Experiences in the pilot districts and the responses to the second survey have shown that initial uncertainties upon launching programmes with regard to drafting, agreeing and expanding action plans have since been overcome in many places. It is clear from the approaches taken by districts that they have merged bottom-up and top-down strategies in quite different ways for the individual stages of the action plan drafting process. The use of bottom-up strategies in programmes so far shows that districts have become convinced that action plans must evolve around the interests, activities and needs of the neighbourhood population and local players if they are to produce the desired effect. Two thirds of survey responses (147) maintained that local people and players should have a say in the content of the action plans, while only 5% (11) rejected such an approach.
 |
Abbildung 32/33: |
 |
Start phase for drafting
The administrative accord on urban development support concluded between German federal and Land governments declares that integrated action plans should be devised to support concrete measures. The accord does not state that plans must form part of an application for funding or whether they may be drafted once programme implementation has commenced. Essentially, two different approaches have been employed so far: some municipalities devise an action plan when applying for financing, since they must provide details on basic development objectives and planned measures anyway or – as in North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland (1) – because an action plan is a pre-condition for admission to the respective Land programmes. The action plans in two pilot districts (Leipzig East, Ludwigshafen-Westend) were devised at the outset.
One advantage of drafting integrated action plans at an early stage is that the district development process pursues more concrete objectives from the start rather than jolting forward in small steps. Usually no framework for mobilizing local participation yet exists, so local authorities alone are responsible for drafting the action plan, meaning it is devised without the input of local players and residents. When this happens, the authorities usually sketch preliminary ideas – ideally in partial collaboration – which may only be adopted if they display sufficient openness and flexibility to enable a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches in the final action plan. Experience shows that in such cases the participation processes which later form the basis of the plan's implementation, development and continuation must be activated swiftly.
Many programme districts do not complete action plan drafts until programme implementation has commenced. The second survey revealed that, of those districts intending to use action plans to steer integrated district development, 52% were still drafting in 2001, whereas the proportion was 23% in 2000 and 19% in 1999. The majority of pilot districts developed their action plans during programme implementation. This is in part because much basic information on the district had not been accumulated, organization, management and communication structures were not in place and deadline pressure was often considerable when the application was made. It would seem that the high expectations in the district and among politicians support a pragmatic approach which focuses on devising and implementing projects free from the reins of a neatly packaged concept which dictates a binding framework for action.
This project-related procedure was characteristic for the start phase of a 1995 Land programme in the pilot district Gelsenkirchen–Bismarck/Schalke-Nord: "Objectives and visions were not explicitly formulated, but individual projects developed in line with a fundamental understanding of the district's problems and perspectives."(2) The emphasis, as recorded by local programme support guidelines, was on "short-term realization of individual projects bringing as many benefits and visible improvements as possible."(3) The gradual shift towards strategies and target-setting did not begin until 1997, two years after programme launch, when participants and organizational framework for programme implementation had already been established.(4)
 |
Abbildung 34: |
Such an approach has the advantage that previously implemented (key) projects which quickly bring about improvements in the district stimulate discussions and boost motivation among inhabitants. In addition sufficient time is available to put in place suitable management and organizational structures forming a viable basis for systematic discussions of models, objectives and strategies to involve local residents and players, and to organize collaboration between the various participants and help them get to know each other. If the action plan is not developed and expanded at suitable junctures during the process, however, there is a serious risk that leaving targets open can lead to a substantive randomness and create a discontinuity in the district development programme.(5)
|
Table 8: Year of admission to the programme and current status of the action plan; (n = 186). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
||||||
Action plan currently under development |
Action plan ready |
Total |
||||
Districts |
% |
Districts |
% |
Districts |
% |
|
1999 |
21 |
18.9 |
90 |
81.1 |
111 |
100 |
2000 |
11 |
22.9 |
37 |
77.1 |
48 |
100 |
2001 |
14 |
51.9 |
13 |
48.1 |
27 |
100 |
Total |
46 |
24.7 |
140 |
75.3 |
186 |
100 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||||
Overall management and responsibilities
Almost three quarters of the 187 districts working with or developing an integrated action plan said local authorities were supervising development and continuation. Planning, construction and transport departments, which traditionally handle the development of a district's space, for example by initiating classic renewal processes, have taken on much responsibility for the plans in over half the districts (105). Social affairs, child and youth welfare departments are much less likely to have responsibility for managing the plans, despite the integrative district development shift away from architecture and planning towards social measures. Other local government branches make little or no contribution. The chief programme coordinators (other department/section) are usually local neighbourhood management organizations controlled by local government or outsourced development companies maintaining close contacts with the local authorities.
