Manuscript Draft

TITLE
The Resilient Leaders Initiative: Lessons learned from an adaptation of the social accelerator
model for rural public institutions focused on healing trauma and building resilience

KEYWORDS
social accelerator, trauma-informed care, adverse childhood experiences, rural health

ABSTRACT
Background
Rural Opportunity Institute is a nonprofit that was founded in 2017 in Edgecombe County, North
Carolina. Rural Opportunity Institute’s Resilient Leaders Initiative (RLI) program is the first
social innovation accelerator program of its kind, utilizing human-centered design and systems
thinking approaches, adapted specifically for rural public institutions focused on healing trauma
and building resilience.

Objective
Through qualitative interviews we documented the challenges, strengths, missed opportunities,
and outcomes of the first cohort of the RLI accelerator program. Our research establishes the
learnings and “best practices”for adaptation and implementation of social accelerator programs
in other communities.

Methods
Twenty three qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with RLI staff (n=4), coaches
(n=5), facilitators (n=7), and participants (n=7). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and then
analyzed thematically, first using a deductive and then inductive approach.

Results
When asked to reflect on their experiences in the RLI program, key themes identified included:
(1) benefits of being embedded within the community, (2) tensions between flexibility and
ambiguity in the program, (3) feelings of connection and support across the cohort, (4)
challenges and strengths of the virtual format of the program, (5) difficulties understanding
language and jargon in program content, (6) differences in perceptions of diversity, equity, and
inclusion, and (7) contrasts between participant passion and burn-out.

Conclusions
Insights from these interviews revealed that maintaining and a flexible environment where
participating organizations could connect with one another majorly enhanced the experience of
participants in the program. Future initiatives should strive to replicate this adaptable model and
maintain or even increase these opportunities for connection, while also providing some structure
so participants do not feel lost during the program. Overall, the community-centered attitudes of
the social accelerator’s staff allowed the program to have credibility amongst organizations that
served as the foundation to solve any conflicts that may have arisen during the program.

INTRODUCTION
Intergenerational and early childhood trauma is a widespread and costly public health
problem (Gilgoff et al., 2020; Overstreet & Mathews, 2011). Trauma experienced during
childhood, also known as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), is associated with negative
health and education outcomes, including psychological and mood disorders, risk behaviors, and
developmental disruptions (Kalmakis & Chandler, 2015). Emerging research has identified the
role of public institutions in preventing the occurrence of ACEs and the need for greater
trauma-informed service programs to prevent harm and reduce the impact of toxic stress. The
field of trauma-informed care focuses on recognizing the symptoms and consequences of trauma
and adapting practices to reduce re-traumatization in the population (Maynard et al., 2019).
However, without the proper protections in place, public institutions in the U.S. intended
to provide support for individuals can themselves be trauma-inducing (SAMHSA 2014). For
example, public school systems often create system privileges for White students, resulting in
achievement gaps: poorer academic outcomes for students of color (Merolla & Jackson, 2019).
Additionally, interactions between law enforcement institutions and communities of color often
perpetuate harm and result in negative mental health outcomes for affected individuals,
particularly Black Americans (McLeod et al., 2020).
Social accelerators offer a potential model for developing effective trauma-informed
strategies among public institutions. Social accelerators invest resources into improving existing
organizations and are designed to help developing social programs get access to resources. This
concept first emerged at start-ups in Silicon Valley. For example, Fast Forward, a nonprofit in
San Francisco that focuses on scaling-up organizations, runs an accelerator program that has
helped 70 tech nonprofits impact over 105 million lives and raise $357 million in funding
(Impact Report, 2020). While social accelerators typically serve start-ups and/or
technology-based organizations (Barrehag et al, 2013), these programs hold potential to act as a
means of implementing trauma-informed practices and policies in communities in need.
Given the unique strengths and challenges that rural communities face, Rural
Opportunity Institute developed the Resilient Leaders Initiative (RLI). RLI was developed to
support public agencies, rather than start-ups, in their work to create community-based,
trauma-informed solutions. The initiative was created with the goal of incorporating the best
practices of social accelerators, while building upon the unique assets of communities in rural
Eastern North Carolina.
Rural Opportunity Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group and was founded in 2017 in
Edgecombe County, North Carolina. The nonprofit is recognized for their
community-engagement work, which focuses on supporting public agencies in Edgecombe
County to implement trauma-informed solutions. These solutions emphasize a shift from
punitive tactics to more restorative approaches when working with community members, and
also strive to build resilience in the face of unaddressed trauma in the community. RLI is Rural
Opportunity Institute’s biggest organizational investment in pursuit of this community-built
strategy to date. To our knowledge, RLI is the first social innovation accelerator program of its
kind, utilizing human-centered design and systems thinking approaches, and adapted specifically
for rural public institutions focused on healing trauma and building resilience.

1
 In this article we present a detailed overview of the challenges, strengths, missed
opportunities, and outcomes of RLI, as reported by the first cohort of the accelerator program.
We hope to highlight “best practices” for adapting a similar social accelerator program in other
rural communities.

