THE TWO GROUPS DID NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY IN AGE (AVERAGE 15 YEARS), SCHOOL GRADE ATTAINED (EIGHTH), SOCIAL STATUS (LOW), OR RACE. RURAL YOUTHS HAD A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AVERAGE IQ (INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT) THAN URBAN YOUTHS. MOST OF THE RURAL YOUTHS CAME FROM SMALL TOWNS AND VILLAGES, ALTHOUGH 38 LIVED ON FARMS. RURAL YOUTHS WERE MORE LIKELY THAN URBAN YOUTHS TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN BREAKING AND ENTERING FOR NOMINAL PURPOSES OR IN GENERAL MISCONDUCT, BUT LESS LIKELY TO HAVE STOLEN CARS OR TO HAVE ENGAGED IN BREAKING AND ENTERING FOR OTHER THAN NOMINAL PURPOSES. THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN INVOLVEMENT IN SEX OFFENSES, OTHER KINDS OF THEFT, AND TRUANCY, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE DIFFERENCES WITHIN THESE OFFENSE CATEGORIES. FOR EXAMPLE, RURAL YOUTHS WERE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE STOLEN FROM RELATIVES, URBAN YOUTHS FROM STRANGERS. THE AVERAGE RURAL YOUTH HAD COMMITTED 1.7 DIFFERENT KINDS OF OFFENSES, COMPARED TO 3 KINDS FOR THE AVERAGE URBAN YOUTH. RURAL YOUTHS WERE FAR MORE LIKELY THAN URBAN YOUTHS TO HAVE BEEN ALONE WHEN COMMITTING THEIR OFFENSES AND NOT TO HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF DELINQUENT GANGS. URBAN YOUTHS DEMONSTRATED A FAR GREATER DEGREE OF SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE IN COMMITTING OFFENSES THAN DID RURAL YOUTHS. MANY MORE URBAN YOUTHS THAN RURAL YOUTHS HAD BEEN PLACED ON OFFICIAL PROBATION. RURAL YOUTHS WERE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN RELINQUISHED TO A NONCOURT AGENCY, SUCH AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. URBAN YOUTHS HAD APPEARED IN COURT MORE FREQUENTLY THAN HAD RURAL YOUTHS. RURAL YOUTHS WERE MORE LIKELY TO COME FROM FAMILIES KNOWN FOR SERIOUSLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR (PERHAPS A REFLECTION OF THE CLOSE SURVEILLANCE ACCORDED SUCH FAMILIES IN RURAL COMMUNITIES). RURAL YOUTHS ADJUSTED FAR MORE SUCCESSFULLY THAN URBAN YOUTHS AFTER COMMITMENT TO THE INSTITUTION, SPENDING LESS TIME IN THE INSTITUTION, ENGAGING IN FEWER PROBATION VIOLATIONS, COMMITTING FEWER AND LESS SERIOUS OFFENSES, AND GENERALLY EARNING A FAR MORE FAVORABLE PROGNOSIS. AMONG THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ARE THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE INCARCERATION OF RELATIVELY NAIVE RURAL YOUTHS WITH CRIME-WISE URBAN YOUTHS LEADS TO PROBLEMS IN ADMINISTRATION AND TREATMENT, (2) DELINQUENCY RESEARCHERS SHOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL YOUTHS, AND (3) FURTHER STUDIES INTO THE ETIOLOGY OF RURAL DELINQUENCY ARE NEEDED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE PROVIDED.