協助精障者社區融合：康復之家推展精障者社區融合經驗初探

Helping People with Mental Illness for Social Inclusion: Exploring the Experiences of Promoting Social Inclusion in Halfway Houses

〈聯合國障礙者權利公約〉明確指出身心障礙者應享有在社區中生活的平等權利以及與其他人同等的選擇，因此各國應採取有效和適當措施，便利身心障礙者充分享有這項權利以及充分融入和參與社區。在台灣，對於「康復之家」的管理與督導，已於每三年一次的評鑑考核加入社區融合的指標。本文即是要探討康復之家如何在執行精神復健的過程中協助精障者社區融合，特別是當台灣社會對於精障者仍存有污名時。在質性研究的取向下，本文透過立意取樣與滾雪球方式，於2013年4月至2015年4月間，共深度訪談9位在康復之家實際參與社區融合業務規劃與服務的專業人員。研究發現，康復之家仍面臨著社區民眾對於精障者的污名與歧視，但在評鑑指標的規範、專業人員認同精障者應如常人般在社區生活的理念、以及實務反思經驗與教育訓練下，康復之家主要規劃與執行社區融合的工作者仍盡力發展出敦親睦鄰以及社區交流活動，包括提供社區服務、辦理或參與交流活動、提供住民獨立生活訓練、促進友誼的建立與維繫、經營鄰里關係、協助住民社區就業、邀請外界進入康家或向外介紹康家等方式。依研究結果，本文形成相關建議，以做為康復之家從業人員以及未來相關政策修正或服務措施的參考依據。

“Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” has recognized the equal right of the persons with disabilities to live in the community and with choices equal to others. All nations thus 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. In Taiwan, the promotion of social inclusion for persons with mental illness has been contained in the institution evaluation indicators, used to manage and supervise halfway houses. This paper aims to explore how the halfway houses accumulated social inclusion experiences while implementing psychiatric rehabilitation, particularly when the people with mental illness still suffer stigma and discrimination within Taiwanese society. Adapting the qualitative in-depth interview, a total of 9 halfway house professionals who actually took part in social inclusion services were recruited through purposive sampling and snowball method. Data was collected from April 2013 to April 2015. The research found that there was a lot of stigma and prejudice attached to the halfway house. However, the institution still tried the best to promote social inclusion for 3 reasons: 1) effect of the evaluation indicators; 2) the professionals’ perspectives of treating people with mental illness as ordinary people who could live in community; and 3) the professionals’ experiences and reflection accumulated from practical services as well as education training. Diverse methods were carried out including: providing community services, planning or encouraging interactional activities, offering independent living training for residents, promoting friendship building and maintaining, strengthening the neighborhood relationship, assisting community employment of residents, and inviting the outsiders to halfway house or leading out halfway house to the outsider. Drawing conclusions from empirical evidence, theresearchnot only made suggestions for social inclusion practice for the halfway house professionals but also provided practical advices on future policy making.