Amsterdam strives to combat a shortage of homes by launching an ambitious housing development scheme for 32 designated most deprived neighborhoods. After decades of urban renewal projects, the local communities still suffer from difficult to resolve socioeconomic problems. Aside from a minimum of 40% social dwelling units, 40% of homes are reserved for the middle class and only 20% for high-end. Mixing income segments on its own will not lead to an improved socio-economic status of the inhabitants thus, a new urban renewal program has been developed. On top of that, the new progressive municipal council, intends to democratise the urban renewal processes towards more community-led developments with local support and structural solutions. Some experts may argue that we require a radical new way of planning whilst others counter, that current standardised planning procedures cannot be easily changed.In partnership with themunicipality, we reflect on Amsterdam’s urban regeneration program and enhance collective crossborder learning by organising monthly learning sessions with the managers involved. Now that thefirst phases of the planning process have been completed, we follow a Grounded Theory (GT)method to structure the collected data and analyse the perceived barriers hindering the modernisation of planning practice. Observations and promising actions to make the participation process more inclusive, interactive and influential will be discussed. One example is that some managers on the ground who have to work with the system, are taking short cuts in planning procedures to ensure that citizens’ needs are incorporated in the developed plan. These disruptiveinterventions may be used to formalise and implement new policy and more effective pathways ofcommunity-based development.
This article is about the effect of local tailored interventions to counter (violent) extremism, and therefore contributes to the academic and policy debates. It focusses on local, professional perspectives on person-specific interventions utilising a Dutch case study as the basis. The interventions are part of the wider-ranging counter terrorism policy that entails (local) measures that are deployed in relation to designated high-risk individuals and groups. By reviewing policy documents and conducting semi-structured interviews, the exploratory study concludes that the key factors for a hand-tailored intervention are a solid network, expert knowledge to assess potential signs of extremist ideology, an awareness of not having too many concurrent measures, good inter-institutional cooperation and information-sharing. The professionals involved felt that person-specific interventions have contributed to reducing the threat of religious extremism in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, municipal officials and security agents emphasised the importance of setting realistic goals and a focus on preventive rather than repressive measures. Furthermore, despite the central role that municipal actors play, they run up against problems such as cooperation within the security and care sector. National entities appear to emphasize information-gathering and monitoring more than community-focused cooperation. Thereby questioning whether, on the national level, local professionals are perceived as playing a key role in dealing with extremism.
Neighbourhood interventions are important for creating supportive structures for parents and children and for other community members. Little is known, however, about what works for whom in what situation. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of what works for whom in community interventions in the neighbourhood. Realist synthesis was used as a review methodology to examine community interventions. Six databases were searched for studies published between January 1st, 2000 and May 8th, 2020 and 28 community programs reported in 34 publications were included. Multiple rounds of coding and several discussions with experts and the project team were conducted to analyze these studies and programs, and to understand underlying assumptions of neighbourhood interventions. This resulted in the definition of ten important mechanisms of change in specific contexts. These were found on two levels: on an interpersonal level (e.g. social support) and on a community level (e.g. social norms). Positive mechanisms of change varied from supportive professionals to participants in the intervention, to co-production in developing the intervention. Negative mechanisms were only found on the community level and were related to professionals’ and community members’ skills. Mechanisms of change were found to be related to specific contexts, such as implementation strategies and the type of intervention. Professionals and municipalities can use these mechanisms of change to improve their interventions and neighbourhood practices.
