There are conflicting descriptions of rural contexts, particularly as they relate to school discipline and juvenile justice. However, there are some consistencies that can guide research and intervention attempts for youth impacted by the juvenile justice system. Specifically, when compared to more urban settings, scholars have found consistent evidence in rural areas of more referrals to law enforcement by schools, more disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system, and more punitive philosophy and outcomes overall. Further, there is consistent evidence in rural areas of challenges with access to resources for treatment and a lack of trauma-informed care, making evidence-based practices harder to implement and reentry more challenging compared to urban settings. This chapter provides recommendations and guidance for building on existing strengths of rural educators to develop restorative justice practices and reentry circles at schools that will mitigate the use of exclusionary discipline practices and support reentry following juvenile justice contact.
TopIntroduction
There is general agreement that urban and rural settings are vastly different in terms of responses and resources related to youth impacted by the juvenile justice system. However, unlike scholarship on urban areas, there are conflicting descriptions of what constitutes rurality, particularly as it relates to experiences of at-risk youth, school discipline, court processes and punitiveness, and community attitudes. For example, Pupo and Zane (2021) describe a close-knit social cohesion that allows for more informal social controls, whereas Osgood and Chambers (2003) make claims of social disorganization that contributes to delinquency. Bouley and Wells (2001) found variety among rural communities in their approach to youth involved in the juvenile justice system with varying degrees of preference toward punishment and rehabilitation.
Pupo and Zane (2021) examined whether juvenile courts in rural areas had differing outcomes and case-level influences than those in urban areas, specifically because of the proposed “rural social structure and context” previously studied by Feld (1991, p. 156). They compared the level of punitiveness of the courts and factored in the variables of race/ethnicity, sex, age, prior record, severity of the offense, and any detention pre-adjudication (Pupo & Zane, 2021). Pupo and Zane (2021) argued “the traditional approach of the juvenile court as a substantively rational system might remain viable in more rural settings, where population homogeneity, residential stability, and social cohesion might allow for greater reliance on informal social control” (p. 332).
Conversely, Osgood and Chambers (2003) found the opposite. They argued that most principles of social disorganization theory are just as applicable to rural communities as they are to urban neighborhoods. Osgood and Chambers (2003) found high rates of residential mobility, racial/ethnic heterogeneity, family instability, and low socio-economic status in their research connecting juvenile arrests for violent offenses to these factors. “Based on the strength and consistency of the findings, family disruption, in particular, appears to be a critical element of social disorganization in nonmetropolitan communities” (Osgood & Chambers, 2003, p. 15).
In a telephone survey of 387 southern rural county residents, Bouley and Wells (2001) found a fear of youth violence, particularly from gangs – even in rural communities. They found “the majority of dissent in the community is not about the presence of a problem – it is about how to deal with the problem” (p. 68). Representing the strong social cohesion and rural social structure found by Pupo and Zane (2021) and Feld (1991), Bouley and Wells (2001) found their participants felt “the purpose of criminal penalties should be to train, educate, and counsel juveniles” (p. 64) and they were “willing to support the rehabilitation of juveniles” (p. 60). However, they also reported “there is strong support for punishment” and “county residents are divided on the purpose of criminal penalties for juveniles and whether to waive juveniles to adult courts” (p. 60). These findings are more in line with those of Osgood and Chambers (2003) where there is a possible disconnect between the value of rehabilitation and supporting punishment and waivers to adult court.