政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/147123

政大典藏 > College of Social Science > Graduate Institute of Social Administration and Social Work > Theses > Item 140.119/147123

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147123

Title:	社會安全網計畫下網絡協作過程與可能的影響因素：以臺北市社會福利服務中心社工人員為例 Multi-angency collaboration processes and possible influencing factors under the Social Safety Network Project: an example of social workers in Taipei City Social Welfare Service Centre
Authors:	黃于珊 Huang, Yu-Shan
Contributors:	林宜輝 Lin, Yei-Whei 黃于珊 Huang, Yu-Shan
Keywords:	社會安全網計畫協作服務社會工作員社會福利服務中心有利與阻礙因素 Social Safety Network Project Collaborative services Social workers Social welfare service centres Enabling and hindering factors
Date:	2023
Issue Date:	2023-09-01 15:46:22 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	臺北市政府率先於2016年推出轄區內社會安全網計畫，而衛福部則在其後推動全國性的「強化社會安全網計畫」。這些計畫皆嘗試可透過對現有社會福利服務的改革，以打造一個更為綿密的社會安全網絡，並期待如此能更有效保障兒童與家庭的福利及安全。在社會安全網的福利體系中，各區域的社會福利中心便成十分重要的服務單位，它們被期待可服務比較困難、多元議題且具挑戰性的個案。政府尤其期待社會福利中心能以協作的方式，而與各服務專業建立更緊密、更積極的服務連結，以提供個案與家庭更有效且及時的服務介入。本論文主要嘗試以臺北市社會福利服務中心的社工人員角度出發，探討究竟在何種個案條件下，中心社工會開啟協作服務。同時研究也要了解社工在協作過程中，所可能遭遇的有利或阻礙協作之因素。最後，論文亦邀請社工提供回顧協作後的自我反思。本研究採取質性訪談的方法，並採立意取樣方式，共選取六位在臺北社會福利中心從事直接服務的社工人員，分享其在社會安全網服務下所從事網絡協作的經驗。本研究發現，社工在遇到特定類型個案時，較會與其他單位展開協作服務。其中包含有：具有自傷傷人之虞個案，社區滋擾個案，或存在多個議題需要被協助個案，乃至個案剛好落在各單位服務的三不管地帶（例如合併街友、非老非障礙及精神議題等）。至於在實際的協作過程中，受訪社工已表示案件本身太過困難，參與協作成員未形成一致的服務目標，以及協作成員間消極或防衛的態度，都會對協作會造成阻礙。反之，若協作成員可加深關係與信任、增進相互了解、並保持服務彈性與對服務的承諾，乃至可找到被網絡團隊信賴的關鍵人物，皆屬有利協作推動的因素。在社工有關協作的自我反思上，部份受訪者承認功能論有關協作的觀點外，也承認仍存在對現有協作是否已努力徵詢與解個案的實際需要的質疑。另受訪社工也反映仍存在社工協作能力養成，社工現有職務更合理安排與輪調，與召募中心社工時的職務內容可更加公開透明等議題。研究最後建議，網絡中各參與成員皆可成為協作的發起者，而非現在以社政為主的形式。另在未來協作服務上，也要保持成員更積極的承諾與彈性，如此才可減少彼此消極與壁壘分明的狀況。除外，如何更進一步增進社工個人的網絡協作知能，也會更有助於協作服務的推動。最為重要的是，本論文期盼政府在未來規劃改善社會安全網協作服務時，務必要傾聽一線社工的實務經驗與心聲。 The Taipei City Government was the first to launch a social safety network program in Taiwan in 2016. After that, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has launched a nationwide "Enhanced Social Safety Network Program. All these programs attempt to create a more seamless social safety net through reforming to existing social welfare services, with the expectation that this will better protect the welfare and safety of children and families. Within the social safety net, regional social welfare centres are designed as important service units to serve more difficult, multi-issue, and challenging cases. In particular, the government expects such welfare centres to work collaboratively with other service professions in order to provide more effective and timely service interventions to clients and families. In this thesis, I try to explore which specific cases would lead centre social workers in Taipei City undertake collaborative services. It also aims to understand the factors that may facilitate or hinder the collaboration efforts of social workers. Finally, the study also invited social workers to provide self-reflection on their collaboration engagements. Six frontline social workers of the Taipei Social Welfare Centres were recruited to share their experiences of service collaboration under the Social Safety Network Program. This study has found that social workers were more likely to collaborate with other welfare providers when they dealt with specific types of cases. These included cases of self-injury, community nuisance, those with multiple issues to be addressed, and the cases without entitlements to (e.g., the homeless, the cases of non-elderly, non-disabled but with mental issues). The interviewed social workers indicated that the case itself was too difficult, the lack of unanimous service goals among the collaborating members, and the negative or defensive attitude among the collaborating members in the actual collaboration process, would all hinder the progress of collaboration. On the contrary, if the collaborators can deepen the relationship and trust, improve mutual understanding, maintain flexibility and commitment to the service, and even find a key person who can be trusted by the network team, these are all factors that are conducive to collaboration. Regarding the self-reflection of social workers on collaboration efforts, some respondents acknowledged the viewpoint of functional theory on collaboration but also acknowledged that they still had doubts about whether the existing collaboration teams had made efforts to consult and solve the actual needs of the cases. The social workers interviewed also expressed that there are still pressing issues to be tackled, such as the development of social workers` collaboration skills, more reasonable arrangement and rotation of social workers` current duties, and more openness and transparency of the duties of social workers in the recruitment of centres. Finally, the study suggested that all team members could be the initiators of collaboration, instead of relying on social workers currently. It is also important to maintain the commitment and flexibility of the members in the future collaborative services, so as to reduce the barriers among them. Besides, how to further enhance the knowledge of social workers on collaboration will also be more helpful to the promotion of collaborative services. Most importantly, this paper hopes that the government will listen to the experiences and voices of frontline social workers when planning to improve the Social Safety Network services in the future.
