농촌 취약계층 생활실태 조사 및 지원체계 구축을 위한 기초연구

전체 글

(1)정책연구보고 P217 | 2016. 4.. 농촌 취약계층 생활실태 조사 및 지원체계 구축을 위한 기초연구. 송 조 심 유 김. 미 미 재 은 나. 령 형 헌 영 리. 선임연구위원 연 구 위 원 연 구 위 원 연. 구. 원. 연. 구. 원.

(2) 연구 담당 송미령 조미형 심재헌 유은영 김나리. 선임연구위원 연구위원 연구위원 연구원 연구원. 연구총괄, 정책지원체계 구축 방향 설정 기존 데이터 문헌 2차 분석 주민실태조사 결과 분석 국내외 지원정책 검토 선행연구 및 주민실태조사.

(3) i. 머 리 말. 농촌에는 도시에 비해 취약계층이 상대적으로 많이 거주한다고 알려져 있다. 취약계층이란 우리 사회에서 경제적‧사회적‧정치적·문화적 측면에서 배제된 약자를 총칭하는 것으로 농촌의 경우 영세고령농, 독거노인, 조손가족, 장애인, 다문화가족 등이 대표적이다. 농촌 취약계층에 대한 체계적인 조사를 통해 관련 데이터베이스를 정기적으 로 생산하게 된다면, 정책의 성과와 실효성을 확인할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 취 약계층의 생활여건을 실질적으로 향상시킬 수 있는 효과적 정책 방안을 마련 하는 데 기초자료로 활용할 수 있을 것이다. 그래서 이 연구는 농촌의 취약계 층을 정의하고 그들의 생활실태를 조사·분석함으로써, 체계적인 조사의 의의 와 방법을 확인하는 한편 효과적 관련 정책 지원의 과제를 제안하려는 목적으 로 추진되었다. 다양한 선행연구 및 관련 법제도에 대한 검토, 9종의 기존 통계자료 2차 분 석, 농촌 취약지역에 거주하는 노인, 장애인, 다문화가족 등의 1,000가구에 대 한 방문 설문조사 등이 이루어졌다. 더불어 지자체 및 민간 단위의 우수 활동 사례를 살펴보았고 향후 중앙정부 정책 지원 내용과 방식의 변화 필요성, 농촌 취약계층 생활실태의 정기적 조사와 DB 구축의 필요성 등을 제안하였다. 현재 농정에서 ‘미래성장산업화’라는 중장기 성장전략이 강조되고 있다. 미 래성장산업화를 달성하기 위해서는 농촌 취약계층에 대한 배려와 지원 정책이 동시에 추진될 필요가 있다. 정책 수요자 대상의 맞춤형 농정을 보다 효과적으 로 실현하기 위해서는 농촌 취약계층에 대한 조사의 대표성과 충분성을 확보 하고, 보다 상세하고 정확한 실태조사를 지속해야 하며 누적적으로 그 데이터 가 관리되어야 한다. 이러한 측면에서 이 연구가 그 시발점이 될 수 있기를 기 대한다. 2016. 4. 한국농촌경제연구원장 최 세 균.

(4)

(5) iii. 요. 약. □ 연구목적 및 방법 농촌에는 도시에 비해 취약계층이 상대적으로 많이 거주한다고 알려져 있다. 본 연구는 농촌의 취약계층을 정의하고 그들의 생활실태를 조사·분석함으로써, 체계적인 조사의 의의와 방법을 확인하는 한편 효과적인 관련 정책 지원의 과 제를 제안하려는 목적으로 추진되었다. 선행연구 및 관련 법제도에서 정의하는 취약계층을 살펴봄으로써 농촌지역 에서는 영세한 노인, 장애인, 다문화가족 등을 취약계층의 범주로 삼았다. 먼저 이들을 대상으로 진행되고 있는 국내 중앙기관의 지원프로그램을 확인하고, 정 책적 시사점을 제시할 수 있는 국외 취약계층 지원프로그램을 살펴봄으로써 국내 정책의 개선방안을 제시하였다. 그 후 이들의 생활실태를 파악하기 위해 먼저, 기존에 공표된 관련 자료의 2차 분석을 실시하였다. 특히 취약계층 생활실태의 도농 간 비교를 실시함으로 써 농촌 취약계층의 현실을 파악하고자 하였다. 두 번째로 농촌지역의 ‘노인, 장애인, 다문화가족’을 대상으로 이들의 생활실태를 확인하고자 직접 설문조사 를 실시하였다. 본 조사는 먼저 서비스 접근성을 기준으로 하여 농촌의 취약지 역을 확인하였으며, 농촌 내에서 서비스 접근성이 좋은 지역과 열악한 지역에 서의 취약계층 생활실태를 확인하였다. 이러한 조사결과를 바탕으로 농촌 취약 계층의 생활개선을 위한 정책제언을 실시하였다..

