Resource Pooling in the Socially Integrative City Programme

The goal of the federal-Land Urban Districts With Special Development Needs - the Socially Integrative City programme is sustainedly improving the situation of people who live in the selected disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This requires comprehensive strategies to upgrade the areas. These strategies are to be implemented by coupling investment measures with steps to prepare, support and safeguard investments in the field of urban renewal. They are also intended to pool all resources and capabilities in the widest possible range of policy areas (cf. VV-Städtebauförderung 2002, p. 13f.; ARGEBAU 2000, Chapter 6).

Socially Integrative City is part of the urban development support offered by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (BMVBW) and the Länder and is geared to strengthening cities as business locations and residential zones. It is an autonomous investment programme based on Article 104a, Paragraph 4, of the Basic Law (GG) with its own budget in the federal budgetary system.

Socially Integrative City's financial means and legal options do not suffice to master the complicated problems in the particularly disadvantaged quarters. The programme is therefore designed to channel the necessary funds, know-how and commitment into the target zones by pooling the aid from various government departments and private enterprise. Since the programme began, around €770 million has flowed into the programme districts. This includes state and municipal funding. The required co-financing is often hamstrung by tight budgets.

A central programme approach

Resource pooling to further the Socially Integrative City programme is a strategic approach to district-oriented application of miscellaneous resources. The core of the approach is making urban development promotion and its funding regulations an autonomous investment and steering programme that can assume a control and pivot function for the overall development of neighbourhoods (ARGEBAU 2000, Chapter 4.1).

"Until recently, architectural and spatial aspects of urban renewal, including investment policy, dominated, but now the emphasis is increasingly on bolstering the social, economic, cultural and environmental dimensions of revitalization and development processes, elaborating and implementing integrative models and mobilizing local self-organization forces. Interdepartmental combination of aid programmes, stronger incorporation of non-investment measures and testing of new government and management structures are designed to pool available resources to promote comprehensive, integrated urban district development and to tailor expenditure and effort to be more efficient and flexible" (Becker et al. 1998, p. 4).

To this end, the 1 March 2000 edition of ARGEBAU guidelines for the Urban Districts With Special Development Needs - the Socially Integrative City programme states under 6.1 General Financing Principles: "The new approach ranks pooling of monies and measures that relate to urban district development (town planning aid, housing construction aid, housing, transport, labour and training promotion, security, women's, family and youth services, business, environment, district culture, leisure) as a priority task for Länder and municipalities" (ARGEBAU 2000). And under 6.2 Aid Regulations Status, we read, "Funds of third parties (e.g. housing companies, European Structural Fund, employment promotion programmes) should be incorporated into project financing" (ibid.). The guidelines are binding for programme implementers as part of federal and Land government annual administrative agreements on urban development.

Session of the interagency task force for all Socially Integrative City districts in Nuremberg. Photo: Wolf-Christian Strauss

The Socially Integrative City programme is thus not restricted to a mixture of the various funding ingredients available to promote a measure or a project. Implementing the strategic goal of resource pooling requires harmonization of concepts at the federal, Land and municipal levels and with project-related work on site. Resource pooling thus means neither the purely additive combination of various aid programmes in a district nor the lumping of several projects into a consolidated budget. Instead it describes coordinated action of different sponsors and coordinated application of financial and human resources from various policy areas on the basis of integrated action plans. The focus is on combining investment measures and measures preparing, supporting and sustaining these investments.

German federal government and EU

Conditions for the success of the programme are intensification and improvement of interdepartmental cooperation at the federal level (ARGEBAU 2000, Chapter 4.4). Federal ministries assume this responsibility in several ways (1):

