Success in the fields of activation and participation has mainly been observed in districts which have established efficient neighbourhood management in municipal government, at local and at intermediate level. (1) Problems mainly arise when collaboration with neighbourhood residents is basically restricted to formalized participation procedures, reducing the chances for activation. As a result, participation panels in some municipalities are attended mainly by highly vocal and/or previously involved citizens, while disadvantaged sections of the population are largely excluded.
To summarize, we can say that all programme areas have now begun utilizing activation tools and establishing opportunities for participation – although how they do this and to what extent varies greatly from district to district. As far as activation is concerned, outreach work must be intensified in many areas in order to better involve certain target groups, particularly (young) immigrants, the unemployed and state welfare recipients. It is therefore important to ensure that both activation tools and participation opportunities are low-threshold. The analysis of the programme implementation approach taken in North Rhine-Westphalia draws a similar conclusion: "We must appeal to inhabitants by showing an understanding of their lives and personal situations and offering them low-threshold opportunities."(2) It has also become clear that achieving the desired activation and participation effects requires a climate of trust that can only be built up gradually.
If activation and participation are to work, it is crucial that the measures be tailored to the district and its heterogeneous population. Simple transfer of experience from one district to another does not usually succeed. Activating neighbourhood residents demands an open approach, willingness to adopt their ideas, effective use of a diverse portfolio of methods and the proper consideration of the situation on the ground. Supporting residents' ideas and ensuring they are involved in implementing measures and projects is a core feature of activation. Any resulting conflicts with concrete local government plans for projects, scheduling and output must be tackled constructively.
Onsite programme support must go beyond developing activation techniques and participation opportunities. The teams must forge links with the local population and incorporate people into networked task forces. A good place to start is by contacting existing neighbourhood institutions: businesses, tenants' associations, initiatives, groups and councils, civic associations, parents' associations, churches and district councils.
Limited decision-making powers and the lack of contingency funds can hamper the very best efforts. Another important insight the teams have gained from their experience is that residents should not be fed any illusions as to the likelihood that their wishes will be fulfilled or that goals can be quickly and easily attained.(3) In addition, they have recognized the importance of transparent procedures. Teams must communicate the value of participation to the overall process, clarify how binding participatory panel decisions are, and provide information on whom recommendations and resolutions address and how ideas will progress once approved by the participation committees. An absolute necessity for activating residents and encouraging them to participate is the constant onsite presence of specialists, and provision of contact points offering low-threshold involvement opportunities.(4)
Ultimately, experience of Socially Integrative City programme implementation has shown that activation and participation – just like neighbourhood management – need adequate backing from local government if they are to function as credible instruments of democratic codetermination.
(1) Cf. Chapter 7.2.
(2) Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Analyse der Umsetzung des Handlungsprogramms, p. 48.
(3) Ibid, p. 48 f.
(4) Cf. Franke, p. 5.
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
