Results: Participation and integration

The survey results are presented in this chapter divided into thematic subsections. The results are presented both as overall results comparing them with previous survey rounds and any datasets concerning the general population, and by highlighting relevant comparisons by background variable and between questions.

Promoting inclusion as part of promoting integration is at the heart of the Cultura Foundation’s work. In this report, inclusion refers to the perception that a person can influence their own life and matters of common concern and be treated as an equal and valued member of society. Inclusion is manifested in, among other things, trust, the perception of opportunities to influence, and belonging to a community. It is connected to well‑being, whereas marginalisation signifies a narrowing of inclusion or exclusion from it.

Integration is examined in this report as a multidimensional phenomenon. In previous research, the integration of Russian speakers living in Finland was examined through aspects including language, attachment to working life, social relations, social participation, and experiences of belonging and equality (Renvik, Jasinskaja‑Lahti & Varjonen 2020; Habti 2021). The different dimensions do not necessarily develop at the same pace: for example, in Habti’s (2021) study, the professional attachment of Russian-speaking doctors to Finnish working life did not automatically imply strong social belonging.

In previous rounds of the Russian Speakers in Finland survey, integration and inclusion were also examined through several separate perspectives, such as belonging to society, experiences of equality, expressing opinions and following societal affairs.

As a new perspective compared to previous survey rounds, the 2026 study examined respondents’ own understandings of what successful integration means. The Cultura Foundation also examined the same question among its stakeholders during 2026. The open‑ended responses from Russian speakers complement the examination based on the metrics of previous survey rounds by highlighting the kinds of things that respondents themselves associate with successful integration.

Some of the statements concerning participation and integration were presented identically to 2022 and 2024, and four new statements were also included. Respondents were asked to assess their views on the statements presented on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree (Figure 8).

Respondents most frequently agreed with the statements: I feel at home in my local area (mean 4.3) and I can openly express my opinions and thoughts outside the home (4.0). By contrast, the lowest means were received for the statements I feel I am part of the Russian-speaking community in Finland (3.1), I have confidence in my own ability to participate in politics in Finland (3.1), I actively follow Finnish societal affairs (3.2), and I think Russian speakers can influence political decisions in Finland (3.2).

It is notable that the clear decline observed across several statements in 2024 did not continue; instead, the results remained roughly the same. However, the level in 2022 was not regained in any comparable statement, meaning that the results remained lower across the board than in the first survey round.

Figure 7 shows the mean values for all responses and Figure 8 the distributions of responses. This is followed by a comparison of response means with the results for 2022 and 2024 in Figure 9.

Examined by background variable, the largest differences in responses were observed in the length of residence in Finland and subsequently in the respondent’s age. By contrast, differences between genders are small.

In several statements, those who had lived in Finland longer gave higher ratings, but the relationship was not consistent across all statements. The experience of equality with native Finns ranged from a mean of 3.1 among those who had lived in Finland for less than two years to 4.0 among those who had lived in Finland for at least 16 years, the experience of being part of Finnish society from 2.6 to 4.0, and the feeling of being at home locally from 3.1 to 4.5. The strongest difference concerned confidence in their ability to participate in politics in Finland: for those who had lived in the country for less than two years the mean was 1.8, and for those who had lived in Finland for at least 16 years it was 3.2. The group of those who had lived in Finland for less than two years is very small (n=13), so these results must be interpreted with caution.
Ratings did not change consistently with length of residence in Finland across all statements. The assessment of the fairness of Finnish society was highest among those who had lived in Finland for 2–8 years (3.9) rather than those who had lived in the country the longest. The view on Russian speakers’ opportunities to influence was highest among those who had lived in Finland for 5–8 years (3.4) and lower among those who had lived in Finland the longest (3.1). The opportunity to bring up one’s opinions openly was also rated highest in the group who had lived in Finland for 5–8 years (4.1).

Between age groups, the clearest differences are in the new statements relating to political participation. Confidence in their ability to participate in politics decreases with age, but not entirely evenly: among 20–39‑year-olds the mean was 3.2–3.3 and among 70–85-year-olds 2.6. Similarly, the view that Russian speakers can influence political decisions in Finland was highest in the youngest age groups (3.4) and lowest among 60–69-year-olds (2.7). By contrast, the experience of equality was highest in the oldest age group (4.1) and lowest among 40–49-year-olds (3.6), and actively following societal affairs was most common among 60–69-year-olds (3.6) and least common among 40–49-year-olds (2.9).

