3.3Goals of a NM-Unit

03 HISTORIC BACKGROUND

3.3 Goals of a NM-Unit

A NM-Unit is assigned in deprivileged areas to reduce unequal inner-city living conditions. The main goals of this unit focus on strengthening and Stabilizing of the infrastructure of socially disadvantaged areas. This is done through defining the existing social institutions within the area, determining their strengths and weaknesses so the NM-Unit can offer a solution to cover certain needs and offers that might be missing despite their importance, such as providing project-fund for a new position within the Family-center to bring seniors together and encourage them to do some activities outside their houses.

The NM-Unit is also concerned with promoting integration & social cohesion. Normally the designated areas are places with a high percentage of migrants, coming from different countries, with different cultures and backgrounds where the language forms an extra barrier. All these are challenges facing the community. In such cases NM-Unit offers small funds to encourage the coming-together of the community. (also project fund can do this, ex. Street-festival)

One of the main ideas behind the existence of NM-Units within neighborhoods is the improvement of the living conditions. This is not done by offering the people direct money but through funding missing facilities and services and improving parks and play-areas of schools to enhance the quality of living for the people of the area.

In addition to the aforementioned goals the NM-Unit aims to network and anchor the different actors and stakeholders of the neighborhood for better communication of information and complementing each other if needed.

Engaging the civil society for a better future for the area is another important goal. The activation & empowerment of Residents, by forming the different local committees and providing the possibility to apply for funds to do something beneficial for the community.

All this is achieved by linking the administrative entities & Local levels, where the N Managers act as mediators between the private and public entities minimizing the distance between them.

In order to reach the implementation phase, various steps are followed in realizing and actual execution of an idea. Step 1 of participation is conducted through workshops to figure out relevance’s or challenges, Neighborhood forums and community meetings all of which offer opportunities for exchange of ideas for the action plan development. Step 2 of collecting ideas is based on content, area of action and details of the proposals. A public call for proposals is issued, requesting all actors to contribute. Ideas are submitted not just by public institutions but also members of the DC. The submitted proposals are then reviewed and selected in step 3 by the respective DC under the supervision of SC. Projects or ideas are selected based on relevant criterias suitable for the Kiez and need to be under one of the five specific action fields mentioned in the following section to be considered for final selection. Step 4 on project implementation is when the suitable partners are selected who are requested to participate through a tender process. The final decisions are taken by the DC and SC before heading for on- site implementation (SVSW, 2010, pp. 7-9).

Figure Steps followed for an idea to be a project (SVSW, 2010, p. 7)

Prerequisites for a successful work

Need-based Study – Integrated Action & Development Plan
Partners taking part in the decision making
Funding

3.4 Selection of QM areas – Indicators Monitoring Social City Development

The indicators upon which the decision is taken while selecting the area to be included in the program are: Unemployment, Long-term Unemployment, number or rate of State Aid Recipients and children’s poverty, which is usually a consequence of the parents’ poverty.

3.5 Eligible Areas 2021

In 2021 there are 32 Neighborhoodmanagement Units for 32 different areas that vary in size and population-size. The biggest in area is 1,6 km2 (Klixstraße / Auguste-Viktoria-Allee) and the highest in pop is QM Moabit-West/Beusselstrasse with 24,000 inhabitants. & the smallest 5,400 inhabitant and an area of 0.25 km2 (QM-Mehringplatz)

Figure examples of eligible neigbrhood (QM-Berlin, 2021)

Figure areas requiring special attention (MMS,2019 Kurzfassung)

3.6 Participatory development Tools of the NM-Unit in Berlin

Local neighborhood committee

The neighborhood management has two different residents’ committees: the Local neighborhood committee and the Action Fund Jury. The Local neighborhood committee offers the residents of the district the opportunity to decide on the allocation of funding (Berlin model). As a formalized body, it is involved in voting on the resources of the project fund for the promotion of larger projects. They also are involved in the development of the integrated Action Concept (Plan IHEK) (Quartiersmanagement Soziale Stadt – Eine Arbeitshilfe für die Umsetzung vor Ort (bund.de)2016) It consists of minimum of 51% Neighborhood Management Unit Inhabitants to represent the interest of the local inhabitants and maximum 49% representatives of the strong stakeholders; educational and social Institutions, CSO, housing companies etc.to attain sufficient input and data. The number of residents within the committee should be at least 1% of the overall population of the neighborhood; ex if the neighborhood has 10.000 inhabitants, they should be minimum 10 residents. They are elected every 2 years, people who live or work in the neighborhood are eligible to run for elections and they meet once a month to decide upon projects and where to best allocate the fund according to the needs of the neighborhood (QM,Berlin 2021).

