區公所培力社區的創新方案及其成效之研究：以高雄市“協力各區開啓社區願景實施及續力計畫”爲例

Performance Research on Community Empowerment Innovation Programs: The Case of 'Community-Based Vision be in Partnership with District Office of Kaohsiung City Plan'

10.6284/NPUSTHSSR.2009.3(2)6

吳明儒(Ming-Ju Wu)；王仕圖(Shu-Twu Wang)

社區培力 ； 成效評估 ； 社區協力 ； 中介組織 ； community empowerment ； outcome evaluation ； community partnership ； intermediate organization

人文社會科學研究

3卷2期（2009 / 06 / 01）

113 - 132

繁體中文

隨著社區主義觀念的逐漸普及、社區組織快速發展，台灣目前已成立將近6402個社區發展協會（內政部，2008:1)，但是由於社區組織缺乏培力(empowerment)，以致於許多組織無法有效的推動符合在地需求與公共利益的相關服務方案，而亟待公部門的介入與輔導。政府強調「社區主義」政策下，未來如何培力社區成為具有主體性及自主性的人民自發單位，即成為重要的議題。 本研究以高雄市社會局以區公所為培力平台的社區願景輔導及提案計畫，包括（協力各區開啓社區願景實施計畫［社區協力願景計畫］，2005）以及（協力各區開啓社區願景續力計畫［社區協力願景續力計畫］，2006）。本研究進行成效評估(outcome evaluation)，研究對象包括四方面：市政府社會局一級主管（該計畫的督導）、區公所承辦社區業務人員、參加社區培力計畫之社區幹部以及專業培力團隊人員，研究方法以自行擬定之訪談大綱透過深度訪談及焦點團體的方式進行資料收集。本研究之發現包括以下幾點：一、整體而言，高雄市所推動的社區願景計畫，從培力(empowerment)及能力(capability)兩個層面對於社區的影響都具有正面的價值，符合Akkerman, Hajer and Grin(2004)所謂「積極政府(active state)」的理念。二、該計畫對於區公所中介角色及專業團隊輔導角色也符合Gittell and Vidal(1998)對於美國CDC推動過程中所強調的社區中介組織(intermediate organization)的重要性。三、經過培力計畫之社區提案數明顯的增加，從2005年的19件增加為2006年的27件，增幅達50%。四、以區公所作為培力社區的前哨站，受到公所組織行政人力不足及專業能力不足的因素影響而產生較多被動配合的情況。五、專業培力團隊透過區公所輔導社區培力計畫受到社會局、區公所及培力社區的高度肯定。六、區公所雖然傾向被動配合，但是由於與社區的互動增加，培力社區對於區公所的支持度反而較高。因為區公所的角色與社區的關係較之縣市政府更為直接而密切，大多社區協會認為區公所在資源的分享上扮演重要的中介組織角色，扮演一個橋樑資本(bridging capital)的角色，連結市政府與社區協會，所以區公所因為計畫的執行而與社區協會間有密切的互動。

Under the policy of emphasizing ”communitarianism” by the government, how to empower communities to become autonomous voluntary organization has become an important issue. With the popularization of the communitarianism concept and the rapid development of community organizations, almost 6150 community development associations has been established in Taiwan so far. However, due to the lack of empowerment of community associations, numerous organizations can not effectively carry out service programs to meet local needs and public profit. Therefore, they earnestly need public sectors to step in and provide counsel. This research focuses on community-based vision counsel and proposal plans based on district administration by Social Affairs Bureau of Kaohsiung City Government. It concludes ”2005 community vision initiating plan” and ”2006 community vision keep going plan”. This research conducted outcome evaluation toward the plans carried out by Kaohsiung City Government. The research objects includes 4 aspects: deans of department of social affairs of city government (supervisors of the plan), district administration staffs in charge of communities, a cadre of community attending community empowerment plan, and professional empowerment team crew. The research methods are in-depth interviews and focus group interviews with outlines drew up on one's own to collect data. The plan is still proceeding. The discoveries of this research are as follows: 1.As a whole, from the two dimensions: empowerment and capability, the community-based vision plan carried out by Kaohsiung City has positive influence toward communities, which meets the ideal of active state by Akkerman, T. et al.(2004). 2. The intermediate roles and professional team counseling roles of district administration from the plan also meet the importance of the intermediate organization emphasized by Gittell and Avis (1998) from the process of U.S CDC. 3. The number of community proposals has increased obviously through the empowerment plans. It raised from 19 cases in 2005 to 27 cases in 2006, which increased 50%. 4. The forerunners of the district administrations lack of administrators and professional proficiency. Thus, they mostly passively cooperate only. 5. Through counseling community empowerment plan, professional empowerment team received highly praise from Social Affairs Bureau, district administrations, and communities. 6. Though district administrations tend to cooperate passively, communities have higher support for the district administrations for the arisen interaction between them. District administration toward communities plays a more direct and intensive role than city and county governments. Most community associations conceive district administration as an important intermediate organization, which plays a bridging capital role, connecting city government and community associations. Due to the execution of the plan, district administration has intensive interaction with community associations.

