台灣兒少保護的變革：兼論高風險家庭服務方案的影響

理解在2004年年底開始的連串創新家庭服務方案（例如高風險家庭關懷服務、弱勢家庭兒少緊急生活扶助、及兒少保人力補充等）的執行動態，對台灣兒少保護運動的走向具有政策及實務意涵。研究提問有三：（1）初期是那些非營利組織受委託執行「高風險家庭處遇」？機構數量又有何變化？它們與政府互動的經驗如何？（2）中央、縣市政府、及受委託民間機構三方對方案目標解讀有否不同？又是透過怎樣的機制建立服務共識？（3）高風險家庭服務與其他方案互動，如何影響既有的兒少保護體系？透過各縣市政府及民間單位承辦人員的問卷填寫、及六場焦點座談的資料分析，發現高風險家庭方案除了讓台灣三大兒福機構在服務版圖有所變化外，也門戶大開寧爛毋缺，打破實務界「沒有三兩下不敢做兒保」的傳統。中央利多但核銷不易，有縣市政府自編預算支付民間單位必要成本，合約單位雖可新聘社工人力開拓服務，但較具專業規模之機構為維護品質，得自行吸納進用資深人員及加聘督導的額外成本。高風險方案究屬兒少保預防或後送服務？公私部門各自表述，部分縣市政府為出清兒少保舊案將之混為一談，以致高風險方案與「家庭維繫」、「追蹤輔導」服務界線模糊成為替代。分區巡迴督導不失為架構服務共識的機制，也有利於中央取回界定方案的主導權，而縣市的聯繫會報平台或有利於各民間委託機構的同儕督導。很難預測它對兒少保護次級預防體系的發展是否有利。做為中央主管機構，最後既能重掌方案界定權、又能讓縣市政府額外自編預算配合、也結合民間資源，所以兒童局應為此番兒少保服務變革風潮的最大贏家。

關鍵字

次級預防；委託非營利機構；兒童保護；高風險家庭方案

並列摘要

To understand the implementation dynamics of some innovative projects since 2004-Project for Families at High-Risk, the Emergency Relief Project, and the Child Protection Manpower Enhancement, has practice as well as policy implications for child protection in Taiwan. Three research questions have been raised: (1) What kind of NPOs would get contracts to carry out the High-risk Family project? What were their experiences and numbers of growth? (2)Have the Child Welfare Bureau, county governments, and the local contracted agencies perceived the goals of the High-Risk Family Project differently? And if it was so, why? (3) How did the project for high-risk families have impacts on the existing child protection system? Through e-mailed questionnaire and focus groups part-taken by the representatives from the contracted NPOs and local authorities, it was found that many new players had joined in the High-risk Family Projects beside the service territory changes of three privileged child welfare agencies. With major funding from the Child Welfare Bureau, some NPOs also got compensation from the local governments, and paid extra personnel salaries at their own cost when necessary. It was concluded that the High-Risk Family Project has substituted for the existing child protection services which was basically a tertiary preventive model, while the former, as a secondary preventive service, was originally designed for families with child care concerns. Regional supervision meetings served as a mechanism to construct service consensus among different contracted NPOs helped the Child Welfare Bureau redefine the Project for Families at High-Risk. The administrative coordination meetings held regularly by the local authorities provided peer supervision opportunities for the contracted agencies. It's hard to predict the contribution of the High-Risk Family Project to the secondary prevention of child protection. As the head of national child welfare, by inducing the local governmental budgets plus resources from the contracted NPOs, the Child Welfare Bureau also had the final say about the Project for Families at High- Risk, no doubt the winner in this child protection service ethos.