從公私部門觀點探討兒少保工作團隊落實家庭處遇協同合作之現況

A study of the implementation of public and private collaboration on family-based intervention in child protective services teams

呂安雅(An-Ya Lu)

指導教授 ： 張麗珠

國立屏東科技大學/人文暨社會科學院/社會工作系/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6346/NPUST.2013.00288

摘要

為因應兒童少年保護案件持續增加的問題，內政部兒童局自2004年起督促各縣市政府進行跨組織的合作，以協同合作概念結合民間單位的資源，以一、二線分工模式提供兒少保家庭處遇服務，期望可以提升整體兒少保家庭處遇的服務品質。本研究旨在探討公私部門工作人員在落實兒少保家庭處遇協同合作的現況，運用質性深度訪談針對公私部門兒少保的團隊工作者進行訪談，計有公私部門工作者各六位，共十二位工作人員受訪，訪談內容包括：（一）公私部門協同合作執行家庭處遇服務的流程；（二）公私部門工作者在協同合作模式裡的角色與權責；（三）在協同合作模式下，家庭處遇服務的轉介與結案評估指標；（四）協同合作過程中常面臨的挑戰及優勢；（五）對現有兒少保家庭處遇服務輸送系統的建議。
研究結果發現：（一）目前兒少保家庭處遇服務多採雙軌式的工作模式，即一、二線工作者分工，公部門負責危機處理及行政支持的提供，私部門負責家庭處遇服務的執行；（二）公私部門在個案管理角色與權責定位不明，雙方均認為自己是個案管理者，因為公部門有權決策個案已達結案標準與否；而私部門負責家庭處遇的擬訂與執行，對個案有較全面的掌握；（三）公私部門對轉介評估指標的認知有落差，但對結案的評估指標一致性頗高，來自公部門的受訪者多能具體明確地陳述轉介的評估指標，但私部門的受訪者卻認為轉介評估指標大多採自由心證；公私部門皆能提出積極性與消極性的結案評估指標，且雙方的認知一致性頗高；（四）公私部門的受訪者對家庭處遇與服務策略的認知與觀點差異性頗大，對家庭處遇個案的定義與評估常有不一致的現象；（五）公部門工作者可能因個案轉介的行政程序過於繁雜，而降低其將個案轉介給私部門的意願，私部門工作者可能因公部門注重行政核銷，而壓縮到其執行個案處遇的時間，進而影響其協同合作的意願；（六）兒少保實務工作資歷常影響協同合作的意願與品質，公私部門工作者皆表示與資深工作者在進行協同合作時，較能有良好的合作關係與品質，而資歷較淺的工作者在協同合作時容易產生衝突影響其協同合作的品質。
關鍵詞：兒童少年保護工作、家庭處遇、協同合作

關鍵字

兒童少年保護工作 ； 家庭處遇 ； 協同合作

並列摘要

In response to the increasing number of child abuse and neglect cases, the Child Welfare Bureau, Ministry of the Interior has urged local governments to initiate cross-organization collaborative projects since 2004. It was hoped that the quality of child protective services can be improved through the implementation of public-private collaborative projects. This study intends to investigate the current conditions of the implementation of public-private collaboration on family-based intervention in child protective services teams. Qualitative research method was utilized to explore this topic in depth. A question guide was prepared to ensure the quality and comprehension of the interviews. The question guide contains the following items: a.) The procedure of public-private collaborative family-based interventions; b.) Roles and duties of child protective service workers in the public-private collaborative projects; c.) The criteria of transfer and termination of family intervention in the public-private collaboration; d.) Common challenges and strengths in the process of public-private collaboration; and e.) Suggestions to the current child protective family intervention service delivery system.
Study results indicate: a.) the current child protective family-based intervention tends to use the dual-track model. Child protective service workers from the public sectors are responsible for crisis interventions and administrative supports to the contracted private agencies, while workers from the contracted private agencies need to plan and implement family-based intervention. b.) Workers from both public sectors and private agencies found ambiguity experiences in their roles and duties in terms of case manager. Workers from the public sectors have administrative power and have the rights to decide whether the case should be terminated or not. Workers from the contracted private agencies have a more comprehensive understanding of clients’ situation because they plan and implement the family-based intervention. c.) Workers from public sectors and contracted private agencies disagree with each other on transfer criteria. Responders from the public sectors often clearly stated transfer criteria during the interview. However, responders from the contracted private agencies thought it was based on individual workers’ situations depending on his/her child protective related experiences. d.) Responders from public sectors and contracted private agencies also differentiate in definitions of family-based intervention and evaluation. e.) Responders from the public sectors indicate reduced willingness of transferring clients to the contracted private agencies due to the complicated administrative procedure. Responders from the contracted private agencies were often discouraged by the time consuming procedure of reimbursement. Consequently, it may shorten the implementation period of intervention. f.) The years of child protective service experiences often affected workers’ willingness and quality of public-private collaboration. Working with less experienced workers tends to experience conflicts in the process.
Keywords: child protective services, family-based intervention, collaboration

並列關鍵字

child protective services ； family-based intervention ； collaboration

參考文獻

陳怡如（2007）。社會服務民營化 “方案委託” 之初探-以嘉義家扶中心執行監護權訪視為例。 政策研究學報, (7), 109-137.

劉淑瓊（2008）。推倒柏林圍牆-論家庭暴力防治之網絡治理課題。東吳社會工作學報(19)，1-35。

劉麗雯、關華山（2001）。社會網絡理念與機構式老人居住空間設計。

胡慧嫈（2013）。清官能斷家務事?兒少保護社會工作者個案處遇角色作為之省思,臺灣社區工作與社區研究學刊，第三卷，第一期,pp61-98。

張秀玉 （2009）。社會工作者在早期療育專業團隊中之角色探討：社區發展季刊，125，343-355。