“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

10.30074/FJMH.200706_20(2).0002

彭淑華(Su-Hwa Pong)

家外安置 ； 安置決策 ； 安置機構 ； 兒童保護 ； out-of-home placement ； placement decision ； residential child care institutions ； child protection

中華心理衛生學刊

20卷2期（2007 / 06 / 01）

127 - 154

繁體中文

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。

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.

1. 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。
   連結：
2. Andersson, G.(1999).Children in permanent foster care in Sweden.Child and Family Social Work,4,175-186.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Barber, J.,Delfabbro, P.(2005).Children`s adjustment to long-term foster care.Children and Youth Services Review,27,329-340.
6. Berliner, L.,Fine, D.(2001).Children in long-term .foster care in Washington: Preliminary findings. Olympia.WA:Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7. Briar, S.(1963).Clinical judgments in foster care placement.Child Welfar,42,161-169.
8. Britner, P. A.,Mossler, D. G.(2002).Professionals` decision-making about out-of-home placements following instances of child abuse.Child Abuse & Neglect,26,317-332.
9. Colton, M.(1989).Foster and residential children`s perceptions of their social environments.British Journal of Social Work,19,217-233.
10. Colton, M.(2002).Factors associated with abuse in residential child care institutions.Children & Society,16,33-44.
11. Colton, M.,Hellinckx, W.(1994).Residential and foster care in the European community: Current trends in policy and practice.British Journal of Social Work,24,559-576.
12. Crosson-Tower, C.(2001).Exploring child welfare: A practice perspective.Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
13. Davidson-Arad, B.,Dekel, R.,Wozner, Y.(2004).Correspondence in residents` and staff members` assessments of the quality of life of children in residential care facilities.Social Indicators Research,68,77-89.
14. DePanfilis, D.,Girvin, H.(2005).Investigating child maltreatment in out-of-home care: Barriers to effective decision-making.Children and Youth Services Review,27,353-374.
15. DePanfilis, D.,Scannapieco, M.(1994).Assessment the safety of children at risk of maltreatment: Decision-making models.Child Welfare,73(3),229-245.
16. Department of Health,Social Security(1985).Social work decisions in child care: Recent research findings and their implications.London:HMSO.
17. Doran, L.,Berliner, L.(2001).Placement decisions for children in long-term care: Innovative practices and literature review
18. Downs, S. W.,Moore, E.,McFadden, E. J.,Costin, L. B.(2000).Child welfare and family services: Policies and practice.Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
19. Fern, E. F.(1982).The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality.Journal of Marketing Research,19,1-13.
20. Gil, E.(1982).Institutional abuse of children and youth.New York:The Haworth Press.
21. Glisson, C.(1996).Judicial and service decisions for children entering state custody: The limited role of mental health.Social Science Review,70,257-281.
22. Glisson, C.(1994).The effects of services coordination teams on outcomes for children in state custody.Administration in Social Work,18,1-23.
23. Greenbaum, T. L.(1998).The handbook for focus group research. Thousand Oaks.CA:Sage.
24. Abuse of children in residential and foster care: A brief review
25. Kerman, B.,Wildfire, J.,Barth, R. P.(2002).Outcomes for young adults who experienced foster care.Children and Youth Services Review,24(5),319-344.
26. Knapp, M.,Baines, B.,Bryson, D.,Lewis, J.(1987).Modeling the initial placement decision for children received into care.Children and Youth Services Review,9,1-15.
27. Levy, A.,Kahan, B.(1991).The Pindown experience and the protection of children.Stafford:Staffordshire County Council.
28. Lipsky, M.(1980).Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York:Russell Sage.
29. Little, M.,Kohm, A.,Thompson, R.(2005).The impact of residential placement on child development: Research and policy implications.International Journal of Social Welfare,14,200-209.
30. Martin, L.,Peters, C.,Glisson, C.(1998).Factors affecting case management recommenthtions for children entering state custody.Social Service Review,72(4),521-544.
31. Martin, P Y.,Jackson, S.(2002).Educational success for children in public care: Advice from a group of high achievers.Child and Family Social Work,7,121-130.
32. Munro, E.(2005).Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem.Children and Youth Services Review,27,375-391.
33. Newton, R. R.,Litrownik, A. J.,Landsverk, J. A.(2000).Children and youth in foster care:mDisentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements.Child Abuse and Neglect,24,1363-1373.
34. Nicholas, B.,Roberts, S.,Wurr, C.(2003).Looked after children in residential homes.Child and Adolescent Mental Health,8(2),78-83.
35. Phillips, M. H.,Shyne, A. W.,Sheiman, E. A.,Haring, B. L.(1971).Factors associated with placement decisions in child welfare.New York:Child Welfare League of America.
36. Rossi, P. H.,Schuerman, J.,Budde, S.(1999).Understanding decisions about child maltreatment.Evaluation Review,23,579-598.
37. Rutter, M.(2000).Children in substitute care: Some conceptual considerations and research implications.Children and Youth Services Review,22(9/10),685-703.
38. Schneiderman, M.,Connors, M. M.,Fribourg, A.,Gries, L.,Gonzales, M.(1998).Mental health services for children in out-of-home care.Child Welfare,77(1),29-40.
39. Schuerman, J.,Rossi, P. H.,Budde, S.(1999).Decisions on placement and family preservation.Evaluation Review,23,599-618.
40. Schwalbe, C.(2004).Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making.Children and Youth Services Review,26,561-576.
41. Smith, B. D.,Donovan, S. E. F.(2003).Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context.Social Service Review,77(4),541-563.
42. Urquiza, A. J.,Wirtz, S. J.,Peterson, M. S.,Singer, V. A.(1994).Screening and evaluating abused and neglected children entering protective custody.Child Welfare,73(2),155-171.
43. VanBergeijk, E. O.,McGowan, B. G.(2001).Children in foster care.Handbook of social work practice with vulnerable and resilient populations,399-434.
44. Westcott, H.(1991).Institutional abuse of children - From research policy.London:NSPCC.
45. Willumsen, E.,Skivenes, M.(2005).Collaboration between service users and professionals: Legitimate decisions in child protection-A Norwegian model.Child and Family Social Work,197-206.
46. 包承恩、王永慈主(2000)。社會工作價值與倫理。台北:洪葉。
47. 余漢儀(1996)。兒童虐待：現象檢視與問題反思。台北:巨流圖書。
48. 余漢儀(1997)。兒童保護模式之探討－兼論社工決策及家外安置。
49. 邱智慧(1988)。。
50. 洪昭蓉(1995)。台灣省高雄育幼院院童學業成就表現影響因素之研究。社會福利，117，51-52。
51. 郭靜晃、彭淑華、張惠芬(1995)。兒童福利政策之研究。
52. 彭淑華(2003)。台灣地區少年福利機構評鑑基準之研究。
53. 彭淑華(2004)。兒童福利的意涵與歷史發展。兒童福利：理論與實務，3-20。
54. 彭淑華(2004)。弱勢兒童保護的最後一道防線－台灣地區育幼機構之發展與省思。兒童福利，60，48-59。
55. 彭淑華(2005)。「兒童少年之社會工作危機處遇」研討會。
56. 彭淑華(2002)。兒童福利機構評鑑作業流程之研究。
57. 彭淑華、張英陣(2001)。。
58. 彭淑華、彭淑華總(2003)。台閩地區兒童福利機構第一次評鑑評鑑總報告（育幼機構）。
59. 彭淑華、劉美芝(1999)。。
60. 劉德勝(1985)。育幼院兒童的自我概念與生活適應。青少年兒童福利學刊，8，22-30。

