安置機構「家」的意義建構：歷經長期機構安置之離院個案的經驗詮釋

余姗瑾(Shan-Ching Yu)

指導教授 ： 彭淑華

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/社會工作學研究所/碩士(2011年)

摘要

本研究之目的在於了解安置機構這個替代性的「家」對於曾歷經長期機構安置之離院生的「家」意義，以及安置經驗對「家」想像的影響，並在了解後提出相關政策及實務建議。研究將「家」意義分為經驗家及理想家兩個層次和「House」、「Family」、「Home」三個概念，以基礎質性研究為研究方法深度訪談九位在青少年前期即進入機構、至少經歷兩年機構安置的離院生，獲致結論如下：
一、As a House：各機構確實朝著家庭式照顧的理念前進著，但因為模糊的家屋與廳室界線、缺乏空間擁有權以及有限的物品使用權，讓安置兒少與他們所生活的家屋，呈現出某種程度的斷裂，只能透過創造可能的私人空間，增加自己和這個家屋空間的互動。
二、As a Family：即便在理論上可以因著依附發展是多重且持續、並藉由安全堡壘的型塑將機構內的照顧者與被照顧者建構為互相許諾且分享的類家人，但在受訪者的經驗中，要發展出穩定且安全的依附關係並不容易。除了依附的展開並非必然、是需要特意去營造之外，機構生活中缺乏足夠的安全經驗也影響著被照顧者與照顧者雙方的依附發展。
三、As a Home：透過規律的生活、制式的作息表以及和同儕共同重塑規則之過程讓這些安置兒少在機構生活中經驗到「在家感」，對機構的共同回憶也讓這些離院生產生對機構家認同，不過，社會大眾對家以及機構的刻板印象，是他們在建構機構在家感與家認同的一大挑戰。
四、安置經驗對家想像的影響：從受訪者的理想家定義中，可以發現他們對於擁有長期陪伴、互相許諾且共享之家人的共同期待，這也許可以被歸因於在過去生活經驗中的匱乏。此外，在已建立再生家庭之受訪者的經驗中，安置兒少的身分確實會在新婚時讓雙方對彼此有些刻板印象，但在機構中培養出的家務能力也讓他們在經營生活時感到遊刃有餘。

根據以上結論，本研究分別針對家屋空間、類家人關係以及家感受提出建議，最後，在對機構式安置服務的整體建議上，除了建議機構應提供一個最適兒少生長的家庭氣氛、讓安置兒少可以在一個安全的環境中成長以及朝向團體家庭模式前進外，也建議政府應在強調落實家庭式照顧理念之際，同時充實其他類型的安置資源、推廣收出養服務，使我國的兒少保護系統更能回應「每一個孩子都應該有一個安全而永久的家庭（兒童及少年保護工作指南）」這樣的理念。

關鍵字

家意義 ； 安置機構 ； 家外安置

並列摘要

The purpose of this qualitative research is to construct the residential placements’ meaning of home through the experiences of care leavers; to understand how the out-of-home placement experiences influence their home image; and to further provide related policy and practical suggestions. The researcher uses in-depth interview method to have dialogue with 9 care leavers who entered into residential placements before 15 and stayed for at least 2 years. The conclusions are as follows:

1.As a House: Children’s homes are working really hard to provide a family-like care to the children in care. In the opinion of the interviewees, however, the unclear boundaries of the household and rooms, lack of the rights to possess secure personal space, and limited chance to use the facilities inside the institutions make them feel alienated from their living space. Only if they successfully create their own personal space will they feel related to that place.

2.As a Family: Even though the attachment theory tells the possibilities of creating a semi-family relationship between the carers and the children in care, in the experiences of the interviewees, the unwillingness to attach to each other and the lack of safe experiences in daily life make the mission difficult.

3.As a Home: Through routine life, strict living schedule, the process of recreating their own hidden rules with peers, and the sharing memories of the institution, the interviewees experience the sense of “being at home” and construct their home-identity of those spaces. However, the general public’s stereotypes of “Home” and “residential placement” become a big challenge for them to feel they are being at home and construct a consistent home-identity.

4.The influences to home image: In the interviewees’ definition of “Home”, it could be easily discovered that the lack of a long-term accompaniment, mutual commitment and sharing relationship subsequently result in their uni-desire for a permanent relationship. Besides, in the view of those who have already built their own nuclear family, they find their residential care experience make both of the spouses’ family and the interviewees have certain stereotypes against each other at the beginning of their marriage, but the strong ability of maintaining household acquired from the placement experience endows them with an ease when dealing with family life.

According to the conclusions, the study provides some suggestions to improve and modify our service system. Last but not least, if “every child should have a safe and permanent home” is the system’s philosophy, the government should not only encourage residential placements become more family-like, but also work hard to enrich other out-of-home placement resources.

並列關鍵字

meaning of home ； residential child care ； out-of-home placement

參考文獻

畢國蓮（2006）。歷經長期機構安置的兒少保護個案結案後的生活經驗初探。國立台灣大學社會工作研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。

張紉（2000）。青少年安置服務福利屬性之探討。台大社工學刊，2，191-215。

彭淑華（2007b）。機構安置：保護他（她）？傷害他（她）？－兒童少年保護工作人員眼中之機構虐待圖像。東吳工作學報，16，1-36。

彭淑華（2006）。保護為名，權控為實？--少年安置機構工作人員的觀點分析。東吳社會工作學報，15，1-36。

陳毓文（2008）。國內接受機構安置少年憂鬱情緒之探究：問題陳顯與解釋因素。中華心理衛生學刊，21（1），75-101。