What It Takes in Contexts of Chronic Traumas: Designing Place‐Based Programs for Social Capital, Community Resilience, and Economic Mobility

ABSTRACT

This study investigates how a 12‐month economic mobility intervention, Mothers Mobility Program (MMP), in Charlotte, NC, fosters usable social capital among single mothers facing systemic, financial, and personal stressors often associated with complex trauma. Using Braun and Clarke's (2006) Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA), our interdisciplinary team conducted and analyzed interviews with a subgroup of 20 program mothers (ages 19–44) from six cohorts (N = 70) who completed MMP between 2021 and 2024. The analysis revealed the formation of bonding and bridging social capital among participants. These processes were sequenced and interdependent: bonding ties, fostered through program offerings and identity‐affirming spaces, first created trust and safety, which then enabled bridging connections to external resources. Shared staff‐client identities influenced engagement, but structural barriers limited the usability of newly formed networks. This study enhances social capital theory by detailing how single mothers experiencing chronic trauma develop, access, and utilize social resources within program settings, along with the program components that support these processes. When place‐based programs intentionally sequence bonding before bridging, provide identity‐affirming supports, and align external resources with community strengths, these processes become mutually reinforcing. Shared staff identity fosters trust and accelerates engagement, but structural barriers shape whether new connections translate into tangible benefits. Without this integrated strategy and attention to sequencing, efforts to build sustainable social capital and promote community resilience may be less effective in contexts of persistent inequities.

1. Introduction

Social capital, the resources, networks, norms, and connections that enable individuals to work together for mutual benefit, has been linked to better population mental health (Ehsan et al. 2019). Recently, a substantial body of research demonstrates the role of social capital in building community resilience (King et al. 2022; Mowbray et al. 2007). Resilience, in this sense, refers to the capacity of community members to pool their resources, adapt positively, and collaborate effectively toward shared goals (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2023; Patel et al. 2017). Social capital contributes to resilience by providing the networks and trust necessary among community members for coordination and collective action. Much of the literature linking social capital to resilience has been developed in the context of acute traumas, such as disaster recovery efforts or sudden collective shocks (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Jewett et al. 2021; Patel et al. 2017). Following acute shocks, such as during hurricane, flood, and earthquake recovery, social capital can help communities collectively mobilize resources and support (Aldrich 2012; Zhao et al. 2025). These resource‐dense networks can also facilitate long‐term recovery through connections and access to emergency resources, as well as recovery efforts and organizational support. The response to these events occurs quickly because external actors are typically welcomed, the acute event is shared, bounded in time, and widely publicized, sparking a surge in prosocial behavior (Aldrich and Meyer 2015; Twigg and Mosel 2017).

However, traumatic experiences differ and, as a result, influence relational dynamics in varying capacities. By contrast to acute trauma, which is sudden and time‐limited, complex trauma involves recurrent, patterned stressors that unfold over months or years (Cénat 2023). Cénat frames ongoing exposure to microaggressions and systematic discrimination as a form of complex trauma that infiltrates relationships, behavior, cognitions, and self‐concept over the life course. In the United States (US), this complex trauma is experienced by single mothers from marginalized socioeconomic and racial backgrounds often and persistently, in the form of repeated evictions, unsafe housing conditions, unaffordable childcare, intimate partner violence, workplace discrimination, or navigating stigmatizing institutions (James et al. 2023; Schulz and Mullings 2006; Scott‐Jones and Kamara 2020). This chronic threat exposure can understandably reinforce distrust and lead to adaptive forms of withdrawal, such as anticipating hostile and unsafe environments and disengaging from formal and informal systems (Campbell et al. 2016). The implications of structural harms may weaken the network supports that, in contexts of acute trauma, are critical for mobilizing help and fostering recovery. Since chronic trauma can disrupt trust and recovery differently than acute events, understanding how social capital functions in these settings is necessary to design interventions that effectively support recovery and long‐term stability.

Despite growing recognition of social capital's role in fostering resilience amidst acute trauma, there is surprisingly limited understanding of how single mothers facing chronic trauma develop, access, and use social resources within programmatic contexts. Two critical gaps remain: (1) how lived experiences and relational practices shape the development and activation of social capital under conditions of chronic trauma, and (2) what program components are most effective for enhancing different forms of social capital among single mothers with histories of institutional mistrust and betrayal. Addressing this gap is crucial for understanding how interventions can build on collective social resources, trust, and conditions that underpin the structural foundations of social capital and community resilience. In response, this study examines how a place‐based initiative‐supported program contributes to the development of social capital among predominantly Black single mothers who face chronic trauma. Specifically, we explore the types and utility of social connections that participants form, and the contextual factors, relational practices, and program components that influence these processes. Two primary research questions guide this study:

• 1.What kinds of social capital do participants in a place‐based economic mobility program for single and predominantly Black mothers form (or develop)?
• 2.In the context of a programmatic intervention, what factors do participant mothers identify that contribute to their cultivation of social capital?

1.1. Conceptualizing Social Capital

Social capital refers to the resources, opportunities, and advantages individuals gain through their relationships and social networks. From a community psychology perspective, social capital operates across multiple levels (Perkins et al. 2002). At the individual level, social capital encompasses individual psychological dimensions, such as sense of community, empowerment, and collective efficacy. At an institutional level, social capital involves the structural dynamics that shape access to information, social support, material resources, and opportunities for improved well‐being and life outcomes (Perkins et al. 2009). These benefits arise through sustained trust, shared norms, and collective expectations, which together can facilitate the exchange of resources within and across communities.

To understand how these resources are formed and mobilized, researchers commonly distinguish between three forms of social capital: bonding, bridging, and linking. Bonding social capital refers to resources from insular social networks, typically characterized by closed group membership, such as organizations or groups of individuals with similar backgrounds, across factors like sex, race, or class (Coffé and Geys 2007; Putnam 2001). The capital obtained from these networks is characterized by trust, cooperation, and reciprocity, facilitating “getting by” and meeting the demands of day‐to‐day tasks (Putnam 2001). Bridging social capital refers to resources derived from networks that span different communities, which may otherwise be disconnected by factors such as race, class, sex, or socioeconomic status (SES; Claridge 2020). These ties involve connections that enable new perspectives, knowledge, and opportunities beyond their immediate circles (Claridge 2020). Augmenting these notions of bridging and bonding capital, linking social capital is an extension of bridging social capital, defined by the ties between an individual and an institution or formal authority, which are important for leveraging social resources and shaping structural conditions (Woolcock 2001).

