing NCJRS, Box 6000,
Rockville, MD 20850. Ask for NCJ 147530. You can
also access the plan through the Library of 
Congress gopher on the Internet.
MENU TITLE: Rural Crime and Rural Policing
Series: NIJ Research in Action
Published: October 1994
34 pages
75,816 bytes

NCJ 150223

RURAL CRIME AND RURAL POLICING

by Ralph A. Weisheit, Ph.D., David N. Falcone,
Ph.D., and L. Edward Wells, Ph.D 
----------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: An overview of the
research literature and an analysis of rural crime
and rural policing issues, and how the distinctive
elements of the rural environment affect them.

Key issues: Although rural crime rates have been
lower than urban crime rates, patterns of rural
crime indicate both the exporting of urban
problems to rural areas and unique problems. 

Key findings: Even though less is known about
rural crime than urban crime, available
information indicates some key dimensions:

o Urban drug trafficking has been seen as the
driving force behind the spread of drug use and
the development of gangs in rural areas.

o Crimes such as homicide, rape, and assault are
more likely to occur among acquaintances than is
true in urban areas.

o Crimes unique to the rural environment include
agricultural crimes (e.g., thefts of crop and
timber) and wildlife crimes (e.g., poaching).

o Rural law enforcement officers, more than their
urban counterparts, often work with lower budgets,
less staff, less equipment, and fewer written
policies to govern their operations. Despite these
problems, rural police appear to be more efficient
than urban police and more respected by the
public.

o Features of the rural culture that affect law
enforcement operations include informal social
control among citizens, a mistrust of government,
and a reluctance to share internal problems. These
characteristics may result, for example, in
failure to report a crime out of the belief that
it's a private matter.

o Major differences among rural areas exist, such
as border areas may have problems with illegal
immigrants while other areas may have illegal
marijuana crops. 

Differences among rural areas as well as
differences between urban and rural areas have
implications for crime and law enforcement
responses. Previous studies have been limited and
sometimes contradictory; explanations should be
sought through specific examination of particular
rural crime issues.

Target audience: Rural law enforcement officers,
State and local policymakers, and researchers.

-----------------------------

Police practices vary from one area to another,
and studying the varieties of police behavior can
yield important insights into the role of law
enforcement officers in a community. Most studies
of variations in police behavior have been
conducted in urban settings. Neglecting rural
policing and rural crime might be justifiable if
there is nothing about policing, crime, or the
community in rural environments that precludes
directly applying knowledge from urban areas. It
is evident, however, that rural environments are
distinct from urban environments in ways that
affect policing, crime, and public policy.
The following discussion examines what is known
about rural crime, rural policing, and how they
are shaped by the rural environment. It is obvious
that rural policing is shaped by the nature of
rural crime and the features that distinguish
rural culture and rural life. Consequently, the
discussion begins with a description of what is
known about rural crime. 

Rural crime 

This section first examines rural versus urban
crime patterns and then shifts to a description of
patterns of rural crime. Changes in rural crime
are also considered, and they are followed by a
discussion of special issues and emerging
problems.

Rural crime versus urban crime

Most research concludes that crime is less
frequent in rural areas, and it is often
speculated that greater informal controls in rural
areas protect against high crime rates.1 The
belief that crime is less frequent in rural areas
is supported by recent Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
data that present crime by type and population
group. Of particular interest is a comparison
between crime in cities of 250,000 or more and
that in rural counties, counties that are outside
metropolitan statistical areas and cover areas not
under the jurisdiction of urban police
departments. Examining UCR index crimes for 1990
reveals several interesting patterns:

o Index offense rates, including homicide, are
higher for urban areas than for rural areas. 

o The gap between rural and urban crime is greater
for violent crime than for property crime. 

o The rank order of offenses for property crime is
roughly similar for urban and rural areas. That
is, larceny is the most common crime and motor
vehicle theft the least common crime in both
areas. 

o The greatest difference between rural and urban
crime is robbery, which occursalmost 54 times more
often per 100,000 citizens in urban areas. 

o The rank order for violent crime is thrown off
by the large rural-urban difference in robbery. 

o The urban rate is much higher for crimes with
the most similar rates across areas, such as rape.

Substantial rural-urban differences are also found
from national household victimization surveys,
such as the National Crime Survey (NCS). The 1990
NCS reported that the percentage of households
indicating any form of victimization in urban,
suburban, and rural areas was 30 percent, 23
percent, and 17 percent, respectively. This
pattern of differences appears to hold true for
both violent and property crime. A researcher
found that approximately 25 percent of
victimizations of rural residents took place while
they were away from their communities, while this
was true for only 10 percent of urban residents.
It was concluded that rural residents are more
vulnerable to robbery when visiting urban areas.2
This also means that the usual rural-urban
comparisons of victimization rates probably
understate the difference in victimization between
the two areas.

Instead of comparing rural and urban areas, some
studies have considered rural crime alone.3 This
research generally focuses on patterns of rural
crime and documents variations in crime across
rural areas. Thus, a good understanding of rural
crime requires not only appreciating how it
differs from urban crime, but how rural crime and
rural justice vary across rural communities.

In addition, a number of researchers have
concluded that rural areas experiencing rapid
growth will also experience a disproportionately
large increase in crime. In 21 of 23 studies,
crime grew even faster than the population in
rural communities with rapid population growth. In
fact, crime increased at three to four times the
speed at which the population increased.
Researchers speculated that "the accumulated
findings may best be explained by narrowly
focusing on changes in community social structure
that accompany rapid growth and result in
impairment of informal social controls,
particularly the declines in a community's density
of acquaintanceship."4

Trends in rural crime 

There has been concern that rural and urban crime
rates are converging, and the issue has raised
considerable debate. Some have argued that with
modern communication and transportation,
rural-urban differences are shrinking through what
has been called "massification."5

UCR data from 1980 through 1990 can be used to
make rural-urban comparisons over time for both
violent and property offenses. These data show
that in both large cities and rural counties,
violent crime rose between 1980 and 1990, while
property crime changed relatively little. Contrary
to the convergence hypothesis, the gap between
rural and urban crime changed little during the
1980's.

When changes for specific index offenses are
considered, the greatest change for violent crime
is for robbery. In 1980, the rate for robbery in
urban areas was 35 times greater than the rate in
rural areas. By 1990, robbery was 54 times more
frequent in urban areas, and most of the increased
difference was a product of increasing urban rates
and modestly decreasing robbery rates in rural
areas. A lesser increase was observed for
aggravated assault rates, which were 3.7 times
more frequent in urban areas in 1980 but 5.3 times
more frequent in urban areas by 1990. The
urban-rural gap narrowed very slightly for rape
rates and widened very slightly for murder. For
property crimes, the greatest change in the gap
between urban and rural rates was for motor
vehicle theft, which was 7.7 times more frequent
in urban areas in 1980 but 13.3 times more
frequent in 1990. Burglary and larceny changed
little. 

Overall, UCR data do not support the idea that
crime rates in rural and urban areas are
converging. One problem with UCR is that crimes of
particular concern as emerging issues in rural
areas such as gang activity and drug trafficking
are nonindex offenses and are not reported by
population density. 

NCS permits considering changes in victimization
rates over time. The NCS data show that the
percent of households reporting victimization for
any crime dropped from 1973 through 1990 across
both urban and rural areas. There is little
support for the argument that urban and rural
crime rates are converging. 