1. 方仁君(2017)。音樂治療應用於安置機構兒童團體。諮商與輔導，381，22-25。
2. 林沛君(2021)。兒童及少年安置及教養機構評鑑制度之現況檢視與未來發展取向之省思。臺大社會工作學刊，43，107-148。
3. 蕭至邦,蔡亞倩(2020)。兒少接受安置服務經驗對其自立生活適應之影響。台灣健康照顧研究學刊，22，30-70。
4. 張智嵐,林雯雯(2022)。安置機構院童低結構遊療團體輔導效果之探討。諮商與輔導，433，20-24。
5. (2011)。由蹣跚學步到昂首前行：臺灣兒童保護政策、法規與實務之發展經驗。社區發展季刊，133，273-293。
6. (2012)。「社會教導」於兒少安置服務的運用：權益取向的模式。社區發展季刊，139，99-113。
7. (2016)。兒童保護on call英雄的圖像。社區發展季刊，156，81-102。
8. (2017)。家庭再思考： 從保護工作實務現場的觀察談起。社區發展季刊，159，235-243。
9. (2023)。兒少保護家外安置及家庭重整服務之現況與未來。社區發展季刊，183，17-30。
10. (2023)。社會保護性系統的範式建立行動──家外安置強化資源平臺對困難安置兒童的發展性系統建構契機。社區發展季刊，183，31-54。