1.2. Leveraging Social Resources Through Placed‐Based Initiatives

Emerging evidence suggests that intentional, structured, cohort‐based programs can act as brokers of social capital by creating conditions for participants to share existing knowledge while also building new connections (Akhtar et al. 2024). Dominant approaches or methods to building social capital have often focused on expanding access to new and more “advantaged” networks through school choice, relocation, or job access programs (Axtell and Tooley 2015; Chetty et al. 2022; Gilbert et al. 2022). However, this framing often presumes a universal willingness to engage with systems that many marginalized single mothers have learned to distrust, not due to resistance to growth, but protective responses rooted in lived realities of systemic exclusion and inequity. Place‐based initiatives (PBIs), which offer tailored and culturally relevant strategies within a particular geographically bounded space (e.g., a neighborhood and a corridor of a city), show emerging promise for building and enhancing existing social capital in communities that have been traditionally marginalized (Ferris and Hopkins 2015; Gilbert et al. 2022). Although PBIs vary in their objectives, models, scope, and infrastructure, they generally share certain characteristics. They involve local participation in planning and implementation, commit to long‐term engagement (often around 10 years), and seek to tackle multiple challenges simultaneously (Theodos 2022). In turn, they are well‐suited to coordinate or implement programming that emphasizes local context and community‐driven solutions to effectively amplify social capital and resilience (Agger and Jensen 2015; Vechakul et al. 2015).

Case studies provide insight into how programs similar to PBIs may successfully foster social capital. A 3‐year ethnographic study of an antipoverty program in Boston found that participation helped single mothers develop networks that provided practical help, emotional support, peer modeling and mentoring, and expanded information resources (Freeman and Dodson 2014). Program participants exchanged important knowledge about scholarship applications, housing options, and employer connections, which improved overall program outcomes. A similar study with Israeli mothers from comparable socioeconomic contexts shows that collective networks can be mobilized to navigate structural and social challenges (Herbst‐Debby et al. 2020). Collectively, these studies suggest that well‐designed, community‐driven programs can create conditions that activate multiple forms of social capital, particularly in contexts marked by systemic barriers. Our study builds on this work to examine how a PBI program's elements, relational practices, and contextual factors interact to shape the development of durable network formation and where and how these mechanisms hold in contexts marked by systemic barriers.

1.3. Study Context: Mothers' Mobility Program

The present study examines how a PBI in Charlotte, North Carolina (NC), supports the development of social capital among single, predominantly Black mothers facing chronic economic and social stress. In Charlotte, NC, the drive to promote social capital emerged after a landmark study in 2014 highlighted the economic immobility in the city (Chetty et al. 2014). At the time, these findings revealed that Charlotte ranked last among the 50 largest US cities in economic mobility. That is, a child born in Charlotte at the bottom of the income distribution had just a 4.4% chance of moving up the economic ladder in their lifetime. The need for action was amplified by the growing body of research highlighting the multifaceted effects associated with low economic mobility, including higher mortality rates and chronic stress (Hudson et al. 2020). In the years following the report, a significant response emerged from local Charlotte government officials, community organizations, and local leaders in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Recognizing the role of social capital in building economic mobility, commitments to PBIs were further galvanized when a police officer killed a Black father, Keith Lamont Scott. In response, these entities intensified their efforts to enhance social capital and economic mobility in disinvested areas of Charlotte. Consequently, they called for city‐wide initiatives to address long‐standing issues of inequity and build social capital (see, e.g., Leading on Opportunity 2017).

One of the many PBIs that emerged as part of the efforts in NC to build community resilience and economic mobility focuses its efforts on affordable housing, early education, family stability, and collaborative partnerships along a corridor of Charlotte that has traditionally been marginalized and under‐resourced. In 2020, this PBI recognized that the majority of heads of households in their target jurisdiction of Charlotte were predominantly single Black mothers. As a response, the PBI introduced a 12‐month economic mobility and family stability program for these mothers to earn up to $200 monthly by taking part in program activities. For this article, we will refer to this PBI's program as the Mothers Mobility Program (MMP). The MMP approach is an adaptation of the Career Family Opportunity Program, which operates on the 5‐year “Bridge to Self‐Sufficiency” theory of change from Economic Mobility Pathways (EMPathways 2021).

For MMP, a small cohort of approximately 15 mothers is accepted, and they participate in a series of weekly workshops featuring external partners, such as local bankers, Dress for Success sessions, affordable housing providers, and creditors. The workshops and other aspects of the program are conducted in PBI's community space, located in the geographic area they serve. The workshops cover various topics, including personal finance management, building savings and credit, pursuing higher educational degrees, and securing stable and affordable housing. In addition to these workshops, MMP partners with local hospitals and entities to provide free mental and physical consultations and specialized health services. Furthermore, during some of the program's offerings, MMP offers spiritual support from an on‐staff pastor, fresh produce from local farms, food from local food banks, supplies for basic self‐care needs, and childcare and transportation.

In addition to these workshops and supports, the program provides one‐on‐one and group coaching to further support the participants. Specifically, each cohort of mothers is paired with a transformation coach, who guides them throughout the 12‐month program. The coach provides weekly individual sessions to help the mothers create action plans for achieving their goals. During these sessions, the coach is not just a motivator but acts as a vital connector to a range of essential resources tailored to each mother's needs (e.g., health sector services, mental health counseling, social support systems, school system integration, access to food banks, emergency funding, and housing assistance). Furthermore, the transformation coach conducts group sessions called Sister Circle. These sessions provide relationship‐building opportunities for moms in the cohort to gather and talk about shared experiences with the intention of building relationships with other moms in the neighborhood. Some Sister Circle meetings have a specific focus, such as self‐care or personal development, and include activities such as creating a vision board. Other meetings are less structured and provide a space to talk about participants' experiences being a mom. In addition to Sister Circle, the program includes a group retreat where the cohort of mothers takes part in an overnight trip and participates in team‐building activities such as kayaking or rock climbing. At the end of the 12‐months, MMP holds a graduation ceremony to celebrate the cohort's accomplishments. Ultimately, the program aims to facilitate the development of a network of support for local single mothers and to serve as a bridge to local resources and opportunities. Through these activities, the program seeks to empower mothers, provide them with guidance and support, and help them attain self‐sufficiency.

