工作整合型社會企業的社會影響：喜憨兒社會福利基金會的個案分析

The Social Impact of Work Integration Social Enterprise: A Case Study of CAREUS Foundation

10.6687/JSDS.201809_(22).0003

官有垣(Yu-Yuan Kuan)；王仕圖(Shu-twu Wang)；杜承嶸(Cherng-Rong Duh)

慢性精神病 ； 社區復健中心 ； 產業治療 ； 社會整體功能評估 ； WISE ； Nonprofit Organization ； Social Impact ； Children Are US Foundation

社會發展研究學刊

22期（2018 / 09 / 01）

61 - 100

繁體中文

台灣最常見與盛行的社會企業組織即是以「工作整合」（work integration）為特色，或稱之為「積極性就業促進的社會事業」（affirmative businesses），統稱之為「工作整合型社會企業」（work integration social enterprise, WISE）。此類社會企業極為關切被社會排除的弱勢團體（尤其是身心障礙者），因此藉由提供工作給這些人群，使之整合入勞動力市場。WISE 追求實踐組織的目標聚焦於協助解決失業問題，進而舒緩失業的衝擊，換言之，WISE對於社會或社區的正向、積極影響在於協助弱勢團體獲得更多就業機會、增加所得，且透過就業與職訓，使得這些所謂被「社會排除」（social exclusion）的團體或個人逐漸獲得社會認可，進而提升自我依賴的能力。本研究以喜憨兒社會福利基金會（CAREUS）為例進行個案分析，探究臺灣工作整合型社會企業的社會影響。有關社會企業的社會影響，從「4E架構」歸納分析，其為「提供就業」（employment creation）、「改善生活質量」（enhancement of quality of life）、「賦權」（empowerment）和「社會融合」（exclusion prevention）。主要的研究結果顯示，CAREUS依憨兒的特質分配工作，在職場上建立一套標準工作流程，亦針對憨兒提供個人化服務計畫，讓憨兒能更順利投入於工作場域。其次，憨兒所賺取的薪資多用於個人的日常生活開銷與儲蓄，並非家庭主要的經濟來源。第三，因為工作使得憨兒在家中的地位有所提升，且開始擁有自主權，安排自己的時間參與社會互動的活動。最後，因為工作場域在餐廳與麵包坊，使憨兒能有與社會大眾接觸的機會，透由互動的過程也能讓社會大眾瞭解憨兒是具有工作能力，打破過往對憨兒的刻板印象。

The operation mode of social enterprise organization which is the most common in Taiwan is characterized by ＂work integration＂ and it is collectively called ＂Work Integration Social Enterprise (WISE)＂. This kind of social enterprise is extremely concerned about those disadvantaged groups (especially the disabled people) excluded by the society. Therefore, WISE provides the job to these people to integrate them into the labour market. The organizational goal pursued and realized by WISE is to help people solve the unemployment problem to further relieve the impact caused by unemployment. In other words, the positive effect of WISE on the society or community will help the disadvantaged groups obtain more employment opportunities and increase the income; through the employment and vocational training, the so-called ＂social exclusion＂ groups or individuals gradually obtain the social recognition gradually to further improve the self-reliance ability. This research took Children Are Us Foundation as the example to conduct the case analysis to explore the social effect of Taiwan's WISE. As for the social effect of social enterprise, it was concluded and analyzed from the perspective of ＂4E Framework＂, namely ＂Employment creation＂, ＂Enhancement of quality of life＂, ＂Empowerment＂, and ＂Exclusion prevention＂. The main research results show that CAREUS distributes the work according to the traits of mentally handicapped people and sets up a set of standard work procedure on the workplace; at the same time, it provides the personalized service plan for the mentally handicapped people, so that mentally handicapped people can work smoothly on the workplace. Secondly, the salary earned by mentally handicapped people is mostly used for personal expenses and savings in the daily life and it is not the main economic source of the family. Thirdly, the work helps the mentally handicapped people improve their family status and they begin to possess the autonomous right to arrange their own time and participate in the socially interactive activities. In the end, the workplace is in the restaurant and bakery, so that mentally handicapped people can have the opportunity to contact with the social public. By means of the interaction process, the social public can also understand that mentally handicapped people have the working ability, which has broken the stereotype for mentally handicapped people.

