高雄地區青少年逃家經驗之調查研究

A Survey of the Runaway Experiences of Juveniles in Kaohsiung

廖鳳池(Feng-Tsu Liao) ； 許雅惠(Ya-Huei Hsu) ； 翁令珍(Ling-Chen Weng)

《諮商輔導學報：高師輔導所刊》 9期 (2003/12) Pp. 47-79

https://doi.org/10.6308/JCG.09.03

摘要

逃學逃家為青少年最常見之虞犯行為，本研究目的在探討逃家青少年之家庭概況、社會資源、生活經驗及逃家經驗，分析青少年逃家行為的促成因素，並據以提出改進司法處遇及輔導策略之意見。研究者以自編之「青少年離家經驗調察問卷」，對高雄少年法院於九十二年四至七月收案之犯罪及虞犯少年，並發函高雄縣市中等學校對有逃家行為而未被移送法院的學生進行調查，共得有效樣本 390 份。分為三組，第一組為單純逃家者 92 人，第二組為無逃家行為的犯罪少年 In 人，第三組為有逃家行為的犯罪少年 187 人，進行分析及比較。研究之發現如下：（l）逃家青少年的父母離婚率比一般家庭高出甚多，主要照顧者為父親的比例較高，家庭社經地位明顯低下，有近三分之一有貧窮之家庭困境。逃家青少年家人間之感情不良、互動差。（2）逃家青少年有極高的比例（約七至八成）其好友曾有逃家之經驗，經常出入網咖，有較多網咖內同伴或網路結識的網友。（3）家人互動不良及父母管教不當是促使青少年逃家的重要因素，而父母未能改善管教方式則容易促使青少年再次逃家。（4）青少年第一次逃家後常面臨金錢不夠花用，留連於網咖，住的地方不夠安全，行動不自由等困境，並且有可能出現竊盜及非法打工等犯罪行為，或是成為犯罪的被害人。（5）雖然青少年逃家被認為係虞犯行為，但有不少青少年離家後感到很自在快樂，並對離家行為的影響持正面態度。上述結果顯示青少年逃家並非單純為青少年之偏差行為，逃家青少年之家人互動不良，父母管教不當，亦難辭其咎。研究者建議司法單位處理青少年逃家問題時，應以家庭系統為處遇之對象，對於有青少年逃家之家庭狀況及父母教養態度應多加探查，給予適當之處遇，例如要求父母改善教養方式，協調學校及社區輔導機構提供青少年父母必要的個別與家庭諮商及親職教育，必要時裁定進行強制親職教育，或為改定親權之處分。

關鍵字

青少年 ； 逃家 ； 虞犯行為 ； 犯罪少年

並列摘要

Playing truant and running away from home are the most common delinquency-prone behaviors of juveniles. This study is to investigate the juvenile runaways’ family backgrounds, social resources, life experiences and runaway experiences, and to analyze the causes of the runaway behaviors, and then to propose the improvement of judicial treatment and guidance strategies. By using the self-edited Questionnaire of Juveniles’ Runaway Experiences, the researchers made a survey on the juvenile delinquents and the delinquency-prones pronounced by Kaohsiung juvenile Court from April to July in 2003, and also on the runaways not passed to court by sending questionnaires to the high schools in Kaohsiung County. Eventually, 390 effective samples were collected, which belonged to three groups for analysis and comparison: 92 pure juvenile runaways (not delinquents) included in the first group, 111 juvenile delinquents without runaway behaviors included in the second group, and 187 juvenile delinquents also with runaway behaviors included in the third group. The findings of this study were as follow: (1) The divorce rate of these juvenile runaways’ parents was much higher than that of general families. They were also caregived by their fathers more. The social and economic status of these families was obvious low, and about one-third of the families were poor. The juvenile runaways also had poor relationship and interaction with their family members. (2) A very high percentage (about 70% to 80%) of the juvenile runaways had good friends with runaway experiences. Also, where the runaways usually stayed was internet café, and they also had more companions in internet café or more friends made on internet. (3) Poor family interaction and inappropriate family discipline from their parents were the major causes of the juveniles’ running away. If the parents didn’t improve their ways of discipline, the juveniles were likely to run away again. (4) When the juveniles ran away for the first time, they ran into such problems as insufficient money to spend, staying too much time in internet café, living in unsafe places, or being confined by someone, and some of them might consequentially commit crimes such as theft and illegal jobs, etc., or even become the victims of others’ crimes. (5) Although the juveniles’ running away from home is generally regarded as a kind of delinquency-prone behavior, quite a lot of the juvenile runaways felt very free and happy after they ran away, and held very positive attitude towards their running away. The findings revealed that the juveniles’ running away shouldn’t be regarded merely as a kind of deviated behavior and that the poor interaction and the inappropriate parental discipline in their families shouldn’t be neglected. The researchers suggests that the judicial agencies, if to solve the problems of juvenile runaways, should aim at their family systems. The judicial agencies should detect more about the juvenile runaways’ family backgrounds and their parents’ attitude towards discipline so as to make adequate decisions on treatment. For example, they can request the parents to improve their ways of discipline and liaise with the schools and with the community guidance institutions to provide necessary individual or family counselling and parental education for the juveniles’ parents. If necessary, they also can exert compulsory parental education on them, or make a punishment of switching the parental rights to other party.

並列關鍵字

juveniles ； running away from home/running away ； delinquency-prone behavior ； juvenile delinquents

參考文獻

Janus, M.D.,McComack A.,Burgess, A.W.,Carol Hartman(1987).Adolescent Runaways: Causes and Consequences.Lexington, Mass:Lexington Books.

Melson, B .K.(1995).Runaway Adolescents: A Family System Perspective.New York:Garland.

Whitbeck, L.B.,Hoyt, D.R.,Ackley, K.A.(1997).Families of Homeless and Runaway Adolescents: A Comparison of parent/Caretaker and Adolescent Perspectives on parenting, Family Violence, and Adolescent Conduct.Child Abuse & Neglect.21(6),517-528.

吳嫦娥、李祥媛(1995)。逃家少女交友經驗之探討－以台北市爲例。台北:台北市少年輔導委員會。

周震歐、趙碧華(1996)。青少年逃學逃家行爲的社會心理因素分析。犯罪學期刊。2，79-98。