In cooperation with: Migration to Germany under Paragraph 22.2: Integration and Socio-Political Engagement (Research Report) Research Team: Tatiana Kasimova – MA in Sociology, researcher with the “Horizons” team Vladimir Kozlov – PhD in Economics, specialist in statistical data analysis Alexander Kukalev – PhD in Biology, systems biology and data science expert Ekaterina Goriachenko – PhD in Philosophy, expert in the humanities September 2024 – March 2025 Сontents Introduction This study was initiated by Horizons. Exilhilfe , a civil organization that supports Russian socio-political activists with oppositional and anti-war views in applying for humanitarian visas to Germany and France. The research was conducted in collaboration with the “Academic Bridges” project – a team of Russian scholars with anti-war stances. The objective of the study is to develop a descriptive profile of Russian holders of humanitarian visas issued under Paragraph 22.2, to identify patterns of adaptation and integration in Germany, and to assess levels of civic and political engagement – both within Germany and with respect to Russia and fellow Russians. In August 2024, a research team of four people was formed, the goals and objectives of the study were defined, and a pilot version of the questionnaire was prepared, taking into account expert evaluations from the leadership of the organization Horizons. Exilhilfe, as well as through participant observation of discussions in chats of humanitarian visa holders under paragraph 22.2. The questionnaire was transferred to the Google Forms service and tested on 20 respondents selected based on various characteristics (socio-demographic factors, region of residence in Germany, socio-political status of the respondent, etc.). Respondents were asked about the clarity of the questions and answer options in the questionnaire, and their comments and suggestions were collected. Based on the results of the pilot, the questionnaire was revised. The questionnaire consists of 46 questions, including one open-ended question and the possibility to provide detailed answers in several other questions. Sampling and Data Collection Strategy In October 2024, the survey was launched. Data collection was carried out by distributing the questionnaire in various online chats and channels within the community of humanitarian visa holders under Paragraph 22.2. This included both general forums and more specialized groups — such as chats for humanitarian visa holders who are deputies, employment-focused chats, and regional groups by federal state or city. Additionally, the Horizons. Exilhilfe team conducted preliminary negotiations with several other organizations involved in supporting humanitarian visa applicants and recipients (e.g., Solidarus, Quarteera e.V., among others) to arrange for the dissemination of the questionnaire through their respective communication channels. Overall, the research received a positive response from both these organizations and the broader community of humanitarian visa holders. A total of 341 responses were collected, and after approximately six weeks, the data collection phase was officially concluded. Given that the estimated target population consists of approximately 3,000 individuals (including minor family members), the number of responses was deemed sufficient for conducting meaningful analysis. Prior to analysis, several in-depth meetings were held by the research team — together with project leaders from Horizons. Exilhilfe — to develop a data analysis plan. As a result of these discussions, in addition to a descriptive presentation of the findings, eight detailed hypotheses were formulated for further examination. A data cleaning process was then carried out: responses from individuals who indicated that they had not received a humanitarian visa and/or had not yet arrived in Germany were excluded, along with responses from participants under the age of 18 and duplicate submissions. The final dataset comprised 336 valid responses. Since it was decided that data analysis would be conducted using Stata software, the dataset was prepared accordingly. This included coding the responses, particularly standardizing and encoding “Other” answers (some of which were reassigned to existing categories), as well as converting most multiple-choice questions into binary variables (e.g., 8 answer choices were transformed into 8 separate variables). Coding was performed manually where necessary and subsequently verified for accuracy. Literature Review In developing the questionnaire and formulating hypotheses, we drew on prior research conducted by scholars focused on migration issues. The study most closely aligned with our own is the 2023 report by the human rights and research association Solidarus e.V., titled "Russian Civil Society in Germany: Challenges of Integration". The report aimed to provide an overview of humanitarian visa holders, as well as individuals with freelance and work-related