Keywords

1 Introduction

This article aims to show the specific contribution of migrant organisations in refugee work using two practical examples, on the one hand the project Samo.fa (“Strengthening those active in migrant organisations in refugee work”),Footnote 1 and on the other hand the “Verbund der sozial-kulturellen Migrantenvereine in Dortmund e. V.” (“Federation of Social-Cultural Migrant Associations in Dortmund”,VMDO)Footnote 2 as well as other local associations founded since 2015. In connection with the presentation of the practical examples, the question of whether involvement in refugee work represents a window of opportunity for migrant organisations to be perceived more strongly as relevant actors in (municipal) integration policy is also to be discussed. One problem from the point of view of migrant organisations is that although they are often called upon to reach target groups and provide social services, they are usually left out of important advisory and decision-making processes, committees and working groups. The reason for this is reservations about their professionalisation and their integrative effect. Numerous migration studies have shown that under certain conditions migrant organisations fulfil important functions for migrants and the host society and have an integrative effect (cf. e.g. Schultze and Thränhardt 2013). It can have a positive effect on cooperation if migrant organisations are viewed more as “partners at eye level” and not merely as “target group procurers“” (cf. Hunger and Metzger 2011). Greater inclusion of suitable migrant organisations would therefore also contribute to more equal participation from an overall societal perspective, bring more potential in the area of culturally sensitive services to bear and at the same time also favour the articulation of interests that are politically underrepresented and thus increase the legitimacy of integration policy concepts.

The starting point for this contribution were two observations in particular: First, in the course of the engagement of large parts of the population with refugees since autumn 2015, there has been much talk about the importance of civil society. However, while the welcome initiatives of German citizens received a lot of media attention, the commitment of volunteers with a migration background – and the potential of this work – initially went largely unnoticed. Around one third of all refugee helpers have a migration background (cf. Karakayali 2018). Second, even after an initial euphoria of welcome had subsided, a certain scepticism set in as to how durable the movement would be. So was it really a sustainable push for civil society or rather a flash in the pan, in whose ashes frustration would rather remain? Various studies are already looking at the long-term development of volunteering – the results tend to point in the direction of sustainability (Karakayali 2018; Karakayali and Kleist 2016).Footnote 3 From the perspective of migrant organisations, the question of sustainability is posed with a somewhat different emphasis – and urgency: can migrant organisations succeed in using the increased positive perception of their activities in the context of refugee work to also become more involved on a permanent basis by established integration policy actors? Or will interest in them on the part of the regular institutions wane as the pressure decreases? In the long term, then, will the greater involvement of migrant organisations prove to be an outlier in an exceptional historical situation, or can it have a structure-building effect?

In this article – after a sketch of the development of migrant organisations against the background of German migration and integration policy – the two practical examples are presented and linked to the questions formulated above. In doing so, this article also responds to a current research desideratum formulated in the review study by Serhat Karakayali (2018, pp. 4, 21). For while a number of studies are now also dedicated to volunteers with a migration background, the focus is primarily on religious migrant organisations, which Karakayali considers remarkable “because there are also numerous secular migrant self-organisations […] about which no research has apparently been done so far in relation to refugee work” (Karakayali 2018, p. 21). The practical examples presented here are an alliance of secular migrant organisations (VMDO) and a project supported by secular migrant organisation networks in 32 municipalities nationwide (Samo.fa).

The empirical basis of the article is formed by a total of ten guided interviews conducted with responsible persons, project managers, board members and coordinators at Samo.fa as well as at VMDO and the Federal Association of Networks of Migrant Organisations (BV NeMO).Footnote 4 In addition, numerous background discussions, participation in conferences, working groups and network meetings, the evaluation of project reports and meeting minutes served as an empirical basis.

2 The Functions and Role of Migrant Organisations in Transition

Migrant organisations have existed in Germany (almost) as long as migration has existed: However, their role, both in the self-image of migrants and in the perception by the host society and its institutions, has changed. The major line of development can be pointedly summarised in three short quotations: “Vom betreuten Ausländer zum gleichberechtigten Bürger” (English translation: “From cared-for foreigner to equal citizen” Puskeppeleit and Thränhardt 1990) is the title of a book from 1990. Even before the so-called refugee crisis in 2013, Karin Weiss noted that migrant organisations had “to some extent become the fire brigade of integration work” (Weiss 2013, p. 24). From her point of view, migrant organisations would emphasise that “shaping the immigration society together” (Neüff and Müller-Thalheim 2017) – the title of a study on migrant organisations in refugee work – is increasingly their aspiration.