• On the basis of an inventory of all possible federal financing sources for urban district development (2) the BMVBW influenced the shaping of other federal programmes, aimed current programmes at the Socially Integrative City districts and published information on these programmes on its website and that of the German Institute of Urban Affairs for use by onsite players. This holds for the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth programme designated Development and Opportunities for Young People in Social Hotspots, which, although it does not provide any of its own project funds, does ensure that grant recipients spend the substantial funds dedicated to the child and youth service plan in Socially Integrative City districts. However, Voluntary Social Training Year (FSTJ) funds are applied to Development & Opportunity (E&C). (3). The Federal Interior Ministry repatriate reintegration programme concentrates on Socially Integrative City districts. (4). Further pooling effects result from the fact that other programmes not specifically associated with Socially Integrative City districts actually spend considerable funds in these districts. The main source of funds are federal budget items for traditional urban development aid, social housing promotion and the Municipal Transport Financing Law. The Federal Labour Office has expressly instructed job centres to consider the special aid requirements of Socially Integrative City districts. (5). Particularly important in this respect is the intentionally open-ended, freely applicable Freie Förderung support programme pursuant to Article 10 of the Employment Promotion Act. In this connection regional, i.e. district-related, activities to support training and qualification of young people are legitimate. Subsequent executive orders on freely applicable funding have included a reference to the Socially Integrative City.
  
• Irrespective of aid programmes, interministerial cooperation was intensified. Involvement of the BMVBW in an interministerial task force harnessed the work of the newly founded German Crime Prevention Forum for urban districts with special development needs. The ministry also has a seat on the Youth Policy Committee of State Secretaries.
  
• Welfare organizations and other non-governmental social work sponsors are also keys to district development success. To create synergy effects, the BMVBW holds discussions with representatives of national associations and initiatives, occasionally with professional and occupational groups, and sometimes with the minister him/herself. The German Protestant Church Diakonisches Werk and the BMVBW organized a conference on Socially Integrative City early in 2002. It was entitled Development and Opportunities for Children, Adolescents and Adults in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods. The ministry also joined the German Institute of Urban Affairs in December 2001 in supporting the annual International Poverty and Health Congress. (6).
  
• Finally the BMVBW supports the nationwide Socially Integrative City Prize, awarded first in 2000 and again in 2002 and sponsored by the German League of Cities, AWO National Worker Welfare Association, GdW Bundesverband deutscher Wohnungsunternehmen, Schader Foundation, vhw Deutsches Volksheimstättenwerk - National Association for Homeowning, Home Construction and Urban Development and other organizations.

However, the Socially Integrative City programme is also bound by the constitutional principle of departmental autonomy (Article 65, Basic Law) and the separation of powers between the federation and the Länder (Article 83 ff, Basic Law). This makes it hard to pool federal resources because the BMVBW cannot fulfil the demands of other ministries, which also provide district-related aid (e.g. the Ministry of Economics and Technology's joint regional business promotion) to have a say in districting. Selection of districts for the Socially Integrative City programme is a Land prerogative. No way has yet been found around this barrier to conducive cooperation. The various support modalities (preconditions, timing, subsidiarities) of the different programmes also create implementation problems. While urban renewal resources are applied spatially, employment and training aid (e.g. job creation (ABM), structural adaptation (SAM) and social and youth services) is allocated per-capita. However, the preference in almost all policy areas is to add a preventive social space dimension to the targeting of individuals in assigning resources. That goes, for instance, for the major youth services and health promotion sectors, although considerable difficulties in implementation must be overcome. (7). This division of competences and subsidiarity problem is not a concern at the EU level. A hallmark of the URBAN-II programme is that available funds for all necessary tasks are put into the urban district development pot so that all kinds of applications can be accommodated by "dipping into it". However, the hurdles for acceptance in the programme are relatively high (e.g. ex-ante evaluation, exact definition of objectives, pledge to conduct continual monitoring and evaluation), only 12 cities in Germany enjoy the benefits of this programme, and the bounty is clearly focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

FSTJ Freiwilliges Social Trainings- Jahr CJD Neunkirchen Extract of fly of the Christian Youth Village Foundation for the Voluntary Social Training Year in Neunkirchen. Photo: CJA Neunkirchen

Moreover, the federal-Land Socially Integrative City programme is complemented by EU 2000-2006 Structural Fund aid. This is facilitated by the funds and projects of the EU structural policy on renewal of urban problem areas. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) cannot only be tapped via URBAN II. Another avenue is the regularly dosed EU Objective 1 and Objective 2 funding. European Social Fund (ESF) aid can be combined with ERDF monies. (8).