The program started its first cohort in July 2020 and launched new cohorts approximately every 4–6 months. It is important to note that each cohort represents a phase in the program's evolution. The program's key goals remained unchanged, but there were changes in elements of program content and data collection methods for each cohort, as well as staff and coach turnover. These changes required flexibility from both seasoned and newly hired staff members. Moreover, the program had to adapt to changes in the social and economic landscape due to the dynamic impacts of COVID‐19, as well as to the local and national racial and political climates.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Twenty program completers from six cohorts voluntarily consented to take part in a Zoom interview. The sample consisted entirely of women (N = 20), the majority of whom identified as Black/African American (95%), were unmarried (100%), and employed (90%). Educational backgrounds varied, with participants holding GEDs, high school diplomas, or bachelor's degrees. Participant sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. Prior to the interviews, we obtained approval for the full study protocol from the University's Institutional Review Board.

TABLE 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants at baseline.

Baseline characteristics	Full sample
	N	%
Gender
Female	20	100.0
Race/ethnicity
Black/African American	19	95.0
White	1	5.0
Marital status
Unmarried/single	20	100.0
Highest educational level
High school diploma	3	15.0
GED	8	40.0
Bachelors	4	20.0
Other	1	5.0
Missing	4	20.0
Employment status
Employed	18	90.0
Unemployed	1	5.0
Missing	1	5.0

2.2. Recruitment

This research project consists of one component extracted from a larger, multi‐year evaluation of the MMP. Participants for this study were recruited from the first six cohorts of the MMP. Staff notified mothers of this study using flyers and word of mouth, including recommendations from previous program participants. Mothers interested in the interviews consented to share their contact details with the university‐based research team so that they could learn more about the study. Then, research team members contacted these potential participants through phone calls or emails to discuss the interview and schedule a Zoom meeting. This recruitment structure was adopted to maintain participant confidentiality from the university researchers unless the mother consented to learn about participating in the interview.

While eligibility criteria slightly varied between cohorts, the main requirements for program eligibility, and thus completion of an interview, included being a mother living within a specific zip code in Charlotte, NC; having at least one minor child under the age of 10; maintaining employment for at least 90 days before the program start date; having no felonies or evictions in the last 3 years; and being between the ages of 18 and 45 years. In addition to the broader eligibility criteria for MMP participation, mothers included in this study must have fully completed the year‐long program.

2.3. Interview Data Collection

The university research team conducted in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews via Zoom. The team included one doctoral‐level research assistant, two master's‐level research assistants, and two faculty principal investigators. Prior to data collection, all members completed multiple qualitative research training sessions, including role‐play exercises designed to strengthen interviewing skills. In addition, all team members reviewed best practices and procedures for conducting semi‐structured interviews. Because this project grew out of a larger, multi‐year evaluation, the interview guide was created to address various elements of the program, as well as larger contextual factors impacting program participation. Given this context, the current paper presents a focused analysis of interview data related to social capital. The interview guide included questions about the program's structure, financial literacy and connections gained during participation, as well as questions about the broader social and health context, such as the impact of COVID‐19 and the police killing of George Floyd. Interviews ranged from 45 minutes to approximately 2 hours in duration. MMP (and the larger PBI) compensated participants for their time with 25 dollars for the initial hour and an additional 15 dollars if the interview surpassed that duration. MMP also entered participant names into a 200 dollar random drawing upon interview completion.

2.4. Analytic Approach

We used Braun and Clarke's (2006) six‐step reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) method to guide the analysis. These steps include: (1) Data familiarization, (2) Generating initial codes, (3) Generating themes, (4) Reviewing themes, (5) Defining themes, and (6) Producing the report. RTA is known for enabling data exploration and creating space to explore participants' narratives multiple times (Braun and Clarke 2021).

We also acknowledge the significant influence of the researchers' personal perspectives and experiences on the outcomes (Soedirgo and Glas 2020). Aware of this impact, the research team adopted an iterative and reflexive approach throughout the analysis. The research team met regularly to share interview experiences and initial analytical insights. We tried to create space for the diversity within our team, socio‐economic, class, education, ethnic communities of origin, as well as lived experiences (e.g., being raised by a single mother, having walked through some of the same traumas faced by participants) to help us to better understand the intersectionality of our participants and the role this played in how they participated in the program. Furthermore, this regular collaboration helped us to keep at the forefront the ways our positionality may be influencing the content of what they shared and our interpretations of the data. Together, this constructivist process helped us to interrogate our own understandings—limits and assets—to grasp and convey the story of these Black single mothers in Charlotte, NC. This reflexive and iterative approach was crucial in maintaining the integrity and depth of the analysis.

The first phase, that is, data familiarization, started as the research team conducted the interviews. Once interviews were completed, audio files were transcribed using Otter.ai (n.d.) but, in comparison to transcripts of audio with White American standardized speech, these transcripts of predominantly Black women had significantly more errors. Thus, we created an internal process of quality control and transcription. As the transcription process progressed, we also began noting potential codes. We then uploaded the transcribed interviews into MAXQDA, a software program for qualitative data analysis (VERBI Software 2026). Using the software, the first round of reading and analysis consisted of higher‐level deductive structural coding based on the interview guide questions and the identification of broad themes within the data set.

The first author then coded all transcripts beginning with two deductive codes, that is, bridging and bonding social capital, and then added new codes as they emerged. The second author independently coded one of the same transcripts. We merged the two coded transcript files to discuss our codes and prompt a deeper exploration and interpretation of the transcriptions until a collective understanding was reached.

Once the codes were generated, the research team presented a summary of a subset of the initial codes to MMP staff. This presentation was intended to provide an overview of preliminary findings from the broader program evaluation and to help ensure the codes generated represented the data set as a whole (Braun and Clarke 2006). While MMP staff had follow‐up questions that generated a robust group discussion, they had no code changes after our presentation.