METHODS
Program Description
RLI was specifically developed in the context of Edgecombe County, North Carolina, a
county home to the first town in America founded by freed slaves after the end of the Civil War,
the first place Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream Speech”, and the childhood
home of Janice Bryant Howroyd, the first African-American woman to build a billion dollar
privately held company. Edgecombe County sits in the heart of the “Black Belt.” RLI supports
public agencies, based in a rural majority African American community in the Southern U.S.,
with the aim of addressing early childhood adversity and intergenerational trauma. Traditionally,
the largest employers and institutions in rural communities in the Southern U.S. are public
agencies (public schools, law enforcement, health, government).
RLI was designed over an 18-month period in collaboration with local community
leaders in Eastern North Carolina, and drew from existing best practices from other social
innovation accelerator programs. In an effort to ensure that community members in Edgecombe
county and the surrounding areas were engaged in all stages of development of the social
accelerator program guide and curriculum, Rural Opportunity Institute developed a Design
Insights Group (DIG) to inform the program from the perspective of residents. This group was
made up of community leaders from organizations in Edgecombe County who would potentially
participate in the accelerator program, including students and staff from local public schools and
the local community college, members of a church congregation, leaders of local non-profit
organizations, health care, and social service providers, and staff of the county police
department.
Rural Opportunity Institute developed a program guide and structure for RLI based on
this initial human-centered design thinking work. In the first iteration of this nine month
accelerator program, from March to November 2021, four selected teams from local
organizations, government institutions, and community organizations participated as members of
the first cohort of RLI. Participants spent the first four months of the program understanding
their role and place in the existing community-built systems map that had identified the highest
leverage points and spaces for intervention. Using the human-centered design process to build
empathy within their staff and the people they serve, participants generated insights and framed a
design challenge to identify the highest leverage way their organization could become more
trauma-informed. Participants tested their ideas around becoming more trauma-informed in an
iterative process called "little bets" as they searched for effective ways to create impact. As an
example of one outcome from the program, the HOPE program became the first public
alternative school in the state of North Carolina to build the capacity to hire licensed clinical
social workers to provide mental health services to their highest-need and most vulnerable
students. Additionally, they successfully billed Medicaid to provide these services, at no
additional cost to the school district.

Participants and Setting

2
 This qualitative study occurred in North Carolina from August 2021-April 2022. The
project arose from a team of four graduate consultants at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill who partnered with Rural Opportunity Institute from August 2021 to May 2022.
This partnership builds off Rural Opportunity Institute’s five-year partnership with the
​University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health and has hosted five MPH
Capstone teams in this time. Extended partnership in the conceptualization and implementation
of our research study allowed for trust, iterative design of research procedures, and extensive
member checking with leadership of Rural Opportunity Institute. The UNC’s team outsider
status within the RLI initiative and confidentiality procedures allowed for data to explore both
strengths and weaknesses with lessened social desirability bias.
Twenty-three qualitative interviews were conducted with RLI participants (n=7, 41% of
17 total), coaches (n=5, 100% of 5 total), facilitators (n=7, 70% of 10 total), and RLI staff
members (n=4, 100% of 4 total) about their experience. RLI participants included representatives
of rural public institutions in Edgecombe County (i.e. courthouse, church, high school).
Contracted coaches served as participant teams’ primary point of contact during RLI, meeting
with teams weekly, serving as a means for accountability for team progress, and supporting
participants throughout the program. Facilitators consisted of individuals from around the
country who joined the virtual monthly convenings and presented information related to their
area of content expertise (i.e. data and evaluation, anti-racist practices, storytelling,
human-centered design, systems thinking, and change management). RLI staff developed the
curriculum for RLI, hired coaches and facilitators, led recruitment and selection of participants,
and supported the overall implementation of the program. In the RLI program, the 4 RLI staff
members (full-time staff from Rural Opportunity Institute) worked on the program full-time and
primarily handled the final decision-making around the program, while coaches and facilitators
were part-time contractors who gave input and executed their roles.

Data Collection
RLI participants, coaches, facilitators, and RLI staff were recruited by email. Interviews
were conducted virtually (by Zoom). Semi-structured interview guides were developed for
participants, coaches/facilitators, and RLI staff exploring program characteristics and processes,
as well as the strengths and challenges of RLI that participants, coaches, and facilitators faced.
Interview participants were asked to suggest strategies on how RLI could be improved for future
cohorts, as well as their long-term hopes for RLI and the Rural Opportunity Institute. RLI
participant interviews lasted 30-45 minutes while interviews with coaches, facilitators, and RLI
staff members lasted about 1 hour. RLI participants were given a $30 Amazon gift card as
incentive for participation while facilitators, coaches, and RLI staff billed their normal hourly
rate to RLI.

Data Analysis
Each interview was digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were de-identified and
labeled by participant type (i.e. participant, coach, facilitator, RLI staff) and given an ID number.
A thematic codebook outlining broad categories was developed using a deductive technique
based on the study aims and interview guides (Miles & Huberman, 1994) (Table 1). The
codebook and all data were managed in Atlas.ti (version 3.4.5-2021-11, Berlin Germany). To
ensure consistency in coding, several authors independently coded one transcript and then met
virtually to discuss and resolve any inconsistencies and make necessary adjustments to the

3
codebook. After this discussion, the codebook was finalized and each transcript was individually
coded by one of the first four authors.
Next, the same four researchers developed an analytical report for each of the broad
themes/categories by reviewing all of the excerpts coded for that theme. This inductive technique
involved a combination of individual and collaborative identification of more fine-level themes
(Bernard & Ryan, 2010). During this phase of analysis, the team highlighted experiences or
thoughts that were common or diverging across interview participants in the analytical report.

Ethical Considerations
All interview participants received a copy of an informed consent document by email.
Additionally, the interviewer reviewed this information with the interview participant and verbal
informed consent was obtained prior to each interview. Interviewers were independent of RLI
but RLI management were able to access de-identified and batched data for participants,
coaches, facilitators, and other RLI staff (in order to limit opportunities for unintentional
disclosure of identity). Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the
​University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

RESULTS
When asked to reflect on their experiences in the RLI program, interview participants
identified several recurring themes. These key themes included: (1) benefits of being embedded
within the community (2) tensions between flexibility and ambiguity in the program, (3) feelings
of connection and support across the cohort, (4) challenges and strengths of the virtual format of
the program, (5) difficulties understanding language and jargon in program content, (6)
differences in perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and (7) contrasts between
participant passion and burn-out.