According to a simple definition, migrant organisations are associations that were predominantly founded by migrants and whose members are predominantly migrants or have a migrant background. There are different types of migrant organisations and they fulfil different functions. Goals and functions are usually multidimensional, whereby there is often a dominant function, for example, when a cultural association also organises sports activities and homework help. Types of migrant organisations are, for example, meeting centres, religious associations, cultural associations, leisure and sports associations, family and parents’ associations, political associations, professional associations and business associations, social and humanitarian associations, associations for individual groups such as youth, senior citizens or students. Numerous associations are also active in development policy (cf. e.g. Thränhardt 2013; Hunger 2004). The most important functions that the associations fulfil for their members – in addition to those that emerge directly from the type designations – include, above all, offering protected spaces, experiencing trust and solidarity within a group, and being able to draw on social resources from this group. In other words, this is about developing self-awareness, generating social capital and imparting everyday knowledge (cf. Elwert 1982). One function that is particularly worth mentioning in the context of the guiding questions of this paper is that of the pressure group. Migrant organisations also stand up for the interests of their members, engage in lobbying, give migrants a voice. However, their ability to assert themselves is highly dependent on external perception:

Self-organization of ethnic groups certainly contributes outwardly to increasing the attention paid to their specific group interests, but it increases the sought-after assertiveness for integration goals only if it does not merely produce resistance and repulsion in the surrounding society and especially among those who are superior in power. (Fijalkowski 2004, p. 208)

Here, migrant organisations have had – and continue to have – problems being accepted by the relevant actors in the respective policy fields, as both a paternalistic attitude and scepticism about their professionalism remain widespread. Migrant organisations therefore have to prove time and again that they are reliable partners (Meyer and Ziegler 2018), not only in terms of professionalism, but also with regard to the social goal of integration, i.e. equal participation in all relevant areas of life. In the German-language academic debate, too, there was long disagreement about whether migrant organizations contribute more to segregation or to integration. This “either/or discussion” (Pries 2010, p. 10), which lasted for many years, became known as the so-called Esser-Elwert controversy, named after the two protagonists. While Georg Elwert (1982) underlined the positive effects for an “integration through internal integration”, Hartmut Esser (1986) saw the danger that self-ethnic networks offered too many alternatives that prevented a real integration. It is now clear that both effects are possible. It is also in the research interest of migration studies to find out under which conditions migrant organisations and ethnic networks have an integrating effect, and under which conditions they have a segregating effect. What is clear is that “migrant organizations can decisively promote cultural change because they are deeply anchored in the respective milieu.” (Thränhardt 2013, p. 213).

In historical retrospect, it can be stated in simple terms that migrant organisations have gradually received more attention and have been taken more seriously, although there have also always been setbacks or a simultaneity of different developments. What role they play and what expectations exist towards them depends both on the migration policy framework and on the self-image of the migrants themselves.

In the period of labour recruitment in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s, both sides – host society and migrants – focused on the temporary nature of migration. Foreign workers were supposed to stay only for a very limited period of time, to meet the labour demand of the growing German economy, but then to return. The first associations of migrants that formed in this early phase thus had the primary function of creating a space in which home and community could be experienced in a foreign country, for example through culture, religion, sport, etc. At the same time, they offered the newcomers the opportunity to join a community of their own. At the same time, they offered the new arrivals support and initial orientation in everyday life. Opposition members in exile also came together in associations. In this early phase, migrant associations tended to be homogeneous in terms of origin and were hardly active as pressure groups. They were also hardly noticed by the host society. Paternalism combined with a deficit perspective prevailed. The welfare associations were responsible for counselling and supporting migrants, divided according to their countries of origin.Footnote 5 They were supposed to do “emergency work”.

The situation changed with the recruitment stop in 1973. Deprived of the opportunity to re-enter the country, many “guest workers” stayed permanently and brought their families to join them (cf. Hoesch 2018; Herbert 2003). While statistics showed that Germany was gradually becoming a country of immigration, with permanent residents and a decreasing share of labour migration, the federal government officially stuck to the statement that “Germany is not a country of immigration” until the year 2000. Since at the federal level the focus continued to be on return, so-called return bonuses were paid in the 1980s and an increasingly xenophobic discourse prevailed, integration was neither an issue nor a goal (cf. e.g. Bade 2000; Herbert 2003). At the level of the municipalities as well as in civil society, however, the situation was perceived completely differently. The municipalities were confronted with immigration on the ground and could not deny it. In many places, a pragmatic, but in municipal comparison very heterogeneous approach to migration developed. While some municipalities dealt with the issue constructively at a very early stage and – unlike the federal level – clearly stated for themselves that Germany had become a country of immigration, others approached the issue of migration in a barely or erratic manner (cf. Gesemann and Roth 2009; Baraulina 2007).Footnote 6 Integration was not a cross-sectional task, but rather a special case negotiated by commissioners and outsourced to special municipal structures. Reliable financial resources were also often lacking in municipal budgets. Welfare associations had the defining power over the counselling and care of migrants; the positions of those actually affected were hardly heard.

At the same time, numerous civil society initiatives developed in the 1980s, both by people with and without a migration background, which also campaigned for more rights for migrants. At the same time, the migrant organisations of the various groups of origin developed very differently. Whereas, for example, the Spanish associations aimed above all at improving the educational situation of their children and thus at socio-economic integration into the host society, among people of Turkish origin the strong political fragmentation in the 1980s was also noticeable in Germany and was responsible for the fact that no effective representation of the interests of this group could come about. Specific forms of organisational formation – with corresponding positive or negative effects on the equal participation of migrants – can be identified for numerous immigrant groups.Footnote 7 According to a survey from 2012, a quarter of all migrant associations stated culture as their primary purpose, 17% encounter, 8.8% religion and 9.3% sport (cf. Thränhardt 2013). However, this average is not very meaningful for the individual origins. For example, education-oriented parents’ associations accounted for 33% among Spaniards, but only 2% among Italians (cf. Hunger 2004).

