Title

家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫執行現況

Translated Titles

Current Status of Management for Domestic Violence Assailants

DOI

10.29478/TJP.200709.0007

Authors

林世棋(Shih-Chi Lin);陳筱萍(Shiou-Ping Chen);孫鳳卿(Feng-Ching Sun);周煌智(Frank Huang-Chih Chou)

Key Words

家庭暴力加害人 ; 處遇計畫 ; domestic violence ; assailant ; treatment outcome

PublicationName

臺灣精神醫學

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

21卷3期(2007 / 09 / 01)

Page #

208 - 217

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

目的:調查台灣地區家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫之執行現況與所遭遇之困境。方法:以郵寄自行設計經專家效度檢驗之問卷,針對目前台灣地區63家執行家暴加害人處遇計畫之機構進行調查。結果:處遇計畫大多由機構內精神醫療人員執行,其中95%的業務承辦人均具有精神科資歷,執行人員主要為社工師、醫師與心理師。近九成的執行機構都有標準作業流程與配置相當之治療室供治療時使用。約有六成機構之加害人報到率達75%以上,57.1%的機構處遇之加害人流失率在25%以下,而有八成的機構可達50%以上之完成率。處遇的困境主要出現在個案部分,包括否認與防衛的態度、無法繳交治療費、出席狀況差、不遵守治療規定與沉默不說話;以及工作人員部分,包括人力不足、意願不高、增加工作負擔與訓練不足。結論:目前台灣家庭暴力加害人之治療正在起步階段,雖有標準之作業流程,然整體成效仍待評估,尤其針對所遭遇的困境,值得我們投入更多之人力與更充足之訓練。同時,建議對加害人進行分類評估,以提昇整體處遇計劃之成效。

English Abstract

Object: This study investigated the current status of treatment programs for domestic violence (DV) assailants in Taiwan. Method: Data were collected from sixty-three facilities using a questionnaire designed by the researchers. Results: Ninety-five percent of therapists treating DV assailants were psychiatric professionals, mainly social workers, doctors, and psychologists. Nearly 90% of facilities had standard protocols and appropriate therapy rooms for treating DV assailants. Sixty percent of these facilities reported attendance rates by assailants of over 75%; 57% reported a dropout rage lower than 25%, and 80% reported completion rates exceeding 50%. The main difficulties in treating DV assailants were: (1) denial and guarded attitudes on the part of DV assailants themselves, inability to pay for treatment, absences, disobedience of the therapeutic rules, and silence or refusal to talk; (2) shortage of personnel, increasing workloads, unwilling attitudes, and inadequate training among therapists. Conclusion: Although there were standard protocols for treating DV assailants in most facilities, treatment outcomes remained unsatisfactory. To resolve these difficulties, more personnel and more training are needed. In addition, classification of DV assailants may improve treatment outcomes and prevent waste of limited resources.