Table 9: Department/section in charge of formulating integrated action plans (n=187; multiple answers). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
||
|
Department/section in charge |
Districts |
Percent |
Planning, construction and transport |
105 |
56.1 |
Social affairs |
18 |
9.6 |
Economy |
9 |
4.8 |
Child and youth assistance |
8 |
4.3 |
Culture |
3 |
1.6 |
Environment |
3 |
1.6 |
Health |
2 |
1.1 |
Equal opportunities/Womens‘ bureau |
1 |
0.5 |
Other department/section |
15 |
8.0 |
No answer |
51 |
27.3 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||
Local government, primarily planning, construction and transport sections, is in charge of the majority of action plans in the pilot districts. Flensburg–Neustadt has nominated two branches of local government to manage the plan together. A cooperation agreement gives the environment and planning branch and the social affairs, youth and health department joint responsibility for the action plan. This tandem solution promotes cooperation between urban administrators specializing in construction and social affairs policymakers and can be interpreted as a step in the right direction for programme implementation.
|
Table 10: Management level and unit in charge of developing and expanding integrated action plans (n = 222; multiple answers). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
|||
|
Management level |
Management unit |
Districts |
Percent |
|
Neighbourhood level |
Onsite/district office |
112 |
50.5 |
|
Intermediate level |
District conference |
48 |
21.6 |
|
Workshops, forums, roundtables |
57 |
25.7 |
|
|
Specialist study teams/taskforces |
61 |
27.5 |
|
|
District moderator |
60 |
27.0 |
|
|
Municipal government level |
Interdivisional steering or control committee |
68 |
30.6 |
|
Interagency/interdepartmental taskforce |
79 |
35.6 |
|
|
District commissioner |
76 |
34.2 |
|
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
|||
In the past the level of management (6) with overall responsibility for the action plan has often not been the same as the level in charge of drafting. Survey responses most frequently identified the neighbourhood level (onsite/district office) as being responsible for developing and expanding the action plan. Management units in municipal administration were a distant second in the poll. Intermediate level management units evidently offer little input. The considerable proportion of multiple answers suggests, however, that in many cases action plan development and continuation is the fruit of cooperation between management units at different levels rather than the product of efforts at a single level. Experiences in the pilot districts testify to this. If all three management levels collaborate on action plans, this can reduce potential conflict between the system and the living worlds (7). Cooperation makes it easier to reconcile and accommodate neighbourhood-level visions and needs, diverging political interests and practical constraints.
Agreement and participation
The necessary processes for securing the consent and participation of neighbourhood residents, local players, departments and authorities are often time-consuming and personnel-intensive. 18% of responses in the second survey indicated the effort invested in reaching a consensus on the action plans was too costly; admittedly, almost 50% disagreed with this statement. It is apparent from experiences in pilot districts that neglecting the issue of participation can hinder programme implementation. For example, the onsite programme support team in the pilot district Berlin-Kreuzberg–Kottbusser Tor states that action plan objectives, projects and evaluations drafted by the local neighbourhood management were not agreed to a sufficient extent with residents, property owners, housing companies, political committees, parties and local government departments. This had a negative impact on implementation: "The stakeholders have very different perspectives on Socially Integrative City and about how it differs from conventional urban renewal strategies or support schemes. Property owners push for new investments, while sponsors and initiatives are more interested in non-investment measures (...) The participants fail to agree that the process should support integrative district development."(8)
Municipal administrative departments
The survey reveals that involvement of all affected departments in the action-plan drafting procedure is by no means standard at present. The planning, construction and transport sectors are almost always involved, and the social affairs and child and youth welfare sector participates in around three quarters of cases. The rate for economics, culture, environment, education and finance sectors is considerably lower, and worryingly low for gender mainstreaming/women's bureau (under one third) and health (under one quarter). Data were not available for 13% of districts. Presumably, no decision had as yet been made in these places on participation of administrative departments, since with only one exception action plans were still being developed.
|
Figure 26: Administrative departments involved in drafting the integrated action plan (n = 187; multiple answers). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
|
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
An interdepartmental taskforce (9) representing all authorities developing or implementing the action plan has emerged as an effective structure for coordinating the programme within local government. If such work teams are to succeed, their members must be authorized to commit their respective office or department to the action plan decided by the taskforce.(10)
Local players outside municipal administration
The survey demonstrates that numerous non-governmental players have regularly been involved in drafting integrated action plans. In those districts which have or are currently developing action plans, a little over half (103) have drawn on contributions from eight or more players. However, the commerce (local businesses, private economy and chambers of commerce, industry and crafts) and employment administration sectors are conspicuous by their frequent absence. Only 28 districts (15%), of which 23 are still developing action plans, have (so far) failed to include non-governmental players in the drafting of concepts.
