政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/142157

政大典藏 > College of Social Science > Graduate Institute of Social Administration and Social Work > Theses > Item 140.119/142157

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/142157

Title:	社會救助法第五條第三項第九款訪視評估之研究—以臺北市社工人員為例 A Case Study of the Review and Evaluation in Subparagraph 9, Paragraph 3, Article 5 of the Public Assistance Act — Focusing on Social Workers in Taipei
Authors:	翁曼婷 Weng, Man-Ting
Contributors:	蔡培元翁曼婷 Weng, Man-Ting
Keywords:	社會救助法低收入戶 539條款 Public Assistance Act Low-income household The 539 Clause
Date:	2022
Issue Date:	2022-10-05 09:22:52 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本研究旨在探討社會工作人員在進行社會救助法第5條第3項第9款訪視評估時，會觀察家戶哪些面向及評估時考量的因素，又社工人員會遭逢哪些挑戰，以及探討適用該條款之家戶有哪些態樣。本文採用質性研究，以半結構式深度訪談現職於臺北市政府社會局服務之社會工作者。此外本研究亦透過次級資料分析經社工人員評估適用及不適用社會救助法第5條第3項第9款之案件，以瞭解案件之態樣。本研究有以下主要研究發現：（一）經社工人員評估適用社會救助法第5條第3項第9款之案件，以老人或不具工作能力之身心障礙者為大宗；而評估不適用之家戶多數具有親屬資源協助。（二）社會工作人員評估家庭狀況的面向，大致可分為：財務狀況、親友支持情形、社區網絡資源協助、家戶支出之合理性與必要性及民眾積極性，以此五大面向綜合性評估家戶狀況。（三）個人價值觀與生活經歷、組織內同儕協助互動、民意代表介入與當事人積極性，均會對社工人員評估造成影響。（四）社工人員進行評估時遭遇的挑戰有：1.無統一評估標準；2.社工人員調查方式有限，難以查證；3.案件壓力雖不會影響評估結果，惟會影響到後續服務品質；4.民意代表介入在評估上產生壓力；5.擔憂個案產生福利依賴；6.雙重角色產生的矛盾與價值觀衝突。（五）社工人員對實務提出以下建議：1.增加評估時間；2.統一評估標準；3.由同一群人做評估；4.其他相關人員先提供家戶相關訊息；5.訂定適用期限以減少福利依賴。最後，本研究對社政審查單位提出「延長社工人員評估時間以增加評估全面性」及「蒐集其他相關人員的客觀訊息提供給第一線社工人員」之建議；對政策制定者提出「修正社會救助法或其相關法規，使實務工作者能有統一評估標準」及「重新檢視親屬倫理與扶養義務之關係」之建議。並說明本研究的研究限制及對未來研究提出相關建議。 This study aims to investigate the following questions: which aspects of households social workers would observe when conducting review and evaluation as prescribed in Subparagraph 9, Paragraph 3, Article 5 of the Public Assistance Act, what factors they would consider during the evaluation, what challenges they have encountered, and what patterns are manifested by the households that the said provision applies to. In this study, the qualitative research approach was adopted and semi-structured interviews were conducted with social workers currently serving in the Department of Social Welfare, Taipei City Government Moreover, this study used secondary data analysis to examine the household cases which the social workers identified as eligible or ineligible for Subparagraph 9, Paragraph 3, Article 5 of the Public Assistance Act, thereby obtaining a better understanding on the patterns of the cases. The major findings of this study are as follows: (a) Most of the cases which the social workers considered eligible for Subparagraph 9, Paragraph 3, Article 5 of the Public Assistance Act included elderlies or persons with disabilities who are incapable of work, and most of the cases deemed ineligible for the said provision are supported by the assistance of their family members; (b) When evaluating the condition of a household, social workers considered the financial situation, the level of support from family members and friends, the aid from community network resources, the reasonableness and necessity of household expenditure, and the level of positivity of the applicants. Social workers made a comprehensive evaluation of the condition of a household based on the above 5 aspects; (c) Personal values and life experience, peer assistance and interaction within the organization, the involvement of legislators and the level of positivity of the applicants will all affect the evaluation of social workers; (d) Challenges encountered by social workers during the evaluation are: (i) Lack of a unified standard of evaluation, (ii) Difficulty in verification due to limited investigation methods, (iii) Although the stress from an excessive number of cases will not affect the evaluation result, it will affect the quality of the follow-up service, (iv) Stress from the involvement of legislators on the evaluation, (v) Concerns about the welfare dependency the case may develop, (vi) Contradictions and conflicts of values caused by the dual roles of