The project Zadrugator focuses on advocating for housing justice, aiming to ensure equitable access to suitable and quality housing for all individuals, irrespective of their income or wealth. It highlights the degradation of the housing sector in Slovenia after its shift to a market-driven approach three decades ago, creating housing-unaffordability for many while deteriorating the existing housing stock. It emphasizes the need for systemic state intervention, including increased regulation, support for non-profit housing providers, and measures to curb property speculation. Access to quality housing is regarded not as a privilege but as a fundamental human right and societal necessity that requires proactive political action. please proofread!

©tbc

Involved Actors & Resources

Yes / No Yes / No Yes / NoIf yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as public engagement consultants, companies etc. Yes / No Yes / NoIf yes, specify

Governmental body:

Yes	If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body
Ministry of Culture, Republic of Slovenia Housing Fund
Other public actors:

Yes	If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and describe which sector and explain their role, briefly
Municipality of Ljubljana, Public Housing Fund of the Municipality of Ljubljana
Private for-profit actors:
	No

Private not-for-profit actors:
	No
If yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such as associations, informal networks etc.
Civic actors:
If yes, explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc.	Students, Young employed profesionals, Ljubljana
Other actors: Yes / No	If yes, explain
	Yes
, students, young employed professionals, Ljubljana
Funding/Financial resources for the particular best practice example:	National and EU Projects
Specification (e.g. amount of funding/year)	/
and the source(s) of funding (if more sources, please specify)	ACF 2014 - 2021, ESRR, Ministry of Public Administration

Type of Governance

Participatory process: Yes / NoYes

Deliberative

process: Yes / NoYesOther forms: if yes, specify;Top-downNoBottom-upYesOthers: if yes, specify;

, bottom-up participatory process

Specific Features on the

Specifal Features of the Best Practice which explain

Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness

if yes, describeProvision of care services: if yes, describe if yes, describe/specify

Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of working hours):
No
	No
Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural):
	No
Frequency of activities within the best practice: How often and for how long did participants involve in best practice (e.g., in general friendly towards employed people or people with care responsibilities)?	2023: From 14 days to monthly. Depends on activities.

Target

groups

Groups

= tennnents profesionalsInternal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within = real situation Yes / NoIf yes: Who in particular, e.g. migrants people in work-situation etc.? Specify.Precarious If yes: Yes / NoPeople posibilities accomodation Yes / NoIf yes: Who in particular e.g. , people in precarious work-situation etc.? Specify.Migrants tennetsIf yes: Yes / NoYoung If yes:

External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation
(in an ideal situation)	Inhabitants of Ljubljana, especially
tenants, young
professionals, open to all.

Internal exclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant
Vulnerable groups were specified in the designed plan of the best practice:
	Yes
,
precarious
work situation, Young families, migrants, poor.
Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people:
	Yes
If yes, specify.
, people with limited
possibilities to find affordable
accommodation in Ljubljana
Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice:
	Yes
,
migrants
, young professionals,
tenants
Participation of young people, women, elderly people:
	Yes
If yes, specify.
, young people, women, migrants
Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process?	No

Public Information

Activities on the Best Practice

Activities

Means of Information

Provided

provided: Multiple

Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): yes/no;

Yes

If yes: multiple

Multiple languages available:

Yes / No

No

If yes: non

Non-technical language used:

Yes / No

	Yes
Social Media

(e.g., facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, websites, blog)

:

Yes / NoYesIf yes: Please specify

Facebook, Instagram

Others (1-2 sentences)Way of Communication

Ways of Communication

Website and social media postings:

Yes / No

	Yes
Information documents distributed in the post box:

yes/no

	Yes
Information documents distributed on streets and public spaces (during events):

Yes / No

	Yes
Press releases in “traditional” public media (e.g. linear TV, daily newspapers etc.):

Yes / No

	No
Special-target activities (e.g. through gate-openers, community workers etc.):

Yes / No

Yes

Monitoring

Monitoring process on the best practice available?

Yes / No

Yes

If yes: Continuous

Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants:

Yes / NoIf yes: How? How often?Yearly

Yes

, yearly.

Integration of participants in the monitoring process?

Yes / No

Yes

If yes:

Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process?

Yes / No

Yes

Continuous

Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors)?

Yes

If yes:

How? How often?

Once every 6 months

Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation

Yes / NoIf yes:

Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place:
	Yes
Who evaluates? What? How? At which point of process?	Internal evaluation

Citizen Empowerment & Representation

Structured Decision-Making

Yes / NoSelected Yes / No Yes / NoIf yes: Yes / NoIf yes: Yes / No

Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process?
	Yes
Do the participants make final decisions?	Yes
If no: Why? Who decides instead?	If yes: What kinds of decisions?
, selected ones.

If yes: Is there a veto right by the citizens (i.e. if they are against a specific option this is not implemented?)?
	Its an assembly. No veto
At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decisions that were taken?
	Yes
Is the publication of this document available?
	Yes
Was the publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community?
	Yes

Tools to Enhance Citizens’ Empowerment

Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making roles and any limits on the decisions? Yes / No	Yes
Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or trainingstraining, apps)?	Yes
If yes: What kind of?	Meetings, asembleys
If not: Why not?, meetings, assemblies

Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governance-system

?Yes

If yes: Where [in ?If yes: tennets
Where are these tools available? [In the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical).] National, local level
For whom in particular (horizontal)? Students, young professionals, tenants, inhabitants If not: Why not? What results from that (e.g., disconnection etc.)

Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups

Horizontal non-hierarhical

profesionals lobiing,
Which groups are involved at which stage of the participatory process? Architects, urbanists, students, young professionals
What are the tasks of the groups? Describe for each group. Planning, researching, informing, lobbying.
Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why?
Migrants, Roma

Seitenhierarchie

Versionen im Vergleich

Alte Version 5

Neue Version Aktuell

Schlüssel

Involved Actors & Resources

Type of Governance

Specific Features on the

Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness

Target

Groups

Public Information

Activities

Means of Information

provided: Multiple

Ways of Communication

Monitoring

Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation

Citizen Empowerment & Representation

Structured Decision-Making

Tools to Enhance Citizens’ Empowerment

Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governance-system

Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups

Links

Hilfe

Intranet-Tools

Where are these tools available? [In the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical).]		National, local level
For whom in particular (horizontal)?	Students, young professionals,	tenants, inhabitants	If not: Why not? What results from that (e.g., disconnection etc.)

Which groups are involved at which stage of the participatory process?	Architects, urbanists, students, young	professionals
What are the tasks of the groups? Describe for each group.	Planning, researching, informing,	lobbying.
Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why?	Migrants, Roma

Seitenhierarchie

Seitenhistorie

Versionen im Vergleich

Alte Version 5

Neue Version Aktuell

Schlüssel

Involved Actors & Resources

Type of Governance

Specific Features on the

Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness

Target

Groups

Public Information

Activities

Means of Information

provided: Multiple

Ways of Communication

Monitoring

Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation

Citizen Empowerment & Representation

Structured Decision-Making

Tools to Enhance Citizens’ Empowerment

Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governance-system

Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups