兒少保護服務責任通報情形之研究：以責任通報人員和兒少保護社工觀點為例

研究者曾於直轄市政府家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心擔任兒少保護社工，在職期間發現兒少保護通報案件量明顯增長，可能顯示兒少保護觀念範疇之轉變，影響兒少保護制度失衡，並造就實務困境。而責任通報制度為開啟兒少保護服務的重要機制，因此期待探討責任通報人員與兒少保護社工的通報與受案經驗、雙方合作情形、專業人員對於責任通報制度之看法，並據以提出相關建議。　　本研究採焦點團體訪談法，以立意取樣及滾雪球取樣選取研究對象，並且依專業人員身分差異，分為主要責任通報人員、增列責任通報人員、與兒少保護社工三種條件，分別於106年3月、5月、7月共召開三場焦點團體訪談，總共邀請14位責任通報人員與5位兒少保護社工參與本研究。研究結論如下：一、各場次的焦點團體呈現出不同討論氛圍，且於責任通報的實務情形與態度想法存有特質差異。二、責任通報實務現況與合作經驗（一）主要責任通報人員會因為究責文化與卸責通報行為而有過度通報現象，而增列責任通報人員則因為對於兒少保護的認知不足而存有低度通報現象。（二）責任通報人員實際上存有判斷通報與否的法定空間，且除了依法進行責任通報之外，亦具有共同保護與提供服務之專業能力。（三）各個專業網絡之間可能因為對於兒少保護的核心價值存有歧異，以致實務中存有負向合作經驗與判斷落差；其背後仍與各專業內部的資訊傳遞不完整、或者中央主管機關所持立場有關。三、責任通報制度之看法（一）供給專業人員的教育訓練明顯不足，將影響責任通報人員的實務知能。（二）兒少保護與兒童福利的核心定位不清，使得高風險服務與兒少保護服務的分工模糊不清。　　根據研究結論，提出以下建議：一、責任通報制度相關建議（一）於責任通報人員既有的訓練規範中，綁定兒少保護訓練課程，並且依據不同專業人員身分調整不同訓練內容。（二）提升責任通報行政程序的順暢度，包含使用單一表單且提供標準化格式、統一受案與篩派案窗口。（三）降低過度通報現象發生的可能性，使具體客觀的通報決策指引成為必經程序、制定免於重複通報的例外規定、並強化全民皆具有維護兒少權益責任之概念。二、未來研究建議（一）增加通報端與受案端的討論交流，以引發更豐富的討論與研究資料蒐集。（二）探索統一篩派案中心的運作模式，藉以了解統一篩派案模式對兒少保護責任通報制度與相關服務的影響。　　最後，本研究仍存有通報端與受案端的對話交流不足、未探知受訪者參與研究之動機、以及統一篩派案中心相關資訊不足以致討論受限等研究限制。研究者並於文末提出反思，藉以提供未來執行類似主題的研究者作為參考。

關鍵字

兒童少年保護服務；兒童少年保護社會工作者；責任通報；責任通報人員

並列摘要

When the researcher acted as a social worker of child protection in the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Center of the municipality government, it was found that the number of child protection case reports showed a significant increase, which might reveal the change in child protection concept and scope, the unbalance of child protection system, and the practical difficulty in child protection. The mandatory report system is an important mechanism for child protection services. Therefore, it is expected to investigate the reporting and case accepting experience of mandated reporters and child protection social workers, their cooperation, and the professionals’ opinions on the mandatory report system, as well as accordingly propose relevant suggestions. This study used focus group interviewing, purposive sampling and snowball sampling to select the research objects. Based on their different identities, the professionals were divided into three groups, namely the principal mandated reporters, additional mandated reporters, and child protection social workers. Three focus group interviews were conducted on March, May and July 2017 respectively. A total of 14 mandated reporters and 5 child protection social workers were invited to participate in this study. The research conclusions were as follows. I.The focus groups in the separate interviews presented different discussion atmosphere. The group members had different attitudes and opinions on the mandatory reporting system. II.Current practical situation and cooperative experience of mandatory report i.The principal mandated reporters might have overreporting due to the accountability culture and the responsibility shirking behaviors, while the additional mandated reporters might have underreporting due to their insufficient awareness of child abuse and child protection. ii.In fact, there was a legal space for mandated reporters to judge whether to report or not. In addition to legal mandatory report, they also have the professional competence of providing joint protection and services. iii.The controversial core value of child protection existed among various professional networks might lead to negative cooperative experience and judgment in practice. Incomplete information conveyance among the professionals and different standpoints of the central competent authorities were the underlying causes. III.Opinions on mandatory report system i.Insufficient education and training offered to the professionals might impact the practical knowledge and competence of the mandated reporters. ii.Ambiguous core positioning of child protection and child welfare resulted in obscure labor division between high-risk family service and child protection service. The following suggestions were proposed based on the research conclusions: I.Suggestions related to mandatory report system i.Add the child protection training course into the existing training specification for the mandated reporters, and adjust the training content according to the different identities of professionals. ii.Improve the smoothness of the mandatory report administrative procedure, including the use of uniform forms, standardized format, and unified case screening and allocating window. iii.Lower the possibility of overreporting, make specific and objective reporting decision and guideline into necessary procedures, establish exception provisions free of repeated reporting, and strengthen the concept of all citizens on their responsibility for the protection of child rights. II.Suggestions on future researches i.Increase the discussion and exchange between the mandated reporters and the child protection social workers, for the purpose of triggering more extensive discussion and research data collection. ii.Explore the operation mode of the unified case screening and allocating center, to understand the influence of the uniform case screening and allocating mode on the child protection mandatory report system and the related services. In the end, there are still research limitations in this study, e.g. insufficient communication and exchange between the mandated reporters and the child protection social workers, failure to investigate the motivation of the respondents participating in the study, and restricted discussion caused by insufficient information of the unified case screening and allocating center. The researcher proposed the reflection at the end of the paper, which is hoped to be used as the reference for the researchers studying the similar topics in the future.