學校社會工作師在校園兒童及少年保護服務的角色與方法：以新北市為例

Abstract

兒童及少年保護服務一直是全國高級中等以下學校學生輔導很重要的一環，兒少保護議題複雜，涉及面向不只是學生個人，還有家庭和社區等不同層面，因主管機關屬社政體系，跨體系間的協力合作就相形重要。而學校社工師與主責的家防中心社工同為社會工作專業人員，在學生輔導工作上，學校社工師應如何嫁接起「以學生為中心、以學校為基礎」的兒少保護工作。研究者從自己的工作經驗出發，以焦點團體的方式進行，邀請學校輔導主任及組長、專輔教師、學校社工師，以及家防中心社工，共進行四場焦點團體，分別透過跨單位對話、學校社工師同質性團體交流，共同激盪並探索學校社工師在兒少保護服務中的角色和專業實踐。 本研究結論如下： 一、 通報階段 輔導行政為主要通報窗口，然通報指標缺乏具體的客觀標準，學校社工師雖能提供專業諮詢，也能協助銜接教育與社政系統，然因學校社工師為駐區服務，服務校數較多，也無法長時間在校內，諮詢的即時性便會受限輔導行政對業務的熟悉度以及與專業人員的合作默契所影響。 二、 調查階段 社政主管機關的成案與服務分工雖有一定原則，然而仍有實務操作上的模糊地帶。學校人員在調查過程的行政協助、受暴兒少陪伴及情緒安撫有助於家防中心的調查更為順暢。學校社工師在社會工作的專業背景下，能有效溝通教育系統與社政系統的期待與共識，然而也要小心情境壓力和行政主管要求，干擾其客觀判斷。 三、 處置階段 從過往經驗，兒少保護案件中會進行強制安置的僅不到一成，校園兒少保護個案絕大多數都仍留在校園，需要學校輔導長期介入。學校社工師的家庭支持服務不應僅限於中止暴力，更應進階思考家庭正向互動和兒少發展的其他可能性，與輔導團隊協力，盤點校內外資源，建構社區安全防護網。 四、 初級預防及教育宣導 學校社工師的兒少保護服務不僅限於個案工作，還有初級輔導的預防功能。學校社工師平時深耕學校，落實三級輔導制度，並透過方案活動和兒少保護議題的宣講來協助學校累積專業知能，並提升兒少自我保護、自我照顧的能力。然而，學校社工師的開案缺乏標準與一致性，讓兒少保護個案在三級輔導介入部分會因學校社工師個別的主動性和積極性而異，方案活動和教育宣導執行也非業務職掌規定範圍，執行與否端賴學校社工師個別決定。此外，現行的調任制度對學校社工師經營社區的穩定久任也相對不利。 依據研究結果，提出教育系統和社政系統在兒少保護議題上協力合作的五項建議。 一、 學校宜建立兒少保護案件的判讀指標與通報指引。 二、 教育和社政系統之間應建立聯繫機制，促進的交流與形成共識。 三、 提升專業知能與跨部門合作的知能。 四、 學校社工師開案服務應更標準化及強化督導功能。 五、 學校社工師方案工作及預防性措施服務應更模組化，以利推廣。

Child and adolescent protection services have always been a crucial aspect of student counseling in all high schools and below. The issues surrounding child and adolescent protection are complex, involving not only the individual students but also their family and community. Given that the responsible authority lies within the social service system, interagency collaboration becomes particularly important. Both school social workers and primary social workers at child protection centers are professionals in social work, working alongside school counseling teams in student counseling. This study examines how school social workers can bridge "student-centered, school-based" child protection work. Drawing from personal work experience, the researcher conducted four focus group sessions, inviting school counseling directors and coordinators, specialized counseling teachers, school social workers, and social workers from child protection centers. Through interagency dialogues and homogeneous group exchanges among school social workers, the study explores the roles and professional practices of school social workers in child and adolescent protection services. The conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. In the Reporting Stage The primary reporting channel is through school counseling administration. However, the reporting indicators lack specific objective standards. Although school social workers can provide professional consultation and help connect the education and social service systems, their ability to offer timely consultation is limited by their service coverage of multiple schools and the extent of familiarity and cooperation between the counseling administration and professional personnel. 2. In the Investigation Stage Although the social service authorities have certain principles for case filing and service allocation, there remain practical ambiguities. Administrative assistance, accompaniment, and emotional comfort provided by school personnel during the investigation process can facilitate smoother investigations by child protection centers. With their professional background in social work, school social workers can effectively communicate the expectations and consensus between the education and social service systems. However, they must be cautious of contextual pressures and administrative demands that may interfere with their objective judgments. 3. In the Disposition Stage Less than ten percent of child protection cases result in forced removal from the home. The vast majority of campus child protection cases remain within the school, requiring long-term intervention by school counseling. The family support services provided by school social workers should not be limited to ending violence but also consider other possibilities for positive family interactions and child development. By collaborating with counseling teams and leveraging internal and external resources, they can build a community safety network. 4. In Primary Prevention and Educational Advocacy The child protection services of school social workers are not limited to casework but also include preventive functions of primary counseling. School social workers, through their deep integration into schools, implement the three-tiered counseling system and support the accumulation of professional knowledge and enhancement of self-protection and self-care abilities among children and adolescents through program work and advocacy on child protection issues. However, the lack of standardized and consistent case opening criteria for school social workers means that the intervention of child protection cases within the three-tiered counseling system varies according to the individual initiative and proactivity of the school social worker. Furthermore, the execution of program work and educational advocacy is not mandated within their job scope and is dependent on the individual school social worker's decisions. Additionally, the current transfer system adversely affects the stability and long-term engagement of school social workers within the community. Based on the research results, five recommendations are proposed for the collaboration between the education and social service systems on child protection issues. 1. School should establish evaluation indicators and reporting guidelines for child protection cases. 2. A liaison mechanism should be established between the education and social service systems to promote communication and consensus. 3. Enhance professional knowledge and cross-departmental collaboration skills. 4. Standardize and strengthen the supervision function of case services by School Social Workers. 5. The program work and preventive services provided by school social workers should be more modularized to facilitate promotion.