Case Studies  The Berlin Case Study: The Socially Integrative City.Wrangelkiez, Boxhagener Platz, Ostkreuz

2.5. The Neighbourhood Fund

The Neighbourhood Fund was an experimental pilot scheme for the empowerment of residents that had been carried out in all neighbourhood management areas with additional funding by the city state (Land) of Berlin. Each allocation committee, consisting of randomly chosen residents of the area, was to decide on the allocation of about 500,000 €. The experiment was seen as a big success in the public and is currently being analysed.

Inspired by the good experiences made with the action funds and in continuation of innovative projects in London, the idea of the neighbourhood fund was born. The question was: Are the projects supported so far really relevant to the people? Have the recent approaches to empower the local residents to be active and dedicated in their neighbourhood, and to create self-sufficient structures, really been successful?

The residents and local protagonists in the allocation committees decide independently on the allocation of the funds. The parliament of Berlin granted the Senate for Urban Development for 2001 and 2002 funds of about 500,000 € for each of the then 15 neighbourhood management areas in order to implement a neighbourhood fund. Later on, neighbourhood funds of the same size were implemented in two additional areas for 2002 and 2003.

In preparation for a suitable allocation procedure, a good deal of thought was spent on how to ensure the participation of as many people in the neighbourhoods as possible.

These considerations led to the implementation of allocation committees that consist mainly (at least 51 %) of local residents drawn by lot from the register of residents. Of the 4,000 people that had been contacted (in the then 15 neighbourhoods), 25 % appeared to be interested, and 14 % finally became members in a committee, which is an astoundingly high degree of participation. The rest of the committee (no more than 49 %) consists of representatives of already existing groups and institutions, such as schools, kindergartens, old people's homes, local craft and trade, landlords, housing companies, tenants, initiatives, clubs and associations, dedicated individuals, et cetera.

The size of a committee depends on the number of residents in the area: There is one member and one representative for every 1,000 residents, with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 30 representatives. In reality, the number of members varied, depending on the size of the area, between 15 and 27 (plus an equal number of representatives). This kind of composition of the committees, in combination with a qualified majority needed for the allocation of funds, successfully prevented already established groups from dominating the committee and putting through their own interests.

Local residents and other people interested in the neighbourhood could put forward proposals for the neighbourhood fund. The local office of the neighbourhood management team will then pre-process them for the meetings of the allocation committee. So far, more than 1,600 projects of all kinds and sizes have been approved by the allocation committees.

Assessment

The mood among the committee members was predominantly positive. At first, they had been astonished that 'the state' was really giving them money they could freely spend for projects in their neighbourhood. But there has also been criticism, saying that the neighbourhood fund was only a redistribution of already existing funds. The procedure was unique for Germany and has in many cases inspired residents to try out new ways of living together.

During the work of the committee, a group of residents has emerged that has intensively dealt with neighbourhood development. This is putting decisions that are important for the neighbourhood on a much broader basis than usual (city, district, and neighbourhood steering committees deciding on the allocation of funds).

Compared to the programme 'The Socially Integrative City', the neighbourhood funds could be allocated much easier than the standard procedures on funding prescribe. The committee members are highly interested in the realisation and success of the approved and financed projects. Thus, contacts between residents, initiatives, institutions, associations et cetera have developed which will continue beyond the committee.

The – soon to be finished – evaluation report on urban management procedures highly recommends this innovative form of public participation in its analysis:

In general, the work of the neighbourhood funds is a great success for the neighbourhood management strategy. This success is a result of the following effects:

• A crucial success of the neighbourhood funds is the activation of citizens. Members of the committee as well as many of the residents involved in the approved projects could be integrated into the development of the neighbourhood.
• The number and the variety of measures initiated for neighbourhood development has increased significantly.
• The number of groups and projects that are involved in neighbourhood development because of the fund has increased significantly. The inclusion of many associations and institutions that so far have mainly acted without any relation to neighbourhood development is exceptional, as well as the activation of citizens who are in contact with other networks and now feel more 'responsible' for their neighbourhood.
• The high degree of independence from administrations and directives helped in funding a lot of projects that would not have received support under the standard procedures of sponsorship, or only with great difficulties. At the same time, the approaches are under much closer inspection concerning their effects, relevance, and consumption of resources.

After its term of two years, the Senate Department of Urban Development finished this pilot scheme, which had been fully financed by the Land Berlin. A continuation of the project with reduced funds was not considered.

The Neighbourhood Fund in the 'Wrangelkiez'

In the 'Wrangelkiez', an allocation committee of 30 held 19 sessions from 2001 to 2003, in which a total of 114 applications for project funding were discussed. 37 of them were finally approved. The available funds have been dealt with responsibly. It was tried hard to use them justly and sparingly. Often, the intensity of the discussion was irrespective of the amount of money the application asked for. From the large number of applications, those projects became approved that seemed to improve the development of the neighbourhood best, and only certain central issues were addressed. Most of the money was spent on projects for the improvement of the housing environment, followed by measures that offered children and young people more opportunities and inspirations for their leisure time or supplement their school activities. Neighbourhood culture has also been an important issue.

The applicants:

Correlation of Applications and Domains

Mostly, projects needing between 2,500 € and 25,500 € per measure were approved. Five projects needed less than 2,500 €, and only four projects with a budget of more than 25,500 € were approved by the committee.

The composition of the allocation committee was representative for the 'Wrangelkiez'. Old and young people, migrants and Germans, craftsmen and shop keepers as well as representatives of groups. Most of them had already been living in the area, some had just moved in. (For examples of projects, see A6 in annex).

2.4 Example: Neighbourhood Management Boxhagener Platz     3.Summary: Cooperation and Coordination in Neighbourhood Development in Berlin