Settlement service provision and social capital among humanitarian migrants in Australia: a service provider perspective

International migration is a complex global phenomenon interconnected to human rights, development and geopolitics at national, regional and international levels. The scale and pace of international migration flows are closely linked to the displacement of millions of people due to armed conflict, human rights abuses, economic and political instability and the impacts of climate change (IOM, 2019). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is mandated to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide via one of three durable solutions – voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement to a third country (UNHCR, 2003). At the end of 2024, the UNHCR reported there were over 123.2 million people worldwide forcibly displaced due to human rights violations, persecution and events seriously disturbing the public order such as conflict and violence (UNHCR, 2025). Of these, 42.7 million were refugees and a record total of 8.4 million asylum-seekers awaiting decisions on their individual applications for resettlement. The remainder were internally displaced people (73.5 million people).

As a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, Australia has been involved in the UNHCR resettlement program since 1977. From 1983 to 2022, the majority of refugees referred by the UNHCR were resettled in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) (UNHCR, 2020a). Between the years 2018 and 2022, the top three host countries' refugee intake was 102,645 in the United States, 135,339 in Canada and 55,301 in Australia (UNHCR, 2020a).

Resettlement programs delivered by host countries to support the successful integration of refugees have different criteria for selecting their migrant intake and different policies and programs for providing resettlement support. However, similarities in host government resettlement programs reflect the UNHCR's “Global compact for refugees comprehensive refugee response framework” (UN, 2018), that is, to facilitate integration, such as cultural orientation, language and vocational training, as well as programs to promote access to education, and employment (UNHCR, 2020b).

The Australian Government provides a suite of settlement services (SS) to support the resettlement and successful integration of humanitarian migrants and other eligible permanent migrants. The Australian SS program consists of four components: pre-arrival, on-arrival, post-arrival and English language. This study focused on the on-arrival “Humanitarian Support Program” (HSP) and post-arrival “Settlement Engagement and Transition Support” (SETS) programs. The HSP provides intensive support to humanitarian migrants and other eligible visa holders for the first 6–18 months after arrival to assist with finding accommodation, referral to services and supports and general orientation to Australia (Department of Home Affairs, 2022). The SETS program provides a targeted case management approach to facilitate the provision of information, advice and access to mainstream services for humanitarian migrants and other eligible permanent migrants (Department of Home Affairs, 2020). SS are complemented by a suite of mainstream social and human services that assist all Australians (Settlement Services International, 2017). In this study, SS recipients are referred to as “humanitarian migrants” rather than “refugees”, to reflect the terminology used by the Australian Government's resettlement programs (Australian Department of Home Affairs, 2025).

Australia's SS programs have a strong focus on supporting core skills and training, such as English language skills, employment and education, also referred to as the “3 Es” (Australian Department of Home Affairs, 2025). Yet, it is critical that humanitarian migrants develop social capital for their successful integration (Lamba and Krahn, 2003). While emphasis on the economic benefits of program provision dominates settlement service policy, social capital is also recognised as an important factor to successful integration (Losoncz, 2015; OECD, 2001). The lack of focus on social capital development may be attributed to the fact that it is difficult to demonstrate a clear link between social capital and economic growth, as social capital is difficult to measure quantitatively (OECD, 2001).

Presently, a research gap persists concerning the understanding of host countries' resettlement program models to foster social capital among humanitarian migrants. Equally, a research gap exists in investigating the strategies employed by SS providers to cultivate social capital among humanitarian migrants. Furthermore, a lack of understanding prevails concerning the interdependencies and interrelationships linking social capital with the attainment of other pivotal settlement outcomes crucial to successful integration (Briozzo et al., 2024; Strang and Ager, 2010). The facilitation of successful integration for humanitarian migrants through the provision of SS is of critical importance to ensuring positive settlement outcomes.