Benefits of being embedded in the community

Particularly among coaches and facilitators, RLI having “boots on the ground” in
Edgecombe County was identified as increasing the organization’s credibility in the community
and strengthened the initiative. By taking the time to form relationships in the community, the
Rural Opportunity Institute is based in Tarboro, the county seat of Edgecombe County, which
helped the organization establish itself as a community-centered program and laid the
groundwork necessary before launching RLI. The Rural Opportunity Institute was regarded
positively for allowing the mission and content of its programs to be based on the
self-determined needs of community members. In several instances, interview participants
viewed RLI’s community focus as something that distinguished the initiatives from other
programs they had worked with in the past. One facilitator stated:

“It’s a very community-led initiative and organization. It's not people parachuting in with
tools and techniques, but building tools and techniques in community with those that are
every day working to build a stronger social fabric in these areas.” -Facilitator

RLI’s community-centered mission also increased trust between participants and the
program’s leadership, as community members felt their personal outcomes were prioritized over
any metrics:

4
 “The reason I trust Rural Opportunity is because I see the data, the results of the work,
but I also see that they are not just about the numbers. They’re about the people…Lots of
organizations just wanna know, well, how many people? What’s the stats? What’s this?
Rural Opportunity takes the time to get to know the why behind things and to get the
nuance of what’s going on.” -Participant

This human-centered approach allowed RLI to further establish credibility within the community
members involved in the initiative and made the program material be more warmly received by
participants.

Tensions between flexibility and ambiguity in the program

When asked to discuss the strengths of RLI, a majority of interview participants
highlighted the flexible nature of the program. They described RLI leadership as accommodating
and taking an iterative approach when designing the program’s curriculum. RLI staff was
perceived to be receptive to feedback from the cohort during the process. At the same time, this
open-ended format of the program at times caused interview participants to express frustration
due to what they described as unclear expectations.
As a strength, participants, facilitators, and coaches noted that the RLI curriculum was
flexible and iterative, as staff, coaches, and facilitators continuously adapted the material to
better meet the needs of participating organizations. Many interview participants stated that RLI
staff “walked the walk” when it came to creating a culture where feedback was encouraged and
listened to. Particularly with regards to the on-boarding process, coaches and facilitators
remarked that having that iterative mindset prepared them well when carrying out the program:

“I thought [the onboarding process] prepared us pretty well. I think that just having the
expectation that this cohort’s going to be adaptive…we’re gonna have an idea of where
we’re going, but there’s gonna be a lot that we’re figuring out between sessions based on
how things are actually progressing with the teams. I think that having that expectation in
advance really set us up well because we knew that we had to be flexible.” -Facilitator

This adaptability allowed the program to progress more smoothly when participants
needed to make adjustments to better suit their needs. In a few cases, teams described instances
where during the RLI program, their interests and focus shifted. For example, in the case of one
organization that decided to switch their focus from mental health to addressing homelessness
midway through the program, both a participant and coach from the team remarked that RLI staff
supported the process of them switching focuses based on new learnings the team was
developing in the program:

“I will say I was impressed with how RLI handled that. It wasn’t like a, ‘You’re outta the
program. Don’t come to us for funding for that because you didn’t finish this project.’ It
was like, ‘If they want your support to do that for the rest of this time, then we’ll support
that.’ They were very flexible and adaptive, which I think is really important in building
these relationships. I know that the [participant organization] really appreciated that.”
-Coach

5
 Another coach also reflected that RLI staff allowed room for variation by letting coaches
customize their materials to best suit them, stating:

“I could coach the way I felt like I needed to coach and be responsive to the team…I feel
like RLI, kinda by giving me enough room to do my own thing, I didn’t feel overwhelmed
like I was not doing what other people did. I was able to do it my way and honor the
vision but show up in a way that was authentic for me.” -Coach

At the same time, while many interview participants described the benefits of RLI’s
flexible structure, the open-ended nature of the program at times led to a perceived lack of
clarity, both on the roles of staff and the intended outcomes of the program. For example, some
facilitators and coaches described difficulties understanding their exact role in the program.
These unclear expectations for coaches and facilitators led to teams feeling “a little restricted”
and a desire to better “utilize skills a little more effectively.” As one facilitator said, “It felt like I
wasn't sure what my role was —I've mostly just stepped in and was there to support and
encourage and offer some tools if I could.”
Specifically with regards to facilitators, some stated how the program’s encouraging
facilitators to take the lead with content planning and delivery felt like having “too many cooks
in the kitchen.” There was a sense that this made it challenging for facilitators to design a
streamlined and cohesive program, especially given the time-constraints and lack of prior
connection between facilitators.
The confusion surrounding expectations also corresponded with feelings of uncertainty
with regards to the intended outcomes of the program. Participants, coaches, and facilitators
expressed confusion about what they were “supposed to be getting out of [RLI].” Specifically,
some of our interview participants expressed that as the program came to an end, there was a
pressure to let the “systems strengthening piece fall away” and “just get a great project.”
To reduce this sense of ambiguity, some interview participants suggested that RLI staff
provide an overview at the beginning of the program. Such an overview should include a
description of the content to be covered, the arc of the program process, expectations for
different team members, and examples of success. One facilitator summed up this suggestion in
saying:

“I think it’s just [a] logic model basically being quite clear about what the outcomes are
that you want at the other end. Then actually being quite prescriptive about how you’re
gonna get there, and then plugging in our skills where necessary” -Facilitator

A few interview participants also suggested having alumni come back to share an
overview of their work and outcomes with future cohorts, to allow members of the current cohort
to have a reference point. Ultimately, a flexible program nature did allow participants, coaches,
and facilitators to feel that they could adjust the program to better fit their needs. However, too
little structure could cause participants to feel directionless.