These differences in the area of migrant organisations are partly responsible for the fact that people with a Spanish migrant background today do particularly well in comparison in education and labour market integration. In addition to helping with homework and raising parents’ awareness of educational issues, they also campaigned robustly for their goals in the sense of a pressure group. Among other things, they used protest actions, sit-ins and the like to ensure that their children were taught in regular German classes and not in the “national classes” for children of migrants that were common at the time.

The situation intensified in the 1990s. The strong refugee migration to Germany as a result of the Yugoslavian war in the early 1990s led to a derailing xenophobic discourse, which was partly fuelled by the established parties (cf. Bade 2016; Meier-Braun 2002) and created a climate in which there were more and more xenophobic acts of violence, pogroms and even the murder of people with a migration history. As a consequence, the right to asylum was massively restricted by an amendment to the Basic Law in 1993. Civil society reacted to the volume and presence of right-wingers and neo-Nazis with peaceful protests. Chains of lights, civic initiatives and increased dialogue between people with and without a migration background were the liberal response to the so-called asylum hysteria and asylum crisis. At the same time, migrant associations offered protected places of self-assurance and self-strengthening in an often seemingly hostile environment.

The change of government in 1998 heralded a turnaround in migration and integration policy, which also had an impact on the role of migrant organisations. After the reform of the citizenship law in 1998, the debate on the introduction of a “green card” for foreign IT professionals in March 2000 proved to be the initial spark for a change in policy (cf. Hoesch 2018, p. 263). For the first time, the positive aspects of migration and the potential of migrants were discussed. The “official change of course” (“amtlicher Kurswechel”, Bade and Bommes 2000, p. 195) towards a political shaping of migration – and especially integration – was accomplished in June 2000, when Federal Minister of the Interior Otto Schily announced that he would convene a non-partisan commission to prepare an immigration law. The Immigration Act then came into force in 2005 after years of debate. One of the most important innovations was that integration was declared to be a task of the state and a wide range of tasks and responsibilities were defined. The Immigration Act set a decisive course, among other things with regard to the responsibility of the municipalities, which subsequently began to manage integration strategically and to regard it as a cross-cutting task. “Integration master plans” were drawn up – with the involvement of non-governmental actors, including migrant organisations. These also benefited from the fact that since the turn of the millennium, there has been more general discussion about civil society and its potential to shape society in an integrative way (Meyer and Ziegler 2018, p. 7; Enquete Commission “Zukunft des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements” 2002). Since then, not only has the number of overarching networks and alliances of migrant organisations increased, but also their degree of professionalisation (Weiss 2013). A recent study by the German Expert Council on Integration and Migration notes dynamic growth of MO over the past two decades: Today between 12,400 and 14,300 active and formalized migrant organizations exist in Germany. Half of these MOs were established after 2004, and a quarter after 2012 (SVR 2020, p. 6).

At the federal level, too, migrant organisations have been increasingly recognised as important partners in integration work after 2005, especially in the National Integration Plan 2007. Since then, they have been invited to symbolic events and dialogue events such as the Integration Summit or the German Islam Conference (“Deutsche Islam Konferenz”, DIK). Their importance in development cooperation is also increasingly recognised (cf. Thränhardt 2013).

Problems that have arisen in the course of the development of migrant organisations concern – in addition to a lack of resources and professionalisation – above all the aspects of security, segregation and representativeness. For example, some migrant organizations are suspected of pursuing religious and/or political goals that run counter to plural and liberal democracy. Especially since September 11, 2001, religious organizations have been increasingly observed with regard to possible radicalization tendencies. In the course of the DIK, there have been several bitter debates about which organizations are acceptable as interlocutors from the perspective of a liberal state and which are not. The DIK was criticized for the fact that – at the instigation of the Ministry of the Interior – the topics of security and the prevention of Islamism increasingly dominated the agenda. The representativeness of certain migrant organizations or umbrella associations is also repeatedly discussed critically (cf. Schubert and Meyer 2011; Tezcan 2011). At the German Islam Conference, for example, liberal Muslims in particular felt inadequately represented. At the integration summit in the Chancellor’s Office, there is also regular discussion about who enjoys what level of representativeness.

Various studies on projects by migrant organisations in refugee work have shown that under the impact of the so-called refugee crisis of 2015/2016, they have experienced a revaluation on the part of politics (cf. Meyer and Ziegler 2018), also due to a temporary overtaxing of the regular institutions. However, only a few benefit from the funding programmes launched in this context by various federal ministries to support organisations in refugee assistance: A study by the Bertelsmann Foundation shows that the majority are unable to apply for funding and successfully complete complex application procedures due to a lack of professional/mainstream structures (Bertelsmann Foundation 2018).

Here, a simultaneity of different types of migrant organizations becomes visible. Despite all the developments towards more professionalisation, more openness and more participation in the discourse: even today, the most diverse forms of migrant organisations exist in parallel, with professional umbrella organisations with full-time structures and the sponsorship of large projects on the one side and small voluntary initiatives on the other side of the spectrum, with interculturally effective and integrative ones as well as with closed ones that tend to seal themselves off.