visas. Notably, many of the challenges identified in their survey of humanitarian visa recipients closely mirror the findings of our own questionnaire. Jan Cersche’s 2024 study presents data on the social situation of Ukrainian refugees in Germany. Based on a large-scale survey, the research offers various conclusions and average assessments of integration program effectiveness. One notable finding is that Ukrainian men tend to encounter greater integration difficulties than women. Key barriers include limited access to employment programs and language courses, as well as challenges in the recognition of qualifications. The study by Kosyakova & Laible (2024) demonstrates that personal characteristics play a significant role in language acquisition in the host country. Traits such as openness to experience, emotional stability, and conscientiousness are positively correlated with progress in learning German among refugees—underscoring the need for individualized approaches in integration programs. A series of studies by researchers from the OutRush project (see publications by Kamalov, Sergeeva, Zavadskaya, & Kostenko, 2023) analyze the experiences of Russian migrants who left the country after the onset of the full-scale war. One of the reviews (Sergeeva & Kamalov, 2024) shows that despite relative progress in resettlement, migrants continue to face institutional barriers, document-related issues, language difficulties, and employment challenges. The study “Invisible Costs of Exiting Autocracy” (Sergeeva & Kamalov, 2025) focuses on the subjective well-being, emotional burnout, and sense of loss experienced by Russians who have left the country. The authors report high levels of anxiety and depression, especially among those who fled hastily and without support networks. The publication “Far from Home” (Ruseishvili, Sergeeva & Kamalov, 2024) addresses sociological methodology in the context of diaspora and regional dispersion, particularly using the example of migration to Latin America. The study "Brain Drain from Russia After February 24th, 2022" (Korobkov et al., 2022) emphasizes the mass exodus of talent, particularly from the academic and IT sectors. The authors document a significant decline in Russia's scientific and technological potential. Finally, the research by Lidén and Nyhlén (2022) highlights differences in migration policy at the municipal and regional levels. This is particularly relevant when analyzing integration strategies in different countries — including Germany and Sweden — where policy approaches may vary significantly depending on the state or municipality. Descriptive Statistics Key Characteristics of Humanitarian Visa Holders A total of 336 questionnaires were processed, of which 80.36% were completed by principal applicants for humanitarian visas and 19.64% by adult family members. According to the collected data, 63.9% of all respondents arrived in Germany not alone but accompanied by a partner and/or children. This resulted in a slight overrepresentation of principal applicants, which can be attributed to their higher levels of activity, motivation, and engagement in humanitarian visa holders’ chat groups. The gender distribution of respondents reflects a generally natural balance, with a slight increase in the representation of non-binary individuals: 42.26% identified as women, 53.87% as men, and 3.87% as non-binary. The data also indicate that most respondents are relatively young and of working age (see Figure 1). The average age of respondents is approximately 36.7 years (for comparison, the average age in Russia is about 40 years, and in Germany, around 44 years). Figure 1. Age distribution of respondents Survey data reveal a high level of education among humanitarian visa applicants and their family members: 63.99% of respondents hold a university degree or an academic qualification (including ongoing postgraduate studies), while an additional 16.96% have incomplete higher education. Notably, 11.3% of respondents are under 25 years of age — many of whom have either not yet begun or not completed their professional education. The presence of minor children is a significant factor influencing adaptation and integration, making this parameter particularly important for the study. According to the data, 28.2% of respondents arrived with minor children. Among them (multiple answers were possible), 31.5% have preschool-aged children, 73.6% report that their children attend public schools in Germany with instruction in German (3.1% of these also receive instruction in other languages), and 9.4% have children preparing to enter school. One of the factors complicating relocation and integration is the presence of pets. It was found that approximately one-fifth (22.32%) of respondents arrived in Germany with domestic animals. The duration of stay in the host country plays a crucial role in adaptation and integration. At the time of the survey, 35.71% of respondents had been living in Germany for