Research on community-based welfare plans in Government-designated major cities

本研究的目的是比较横滨、名古屋和大坂这三个日本主要指定城市的社区福利计划的制定方法。以下讨论的数据是从上述城市的地方政府收集的。在第一阶段，我们试图澄清和分析每个地方政府在制定计划时的比较方法。本研究以问卷调查法，内容包括规划的背景与过程、规划所涵盖的地区、市政府与社会福利理事会的关系等。调查结果显示，各地方政府采取的方法主要有三种：横滨型模式，我们称之为政府倡议模式，名古屋型模式，我们称之为社会福利倡议模式的理事会，以及大坂型模式，协作模式。2007年，我们重点关注大坂的协作模式，社会福利理事会与大坂市政府进行了谈判。地方政府制定行动计划。尽管大城市进行了分权改革，但地方政府并没有在地区一级建立以社区为基础的行政体系，因此，可以认为，作为社区福利促进者的社会福利理事会的作用比地方政府更重要。我们认为社会福利机构理事会中的社区工作者是合作模式中的关键人物。

The purpose of this research was to compare methods of creating community-based welfare plans in 3 major Japanese designated cities : Yokohama, Nagoya and Osaka. The data discussed below were collected from local governments of the above mentioned cities. In the first stage we attempted to clarify and analyze the comparative approach of each of the local governments in creating the plan. We used questionnaires which included the background and procedure of creating the plan, description of the district covered in planning, and the relationship between the city government and the council of social welfare. The results of the survey showed that there are three main types of method adopted by each local government : Yokohama-type model, which we named the government initiative model, Nagoya-type model which we called the council of social welfare initiative model, and Osaka-type model, the collaborative model.In 2007 we focused on the collaborative model in Osaka where the council of social welfare entered into negotiations with the local government through making Action Plan. It is reasonable to presume that the role of the council of social welfare as a promoter of community-based welfare is more important than the local government, because, in spite of the decentralization reform in big cities, local governments have not created any community-based administration system at the district level. We regard the role of the community-worker employed in the council of social welfare agency as the key person in the collaborative model.