Page 143 - IJPS-11-6

International Journal of
Population Studies Social inclusion for refugees

Table 5. Integration factors and indicators
Factors Explanation Indicator Symbol
Level of social support Percentage of refugees with access to social services Access to social services (%) X 1
(e.g., housing and medical care)
Average amount of benefits or social assistance received by refugees Amount of social assistance (€) X
2
Percentage of refugees participating in language courses and Access to integration programs (%) X 3
adaptation programs
Employment rate of refugees Percentage of refugees officially employed in the host country Employment rate (%) X 13
Level of language proficiency Percentage of refugees who passed language proficiency tests Language test (%) X
14

cohesion. The hierarchical structure of the dendrogram
highlights the multifaceted nature of refugee integration,
where foundational support facilitates socioeconomic
and cultural adaptation. By identifying the most
impactful indicators, the dendrogram offers valuable
guidance to policymakers and researchers in prioritizing
areas for intervention, ensuring that integration efforts
are targeted and effective.
The K-means cluster analysis categorized the nine
host countries into three distinct clusters based on their
integration indicators. The results, shown in Figure 3,
present the average values of key integration indicators
for each cluster. These clusters reveal patterns of similarity
in social, economic, and policy-related aspects of refugee Figure 3. Plot of mean values for each cluster, illustrating the average
integration across the host countries. levels of key integration indicators used to assess the integration of
Ukrainian refugees in host countries (cluster analysis performed using
Figure 3 presents the graphical distribution of average STATISTICA 13)
values for key integration indicators across the three
clusters. It highlights the significant disparities between support for integration.” The average distances to the cluster
clusters, particularly in access to services, employment center are 0.08 for Bulgaria, 0.09 for Romania, 0.41 for
stability, and social participation. Cluster 3 shows the Moldova, and 0.43 for Italy. This cluster includes countries
highest values across integration indicators, while Cluster with limited integration policies and infrastructure. Key
2 exhibits the lowest. The data used to determine the characteristics include limited access to social services and
composition of each cluster are provided in Tables 6-8. integration programs, low employment rates, and minimal
Cluster 1 – which includes Poland, the Czech participation in language courses. These countries face
Republic, and Spain – can be characterized as offering economic constraints and institutional challenges that
“moderate support for integration.” This cluster represents hinder their capacity to support large-scale refugee
countries with moderately effective integration policies. integration.
The average distances to the cluster center are 0.39 for Cluster 3 – which includes Germany and Great Britain
Poland, 0.10 for the Czech Republic, and 0.44 for Spain. – can be characterized as providing “advanced integration
Key characteristics include balanced access to social support.” Both countries show an average distance of 0.51
services and integration programs, moderate employment from the cluster center. This cluster represents countries with
rates, and participation in language testing. Poland and advanced integration support. Key characteristics include
the Czech Republic demonstrate similar approaches to extensive social assistance, comprehensive integration
refugee integration, supported by practical social policies. programs, strong language proficiency among refugees,
Spain shares several of these characteristics but shows and active participation in community organizations.
slightly lower performance in employment stability and Integration policies in these countries prioritize long-term
social participation. socioeconomic integration of refugees.
Cluster 2 – which includes Bulgaria, Italy, Moldova, Countries from Cluster 1 – such as Germany, Poland,
and Romania – can be characterized as providing “limited and the Czech Republic – were selected for detailed

Volume 11 Issue 6 (2025) 137 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.4502