Data on violent crime in selected California
counties were used to argue that the gap between
rural and urban crime was less important than
their relative patterns of change over time. The
statistics demonstrated that changes over time in
urban counties were followed by changes in rural
counties, and one researcher concluded that
cultural change continually generated in major
urban areas diffuses to smaller cities and then to
the rural areas.6 Cultural cycles, whether they be
of violent crime, fashion, or inventions, begin in
urban areas and ripple out through the
countryside. This argument is consistent with
contemporary observations about the expansion of
urban drug trafficking and gangs into rural areas,
an issue to be addressed in the next section.

Special issues and emerging problems 

The focus on rural-urban comparisons has also
meant a focus on particular categories of crime,
often the street crimes listed in the UCR. Many
issues relevant to rural policing, such as gang
activity, do not neatly fit these categories, or
are emerging issues that have not been explored in
the professional literature. What follows is a
sampling of these topics, often based on reports
in the popular press. Because many of these
discussions are based on anecdotal evidence, the
information should be interpreted with caution.
However, these are areas that merit further
research and may be of increasing concern to rural
police.

Gangs. Stereotypically, gangs are a problem that
involves inner-city (often minority) youths. For
example, some contemporary gang research includes
no discussion of gangs in suburban and rural
areas.7 However, there are numerous discussions of
how urban street gangs diffuse out to the
countryside.8 Many of these discussions see drug
trafficking as the driving force behind the spread
of gangs to rural areas, a move facilitated by an
improved interstate highway system.

While the focus is primarily on urban street gangs
in rural areas, biker gangs have a long history of
criminal activity in rural settings.9
Unfortunately, bikers are notoriously difficult to
study,10 and few details of their activities are
documented.

Substance abuse. Another issue is the problem of
substance use, including alcohol and illegal
drugs. This issue has two dimensions: use by rural
citizens and criminal drug trafficking
organizations in rural areas. Professional
literature has discussed the issue of drug use,
while the issue of rural trafficking organizations
has more often been addressed in the popular
press. Alcohol, among the most popular of the
mind-altering drugs, is of particular concern in
rural areas. Each year more people are arrested
for driving under the influence (DUI) than for any
other single offense, and DUI is more common in
rural areas.11 The findings are less consistent for
illegal drugs, though studies are more likely to
conclude that use is more frequent in urban areas.

One way to compare rural and urban areas is to use
self-report surveys. One survey found that rural
youths began using both legal and illegal drugs at
a younger age, but a higher percentage of urban
youths were users.12 Another survey compared
adolescent drug use in three rural communities
with the drug use in an urban community, and it
concluded that the differences in drug use among
rural communities may have been greater than
differences between rural and urban areas.13 This
survey emphasized the importance of local
variation and suggested that local policies and
programs for rural areas not be based on aggregate
national data. 

An indirect way of comparing rural and urban drug
use is to use arrest statistics. Researchers
compared drug arrest data in North Carolina for
urban and rural counties between 1976 and 1980 and
concluded that rural arrest rates were
consistently lower, and no evidence was found that
rural and urban rates were converging.14 Another
study estimated that the rate of drug arrests in
urban areas is nearly four times that in rural
counties. The researchers speculated that because
most drug enforcement is proactive, variations in
arrest rates among jurisdictions are more the
result of differences in enforcement efforts than
of differences in consumption patterns.15

Recent reports suggest that patterns of urban drug
use, including crack, are spreading to rural
areas.16 Whether these reports anticipate emerging
trends or are merely isolated cases remains to be
seen. They do signal another area that should be
monitored closely.

The issue of drug trafficking and production in
rural areas is less understood. Some reports
suggest that rural areas may serve as production
sites for methamphetamine, designer drugs, crack,
and marijuana.17 Other reports argue that rural
areas have become important transshipment points
for drugs destined for urban areas.18 The problem
is exacerbated by an improved highway system and
by the large number of isolated airstrips set up
for corporate farms and for cropdusters serving
rural farmlands.

Vice and organized crime. There is good reason to
believe that vice and organized crime are features
of the rural environment.19 For example, small
communities near major highways often have
problems with prostitution set up for truck
drivers. Also, areas that were traditionally
involved in moonshining and bootlegging can use
some of the same routes and expertise to transport
drugs, stolen auto parts, and other illegal
merchandise. In 1989, the so-called "Cornbread
Mafia," operating out of Kentucky, was discovered
to have marijuana operations in at least nine
States. By April of 1990, 86 people were arrested
as part of the operation, and the government had
confiscated 475,000 pounds of marijuana on 33
farms.20 At the same time, a group of more than 30
people operating out of the Southwest, who called
themselves "The Company," ran an elaborate indoor
marijuana operation. At the time of the group's
arrest, approximately $1 million in growing
equipment was seized by authorities.21

While anecdotal evidence suggests that vice and
organized crime are also a rural problem, there is
simply too little information to make general
statements or to even speculate on similarities
and differences with urban organized crime groups.

Violence. The nature of rural interactions means
that crimes such as homicide, rape, and assault
are more likely to occur among acquaintances than
is true in urban areas. This, combined with the
greater distrust of government, may also mean that
the police are less likely to be called when these
crimes occur. Given these factors, both
investigating and preventing violent interpersonal
crimes in rural areas may require different
strategies than in urban areas.

Some of these issues can be illustrated using the
studies available on domestic violence in rural
areas. In an observational study of families in a
rural Appalachian community, given the fictitious
name Raven Ridge, it was noted that both the
police and prosecutor were reluctant to act in
abuse cases and, as a consequence, women were
reluctant to call them for assistance:

"Most people I met agreed that police protection
in Raven Ridge was inadequate. John explained that
it took at least an hour for an officer to arrive
after a call was placed, and that once the cruiser
arrived, the officers would sit in the car and
beep the horn rather than come to the door. His
explanation for this behavior was that so many
officers had been shot responding to domestic
calls that few were willing to risk going to the
door. . . . Acceptance of a man's authority over
his wife and the belief in the sanctity of the
home, together with officers' belief that they
would be in danger if they responded to domestic
calls, resulted in the failure of the legal system
to provide protection for physically battered
women. . . . Given the geographic isolation, lack
of protection, and lack of economic opportunities
available to them, women acquiesced to control in
the short term while thinking about ways to
improve their situation over time."22

In a study of police jurisdictions in Ohio, it was
found that the highest rates for domestic violence
disputes were in the least populated
jurisdictions. In neither cities nor rural areas
were the police likely to make an arrest following
a domestic violence complaint, though they were
somewhat more likely to in urban areas.23

Even less is known about rural-urban differences
in child abuse, but two studies by the National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect24 suggest the
issue is worth further study. The first study was
conducted in 1980 and the second in 1986. The
studies differed in one important respect. In the
1980 version, abuse was defined as "demonstrated
harm as a result of maltreatment."25 The 1986 study
included a definition of abuse that mirrored the
1980 definition, but also included children
"placed at risk for harm," such as being left
alone. When the first definition was used, abuse
rates were higher in rural than in major urban
counties. However, when the broader definition was
used, urban rates of abuse were higher. The
studies were based on a relatively small number of
counties and could not address contextual issues
that may have explained these differences.
However, the findings suggest there may be
important rural-urban differences and point to the
need for more research.

