조미형 권인혜 2018-11-15T10:01:11Z 2018-11-15T10:01:11Z 2015-08-30 R753 http://repository.krei.re.kr/handle/2018.oak/21444 이 연구에서는 농촌지역 사회복지서비스 인프라 구축을 위해 사회복지서비스기관의 다기능복합화 추진방안을 제시하고자 한다. 이를 위해 세부적으로 다음과 같은 연구 목적을 설정한다. 첫째, 농촌지역 사회복지서비스기관의 인력, 예산 및 서비스 현황 등을 파악한다. 둘째, 사회복지서비스기관의 다기능복합화 사례 조사를 통해 농촌지역 사회복지서비스기관의 다기능복합화 가능 방안을 모색한다. 셋째, 다기능복합화 추진을 위한 법적·제도적 개선 사항을 도출한다. Background of Research The various problems in service delivery in rural regions come down to "accessibility." It is widely considered a task for improvement but is not an easy issue to address. The problem of accessibility cannot be solved without a genuine belief that all the people have a right to use services wherever they live. The government should be responsible for the minimum service infrastructure for rural residents to continue to live in their community. Multifunctional service institutions are required to utilize community resources to the fullest extent, minimize costs, and provide necessary services in order to establish a system for providing basic services in communities. Research Methods For this study, we reviewed the literature on multifunctional institutions in rural areas, and surveyed social service centers - community service centers, service centers for the elderly, and service centers for the disabled - in eups (towns) and myeons (townships). We also analyzed the data collected through interview research with the social service institutions in Hongseong, Haenam, and Gijang counties and interview research with the institutions that carried out the pilot project for multifunctional institutions in 2010. We presented the ways to increase the roles of single social service organizations in rural regions, based on the analysis results. Research Results and Implications According to the result of the survey of the 54 social service centers in eups and myeons, their current status is as follows. The average number of the employees is 17.9, including 14.7 permanent workers and 3.2 contract workers. The average number of employees in service centers for the disabled is 23.6, while that in service centers for the elderly is 12.5, showing a big difference by institution type. The percentage of employees who are social workers is highest (66.7% on average) at service centers for the disabled, 58.9% in community service centers, and 47.3% at service centers for the elderly. The annual average gross revenue is 1.292 billion won at service centers for the disabled, 1.061 billion won in community service centers, and 0.867 billion won at service centers for the elderly. The percentage of revenue that come from government subsidies in the revenue is lowest (68.0% on average) at community service centers, and highest (78.6%) at service centers for the elderly. In our research, we then interviewed staff at three multifunctional service centers that integrate two different service centers. These centers' difficulties are as follows. First, if the centers are forced to share space due to lack of room, users with different needs and characteristics may experience inconvenience using the same space simultaneously, which may hinder service effectiveness. Second, it is hard to provide professional services because of the small scale of human resources. Third, the centers are one institute run by the same organization, but each center is contracted separatedly by the government. Normally, each individual center is evaluated every three years. However, since multifunctional service centers cover two centers yet maintain the same number of staff as an organization that specializes in one center, they bear and extra burden of not only being evaluated multiple times, but having less staff to deal with each evaluation. As for the level of understanding of multifunctional institutions, 27.6% of workers at service centers in rural areas have not even heard the concept. 42.1% of service centers for the disabled said that they had no intention to become a multifunctional institution. No institution expressed a willingness to implement multifunctional programs if either greater subsidies or both subsidies and human resources were not supported by the government. Essentially, if the governments only supported an increase in human resources, no institute would become multifunctional. In rural regions, social service centers interact more with nonprofit organizations or health and medical institutions, rather than cooperating among themselves. The more social service centers there are in a region, the more negative the region's response to multifunctional service centers is. The staff working at the centers in regions that with few social service centers, however, sympathized with the aim of multifunctional institutions and pointed out which conditions would need to be satisfied for a successful outcome. We suggested the measures to transform social service institutions into multifunctional institutions in rural areas, based on these research results. To begin, we presented a model which expanded the current social service centers by applying the “hun and branch” system to multifunctional institutions, making the most of community resources. Any insufficiencies would be supplemented with funding at a provincial or federal level. For this, we proposed short-term, mid-terum, and long-term plans. In the short term, an increase in the number of service centers for the elderly branches in eups and myeons, and to removal of the obstacles to multifunctional institutions in the present system is necessary. In the mid and long term, it is necessary to develop eup- and myeon-unit branches into small-scale multifunctional facilities, develop a model for rural social service centers in city and county units, and create a support system for complementing cities' and counties' insufficiencies at the metropolitan city and provincial level. In addition, we suggested 1) improving the standards of budget support for social service centers by reflecting rural regions' features and 2) establishing a special duty allowance program for workers in rural welfare centers as the ways to solve the current problems of the centers. Researchers: Cho Mihyoung and Gwon Inhye Research period: 2015. 1. ~ 2015. 8. E-mail Address: mihyoung@krei.re.kr 제1장 서론 제2장 농촌지역 복지관 운영 실태 제3장 농촌지역 복지관의 다기능복합화 추진 현황 제4장 농촌지역 복지관의 다기능복합화 확산 가능성 분석 제5장 농촌지역 사회복지서비스기관의 다기능복합화 추진 방안 제6장 요약 및 결론 한국농촌경제연구원 농촌지역 사회복지서비스기관의 다기능복합화 추진방안 Plans for Multifunctional Social Welfare Service Institutions in Rural Areas KREI 보고서 Cho, Mihyoung Gwon, Inhye 농촌 사회복지 농촌지역 사회복지서비스 기관의 다기능복합화 추진방안