In the following, the reflected narratives and understandings of mainstreaming immigrant integration governance are presented, including; mainstreaming as explicitly articulated policy tool or strategy, mainstreaming reflected in a shift towards generic policies including the incorporation of specific needs into generic services, mainstreaming reflected in an orientation towards a pluralist society and mainstreaming reflected in power-sharing.
143 Van Breugel, Maan, Scholten, “UPSTREAM Policy Brief Nr. 1. Conceptualizing Mainstreaming”, 1.
51
5.1.1. Mainstreaming as explicitly articulated policy tool or strategy
Among the three cities studied, Liverpool is the only case study that explicitly refers to mainstreaming. Both in the policy documents examined and in the statements of interviewee F (staff of the Liverpool City Council, Department for Equality & Cohesion), references to mainstreaming can be traced. In doing so, mainstreaming is referred to and understood as policy tool and strategy for achieving fairness and equality and to combat discrimination. Framed by interviewee F as following
Mainstreaming is not something that you think about at the end. Mainstreaming is something that you do from the onset of your process, so that when we're delivering our services, we think about all our different communities at that moment of time.144 Hence, reflecting an understanding of mainstreaming as strategy and policy tool to achieve the envisioned aims of the Liverpool City Council in its equality and diversity governance – as a tool to achieve the desired end-state, not as end-state itself.
While in Liverpool mainstreaming is an articulated policy tool and policy strategy in equality and diversity governance, neither in Gdańsk, nor Hamburg mainstreaming is explicitly referred to as implemented or planned policy tool or strategy. Although two references to mainstreaming are included in Gdańsk’s IIM*, no evidence could be found in the broader model that mainstreaming was chosen as a strategy or policy tool in the design of the governance approach to immigrant integration. Likewise, in Hamburg, mainstreaming is neither formulated as a policy tool nor strategy in the context of immigrant integration governance, and no reference to mainstreaming could be found in the examined policy documents of Hamburg. These findings are in line with the expert interviews with the government officials of Gdańsk and Hamburg: None of the interviewees referred explicitly to mainstreaming as policy tool or strategy in the course of the interview nor were familiar with the term ‘mainstreaming’ in the context of immigrant integration when explicitly asked for. However, as will be presented in the following sections, nonetheless both Gdańsk and Hamburg reflect various characteristics of mainstreaming as theorized, even without explicitly referring to mainstreaming and framing it as such. Hence, this suggests that an explicit framing and discourse on
144 Interviewee F, minute 26:20-26:40.
* Thereby, examining for instance how the need to have information and public services available in different languages or the need for additional support in areas such as health care, housing, employment for asylum seekers due to their precarious situation is met.
52
mainstreaming is not a prerequisite for mainstreaming and for a shift towards generic, inclusive policies, as will be discussed later in greater detail.
5.1.2. Mainstreaming as shift towards generic policies including the incorporation of specific needs into generic services
In all three cases the intention of generic and inclusive policies, and to certain extents the formulated goal of incorporating specific needs into generic services can be traced. Both in Gdańsk and in Hamburg, an explicit strategy dedicated to immigrant integration is given, however framed, and seen as an integral part of city policies and urban management. In Liverpool, immigrant integration is embedded within a broader equality and diversity framing, and a strong narrative of generic policies and mainstreaming of equality and non-discrimination is reflected, however when examining the services provided by the Liverpool City Council a rather group-oriented approach is reflected. In the following section, the different approaches of Gdańsk, Hamburg, and Liverpool will be presented and discussed.
Gdańsk
Through the adoption of the fist local immigrant integration strategy in 2016, namely the IIM, a specific policy strategy concerned with immigrant integration governance was introduced. However, the IIM is understood as an integral part of generic, municipal policies, which is for instance evident in interviewee A’s statement “(...) I think it is not independent, it is all in the mainstream of city policy (...) it is not something that is torn away from the main policy of the city”.145 Hence, framing immigrant integration as integral part of city policies and urban management. Also, when examining the given structures and the examples of services provided to meet specific needs of immigrants, the integration of specific services into regular structures can be witnessed, as for instance in the formulated goal to enhance the institutions’ competencies “to ensure that diversity is managed by institutions and organisations in all areas of the city’s life.”146 Moreover, by illustrating the modus operandi of Gdańsk’s resident card (karty mieszkańca)*,
145 Interviewee A, minute 38:15-38:30.
146 Gdansk city Hall, “Immigrant Integration Model’, 24.
* The ‘resident card’ is a system providing both relevant information as well as beneficiaries for public facilities to residents of Gdansk. The card and the access to the associated app, is provided to every person when registering in Gdansk or upon request. Based on the information specified when registering in the city, specific information that may for instance only be relevant for immigrants will be automatically sent via SMS or via the app to the respective people.
