The Importance of the Community Context in the Epidemiology of Early Adolescent Substance Use and Delinquency in a Rural Sample

Abstract

Considerable research has demonstrated that substance use and delinquency during early adolescence can have long-term negative health consequences. As the correlates of these behaviors cross levels and contexts, it is likely that a socioecological approach will provide insight to inform community prevention. This approach informs the present study, which focuses on developing a multiple-method measurement strategy to examine associations among community risks, resources, and rates of early adolescent substance use and delinquency in 28 rural and small town communities. Measures include five domains of community risk, four domains of community resources, and population rates of early adolescent substance use and delinquency. Results demonstrated that several measures of context were significantly associated with community rates of adolescent substance use and delinquency, and different risks and resources appear important for different outcomes. Multiple associations were curvilinear, and interactions may also be important. Findings suggest that it may be worthwhile to create and test new intervention strategies that target community factors in the pursuit of prevention.

Context‐Dependent Pathways of the Transmission of Risk from Communities to Individuals

“…Existing studies often focus on youth perceptions of community risk (Arthur et al 2002a, b; Resnick et al 2004; Sampson et al 1997), which can be subjected to reporter- and method-bias. The need for more objective measures has been promoted as an important direction for the field (Chilenski and Greenberg 2009). Our findings show that youth were fairly accurate reporters of community risk, but only when family risk was low.…”

“…Data show that youth raised in communities characterized by high levels of social disorganization are at an increased risk of engaging in a range of maladaptive and antisocial behaviors (Karriker-Jaffe et al 2009; Erickson et al 2012; Hawkins et al 2004; Simons et al 2012; Brooks-Gunn et al 1993; Kingston et al 2009; Maimon and Browning 2010; Sampson et al 1997). Although often connoted with an urban problem, community risks also play an important role in youth development in rural and non-metropolitan areas (Connell et al 2010; Chilenski 2011; Karriker-Jaffe et al 2009; Farmer et al 2004), though the types of risk that are most salient for development may vary across setting (Chilenski and Greenberg 2009). In fact, as much as 15–27 % of the variance in delinquency across communities can be explained by community-level risks (Van Horn et al 2007).…”

“…Farrington and Welsh 2007; Chilenski and Greenberg 2009). From an intervention standpoint, however, the mere identification of risk factors is a necessary, yet insufficient, condition.…”

“…They are naturally embedded within a community context, and are therefore intricately related to other contextual risks. Cumulative risk exposure across multiple ecological domains significantly increases risk for maladaptive outcomes (Stoddard et al 2013; Farmer et al 2004; Chilenski and Greenberg 2009); however, at the same time, exposure to protective or promotive factors in one domain may attenuate the effects of risk in the other (Delany-Brumsey et al 2014). This suggests that families and the communities in which they reside are related in nuanced and complex ways (Delany-Brumsey et al 2014).…”

Exploring the risk behaviour of learners in a South African private Christian secondary school

“…Substance abuse during adolescence can have long-term negative health consequences (Chilenski & Greenberg, 2009), apart from the more immediate negative consequences such as insomnia, depression and hallucinations that can have a negative effect on school performance, school attendance and risk behaviour. The use of drugs and alcohol also impairs decision-making abilities and reduces self-control, increasing the probability of making poor choices and the risk of injury and other risky forms of behaviour (March & Knol, 2010).…”