3 The Practical Examples

3.1 Practical Example 1: The Samo.fa Project (“Strengthening the Active Members of Migrant Organisations in Refugee Work”)

Samo.fa is a project funded by the Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration and initiated by the Federal Association of Networks of Migrant Organisations (BV NeMO). Its goal is to strengthen the competencies of people with a migration background in refugee work in a targeted manner and to advance their professionalization and qualification. It connects people with a migration history and coordinates their commitment to supporting refugees. The long-term goal is to enable them to participate equally in all areas of local and municipal life. 32 partner networks in 32 cities, seven of which are in eastern Germany, are participating in the project, with a total of more than 500 migrant associations and initiatives. More than 9000 volunteers are active in Samo.fa, and around 50 full-time positions have been created as a result of the project. The special feature of the project is that it is supported entirely by migrant organisations, including numerous alliances such as the VMDO (see practical example 2), a new type of migrant organisation. The project executing agency, the Federal Association of Networks of Migrant Organisations (BV NeMO), is an umbrella organisation of currently 800 organisations, including 20 local alliances in ten federal states.Footnote 8

The idea for the project arose in autumn 2015 in the board of the federal association NeMO against the background of the immigration of refugees. At that time, numerous migrants and people with a migration background were already active in refugee work. In the course of the autumn, the diverse fields of activity became apparent in which the volunteers could contribute their specific competences, including language skills, a special sense of what it means to be a stranger, and an understanding of the fears, needs, but also potentials of the refugees (Samo.fa 2017). At the same time, however, it also became clear that the volunteers needed support in order to fully develop their potential and to be able to contribute their voice to an increasingly heated debate.

In its conception Samo.fa brings several special features:

Scope and Coverage

A comparably extensive project – 32 partner networks in 32 cities – has not existed before in the field of migrant organisations in Germany. In 2017 for example, more than 100,000 people attended Samo.fa events nationwide (Samo.fa 2018). A total of around 50 positions were created in the area of project coordination in the partner networks as well as in project managementand public relations at the NeMO locations in Dortmund and Berlin. Samo.fa has thus established full-time structures that are necessary to coordinate the work of the volunteers and to bring their potential to bear. Especially in the area of the engagement of migrants and their organizations, volunteerism usually predominates.

Networking of Local Actors and Supra-Regional Exchange

From the beginning, the project pursued networking on three levels: firstly, networking among migrant organisations at the local level, which pragmatically work in their communities, locally, for a good arrival, for acceptable accommodation, everyday support, etc. for the refugees; secondly, networking among migrant organisations with other relevant actors locally, i.e. administration, politics, chambers of commerce, welfare associations, business, etc.; thirdly, a supra-regional networking with other partners and alliances for the purpose of exchanging experiences as well as on a political level, in order to make the voice of migrants heard also on the federal political level. A local approach to action, rootedness in the respective city societies with simultaneous supra-regional orientation and networking, i.e. self-organization, articulation of positions and interests, and a view beyond the city limits and the ability to act as a collective actor and make noticeable contributions to debates, these are the characteristics of the Samo.fa approach as well as the closely related federal association NeMO. In this way, Samo.fa overcomes a weakness of many initiatives that remain at the local level:

The weakness [of the local refugee movement, KH], in turn, is reflected in the fact that the focus on the local and concrete has so far prevented the movement from developing a conception of itself and its political goals and has therefore hardly emerged as a collectively acting actor. (Schiffauer et al. 2017, p. 10)

This deficit is diagnosed by Werner Schiffauer, Anne Eilert and Marlene Ruloff in the preface of a study in which they present 90 selected projects and initiatives in refugee work, combined also with the hope “to become aware of the potentials existing in the movement and, through this, to contribute to the formation of a stronger political self-image.” (Schiffauer et al. 2017, pp. 10–11)

Development of Expert Knowledge, Unfolding of Potential

An important goal of the project is to support migrant organisations in developing specialist knowledge in selected fields of action, e.g. housing, health, the labour market or education. Such knowledge, including in-depth knowledge, is essential in order to be able to exist and be taken seriously in the municipal (and also supraregional) integration policy context, in specialised working groups, committees, but also in the public debate. Here migrant organisations are under threefold pressure: Firstly, the expectations towards them have increased. Secondly, they are under particular scrutiny because reservations, scepticism and negative attributions persist. Thirdly, in view of scarce resources and predominantly voluntary work, it is a real challenge for such organisations to push ahead with their professionalisation. Topic-centred further training, exchange of experience and networking should therefore contribute to migrant organisations acquiring more topic-specific knowledge and also being able to use it actively. This goal has also been achieved in the third year of the project, as one member of the management team put it in an interview:

Basically, all the locations – I don’t want to say that they have become specialists, – but they have acquired advanced knowledge to a sufficient quantitative, qualitative extent in various subject areas of the refugee issue from their own work, so also in the talks or federal network meetings or regional meetings of the Samo.fa project. This means that they can now participate in discussions on the ground at eye level in terms of content.

