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.
©tbc
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: | Ministry of Culture, Republic of Slovenia Housing Fund |
| Other public actors: | Municipality of Ljubljana,
Public Housing Fund of the Municipality of Ljubljana |
| Private for-profit actors: | No |
| Private not-for-profit actors: | No |
| Civic actors: | 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 |
| Deliberative, bottom-up participatory process |
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of working hours): | 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. |
| 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. |
| 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, 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, young people, women, migrants |
| Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? | No |
| Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): yes/no; | Yes |
| Multiple languages available: | No |
| Non-technical language used: | Yes |
| Social Media: | Facebook, Instagram |
Ways of Communication
| Website and social media postings: | Yes |
| Information documents distributed in the post box: | Yes |
| Information documents distributed on streets and public spaces (during events): | Yes |
| Press releases in “traditional” public media (e.g. linear TV, daily newspapers etc.): | No |
| Special-target activities (e.g. through gate-openers, community workers etc.): | Yes |
Monitoring |
|
| Monitoring process on the best practice available? | Yes |
| Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants: | Yes, yearly. |
| Integration of participants in the monitoring process? | Yes |
| Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process? | Yes |
| Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors)? | Yes |
| How? How often? | Once every 6 months |
Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation
| 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
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process? | Yes |
| Do the participants make final decisions? | Yes, 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 |
| Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making roles and any limits on the decisions? | Yes |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or training, apps)? | Yes, meetings, assemblies |
| 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 |
Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups
| 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, lobiing, |
| Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? |
|
