社區家暴防治之縣市培力初探

Community empowerment studies for preventing family violence in counties and cities

10.6687/JSDS.201711/SP.0003

張淑慧(Su-Hui,Chang)

社區培力 ； 社區工作 ； 家暴防治 ； Community Empowerment ； Community work ； Family Violence Prevention

社會發展研究學刊

專刊（2017 / 11 / 01）

77 - 96

繁體中文

從縣市政府到社區培力的連結體系，無法只經由指導原則產生，它必然要存在於社區家暴防治之理論與在地實踐的互動過程中，建構社區發展能力的積極性作用。社區培力的團隊與縣市政府跟社區的關係，不只是培力與輔導的主客體關係，而是一種共同實踐主體，這主體需要縣市政府與社區進行對話，確認需求及扶植在地專業社區工作者，方能形成「家暴防治社區培力願景」。台灣的社區培力從2002 年迄今，歷經縣市政府及專業學者推動，已經有各種輔導、訓練及政策推行模式。然而在各縣市作為中，家暴防治社區培力工作仍屬邊緣化業務。本文就現行各縣市的社區家暴防治之培力作法進行分析，發現有一些現象，包括：分裂的家暴防治及社區培力業務、各自表述的縣市社區培力介入作為、失去社區主體性的培力、社區家暴防治培力的成效評估不足、熱鬧有餘卻深入不足的社區培力方向等。整體而言，社區家暴防治工作的培力可進行經驗累積與服務模式的發展，如何觀察縣市在地需求，規劃社區家暴防治發展政策目標，整合跨專業領域資源與培力團隊，研議具社區主體性的培力專業實務對話平台，運用協力關係的社區介入行動、資源連結與反思，鼓勵社區自主參與及在地創新反暴力服務，促進社區家暴防治工作的推展，是各縣市可再努力之處。

From the county government to the local community, the community empowerment system of family violence prevention cannot be constructed only by the government guiding principles. It must be built on the theory of family violence prevention and the local practical interaction, then able to construct the positive role of community development capacity. The team of community empowerment, the county government, the local community, they are an integrated reality, and their relationship is not only between the supplier and the client, or the subject and the object. To form the development vision of community family violence prevention, mutual communications are necessary for the county government and the local community. And also, confirmation and supporting the needs are essential to the professional workers of the local community. Taiwan community empowerment from 2002 to date, after the county government and professional scholars to promote, there has been a variety of counseling, training and policy implementation model. However, in the counties and cities, the community empowerment of family violence prevention is reinforced not enough. In this article, we analyze the practices of the community empowerment for preventing family violence in the counties and cities. Indicating some phenomena, including: (1) Family violence prevention and community empowerment are not integrated. (2) The effect of community empowerment implemented by counties and cities is separated. (3) The community-oriented empowerment is ignored. (4) The effectiveness evaluation of the community empowerment for preventing family violence is inadequate. (5) The direction of community empowerment is divergent. On the whole, the community empowerment of family violence prevention can be improved by accumulating experiences and developing service models. Some suggestions are worth considering in counties and cities, including: (1) Observing the different needs of the local communities in counties and cities. (2) Planning the policy objectives of the community empowerment for family violence prevention. (3) Integrating the resources of cross-professional fields and the empowerment teams. (4) Researching to construct a dialogue platform of professional empowerment practice with community-oriented. (5) Employing collaborative community for participation, resource-link and reflection. (6) Encouraging community self-automatically to participate anti-violence services. (7) Promoting the work progress of community family violence prevention.

1. Bartlett, H.(1970).The Common Base of Social Work Practice.Washington, DC:NASW Press.
2. Charity Commission (2000) .The Promotion of Community Capacity-Building. Taunton: Charity Commission also at www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/rr5.asp
3. Falk, I.,Kilpatrick, S.(2000).What is social capital? A study of interaction in a rural community.Sociological Ruralis,40(1),87-110.
4. Freire, P.(1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed.New York:The Seabury Press.
5. Ganaie, S.A.,Shah, S.A.,Nahvi, N.I.,Chat, A.N.(2015).Community Psychology Linking Individuals and Communities into a Scientific Psychological Framework: An Integrative Approach.International Journal of Translation & Community Medicine,3(1),46-54.
6. Gibson, C. H.(1991).A Concept Analysis of Empowerment.Journal of Advanced Nursing,16,354-361.
7. Hamiltion, E.(1992).Adult Education for Community Development.New York:Greenwood.
8. Lord, J.,Hutchison, P.(1993).The process of empowerment: Implications for theory and practice.Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,12(1),5-22.
9. Tendler, J.(1997).Good Government in the Tropics.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services（2017）.AP-IT: A Guide to Using Healthy People 2020 in Your Community. Retrieved from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/tools-and-resources/Program-Planning.
11. United Nations（2010）.United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/zh/conf/crimecongress2010/documents.shtml
12. 巨東紅,林榮海(2011)。社區介入：家庭暴力干預的一種途徑。福建醫科大學學報，12(1)，42-45。
13. 行政院(2005)。行政院（2005）。臺灣健康社區六星計畫推動方案。行政院院臺文字第0940084226 號函。
14. 吳明儒(2013)。弱勢社區培力與輔導機制之探索性研究—三種 CSW 模式之分析。台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊，3(3)，1-58。
15. 吳明儒,林欣蓓(2011)。社區結盟、社區培力與社區行動之個案研究：以台南市北區社區旗艦計畫團隊為例。台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊，1(1)，45-90。
16. 李易駿(2016)。社區培力中心的發展與未來展望。台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊，6(2)，133-152。
17. 李湧清(1998)。社區守望相助與犯罪預防。警專學報，2(5)，173-174。
18. 徐震(1998).社區與社區發展.臺北:正中.
19. 許春金(2013).犯罪預防與犯罪分析.臺北:三民.
20. 許春金(2010).犯罪學.臺北:三民.
21. 郭瑞坤,王春勝,陳香利(2007)。居民社區培力與社會資本、社區意識關聯性之研究－以高雄市港口社區為例。公共事務評論，8(2)，97-128。
22. 陳秋山（譯）,Adams, R.(2010).培力、參與、社會工作.臺北:心理.
23. 潘淑滿(2003)。婚姻暴力的發展路徑與模式：臺灣與美國的比較。社區發展季刊，101，277-282。
24. 蔡德輝,楊士隆(2012).犯罪學.臺北:五南.
25. 盧國顯,丁暉,高琪(2016)。社區文化對治安的影響研究─以江蘇泰州為例。石家莊學院學報，5，128-135。
26. 謝政勳(2016)。SWOT 分析應用於社區發展經營策略之研究—以參與農村再生培根計畫之社區為例。台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊，6(3)，1-44。

1. (2018)。公私協力參與兒少社區照顧服務之發展─以臺灣夢計畫為例。社區發展季刊，161，217-227。
2. (2021)。褪去中的身影：從社區家暴預防方案反思綜融性社會工作角色。靜宜人文社會學報，15(2)，69-98。