Partners and Joint Ventures in Eastern Germany

Samo.fa also has partners in seven cities in eastern Germany, namely Leipzig, Dresden, Halle (Saale), Potsdam, Hoyerswerda, Stralsund and Berlin. This is remarkable because the situation with regard to migration in eastern Germany differs significantly from that in the west. The proportion of the population with a migration background is low. In 2018, one in four people in West Germany had a migration background – compared to only one in sixteen in East Germany (and a good one in five in Germany as a whole). The legacy of the GDR migration policy as well as the economic and social consequences of German reunification continue to affect the composition of the migrant population as well as the way migration is handled today.Footnote 9 Since there was hardly any labour migration, no subsequent family reunification, and correspondingly hardly any chain migration and migration networks developed, the migration population in eastern Germany is predominantly composed of refugees who are distributed there according to the Königstein Key.Footnote 10 This also means that migrant organisations have not been able to develop in the way they have in the West, with its long experience of migration. On the other hand, the long-established population also has hardly any experience with migration and hardly any real contact with migrants – a major problem, as scientific studies regularly show that direct personal contact is particularly suitable for breaking down prejudices.

3.1.1 How Does the Work in Samo.fa Take Shape? Special Dynamics/Development/Effects of the Project

According to the statements of those responsible for the project, it has developed a strong momentum of its own, has been able to attract a growing number of migrant organisations in a short time and has defined itself more precisely, differentiated and professionalised itself internally. What does this mean in concrete terms?

At the beginning of the project, there was a rather abstract idea of what could be achieved in Samo.fa, as several project managers recall in the interview. On the one hand, there was a great spontaneous movement of willingness to help among migrant associations as well as numerous individuals with a migration history in autumn 2015. The situation was characterized by a strong emotionality and motivation for all participants, as was also evident in the body language, voice and tone of voice of the interview partners. On the other hand, only very few of the migrant organizations had experience in refugee work or counted this as one of their core tasks. Therefore, it was clear in the fall of 2015 that important work was being done and that it urgently needed structural support – but exactly what this support could look like and where it could lead emerged in the course of the project.

The decisive factor for the establishment of the project was initially the acquisition of partners. The federal association planned a large project from the beginning, but at that time did not have enough network partners to be able to reach the targeted number of 30 partners. In some cities there were already networks and organisations that were professionally set up, had good networks, regular and project funding and full-time staff. In other cities, however, there were only a few voluntary initiatives and hardly any cooperation between the municipality and the migrant organisations. After a start-up phase, in which Samo.fa was observed with scepticism by migrant organisations, it was able to attract more and more partners after a few months. Important arguments were not only the contents and offers, but also the prospect of financial support, which would generate staff positions and thus create the prerequisite for further development – i.e. professionalization, own project acquisition, increasing visibility and relevance in municipal integration policy.

The mere possibility of filling staff positions meant that Samo.fa either contributed to strengthening existing networks or made it possible to establish them where none had existed before. The approach was flexible in such a way that it could be adapted to local conditions, on the one hand with regard to the forms of cooperation, and on the other hand with regard to the thematic priorities and profile formation at the local level. Here, the activity in eastern Germany also brought with it special features. While there is an active – but comparatively small – scene of migrant organisations in some large eastern German cities, this structure was completely absent in other cities. In Hoyerswerda, for example, the RAA (“Regional center for the promotion of children and adolescents from immigrant families”)Footnote 11 was won as a partner, as there had been no migrant organisations in the city until then. Samo.fa offers the opportunity to initiate and promote the development of civil society from above. Overall, however, Samo.fa is a structure that gives migrant organisations the opportunity to develop their offers and positions independently of the municipalities, and also to contribute them in a self-confident manner.

The mode of cooperation in the project is, simply summarized, as follows: In close exchange with the project management team, the local partners were first required to initiate their own reflection processes and to decide in which at least two fields of action of refugee work they would like to specialize, e.g. health, labor market, housing, education. For this purpose, the needs on site are also analyzed. In these fields, they have then further trained, exchanged, networked and developed their own local events for their own members and other relevant actors within the framework of various events, workshops, local and national network meetings and the bi-annual Samo.fa dialogue conferences.

Decisive building blocks of the cooperation are the public relations work as well as the dialogue conferences. The professional public relations work moderates the internal communication between the participating partners and gives the project external visibility. It also serves to introduce the positions of the migrants involved into the societal discourse and, in this sense, to appear politically as a collective actor. The dialogue conferences deal with relevant topics and bring the project participants together with high-ranking representatives from politics, administration and science.

The work in Samo.fa has the following main effects for the partners involved, as those responsible report in the interview:

  • There has been a shift in the content of the work of migrant organisations towards the issue of refugees. For many, “before, the topic was more of a side issue”, according to an interview statement.

  • The networking of migrant organisations, the perceptibility and visibility of their commitment has increased.

  • Politicisation has set in, or has been triggered by the network of migrant organisations, in such a way that they increasingly see themselves as political actors, not just service providers, and want to play an active role in shaping society; expressed in a direct quotation: “They have thus also developed a view in which they have also understood the big picture as a political profile”.

  • In a development that overall points towards more participation of migrant organisations in important processes of local shaping, heterogeneity nevertheless remains. The success of the organisations depends on a variety of factors, including the willingness of the municipality to cooperate, including financial support; the self-image and degree of professionalisation; local experience with migration; ingrained routines in policy networks, the political culture and civil society commitment.