over 1.5 years, 38.98% for between six months and 1.5 years, and 25.3% for one to six months. The majority of respondents currently reside in North Rhine-Westphalia (21.13%), Bavaria (13.69%), Lower Saxony and Baden-Württemberg (8.93% each). Only 26.1% of respondents live in the federal states of the former East Germany (GDR). This distribution appears to broadly reflect the actual geographic settlement of Russian nationals accepted into Germany under Paragraph 22.2 (see Figure 2; numerical data available in Appendix, Table 1). Figure 2. Distribution of respondents by federal states of Germany Reasons, Conditions, and Process of Obtaining Humanitarian Visas Respondents most frequently received their humanitarian visas in four countries: Georgia (31.25%), Russia (28.87%), Turkey (10.71%), and Armenia (9.23%). Table 1 displays the waiting time for a visa after contacting the consulate, while Table 2 reflects respondents’ levels of satisfaction with consular interactions during the visa process. The average satisfaction score was approximately 4.35 out of 5. Table 1. Waiting time for visa after contacting the Consulate Waiting Time Percentage Less than 1 month 62.5% 1–2 months 21.7% 2–3 months 10.11% More than 3 months 4.4% Table 2. Respondents’ satisfaction with Consular interaction Satisfaction Score (1–5) Percentage 1 2.68% 2 3.87% 3 9.82% 4 23.51% 5 60.12% Regarding professional activities that served as the basis for departure from Russia and the application for humanitarian visas (see Table 3), the distribution is as follows: ● 50.89% identified as politicians or political activists, ● 26.78% as employees of NGOs or civil society organizations, ● 15.47% as journalists, ● 14.58% as LGBTQ+ community members, ● 13.39% as anti-war cultural figures. Table 3. Activities in Russia which were the reasons for departure (Multiple Responses Allowed) Area of Activity Percentage Politician, political activist 50.89% NGO or civil society employee 26.79% Family member of primary applicant 18.15% Journalist 15.48% LGBTQ+ community member 14.58% Anti-war cultural figure 13.39% Scientist or researcher at risk 3.87% In terms of employment sectors in Russia, the most common were: culture (25%), PR/marketing/media (22.91%), nonprofit organizations (22.32%), IT (19.64%), and education/science (19.35%). Full details are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Occupation (by Sectors) in Russia (Multiple Responses Allowed) Sector Percentage Culture / Arts / Leisure 25.00% Nonprofit Organizations 22.32% PR / Marketing / Media 22.91% IT / Internet / Telecommunications 19.64% Education / Science 19.35% Trade 7.74% Law 7.14% Civil/Municipal Service 6.85% Unemployed / Student / Retired / Homemaker 6.25% Manufacturing 5.65% Real Estate / Construction / Housing 5.06% Banking / Insurance / Finance 4.76% Transport / Logistics 3.87% Medicine 3.57% Energy / Automotive Industry 1.19% Agriculture 1.19% Tourism 1.19% Law Enforcement 0.30% Sports 0.30% Geographically, 37.2% of respondents previously lived in Moscow (plus 3.27% in the Moscow region), and 24.11% in St. Petersburg (plus 0.89% in the Leningrad region). The remaining 34.52% came from other regions. Notably, 77.68% of respondents had lived in cities with populations of over 1 million before their departure. Regarding travel documents, 60.11% of respondents had Russian international passports valid for up to 10 years, 23.21% for up to 5 years, and 6.84% for up to 2 years. An additional 9.82% selected "other," which included individuals with temporary passports or passports expiring sooner. A significant majority — 81.84% — received their humanitarian visas with support from organizations whose activities include assistance with visa documentation, applicant support, and engagement with the German Foreign Ministry. These organizations included InTransit , Horizons , Quarteera , EQUAL PostOst , Solidarus , Reporters Without Borders , and NxT . A further 8.92% received assistance from other organizations, while 9.22% applied independently. Internal Mobility of Humanitarian Visa Holders Within Germany It is noteworthy that 30.06% of respondents relocated from their initial place of allocation. Among them, 22.92% moved to a different municipality within the same federal state, while 7.14% moved to a different federal state altogether (for further details, see Appendix, Table 2). It is important to emphasize that changing regions for humanitarian visa holders is a non-trivial task — such moves are generally only permitted when an individual secures employment or enrolls in a university in another region. Interestingly, the intensity of migration — both within and between regions — varies significantly. Respondents who were initially allocated to Schleswig-Holstein (90%), Thuringia (69.23%), and Lower Saxony (54.55%) had the highest relative rates of relocation. This may be partly attributed to the presence of initial reception centers in these regions. For instance, a respondent may have been