From the perspective of SS providers, the aim of this study was to explore the role social capital plays in facilitating successful integration for humanitarian migrants. As SS providers are the first point of contact for humanitarian migrants in Australia, the support they offer, operating within the framework of the Australian SS provision model, carries substantial potential to profoundly shape the trajectory of future settlement outcomes among humanitarian migrants (Settlement Council of Australia, 2017). This study focuses on themes related to social bonding, bridging and linking – the three basic forms of social capital fundamental to driving the process of integration. By doing so, it explores the interdependencies and interrelationships that exist between social capital and the realisation of other pivotal settlement outcomes, such as socio-cultural integration, employment attainment and secure housing establishment. Finally, this study fosters a comprehensive discourse concerning the significance and strategic positioning of social capital in settlement service policy and scholarly research. New insights from this research endeavour to fill these current gaps in evidence and provide a foundation for shaping future policy developments aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of SS programs.

This study aimed to answer three questions. What are SS providers' understandings of:

1. The role social capital plays in facilitating successful integration for humanitarian migrants?

2. Facilitators and barriers to building social capital for humanitarian migrants?

3. The capacity of the Australian settlement service provision model to promote social capital?

Social capital was first conceptualised in the 1980s (Lamba and Krahn, 2003) and has been widely used in the areas of social science, education, health and economics since the 1990s as a way to bridge sociological and economic theoretical perspectives (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). Social capital is a complex concept with numerous definitions and frameworks developed in an attempt to understand and measure the multiple mechanisms through which civic engagement and social networks produce social and economic outcomes (Putnam, 1995; Scrivens and Smith, 2013). The OECD (2001) defines social capital as “networks, together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among groups” (p. 41). Similarly, Putnam et al. (2004) explain that social capital denotes relationships of trust embedded in social networks developed through building social bonds and bridges. Social capital promotes economic development (Putnam, 1993; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000), as social connections and networks are vital to achieving economic outcomes (Putnam, 1995; Scrivens and Smith, 2013). Thus, developing social capital provides many important social, economic and personal benefits to both individuals and societies (OECD, 2001; Putnam, 1995).

Social capital has been theoretically and empirically linked to humanitarian migrants' successful integration (Albers et al., 2021; Boese and Moran, 2023; Cheung and Phillimore, 2014; Elliott and Yusuf, 2014; Heidinger, 2023; Im and Rosenberg, 2016; Kunz, 2003; Lamba and Krahn, 2003; Li, 2004; Mwanri et al., 2023). Lamba and Krahn (2003) note that humanitarian migrant's social capital may be the only useful form of capital available to them on arrival in a new country as their “financial capital (is) frequently lost or left behind and human capital (such as educational credentials) (is) often unrecognised or undervalued” (p. 355). A Canadian study found that recently arrived humanitarian migrants with low levels of social capital were more likely to report mental disorders as compared to humanitarian migrants with high levels of social capital who had been in Canada longer (Simich et al., 2006). Sudanese refugees in an Australian sample were found to experience considerable mental health difficulties as a result of pre and post-migration trauma, and reported feeling socially isolated, had ongoing problems with employment and increased difficulties with resettlement (Schweitzer et al., 2006). Therefore, given that humanitarian migrants are at higher risk of social exclusion due to multiple factors related to their forced migration, developing social capital among this population is critical to their successful integration (Albers et al., 2021; Almohamed and Vyas, 2019; Njororai and Lee, 2018). Failing to develop social capital can thereby inhibit humanitarian migrant's ability to effectively engage in their new host communities and economies (Mwanri et al., 2023; Simich et al., 2006).

Ager and Strang's (2008) framework of integration is useful for conceptualising the role that social capital plays in integration from a service provision perspective. In this four-level framework of ten interrelated domains (see Figure 1), social capital is presented in the context of the overall framework and is created through developing three basic forms of social connections via social bridges, social bonds and social links (Ager and Strang, 2008). The public domains of employment, housing, education and health are considered as both the markers and means of integration in the resettlement process. Social connection makes up the second level of the framework and is understood as playing a fundamental role in driving the process of integration at the local level (Ager and Strang, 2008).

