https://www.caritas-stadtteilarbeit.at/projekte/alle-projekte/gesundenachbarschaftThe program Healthy Neighborhoods ('Gesunde Nachbarschaft') was estbalished 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 being developed and expanded to cover all districts in Vienna. 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.
https://www.wig.or.at/gesundebezirke
© Caritas Wien
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: | Yes | Name | District management / District mayors |
| Other | public actorsYes | Names of the public actors | - 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 actors | Yes | Types of private for-profit actors | - Cooperation partners for location of traveling
| exibithion- exhibtion:
- Shopping centers (SCN, Stadion Center)
- Grocery market (Meiselmarkt)
- Hospital (UKH Lorenz Böhler)
|
| Private not-for | profit actorsYes | Types of private not-for-profit actors | - 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 actors | Yes
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
| participatns - 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.
|
| Funding/financial resources for the particular best practice example | WiG-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. |
| Specification | The total funding of the | programme program was €360.000 for 3 years, each district had a certain | ammount amount of funding (€38.025 personnel costs and €1.975 material costs). |
| Yes | | Deliberative process | No |
| Top-down | No |
| Bottom-up | No |
Others | : Mixture of bottom-up and top-down.
The workshops were created based on a bottom-up survey of demand stakeholder workshop |
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of |
| working hours) | No |
| Provision of care services | No |
Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural) | 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 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)
|
| 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 situationsee 'civic actors'| , 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 participatns | participants were adults of working age |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the designated plan of the best practice? | Yes |
Who in particular? | Elderly. | , elderly, migrants, people with disabilities, former homeless |
| Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people? | Yes |
Specification | | , 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 |
| Who in particular, e.g., migrants, people in precarious work-situation, etc.? |
migrants| Migrants, people with disabilities, elderly with dementia, former homeless people |
| Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people? | Yes |
Specification | | , young people, elderly |
| 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. |
Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters) | - flyer
- public notices
- direct mailing (with
|
invitaiton - invitation letters to neighbourhood meetings, workshops and traveling exhibition)
- direct conversations with residents at events
- phone calls
|
| Multiple |
langugages | languages available | Yes, at certain workshops (Turkish/Arabic) |
| Non-technical language used | No |
| Social media (e.g., Facebook, |
Instragram| Instagram, WhatsApp, websites, blog) | No |
Ways of Communication
| Website and social media postings | No |
| Information documents distributed in the post box | Yes |
| Information documents distributed on streets and |
pulic | 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, |
communiy | community workers etc.) | Yes |
Monitoring
| Monitoring process on the best practice available? | Yes |
Continuous | Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants? | Yes |
How? How often? | | , internal and external interim and end reports |
| Integration of participants in the monitoring |
proces| process? | Yes |
| Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process? | No |
| Continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors)? | Yes |
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? A which point of process? |
activity | Activity and participation monitoring (interim and end report) by |
evalutation prosect reserach | prospect research & solution) |
Citizen Empowerment & Representation
Structured Decision-Making
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process? | Yes |
| Do the |
participatns | participants make final decisions? | 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 |
?| )? | No |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decision that were taken? | Yes, a |
protocoll | protocol and report |
| Is a publication of this document available? | No |
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, 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 |
trainingsWhat 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 |
| 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 |
| Where (in the sense of which level in the multilevel-governance)? | 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 'Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups'; 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