Länder

Many German Land governments have established interministerial task forces - for instance Mecklenburg-West Pomerania in 1999. The group is comprised of delegates from the Ministry of Labour and Construction, Ministry of Social Welfare, Ministry of Education, Research and Culture, Interior Ministry, Ministry of Economics, Ministry of the Environment, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania League of Towns and Cities and the North German Housing Company Association. The panel is under Ministry of Labour and Construction leadership. It debates and acts on grant applications, develops programme support aids and publishes pertinent material. The Mecklenburg-West Pomerania aid manual appeared in 2001 under the authorship of the Ministry of Labour and Construction in consultation with the task force, abbreviated IMAG. (9). In North Rhine-Westphalia members of the interministerial task force (INTERMAG) have been coordinating tasks in their own department for many years. They liaise with municipalities and the sponsoring Urban Development Ministry. Two of the task force responsibilities are deciding on municipalities' applications to be admitted to the Socially Integrative City programme and harmonizing current assistance programmes. INTERMAG decisions are recommendations rather than rules.

Other Länder, for instance Baden-Württemberg, forego interministerial task forces and make do with a cabinet resolution which instructs departments to favour Socially Integrative City districts in their programmes. In other Länder, e.g. Hamburg, resource pooling does not involve a large circle of departments. It is handled in bilateral discussions on individual projects between the appropriate ministry and the coordinating municipal development agency.

A more ambitious approach is taken by Saxony-Anhalt in implementing URBAN 21, which foresees pooling of all Land programmes that can be applied to urban development. Only plans that pursue more than one of the guiding principles listed in the Framework for Action for Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union are accepted for funding. The URBAN 21 Land initiative is supported by a panel chaired by an Economics Ministry representative and composed of people from the most prominently involved agencies, Regierungspräsidien (top officials of a Regierungsbezirk), League of Towns and Cities, Land housing industry associations and supporting research institutes such as the Deutsches Seminar für Städtebau und Wirtschaft (German Institute for Town Centre Development, DSSW). This panel decides, with the consent of the other fund administrator concerned, on the tentative acceptance of an application. Pooling with EU funds has also taken place in Saarland. There Objective 2 aid was merged with Socially Integrative City funds in the Land Stadt-Vision-Saar programme.

Standardization of the support regulations of various agencies and introduction of a central application office conforming to the principle of the unity of Land government for all requests for Land aid has only been achieved in Saxony-Anhalt. Catalogues of integrable aid schemes tailored to specific programme district problems are helpful. Bavaria has compiled one to "encourage development of holistic solutions, support collaboration of departments and offer assistance with elaboration and implementation of integrated action plans." (10). In Lower Saxony the Landestreuhandstelle (Land Trusteeship Agency), which has also compiled a comprehensive inventory of funding sources relevant to Socially Integrative City districts, (11) counsels all applicants and helps them find the appropriate place to file their request. North Rhine-Westphalia's Land-owned Gesellschaft für innovative Beschäftigungsförderung (Innovative Employment Promotion Association, G.I.B.) and the Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung (Institute for Regional and Urban Development Studies, ILS) have established institutions which provide advice on applications for and pooling of aid monies. A few Länder, such as Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia, also use their Regierungsbezirk authorities as pooling channels. Nevertheless, even in such cases the idea of resource pooling cannot always be implemented. The tried-and-tested vertical hierarchization of government agencies, practised in both East and West Germany for decades from national government to provincial, regional and municipal authorities remains the typical pattern of administration in Germany. (12).

In spite of this rigidity, approaches of networked action are blossoming beyond the already-cited initiatives. Over the course of time more and more departmental programmes, which are commonly used in urban districts with special development needs, are sprouting. For example, in North Rhine-Westphalia this covers the Ministry of Education's 1000-teaching-position programme, the special Ministry of Social Welfare programme to prevent homelessness, the Youth With a Future programme providing exercise, play and athletic activities in districts particularly requiring renewal (now called Werkstatt Sport). The Hessian Social Welfare Ministry reinforces the federal-Land Socially Integrative City programme by encouraging supplementary social measures to prepare, accompany and secure investments. There state intervention is entrusted to the Hessische Gemeinschaftsinitiative Soziale Stadt (HEGISS). (13).

Municipalities and projects

Despite the pooling efforts at superordinate levels, municipalities and projects are still the main resource consolidation units. Funds that are not already bundled, as in the EU URBAN II programme, must be melded. Any lack of rapport and cooperation at the federal and Land levels causes severe bottlenecks at the municipal level. The German Institute of Urban Affairs survey of 1999 and 2000 programme communities showed that pooling was usually limited to the traditional areas of urban development promotion, housing construction assistance, municipal transport financing law and labour administration.