Feelings of connection across the cohort

A majority of interview participants identified the opportunity to collaborate with other
teams and members of the RLI cohort as a significant strength of the program. They described

6
how the RLI program resulted in a sense of community across organizations in the first cohort.
Participants, coaches, and facilitators all remarked that connecting with organizations in the
cohort increased their team’s capacity to promote their work, as they were equipped with a new
network of support. As explained by one coach:

“I think having the cohort itself is a strength. You have kind of strength in numbers.
You’ve got folks coming together on a monthly basis around while you’re kind of doing
your own thing in terms of programming, you’ve got this larger mission that you’re all
trying to forward.” -Coach

Participants also described a new awareness of others working in the field. They stated
that they felt as though they were not alone and that this had a benefit on their initiatives:

“I feel that now I'm better equipped to handle challenges because I know that I have
pretty much a friend in the community, or resource in the community, that can help me
navigate some things or some challenges and connect me with people that can help us.”
-Participant

During the program itself, RLI participants appreciated the chances to connect with other
members of the cohort and learn from the experiences of those at organizations different from
their own. Teams described benefitting from hearing about the ways other teams dealt with
issues and problem-solved during the program. The different participating organizations were
able to offer each other advice and perspective. One participant explained that in break-out
rooms with members of other teams they recognized that other local organizations deeply
understood the local context and history:

“You got a chance to kinda hear and experience what the other teams were working with
and some of the issues, some of the traumas that we were going through you would hear
of in different groups or whatever. It helped.” -Participant

The community created in the RLI cohort allowed members to openly exchange ideas
and turn to one another to create solutions. A coach described this process of groups learning
from one another:

“I think as we all kind of got to know each other, and all of these monthly relationships
grew, I think people were pretty open about saying, ‘Well, I don’t understand this, or
make sure I’m doing this the right way, or what about this?’” -Coach

However, while a sense of community among the cohort may have developed throughout
the course of the program, the vast majority of those interviewed described wanting a greater
emphasis on fostering relationships during their time in RLI. When asked about suggestions for
future cohorts, increased opportunities to connect with others in the program was frequently
brought up.

7
 “It’s such a great group of really experienced and talented people. I think there were
ways that we could’ve been maybe a bit more interconnected across the project”
-Facilitator

Similarly, a coach reflected that teams would have benefited from greater time dedicated
to building this community across the cohort:

“Heavy relationship building, I think would’ve been a wise investment earlier on”
-Coach

A general recommendation was to incorporate more time specifically focused on helping

participants, coaches, and facilitators connect. There was particular emphasis from coaches and
facilitators on encouraging teams to connect with and learn from each other. At least a few
participants also brought up wanting to learn more about the work that other teams were doing,
but didn’t necessarily believe that there was much room for cross-team collaboration or reason
that teams would work with each other after completing the program.

Coaches and facilitators also highlighted wanting more of an opportunity for greater
connection between coaches, between facilitators, and between coaches and facilitators. One
coach said:

“I feel like if I had stronger relationships with the facilitators and other coaches, that
maybe I would have known or even felt more comfortable to call on them for additional
support. Everyone offered it. Everyone was always like, ‘I’m here to’- but I didn’t really
know what to call on them for” -Coach

One coach suggested making at least a few of the facilitator planning sessions mandatory
for coaches to attend. This would not only facilitate connection, but also provide coaches with
more context on what is being presented.

“I think there were moments where I wished that I had attended the session, so then I
knew what the facilitators were doing, so I might be able to support and add value.”
-Coach

The identification of connecting with different teams in the cohort as both a strength and
missed opportunity to go deeper by interview participants indicates the value with which
members of the cohort held their time spent connecting with others. While participants were
enthusiastic about the new network of support they had gained from their time in the program,
having greater amounts of designated time to foster these relationships may have allowed more
members of the cohort to feel as though they had optimized on all the benefits of creating ties to
other organizations in their community.

Challenges and strengths of the virtual format of the program

When reflecting on their experiences engaging in RLI during the COVID-19 pandemic
and in a virtual setting, interview participants described general feelings of the ease and
convenience that came with the virtual aspects of the program, as cohort members could attend

8
meetings from the comfort of their own homes. However, the remote setting also resulted in a
desire for deeper connections described by those interviewed. Participants, coaches, and
facilitators all noted that it was more difficult to build relationships and opportunities for
connection were missed when there were not options for in-person meetings.

“Because I’m a social person, I felt stifled. I am that social person that really just wants
to touch and hug, and be in the midst of stuff. COVID has definitely been a hindrance to
that. I feel like all of the work got done. I would have loved for us to been able to do it in
person, because that connection piece gets missed and gets lost when you’re on Zoom. It
does. It gets lost.” -Facilitator

Coaches expressed feelings that they could have “facilitated better” had the program been
in-person, and some participants described preferring the opportunity to do activities in-person.

“I like classroom stuff with posters and sticky notes, but it was still good. I think I’m not
the only one who kinda sometimes got Zoom burnout, but it was good to still be able to
meet. I think being in a room setting was always better.” -Participant

There were at least a few participants that struggled due to being less familiar or
comfortable working with technology and one RLI staff member that noted having internet
issues.