Ager and Strang's framework of integration builds on social capital theory by highlighting the importance of the interrelationship between multiple and complex indicators of social capital (Briozzo et al., 2024; Feinstein and Poleacovschi, 2021; Lamba and Krahn, 2003). The three domains of social connection within this framework reflect the multiple outcomes associated with social inclusion that drive the process of integration (Block and Gibbs, 2017; Lewis, 2020a, b; Painter, 2013). This study explores how SS providers assist humanitarian migrants, participating in SS programs, build social capital stock through making social connections via:

1. Social bonds – interpersonal relationships with family and same ethnic groups, including fellow nationals, religious and other similar groups.

2. Social bridges – relationships between humanitarian migrants and the host communities, including members from other ethnic groups.

3. Social links – connection between individuals and the structures or services in place to assist humanitarian migrants with resettlement.

This study utilised a mixed-methods qualitative integrating thematic analysis informed by grounded theory (TAGT) (O'Callaghan et al., 2024). Data are from a set from a larger research project investigating settlement outcomes among new migrants in two Australian states, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria (VIC). The larger research project involves two independent phases. Phase one is a qualitative study involving settlement service providers working directly with new migrant populations within the study locations. Phase two focuses on a community survey (quantitative data) to explore the relationship between new migrants' utilisation of SS and their cultural integration.

The use of TAGT allowed the research team to adopt a constructivist approach to sampling, participant recruitment and data collection, enabling ongoing participant interaction and reflection throughout the data gathering and analysis process (O'Callaghan et al., 2024). Therefore, participants were purposively recruited from organisations funded by the Australian Government to deliver the HSP and/or SETS programs in the study locations. Purposive sampling allows for a focus on a specific population, identified as the most relevant source of primary data that can contribute to a particular study. SS providers are specialist workers actively involved in the provision of settlement programs, have oversight of both the SS provision model and the experiences of humanitarian migrants accessing the programs. Funded organisations were invited to participate in the study on a voluntary basis. Organisations were contacted via email and sent information about the study. On acceptance of our invitation, participants were nominated by each organisation to take part in the interviews. Two eligible organisations did not participate in the study – after indicating their interest in the study, no further communication was received or explanation provided. Participants represented a range of roles working at different levels within their organisations, including roles in senior management (CEO, general manager, executive manager, research and policy manager); program management (program manager, team leader, senior project officer) and client services (case manager, settlement support worker, caseworker). This broad representation of participant roles reduces any potential selection bias and allows for a more comprehensive view across the service delivery process.

The TAGT informed data collection to allow patterns in the data to emerge (Engward, 2013; Glaser and Strauss, 2004; Harris, 2014; O'Callaghan et al., 2024). It allowed the blend of deductive and inductive phases of data collection using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The deductive phase allowed the research team to develop broad, open-ended interview questions modelled on outcomes relating to the nine priority areas outlined in the “Australian National Settlement Framework” (Department of Home Affairs, 2016). The inductive phase allowed for participants to draw from their own experiences to explore and elaborate on each concept, hence providing data to uncover new insights. The results reported within this study focus on themes related to SS provided, the service provision model, perceived program effectiveness, barriers and issues for participation; challenges faced by humanitarian migrants during settlement; factors related to cultural identity, sense of belonging and social integration; formal and informal supports and solutions for more effective service delivery. Semi structured in-depth interviews allowed SS providers to share their experiences and insights of delivering SS programs to humanitarian migrants and information specifically related to SS program delivery.

After receiving institutional ethics approval (Western Sydney University Human Ethics Committee: H13063), all eligible participants provided informed written consent. Standard process for consent required that participants to read the participant information sheet before providing their consent. Information about the right to withdraw from the study without consequence was included in the participant information sheet, as is the intention to audio record the interview. Agreement to both these points were also listed separately on the consent form with tick boxes. No participants declined to participate as they were confident that their data would be de-identified. A total of 26 SS providers (18 females; 8 males) were interviewed, representing 19 organisations in Greater Western Sydney, NSW (n = 8) and Greater Melbourne, VIC (n = 11) between October 2019 and January 2020.