53
interviewee A and B provide an example of everyday practice on how municipal mainstream services are adapted to the needs of immigrants. When explaining the modus operandi of the ‘resident’s card’, the interviewees highlight “The idea was to use the functioning system to develop it further and create special help for immigrants.”147, and
“This card is for everyone who lives in Gdańsk (…) and in this situation we have just connected this card with information directed to Ukrainian immigrants.”148. Such words, and the very polices described by both the selected documents and the by the interviewees showcase a strong understanding (and praxis) of the incorporation of specific needs within generic structures.
Notwithstanding the presentation of the inclusion of specific needs in the “(...) integrated and systematic urban management”149 as formulated in the IIM and as reflected in the presented example of Gdańsk’s resident card, overall, the daily practice to meet specific needs of immigrants seem to relay on separate structures, linked to, and partially embedded within municipal structures. Evidence for this hypothesis is given by the support structures provided to newcomers, which center around the municipal Foreigners Assistance Point*, and the non-governmental Gdańsk Immigrant Support Center* [CWII].
In practice, the CWII often serves as first point of contact for newcomers, as interviewee A describes by stating “First you should go to the Immigrant Support Center, and then they will give you all the information about what to do and if you need to go to City Hall and to whom.”150 when asked whom a foreigner living in Gdańsk should consult for questions concerned housing. Hence overall both generic policies and generic services along with group-targeted services and offers can be traced in Gdańsk’s local immigrant integration governance, whereas – based on the insights of this study – group-targeted approaches seem to outweigh in everyday practice.
147 Interviewee A, minute 26:00-26:15.
148 Interviewee B, minute 25:30-25:50.
149 Gdansk city Hall, “Immigrant Integration Model”, 23.
* The Foreigners Assistance Point provides services regarding job, legalizing stay, accommodation, as well as tips concerning public utility points, institutions and organizations supporting migrants in Gdańsk.
The services are provided in Polish, Ukrainian or English language.
* The Gdansk Immigrant Support Center (Centrum Wsparcia Imigrantów i Imigrantek) is a support center for newcomers run by an NGO, which provides its services in Polish, Russian, English and in Ukrainian language regarding legal information, support in dealings with the offices and town institutions, Polish language courses, career guidance etc.
150 Interviewee A, minute 34:55-35:10.
54 Hamburg
Since 2006, Hamburg has a specific policy document dealing with the integration of immigrants. However, like in Gdańsk, this is neither to be seen as a separate, stand-alone policy, as interviewee D underlines by stating “it is only one of many policy reference frameworks, besides this one [referring to the integration concept], there are other policy reference frameworks which are all intertwined”151. Likewise, it is framed within Hamburg’s policy documents that integration “does not fall specifically on administration but is an integral political responsibility.”152
The narrative presented in the examined policy documents of Hamburg demonstrate a strong emphasis on an intended intercultural opening of the city’s institutions and services. Already the title of Hamburg’s integration concept “We, the City of Hamburg!”
suggests for a shift towards an inclusive perspective and towards mainstreamed, rather than ‘group-blind’ public institutions and services, and for a step away from emphasizing group differences. Further evidence of these shifts can be traced in statements such as
“(…) All public institutions and all public-sector services should be designed in such a way that all employees are trained to respond to the specific needs and circumstances of their clients!”153 The responsibilities to meet specific needs hence lie within the
“respective (regulatory) structure” aiming at the entire society without targeting specific groups.154 The aspiration to integrate specific needs within generic structures is also verbalized by interviewee D*. Interviewee D envisages mainstreaming by stating the vision to integrate needs-oriented offers (“we are there to fill gaps gaps”) into generic, mainstream structures, and measures in the longer term (“we have established all the offers we have in the regular structures”), hence aiming to make additional, extra offers explicitly targeting immigrants such as the IQ Netzwerk*, superfluous.
