The "Three-Tier-Model" was applied to the category "Organization and management" in the second Difu survey. 80% of districts (1) have established the appropriate committees and carried out neighbourhood management duties at both municipal and neighbourhood levels and also in the intermediate tier. Approaches steered exclusively by local government are the exception, while there were no examples of responsibilities being entirely delegated to the neighbourhood level.
|
Table 15: Neighbourhood management levels of control and action. Second survey (Difu 2002) |
||
|
Included levels |
Districts |
|
|
Total |
% |
|
|
Municipal, intermediate level and neighbourhood |
179 |
80.6 |
|
Municipal and intermediate level |
16 |
7.2 |
|
Municipal and neighbourhood |
4 |
1.8 |
|
Municipal alone |
6 |
2.7 |
|
Intermediate level and neighbourhood |
6 |
2.7 |
|
Intermediate level alone |
3 |
1.4 |
|
Neighbourhood alone |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Unknown |
8 |
3.6 |
|
Total |
222 |
100.0 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||
The totals indicate progress in programme implementation: less than half the programme districts had set up neighbourhood management structures before the first Difu survey in 2000/01. 40% intended to do so, while 10% had neither established nor planned to install neighbourhood management structures at a later date. Currently neighbourhood management is perceived as an indispensable component of programme implementation. Most municipalities recognize the need to foster and combine district development structures at all levels of action and control.
Neighbourhood management at municipal government level
Almost 60% of programme districts have the benefit of government interdivisional steering committees at supervisory level. They were most frequently responsible for the allocation of funds to selected projects and for developing and expanding the integrated action plan. 60% of districts were served by interdepartmental taskforces representing local authorities and offices. These units were also primarily in charge of developing and expanding the integrated action plan and selecting projects worthy of funding.
Table 16: Management and organizational forms at municipal government level (n=222; multiple answers). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
||
|
Management and organisational forms at municipal government level |
Districts |
|
Total |
% |
|
Interdepartmental taskforce |
134 |
60.4 |
Interdivisional steering committee |
130 |
58.6 |
District commissioner |
114 |
51.4 |
Other |
35 |
15.8 |
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||
Over half the districts have employed a district commissioner. The survey revealed that this coordinator is primarily responsible for reporting, fund management, logistics and moderation and, as with interdepartmental taskforces, for project designing and updating the integrated action plan.
|
Figure 69: Committees and responsibilities in municipal government. Second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
|
* In dieser Übersicht wurden die Unfrageergebnisse zum Thema Gremien und Aufgaben auf Verwaltungsebene zusammengefasst. Da auf Fragen in jeder Kategorie unterschiedlich viele Kommunen geantwortet haben, liegen hier drei unterschiedliche Grundgesamtheiten (n) zugrunde. |
|
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
Almost two thirds of pilot districts (10 from 16) had set up interdepartmental steering committees in municipal government by summer 2002. Six of these districts had also established an interagency taskforce. Four further districts without an interdivisional steering committee had formed interdepartmental or interagency taskforces. District commissioners in the broadest sense of the term had been appointed in only five municipalities (Flensburg, Halle, Leipzig, Ludwigshafen and Schwerin).
Most members of steering committees at administrative level are representatives of the government sections running the programme and of the divisions and offices responsible for implementation. Housing companies are also involved in Cottbus, Flensburg, Leinefelde, Neunkirchen, Nuremberg, Schwerin and Singen. The Integrated District Development Council in Leipzig makes recommendations for the utilization of Socially Integrative City, URBAN and EFRE programme funds; respresentatives from political parties, clubs, associations and the job centre join government officials on the body. Some participating municipalities have failed to involve all offices working on the programme in their steering committees. This raises the question of whether it is a realistic programme objective to provide interdepartmental support to integrated district development in as broad a spectrum of action areas as possible if only a handful of departments control decision-making and steering processes in municipal government.
Most onsite support teams emphasize that overcoming departmental boundaries and installing cooperative structures at municipal level are crucial for effective neighbourhood management. In many cases there is still much room for improvement; the onsite team in Cottbus-Sachsendorf-Madlow concludes: "The actual cooperative and integrated projects still require publicity and new ideas to help overcome rivalry and self-centredness in departments. The municipal hierarchy must be made more aware of its collective responsibility for Socially Integrative City".(2) The pilot district Kassel-Nordstadt resumes: "The steering model works when the offices and departments involved are in a win-win situation and the sufficient provision of funds and a clear division of responsibilities ensure the avoidance of tugs-of-war for resources and conflicts of interest. The integrated operational approach breaks down when targets conflict and consensus is unattainable during the procedure. New decision-making processes collide with traditional working methods and ways of thinking. Integrative action plans need municipalities to combat compartmentalized thinking and approaches more effectively."(3)
Neighbourhood management at administrative level certainly benefits from placing responsibility for networking and resource pooling with the district commissioner. This highlights yet another reason why such a position must be created or why various personnel should be designated to fulfil the same role. However, officials from the different participating departments should be entrusted with the management of individual projects to avoid encumbering the district commissioner with operational matters of Socially Integrative City implementation.(4) Experience has also shown that committee members should be authorized to make decisions, since this facilitates the body's leverage and prevents delays to obtain approval from parent organizations.