The face-to-face interviews were conducted at the participant's workplace by two researchers, one in each study location. The use of the interview guide, coupled with regular meetings with the research project team, ensured ongoing monitoring of inter-researcher variability and consistency of data collection. Interviews lasted between 45 and 120 min, with an average of 68 min per interview. Sample saturation was reached where each researcher noted recurring repetition from participants with no new data emerging. All interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed to ensure preservation of participant comments and accuracy of raw data.

The data transcripts were analysed and manually coded and managed by the first author with the assistance of NVivo 12 software. The TATG allowed the research team to integrate the systematic iterative coding and the development and conceptualisation of category of grounded theory with the focus on patterns and relationships between themes of thematic analysis to summarise conceptual understandings that are deeply grounded in the research data (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Engward, 2013; Glaser and Strauss, 2004; Harris, 2014; O'Callaghan et al., 2024). Data were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke's six-step approach to coding: (1) familiarisation with the content of each transcript by reading and re-reading; (2) identification of initial ideas for coding and discussion between the authors to guide the coding of themes and address possible issues of reflexivity; (3) collation of codes into themes as they emerged; (4) review of themes and the development of a “thematic map”; (5) defining and naming the main themes and subthemes; (6) narration of the findings, using data extracts to provide evidence to support the merit and validity of the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The research project team was actively involved in regular discussions throughout this process to obtain input regarding the consistency of coding and identify potential issues of positionality. The coding was inductively formed without the use of a theory or framework.

The analysis of the findings identified five key themes. These were: (1) same ethnic groups and informal networks; (2) cultural identity and cultural maintenance; (3) learning about the new environment; (4) sense of belonging and social inclusion and (5) factors related to the settlement service provision model. The themed findings are linked to the three basic forms of social capital – social bonding, bridging and linking (see Table 1).

SS providers identified that social bonds made between humanitarian migrants and same ethnic groups during the early stages of migration provided humanitarian migrants with a sense of safety and familiarity when settling into the new environment. SS providers from both states noted that many humanitarian migrants preferred settling in areas well-populated with fellow nationals and similar cultural and religious groups. SS providers suggested that this provided a “comfort zone” for humanitarian migrants, often alleviating the impact of their initial feelings of “culture clash”, enabling communication in their home language and the availability of cultural food, places of worship and access to established cultural community networks. SS providers recognised that some humanitarian migrant communities settled better than others, this being dependent on multiple pre- and post-migration factors such as the level of pre-migration literacy and education, experiences of forced migration and trauma, loss of family and networks, health status and prior work experience:

Informal support networks provided by family, friends and established communities were noted by SS providers as being valuable to successful settlement. Information provided via “word of mouth” was found to assist humanitarian migrants with a wide range of topics such as finding employment and housing, migration law and legal issues, finding out about schools for their children and how to use public transport. SS providers relied on partnerships with local community networks, such as religious and community leaders, ethno-specific organisations and established cultural support groups, for consultation, advocacy and community engagement and to ensure culturally appropriate care and support was provided.

SS providers noted potential negative impacts on English language acquisition and social integration for humanitarian migrants who remain in their same ethnic communities without mixing with other communities. This view illustrates the newly arrived humanitarian migrants' tendency to stay in the safety of “same ethnic groups” in the early stages of migration and the impact that has on English acquisition:

SS providers acknowledged the importance of preserving language and cultural traditions and identity of humanitarian migrants. SS providers recognised the need to tailor programs to reflect the cultural variability and diversity of cultural beliefs, norms and traditions within different communities and ethnic groups. Community groups were commonly auspiced by SS provider organisations to apply for grants for community cultural programs. One SS provider considered “cultural maintenance” as a key role of ethno-specific organisations:

SS providers worked in partnership with a broad range of stakeholders to hold events to promote cultural diversity, such as Harmony Day, Refugee Week, Diversity Week and to celebrate religious and ethno-specific days of significance. Importantly, SS providers utilised these opportunities to build social bridges between humanitarian migrant communities, other migrant communities and the wider community. SS providers reported on numerous issues and challenges faced by humanitarian migrant families and their communities during the social bridging process. SS providers noted the dilemma faced by humanitarian migrants experiencing feelings of being caught between wanting to “blend in” but not wanting to lose their cultural identity. SS providers agreed that older generations of humanitarian migrants faced more challenges when negotiating cultural differences:

