Ruth W. Edwards, Ph.D.
Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research
Colorado State University
Data from three Western communities - a rural community, a small urban community, and a large urban community - are presented to illustrate that youth who use drugs are more likely to perpetrate violence as well as to be victims of violence. A link between gang involvement and higher levels of both drug use and violence also appears in both the rural and urban communities.
Although little research specifically addresses the issue of the co-occurrence of criminal behavior, violence, and drug use in rural areas, the link has been fairly well established for urban areas (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989; Chavez, Edwards, & Oetting, 1989; Spunt, Goldstein, Bellucci, & Miller, 1992; Caces, Stinson, & Harford, 1991; Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992; Martin, 1992). Furthermore, involvement in an urban gang has been linked with drug use, criminal behavior, and violence (Huff, 1993).
A project underway at the Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research at Colorado State University is collecting data on alcohol, tobacco, and drug use; violence; victimization; and gang involvement as part of a larger study that is looking at social and psychological correlates of drug use and other deviant behaviors (Chavez, 1993). The study population is drawn from three communities in the Western United States: an isolated rural community of approximately 34,000; a small urban community of approximately 90,000; and a large metropolitan community of approximately 400,000. The following data and discussion are based on data from youth who are attending school. Students who have poor grades are oversampled, composing about half of the total sample in each community, so the rates of drug use and other deviant behaviors are somewhat higher than would be expected from students as a general group.
A word of caution to the reader: The relationship of alcohol and other drug use to violence and gang activities is a classic case of the "chicken and egg" dilemma. It is difficult to know with certainty which "came first," based on the hundreds of cross-sectional studies (i.e., conducted at only one point in time). It is the wrong question to ask. Some rural adolescents probably began using substances and then engaged in other inappropriate behaviors. Others may have engaged in other delinquent behaviors, become the victims of crime, or associated with gangs or groups reinforcing deviant norms, and then became involved with drugs.
A solid link between drugs and violence can be found by examining the levels of drug involvement and incidents of violence and victimization shown in Table 1. This table indicates a correlation between the rate of occurrence of violence and increasing drug involvement. As can be seen from comparison figures, living in a nonurban community does not appear to offer much protection from violence. Young people from small urban places who have a low involvement with drugs are slightly less likely than their urban (and suburban) counterparts to be injured by a weapon - they also are somewhat less likely to have injured someone with a weapon. Of special interest in this table are the rates of being beaten up for nonurban youth across all drug involvement levels. Rural and small urban rates are generally quite a bit higher than urban rates. As Donnermeyer suggests in an earlier chapter of this monograph, some rural areas may exhibit a culture of violence. Overall, the results in Table 1 show that a substantial proportion of young people have been involved in violent crime, as perpetrators or victims, including those with low drug involvement. However, it is obvious that for students everywhere, becoming the perpetrators or victims of violent crime goes hand in hand with increasing drug involvement.
TABLE 1: Relationship Between Drug Use and Violence
Low Drug Involvement
Small
Type of Violence Rural Urban Urban
(n=160) (n=171) (n=605)
Threatened someone with a weapon 15.0% 17.0% 11.9%
Injured someone with a weapon 8.1% 7.6% 7.9%
Beaten up by parents 15.8% 11.2% 12.6%
Beaten up by siblings 19.0% 17.8% 15.2%
Beaten up by friend 6.9% 4.8% 8.0%
Beaten up by someone else 24.5% 17.2% 17.1%
Robbed 9.4% 18.3% 18.0%*
Injured by a weapon 5.0% 5.3% 4.8%
Moderate Drug Involvement
Small
Type of Violence Rural Urban Urban
(n=98) (n=69) (n=243)
Threatened someone with a weapon 27.6% 29.0% 32.9%
Injured someone with a weapon 16.3% 17.4% 21.4%
Beaten up by parents 22.4% 20.3% 18.5%
Beaten up by siblings 30.6% 17.4% 25.3%
Beaten up by a friend 14.6% 11.6% 15.1%
Beaten up by someone else 34.7% 31.9% 29.9%
Robbed 16.3% 27.5% 30.7%
Injured by a weapon 8.2% 7.2% 11.6%
High Drug Involvement
Small
Type of Violence Rural Urban Urban
(n=61) (n=40) (n=195)
Threatened someone with a weapon 54.1% 37.5% 46.2%
Injured someone with a weapon 44.3% 22.5% 27.7%
Beaten up by parents 41.0% 27.5% 33.3%
Beaten up by siblings 33.3% 20.0% 26.1%
Beaten up by a friend 32.8% 25.0% 19.7%
Beaten up by someone else 49.2% 47.5% 39.6%
Robbed 19.7% 22.5% 28.0%
Injured by a weapon 31.1% 17.5% 17.4%
*p<.05
Source: Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research Colorado State
University.