Topic Category 醫藥衛生 > 社會醫學
Reference
  1. 林明傑、沈勝昂(2003)。我國婚姻暴力加害人之危險評估-DA量表在我國適用之研究。犯罪學期刊,6,177-216。
    連結:
  2. 陳筱萍、周煌智、吳慈恩、黃志中(2004)。裁定前鑑定家庭暴力相對人特徵與施暴的心理社會歸因。中華輔導學報,16,147-178。
    連結:
  3. Babcock JC,Green CE,Robie C(2004).Does batterers` treatment work? a meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment.Clin Psychol Rev,23,1023-1053.
  4. Coker AL,Davis KE,Aras I,Desai S,Sanderson M,Brandt HM,Smith PH(2002).Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women.Am J Prey Med,23,260-268.
  5. Edleson JL(1999).Children`s witnessing of adult domestic violence.J Interpers Violence,14,839-870.
  6. Gondolf E(2001).Limitation of experimental evaluations of batterer programs.Trauma Violence Abuse,2,79-88.
  7. Gondolf EW(1997).Batterer programs: what we know and need to know.J Interpers Violence,12,83-98.
  8. Gondolf EW,Foster RA(1991).Pre-program attrition in batterer programs.J Fam Violence,6,337-350.
  9. Haj-Yahia MM,Abdo-Kaloti R.(2003).The rates and correlates of the exposure of Palestinian adolescents to family violence: toward an integrative-holistic approach.Child Abuse Negl,27,781-806.
  10. Hamberger LK,Hastings JE(1988).Skill training for treatment of spouse abusers: an outcome study.J Fam Violence,3,121-130.
  11. Hamberger LK,Lohr JM,Gottlieb M(2000).Predictors of treatment dropout from a spouse abuse abatement program.Behav Modif,24,528-552.
  12. Harwell TS,Moore KR,Spence MR(2003).Physical violence, intimate partner violence, and emotional abuse among adult American Indian men and women in Montana.Prey Med,37,297-303.
  13. Holtzworth-Munroe A,Beatty SB,Anglin K(1995).Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy.New York:Guilford Press.
  14. Jewkes R,Levin J,Penn-Kekana L(2002).Risk factors for domestic violence: findings from a South African cross-sectional study.Soc Sci Med,55,1603-1617.
  15. Krug EG,Dahlberg LL,Mercy JA,Zwi AB,Lozano R(2002).World report on violence and health.Geneva:World Health Organization.
  16. Lee MY,Uken A,Sebold J(2004).Accountability for change: solution-focused treatment with domestic violence offenders.Fam Soc,85,463-476.
  17. Muftic LR,Bouffard JA(2007).An evaluation of gender differences in the implementation and impact of a comprehensive approach to domestic violence.Violence Against Women,13,46-69.
  18. Pandya V,Gingerich WJ(2002).Group therapy intervention for male batterers: a microehnographic study.Health Soc Work,27,47-55.
  19. Richards JC,MacLachlan AJ,Scott W,Gregory R(2004).Understanding male domestic partner abusers: trends and issues in crime and criminal justice.Australian Institute of Criminology,283,1-6.
  20. Rosenfeld BD(1992).Court ordered treatment of spouse abuse.Clin Psychol Rev,12,205-226.
  21. Watts C,Zimmerman C.,Violence against women(2002).global scope and magnitude.Lancet,359,1232-1237.
  22. World report on violence and health
  23. Yang MS,Yang MJ,Chou FH,Yang HM,Wei SL,Lin JR(2006).Physical abuse against pregnant aborigines in Taiwan: prevalence and risk factors.Int J Nurs Stud,43,21-27.
  24. 丁雁琪(2002)。現況與省思:加害人處遇組織環境之資源與限制。行政院衛生署:加害人處遇計畫社會工作人員實務研討會
  25. 王佩玲、黃志忠(2005)。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會委託研究案內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會委託研究案,未出版
  26. 汪美鳳(2005)。家庭暴力臨床實務工作模式現況運用及暴力相關因素探討。澄清醫護管理雜誌,2,26-33。
  27. 張秀鴛、韋愛梅(2001)。談台灣家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫之建構。律師雜誌,267,49-62。
  28. 黃志中(2002)。家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導團體。行政院衛生署:家庭暴力處遇專業人員實務研討會
Times Cited
  1. 張晟(2012)。親密關係暴力性別差異─以聲請保護令個案為例。臺灣大學社會工作學研究所學位論文。2012。1-109。 
  2. 王詩涵(2012)。社會工作者服務男性相對人之處遇服務經驗初探。臺灣師範大學社會工作學研究所學位論文。2012。1-178。
  3. 鍾揚傑(2012)。保護性業務社工員感受之督導功能與其情緒勞務相關因素研究。朝陽科技大學社會工作系學位論文。2012。1-161。
  4. 邱蘭媚(2015)。男性親密暴力者「忍」之敘事研究。中正大學犯罪防治學系學位論文。2015。1-195。
  5. 廖翊茜(2016)。牧師引領婚暴加害人的靈性教誨經驗敘說。中正大學犯罪防治學系學位論文。2016。1-181。