From the initial codes and themes, the first author sorted them into seven overarching themes to address the research questions central to this paper. We then reviewed and condensed themes that were overlapping, as well as themes that were not substantial enough to exist independently (Braun and Clarke 2006). The first author then examined the data extracts both within the context of each theme, in relation to the entire dataset, and within the literature. This process of defining and refining continued until four main findings, as described below, emerged.

3. Results

Through a reflexive and iterative process, we identified four major themes from the interview transcripts. Each theme, informed by explicit quotes and latent meaning, illustrates how different forms of social capital were fostered while also highlighting the constraints imposed by structural inequities and histories of fractured trust.

3.1. Theme 1: Bonding Capital: Negotiating Connection and Distance

This theme captures how participants constructed forms of bonding social capital, the realized and potential resources embedded within close, identity‐based networks within the program, while actively managing personal boundaries. Within the program, participants describe the connections grounded in shared experiences of motherhood, race, and community context. For example, participants described cohort spaces, particularly Sister Circles, as supportive, restorative, and resourceful. One example is when Kiera noted:

The ladies there are really caring, like they understand a mom's role. So, for me, for being a first‐time mom of two, it—it was. It was like a scratch, like a shoulder, like [a] little cloud of stress falling off every time I went to the meeting.

In addition to the connections, the program staff and other mothers in MMP helped participating mothers accomplish daily tasks, relieve responsibilities, or reduce stress. Participants shared vital information, creating a collective pool of knowledge accessible to all cohort members. Examples included notifying one another about local food banks, school supplies, or daycares. Mariah shared that she helped other moms locate an affordable housing unit:

Me and this other mom, had moved into the [apartment name], and another mom was like, 'You know my rent is really high. You know, uh, if anybody know about some apartments, let me know.' She's in there now. So, it's just like, we was always resourceful. Like, even when it was some stuff at the park with the kids or something, we'll let 'em know. Or anything free, we'll let them know. Thanksgiving came. Churches were givin' out turkey, we was dropping locations. Like, like that.

Not only did some mothers note that the social connections helped their ability to progress in the program, but they also helped them feel less alone in the hardships or parenting‐related challenges they faced. Janelle mentioned, “What brought us closer together is that… we know that we can depend on each other. We're not alone.” This feeling of belonging was important to her since, prior to the program, she would keep her hardships and trauma to herself, potentially making her feel isolated in her experiences. When describing her experiences before the program, she said, “What happens at home stays at home—when really, what's happening at home is causing me trauma, so I need to talk about it.”

While mothers described feeling supported, understood, and less isolated, they simultaneously emotionally distanced themselves to prevent potential betrayal or overexposure. At times, the complexity was not explicitly mentioned but rather suggested through conflicting descriptions. For example, within a given interview, many interviewees described their relationships with other program mothers as close yet distant. An example of this paradoxical dynamic occurred when Mariah referred to the cohort of moms as a “sisterhood.” She explained, “I didn't expect to have a sisterhood.” However, she later noted in her interview, “My friends don't live in Charlotte; my friends live in [location].” She defined her friends as people outside of the program, clearly separating her friends from the “sisters” in her cohort. In another interview, when prompted to elaborate on this duality of having close “sister‐like” relationships while maintaining a certain distance, Lena referred to it as “the 'sisterhood of motherhood.' She elaborated, “The camaraderie of being women, being mothers, being mothers and being women. And so, it's that sisterhood of those things. Of motherhood. It's the ‘sisterhood of motherhood’.” She described the sisterhood of motherhood as different from a sisterhood of friendship. In contrast to typical friendships that might require specific commitments from each party, the relationships formed in the group stem from shared experiences and identities as mothers in the context of a program for mothers, perhaps relieving them from the potential pressure, responsibility, or social and emotional resource demand of forming deeper commitments or relationships with one another. Our interpretation suggests this balancing act reflects adaptive boundary‐setting shaped by histories of fractured trust. For instance, Danielle described struggling to form deep relationships due to past experiences:

A lot of us women there, it was like I wasn't the only one. It was nine out of 10 out of every group you're going to find. They're probably going to say, 'Hey, I don't really have females. I don't really know what sisters like, or I really don't get along with my sisters.'

Kiera traced her guardedness to childhood betrayals:

I always had trust issues, because growing up, my dad always say he'll promise me this, promise me that, promise to do this, and it never comes. It's like the purple moon never comes. It's like the solar eclipse comes, like what, once every five, six years? So being promised things and it don't come, or being someone said that they will do this, do that, and they don't do it. I lost a lot of trust in a lot of people.

As portrayed in these quotes, bonding social capital coexisted with caution, reflecting participants' negotiated balance between belonging and emotional self‐protection. Participants accessed practical and emotional resources through their cohort relationships, but trust remained limited and fragile, mediated by histories of trauma, social exclusion, and belonging. These histories created a network dynamic where participants built relationships that felt safe and “close enough” to share resources but guarded to protect against hurt.

3.2. Theme 2: Building Bridging Capital to Resources and Mobility

This theme captures how participants developed bridging social capital, the realized and potential resources gained through connections with people outside their immediate social circles. Through relationships with programmatic staff, including coaches, external partners, and program administrators, participants expanded their access to new resources and opportunities that supported their professional and career‐related goals. These connections were often critical for navigating systemic barriers and highlighting how the location and diversity of networks shaped opportunities for mobility and future planning.

According to the mothers, these connections provided them access to opportunities that they may not have known otherwise. These kinds of connections yielded tangible benefits, such as securing higher‐paying jobs, honing interview skills, and furthering their education. For instance, Chantelle credited the program with significantly improving her interview techniques, as well as her resume, benefits she believes were instrumental to her obtaining a better‐paying position:

With that, it gave us some more tips on how to interview. I didn't know I was interviewing all wrong, even though I couldn't understand why I was never getting the jobs that I wanted. And I think when I started, I was working at, like, I think I was working at [place of work]. And I kept on saying I wanted to like a [industry] job, just a different type of job. So, just learning how to tweak my resume, I started working with [job industry] with [place of work] for a little while throughout the program. And that was a lot different for me. It was something I had never did. And I didn't think I could ever get that type of job with no experience. I was like, I don't even have experience doing this, and I still got hired. And that's just from mefixing my resume. Not lying, but just aligning it… the skills that I already did have and putting it on my resume.