social workers; (e) The following suggestions are provided by social workers regarding their work: (i) Increasing the time allocated for evaluation, (ii) Unifying the standard of evaluation, (iii) Allowing the same group of people to conduct the evaluation, (iv) Enabling other relevant personnel to provide information of the household in advance, (v) Stipulating the applicable period to minimize welfare dependency. Lastly, this study provides two suggestions to social administration review agencies, namely, “extending evaluation time allowed for social workers to improve the comprehensiveness of evaluation” and “providing objective opinion gathered from other relevant personnel to social workers serving in the front line.” In addition, the study also proposed two suggestions for policy makers, namely, “amending the Public Assistance Act and other relevant statutes and regulations to establish a unified standard of evaluation for social work partitioners” and “re-examining the relationship between the ethics of kinship and support obligation”. Moreover, the limitations of this study and recommendations for future research are also laid out.
Reference:	英文文獻： Gilbert, N. & Terrell, P. （2005） Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 6th ed. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. （1985） Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Lipsky, M.（1980） Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Neuman, W. L. （1997） Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 中文文獻：王淑月（2004）。社會救助審查中工作能力人口群界定問題之探討—以台中縣為例。國立暨南國際大學：南投縣。石泱、孫健忠（2008）。對貧窮者與社會救助的態度：基層社會救助行政人員的觀點。社區發展季刊，122，159-182。石泱（2020）。社會福利行政人員對低收入戶與貧窮態度之研究。逢甲人文社會學報，41，35-68。立法院（1997）。立法院公報第86卷第45期院會紀錄。取自 https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?004D03BA4F63000000000000000001E000000005FFFFFA00^01128086103000^00000000000 立法院（2005）。立法院公報第94卷第1期院會紀錄。取自https://lci.ly.gov.tw/LyLCEW/lcivCommQry.action 立法院（2007）。立法院公報第96卷第85期院會紀錄。取自https://lci.ly.gov.tw/LyLCEW/lcivCommQry.action 立法院（2010）。立法院公報第99卷第80期院會紀錄。取自https://lci.ly.gov.tw/LyLCEW/lcivCommQry.action 呂煌男（2013）。行政裁量與社會救助—以台南市低、中低收入戶為例。國立中正大學：嘉義縣。李秀如（2014）。助人者？或法規的執行者？—論社會救助資格認定下依法行政與行政裁量的衝突。新竹教育大學人文社會學報，7（2），49-83。林萬億（2012）。臺灣的社會福利：歷史與制度的分析。臺北市：五南。柯俐妘（2021）。社會救助資格與扶養義務訴訟：訴訟歷程與困境之探討。國立政治大學：臺北市。洪伯勳（2010）。製造低收入戶—鄉愿福利國家之社會救助官僚實作。國立臺灣大學：臺北市。高淑清（2008）。質性研究的18堂課：首航初探之旅。臺北市：麗文文化。徐婉芝（2014）。基層公務人員行政裁量權與政治效能感之關聯性研究—以臺南市原六區公所為例。國立中山大學：高雄市。孫健忠（2000）。社會救助制度的新思考。社區發展季刊，91，240-251。孫健忠（2003）。親屬責任與社會救助：扶助或控制？。社區發展季刊，103，184-194。許秀如（2009）。從第一線官僚之行政裁量權分析低收入戶社會救助政策—以嘉義縣為例。國立中正大學：嘉義縣。張玉（2010）。社會救助法變革對臺北市不同家戶組成的低收入戶資格之影響—以2008年修法為例。國立臺灣大學：臺北市。陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。陳怡婷（2007）。從制度性排除探討社會救助法中親屬責任—以台北市社福中心社工員為例。東吳大學：臺北市。曾華源、高迪理（2010）。社會工作概論：成為一位改變者。臺北市：洪葉文化。臺北市政府社會局（2022）。臺北市低收入戶概況。取自https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=6E981FC0A7F2FE04&sms=619EC614F6494B90&s=731C8700221B27AF 臺北市政府社會局社會救助科（2021）。臺北市政府社會局辦理社會救助法第5條第3項第9款訪視評估處理流程圖。潘思薇（2015）。社政人員行使行政裁量權之析探－以臺中市低收入戶審查為例。逢甲大學：臺中市。潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北市：心理。廖宗侯（2006）。社會救助制度中村里幹事的審查行為與影響因素之探討—以台中縣為例。國立暨南國際大學：南投縣。監察院（2019）。監察院調查報告 108內調0081號。取自https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=6812 鄭麗珍（2000）。親屬互助原則與社會救助審查：以女性單親家庭為例。國立政治大學社會學報，30，113-143。衛生福利部統計處（2017）。低收入戶戶數及人數。取自https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/cp-5337-62357-113.html 薛承泰、杜慈容（2006）。家庭變遷與社會救助政策—以臺北市為例。社區發展季刊，114，134-146。戴于文（2014）。影響公所承辦人員行政裁量之主觀經驗分析：以「馬上關懷急難救助」為例。輔仁大學：新北市。簡春安、鄒平儀（2004）。社會工作研究法。臺北市：巨流。
Description:	碩士國立政治大學社會工作研究所 104264013
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104264013
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202201625
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Social Administration and Social Work] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
401301.pdf		2623Kb	Adobe PDF2	0	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...