(6) iv. □ 주요 조사 결과 이미 공표된 관련 자료의 2차 분석을 통한 조사결과는 다음과 같다. 먼저, 국민기초생활수급 노인, 즉 빈곤한 노인이 모든 측면에서 가장 취약한 것으로 나타났으며, 장애인의 경우 농촌에는 65세 이상 노인 장애인의 비율이 58.0% 에 이르고 50세 미만은 16.9%에 그친다. 전반적으로 소득 취약계층인 중위소 득 60% 이하 가구 비율은 지난 10년 동안 농촌이 도시에 비해 높지만 국민기 초생활보장 급여 금액은 도농 간 차이가 점점 커지고 있다. 건강 및 영양 취약 계층은 신체건강의 경우 질병 미치료율이 도시가 더 높지만, 활동제한은 농촌 이 높다. 생활시간 사용에서 농촌은 의무생활시간이 적고, 여가생활시간이 많다. 기 구축되어 활용되는 자료의 대부분은 취약계층을 노인·장애인·아동 등 대 상별 혹은 고용·소득·건강·주거 등 영역별로 구분하여 조사하고 있어, 저소득 노인이면서 장애인이면서 다문화가족인 복합적 취약계층을 파악하기 어려웠 다. 또한 농촌 주민들의 생활실태를 짐작할 수는 있지만 취약계층의 생활실태 를 알기는 어려웠으며, 농촌의 특성을 파악할 만큼 충분한 표본수를 확보하지 못하는 실정이다. 동시에 농촌의 유형이 매우 다양함에도 농촌 유형별로 취약 계층의 분포나 생활실태를 파악할 수는 없었다. 이 연구에서 농촌의 서비스 취약지역을 확인한 결과, 농촌 인구 중 18.3%가 서비스 취약지역에 거주함을 밝혔다. 농촌지역 중 서비스 접근성 우수지역은 도시지역과 유사한 인구 패턴을 지니는 반면, 취약지역의 인구는 유년기 인구 가 적고 노년기 인구가 많은 특징이 나타났다. 고령화율은 30%를 초과하는 것 으로 나타났다. 인구밀도 역시 동 지역 평균 인구밀도의 1/100에 불과한 것으 로 나타났다. 적은 인구수와 낮은 인구밀도, 높은 고령화율 등으로 인해 서비스 업이 쉽게 안착하기 어려운 환경이며, 같은 이유로 이들은 각종 생활서비스 향 유의 차이를 갖게 된다. 따라서 연구에서는 서비스 접근성에 따른 농촌 취약계층의 생활실태를 집중 적으로 조사하였다. 농촌의 공간적 특성을 반영하여 그곳에서 생활하고 있는 취약계층의 가족 구성 및 특징, 소득과 지출, 주거, 식생활, 문화여가 실태 등을.