3.2 Practical Example 2: Local Alliances as New Type of Migrant Organisations – The VMDO in Dortmund

In 2008, one of the first local alliances of migrant organisations was founded as a new type of migrant organisation, the “Verbund der sozial-kulturellen Migrantenvereine in Dortmund e. V.” (VMDO). Further alliances were founded successively throughout Germany, also initiated by the Samo.fa project. Alliances appear to be suitable for promoting the development of migrant organisations as well as their capacity to act and their visibility as a whole. They unite under one organisational umbrella a larger number of mostly local and integrative migrant associations that are committed to shared values and principles, including a cross-cultural orientation that is at the same time directed towards urban society and local coexistence. Among the association members there are also numerous people without migration history as well as some long-established associations without migration reference, which now want to open themselves specifically to migrants and share the goals of the association.

The federation structure enables an organisational development towards a well-networked and capable collective actor. Through their permanent, also full-time structures, federations contribute to a professionalisation of the member associations. At the same time, they enable the member associations to speak with one voice and thus to become audible and visible in the migration discourse locally as well as through networking supraregionally. This is particularly important for small associations, which reflect the diversity of today’s urban societies, have good access to their communities, but are hardly noticed. Associations also have a contact function for the municipality and other actors.

The VMDO in Dortmund is presented here as a representative example of the establishment of local alliances, which is currently taking place in a growing number of cities – partly similar, partly different, depending in each case on the self-image of the migrant organisations as well as the (integration) political constellations on the ground.

Founded in 2008 with seven founding associations, 10 years later the VMDO has grown to 60 member organisations and over 100 nationalities and ethnicities, which under its umbrella profess a local, participatory, origin-independent, cross-cultural and secular orientation. VMDO members represent – according to estimates – about one third of all Dortmund migrant associations.Footnote 12 Since its foundation, the VMDO has experienced a considerable differentiation of its organisational structures and functions. In particular, the interface function it performs between members and politics/administration has taken on clearer contours. It has also differentiated itself as a provider of social services and sponsor of numerous projects and has produced a structure of a total of around 50 employees.

3.2.1 What Exactly Distinguishes the VMDO? What Are Its Goals, Its Self-Image and Its Fields of Work?

The overarching goal of the VMDO is to promote equal participation, especially of people with a migration history, as well as a good coexistence of all Dortmunders. It pursues this goal by strengthening its affiliated associations and representing them in the sense of a common articulation of interests in various local and supra-regional committees, networks and political arenas. Its primary local reference is the city of Dortmund, whose urban society it helps to shape, in which opportunities are opened up to the disadvantaged and overall dialogue and encounters between Dortmund citizens with and without a migration history are to be promoted. Through its membership in BV NeMO, of which it is a founding member, as well as in the NRW state association founded in 2018, the VMDO also aims to carry the concerns of locally rooted migrant organizations to the state and federal political level. For example, NeMO representatives take part in the integration summits at the Chancellor’s Office.

Founded in a few small office spaces in a neighborhood close to the city center, the VMDO has maintained the “House of Diversity” (“Haus der Vielfalt”) as its main location with office and event spaces as well as counseling services since 2013. The “House of Diversity” has become a visible place of self-organization, empowerment and civic engagement in the city. Between 8000 and 10,000 visitors are received there every month. The seminar and event rooms can also be used by the member associations. This is especially important for small, newly founded associations that do not have their own infrastructure. The “House of Diversity” also hosts large project meetings, network meetings, working groups, round tables, etc. in cooperation with other actors in the field of integration work. The VMDO-training institute (see below) uses the rooms for its own courses.

Essential to the Verbund concept is the relationship between the Verbund as an umbrella organization on the one hand and the member associations on the other. While the member associations retain their autonomy and are different in terms of size, degree of professionalisation, focus of work, activity profiles, countries and regions of origin as well as the nature of their relations there, they share common basic orientations and their clear orientation towards Dortmund. With their VMDO membership, they also commit themselves, within the framework of their own association activities, to active participation in urban life, to mutual respect and against racism and discrimination. In this respect, membership also has an effect on the development of the member associations, their internal reflection processes on their own self-image and their opening towards urban society. At the same time, the VMDO aims to strengthen its members, to bundle and articulate their interests and to bring them into the shaping of local integration policy.

Organizationally, the VMDO has increasingly differentiated into the areas of services, political work and member associations, which are closely coupled via the board and the management. The general meeting elects the honorary board, which is composed of members of the member associations. It acts as a link between the associations and the management, in particular with regard to the mediation of overriding interests and positions as well as feedback from the association base. The operational activities of the VMDO as a service provider in the social sector are carried out by a management and full-time staff in four areas of work or fields of action: (1) Work, Social Affairs and Integration; (2) training institute called “Bildungswerk Vielfalt”; (3) Children and Youth Work (4) “House of Diversity” (as a community space, place for cultural events and courses). A variety of projects are carried out here, including in the areas of arrival, health, labour market integration of women, meeting in the neighbourhood, promotion of civil society commitment, social strengthening and empowerment, political education, qualification and strengthening of migrant organisations in refugee work.Footnote 13 The VMDO is also a recognised provider of independent youth welfare according to § 75 KJHGFootnote 14 and a recognised provider of further education according to § 15 of the Further Education Act of the State of NRW.

