1. Citizens, youth advocates and policy-makers have called attention to the role that “community” plays in promoting positive outcomes for youth (Clinton, 1996; Gore, 2003; McLaughlin, 2000; Whitford, 2005). For example, communities can set policies, build facilities, support human services, and develop a positive spirit that may influence community life as well as outcomes such as substance use and crime. One central question is how community-level measures of risks and resources relate to community-level rates of adolescent substance use and other problem behaviors. Much of the prior research that focuses on explaining adolescent substance use and other problem behaviors has been conducted at the individual-level: examining how individual risk and protective factors influence individual outcomes. This project expands prior work by examining the community context of rural and small towns and combines multiple methodologies: interview, archival reports, and geographic information systems in order to create a comprehensive understanding of the community context.  To develop a comprehensive dataset of possible community-level risks and resources in rural and small town communities.  To assess the underlying relations between the possible community-level risks and resources. Community Risks & Resources In Rural America: What Matters? Sarah Meyer Chilenski & Mark Greenberg, Ph.D. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 Community Risks & Resources In Rural America: What Matters? Sarah Meyer Chilenski & Mark Greenberg, Ph.D. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 Community Sample IntroductionIntroduction SummarySummary CorrelationsCorrelations ObjectivesObjectives PROSPER is a collaboration between Iowa State & Penn State. Richard Spoth, Ph.D., IA Director. Supported by NIDA 1 R01 DA13709-01A1 MethodsMethods  Targeted Interview Strategy (n = 320)  Prevention Team Members  Directors of Social Service Agencies  Middle School Principals  Recreation “Experts”  Archival Data Sources  2000 Census  District Demographic Reports  State Police Uniform Crime Reports  State Liquor Control & Dept of Revenue  Geographic Information Systems  Geocoded locations of organizations  The income level of communities seems to be somewhat of an "anchor" in rural and small town communities: more impoverished communities had lower functioning schools, higher rates of crimes, and greater access to alcohol and tobacco  As found in prior research in urban settings, the availability of alcohol associated positively with crime rates.  Somewhat surprisingly the perceived community norms of adolescent substance use does not relate to the commercial availability of alcohol or tobacco.  Ratings of school academic success, collective efficacy, and the perceived availability of structured activities for Middle School Students had strong associations.  The 28 PROSPER communities  14 in Iowa  14 In Pennsylvania  District Population  Students, M = 2,892  All Individuals, M = 19,100  Geographic Area  M = 142 Square Miles (SD = 107)  Income & Race  Median Household Income, M = $37K  Free/Reduced Lunch, M = 29.45%  Mostly White, M = 95.6%  Community Rates of Crime  Availability of Substances  Community Norms & Culture  School Functioning  Availability of Structured Activities ConstructsConstructs Illustrations of Select Constructs With an n = 28, p <=.05 for r =.38 Correlations Among Selected Community Risks Correlations Among Selected Community Resources