Neighbourhood management at intermediate level
Theme-related taskforces, workshops, forums and roundtables were named most frequently in the second Difu survey as the neighbourhood management bodies operating at intermediate level. Over half the sample had arranged district conferences. Almost half had employed a district moderator.
|
Table 17: Management and organizational forms at intermediate level (n=222; multiple answers). Second survey (Difu 2002) |
||
|
Management and organizational forms at intermediate level |
Districts |
|
|
Total |
% |
|
|
Theme-related taskforces |
168 |
75.7 |
|
Workshops, forums, roundtables |
167 |
75.2 |
|
District conference |
127 |
57.2 |
|
District moderator |
105 |
47.3 |
|
Other |
42 |
18.9 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||
To a large extent, these committees perform similar duties and tasks. Theme-related taskforces, workshops, forums and roundtables most frequently assumed responsibility for activation and participation and project development. District conferences and moderators also handled steering and coordinating.
|
Abbildung 79: Gremien und Zuständigkeiten im intermediären Bereich (Zweite Befragung – Difu 2002)* |
 |
|
* In dieser Übersicht wurden die Umfrageergebnisse zum Thema Gremien und Aufgaben im intermediären Bereich zusammengefasst. Da auf Fragen in jeder Kategorie unterschiedlich viele Kommunen geantwortet haben, liegen hier drei unterschiedliche Grundgesamtheiten (n) zugrunde. |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
Neighbourhood management structures were in place at intermediate level in three quarters of pilot districts, although in various forms and to different degrees: only nine districts had arranged for a broad spectrum of local stakeholders to participate in district conferences or similar information and discussion forums on fundamental issues. In the three remaining pilot districts, agreements were concluded in comparatively restricted committees consisting largely of professionals. Seven pilot districts have no (public) participation platforms at intermediate level. Interdivisional and interagency steering committees are limited to higher and lower levels in pilot districts, while in many cases participation of relevant local players at intermediate level (5) seems to be inadequate.
Neighbourhood management at lower implementation level
Approximately 80% of programme districts have established onsite or district bureaus at neighbourhood level. Officials are generally responsible for activation and participation, public relations, coordination and moderation, project development and reporting. The bureaus have proved useful for local neighbourhood managers and have frequently served as a meeting place for clubs, associations and interest groups, friends and former strangers (in some cases incorporating a neighbourhood cafe) and as a counselling point.
The vast majority of programme participants now consider onsite bureaus irreplaceable for elaboration of concrete projects in the district. "Being open and a good listener, regular opening times for the district office and low staff-turnover are all judged important for the success of neighbourhood management". (6) Established local networks and institutions should, where possible, be encouraged to take responsibility for local neighbourhood management or at least be integrated in the structures. The local management team in Bremen-Gröpelingen, set up at the beginning of 2002, is exemplary; a social services office employee who had worked in the field since long before Socially Integrative City began and knew the neighbourhood well took on responsibility for the team.(7) The impulse congress has already shown that the establishment of overlapping neighbourhood management structures should be avoided at all costs, since they end up competing with each other.(8)
      |
|
von links nach rechts: Abbildung 81: Stadtteilbüro Leinefelde – Südstadt (Foto: Stadt Leinefelde) Abbildung 82: Stadtteilbüro Gelsenkirchen – Bismarck/Schalke-Nord (Foto: Stadtteilbüro Bismarck/Schalke-Nord) |
Abbildung 83: Stadtteilbüro Ludwigshafen – Westend (Foto: Stadt Ludwigshafen) Abbildung 84: Stadtteilbüro Schwerin – Neu Zippendorf (Foto: Stadt Schwerin) Abbildung 85: Hinweis auf das Stadtteilbüro des Quartiersmanagements Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg – Helmholtzplatz (Foto: Wolf-Christian Strauss , Berlin) |
If municipalities fail to guarantee the financial and human resources necessary to secure at least mid-term neighbourhood management activities, the efforts of individuals and the selection of people able to manage complex aspects of integrated neighbourhood development are in vain. Many municipalities have acted to prevent this,(9) as is evident in the award of contracts lasting between one and three years to a third of officials running the bodies. A further third of managers actually received even longer contracts. The other side of the coin is expiration of the remaining third after a year or less. This can have a counterproductive effect on neighbourhood operations and achievements.
|
Figure 71: Duties at neighbourhood level. Second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
Private agencies and the municipalities are the most frequent neighbourhood-management employers. Personnel costs are financed in over half the programme districts (130) from Socially Integrative City coffers, while almost one third (69 districts) draw from other municipal funds. The breakdown for financing rent and material costs of the district bureau tells a similar story. Redevelopers in Saxony and Lower Saxony cofinance personnel costs more frequently than their counterparts in other Länder (3 of 9 districts in Saxony and 6 of 23 in Lower Saxony do so). Districts in Bavaria, Berlin and Rhineland-Palatinate named Socially Integrative City as a source of funding more than elsewhere.
