Executive Summary
Community DescriptionThis section will explain the method of data collection and analysis. Two types of data were collected: secondary data from existing sources and primary data from individual interviews and focus groups. The team used existing sources, such as the US Census and the State Center for Health Statistics, to collect data during the initial stages of the project. An additional informative source for our project was the Fuquay-Varina Chamber of Commerce.
The primary data collection process began by writing separate interview guides for service providers and community members of Fuquay-Varina. The team then identified important subject areas to explore. The service provider guide addressed questions pertaining to services/resources available (i.e. health care, recreation, religious); populations that use such services; and the strengths and weaknesses of the Fuquay-Varina community.
The community member interview guide began with general questions pertaining to the interviewee's family, employment, and religious affiliation. Next were questions about community resources, health resources, changes that have occurred over time in Fuquay-Varina, and perceptions of how Fuquay-Varina will be in the future. Those service providers who were also community members were usually asked questions from both interview guides.
Focus group interviews were conducted with children of varying ages. The focus group interview guide was comprised of six questions pertaining to the interviewees' perceptions of Fuquay-Varina, school pride, and social support. In order to generate discussion and allow for the participation of all of the focus group members, the number of questions asked was limited to those that were considered to be relatively straightforward. The size of the focus groups ranged from between two and six children.
After completing the interview guides and gaining approval from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health Institutional Review Board, the team explored ways to contact members of the community. The interview process began at the Southern Regional Center (SRC) of Fuquay-Varina where Deborah Cerrito, one of two team preceptors and a Public Health Educator at the SRC, assisted the team in obtaining access to other employees.
The team then identified key community members and service providers as possible interview candidates for providing valuable information on the Fuquay-Varina community: Chief of Police, Mayor and Mayor-elect, Town Commissioners and Planners, members of the clergy, and President of the Chamber of Commerce. At the annual Heritage Festival in Fuquay-Varina, team members met representatives of various civic organizations, some of whom were later contacted for an interview. The final question of each interview asked for suggestions of additional interview candidates, resulting in a continuous process of phone calls and interviews.
Each phone call began with a brief introduction of the community diagnosis process by a member of the team. If the person was interested in being interviewed, the next step was scheduling a time and place for the interview. A minimum of two team members attended each interview: one person was primarily responsible for asking the questions and facilitating discussion, the other for taking notes. Focus groups were often presided by more than two team members, in order to keep the discussion on track. Each interview and focus group conducted was tape-recorded with one exception. In that case the respondent preferred not to be recorded, meaning only written notes from the interview were taken.
At the outset of the community diagnosis process, the team recognized the importance of collecting primary data, which adequately represented the various voices in Fuquay-Varina. The primary data sample included members of the three primary ethnic groups in Fuquay-Varina: whites, African Americans, and Latinos. The team successfully gathered representative members of different socioeconomic classes, and interviewees' ages ranged from elementary school children to retired adults. Moreover, the team spoke with lifelong residents of Fuquay-Varina as well as new members of the community. The total number of interviewees was forty individuals. Thirteen adults and eighteen youth were interviewed as Fuquay-Varina community members. Four interviewees represented both service providers and community members of Fuquay-Varina. Five individuals were interviewed as service providers only. The various backgrounds of the interviewees comprised an adequate representation of the residents of Fuquay-Varina given the time constraints of the community diagnosis process. Please refer to Appendix B for a complete description of interviewees.
As each interview was completed, the notetaker typed and distributed the notes taken during the interview or focus group. Usually an audiotape clarified interviewees' responses and captured their direct quotes for the note taker. Each group member then received the interview transcript via email and read them in order to familiarize themselves with the issues that surfaced.
Once the interview process came to a close, each team member read all available transcripts at the time and came together to discuss dominant themes. The team discovered eight major themes from the collective set of interview transcripts, which were grouped together into six categories. Each team member then reread all transcripts and identified statements according to theme, labeling each statement with an assigned code (e.g. Health Care was coded as HC). The significance of the themes was shown by the number of times the code appeared in the interview transcripts.
Some barriers presented themselves throughout the primary data collection process. Because of the nature of the community diagnosis project, recruiting members who do not have an active voice in the community was difficult. Referrals from service providers and active members of civic organizations also tended to be very much like themselves - active in the community in some way, preventing other marginalized populations from being adequately represented. Only two of the six team members were able to speak fluent or nearly fluent Spanish, limiting the team's access to the Latino population. The migrant farm worker population was unreachable because interviews were conducted in January and February, out of season. Despite Fuquay-Varina's resonant history of tobacco farming, the team did not reach this population as well. The team encountered much red tape while trying to work with the Wake County Public School System in gaining permission to interview school aged youth. Even though the team was unable to interview youth in schools, they successfully gained access to youth through the various civic organizations.
The secondary data collection process at the outset of the community diagnosis contained its own limitations. Because the most recent U.S. Census was in 1990, the Census data could not accurately show tremendous increase in the past decade. The team then turned to other data sources, such as the State Center for Health Statistics. Wake County data from 1998 was referenced; however, there was not enough data specific to Fuquay-Varina. Several topic-specific problems arose while researching secondary data, such as difficulty in obtaining mental health statistics and undefined crime data categories ("calls to service"). Lastly, data from these sources usually presented only two racial categories: "white" and "other." Not having specific racial/ethnic breakdowns hindered the accuracy of the information provided.
| Executive Summary | Back to TOC | Community Description |