“Everyone can’t have high-speed internet. The internet that you do have is shaky. Even if
it rains, it could just wipe out your internet. It just really depends. It definitely made it
hard at first.” -RLI Staff Member

Despite the feelings of connection across the cohort as described in the previous section,
the virtual format added to the existing feelings of missed opportunities for further connection
during the program.

Difficulties understanding language and jargon in program content

Difficulty understanding the language used in the program curriculum was identified by
multiple participants. Participants unfamiliar with concepts like systems mapping felt like they
were behind and needed to catch up. Several participants shared sentiments and experiences
similar to the one provided below:

“It can seem overwhelming…In some of the presentations, there were people who were
talking, and if you’re not familiar with the vernacular, you’re not familiar with the
academic language, then you can get lost. That was what was happening is that people
were having these conversations, and they’re using these academic terms. A lotta people
have no idea what that stuff means. They have no idea what you’re talking about.”
-Participant

These challenges were similarly echoed when participants discussed the systems thinking
language as part of the resources used for RLI. The concepts seemed too “academic,” “too
complex”.

9
 In addition to participant difficulties following academic language, coaches and
facilitators expressed difficulty getting on the same page with regards to language, when sharing
information with participants. This challenge was perhaps by nature of the fact that RLI recruited
coaches and facilitators from various and diverse backgrounds. Facilitators and coaches worried
about overwhelming participants and wrestled with how to best present information. One
facilitator described how there tended to be “tensions around how to approach a process” across
the facilitators.
Despite identifying difficulty understanding jargon as an initial challenge of the program,
participants described the efforts of RLI staff, coaches, and facilitators to break down confusing
material as a strength that emerged as the program progressed. When language was difficult to
understand, participants appreciated that this group took the time to reiterate the key points of the
material and also adapt content’s language so it would be more digestible. Multiple participants
described presenters going back and rewording material after they gave the feedback that it was
difficult to follow. One participant described how they were grateful for the way their coach
responded when they had difficulty following:

“I am not a mental-health-trained person. Some of the conversations at the very

beginning were overwhelming to me because I didn’t know what they were talking about.
I didn’t get the language. I’m like, ‘I don’t know what y’all talking about. Y’all over my
head. You’ll have to bring this down to layman’s terms so we can understand.’ They were
very receptive of that, and I really appreciated that.” -Participant

This process of “breaking down” the content allowed participants who were initially
struggling to be more at ease with the program material and process key concepts better. The
ability of RLI staff, as well as coaches and facilitators, to revise its program language to better
meet the needs of participants also reiterates the program’s culture of flexibility and iteration, as
previously described. One improvement could be the staff team more intentionally choosing
which simple language it will use, before the program begins, and then consistently using this
simple language throughout the program.

Differences in perceptions of diversity, equity and inclusion

With regards to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the term “safe space” was
commonly used by participants, coaches, and facilitators when describing the atmosphere of the
RLI program. Coaches, facilitators, and participants explained that they felt the environment
during the program was welcoming and open, and individuals felt comfortable sharing their
experiences and learning from others without judgment. Participants noted how this positive
environment stood out to them and was especially impressive compared to other initiatives they
had participated in:

“After going through RLI, where I always feel that I’m in a safe space no matter what we
were doing, that was just astounding. There were other people there who also, I think,
had been through RLI types of things, and we were just dumbfounded…RLI always made
us feel safe, and it was very enlightening to be in that space and hear people share their
points of view, which you may not agree with, but I could understand.” -Participant

10
 When asked about what they felt RLI’s ‘secret sauce’ was, another participant identified
this safe space where equitable learning could occur without judgment and regardless of
education level:

“It’s a safe space that you can have the PhD in all the things, or you can be completely
ignorant in all the things. You show up, and everyone’s on the same, equal space.
Everyone is gonna learn from where they are, and there’s equity in it, right.” -Participant

A few interview participants noted that RLI was strengthened due to the fact that the
cohort was a group of diverse individuals and that participants could safely arrive to the space in
their full identity, including race, religion, and sexual orientation. Participants both felt like there
were others like them on the team that could relate to their experiences on a deeper level, as well
as others from unique backgrounds that they could learn from. One participant how RLI staff,
coaches and facilitators having an understanding the dynamics of race in the United States
profoundly resonated with their team and allowed them to be open during the program:

“We had a Black coach, and that was just helpful…It’s good to have people who
understand those dynamics. I would also say that the plus overall, which I saw not just in
our coach but in also the other presenters, some of them were Black. Some of them
weren’t, but they all understood the dynamics of race in America…we didn’t have to
overdo work or hide any perspective of ourself or anything like that in order to placate to
her in order to placate to others.” -Participant

In addition to feeling that they could express their own identities, participants also felt
there was room to learn about the diverse experiences of others without judgment. One coach
reflected on how RLI staff, coaches and facilitators were able to generate these conversations for
individuals to learn and grow, in this case with regards to the use of pronouns:

“You can say, ‘I don’t really get pronouns.’ Oh, you’re canceled. No. I wasn’t saying I’m
against it. I’m saying I don’t understand it and I need to learn. We can jump to trying to
be so super woke that we shut the people up who are trying to learn. RLI created a space
where people could—it wasn’t a big part of it, but I think people could talk about
these—the way that my team talked, they call it taboo topics.” -Coach

Although participants described positive experiences in what they felt was a “safe space”
in the program, and no RLI participants explicitly mentioned a lack of representation as an issue,
at least one coach and one facilitator noted that RLI leadership, including RLI staff, coaches, and
facilitators, could have better represented the community they were serving. The racial
background of RLI staff, coaches, and facilitators was less representative than the county's
population, which is 58% black (US Census, 2021). Reflecting upon the racial backgrounds of
the RLI staff, coaches, and facilitators, 38% of facilitators were black (50% people of color),
40% of coaches were black (and people of color), 50% of RLI's full time staff were black, (75%
were people of color).