Hate crimes. Related to the issue of violence,
though less well documented, are the so-called
"hate groups" in rural areas. Many of these groups
are based on a combination of anti-semitism,
racism, fundamentalist Christianity, and a deep
suspicion of government.26 One researcher described
the literature published by one group, the Iowa
Society for Educated Citizens (ISEC):

"The literature decries race mixing, gun
registration, the liberal (i.e., Jewish) media,
the IRS, homosexuality, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and driver's licenses--the last because
by accepting them, citizens are, in effect,
legitimizing what the self-proclaimed patriots
consider illegitimate authority. But the target of
choice for ISEC members. . . is the Federal
Reserve Bank: root of farmers' problems and the
front organization for the international Jewish
bankers.27 Many--especially members of the Posse
Comitatus--refuse to recognize any government
authority higher than the county sheriff."28 

Sometimes these beliefs lead directly to violence,
as when members fight paying taxes and farm
foreclosures, or when they commit robbery and
theft to fund their activities. Many groups weave
together violence and religion, believing that
Armageddon is near and that they must be heavily
armed for self-protection. As one researcher
notes, "Fundamental to the beliefs of the Posse
was that only rural dwellers would survive a war
and that unprepared urban individuals seeking food
and shelter would become enemies. Accordingly,
followers were instructed to collect arms and
stockpile food."29 Some try to hasten the
inevitable by fostering a race war, or by making
the banking system collapse by flooding the
country with counterfeit money.

Some hate groups base their beliefs on distortions
of existing rural values and emphasize religion,
patriotism, and independence from government
tyranny. The number of active members of these
groups is unknown, but probably totals no more
than 10,000 or 20,000. However, these groups have
a high potential for crime, particularly violent
crime. Unlike urban skinheads, rural hate groups
are generally composed of "ordinary" people who
shun public attention for themselves and their
cause. Further, there is evidence of increasing
communication among these groups around the
country through newsletters, publications, audio-
and videotapes, and even electronic bulletin
boards.30

Arson. The 1991 annual report of the National Fire
Prevention Association indicated relatively stable
arson rates in rural counties between 1983 and
1991.31 The report showed that as the size of the
community decreased the rate of arson offenses
also decreased, from a rate of 90 per 100,000
people in cities of 250,000 or more to a rate of
only 22 per 100,000 in rural counties. However,
compared with urban areas, rural communities more
often lacked the resources and staff to fully
investigate arson. Small staffs and substantial
travel distances can slow response time and impede
rural arson investigations. Also, rural fires more
often advance to the "total burn" syndrome, in
which the structure is completely destroyed. In
fact, the damage by fires in rural areas has been
at least three times more than the damage in urban
areas.32 Total burn arson fires often require
additional manpower and equipment to sort through
the debris. Consequently, rural fires have often
not been investigated for arson unless the
preliminary evidence was particularly compelling.

Special crimes. Most of the crimes discussed to
this point (e.g., homicide and child abuse) take
place in both urban and rural areas. Some crimes,
however, are peculiar to the rural setting. For
example, rest-stop crime and crimes tied to the
presence of interstate highways are both growing
concerns. In addition, special rural crimes
include wildlife and agricultural crimes. 

Agricultural crime. The focus in this discussion
on agricultural crime is its impact on the country
as a whole through escalating food and insurance
prices. Illustrating the scope of the problem, 80
percent of surveyed Iowa farmers said they were
victims of theft over a 3-year period. UCR data do
not separate agricultural crime from other
offenses. However, each year the UCR does list
specific items of theft and the rate at which
these items are recovered. Among the listed items
is livestock, which accounts for losses of
approximately $20 million each year, only about 17
percent of which is recovered. Researchers have
assembled selected incidents of agricultural crime
that illustrate its scope and seriousness. These
include:

o $1 million in annual thefts of avocado, lime,
and mango fruit in Florida.

o $1 million in annual losses to timber thieves
and vandals in western Washington alone.

o $2 million in annual losses from pesticide
thefts.

o $30 million a year lost to theft from California
farmers.

In addition, these researchers noted that single
offenses can be enormously costly. They cited
embezzlement at an Iowa grain elevator that
produced a loss of $10 million. They also cited
anecdotal evidence that organized crime was active
in agricultural crime in several States.33

Wildlife crimes. Similar to agricultural crimes,
wildlife crimes are primarily a rural phenomenon.
Wildlife crimes, especially poaching, have become
a major concern for conservation police officers.
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
during FY 1990 wildlife shipments entering and
leaving the United States had a declared value of
more than $1 billion.34 According to a 1986
publication, the estimated replacement costs of
illegally harvested fish and wildlife exceeded $45
million in Illinois, while the poaching of deer
alone was estimated to cost Pennsylvania more than
$93 million a year.35

Many rural residents have poached to provide food
for themselves and their families, while others
have prided themselves on simply killing a
wildlife "trophy."36 It was found that for many
poaching was exciting and was seen as a test of
wit and skill between the poacher and the game
warden. Many poachers were proud that they could
easily outmaneuver the technology and complex
modern strategies of the game warden. In addition,
poaching may reinforce the rural mistrust of
outsiders and of government.37 "They [poachers] are
constantly in contact with others who support an
`us' and `them' orientation toward the larger
society. Both game wardens and the laws they
enforce represent outsiders."38 

Rural setting of crime and justice

Crime and criminal justice do not exist in a
vacuum. The rural setting has several features
shaping both crime and policing. This section
begins with a discussion of the rural environment
and then turns to what has been observed about the
functions of law enforcement agencies in rural
settings.

Geographic isolation. The effects of geography
alone pose serious problems for rural justice,
having an impact on such things as response time
and the speed with which support services can be
provided. One study, for example, contradicts UCR
data and suggests that the homicide rate in rural
areas is higher, and because access to medical
treatment in rural and urban areas is different,
even if the violent act is the same in both.39
Similarly, rural officers can expect a longer wait
for backup. Geographic isolation can be a
particular problem for the many rural officers who
patrol alone and whose interactions with suspects
have no witnesses. The large geographic areas
covered by some rural police also make responding
to calls more expensive and more time consuming
than in urban areas. 

Geography is also likely to have different
meanings in different parts of the country. A
common unit of study for rural issues is the
county, which is also a convenient unit regarding
law enforcement and the courts. Counties differ in
size (square miles), terrain, population density,
and climate. For example, it periodically happens
that hikers are lost in the mountains of Montana
for 1 or 2 weeks before they find other people.
One would be hard pressed to find similar
incidents occurring in the "wilds" of Delaware.
Clearly, rural officers in the two States are
likely to confront very different problems.

Availability of guns. The presence of guns is
another area in which rural and urban populations
differ. It has been observed that gun ownership is
much more prevalent in rural areas where more than
double the number of residents owned guns than
their urban counterparts.40 While many of the rural
gun owners are hunters who use rifles or shotguns,
the percentage of citizens owning handguns has
also been higher in rural areas than in central
cities (23 percent versus 15 percent). It is
sometimes assumed that the availability of guns is
relevant to gun-related violence, but the case of
rural areas shows that the relationship is far
more complex. While rural residents are more
likely to own guns, it appears they are less
likely to use guns in the commission of crimes. It
has also been found that crime was lowest in
counties with the highest rates of legal firearm
ownership.41 Similarly, a 1990 report by the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that the rate of
crimes committed with handguns was more than three
times as great in urban areas--5.9 per 100,000 in
central cities versus 1.7 per 100,000 in
nonmetropolitan areas.42

Economic factors. High rates of poverty have long
been associated with high rates of crime. Crime
has been less frequent in rural areas, although
poverty has been a common problem in rural
America. For example, of the 159 high-poverty
counties in the United States in 1979, only six
contained a city with a population of 25,000 or
more.43 Further, the 1986 poverty rate in rural
areas was 50 percent higher than in urban areas.44
While urban researchers have expressed alarm over
the rise of a "permanent underclass," this deep
socioeconomic and cultural isolation "has been the
experience of generations of the rural poor,
especially in the South, where rigid social
stratification has kept them out of the
mainstream."45 In recent decades the eroding
economic base of many rural areas has encouraged
high levels of out-migration by young educated and
skilled workers, which makes future economic
development more difficult.46

The economic problems facing rural areas can be
expected to not only affect the nature and extent
of crime, but the resources available to rural law
enforcement. Where tax bases are small, rural
police departments are likely to be seriously
understaffed and without important resources. One
of the authors of this review interviewed a local
sheriff whose desk consisted of an old door
stretched across two half-height filing cabinets
and who had a total of three officers (including
himself) to patrol a large county 7 days a week,
24 hours a day. 