Great uncertainty about sources of finance and application channels appears to be widespread. In many cases Länder and municipalities lack centres that provide consultation to grant applicants. Many Länder and a few Regierungsbezirke have compiled handbooks listing Land-level integrable support ingredients. In other Länder similar guides are still on the to-do list. Delays in implementing Socially Integrative City and resource pooling difficulties also arise because relevant aid programmes were revised after the scheme had been launched so that projects had to wait to be submitted.

Municipalities have often created interagency structures to expedite decisions on Socially Integrative City district applications. In these cases the municipal government is closely knit with neighbourhood management teams. In some places, e.g. Essen, decision-makers are thinking about reorganizing city government in general in terms of districts to enable the administrative organs to coordinate local efforts and act prophylactically (Grimm/Micklinghoff/Wermker 2001). In Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck/Schalke-Nord intragovernment accords are reached in an interagency task force. The district programme is harmonized with Land, Regierungsbezirk and municipal authorities in a project steering meeting of top officials. In this case district office staff coordinate measures and applications for appropriations in conjunction with district players, civil servants and project sponsors. Similar patterns have been established for such places as Dortmund's Nördliche Innenstadt, Kassel-Nordstadt and subdivisions of Munich and Nuremberg.

In almost all pilot districts of the federal-Land programme municipal interagency or interdepartmental supervisory panels are employed to "direct traffic". Some onsite programme support units (PvOs) report that the effort to coordinate between various municipal sectors tends to be stymied by too much red tape. The same applies to harmonization of Land authorities. Conceptual agreement between players at various levels has not taken place to an adequate extent. Another problem is that many municipalities do not perceive the Socially Integrative City programme as an investment and guidance system for application of city department budgets but rather as an additional source of funds for previously planned measures that had had to be postponed due to municipal budget consolidation.

Leinefelde Youth Centre under construction. Photo: Weeber + Partner

An exemplary instance of resource pooling is the construction of a youth centre with an environmentally sound design in Leinefelde. The building was financed by the Thuringia Ministry of Social Welfare, Family and Health, the Parish of Eichsfeld and the Town of Leinefelde. The outdoor facilities were sponsored by Socially Integrative City funds. The Miteinander pilot project to support integration of recent repatriates from eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, financed by the Development & Opportunity scheme, was linked to the youth centre.

Another illustrious example of resource pooling is financing so-called residential area counsellors in the Schwerin-Neu Zippendorf pilot district. They are assigned to support neighbourhood communities. Combining various sources of funds makes this project possible. The European Social Fund (ESF) pays for a share of the training costs, the Federal Labour Office covers structural adaptation measures (SAM) and Socially Integrative City invests in the neighbourhood gatherings. Additional support is provided by the Land Community Education Programme (GAP) and resources from the Schwerin Housing Construction Cooperative (SWG) and the Hand in Hand Association. SWG provides the services, but it collaborates closely with Hand in Hand since some of the funds may only be claimed by a nonprofit organization.

Private resources

The largest private Socially Integrative City investors are housing companies. They modernize their dwellings, principally in large housing estates and prefabricated apartment buildings, improve the living environment on their own property, employ caretakers or concierges - frequently long-term unemployed people living in the district who thus gain an opportunity for further training - and employ social workers to mend the community fabric (Sachs 2001, p 133 ff). Their investment volume greatly exceeds the federal-Land aid under Socially Integrative City. The business interests of the housing firms are a viable motive for such dedication. (15). GdW Bundesverband deutscher Wohnungsunternehmen e.V (Federal Association of German Housing Enterprises) only recently began to record the investment funds of its members that flow into the programme districts. Conclusive statistics are therefore not yet available. In prewar neighbourhoods private landlords, who dominate, are principal players. Like the housing companies, they face the dilemma of short-term profitability versus long-term maintenance of building value, of stabilization of the existing population structure versus gentrification.

Private enterprise also has a major role in Socially Integrative City districts. Strengthening the local economy is a prerequisite for positive, sustainable district development. (16). Total private investment cannot be calculated. However, as with traditional urban development aid, we can assume that investment increases to keep pace as soon as stabilization or an upward trend in the districts becomes apparent.

