【講義】從CRPD檢視台灣身心障礙者居住權與生活品質國際研討會

從 CRPD 檢視台灣身心障礙者居住權與生活品質
國際研討會
Examining Taiwan’s Living Rights and Quality of Life of
Individuals with Disabilities through CRPD
An International Conference
「我要住在社區，獨立生活是我的權利」

從 CRPD 檢視台灣身心障礙者居住權與生活品質國際研討會
1

目錄 Table of Contents
I. 活動說明…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………4
Event Details…………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
II. 講義 Lectures………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
1. 身障者社區居住與獨立生活在台灣的實踐
Independent living in the community for individuals with disabilities, Taiwan
situation
 范晉嘉先生演講稿 Mr. Michael Fan’s Speech Transcript........................................19
 自立生活推動經驗分享 Sharing Experiences on Promotion of Independent
Living…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21
 台灣社區居住方案的發展與挑戰 Community Living in Taiwan:Development and
Challenges…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….43
2. 挪威的轉型，從機構本位到社區本位的服務…..
The transformation of Norway, from institution based service to community based
service………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65
3. 從機構安置轉型為社區本位服務—生活品質與 Arduin 改革歷程
From institution settings to community based support—Quality of life and Arduin
Experience………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….73
4. 日本去機構化的特色
Characteristics of Deinstitutionalization in Japan……………………………………………………..135
5. 社區融合：重要尚待完成的工作
Community Inclusion: Ruling but Unfinished Task………………………………………..…………..167
6. 身心障礙者權利公約中的社區居住與獨立生活
Living Independently in the Community in the CRPD………………………………………………..185
III. 第二屆智青居住權論壇議程……………………………………………………………………………..197
Living rights for individuals with intellectual disability, a panel discussion

2

IV. 社區居住服務案例分享 A Presentation of Community Living Services Examples
…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….…………......200
V. 論文集 Academic Articles……………………………………………………………………………………….………208
 挪威的去機構化：過程、挑戰與因應 Deinstitutionalisation in Norway: the process,
challenges and solutions…………………………………………………………………………………………..209
 組織轉型……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..216
 Organization Transformation ………………………………………………………………………..….223
 以實證為基礎之成果的運用─以提供智能障礙者服務及支持的系統與組織為例
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….232
 The use of evidence‐based outcomes in systems and organizations providing services
and supports to persons with intellectual disability………………………………………………….244
 以個人為中心與社區生活支持……………………………………………………………………………….260
 Person Centered Approach and Support for Community Living…………………265
 為什麼心智障礙者無法居住在自己的家裡？--日本的去機構化運動………………….272
 Why persons with intellectual disabilities cannot live his/her own home?～The
Movement of Deinstitutionalization in Japan……………………………………………………………278
 以個人為中心之支持」的促進因子與干擾因子--智能障礙者團體家庭中照顧服務員
之研究……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………285
 在國際和區域性的法律及政策脈絡中提供身心障礙者支持…………………………….……297
 Supports to Persons with Disabilities in the Context of International and Regional
Disability Law and Policy……………………………………………………………………………….………….324
VI. 附錄 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..361
1. 障礙者社區居住權公聽會訴求…………………………………………………………………………….…362
The Right to Community Living for People with Disabilities Public Hearing…..…...…365
2. 台灣成年智能障礙者使用三種居住服務的成果與成本之比較評估….………………….368
Outcomes and Costs of Residential Services for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities in
Taiwan: A Comparative Evaluation

3

3. 台灣成年障礙者住宿服務樣態與服務費分析……………………………………….…………….…376
Analysis of Types and Costs of Housing and Support Services for Adults with
Disabilities in Taiwan
4. 台灣社區居住方案的發展與挑戰…………………………………………………………….….……….…378
Community Living in Taiwan: Development and Challenges………………….…….…….……382
5. 各縣市辦理成年心智障礙者社區居住與生活服務方案概況…………………………………388
Summary of Community Based Living and Support Services for Adults with Intellectual
Disabilities in Taiwan’s Major Cities and Counties
6. 衛福部及各縣市政府社區居住方案補助比較…………………………………………….……….…390
Comparison of Community Based Living Program Subsidies Offered by Taiwan’s
Department of Health and Social Welfare and Various Local City and Country
Governments
7. 身心障礙者權利公約………………………………………………………………………………………………391
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities，CRPD
8. 台灣社區居住與獨立生活聯盟團體會員名冊………………………………………………….….…408
List of Organizational Members of Taiwan Community Living Consortium

4

2015 年社區居住與獨立生活宣導活動
「我要住在社區，獨立生活是我的權利」
壹、活動背景
歐美去機構教養化趨勢
聯合國自 1960 年代開始大力推動世界各國發展「去機構教養化」(de-institutionalization)
的福利措施，同時也呼籲身心障礙者回歸主流與社會融合，使障礙者更有尊嚴的在社會生活、
能主導自己的日常生活與居住模式。
聯合國於 2006 年通過身心障礙者權利公約(The Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities，CRPD)，我國於去年(2014)通過 CRPD 施行法，其中第十九條指出：障礙者有權
利選擇在哪裡居住以及和誰居住，各國有責任發展社區居住及自立生活方案，促使身心障礙
者和一般人擁有平等機會融入社區。
目前不少國家都已經關掉教養院，例如挪威用五年的時間(1990-1995) 將所有智障者從
教養院搬回與其家人接近的社區居住；瑞典在 1993 年已關閉了所有的教養院；英國自 1990
年代辦理許多智障者在社區獨立生活的方案，這些智障者從 20 床不等的家園（hostel）搬出
來，可以自己選擇房友、選擇喜歡的社區，在社區租房子，由工作人員提供支持性的服務。
當時英國白皮書指出，2004 年必須將所有的教養院關掉。
美國關閉 16 床以上的教養院或轉型，居住服務型態以 4 人以下為主；日本一方面禁止
全日型住宿機構的興建，另一方面也獎勵機構轉型提供社區居住服務。歐美皆禁止智障者被
安置到教養院，尤其是兒童。
台灣殘補式推動改革牛步前進
台灣於 2004 年執行社區居住方案，補助社福團體租賃一般房舍，提供一個
居住單位六人以下的居住服務，目前約 100 個單位，支持 400 多名心智障礙者在

5

社區中生活，其中，台中市、新竹市辦理最積極，在所轄區內已提供約 50 位障礙者此方案服
務，等於取代了 50 床機構式的教養服務，然而，對比全台 73 家住宿式機構，其中 50 床以上
者佔 53 家(2001 年統計) ，仍相差懸殊。
服務應以生活品質為根本
從社區居住方案推動以來，所執行的相關的研究明顯發現，住在六人以下社區居住的住
民生活品質比住在教養院、六人以上團體家庭高；我們也做過住民兩年的追蹤研究，包含從
教養院及原生家庭搬出來的智障者，他們住在社區六人以下公寓，會比在教養院及家庭裡面
生活品質高；同時也比較工作人員的工作滿意度，工作人員在六人以下的社區居住的工作滿
意度較高，因為和住民彼此之間的互動是比較好的 (周月清、李婉萍、張意才，2007; Chou et
al., 2011)。
台灣的機構評鑑往往過於重視硬體設施設備的條件，以及服務過程中資料撰寫的完整，
是否能真實反映服務品質有待商榷，歐美先進國家對於服務對象生活品質的重視和研究，我
們認為這應做為組織服務指標的根本。
貳、活動內容
本研討會，將邀請來自挪威、美國、荷蘭、日本共五位講者，分享四國支持身心障礙者
社區居住及生活品質促進改革經驗，同時也將邀請身心障礙者本人擔任主講者之一，分享其
在社區居住與社區融入經驗。
時間：2015 年 9 月 30 日（週三）至 10 月 1 日(週四)am9:00～pm5:00
地點：台大醫院國際會議中心 401 室(台北市徐州路 2 號)
參加對象：預計 200 人，包括政府、立法委員、民間、學界、媒體、服務使用者(身心障礙者
及家屬)、社福實務工作者等。
參、主協辦單位
指導單位：衛生福利部社會及家庭署
台北市政府社會局
主辦單位：財團法人台灣省私立啟智技藝訓練中心
臺灣社區居住與獨立生活聯盟
財團法人瑪利亞社會福利基金會
協辦單位：國立陽明大學衛生與福利政策研究中心

6

台北市新活力自立生活協會
中華民國身心障礙聯盟(殘盟)
中華民國智障者家長總會
肆、外籍講師簡介
Janet E. Lord
學歷：愛丁堡大學法學學士碩士、喬治華盛頓大學國際法與比較法碩士。
現職：聯合國顧問(參與所有的 CRPD 草案討論會議)、國際人權律師、美國雪城大學
Burton Blatt 研究所人權及融合發展部資深副總裁。
經歷：擔任聯合國顧問期間，參與所有的 CRPD 草案討論會議。曾造訪三十多國家的身障團
體、各國政府身障部門與 CRPD 倡議組織。2013 年起為 Burton Blatt 學院人權與融合
發展資深研究員，督導此領域之計畫並對政府與非政府組織計畫的評估審核、殘障法、
政策與倡議等提供技術指導。目前亦在中東、北非擔任技術指導，與韓國韓東大學有
合作計畫(Handong University)，並致力於發展中國家的身障人士投票權與各項社會融
合。曾擔任世界銀行委任律師以及國際地雷生還者支持組織主管。
專長：國際身障法、國際身障政策、社會融合發展(inclusive development)。
Christian Boe Kielland
學歷：奧斯陸(Oslo)大學政治學系碩士。
經歷：曾在挪威衛生福利及勞動部擔任副主任，負責包括 1980 年至 1990 年間對智能障礙者
新政策的制定和實施。曾代表挪威參與各個國際組織(包括聯合國大會 CRPD 特設委
員會、歐洲聯盟高級障礙小組、北歐障礙委員會)。
1960 年間曾參與挪威反種族隔離運動(Anti-Apartheid Movement)，目前已退休，並參
與摩爾多瓦共和國(Republic of Moldova)設立的庇護工場活動。
專長：國際關係、國際組織；老年和障礙者的一般性政策與照顧服務。
Jos van Loon
學歷：比利時根特大學(Ghent University)博士。
現職：荷蘭 Arduin 基金會執行長、比利時根特大學(Ghent University)特教系客座教授。
經歷：與智能障礙者共同工作十五年，1994 年起在 Arduin 擔任主管與研究員，並參與了該組
織完全去機構化的過程。與 Robert Schalock 教授、Geert van Hove 教授、Claudia Claes
博士於 2008 年發展出測量生活品質之測量工具(Personal Outcomes Scale,POS)，該量
表並已被翻譯成中文(社區居住聯盟出版)、義大利文、西班牙文、加泰隆尼亞文、葡萄
牙文與德文，並出版兒童版本量表。
2013 年六月獲得美國智能和發展障礙協會(American Association on Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities,AAIDD)頒發國際獎。
專長：特教領域及智能障礙者生活品質提升。