placed in a reception facility in one locality and later moved to a dormitory in another. At the other end of the spectrum is North Rhine-Westphalia, with only 4.35% of respondents reporting relocation (1.45% moved to a different region, and 2.9% moved within the same state). Despite being the most populous federal state — and the one with the highest number of respondents — relocation rates remain low. This could be due to the practice of assigning humanitarian visa holders to a specific Kreis (administrative district), rather than to the state at large, limiting their ability to change residence freely. Appendix Table 2 shows the share of individuals who changed their initial location of residence relative to the total number of humanitarian visa holders in that federal state. Figure 3 illustrates that, in the vast majority of cases, relocations occurred within the same state. This pattern is particularly evident in states such as Thuringia and Baden-Württemberg. Berlin stands out as a clear exception: it is not an initial allocation destination, yet it attracts individuals from a wide range of other federal states, primarily due to educational or employment opportunities. Other notable cases include Bremen, Hesse, Saxony-Anhalt, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which have the highest relative rates of outmigration. Figure 3. Migration Dynamics of Humanitarian Visa Holders This chart includes only those who changed their initial place of residence. The most common reasons for relocation (multiple responses were allowed) were following. Finding housing in another locality (35.64%), and official redistribution to another location (28.71%) — for example, being moved from a reception camp to a dormitory or social housing. Only 9.9% of respondents cited employment as the reason for relocation, which likely reflects the extended period of adjustment required when settling into life in a new country. Living Conditions Our respondents currently reside in localities of varying population sizes across Germany (see Table 5): ● 47.92% live in municipalities with a population of 100,000 or more, ● 52.08% reside in towns with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants. It is important to note that 77.68% of respondents lived in Russian cities with populations over one million prior to emigration. In contrast, fewer than 15% now live in cities of comparable size in Germany. This discrepancy may contribute to additional adaptation challenges. Table 5. Distribution of Respondents by Population Size of German Cities Population Size Number Percentage (%) Over 1 million 48 14.29% 500,000–1 million 83 24.70% 100,000–500,000 30 8.93% 50,000–100,000 79 23.51% 10,000–50,000 46 13.69% Under 10,000 50 14.88% Total 336 100% Housing conditions play a crucial role in the initial stages of adaptation. According to the data: ● 60.12% of respondents live in private apartments, ● 28.57% reside in initial reception accommodations (such as shared housing or social apartments), ● 4.46% still live in reception camps. Furthermore, 57.14% of respondents have signed long-term rental contracts for their accommodation. Figure 6. Conditions of Initial Accommodation Regarding living conditions in initial accommodation settings, respondents were able to select one or more types of housing they had experienced — such as camps, dormitories/social apartments, or other temporary facilities — reflecting either past or current residence at the time of the survey (multiple responses were allowed). The general findings are summarized in Figure 6: ● 79.7% of respondents had access to shared laundry facilities. ● 72.3% had a private room for themselves or their family, while 20.3% shared a room with others. ● Only 24.8% had a private kitchen, while 55.8% shared one. ● 38.7% had a private bathroom, compared to 59.7% who used a shared bathroom. ● 24.2% indicated that they had access to a communal dining room with scheduled meals, which allows us to estimate the approximate share of humanitarian visa holders who were placed in a camp, even though a direct question about camp residence was not included. Satisfaction with Living Conditions In general, respondents reported a relatively high level of satisfaction with their housing situation. Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied). The average satisfaction score was 3.96 out of 5. Table 7. Satisfaction with Housing Conditions Satisfaction Level Percentage 1 (Very dissatisfied) 3.27% 2 7.44% 3 15.48% 4 37.20% Satisfaction Level Percentage 5 (Very satisfied) 36.61% Respondents also rated their satisfaction with medical services using the same 5-point scale. The average rating was 3.41, indicating lower satisfaction compared to housing. It is worth noting that many respondents had not yet encountered serious medical needs during their time in Germany, which may limit the depth of these assessments. Table 8. Satisfaction with Medical Services Satisfaction Level Percentage 1 (Very dissatisfied) 7.74% 2 8.63% 3 34.23% 4 33.33% 5 (Very satisfied) 16.07% German Language Acquisition and Aspiration for Education in Germany Regarding the desire to pursue or continue higher education in Europe, we obtained interesting data: 25.6% of respondents are preparing to apply for higher education institutions or exploring this possibility, 3.88% have already enrolled and are studying, and 1.79% plan to pursue an Ausbildung (vocational training). A total of 64.47% have no plans to pursue or continue higher education in Europe at the moment. Overall, these results suggest a high level of interest among respondents in education and building a scientific career. Figure 5 shows the dynamics of German language acquisition. The largest group, “Had not studied German before moving to Germany,” comprised 67.8% of respondents at the time they received their visa. However, by the time the survey was completed, only 12.8% remained at the same level, which is comparable to the number of individuals who know German at a B2 level. Before moving to Germany, only 6.5% had knowledge of German at B1 level or higher. At the time of the survey, 40.47% of respondents had B1 level or higher knowledge of German (and 79.4% of them had their language proficiency confirmed with certificates). Currently, for the majority of immigrant categories, mandatory language courses are provided, with 70.23% of respondents attending or having attended such courses. Figure 5 illustrates the dynamics of German language acquisition. Figure 5: Dynamics of German Language Acquisition among Humanitarian Visa Holders Employment, Social Support, and Financial Security of Humanitarian Visa Holders At the early stages of integration, individuals arriving in Germany have the opportunity to focus on resolving daily issues and learning the language. German authorities have developed a multifaceted support system for holders of humanitarian visas. According to the data, 70.54% of respondents are not employed and receive benefits and other allowances, 14.29% work and receive partial benefits, and 8.04% work without receiving benefits or allowances. An additional 7.14% selected the option "I do not work and do not receive benefits or allowances," which in most cases is explained by their recent arrival in Germany. The process of obtaining documents that allow them to stay in Germany and receive benefits and allowances is an important task that must be solved in the first few months after arrival. The process of registering for a residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis) after arriving in Germany took 4.76% of respondents less than 1 month, 21.42% from 1 to 2 months, 30.35% from 2 to 3 months, 27.38% from 3 months to half a year, and 3.57% took more than 6 months. Regarding the receipt of benefits, 34.52% were able to complete the process within 1 month, 31.84% within 1-2 months, 14.88% within 2-3 months, and only 6.54% took more than 3 months to receive benefits. When asked about the location of their employer, 72.75% of respondents selected "I do not work," 10.48% reported their employer is located in Germany, 3.59% in another EU country, 1.8% in Russia, 3.89% in another country, and 3.59% are self-employed or freelancers. In addition to official unemployment benefits and other social benefits, respondents receive various forms of support. The most common types of assistance are (Appendix, Figure 1): ● Targeted assistance from the Jobcenter (such as allowances or vouchers for purchasing furniture) - 38.3%, ● Access to social stores like Tafel - 26.3%, ● Regional or city-specific documents providing additional benefits (e.g., "Hessen-pass," "Nürnberg-pass") - 26.3%, ● Services from social workers - 47.0%. Table 9: Distribution of Free Monthly Income (After paying Rent, Utilities, Insurance, and Taxes) Amount Number of Respondents Percentage (%) Less than 600 euros 281 83.63% 601 - 1000 euros 31 9.23% 1001 - 1500 euros 11 3.27% 1501 - 2000 euros 8 2.38% 2001 - 3000 euros 2 0.6% More than 3000 euros 3 0.89% Total 336 100% Political Activity of Respondents The survey revealed a relatively high level of political activity among respondents (Appendix, Table 3). Specifically, 62.5% of the total respondents have attended or are currently attending public (offline) socio-political events in Germany. The most frequent political activities included attending protests and marches (79.04%), meeting with like-minded individuals (e.g., within an organization or initiative group) (67.14%), and participating in memorial events (such as those commemorating victims of political repression) (55.71%). Interestingly, 50% of respondents attended meetings with non-German politicians and public figures, while only 27.14% attended meetings with German politicians. The frequency of attending public events is shown in Table 10. Table 10: Frequency of Attending Public Events Frequency Percentage (%) Do not attend 37.5% Once a year 7.2% 2-4 times a year 26.3% 5-10 times a year 