The financial commitment of non-governmental players is often greater than the public aid available for communities earmarked for development. For instance, in Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck/Schalke-Nord the Protestant Church and private houseowners injected resources into the district's improvement scheme. They invested in construction of the Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck Protestant Comprehensive School, the Bismarck Solar Estate and the Build-It-Yourself-the-Easy-Way housing project in the neighbourhood. Apart from the overall district plan, two housing companies - Gemeinnützige Gelsenkirchener Wohnungsgesellschaft (GGW) and Treuhandstelle (THS) - dedicated considerable resources to modernizing apartments and improving the surroundings (AGB/ILS 2002).

Other important backers are private welfare organizations, which provide their own and external aid for charitable causes in the area. They do social work, provide youth and family assistance, promote health, help aliens to integrate and perform numerous other functions. No figure can be put on their spending for these purposes, but it must be considerable.

Social sponsoring and corporate citizenship are other factors of increasing significance. (17). Startsocial - der Wettbewerb für soziale Ideen (the Social Improvement Idea Competition) (18) and similar initiatives and Unternehmen: Partner der Jugend (Business Partners of Youth, UPJ) (19) channel some of their efforts into neighbourhoods with particular development requirements. Startsocial supports transfer of know-how from the business to the social sector, while the federal UPJ initiative networks youth and social work institutions with local and regional businesses, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises.

The award of the Socially Integrative City Prize in 2000 and 2002 reflects broad commitment of diverse participants who support the programme approaches and objectives. This competition, which is not limited to programme districts, recognizes innovative approaches to resource pooling and integrative projects which dovetail various fields of activity. The contest, along with numerous events and initiatives run by the housing companies, welfare organizations and other institutions, e.g. foundations like the Schader-Stiftung and ZEIT-Stiftung, demonstrates that the goals and approaches of the Socially Integrative City programme are gaining wide approval and broad support.

Conclusion

Resource pooling on behalf of Socially Integrative City demands new forms of cooperation for targeted application of means in the districts on the basis of an integrated action plan. Experiences of onsite programme support staff in 2001 reflect resource pooling obstacles, some of which are severe, even in districts where programme implementation is already well advanced.

Critics complain about shortcomings in harmonizing aid programmes, that compilation of integrable assistance schemes is lacking or that such catalogues are inadequate or outdated. Many communities feel it would be useful if financing regulations, periods and requirements could be better synchronized and coordinated so that municipalities could merge funds rationally and straightforwardly. This is often difficult or impossible because of alternating subsidiarity requirements.

The uncertainty resulting from the lack of transparency and concerning applicable financial resources and varying timetables, approval channels and eligibility of the individual programmes contradicts the envisioned integrated approach. Many onsite players view further steps to harmonize federal and Land aid programmes and establish municipal resource management as crucial to future Socially Integrative City implementation. Hopefully the second survey of the German Institute of Urban Affairs conducted in the programme districts at the end of 2002 will show clear progress in resource pooling.

Notes

(1) Details on pooling inputs of the federal government and the Länder are also found in the question time response of the federal government to a CDU/CSU query of 14 November 2001 (cf. German Bundestag parliamentary paper 14/7459, dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/074/1407459.pdf) (pdf, ca. 398 kB) | (back)

(2) A catalogue complied by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing on federal-level initiatives for the Socially Integrative City programme is available at sozialestadt.de/programm/foerderprogramme/uebersicht-bmvbw.shtml; pdf-Version, ca. 27 kB: sozialestadt.de/programm/foerderprogramme/uebersicht-bmvbw.pdf. | (back)

(3) For details visit www.eundc.de. | (back)

(4) A programme overview is found at sozialestadt.de/programm/partnerprogramme. | (back)

(5) Federal Labour Office directive of 27 March 2000 on Urban Districts With Special Development Needs - the Socially Integrative City, issued to local and regional job centres and the Central Placement Office (ZAV), re: Aid for Job Creation Schemes (ABM) and Structural Adaptation Measures (SAM), Emergency Programme to Reduce Youth Unemployment (JuSoPro). | (back)

(6) Further information on poverty and health is available at www.gesundheitberlin.de | (back)

(7) See, for instance, Institut für soziale Arbeit e.V. (2002), Institut für stadtteilbezogene soziale Arbeit und Beratung (ISSAB) (2002), Trojan/Legewie (2001) and Alisch (2001). | (back)