7

Kanji Watanabe(渡邊勸持)
學歷：日本早稻田大學博士。
現職：美作大學社區生活研究員。
經歷：1974 至 2001 年，在愛知縣福利中心協會的個人發展障礙擔任研究專員，該中心為一
綜融型機構，包括綜合性醫院、教養院、特殊學校、職業學校和研究機構。以心理學
研究居住在教養院和醫院者的挑戰行為，16 年後轉調至社會福利署，研究社區生活和
社區支持，其研究包括從機構轉移至社區的統計研究、團體家屋的照護系統，與家屬
和機構員工一起工作，並就參訪的歐洲國家和美國做一比較研究，關於其形成脈絡與
特點之比較研究彙編於 2000 年所撰寫的博士論文《日本的團體家屋》當中。退休後曾
在岡山縣立大學任教 6 年，後在東日本國際大學擔任教授至 2011 年。2014 年起，於
美作大學擔任社區生活研究員。
崔鳳鳴
學歷：美國波士頓大學教育博士。
現職：哈佛大學法學院 CRPD 中國方案主任、南京特殊教育職業技術學院教授、中國人民大
學法學院診所式法律教學與研究中心身障法資深研究員。
經歷：哈佛法學院客座講師、波士頓大學客座講師、中國人民大學法學院客座講師
專長：司法、教育與身障；融合教育法律與政策、比較特教法、中國身障法
伍、研討會議程
第一天 Day 1 (2015.09.30)周三
09：00～09：30
開幕式/記者會
貴賓致詞：衛福部、台北市政府、台中市政府、新竹市政府
主辦單位致詞：啟智技藝訓練中心董事長李崇信、瑪利亞社會福
利基金會執行長/社區居住聯盟理事長陳美鈴
介紹國外貴賓
主題對象主持人/回應人
09：30～10：10
(一)身障者社區居
住與獨立生活在
台灣的實踐
台灣身心障礙者社區居住與自立生活支持服
務的發展歷程與省思，探討現行制度由誰決定
障礙者住在哪裡、和誰一起住、過什麼樣的生
活。
主持與回應：簡慧娟 (社家署署長)(邀請中)
講者：1.范晉嘉(智青/金車教育基金會講師)
2.林君潔(新活力自立生活協會總幹事)
3.周月清(陽明大學衛福所教授)

8

10：10～10：30 休息（餐點）
10：30～12：00
(二)挪威成功的完
全社區化居住改
革歷程
挪威 1995 至 2000 年五年社區居住改革緣起、
過程與成功因素及生活品質促進。
主持人：許立民局長(台北市社會局)
講者：Christian Boe Kielland
回應人：邱春瑜(台北教育大學特殊教育學系助
理教授)
12：00～13：30 中餐
13：30～15：00
(三)機構式、社區
式服務生活品質
差異
發展個人生活品質量表(POS)的 Arduin 基金
會，是一個從收容 300 多人的大型教養院轉型
成 135 個居住單位，成功解放智障者到社區居
住的組織，將分享其去機構化的省思。
主持人：李施德（社區居住聯盟國際事務主任）
講者：Jos van Loon(Arduin 基金會執行長)
回應人：周月清(陽明大學衛福所教授)
15：00～15：30 休息（餐點）
15：30～17：00
(四)機構轉型策
略：針對政府、家
庭、社區及障礙者
在亞洲，障礙者照護責任總以家庭負擔為主，
而非從獨立個體的需求與權利來考量，日本進
行的機構轉型值得我國借鏡。
主持人：陳節如（立法委員）
講者：Kanji Watanabe
回應人：張恆豪(台北大學社會學系系主任)

9

第二天 Day 2(2015.10.01)周四
主題主講人主持人/回應人
09：00～10：10
(五)去機構化的成
本與效益觀點
典型資本主義的美國社會如何推動去機構
化，其障礙者居住與住宅服務的現況。
主持人：陳美鈴 (社區居住聯盟理事長)
講者：崔鳳鳴博士
回應人：楊瑞玲(資深督導)
10：10～10：30 休息（餐點）
10：30～12：00
(六)CRPD 審查之
觀察與建言
擔任聯合國 CRPD 審查員從 2006 年至今，所
觀察到各國在障礙者居住權發展的情形，台灣
應有的態度與目標。
主持人：王榮璋 (身心障礙盟秘書長)
講者：Janet E. Lord
回應人：林惠芳(智總秘書長)
12：00～13：30 中餐
13：30～15：00
(七)第二屆智青居
住權論壇
服務使用者個人在社區居住與生活的感受，包
括對住宅、環境、住友、社區及人際關係、自
我決策的選擇與權利行使情形。
主持與回應：賴建中(啟智技藝訓練中心住民）
與談者：北、中、南、東部地區接受或曾接受
社區居住方案支持之住民代表。
15：00～15：30 休息(餐點)
15：30～17：00
(八)綜合座談主持：賴建中、李崇信董事長
智障者社區居住案例簡報
廖秋芬(台北市政府身心障礙福利科科長) (邀
請中)
林網市(瑪利亞社區居住中心主任)
與談者：衛福部代表、立法委員、住民代表、
林君潔總幹事、陳美鈴執行長、周月清教授、
林惠芳秘書長

10

Event Details

「Independent Living in the Community is My Right」
Examining Taiwan’s Living Rights and Quality of Life of Individuals with
Disabilities through CRPD
An International Conference
I. Event Background
Deinstitutionalization in Europe and America
Since the 1960’s, United Nations has been actively promoting the development of social
service approaches that move toward deinstitutionalization of services. It encourages
mainstreaming and inclusion of individuals with disabilities, so that everyone can live in the
community with dignity, and be empowered to choose where and how they live every day.
United Nations passed CRPD in 2006. Taiwan became an UNCRPD signatory in 2014, which
states in article 19, “Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of
residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to
live in a particular living arrangement”.
Today, many nations have chosen to cease institution based services. For example, In 5
years (1990‐1995), Norway completely transitioned from institution based services to community
home services close to one’s family and friends. Since 1990, England established numerous
programs that enabled individuals with intellectual disabilities to live independently in the
community, moving away from hostels with 20 or more people. They can choose their roommate,
choose the community they like, and rent homes, all with the support of professionals. The
British white paper on the topic at that time stated that all institutions must be closed by 2004.
The United States has closed or transitioned out of institutions with 16 or more beds,
focusing on community living service models with four or fewer people. Japan has prohibited the
establishment of 24‐hour care institutions, while incentivizing institutions to transition to
community based services. Europe and the United States prohibit the placement of individuals
with intellectual disabilities in institutions, especially children.
Taiwan’s Patchwork Approach, Moving at a Snail’s Pace
In 2004, Taiwan began to implement community based living programs, funding service
providers with rent costs, enabling living services with six or fewer residents. There are currently
about 100 such units, providing community based living services for 400 plus individuals with

11

intellectual disabilities. Of all counties and cities in Taiwan, Taichung City and Hsinchu City are the
most active, providing services for approximately 50 individuals, reducing individuals in institution
based services by 50. However, this number is minuscule compared to 73 institutions in which 53
are with capacities of 50 or more (2001 statistics).
Services Must be Based on Quality of Life
Research studies have been done on Taiwan’s community based living services. Findings
indicate that the quality of life is higher for residents in homes with six or fewer individuals,
compared to residents in group homes with more than six people. A two year longitudinal study
of individuals who transition from either institutions or homes of birth families found that quality
of life is higher if they live in community based settings with six or fewer people. Study also
indicates that staff member’s job satisfaction is higher in small community based homes, largely
because interaction with the residents are more positive (Chou, Lee, Chang, 2007; Chou etal.,
2011).
Taiwan’s governmental evaluation of service providers places heavy emphasis on facilities,
equipment, and detailed and comprehensive recording of service provision. It is not clear such
evaluations truly reflect service quality. European countries and the United States value the
importance of the quality of service in relations to the quality of life. Quality of life should be the
basis for service quality indicators.

II. Event Information
The conference includes presentations from five distinguished speakers from Norway, the
United States, the Netherlands, and Japan. They will share these four countries’ experiences
in supporting individuals with disabilities to live in the community and improve their quality of
life.

Date: September 30, 2015 (Wednesday) and October 1, 2015 (Thursday)
Time: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Location: Taiwan University Hospital, International Conference Center, Room 401
No. 2 Xuzhou Road, Taipei City
Audience: Governmental agencies, universities, media, self‐advocates and families,
service providers. Capacity is 200.
III. Organizers and Partners
Government Agencies:
Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare
Department of Social Welfare, Taipei City Government
Organizers:
Taiwan Community Living Consortium
Qi Zhi Vocational Training Center
Maria Social Welfare Foundation

12

Partners:
Institutes of Health and Welfare Policy, National Yang‐Ming University
New Vitality Independent Living Association, Taipei
The League of Welfare Organizations for the Disabled
Parents’ Association for Persons with Intellectual Disability, Taiwan

IV. Keynote Speakers

Janet E. Lord
Education:
Master of Laws (International & Comparative Law), George Washington University Law School.
Master of Laws, University of Edinburgh, Faculty of Law, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Current Position:
Senior Vice President, Human Rights & Inclusive Development, Burton Blatt Institute,
Syracuse University College of Law.

