2. Research presentation at the 2012 Rural Sociological
Society meetings.
Research funded in part by USDA-CES grant, through
the department of Sociology and Anthropology at
North Carolina State University.
Forthcoming book chapter in Against Urbanormativity:
Perspectives on Rural Theory, Thomas and Fulkerson,
Lexington Books.
For more information contact Gretchen Thompson at
ghthomps2@gmail.com.
3. Substance abuse research indicates that
many rural communities have reached urban
proportions in alcohol and drug abuse levels
(Donnermeyer 1992; Moxley 1992; Wright
and Sathe 2005).
Rural youth have higher rates of alcohol and
methamphetamine use than their urban
counterparts (Lambert et al., 2008).
4. In North Carolina the leading causes for
incarceration continue to be drug-related
crimes (Governor’s Crime Commission 2011).
Rates of substance abuse are expected to
worsen across the state given the current
economic downturn (Governor’s Crime
Commission 2011).
5. Rural communities often lack resources to
address substance abuse problems due to
structural, political, economic, and cultural
barriers.
These include: the lack of access to substance
abuse treatment, perceived social stigma in
rural areas, geographical isolation, and the
financial burden associated with treatment
(Wright and Sathe 2005).
6. Structural dimensions of communities constitute a
community’s capacity to problem solve (Merschrod
2008; Moxley and Proctor 1995; Young 1999, 2007).
Political competitiveness—degree of competitive
exchange among interest groups in a community, similar
to bridging social capital (Flora and Flora 2007).
Solidarity—degree to which communities demonstrate a
cohesive vision, similar to bonding social capital (Flora and
Flora 2007).
Centrality—degree to which a community is linked to
surrounding communities and political institutions and
resources, similar to linking social capital (Woolcock 2002)
and political capital (Flora and Flora 2007).
7. Rural as an additional dimension of inequality,
urbanormative ideologies dominate the
community development lexicon (Thompson,
Lowe, Fulkerson, and Smith 2011).
Intersectionality of rural with commonly
examined axes of inequality: race and gender
(Hill Collins 2000).
Inequality—rural/race/gender—as a community
structural variable (Eberts 2012) that reproduces
public health disparities.
8. Sample: 100 County Seats
Response Rate 84% Communities Surveyed
Dillman (2010) Survey Method
NC Community Key Informant Survey
Town Clerks
Community Structural Dimensions Indicators
U.S. Census Data
Community Demographic Indicators
9. Variable Full Model
*Statistically significant < .05
Standardized betas italicized
Population 2000 (ln) .320* (4.140)
Median Household Income 2000 (ln) .002085* (2.225)
Percent African American 2000 (ln) -.048 (-.952)
Solidarity (Community Monument, Plaque, or Memorial) .451* (2.725)
Rigidity (Residential Segregation) -.238 (-1.447)
Political Competitiveness (One party Dominates Elections) .348* (-2.419)
Centrality (Number of State and Federal Agencies) .019* (2.318)
Female Headed Households to Rural Population (Ratio) .034* (2.527)
Female Headed Households*African American Population to -.00729* (-3.595)
Rural Population (Ratio)
(Constant) -2.791*
10. Race, gender, and rurality coalesce in a matrix
of structural inequalities that worsens
conditions for African Americans and women
in previously unstudied ways.
Present study demonstrates that rural
communities face additional challenges in
regards to public health and minority
populations.
11. Community structural dimensions underpin
problem solving capacity in the form of
substance abuse.
These dimensions are local level mechanisms
that may be engaged to enhance public
health, particularly given neoliberal economic
policies and devolution of state institutions.
