Conclusion

Throughout this document, we have presented the quantitative and qualitative findings from our community diagnosis of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. The first seven chapters report the secondary data collected during the CD process. These chapters cover the history, geography, economic outlook, community profile, crime, health, and resources of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Chapters Eight through Thirteen present the qualitative data gathered through personal interviews.

We have found that the history behind the development of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, and their location in the relatively affluent university town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, greatly impact the lives of the people living there. As documented in Chapters one through four, the economic status, education level, family structure, income level, and demographic makeup of the average resident in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park contrast starkly in comparison to that of other inhabitants of Chapel Hill. According to secondary data reported in Chapter Five, crime also seems to be a more significant problem in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, when compared to the rest of Chapel Hill. While health data were unavailable at the community level, we found in Chapter Six, that these social and demographic differences significantly affect the health status of individuals from similar subsets at the state and county levels. Fortunately, a wealth of health resources and services are available to community members in the area at low cost. Finally, Chapter Seven identifies the many formal and informal resources and assets from which residents may draw for a variety of needs.

While the secondary data provide an important framework in which to contextualize Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, many of the most salient issues affecting the communities were gained through personal interviews. Chapter Eight: Sense of Community and Reputation discussed 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 explored 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 described 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 reviewed the differing rates of crime in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, as well as residents' concerns about the Trespass Law and the constant police surveillance. Chapter Twelve: Competing Perspectives - Preparing for the Future examined 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 addressed the barriers to community action faced by residents and also looked at past examples of action and strategies for facilitating future involvement.

In response to these results, which were presented to the communities during the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park Speak Out on March 20, 1999, residents and providers generated a list of three achievable goals that could be performed to improve their communities. First, all agreed that community members should make their expectations, desires, and concerns known to service providers and agencies. The intention is to 1) increase and improve community involvement by service providers and residents; 2) improve the relationship between providers and residents; and 3) show the residents that there is a true and vested interest in the success of the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities. Second, all agreed that residents should serve on the Family Resource Center Governing Board so that residents, rather than just outside organizations, are responsible for decisions made regarding their communities. Thirdly, and closely linked to the second resolution, community members strongly agreed that there is a need to address non-residents (including service providers, troublemakers, or the general public) who denigrate the community. In response to the large discrepancy in perception held by certain residents, service providers, and other non-residents, community members agreed that regaining ownership of their communities would help combat myths and misperceptions of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. With the existing "units of identity," such as the social networks within Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, and the larger "units of solution," including the FRC and its resident groups, the resources exist to ensure success for both communities.

In closing, our community diagnosis team would like to wholeheartedly thank all of the residents and service providers who welcomed us so warmly into the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park communities during the past nine months. It is our hope that community members and service providers will use this document to develop programs and effect change which will strengthen the communities. Perhaps with this document as a guide, significant improvements to the communities can be achieved. Because we have witnessed the strengths and assets in these two communities, our team is confident that Trinity Court and Pritchard Park will continue to thrive.

Left arrowChapter Thirteen: Community Action and Involvement Back to TOC Right arrowReferences