Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, Chapel Hill, Orange County : a community diagnosis including secondary data analysis and qualitative data collection
Creators: name: Fisher, Jill
name: Cheh, Julie
name: Bates, Nicole
name: Allicock, Marlyn
Publisher: name: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University Libraries
Year: 1999

description: In order to meet the needs of an identified community effectively, a service provider must possess a firm understanding of the community she wishes to serve. This understanding encompasses far more than simply acknowledging the existence of a community. Rather, a greater awareness of who or what the community consists of, how the community is organized, how members interact, what informal and formal networks already exist in the community, as well as other features that may not be apparent upon initial examination are necessary for effective program delivery. OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY DIAGNOSIS The purpose of the community diagnosis (CD) process is fourfold: 1) to learn what it is like to live in a given community; 2) to understand the strengths and needs of a community; 3) to help community members and service providers identify ways of working together to improve the community; and 4) encourage interaction between residents and service providers for future efforts. Understanding these facets of a community enables service providers to more fully meet the prominent, as well as the less obvious, needs of community members. By taking the time to involve oneself in a community, a service provider establishes a genuine relationship with the population she serves as well as an emic view of what the community already possesses as strengths, as well as services from which the community could most benefit. METHODOLOGY Two approaches were used to gain information about the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park public housing communities located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Four CD team members engaged in a nine-month exploration into the aspects of community which affect the health and livelihood of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park residents. There were two phases of data collection. First, secondary data were collected to define the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities in comparison to standardized, quantitative data reported at the state, county, and local levels. These data were gathered from census data, as well as municipal and other organizational records. The second phase of data collection was qualitative in nature. In an attempt to provide an alternative view, illustrate, emphasize, or compensate for information not sufficient at the secondary data collection level, CD team members gathered anecdotal evidence from service providers and community members themselves during individual interviews. The interview process was approved by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health Institutional Review Board, which approves the use of human subjects in research conducted by all student and faculty associated with the School. In August 1998, Marlyn Allicock, Nicole Bates, Julie Cheh, and Jill Fisher, first year Masters students in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (HBHE) at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, began working with the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. The first community members with whom we interacted extensively were the children of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Initial efforts to gain entrée into the community were made by simply showing our faces to residents. Participation in organized community events afforded our CD team the opportunity to meet core members of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Outside of the communities, our CD team conducted quantitative secondary data analyses to provide a framework for understanding the history, geography, economic outlook, and community profile of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Qualitative interviews with service providers began in December 1998. These interviews continued for the next three months. Interviews with community members and advocates occurred between January and March 1999. QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE FINDINGS Whenever possible, data were collected at the community level. However, due to the small size of the communities, few sources of secondary data were available specifically at the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park levels. Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are composed of a total of 137 individuals living in 55 units located in seven buildings. These communities are truly a subset of a still smaller University neighborhood. Often, the most precise standard statistical breakdown available was at the census block and census block group level. Even statistics at these levels accounted for residents outside of the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. As indicated in this document, socioeconomic features such as income, educational attainment, and employment status, as well as health indicators at the state and county level, are quite different from the rates in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. The age of available statistical data also contributes to the imprecision of the secondary data presented in this document. Because the secondary data analyses for this community diagnosis were completed in the spring of 1999, census data reporting state and county level conditions are outdated by nearly one full decade. Both of these factors should encourage the reader of this document to critically examine the validity of comparisons made across the state, county, and local levels, as well as the dynamic nature of an area such as Chapel Hill, North Carolina. As mentioned above, qualitative data were gathered from interviews conducted with service providers and community members. Data collected at this stage were meant to compensate for any information not available or applicable specifically to Trinity Court or Pritchard Park. A total of 10 service provider and 11 community member interviews (roughly 20% of the total adult population) were completed. Three factors affected the paucity of interviews completed. First, the Family Resource Center (FRC), the main gateway to community members, was closed during a critical interview period. Aside from initiating contact by approaching residents on the street, access to many of the residents without phones, or those who worked regular business hours was hindered. Second, of the 137 residents, 77 are children (not approved to be interviewed for this document). Of the remaining 60 adults, only 11 are males. Though several attempts were made to interview male residents, none of those we approached would agree to an interview, thus leaving a lack of male perspective in these interview data. Finally, with the high concentration of University groups entering the communities for special projects, many residents were understandably reluctant to discuss their personal experiences with students from outside of their communities. However, despite these issues, our CD team gathered rich qualitative information about life in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park from the perspective of the residents and service providers. A great deal of qualitative data were also gathered from FRC Board meetings and numerous informal exchanges with residents. COMMUNITY FORUM On Saturday, March 20, 1999, our CD team presented the results from our extensive exploration into the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities during a forum entitled "Trinity Court and Pritchard Park Speak Out." The forum provided a venue in which to give feedback to the community members and service providers who were instrumental in our data collection and who are the primary beneficiaries of our findings. An explanation of the CD process was given. In addition, CD team members presented summaries of major community themes that emerged throughout the CD process. Themes included: Trinity Court and Pritchard Park children; safety issues; the Family Resource Center (FRC); and the sense of community. Grounded in the core of the CD process, the forum concluded with a 25 minute solutions-based discussion of what residents and services providers could do to build on existing community strengths and improve less favorable conditions in the communities. The CD team followed up the forum by delivering a summary of this discussion to community members and service providers. This CD document presents the findings from our community diagnosis of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park in two parts. Chapters one through seven report the secondary data collected during the CD process. These chapters cover the history, geography, economic outlook, community profile, crime, health, and the assets and resources of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. The remaining chapters summarize the qualitative data collected through interactions with community members and service providers. These theme chapters discuss the most salient issues affecting the communities. Chapter Eight: Sense of Community and Reputation discusses the perceived division between Trinity Court and Pritchard Park; the problems which result from Trinity Court and Pritchard Park being lumped together as one community by service providers; and residents' concerns about the negative reputations of their communities. Chapter Nine: The Family Resource Center explores the important role of the FRC among the residents; the services it provides; and the future of the Center. Chapter Ten: Children - Providing a Strong Foundation describes the priority placed on the youngest members of the communities by residents and service providers, as well as Trinity Court and Pritchard Park's need for a safe and nurturing environment for the children. Chapter Eleven: Safety Concerns - Myth vs. Reality reviews the differing rates of crime in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, as well as residents' concerns about the Trespass Law and the constant surveillance by police. Chapter Twelve: Competing Perspectives - Preparing for the Future examines the priorities of the communities from the differing perspective of residents and service providers; the challenges faced by service providers; and the need expressed by residents for providers who understand and respect the residents and are more involved in their communities. Finally, Chapter Thirteen: Community Action and Involvement addresses the barriers to community action faced by residents and also looks at past examples of action and strategies for facilitating future action and involvement. CONCLUSION In response to the results presented by the CD team, community members and service providers generated a list of three achievable goals that community members and service providers could perform to improve the communities. First, all agreed that community members should make their expectations, desires, and concerns known to service providers and departments. The intention is to increase and improve service provider community relations and involvement to show the community that there is a true vested interest in the success of the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. Second, all agreed that residents, rather than outside organizations, should serve on the FRC Governing Board so that residents are responsible for the decisions of their communities. Thirdly, and closely linked to the second resolution, community members strongly agreed that there is a need to address non-residents (in the position of service providers, troublemakers, or the general public) who denigrate the community. In response to the large discrepancy in perception held by certain community members, service providers, and other non-residents, community members agreed that by regaining ownership of their communities, Trinity Court and Pritchard Park residents could combat myths and misperceptions.