托育準公共化政策對居家式托育服務人員之影響：居家式托育服務人員的觀點

The Impact of the Quasi-Public Model of Childcare Policy on Family Childcare Service Providers: The Perspectives of Family Childcare Service Providers

葉順真(Shun-Chen Yeh)

指導教授 ： 吳書昀

國立暨南國際大學/人文學院/非營利組織經營管理碩士學位學程在職專班/碩士(2021年)

https://doi.org/10.6837/ncnu202100054

摘要

2018年8月1日衛福部在全國同步上路的「托育準公共化及育兒津貼」新制。當時全國各居家托育服務中心被賦於協助居家式托育服務人員加入托育準公共化政策並且完成簽約。過程中，研究者卻意外觀察到居家式托育服務人員加入的意願極低，甚至引起後續的抗議行動。到底居家式托育服務人員反彈的原因是甚麼？居家式托育服務人員拒絕加入的原因是什麼？托育準公共化政策到底對居家式托育服務人員的影響是什麼？據此，本研究期待透過居家式托育服務人員的觀點，了解「托育準公共化政策」對居家式托育服務人員的影響。
本研究以半結構深度訪談的方式，訪談六位居家式托育服務人員，並透過「分析階層」方法來歸納整理訪談資料。
本研究發現：
一、居家式托育服務人員的入場與專業品質的具備
會成為居家式托育服務人員，除了因居家式托育服務可以兼顧家庭照顧與獲得工作所得、退休後可在接受相關訓練後邊照顧孫子女邊收托幼兒，另外，當幼教師欲轉職時，居家式托育服務人員會是其選擇之一。居家式托育服務人員在其專業訓練要求上，除了完成每年所規定的18小時在職訓練外，也會依個人的托育服務特色、品質、學經歷而選擇相關的專業訓練課程來提升個人專業知能。
二、居家式托育服務人員的需求與管理
居家式托育服務人員的工作福利與權益應該由主管單位統籌規劃以滿足其需要；當主管單位要求居家式托育服務人員符合政府各項規範時，也應建構完善的工作福利來保障居家式托育服務人員。
三、居家式托育服務人員對托育準公共化的了解與影響
因居家式托育服務人員對於「托育準公共化」的了解程度不一，加上可能各自詮釋，造成部份居家式托育服務人員對「托育準公共化」的經費來源、管理規範、工作權益與福利、專業知能訓練要求……等產生不信任感，進而影響居家式托育服務人員加入托育準公共化的意願。
四、居家式托育服務人員對托育準公共化的期待
受訪者期待政府除了規劃收托費的補助外，應有更全面的規劃，讓所有在此政策中的相關人都能雙贏，且降低因政策帶來的負面效應。
本研究根據上述發現提出研究討論與建議，希望在為受訪者發聲的同時，也拉近政策與居家式托育服務人員之間的距離。

關鍵字

托育準公共化 ； 居家式托育服務人員

並列摘要

On August 1, 2018 the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOWH) implemented the new system nationwide called “Subsidized Childcare Services and Childcare Allowance.” In that time, nationwide childcare services centers were empowered to help providers of family childcare services sign up for the subsidized childcare services scheme and complete contract execution. In this process, researchers accidentally observed that home childcare services providers were uninterested in the scheme, which ended up with a series of resistances. What made providers of family childcare services reject the scheme? Why did they refuse to sign up for the scheme? What are the impacts of the subsidized childcare services on providers of family childcare services? Thus, this study hopes to discern the impacts of the “subsidized childcare services” on providers of family childcare services from their viewpoints.
This study interviewed six family childcare services providers with the semi-structured in-depth interview approach and summarized and sorted interview data with the “analytic hierarchy method”.
This study found that:
1. Entry technical and quality barriers of providers of family childcare services
Besides balancing family care and making income from work and taking care of their grandchildren and other children after receiving related training later in life, providers of family childcare services choose this occupation because family childcare services is one of the job-transfer options of preschool teachers. In addition to taking 18 hours of required in-service training each year according to the professional training requirements, providers of family childcare services will choose related professional training courses to improve their professional competencies according to the characteristics and quality of childcare services and education background of individuals.
2. Demands and management of providers of family childcare services
The competent authorities should plan and prescribe the benefits, rights, and interests of family childcare services providers to meet their demands. When competent authorities request family childcare services providers to comply with various regulations, these competent authorities should also develop well-planned benefits to protect the rights and interests of providers of family childcare services.
3. Family childcare services providers’ understanding of the subsidized childcare services scheme and the related impacts on them:
Not all family childcare services providers understand the “subsidized childcare services” scheme at the same level. Due to individual interpretations, distrust of the fund sources, management regulations, the benefits, rights and interests of workers…and so on, the requirements for professional competence training, and so on may arise in some providers of family childcare services to reduce their willingness to sign up to the “subsidized childcare services” scheme.
4. Family childcare services providers’ expectation of the “subsidized childcare services” scheme.
Besides planning subsidy for the childcare fee, providers of family childcare services also expect the government to create a comprehensive plan to benefit all parties involved in the scheme and thereby reduce the scheme’s negative impacts.
By discussing and making recommendations for the above research findings, this study hopes to bridge the gap between related policies and providers of family childcare services while voicing for them.

並列關鍵字

subsidized childcare services ； family childcare services providers

參考文獻

一、中文部份

江綺雯、高鳳仙、林雅鋒、陳小紅、張博雅(2016年8月) 。托育服務管理及育 兒津貼政策之檢討專案調查研究。台北：監察院。

全國教師工會總聯合會新聞稿2019年8月15日。準公共化不是公共化。

俞筱鈞(2008)。學齡前兒童托育問題之研究。台北市：行政院研考會。

段慧瑩、楊曉苓、張斯寧(2017年9月)。居家托育服務督導體系回顧與前瞻。社 區發展季刊159期138-146。