SS providers acknowledged the different challenges faced by some humanitarian migrants when negotiating cultural adjustments triggered by changing traditional roles and dynamics in the family:

SS providers assisted humanitarian migrants to negotiate cultural adjustments by developing programs in partnership with a wide range of key stakeholders to provide information about available resources and services, family law and their legal rights. SS providers reported that humanitarian migrants were invited to attend education programs addressing culturally sensitive topics about mental, physical and sexual health issues, and were provided with information regarding Australian law and forced marriages, polygamy, female genital mutilation and divorce. Humanitarian migrants were referred to specialist mental health, domestic violence, family counselling and child protection services as needed. As a preventative strategy, information sessions were tailored by SS providers to address identified issues around parenting, alcoholism, gambling and to promote family harmony and healthy relationships.

SS providers considered providing support to humanitarian migrants to straddle both the old and new cultures as an important part of their role. In preparation for the social bridging process, SS providers reported the need to tailor programs to familiarise humanitarian migrants with western social norms and to address potential barriers to “fitting in” with the new environment. One SS provider offered this example:

SS providers also held regular programs for humanitarian migrants to learn about different aspects of Australian culture, history and law to assist with the social bridging process. Mixed group programs run in partnership with TAFE (Technical and Further Education) and local councils, such as citizenship training, English language classes, digital photography and horticultural courses, were designed to promote multiple factors such as language acquisition, skills development and to assist humanitarian migrants to build social bridges with other migrant communities.

SS providers supported humanitarian migrants to attend annual events, such as International Women's Day and local festivals, to help expand their social connections and sense of social inclusion by building social bridges with the wider community. Volunteering, bingo, community cafes and kitchens, sports and choir groups were also considered effective strategies to support humanitarian migrants to learn about and engage with local communities.

SS providers generally considered building a sense of belonging and social inclusion for humanitarian migrants as essential to avoiding mental health issues, separatism and social isolation. SS providers agreed that poor language proficiency negatively impacted all aspects of settlement and was the main barrier to developing social connections. SS providers reported that the case management model of SS provision was key to connecting humanitarian migrants with available information and services and promoted client's initial sense of belonging:

Other factors found to enable humanitarian migrants' initial sense of belonging was having an Australian passport, being employed and paying taxes, providing opportunities to connect with their own culture and the wider community and sporting programs.

A sense of social acceptance by the wider community was noted by SS providers as related to various contexts regarding instances of “cultural clash” or “cultural misunderstandings” around language proficiency and misinterpretations, wearing cultural dress and to certain cultural attitudes and behaviours. Instances of perceived discrimination and racism were reported as negatively impacting humanitarian migrant's sense of belonging and inclusion. One SS provider noted that even if humanitarian migrants were developing a sense of belonging, this was being undermined by constant questioning about “where they come from, where they were born, and why they are here”. Other responses related to the negative impact of wider community perceptions of humanitarian migrants were:

SS providers considered the multicultural environment of Australia, together with strong federal and state government multicultural policy, and the work of local government and other key stakeholders in promoting “social cohesion” as positive elements to addressing racism and discrimination in the wider community. However, negative narratives and stereotypes regarding humanitarian migrants and asylum seekers being promoted by mainstream media were “creating more rift in the community and creating that element of disengagement and the otherness” and was considered outside of the control of SS providers.

SS providers found the collaborative nature of the HSP and SETS program model effective in responding to both individual and community needs. As both programs apply an individualised case management approach, the coordination of internal and external referrals was considered by SS providers as integral to ensuring positive settlement outcomes. SS providers routinely linked humanitarian migrants to a suite of mainstream and specialist human and social services, to address the diverse and often complex needs of humanitarian migrants and their family members. “Warm” referrals were often provided, where the SS provider would accompany individuals “until they feel comfortable” to access services themselves.