|
Figure 27: Local player groups involved in drafting integrated action plans (n = 187; multiple answers). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
The first step in drafting action plans is frequently the creation of a network of local activities and players working for the district. This became evident during the impulse congress in Essen (11) on "Integrative action for social development of urban districts." To set the wheels in motion, interested parties need to get to know one another, inform each other on current activities, make contacts and "build coalitions" for local projects. Forums, district conferences and topic-based taskforces have proved an effective method of installing such communication and cooperation structures,(12) and as essential components of the action plans they offer the chance to build bridges between the living and the system worlds through an exchange of visions, objectives, measures and projects, provided local administrators and politicians participate. Consultation with (possibly external) professional moderators can be useful and supportive.
Neighbourhood residents
A little over two thirds of action plans (128) were reportedly drafted with the assistance of the local population. Because of the nature of the survey, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the type and quality of participation. As has been observed in the pilot districts, it is very difficult to recruit residents who are not organized into groups to assist in drafting action plans.
Attempts to get residents to discuss potential visions and objectives which could form the cornerstone of an action plan have been revealed as unrealistic. Responsibility must therefore be delegated to the neighbourhood level in such a way as to rouse the interest of as many local people as possible. Various tried and tested activation techniques are available.(13) It appears important that the debates on guidelines for action and orientation schemas for district development, concrete measures, projects and individual steps for swift improvement of the district's situation (so-called lighthouse or key projects) and objective attainment intersect with each other rather than ensue separately. Discussions on district development targets, for example, led by local people in the pilot district Hamburg-Altona–Lurup who had set up a district advisory forum, were supported by a precise district model. The debate on objectives was linked to a list of criteria which the forum used to help evaluate projects.(14)
The Citizen Participation team at the impulse congress in Essen (15) concluded that the potential and extent of citizen cooperation needed to be precisely examined and scope for decision-making and action clearly defined. To trigger constructive processes rather than raise false hopes, the following issues should be clarified as early as possible:
If local government has composed an action plan as part of an application process without consulting residents, there is a danger that people will only participate pro forma, on the basis of subsequent information alone. A genuine contribution is only possible if local government views its action plan as a mere draft, open to criticism and alteration from local citizens. Neighbourhood residents can more easily help develop project ideas and analyze problems and potential if commencement of programme implementation precedes drafting an action plan and functional district networks and committees are in place.
Professionals acting in an unprofessional manner can rapidly nip the tentative flower of local civic participation in the bud: politicians' and administrators' stubborn substantive and time constraints harass the ”bottom-up” development process to such an extent that local people lose interest in contributing or withdraw their participation entirely. The same is true if no common denominator is found between the system world, with its funding directives, time restrictions, procedural rules and rituals, and the living world of the neighbourhood, full of spontaneity and unpredictable dynamics with both good and bad elements.
What is required are flexible structures giving all participants as much room for manoeuvre as possible, taking into account the dynamics and single-mindedness of processes, and seeking mutual mediation through vertical cooperation and the "counterflow principle". It quickly became clear in the pilot district Hamburg-Altona–Lurup that the deadline imposed on drafts for a "neighbourhood development plan" (less than one year) was unacceptable to many local players. Such constraints are out of touch with reality, because they "incite conflicts, shatter carefully nurtured trust and, in the worst case, cause resignation and withdrawal of local players."(16) Locals in the Lurup Forum, neighbourhood management officials and district administrators and politicians solved the problem by agreeing that the action plan would only outline the current state of the discussion, which would continue to pursue further concretization of details.
Continuation
Integrated action plans really take shape in the interaction between concept development and implementation, described in the administrative accords by the term "measure-supportive". At the second impulse congress, the taskforce "Qualitative criteria for integrated action plans" emphasized the need to formulate action plans as a flexible orientation framework, to maintain constant neighbourhood discourse on successes, failures and necessary changes and thus to adapt the action plans, "as a kind of learning system with learning participants", to altered conditions. Forums, district conferences and roundtables are suitable vehicles for ensuring all-inclusive participation and transparent decision-making processes.(17)
The further development of action plans during programme implementation so far has taken on particular significance. Two thirds of plans have already been extended. In most cases (70%), this was done in accordance with needs rather than within a fixed time frame, to ensure that applications for funding were drawn up on time.
