| Abstract: | 高風險家庭處遇是一綜合服務體，需跨系統才能達到服務的有效介入。本研究的目的是探究現行高風險家庭處遇與網絡單位互動的情形以發展高風險家庭處遇與網絡系統整合的新方向。研究的對象是台灣中部五縣市的高風險家庭處遇等35位社會工作者/行政人員，採用質性研究方法，以訪談法蒐集資料，並以紮根理論為資料分析策略。研究發現，一、探究社工與社政系統、社工與非社政系統在分工合作的運作中經歷的障礙因素，在社工與社政系統方面，分別是「缺乏介入服務的強力法律支撐」、「財務設計不全」、「多頭馬車」、「供給質量不足與不均」；在社工與非社政系統方面，分別為「法令不週延」，導致權責不明影響分工、「專業系統過度本位主義」、「資源重疊」、「資訊不流通」，影響實務工作者提供整合性的服務，以致未能達到高風險家庭處遇的效果，研究者據此歸整為「切割的制度」。二、探討社工者在現行資源分立體制下的分工合作模式，分別是「行政協調合作模式」、「會議合作模式」、「專業/機構合作模式」、「倡導/教育合作模式」及「人際合作模式」等五種概念因素；並進一步發現這些分工合作模式有不同程度的「制度性協調機制」，綜合而言，制度性協調機制高者，分工合作的確定性愈高，網絡合作愈順暢；制度性協調機制低者，分工合作的確定性愈低。三、針對社工者對高風險家庭處遇服務系統期待整合的要素，分別為「組織整合」、「資訊整合」、「單一窗口」、「社區化」、「個管機制」、「服務整合」等六種概念因素。最後，依據六種整合性服務概念要素與考量客觀條件，模擬發展出四個高風險家庭處遇服務系統整合的方式，分別是「一條龍整合型」、「聯盟整合型」、「跨網絡整合型」、「漸進整合型」，其中「一條龍整合型」完全整合所有服務在同一屋簷下，所以網絡系統間擁有基本共識，人力、物力完全整合，提供的連續性服務最佳，但以目前的實際環境條件是較難以到位的。並針對以上研究結果進一步提出相關建議，期待促成高風險家庭處遇服務系統協力與服務整合。
High risk family intervention is an integrated service that requires crossover systems to achieve effective service intervention. The aim of this study is to explore the interaction between existing high risk family interventions and the network system to develop a new direction for high risk family intervention and network system integration. The subjects investigated were 35 social workers and administrators from five counties and cities in central Taiwan who performed high risk family intervention. The qualitative research method was adopted, and interviews were conducted for data collection. For data analysis, grounded theory was used.The research findings were as follows. (1) Investigation of the obstructive factors encountered in teamwork between social workers and social affairs systems and between social workers and non-social affairs systems showed that in terms of the social workers and social affairs system aspect, factors included “a lack of strong legislation to support intervention services,” “incomplete financial design,” “hydra-headed problems,” and “insufficient and unequal supplies of quality.” With regard to the social workers and non-social affairs system aspect, factors included “undistributed laws and decrees” (which cause unclear rights and liabilities, thus affecting teamwork), “excessive sectionalism in professional systems,” “resource overlaps,” and “non-circulating information” which affects practical workers in providing integrated services, thus leading to failure to achieve the aims of high risk family intervention. The researchers have accordingly generalized this as a “segmented system.” (2) Investigation of the teamwork models of social workers under current resource division systems indicated five concept factors, namely, the “administrative coordination cooperative model,” the “conference cooperative model,” the “professional/institutional cooperative model,” the “advocate/educational cooperative model”, and the “interpersonal cooperative model.” These cooperative models may be used flexibly in practical work. Furthermore, we concluded that these cooperative models have different levels of “systematic coordination mechanisms.” Overall, for those with high levels of systematic coordination mechanisms, the higher the certainty in teamwork, the smoother network cooperation becomes. Those with low levels of systematic coordination mechanisms have lower certainty in teamwork. (3) The factors of high risk family intervention that service system social workers are expected to integrate include the six concept factors of “organizational integration,” “information integration,” “one-stop window,” “communitization,” “individual management mechanism,” and “service integration.” |