Experience:
Participated in all of the negotiating sessions during the drafting of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Traveled to more than 30 different countries to work with disabled peoples organizations,
governments and national human rights institutions on implementation of the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Member of senior management team at BBI, overseeing programming for international and
comparative disability rights research and programming.
Project Director and lead international human rights researcher on project to document the
human rights country conditions of especially marginalized groups in North Korea.

Specialization:
Disability rights; international and comparative disability rights law; disability rights
monitoring and compliance assessments; disability inclusive development; inclusive education
law and policy; employment discrimination.

Christian Boe Kielland
Education:
Master of Arts, Political science with History and English, University of Oslo.

Experience:
Deputy Director General, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health/Ministry of Labor and Social
Affairs/Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion.
General policy and care services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, included
development and implementation of the new policy for persons with intellectual disabilities.
Participated in various national and international bodies, including the UN General Assembly
Ad Hoc Committee on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the European
Union High Level Group on Disability, the Nordic Committee on Disability (chaired for 3 years),

13

and the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities.
Norwegian World Federalist Organization and the Norwegian Anti‐Apartheid Movement.
Participate in a project to establish sheltered workshops for persons with disabilities in the
Republic of Moldova.

Specialization:
International relations; international organization; general policy and care services for the
elderly and persons with intellectual disabilities.

Jos van Loon
Education:
Ph. D, Ghent University, Belgium

Current Position:
Manager and researcher at Arduin Foundation, a service provider in the Netherlands.
Visiting professor at the Department of Special Education, Ghent University, Belgium.

Experience:
Worked as a manager and researcher in Arduin.
Participated in the process of complete de‐institutionalization of the former institution
Vijvervreugd, and reforming the organization into a community‐based organization.
Worked and published together with prof. Robert Schalock, Prof. Geert Van Hove, and Dr.
Claudia Claes on the supports‐paradigm and on quality of life. In 2008 this group developed
the Personal Outcomes Scale (POS), which has been translated into Chinese, Italian, Spanish,
Catalonian, Portuguese and German. Recently they developed and published the POS for
children.
Received the International Award from the American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) in 2013.

Specialization:
Special education; improving the quality of life of individuals with intellectual disability

Kanji Watanabe
Education:
Ph.D., Disability science, University of Tsukuba, Japan

Current Position:
Research fellow at the Community Living Research Institute at Mimasaka University, Japan.

Experience:
Worked at the research institute of Aichi Welfare Center for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities from From 1974 to 2001. The center was at the time a general institution consisted
of general hospital, residential institutions, special school, vocational school, and research
institute.
Studied challenging behavior for persons staying at residential institutions and hospitals in
Psychology Department.

14

Studied community living and community support in Social Welfare Department.
Researches included statistical research on the movement from institution to community, and
the care system for group homes, working with parents and staff members at institutions, as
well as comparative studies on the movement visiting European countries and America. These
studies were compiled in doctor’s thesis, “Group homes in Japan, its formation and
characteristics – A Comparative Study” in 2000.
Worked at Okayama Prefectural University for 6 years, and then at the Eastern Japan
International University as a professor until 2011.

Feng‐Ming Cui
Education:
Ed.D., special education, Boston University, United States.

Current Position:
Director of China Program, Harvard Law School Project on Disability.
F. Y. Chang Scholar at Harvard Law School East Asian Legal Studies program
Senior Research Fellow at Renmin University Disability Clinic Center
Professor of Nanjing Technical College of Special Education in P.R. China.

Experience:
Research Fellow at Harvard Law School, Boston University, Renmin University

Specialization:
Disability law and policy; inclusive education; China affairs

15

V. Conference Schedule
Day 1 (2015.09.30) Wednesday
09:00~09:30 Opening Ceremony / Press Conference
Opening Remarks:
Legislation Yuan, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taichung City
Government, Hsinchu City Government, Taoyuan City Government.

Introduction by Organizers:
Mr. Chun‐Shin Lee, Chairperson, Qi Zhi Vocational Training Center
Ms. Mei‐Ling Chen, Chairperson, Taiwan Community Living Consortium
Introduction of guest speakers
Topic Summary / Speaker / Session Host / Responder
09:30~10:10 I. Independent living
in the community for
individuals with
disabilities, Taiwan
situation
Session speakers will share their reflections on
Taiwan’s development in community and
independent living and related support services
for individuals with disabilities. They will
examine current laws and regulations and share
observations on the questions of who make
decisions on where, with whom, and how to live.

Session Host and Responder: Ms. Hui‐Juan Jian,
Social and Family Affairs Administration
Speakers:
1. Michael Fan, Self‐Advocate, King Car
Education Foundation Yueh‐Ching Chou,
2. Chun Chieh Lin, Secretary General New
Vitality Independent Living Association
3. Ph.D. Professor, Institute of Health &
Welfare Policy National Yang‐Ming
University
10:10~10:30 Break
10:30~12:00 II. Story of Norway’s
successful
de‐institutionalization,
a move to community
based living
The speaker will share the story of Norway’s
transition from institution based services to
community based living support services from
1995 to 2000, examining the process, success
factors, and impact on individuals’ quality of life.

Session Host: Mr. Li‐Min Xu, Director, Taipei City
Department of Social Welfare.
Speaker: Christian Boe Kielland
Responder: Caya Chiu, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Special Education National Taipei University of
Education
12:00~13:30 Lunch
13:30~15:00 III. Quality of life Arduin Foundation, the developer of Personal

16

differences between
institution and
community based
services
Outcome Scale (POS), went from being a large
institution with more than 300 residents to a
community based service provider with more
than 135 homes. Arduin successfully
emancipated residents with intellectual disability.
The speaker will share Arduin’s reflection on the
de‐institutionalization process.

Session Host: Tim Lee, Executive Secretary, Qi
Zhi Vocational Training Center
Speaker: Jos van Loon, Ph.D., Arduin Foundation
Responder: Yueh‐Ching Chou, Ph.D., Professor,
Institute of Health & Welfare Policy National
Yang‐Ming University
15:00~15:30 Break (refreshments)
15:30~17:00 IV. Strategies for the
transformation of
institutions: from the
perspectives of
government, families,
communities and
self‐advocates
In Asia, the responsibility to provide for the needs
of individuals with disabilities largely fall on birth
families. The individual’s unique needs and
rights are often not part of the consideration.
Japan’s approach of institution transformation
provides an excellent example for Taiwan.

Session Host: Chieh‐Ju Chen, Legislator
Speaker: Kanji Watanabe, Ph.D.
Responder: Heng‐hao Chang, Associate
Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology,
National Taipei University

Day 2 (2015.10.01) Thursday
Topic Summary / Speaker / Session Host / Responder
09:00~10:10 V. The cost and
impact of
de‐institutionalization
How does a capitalistic society such as the United
States promote and implement
de‐institutionalization? The speaker will share
the impact and current status of living support
services for individuals with disabilities in the
United States.

Session Host: Mei‐Ling Chen, Chairperson,
Taiwan Community Living Consortium
Speaker: Feng‐Ming Cui, Ed.D.
Responder: Ruey‐ling Yang, Senior Social Worker
10:30~12:00 VI. Observations and
suggestions on CRPD
implementation
The speaker will share her experience and
observations in the implementation of CRPD
around the world and offer advice on attitudes

17

and goals for CRPD implementation in Taiwan.

Session Host: Jung‐Chang Wang,
Secretary‐General, The League for Persons with
Disabilities, R.O.C.
Speaker: Janet E. Lord
Responder: Hui Fang Lin, Secretary‐General,
Parents’ Association for Persons with Intellectual
Disability, Taiwan.
12:00~13:30 Lunch
13:30~15:00 VII. Living rights for
individuals with
intellectual disability,
a panel discussion
In this session, self‐advocates from Taiwan’s
various regions will share their experiences,
thoughts and feelings on living in the community,
including housing, environment, house mates,
community, relationships, decision making,
self‐determination and rights.

Session Host and Responder: Jian‐Zhong Lai,
self‐advocate, Qi Zhi Vocational Training Center
Forum Participants: Self‐advocates from northern,
central, southern and eastern regions of Taiwan.
15:30~17:00 VIII. Expert Panel
Discussion
Session Hosts:
Jian‐Zhong Lai, self‐advocate
Chun‐Shin Lee, Chairperson, Qi Zhi Vocational
Training Center

Case study presentation.
Community living for individuals with intellectual
disability.
Qiu‐Fen Liao, Taipei City Government
Wang‐Shi Lin, Maria Social Welfare Foundation

Panel Members: Health and Social Welfare
Department, legislator, self‐advocate, Jun‐Jie Lin,
Mei‐Ling Chen, Yueh‐Ching Chou, Hui‐Fang Lin

19

Independent living in the community for individuals with disabilities, Taiwan
situation
(一)身障者社區居住與獨立生活在台灣的實踐
Mr. Michael Fan’s Speech Transcript
范晉嘉先生演講稿
LADYS AND GENTLEMEN 在座的貴賓大家好
我是金車教育基金會的范晉嘉今年三十六歲
現在讓我介紹先我自己，
我是個運動員
從九歲開始接觸水的世界,從 1991 年到 2011 年代表國家
到過美國日本馬爾他南非瑞典愛爾蘭希臘
參加大小賽事中獲得上百面的獎牌
兩次以特奧會運動員代表到加拿大的多倫多荷蘭的海牙參加國際會議
我曾和七十九歲的外婆一起泳度南灣三千公尺的海泳.
曾經和媽媽弟弟一起游過最長六千公尺的澎湖灣
也完成金門料羅灣跟四次泳渡日月潭活動
現在的我和大家一樣天天都保持運動良好的習慣
我是個游泳教練
十八歲那年我經過種種的考驗通過紅十字會頒發證照
參加多次講習取得身心障礙游泳教練及裁判資格
2007 年十月曾以裁判身分參加在上海舉辦的特殊奧運世界盃游泳比賽
在職期間我到海洋技術學院學分班進修,
曾經獨自負責教學教會了他們游泳
感謝教練長期的教導也很珍惜自己擁有這項技能才藝
再來談談我的工作情形,
從小我就養成幫忙做家事的習慣
高職學校畢業後進入奎昀貿易公司做滿九年