17.3% More than 11 times a year 9.6% Note: The frequency of attendance does not account for the length of time the respondents have been in Germany. It is interesting to note that, among politically active respondents, 56.54% attended events related to issues in post-Soviet countries, while only 32.14% attended events focused on German or global politics. Furthermore, 55.68% of all respondents continue to engage in socio-political activities aimed at supporting Russia and its citizens. Among them: ● 56.14% are volunteers or members of relevant socio-political organizations, ● 9.6% are officially employed in such organizations, ● 37.43% are developing their own projects, ● 36.55% are providing consultation services to fellow Russians. It is important to note that this question allowed for multiple answers, so some respondents may have been included in several categories. Open Question: Problems, Difficulties, and Needs of Respondents In response to the open-ended question, respondents shared their experiences regarding difficulties and problems related to life in Germany, as well as their current needs. The most frequently mentioned challenges were related to bureaucracy , housing , and lack of German language skills Bureaucracy and Communication with Official Institutions Bureaucratic issues and problems communicating with German official institutions were mentioned by 19.6% of respondents. Typical statements include: "The process of obtaining documents took longer than expected, but shorter than for many others — 3 months." "There was a problem between agencies. One agency required a document that another refused to issue because the visa was still valid. Because of that, we couldn’t receive benefits." "The Jobcenter provides absolutely no help with diploma recognition or finding a job in one’s field. They either don’t respond to emails or take forever to reply." "Everything is extremely slow. But bureaucrats still often make mistakes in important documents." "Pointless bureaucracy. Long wait times everywhere." "The document processing took a long time." "There were difficulties in communication with government employees." Problems with Finding and Renting “Permanent” Housing Concerns about the search for permanent housing were reported by 16.4% of respondents. They wrote: "It’s impossible to rent a private apartment for one person." "Housing search in a major city is still unresolved." "Unable to find housing that meets Jobcenter standards." "I couldn’t find a place, so I left to study in another European country." "The housing search was very difficult, but we were lucky — a private landlord chose us from among all the applicants when we had nearly lost hope." "It’s quite hard to move out of temporary accommodation. We still haven’t managed. In our small town, apartments rarely come up — they’re either too expensive, completely empty, or require a huge deposit." "And housing, of course, is a separate major headache." Challenges with Learning the German Language and the Urgent Need for It 19.3% of respondents mentioned the difficulty of learning German and the strong need to know it. They said: "A very high level of German is required." "The main difficulty is the language. Neither my husband nor I studied German before coming to Germany." "The main challenge is the language barrier. My German is weak — I can get around, go to shops, handle the simplest conversations, but that’s it." "There are difficulties with communication due to insufficient language skills." "The main issue was the language. It would have been helpful to have at least some basic conversational German before arriving, to reduce the number of difficult situations." "The language barrier is the main difficulty. All other challenges and misunderstandings stem from it." "We failed to arrange a regular medical check-up due to a limited vocabulary." Information about all reported difficulties, problems, and needs is provided in Table 11 Table 11. Difficulties, Problems, and Needs (Open-ended Question) Difficulties, Problems, and Needs Percentage (%) Bureaucracy, issues in communication with German official institutions 19.6 Need for German language proficiency 19.3 Problems finding and renting "permanent" housing 16.4 Issues with health insurance and medical services 9.2 Employment problems, job search, registering as self-employed 8.0 Everyday and communication difficulties in initial accommodation location 7.1 Negative effects of initial placement and residence assignment 5.0 Loneliness, lack of social interaction 4.5 Psychological issues 4.1 Financial difficulties 4.1 Problems with language courses 3.6 Issues with social workers 3.2 Need for consultations 2.1 Problems with children’s education 1.8 Other problems 17.3 Note: 20.5% of respondents indicated that they had overcome their difficulties. Main Statistical Hypotheses In addition to descriptive statistics, the study proposed several hypotheses: Socio-Political Activity We hypothesized that there is