In spite of the importance the German federal government and the Länder attach to integrated action plans, implementation of Socially Integrative City has shown that there is still widespread concern with respect to the design and the extension of measures. By mid-2002, only two thirds (11) of the 16 pilot districts had drafted action plans.(1) Hannover is the exception, having initiated an Integrated Rehabilitation in Vahrenheide-Ost Action Programme as part of an existing urban revitalization plan in 1997. The scheme was subsequently incorporated into a "citywide concept to combat growing sociospatial segregation."(2)
Town-planning-based projects have tended to inhibit innovative integrated action plans in the other pilot districts (for example in Leinefelde-Südstadt, Nuremberg–Galgenhof/Steinbühl, Schwerin–Neu-Zippendorf). Some have merely incorporated elements of integrated approaches into their schemes. The tactic in Halle-Silberhöhe is more sophisticated; the Halle-Silberhöhe Development Concept – Urban Planning Vision Focusing on Empty Housing Space highlights urban planning and housing economy issues, while the action plan for URBAN 21 Land initiative applications "assists the urban restructuring process in a socially viable way."(3)
A nationwide survey revealed that 63% of programme districts (141) have already compiled an integrated action plan, while 21% (46) are still working on a suitable concept. In evaluating questions in the survey on details of the plans, these 187 programme districts have been taken as the heterogeneous frame of reference. 29 districts (13%) have as yet not managed to produce an integrated action plan.
Conspicuous were the seven Länder in which all districts had already developed or were in the process of drafting integrated action plans, namely Brandenburg, Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Saarland, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia. Information provided for programme districts by three other Länder suggests reticence: 10 of 11 districts in Bremen have no action plan, while the remaining district volunteered no information; integrated action plans evidently do not concern over a third of the 15 programme districts in Rhineland-Palatinate; the survey results also give suggest ambivalence in Berlin, where a third of the 14 participating districts either offered no information or confirmed the non-existence of an action plan.
Conclusions on the quality of action plans can not be drawn from these results. Preliminary estimates can only be made after considering concrete responses on action plan components and fields.
Integrated action plan building blocks
Experiences with onsite programme support in programme districts, Länder demands, existing integrated action plans and many expert discussions show the existence of numerous building blocks which can function as the foundations for effective implementation of action plans. These blocks cannot always be strictly delineated, since one characteristic of the plans is the parallel flow of different processes. For example, target formulation and implementation of initial projects can occur simultaneously in an interactive and continually self-modernizing system, which is also the purpose behind post-project continuations. Experiences in North Rhine-Westphalia, which has the longest tradition of integrated neighbourhood development, have made it apparent that targets and goals must evolve while initial steps are being implemented. So-called key or pilot projects in particular can provide the stimuli and hence the motivation to participate in neighbourhood activities and contribute to shaping identity and improving image.
The building blocks can take on different guises according to the specific situations in the programme districts. They do not constitute a rigid structure for concepts, but are signposts pointing the way to questions which should be addressed within the framework of integrated action plans.(4)
With respect to identification of problems and opportunities, the clarification of the need for action and the associated analysis of starting conditions, integrated action plans must include the following steps:
There are particular difficulties with respect to the formulation of guiding principles, visions and targets and the derived measures and projects. This led to demands for more tangible goals, and for clarification of how the measures and projects can provide solutions. The ARGEBAU guidelines lay down national strategies (for example identifying the goal of "helping problem districts survive on their own and making their future brighter"(6)) and can therefore only be general. The programme districts, however, meet general targets through addressing the concrete issues they face. Targets usually become meaningful and substantial once they are accompanied by the concrete strategies, measures and projects designed to achieve them. Targets are frequently formulated relative to existing problems.
A crucial area which has often been neglected in integrated action plans is concerned with tools for achieving objectives, namely considerations on implementing programmes and pooling potential sources of funding (the objectives are modernizing political and administrative activity and strengthening the civil society). The following elements of the action plans relate to the key concepts of networking, coordination and cooperation:
The evaluation of programme implementation (7) is described by the ARGEBAU guidelines as an "indispensable constituent of the integrated action plans." This covers implementation and quality checks. It seems prudent to maintain constant open neighbourhood discourse on successes, failures and necessary changes and to adapt the action plans to altered conditions, much like a learning system composed of individuals who never stop learning. The following elements constitute this category:
|
Figure 31: Integrated Action Plan Building Blocks. Second survey (Difu 2002). |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
A survey of the makeup of integrated action plans in 164 programme districts revealed that they are evidently dominated by statements on strategies, measures and projects, on guidelines and development objectives and on analysis of structure, problems and potential. Three quarters of the districts gave information on reasons for selection, made proposals for organization, management and project control and have activization and participation schemes. The majority of action plans contain an overview of costs and financing, agendas, schedules and implementation plans. Proposals for concomitant evaluation still reveal gaps. One of the least-mentioned issues was gender mainstreaming, which only the four programme districts in Hamburg and a handful in Schleswig-Holstein and Rhineland-Palatinate considered. Well over one third of those districts either developing or already implementing action plans (56) are working with comprehensive concepts. Their plans contain all the building blocks with the exception of evaluation and gender mainstreaming.
Fields of activity included in the action plans
Responses indicating which fields were included allow preliminary conclusions to be drawn on the action plans' integrative content. To what extent do the action plans fulfil the objective of designing measures and projects which relate social, economic, cultural, environmental and other approaches to each district's construction and space management issues - for example by marrying traditional living-space schemes with employment and training projects or partnerships between schools and local businesses?