(7) v 파악하는 것과 함께 노인, 장애인, 다문화가족 등 1,000가구를 대상으로 이들의 서비스 욕구 및 이용실태를 구조화된 설문지에 의한 방문 설문조사를 통해 파 악하였다. 응답자들은 가구유형에 상관없이 생활비에서 가장 큰 비중을 차지하는 항목 으로 식료품비(다문화가족 97.4%, 장애인가구 85.8%, 노인가구 80.5%)를 꼽았 다. 주거는 30년 이상 된 주택에 거주하는 비율이 높았으며, 슬레이트지붕 주택 거주 비율은 18.9%이다. 또한 최근 1년 동안 경제적인 어려움 때문에 먹을 것 이 부족했거나 다양한 음식을 섭취하지 못하는 등 식생활 형편이 여의치 않았 던 가구가 47.4%에 이르는 것으로 나타났다. 하루 일과 중에서 경제활동 이외 에 가장 많은 시간을 보내는 일은 TV 시청이나 산책 등의 휴식활동(90.7%)이 며, 다음은 사회 및 종교활동(4.1%)이고, 그 밖의 활동은 아주 미미한 수준인 것으로 나타났다. 최근 1년 동안 공공기관에서 제공하는 프로그램에 참여한 적 이 있는 사람은 26.5%에 그쳤다. 객관적인 서비스 접근성이 떨어지는 지역임 에도 전반적인 정주 만족도가 높았다는 점은 주목할 만하다. 비교 경험을 할 수 있는 환경이 아니기 때문에 오히려 만족도가 높은 것으로 판단된다. 다만, 의료기관의 예를 들면, 보건진료소 이용의 만족도가 가장 높다는 결과가 나왔 는데 이는 근거리 접근성을 가장 중시하는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 그러나 취약계 층임에도 재가복지서비스 이용 경험이 있는 가구는 매우 소수인 것으로 나타 났다.. □ 정책제언 이 연구는 취약계층 실태조사를 위한 기초 연구이지만 조사 분석 연구를 통 해 몇 가지 시사점을 얻을 수 있었고 이를 바탕으로 크게 세 가지의 정책 제언 을 하였다. 첫째, 농촌 취약계층 생활실태의 정기적 조사와 DB 구축을 제시했 다. 기존 실태조사들이 노인, 장애인, 다문화가족, 여성, 아동 등 대상별로 구분 되어 있어 가구 단위의 파악이 쉽지 않았기 때문이다. 따라서 농촌 취약계층을.

(8) vi 패널 자료로 구축하여 지속적으로 조사를 추진한다면 의미 있는 정책과제를 발굴할 수 있을 것이다. 둘째, 중앙정부 정책 이외에 지방자치단체 수준에서 혹은 민간에서 실천하고 있는 다양한 프로그램들에 대한 정보 수집을 꾸준히 하여 이를 역시 DB화하고 중앙정부에서 정책 프로그램을 입안할 때 활용할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 셋째, 취약계층, 취약지역을 배려하는 방향으로 중앙정부 정책 지원의 내용 과 방식이 변화할 필요가 있다. 지역 맞춤형, 계층 맞춤형 통합적 정책 추진을 위해서 사업에서 프로그램 방식으로의 전환이 요구되며, 정책 예산 역시 포괄 보조 방식의 지원이 요구된다. 기 추진 중인 포괄보조사업의 경우에도 취약마 을을 설정하고 취약마을마다 취약한 부분에 대한 개선을 일차적 목표로 단계 별 환경 개선을 펼치는 것이 필요하다..

(9) vii ABSTRACT. A Preliminary Study for Constructing a Support System for Vulnerable Social Groups in Rural Areas Through an Investigation of Their Life Conditions. Background There are several vulnerable social groups in rural areas such as petty elderly farmers, senior citizens who live alone, low-income grandparentsgrandchildren families, multi-cultural families and so on. Although life conditions of the vulnerable social groups are significantly poor, the effort of grasping their life conditions has been insufficient. Also, in the face of specific problems of vulnerable rural areas originated from the characteristics of rural areas, the vulnerable social groups in the areas have not been handled by researches. Therefore, through building up related data, this study deducts outcomes and effectiveness of related policies and suggests effective policies for the vulnerable social groups with results of analysing the data. The purpose of this study is as follows. First, the study defines the vulnerable social groups in rural areas, and then surveys and analyzes their life conditions. Subsequently, methods and implications of the survey are to be explained, and the effective support policies for them will be proposed.. Method The study reviews advanced researches and related laws in order to define the vulnerable social groups, and then designates petty elderly people, disabled people and multi-cultural families as the vulnerable social groups in rural areas. Also the study identifies support programs for them of the Korean central government and those of other countries in an attempt to draw implications. Then, it analyzes related existing data to figure out their living status. The analysis is particularly focused on the comparison between urban and rural areas. In addition, this study conducts a survey to identify the vulnerable areas based on service accessibility, and compares vulnerable social groups who live in the vulnerable areas and those who live in areas with better.