20

從最簡單的打雜清潔工作零件加工開始學習也負責郵件收發
還幫忙老闆跑銀行的業務譬如說到各家銀行存款提款轉帳外匯
也曾經穿戴防塵衣，防塵帽全副武裝的在電子工廠無塵室做檢驗的工作
目前就職於金車教育基金會的藝術空間，擔任行政助理
也同步擔任由教育部主辦 (熱愛生命巡迴教育演講) 的講師
聽到這麼多失業人口的情形下我很幸運還一直擁有工作機會
我的信念
我想要把自己比喻做平凡又廉價的 (鹽) – SALT
廚房做菜絕對少不了它 ,
甚至戰爭爆發時刻它更是平衡士兵身體內分泌的重要元素之一呢
很多年輕人畢業後就窩在家裡舒適區過生活成為父母的負擔
久而久之可能會變成家中搬不動的大件家具
自己感覺沒有被利用的機會也從來不曾去感受生命的價值
最近因為爸爸媽媽搬家到新莊，讓我擁有一段獨立居住的空間
從獨立居住的學習開始，
從時間的掌控
從食衣住行的考量
從金錢的花費
甚至面對最複雜人際關係的處理
希望我自己能夠更有自信更獨立絕對不要成為社會的負擔
人唯有活得有用心靈才會真正快樂
按部就班地追求理想的實現並能夠得到大家的肯定和鼓勵
才能夠成為 SALT OF THE EARTH 就是棟樑之材的意思
我很榮幸參與這次的國際交流會議
希望大家永不放棄讓自己的美夢成真
最後也祝福大家身體健康心想事成

21

自立生活推動經驗分享
Sharing Experiences on Promotion of Independent Living
講師/林君潔台北市新活力自立生活協會翻譯：江尚書前社會住宅推動聯盟政策組主任
自立生活推動經驗分享
台北市新活力自立生活協會
林君潔
2015/9/30
簡易
Sharing Experiences on
Promotion of Independent Living
New Vitality Independent Living
Association of Taipei
Lin, Chun Chieh (林君潔)
2015/9/30
Lite

22

• 先天性成骨不症
• 求遍名醫，到處求神問卜。無效~~!
• 母親辭去教職工作24小時全職照顧
• 7歲遭拒絕入學。八歲入小學。
廁所→ 一天去一次
換教室→ 四人大橋，用抬的
體育課→ 看教室、散步、溫書
校外教學→ 放假一天
• 台北大學司法系四年畢業，出不了門，找不到工作，不知道可做啥，無
處可去~ 去國外看看好了~~!!
• 2004年取得獎學金，赴日一年，得到生平第一台電動輪椅，個人助理，
無障礙公寓，並學習障礙者自立生活議題。
• 2005年回台灣推動障礙者自立生活
• 2006年搬出來自己居住
• 2007年成立台北市新活力自立生活協會，目的在改善有障礙的環境與
制度
• 2014年赴美參與IVLP（交流計劃）
曾任台北市身心障礙權益推動小組委員、台北市社會福利委員
關於我
有事嗎~?
• Congenital osteogenesis imperfecta
• Consulted famous doctors, sought divine advice. Not work!
• My mother resigned from the school,
taking care of me 24 hours a day.
• Enrollment in the school at 8 years old, but once being denied at 7.
Went to the toilet once a day.
When moving between classrooms → was carried like sitting on a sedan chair
PE class → caretaker of classroom; went for a walk; reviewed school works
School trip → day off
• After graduating from Department of Law, National Taipei University, couldn’t go out,
couldn’t find a job, didn’t know what to do, nowhere to go ~ so I went abroad~~!!
• 2004 - received a scholarship; went to Japan for one year; got my first electric
wheelchair, personal assistant and accessible apartment in my life; learned independent
living issues of people with disabilities.
• 2005 – back to Taiwan, promote independent living of people with disabilities
• 2006 – move out and live alone
• 2007 – establish New Vitality Independent Living Association, Taipei, which aims to
ameliorating unaccessible environments and institutions.
• 2014 – attend IVLP (exchange program) at USA
Serve as: Promotion Group of People with Disabilities Committee Member; Social
Welfare Committee Member of Taipei City
About Me What’s up?

23

以往的自立生活：
• 個人/家庭責任/問題
• 家人及專業人員的需求與想像去設計提供服務
• 醫療、復健去解決問題
• 以失能觀點看待一個人。各障別各自推動為主
• 社會→殘補式福利
→慈善、愛心觀點
→以多數人的標準為標準，忽略個別差異性
1、輕中度或有資源的障礙者較有機會自立生活參與社會
2、障礙者的需求及問題由家人一肩扛起
3、把障礙者的需求及問題集中處理
造成
Independent Living in the Past
• Individual/family responsibilities/problems
• Services are designed and provided in the needs and by the
imaginations of family members and professionals.
• Solve problems in the perspectives of medical treatment and
rehabilitation.
• Treated as disabled. Different disability groups work separately.
• Society→residual welfare
→charity, compassion
→standards are set by the majority, ignoring individual differences
1. Persons with mild-to-moderate disabilities or those with resources
have better opportunity to independent living.
2. The heaviest responsibility falls on families regarding needs and
matters of people with disabilities.
3. Centralized treatment on needs and matters of people with disabilities.
Causes

24

雖然我們看似生活在社
區中，但每一天過著牢
獄般的生活，充滿限制，
沒有選擇、決定的權利。
何時起床、吃飯、上洗手間、外出?
可以去哪裡? 怎麼去?
可以做什麼? 怎麼做?
可以去找誰? 有誰?
We live in communities
as living in jails, which is
full of limitations; without
choices and right to
decisions.
When should we wake up, have
dinner, use toilet and go out?
Where and how to go?
What and how to do?
Who can we hang out with?

25

現在的自立生活：
• 每個人本來都長得不一樣，應該
要有平等的機會
• 打破障礙類別的框架
• Nothing about us without us
• 真正的障礙是來自環境以及人的
態度所造成的問題，要復健的是
整個社會
•人權觀點，法律保障
障礙者也是社會的一份子
障礙者是障礙的專家
Independent Living of Today
• We are born to be different; we should
have equal opportunities.
• Break the framework of disability types.
• Nothing about us without us
• The real barriers come form surroundings
and people’s attitudes. It is this society that
needs rehabilitation.
• Human right perspective; legal protection.
People with disabilities are members
of society.
People with disabilities are experts
on disability issues.

26

→
Before After
醫療模式社會模式
→
Before After
Medical model Social model

27

請一起想想看……
• 上廁所不知道要關門
• 放在桌上的東西拿回去變自己的
• 外出一直掉東西
• 無法溝通 / 理解外界資訊
• 無法分辨方向感
• 不知道如何用錢買東西
• 不知道如何點餐
這
是
什
麼
障
礙
?
Please think about these with me……
• Don’t know he/she should close door while in a toilet
• Take away stuff on a table as if it was his/her own thing
• Easily lost his/her belongings while being out
• Unable to communicate/ understand external information
• Unable to identify directions
• Don’t know how to use money to buy stuff
• Don’t know how to order a meal
What these disabilities are?

28

• 2006年舉辦台日自立生
活研討會，100名參與者
中有一半以上障礙者，亦
有機構包車前來參加
• 日本重度障礙者及個人助
理現身說法，分享日本20
年來的自立生活推動經驗
• 2007年成立台北市新活
力自立生活協會
• We hosted Taiwan-Japan
Conference on Independent Living
in 2006. Over half of the 100
participants are people with
disabilities. Some institutions
rented bus for their members to
participate this conference.
• A Japanese with severe disabilities
and his or her personal assistant
shared their experiences, which
had been over 20 years, on the
promotion of independent living in
Japan.
• New Vitality Independent Living
Association of Taipei was founded
at 2007.

29

我們的服務與工作
• 障礙者培力課程
• 同儕服務（訪視/支持）
• 自立生活技巧
• 個人助理服務
• 社會教育宣導
• 政策推動與改革
• 國際交流
服務提供社會運動
自立生活協會：跨障別，由障礙者主導營運，理監事（一半以上）及主管階層必
須為身心障礙者。目前台灣有4間自立生活協會，台北、嘉義、台南、高雄。
我們目前服務對象：肢體、語言、精神、視障，其中以肢體障居多。
美國ADA法明訂各州須編列預算供自立生活中心營運。台灣??
Our services and works
• Empowerment courses for people with
disabilities
• Peer services (visit/support)
• Independent living skills
• Personal assistant services
• Social education and advocacy
• Promote and reform policies
• International exchanges
Service
provision
Social
movement
Independent living associations: across disability types, led and operated by
people with disabilities, (more than half of) directors and supervisors and
executives should be served by people with disabilities. There are 4
independent living associations in Taiwan: Taipei, Chiayi, Tainan and
Kaohsiung.
Our major service recipients: physical, language, mental and visual disabilities.
People with physical disabilities are the majority.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expresses that state governments
should budget for operations of independent living centers. How about Taiwan??

