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.

GEtCoheSive - Engaging citizens to improve policies > 2. VIENNA: Healthy Neighborhoods (Gesunde Nachbarschaft) > Screenshot 2023-12-15 104016.png

GEtCoheSive - Engaging citizens to improve policies > 2. VIENNA: Healthy Neighborhoods (Gesunde Nachbarschaft) > Screenshot 2023-12-15 114114.png © Caritas Wien

Involved Actors & Resources

Governmental body	Yes
Name	District management / District mayors
Other public actors	Yes
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 exhibtion: Shopping centers (SCN, Stadion Center) Grocery market (Meiselmarkt) Hospital (UKH Lorenz Böhler)
Private not-for profit actors	Yes
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 (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 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 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
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

Specific Features Regarding Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness

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 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 cafes 20 workshops, 2 Impuls workshops for Bedarfserhebung, 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative") 1 neighbourhood 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 situation	see 'civic actors'
Internal inclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant	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. 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, 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 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 available	Yes, at certain workshops (Turkish/Arabic)
Non-technical language used	No
Social media (e.g., Facebook, 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 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 workers etc.)	Yes

Monitoring

Monitoring process on the best practice available?	Yes
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 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 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	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
Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or training, apps)?	Yes
What kind of?	Support of 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?	Yes, fostering the interchange between citizens and the district mayor by organising 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 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
What are tasks of the groups? Describe for each group	See 'Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups'; also submitting and organising 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 are more difficult to reach with health promotion projects