| Good Practice at a glance | Text |
| Name of the Best Practice | S.A.L.U.S. “W” SPACE Villa SALUS as a new Sustainable Accessible Livable Usable Social space for intercultural Wellbeing, Welfare and Welcoming in the Metropolitan City of Bologna |
| URL-Link | https://saluspace.eu/ |
| Focus Topic(s) of the Best Practice: describe, e.g. urban planning, environmental policies, social policies etc.; | housing; social polices; welfare; wellbeing. Several participatory processes were implemented in this rpoject. For the purpose of this inventory is considered the social/welfare participatory process. |
| Involved Actors & Resources | |
| Governmental body: yes/no; | 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/no; | yes |
| if yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and describe which sector and explain their role, briefly; | ASP Città di Bologna> public company for Welfare services of the Municipality of Bologna.; Università di Bologna > education |
| Private for-profit actors: yes/no; | 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/no; | yes |
| if yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such as associations, informal networks etc.; | Associations and cooperatives (Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale, OPEN GROUP Coop. Sociale Onlus, ICIE Istituto Cooperativo per l’InnovazionE,Antoniano Onlus, Cooperativa Sociale, Camelot Officine Cooperative,Associazione Cantieri Meticci, Società Dolce, Eta Beta Coop. Soc. Onlus,CIOFS FP Emilia Romagna,CEFAL Emilia Romagna, Società Cooperativa CSAPSA, ACLI Provinciali di Bologna,Associazione Mondodonna Onlus |
| Civic actors: yes/no; | no |
| if yes, explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. | |
| Other actors: yes/no | no |
| if yes, explain | |
| 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-Finan. 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 | |
| Participatory process: yes/no | yes |
| Deliberative process: yes/no | |
| Other forms: if yes, specify; | |
| Top-down | X |
| Bottom-up | |
| Others: if yes, specify; | |
| Special Features of the Best Practice which explain Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness | see 1.6.7 |
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of working hours): if yes, describe | no |
| Provision of care services: if yes, describe | no |
| Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural): if yes, describe/specify | 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 exclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant | no |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the designed plan of the best practice: yes/no | 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: yes/no. | no |
| If yes, specify. | |
| Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice: yes/no | yes |
| If yes: Who in particular, e.g. migrants, people in precarious work-situation etc.? Specify. | migrants refugees |
| If yes: Participation of young people, women, elderly people: yes/no. | no |
| If yes, specify. | |
| If yes: Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? | Yes, in order to promote their participation the project leading staff went to reception centers, arranged suitable times, offered language mediation |
| Public Information Activities on the Best Practice | |
| Means of Information Provided | |
| Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): yes/no; | yes |
| If yes: multiple languages available: yes/no | yes |
| If yes: non-technical language used: yes/no | yes |
| Social Media (e.g., facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, websites, blog): yes/no | yes |
| If yes: please specify | Facebook - Instagram - Website |
| Others (1-2 sentences) | |
| Way 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 | yes |
| Special-target activities (e.g. through gate-openers, community workers etc.): yes/no | yes > gate -openers |
| Monitoring | |
| Monitoring process on the best practice available? Yes/no | yes |
| If yes: Continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants: yes/no | yes |
| If yes: How? How often? | meetings - every three months |
| 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 information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors)? | yes |
| If yes: How? How often? | meetings - once a month |
| Impact Assessment / Evaluation | |
| Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place: yes/no | yes |
| If yes: Who evaluates? What? How? At which point of process? | IRS > one of the project partners. Project foresees a Work Package "Evaluation" |
| Citizen Empowerment & Representation | |
| Structured Decision-Making | yes |
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process? Yes/no | 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 |
| If yes: What kinds of decisions? | |
| If yes: Is there a veto right by the citizens (i.e. if they are against a specific option this is not implemented?)? yes/no | |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decisions that were taken? Yes/no | yes |
| If yes: publication of this document available? Yes/no | yes |
| If yes: publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? Yes/no. | Yes, via website, newsletter, social networks |
| 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 trainings, apps)? | yes |
| If yes: What kind of? | For Participative Communication and Evaluation teams they had regular meeting |
| If not: Why not? | |
| Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governance-system? | yes |
| If yes: Where [in the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical)]? | Training provided for policy makers |
| If yes: For whom in particular (horizontal)? | |
| If not: Why not? What results from that (e.g., disconnection etc.) | |
| Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups | |
| Which groups are involved at which stage of the participatory process? | Third sector, Citizen of the neighbourghood, potential beneficiaries (migrants and refugees) |
| What are the 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..) |