Chapter Nine: The Family Resource Center

"The FRC - without it, a lot of things wouldn't happen."
-Resident

The Family Resource Center (FRC) is at the heart of many issues in the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. The FRC is one of five FRCs in Orange County funded through a grant received by the Chapel Hill Training-Outreach Project (CHTOP). The Trinity Court and Pritchard Park FRC has been in the community for four years. It closed due to a loss of staff and lack of temporary support in February 1999. Funding for programs and services supported by the FRC will be officially terminated when the current grant for the FRC ends on June 30, 1999. Although mentioned in a number of the service provider interviews, the FRC was spoken of as an issue of importance in almost all of the community member interviews. Issues surrounding services provided by the FRC, the importance of the FRC to the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities, and the implications of the current reorganization were repeated themes of concern among residents and service providers.

HISTORY

By definition, a FRC is "a central location in a community or neighborhood where residents can find a variety of programs and services" (Chapel Hill Training-Outreach Project, 1997). One service provider said, "A strength of the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities is having the FRC on site." The FRC is technically under the authority of a governing board, which is composed mainly of residents. A Community Police Sub-station (a partner of the FRC program) existed on site until last fall. A director, who is a paid employee of the CHTOP, runs the Center. The FRC additionally relies on outside organizations and individuals who make donations and volunteer their time.

The FRC serves as a gateway for the many organizations and services that come to Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Most volunteers, training programs, and services like those provided by the Orange County Health Department enter these communities through the FRC. Residents are familiar with and trust the FRC and its staff. Therefore the residents of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are better reached by the FRC. A service provider remarked that the "FRC offers stability not taken advantage of before. Now it is taken advantage of…Groups have come in the community. They're tired of being 'poked and prodded'…Although the community didn't set it up, [the FRC] was desired."

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

Ideally, FRCs can "help close the gap between the needs of families and the resources in their community, and they are a proven, effective way to make sure families get the help they want and need to provide nurturing, supportive homes for children" (North Carolina Division of Family Development, 1994). Services provided through FRCs depend on available community resources and the decisions of each governing board. One service provider suggested that the FRC serves as an advocating center for residents. Depending on the specific needs of the community, a FRC may offer any of the following services to residents of the community: children's health; adult health care; drug awareness and counseling; domestic issues; education; and social services (CHTOP, 1997).

The FRC has run specific programs falling under the core service categories mentioned above. One resident recognized that there are "a lot [of services] to try and keep them out of trouble, like the After School Program at the FRC, the Big Buddy Program through school, and other resources for school-aged kids." On site parent-teacher conferences, book lending systems, and tutoring by the Liaison Extending Academic Performance (LEAP) volunteers were other educational programs organized for children while the FRC was staffed. Daycare and playtime activities were regularly scheduled events that were run by the staff of the FRC. Movie nights at the FRC were also highly attended by Trinity Court and Pritchard Park children. One resident remarked that the "FRC is great for them [the children]. The FRC keeps Trinity Court and Pritchard Park going." Even for the adult residents who do not directly use the FRC, most of them recognize it as "the place where the children go after school" or that provides food or programs for families. One service provider echoed this sentiment by stating, "One great success was the After School Program. Organizers were really proud. However, with the adult population being harder to reach, these [broader FRC] programs often failed in terms of numbers… because no trusting relationship was ever established with the adults." Other programs, targeted at the adult population and the family unit were also sponsored by the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park FRC. A parenting group, which began in the summer of 1998, was considered one of the most successful and longest programs of the FRC. A service provider recognized "a core group of people who come to the Parenting Support Group."

Table 11 presents a clearer picture of core programs provided by FRCs and selected programs offered by the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park FRC:

TABLE 11. CORE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE FRC

Source: Chapel Hill Training-Outreach Project (1997)

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Participation on the part of residents arose as an issue determining success and sustainability of programs introduced through the FRC. A few residents recognized the Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) Prep classes as an Adult Education service offered through the FRC. However, as one service provider noted, "It's hard for agencies to come out to help out because they have to have a certain number of people to justify coming out." So even if there's one person trying to get their GED it's like it doesn't even make a difference if they don't have those other people come out." Residents and service providers agreed on the need for job and financial training. While a resident pointed out the need to bring people to the FRC because classes outside of the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities were too expensive, a service provider explained why bringing outside services into the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities often does not work. One service provider said, "This is a problem…It is difficult to keep reaching out. With the FRC, if residents don't cooperate there is nothing you can do about it." Another service provider explained that proposals to keep current programs going should be approved "…as long as numbers are consistently high" (FRC Board Meeting Minutes, 1/28/99). A service provider stated, "People need to work together - helping each other out and increasing participation.

Residents as well as service providers believe that lack of participation in programs is a problem within the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. One resident mentioned, "I wish people would speak up. People don't because they don't think it will help…Apathy won't do anything." A service provider said, "People don't want to participate anymore because they don't believe that programs are designed to do what they want done - a common sentiment among FRC users…People are not used to being a part of the decision making process."

Even though some community members and service providers speak of the lack of participation by residents in FRC-sponsored activities, the FRC has served as a centralizing force for the residents in the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. This point was discussed in Chapter Eight: Sense of Community and Reputation. However, one resident remarked, "The FRC helped a lot. People talk, communicate better. [Before] they didn't even say hello to each other." Residents and service providers recognized the FRC as the place where community member often congregated for general social purposes. Having a telephone in the FRC is another attractive feature drawing residents without telephones into the Center to conduct business (e.g. contacting social services or school staff). Residents are not supposed to use the FRC phone to make personal calls. A core group of residents identified with and supported the majority of FRC programs and activities.

THE FUTURE

Despite the success of many programs at the FRC, due to staff transition, program funding, and other issues, the FRC is going through a very critical period. With the current debate surrounding the possible closure of the FRC, it is important to understand the importance that the FRC has had in the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities, as well as the impact to these communities if it is closed. One community member made the feeling of her fellow residents clear by saying, "Keeping FRC open will help a lot of people." Another resident made the strong statement that "If the community center is not here, count of the community going down."

However, there are many other issues to consider when looking at the future of the FRC for Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. While several residents have stepped forward to run the Center as community volunteers, professional liability and a lack of funding after the grant runs out are the major issues opposing this arrangement. The FRC must become its own 501(c)3 (classification as private, nonprofit status) to receive direct state funding. The FRC Governing Board should address issues and methods now to achieve the necessary 501(c)3 status to continue funding for the FRC.

A less complex issue surrounding the feasibility of keeping the FRC open include the transient status of FRC staff and Trinity Court and Pritchard Park residents. One service provider remarked that it is often a case of "new working with new" in terms of developing and sustaining programs. Therefore, a desire to give more responsibility to the communities is often thwarted by ever-changing community requests and program participants. Staff turnover at the FRC has been rather frequent as well. Since the FRC opened, there have been at least two interim directors. Considering that each of these directors must establish working relationships with service providers and community members, this means that programs are often initiated and suspended as staff come and go. Consistency is one attribute of the FRC and its programs desired by both residents and service providers.

CONCLUSION

Apparent through community member and service provider interviews, the FRC has made an undeniable impact on the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. Its presence has promoted a sense of community, served as an entrance for outside services, and acted as a mobilizing force for community issues and activities. At this time, the future status of the FRC and the services supported by the Center is uncertain. Issues of funding, participation, and responsibility on the part of service providers and residents are influential factors in determining the future of the FRC. Both residents and service providers will play important roles in the resolution of this.

Chapter Eight: Sense of Community and Reputation

Back to TOC

Chapter Ten: Children - Providing a Strong Foundation