Methodology

This section of the document describes the process of both secondary and primary data collection and analysis. Data for this document were collected in two phases. The first phase involved collection of secondary data; data previously collected and presented in a standardized format for use by various agencies and individuals. Census data provided statistical information at the state and county levels. It is important to keep in mind that data that are reported only at the state and/or county level may not be generalizable to Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. For that reason the later, qualitative phase of data collection was more important in providing an accurate picture of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. This phase of data collection involved obtaining firsthand information from those directly affected in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, the residents and service providers. Considering information presented from both of these data collection phases in tandem contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of life in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park.

One aspect of the first phase of data collection particular to Trinity Court and Pritchard Park was the size of the communities. Because these communities are composed of two relatively small neighborhoods, secondary data at the most specific level were often difficult to obtain or not available. Often, the most precise standard statistical breakdown available was at the census block and census block group level. Even the statistics reported at these levels included residents outside of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Statistical reports on socio-demographic features (such as income, educational attainment, etc.) and health status at the state and Orange County level were quite different from the rates within Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. When possible, data more specific to Trinity Court and Pritchard Park were found in agency reports, such as police department reports or those from the Orange County Health Department. Throughout the document it is noted where data at the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park level could not be obtained.

A second aspect of data collection that deserves mention is the age of the statistical information presented in the secondary data section of this document. Because this document was finalized in the spring of 1999, the most recent census level data were provided from the 1990 Census collection. Therefore, this information is outdated by nearly one full decade. This is important to consider when looking at data reporting income levels and other socio-demographic factors that are sensitive to changes over time. Information presented on health and crime is more recent, having been collected in a community diagnosis conducted by the North Carolina Department of Health in 1997 or presented in the Town of Chapel Hill Annual Report for 1997-1998. Therefore, information relating to health presented at the state and county level are more representative of conditions in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park.

While it is preferable to have more recent data for some of the secondary data sections in this document, it may still be inappropriate to compare data across local, county, and state levels. Where any confusion may arise in the presentation of this information, we have taken care to explain any adjustments or special considerations necessary in the interpretation of information. One benefit of presenting data in this manner is that disparities that exist between the local and county or state levels become that much more obvious and provide a framework for the firsthand reports presented later in the document.

Qualitative reports in the later phase of data collection compensated for information that was not available specific to Trinity Court and Pritchard Park at the secondary data collection level. Data collected at this stage included anecdotal information that could not be captured through standardized statistical measures. These data relied on personal and group perceptions as well as reports of social conditions in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. In order to gather this information, our community diagnosis team (CD team) made use of two standard interview guides; one tailored to service providers, the other tailored to community members. Both guides were included as part of an application submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in early September 1998 (Appendix B). The guides were reviewed for potential breaches of confidentiality or exposure of sensitive information. Approval for use with Trinity Court and Pritchard Park residents and service providers was granted in early October.

The interview guides sought the same general information. Both explored issues concerning overall community perceptions and activities, support networks services provided and utilized, and the 'evolution' of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park (perceptions of its past, present, and future). Service providers were asked to provide additional information about their organization and the extent of their involvement with the communities. Community members were given the chance to discuss further any issues that were of particular concern to them.

Because Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are located in Chapel Hill, close to the University, special thought was given to the approach to attempt to conduct interviews with community members. Other events and issues in a larger town such as Chapel Hill often overshadow smaller communities like Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Neighborhoods like Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are often inundated with temporary volunteers and programs, with few tangible benefits remaining for the community when a program is concluded. For that reason, our CD team met repeatedly to discuss issues of entering the community respectfully and of ensuring residents would gaining from our experience in the community. Our initial attempts to gain entrée into the community involved the children of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. After a few weeks, older residents began to recognize us as regular contributors to the community and potential allies.

Of 137 residents in the Trinity Court and Pritchard Park community, 11 interviews were completed. While this appears to be a relatively small number of interviews, when considering the dynamics and special issues surrounding our community, the sentiments gathered in the interviews can be considered representative of the views held by most residents in the community. Of those 137 residents, 77 are children, leaving 60 individuals over the age of 18 eligible to be interviewed. Also, there are 11 males recorded as official residents of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Although several of those men were approached, male residents of Trinity Court or Pritchard Park granted no interviews. As a result, our interview sample included 20% of the adult population in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, and all of those residents seen on a regular basis in the community were interviewed. Additional interviews were obtained by an informal referral system and by approaching residents seen entering or exiting some of the buildings.

In addition to the demographic makeup of the community, a second issue contributing to the difficulty of obtaining community member interviews was the loss of a central location to conduct resident interviews. The Family Resource Center (FRC), the main site of our community member interviews went through a major transition and was closed just as our scheduled interview period began to progress. Because many Trinity Court and Pritchard Park residents do not have telephones in their own apartment units, contacting individuals to schedule interviews was made nearly impossible. Repeated attempts for additional interviews were made by visiting the communities at different times during the day and week to reach residents with whom we had not previously interacted. Though several of the residents we interviewed are employed, other working residents of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park were missed, since all interviews were conducted in the morning or afternoon.

A final issue contributing to our difficulty in obtaining community member interviews was the location of the community itself. Trinity Court and Pritchard Park are located about one mile from the main campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many university organizations and academic programs send students into these communities to serve as volunteers or complete school projects. At times, these communities receive an overwhelming amount of attention from students. Often though, this attention is temporary. Students enter the communities, complete projects and commitments, and abandon the communities, leaving behind no tangible results or improvements for the residents. Because of experiences like these, residents often find it difficult to invite yet another group into their communities for purposes that will not serve the communities' interests. It took a concerted effort by community diagnosis team members to assure residents that our project had their best interests in mind. Targeting the interests of the communities largely dictated how we approached residents for interviews, and ultimately, the number of interviews we were able to complete. A total of 10 service provider interviews were conducted. Service providers were identified through attendance at Community Resource Team meetings, which included agencies that provide regular services to Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. Providers from the local schools, former FRC staff, the police and housing departments, and the Orange County Health Department were included in the service provider interview pool. Our CD team obtained additional service provider interviews through referrals made by a few, core service providers.

As a standard method, two CD team members attended each interview. One team member asked the interview questions according to the interview guide, while the second team member took detailed notes, asked probing questions, and ensured that the interview was recorded (when permission was granted). Notes from these interviews were distributed among team members for coding and developed into identified theme chapters. Upon group and individual review, issues that were repeated in community member and service provider interviews were coded and labeled as recurring themes of interest or importance. Team members reviewed cassette tapes for direct quotes when applicable to the quality of reporting. Major themes identified in this process included the following: sense of community and reputation; the Family Resource Center; police presence and the Trespass Law; the children of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park; difference in the perspectives of residents and service providers; and community action and involvement. More specific concerns raised by residents and service providers were discussed within each of these major theme areas.

Our community diagnosis team took great care to provide a comprehensive account of life in Trinity Court and Pritchard Park. The use of primary and secondary data in conjunction with one another affords a fuller picture of the physical and social conditions in these communities. Keeping in mind the special features of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park grants readers of this document a unique look at these two communities.

Introduction

Back to TOC

Chapter One: History