The Action-Fund-Jury on the other hand consists of 100% of local inhabitants and does not necessarily reflect a certain % of the overall population of the neighborhood. They are also residents of the designated neighborhood area who are elected by their peers (community) every 2 years and they meet monthly to decide upon Action-Fund^[1]; small scale funds that are quicker and easier to implement. Usually, these funded actions are directly done by the community to the community and are thus appreciated a lot (QR-QM-WTP, 2021).

Both committee act as multiplicators and are direct contact persons of the community for their neighborhood even for projects outside the Neighborhood Management’s mandate Quartiersmanagement Soziale Stadt – Eine Arbeitshilfe für die Umsetzung vor Ort (bund.de)BMUB, 2016.

In other German states it is called disposal fund “Verfuegungsfond” Quartiersmanagement Soziale Stadt – Eine Arbeitshilfe für die Umsetzung vor Ort (bund.de) BMUB, 2016

3.7 Integrated Action & Development Concept (IHEK)

The Integrated Action and Development Concept is a written strategic plan developed with the local committee stating the needs of the neighborhood and what should be achieved in the next two years (Soldiner-Quartier, 2021).

The IHEK has five main fields of action. They present 5 basic issues that are important on the different scales from the community, district, city, to the state scale. It also conforms with the EU-Regulations. It is flexible enough to give the different NM-Units the

Figure Integrated Action & Development Concept (IHEK)

possibility to develop in a way that fits specifically to the area following a needs-based approach. This means that the five fields of action specified by the Senate for Housing and Urban Development can be weighted by each Neighborhood Management Unit for its own area depending on their needs and set of priorities. This results in a strategic Action Plan that is set for all NM-Units yet the overall topics for all the NM-Units stays the same. In addition, the IHEK is a plan that should be taken seriously, only projects and goals mentioned in the IHEK can be approached and implemented (QM-Soldiner QM-Berlin, 2021).

Needs for action are formulated after carrying out workshops with the local committee, this represents the basis for new projects and are intended to contribute to the jointly developed objective and mission statements (visions) (QM-Soldiner).

For the IHEK 2019-2021 the basic five fields were as following:

Education & Youth
Jobs and Local Economy
Neighborhood (Community-Integration-Culture-Health)
Open & Public Spaces
Participation, Networking, Stakeholder Involvement

For the new period from 2022-2024 there was a slight change in five fields. The importance of Health & Mobility became a main field after going through the hard experience of the pandemics. In addition, the importance of the climate and the environmental friendly approaches to every action was also put in focus under the field Public Spaces as it is one of the basic European Union and Germany’s Goals. On the other hand, there are fields that don’t face major changes as they form the core of the Social City Program (since 2021 called Social Cohesion) such as the field of Integration & Neighborhood; Education and Participation, Networking, Cooperation with Partners.

Under Integration and Community there are issues such as supporting the community through strengthening their Social Infrastructure and the adaptation to local needs; support the provision of spaces and activities for meeting-up and Integration to improve the Integration and inclusion of deprivileged population-groups.

In the field of Education improving the quality of Education-offers especially regarding chance-equality is in focus; activities to support and improve the social infrastructure in the field of education, youth, libraries, including the development of educational-landscapes of campus-complexes. Even here Digital learning and communication (media education) was a point that gained importance in the phase of the corona pandemics.

For the field of Public Spaces, the enhancement of the usability of the urban spaces (Spaces, parks, playgrounds, sport and mobility opportunities, street-spaces) including traffic-safety, sense of security, and cleanliness are important aspects beside climate related issues such as encouraging activities for climate protection and for adapting to the climate-change. he creation, maintenance, upgrading and expansion of green areas and open spaces with the involvement and networking of local actors, including urban gardening.

and measures for environmental justice

Health & Mobility

1. Establishment and support of prevention chains
2. Healthy Nutrition (Nutrition and consumer protection)
3. Physical activity promotion
4. Infrastructure in the field of public spaces
5. Measures for aggressiveness prevention

Participation, Networking, Cooperation with Partners

1. Participation and activation of the residents
2. support of the community’s engagement and self-organization
3. Support and networking of local actors, the local economy, and other structures
4. local support services for people at risk of poverty including introduction to the labor market
5. Support for residents and cooperation with key players about living and renting (QM-Berlin, 2021)

Since 2020, the topics of climate protection and environmental justice have also been the focus of Berlin’s district management.