1. 王仕圖、官有垣、林家緯、張翠予(2010)。工作整合型社會企業的角色與功能：台灣與香港的比較分析。人文社會科學研究，2(4)，106-130。
   連結：
2. 吳秀照(2007)。台中縣身心障礙者就業需求：排除社會障礙的就業政策探討。社會政策與社會工作學刊，2(11)，148-197。
   連結：
3. Arvidson, M. & Lyon, F. (2010). 'The ambitions and challenges of SROI.' Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 49, University of Birmingham.
4. Borzaga, C.(ed.),Defourny, J.(ed.)(2004).The Emergency of Social Enterprise.London:Routledge.
5. Defourny, J.,Nyssens, M.(2010).Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,1(1),32-53.
6. Javits, C.I. (2008). REDF's current approach to SROI. The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund, Retrieved from www.redf.org/learn-fromredf/publications/119
7. Lin, C.Y.,Laratta, R.,Hsu, Y. H.(2011).The impacts of the MEPP on program participants and NPOs in Taiwan.International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,31(5),302-318.
8. Nicholls, J.,Lawlor, E.,Neitzert, E.,Goodspeed, T.(2012).A guide to Social Return on Investment.
9. Nyssens, Marthe(ed.)(2006).Social Enterprise: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Civil Society.London:Routledge.
10. Rauscher, O., Schober, C. & Millner, R. (2012). Social Impact Measurement and Social Return on Investment (SROI)-Analysis: New methods of economic evaluation? Working paper. Vienna, NPR Competence Centre, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
11. Shaw, D.G(ed.),Schneier, C. E.(ed.),Beatty, R.W.(ed.),Biard, L.S.(ed.)(1995).The Performance Measurement, Management and Appraisal Sourcebook.MA:Human Resource Development Press.
12. Somers, A.B.(2005).Shaping the balanced scorecard for use in UK social enterprise.Social Enterprise Journal,1(1),43-56.
13. Spear, R.,Bidet, E.(2005).Social enterprise for work integration in 12 European Countries: A Descriptive Analysis.Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics,76(2),195-231.
14. Taylor-Powell, E., Jones, L. & Henert, E. (2003). Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models. Retrieved from the University of Wisconsin-Extension website, 2013/09/15, http://www.uwex.edu/ces/Imcourse.
15. Yang, C.,Lee, Y.(2013).Building Performance Assessment Model for Social Enterprise-View of creating social values.Business and Information,7(9),206-216.
16. Zappala G. and Lyons M. (2009). Addressing disadvantage: Consideration of models and approaches to measuring social impact, the Centre for Social Impact, Retrieved from http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.hk/files/8913/2938/6375/CSI_Background_paper_No_5-Approaches_to_measuring_social_impact_-150210.pdf
17. 行政院勞工委員會（2011）。多元就業開發方案。行政院勞工委員會網站(http://www.cla.gov.tw/cgi-bin/siteMaker/SM_theme?page=4e12d9e6)。
18. 官有垣(2008)。社會企業組織在經營管理的挑戰：以喜憨兒社會福利基金會為案例。兒童及少年福利期刊，14，63-84。
19. 官有垣編、陳錦棠編、王仕圖編(2016)。社會企業的治理。高雄:巨流。
20. 官有垣、王仕圖(2013)。臺灣社會企業的能力建構與社會影響初探。社區發展季刊，143，51-67。
21. 官有垣、陳錦棠、王仕圖(2016)。社會企業的治理：臺灣與香港的比較。高雄:巨流。
22. 官有垣、陳錦棠、陸宛蘋、王仕圖(2012)。社會企業：臺灣與香港的比較。高雄:巨流。
23. 陳錦棠、黎家偉(2013)。香港社會企業的社會影響初探。社區發展季刊，143，151-160。

1. (2023)。中途餐廳體驗行銷對顧客忠誠度之影響：以顧客滿意度為中介變項。中華行政學報，33，75-100。