Community Reintegration

examining whether or not individual counseling could be useful in promoting community reintegration through psychosocial adjustment.
In an RCT in Uganda, Ertl and colleagues (2011) found that groups exposed to short-term, narrative-based trauma therapy experienced a greater reduction in PTSD symptoms than groups in academic catch-up programs, or on the waitlist, in as few as eight sessions. These results are corroborated by findings from an RTC in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in which a similar narrative-based treatment was used specifically for ex-combatants (Hermenau, Hecker, Schaal, Maedl, & Elbert, 2013). Hermenau and colleagues (2013) found that those who participated in the therapy showed reduced PTSD symptoms, as well as reduced contact with current combatants, which may promote community reintegration by reducing the likelihood that the child will return to the armed forces. Overall, these two studies suggest that individual

psychosocial interventions could be significantly reduced psychosocial distress, which could indirectly promote community reintegration by helping the child feel more secure in their community.
Use of Transitional Interim Care Centers
For children who have recently been demobilized, Interim Care Centers (ICCs) offer a safe place to receive medical treatment, await the location of their families, and to begin to readapt to their identities as children, without the threat of re-recruitment form armed forces (Hill & Langholtz, 2011). The services provided by ICCs vary based on location and funding; while some centers may only address the basic needs of the children and provide basic recreational activities, other centers may have trauma counseling, theatre programs, or creative workshops (Hill & Langholtz, 2011). ICCs may also vary in terms of the safety they provide; in some centers, girls report experiences of sexual harassment, which may be especially psychosocially toxic given that many girls in these centers were victims of sexual victimization within the armed forces (Williamson, 2006). Additionally, ICCs often only take in combatants, which is determined by a child’s displayed familiarity with weapons, as these children are often at higher risk for poor psychosocial outcomes or community rejection, which denies treatment to children who may have experience trauma through non-combatant forms (Williamson, 2006).
A lack of direct comparison between the outcomes of children who receive care at ICCs and children who immediately reintegrate into their families does not allow for conclusions to be made concerning whether ICCs are promote community reintegration more effectively than alternative post-conflict options. While results from post-conflict practices in Angola, where no support was given to child soldiers returning from the armed forces and a majority of children re-enlisted, suggest that some form of support is needed (Williamson, 2006), it is unclear that ICCs themselves are what promote reintegration. Rather, it is possible that community sensitization or creative workshops may promote reintegration regardless of whether a child is in an ICC or not; however, since these services and ICC care are often delivered in concordance, it is not yet known which services are more or less effective in promoting reintegration (Macarten & Weinstein, 2007).
Discussion
Overall, more research is needed in order to identify the best practices for promoting community reintegration for former child soldiers. While it is clear that components such as family and community acceptance (Betancourt et al., 2012), access to educational and vocational programs (Betancourt et al., 2012; Hill & Langholtz, 2011), and traditional cleansing rituals (Granjo, 2007; Schutlz, 2015) play a role in promoting successful reintegration, more in-depth research is needed to address the complex factors that may mediate the effect of these components. For example, much of the available research lacks direct comparisons between groups that may be at differential risks, such as abducted soldiers vs. soldiers who voluntarily joined, males vs. females, or children who have enlisted multiple times vs. children returning from their first enlistment. Without direct comparisons, it is difficult to understand to whether the different outcomes between groups are due solely to group membership, or whether previously observed differences in outcomes are confounded by differences in study designs or in the context in which the study took place.
The limited amount of research regarding interventions and ICCs also limits the extent to which current practices used by DDR programs to reintegrate children can be validated. While many children receive care at ICCs (Macarten & Weinstein, 2007; Williamson, 2006), it is unclear how effective ICCs are in the reintegration process for former soldiers, or what specific services provided by ICCs are more or less effective than others. This is concerning given that a substantial amount of international aid goes to funding these centers (Hill & Langholtz, 2011)—funding that could be used be better used in other capacities if ICCs are found to be ineffective. Additionally, it is concerning that ICCs are sometimes inaccessible to non-combatant soldiers, as this represents a disparity in the level of aid provided to children returning from armed forces, even though a vast majority of these children will experience psychosocial impairments (Betancourt et al., 2012).
Finally, it is important to take into consideration that the current research on community reintegration is often informed by western views, which may not accurately reflect the needs and values of the communities being studied.

For example, research on western-based individual interventions is expanding despite results that indicate that culturally situated interventions, like cleansing rituals, are just as effective (Schultz, 2015) and feedback from people native to the areas who state that the communities would rather focus on group or community-based interventions (Betancourt et al., 2012). This paper does not escape this criticism, as the guidelines used to examine community reintegration practices were developed by a USAID, which is an agency within the United States government (Williamson, 2006). The creation of guidelines informed by the countries carrying out these practices would be an important step in ensuring that the needs and values of these countries are being met, without the prescription of western

values.
Recommendations
This review of the existing research on factors and practices that promote community reintegration has clear implications for future researchers and policy makers. In terms of research, it is clear that researchers need to implement more integrative study designs that will directly test between-group differences in reintegration outcomes and identify best practices for promoting reintegration. Examining the differences between groups, such as those who were abducted and those who joined voluntarily, can identify whether these groups benefit differentially from these practices and, if so, which practices work best for which groups. Additionally, research comparing that independently compares the efficacy of each of the services provided in the reintegration process, such as community sensitization or creative workshops (Hill & Langholtz, 2011), can identify which services benefit most former soldiers and which services should be reformed or dropped. These findings could be used to inform the policy makers who determine which services will provided and who they will be provided to, in an effort to ensure that these policies are based on best practices. The recommendations should be carried out in a way that is culturally responsive to the values and needs of the populations being evaluated or served.