As Chantelle noted, she already had the skills and knowledge to succeed in a higher‐paying role and in the position she sought. However, she observed that she was not tailoring her resume or interviewing in a way that marketed her skills to those companies. Therefore, she expressed how the program taught her how to translate her skills into a language understood by employers, which resulted in her successfully obtaining the position.

Importantly, program staff were not the only ones to provide connections to job contacts or resources. These bridging relationships also emerged organically among peers, where sharing information opened pathways to new opportunities, contacts, resources, and knowledge gained from outside experiences or programmatic activities. Particularly, participants described exchanges that extended beyond formal program activities, showing how networks in the program became conduits to external resources.

Tanya described how one of the mothers in her cohort notified her about an open job position in a field she was interested in pursuing and how that helped her with networking: “…she told me about her job there. They needed somebody. So that to help a little bit with networkin'.” She continued to speak about how this participant walked her through the ins and outs of the profession and sorted through which companies would best accommodate her current situation without transportation. Tanya continued, “She gave me a little rundown about how, like [redacted] field works, which companies were worth working for. Try not to do where I had to go, like, cuz I don't have a car right now.” Beyond the barrier of transportation, highlighting companies “worth working for” also points to the exchange of information on the structures of employment, thereby helping each other to find respectable working conditions and benefits.

Programmatic knowledge and/or connections to opportunities served as a resource exchange and as motivation for participants to pursue their own goals. Participants found motivation in hearing other mothers with similar backgrounds achieve their goals or leverage specific program resources to build self‐sufficiency. Nia described this dual benefit, stating that hearing about accessing resources simultaneously provided motivation during the process:

It's just encouraging. Like, sometimes you never know what someone else is going through. And then when they're actually vulnerable and actually open to sharin' their testimony, and makes you feel like, 'Wow, they share that with me, that's amazing. I never expected that.' It makes me feel like, well, what I'm going through, I could keep doing it. Because if they can do it, I can do it.

Nia expressed how connections in the program brought tangible benefits, such as securing a job or broadening one's network, and helped reinforce her motivation to pursue personal goals. These accounts reveal that bridging social capital within the program extended beyond access to resources. The program also reshaped participants' self‐perceptions and imagined futures. As mothers connected to new networks and possibilities, many began to see others and themselves as employable and capable. Through this lens, MMP functioned as both a broker of resource and identity shifts. Together, this brokerage facilitated movement across social, economic, and institutional spaces that were previously difficult to navigate (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Thematic map of themes and subthemes.

Theme	Definition	Illustrative quote
Bonding capital: Negotiating connection and distance	Cohort relationships gave participants access to practical and emotional support, however these relationships remained fragile and provisional, continually shaped by prior experiences of trauma, social exclusion, and fractured trust.	“I always had trust issues, because growing up, my dad always say he'll promise me this, promise me that, promise to do this, and it never comes. It's like the purple moon never comes. It's like the solar eclipse comes, like what, once every five, six years? So being promised things and it don't come, or being someone said that they will do this, do that, and they don't do it. I lost a lot of trust in a lot of people.”
Building bridging capital to resources and mobility	Participants built and mobilized networks spanning peers, program staff, and external organizations, drawing on these connections to sustain motivation and open pathways to economic advancement and opportunity.	“Everybody had different jobs going on. So, if somebody was interested in something they was doing, they were giving out information, and we will get it done some kind of way. We just swapped information we know with each other to help each other out.”
Gateways and gatekeepers: How coaches shaped access and power	As central figures who delivered services and brokered access to resources, MMP coaches acted as both gateways and gatekeepers, shaping participants’ motivation, engagement, opportunities, and sense of belonging in the program.	“What really made me not miss 'em workshop because if [coach name] and 'em didn't see my face, they will call and check up on me. So that alone, having somebody care and want them to just like know your whereabouts and have you okay, that right there. Even now, I don't want to let them down because I never had really a team who was rooting for me like to be successful. So, when you care about people, you 'course you don't want to let them down. So, you want to give them, give it all. I think that's what really helped me.”
Living within and pushing against structural barriers	Although participants drew on bonding and bridging capital to navigate adversity, the usefulness of these resources was repeatedly constrained by stigma, and material and institutional conditions, such as, housing instability, limited childcare, transportation gaps, and low income, underscoring the limits of social capital amid structural inequity.	“I can't really say, like, I got spat on or called the N‐word. I feel like sometimes I can get projected as like the, like, the ghetto, ratchet Black girl, you know? Like, something like that, like we're all just ghetto ratchet at our job…”

3.3. Theme 3: Gateways and Gatekeepers: How Coaches Shaped Access, and Power

The third theme focuses on how participants' relationship with MMP coaches shaped their engagement in the program, their access to resources and sense of belonging. Coaches were central figures throughout the program as they delivered services, and mediated pathways to opportunities. When participants described having positive relationships with program staff, particularly with their MMP coaches, their experiences in the program were generally positive overall. The participants even, at times, likened this support and mentorship to that of a family member. For example, Lena noted, “They're [program staff] not just mentors; they became family.” She, like others, described the staff as willing, even beyond what might be stipulated in a job description, to ensure they were equipped with the necessary tools to succeed beyond the program's designated services. Similarly, Tanya described how the coaches' actions of going above and beyond, as well as her sense that the coaches genuinely cared about her success, provided motivation and accountability to succeed in the program:

What really made me not miss 'em workshop because if [coach name] and 'em didn't see my face, they will call and check up on me. So that alone, having somebody care and want them to just like know your whereabouts and have you okay, that right there. Even now, I don't want to let them down because I never had really a team who was rooting for me like to be successful. So, when you care about people, you 'course you don't want to let them down. So, you want to give them, give it all. I think that's what really helped me.

To some participants, the staff's neighborhood connections and shared identities meaningfully shaped their experiences in MMP. All MMP coaches were Black women and some were single mothers. They shared key identities with nearly all participants, which fostered trust and a sense of cultural understanding among them. For example, Zoe shared that since her coach was also a single mom, it made it easy for her to understand some of the hardships she or others in her cohort faced. She noted, “…for [my coach] to understand what I'm going through or how I feel, you know… I think that was the main thing that actually helped.” In some cases, participants' pre‐existing relationships with staff, established through neighborhood ties, made it easier to build rapport and trust with the MMP staff. Danielle, referring to an MMP staff member, said, “She was a part of the [childcare organization name]. Okay. So, I've had [an] association with her; she knows all my children. So, we have like the history and a rapport.” This pre‐established relationship helped them know their children were in trusted hands. This was especially notable given that many mothers expressed an inability to trust others, especially when caring for their children.