(10) viii accessibility. Finally, it proposes policies to enhance quality of life of the vulnerable social groups in rural areas based on the research.. Results and Implications The existing data that is analyzed in the study was collected by each survey that targeted each vulnerable group (elders, children, disabled people and so on). Also the data does not have sufficient sample size of people who live in rural areas. Therefore, the results of analysis of the existing data are not sufficient to grasp life conditions of complex vulnerable social groups that belong to more than two categories of the vulnerable social groups, such as disabled elderly and multi-cultural family. Hence, the study could not find out the vulnerable people’s life status in rural areas in detail. The study figures out the vulnerable areas in rural areas and finds out the facts that 18.3% of rural population lives in service inaccessible areas. In addition, the proportion of the elderly in the vulnerable areas is beyond 30% and population density is only 1/100 of urban areas. The results of our survey targeting vulnerable people living in the rural areas are as follows. The food cost made up the biggest part of the living expenses and 47.4% of the respondents said that they were food-poor. Also the proportion of people who have not joined the programs offered by public institutions during the passing year is only 26.5%. A few implications are drawn through the study and it suggests possible policy alternatives. Firstly, it is necessary to survey the living conditions of the vulnerable social groups in rural areas consistently, and the data collected through the surveys should be accumulated. Then, the data could be a useful resource to develop meaningful policy issues. Secondly, it is essential to identify and collect best practices of various programs that have been implemented by a local government or civilians. The programs can be shared and policy makers could apply them when they establish a new policy plan for the vulnerable social groups in rural areas. Thirdly, direction of support programs for vulnerable social groups of the central government needs to be changed. Support programs need to be designed in consideration of the vulnerable areas and social groups’ reality..

(11) ix Researchers: Song Miryung, Cho Mihyoung, Sim Jaehun, You Eunyoung and Kim Nari Research period: 2015. 9. ~ 2016. 4. E-mail address: mrsong@krei.re.kr.

(12) x. 차. 례. 제1장 서론 1. 연구 필요성 및 목적 ······················································································· 1 2. 주요 연구 내용 ································································································· 3 3. 연구 방법 ·········································································································· 4 제2장 농촌 취약계층의 정의와 사회적 배제 1. 취약계층의 정의와 범위 ················································································· 7 2. 취약계층에 대한 ‘사회적 배제’ 접근 ·························································· 18 3. 농촌 취약계층의 정의와 생활실태 파악의 틀 ············································ 27 제3장 취약계층 대상 국내외 정책동향 1. 우리나라의 취약계층 대상 정책현황과 시사점 ·········································· 31 2. 농촌 취약계층 복지정책 외국사례 ······························································· 65 제4장 통계로 본 취약계층의 도농 간 생활실태 비교 1. 노인, 장애인, 다문화가족별 생활실태 ························································· 78 2. 취약계층의 소득‧주거‧건강실태 ································································ 100 3. 소결 ··············································································································· 115 제5장 서비스 접근성에 따른 농촌 취약지역 현황 1. 농촌지역의 서비스 접근성과 취약지역 ····················································· 117 2. 농촌의 서비스 취약지역 현황 ···································································· 125 3. 소결 ··············································································································· 136.