(8) Resource pooling in other European countries is outlined in Sander (2002). | (back)

(9) Ministerium für Arbeit und Bau Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (ed.) 2001. | (back)

(10) According to State Minister Dr. Günther Beckstein and State Secretary Hermann Regensburger in the foreword to a publication on integrable aid programmes (Oberste Baubehörde 2002). | (back)

(11) LTS Niedersächsische Landestreuhandstelle and vdw Niedersachsen-Bremen, Verband der Wohnungswirtschaft in Niedersachsen und Bremen e.V. (eds.) Handbuch "Soziale Stadt," status: March 2000, Hanover. | (back)

(12) Whenever various levels are involved. | (back)

(13) The Hessian Ministry of Welfare's Förderungsgrundsätze für nichtinvestive soziale Maßnahmen im Rahmen der Hessischen Gemeinschaftsinitiative Soziale Stadt (HEGISS) of 17 May 2001 is found at sozialestadt.de/gebiete/dokumente/hegiss.shtml. | (back)

(14) Collections published by German Länder on programmes integrable in the Urban Districts With Special Development Needs - the Socially Integrative City programme are listed at sozialestadt.de/programm/foerderprogramme/buendelung-laender.pdf (pdf, ca. 280 kB). (back)

(15) Hans Fürst, statement at a panel discussion at the kickoff conference, German Institute of Urban Studies (ed.) (2000), Dokumentation der Starterkonferenz, 1./2 März 2003, Berlin p. M299 (Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Soziale Stadt, Vol. 4), sozialestadt.de/veroeffentlichungen/arbeitspapiere/band4. | (back)

(16) Examples are found in Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westphalen (2000) and Soziale Stadt info 5 as well as https://sozialestadt.de/veroeffentlichungen/newsletter/DF5804-info5.pdf (pdf, german, ca. 1,1 MB). | (back)

(17) Cf. the report of the Bundestag enquiry commission, "Zukunft des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements" of 3 June 2002, Bürgerliches Engagement auf dem Weg in eine zukunftsfähige Bürgergesellschaft, BT-Drs. 14/8900. | (back)

(18) More information at www.startsocial.de. | (back)

(19) More information at www.upj-online.de. | (back)

Bibliography

AGB (Arbeitsgruppe Bestandsverbesserung am Institut für Raumplanung der Universität Dortmund)/ILS (Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2002), Gelsenkirchen-Bismarck/Schalke-Nord. Integrierte Stadtteilentwicklung auf dem Weg zur Verstetigung. Abschlussbericht der Programmbegleitung-vor-Ort (PvO) im Rahmen des Bund-Länder-Programms "Soziale Stadt" im Auftrag des Deutschen Instituts für Urbanistik (Difu), Dortmund, April 2002. | (back)

Alisch, Monika (ed.) (2001), Sozial - Gesund - Nachhaltig. Vom Leitbild zu verträglichen Entscheidungen in der Stadt des 21. Jahrhunderts, Opladen. | (back)

ARGEBAU, Ausschuss für Bauwesen und Städtebau und Ausschuss für Wohnungswesen, Leitfaden zur Ausgestaltung der Gemeinschaftsinitiative "Soziale Stadt", second edition dated 1 February 2000, printed in: German Institute of Urban Affairs (ed.), Programmgrundlagen (= Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Soziale Stadt, Vol. 3), Berlin, February 2000;
https://sozialestadt.de/veroeffentlichungen/arbeitspapiere/band3/3_argebau.shtml. | (back)

Becker, Heidede, Thomas Franke, Rolf-Peter Löhr, Robert Sander und Wolf-Christian Strauss (1998), Städtebauförderung und Ressourcenbündelung. Expertise zur Vorbereitung eines Forschungsfelds "Stadtteile mit Entwicklungspriorität" im Experimentellen Wohnungs- und Städtebau (ExWoSt), Berlin (German Institute of Urban Affairs). | (back)

Deutscher Bundestag, 14. Wahlperiode (ed.), Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Große Anfrage der Abgeordneten Peter Götz, Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Kansy, Dirk Fischer (Hamburg), weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der CDU/CSU - Drucksache 14/6085 -, Das Programm "Die soziale Stadt" in der Bewährungsphase und seine Zukunftsperspektive für die Städte und Gemeinden, Drucksache 14/7459 of 14 November.2001; http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/074/1407459.pdf (pdf). | (back)