Although the coach and facilitator who raised this concern did not notice its impact on their
relationships with and support for participants, they admitted to wondering how participants felt.

11
 “I was surprised there were not more facilitators who represented the population, right.
Other than the consultants that did the diversity and equity, from what I remember, and
myself, all of the other facilitators were white, and not that we can’t learn things from
everybody. However, I go back to my background in the school system and education. I
need my Black students to see Black people in leadership. I need them to hear that voice,
and that was not there. It was a little bit of a disconnect for me” -Facilitator

One facilitator also expressed concern about the fact that facilitators and coaches were not based
in rural areas or in the community.

“Many of the coaches and facilitators were not based in [county] and the participants
were. It seemed like we had a good working relationship — I just wonder if
anybody—how any of the participants felt about that tension … between outsiders and
insiders, and outsiders in terms of geography, outsiders in terms of race.” -Facilitator

RLI staff shared that they made intentional choices to hire both people who had local
connections and people who were located around the country. They made this choice based on
participants who helped design the RLI program and shared their desire to learn from experts and
people who had experiences beyond the local community. The Rural Opportunity Institute’s
work more broadly seeks to "smash disparate worlds together" from the assets of their rural
community, with the expertise of people in more urban areas, towards the shared goal of helping
public agencies become more trauma-informed.
For future cohorts, two suggestions were made related to DEI by coaches and facilitators.
The first was to recruit a set of coaches and facilitators that better represent the specific racial
makeup of the community. The second was to have RLI alumni serve as coaches or peer
supporters for future teams. This latter suggestion would not only ensure that coaches have
plenty of community context, but also a deep familiarity with the program.

Contrasts between participant passion and burn-out

Facilitators, coaches, and RLI staff members all remarked that they were impressed with
the enthusiasm and commitment of the participants. Multiple individuals described being “blown
away” by the passion and willingness to do the work that the participants displayed, and also
stated that participants stood out from other groups they had worked with in terms of their
enthusiasm. One facilitator described how impressed they were with the passion and drive that
the participants demonstrated:

“They were so gracious and so kind, and clearly cared so much. Yeah, it's definitely a
different type of group than I'm used to working with. I don't know if you watched
recordings and stuff, but people would be, like, ‘Oh my God, it's God's calling to do this,’
it's, like, wow, I've never heard that at work, you know? It's definitely a very different side
than I've gotten. Much more, I don't know, just maybe sincere and kind of vibe than I've
gotten elsewhere.” -Facilitator

12
 Not only did RLI staff, coaches and facilitators describe the passion of participants, but
participants themselves also described the excitement they felt towards the program and their
cohort. As stated by one participant:

“A lot of it worked naturally because we would just sit back and talk to one another and
just the excitement of getting things done, what kind of ideas we could come up with, and
when the next meeting would come up, we would just have ideas of what we wanted to do,
and would bring them to our coach, and she was spot on, and she was ready to just go
forth with it.” -Participant

This eagerness to engage impressed leadership and inspired them as they guided
participants through the material. However, when asked about challenges, interview participants
expressed that they “worked harder in the beginning” and there was “less energy” and “less
motivation” as the program went on. Individuals interviewed pointed to “the nature of the
stressors we’re all living under” as a factor to the burn out participants experienced. Interview
participants suggested that RLI could help with burn out by shortening the length of convenings,
better preparing coaches, better communicating expectations upfront, and assigning less
homework.

DISCUSSION
The data from our qualitative research suggests social accelerator models can be
effectively implemented in rural communities to support public institutions in achieving certain
goals, in Edgecombe County’s case: to support public agencies becoming more trauma-informed.
RLI provided a highly practical and skills-focused approach to healing trauma and building
resiliency in a rural, underserved county in Eastern North Carolina. Participation in RLI helped
participants, coaches, and facilitators reflect on their own trauma and how their personal
experiences relate to the community they are serving. Participants also benefited from supports
around building empathy with their staff and the people they serve, as well as explicit support to
pilot and test new trauma-informed programs. The inclusion of diverse voices was an essential
asset in aiding this ‘first of its kind’ program to foster community-built strategies to effectively
address trauma, toxic stress, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). These data might
provide some evidence for how adapting social accelerator models could help current and future
communities navigate trauma, reduce punitive isolating responses to trauma, and build resilience.
The purpose of a social accelerator model is to meet the needs of the community, and the
timeline of this process can vary. Social innovations do not follow a set linear process, some
scale rather quickly while others require more time to evolve, as innovations start from ideas to
impact (Mulgan, 2012). To determine effectiveness, social impact metrics should be utilized in
accelerator organizations (Casasnovas & Bruno, 2013). While the iterative nature of the social
accelerator process allowed the program’s curriculum to be revised throughout and better meet
the needs of participants, this flexible structure also emerged in our data as a tension point. Most
notably challenges were identified with regards to the lack of clarity felt by participants, coaches,
and facilitators, surrounding roles and intended outcomes of the program. Coaches and
facilitators noted feeling restricted as they were unsure of their roles, suggesting the best
approach would be to have a more streamlined approach to ensure a cohesive program outcome.