|
Figure 72 : Financing of district bureau personnel, rent and maintenance. Second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
Interaction between the three levels of neighbourhood management
Cooperation between the three levels of neighbourhood management must take into account the contrast between planning and practice which is epitomized by the "two-speed" conflict. The administrative framework, including the headstart in receiving funding applications, time restrictions dictated by annual budgeting, and the pressure for planning efficiency, punctual programme implementation and non-extendable appropriation periods act as accelerators and collide with deep-set local processes, dynamics, complexity and subsequent delays at intermediate and particularly at neighbourhood level.(10)
Separate organization of all three tiers does not suffice: it is essential that intertier interaction is regulated by contracts and formal and informal cooperative and communicative structures of interface management.(11) One reason for this is that some responsibilities are assigned to more than one level. For example, both the district moderator (intermediate level) and onsite officials in the district bureau may be working on the same problem. The planning and management of an event can be a joint task for a district moderator and local administrators, which causes a conflict of interests if members of the district forum try to outvote the municipality on a proposal, but are headed by a chairperson who is theoretically their mouthpiece but also happens to be a local government official.
Most pilot districts build vertical networks by inviting frontline workers to sit on government committees and sending municipal politicians and administrators to neighbourhood and intermediate forums; the networks are hence not the product of "interface management". Hamburg-Altona-Rürup serves as an example: "Local organizational structures form a comprehensive social network, in which division of labour and thematic focus and the combination of the two already function effectively for the most part. In contrast, neighbourhood level activities need to be linked to government bodies, particularly to the level of the relevant agencies, much more efficiently. (Onsite) neighbourhood management structures have been entrusted with this task, but have insufficient resources at their disposal and not enough clout to link these levels comprehensively."(12) Flensburg–Neustadt also recognizes a major challenge in erecting cooperative structures between municipal, intermediate and neighbourhood levels: "It has become clear over time that the roles of [individual sectors] and district management constantly need to be constructively and firmly delineated. Frequent task overlapping is a consequence of Socially Integrative City's integrative objectives. That is why it helps to agree a precise cooperative system as a frame of reference."(13)
At intermediate level it appears necessary to define form and content of the relationship between district moderator and municipal government, since this would, in case of differences between the two, eliminate conflicts of interest for individuals involved in neighbourhood management at both levels. One solution is a contractual agreement. The same is true of the relationship between intermediate and neighbourhood levels: the sensible approach is to conclude contracts and quality agreements on division of labour and forms of cooperation.(14) Intermediate and neighbourhood project committees require decision-making powers and financial resources to implement resolutions promptly. Contingency funds (15) play a central role here, and rules must be adopted to govern their allocation.
|
Figure 73 : Control model for Kassel's Nordstadt project* |
 |
|
*Source: Kommunale Arbeitsförderung, Stadt Kassel |
The Kassel-Nordstadt pilot district offers a good example of regulated cooperation between the three levels of neighbourhood management. An interdivisional steering committee prioritizes programme implementation on the basis of agendas and resource plans. The decisions it makes, which municipal authorities later take into account, draw on recommendations from the municipal project development group (this corresponds to an interagency taskforce at operative level). This body in turn is guided by input from an intermediate-level roundtable. The pilot districts Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck/Schalke-Nord, Halle-Silberhöhe, Leipzig East and Ludwigshafen-Westend have similarly managed to dovetail their various decision-making and advisory panels.
(1) One possible response to the question of what committees to set up at administrative level was "District/neighbourhood managers". Participants in the survey selected this option most frequently. However, there seems to have been some misunderstanding here, since the number of responses and the information submitted on the scope of these officeholders mirror details provided on neighbourhood-level responsibilities. The obvious inference is that responses to the heading "District/neighbourhood manager" were not submitted in consideration of the level of control or action involved, but instead represented generalized yes/no answers. This item has therefore been omitted from the evaluation.
(2) Knorr-Siedow/ Jahnke/Trostorff, p. 105.
(3) Mussel/Kreisl, p. 82.
(4) Cf. Franke/Grimm, Quartiermanagement.
(5) This group encompasses citizens, politicians, administrators, clubs, associations, initiatives, sponsors, schools, churches, businesspeople, homeowners and housing companies, police and other organizations.
(6) Mussel/Kreisl, p. 58.
(7) Franke/Meyer, p. 54 f.
(8) Cf. Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed., Impulskongress Quartiermanagement, p. 65 (AG 3 b: Aktivierung der Bevölkerung).
(9) The following statements on the duration of contracts for district-bureau employees refer to responding programme districts (122 districts, 55%).
(10) Böhme/Franke, p. 65.
(11) Cf. Franke/Grimm, Quartiermanagement, p. 8.
(12) Breckner/Herrmann/Gonzales, p. 115.
(13) Frinken/Rake/Schreck, p. 91.
(14) Franke/Grimm, Quartiermanagement, p. 8 and p. 12.
(15) Cf. Chapter 8
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
