Beth L. Lovelady

Beth Leah Lovelady
© lovelady
Beth Leah Lovelady
Graduate School of Politics
Scharnhorststraße 100
48151 Münster
  • Projekt

    Bridging the Gap - Co-Production of Local Migrant Integration in the United States and Germany

    According to The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), there are 70.8 million forcibly displaced people around the world(UNHCR, 2015).The responsibility of integration falls heavily on large cities and the with continued growth of migrant populations, cities are challenged to meet the needs for housing, employment, safety and health (Department of Economic & Social Affairs, 2015; International Organization for Migration, 2015; Katz et al., 2016b).

    There is evidence that some cities have responded to these challenges with innovative integration policies that may be applicable to other cities or scalable to the state and national level (Graauw, 2016; Katz et al., 2016a). It is also clear that these cities do not do this work alone. In the United States and Germany, nonprofit organizations (NPOs)are an integral part of bridging the gap between government and migrants (Graauw, 2016; Ramakrishnan & Bloemraad, 2008).

    This research will investigate the impact NPOs have on integration policy in the United States and Germany. What role do nonprofits play in development and implementation of integration policy at the local level? In what context did these organizations form and develop? How have the relationships these organizations have to government changed over time?What strategies do these organizations use to influence policy? What were the similarities and differences in the co-operative relationships and strategies employed in each country?

    Public sector service provision faces ever more complexity both from the need to the manage multiple-level governance and growing budget deficits (Howlett, Kekez, & Poocharoen, 2017; Sicilia, Guarini, Sancino, Andreani, & Ruffini, 2016). The theory of co-production is recognized by scholars as a good tool to manage this complexity (Bode & Brandsen, 2014; Howlett et al., 2017; Pestoff, 2012; Sicilia et al., 2016; Vaillancourt, 2012b; Verschuere, Brandsen, & Pestoff, 2012).

    This research will use Pestoff (2012) and Vaillancourt’s (2012b) theories of co-production to evaluate institutional interest in the co-production of migrant services and Coston’s (1998) model of government-NGO relationshipsas a framework for comparison. It will be done with a comparative case study (CCS) design. In following Barlett and Vavrus’ (2017b) CCS model, the research will include a horizontal comparison of institutional interest in co-production and instances of NPO-government co-operation of migrant services in the two chosen cities; a vertical analysis across local, state and national policy; and a transversal analysis of how policies and migrant services organizations have developed over time (Barlett & Vavrus, 2017b).

    This study will utilize a mixed methods approach to investigate co-production of migrant integration in the policy fields of housing and education in Seattle, Washington and Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia.It will include a review of existing literature on local integration, housing, and education policy in Seattle and Cologne and the history of migration and co-production in the United States and Germany. The cases will be based upon data gathered via 1) document review of materials including organizational reports, meeting minutes, policy documents and press releases and 2) interviews with relevant government representatives and nonprofit staff, members, and volunteers.