Good functional language skills in Finnish are strongly associated with how equal respondents feel with native Finns and how well they feel they are part of Finnish society. The difference is large: in the group with the weakest language skills (rating 1, n=45), the experience of being part of Finnish society received a mean of 2.6, whereas in the group with the best language skills (rating 5, n=195) it was 4.4. The experience of equality similarly rises from 3.1 to 4.3, feeling at home locally from 3.7 to 4.7, and confidence in their ability to participate in politics from 2.4 to 3.8. Following Finnish societal affairs was also more common among those who spoke Finnish well (in the group with the weakest language skills 2.8 and in the group with the best language skills 3.5).
Finnish citizens (both sole Finnish citizens and dual citizens) responded more favourably to most of the statements presented than people who did not hold Finnish citizenship. The experience of being part of Finnish society received a mean of 4.3 among sole Finnish citizens (n=108) and 3.9 among Finnish‑Russian dual citizens (n=461), but only 3.3 among sole Russian citizens (n=271). In the experience of equality, the difference is similar: among sole Finnish citizens the mean was 4.2, among dual citizens 4.0, and among sole Russian citizens 3.3. Those respondents who held the citizenship of some other country (presumably mainly Estonian or Latvian, n=102) reported following Finnish societal affairs the least of all citizenship groups (2.8).
The ratings given also varied somewhat when examined by reason for moving to Finland: those who moved to Finland as children or young people with their parents (n=135) rated almost all the statements presented more positively than others. Their experience of being part of society received a mean of 4.1 and of equality 4.2, as did return migrants and those who moved due to Finnish family background (3.9 and 3.9). For those who moved for work (n=187) and study (n=143) reasons, the corresponding means are 3.4 and 3.5, and the lowest ratings were given by those who arrived on the basis of temporary protection (2.8 and 2.6), although this group is very small (n=14).

Differences between genders are small, at most two tenths.

More detailed results for each statement are reviewed below.

In the 2026 round, respondents were asked as an open‑ended question what they consider to be successful integration. A total of 961 people answered the question—nearly every respondent—making it the largest open-text dataset in the study. The question was not asked in previous survey rounds. Of all the responses, 892 were included in the analysis. Responses that did not contain material classifiable for the purposes of the question were excluded.

A single response could contain several different themes, so responses could be classified into more than one theme. The most common themes in the responses were work and financial self-sufficiency (519 responses, 58%), language and functional language skills (507; 57%), social relations and interaction (347; 39%), culture, norms and adaptation (217; 24%), belonging, well-being and establishing one’s life (157; 18%), and education and skills development (146; 16%).

The vast majority of responses were list‑like: the same respondent typically named three or four factors in succession, most commonly language, work and social relations combined.

Friends among the native population, fluent language skills and a sense of home.

Successful integration means work, language skills and an internal sense of belonging to society and the Finnish system.

Language skills, laws and, most importantly, no comparison to the previous country.

A comfortable feeling in the country, smooth interaction, the ability to converse outside one’s own linguistic bubble, trust in society and a sense of inclusion in it, as well as the opportunity to study and work in a field of personal interest.

Before moving, people should receive information about the country and its systems, such as healthcare, education, municipal practices and social services.

Work and financial self‑sufficiency, as well as language skills, are particularly prominent in the responses. Alongside these, however, social relations, adaptation to culture and norms, and belonging and well-being are also associated with successful integration. The responses thus form several parallel dimensions of integration, even though work and language skills are the most common.

Inclusion, participation and integration

• The general decline observed between 2022 and 2024 did not continue between 2024 and 2026: the means for most of the comparable statements changed very little from the 2024 level. However, the means for all statements included in the follow‑up remained below the 2022 level.

• Those who had lived in Finland for a long time rated both their equality and their sense of belonging to society close to the upper end of the scale.

• Good proficiency in the Finnish language and Finnish citizenship were associated with higher ratings regarding inclusion and equality. By contrast, no corresponding group difference was observed in the experience of fairness in society.

• The lowest ratings were received by the experience of belonging to the Russian‑speaking community, confidence in their ability to participate in politics, and actively following societal affairs. Confidence in their ability to participate in politics in Finland also gathered the largest share of respondents who strongly disagreed, meaning that responses were polarised towards both ends of the scale more clearly than for other statements.

• Confidence in their ability to participate in politics and the view of Russian speakers’ opportunities to influence political decisions were on average lower in older than in younger age groups.

• Respondents perceive several different dimensions of successful integration, among which the importance of work, financial livelihood and language skills are highlighted most frequently.