End of Commitment Report – Co-creating the housing development programme with the support of CoLaboratory

Name of Evaluator

Mária Reháková, Kristína Murínová, Anna Vaňová

Email

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Member Name

Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic

Action PlanAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open government ... Title

Action plan – Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic, 2024 – 2026

Commitment

Co-creating the housing development program with the support of CoLaboratory

Title

Co-creating the housing development program with the support of CoLaboratory

Action

The commitment aims to use CoLaboratory to support processes of co-creation and dialogue between different stakeholders and to support the development of innovative cross-sectoral partnerships in the search for solutions within the complex agendas of the municipal authority, specifically within housing development. The CoLaboratory will provide methodological support for these processes, including facilitation, communication, cooperation and coordination, because both co-creation and development of innovation ecosystems involve complex interactions among the stakeholders from different sectors based on the principle of tripartite or sometimes quadripartite cooperation (involving businesses, universities, research institutions, public and third sector organizations). The co-creation processes supported by the CoLaboratory will be monitored and evaluated by an internal work group, and final reports will be created for both. The outcomes of evaluation should provide a base to design a co-creation methodology and define effective cooperation models within the Municipal Office as well as with external stakeholders (e.g., within the territory) to address complex challenges. This commitment also involves the plan to organize a workshop (or a workshop series) addressing the understanding of innovation cross-sector ecosystems, allowing the participants to develop the related skills. The knowledge gained from this process will be applied in similar processes in the future.

Problem

Currently, the self-government is addressing a number of complex challenges and responding to various crises, which require activation of collective intelligence and know-how to find quality, innovative, and sustainable solutions. Among the various such complex challenges, the self-government currently needs to address the co-creation of the Housing Development Program and cross-sector innovation partnerships focused on the creation of innovative solutions to promote energyEnsuring universal access to sustainable, dependable, and affordable energy is critical to every aspect of prosperity. Increasing public oversight and transparency in the energy sector can help to ens... More sustainability in the city. In terms of housing – among other issues, the city currently lacks affordable housing for disadvantaged groups (e.g. young families, single-parent families, young people, minorities, etc.). Such innovative solutions can be delivered through the quality co-creation processes and multi-sectoral innovation partnerships.

1.1 What was the overall level of progress in the commitment implementation at the time of this assessment?

Substantial

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Implementation of the commitment reached approximately half of its intended scope. The component focused on the preparation of the new Housing Development Program, applying the Co-Laboratory approach, was successfully implemented. This important strategic document was formally approved following an extensive participatory process.

By contrast, the activities and partnerships related to energy sustainability were not implemented due to a shift in internal priorities.

The Housing Development Program document is too large to be uploaded as an attachment. I am therefore providing a link to the document instead:

Housing Development Program for the City of Banská Bystrica through 2035 

1.2 Describe the main external or internal factors that impacted implementation of this commitment and how they were addressed (or not).

The main internal factor that negatively affected implementation of the commitment was a direct shift in priorities within the City Development Activities Department. The originally planned project focused on a cross-sector partnership for energy sustainability was replaced by a different project concept, which resulted in the complete cancellation of participatory activities in this area. As a consequence, neither the Participation and Innovation Unit nor the Co-Laboratory platform was involved in this part of the commitment.

A significant positive factor, however, was the cooperation and facilitation achieved within the housing agenda, where the process successfully brought together representatives of the public sector, academia, developers, expert organizations, and civil society through an external working group.

A partial internal delay was also caused by the fact that the final evaluation report on the housing process was not delivered within the originally planned timeframe, with submission postponed until August.

Feedback from participating stakeholders collected through an internal questionnaire provides additional insight into the factors affecting implementation. According to one civil society representative, the participatory process for developing the Housing Development Program began to be implemented on a broader scale only after repeated pressure from communities and organizations active in the field of housing policy.

Other respondents noted that not all participants were able to work effectively with the Decidim platform and also pointed to insufficient involvement of institutions necessary for the implementation of social housing development.

1.3 Was the commitment implemented as originally planned?

Few of the commitment milestones were implemented as planned

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Of the five milestones defined under the commitment, three were completed. These completed milestones concerned the design of the co-creation processCollaboration between government, civil society and other stakeholders (e.g., citizens, academics, private sector) is at the heart of the OGP process. Participating governments must ensure that a dive..., the formal approval of the new Housing Development Program 2035, and the preparation of its final evaluation report.

The remaining two milestones, both related to energy sustainability, were not implemented due to a shift in the priorities of the city leadership.

The Housing Development Program document is too large to be uploaded as an attachment. I am therefore providing a link to the document instead:

Housing Development Program for the City of Banská Bystrica through 2035 

2.1.1. – Did the government disclose more information; improve the quality of the information (new or existing); improve the value of the information; improve the channels to disclose or request information or improve accessibility to information?