a difference between respondents’ socio-political activity related to German and international politics (question: “Have you participated / are you participating in any public (offline) socio-political actions or events taking place in Germany?” ) and activity directed toward Russia (question: “Are you currently engaged in any socio-political activities aimed at Russia or Russians (remaining inside the country)?” ), as well as between primary humanitarian visa applicants and their family members. Furthermore, we assumed that this activity is influenced by other factors (e.g., region and size of the settlement). To test these hypotheses, we used regression equations (logistic regressions), where the dependent variable was whether the respondent participated in events (1 – participated, 0 – did not), and the independent variables were the relevant questions or control variables. We found (see Appendix, Table 4) that political activity in Germany is statistically higher among primary applicants than among family members, but when personal characteristics (gender and age) are taken into account, the differences become insignificant. There are no large differences between federal states, except for Berlin, which shows the highest activity; overall, possibly due to Berlin, activity is higher in Eastern Germany. Additionally, respondents in large cities — especially those with over 1 million residents — tend to be more active. However, the statistically significant effect of living in a million-plus city on socio-political activity only holds in models that control for sociodemographic status (gender, age, education, presence of children) and prior residence in Russia. When controlling for the respondent's region of residence in Germany and duration of stay, this significance disappears. Interest and participation in German political life increase with the duration of residence in Germany. Education level also increases political activity, but when regional distribution is accounted for, its significance disappears. However, respondents with children are at least twice as likely to be less involved in political life in Germany — and nearly three times less likely when the length of residence is considered. Regarding socio-political activity directed toward Russia (see Appendix, Table 5), regression analysis shows that the duration of stay in Germany is a critical factor in predicting this type of activity. After 12 months in Germany, such activity drops by a factor of five compared to newly arrived respondents and remains low thereafter. However, individuals active in socio-political life in Germany are usually also active in initiatives aimed at Russia. Even when controlling for region of residence, population size of the settlement, gender, age, and education, there is still a notable difference: the probability that a respondent interested in German politics is also active in Russia-related initiatives is six times higher than for those uninterested. Primary applicants are more than four times as active as their family members (after controlling for the variables above). Socio-political activity in Germany does not replace activity directed toward Russia — those who are active in German public life tend to also remain active in Russian-focused efforts. This may be explained by the fact that many events in Germany attended by respondents are somehow related to the situation in post-Soviet countries (e.g., anti-war protests). Interest in German politics and public life grows naturally with longer residence, while activity directed at Russia declines sharply over time and, if not actively supported, may eventually disappear altogether. Hypotheses on Regional and Settlement Size Differences We assumed that we would be able to identify statistically significant differences among respondents living in different regions and cities of varying population sizes with regard to integration indicators such as: employment status, possession of a long-term rental contract, satisfaction with housing conditions, participation in public socio-political (offline) activities, and so on. To test these assumptions, we used both logistic regression models (e.g., for employment and long-term rental contracts, where the dependent variable is binary — 1 or 0) and linear regression models (e.g., for satisfaction with housing or healthcare). By Region Due to the limited number of observations per region, it is difficult to draw robust conclusions about regional differences. However, some general patterns can still be noted: ● Employment: The best place to find a job is Berlin. It’s worth noting that Berlin was practically closed for primary distribution (initial assignment of humanitarian visa holders), so most respondents moved there on their own — typically only possible if one has a job or is enrolled in education. ● Long-Term Rental Contracts: The highest rate of secured housing contracts is in Eastern Germany, especially in Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. ● Satisfaction with Healthcare: Fairly even across regions, though slightly lower in Thuringia and Berlin. ● Satisfaction with Housing Conditions: Significantly lower in Thuringia and Rhineland-Palatinate. ● Offline Socio-Political Activity: Lowest in Bremen, Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Rhineland-Palatinate. Highest in Berlin and cities with a population over 1 million. See Appendix, Table 2, for descriptive statistics on changes of residence. By Settlement Size ● Socio-Political Activity: Generally higher in larger cities, though statistical significance is not consistent across models. ● Living Conditions (Housing, Healthcare): Best in cities with a population of 100,000 to 1 million, particularly 500,000–1 million. ● Language Learning and Proficiency: Most favorable in cities with 100,000–500,000 people. ● Employment: Higher probability of having any job (including those allowing partial or full exit from welfare support) in cities with 1 million+ residents. ● Long-Term Rental Contracts: More likely in all settlement sizes except in the smallest towns (<10,000) and largest cities (>1 million). Hypothesis: Children as a Factor in Integration We hypothesized that having children significantly affects a respondent’s motivation to find private housing (via a long-term rental contract), to learn German, and to seek employment. ● Result: Having children does increase the likelihood of securing a housing contract (logical, as communal housing may be acceptable for singles but not for families). However, it does not affect employment or language proficiency (even certified). Moreover, as noted earlier, having a child in the household significantly reduces the likelihood of socio-political activity in Germany (see Appendix, Table 4). Hypothesis: Impact of German Language Proficiency on Integration We assumed that: ● High German language proficiency before arrival would positively influence employment; ● High proficiency overall (including after arrival) would also improve chances of getting a job. ● Findings: B1 level or higher before arriving increases the probability of employment and earning income. Post-arrival language proficiency (when accounting for duration of stay) does not significantly affect employment, although those with at least B1 tend to have better-paid jobs. If language proficiency is certified, the effect strengthens. Thus, language proficiency is important for labor market integration, particularly if acquired before migration. However, it does not influence socio-political activity (in Germany or related to Russia), nor the mere fact of having employment, once the duration of stay is considered. Hypotheses: Education, Previous Occupation, and Labor Market Integration We expected a relationship between respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics (especially age and education) and their employment status in Germany, as well as the sector they previously worked in. ● Findings: o Younger age and higher education increase the likelihood of employment and income (even when adjusting for length of stay). o However, when region and city size are included in the model, the effect of education disappears, while the effect of age weakens but remains statistically significant (at the 10% level). o This may be due to selective migration: younger, more educated individuals tend to move to larger cities, where job opportunities are more abundant. ● City Size: Employment likelihood and income sources are significantly higher in cities with over 1 million people. No notable differences were found in smaller cities. ● Previous Sector: o Former PR and marketing specialists are more likely to be employed, though they often don’t list salary as a current income source. o Those from the cultural sector have lower employment chances and earnings. o People who worked in real estate in Russia are also less likely to be employed in Germany (10% significance level), though this is a small group. o Models accounted for age, gender, and length of stay in Germany. Speed of Obtaining Residence Permit (Aufenthaltstitel) and Welfare by Settlement Size ● Larger cities = longer processing times for residence permits, even after adjusting for personal characteristics and duration of stay. This is especially notable in cities with 500,000 — 1 million residents. ● Welfare Processing: Also slower in larger cities — particularly those with over 1 million people. This pattern remains even after removing respondents who hadn’t started their welfare application process. Conclusion and Recommendations The study revealed that the respondents are generally young to middle-aged individuals with a high level of education. Prior to emigration, most lived in major cities (and cities with populations over one million) and worked in the so-called "fourth sector" — fields such as science and education, non-profit organizations, PR, journalism, and culture. They aim to achieve the highest p