While poverty is common in many rural areas, some
areas have experienced economic development. This
has been most evident in "collar counties" that
surround some major urban areas. An analysis of
census data show that the highest poverty levels
are in rural nonmetropolitan areas, while the
lowest poverty levels are in rural locations
within metropolitan areas.47 In addition, pockets
of rural growth can be based on a variety of
factors, such as tourism, retirement communities,
industry, natural resources, or government
services.48 Each type of growth presents its own
crime and law enforcement problems.

Social climate. Precisely measuring and describing
a local culture is extremely difficult. There are,
however, several features of rural culture that
distinguish it from urban culture and that have
implications for rural policing and rural crime.
Among these features of rural culture are informal
control, a mistrust of government, a mistrust of
outsiders, and a reluctance to share internal
problems. 

Rural areas are more governed by informal social
control than are urban areas. One study found that
in rural areas shoplifting and employee theft were
rarely reported to the police. Instead, most cases
were handled informally. One rural criminal
justice official said, "I simply can't get people
to tell me things. I hear about them 2 or 3 weeks
later, and when I ask them why they didn't come to
me about it, they say, `Oh, I took care of it
myself.' We simply can't get people to take
advantage of the services of this office."49
A focus on informal control should not be confused
with a tolerance of crime in rural areas. To the
contrary, rural areas are often less tolerant of
crime and of deviance in general.50

Informal control is facilitated by the fact that
many residents of rural communities, including the
local police, know each other socially. One factor
that contributes to this is the relative stability
of the local population. Rural citizens less
frequently change addresses, often staying in the
same county or even the same house for several
generations.51 The low levels of mobility and low
population density mean that rural law enforcement
officers, such as sheriffs, are likely to
personally know most offenders and their families.
If a victim can identify a thief, for example, the
sheriff is likely to know where to find the
offender and to already know quite a bit about the
offender and his or her family.                         

A greater reliance on informal social control is
also consistent with a greater suspicion of
government, particularly Federal and State
governments, which are seen as insensitive to
local needs. This suspicion of a strong central
government is also reflected by the attitudes of
rural residents, who are generally less supportive
than urban residents of government programs that
provide welfare, housing, unemployment benefits,
higher education, and medicaid.52 Similar concerns
have been expressed by rural sheriffs. In
California, for example, a contingent of 200 army
soldiers, national guardsmen, and Federal agents
spent 2 weeks clearing out marijuana growing
operations in the King Range National Conservation
Area in northern California. As a result of their
efforts 1,200 plants were destroyed, but not
everyone was satisfied.

Rural sheriffs believe that if the Federal
Government has the funds to keep a rural operation
like the one above going for a few days, then it
should just give the funds to local law
enforcement officials who can more efficiently
break up such growing operations.53

This does not mean that local authorities cannot
work effectively with Federal and State police
agencies. The rise of multijurisdictional task
forces demonstrate that local authorities can work
effectively with others.54 The larger point is that
Federal and State authorities need to appreciate
rural culture to make these relationships work
effectively.

One problem with studying rural areas and gaining
insights into rural crime and criminal justice is
the tendency in some rural communities to keep
community problems to themselves. This attitude,
combined with a greater reliance on informal
control, also sets the stage for a greater
mistrust of government. In a study of marijuana
growers, a rural police officer observed that
people in rural areas tend to be more conservative
and do not want government coming in, or an
outsider coming in, or foreigners coming in. They
are the same people who will ostracize members of
their society who get caught growing marijuana.55

Informal control, keeping things in, and showing a
greater suspicion of government may also help
account for rural-urban differences in the
willingness of local communities to fully
cooperate with reporting to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI's) UCR. It is not surprising
that for 1990, reporting to the UCR program
differed by population density, with reports
covering 98 percent of citizens living in
metropolitan statistical areas but only 89 percent
of those living in rural areas.56 Similarly,
another survey found that while the likelihood of
reporting crime to the police was similar for
rural and urban residents, urban citizens failed
to report because they thought nothing could be
done, while rural citizens failed to report
because they considered the crime a private
concern, even when the offender was a stranger.57 

Rural police 

As noted above, the issues of rural crime and
rural justice have received little attention. For
example, the distinction between rural and urban
policing is acknowledged in a brief one-page
section in the International City Management
Association's (ICMA's) 447-page book Local
Government Police Management.58 Many consider this
book the definitive reference on municipal police
administration. The distinctions between urban and
rural policing are considered nominal and are
rapidly disappearing. This implies that rural
policing is fundamentally the same as urban
policing. It is reasonable to seriously question
this assumption. Further, the one-page
acknowledgement cited in the 1982 edition is
totally absent in the latest edition of ICMA's
book. Clearly, there is an urban emphasis in
research efforts concerning police organizations,
management, operations, and methods in America. 

Further evidence of the overall lack of knowledge
about police agencies (especially rural
departments) in the United States has been
revealed in the apparent inability to calculate
the precise number of agencies. This issue has
been a matter of controversy for many years. For
instance, the 1967 President's Commission on Law
Enforcement estimated that the United States had
approximately 40,000 separate police agencies.59 By
the early 1980's, the estimated number of police
agencies was greatly reduced; one scholar placed
the number at 19,691.60 In the early 1990's, that
same scholar placed that estimate at approximately
15,000,61 while the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) estimated the number of police agencies at
approximately 17,000.62 

How do we account for this disparity? It is likely
that the confusion results from the numerous
special policing districts/agencies and the many,
small rural police departments that sometimes have
no full-time officers. How should these agencies
be counted and who should keep records of their
existence? State criminal justice information
authorities have only recently come into
existence, much less developed the ability to
gather data. 

Those who would study rural policing must not only
decide what is rural, but what is a rural police
agency. The stereotypical rural police agency is a
small sheriff's office similar to the fictional
television program "The Andy Griffith Show." This
stereotype ignores other agencies involved in
rural policing, such as State police, rural
municipal departments, State-level conservation
departments, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), park rangers, the railroad police,
or tribal police who operate on Indian
reservations. Sheriffs may be the most visible of
rural police, but the stereotype falsely minimizes
the professionalism of many contemporary
departments and the complexity of their tasks. In
addition to basic law enforcement, sheriffs are
responsible for the local jail, court security,
prisoner transport, and process serving.63 As will
be seen below, citizens expect rural police in
general to take on a wider range of tasks than are
expected of urban police.

Department size 

Nationally, most local police departments are
small; approximately half of the Nation's local
departments employ fewer than 10 commissioned
officers. Ninety-one percent of all local police
agencies maintain fewer than 50 sworn officers,
and 90 percent of the Nation's police departments
serve a population of under 25,000.64 Illinois, for
example, has nearly 35,000 combined State and
local officers in approximately 785 separate and
distinct police agencies. Most Illinois police
departments have fewer than five full-time
officers (59 percent), and approximately 32
percent have no full-time officers (i.e., only
part-time officers). Further, relatively few
Illinois municipalities (only 17 percent) have
police departments with more than 20 officers.65 

Precisely what is meant by a "small" department?
The truth is that there are no classifications of
police departments by size, and there is no common
definition of small town and rural police.66 One
could forcefully argue that classifying police
departments by size (manpower allocation) is not
reasonable, given that different contextual
considerations might account for those numerical
differences. 