German Institute of Urban Affairs (ed.) (2002), Die Soziale Stadt. Eine erste Bilanz des Bund-Länder-Programms "Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf - die soziale Stadt", commissioned by the Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin. Internet: sozialestadt.de/veroeffentlichungen/zwischenbilanz/. | (back)

German Institute of Urban Affairs (ed.) (2000), Dokumentation der Starterkonferenz, 1./2. März 2000, Berlin (Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Soziale Stadt; Vol. 4) sozialestadt.de/veroeffentlichungen/arbeitspapiere/band4. | (back)

Grimm, Gaby, Gabriele Micklinghoff und Klaus Wermker (2001), "Raumorientierung der Verwaltung. Vom Modell zur Regelstruktur: Erweiterung der Verwaltungsreform-Debatte um den räumlichen Aspekt," Soziale Stadt info 6, October 2001, pp. 13-17, edoc.difu.de/orlis/DF5804-info6.pdf (pdf, ca. 355 kB). | (back)

Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (ILS) (2000), Lokale sozio-ökonomische Strategien in Stadtteilen mit besonderem Entneuerungsbedarf. Local socio-economic strategies in disadvantaged urban areas. Report on the European Conference on 30 and 31 March 2000 in Dortmund, Dortmund (ILS). | (back)

Institut für soziale Arbeit e.V. (ISA) (ed.) (2002), Fachforum zur sozialraumorientierten Planung in Gebieten mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf. Konzepte, Erfahrungen, Visionen. Dokumentation zur Veranstaltung am 12. und 13. Juni 2001 in Braunschweig, commissioned by Regiestelle E&C der Stiftung SPI Sozialpädagogisches Institut Berlin, commissioned by the Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, Münster; www.eundc.de/download/ff_sozraumplan.pdf (pdf, ca. 523 kB). | (back)

Institut für stadtteilbezogene soziale Arbeit und Beratung (ISSAB) (2002), expertise Sozialräumliche Finanzierungsmodelle, commissioned by Regiestelle E&C der Stiftung SPI Sozialpädagogisches Institut Berlin, commissioned by the Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, Essen, April 2002; www.eundc.de/download/ex_hinte.pdf (pdf, ca. 425 kB). | (back)

Ministerium für Arbeit und Bau Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (ed.) (2001), Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf - die soziale Stadt. Arbeitshilfe, Schwerin. | (back)

Oberste Baubehörde im Bayerischen Staatsministerium des Innern (ed.) (2002), "Gemeinschaftsinitiative Soziale Stadt. Integrierbare Förderprogramme", Munich (Städtebauförderung in Bayern, Arbeitsblatt Nr. 5). http://www.staedtebaufoerderung.bayern.de/veroeffentl/dokument/Arbeitsblatt_5.pdf (pdf, ca. 1,375 MB). | (back)

Sachs, Michael (2001), "Wohnungsunternehmen gestalten soziale Stadt", in: Bundes-SGK Sozialdemokratische Gemeinschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V. (ed.), Zukunft Stadt. Mit den Menschen für die Menschen, Berlin, pp. 133-141. | (back)

Sander, Robert (2002), "Europäische und amerikanische Erfahrungen mit der sozialen Stadtteilentwicklung," German Institute of Urban Affairs (ed.), Die Soziale Stadt. Eine erste Bilanz des Bund-Länder-Programms "Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf - die soziale Stadt", commissioned by the Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, Berlin, p. 298-321. | (back)

Trojan, Alf, und Heiner Legewie (2001), Nachhaltige Gesundheit und Entwicklung. Leitbilder, Politik und Praxis der Gestaltung gesundheitsförderlicher Umwelt- und Lebensbedingungen, Frankfurt am Main. | (back)

VV-Städtebauförderung, Verwaltungsvereinbarung über die Gewährung von Finanzhilfen des Bundes an die Länder nach Art. 104 a Abs. 4 des Grundgesetzes zur Förderung städtebaulicher Maßnahmen (VV-Städtebauförderung 2002) vom 19. Dezember 2001 und 9. April 2002; https://sozialestadt.de/programm/grundlagen/DF9021.pdf (pdf, ca. 171 kB). | (back)