Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper argues that refugee resettlement in the U.S. could benefit from integrating a community-initiated care model to resettlement service provision that would more formally involve community members from refugee background in the initial support provided to newly arrived refugees in their resettlement destinations. I enjoyed reading this article and fully agree with the author’s characterization and critique of the U.S. resettlement program. I appreciate the article’s focus on the role of community members in supporting new arrivals, which is seldom the emphasis of scholarly inquiry. The comments below are intended to help improve what I believe is already a strong contribution to the U.S. resettlement literature.

1.     Though I agree that community leaders from refugee backgrounds are largely excluded from the formal resettlement program, I believe the author does not fully acknowledge that many people who work within the formal resettlement program come from refugee backgrounds and are also leaders within their communities. It would be helpful to know whether the author encountered Resettlement Agency case managers, employment specialists, etc. who had come through the resettlement program themselves and how those people navigated their roles as insiders and outsiders. See Fee’s recent article “Resettlement Knowledge” in Refugee Survey Quarterly. The section “Casework as Vocation” discusses the added burdens shouldered by Resettlement Agency staff who come from the same communities as their clients.

2.     Are there other countries whose models of resettlement reflect the CIC approach? If so, it would strengthen the author’s argument to cite examples or best practices of how this model has been found to yield a more supportive resettlement environment.

3.     The methodology section would benefit from more contextualization about the ten resettlement sites studied in four states. It is possible to give more details to understand the types of resettlement destinations that the author studied while still maintaining anonymity of the sites. Were they urban or rural? Were they newer programs or long-established resettlement programs? Were the communities diverse or was resettlement the main source of migration? Were the programs functioning within a supportive or hostile political environment?

4.     A significant contribution of this paper is that it examines and names (CIC) something that has always happened within refugee communities and has always accompanied the formal resettlement program yet is rarely formally recognized or studied. It would strengthen the author’s argument to cite other studies of resettlement that gesture to the role of communities in supporting refugees. See: Buddah is Hiding by Aihwa Ong, Making Refuge by Catherine Besteman, and Elusive Jannah by Cawo Abdi (see chapter on the US).

5.     Given the paper’s focus on mental health services, I had hoped to see a bit more about why mental health support is so important during resettlement and what the risks are if refugees are not comfortable with accessing mental health services. Moreover, I see this paper making a much broader argument about the need for a CIC model beyond just the facilitation of mental health services. The conclusion would be strengthened if the author proposed how the CIC approach could be integrated more holistically throughout all resettlement services.

6.     Newer resettlement destinations that do not yet have sizable refugee communities pose a challenge to the CIC approach. How could CIC work or be established in such destinations?

7.     Please note that lines 214-217 include the same sentence repeated twice.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files

 

Comments 1: Though I agree that community leaders from refugee backgrounds are largely excluded from the formal resettlement program, I believe the author does not fully acknowledge that many people who work within the formal resettlement program come from refugee backgrounds and are also leaders within their communities. It would be helpful to know whether the author encountered Resettlement Agency case managers, employment specialists, etc. who had come through the resettlement program themselves and how those people navigated their roles as insiders and outsiders. See Fee’s recent article “Resettlement Knowledge” in Refugee Survey Quarterly. The section “Casework as Vocation” discusses the added burdens shouldered by Resettlement Agency staff who come from the same communities as their clients.

Response 1: Thank you for this insightful comment. I agree that the roles of individuals with refugee backgrounds within formal resettlement programs warrant further exploration. Notably, several participants in this study were employed as service providers in resettlement agencies, primarily as case managers delivering resettlement services, a point briefly addressed in the findings. I have revised the manuscript to more thoroughly highlight the contributions and dual roles of Resettlement Agency staff with refugee backgrounds. This includes an expanded discussion of the complexities and burdens these individuals face as both insiders and outsiders, as well as a reference to Fee’s article.

 

Comments 2: Are there other countries whose models of resettlement reflect the CIC approach? If so, it would strengthen the author’s argument to cite examples or best practices of how this model has been found to yield a more supportive resettlement environment.

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this important point. I have incorporated examples of resettlement models from other countries that align with CIC principles, including Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees program and Australia’s Community Refugee Integration and Settlement Pilot. These examples demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating community-led support into resettlement processes.

 

Comments 3: The methodology section would benefit from more contextualization about the ten resettlement sites studied in four states. It is possible to give more details to understand the types of resettlement destinations that the author studied while still maintaining anonymity of the sites. Were they urban or rural? Were they newer programs or long-established resettlement programs? Were the communities diverse or was resettlement the main source of migration? Were the programs functioning within a supportive or hostile political environment?

Response 3: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I have updated the Methods section to include additional context about the ten resettlement sites, noting their urban and rural settings, program maturity (long-established vs. newer initiatives), and varied political environments (supportive to hostile). I also included details on community diversity, highlighting differences between sites with long-established ethnic groups and those primarily supporting newer arrivals. These revisions aim to enhance the reader’s understanding of the resettlement contexts while maintaining site anonymity. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

Comments 4: A significant contribution of this paper is that it examines and names (CIC) something that has always happened within refugee communities and has always accompanied the formal resettlement program yet is rarely formally recognized or studied. It would strengthen the author’s argument to cite other studies of resettlement that gesture to the role of communities in supporting refugees. See: Buddah is Hiding by Aihwa Ong, Making Refuge by Catherine Besteman, and Elusive Jannah by Cawo Abdi (see chapter on the US).