In a study of the organizational structure of
police departments, researchers found that it was
misleading to assume that small police departments
were rural or that rural departments were
necessarily small.67 A rural county, a bedroom
community, and an industrial community, each with
the same sized population, may each have different
manpower requirements,68 and even departments of
the same size may have different missions. To
complicate matters, some agencies policing rural
America are not necessarily located in rural
areas. Included in this category are investigative
agencies at both the Federal and State levels. The
potential for conflicts between local citizens and
"outsiders" who enforce the law is substantial, as
described in other parts of this report. 

Another reality for rural policing, especially for
rural sheriffs' offices, is that along with
shrinking populations and attendant resources,
these agencies are responsible for dealing with
generalized police services for a given and
non-shrinkable geographic area. Current budgetary
realities, along with the fact that many of the
Nation's worst roads exist in rural areas, present
special problems for rural sheriffs. In 1992, it
was reported that 80 percent of Missouri's fatal
vehicular accidents happened on rural roadways--
often policed by sheriffs' offices and augmented
by the State Highway Patrol.69 In rural Alaska,
where all types of social services are scarce,
traditional law enforcement is a relatively small
part of the service police are expected to
perform. They are also expected to fight fires,
provide emergency medical services, and perform
rescue operations.70

The combined loss of population and taxing base is
crucial for local rural police agencies, both
municipal and county levels. BJS has estimated
that the per officer expenditure for police
agencies serving populations of fewer than 2,500
is $31,500, while in urban areas it is nearly
double that at $62,600 per officer. Similarly,
departments serving a population of under 2,500
(the smallest they cited) spent approximately $95
per resident a year for local police expenditures,
compared with $144 per resident per year in areas
of one million citizens or more.71                      

In the past, national and State commissions, among
others, have operated under the presumption that
the size of a police department is related to the
quality of its performance. In particular, it has
been presumed that departments with 10 or fewer
officers are less efficient, less forward
thinking, are poorly organized, and are staffed by
officers who are poorly trained. In evaluating the
trend toward civilianization in medium and small
police departments, one researcher noted that
rural agencies were civilianizing at nearly two
times the rate of large urban departments.72 These
findings appear to contradict common perceptions
that rural agencies are seldom in the vanguard of
change. 

One proposed solution to the "inefficiency" of
small departments has been to consolidate small
programs. The 1973 report by the National Advisory
Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and
Goals, for example, recommended that departments
with 10 or fewer officers be consolidated.
However, researchers have noted that these
assumptions and the policy recommendations that
have been drawn from them are generally without
empirical foundation. Their study, based on
interviews with police officials, police activity
reports, and a survey of 4,000 residents in 29
jurisdictions of varying sizes, reached very
different conclusions. The study found that
citizens in the jurisdiction of small departments
reported less victimization, fewer citizens who
thought crime was rising, and more positive
police-community relations. In a variety of other
areas, differences were small or nonexistent.
Small departments fared less well than
medium-sized departments in the speed with which
they responded to citizen complaints, but small
departments still outperformed large departments
in this regard. The study concluded that
consolidation made sense for some small
departments, but was ill-advised as a blanket
policy. It seems likely that many problems facing
small departments can be better handled through
cooperation with other agencies, rather than
formal consolidation.73

Expanding on this study, police jurisdictions of
varying sizes in Maryland were examined, with a
focus on investigative effectiveness. It was found
that neither police agency size nor the size of
the jurisdiction were among the most important
determinants of investigative effectiveness.
Instead, it was concluded that "regional scale and
community complexity" were more important, with
greater investigative effectiveness in the more
rural departments--that is, departments with the
least complex community structures.74

Studies of agency size and police performance show
that small departments can be quite effective and
that small and rural are not interchangeable terms
when describing police departments.

Styles of policing in rural areas 

Given the differences between rural and urban
crime and culture, it should be expected that
police in rural and urban areas would approach
police work differently. In a study of tasks
regularly performed by police in 249 municipal
agencies of differing sizes, small agencies were
found to be more concerned with crime prevention,
medium-sized agencies showed the greatest concern
for providing noncrime services, and large
agencies focused on enforcing criminal laws and
controlling crime through arrests.76 Similarly,
another researcher examined public opinion data
about the police role and found that the larger
the community the more likely citizens were to
believe that police should limit their role to
enforcing criminal laws.77 Conversely, people from
smaller communities were more likely to want
police to perform a wide variety of functions. In
many rural areas, police must provide a wide range
of services because other social services are
either nonexistent or are more remote than the
police.

Styles of policing are partly a reflection of the
relationship between police and the community. In
interviews with officers from one rural department
and several urban departments, researchers found
that officers in rural and urban departments had
many similar concerns, but differed in several
interesting respects. Urban officers thought they
were less respected by citizens. At the same time,
police in rural communities felt more public
support for being tough, particularly with
juveniles. Consistent with the greater informality
of rural areas, rural and urban officers believed
they were given public respect for different
reasons. In urban areas, respect went to the
position, and it was believed that a good way to
improve public respect was through
professionalizing the department. In contrast,
respect was thought to be given to rural officers
as individuals, who had to prove that respect was
deserved. This was often done by establishing a
reputation for toughness early in their career.78

Given the nature of rural culture and of social
interactions in rural areas, it can also be
speculated that police-community relations will be
very different in rural and urban departments. In
rural areas officers are likely to know the
offenders and their families, just as the officer
and his family will be known by the community.
Rural officers are also more likely to know and
appreciate the history and culture of an area and
to use that information in their work. An example
of police-community relations differing in rural
and urban police departments can be found in a
study of marijuana growers in which a rural
officer described his arrest procedure in one
case:

"You can't act overly high and mighty with them,
you won't get any cooperation. . . . This summer I
went down and there was a guy with maybe 200
plants spread out over a small farm. I was fairly
confident it was there and I pull up in his
driveway. He was unloading wood. I'm in the pickup
truck, and obviously he knows who I am. I walked
up and told him what I was doing there. I said
`I've come to get your marijuana and we're going
to be doing an open field search. . . . I've just
come up here to tell you what I'm doing.' I helped
him unload his wood and then I said, "I'm going
down by the pond and look at this marijuana. I'll
be back in a minute." I went down, looked at it
and came back up. I said, `well, your marijuana is
down there,' and then I went ahead and helped him
unload some more wood and talked about it. He went
to jail with no problem. I think this was the kind
of guy who would have liked to have fought you.
But because of the way I handled it, he wasn't
going to fight anybody. Because, I didn't go in
there and say `you're a marijuana grower and
you're worthless.' A lot of times if you're
dealing with people in these rural areas, they
don't have a problem with you coming in and
arresting them. They just want to be treated like
human beings."79

Given the closer social ties between police and
their community, it should be expected that rural
officers will use policing styles that are more
responsive to citizens in their area and that, in
turn, local residents would be more supportive of
the police. In fact, a 1991 Gallup survey found
substantial rural-urban differences in the support
that citizens showed for the local police. In
urban areas, 54 percent of the citizens reported
having a great deal of respect for the local
police, whereas 61 percent of rural citizens
reported this. The differences were much more
pronounced when asked about police brutality,
where 59 percent of urban residents thought there
was police brutality in their area, but only 20
percent of rural residents believed this.80

