Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Purpose. A number of risk and protective factors for emotional and behavioral problems have emerged in the extensive body of child development research. A few studies have examined differential risk/protection variables in urban and rural youth, with preliminary results supporting enhanced protective effects for rural youth. This study tests the difference in behavioral and emotional disturbance and risk and protective factors in urban and rural adjudicated youth in three counties in a Western state in the United States.

Method. Questionnaires were completed by 113 adjudicated males drawn from three juvenile justice centers (one urban and two rural). Participants received a small incentive for participation. Internalizing and externalizing problems were measured with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Risk and protective factors were assessed using Hawkin and Catalano's Social Development Model measures. All scales had good to excellent reliability. Mean differences between urban and rural youth were tested using t-tests, and the associations of risk and protective factors and CBCL scores were analyzed using correlation and regression.

Results. There were no urban-rural differences in internalizing or externalizing problems. Rural youth had lower mean levels of community protective factors and peer risk factors, both with medium-large effect sizes. Family conflict, community risk, and peer risk had similar effects for both urban and rural youth. Family protection and school protection had stronger effects for rural youth. Church attendance had a weak protective effect for rural youth. Despite lower mean peer risk levels for rural youth, peer risk had similar negative effects on behavioral outcomes for all youth.

Implications. The findings of this study converged with the few existing studies in finding increased protective effects for rural youth. The finding of no mean differences in behavior problems might reflect sample homogeneity in behavior problem scores due to all youth facing similar level criminal charges. The stronger protective effects on behavioral outcomes of family and school for rural youth, combined with a weak effect of church attendance, suggest stronger traditional community bonds in rural areas. Attention should be paid to encourage these positive attributes, such as supporting school districts and child and family services in rural areas. For urban policy makers and practitioners, the results support efforts to create tighter social cohesion for urban youth: encouraging school programs that build relationships between teachers and students or neighborhood-based community centers.