Not Applicable

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

In developing the City of Banská Bystrica Housing Development Program, the local government used several participatory mechanisms. These included establishing and coordinating an external working group, which met a total of ten times during the drafting process; organizing online public participationGiving citizens opportunities to provide input into government decision-making leads to more effective governance, improved public service delivery, and more equitable outcomes. Technical specificatio... in the preparation of the Housing Development Program 2035; consulting the draft with a broader group of external experts; discussing the issue at the conference “Innovative Approaches to Housing Development”; and publishing the document for public discussion through the Decidim platform.

At the same time, the use of Decidim represented a barrier for some stakeholder groups who were not familiar with the platform or did not know how to use it effectively.

The Co-Laboratory platform was also actively involved in the process, creating a broad space for expert discussion and enabling representatives of academia, non-governmental organizations, developers, private-sector actors, public authorities, and the wider public to directly influence how the city formulated its strategic objectives and vision in the areas of housing affordability and rental housing.

2.1.2. – Did the government create new opportunities to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation inform or influence decisions; improve existing channels or spaces to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation/ inform or influence decisions; create or improve capabilities in the government or the public aimed to improve how the government seeks feedback from citizens/enables participation/ or allows for the public to inform or influence decisions?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

In the participatory development of the Housing Development Program, using the Co-Laboratory platform, stakeholders from different sectors were involved through the working group, including representatives of the non-profit, public, and private sectors. The selection of participants was designed to cover different target groups relevant to the strategic document, enabling their needs to be identified and subsequently reflected in the final document.

This approach supported the collection of new, original information gathered specifically for the purpose of developing the Program. In addition, electronic participation tools and dissemination activities were used to encourage the active involvement of the wider public.

The assessment is rated as substantial because only approximately half of the overall commitment was implemented. Stakeholders generally perceived the participatory process positively. Five of the seven respondents indicated that the commitment had been implemented with the participation of relevant stakeholders (“mostly yes”), while two responded “partially yes”; none provided a negative response.

Four respondents identified the creation of new opportunities for providing feedback and participating in decision-making as the main benefit of the process, while three highlighted the strengthening of capacities within both public administration and the wider public. One critical observation was that not all participants were able to use the digital platform effectively.

2.1.3 Did the government create or improve channels, opportunities or capabilities to hold officials answerable to their actions?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The main output linked to the implementation of the commitment is a concrete strategic document in which the City defines its objectives and policy intentions in the area of housing. It sets out priorities to be achieved by 2035, supported by defined objectives and indicators that make it possible to monitor progress and, in turn, assess the accountability of the city leadership for implementation.

At the same time, participating stakeholders noted that the City’s accountability is currently reflected primarily at the level of declared objectives. Critical feedback focused on the lack of tangible results to date, particularly in relation to rental housing, as well as on insufficient transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the public,... More regarding the instruments to be used for implementation.

The actual level of delivery and accountability can therefore only be assessed once the Program has been implemented in practice.

2.1.4 Other Results

Not Applicable

2.2 Did the commitment address the public policy problem that it intended to address as described in the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment was successful in addressing part of the identified problem, as the City had previously lacked a comprehensive and up-to-date strategic document focused on housing policy. By drawing on collective intelligence, the City developed a high-quality Housing Development Programme that integrates analytical, strategic, and implementation components.

However, the issue of the missing innovation partnership for energy sustainability was not resolved.

Participating stakeholders assessed the overall fulfillment of the commitment differently: one respondent considered it fully achieved, three assessed it as mostly achieved, one as partially achieved, one as mostly not achieved, and one as not achieved at all. Overall, four out of seven respondents provided a positive assessment.

Critical feedback was primarily linked to the lack of visible practical results to date, particularly actual housing construction. However, such outcomes cannot yet be fully assessed, given that the

Provide evidence for your answer:

Participatory Process for Developing the Banská Bystrica Housing Development Program 2035

3. Provide at least one lesson or reflection relating to the implementation of this commitment. It can be the identification of key barriers to implementation, an unexpected help/hindrance, recommendations for future commitments, or if the commitment should be taken forward to the next action plan.

Implementation of the commitment in the area of the Housing Development Program can be considered a good practice example for future strategic co-creation processes at the local government level. It combined the active involvement of the City’s participation staff with external facilitation and a clearly structured methodology, including the involvement of the IAB platform and expert Michal Smetanka.

Feedback from the evaluation questionnaire shows, however, that a successful participatory process is not sufficient unless it is followed by visible implementation results. Future processes should therefore include realistic timelines, support for participants using digital tools, early involvement of institutions responsible for implementation, and transparent communication of progress after approval of the strategic document.

A further lesson concerns the negative impact of changes in implementation priorities. Activities related to energy sustainability were discontinued following an internal change in project priorities.

Future OGP commitments should therefore be based on stronger agreement between expert coordination units, such as the Participation and Innovation Unit, and the departments responsible for implementation. Without sustained institutional commitment to using Co-Laboratory mechanisms, there is a risk of losing time and resources.

This is particularly important given the relatively short two-year OGP Action Plan period, which requires clear priorities and consistent support for implementation.