“寧缺毋濫”？“寧濫毋缺”？兒童少年保護工作人員機構安置決策困境之研究

Quality-based Priority? Quantity-based Priority? The Decision Making of Institutional Placement among Child and Youth Protective Workers

彭淑華(Su-Hwa Pong)

《中華心理衛生學刊》 20卷2期 (2007/06) Pp. 127-154

https://doi.org/10.30074/FJMH.200706_20(2).0002

摘要

研究目的：兒童及少年保護個案必須作機構安置時，社會工作人員的決策因素為何？在決策時，面臨的決策困境為何？如何克服？這些均有待更進一步的探討。研究方法：本研究以從事兒童及少年保護工作人員為研究對象，採用質性研究之焦點團體法蒐集相關資料。本研究共計舉辦10場焦點團體，共有52位工作人員參與。研究結果：工作人員面臨「寧缺毋濫」或是「寧濫毋缺」之兩難處境。機構數不足或安置量有限，以及機構品質是極待克服的議題。研究結論：「兒童(少年)最佳利益」的核心價值雖然存在於工作人員之安置理念中，但在實務運作上常與「社工員的最佳利益」、「機構的最佳利益」或是「政府的最佳利益」交錯糾纏。未來在政策規劃與實務工作推動上，有關家外安置量的擴充、質的提昇是勢在必行，而多元性家庭服務方案的推展亦是必須繼續努力的。

關鍵字

家外安置 ； 安置決策 ； 安置機構 ； 兒童保護

並列摘要

Purpose: The child welfare system is entrusted with protecting children from maltreatment by their parents or other caregivers. If families who have fallen below a minimally sufficient level for child rearing and whose children therefore suffer from abuse or neglect, family preservation services are implemented to protect our vulnerable children. If families who temporarily cannot maintain a minimally of child-rearing environment in the home, out-of-home placement is the last resort. Children may be placed with relatives, in a foster family, in a group home, or in a children's institution. Though there are different settings within our foster care system, residential group care is frequently regarded as the last alternative for the children in care. Institutions for children are always thought to place the children at greater risk for abuse than family foster care. Thus, child and youth protective workers are confused with the choices of quality-based or quantity-based residential care. This article deals with the barriers of child protection workers to achieve effective placement decision-making. Methods: In order to reach the above goals, the researcher used focus group method to collect the data. Ten focus groups were held and tape-recorded after consents had been obtained from all participants. Fifty-two workers were voluntarily interviewed in this study. All the participants were graduated from social work related departments. Among 52 informants, 15 workers were responsible for the management of the residential agencies; the others were social workers whose roles were to protect the children at risk. Data were transcribed from the tapes and analyzed by the researchers. Analysis was held by extracting themes from evidence and organizing data to present a coherent, consistent picture. Results: Child protection workers were often confronted with the difficult decisions of whether to leave children at inadequate placement or other least detrimental alternative. The informants faced the dilemma to make the correct choices. The limited residential resources were the main causes. Being lack of regulations to promote the standards of residential placements was another. For the workers using viewpoints of quantity-based priority, some dilemmas were emerged. Workers were difficult to find adequate funding to place the children into proper settings. The unavailability of local residential placements forced worker to choose some institutions, even though these residential facilities were low quality or might hurt our children in care. Worrying the possible negative response by the placement settings, workers were inclined to hold some truths of the clients to avoid being rejected. The collaboration and trustworthiness between different agencies were thus influenced and had great negative impacts on the following contact. For the child protection workers, the problem of lacking adequate placements is existed. It is hard to have some extra expectation to the residential placements. The relationships between social service departments and institutions were co-dependent and obscure. Lack of sufficient placement resources was a dilemma for the child welfare workers. If the situations remained the same, it's difficult for workers to take the best interests of the child as a priority. For the workers using viewpoints of quality-based priority, transfer the placed child to more adequate institutions or support family function were solutions. However, the workers encountered the same problem. The availability of the children’s home was scarce. Where did child welfare workers place their child was a struggling issue. Current support system towards families was also limited, which decreased worker's motivation to preserve the families. The heavy workload of child protection workers made them incapable of helping the families. Our child protection system was unfriendly with our workers, our clients and the whole families. There were many barriers that kept our child protection workers from making better placement choice. Conclusions: Some implications are discussed to develop a coordinated social service delivery to help the children in need. The core value of ”for the best interest of the child” was existed among workers when they made their placement decisions. However, ”the best interest of the workers”, ”the best interest of institutions” or ”the best interest of the state” was interchanged. Child protection workers are forced to make their placement decision. The increased numbers of out-of-home placements need to be taken into consideration seriously. The provisions of family foster care and institutional care are important if we want to reach the goals of helping those children in need. By the time, high quality services are also emphasized for the placed children. The regulation of the residential care, the qualification and training of the staff, the parenting style and culture of the institution are all critical elements influencing the quality of the children's home. Finally, multiple-dimensional family service programs should be examined and reorganized in the future.

並列關鍵字

out-of-home placement ； placement decision ； residential child care institutions ； child protection

參考文獻

許如悅、鄭麗珍(2003)。兒保工作人員對兒虐案件之風險研判與處遇決策。社會政策與社會工作學刊。7(1)，163-213。

Andersson, G.(1999).Children in permanent foster care in Sweden.Child and Family Social Work.4,175-186.

Anglin, J. P.(2004).Creating well-functioning residential care and defining its place in a system of care.Child and Youth Care Forum.33(3),175-192.

Arad, B. D.,Wozner, Y.(2001).The least detrimental alternative: Deciding whether to remove children at risk from their homes.International Social Work.44(2),229-239.

Barber, J.,Delfabbro, P.(2005).Children`s adjustment to long-term foster care.Children and Youth Services Review.27,329-340.