受督者、機構與外聘督導的共舞：初探臺灣小型社福機構引入外督資源之成效評量與合作經驗

為了解臺灣小型社福機構引入外聘督導資源對社工與機構的影響與成效，本研究以混合研究方法（mixed-method research）分別對92位受督者進行督導成效調查與40個機構進行督導評量調查，亦針對5位機構主管進行2次焦點團體，及深度訪談4位外聘督導。研究結果發現，受督者與機構主管多反映外督資源有助提升受督者專業知能、維護個案福祉、降低人事訓練成本且改善機構凝聚力與內部溝通。然而，小型社福機構受限在服務對象多元且議題複雜、主管專業知能有限及既有督導培力計畫部分限制有礙機構內部跨專業整合下，因此研究建議應放寬既有計畫部分規定引入具多元專業背景之外聘督導，並將主管與內部相鄰專業者納為受督對象，且在未來能為受督者發展具傷害性督導評量指標及提供以實證為基礎的督導內容。

關鍵字

督導成效評量；小型社福機構；外聘督導；混合研究

並列摘要

This paper explores the experience of introducing external supervision of small NGOs in Taiwan. Mixed-method approach was used to survey 92 supervisees and 40 small NGO managers; five managers participated in two focus groups, and four external supervisors were involved in in-depth interviews. The findings indicate that external supervision had brought positive development for supervisees and managers, including building professional skills and knowledge, improving the well-being of service users, reducing costs of personnel training and internal communication, and facilitating the cohesion of a multi-professional team. However, small NGOs face the challenge of working with diverse service users and their complex issues, the insufficient capacity of managers, and the limitation of the existing supervision subsidy program. In practice, this article suggests the government extend the eligibility of the supervision subsidy program to meet supervisees' needs, increase multi-professional supervisors, and include managers and other helping professionals in the same setting as formal supervisees. For research, developing the evaluation indicators of harmful supervision and providing evidence-based supervisory programs are needed.

並列關鍵字

outcome evaluation ； small NGO ； external supervisor ； mixed-method research

參考文獻

許雅惠、張英陣（2016）。〈風險管理下的社會工作督導〉，《社會政策與社會工作學刊》，第 20 卷第 2 期，頁 1-41。doi: 10.6785/SPSW.201612_20(2).0001 【Sheu, Y.-H. and Chang, Y.-C. (2016). ‘Social Work Supervision under Risk Management’, Social Policy & Social Work, 20(2): 1-41. doi: 10.6785/SPSW.201612_20(2).0001】

鄭夙芬（2005）。〈焦點團體研究法的理論與應用〉，《選舉研究》，第 12 卷第 1 期，頁 211-239。doi: 10.6612/tjes.2005.12.01.211-239【Cheng, S.-F. (2005). ‘Focus Group: Theory and Application’, Journal of Electoral Studies, 12(1): 211-239. doi: 10.6612/tjes.2005.12.01.211-239】

Adamson, C. (2012). ‘Supervision is Not Politically Innocent’. Australian Social Work, 65(2): 185-196. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2011.618544

Beddoe, L. (2010). ‘Surveillance or Reflection: Professional Supervision in “the Risk Society”’, The British Journal of Social Work, 40(4): 1279-1296. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq018

Beddoe, L. (2012). ‘External Supervision in Social Work: Power, Space, Risk, and the Search for Safety’, Australian Social Work, 65(2): 197-213. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2011.591187

主題瀏覽