Versionen im Vergleich

Alte Version 36

changes.mady.by.user Boczy Tatjana

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 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.

    


© Caritas Wien

Involved Actors & Resources

NameYes profit actorsYes programme
Governmental bodyYes:District management / District mayors
Other public actorsNames 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 actorsYesTypes of private for-profit actors
  • Cooperation partners for location of traveling exhibtion: 
    • Shopping centers (SCN, Stadion Center)
    • Grocery market (Meiselmarkt)
    • Hospital (UKH Lorenz Böhler)
Private not-forYesTypes 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 (association for supported employment and housing)
    • "Piramidops" (social counseling for migrant women)
Civic actors
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. 
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.
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
YesDeliberative processNoTop-downNoBottom-upNoOthers
: Mixture of bottom-up and top-down.
The workshops were created based on a bottom-up survey of demand stakeholder workshop


Specific Features Regarding Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness

Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of

working hours)No
Provision of care servicesNo

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 involve 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-promoting activities"
  • 2018:
    • 6
neighbourhood
    • neighborhood cafes
    • 20 workshops, 2
Impuls
    • 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

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
About 1/2 of the 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. 


Public Information Activities 

Means of Information Provided

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

  • flyer
  • public notices
  • direct mailing (with invitation letters to neighbourhood meetings, workshops and traveling exhibition)
  • direct conversations with residents at events
  • phone calls
Multiple languages availableYes, at certain workshops (Turkish/Arabic)
Non-technical language usedNo
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, websites, blog)No


Ways of Communication 

Website and social media postingsNo
Information documents distributed in the post boxYes
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 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

an external evaluation expert (prospect research & solution)


Citizen Empowerment & Representation

Structured Decision-Making

Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process?Yes
Do the 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
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 protocol and report
Is a publication of this document available? No

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, 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 training, apps)?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, marketing) of ideas for health-promoting neighborhood initiatives


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
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-focused neighborhood initiatives, networking
Which groups are involved in which stage of the participatory process

Participating groups (referred to in 1.6.6.) were involved in all stages (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
projects 
projects in general.