The same features of rural policing that compel
officers to be more responsive to the public also
mean that rural police have relatively less
discretion. An explanation for the high degree of
police discretion found in urban areas compared to
rural areas is the low visibility of police
actions. The actions of police officers in smaller
communities are known to most of the population
because of the effective informal communication
networks that are more highly visible. Small town
police enjoy less latitude in deviating from
dominant community values as a result.81

Organizational and community factors were found to
have a different impact on the adoption of a
legalistic police style in rural and urban areas.
In urban areas characteristics of the police
organization, such as the number of ranks or the
ratio of administrators to sworn officers, were
better predictors of police style than were
characteristics of the community, such as percent
minority or level of economic distress. In rural
areas, the relationships were reversed, with
community factors being more important than
organizational factors. As might be expected, data
suggest that rural departments are more responsive
to the local community, whereas urban departments
may be more sensitive to the dynamics of the
police organization. In addition, sheriffs, as
elected officials, are under particular pressure
to be responsive to the community.82

The less formal nature of rural life, along with
the small size of many rural departments, makes
complex bureaucratic procedures less necessary for
day-to-day operations. Thus, rural departments are
less likely to have detailed written policies in a
variety of areas, a situation that can place them
in legal limbo when problems arise. For example,
in a study of police vehicle pursuits, substantial
rural-urban differences were observed in both the
number of pursuits and in whether departments had
written policies regarding pursuits. Pursuit
policies in small departments are important
because, for example, approximately one third of
Illinois police departments have fewer than one
full-time police officer. The officers working in
these small departments are not assisted by policy
and have the highest per officer pursuit ratios.
Officers in small agencies comprised of 1 to 10
officers had an average pursuit ratio of more than
two times that of larger agencies and close to
three times that of the next sized agency of 11 to
50 officers.83

A large number of other issues are of pressing
concern to rural police as well as those mentioned
here, and there is a clear need to identify these
areas and initiate a systematic examination of how
they might best be addressed.

Jail 

Operating the county jail is among the primary
duties of the local sheriff. While research has
focused on urban jails, most jails are in rural
areas. According to the 1988 National Jail Census,
two thirds of the jails in the United States had a
daily population of less than 50 inmates.84 While
urban jails have tended to be seriously
overcrowded, rural jails have been more likely to
operate under their rated capacity.85 The economic
plight of some rural areas has led local sheriffs
to raise money by housing jail inmates from other
jurisdictions, or for the Federal Government. 

Rural jails are often older than urban jails and
more poorly staffed. Because the fixed costs of
running a jail exist apart from whether the cells
are full or empty, the per-inmate cost of running
jails in rural areas has been about double that of
urban areas. Further, the lack of staff and
programming have meant that rural inmates less
often separated by age and less often supervised,
which may partly account for their substantially
higher rates of homicide, suicide, and death from
illness and natural causes. In rural areas, the
fiscal conservatism that leads to small budgets
for jail structures and jail services may create
problems for local sheriffs, who can still be held
individually liable for the safety and welfare of
inmates.86

Sheriffs in rural areas may also have fewer
support services available to quickly process
inmates and move them out of the jail. For
example, limited probation services may leave
fewer alternatives to jail for misdemeanants, and
the rural practice of relying on part-time judges
may have a direct impact on the jail, resulting in
less-than-timely dispositions in bail hearings,
preliminary hearings, trials, and others requiring
a judge.87

Special problems 

While rural and urban policing may share a variety
of concerns, there are also problems that are
either unique to the rural setting or are made
more complicated by the rural environment. For
example, many small municipalities are strapped
for funds, which not only makes staffing
difficult, but may make it impractical for their
departments to tap into statewide systems for
records checks or vehicle registrations. Even a
nominal hook-up fee may be more than the
department can afford. Further, the more
self-contained nature of rural communities may
make it more difficult to generate support for
training, equipment, or services that would
increase the routine interactions between the
local agency and State or national enforcement
groups. In addition, the distances covered by some
rural officers may also complicate radio
communication.

Rural officers are more likely to find themselves
physically isolated but socially under a
microscope. This situation is the inverse of that
for many inner-city officers. Perhaps the best
example of this can be found among conservation
officers, whose work is often done alone in remote
areas, with backup some distance away. In small
departments, as well as among conservation
officers, this isolation is compounded by the fact
that there are fewer colleagues with whom they can
socialize when off duty. At the same time officers
in small rural departments are isolated, they also
have less privacy and more difficulty in
separating their professional and personal roles.
Conservation officers again provide a good
illustration of this problem:

". . . conservation officers are highly visible
members of the community they serve and are in
fact never off duty. The officer's homes are their
offices, with the game commission logo prominently
displayed outside their houses as well as on their
vehicles. Their telephone numbers are published
statewide. The officers and their families are
under constant observation because they are
members of the communities where they enforce the
law. Thus, they can never develop personal
identities other than their official roles. They
cannot, like their urban counterparts, disengage
from this role, seek comfort in their occupational
peer group, and find relief from anxiety
privately. Because they lack peer companionship,
their families play a very important and sensitive
role. However, even then, the officers must be
guarded lest confidential case information becomes
a source of rural gossip."88

What is true of conservation officers is true of
many rural police. Thus, the same familiarity with
citizens that facilitates investigations by rural
police also takes away from the rural officer's
privacy.

Summary

This brief overview of the issues on rural crime
and rural policing suggests that the issues are
complex and that a more careful study of rural
crime can be important for serving the rural
community and for understanding crime in general.
There is enough information, however, to suggest
important dimensions of the topic. A sample of
these includes:

o Compared with urban areas, little is known about
rural crime or rural policing. It appears,
however, that crime is less frequent in rural
areas, and that "community policing," to which
many urban departments now aspire, has been a
long-standing practice in rural police agencies.

o While the terms "rural" and "urban" are used
frequently in everyday language, there are no
precise meanings of these terms upon which
everyone can agree. Despite this, it is clear that
the idea of rural is useful.

o Differences between rural and urban cultures
have implications for rural crime and rural
policing. For example, both rural and urban areas
have pockets of extreme poverty, but the effects
of poverty on crime are different in the two
areas.

o Differences across rural areas are large and
vary by region of the country, across counties
within a State, and sometimes even within a
county. For example, illegal immigrants may be a
concern in the Southwest, vandalism in the
Midwest, and the smuggling of tobacco and liquor
in areas along the Canadian border. Thus, national
policies uniformly covering rural areas may be a
mistake, unless those policies can be tailored to
fit local needs.

o There are contradictions across studies that
need to be explained. For example, some authors
report that homicide is higher in rural areas,
while others (including UCR data) suggest the
opposite. It is unclear whether these differences
are the product of sampling, the definitions used,
or regional variations. 

Studying these issues across rural areas and
between urban and rural areas is useful in the
same way that studies of crime across countries
tell us much about larger patterns and suggest
what works and what does not work in policing and
crime prevention.