13
This tension illuminates the delicate balance between fidelity and adaptation (Ridde et al., 2016)
when implementing a social accelerator model.
The analysis also provided useful insights into how deep relationships within the
community can create a trusting foundation that allows for sophisticated and complex work. The
voice of the people belonging to the community was valued: their best interests were at the core
of decision-making, and program participants had an active role in designing and shaping the
program. This approach aligns with principles of trauma-informed care (Klinic Community
Health Centre, 2013) and community-based participatory research (Chen et al., 2020). When an
issue arose, Rural Opportunity Institute’s position within the community made it so the
organization could solve the issue and have trust from the community to make the best decision,
because the organization’s values reflect and align with the interests of the community. This
trusting relationship created a positive feedback loop and bolstered the sustainability of the
program in the community itself. A unique aspect of this program is the community harnessing
power to achieve and maintain resiliency with the tools gained from RLI.
The ability to create connections across the cohort was noted by participants as an
opportunity they appreciated but wanted more of. Connecting with other groups (i.e.,
participants, coaches, or facilitators) would offer a dynamic approach to tackling the issues in the
community and allow organizations to receive support from one another. Participants largely
suggested that for future cohorts, RLI Should provide increased opportunities for participating
organizations to connect with others in the program. Coaches and facilitators also echoed this
suggestion, as they reported greater connections would strengthen the program and bolster
relationships in the community. As the first cohort matriculated through the COVID-19
pandemic, participants reported the complexities and silver linings of a virtual program and their
ability to meet the needs of the communities they served. Though some difficulties were noted of
participating virtually in this program from a rural community, such as slower internet
connection and the inability to meet people in-person, the virtual format offered the flexibility
desired by participants and staff.
Additionally, the language used throughout the program was reported as a barrier for
participants. Participants shared sentiments of feeling overwhelmed by the academic jargon
being used, resulting in a challenging introduction to the program. The receptivity of staff to this
feedback and the shift to using less jargon and breaking down concepts later in the program was
praised by participants, and shaped their feelings towards their experience RLI. Participants
appreciated this attention to detail, as they highlighted how kind and human-centered staff were
(Nutbeam, 2000).
These findings should be viewed in light of design limitations. Positionality of the
interviewers (the student team) may be present in the findings. Although the student team
conducting interviews were external to RLI staff, it is possible participants reported during the
interview process what they thought we might want to hear. In an attempt to prevent this bias, the
student team informed participants of our external roles and assured them there were no right or
wrong answers to the questions. Downsides of instruments utilized during this study was the
interview setting which was on Zoom. The virtual platform is convenient but has limited the
opportunity to observe non-verbal communication, cluing us into whether our questions were
taken as we intended. The downsides of virtual interviews were the missed opportunities to build
more organic connections thus limiting building rapport with participants. We anticipate that a
potential shortcoming of our analysis was in our determination of which quotes to use and
themes to highlight. In attempt to avoid cherry picking the best findings, our team highlighted

14
thoughts that were common or diverging across the interviews, to share what we considered key
elements of the program that could be applied should this program be replicated.
Despite these limitations, this study illuminates the many short-term benefits of providing
tools for public agencies to implement trauma-informed practices in a rural community using a
social accelerator model. Future research should explore how adapting a social accelerator model
can be leveraged to address ACEs and heal trauma within different community contexts and the
downstream effects.

CONCLUSION
Ultimately, our interviews with RLI participants, coaches, facilitators and staff identified
the strengths and challenges of adapting a social accelerator model for rural public institutions,
particularly one focused on healing trauma and fostering resilience. Insights from these
interviews revealed that maintaining and a flexible environment where participating
organizations could connect with one another majorly enhanced the experience of participants in
the program. Future initiatives should strive to replicate this adaptable model and maintain or
even increase these opportunities for connection, while also providing some structure so
participants do not feel lost during the program. Overall, the community-centered attitudes of the
social accelerator’s staff allowed the program to have credibility amongst organizations that
served as the foundation to solve any conflicts that may have arisen during the program. Future
research should also investigate further the role that diversity, equity, and inclusion plays in
fostering relationships with and furthering the work of community organizations.

15
Table 1. Codebook describing thematic categories used for the first step of analysis.
Code Decisional Rule
Background Apply when participants describe their
personal/professional background or any
background information about their
organization or community. This can include
information about how the participant was
originally connected to the Rural
Opportunity Institute. This can include
descriptions of participant’s prior
knowledge/experience with
trauma-informed approaches.
RLI Mission Apply when participants describe RLI’s
mission in their own words
Process Apply when participants describe steps
involved with their participation in RLI.
This can include everything from how a
participant found out about RLI to any
interaction with RLI-associated personnel
after completing the program.
Expectations Apply when participants describe their
expectations for the program and whether or
not they were met. This can be double coded
with Strengths, Challenges, or Missed
Opportunities as relevant
Illustrative Quote
“​​The [participant organization] that I work at deal with at-risk
children and they are basically students that have been I don’t want
to say put out, but they have been brought to this school for behavior
issues, attendance issues, and some even parents volunteer that their
kids participate in this program because it’s a smaller setting, and
kind one-on-one with students and so a lot of times, parents even
recommend that their child come here.” -Participant
“I would say it’s building the capacity of local leaders there in their
region, to be the agents of change, not just in schools, but in all of
the various community organizations around schools that serve kids
and their families.” -Facilitator
“as far as onboarding coaches and teams, I wasn't very much a part
of that process. I think for onboarding facilitators we had several
Zoom planning calls. What I appreciated is we always opened with a
connection prompt. The whole team would get to know each other.
Then also had some one-on-ones just in our particular thematics or
areas.” -Facilitator
“I was hoping to learn how we could help broach difficult
conversations, how we could help educate those who may not see
things from maybe the perspective, all-inclusive perspective that we
may be seeing things from, how to create safe spaces. I’m not a
licensed psychologist, but how we could create safe spaces for
maybe uncomfortable conversation and dialogue, and do it within a
place that would be safe. I was in a particular setting, and we were
16