Permanent facilities of the VMDO are the open children’s and youth club “Children of Diversity”, the regional refugee counselling centre, the career counselling “Counselling of Diversity” with its specialist office for recognition counselling for foreign qualifications, the service centre for older migrants and their relatives, the coordination office for dementia for older Turkish migrants and volunteers (in Turkish) as well as the service centre Work and Life in cooperation with the Job Centre and housed in its premises. The VMDO is financed on the basis of projects (acquisition of funding within the framework of programmes at state, federal and EU level, foundations, municipalities, etc.) as well as regular municipal funding and membership fees.

3.2.2 What Characterises the Development of the VMDO?

Several factors facilitated the growth and organisational development of the VMDO, including a founding idea that was attractive to many associations, a sympathetic municipality, management staff with professional experience in the field, and the refugee influx in 2015/2016, which acted as a catalyst for the developments already underway. At the same time, rapid growth also brings challenges and problems.

The founding idea of the VMDO – as well as of other local associations – includes various aspects: An umbrella association should be created that is not only independent of origin but also independent of the municipality, i.e. it is not obliged to directly fulfil municipal mandates. This independence was to be the first prerequisite for working as partners at eye level. It was also an aim to develop beyond the field of culture, an area of work in which most migrant organisations are active and to which they are often thematically restricted by the role attributions of other actors. At the same time, a superordinate structure with its resources and networks makes it possible to increase the visibility of the associations, to promote their professionalization in various fields of action, and to provide reliable contacts for the community. The former chairman and co-founder of the VMDO puts it this way:

The Tamil Cultural Association could hardly show any positive results at the communal level after its foundation. Then after the merger with VMDO, things looked different. Many doors were opened through already existing connections.

On the model of communal independence, the executive director and co-founder of VMDO says:

And in our case it’s very nice, it’s developing very well. Where the municipalities see: A self-initiative has emerged, where the MOs declare themselves democratic, but at the same time also try to take over municipal tasks. And that’s why the municipalities also support this development in different ways, through a strong presence in advisory boards and structures, but at the same time also financial support.

At the same time, the model of municipal associations offers sufficient flexibility to be able to adapt to the sometimes very different local conditions:

But you can see that very clearly, every association is very different, other unique selling points, I would say, communally related. If you look at the structures, it is very well received in the municipalities, just like in Dortmund. They are very happy that an initiative has come into being that now brings together MOs. They are also happy that a contact structure has been created that the municipality now needs. Because after the Immigration Act of 2005, it was also an objective of the municipalities to work together with MOs. But then they also noticed that it’s not that easy to work with so many different MOs, to take on municipal tasks together with them, and that it’s stressful.

The strong reference of the association to the shaping of urban society and neighbourhoods also offers a realistic level of identification to which many migrants feel connected much more quickly and easily than to the German nation, culture or other superordinate levels of affiliation, as various studies have shown (cf. Heckmann 2004).

Staff

The VMDO was founded by people who already had many years of experience both in project acquisition and in intercultural work and local politics. In addition, there are numerous migrant organisations in Dortmund that have been active for a long time and have also already achieved a certain degree of professionalisation. Especially in comparison to other municipalities, where there was not yet a stable structure and corresponding personnel, this situation had a favourable effect in Dortmund. The interview partners made it clear that the founding of the networks developed particularly well in the cities where the management staff was already known to the municipalities and other funding bodies as working professionally and reliably.

Municipality

The city of Dortmund has accompanied the work of the VMDO with an open-minded attitude from the very beginning. Through the advisory board, and later the board of trustees, important representatives of local politics and the top administration have regularly provided impulses – the mayor as well as two department heads are members of the VMDO board of trustees. They have increasingly involved the VMDO in important tasks in the area of social cohesion and participation in Dortmund’s urban society, especially in the course of the influx of refugees in 2015/2016. This trust in migrant organizations cannot be taken for granted. Despite a general development towards more appreciation and inclusion, there are still often fundamental reservations towards them.

Challenges

The rapid growth of the VMDO also brings challenges. The heterogeneity of the member associations is huge, with small, freshly founded and hardly professional associations on the one hand and large well-established and networked associations on the other. Here it is a challenge to reach everyone equally with the right approach and to make clear again and again the overriding goals, the common interests – beyond the individual interests – because as one association board member put it: “Together we are just stronger.” However, this view does not exist as a matter of course, and the one voice to speak with, demanded by migrant organisations and political partners alike, is not to be extracted from the multiplicity of diverse interests and priorities without effort. Here, the board in particular has an important role to play: it must repeatedly explain, mediate between individual interests and overarching issues that are important for everyone in the long term.

At the same time, the VMDO – like other associations – is confronted with expectations that cannot always be met. Resources continue to be scarce, and a good part of the activities take place at the interface between full-time and voluntary work. Volunteers continue to play a major role and make it difficult to achieve the professionalism that the municipalities would like to see in order to be able to work with partners who are always reliable and can be reached during normal working hours. The permanent dependence on project-related funding is also a difficulty.

4 Conclusion

The strong influx of refugees in the late summer and autumn of 2015 indeed represents a great opportunity for the organizations presented here. At the same time, however, considerable structural difficulties remain. In some areas, on the other hand, the so-called refugee crisis has also led to setbacks. With a view to future developments, it is important that they use the window of opportunity to increase their visibility, present their competencies and bring themselves into play as trustworthy partners.