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out these valuable references. I have incorporated citations and discussions of these works to highlight the historical and ongoing roles of communities in refugee support.

 

 

Comments 5: Given the paper’s focus on mental health services, I had hoped to see a bit more about why mental health support is so important during resettlement and what the risks are if refugees are not comfortable with accessing mental health services. Moreover, I see this paper making a much broader argument about the need for a CIC model beyond just the facilitation of mental health services. The conclusion would be strengthened if the author proposed how the CIC approach could be integrated more holistically throughout all resettlement services.

Response 5: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. I have expanded the discussion on the importance of mental health support during resettlement, highlighting risks such as untreated trauma and social isolation if mental health services are inaccessible or culturally inappropriate. Additionally, I have strengthened the conclusion by proposing a broader integration of CIC approaches across resettlement services.

 

Comments 6: Newer resettlement destinations that do not yet have sizable refugee communities pose a challenge to the CIC approach. How could CIC work or be established in such destinations?

Response 6: Thank you for raising this important point. I have addressed the challenges of implementing CIC in newer resettlement destinations and proposed potential solutions, such as fostering partnerships with local organizations and leveraging virtual community networks.

 

Comments 7: Please note that lines 214–217 include the same sentence repeated twice.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing out this oversight. I have removed the repeated sentence.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article was a pleasure to read, and I commend the authors for investigating this topic with compelling empirical research. Although I am not familiar with the US resettlement context (apart from high-level statistics), this gave me pause to reflect on the situation in my own country and the ways in which service provider organisations draw on the knowledge, trust and inherent expertise of people with lived experience.

It was interesting to read about the current gaps in refugee support systems in the US and particularly the limitations of 'formal' services.

Note there is a repeated sentence on page 5, lines 214-217.

The only suggestion I have (not necessary for publication, only something for the authors to consider in future) is to reflect on what they have learned from the US context and its applicability (or not) to other resettlement destinations. Though policy and political structures vary widely across these settings, a comparative study would be fascinating. The published article could be a foundation for a future study of this nature.

I also wondered from a theoretical point of view about the value of bonding/bridging social capital (e.g. Putnam's work), and how intra-ethnic networks play de facto 'settlement service' roles. In my own research and experience, this can be pivotal in refugee decision-making about settlement location, economic participation choices, and the like. Sometimes the quality of this information/advice is not especially accurate... Just some thoughts to consider, not necessary to change the draft article to reflect the sociological literature on social capital, unless the authors deem it necessary.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments     Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files

Comment 1:
This article was a pleasure to read, and I commend the authors for investigating this topic with compelling empirical research. Although I am not familiar with the US resettlement context (apart from high-level statistics), this gave me pause to reflect on the situation in my own country and the ways in which service provider organisations draw on the knowledge, trust and inherent expertise of people with lived experience.

Response 1:
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and positive feedback on the manuscript. It is encouraging to hear that the research resonated with your reflections on resettlement practices in your own context.

 

Comment 2:
It was interesting to read about the current gaps in refugee support systems in the US and particularly the limitations of 'formal' services.

Response 2:
Thank you for highlighting this aspect of the manuscript. Addressing the limitations of formal services and exploring ways to complement them with community-driven approaches was a key focus of this study, and I am glad this resonated with you.

 

Comment 3:
Note there is a repeated sentence on page 5, lines 214–217.

Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected this error in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 4:
The only suggestion I have (not necessary for publication, only something for the authors to consider in future) is to reflect on what they have learned from the US context and its applicability (or not) to other resettlement destinations. Though policy and political structures vary widely across these settings, a comparative study would be fascinating. The published article could be a foundation for a future study of this nature.

Response 4:
Your suggestion to reflect on the applicability of the U.S. resettlement context to other destinations is highly insightful. This offers a valuable direction for future studies, and I will consider building on this foundation in subsequent work.

 

Comment 5:
I also wondered from a theoretical point of view about the value of bonding/bridging social capital (e.g., Putnam's work), and how intra-ethnic networks play de facto 'settlement service' roles. In my own research and experience, this can be pivotal in refugee decision-making about settlement location, economic participation choices, and the like. Sometimes the quality of this information/advice is not especially accurate... Just some thoughts to consider, not necessary to change the draft article to reflect the sociological literature on social capital, unless the authors deem it necessary.

Response 5:
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. I have incorporated additional discussion in the manuscript to highlight how the CIC approach fosters both bonding and bridging social capital, referencing relevant theoretical frameworks such as Putnam’s work and acculturation theory. The revised paragraph also addresses the distinct roles of bonding and bridging capital in different resettlement contexts and introduces virtual social capital as an emerging strategy for CIC’s adaptability. Thank you for prompting this valuable refinement.