Strengths Apply when participants describe RLI
program strengths with regards to content,
process, or relationships. Apply when
participants describe RLI’s ‘secret sauce’.
Challenges Apply when participants describe RLI
program challenges with regards to content
process, or relationships. This can include
personal challenges or general tensions that
arose.
Missed Apply when participants describe things
Opportunities they wished would have been incorporated
into RLI with regards to content, process, or
relationships.
Suggestions Apply when participants describe
suggestions on how to improve specific
aspect of RLI programming
supposed to be doing something of that nature, and it wasn’t a safe
space.” -Participant
“[...] there is equity in this space, and it is honesty in this space. It’s
a safe space that you can have the PhD in all the things, or you can
be completely ignorant in all the things. You show up, and
everyone’s on the same, equal space. Everyone is gonna learn from
where they are, and there’s equity in it, right.” -Participant
“all of us had such different frameworks. I think they all had their
value, but it was difficult. I think that was part of what they were
experimenting—what the team was experimenting with that RLI
was, like, how do you bring these things together? I know that the
team, the RLI participated certainly felt like the dissonance there of,
"Oh, you just taught me how to do this thing, and gave me five new
words." I’m, like, "Now you're teaching me this other thing, and
gave me 10 more new words." It just felt really overwhelming.”
-Facilitator
“I felt like it was a—there was a missed opportunity to let
folks—they're all in the same community. How do we share across
the learning? We know that systems themselves, are more strong and
more resilient the more connected they are. If there were chances for
folks to come back, remember the patterns that we saw at the
beginning and see how each of their new efforts are connected with
each other through the patterns, if that makes sense. I think it
could've really been a systems play instead of these each individual
projects” -Facilitator
“Okay, so explain the long-term process, right, and so, we had each
cohort. It was like, “Hey, this is what’s happening in this cohort. By
the next cohort, these are the things we need to be doin’ and then
17
another at that mile marker.” I think that having the full arc would
have been helpful upfront and then to do a real layman’s
walkthrough of what that arc would look like” -Participant

18
REFERENCES
Casasnovas, G., & Bruno, A. (2013). Scaling Social Ventures: An Exploratory Study of Social
Incubators and Accelerators. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 1,
173–197. https://doi.org/10.13185/JM2013.01211
Chen, E., Leos, C., Kowitt, S. D., & Moracco, K. E. (2020). Enhancing Community-Based
Participatory Research Through Human-Centered Design Strategies. Health Promotion
Practice, 21(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839919850557
Fast Forward. (2021, January 26). 2020 Impact Report.
https://www.ffwd.org/impact-report-2020/
Gilgoff, R., Singh, L., Koita, K., Gentile, B., & Marques, S. S. (2020). Adverse Childhood
Experiences, Outcomes, and Interventions. Pediatric clinics of North America, 67(2),
259–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2019.12.001
Kalmakis, K. A., & Chandler, G. E. (2015). Health consequences of adverse childhood
experiences: a systematic review. Journal of the American Association of Nurse
Practitioners, 27(8), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12215
Klinic Community Health Centre. (2013). Trauma-informed The Trauma Toolkit .
https://trauma-informed.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Trauma-informed_Toolkit.pdf
Barrehag L., Fornell A., Larsson G., Mårdström V., Westergård V., Wrackefeldt S.. (May 2012).
Accelerating Success: A Study of Seed Accelerators and Their Defining Characteristics.
Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology. Retrieved 14 September 2012.
Bernard, H.R. & Ryan, G.W. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches.
Chapter 4: Codebooks and Coding
Maynard, B. R., Farina, A., Dell, N. A., & Kelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of trauma-informed
approaches in schools: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1–2).
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1018
McLeod, M. N., Heller, D., Manze, M. G., & Echeverria, S. E. (2020). Police interactions and
the mental health of black americans: a systematic review. Journal of Racial and Ethnic
Health Disparities, 7(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-019-00629-1
Merolla, D. M., & Jackson, O. (2019). Structural racism as the fundamental cause of the
academic achievement gap. Sociology Compass, 13(6), e12696.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12696
Miles, M., and A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Mulgan, G. (2012). Social Innovation: Stepping on the Accelerator of Social Change. In The
World that Changes the World (pp. 341–357). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119199427.ch20
Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health
education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion
International, 15(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259

19
Overstreet, S., & Mathews, T. (2011). Challenges associated with exposure to chronic
trauma:Using a public health framework to foster resilient outcomes among youth.
Psychology in the Schools, 48(7), 738–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20584
Ridde, V., Pérez, D., & Robert, E. (2020). Using implementation science theories and
frameworks in global health. BMJ Global Health, 5(4), e002269.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002269
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014, July). SAMHSA’s Concept
of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA)
14-4884. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Tamir, C. (2021, April 25). The Growing Diversity of Black America. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/03/25/the-growing-diversity-of-black-a
merica/
U.S. Census. (2021). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Edgecombe County, North Carolina.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/edgecombecountynorthcarolina/PST045221
Wimberley, R. C., & Morris, L. V. (1997). The Southern Black Belt: A National Perspective.
TVA Rural Studies, University of Kentucky.

20