3.8 The Legal Framework

The legal framework for neighborhood management is specified at the federal level by the administrative agreement and at the state level by the corresponding funding guidelines (Quaestio Forschung & Beratung, 2016)

Neighborhood managements have a mediating role both vertically between the administration and the district and horizontally between the neighborhood actors or between the administrative offices. Through vertical communication, the neighborhood management ensures the residents’ orientation within the social city. Through their horizontal mediation role they contribute to strengthening integrated action within the administration but also between the actors in the neighborhood (Quaestio Forschung & Beratung, 2016).

The IHEK is formally important as it is a prerequisite for funding to be allowed to flow into the neighborhood according to §171e (the measures of the social city) of the building code that sets-up the Neighborhood Management Unit. The paragraph allows urban development measures to stabilize and upgrade neighborhoods that are disadvantaged by social grievances (Soldiner-QM,2019; § 171e BauGB Baugesetzbuch.net).

Paragraph 171e lists what is necessary so that money can flow from the “Socially Integrative City” funding pot, now Social Cohesion program. Clause 4 of the paragraph requires that a development concept must be drawn up and that it must be developed through the participation of those affected. Those affected are, for example, residents of the defined Neighborhood Management Unit who can have a say through their elected Local Community Committee.

Figure The legal framework for neighborhood management

Funds, applied instruments and participation are all elements of the Social city program that are regulated and defined by different Laws of the German Building Code “BauGB”. § 171e deals with measures of the Social City, defining what areas fall into this category, being disprivileged areas with prevalent social problems that need development.

171e measures of the Social City

Urban development measures of the Socially Integrative City can be implemented as long as their implementation is lying within the public interest.

This paragraph also states that Urban measures of the Social City programm aim to stabilize and improve disprivileged areas or areas that need development (BauGB). it also explains what a disprivileged area actually is, and that they are more often found downtown. The municipality determines the area in which the measures are to be carried out through. In point 4 of the same paragraph it is stated clear that for each determined Area there has to be a IHEK ‘development concept’ that is developed through participation and inclusion of the local neighborhood committee and stakeholders (§ 137) and responsible authorities (§ 139). In this Conceptplan, goals and measures to be carried out are stated clearly. In particular, the development concept should include measures that serve to improve living and working conditions as well as to create and maintain socially stable resident structures.

164a states where Urban Development Funds can be allocated. Among other aspects it can be allocated in
164b talks about the financial aids provided by state and cities and regulated through administrative agreements. This law defines when the financial aid can be enforced, among others to implement urban development measures to remedy social grievances.

Explanation of the different laws and their importance for the implementation of the programs and their instruments……

3.9 QM Decision-making Partners

QM has fixed contact persons in the administration both at the district level and at the senate level (so-called district coordinator and area coordinator). Especially at the beginning of QM, the coordination takes place mainly through the central contact person in the district office. The QM works closely with the district administrations in individual fields of action, for example in the areas of youth green spaces, social affairs or health (BMUB, 2016 44).

The central committee for coordination between QM and the administration is the steering committee. This consists of the QM team, the district coordinator and the area coordinator of the Senate Administration. The steering committee makes the decisions about the use of the funding and makes central stipulations for the work of the QM. The steering committee is regularly expanded to include members of the district council as part of the project development. In addition to the steering committee, the coordination between QM and administration also takes place in other formal networks as well as project and event-related (BMUB, 2016 44).

Figure QM Decision-making Partners

3.10 Structure and NM-Procedures

Figure Structure and NM-Procedures

3.11 Funding system and mechanisms

In the NM-Areas in Berlin under the social city program, subsidies are made available through 4 neighborhood funds; Action Fund, Project-Fund, Construction-Fund, and Network Fund. While the action fund is for small measures up to 1500 Euro, a QR chosen by the residents decides on the implementation of larger projects from the project fund up to 50.000 Euros. The decision on the building and network funds lies within the Senate and municipality (BMUB, 2016).

