The situation in the districts
Experience in pilot districts has shown that the various neighbourhoods were in vastly different situations at the start of the programme. A good third of the pilot districts had no or very few societies or civic initiatives. There was, therefore, not a great deal of citizen organization and sense of community. This conforms to the discovery that there was little local-player involvement in those areas. A possible reason is that socially disadvantaged people are sometimes reluctant to show initiative. Many municipalities and evaluators use membership of societies or organizations as an important indicator of the level of "community spirit". Membership of such organizations is rare among certain sections of the population.(1) Individuals' own problems take precedence over general neighbourhood issues.(2) In the most extreme cases, the situation facing programme implementers is one of ghettoization, an "us-against-them" mentality, a lack of solidarity, lethargy, frustration and a reduced sense of obligation.(3) High fluctuation, where wealthier families move away and disadvantaged people move in, hampers attempts to establish stable community structures.(4)
On the other hand, onsite activities in another third of the pilot districts were able to build on an existing basis of active participation in societies and initiatives. The groups did not, however, necessarily have contact with one another initially; in many cases a vast amount of networking needed to be done.(5) In some areas a decline was noted in the number of "traditional" German sports clubs and cultural associations. Yet the number of immigrant clubs and initiatives was increasing. The Turkish population in particular seems to be getting organized.(6)
|
Fig. 74: Network configurations in programme areas, second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
n = 222; multiple responses possible |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
The pillars of the community in programme areas are usually sports clubs and cultural societies. However, church networks, cultural networks and citizens' groups and associations also play an important role. Less institutionalized groups such as neighbour networks or housing-block communities were mentioned less often in the course of the survey. This underlines the importance of activating previously unorganized population segments.
Activation
A broad range of activation techniques has been employed in the programme areas. Interviewees frequently mentioned information provision and events, advice centres, district festivals and (activating) surveys. Information work, district festivals and player networking are considered particularly important.
|
Fig. 75: Activation techniques employed, second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
n = 222; multiple responses possible |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
In the pilot districts the main activation activities are (district) festivals, campaigns, events and general communication work. The value of activating surveys, district walks, open days and advice centres increased between the first and second survey.
Despite intensive activation efforts in most of the pilot districts, many onsite programme support teams have found that activation attempts are lagging behind expectations. For example, the onsite programme support team in Ludwigshafen–Westend recommends "pursuing a more intensive outreach activation policy."(7) The team in Hamburg-Altona–Lurup came to a similar conclusion. Activation of neighbourhood inhabitants has reaped some success but there is still room for improvement.(8)
The support team in Bremen believe that their pilot district requires more outreach work, particularly in order to improve access to immigrant families. They feel that measures need to be better coordinated so that they can complement one another.(9) A low-threshold range of participation and activation opportunities is proposed for Halle–Silberhöhe: "The activation and participation techniques that have been adopted only target a small group of people who are willing and capable of getting involved in the district."(10) The Leipziger Osten team also feel it is necessary to "emphasize the importance of activation much more strongly in future, in order to encourage the neighbourhood population to show initiative and get organized so that they are better equipped to actively participate.(11)
Participation
The most common forms of participation offered in the project areas are task forces, activity circles, workshops and special projects for children and young people. District conferences or forums exist in almost two thirds of the programme areas.
|
Fig. 76: Participation options in the programme areas, second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
n = 222; multiple responses possible |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
In spring 2001 nearly a third of the pilot districts had no participation options at all. Now participation is a buzzword everywhere – although the individual districts have very different motives, goals, themes and timetables. The best represented form of participation in the pilot districts are forums (these include round tables, district activity circles, etc.). Their activities are often streamlined in task forces. Another important feature alongside these event-style participation options are longer-term (target-group-specific) participation-oriented projects.