COMPLEXITY AND SIZE OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS

Consider two small police departments, one located
in a rural area and the other in a metropolitan
area. Although the residential populations served
by the two agencies may be the same size, the
investigators in the rural departments have some
natural advantages. They actually know, by name,
by sight, and/or by reputation, a much greater
proportion of the people in their jurisdiction and
its surrounding area than the metropolitan agency
investigators know of theirs. The witnesses that
they deal with are much more likely to have
recognized suspects they observed. Also, the rural
investigator has only a few neighboring
jurisdictions to keep in contact with, whereas the
metropolitan investigator may have a dizzying
array of other police departments in close
proximity.75

Notes

1. Smith, B.L. "Criminal Victimization in Rural
Areas." In Barbara Raffael Price and Phyllis Jo
Baunach (Eds.). Criminal Justice Research: New
Models and Findings. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
1980.
2. See Smith (1980), p. 51, op. cit.
3. See Smith, B.L., and C.R. Huff. "Crime in the
Country: The Vulnerability and Victimization of
Rural Citizens." Journal of Criminal Justice,
10(3)(1982):271-282. See also Miller, M.G., E.O.
Hoiberg, and R.F. Ganey. "Delinquency Patterns of
Farm Youth." In T.J. Carter, G.H. Phillips, J.F.
Donnermeyer, and T.N. Wurschmidt (Eds.), Rural
Crime: Integrating Research annd Prevention.
Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1982:87-103. See
also Donnermeyer, J.F., and G.H. Phillips. "The
Nature of Vandalism Among Rural Youth." In T.J.
Carter, G.H. Phillips, J.F. Donnermeyer, and T.N.
Wurschmidt (Eds.), Rural Crime: Integrating
Research and Prevention. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld,
Osmun, 1982:124-146. Also see Arthur, J.A.
"Socioeconomic Predictors of Crime in Rural
Georgia." Criminal Justice Review, 16(1)(1991):9-
41. See also Bankston, W.B., and H.D. Allen.
"Rural Social Areas and Patterns of Homicide: An
Analysis of Lethal Violence in Louisian." Rural
Sociology, 45(2)(1980):223-237
4. Freudenburg, W.R., and R.E. Jones. "Criminal
Behavior and Rapid Community Growth: Examining the
Evidence." Rural Sociology, 56(4)(1991): 619-645.
5. Fischer, C.S. "The Spread of Violent Crime From
City to Countryside, 1955 to 1975." Rural
Sociology, 45(3)(1980):416-434.
6. See Fischer (1980), p. 416. op. cit.
7. Huff, C.R., Ed. Gangs in America. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage, 1990.
8. See Weingarten, P., and J. Coates. "Drugs Find
Home in Heartland: Crime, Addictions Destroying
Small-Town Way of Life." The Chicago Tribune,
September 10, 1989b:1, 11. See also Coates, J.,
and R. Blau. "Big-City Gangs Fuel Growing Crack
Crisis." The Chicago Tribune, September 13,
1989:1,8. See also Rangel, C.B. "Stemming the Tide
of Youth Gangs." The Chicago Tribune, April 4,
1991:11. Also see Mount, C. "Counties Planning a
United Effort to Combat Gang Problems." The
Chicago Tribune, February 23, 1992:23.
9. Abadinsky, H. Drug Abuse: An Introduction.
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1989.
10. Wolf, D. "High Risk Methodology: Reflections
on Leaving an Outlaw Society." In W. Shaffir and
R. Stebbins (Eds.). Experiencing Fieldwork: An
Inside View of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage, 1991:211-223.
11. See Jacobs, J.B. Drunk Driving: An American
Dilemma. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1989. See also Weisheit, R.A., and J.M. Klofas.
"The Social Status of DUI Offenders in Jail." The
International Journal of the Addictions,
27(7)(1992):791-814.
12. McIntosh, W.A., S.D. Fitch, F.M. Staggs, K.L.
Nyberg, and J.B. Wilson. "Age and Drug Use by
Rural and Urban Adolescents." Journal of Drug
Education, 9(2)(1979):129-143.
13. Swaim, R., F. Beauvais, R.W. Edwards, and E.R.
Oetting. "Adolescent Drug Use in Three Small Rural
Communities in the Rocky Mountain Region." Journal
of Drug Education, 16(1)(1986):57-73.
14. Belyea, M. J., and M.T. Zingraff. "Monitoring
Rural-Urban Drug Trends: An Analysis of Drug
Arrest Statistics, 1976-1980." The International
Journal of the Addictions, 20(3)(1985):369-380.
15. Castellano, T.C., and C.D. Uchida. "Local Drug
Enforcement, Prosecutors and Case Attrition:
Theoretical Perspectives for the Drug War."
American Journal of Police, 9(1)(1990):133-162.
16. See Treaster, J.B. "Study Finds Drug Use Isn't
Just Urban Problem." The New York Times, October
1, 1991:A16. See also McConnell, M. "Crack Invades
the Countryside." Reader's Digest, February 
1989:73-78. Also see Weingarten and Coates
(1989b), op. cit. 
17. See Weingarten, P. "Profits, Perils Higher for
Today's Bootleggers." The Chicago Tribune,
September 14, 1989. See also Baker, J.N., P. King,
A. Murr, and N. Abbott. "The Newest Drug War: In
Rural America, Crack and `Crank' Are Now Hot
Commodities in the Backwoods." Newsweek, April 3,
1989:20-22. See also Weisheit, R.A. Domestic
Marijuana: A Neglected Industry. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1992. See also Weisheit, R.A.
"Studying Drugs in Rural Areas: Notes From the
Field." Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 30(2)(1993):213-232. Also see
McCormick, J., and P. O'Donnell. "Drug Wizard of
Wichita: Did the Chemist Concoct a Killer
Narcotic?" Newsweek, June 21, 1993:32.
18. See Weingarten, P., and J. Coates. "Drugs
Blaze New Paths: Interstates, Backroads Join
Courier System." The Chicago Tribune, September
12, 1989a:1,8. See also "Illegal Drug Trade
Spreads to Rural Areas." The Chicago Tribune,
August 4, 1989:5)
19. Potter, G., and L. Gaines. "The Organizing of
Crime in Appalachia." Paper presented to the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Denver, CO,
1990.
20. See Yetter, D. "Bucolic `Mafia':
Kentucky-Based System of Pot Production Called
Largest Ever in the U.S." The Louisville
Courier-Journal, June 17, 1989:A1. See also
Coates, J., and P. Weingarten. "U.S. Marijuana
Cartels Flower Inside and Out." The Chicago
Tribune, April 2, 1990:1, 6.
21. See Coates and Weingarten (1990), op. cit.
22. Gagne, P.L. "Appalachian Women: Violence and
Social Control." Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 20(4)(1992):410-412.
23. See Bell, D.J. "Domestic Violence in Small
Cities and Towns: A Pilot Study." Journal of Crime
& Justice, 9(1986):163-181. See also Bell, D.J.
"Family violence in Small Cities: An Exploratory
Study." Police Studies, 12(1)(1989):25-31.
24. See National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect. Study Findings: National Study of the
Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1981. See
also National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Study Findings: National Study of the Incidence
and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1988.
25. See National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
(1988), p. ix, op. cit.
26. See Coates, J. Armed and Dangerous: The Rise
of the Survivalist Right. New York: The Noonday
Press, 1987. See also Flynn, K., and G. Gerhardt.
The Silent Brotherhood: Inside America's Racist
Underground. New York: The Free Press, 1989. Also
see Corcoran, J. Bitter Harvest. New York: Penguin
Books, 1990.
27. Davidson, O.G. Broken Heartland: The Rise of
America's Rural Ghetto. New York: The Free Press,
1990, p.103.
28. See Davidson (1990), p. 109, op. cit.
29. Colvin, R. Evil Harvest. New York: Bantam
Books, 1992.
30. Hamm, M.S. American Skinheads: The Criminology
and Control of Hate Crime. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1993.
31. National Fire Prevention Association. U.S.
Arson Trends and Patterns--1991. Quincy, MA:
National Fire Prevention Association, 1992.
32. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.
Rural Arson Control. (Report No. EMW-86-C-2080).
Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Fire Administration, 1989.
33. Swanson, C.R., and L. Territo. "Agricultural
Crime: Its Extent, Prevention and Control." FBI
Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49(5)(1980):8-12.
34. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement: FY
1990 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1991. 
35. Pash, P. "Poacher Wars." Illinois Department
of Conservation: Outdoor Highlights,
14(1)(1986):3-9.
36. Bristow, A.P. Rural Law Enforcement. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1982.
37. Forsyth, C.J., and T.A. Marckesc. "Thrills and
Skills: A Sociological Analysis of Poaching."
Deviant Behavior, 14(2)(1993):157-172.
38. See Forsyth and Marckesc (1993), p. 169, op.
cit.
39. Mayhew, B.H., R.L. Levinger. "Conflicting
Interpretations of Human Interaction." American
Journal of Sociology, 83, (1977) 455-459.
40. Wright, J.D., P.H. Rossi, and K. Daly. Under
the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America.
New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1983, p. 106.
41. Bordua, D.J., and A.J. Lizotte. "Patterns of
Illegal Firearms Ownership." Law & Policy
Quarterly, 1(2)(1979):147-175.
42. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Handgun Crime
Victims. (Special Report for the U.S. Department
of Justice). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, 1990.
43. Weinberg, D. "Rural Pockets of Poverty." Rural
Sociology, 52(3)(1987):398-408.
44. Garkovich, L. "Governing the Countryside:
Linking Politics and Administrative Resources." In
K.E. Pigg (Ed.), The Future of Rural America:
Anticipating Policies for Constructive Change.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1991:173-193).
45. Tickamyer, A.R., and C.M. Duncan. "Poverty and
Opportunity Structure in Rural America." In W.R.
Scott and J.Blake (Eds.). The Annual Review of
Sociology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.,
1990:67-86.
46. Garkovich, L. Population and Community in
Rural America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1989. 
47. Fuguitt, G.V., D.L. Brown, and C.L. Beale.
Rural and Small Town America. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1989.
48. Bradshaw, T.K., and E.J. Blakely. "The
Changing Nature of Rural America." In W.P. Brown
and D.F. Hadwiger (Eds.). Rural Policy Problems:
Changing Dimensions. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, 1982. 
49. See Smith (1980), p. 52. op. cit.
50. Wilson, T.C. "Urbanism, Migration, and
Tolerance: A Reassessment." American Sociological
Review, 56(1)(1991):117-123.
51. Auletta, K. The Underclass. New York, NY:
Random House. 1982.
52. Swanson, B.E., R.A. Cohen, and E.P. Swanson.
Small Towns and Small Towners: A Framework for
Survival and Growth. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
1979.
53. Bishop, K. "Military Takes Part in Drug Sweep
and Reaps Criticism and a Lawsuit." New York
Times, August 10, 1990:A11.
54. Schlegel, K., and E.F. McGarrell. "An
Examination of Arrest Practices in Regions Served
by Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces." Crime
and Delinquency, 37(3)(1991):408-426.
55. Weisheit, R.A. "Studying Drugs in Rural Areas:
Notes From the Field." Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 30(2)(1993):223. 
56. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime
Reports: Crime in the United States, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1990, p. 3.
57. Laub, J.H. "Ecological Considerations in
Victim Reporting to the Police." Journal of
Criminal Justice, 9(6)(1981):419-430.
58. Garmire, B.L. et al., Eds. Local Government
Police Management. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.:
International City Management Association, 1982. 
59. U.S. Department of Justice. Expenditure and
Employment Data. 1977:428.
60. Walker, S. The Police in America: An
Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1983. 
61. Walker, S. The Police in America: An
Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
1992. 
62. Reaves, B.A. "State and local police
departments, 1990." Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin, 1992:1-13.
63. National Sheriffs' Association. County Law
Enforcement: An Assessment of Capabilities and
Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Sheriffs'
Association, 1976. 
64. See Reaves (1992), op. cit.
65. Falcone, D.N., L.E. Wells, and M.T. Charles.
Police Pursuits in Pursuit of Policy: The
Empirical Study. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1992.
66. Sims, V.H. Small Town and Rural Police.
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1988, p.
15. 
67. Crank, J.P., and L.E. Wells. "The Effects of
Size and Urbanism on Structure Among Illinois
Police Departments." Justice Quarterly,
8(2)(1991):169-185.
68. See Sims (1988), op. cit.
69. "Research Looks at Rural Roads." Rural
Missouri, May 1992, p. 7.
70. Marenin, O., and G. Copus. "Policing Rural
Alaska: The Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO)
Program." American Journal of Police,
10(4)(1991):16.
71. See Reaves (1992), op. cit.
72. Crank, J.P. "Civilianization in Small and
Medium Police Departments in Illinois, 1973-1983."
Journal of Criminal Justice, (17)(1989):167-177.
73. Ostrom, E., and D.C. Smith. "On the Fate of
`Lilliputs' in Metropolitan Policing." Public
Administration Review, 36(2)(1976):192-200.
74. Cordner, G.W. "Police Agency Size and
Investigative Effectiveness." Journal of Criminal
Justice, 17(1)(1989):153.
75. See Cordner (1989), op. cit.
76. Meagher, M.S. "Police Patrol Styles: How
Pervasive is Community Variation?" Journal of
Police Science and Administration, 13(1)(1985):36-
45.
77. Flanagan, T.J. "Consumer Perspectives on
Police Operational Strategy." Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 13(1)(1985):10-21.
78. Kowalewski, D., W. Hall, J. Dolan, and J.
Anderson. "Police Environments and Operational
Codes: A Case Study of Rural Settings." Journal of
Police Science and Administration,
12(4)(1984):363-372.
79. Weisheit, R.A. "Studying Drugs in Rural Areas:
Notes From the Field." Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 30(2)(1993):225. 
80. "Americans Say Police Brutality Frequent." The
Gallup Poll Monthly, 306, pp. 53-56, 1991.
81. Eisenstein, J. "Research on Rural Criminal
Justice: A Summary." In S. Cronk, J. Jankovic, and
R.K. Green (Eds.). Criminal Justice in Rural
America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, 1982:117. 
82. Crank, J.P. "The Influence of Environmental
and Organizational Factors on Police Style in
Urban and Rural Environments." Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 27(2)(1990):166-189.
83. See Falcone, Wells, and Charles (1992), p.
168, op. cit. 
84. Innes, C.A. Population Density in Local Jails,
1988. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990. 
85. Klofas, J.M. "The Jail and the Community."
Justice Quarterly, 7(1)(1990):69-102.
86. Mays, G.L., and J.A. Thompson. "Mayberry
Revisited: The Characteristics and Operations of
America's Small Jails." Justice Quarterly,
5(3)(1988):421-440.
87. See Mays and Thompson (1988), pp. 431-432, op.
cit.
88. Walsh, W.F., and E.J. Donovan. "Job Stress in
Game Conservation Officers." Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 12(3)(1984):337-338.

This review was prepared with the support of the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) (Grant# 92-IJ-
CX-K012) and has been drawn from a longer article
that originally appeared in Roll Call, a
newsletter of the National Sheriffs' Association
(NSA) in November 1993. The complete report of
this study will be published as an NIJ Issues and
Practices report. The authors acknowledge NSA for
its cooperation and assistance as well as Sheriff
Johnny Mack Brown of Greenville County, South
Carolina; Sheriff G. C. "Buck" Buchanan of Yavapai
County, Arizona; Sheriff Carl R. Harbaugh of
Frederick County, Maryland; Sheriff J.C. Bittick
of Monroe County, Georgia; a number of anonymous
reviewers; and sheriffs who shared their views at
the 1993 Annual Conference of the National
Sheriffs' Association. 

Opinions or points of view expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official positions or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.