Salus Space originates from a European project led by the Municipality of Bologna in collaboration with 16 partners, winning the first call of the Urban Innovative Actions program.
The area, once occupied by the private clinic Villa Salus, has been revived from abandonment and transformed. Salus Space stands as a multifunctional center housing residences, artistic and artisanal workshops, a theater, study centers, an emporium, a weekly farmer's market, gardens, an inn, and above all, a community.
The primary aim is to experiment with a sustainable collaborative living space where the social inclusion of migrants and refugees aligns with a vision of intercultural welfare and active citizenship, transcending categorical assistance.
Inaugurated in January 2021, Salus Space is managed by a Temporary Association of Purpose comprising five Third-sector entities: Eta Beta Social Cooperative (as the lead), Aquaponic Design, Cantieri Meticci, Cefal Emilia Romagna, and IRS Institute for Social Research. Each entity contributes its expertise and experiences, emphasizing collaboration in joint management.
The Municipality of Bologna and the Savena District ensure oversight and shared governance. Community building, social and linguistic mediation, and communication efforts were undertaken in 2021 and 2022 by Open Group and Cidas in close collaboration with ATS, funded through the PON Metro program, concluding in February 2023. Presently, ATS handles community work and communication.
©tbc
©tbc
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: | Yes |
| If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body | Municipality of Bologna - Istituzione per l’inclusione sociale e comunitaria Don Paolo Serra Zanetti |
| 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: |
|
| Private for-profit actors: | Yes |
| If yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as public engagement consultants, companies etc. | Microfinanza SRL → Financial inclusion |
| Private not-for profit actors: | Yes |
| If yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such as associations, informal networks etc. |
|
| Civic actors: | No |
| Other actors: | No |
| Funding/financial resources for the particular best practice example | Yes |
| If yes, specify e.g. amount of funding/year | € 6.249.673 (1.11.2016-31.10.2019) Co-Financed. UE: € 4.999.738,40 |
| and the source(s) of funding (if more sources, please specify) | Program Urban Innovative Actions - Integration of migrants and refugees |
Type of Governance
| Top-Down participatory process |
Specific Features on the Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of working hours): if yes, describe | No |
Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural): | Yes, facilitators speak English and French as well |
| 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)? | 4 meetings, 4 focus groups during two months |
Target Groups
| External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation = ideal situation | Citizens of the city of Bologna |
| Internal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within = real situation | Citizens living in the same neighborhood of Salus Space |
| Internal inclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant | No |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the designated plan of the best practice: | Yes |
| If yes: Who in particular, e.g., migrants, people in precarious work-situation, etc.? Specify. | Migrants, refugees |
| If yes: Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people: | No |
| Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice: | Yes |
| If yes: Who in particular, e.g., migrants, people in precarious work-situation, etc.? Specify. | migrants refugees |
| If yes: Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people: | No |
Public Information Activities
Means of Information provided
Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): | Yes |
| If yes: multiple languages available: | Yes |
| If yes: non-technical language used: | Yes |
| Social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Whats App, websites, blog): | Yes |
| If yes: please specify | Facebook - Instagram - Website |
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.): | Yes |
| Special-target activities (e.g., through gate-openers, community workers etc.): | Yes → gate -openers |
Monitoring
| Monitoring process on the best practice available: | Yes |
| If yes: Continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants: | Yes |
| If yes: How? How often? | Meetings - every three months |
| Integration of participants in the monitoring process: | Yes |
| If yes: Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process: | Yes |
| Continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors): | Yes |
| Impact Assessment/Evaluation | Meetings - once a month |
Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation
| Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place: | Yes |
| If yes: who evaluates? What? How? A which point of process? | IRS → one of the project partners. Project foresees a Work Package "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? | No, but they contributed to it |
| If no: Why? Who decides instead? | The project Leading staff, the Municipality of Bologna |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decision that were taken? Yes/no | Yes |
| If yes: publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? | Yes, via website, newsletter, social networks |
Tools to Enhance Citizens’ Empowerment
| Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making and roles and any limits on the decisions: | Yes |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or training, apps): | Yes |
| If yes: What kind of? | For participatory communication and evaluation teams they had regular meeting |
| Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governance system? | Yes |
| If yes: Where (in the sense of which level in the multilevel-governance)? | Training provided for policy makers |
Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups
| Which groups are involved in which stage of the participatory process | Third sector, Citizen of the neighborhood, potential beneficiaries (migrants and refugees) |
| What are tasks of the groups? Describe for each group | The task was to contribute to the co-design of the entire project, and in specific to contribute to the communication plan, to the evaluation and to the definition of the community profile |
| Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? | For a project aimed at the integration of migrants and refugees, “their” group was underrepresented. The logistic aspects of the Plenary reunion were not encouraging (timing, places, no childcare..) |