The opportunities, risks, progress and setbacks in detail: With regard to the Samo.fa project, it can be stated that without the situation in autumn 2015, a project on a comparable scale would probably not have come about, according to the assessment of those responsible for the project. Various factors came into play here: It already became clear in the course of autumn 2015 that volunteers with a migration background have particularly good access to refugees, bring with them a profound empathy and were also very practically needed for interpreting services and the like. Many municipalities were also more inclined to find new ways of working together and to break up familiar routines at a time of great logistical challenges. Many volunteers and migrant organisations responded to the situation with spontaneous help – without having worked in this field before. In negotiations with the Federal Government Commissioner for Migration, Refugees and Integration, BV NeMO succeeded in convincing her that a comprehensive strengthening and qualification of organisations active in refugee work would bring great benefits to society as a whole. At the same time, however, NeMO also saw the opportunity to distinguish itself here and to prove that the participating organisations would master the tasks ahead and prove themselves to be partners with whom it would be quite possible to work at eye level. In this context, NeMO also saw the opportunity to advance the development of networks and alliances as a positive side effect of the content-related project work. The idea behind this – based on experience with already existing alliances such as the VMDO or the “Forum of Cultures” in Stuttgart – was that this type of structure is suitable for introducing the concerns of people with a migration background more effectively into the political discourse and for helping to shape integration policy in all relevant fields of action – not just culture. With a project concept that included around 30 partners, NeMO itself took risks, but at the same time recognised the opportunity: “It was very sporting for us, but it was the right time”, recalls one of the project developers.

Those were mixed feelings. But at the same time it was also a springboard for us to show: We can do this. We’re going to do this. We dared to do it and we did it.

The fact that the project was able to start so quickly – as early as the beginning of 2016 – was partly due to the acute challenges on the ground, and partly to the fact that NeMO members and project developers were already known to the Federal Commissioner as trustworthy partners. This combination ultimately paved the way for a project that, through its endowment with funds and staff positions in numerous municipalities, tipped the scales in favour of interculturally oriented and integrative migrant organisations joining forces and pooling their resources as service providers, pushing ahead with cooperation with the municipalities of their own accord and, overall, also developing a stronger political awareness, even beyond their own city boundaries. On the other hand, over time, the success of the cooperation and the new collaborations initiated by Samo.fa also contributed to the realization among the funding agencies that not only the direct strengthening of volunteers is important, but also the development of local alliances. One project manager reports that at first the idea of building up structures was merely tolerated, but not promoted. After the project had been running for 2 years, the funding bodies then recognised the advantages that the establishment of networks also brought for integration work in the municipalities, also because access to the various groups was better guaranteed. In the meantime, the establishment of local networks and associations has therefore also become an official funding objective.

For the VMDO, the autumn of 2015 and the period that followed similarly represented a great opportunity. When trains with several hundred refugees arrived at Dortmund Central Station every day, the city administration reached its logistical limits. The VMDO offered on its own initiative to take over the sponsorship of an emergency shelter and two transitional facilities. The city decided – also under the pressure of the situation – to transfer the task to the VMDO. On its own initiative and with the help of its numerous volunteers, the VMDO organised the remodelling and furnishing of the shelters: Renovation work, security services, interpreting services, counselling and accompaniment, etc. were all part of the process. Within the framework of Samo.fa., the VMDO professionalised its activities in refugee work and organised network meetings with all relevant actors on its own initiative. In retrospect, the strong influx of refugees in 2015/2016 acted as a catalyst that further strengthened the development of the VMDO, which had already begun. In particular, the VMDO was able to prove in many areas that it is able to work professionally.

However, there are also negative developments. Three VMDO interviewees note that there are also setbacks and “structural backlashes”: It also happens that migrant organisations are not invited to working groups and committees, although they directly concern the interests of migrants. The reason for this may also be fear of new competition. In addition, the VMDO observes another ambivalent development: While the cooperation between municipalities and migrant organisations has experienced a considerable boost since 2005, also through the development of municipal master plans, this systematic development has stagnated since the so-called “refugee crisis”. On the one hand, this has to do with the enormous burdens on municipalities, it is assumed, as resources are simply used in other areas that are then lacking in strategic planning; on the other hand, there could also be pressure on municipalities to justify themselves if the social discourse on migration continues to shift to the right.

The extent to which migrant organisations can use the window of opportunity to build sustainable structures depends on whether funding will continue to flow in this area in the future and whether the newly founded networks and alliances have reached a level of professionalisation that allows them to continue acquiring funding independently or to receive public funding in the future. However, Samo.fa has also had the effect of making the contribution of migrant organisations to society as a whole more visible, and municipalities are paying regular funding where this was not previously the case. For the VMDO, those responsible are optimistic about the development of sustainable forms of cooperation, also due to the generally constructive cooperation with the municipality. According to one interviewee, it would be important for established agencies and structures – as well as some migrant organisations – to open up even more and move towards each other.

Overall, Samo.fa has advanced the structure-building and placement of migrant organizations in the political process, according to the assessment of two NeMO and VMDO officers:

  • But, for an immigrant organization to even be in the discussion so broadly at times, about certain projects, that probably didn’t exist before.

  • After all, we are now welcome representatives of migrant organisations, nationwide. Also at the integration summit in the Chancellor’s Office, where we, as a federal association, were involved professionally.