151 Interviewee D, minute 10:45- 00:11:20, Original quote: „Es ist einer von vielen fachpolitischen Bezugrahmen, daneben gibt es weitere fachpolitische Bezugrahmen, welche inneinander greifen“
152 Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, “Hamburg Integration Concept”, 10.
153 Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, “Hamburg Integration Concept”, 103.
154 Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, “Hamburg Integration Concept”, 10.
* staff of the ‘Ministry of Labour, Health, Social Affairs, Family and Integration’ (Sozialbehörde); and staff of the IQ Netzwerk Hamburg.
* IQ-Netzwerk: The "Integration through Qualification (IQ)" funding program works toward the goal of improving labor market opportunities for people with a migration background. It is of central interest that vocational qualifications acquired abroad - irrespective of the residence title - lead more frequently to employment appropriate to the educational background.
55
In the long term, IQ is meant to dissolve and become superfluous. At the moment we are there to fill gaps. We identify gaps, we give a suggestion and hope that the offer will be well received so that it works independently and thus closes this gap.
That means everything we do, including my work, is really just to make it self-sufficient. In the best-case scenario, we integrate our suggestions into regular structures in such a way that we no longer have to work on them. That is the ideal case of our work.155
However, in addition to the inclusive ‘regulatory structure’, one can also identify further, specific structures in the local governance approach of Hamburg. Both, interviewee D, and interviewee E describe additional, targeted structures that are in place as part of the everyday practice of immigrant integration governance in Hamburg. These additional structures are partly, but not always exclusively, aimed at immigrants and a combination of needs-oriented and group-oriented approaches can be identified. One example is the Hamburg Welcome Center* – a specific structure targeted at (foreign) professionals, thereby emphasizing its services for foreign professionals, however, generally being oriented at all professionals arriving in Hamburg, both from abroad as well as from different parts of Germany. Another example mentioned is the project FLUCHTort Hamburg 5.0 run by the local NGO passage gGmbH. This project targets vocational integration for asylum seekers and refugees who have (subordinate) access to the labor market. Hence it is specific offer aimed for immigrants, hence representing a group-oriented approach, however embedded in the broader offer by the passage gGmbH, which generally is concerning the promotion of employment and integration of people facing challenges to access the labor market, regardless of if they have a migratory background or not. 156
These examples in the field of labor market illustrate that separate, support structures to meet specific needs of immigrants – but more broadly of Hamburg’s citizen
155 Person E, minute 54:05-55:11, own translation, original quote: IQ ist dafür da sich in langer Perspektive selbst aufzulösen und sich selbst überflüssig zu machen. Momentan sind wir für Lücken da. Wir identifizieren Lücken, wir platzieren ein Angebot und hoffen, dass das Angebot so gut angenommen wird, dass sich dieses verselbstständigt und sich damit diese Lücke schließt. Das heißt alle was wir machen, auch meine Arbeit ist eigentlich nur dafür da sich überflüssig zu machen. Im erfolgreichsten Fall haben wir alle Angebote die wir haben, so in die Regelstrukturen etabliert, dass wir gar keine Arbeit mehr machen müssen.
Das ist der Idealfall unserer Arbeit.“
* The Hamburg Welcome center is part of the Ministry of Labour, Health, Social Affairs, Family, and Integration, hence is a public, municipal service, which supports qualified professionals and their families migrating to Hamburg
156 passage gGmbH, “Passage Hamburg - Die Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft Für Arbeit Und Integration,”
passage gGmbH Hamburg, accessed July 29, 2022, https://passage.hamburg/.
56
– are in place, but are not to be understood as decoupled, but as embedded and integrated into regular, general services. A combination of needs-oriented and group-based approaches, understood as support structures embedded in regular policies can also be traced beyond the area of labor market integration in other fields of action covered by Hamburg’s integration concept.
