20 FGÖ’s definition and deduction of action and quality goals in its Three Year Program fully accords with state-of-the-art program planning and quality management in the business world. 1.4.2 The Structure of the FGÖ q The FGÖ has a simple, clear-cut structure similar to that of comparable institutions. q The practical work done by the FGÖ Administrative Office is scientifically underpinned and safeguarded by an Advisory Committee. The Board is the organization’s link to politics, the governmental administration and the public. The members of the Board and the Advisory Committee are respected individuals from the political and scientific communities. q These three entities have cooperated largely without conflict thus far, even during the change in government. In the majority of cases, each entity follows the recommendations handed down to it from the next higher entity. Since the organization does exist and operate in the real world, problems and conflicts do inevitably arise from time to time. q The Administrative Office is currently staffed by eleven permanent employees with a set of qualifications fully suitable for business management and for the contents and methods of health promotion and prevention as well as organization, controlling and administration. What struck FB+E was that permanent staff with special skills in quality assurance, evaluation and IT have not been continuously available tothe organization. When it first took up its work, the FGÖ had one staff member with proven evaluation experience available to it. From the start of 2001 to March 2002, a health specialist with medical qualifications assumed responsibility for quality assurance and evaluation. Since April 2002 a duly qualified staff member has once again been handling these tasks. Outsiders are contracted to take care of IT concerns. The staff is anything but bloated, a charge made several times in the parliamentarian debates. In fact, compared tothe associations in the German federal states or the Swiss foundation the staff is definitely smaller than average. In terms of space, equipment and material, the rather small offices housing the FGÖ Administrative Office are equipped in a reasonable and usual manner. q Scientific criteria cannot be applied in judging the suitability of the annual funding of EUR 7.25 million. Assuming other cost centers have not reduced their services since the allocation of these funds tothe FGÖ, Austria spends an annual EUR 2.1 per capita for these types of measures, a figure in line with the amounts Germany and Switzerland spend. The Health Promotion Act has definitely improved the financial situation of health promotion and primary prevention, but of course has done little to ameliorate the considerable discrepancy in funding between prevention and curative treatment. 1.4.3 Project Promotion and Funding by the FGÖ q In promoting and funding projects, the FGÖ does not limit itself to priority fields of action and subject matter. Although scientifically founded and suitable for the structural buildup phase, this open-ended approach puts heavy knowledge demands on the organization’s health specialists. The limitation of the priority activities to six target groups is justified by health promotion theory and practice and by an obvious need for epidemiological action (the elderly, the chronically ill, the socially disadvantaged).
1.43 1.48 10. Lasting pos. changes in health behavior 10. Lasting pos. changes in health behavior 1.62 1.63 1.66 1.67 1.69 5. Indicator-based 7. Experience of applicants 6. Sufficient evidence of successful execution 11. Acceptance of project by target group 5. Indicator-based 11. Acceptance of project by target group Average value 7. Experience of applicants 6. Sufficient evidence of successful execution 2. No promotion of projects not related to health 9. Change of processes and structures 1.76 1.77 1.80 1.98 2.01 9. Change of processes and structures 12. Acceptance of project by experts 8. Based on clear needs Average value Fig. 9 Assessment in Survey of the Correctness of the Criteria for Project Promotion and Funding (n=144) (Average Value: 1.80; Standard Deviation: 0.39). Mean values in the scales: 1 = Agree wholeheartedly 2= Agree 3= Undecided 4= Tend to disagree 5= Completely disagree 1.47 1.49 1.67 1,68 1.78 1.81 12. Acceptance of project by experts 8. Based on clear needs 2.92 1. No funding for projects with trad. health concept 4. Sustainability through mixed financing 2. No promotion of projects not related to health Fig. 10 Assessment of the Importance of Project Promotion/Funding Criteria All Respondents n=144 (Average Value: 1.88; Standard Deviation: 0.35) Mean values in the scales: 1 = Agree wholeheartedly 2= Agree 3= Undecided 4= Tend to disagree 5= Completely disagree 1.88 1.93 1.95 1.96 1.99 2.08 3. No funding for projects of nat'l scope 2.79 3. No funding for projects of nat'l scope 1. No funding for projects with trad. health concept 4. Sustainability through mixed financing 21