Versionen im Vergleich

Alte Version 24

changes.mady.by.user Ruth Siebenaller

Gespeichert am

verglichen mit

Neue Version Aktuell

changes.mady.by.user Boczy Tatjana

Gespeichert am

Schlüssel

  • Diese Zeile wurde hinzugefügt.
  • Diese Zeile wurde entfernt.
  • Formatierung wurde geändert.

The program Healthy Neighborhoods ('Gesunde Nachbarschaft') was established in 2010. The central focus of "Healthy Neighborhoods" is being emphasized through cooperation with district offices and partner institutions. Interactive offerings related to the thematic focuses of Viennese Health Promotion - WiG are accessible to all district residents under the title "Experience Health - Simply Participate!".

"Healthy Neighborhoods" is currently has been in existence since 2010. It is continuously being developed and expanded to cover all districts in Vienna. Currently, the The implementation is taking place in the following districts: Leopoldstadt, Landstraße, Wieden, Margareten, Mariahilf, Alsergrund, Simmering, Favoriten, Meidling, Penzing, Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus, Ottakring, Hernals, Währing, Döbling, Brigittenau, Floridsdorf, Donaustadt, and Liesing. "Starting from the end of 2024, 'Healthy Inner City', " "'Healthy Neubau', " "'Healthy Josefstadt', " and "'Healthy Hietzing'" will be implemented starting from the end of 2024. Together with the district offices and in cooperation with partner institutions, the central focuses of "Healthy Adolescents in the Neighborhood" and Gesunde Nachbarschaft are being emphasized. Under the title "Experience Health - Simply Participate!" there are interactive offerings related to the thematic focuses of Viennese Health Promotion - WiG. These offerings are accessible to all district residents.  please proofread!

       

©tbc   

https://www.wig.or.at/gesundebezirke



Image Added© Caritas Wien

https://www.caritas-stadtteilarbeit.at/projekte/alle-projekte/gesundenachbarschaft

Image Removed©tbc  

Involved Actors & Resources

If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body public actors: Yes / No: Yes / NoIf yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as
public engagement consultants, companies etc. exibithion not-for profit actors: Yes / No: Yes / NoIf yes, explain on the heterogeneity with respect to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. participatns programme ammount
Governmental body: Yes / NoYesDistrict management / District mayors
Other YesIf yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and describe which sector and explain their role, briefly:
  • WiG Wiener Gesundheitsförderung (i.e., Viennese Health Promotion) (program management)
  • Caritas Neighborhood and District Work (subcontractor)
  • Cooperation partners: 
    • District management (i.e., Bezirksvorstehung)
    • Area Renewal Offices (i.e., Gebietsbetreuung) of involved districts
    • Wohnpartner (i.e. community work in social housing )
    • Municipal Department 17 (Integration and Diversity)
    • Police
    • "Queraum"
Private for-profit actorsYes
  • Cooperation partners for location of traveling
  • exhibtion: 
    • Shopping centers (SCN, Stadion Center)
    • Grocery market (Meiselmarkt)
    • Hospital (UKH Lorenz Böhler)
Private YesIf yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such as associations, informal networks etc.
  • Cooperation partners:
    • "Juvivo/Kinderfreunde" (associations for children and youth work)
    • Mobility Scouts (association for mobile care for disabled people)
    • Das Band (asscociation association for supported employment and housing)
    • "Piramidops" (social counseling for migrant women)
Civic actorsYes
Heterogeneity of the participants
  • Gender: about 2/3 of the participants were identified as women, 1/3 had migrant background; 
  • Age: about 1/2 of the
  • participants were adults of working age (20-59 years), 1/3 were elderly people (60+) and 1/5 were kids and teenagers; 
  • Place of residence: all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd district in Vienna
  • Educational qualification: n.a. 
Other actors: Yes / NoNo
If yes, explainN/A
Funding/financial resources for the particular best practice exampleWiG-Grätzel (i.e., neighborhood) initiative and cooperation initiatives (funding amount of €300 and €3,000 respectively) were used as an instrument for residents and facilities in the districts to implement smaller health-promoting measures.If yes, specify e.g. amount of funding/year
SpecificationThe total funding of the program was €360.000 for 3 years, each district had a certain amount of funding (€38.025 personnel costs and €1.975 material costs).


Type of Governance

Participatory
process: Yes / NoYesDeliberative
process:
Yes / NoNoOther forms: if yes, specifyN/ATop-downNoBottom-upNoOthers: if yes, specify
Mixture of bottom-up and top-down.
The workshops were created based on a bottom-up survey of demand stakeholder workshop


Specifal Features of the Best Practice which explain

Specific Features Regarding Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness

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, multipliers belonging to different target groups. Linguistic translation in Turkish and Arabic during the workshops.
Frequency of activities within the best practice:
How often and for how long did participants invovle in best practice (e.g., in general friendly towards employed people or people with care responsibilities)? 