Liverpool:
The fact that there is no strategic document in Liverpool dealing specifically with immigrant integration clearly distinguishes integration policy in Liverpool from those in Gdańsk and Hamburg. While this fact can be interpreted either as a lack of consideration of specific needs (of immigrants) or as an indication of the (completed) incorporation of specific needs into general policy, in which such specific needs are nevertheless taken into account. Based on my findings, a tendency towards the latter can be demonstrated, and evidence can be found that specific needs (of immigrants) are addressed within Liverpool’s mainstream policies. A (envisioned) shift towards a complete incorporation of specific needs into mainstream policies, is for instance reflected by interviewee F, when stating
(…) what I always say about my job is that, in the city we need to get to a point where we don’t need people like me. We shouldn’t have to have equality offices because everybody should provide services in a mainstreamed way, so that equality is automatically thought about.157
Similar to interviewee D from Hamburg, interviewee F represents an understanding of mainstreaming as a shift towards generic policies and services, along with an ideal-typical overcoming of additional, extra offers explicitly aimed at immigrants. Hence, also implying an overcoming of group-targeted policies.
Furthermore, the local application of the national Equality Act (see Chapter 2) is a strong indication for mainstreaming in the understanding of a shift towards generic policies in Liverpool’s governance. The national Equality Act is fundamental to Liverpool’s local understanding of equality and diversity and its approach to ‘manage’
equality and diversity. Both examined documents, the Equality and Diversity Statement, as well as the Our Liverpool Refugee, People Seeking Asylum and Vulnerable Migrant Strategy refer multiple times to the Equality Act, which might be seen as the embodiment
157 Person F, minute 10:20-10 :50.
57
of mainstreaming in the area of non-discrimination in the UK. The Equality Act legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in society by applying mainstreaming as a policy tool.Through the mandatory compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and the obligations arising from it, Liverpool is committed to mainstreaming as a policy tool in the field of equality and non-discrimination. To ensure compliance with the Equality Act and the intertwined Public Sector Equality Duty, Equality Impact Assessments* are carried out on the local level. The Equality Impact Assessments involve protected groups and other groups of people to understand the actual or potential impact of policies, services or decisions on different communities, and to identify practical steps to eliminate negative impacts or discrimination, and promote equality while also fostering good relations.158 Through the Equality Assessment, specific needs of different communities/groups are respected, assessed, and taken into account. Hence, a proof of the earlier hypothesis that the absence of an explicit integration strategy is not to be understood as neglecting specific needs, but as addressing specific needs through different structures. It is interesting, however, that the unit of analysis for the Equality Impact Assessments are specific groups/communities, what might emphasize group differences, and thus be understood as opposed to the ideal-overcoming of group-targeted policies in the understanding of mainstreaming.
Also, the evolvement of the Our Liverpool. Refugee, People Seeking Asylum and Vulnerable Migrant Strategy, as well as examples of everyday services provided by the Liverpool City Council indicate a group-oriented approach in Liverpool’s equality and diversity governance. The Our Liverpool. Refugee, People Seeking Asylum and Vulnerable Migrant Strategy was adopted in 2019 as a consequence of the identified need to develop a strategy specific to refugees and asylum seekers as “(…) some groups of refugees and people seeking asylum have particular needs”159 This specific policy clearly reflects an explicit group-orientation and might be seen as somewhat contradictory to the approach of an overall absence of an immigrant integration governance. Also, the Positive
* Equality Impact Assessments are carried out for every municipal service, assessing the impact of policies and services on different groups to prevent discrimination.
158 Liverpool City Council, “Equality and Diversity Policy Statement”, 27.
159 Liverpool City Council, “Our Liverpool”, 11, 16.
58
Action Training Programme* or EMTAS* scheme – examples of everyday services by the Liverpool City Council – reflect a group-oriented approach. The first being “Targeted at local unemployed black people and other groups, women, disabled people and hard to reach 18-24-year-olds”160, the latter towards “ethnic minority pupils”161, hence both reflecting group-targeted measures and services.