30

我們曾做過的努力及推動…
• 北市跨年專區從原本在市府內看電視牆，
移至戶外演唱會現場設置專區。
• 不可拒絕障礙者單獨搭乘飛機。
• 無障礙交通、無障礙空間爭取。
• 爭取職場人力協助（職場助理）制度，目
前極重度障礙者，每月60小時服務可申請。
• 將自立生活支持服務中，個人助理時薪從
110元/小時爭取調至140元/小時，一次派遣
有100元交通津貼並有意外保險；服務時數
從48小時/月調至60小時/月。
What we have done and
promoted…
• The reserved area (for people with disabilities) of Taipei
New Year’s Eve Party has been moved from an indoor
TV wall space to an outdoor concert site.
• In no case shall a person with disabilities be rejected
from travelling by air.
• Fight for accessible transportation and spaces.
• Fight for institutionalization of workplace personal
assistance. Currently, people with profound disabilities
can apply for this services up to 60 hours.
• In independent living support services, the hourly wage
of personal assistant has been raised from 110 to 140
NTD, plus 100 NTD transportation allowance; service
hours has been raised from 48 hours to 60 hours per
month.

31

衛福部自103.11月起調整個人助理服務使
用者之身分別每小時負擔：
1.低收入戶及中低收入戶：0元。
2.家庭總收入平均分配全家人口之金額
達當年度每人每月最低生活費1.5倍以
上未達2.5倍者：14元。
3.一般戶：42元。
• 2011年由中華民國殘障聯盟（現更名為身
心障礙聯盟）主導下，推動入法
• 2012年七月開始，全國各縣市必須提供身
心障礙者自立生活支持服務
Ministry of Health and Welfare has adjusted the self-covered
hourly expenses of personal assistance since November
2014:
1. low-income and middle-low-income households: free
2. The average divided monthly income among each
person in the household falls between the amount 1.5
times and 2.5 times as much as the lowest living index:
14 NTD.
3. General households: 42 NTD.
• The League of Welfare Organizations for the Disabled R.O.C.
(中華民國殘障聯盟) led and pushed into law in 2011 (change
its Chinese name to The League of Welfare Organizations for
People with Disabilities R.O.C (身心障礙聯盟))
• Local governments must provide independent living support
services for people with disabilities since July 2012.

32

第 50 條
直轄市、縣（市）主管機關應依需求評估結果辦理下列服務，
提供身心障礙者獲得所需之個人支持及照顧，促進其生活品質、
社會參與及自立生活：
•一、居家照顧。
•二、生活重建。
•三、心理重建。
•四、社區居住。
•五、婚姻及生育輔導。
•六、日間及住宿式照顧。
•七、家庭托顧。
•八、課後照顧。
•九、自立生活支持服務。
•十、其他有關身心障礙者個人照顧之服務。
23
身心障礙者權益保障法
Article 50
To assist and take care of people with disabilities to improve their living
quality, social participation chances, and obtain independence, the
municipal and county (city) competent authorities shall provide the following
home services according to the results of need assessment:
1. Home care;
2. Daily living reconstruction;
3. Psychological reconstruction;
4. Community living;
5. Marital and reproductive health counseling;
6. Day care and residential care;
7. Home-based care services;
8. After-school care;
9. Supportive service for independent life;
10. Other related personal care services for people with disabilities.
24
People with Disabilities Rights
Protection Act

33

身心障礙者個人照顧辦法
第67~71條（自立生活支持服務）其中，第 69 條
自立生活支持服務內容如下：
一、自立生活能力增進及支持，包括個人生活協助服務、
財務及時間管理、交通及輔具資訊協助。
二、合適住所之協助及提供，包括協助住所租賃、無障
礙環境改善。
三、社會參與及人際關係協助。
四、健康支持服務，包括保健諮詢、陪同就醫。
五、同儕支持。
六、社會資源連結及協助，包括就業支持、就學及經
濟協助、專業服務。
七、其他自立生活相關支持。
People with Disabilities’ Personal Care
Regulations
Articles 67~71 (independent living support
services) among them, article 69 expresses:
The contents of independent living support services are as followed:
1. Improvement and support on independent living abilities, including
individual living support services, finance and time management, transport
and assistive device information.
2. Suitable accommodation assistance and provision, including assistance
on house leasing and improvement of accessible environment.
3. Social participation and interpersonal assistance.
4. Health support services, including health counseling, accompany to
medical treatment.
5. Peer support.
6. Social resource connection and assistance, including employment support,
school attendance and economic assistance, professional service.
7. Other relevant support.

34

自立生活支持服務
• 從解決物理、生理問題，到心理層面的注重。讓障礙
者過著有尊嚴的生活。
• 以實現自主、有選擇性的生活為目標。
• 障礙者重拾應有社會角色。
• 實踐公民權。
• 以當事人為中心。當事人是主角，其他人皆為配角。
• 須伴隨著倡議，創造資源（民間/政府），改變不適合
障礙者的制度與環境。
自己選擇自己決定自己負責
Independent living
support services
• From solving physical, physiological issues to focusing on
psychological aspects. People with disabilities can live with
dignity.
• Aims to realization of an autonomy, selectable life.
• People with disabilities play their due roles in an society.
• Fulfill citizenship
• The person concerned shall be put on center. They are
protagonists, while others play supporting roles.
• Shall be accompanied by advocacies, creating resources
(nongovernmental/governmental), reforming institutions and
environments that are unsuitable for people with disabilities.
Self
choice
Self
decision
Self
responsibility

35

服務問題點
1、自立生活服務不等於個人助理服務
2、提供跨障別服務（明年北市將解套此限制）
3、目前服務多由專業人員或家長團體承接服務，障礙者難以主
導自己的服務。
4、個人助理服務時數不足難以自立
5、須加強障礙者自我選擇決定負責訓練
6、個人助理未能受到保障如：薪資、勞健保、升遷、尊嚴…等
7、同儕支持服務僵化且不應以認証方式施行。須提供交通或人
力支持，讓同儕員得以執行工作。
8、應有支持家人支持障礙者自立的相關訓練或服務。
Problems in services
1. Independent living service is not equal to personal assistance.
2. Provision of services across disability types (Taipei City will loosen this
limitation next year)
3. Current services are mostly provided by professional staffs or parent
groups, so that people with disabilities can hardly lead their own services.
4. Service hours of personal assistance provisions is not enough for
independent life.
5. Trainings for disabled people’s self choice and responsibility needs to be
strengthened.
6. Personal assistants are not safeguarded, such as: salary, labor and health
insurance, promotion and dignity, etc.
7. Peer support service is rigid, which should not be implemented through
authentication. Transport and manpower supports should be provided, so
that the services can be implemented by peer members.
8. Family members should support relevant trainings or services for
independence of people with disabilities.

36

我們政府行事一定要考量：
1、考量財務負擔，因資源有限
2、需公平分配
你們應該是要訓練復健「好起
來」，不可能長期靠政府，這是
依賴!不是自立。
長官你一個月出幾次門，一天吃幾餐? 為
什麼有人每天只能躺在床上看天花板?為
什麼有人一天吃不到一餐?為什麼有人沒
人協助洗澡上廁所?如果沒有亂花錢，資
源是不是真的不足我們不知道，分配不
公這是可以確定的!
障礙是每個人都會面臨到的處境，協助
自立生活是政府的責任，請不要卸責
We government has to
consider:
1. Financial burden, since our
resources are limited.
2. Equal distribution.
You disabled people should
be trained to get
“rehabilitated”. It is not
possible to always rely on
government.This is reliance!
Not independent.
Hey officials, how often do you go out? How many meals
do you eat a day? Why should anyone lie on bed, starring
at ceiling everyday? Why would anyone eat less than a
meal a day? Why should any disabled person take a bath
or go to the toilet without assistance? We are not sure if
it is true to say that resource is scarce, but it is certain
that resources are unfairly distributed.
Disability is a situation that everyone may face.
Assistance on independent living is government
responsibility. Please do not shirk your responsibility.

37

1、電動輪椅：98000元
→申請職務再設計：68000元
→社會局：25000元
→罕見疾病基金會輔具補助
2、人力協助：
→居家服務：48小時/月
→個人助理服務：30小時/月
→職場助理服務：43小時/月
→罕見疾病基金會補助個人
助理服務：30小時/月
3、生活費用、交通費、
餐費、手機、網路費、
休閒娛樂費用、其他→
自立生活協會工作、演
講、接活動….等等
4、交通：
捷運、公車、無障礙計
程車、復康巴士
5、興趣：旅行、逛街、
游泳、喜愛「五月天」
現
在
在
台
北
的
生
活
1. Electric wheelchair: 98,000 NTD
→Application for job redesign:
68,000 NTD
→Department of Social Welfare:
25,000 NTD
→Assistive device allowance by
Taiwan Foundation for Rare
Disorders
2. Human resource assistance
→Home services: 48 hours per month
→Personal assistant service: 30 hours per
month
→ Workplace assistant services: 43 hours per
month
→Personal assistant subsidy by Taiwan
Foundation for Rare Disorders: 30 hours per
month
3. Living expenses, transport fares,
meals, mobile phone, Internet fee,
leisure and entertainment fees,
others→works in the Independent
Living Association, speech, activities,
etc.
4. Commuting:
MRT, bus, accessible taxi,
rehabus (accessible bus)
5. Interest: travel,
shopping, swimming,
be fond of “Mayday”
Life in Taipei

38

 結婚?帶小孩?
 店家、餐廳有障礙，輪椅進不去
 搭乘交通工具依然充滿著障礙和危險
現在煩腦的事情…
 若骨折或身體弱或未來退化時，個人助理
或居家服務時數不足
若無住宅法之重罰條款保障權利，
連自己的家門都進不去
 Marriage? Bearing children?
 Stores and restaurants are not
accessible for wheelchair users
 It is full of obstacles and
dangers while taking vehicles
What I worry about…
 If breaking the bone, or becoming more
and more frail and degenerated in the
future, current service hours of personal
assistant and home service are not enough.
If there were no heavy penalties
in Housing Act, we could even not
access our own home.

