Berlin Case Study
↓ Jump to Policy Recommendations ↓
In this case study, we explored the question of how Non Profit Organizations and Community Based Organizations catering towards migrants’ needs (MSOs), especially in Berlin, experienced the Corona crisis. MSOs operate at the interface between urban residents and the (local) state. Their work and mediation is often necessary so that people with a migration or refugee history can access rights and resources and realize social participation. The staff of these organizations is translating, quite literally, complex bureaucratic structures and processes. They help with "system orientation", official correspondence, applications for residence permits, access to housing, language courses and continuing education programs, and access to health care. The starting point of our project was the assumption that this work was made considerably more difficult by Corona measures such as the lockdown in spring 2020 - with far-reaching consequences for those who rely on much needed support.
Research Set-Up
In collecting the empirical data, we focused on a Berlin district with a high proportion of residents with a migration history and a high density of MSOs. Today, more than one third of Berlin’s residents have a migration history. We first conducted a survey and followed up with 15 in-depth interviews with civil society actors and employees of the district and senate administration. Time-wise, we focused on the first lockdown phases in 2020 and 2021.
The following questions guided the research:
• Were organizations able to continue their work under Corona?
• What did they do to adapt to the new situation?
• How did their relationship to and work with clients change?
• And how did they cooperate with government agencies, authorities and municipal administrations?
Findings
Following the research literature on "urban resilience," one would have to assume that Berlin is able to adapt relatively well to crisis situations such as Corona. Over several decades, a broad and institutionally secure integration policy infrastructure has been built in the city. It includes highly professional supporting organizations, small self-organized associations, and social enterprises that offer counseling and resources for migrants and often receive public funding for this purpose. In addition, there are well-established interfaces between the city administration and civil society actors at both the senate and district levels, as well as various opportunities for residents’ participation, such as migration and neighborhood councils.
Although these conditions are supposed to develop "buffer effects" in moments of crisis and facilitate institutional adaptation processes, the results of our empirical study point in a different direction: Established processes within the MSOs, contact with clients and communication with bureaucracies and authorities came to an almost complete halt at times. Almost all organizations reported that they were able to continue working somehow. However, this happened with sometimes considerable and also longer-lasting restrictions. Some programs, especially those run by volunteers, were discontinued altogether. Within the organizations, the staff had to switch to home office, low-threshold consultation hours for clients were often canceled, and staff could only offer telephone and digital counseling. Self-critically, counselors problematized that this made access much more difficult for many of their clients. This resulted in longer waiting times for counseling and consultation appointments. On the other hand, the number of clients was growing. Many of them lost their jobs, had problems with their residence permits and apartments, or lost the opportunity to travel. Some clients broke off contact with the counseling organization altogether, others probably did not even take it up.
Similar to the case study on Copenhagen, the centrality of bureaucracies and authorities for migrants was particularly evident. Often, MSOs’ work consists precisely of facilitating access to the city and government administrations and accompanying bureaucratic procedures. Against this background, the internal and often highly restrictive changes within administrative institutions at the beginning of the Corona crisis were described in our interviews with civil society actors as very problematic.
Especially in comparison to our Tel Aviv case study, we were surprised by how little room there was in Berlin for ad hoc solutions and institutional innovations. Instead, the temporary closure of offices and authorities and their switch from on-site counseling to telephone as well as online services posed a major challenge for everyone. Many residents with a migration and refugee history were not able to manage this change on their own. They often lacked not only the technical prerequisites (Internet-capable device, Wi-Fi or data volume), but also the "soft skills" (digital literacy). MSOs’ staff had to help with the digital communication and interface work with authorities, set up email accounts for clients, and tried to communicate via improvised telephone translation services. However, this led to a considerable increase of MSOs’ workload, which in turn could hardly be compensated for. Many network meetings between civil society actors also could not take place in the same form. This interrupted the exchange of important information and resources among MSOs themselves. These were often only accessible to those who were "well-connected."
On our website, you will find ten practical policy recommendations that we developed based on our study, as well as a list of Internet links for further reading (see below). Please also check out the references to our articles and presentations on the main page. And: Do you already know about the other research projects based at the Department of Urban and Regional Sociology and the Georg Simmel Center for Metropolitan Studies at HU Berlin?
Thank you for your interest. We look forward to your feedback.