The initial survey verdict gives cause for optimism. Almost 90% of integrated action plans (146 programme districts) have considered ten or more fields of action. The survey's scope does not allow us to analyse to what extent action plans actually intend to build networks. In fact, the Länder have particularly complained that the individual fields of action in the plans sometimes bear little relation to each other.(10) If the action plans actually do merge different fields of activity and adopt district-specific multitasking measures and projects, the "integrative" aspect of the programme can be declared a success.
Table 7: Relevant and core fields of activity (n=187). Second survey (Difu 2002). |
||||||
|
Field of activity |
Relevant |
Core |
||||
Districts |
% |
Rank |
Districts |
% |
Rank |
|
|
Living and public space (security) |
155 |
82.9 |
1 |
83 |
44.4 |
2 |
|
Social activities and infrastructure |
153 |
81.8 |
2 |
88 |
47.0 |
1 |
|
Image and public relations |
148 |
79.1 |
3 |
65 |
34.7 |
5 |
|
Child and youth assistance |
147 |
78.6 |
4 |
67 |
35.8 |
4 |
|
Sport and leisure |
142 |
75.9 |
5 |
32 |
17.1 |
11 |
|
Coexistence of different social and ethnic groups |
140 |
74.9 |
6 |
79 |
42.2 |
3 |
|
District schools and education |
137 |
73.3 |
7 |
60 |
32.1 |
6 |
|
Employment |
135 |
72.2 |
8/9 |
51 |
27.3 |
9 |
|
District culture |
135 |
72.2 |
8/9 |
44 |
23.5 |
10 |
|
Transport |
131 |
70.0 |
10 |
23 |
12.3 |
13 |
|
Qualifications and training |
130 |
69.5 |
11 |
59 |
31.5 |
7 |
|
Local housing market and housing economy |
126 |
67.4 |
12 |
55 |
29.4 |
8 |
|
Family support |
107 |
57.2 |
13 |
15 |
8.0 |
16/17 |
|
Environment |
106 |
56.7 |
14 |
15 |
8.0 |
16/17 |
|
Help for the aged |
104 |
55.6 |
15 |
17 |
9.1 |
15 |
|
Value-added levels in the district |
87 |
46.5 |
16 |
21 |
11.2 |
14 |
|
Empowerment. articulation and political involvement |
77 |
41.2 |
17 |
27 |
14.4 |
12 |
|
Health |
73 |
39.0 |
18 |
7 |
3.7 |
19/20 |
|
Evaluation of process and result |
63 |
33.7 |
19 |
9 |
4.8 |
18 |
|
Monitoring |
49 |
26.2 |
20 |
7 |
3.7 |
19/20 |
|
Other |
10 |
5.3 |
21 |
6 |
3.2 |
21 |
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||||
Table 7 does not only illustrate how frequently individual fields of activity are included in action plans, it also shows the slight differences in priority which become apparent when the districts named and ranked their top five fields.
(1) Many concepts meet the requirements for vision development, participation and integration in citywide planning policies only partially. For example the integrated action plan for the pilot district Berlin-Kreuzberg–Kottbusser Tor "read more like an accountability report to local government than a target-oriented overall balance of progress"; Ingeborg Beer and Reinfried Musch, Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt. Pilot district Berlin-Kreuzberg, Endbericht im Rahmen der Programmbegleitung-vor-Ort, Berlin, May 2002, p. 83.
(2) The onsite programm support team (PvO) judges the concept as "ambitious and complex," and "aiming high" (Heiko Geiling, Thomas Schwarzer, Claudia Heinzelmann and Esther Bartnick, Begleitende Dokumentation der PvO im Modellstadtteil Hannover-Vahrenheide. Endbericht, Hannover 2002., p. 97, p. 112).
(3) Stefan Geiss, Julia Kemper and Marie-Therese Krings-Heckemeier, ”Programmbegleitung des Bund-Länder-Programms "Soziale Stadt" – Modellgebiet "Halle-Silberhöhe"”, Sachsen-Anhalt. Endbericht, Berlin 2002, p. 36.
(4) The 187 programme districts which have developed or are developing an integrated action plan represent the population for these questions. Of those districts currently drafting their action plan, 23 have so far been unable to provide concrete details on project aspects. All percentages quoted in the following sections refer to the 164 programme districts (74% of all districts involved in the survey) for which corresponding statistics could be calculated.
(6) ARGEBAU, (Ausschuss für Bauwesen und Städtebau und Ausschuss für Wohnungswesen), Leitfaden zur Ausgestaltung der Gemeinschaftsinitiative “Soziale Stadt”, second version as of March 2000 (see Appendix 9, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1).
(7) Cf. Chapter 9.
(8) Cf. Uwe Jens Walther, ”Gesichtspunkte zu einer Evaluation des Programms Soziale Stadt.” Paper for the inaugural meeting of the expert commission on 11 September 2002 in Berlin (unpublished typescript).
(9) In particular this is currently true for the 35 programme districts in North Rhine-Westphalia which were transferred from the Districts with Special Development Needs Land programme into Socially Integrative City, although only for the duration of the measures.
(10) Compare, for example, Andreas Distler's comments during the podium discussion on "Quality standards for integrated action plans", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln für die soziale Stadtteilentwicklung, p. 235.
Translated from: Soziale Stadt - Strategien für die Soziale Stadt, Erfahrungen und Perspektiven – Umsetzung des Bund-Länder-Programms „Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – die soziale Stadt", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik 2003