39

無障礙空
間
住宅
交通
輔具
各項⼈⼒⽀持
經濟安全
自立生活
社會運
動
障礙者充權
家人及社會
態度須轉變
法
律
保
障
‧
平
權
Accessible
space,
residence and
transportation
Assistive
Device
Human
resource
supports
Economic
Security
Independent
Living
Social
movement
Empowerment to
people with
disabilities requires
his/her family and
the whole society to
change attitudes
Legal
protection,
equal
rights

40

困難點
1、障礙當事者說出自己的需求及為自己發聲
2、障礙當事者須克服自身體能、環境及經濟等等障礙出來推動
（現行制度及資源不足）
3、家人的擔憂、保護及限制
4、跨障別 / 跨需求/ 跨階級
5、集結力量 6、引起社會共鳴改變社會原有價值觀
障礙者培力
計劃
社會教育
與宣導
立法/修法
保障權利
跨障別對
話與合作
未來目標
Difficulties
1. People with disabilities speak out their needs and speak for
themselves.
2. People with disabilities need to overcome barriers to stand
out for themselves, such as his/her physical condition,
environment and economic barriers. (current institutions and
resources are not enough)
3. Worry, protection and limitation of their families.
4. Across disability types / needs / classes
5. gather strengths 6、arouse resonance change
social values
Empowerment
programs for people
with disabilities
Social
education and
advocacy
Legislation /
amending the laws
to protect rights
Conversation and
cooperation across
disability types
Future goals

41

身心障礙者權利公約
第十九條自立生活與社區融合
本公約締約各國確認，所有身心障礙者享有在社區中生活的平等
權利以及與其他人同等的選擇，應當採取有效和適當的措施，以便於
身心障礙者充分享有這項權利，充分融合參與社區，包括確保：
（一）身心障礙者有機會在與其他人平等的基礎上選擇居住地點，選
擇在那裡及與那些人一起生活，而不是被迫按特定的居住安排
來生活。
（二）身心障礙者獲得各種居家、住所和其他社區援助服務，包括必
要的個人援助，協助他們在社區生活和社區融合，避免與社區
隔絕或隔離。
（三）身心障礙者可以在平等基礎上享用為大眾提供的社區服務和設
施，且這些服務和設施符合他們的需要。
Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities
Article 19 - Living independently and being included in the
community
States Parties to this Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with
disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take
effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with
disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the
community, including by ensuring that:
a. Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of
residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others
and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;
b. Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and
other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to
support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or
segregation from the community;
c. Community services and facilities for the general population are available on
an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

42

chunil92@gmail.com
謝謝聆聽、指教!!
chunil92@gmail.com
Thank you for
listening and
advice!!

43

台灣社區居住方案的發展與挑戰
Community Living in Taiwan: Development and Challenges
講師/翻譯：周月清教授
從CRPD檢視台灣身心障礙者居住權與生活品質國際研討會
September 30-October 1, 2015
Supporting Good Life in the Community for People with
Disability
支持障礙者在社區過個好生活
Community Living in Taiwan:
Development and Challenges
台灣社區居住方案的發展與挑戰
• 臺灣社區居住與獨立生活聯盟/Taiwan Community Living Consortium (TCLC)
• 網站/website:http://www.communityliving.org.tw
• 研究者/報告者：周月清
• Presented by Chou, Yueh-Ching (choucyc@ym.edu.tw)
1

44

聯合國身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)
第19條獨立生活和融入社區
• 本公約締約各國確認，所有身心障礙者有在社區中生活的平等權利以
及與其他人同等的選擇，應當採取有效和適當的措施，以便於身心障礙
者充分擁有這項權利，充分融入和參與社區，包括確保：
（一）身心障礙者有機會在與其他人平等的基礎上選擇居住地點，選擇在那
裡及與那些人一起生活，而不是被迫按特定的居住安排來生活。
（二）身心障礙者獲得各種居家、住所和其他社區支持服務，包括必要的個
人助理，協助他們在社區生活和融入社區，避免與社區隔絕或隔離。
（三）身心障礙者可以在平等基礎上使用為大眾提供的社區服務和設施，且
這些服務和設施符合他們的需要。
2
Article 19, CRPD:
Living independently and being included in the
community
• States: recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities
(PWD) to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and
shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full
enjoyment by PWD of this right and their full inclusion and
participation in the community, including by ensuring that:
• a) PWD have the opportunity to choose their place of residence
and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others
and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;
• b) PWD have access to a range of in-home, residential and other
community support services, including personal assistance
necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to
prevent isolation or segregation from the community;
• c) Community services and facilities for the general population are
available on an equal basis to PWD and are responsive to their
needs.
3

45

台灣心智障礙者居住服務類型
Types of residential services for people with ID in Taiwan
機構式
Institutional
全日型住宿照顧
機構
24 hrs
Institution
(7->201 beds)
小型：7～29人
中型：30～200人
大型：201人以上
Small:7-29 beds
Medium:30-200 beds
Big: >201 beds
方案式
Program
夜間式住宿機
構
Evening
Hostel
(7-200 beds)
小型：7～29人
中型：30～200人
Small:7-29 beds
Medium: 30-200
beds
社區居住
Community
living
6人以下
1-6 beds
4
居住服務/Residential services
台灣身心障礙福利機構
(# of institutions for PWD in Taiwan)
提供夜間住宿或全日型的服
務機構
• 小型(29人以下)=32家
• 中型(30~200人)=115家
• 大型(201人以上)=11家
Hostel for evening and
institution for 24 hrs
•“small” <29 beds: 32 units
•“medium” 30-200 beds: 115
units:
•“big” >201 beds: 11 units
5

46

社區居住與生活的定義
Def. of Community living
社區(Community)
• 和一般人一樣的地點
• 居住房舍是一般住家
• 生活機能都在社區中
• 和一般家戶人口數一樣，
少於六人
• Community
– Living in the community as others,
– Ordinary flat/housing,
– Daily life in the community,
– flat mates <6 due to household
family members <6 persons in
Taiwan (usually)
生活(Living)
• 日夜是區隔的
• 自主的日常生活
• 正常的生命節奏
• 包含休閒與社交
• Living
– Daily and evening life
separated
– Self control own daily life, life
style,
– Involved in recreation and
social activities
6
社區居住服務規定
• 服務對象：十八歲以上身心障礙者
• 專業服務團隊：督導、社工及教保員；每位教
保員服務之居住單位最多以二個為限
身心障礙者個人照顧服務辦法
7

47

• 合法住宅使用建築物
• 每一居住單位服務不超過六人
• 平均每人使用樓地板面積不得少於16.5平方
公尺
• 應有獨立出入口
• 建築物應投保公共意外責任險 (依機構投保
公共意外責任保險規定)
• 不得兼辦社區式日間照顧服務。
身心障礙者個人照顧服務辦法8
Regulations of community living services
Based on Personal Care Service Regulation (Disability
Rights Act)
• Users: >18 years old with disability
• Team members providing services: supervisor,
social worker, care workers (care workers
working for less than 2 units)
• Legal housing
• Each unit less than 6 residents
• Each resident has to have 16.5 m2
• With individual/certain door use for entrance and exit
• Housing insurance available
• Only for residential service use—cannot also use
for daycare (two services provided in the same
unit) 9

48

現況
• 自2004年開辦服務
• 除基隆市、屏東縣、金門縣與連江縣外，共
有18 19個縣市提供社區居住服務
• 約100個居住單位，服務人數約400位。
• 服務對象：成年智能障礙者、伴有智能障礙
之多重障礙者、自閉症與精神障礙者。
10
Community Living Services (CLS)
Current Development
• Launched in end of 2004
• 18 local authorities (county/city) provide such
CL service
(22 local authorities in Taiwan)
• 100 units and 400 users/residents
– in Taiwan, the users/residents do not own the
flat, they need to pay rent through the
providers(NGOs)
• Who are the Qualified users?
• >18 ys with ID/autism/mental difficulty, or
multiple disability in addition ID
11

49

四種補助型態
• 衛福部方案
• 縣市自辦方案：如台北市、桃園市、新竹市、
台中市、台南市、高雄市
• 衛福部方案+縣市部分補助：如苗栗縣、台中
市、南投縣、台東縣
• 機構自辦
12
Four different types of the
CLS
• Funded by central government:
• Funded by the local authority: 6 local
authorities (Taipei City,Tauyen City, Hsinchu
City, Taichung, Tainan City, Kaushung City)
• Both ways: 4 local authorities
• NGOs/providers: without funding
from government
13

50

運作經費
• 一個社區居住單位的運作成本約70萬到120
萬/年
• 機構每年約須自籌20萬到100萬
14
Cost of CLS provided
• One unit one year: NT$ 700,000-
1,200,000 (20,000- 35,000 Euros)
• Gap between the cost and funding
from the Governmental:NT$20,000-
1000,000 (7000-30,000 Euros):
Providers deal with the shortage of
budget themselves
15

51

服務發展的困境
• 經費補助不足，機構難以永續經營
• 人員召募不易
• 不理解社區居住理念
16
Difficulties of CLS
development
• Financial: shortage of funding, no future,
• Staff recruitment: shortage of service
workers working in the evening/overnight,
staying with the residents
• The philosophy/principles/values of the
CLS: misunderstood or cannot be supported
by the service workers, managers or
providers, even the parents and policy
makers
17

52

租屋面對的困難
• 排斥身障者承租
• 完全合法的住宅難找
• 都會與偏鄉的差異
• 社區管委會的影響
• 房東主要為投資獲利，租屋為過渡期
• 住宅法排除法人承租社會住宅資格
18
Difficulty: Flat/house rent in
the community
• PWD not welcomed/discriminated
• Available housing/flats in the community difficult
meet the regulation
• Gap between urban and rural area(e.g., attitudes
from the owners, neighborhood)
• The attitudes from Community Self Management
Council: “not in my backyard” ?)
• The owner only for benefit, the rent period time for
short-term
• Housing Act in Taiwan: NGOs not qualified for
renting social housing
19

53

社區居住單位歷年調查統計
Number of units of CLS in Taiwan
20
但是…
• 社區居住服務發展10年，服務人數僅400多人
• 住宿機構2008年150家，2014年成長至165家！
• 2009年身心障礙者生活狀況及各項需求評估調查
報告，總計7 萬 3,994 人住在機構，占身障人
口 6.82%，意即有 92.84%是居住在「家宅」。
21