Daniela Krüger and Henrik Lebuhn
Policy Recommendations Berlin
- "Well advised: Successful counseling needs specific formats"
Under Corona, many organizations expanded counseling to the digital sphere. This allowed counseling to take place despite physical contact restrictions. However, this approach had a disadvantage: not everyone has access to digital devices, wi-fi, or has the skills to make use of digital services. Other counseling formats struggle with similar challenges. For example, face-to-face services with a fixed appointment require clients to have a certain degree of autonomy in terms of mobility and schedule, which can be problematic for single mothers, for example. Corona made something particularly clear: There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Counseling formats must always be adapted to specific contexts and target groups. Different formats can be used, e.g., outreach counseling, open consultation hours, digital services, etc. - "Regulating together: Assessing non-intended consequences of new rules and procedures"
Crises require the rearrangement of routines. Organizations such as government agencies are exposed to new conditions, which requires the adaptation of rules and procedures. Under Corona, for example, this involved physical contact restrictions and even the closure of state institutions or switching to telephone and digital accessibility. The problem: Rules often have unintended consequences. This can lead to complexity and complications, to limiting people's access to resources or cutting them off altogether. Adapting rules and processes therefore requires a careful assessment of non-intended consequences. This requires attentive work at the interface between different agencies and the willingness of organizations and agencies to readjust rules and procedures together. If such a process is accompanied by an exchange between authorities and civil society actors, consequences can be better assessed. - "Coordination in times of crisis: Distributing information and creating security of action"
Crises increase the need for information for counseling organizations. Especially in times of crisis, knowledge about changing legal regulations is important for their security of action. However, obtaining information, e.g. on changes in the law, changes in procedures, responsibilities and opening hours, requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of organizations. At the same time, we can observe an imbalance of information between organizations, if not all are equally equipped with information. Highly visible contact persons in administrations and civil society organizations should bundle procedural information in times of crisis, forward it to everyone and thus prevent an information imbalance. - "Creating networks: Strengthen networks and the exchange of information among organizations"
Advocacy and counseling organizations that were already well networked before Corona were better able to act during the crisis. Networks allow for the sharing of information, experience, and resources. However, networks are difficult to build at the moment of crisis. They need to be fostered and taken care of beforehand. This requires continuity and takes time. It requires stable network structures such as initiative forums and round tables that exist independently of projects. Moreover, networking is often done by organizations in addition to their “actual” work. This is especially difficult for smaller organizations. If networking is priced into the funding of counseling organizations, the funding institutions invest into mutual exchange and assistance - also in times of crisis. - "Keep your autonomy: Cooperation between local authorities and counseling organizations"
Under Corona, some state authorities increased their cooperation with civil society actors. For example, counseling organizations were contacted more frequently by local authorities while processing cases (once guardianship had been clarified). This development was viewed positively by many counseling organizations, because they could help their clients directly. However: Are counseling organizations recognized as “eye level” partners or are bureaucratic workloads simply outsourced? And: The closer the cooperation between counseling organizations and state authorities, the more civil society autonomy may be affected. The special feature of NGOs, however, is their relative independence. How can this be preserved or even expanded? Modes of cooperation between authorities and civil society actors should be accompanied by careful considerations: What are the advantages of the cooperation for the counseling organizations and their clients, and what are the disadvantages, e.g. with regard to relationships of trust with clients, data protection and political independence? - "Overlooked: The care crisis also affects neighborhood organizations"
Corona led to an intensification of the care crisis. Workers in hospitals, medical practices, daycare centers and schools receive little recognition for their work. The staff of migrant organizations is also in direct contact with disadvantaged residents on a daily basis. They care for those who are systematically overlooked and excluded. But this fact receives little attention by the public. The work and protection of counselors should be valued and considered in times of crisis as well as in 'normal times'. This concerns e.g. the reduction of workload (see point 7), material remuneration and health protection (e.g. vaccination prioritization, protective equipment, etc.). - "Secure funding, expand services"
Particularly in times of crises, a mixed situation of various problems arises. Existing problems come to a head. New ones emerge. During Corona, the need for counseling among migrants increased. People lost their jobs, their residence status, their access to health care, their homes and their ability to travel. They were confronted with a counseling landscape that was already reaching its limits before Corona. Although counseling organizations are always needed, their funding is often short term and usually tied to specific projects. Solid base-funding and more permanent services in different languages are needed to support counseling organizations and strengthen social citizenship in 'normal times' as well as in crises. - Make procedures simple, strengthen points of access: Corona as a window of opportunity"
During Corona, new rules were created and restrictions introduced (see pt. 2), but state authorities also suspended rules, created and used room to maneuver. For example, deadlines for submitting documents and applications (e.g. at the Job Center and the State Office of Immigration) were suspended or extended, and screening and billing procedures were simplified (e.g. in verifying eligibility for benefits or billing for services for people without health insurance between medical practices and health insurances). This strengthened access to resources for many people. What works in times of crisis, also works in 'normal times.' Easy procedures facilitate the work of counseling organizations as well as government agencies. It reduces barriers with regard to rights and resources and helps everyone involved. - "Health care for all: create inclusive systems"
Although the pandemic was termed a 'health crisis', some people continued to be denied access to the general health care system. This violates people's right to health. What is particularly contradictory about it is that people without health insurance or with other barriers to access were often more affected by corona infections and severe disease progression. Instead of creating parallel systems and emergency solutions, it is important to reduce barriers to the regular health care system. This increases people's chances of seeing their health taken care of and preventing disease. - "Health is more than medicine: good counseling contributes to good health"
During the pandemic, it became clear that it is not the virus alone that makes people sick. Health and illness are affected by access to housing, work, food, education, community, etc. Counseling organizations, therefore, support health not only when they refer medical help. They also strengthen people's health when they help in other areas. However, a holistic approach to counseling also needs an administrative counterpart. Counseling organizations as well as authorities and administrations should strengthen interdepartmental communication and an integrated approach to action.
Internet links (in alphabetical order):
Berlin network of counselling services for immigrants
Berlin State Office for Equal Treatment and Against Discrimination
Commissioner for Integration and Migration of the City of Berlin
Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency
Migration and Participation in Berlin
Overcome language barriers! Foreign language skills in Berlin’s medical practices
Survey on the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on associations and initiataives in Germany
Umbrella association of migrant women organizations
WZB-Collection of Articles on Migrant Organizations in Berlin