The Dallas-Forth Worth Metroplex (DFW) serves as a diverse resettlement location for globally displaced refugees. While research examines how the nation impacts refugee resettlement, studies that examine the role of the city and community in placemaking are still lacking. In city resettlement investigations, research often focuses broadly on advocacy and political movements rather than the impacts of local-level structures and policies. In this paper, I develop an evaluation model using Jenny Phillimore's categories for successful refugee resettlement that examines how structural barriers, community interactions, and resource accessibility affect space and place for refugee populations. Through an ethnography of Chin and Rohingya refugee communities in DFW, I explore the differences between community-settled and state-settled refugee groups and the idea of an integrated resettlement program. Additionally, I argue that refugees who choose their settlement location in the United States are empowered and thus have a stronger connection to their host community than state-settled refugees. For example, in interviews, the Chin emphasized their ownership of Lewisville and feelings of home, while the Rohingya expressed feelings of placelessness and dispossession in Dallas. As governments push towards an entirely privatized system of refugee resettlement, this research argues for an integrated method that draws upon federal resources and community connections. Through the experiences of Lewisville's Chin community, this research demonstrates the potential of such a program in the United States.

After relocation to the United States, refugees are often assisted by community volunteers in the process of resettlement, which frequently includes navigating the financial and social aspects of life in the US. However, the medical and health aspects of resettlement, and particularly how volunteers are involved in those aspects, have gone unexplored, leading to tensions within volunteer-led resettlement groups as they attempt to negotiate the limits of volunteer involvement. To investigate how volunteers understand a process of health resettlement, their role(s) within the process, and how they rhetorically position their relationship with resettling clients, this study uses interview data from a local, volunteer-run community resettlement organization to provide a rhetorical examination of health resettlement. An analysis finds that in both contrast and response to a rhetoric of self-sufficiency established by state and federal policy, resettlement volunteers understand health resettlement through a rhetoric of responsibility. This rhetorical framework constitutes volunteers' role as proxy agents in the process of health resettlement. Additionally, volunteers use a gathered ethos approach within this framework, drawing from community networks in order to facilitate persuasion of resettling clients toward desired health outcomes. Ultimately, recommendations are made for community sponsorship and volunteer approaches to health resettlement for refugees in the United States. / Doctor of Philosophy / After relocation to the United States, refugees are often assisted by community volunteers in the process of resettlement, which frequently includes navigating the financial and social aspects of life in the US. However, the medical and health aspects of refugee resettlement, and particularly how volunteers are involved in those aspects, have gone unexplored. This study uses interviews with resettlement volunteers to understand how volunteers perceive their role within the health resettlement process, how they position themselves in relation to resettling refugees, and how they expect refugees to navigate health communication scenarios. It finds that volunteers feel a tension between a rhetoric of self-sufficiency that is established by policy and a rhetoric of responsibility that is established by humanitarian narratives. This tension motivates volunteers to act as communication intermediaries, performing health communication tasks on behalf of refugee clients while also attempting to persuade clients toward particular healthcare decisions. Recommendations are made for community sponsorship and volunteer approaches to health resettlement for refugees in the United States.

This study delves into Sweden and Italy's distinctive approaches to third-country solutions for refugees from a social work perspective. It scrutinizes Sweden's involvement in resettlement via state-directed procedures and Italy's engagement in complementary pathways, primarily through community-driven sponsorship initiatives. Employing a qualitative comparative methodology, the study unearths variations and commonalities within these strategies, underscoring their respective strengths and challenges within the realm of social work. While Sweden's resettlement program has been associated with notable achievements in refugee integration, recent reductions in the refugee quota have prompted concerns. Italy's community sponsorship initiatives exhibit promise, yet their long-term viability hinges on increased governmental backing. Overall, these third-country solutions provide secure and lawful avenues for refugees, necessitating robust collaboration between governmental bodies and civil society within the context of social work. This study enhances our comprehension of these pivotal approaches amid the ongoing global refugee crisis.