Even allowing for the desired flexibility, each stage of continuation must incorporate binding, reachable and manageable targets. The success of policies and activities can be continuously measured through evaluation and monitoring (18) to guarantee the effective continuation of action plans and permit target alterations where necessary (19). All stages of implementation and continuation must be documented to maintain a clear overview of the entire process.
(1) North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Urban Development, Culture and Sport, Stadtteile mit besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf – Ressortübergreifendes Handlungsprogramm ;
Saarland Ministry for the Environment, "Stadt-Vision-Saar" – Integriertes Stadtentwicklungsprogramm für städtische Problemgebiete im Saarland , Saarbrücken 2000.
(2) Wolfram Schneider, "Fortschreibung und Umsetzung der Konzepte. Impulsreferat in der Arbeitsgruppe 7", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln für die soziale Stadtteilentwicklung. Dokumentation der Veranstaltung am 5. und 6 November 2001 in Essen, Berlin 2002, p. 125 (Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Soziale Stadt, Vol. 7).
(3) Klaus Austermann, Marcelo Ruiz and Matthias Sauter, ”Integrierte Stadtteilentwicklung auf dem Weg zur Verstetigung. Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck/Schalke-Nord, Abschlussbericht der Programmbegleitung-vor-Ort”, Dortmund 2002, p. 24 (ILS Schriften, Vol. 186).
(4) The new programme district Gelsenkirchen-Südost has a different procedure. In the light of experiences in Bismarck/Schalke-Nord, the local authorities conceived an action plan during the preparatory process which included central visions, strategies and objectives for each field of action. Local politicians and sponsors had a part to play alongside numerous municipal departments and bodies. This contributed to many participants showing an active interest in implementing the programme from the start, in contrast with the beginnings of the "Bismarck/Schalke-Nord district scheme" (Stadt Gelsenkirchen, Integriertes Handlungskonzept Gelsenkirchen-Südost, November 2001).
(5) Austermann/Ruiz/Sauter, p. 24.
(6) Cf. Chapter 7 for more detailed discussion on the different management levels involved in programme implementation (adminstrative, intermediate and neighbourhood levels).
(7) John Friedmann contrasts the living world – the colourful world of everyday life which proceeds on the streets and playgrounds and in pubs, homes, churches and mosques – with the world of ratio, the so-called system world and its large-scale order of ministries, science, technology, and urban planning. Friedmann points out that the two worlds are not in a position to communicate with each other effectively, and that only by building bridges can they achieve communicative action. Cf. John Friedmann, "Die verwundete Stadt. Gedanken zur Sozialplanung der Stadt", Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Kongress “Die Soziale Stadt – Zusammenhalt, Sicherheit, Zukunft”. Dokumentation der Veranstaltung am 7. und 8. Mai in Berlin, Berlin, November 2002, pp. 115-120 (Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Soziale Stadt, Vol. 8).
(8) Beer/Musch, "Stadtteile...", p. 85.
(9) Cf. Chapter 7 for details.
(10) Renate Mayntz, "Politische Steuerung", Schader-Stiftung (Ed.), Politische Steuerung der Stadtentwicklung. Das Programm “Die soziale Stadt“ in der Diskussion, Darmstadt 2001, p. 41 (Gesellschaftswissenschaften – Praxis).
(11) Heidede Becker, Fortschreibung und Umsetzung der Integrierten Handlungskonzepte. Bericht aus der Arbeitsgruppe 7, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln, p. 130; Ingeborg Beer, Bewohnerbeteiligung bei der Entwicklung von Integrierten Handlungskonzepten. Bericht aus der Arbeitsgruppe 1, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln, p. 74.
(12) Cf. Chapter 7 for details.
(13) Cf. Chapter 8.
(14) "Quartiersentwicklungskonzept. Ziele für Lurup", Lurup im Blick, December 2001/January 2002 and November 2002.
(15) Beer, Difu (Ed.), Impulskongress Integratives Handeln, Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Soziale Stadt, Vol. 7, p. 73.
(16) Cf. Ludger Schmitz; "Quartiersentwicklungskonzepte in Hamburg", Soziale Stadt info, No. 6 (2001), p. 11.
(17) Rolf-Peter Löhr, "Qualitätskriterien für Integrierte Handlungskonzepte. Bericht aus der Arbeitsgruppe 11, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, Impulskongress Integratives Handeln , p. 174.
(18) Cf. Chapter 9 for details.
(19) Löhr, Qualitätskriterien, p. 174 f.
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