As already established in the discussion on activation above, the participation basis in many pilot districts seems to require improvement and expansion. This is also the case for city and borough councils with a relatively large amount of experience in participation. The Hamburg-Altona–Lurup team state that certain target groups are not being reached, despite the fact that a wide range of tools, concepts and methods for citizen participation is available. Uncertainty also exists as to whether the wishes of stakeholders are properly respected.(12) The Ludwigshafen pilot district has not yet been able to achieve "lasting participation of all neighbourhood target groups": "To ensure continuous participation, we must establish solid structures and personal contacts in the neighbourhood. This is a goal which is only conceivable in the medium term."(13) The team in Hannover–Vahrenheide recommend making activation and participation measures "as low-threshold as possible, given the noticeable atmosphere of reluctance and resignation among the population."(14) In Neunkirchen's inner-city "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches conflict. "To date, participation has normally been triggered on the initiative of local government and usually involves residents in the planning phase only. However, more extensive participation is crucial in further implementation phases such as project design. But assuring this seems to be difficult within traditional administrative structures; the district has little experience of intensive participation processes. Activities which encourage inhabitants to participate fully in project implementation must be developed and enhanced if the requirements of the integrative approach are to be fulfilled."(15)
Reaching out to neighbourhood populations
Given the fact that "much has been done in the last two years to foster participation, communication and contact"(16) in programme areas such as Flensburg–Neustadt, we must ask ourselves which population segments have actually been reached. The team in Leinefelde–Südstadt reports that "a broad spectrum of activation forms is allowing us to appeal to ever more sections of the population."(17)
|
Table 18: Assessment of reachability of various sections of the population (n = 222), second survey (Difu 2002). |
||||||
|
Population segment |
+ + |
+ |
+/- |
– |
– – |
n.a. |
|
Children |
57 |
102 |
21 |
6 |
2 |
12 |
|
Young people (female) |
31 |
98 |
38 |
13 |
6 |
12 |
|
Young people (male) |
32 |
101 |
40 |
10 |
2 |
12 |
|
Senior citizens |
22 |
82 |
45 |
22 |
4 |
19 |
|
Ethnic minorities |
14 |
61 |
63 |
26 |
9 |
18 |
|
Ethnic Germans from former Eastern bloc |
7 |
42 |
48 |
30 |
16 |
35 |
|
Single parents |
4 |
46 |
66 |
25 |
3 |
45 |
|
Unemployed, social welfare recipients |
9 |
45 |
63 |
41 |
2 |
32 |
|
Women |
32 |
91 |
41 |
2 |
1 |
20 |
|
Men |
10 |
65 |
64 |
23 |
2 |
21 |
|
Others |
9 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
17 |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
||||||
Local government contacts for Socially Integrative City believe that the activation and participation approaches taken so far have been particularly well received by children, young people, women and senior citizens. Harder groups to reach are ethnic Germans from the former Eastern bloc, the unemployed, social welfare recipients and immigrants. This tendency is reflected in most of the pilot districts. In addition, in two thirds of pilot districts (young) immigrants are described as elusive.
Another problem, referred to in the Hannover–Vahrenheide final report, is the scope of participation. "Formal, regulated communication and procedures still dominate local politics and administration. Their structure alone (e.g. having to enter ones name on a list of speakers, filling in forms) discourages many district inhabitants. Only a very limited number of citizens take advantage of the forums provided. These individuals are usually people with adequate sociocultural skills, who know how to communicate and deal with conflict. Merely sporadic participation of inhabitants with immigrant or socially disadvantaged backgrounds in citizens' forums is not sufficient to ensure the continuous commitment required."(18) Of relevance here are the recommendations of the onsite programme support team in Leipziger Osten: "It would be sensible to offer participation options which are limited in duration and geographical scope, for example the chance to get involved in project realization, in order to be able to create participation structures outside the forums."(19)
Contingency funds
Local government's lack of decision-making powers and limited capability to act quickly have been a major hindrance to successful activation and participation in the past. Establishing contingency funds or district budgets is therefore advantageous, or even crucial, in activating inhabitants and initiating self-organization processes. This allows the rapid and unbureaucratic realization of smaller projects and measures. The amount of money available is much less important than the possibility of investing it directly on site without any complicated red tape. Programme implementation in North Rhine-Westphalia has shown that "even with limited resources, many projects which would otherwise have died due to lack of funds can be realized in the short term."(20)
Contingency funds have been set up in over half of the programme areas (128 responses = 58%), but a third of neighbourhoods had no budget of their own at the time of the survey (85 responses = 38%). The figures are similar in the pilot districts; over half the neighbourhoods already have contingency funds.(21) In most cases the annual sum provided is somewhere between €12,500 and €25,000.