(13) xi. 제6장 농촌 취약계층 생활실태 조사 1. 조사 개요 ···································································································· 139 2. 조사 결과 ······································································································ 150 3. 조사 요약 및 시사점 ··················································································· 186 제7장 요약 및 제언 1. 요약 ··············································································································· 191 2. 제언 ··············································································································· 195 부록 ···················································································································· 205 참고 문헌 ··········································································································· 219.

(14) xii. 표 차례. 제2장 농촌 취약계층의 정의와 사회적 배제 표 2- 1. 주요 법률로 살펴본 취약계층의 정의 ················································ 8 표 2- 2. 취약계층 관련 연구의 주요 내용 범위 ············································ 16 표 2- 3. 사회적 배제의 정의 ············································································ 22 표 2- 4. 사회적 배제의 측정 지표 ··································································· 25 표 2- 5. 한국사회 사회적 배제계층의 구분 ···················································· 26 표 2- 6. 도시와 농촌의 취약계층 규모 ··························································· 28 제3장 취약계층 대상 국내외 정책동향 표 3- 1. 장기요양급여 종류 ·············································································· 37 표 3- 2. 장애소득보전급여 체계 ······································································ 46 표 3- 3. 장애인 대상 주요 의료지원 정책(보건복지부) ································ 50 표 3- 4. 지역사회 중심 재활 분야 사업내용 ·················································· 52 표 3- 5. 장애인을 위한 주택공급 및 주택개량 정책 ···································· 55 표 3- 6. 2016년 다문화가족지원사업 프로그램 ·············································· 62 제4장 통계로 본 취약계층의 도농 간 생활실태 비교 표 4- 1. 분석대상 자료 ······················································································ 77 표 4- 2. 취약계층에 속하는 노인 ····································································· 78 표 4- 3. 취약계층 노인 분포 ············································································ 79 표 4- 4. 취약계층 노인의 경제활동 상태 ······················································· 80 표 4- 5. 취약계층 노인의 생활비 지출 항목(가구) ······································· 81 표 4- 6. 취약계층 노인의 평소 운동수행 및 정신건강 ································· 82 표 4- 7. 취약계층 노인의 사회참여 및 사회복지시설 이용률 ····················· 82.

(15) xiii 표 4- 8. 취약계층 노인의 가족 및 사회관계에 대한 만족도 ······················· 83 표 4- 9. 장애인 일반적 특성 ············································································ 85 표 4-10. 연령대별 장애유형 ·············································································· 86 표 4-11. 연령·성별 장애인의 경제활동 ··························································· 87 표 4-12. 연령·성별 장애인의 소득 및 소비실태 ············································ 88 표 4-13. 장애로 인한 추가 소요비용 발생실태 ·············································· 89 표 4-14. 현재 지속적으로 진료를 받는 장애인 비율 ···································· 90 표 4-15. 장애인의 진료받는 장소 및 진료 목적 ············································ 90 표 4-16. 장애인의 문화·여가 활동 참여 ·························································· 92 표 4-17. 여성장애인의 연령별 분포 ································································· 93 표 4-18. 여성장애인으로서의 어려움 ······························································· 93 표 4-19. 다문화가족 가구주 특성 ···································································· 95 표 4-20. 결혼이민자·귀화자의 일반적 특성 및 출신국가 ····························· 97 표 4-21. 결혼이민자·귀화자의 사회참여 ·························································· 98 표 4-22. 다문화가족 청소년자녀의 일반적 특성 ············································ 99 표 4-23. 다문화가족 청소년자녀의 사교육 경험 ············································ 99 표 4-24. 저소득층 거주지역 분포 ··································································· 101 표 4-25. 국민기초생활보장급여 수준 ····························································· 101 표 4-26. 지난 1년간 복지서비스 이용 경험 ················································· 102 표 4-27. 연령대별 지역분포 ············································································ 103 표 4-28. 생활비 수준 ······················································································· 103 표 4-29. 소득 취약계층의 연령대별 문제음주 비율 ···································· 104 표 4-30. 최저주거기준 미달가구 비율 ··························································· 106 표 4-31. 최저주거기준 미달가구의 주택 현황 ·············································· 108 표 4-32. 최저주거기준 미달가구의 주거지원 프로그램 필요성 ·················· 109 표 4-33. 최저주거기준 미달가구의 개보수해야 하는 부분 ························· 109 표 4-34. 취약계층 변수의 내용 및 조작적 정의 ·········································· 110 표 4-35. 건강 취약계층 규모 ·········································································· 111.