In partnership with key stakeholders, SS providers delivered tailored programs to support humanitarian migrants to adjust to the different socio-cultural and service environments. A broad range of programs were delivered to assist humanitarian migrants' access to available employment, education, finance, housing, legal and health information, supports and services. SS providers also encouraged humanitarian migrants' social bridging by linking them with services and programs open to the wider community, such as community hubs, men's shed, women's friendship café, community lunches and activities at local libraries and leisure centres.

SS providers spoke of various challenges associated with the referral and partnership components of the model, such as navigating multiple complex service systems and different service models, and the lack of capacity of mainstream providers to understand and cater for the diverse needs of humanitarian migrants, as particularly problematic. One SS provider pointed out that the time and effort required to develop and maintain relationships with key partners was not adequately resourced or acknowledged by the funding body:

SS providers believed that the SS provision model placed too much emphasis on the “3 Es” when social integration, social networks and reducing isolation (i.e. social capital) were also critical factors to successful settlement.

One SS provider suggested that the outcomes-based delivery model both restricted and undervalued the importance of building social connections and networks:

This study presents evidence that highlights the essential role and significance of social capital in facilitating the successful integration of humanitarian migrants. The findings outline challenges and weaknesses in the service provision model, especially the emphasis on referral and partnerships grounded in the “3 Es” when in fact social integration is more critical. The findings also shed light on the outcome-based model that restricts and undervalues the work around building social capital. Nonetheless, despite such challenges and restrictions, the findings suggest that SS providers are proactive and play a central role in promoting the three basic forms of social capital (social bonds, bridges and links) for humanitarian migrants. Social bonding capital, achieved by connecting humanitarian migrants with same ethnic groups and informal networks, initially offered a sense of safety and familiarity. This connection helped them in dealing with various challenges related to resettlement. Through social bonding, humanitarian migrants gained access to culturally and linguistically accessible sources of information, resources and supports, which in turn established connections to employment and housing. Social bonding also played a role in preserving their language and cultural heritage, enhancing humanitarian migrants' sense of belonging and social inclusion. Moreover, it provided the foundation for the development of social bridging and linking.

The study's findings demonstrate that social bridging capital, as summarized in Table 1, emerges across four out of five themes. SS providers play a pivotal role in encouraging social bridging among humanitarian migrants, both with other migrant communities and the broader community, through targeted programs and cultural events. SS providers actively implemented a variety of strategies to support humanitarian migrants to bridge old and new social, cultural and service environments, thus enabling achievement of other key settlement outcomes, such as socio-cultural integration and English language proficiency.

Social linking capital, evident in all five themes, is promoted by SS providers through internal and external service referrals, ethno-specific networks and wider community collaborations. The case management approach of the SS program model effectively supports the resettlement and integration process by allowing SS providers to be responsive to addressing the often-complex needs of humanitarian migrants. The findings identified various challenges associated with the referral and partnership component of the model, exacerbated by the complexity of the service system and the lack of capacity of mainstream service providers to effectively address the diverse needs of humanitarian migrants.

This study highlights the important role SS providers play as specialist workers with the expertise and established networks needed to effectively promote social bonding, bridging and linking. In particular, social relationships and connections are considered a key determinant of successful resettlement as they significantly promote community integration (Fozdar and Hartley, 2013; Major et al., 2013). Social bonding is significant for humanitarian migrants to “re-establish disrupted familial networks and take advantage of “like-ethnic” ties to make connections to the host society” (Lamba and Krahn, 2003, p. 357). In a recent systematic review by Abood et al. (2021), social networks with family, friends and communities of new migrants were found to play an integral role in providing valuable information for navigating the new cultural and service environments. Social networks facilitate a variety of different types of support (including social, emotional, material, financial and cultural) and information provided through these social connections is likely to be the most important resource (Briozzo et al., 2024; Scrivens and Smith, 2013).

