社工員對兒童疏忽照顧態度相關因素之探討

Abstract

近年來，台灣對於兒童保護工作發展已有一定的規模，然而在兒童不當對待的類型中，兒童疏忽的成案量卻遠不及於兒童其他的虐待事件比例（例如身體或精神虐待類型）；而兒童疏忽事件的比例與英美兩國相比較，數據分布的落差相距甚大。台灣的社工對於兒童疏忽事件的判定依據的是何種指標？什麼樣的因素會影響社工對兒童疏忽事件的判定？本研究採用量化研究的典範，調查各縣市政府社會工作員有關於兒童疏忽事件判定的參考架構，探討影響這些社工員在判斷兒童疏忽照顧的相關因素。首先，本研究徵求各縣市政府社會局社會工作科同意提供接受訪談社工員的名單，總人數為397人，再針對這些社工員進行郵寄問卷的調查，最後共獲得232份的有效問卷，回覆率為58.4%。 本研究的兒童疏忽照顧態度方面，採用的是研究者翻譯自Polansky等人（1978）所設計之兒童照顧水準量表（Childhood Level of Living Scale，簡稱CLL）作為測量工具。本研究發現，這些受訪的社工員中，有育兒經驗者、有婚姻經驗者、工作單位為家防中心者，對於兒童疏忽照顧的態度要求較高，對於兒童疏忽之虞的擔心較高。當控制了社工員的育兒經驗與婚姻經驗之後，社工員的服務單位與督導支持滿意度皆能夠預測社工員兒童疏忽照顧態度的傾向，即家防中心的社工員、督導支持的滿意度較高者對於兒童疏忽照顧態度的要求較高，對於有兒童疏忽之虞的擔心也較高。本研究的發現意涵大致有三：（一）兒童疏忽照顧的態度是可以測量的，也可以作為訓練社工員對於兒童疏忽的照顧事件的敏感度；（二）社工員的督導支持滿意度有助於敏感兒童疏忽照顧事件的判定；（三）兒童疏忽事件的實際介入應加強兒童保護資源的提升，例如增加社工人力與工作資源。

In response to a recently increase in child abuse incidence, the child protection services (CPS) has been well developed. However, among the child maltreatment incidences, reported cases of child neglect were far less than physical and emotional abuse cases. When compared to the reporting incidences in the USA and UK, the reporting rate of child neglect incidences was quite marginalized in child maltreatment reports. This study examined what concept of child neglect social workers were based on and what factors predicted the identification of the reporting incidences. Using a quantitative approach, a total of 397 social workers from local governments were sampled to inquire about their attitudes toward child neglect identification, measured by Childhood Level of Living Scale (CLL), developed by Polansky (1978). Finally, 2hundred and thirty-two valid responses were collected, with a response rate of 58.4% Results indicated that social workers with child-rearing and marriage experience, and engaged in CPS work had better sense of childhood level of living and higher awareness of child neglect identification. After controlling for child-rearing and marriage experiences, social workers engaged in CPS work and with higher satisfaction with supervisor’ support had better sense of childhood level of living and higher awareness of child neglect identification. Suggestions were included. (a) Since the concept of child neglect could be measured, it would be feasible to enhance social workers’ sensitivity toward child neglect identification. (b) Since the level of supervisor’s support satisfaction could predict awareness of child neglect identification, it would be feasible to promote supervisor’s support for social workers engaged in CPS. (c) Since lacking of resources was associated with the reluctance to identify child neglect incidence, it would be helpful in increasing the identification of child neglect by increasing social worker manpower and working resources.