    • Bendel, P. (2014). Coordinating immigrant integration in Germany. Mainstreaming at the federal and local levels}. Migration policy institute Europe, 32, from
    • Bode, I., &Brandsen, T. (2014). State–third Sector Partnerships: A short overview of key issues in the debate. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1055–1066.
    • Coston, J. M. (1998). A Model and Typology of Government-NGO Relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(3), 358–382.
    • Department of Economic, & Social Affairs (2015). International Migration Report 2015 Highlights}. New York: United Nations, from{\_}Highlights.pdf.
    • Eckhard, P., Zimmer, A., Anheier, H. K., Toepler, S., &Salamon, L. M. (2000). 1: Germany: Unification and Change. In A. (E.) Zimmer (Ed.), The Third Sector in Germany (2--22). Münster: Institut für Politikwissenschaft - Universität Münster.
    • Graauw, E. de (2016). Making Immigrant Rights Real: Nonprofits and the Politics of Integration in San Francisco}. Ithaca: Sage House.
    • Hossmann, I., &Karsch, M. (2011). Germany' s Integration Politics, from
    • Howlett, M., Kekez, A., &Poocharoen, O.-O. (2017). Understanding Co-Production as a Policy Tool: Integrating New Public Governance and Comparative Policy Theory. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(5), 487–501.
    • International Organization for Migration (2015). International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2015 WORLD MIGRATION REPORT Migrants and Cities: New Partnerships to Manage Mobility, from
    • Katz, B., Noring, L., &Garrelts, N. (2016a). Cities and Refugees— The German Experience Bruce}. Centennial Scholar Initiative at Brookings. (September), from
    • Katz, B., Noring, L., &Garrelts, N. (2016b). In Europe, integrating refugees falls to cities}. Washington D. C.: The Brookings Institution, from
    • Kogan, I. (2011). New Immigrants - Old Disadvantage Patterns? Labour Market Integration of Recent Immigrants into Germany}. International Migration, 49(1), 91--117.
    • Montalto, N. V. (2012). A History and Analysis of Recent Immigrant Integration Initiatives in Five States. In 15th International Metropolis Conference. The Hague: Diversity Dynamics.
    • Najam, A. (2000). The Four C's of Government Third Sector-Government Relations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), 375–396.
    • Oprisor, A., &Hammerschmid, G. (2016). Refugees in Berlin 2015/16 Perceptions of basic public service delivery Results} (No. September). Berlin: Hertie School of Governance.
    • Penninx, R. (2003). Integration: The Role of Communities, Institutions, and the State |}. Migration Information Source, Special Is, from
    • Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-Production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-Production (pp. 13–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Ramakrishnan, S. K., &Bloemraad, I. (2008). 1: Introduction: Civic and Political Realities}. In S. K. Ramakrishnan & I. Bloemraad (Eds.), Civic Hopes and Political Realities (1--42). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    • Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M., & Ruffini, R. (2016). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 8–27.
    • Singer, A. (2016). Facing immigrant integration challenges in German and US cities}. Washington D. C, from
    • UNHCR (2015). Worldwide displacement hits all-time high as war and persecution increase}. UNHCR, from
    • Vaillancourt, Y. (2012a). Third Sector and the Co-Construction of Canadian Public Policy. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-Production (pp. 70–100). New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Vaillancourt, Y. (2012b). Third Sector and the Co-Construction of Canadian Public Policy. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-Production (pp. 70–100). New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., &Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1083–1101.
    • Zimmer, A., & Toepler, S. (2000). 2: Government Policy and Future Issues}. In The Third Sector in Germany (23--79). Muenster.
  • Werdegang

    2019 Research Associate, Institute for Political Science, University of Münster
    2011-2018 Fund Development Director, Children's Alliance, Seattle, Washington USA
    2007-2011 Development and Finance Director, Child Care Action Council, Olympia, Washington USA
    2005-2006 Research Assistant, Nancy Bell Evans Center on Nonprofits & Philanthropy, University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs
    2005-2006 Legislative Assistant, University of Washington Graduate and Professional Student Senate
    2002-2005 Senior Account Executive, SparrowHawk Consulting, Olympia, Washington USA
    1997-2001 Bachelor of Science, The Evergreen State College

  • Publikationen

    • Smith, S.R., Lovelady, B., Alm, N. & Simons, K. (2018). The Regional Variation in Foundations: The Case of Washington State. Foundations in America’s Regions. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, IN. Hammack, D. (eds.) & Smith, S.R. (eds.).
    • Lovelady, B. (2006). 2V/ACT: Planning for Change and Determining Relevance. The Electronic Hallway, Evans School of Public Affairs. Smith, S.R. (eds.) & Sbarbaro, C. (eds.).
  • Weiteres


    • Zivilgesellschaftliche Forschung
    • Public Policy und Public Administration
    • Co-Production


    • WS 2018/2019: U.S. Federalism in the Trump Era