1. Gretchen H. Thompson
Karl A. Jicha
R.V. Rikard
Robert L. Moxley
North Carolina State University

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.

12. THANK YOU!