Reference:	中文部分中央通訊社（2018）。小燈泡案法務部：已執行強化社會安全網計畫。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/201806050380.aspx。檢索日期108年11月17日王佳煌、潘中道、蘇文賢、江吟梓譯（2014）。Neuman, W. L.著。當代社會研究法:質化與量化取向。台北：學富文化。朱慧容（2020）。論資源整合及網絡合作在社會安全網服務的重要性：以社會福利服務中心服務為例。社區發展季刊，172，57-64。吳書昀（2020）。保護性工作以家庭為核心的協力服務之初探。社區發展季刊，172，75-86。吳書昀、王翊涵（2019）。「強化社會安全網計畫」中「未滿18歲通報案件服務分流輔助指引」之發展。社區發展季刊，165，126-138。李政賢,廖志恒,林靜如譯（2007）。Flick, U著。質性研究導論。台北：五南。沈慶鴻、戴如玎、林妍廷、陳麗娟（2020）。原鄉網絡合作的建構歷程與服務成效：以屏東縣家暴個案「以家庭為中心」個案服務理念之落實為例。社區發展季刊，169，182-200。周愫嫻、吳建昌、李茂生（2017）。陌生者間（含隨機殺人）之犯罪特性與防治對策研究（濃縮版）。法務部司法官學院委託國立臺北大學研究報告。林雅芬、鄭慧敏、張宛諭、李玲、陳宗田、劉惟寧、蔡智帆、連珮榕（2020）。高雄市跨專業領域合作經驗—以強化家暴安全網防護與兒少保護協力合作為例。社區發展季刊，172，87-100。林萬億（2019）。強化社會安全網：背景與策略。社區發展季刊，165，3-29。張秀鴛、郭彩榕、張靜倫、王心聖、張又文（2020）。以多元整合策略優化保護服務輸送體系。社區發展季刊，172，65-74。張麗珠（2019）。離島家庭福利服務中心的設置、服務與挑戰。社區發展季刊，165，114-125。陳敦源、張世杰（2010）。公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭，文官制度季刊，2（3），17-71。彭淑華、趙善如（2020）。社會福利服務中心服務脆弱家庭之實施與精進。社區發展季刊，172，234-254。彭淑華、趙善如、張淑慧（2019）。106年度家庭福利服務中心輔導團隊計畫之看見－兼述對社會安全網輔導團隊之建議。社區發展季刊，165，91-113。曾儀芬、彭淑華、羅汶欣（2019）。從社會安全網觀點談偏差行為兒少的安全防護罩─以屏東縣地方經驗為例。社區發展季刊，165，139-157。黃旭昇（2016）。利刃見血封喉隨機手段兇殘兒童無辜。中央社。取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201603285014.aspx。檢索日期：110年1月10日。葉肅科（2012）。臺灣兒童及少年福利與權益保障法:回顧與展望。社區發展季刊，139，31-41。臺北市政府社會局（2016）。北市府推動社會安全網補強執行計畫，與臺大合辦【從心理、社會、醫療層面看社會安全網之建構】論壇。取自：https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=6CA16D3397A7A302&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=B3A1A31BF511AF8C&Create=1。檢索日期110年1月10日。劉家勇（2019）。從強化社會安全網計畫看我國老人保護工作的機會與挑戰。社區發展季刊，165，181-197。蔡孟珊、鄭依萍（2020）。社福中心培力社區組織發展家庭支持服務。社區發展季刊，172，296-305。衛生福利部、教育部、內政部（2018）。強化社會安全網計畫。衛生福利部（2022）。脆弱家庭服務統計。取自：https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/Statistics/Detail/30。檢索日期：112年5月20日。鄧佳旻（2020）。社會安全網離島實施經驗－以連江縣為例。社區發展季刊，172，317-324。鄭麗珍（2020）。以個案評估為基礎的資源管理和跨網絡合作。社區發展季刊，172，8-26。鄭麗珍、吳書昀、陳宜珍（2016）。兒少高風險家庭處遇服務督導及成效評估方案成果報告。衛生福利部社會及家庭署委託辦理。諶立中、李炳章、記馨雅、何佩瑾（2019）。強化社會安全網計畫－以精神疾病個案危機事件為例。社區發展季刊，165，61-66。錢利忠（2016/03/28）。大台北隨機殺人命案近3年來1年近1件。自由時報。取自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1646673。檢索日期110年1月10日。戴如玎、周宗賢、齊美婷、徐紫雲（2020）。屏東縣推動強化社會安全網之社區精神服務網絡合作經驗。社區發展季刊，172，27-44。簡慧娟、吳建昇、蔡惠怡（2019）。強化社會安全網如何發掘與服務社區中的脆弱家庭。社區發展季刊，165，30-41。簡慧娟、簡杏蓉、吳建昇（2020）。脆弱家庭服務之推動現況與策進作為。社區發展季刊，172，225-233。英文部分 Athanasiou, H. (2016). Working together to protect children: a case study of policy implementation in Greece. (PhD thesis), The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Braun, V. & Clarke, V.(2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage. Corbin, J.M. & Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Flick, U. (2007). Designing Qualitative Research. London, Sage. Frost, N., Robinson, M., & Anning, A. (2005). Social workers in multidisciplinary teams: issues and dilemmas for professional practice. Child & Family Social Work, 10(3), 187-196. Gibbs, G.R. (2007) Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage. Graham, J. R., & Barter, K. (1999). Collaboration: A Social Work Practice Method. Families in Society, 80(1), 6-13. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational Domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217-230. Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration and change in children`s services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 55-69. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage: Routledge. Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2015). Collaborating across sector boundaries: a story of tensions and dilemmas. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(3), 285-302. 48338369886 Jacquet, N., Van Haute, D., De Corte, J., Nisen, L., Vandenbroeck, M., & Roets, G. (2020). Dealing with the wicked issue of child poverty: Inter-organizational networks as forums for collective debate and reflection. Social Policy & Administration, 54(7), 1081-1095. Keast, R. & Mandell, M.P. (2009). What is collaboration?’ Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth. Advancing Collaboration Practice. pp. 1-3. Kellett, M. (2011). Children`s perspectives on integrated services. London: Palgrave MacMillam. Lofland, J. & Lofland, L.H. (2005). Analyzing Social Settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth. Lotia, N., & Hardy, C. (2009). Critical Perspectives on Collaboration. In S. Cropper, C. Huxham, M. Ebers, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations (pp. 366-389). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morrison, T. (2000). Working together to safeguard children: challenges and changes for inter-agency co-ordination in child protection. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 14(4), 363-373. Øvretveit, J. (1996). Five ways to describe a multidisciplinary team. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 10(2), 163-171. Pinkney, L., Penhale, B., Manthorpe, J., Perkins, N., Reid, D., & Hussein, S. (2008). Voices from the frontline: social work practitioners` perceptions of multi‐agency working in adult protection in England and Wales. The Journal of Adult Protection, 10(4), 12-24. Roets, G., Roose, R., Schiettecat, T., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2016). Reconstructing the Foundations of Joined-Up Working: From Organisational Reform towards a Joint Engagement of Child and Family Services. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(2), 306-322. Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. (2003). Essential Research Methofs for Social Work. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Sandfort, J., & Milward, H. B. (2009). Collaborative Service Provision in the Public Sector. In S. Cropper, C. Huxham, M. Ebers, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations (pp. 147-174). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walter, U. M., & Petr, C. G. (2000). A Template for Family-Centered Interagency Collaboration. Families in Society, 81(5), 494-503. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.1051 Willumsen, E., & Hallberg, L. (2003). Interprofessional collaboration with young people in residential care: some professional perspectives. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17(4), 389-400.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學社會工作研究所 105264011
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105264011
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Social Administration and Social Work] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
401101.pdf		2429Kb	Adobe PDF2	33	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...