These excerpts illustrate how leveraging social networks and resources in MMP was deeply influenced by identity alignment, neighborhood familiarity, and shared lived experiences. Participants describe trusting staff not because of their formal role or title, but because of their identity as Black women, single mothers, and sometimes even as longstanding community members. Through our understanding, these accounts reveal a latent mechanism within MMP's success. Experiential resonance served as a bridge to institutional spaces that are typically otherwise associated with psychological costs due to historical and ongoing structural exclusion. Mothers' distrust was rational and protective, yet staff identity alignment helped make these spaces and resources more accessible.

However, not all participant‐staff relationships were positive, highlighting a potential equity implication, especially when trust is dependent on shared identity. Participants without these shared identities or connections faced barriers to establishing rapport with their coach, which limited access to resources for some participants. A subset of participants described feeling disconnected from staff and even experienced challenges establishing rapport with their coaches or program leaders. At times, participants reported a misalignment with the approach or communication style of certain white staff members, which they felt hindered their ability to form relationships or utilize program resources. Other participants noted a disconnection when they perceived the person may not have shared their identity or were from dissimilar backgrounds. For example, Chantelle noted:

We felt like [staff name] didn't really understand where we were coming from in certain situations. Because we're on the West side of Charlotte, we're not the most richest over here. You know, we may not be the poorest, but we may not be richest. So, we still felt like certain things and certain milestones, [staff name] really didn't understand.

Chantelle's use of “we” to describe her experience suggests that other participants may have shared this sense of disconnection with certain staff members' identities.

Participants also perceived differential treatment, favoritism, and selective support from staff, which, from our interpretation, generated in‐group and out‐group dynamics. As Chantelle noted, “…they were picking the people that they wanted to have those kinds of relationships with. And unfortunately, because of the way that I carry myself, I wasn't picked.” This kind of environment, described by Chantelle, led to feelings of exclusion and dissatisfaction among those who perceived themselves as not being favored.

Together, we therefore viewed program staff as both gateways and gatekeepers. On one hand, relationships opened doors to resources, institutional spaces, and possibilities that participants would have struggled to access independently. On the other hand, these same relationships were shaped by power asymmetries, identity alignment, and perceptions of inclusion or exclusion, which influenced who benefited most from institutional connections. Social capital within MMP, therefore, was relational and contingent, and its value depended on the availability of resources, participants' trust, sense of belonging, and agency within the program's structures.

3.4. Theme 4. Living Within and Pushing Against Structural Barriers

This theme captures how participants' ability to mobilize social capital was continually shaped, and at times, constrained by material, structural, and institutional factors, such as housing precarity, limited childcare, transportation, and income. That is, participants leveraged bonding, and bridging social capital to navigate barriers, yet structural inequities limited the extent to which those resources proved useful.

Across interviews, mothers described how these constraints conditioned the usability of the networks, information, and opportunities available in MMP. While the program provided access to supports and expanded connections, structural realities largely influenced whether they materialized into tangible outcomes. Tanya said, “At first, I didn't really tell people about it [participating in the program]. Because, sometimes, in my community, it's a stigma to kind of be associated with certain things. It's like, ‘Oh, you're trying to give free handouts’.” While this stigma of receiving support existed, MMP's structure helped to reduce it by emphasizing that it was each mother's actions that led them to achieve their goals and self‐sufficiency. Instead of receiving “handouts,” Tanya explains that she was given the tools and resources to reach achievements; each participant was responsible for attending meetings and taking advantage of those tools. For example, cash incentives were contingent upon engaging in specific programmatic activities. According to Tanya:

Well, really, nothing was given to us free. We had help with a lot of things, but as [coach name] told us, had we not put in that work, our goals wouldn't have got accomplished. Like, it's not like we were given anything, because we just was given the tools it was up to us to use 'em.

The earn‐and‐learn structure of the program and the coach's validation helped her feel less of this stigma because she knew she worked hard to meet her goals, regardless of others' judgments. From our view, the program's structure of conditional incentives helped participants see resource use as active, not passive, which served as a critical buffer against stigma.

However, some participants observed that even while participating in the MMP and receiving intangible and tangible holistic support, they still found it challenging to fully engage or benefit from it. For many, housing emerged as a persistent barrier to bonding, bridging, and linking forms of social capital. Naomi describes how, notwithstanding the support from the program, owning and renting a home in Charlotte has become increasingly challenging due to gentrification and many local property providers' unwillingness to take Section 8 Housing Vouchers. She elaborates:

So, now they're still knocking down projects, and what they're doing is they takin', and when they knock down a project, they're moving you out, and they're giving you Section 8 Vouchers. However, 50% of the landlords won't take the Section 8 Voucher because you have to meet too many qualifications for the Section 8 Voucher. So now you have this voucher where you can go get a house, but a lot of the landlords don't want to deal with it because Section 8 is too hard for them to pass the inspection. Okay, so now where are you gonna go?

This account illustrated how access to institutional resources via MMP could not fully overcome restrictive housing markets and discriminatory landlord practices. We understood these experiences to suggest participants were caught between opportunity within the program and exclusion outside of it.

Racism and stereotyping also surfaced as powerful barriers shaping participants' economic mobility and self‐perceptions. Nia describes feeling typecast in her workplace despite her professional progress:

I can't really say, like, I got spat on or called the N‐word. I feel like sometimes I can get projected as like the, like, the ghetto, ratchet Black girl, you know? Like, something like that, like we're all just ghetto ratchet at our job…

Similarly, Tanya said she could be doing all the “right” things to educate herself and her family and obtain higher‐paying jobs. Nevertheless, she realizes that due to racism, she or her children could be killed.

It's a big—that issue with Black Lives Matter, and everything is deep, is really deep, because sometimes you can have all of those things in place and still, unfortunately, still bein' you know, a victim of maybe death or gettin' killed just because you know, you know, unfortunately, just the color of your skin.

From our analytic perspective, these accounts point to how systemic racism, housing inequities, and income precarity constrained the usability of social capital, regardless of affiliation with the program. While MMP created pathways consistent with bonding and bridging social capital, they operated within the constraints of broader structural issues. These patterns indicate that for many of the mothers in the program, upward mobility meant navigating between opportunity and oppression simultaneously. This tension shows how opportunities and resilience were not fixed programmatic outcomes.

4. Discussion

This study examined how predominantly Black single mothers in a place‐based economic mobility program developed and mobilized social connections within the context of chronic structural inequities and histories of fractured trust. The findings revealed that participants in the program developed connections characterized by bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital was evident in mothers' shared goals and experiences, particularly in their collective pursuit of economic mobility and alleviation from poverty. These shared experiences fostered a sense of solidarity and mutual understanding, consistent with findings from similar studies (Freeman and Dodson 2014; Herbst‐Debby et al. 2020). At the same time, participants benefited from bridging connections, such as assistance in locating better‐paying jobs or connections to housing resources provided by staff, fellow mothers, and external partners. The confidence that the mothers developed within the group was crucial in encouraging them to engage with and benefit from the resources and knowledge gained from broader networks. This interdependency between internal empowerment and external resource utilization was important in enhancing the mothers' capacity to take advantage of opportunities for upward mobility.

The social capital leveraged within the program was complementary, rather than mutually exclusive. The relationships between the mothers and between the mothers and program staff played a pivotal role in fostering self‐sufficiency. In practice, this involved the mothers sharing stories related to their hardships and successes with each other, a process that facilitated social learning and enhanced their confidence in their own abilities (i.e., bonding social capital). Such an approach aligns with Community Cultural Wealth (Yosso 2005), which recognizes the knowledge, skills, and abilities inherent to socially marginalized groups. Navigating these experiences as a group demonstrated the benefits of allowing participants with a common bond to find support and, when given the opportunity, capitalize on the resources and collective wealth in the community (Yosso 2005). These processes helped buffer individual and community‐level stressors (Knight and Gitterman 2018), suggesting that programs can promote community resilience when they facilitate both peer‐based solidarity and pathways to broader opportunities.

Despite the generation of connections leading to various opportunities, the pathways through which participants formed and used connections were complex and highly context‐dependent. For many participants, past experiences with betrayal, systemic racism, interpersonal harm, and negative institutional experiences shaped guardedness toward both peers and program staff. These experiences influenced how and if participants engaged with others in the program and opportunities for support. For instance, rather than forming deep resource‐intensive commitments, the mothers formed a “sisterhood of motherhood,” a broader network based on common experiences and identities as single mothers, without the abundance of time and resources. These findings suggest that trust must be cultivated gradually in communities facing chronic trauma. Unlike acute trauma recovery that emphasizes rapid outcomes or immediate engagement with external systems, participants needed extended relational timelines to feel comfortable enough to share experiences, exchange resources, and use program supports. Our results underscore the need for a deeper understanding of how historically marginalized groups, particularly those with traumatic experiences, respond to adversity (Gilbert et al. 2022; King et al. 2022). They also highlight the necessity of creating flexible and inclusive programs that not only acknowledge but also respect the varied and complex ways participants from marginalized backgrounds adapt to trauma and build networks. In practice, this suggests that programs similar to MMP may need to extend beyond a 12‐month model to allow sufficient time for trust‐building, relationship development, and network activation.

Furthermore, MMP coaches played an important role in cultivating a trusting environment. As Black women and mothers themselves, they shared lived experiences and identities with participants. These commonalities contributed to a deeper understanding and empathy toward mothers' hardships and achievements, as well as served as a demonstration of strength and resilience in overcoming similar obstacles (Mullings 2005). Unlike intervention approaches that view participants as passive aid recipients who lack capital (Reavis 2011), the staff's strong community identities seemingly fostered motivation, belongingness, and goal attainment. Still, participants noted that the quality and availability of staff support were inconsistent. When staff did not share identities or experiences with participants, or negative interactions occurred, some mothers perceived disconnects or misunderstandings. These dynamics occasionally contributed to an environment of both between‐ and within‐cohort competitiveness, and at times, “gatekeeping” information and resource access, which could unintentionally reinforce the structural inequities the program sought to dismantle.

Staff members of PBIs, often from the same or similar communities and backgrounds, share identities or have undergone comparable traumatic experiences as participants. This shared experience can be vital for fostering trust, empathy, and strength (Schulz and Mullings 2006). However, these shared identities can create unique challenges. In some cases, overlapping experiences of traumas (past and present) may contribute to emotional strain, boundary difficulties, miscommunication, compassion fatigue, or secondary trauma (Vides et al. 2022). If not adequately addressed, these factors may influence the quality of staff‐participant relationships, as well as the overall health and well‐being of staff. That said, other challenges can emerge when staff members do not share an identity with the participants. In such cases, participants highlighted a disconnect or lack of understanding (real or perceived) regarding the traumas and experiences faced by participants, potentially leading to misinterpretations, which may inadvertently reinforce structural inequities the program seeks to dismantle. As Shaia and colleagues (2019) argue, providers must critically examine whether their role in the service relationship functions to maintain or disrupt the status quo, recognizing that there is no neutrality in social work or similar professions. Regardless of how participants perceived their relationship with staff (i.e., positively or negatively), this relationship significantly influenced participant experiences, underscoring the need to balance relational closeness with organizational capacity to sustain staff well‐being and participant trust, especially within PBIs.

To address these challenges, the Trauma Resilient Communities Model (TRM; Vides et al. 2022) may help guide organizational culture and climate, particularly in staff training and development. TRM emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and addressing the structural determinants of organizational health and creating protective factors for clients and staff (Vides et al. 2022). This model emphasizes adopting a common language centered around trauma resilience, clearly defining organizational values, such as a commitment to open communication, nonviolence, and implementing shared practices that convert trauma‐informed knowledge into collective action. Equally important is assessing the alliance between staff and participants. Regular evaluation of this alliance allows for identifying and repairing any ruptures or breakdowns in the relationship. This ongoing process ensures that the bond remains strong and effective, essential for the successful implementation of these types of programs. Such approaches may also address favoritism and competitive dynamics among participants, enhance the overall health and effectiveness of the PBI, and ensure that staff and participants benefit from a supportive environment.

