台灣智障者居住服務探討－－型態、規模、對象與變遷

Residential Services for People with Intellectual Disabilities in Taiwan: Types, Size, Users and Change

本研究在探討我國智障者居住服務型態、規模、服務對象與變遷。次級資料分析五次全國身心障礙福利機構評鑑及內政部最新書面資料，並郵寄問卷收集2003年智障者住宿服務機構第一手資料。研究發現歷年提供智障者住宿機構占身心障礙福利機構總數三至四成，智障者使用「住宿養護」服務者占全智障者5%至7%。依據身心障礙者保護法我國「住宿機構」分兩種：「全日型住宿」及「夜間型」（社區家園或團體家庭），八成五為私立。七成受訪機構自稱「教養院」或「重殘養護」，二成稱「社區家園」、「社區家庭」；六成機構以「院生」稱住民。智障「住宿機構」住民中被診斷為智障者六成餘，其他為自閉、多重、唐氏、精障，被診斷極重度和重度障礙程度者占八成餘，近兩成住民為18歲以下兒童少年，60歲以上者占近3%；住民平均居住時間6.2年，最長41年。1952年第一個私立機構立案，1990年時有小到4人服務量，最大為2001年450人。立案智障「住宿機構」數和服務人數呈成長趨勢，成長最快為1990年代；晚近亦呈快速成長；30人以下規模者增加三倍多，床位大小亦趨小型化，就最新資料（2003年6月），除100床以上總數（占19.8%）有下降外，其餘之規模皆在增加中，包括50至100床者；16床以上者占八成五。

This study aims to explore current residential services for people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in Taiwan, such as residential types, unit/bed size and who are the users. The sources of second data in this study embrace the five National Inspections of Disability Welfare Facilities in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1993 and 2000; and the latest issued national written data. Also a mail survey was used to examine how the 96 residential settings currently available for people with ID. Between 5% and 7% percent of population with ID stay in the residential facilities; and the reset of these people live with their families. Nearly 20% of 7,000 people with ID are children under age 18 and only 3% of the users' age over 60. The average length of the users stay is 6.2 year, and the longest is 41 year. 40% of the users' cost of using the services comes from the governmentally full subsidy. More than 80% of the units managed by the non-governmental sectors; the earliest residential setting was registered in 1952 and the biggest growth of these residential facilities was in the 1990s particularly in the recent three years. In 1990, there ever had a small residential unit for four residents and the biggest unit size was 450 in 2001. And the unit size both less and large than 30 are growing during 2000 to 2003. 70% of these settings name their unit as ”institution” or ”severe handicapped nurturing and protection” and another 20% named ”community home” or ”community family”. 60% of these settings call their users ”member of the institution” and very few view their users as the residents. Generally the supply of permitted residential services is already over the demands.