As a consequence, these perceived contradictions within Liverpool’s equality and diversity governance, with its strong narrative of generic policies and mainstreaming on the one hand, and the focus on ethnic, cultural groups and communities on the other hand, leads to the broader debate whether mainstreaming conflicts with group-oriented approaches and services, or if group-oriented approaches and services may be compatible with mainstreaming. One may therefore question if Liverpool’s equality and diversity governance is to be seen as contradictory at all. In other word, does mainstreaming require per se ‘colourblind’ and ‘group-blind’ approaches and services? And are ‘colourblind’
and ‘group-blind’ approaches a fitting tool to achieve mainstreaming’s ultimate goal of equality? In the backdrop of this discussion, Scholten, Collett, Petrovic, argue that
“mainstreaming works best when combined with knowledge of and sensitivity to these groups, while preventing formalizing target group constructions”.162 Hence advocating for an understanding of mainstreaming as policy tool that is inclusive and generic in its orientation, however, not in an understanding of total ‘group-blindness’. For a more practical understanding of how mainstreaming might combine both group sensitivity and overcoming traditional group targeting, I argue in this paper for an understanding of mainstreaming that draws on De Zwart’s concept of replacement. This means advocating for policies that do not emphasise or recognise group differences, but still allow for redistribution in favour of the needs of disadvantaged groups.163 Ideally, local
* The Positive Action Training Programme supports an inclusive workplace culture where people and men from a diverse and range of identities and backgrounds feel able to perform at their best and progress in the organization.
* Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Service (EMTAS): EMTAS aims to raise the educational attainment of our ethnic minority pupils by providing support and advice to: Children with English as an additional language (EAL), Traveller children, New arrivals to the city, Young people from Liverpool's Black British community through the Black Achievement Project, Parents and carers who may be unfamiliar with the English education system.
160 Tarique Rahman, “Positive Action,” Liverpool Leads, accessed July 31, 2022, https://liverpoolleads.co.uk/positive-action/.
161 Liverpool City Council, “Emtas,” Liverpool City Council, accessed July 31, 2022, https://liverpool.gov.uk/schools-and-learning/education-welfare/support-for-ethnic-minorities/ethnic-minority-and-traveller-achievement-service-emtas/.
162 Peter Scholten, Elizabeth Collett, and Milica Petrovic, “Mainstreaming Migrant Integration?”, 284.
163 Frank De Zwart, “The Dilemma of Recognition”, 137.
59
governments introduce their own ‘social categories’ that go beyond traditional group categorisation, while these broader ‘social categories’ are based on the identification of specific needs. In practice, I imagine that, for example, with regard to the goal of improving equal opportunities in the labour market, immigrants would not be addressed as a predefined group, but all those who have difficulties in accessing the labour market would be the ‘new target group’. Drawing on this conceptualization, in my understanding Liverpool’s approach remains contradictious, in the sense that it aims for generic policies, while targeting ‘traditional’ groups, as its approach focuses on national, ethnic and cultural groups, hence not overcoming the ‘dilemma of recognition’, as aspired by mainstreaming.
5.1.3. Mainstreaming reflected in an orientation towards a pluralist society As theorized, the orientation towards a pluralist society is a further key feature of mainstreaming in the field of immigrant integration governance/ equality and diversity governance. In the previous subsection, the examination of the how diverse needs of diverse groups are met by local governance, allowed for a first, preliminary understanding of how the latter perceives culture and cultural groups. In a similar vein, it has been shown that, at times, they are perceived as distinct and conflicting, while, in other cases a view of a diverse society defined by diversity and blurred ethnic and cultural lines is reflected.
In this subsection, I further reflect on the orientation towards a pluralist society as a pillar of mainstreaming and moreover examine the city’s understandings of ‘immigrants’,
‘immigration’ and ‘integration’, which also serve as a basis for the reflection on different approaches to integration governance in the selected cities in section 5.2.
Gdańsk
Gdańsk frames itself as a cosmopolitan and multicultural city, characterized by openness, hospitality, freedom, solidarity, and a readiness to change.164 Moreover, the recognition of differences and diversity among residents is highlighted, together with the need to
“create equal development opportunities in the city”, further emphasizing how “all residents are equally valuable; they are the future of the city and its greatest potential”.165
164 Gdańsk City Hall, “Gdańsk 2030 Plus Development Strategy”, (Gdańsk 2014), 6.
165 Ibid., 21.