1-2014 3 A Study on the Actual Participants of the Senior Employment Project for Public Interest Focusing on the Low-Income Participants in Junggok 3-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul : (2012834062) :
2 - ABSTRACT The object of this study is to investigate the practical effects of Senior Employment Project, implemented by government as a part of senior welfare policy, and at the same time examine the situation that the seniors in modern Korean society face. The questions to be considered as follows: first, what are the characteristics of the jobs offered by Senior Employment Project? Second, how do the participating seniors perceive the labor practice and how are they satisfied? And third, what kind of changes did the labor bring to the participating seniors? To answer these questions, this study selected the participants of the Senior Employment Project for public interest purposes as the study subjects. The public interest type is created by the local governments or public institutions for the business area (environment, maintenance of order, facility maintenance, settling the pending issues of local community, etc.) with the purpose of improving public services, and it corresponds to the public interests and is socially very useful. Preferred by the low-income seniors with low workability and weak human resources, such as education, age, health, etc., this type would directly and visibly influence the low-income seniors process of labor and changes in lives. Also, the environmental improvement protection project (street cleaning) was selected as the project subtype because it has been continuing relatively for a long time since 2000 around when the Senior Employment Business started, so that it would represent the effects of labor participation on the seniors. Before participating, the seniors expected that this work will bring positive effects to the overall life. They had financial, psychological, emotional, social, and health motives piled up. In other words, they expected a financial abundance, decline in negative emotions, formation of close relationship with co-workers, and improved health, just like the project s original intent; and the actual result displayed positive changes as expected. Although the price for their labor was small, but they were able to make a better living with their economic resources. Also, their negative emotions reconciled and positive emotions were generated, they experienced emotional changes and changes in social relationships, and changes in health. By discussing about the relevance between Senior Employment Project and seniors based on in-depth consideration of the work sites of Senior Employment Project, this study is to provide help in studying the effects of Senior Employment Project, a macroscopic senior welfare policy, on the seniors in terms of concrete experiences. Key word : Senior Employment, Project for Public Interest, Low-Income Participants, Gwangjin-gu
3 -,.,.,?,,?,?. (,, ).,,. ()2000..,.,,.,,,,...,,.,.. :, ( ),
4-1 1.. 2013. 2013 12.2%, 81.2, 2017 14%. 20%.,,, 4 ( 苦 ),,.,. 2004..,, 4 ( 苦 ). 2008.,,. 2006, (, 2008).,, (),,., (),... 2.,.,.,?,,?,?,
5 -. 6 3 (),.. 3..,, (), ()., 320.,. 2 1. 2004.,,... (, 2004;, 2005;, 2005;., 2005;, 2005;, 2006).,.,... (, 2005;.2006;, 2007;., 2007;., 2007;, 2007). (, 2005;, 2005;, 2006;, 2008)..,,,,, 5 2~5...,..