54

CLS seems growing, BUT
• Since 2004, 10 years after, all users
are only 400 (0.03% of all population
with disability) (movement since 2001)
• Number of institutions maintain
growing, eg., 150 institutions in 2008,
165 in 2014
• 73,994 PWD living in the institution
(6.8% of all population with disability
vs 92.8% living with family) (source:
2009 disability survey data)
22
2014社區居住服務使用者問卷調查
2014 Census survey—users of CLS and their
parents
• Questionnaires: standardized and
open-ended questions
• Participants: 421 residents from 89
units provide by 44 providers/NGOs
• Completed the interview:
– 298 residents with ID (17 out of them
with MD) (response rate 71.3%)
– 169 parents of the residents
23

55

分析結果
Results
住民
Chapter 1: Residents
24
入住社區前住哪?
where did you live before moving in here?
25
72%
2%
3%
22%
1%
1.與家人同住/lived w/ family
2.住在親戚朋友鄰居家/lived
w/relative, friends
3.29人以下全日型住宿服務/lived in
institution (<30 beds)
4.30人以上全日型住宿服務/lived in
institution (>30 beds)
5.自己租屋/lived alone(rent a flat)

56

入住社區後的改變?
Comparing with previous, what do you feel after
you live here?
26
68%
11%
11%
10%
1%
2%
1. 比較會做家事/more capable to do
housework
2. 工作比較穩定/more stable for
work
3. 比較獨立/more independent
4. 比較快樂/happier
5. 比較自由/having more freedom
6. 比較健康/healthier
您對目前這種居住安排，還有甚麼心得想跟大家分享？
What do you feel now you live here?
• 住得很開心要再住
• 住這裡很好很快樂
• 可以讓家人更放心，然
後讓自己更獨立
• 聽到室友聊天會很開
心
• 很快樂,有老師有宿友
做伴
• 有老師鼓勵
• 有人可以互相幫助
• 像自己的家
• Happy, want to continue to
live here
• Live here is very good and
happy
• My family feel relieved, I
become more independent
• Listen to roommates’
chatting, feel happy
• Very happy, have teacher
and roommates being
companions
• Having teacher’s support
• have some one to help,
help one another
• Here like my own home
27

57

• 學習很多不同生活技能，
與外面很多朋友交談
• 住這裡有家的感覺，讓我
很自由，很快樂
• 1.有網路2.可以安排報名
馬拉松3.可以晚睡
• 很自由，很快樂，跟喜歡的
室友同住
• 很像一家人
• 可以自由進出
• 感覺很幸福
• 想買手機
• 可以交到好朋友
• 住這裡很好、我很喜歡、要
繼續住
• Learn many social skills and
make many friends in the
community
• Feel like home, very free,
happy
• Have internet, can attend
marathon, can go to bed
late
• Very free, happy, like to live
with roommates
• We are like a family
• Have freedom for going out
and in
• Feel luckily, happy
• Want to buy cell phone
• Can have good friends
• Live here very good, I like
it
28
• 住的好、買東西方便、爸爸
可以常到家園看我
• 朋友互相照顧很好
• 有自己的房間很好
• 我喜歡自己照顧自己，學
會煮菜技術回家也煮給阿
嬤吃
• 可以做自己、很快樂
• 我要住在OO家，不要回教
養院
• 很快樂可以自己洗衣煮飯
• 住這裡很自由，可以吃到
自己煮的菜
• 可以選擇自己要看的電視
• Convenient for shopping, my
father can often come to
visit me
• Friends care for one another
• Have own bed room is good
• I like to take care of myself,
learn how to cook, I can
cook for my grandmother
when I go home
• Can be myself, very happy
• I will live here, I do want to
move back to OO institution
• Very happy and I can do
laundry and cook for myself
• Very free, I can eat food that
I cook myself
• I can choose the TV
programs that I like to see
29

58

你未來是否想買房子?
In the future do you want to buy a flat for
yourself?
2014年社區居住服務使用者問卷調查
30
是/yes
34%
否/no
42%
不知道
/don't
know
22%
其他/other
2%
是否聽過聯合國身心障礙者公約
Have you heard the UNCRPD?
31
沒有/no,
85%
好像有
/seem so ,
6%
有/yes, 9%

59

您同意智障者有權利選擇住在哪裡？
Do you agree people with ID have rights to
choose where she/he likes to live, as other
people?
32
沒有意見/no
idea
27%
不同意
/disagree
4%
同意/agree
69%
您同意智障者有權利選擇和誰同住嗎？
Do you agree that people with ID have rights to chose
whom she/he likes to live with, as other people?
33
沒有意見
/no idea,
24% 不同意
/disagree
, 3%同意
/agree,
73%

60

你對住在現在的居住服務單位，會有甚麼意見或改
善之處？要給服務提供者、工作者或政府？
Do you have any suggestions given to the
practitioners, managers or government?
• 有電腦、液晶電視、PS4
• 想要游泳、想要裝冷氣
• 想要彈琴
• 喝咖啡
• 想在家唱卡拉OK
• 做烘培粿子
• 獲得更多的自由
• 一人一間
• 給我有隱私權
• Have computer, TV, PS4
• Go swimming, have
air conditioner
• Play piano
• Drink coffee
• Karaoke
• Make cake
• More freedom
• Have own bedroom
• Have privacy
34
• 自己的錢可以保管
• 空間大一點
• 多睡一點
• 運動多一點
• 跟社工姊、生輔姊跟家
人有個良好的溝通
• 好一點的隔音設備
• 住久了想回家一個人
住
• 喜歡住在大樓有電梯
• 還是喜歡和家人住
• Manage money by
myself
• More space
• Sleep more
• More exercise
• Good communication
with workers and
family
• Quiet place
• Live alone
• Accommodation with
elevator
• Like to live with family
35

61

• 希望有結婚的社區居
住
• 沒有時間上控制，有自
由的空間
• 希望房子新一點
• 希望有工作機會、賺更
多錢
• 希望可以獨立生活
• 零用錢自己保管
• 多舉辦活動
• 房租比較高，就沒辦法
住
• CLS available for
married couple
• Having free time
• Accommodation can
be renovated/new
condition
• Have paid work and
make more money
• Rent can be
cheaper
36
37
家長
Chapter 2: Parents

62

您覺得ＯＯ接受社區居住服務後，最明顯的改變是？
After ＯＯ uses CLS, what do you think she/he has
changed most obviously?
38
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
1. 比較會做家事/more capable to…
2. 工作比較穩定/more stable for…
3. 比較獨立/more independent
4.比較快樂/happier
5.比較自由/having more freedom
6.比較健康/healthier
7.沒有差別/no difference
8.其他/other
%
您支持ＯＯ自主決定日常生活怎麼過嗎？
Do you support that ＯＯ is able to make her/his own
decision in her/his daily life?
39
支持/yes ,
81%
不支持/no ,
4%
不一定
/may be,
15%

63

建議
• 搭配「負擔得起」的社會住宅等措施，障礙者才有邁向更獨
立生活的可能
• 以多元化居住服務模式推動，才能更符合CRPD居住權的
精神
• 住民/服務使用者，所有障礙者包括心智障礙者，以及家長
有權利知道聯合國CRPD及國內施行法已經通過
• 資訊獲知的權利, 包括CRPD
• 重視心智障礙者居住權、在社區過好生活的權利
40
Implications
• In order to support this group of
people having good life (self control,
dignity, freedom, higher quality of life,
etc.) in the community, and meet the
requirement of Article 19 of the CRPD
– Affordable housing, e.g., social housing,
provided
– Government stable funding support
– Individual and group advocacy services
provided: rights for housing, rights for
life, information accessibility including
CRPD 41

64

願每位弱勢者都擁有一個家
Everyone has the right to have a home
並成為社區好厝邊
and a full life in the community
臺灣社區居住與獨立生活聯盟
42
相關參考書目
References
• 相關中文資料詳見住盟網站：website:http://www.communityliving.org.tw
• Chou, Yueh-Ching, Pu, Cheng-yun, Kröger, Teppo, Lee, Wan-
ping & Chang, Shu-chuan (2011). Outcomes of a new residential
scheme for adults with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan: A two-
year follow-up. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
(JIDR), 55, 823-831.
• Chou, Yueh-Ching, Kröger, Teppo & Lee, Yue-Chune (2010).
Predictors of job satisfaction among staff in residential settings for
persons with intellectual disabilities: a comparison between three
residential models. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 23, 279-289.
• Chou, Yueh-Ching, Lin, Li-Chan, Pu, Cheng-yun, Lee, Wan-ping
& Chang, Shu-chuan (2008). Outcomes and Costs of Residential
Services for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities in Taiwan: a
Comparative Evaluation. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities (JARID), 21, 114-125.
43

65

(二)挪威的轉型，從機構本位到社區本位的服務
The transformation of Norway, from institution based service to
community based service
講師：Christian Boe Kielland 翻譯：高靖翔、張家寧研究生校譯：邱春瑜助理教授
The transformation of Norway,
from institution based service
to community based service
Speech at
UNCRPD conference
30 September 30 - 1 October 2015, Taipei, Taiwan
Christian B. Kielland
Oslo, Norway Phone (+47) 22 52 16 83, mobile (+47) 988 52
688 E-mail: cbk@vikenfiber.no

挪威的轉型-
從機構本位到社區本位的服務
Christian B. Kielland
Oslo, Norway Phone (+47) 22 52 16 83, mobile (+47) 988 52 688 
E-mail: cbk@vikenfiber.no

66

Introduction
The system that we had before the reform
The new system
Why did we want the reform?
The political process
How we organised ourselves
Our tools
Important issues
Later developments
Concluding remarks
Outline

