The description of the results in the abstract is very general. It requires reworking to present a true description of the research findings.
In several lines the abbreviations e.g., and etc., which have the same meaning, are used together "(e.g., school days, learning, social connections, sports, arts, and celebrations)". Use only one of the two on the same line. The abbreviations i.e. and etc. "(I.e., personnel, postsecondary relationships, etc.)", which is contradictory in that i.e. it is used for exhaustive lists of elements, and no other possible ones (etc.) would fit.

A research question, research objectives, or assumptions are not explicitly presented. These elements would offer a better guide to interpret the results.

The procedures for the categorization and analysis of the information collected are not described.

Explain all abbreviations, for example Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

The content of the informed consent is not explained. I consider it necessary to provide a brief description of this measure for the ethical care of those who participated.

The results are described for organizations in general. The diversity of the sample of organizations suggests that not all organizations experienced exactly the same problems during the pandemic, and it would be valuable to identify some context variables that highlight these differences. Exceptions are only mentioned in some cases, but these lack context regarding the characteristics of these organizations. For example, "For some of these organizations, devising new programming to address developing needs was both desirable and feasible." Considering the great diversity of organizations in the sample, it would be valuable if the analysis was more in-depth and identified possible effects of the differences between the organizations on the challenges they faced.

In the discussion, a justification for the study is offered, its objective is reiterated and the importance of learning from the efforts of the CAS in the face of the challenges of COVID-19 is mentioned, but the results are not discussed, their relevance is not elaborated, the main challenges or strategies or the differences between the different CAS, nor are elements of the theoretical framework rescued to contrast them with the results. This section needs to be re elaborated.

All observations were satisfactorily addressed. I think it is ready for publication.