6 -., (). 2. 1),,, 65,,,. 1981 ( 23, 23 2 45 2 )20055, ( 11 ) 4 2004. 2014260,000 2,815() (2014, ). 65,,,,,,. 65( ) 60-64...,,,,. (2007),. (2010). (2012),. (2007),. 2004200626 1828, 295... (2008) (2010),,,
7 -.,, (, 2010;, 2013). (2012)..,,. (, 2013). <1>, <2>,,,,. 2014 <3>. <1>, 2014, 구분유형설명 <2>, 2014, 유형 참여자 1 인예산지원기준 월인건비참여기간부대경비계 유형비율 국고보조 사회공헌형시장진입형 공익 교육 복지 20 만원 9~12 개월 인력파견형 - 연중 14 만원 ( 예산범위내 공익형 12-14 만, 교육. 복지형 14-16 만원탄력 적용가능 ) 연중일자리 16 만원 15 만원 ( 예산범위내 탄력적용가능 ) 192-256 만원 10-15 만원 공익형 지역사회환경개선사 업은전년도시 도사회공헌 형대비배정비율의 3% 증 가이내추진 시 도자율적판단에의해실시 50% 각시 도별사업량할당 공동작업형 - 연중 180 만원 180 만원각시 도별사업량할당 ( 서울 30%) 제조판매형 - 연중 200 만원 200 만원각시 도별사업량할당 수행기관전담인력 109 만원 11 개월 - 1,199 만원 -
8 - <3> 2014, : 2014. 3. 1 ~ 11. 30. (9 ) : 65 () : 16 1,099(1,026 93%) ( : / ) 2013 1,099 947 152 8 1,032 1,026 936 90 7 1,029 : 2,075,380 ( : : =30:35:35) 1,869,880 133,500 72,000 1,925,000 =20+, - () 82 (50) 278 (293) 36 20 (20) 20 (21) 200 (205) 25 (25) 36 50 (50) 40 (40) 20-36 60 (60) 12 (12) 60 (60) 36 100 (100) () OK6070 () 30 (28) 20 (19) 82 (22) 20 (21) 2014(50-82 ) : 1,067-1,099 (2014.6.27.) 2) 2014 <4>. (2007),, (, 2012).. 1, 2. 36, 20 () 9-12.(2013, )
9-2007., 50%. (2014, ). <4>, 2014 1 CCTV (CCTV) 2 3 EM (EM),,, 4,, 5 () ( ), 6,, 7.,,,, (, 2011). (, 2011).
10-3) 3 1. 1, 2, 3. <1>.., 50%, 50%. 90%,.,,,,. <2>..,...,. <3>. 65.,.. 3 1. 320.
11-2..,. (Northern Illinois University) (HealthSelfRating Scale). 1, 11, 1, 14.. (2010). Medley(1976) (1987). 4 4 8. Rosenberg(1965) (1974). 5 5 10... 3. (16 ) 75 5.,.. 4 1.. ( )..... 9 10 (8 30930 ) 1 1.8 Km (3,200 )
12 -,..,,..,,,.,........ 2. 20 9, 11. 698570 802. 74. (8 ), 5, 8, 3, 2, 1, (9 ).. 70-75, 80, 75-80, 70-75.,,. 3. 1)..,.
13 -..,..,..,. 1.......,..,..,.,,...,.,... 2).....,..,,...... 36 ()..,.
14 -. 1,,.,.... 3).,,.,,..,...,.,. 4),.,,.,..,.,.,.,.,,,
15 -.,,,,,,,,........,..... 5,,,... ()..,.,,.,,,,...,,....,.,. 2007., 50%.,.. 9
16-3.,.,. * 2011, 2012, 2014.. * 2013,. * 2014,. * (2005),. *. (2007), 27(3). *. (2007) :, 38. * (2005),. * (2007).. * (2010), 20. * (2005) :,. * (2007),. * (2008),. * (2013),. * (2014 ), * (2005),. * (2012),. *. (2005) 30,. * (2006),. * (2012),. * (2011), 6. * (2011), 31(3). * (2012) -. *. (2008), 14(1). * (2008),. * (2005),. * (2007) :,.
17 - * (2004) :,. * (2006). * (2007). * (2007) 9 (07-3 ). * (2008). * (2008) 1 (2004~2007). *. 2007.. *. 2011.. *. (2010) :, 48. * (2005),. * (2006),. <>?..,..,... ( : 010-5553-8410 01.? ( ) (19 ) 02.? 1 2 03.? 1 2 3 4 5 04.? 1 2 3 /4 05.? ( ) 06.?
18-1 2 ()3 (. ) 4 (. ) 5 6 7 07.? 1 2 3 4 5 08.? ( ) 1, 2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, 10,, 11 12 ( ) 13() 14 09. ()? 1 2 1-2 3 3-5 4 6-9 4 10 10.? 1 2 3 4 5 11.? 1 2 3 4 12.? ( ) 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 ( ) 8 9 10 13.? 1 2 3 4 5 14.? 1 2 3 4 5 15. (, )? 1 2 3 4 5 16. (, )? 1 2 3 4 5 17.? 1 2 3 4 5
19-10.
20 -