1. 王仕圖(2007)。社區型非營利組織資源動員與整合：以社區發展協會爲例。台灣社會福利學刊，5(2)，103-137。
   連結：
2. Akkerman, T.,Hajer, M.,Grin, J.(2004).The Interactive State: Democratization from Above?.Political Studies,32,82-93.
3. Chaskin, R. J.(2001).Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative.Urban Affairs Review,36(3),291-323.
4. Gittell, R.,Vidal, A.(1998).Community Organizing-Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy.C.A.:Sage Publications.
5. Martin, L. L.,Kettner, P. M.(1996).Measuring the Performance of Human Service Programs.C.A.:Sage Publications.
6. Plantz, M. C.,Greenway, M. T.,Hendricks, H.,K. E. Newcomer(ed.)(1997).Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
7. Posavac, E. J.,Carey, R. G.(1992).Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies.New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
8. Putnam, R. D.(2000).Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.New York:Simon & Schuter.
9. Royse, D.,Thyer, B. A.,Padgett, D. K.,Longman, T. K.(2001).Program Evaluation: An Introduction.U. K.:Brooks.
10. Schalock, R. L.(2001).Outcome-Based Evaluation.New York:Kluwer Academic.
11. Taylor, M.(2003).Public Policy in the Community.New York:Palgrave Macnillan.
12. 內政部(2008)。97年度社區發展工作績效評鑑報告。
13. 天下雜誌(2006)。五大面向體檢幸福競爭力。
14. 甘炳光、胡文龍、馮國堅、梁祖彬(1997)。社區工作技巧。香港:中文大學出版社。
15. 行政院(2005)。台灣健康社區六星計畫說明書。台北:行政院。
16. 吳明儒(2006)。社區銀髮族的歸鄉之路－建構在地的社區照顧網絡。彰化:內政部、彰化縣政府所主辦之全國社區發展褔利社區化觀摩會會議。
17. 吳明儒(2005)。社區發展之反省、更新與再造福利多元主義觀點
18. 吳明儒(2003)。從社會資本理論探討台灣褔利社區化的困境－以美國CDC與LISC爲借鏡。非營利組織管理學刊，2，39-70。
19. 吳英明(1996)。公私部門協力關係之研究：兼論公私部門聯合開發與都市發展。高雄:麗文文化公司。
20. 長榮大學社會力研究中心(2005)。高雄市94年度協力各區開啓社區願景實施計畫－南區專業培力團隊計畫成果報告。高雄市政府社會局。
21. 鄭夙芬(2005)。高雄市94年度協力各區開啓社區願景實施計畫－北區專業培力團隊計畫成果報告。

1. 程航(2020)。內生型與外衍型中介組織網絡連結之比較研究—從社區照顧與社會資本建構觀點。社會發展研究學刊，26，1-41。
2. 蕭至邦,廖淑娟(2019)。大學社會參與和產學合作－以亞洲大學社區發展育成中心為例。台灣健康照顧研究學刊，20，72-102。
3. (2014)。非營利組織和政府間的社會創新與合作：台中市社區發展育成中心的行動研究。靜宜人文社會學報，8(2)，355-400。