|
Fig. 77: Contingency fund allocation bodies, second survey (Difu 2002) |
 |
n = 128; multiple responses possible |
|
German Institute of Urban Affairs |
Allocating funds in the programme areas is often the preserve of neighbourhood management committees. Other committees frequently mentioned were specially established award juries, district conferences and local councils themselves.
This multiplicity is reflected in how funds are allocated in pilot districts. In Flensburg, interest group representatives who sit on the renewal committee decide how monies should be used in the district. In Hamburg, a local participation committee called the Luruper Forum makes the decisions, in Schwerin it is the district management team. In Leipzig the Forum Leipziger Osten has jurisdiction over pilot district funding and the local neighbourhood management committee is in charge of allocating contingency funds in the district's "core areas". To date contingency funds ("lump sums") in Gelsenkirchen have been managed by the district office. The local programme support team feel that "making self-administered, local contingency funds available" could be an important step towards creating structures with more resident involvement.(22)
Berlin has a particularly wide-ranging type of contingency fund.(23) Every district receives a neighbourhood fund of around €500,000 and an awards committee decides how the money should be used. 51% of the jury is made up of local inhabitants, chosen at random. The remaining 49% are representatives from collectives, societies, initiatives, local groups, senior citizens' centres, businesses, housing associations, tenants' councils, schools and other educational institutions, parent-teacher associations and individuals involved in neighbourhood management activities. In addition, each Berlin neighbourhood management area has a campaign fund of around €15,000 per year for implementing projects proposed by inhabitants, initiatives and societies. A committee of local residents and representatives of schools, initiatives and societies decides how to allocate funds. The support team for Kottbusser Tor reports that using neighbourhood funds and campaign funds has allowed them to reach more residents than ever before.
(1) Schröder/Werth, p. 67.
(2) Geiss/Kemper/Krings-Heckemeier, p. 73.
(3) Krings-Heckemeier/Heckenroth/Geiss, p. 58.
(4) Cramer/Schuleri-Hartje, p. 53; Krings-Heckemeier/Heckenroth/Geiss, p. 58.
(5) Knorr-Siedow/Jahnke/Trostorff, p. 75.
(6) Mussel/Kreisl, p. 65.
(7) Schröder/Werth, p. 81.
(8) Breckner/Herrmann/Gonzales, p. 117.
(9) Franke/Meyer, p. 68.
(10) Geiss/Kemper/Krings-Heckemeier, p. 86.
(11) Böhme/Franke, p. 68.
(12) Breckner/Herrmann/Gonzales, p. 117.
(13) Schröder/Werth, p. 80 f.
(14) Geiling/Schwarzer/Heinzelmann/Bartnick, p. 162.
(15) Jacob/ Herz/Mazak/Pauly, p. 93 f.
(16) Frinken/Rake/Schreck, p. 106.
(17) Buhtz/ Gerth/ Lindner/ Weeber, p. 89.
(18) Geiling/Schwarzer/Heinzelmann/Bartnick, p. 131.
(19) Böhme/Franke, p. 68.
(20) Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Analyse der Umsetzung des Handlungsprogramms, p. 72.
(21) Berlin-Kreuzberg–Kottbusser Tor, Flensburg–Neustadt, Gelsenkirchen–Bismarck/Schalke-Nord, Hamburg-Altona–Lurup, Hannover–Vahrenheide-Ost, Leinefelde–Südstadt, Leipzig–Leipziger Osten, Nuremberg–Galgenhof-Steinbühl, Schwerin–Neu Zippendorf. Cottbus–Sachsendorf-Madlow is planning to set up such a fund.
(22) Austermann/Ruiz/Sauter, p. 96.
(23) On this topic see: Beer/Musch, p. 131 ff.
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
