The program Gesunde Nachbarschaft has been in existence since 2010. It is continuously being developed and expanded to cover all districts in Vienna. Currently, 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. "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. Translation of website text; please proofread!
©tbc
©tbc
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: Yes / No | Yes |
| If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body | District management / District mayors |
| Other public actors: Yes / No | Yes |
| If yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and describe which sector and explain their role, briefly: |
|
| Private for-profit actors: Yes / No | Yes |
| If yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as public engagement consultants, companies etc. |
|
| Private not-for profit actors: Yes / No | Yes |
| If yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such as associations, informal networks etc. |
|
| Civic actors: Yes / No | Yes |
| If yes, explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. |
|
| Other actors: Yes / No | No |
| If yes, explain | 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. |
| If yes, specify e.g. amount of funding/year | The total funding of the programme was €360.000 for 3 years, each district had a certain ammount of funding (€38.025 personnel costs and €1.975 material costs). |
Type of Governance
| Participatory process: Yes / No | Yes |
| Deliberative process: Yes / No | No |
| Other forms: if yes, specify | N/A |
| Top-down | No |
| Bottom-up | No |
| Others: 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 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): | 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)? |
|
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 | refered to in 1.3.5. |
| Internal inclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant | about 1/2 of the participatns 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., 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, 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 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
Means of Information provided
Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): Yes / No |
|
| If yes: multiple langugages available: Yes / No | Yes, at certain workshops (Turkish/Arabic) |
| If yes: non-technical language used: yes/no | No |
| Social media (e.g., Facebook, Instragram, WhatsApp, websites, blog): yes/no | No |
| If yes: please specify | N/A |
| Others (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 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 workers etc.): Yes / No | Yes |
Monitoring
| Monitoring process on the best practice available: Yes / No | Yes |
| If yes: 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 | 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/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? What? How? A which point of process? | activity and participation monitoring (interim and end report) by an external evalutation expert (prosect reserach & solution) |
Citizen Empowerment & Representation
Structured Decision-Making
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process: Yes / No | Yes |
| Do the participatns make final decisions? | Yes |
| If no: Why? Who decides instead? | N/A |
| 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 |
| If yes: 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 and report |
| If yes: publication of this document available? Yes / No | No |
| If yes: publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? Yes / No | Yes |
| 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 / No | Yes |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or trainings, apps): Yes / No | Yes |
| If 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, markting) of ideas for health-promoting neighborhood initiatives |
| If not: Why not? | N/A |
| Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level-governancy 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 |
| If yes: Where (in the sense of which level in the multilevel-governance)? | District policy level |
| If yes: 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-focussed neighborhood initiatives, networking |
| Which groups are involved in which stage of the participatory process | Participating groups (refered to in 1.6.6.) were involved in all stages (refered to in 1.5.4.) of the participatory process |
| What are tasks of the groups? Describe for each group | See 1.8.4.; 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 projetcs |