Data from this three-community study also illustrate the link between gangs, violence, and drug use. Involvement in a gang was established from the following survey item:
"Have you ever been in a street gang?"
___ Never been in a gang
___ I will never join a gang
___ Used to be in a gang, but not now
___ I will join a gang later
___ Not a member, but hang out with a gang
___ In a gang now
In Table 2, youth choosing either of the first two responses were grouped together under the category "never in a gang/won't ever join." Those choosing the last two responses were grouped together under the category, "in a gang/hang out with a gang." The third group, those choosing the middle two responses, was too small to analyze and was omitted from the table for clarity.
TABLE 2: Relationship Between Gang Involvement and Violence
Never in a gang/Won't ever join
Small
Type of Violence Rural Urban Urban
(n=186) (n=159) (n=599)
Threatened someone with a weapon 20.4% 13.2% 16.0%
Injured someone with a weapon 14.0% 5.7% 9.0%*
Beaten up by parents 18.9% 16.4% 15.7%
Beaten up by siblings 24.2% 15.1% 17.1%*
Beaten up by friend 11.8% 5.1% 8.5%
Beaten up by someone else 25.3% 22.0% 16.5%*
Robbed 11.3% 17.6% 19.5%*
Injured by a weapon 8.6% 3.1% 4.4%*
In a gang/Hang out with a gang
Small
Type of Violence Rural Urban Urban
(n=23) (n=35) (n=191)
Threatened someone with a weapon 51.9% 66.7% 45.2%
Injured someone with a weapon 40.7% 38.1% 34.2%
Beaten up by parents 37.0% 28.6% 18.3%
Beaten up by siblings 25.9% 23.8% 21.1%
Beaten up by friend 18.5% 23.8% 19.1%
Beaten up by someone else 44.0% 28.6% 41.5%
Robbed 25.9% 23.8% 25.7%
Injured by a weapon 22.2% 23.8% 20.6%
*p<.05
Source: Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research Colorado State
University.
Table 2 shows that both perpetration of violence and victimization occur at much higher rates among the youth who are identified with a gang for all community sizes. This connection is particularly strong for situations involving use of a weapon. Of particular note is that the reported incidence of all types of violence is significantly lower across community size among youth who are not gang-involved. In general, the highest rates were reported by youth in the smallest community.
Table 3 links gang involvement and drug use. Regardless of community size, high and moderate drug involvement is much more prevalent for youth who are affiliated with gangs. Although the number of youth who are gang-involved in the rural community is small, almost all of those youth who are either in a gang or hang around with a gang are drug-involved (i.e., high and moderate drug involvement), even more so than their urban counterparts.