(16) xiv 표 4-36. 필수생활시간 평균 비교 ··································································· 112 표 4-37. 의무생활시간 평균 비교 ··································································· 113 표 4-38. 여가생활시간 평균 비교 ··································································· 113 표 4-39. 노인가구 농가-비농가 생활시간 평균 비교 ··································· 114 제5장 서비스 접근성에 따른 농촌 취약지역 현황 표 5- 1. 선행연구와 본 연구에서 다루고 있는 생활 및 공공서비스 시설 종류 ··································································································· 120 표 5- 2. 연구에서 사용한 층별 건축물관리대장의 주 용도 추출 분류표 ··· 121 표 5- 3. 종합적인 생활 및 공공서비스 접근성 산출에 적용하기 위한 가중치 ································································································· 124 표 5- 4. 읍‧면 단위 취약지역 목록 ······························································· 128 표 5- 5. 농촌 서비스 접근성 유형별 인구 특성 ·········································· 132 표 5- 6. 농촌 서비스 접근성 유형별 사회적 특성 ······································ 133 표 5- 7. 농촌 서비스 접근성 유형별 사업체 종사자 현황 ························· 135 제6장 농촌 취약계층 생활실태 조사 표 6- 1. 조사 지역 및 지역별 서비스 접근성 수준 ···································· 143 표 6- 2. 조사 지역별 표본 할당: 우선 조사 지역 ······································· 146 표 6- 3. 농촌 취약계층 조사의 내용 ····························································· 148 표 6- 4. 최종 조사 지역별 표본수 ································································· 149 표 6- 5. 조사 가구 유형별 사례수 ································································· 150 표 6- 6. 응답자의 특성 ···················································································· 151 표 6- 7. 가구 유형별 가구 형태 ···································································· 152 표 6- 8. 조사 대상 가구주의 특성 ································································· 155 표 6- 9. 농촌 장애인의 일반적 특성 ····························································· 157 표 6-10. 농촌 결혼이주여성의 일반적 특성 ·················································· 160 표 6-11. 결혼이주여성 배우자의 일반적 특성 ·············································· 162.

(17) xv 표 6-12. 다문화가족 자녀의 연령 분포 ························································· 163 표 6-13. 가구유형별 소득 및 지출 현황 ······················································· 165 표 6-14. 가구유형별 생활비 항목별 지출 현황 ············································ 166 표 6-15. 가구유형별 주거실태 ········································································ 169 표 6-16. 가구유형별 식생활 실태 ··································································· 171 표 6-17. 응답자의 문화여가 생활실태 ··························································· 172 표 6-18. 응답자의 문화여가활동 만족도 ······················································· 173 표 6-19. 거주지 환경에 대한 인식 ································································· 174 표 6-20. 가구유형별 생활서비스 이용실태 ··················································· 176 표 6-21. 가구유형별 복지서비스 이용실태 ··················································· 177 표 6-22. 장애인 서비스 이용실태 및 필요 우선순위 ·································· 178 표 6-23. 장애인 시설 이용실태 및 필요 우선순위 ······································ 179 표 6-24. 다문화가족 만 9세 미만 자녀의 양육실태 ···································· 180 표 6-25. 다문화가족의 양육 어려움 우선순위 ·············································· 181 표 6-26. 다문화가족 자녀의 방과후 활동실태 ·············································· 182 표 6-27. 결혼이주여성의 가구원과의 평소 의사소통 정도 ························· 182 표 6-28. 분석 대상 노인의 가구 특성 및 형태 ············································ 184 표 6-29. 대상별 전반적인 복지서비스 및 시설 이용 만족도 ····················· 186.