It is also important to note that this study focused on the first program cohorts, and programming has since evolved to better meet the needs of both participants and staff. For example, MMP now provides therapy for coaches, reflecting a “practice what you preach” approach to trauma resilience, and offers opportunities for mobility within the organization, including salary increases and promotions. By enhancing staff mobility and stability, programs also indirectly strengthen participants' opportunities for upward mobility by fostering more consistent, better‐supported coaching relationships. These organizational shifts represent meaningful steps toward creating a healthier, more equitable PBI ecosystem.

Finally, while MMP created several conditions that can enable participants to leverage newly formed networks, including trust‐building practices, identity‐affirming staffing, and flexible program designs, these processes operate within broader structural constraints. While the provision of basic needs, resource connections, and individual coaching were significant, participants in the interviews frequently expressed feelings of powerlessness or frustration regarding their struggles to secure stable housing or when encountering racism. These sentiments are often understood as coping mechanisms in the face of oppressive structures and systems (Thomas and González‐Prendes 2009). To help mitigate this, MMP and similar programs can include “macro‐practice interventions” to strengthen and enhance the mental health of clients (Ferguson et al. 2018; Knight and Gitterman 2018). Such interventions involve group activities where participants work with facilitators (e.g., social workers and coaches) to identify community problems, develop practical strategies, and implement plans for effective change (Knight and Gitterman 2018). This method leverages participants' own experiences and expertise to address longstanding inequalities, such as the racism and housing disparities facing MMP participants (Knight and Gitterman 2018; Staples 2012).

Importantly, the onus should not be placed on participants to adapt to or change structural systems that perpetuate inequities. Indeed, it would surely be difficult for a single mother to attend to and focus on building or enhancing relationships or shaping policy when it is not clear what her family will be eating in the coming days or where her children will sleep because of the family's unstable housing. Therefore, building social capital must be part of a broader, upstream strategy encompassing structural, systemic, and policy interventions to counteract racism and poverty (Danielson and Saxena 2019). Top‐down interventions, such as national or state‐level government entities, can be instrumental partners to PBIs in this scenario, providing the necessary policy and systemic support to address root causes of inequities directly impacting their participants. For example, successful partnerships could increase the availability of affordable housing in existing neighborhoods, modify zoning laws, enforce anti‐discrimination laws, or engage in long‐term urban planning to ensure sustainable change. However, careful construction and maintenance of this partnership will be needed to ensure those directly impacted by the issues at hand can lead and are compensated for these efforts, fostering a model of collaboration where control is not monopolized by external entities, avoiding the reinforcement of the very disenfranchisement that these programs are designed to eradicate.

5. Conclusion

Taken together, these findings support the notion that recognizing the factors influencing network formations (e.g., MMP mothers' apprehensions about forming connections) and subsequently applying approaches that support participants' needs and circumstances is important for building community resilience (Carmen et al. 2022). While we did not directly measure community resilience, our findings highlight several potential prerequisite conditions for its development among single mothers facing chronic trauma. First, trust‐building must occur early. Establishing safety and belonging, particularly through informal, identity‐affirming spaces, is essential before participants can meaningfully engage, share experiences, and access broader resources. Second, program design plays a foundational role in mobilizing both bonding and bridging social capital. Programs similar to MMP can support the generation of social captial by creating structured opportunities for participants to share experiences, exchange advice, build trust with peers, and connect with external partners, mentors, employers, or service providers. Third, shared staff identities deepen relational alignment; coaches who mirror participants' racial, cultural, and experiential backgrounds foster empathy and credibility, while also modeling resilience in navigating systemic barriers. Finally, structural contexts, including systemic inequities and institutional support for staff, shape whether these networks persist and remain usable beyond the program itself. When these factors converge, we hypothesize that the social capital cultivated within PBIs like MMP can extend beyond individual benefits. Under these conditions, participants are better positioned to access, exchange, and mobilize resources, which can strengthen their adaptive capacity to navigate ongoing structural adversity and pursue shared goals. In this way, this study sheds light on how MMP and similar programs can support the formation of social capital and lay prerequisite conditions for building broader community resilience among single mothers facing chronic trauma.

5.1. Limitations and Future Directions

While the findings from this study add to our understanding of PBI programs in fostering social capital, this study has several limitations that must be addressed. First, all participants in this study were involved in the same program and lived in the same general area (i.e., zip code) in Charlotte, NC. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies that analyze data over several years in multiple settings, as extended analysis will provide a deeper understanding of the long‐term role played by PBIs in fostering social capital among participants, as well as community resilience.

PBIs such as MMP, designed to address chronic traumas, have gained widespread adoption and show significant promise for their target populations. Consequently, there is a need for more research involving robust and iterative data collection and evaluation methods. These methods will enable researchers to effectively monitor and enhance the outcomes of such programs. Future research should track program implementation, as well as the progress of participants using both quantitative and qualitative measures over time. Additional research on how PBIs and their programs, especially those that employ cash incentives, influence participant engagement will also be important to clarify the dynamics and outcomes of these interventions in diverse contexts and settings.

Most study participants were recruited through word of mouth within the program or encouragement from staff to share their stories. Due to the potential snowball sampling that occurred during recruitment, our findings may not have been representative of the six cohorts of mothers eligible to participate. Furthermore, our sample consisted of program completers who are likely to have had more positive experiences with MMP than program non‐completers or interview non‐participants. It is also important to note that data for this study grew out of a multi‐year, applied, community‐academic partnership (Author et al. 2023). Given that this research was grounded in a real‐world program and its context, there were multiple uncontrollable factors, such as staff turnover, and a variety of external factors, such as the impact of the Coronavirus‐19 pandemic, which contributed to differences in the nature, dosage, and frequency of programmatic offerings between and within cohorts. As a result, some participants experienced different aspects of the program than others, which may have impacted the dynamics of relationships and their impact on building social capital.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The research data are not publicly shared because this study involved a small program in Charlotte, and the extensive interviews could risk participant confidentiality. Given the depth of personal narratives and the limited sample size, releasing raw data could inadvertently identify participants, which would raise ethical concerns.