大綱
‧前言
‧在改革前的制度
‧新制度
‧為什麼我們要改革？
‧政治進行方式
‧如何自我安排
‧我們的工具
‧重要議題
‧晚期的發展
‧總結
CC1

67

385 000 km
5 million
13/km
65.900
6
NORWAY:
Area:
Population:
Population density:
GNP/capita, 2014, US $:
GNP/capita rank:
36 000 km
23 million
644/km
43.600
19
TAIWAN:
2
2 2
2

385 000 km
5 million
13/km
65.900
6
NORWAY:
Area:
Population:
Population density:
GNP/capita, 2014, US $:
GNP/capita rank:
36 000 km
23 million
644/km
43.600
19
TAIWAN:
2
2 2
2面積
人口
人口密度
GNP(國民生產毛額)/
每人平均 ,2014,美元
GNP(國民生產毛額)/排名

68

Why did we want the reform?
• Belief in normalization
• Giving local government greater
responsibility was a general trend
at the time
• Inadequate service provision
• Cases of mistreatment

我們為什麼要進行改革?
正常化的信念(Belief in normalization)
就當時普遍的趨勢，
賦予地方政府更大的責任
服務供給不足(Inadequate service provision)
虐待案例(Cases of mistreatment)

69

Our tools
• Legislation
• Recommendations
• Financial grants
• Information
• Expert advice for municipalities

管道策略 Our tools
立法(Legislation)
建言書(Recommendations)
財政補助(Financial grants)
資訊(Information)
市政當局的專家建議
(Expert advice for municipalities)

70

Important issues (1)
• Where should the institution inmates settle?
• The planning process: plans for each
individual, for each municipality,
for each institution
• Aiding people in exercising their
legal capacity
• Budgeting and financing
• Facilitating problem-solving during
the reform process

重要議題(1)
• 收容者應該安置在何處機構呢?
• 計畫過程：分別為個人、市政當局、機構的
計畫
• 幫助人們行使其法律權利的能力
• 預算編制與財務
• 改革過程中促進問題解決

71

• Service provision
• Leisure-time activities, holidays
• Training of personnel
• Coercion
• Housing

重要議題(2)
提供服務(Service provision)
休閒活動、假期(Leisure‐time activities, holidays)
專業人員培訓(Training of personnel)
強迫(Coercion)
住宿安排(Housing)

72

• Health services
• Education
• Work and employment
• Other day-activities
• Follow-up of the reform

重要議題(3)
保健服務(Health services)
教育(Education)
工作與就業(Work and employment)
不同的日常活動(Other day‐activities)
改革後續追蹤 (Follow‐up of the reform)

73

(三) 從機構安置轉型為社區本位服務—生活品質與 Arduin 改
革歷程 From institution settings to community based support
‐‐Quality of life and Arduin Experience
講師：Jos van Loon 翻譯：李施德社區居住聯盟國際事務部主任
From institution settings to
community based support
Quality of life and the Arduin
Experience
Jos van Loon, StichtingArduin en
Vakgroep Orthopedagogiek, Gent
Februari 2013
Jos van Loon, PhD., Stichting Arduin and
Department of Special Education, Ghent
University
June 2015

從機構安置轉型為
社區本位服務
生活品質與
Arduin 改革歷程
Jos van Loon, StichtingArduin en
Vakgroep Orthopedagogiek, Gent
Februari 2013
Jos van Loon, PhD.,
荷蘭 Arduin 基金會
比利時 Ghent 大學，特殊教育學院
June 2015

74

Today many service providers for people with
disabilitiesface quite fundamentalchallenges that
questiontheir existence in their current form
• From congregated settings to community based
support?
• EASPD* (2013): “….It is time to put forward
concrete planning for deinstitutionalization and
community-based settings involving persons with
disability and all mainstream and disability
stakeholders.”
• *European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities

現今許多身心障礙服務單位面對著一些很根本
的挑戰，質疑他們現有的營運型態。
• 集體環境轉換成社區本位服務?
• EASPD* (2013): 「…推進去機構，落實為身心障
礙者及所有利益相關者，提供社區本位服務具體計
畫的時刻到了。」
• *「歐洲身心障礙服務組織聯盟」European Association of Service Providers for Persons with
Disabilities

75

But there are more challenges….
• decreasing resources
• a movement from vertical to horizontal organization
structure
• from general services to individualized supports
• align values with service delivery practices
• focus on evidence and evidence-based practices
• the need for capacity building in reference to organization-
based self-assessment, strategic planning, and performance
evaluation (Schalock & Verdugo, 2012).

但還有更多的挑戰…
• 資源削減
• 組織架構由多層次垂直型轉換成扁平型
• 由通用式服務轉換成個別化支持
• 校準價值觀及服務提供做法
• 注重實證及實證本位實踐
• 需要參照組織本位自我評量、策略規劃、績效評量而建
構組織能力 (Schalock & Verdugo, 2012).

76

Important in this respect is the mondial
influence of the UN Convention on the
Rights of People with Disabilities
(CRPD;2006 ):

聯合國身心障礙者權利公約對此發展的
重要影響。(CRPD;2006 ):

77

General Principles:
Participation and Inclusion
• Participation is important to correctly identify specific
needs, and to empower the individual
• Full and effective participation and inclusion in society
is recognized in the Convention as:
• A general principle (article 3)
• A general obligation (article 4)
• A right (articles 29 and 30)
Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities

一般原則:
參與及融合
• 必須有參與才能正確的找出確實的個人需求並賦權
• 充分及有效的社會參與及融合認定於公約內:
• 基本原則 (第三條)
• 基本義務 (第四條)
• 權利 (第二十九及三十條)

78

General Principles:
Accessibility
• Important as a means to empowerment and inclusion
• Both a general principle and a stand-alone article (article 9)
• Access must be ensured to:
• Justice (article 13)
• Living independently and being included in the community (article
19)
• Information and communication services (article 21)
• Education (article 24)
• Health (article 25)
• Habilitation and rehabilitation (article 26)
• Work and employment (article 27) - human resource policies and
practices
• Adequate standard of living and social protection (article 28)
• Participation in political and social life (article 29)
• Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport (article 30)

一般原則:
可及性
• 重要的賦權及融合的方法
• 是個基本原則也是個獨立條款 (第九條)
• 必須保證以下得取權:
• 公正司法權 (第十三條)
• 獨立生活，融入於社區 (第十九條)
• 資訊及通訊服務 (第二十一條)
• 教育 (第二十四條)
• 健康 (第二十五條)
• 適應訓練和康復 (第二十六條)
• 工作和就業 (第二十七條) – 人資政策和辦法
• 適足的生活水平和社會保護 (第二十八條)
• 參與政治和公共生活 (第二十九條)
• 參與文化生活、娛樂、休閒和體育活動 (第三十條)

79

General Principles:
Non-discrimination
• Fundamental principle of international human rights law
• Includes direct and indirect discrimination
• reasonable accommodation must be made for persons
with disabilities
• reasonable accommodation: ‘necessary and appropriate
modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or
undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to
persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal
basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms’

一般原則:
不歧視
• 基本國際人權法規原則
• 包括直接和間接的歧視
• 為身心障礙者提供合理便利
• 「是指在根據具體情況，在不造成過度負擔的情況下，按需要進行必要
的適當修改和調整，以確保身心障礙者在與其他人平等的基礎上享有或
行使所有人權和基本自由。」 (第二條)

80

Monitoring and Implementation
All activities must include the participation of persons with
disabilities:
‘Nothing about us without us’

監督與執行
所有的活動必須有身心障礙者的參與:
「有關我們的事，不能沒有我們參
與」

81

Arduin was:
 An institute for 360 residents with
insufficient quality of care in several
respects
 Course of action: emancipation and self-
determination positively adopted as
fundamental in order to secure the best
possible quality of life
 Transition from ‘providing a total care
service’ towards ‘offering the support that
the client desires’

過去的Arduin:
 一個 360人的大型機構，許多方面欠缺
服務品質
 行動方針: 實現解放及自我決策為基本原
則，落實最好的生活品質
 由「提供完整照護服務」轉變成「提供
個案所想要的支持服務」

82

 Arduin was transformed from an institution to a new
community-based organization
 Action plan based on a quality of life focus and the
supports paradigm
 Supporting each individual who in the first place
himself or herself determines what he or she needs
 Creative solutions: e.g. Children from the day-care
centre go to regular schools in the neighbourhood with
support of support-workers from Arduin: inclusive
education
 “Common if possible, special what has to be…”
The deïnstitutionalisation process:

 Arduin 由一個大型機構轉變成一個新的社區本
位服務組織
 行動計畫的基礎是生活品質及支持模式
 個案決定自己的需求，提供他所決定的支持服
務
 創新的對策: 例如Aruin的支持人員陪同孩子在
一般社區裡學校融合式學習: 融合式教育
 「盡可能採用一般性支持」，「必須時才採取
特別化支持」
去機構化的過程:

83

Arduin became:
•A community-based organization:
 24-hours support : 535 persons
 Adult Day care : 180 clients
 Day care for children: 25, but all places are in
inclusive education
 1200 workers
 over 150 houses in 25 villages and cities
 Full-time work / day care for everyone
 Academy for Quality of Life; over 150 courses for
all clients and workers

現在的Arduin :
一個社區本位的組織:
24小時支持: 535人
成人日間支持服務: 180人
兒童日間支持服務: 25人，完全融合式教育環境
1200名工作人員
150多個家，位於25個鄉鎮
每個人都有全時日間工作或活動
生活品質學院；提供個案與員工150多門課程

84

Important factors in OrganizationalTransformation
I. In the proces of Deinstitutionalization, but
then….
Arduin is not ready yet!
II. In the continuous process of adjusting to new
developments

組織變革之要素
I. 去機構化的過程中…
Arduin 尚未預備好!
II. 過程中不斷的調整，面對新的發展

【講義】從CRPD檢視台灣身心障礙者居住權與生活品質國際研討會

【講義】從CRPD檢視台灣身心障礙者居住權與生活品質國際研討會

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Plus de Taiwan community living consortium

Plus de Taiwan community living consortium (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)