Sources of Fund can be explained as follows:

Between the years 1999 – 2020, 508.800.000 Euros where spent on NM-Areas all over Berlin under the Program of the Social City as a co-financing between City, federal state and EU: the state of Berlin 47%, the EU (European Regional Development Fund-EFRE) 30% and the federal states share is 23% with money from Urban Development Funding. It was the role of the city-state of Berlin to manage the money.

The Social Cohesion program is a main component of the National Urban Development Fund (comp. §171e BauGB) where urban measures are carried out to upgrade the area and achieve a more stabilized community.

Figure Funding system and mechanisms

Starting the new funding phase from 2021 to 2027 the European Fund is no more part of the co-financing partners. Instead it can still fund projects separately under the title

Zukünftig erfolgt im Programm Sozialer Zusammenhalt bei Bauprojekten keine pauschale EU-Förderung mehr, sondern einzelne Vorhaben können über das BiQ-Folgeprogramm Bildung im Quartier mit EU-Mitteln gefördert werden. Voraussetzung ist, dass sich die Projekte innerhalb der Kulisse der Gemeinschaftsinitiative befinden und sich aus einem Handlungskonzept für einen Handlungsraum der Kulisse der Gemeinschaftsinitiative ableiten lassen. (QM-Berlin, 2021)

3.12 Urban Development Funding Program

2021 celebrates 50 years of the existence of the Urban Development Funding Program. Since 1971, urban development funding has supported cities and municipalities in meeting structural, economic, social and ecological challenges. The Urban development funding is a neighbourhood-based and integrated programme that has been supported in the last 50 years; 178 area in Berlin with a total sum of 3,5 billion euros (Land, Bund and EU Funds). In 2021 there are 70 areas where urban development measures are carried out with a total of 130 million Euro.

In the 1970’s, before the existence of this program there was a city-renewal program in western Germany since 1963. At that time the basic approach of renewal was the demolition of the old and replace it with new structures. However, due to major protests in 1968 carried out by student-movement followed by other community movements against the demolition of “Kahlschlagsanierung” there was a path-correction to change the city-renewal policy. In the 1980’s the approach of the city renewal has changed to become more friendly towards existing buildings. With the recognition ot the principles of cautious urban renewal. In this era Homes were modernized, open spaces and courtyards where redesigned, commercial premises renovated, and social institutions created. (Webdokumentation | Tag der Städtebauförderung Berlin (SenSW, 2021))

In the 1990’s it was a difficult phase after the re-unification. Buildings of East-Berlin were in a deteriorated status, where emergency programs became necessary. The program “Promoting urgent urban renewal measures in Greater Berlin” initiated 1990. Focusing on east-berlin there was a clear approach that “Prefabricated housing estates” are being improved in terms of urban development. In 1991, the urban heritage protection program. During this time of upheaval, the topic of urban renewal lost attention, it was eclipsed by new topics such as the reconstruction of the historic centre and the construction of new suburbs. (Webdokumentation | Tag der Städtebauförderung Berlin (SenSW, 2021))

In the 2000’s Berlin was in an economic crisis, banking scandal, housing vacancy, stagnation of population growth, shrinking budget, lack of economic fundamentals as well as the increase of socio-spatial division weakened the city. The new slogan was: “public money into public property”. The housing policy success after more than 4 billion Euro for the renewal of the housing stock was visible everywhere. In contrast, the infrastructure had a huge backlog demand. The funding strategies were restructured to this. Social projects became top priority in the large housing estates. This phase the renovation of schools, nurseries, public cultural entities, the creation (provision) of public spaces and green areas were prevalent and of high importance to make the city centers attractive for the residents.

The new urban renewal guidelines of 2005 illuminated the new orientation: mobilization of private initiative and private capital, accompanied by renewal of public infrastructure and the residential environment. Webdokumentation | Tag der Städtebauförderung Berlin (SenSW, 2021))

At the end of the 2000s, Berlin was preparing for new tasks: Strengthening urban centers as business locations, places of culture, leisure and living. This can only succeed with the commitment of the local actors – the property owners, traders and businesspeople.

Since 1999, the Socially Integrative City program has added a social dimension to urban renewal with a view to socially disadvantaged neighborhoods: “Local commitment creates stable neighborhoods”. A successful instrument for this in Berlin is neighborhood management. The senate for city development and housing is emphasizing that in future, it will be even more important to activate citizens for their city.

Experience to date shows: Improving people’s living conditions also contributes to the stabilisation of neighborhoods as a whole.