  • 2017:
    • 18 neighborhood cafes
    • 14 workshops, accompanying
    • 2 health-
promotiong
    • promoting activities"
  • 2018:
    • 6
neighbourhood
    • neighborhood cafes
    • 20 workshops, 2 impuls workshops for Bedarfserhebung,
    • 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative")
    • 1
neighbourhood
    • neighborhood forum (i.e., Grätzelforum)
  • 2019:
    • 8 neighborhood cafes
    • 10 workshops
    • 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative")
    • 1 neighborhood forum (i.e., Grätzelforum) 


Target

groups

Groups

External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation
=
(ideal situation)All people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd districts with the focus on older people in the selected neighborhoods.
Internal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within
= real situationrefered to in 1.3.5.
, i.e. real situation
  • Gender: about 2/3 of the participants were identified as women, 1/3 had migrant background; 
  • Age: about 1/2 of the participants were adults of working age (20-59 years), 1/3 were elderly people (60+) and 1/5 were kids and teenagers; 
  • Place of residence: all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd district in Vienna
  • Educational qualification: n.a. 
Internal inclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant
about
About 1/2 of the
participatns
participants were adults of working age
Vulnerable groups were specified in the designated plan of the best practice
: Yes / No
?Yes
If yes: Who in particular, e.g.
, elderly, migrants, people
in precarious work-situation, etc.? Specify.elderly. Migrants, people
with disabilities, former homeless
If yes:
Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people
: Yes / No
?Yes
If yes
,
specify. 
all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd districts focusing on older people in the neighborhood.
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
Migrants, people with disabilities, elderly with dementia, former homeless people
If yes:
Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people
: Yes / No
?Yes
If yes
,
specify. 
young people, elderly
If yes:
Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? An
intergenerational
inter-generational approach (e.g., using different activation methods) should embrace the diversity of different people and groups approach in a neighborhood. 


Public Information

Activities on the Best Practice

Activities 

Means of Information

provided

Provided

Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters)

: Yes / No

Flyer
  • flyer
  • public notices
  • direct mailing (with
invitaiton
  • invitation letters to neighbourhood meetings, workshops and traveling exhibition)
  • direct conversations with residents at events
  • phone calls
If yes: multiple langugages available: Yes / No
Multiple languages availableYes, at certain workshops (Turkish/Arabic)
If yes: non
Non-technical language used
: yes/no
No
Social media (e.g., Facebook,
Instragram
Instagram, WhatsApp, websites, blog)
: yes/no
No
If yes: please specifyN/AOthers (1-2 sentences) 
N/A


Ways of Communication 

Website and social media postings
: Yes / No
No
Information documents distributed in the post box
: Yes / No
Yes
Information documents distributed on streets and
pulic
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,
communiy
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 / No
?Yes
If yes: How? How often? 
, internal and external interim and end reports 
Integration of participants in the monitoring
proces: yes/no
process?Yes
If yes:
Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process
: Yes / No
?No
Continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors)
: Yes / No
?Yes


Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation

Impact Assessment/Evaluation

Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place
: Yes / No
?Yes
If yes: who evalueates
Who evaluates? What? How? A which point of process? 
activity
Activity and participation monitoring (interim and end report) by

an external
evalutation
evaluation expert (
prosect reserach
prospect research & solution)


Citizen Empowerment & Representation

Structured Decision-Making

Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process
: Yes / No
?Yes
Do the
participatns
participants make final decisions? Yes
If no: Why? Who decides instead? N/AIf yes: If yes:
What kind of decisions? Decisions during the so called "Grätzlforum", an event where participants, politicians, community workers and other stakeholders worked on ideas for health and
neighbourhood initiatiatives 
neighborhood initiatives 
Is there a veto right by citizens (i.e., if they are against a specific option this is not implemented)?
): Yes / No
No
At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decision that were taken?
Yes/no
Yes, a
protocoll
protocol and report
If yes:
Is a publication of this document available?
Yes / NoNoIf yes: publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? Yes / No
 No
Yes

Tools to Enhance Citizens’ Empowerment

Citizens' Empowerment Contacts to the district mayors and stakeholder who could help implementing a health-promoting neighborhood initiative after the programme ended
Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making and roles and any limits on the decisions
: Yes / NoYes
?Yes, contact between the district mayors and stakeholder who could help implementing a health-promoting neighborhood initiative after the program ended
Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or
trainings
training, apps)
: Yes / No
?Yes
If yes: What kind of? Support of
. Support for participants through project team and multipliers during generation (e.g., information on funding possibilities and networking with local stakeholders) and implementation (e.g., through logistics,
markting
marketing) of ideas for health-promoting neighborhood initiatives
If not: Why not? N/A


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

Where are these tools available? [In the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical).]? District policy level
Fostering
governancy system?Yes, fostering
the interchange between citizens and the district mayor by
organising
organizing a "Grätzlforum" - a forum where participants, community workers, district politics and other stakeholders met
If yes: Where (in the sense of which level in the multilevel-governance)? If yes:
District policy level
For whom in particular (horizontal)? 
For fostering the exchange
Exchange between participants and politics


Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups

Round table discussion, generating and presenting ideas for health-focussed neighborhood initiatives, networking
Which groups are involved in which stage of the participatory process

Participating groups (

refered

referred to in 1.6.6.) were involved in all stages (

refered

referred to in 1.5.4.) of the participatory

process 

process.

What are tasks of the groups? Describe for each group
See 1.8.4.; also submitting and organising
Round table discussion, generating and presenting ideas for health-focused neighborhood initiatives, networking. Also, submitting and organizing neighborhood initiatives was a task which was very accelerated
Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? Male participants and more specifically migrant men
; men
. Men are more difficult to reach with health promotion
projetcs 
projects in general.