兒童保護緊急救援工作的on call英雄

為了保護兒童免於暴力的威脅，台灣建置了24小時on call緊急救援系統。on call是政府低人力成本、高彈性化的人事策略，規避了三班制的人力配置，還以不適用勞基法之名，免除加班費，又得以在危機發生時不受上班時間的限制，迅及呼叫備勤社工出勤提供服務，以抵禦不確定的風險。為了瞭解兒保社工推動緊急救援的圖像，走訪了直轄市X與縣轄市Y兩縣市，深度訪談四名督導、八名社工員，研究發現on call緊急救援的風險評估與管理面貌為：一、結構性問題：以「單一階段」與「二階段」待命模式、分區或分組的救援模式、雙重檢核機制來因應兒保的風險。但，受到安置資源不足、排擠特定兒童、一床多用的虛構式床位、護送資源不足等結構性問題，加上吝嗇配置社工人力，顯露出國家並未擔起兒童保護的責任，反倒轉嫁至兒保社工身上，並以資料庫系統、評鑑等方式加以監督、控制。二、制度性問題： 1.網絡合作不利於緊急救援階段：此時最需要權力與資源調度，卻以社政為主責、網絡合作為方法，導致兒保社工往往限於求助與拜託，失去黃金救援時機。因此，賦予社工權力指揮與增加資源，否則，應重新思考兒保社工定位，回歸警政110系統、退居於檢警之後。 2.責任通報無法應對風險：過度重視通報反倒形成「卸責式通報」，造成在大量案件中尋找高危急個案，導致社工員強調調查、識別風險，凌駕了需求而轉變助人的角色。因此，建議通報行動已趨成熟，應重視通報品質，並將工作重點從風險拉回個案工作本質。三、判斷風險的方法 1.挑戰不容許風險發生的責難文化：輿論與監察院究責行動往往是為兒虐案件找出為風險負責的「代罪羔羊」，不但無法完善服務供給，反導致卸責式通報、模糊案件流往高危機、危機取代需求及增加防禦性工作。因此，建議接受風險發生的現實感，破除代罪羔羊放棄究責行動，開啟社工、地方與中央政府共同對話的模式，共同共力為兒童福祉努力。 2.承擔風險責任：兒保在風險責任與權力不對等的配置下，加上究責文化導致兒保社工以虛弱的行政裁罰作為防禦、自保的手段，形成保護兒童的虛假共識。 3.風險的反身性：政策一味地偏重SDM評估工具，雖能增加辨別風險、決策力，但卻忽視社工主觀與直覺的覺察力，造成社工同質化、降低社工主觀判斷、行政化、個案偽裝性等。因此，建議主觀與客觀的風險評估同樣重要，回歸社工助人的情境的榮耀。本研究發現兒保社工的on call故事，是長期等待著不確定危機，不但要扛起緊急救援工作，心理面還恐懼著懲處、究責，使得她們助人工作的面貌轉變成與家長合作同盟使兒童逐漸失聲、社工專業價值轉變成防禦無力感的職業宿命、依法行政成為程式人偏向於關注暴力真相與調查事實。而這樣的發展是她們撐起國家失責的保護任務，使得自我的私領域不斷受侵蝕、忍受著不確定的鈴聲而產生心理制約、長期與壓力共處並形成大量的負向情緒，生活上受到休假的剝奪、睡眠的剝奪、飲食不正常，安全層面受到交通安全、夜行安全、相對人或個案的風險與情緒的暴力。當兒保社工無法容許個案受到這些剝奪與對待，但是，國家卻容許她們處於此惡劣的環境之中，除了資源與制度配置不足之外，還以各種監控的手段，在發生重大兒虐案件時，加以檢視、懲處。綜上所述描繪出兒保社工在on call時與風險對抗的面貌，指出影響社工員專業判斷力的主因來自於結構面的問題，卻在制度的設計、資源的配置、責任的分擔、監控的行動中，被國家、勞動異化了。因此，呼籲兒保社工必須具有二種反身性的能力，一為兒保專業的反身性，找回以關懷為主的倫理道德，省思個案工作。其二為覺察所處勞動環境，透過集體集結與自主組織的力量，對勞動尊嚴找回勞動者合理的勞動條件、要求合理的風險責任分擔。甚至，整合專業角色與勞動身份，彙整來自實務工作中隱晦的知識，取代專家學者、取代國外引進，參與制度與立法的建置。

關鍵字

兒童保護；緊急救援；風險管理； SDM安全評估；責難文化

並列摘要

A 24 hours on call emergency rescue system was built to protect children from the threat of violence. On call are a low labor costs and highly flexible staff policy of the government. Without 24-hour staff, but also gets rid of overtime payment based on the non-application of Labor Standards Law. Moreover, there is no constraint of working time during the crisis and the services of the social workers are available to ward off the risk of uncertainty. In order to understand the child protection social workers picture of Emergency Rescue. Visit the municipalities of X and Y County-controlled city, in-depth interviews with four supervisors and eight social workers. Studies found on call for emergency risk assessment and management are: 1. Structural problems: By "single stage" and the "two-stage" stand-by mode, "subregional" or "constituencies" rescue mode, "double checking system" to cope with risks of child protection. But, by placement agencies resources is not enough, a bed multi-functional fiction, delivery of inadequate resources etc. structural problems. Combined with stingy to hire social workers, means that the States did not take responsibility for child protection. Not only passed on to child protection social workers, and case systems, evaluation, supervision, and control. 2. Institutional issues：First, most need when emergency powers and resources, network cooperation is not conducive to the emergency rescue phase. Secondly, the "force reported" not effective against risk. The formation of "shirking informed", resulting in a lot of cases looking for critical cases. Lead social worker emphasized the investigation, identify risks, rather than need, changing helpful role. 3. Identifying risk: First, society's blame culture is that risk should not take place. So, to find "scapegoats" accountable, responsible for risk. But not improve services supply. Second, In case of unfair risk responsibility and authority, the "blame culture" leads to a social worker to take defensive action. Social worker of a fine to share the Risk taking. Third, Reflection of action and reflection on action. Too much emphasis on SDM assessment tool, Although increased to identify risks, decision-making, but neglected the social worker's subjective and intuitive perception, Leading to a homogenization of social workers, reducing the subjective judgment of social workers, administrative( filling out forms following decisions remain the same), case camouflage. This study found that child protection social worker on call story was waiting for a long time does not determine crisis. Not only emergency assistance service but also fear accountability. Make them change: cooperation with parents makes the minimum needs of children, Social work services into defense, the powerlessness of occupation, Administration only care about the violence of truth and facts. So, the State did not carry the task of protecting children, passed on to social workers that they are not treated properly. Including private life subject to disturbance, psychological conditions, stress, negative emotions, vacation deprivation, sleep deprivation, not eating properly, traffic safety, night security, relative risk and emotions of people or cases of violence. In summary, Emergency rescue work, mainly because of structural problems that affect risk assessment. However, in system design, resource allocation, sharing of responsibilities, monitoring operations, into a social worker's problems. In the risk assessment and labor rights, the social worker is alienated. Therefore, the study suggests that child protection social workers must have two kinds of reflexive capacity. First is the professional's reflexivity, dominated by caring social work ethics. Second, the labor rights of reflexivity, through organization of collective strength and recover the dignity of the worker, to recover reasonable working conditions, demand reasonable risk-sharing. Indeed, integration of professional roles and labor status, the compilation from the substantive work of obscure knowledge, local knowledge, instead of experts and scholars, and participate in the design of systems and legislation.