Challenges faced by humanitarian migrants during the settlement process can be attributed to their compatibility with the host culture. Groups that are more culturally different from the dominant Anglophone culture are more likely to face settlement challenges not experienced by other migrant groups (Major et al., 2013; Porter and Haslam, 2005). Importantly, negative attitudes, perceived discrimination and racism generated from the wider community can have negative impacts on humanitarian migrants' overall settlement outcomes, playing out across different domains of settlement such as economic stability, life and work satisfaction and in raising the next generation (Boese and Moran, 2023; Correa-Velez et al., 2015; Fozdar and Hartley, 2013; Heidinger, 2023). The likelihood of successful integration can be severely diminished if humanitarian migrant's sense of connection to place and personal wellbeing is lacking (Boese and Moran, 2023; Curry et al., 2017; Modesti and Talamo, 2021). The Federal Government's “Multicultural Statement” positions “shared Australian values” and building harmonious and socially cohesive communities as the cornerstone of Australian national unity (Australian Government, 2017). However, as Sharples and Colic-Peisker (2020) point out, “in policy articulations, social cohesion was too often interpreted as emphasising cultural cohesion” and that the process of social bridging is hampered by the “invisibility and a lack of engagement of the role of Anglo-Australians” (p. 14). This also implies that “national social cohesion is “migrants” problem, and therefore the burden and work of the migrant” (Sharples and Colic-Peisker, 2020, p. 14).

The study demonstrates the interdependencies and interrelationships between the three basic forms of social capital as being essential to achieving key settlement outcomes. Social bonding leads to social bridging and linking, with each form reinforcing the others. Social capital serves as a foundational catalyst for the integration process, aligning with the “3 Es” goals. As noted by Losoncz (2015), the Australian Government is not picking up on the systemic issue of this disconnect as current Australian settlement program policy is “dominated by a strong emphasis on “migrants” adopting their new country's cultural goals (such as economic participation and test for citizenship), without a corresponding emphasis on ensuring that there are effective means for humanitarian migrant groups to achieve these goals” (p. 65). Additionally, Walker et al. (2014) points out that although the Australian government provides a range of specialist SS for humanitarian migrants, these are typically designed from an Australian perspective and may not necessarily meet the needs of humanitarian migrants. The study underscores the need to acknowledge the multiple benefits of social capital for humanitarian migrants' successful integration, and hence, re-assess the positioning of social capital in settlement service policy.

This research study has several limitations to note. First, the study obtained data from organisations in the study locations funded to deliver the HSP and/or SETS program, therefore, the findings do not represent the viewpoints of referral services offering other related SS. Second, this study does not include an investigation of the views of humanitarian migrants accessing SS programs. Thus, more work on examining new migrants' experiences is needed. Finally, it was not specified which initiatives referred to by SS providers were delivered under the HSP or SETS programs, or from other funding sources.

The findings of this study provide important insights for researchers, policymakers and SS providers to better understand the dynamic relationship between the three basic forms of social capital and the many benefits for humanitarian migrants' successful integration. This study invites an opportunity to discuss and review the mechanisms of the current SS program provision model that either facilitate or impede the development of social capital. Humanitarian migrants' reported experiences of discrimination and racism require that targeted anti-discrimination initiatives for the wider community play an integral part of the settlement program. Additionally, the inclusion of programs that equip and empower humanitarian migrants to understand and address racism and discrimination would help to alleviate the negative impacts on individuals and communities. Finally, in recognition of the significant role that social capital plays in achieving key settlement outcomes, a broader discussion is needed concerning the positioning of social capital in SS policy. The interdependent and interrelated processes and mechanisms of social capital have important policy implications, yet they are poorly understood and require systematic research (Ager and Strang, 2008; Jackson et al., 2012; Modesti and Talamo, 2021; Strang and Ager, 2010).

Settlement programs and initiatives that empower humanitarian migrants to develop social capital through building social connections are important for their health and wellbeing, and to achieving other key settlement outcomes. Thus, promoting the development of social bonding, bridging and linking capital through SS provision is likely to be most effective in facilitating humanitarian migrants' successful integration.