TABLE 3: Relationship Between Gang Involvement and Drug Use
Never in a gang/Won't ever join
Small
Level of drug use Rural Urban Urban
(n=186) (n=159) (n=599)
Multi-drug users 4.8% 6.3% 5.8%
Stimulant users 3.2% 1.9% 3.5%
Heavy marijuana users 0.5% 1.9% 0.7%
Heavy alcohol users 8.1% 3.8% 4.2%
Total High Involvement 16.6% 13.9% 14.2%
Occasional drug users 14.0% 10.1% 7.8%
Light marijuana users 12.4% 10.7% 10.7%
Total Moderate Involvement 26.4% 20.8% 18.5%
Drug experimenters 26.9% 26.4% 23.9%
Light alcohol users 16.7% 20.1% 14.0%
Negligible or no use 13.4% 18.8% 29.4%
Total Low Involvement 57.0% 65.3% 67.3%
In a gang/Hang out with a gang
Small
Level of drug use Rural Urban Urban
(n=27) (n=21) (n=146)
Multi-drug users 22.2% 4.8% 15.8%
Stimulant users 11.1% 14.3% 8.9%
Heavy marijuana users 0.0% 0.0% 4.1%
Heavy alcohol users 11.1% 0.0% 6.8%
Total High Involvement 44.4% 19.1% 35.6%
Occasional drug users 25.9% 33.3% 12.3%
Light marijuana users 14.8% 19.0% 24.7%
Total Moderate Involvement 40.7% 52.3% 37.0%
Drug experimenters 7.4% 14.3% 11.0%
Light alcohol users 0.0% 9.5% 7.5%
Negligible or no use 7.5% 4.8% 8.9%
Total Low Involvement 14.9% 28.6% 27.4%
Source: Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research Colorado State
University.
The links among gang involvement, drug use, and violence hold true regardless of community size. Living in a rural area may provide some protection from some forms of violence - e.g., robbery, perhaps because the perpetrator in a robbery is more likely to be a stranger to the victim and rural areas have fewer "strangers." Living in a rural area does not, however, isolate youth from violence. The data from these three communities suggest a trend toward more interpersonal violence in the smaller community than in the larger ones, which may reflect a culture of violence, as discussed by Donnermeyer (1994) in this monograph. He argues that residents of rural areas may have somewhat greater tolerance for the use of violence in some circumstances. Researchers have found that more people in the South than in the North seem to feel that the use of violence is appropriate under certain circumstances - e.g., as a response to insults, as a means of self-protection, and as a socialization tool in training children (Nisbett, 1993). Furthermore, there is some indication that some of these regional differences may be even more pronounced in rural areas (Nisbett, 1993). Perhaps this tendency toward rural/urban differences in attitudes about appropriate use of violence is also true in the Southwest. The communities included in this study appear to demonstrate a greater tolerance for violence.
Caces, M.F., Stinson, F.S., & Harford, T.C. (1991). Alcohol use and physically risky behavior among adolescents. Alcohol Health and Research World, 15, 228-233.
Chavez, E.L. (1993). Personal communication. Ft. Collins, CO: Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research.
Chavez, E.L., Edwards, R.W., & Oetting, E.R. (1989). Mexican-American and white American school dropouts' drug use, health status, and involvement in violence. Public Health Reports, 104(6), 594-604.
Donnermeyer, J.F. (1994). Crime and violence in rural communities. In G. Karim (Ed.), Violence and Substance Use in Rural America: Keys to Prevention. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Elliott, D.L., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Huff, C.R. (1993). Gangs in the United States. In A.P. Goldstein & C.R. Huff (Eds.), The gang intervention handbook. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Jensen, G.F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activities. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 85-89.
Lauritsen, J.L., Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7(2), 91-109.
Martin, S.E. (1992). The epidemiology of alcohol-related interpersonal violence. Alcohol Health and Research World, 16, 230-237.
Nisbett, R.E. (1993). Violence in U.S. regional culture. American Psychologist, 48(4), 441-449.
Spunt, B.J., Goldstein, P.J., Bellucci, P.A., & Miller, T. (1992). Race/ethnicity and gender differences in the drugs-violence relationship. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 22, 293-303.
Copyright © 1994:
Midwest Regional Center for
Drug-Free Schools & Communities
North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory
Contact:info@ncrel.org
Posted on March 31, 1995
URL: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/v1note.htm