English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92429/122733 (75%)
Visitors : 26435678      Online Users : 234
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55157


    Title: 高風險家庭處遇的督導模式與工作成效之探討
    A study for supervision model and work effectiveness of high risk family treatment
    Authors: 蔡維濬
    Contributors: 宋麗玉
    蔡維濬
    Keywords: 高風險家庭處遇
    督導模式
    工作成效
    high-risk family treatment
    supervision model
    work effectiveness
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2012-11-01 14:01:01 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 研究者採用質性訪談方法,以高風險家庭處遇方案為場域,邀請執行該方案之督導員及社工員各六位為研究對象,運用宋麗玉與施教裕(2010)所擬定之「社會工作處遇的服務項目和結果指標:概念架構及操作定義」為成效指標之參考,進行個別訪談與資料收集。本研究主要探討高風險家庭處遇服務的社工督導模式,以及在不同督導模式下,社工員在「兒少成長發展」、「成人主要照顧者的改善發展」、「整體家庭功能的增強提昇」、「案家週邊社會支持體系」四大工作成效層面之情形。研究結果發現六種督導模式,分別為:「優勢觀點取向督導模式」、「生態系統取向督導模式」、「焦點解決取向督導模式」、「詮釋學取向督導模式」、「工具性督導模式」,以及「表達性督導模式」。於工作成效上,經社工員處遇後,在「兒少的成長發展層面」上,不論是一般兒少或是特殊兒少,經相關社會資源輸入後,如飲食、衛生、醫療、教育等系統,已使兒少漸漸步入正常的發展階段,發揮兒少自身之潛能,轉變成身、心、靈皆較為圓滿之狀態;在「成人主要照顧者的改善發展層面」上,原先家中之主要照顧者,因自身疾病因素或自我功能不足之情形,經社工的協助與鼓勵,多可獲得進一步的醫療處置以及良好的社會支持系統,發揮既有之社會功能,減緩低落的心理狀態,並以兒少之最佳利益為優先考量,以照顧兒少為其目標,提升本有之照顧功能;在「整體家庭功能的增強提昇層面」上,顯而易見的即是主要照顧者與兒少之間,多可站在雙方之立場,彼此接納與尊重,共同為家庭目標努力,各自扮演好應盡之角色義務,維持家庭之順利運行,使整體家庭功能有所提昇;在「建構案家週邊社會支持體系層面」上,經社工員引入正式與非正式資源後,案家危機狀況多可獲得即時性的改善,使家庭狀態趨於穩定,更重要的是案家在此過程擁有能力,當家庭需求無法滿足時,案家主動找尋社會資源以自我協助,預防家庭危機之再次出現。此外,經不同督導模式下的社工員,其工作成效亦可見其特殊性,如優勢觀點取向督導模式,使社工員在工作成效指標的四大面向,呈現多元的面貌,尤其在「成人主要照顧者的改善發展層面」、「整體家庭功能的增強提昇層面」,以及「建構案家週邊社會支持體系層面」上有突出的表現;生態系統取向督導模式,則在「兒少的成長發展層面」、「整體家庭功能的增強提昇層面」,以及「建構案家週邊社會支持體系層面」上擁有明顯表現;焦點解決取向督導模式,其在「整體家庭功能的增強提昇層面」上多有助益;詮釋學取向督導模式,主要展現於「成人主要照顧者的改善發展層面」。最後,研究者建議在政策規劃上,政府可強化社會工作督導員職能培訓與效能提升,並將該成效指標納入政策內容與高風險家庭個案管理系統;在實務工作上,建議督導員善用社會工作理論於督導過程,並建構出屬於自身的督導模式來模塑社工員的工作表現,以及實際運用該成效指標於處遇工作中。
    The researcher, applying the qualitative interview research in the field of the high-risk family service project, interviewing with six supervisors and six social workers in the project by applying the “complete conceptual framework and operational definition of service classification and outcome indicators” proposed by Song & Shih (2010) to gather data. Our research explored the social work supervision models for the services of high-risk family treatment and social workers’ outcomes in the areas of “child development”, “care takers’ improvement”, “family function empowerment” and “informal social support network”.According to our findings, six supervision models, “strengths perspective-approached supervision model”, “ecological systems-approached supervision model”, “solution-focused approached supervision model” , “hermeneutics-approached supervision model”, “instrumental supervision model” and “expressive supervision model”, all displayed work effectiveness as the treatments by social workers. In the area of “child development”,they inputted social resources such as diet, health, medical and education systems, to enable both normal and special children to begin to move into normal development stage for exhibiting their own potential and transforming into more successful physical, mental and spiritual state. In the “area of care takers’ improvement”, most of the main care takers of families, who had previously suffered from their own diseases or insufficient self-functions, were given better medical treatments and good social support system through the assistance and encouragement from the social workers, with their depressed mental state alleviated, and their inherent function of care taking giving priority to the consideration of best interests of children and setting the goal at care of children.In the “area of family function empowerment”, obviously both the main care takers and the children became more able to be take the stand points of each other to accept and respect each other to work hard jointly for the family’s aim, which each playing its own part well to sustain the smooth operation of the family and enhance the family function as a whole. In the “area of constructing of informal social support network”, most of the families of the case had their crises improved promptly after the social workers introduced formal and informal sources. Stabilizing the family status, and, more importantly, once these families possessed such capability during the treatment process, they would take initiatives in seeking social resources to self-help when their needs cannot be met, for preventing the family crises from re-occurring.In addition, social workers under different supervision models also showed their uniqueness in work effectiveness. For example, the strengths perspective-approached supervision model enabled social workers to exhibit diversely in the four areas of work effectiveness indicators, particularly the “area of care takers’ improvement”, the “area of family function empowerment” and the “area of constructing informal social support network”, where outstanding performances were seen. With the ecological systems-approached supervision model, notable performances were seen in the “area of child development”, the “area of family function empowerment” and the “area of constructing informal social support network”. The solution-focused approached supervision model helped greatly in the “area of family function empowerment”. The hermeneutics-approached supervision model stood out in the “area of care takers’ improvement”. At last, the researchers recommend that the governments, in formulating their policies, can strengthen the capacity training and efficacy increase for social work supervisors and take the outcome indicators as part of the policy contents and case management systems of high-risk families. Regarding the practice, we recommend that supervisors make good use of the theories of social work in their supervisory processes and construct supervision models that are for themselves to shape the performance of social workers and to apply the outcome indicators in the work of treatment.
    Reference: 中文部分:

    王孟愉(2007)。《高風險家庭因應壓力之適應歷程-以優勢觀點為取向》。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作研究所碩士論文。

    李宗派(2003)。《現代社會工作-一門助人之專業》。台北:合記圖書。

    朱春林(1994)。《督導行為與義務張老師工作滿足及工作績效之關係-因徑目標論之應用》。東吳大學社會學研究所碩士論文。

    宋麗玉、施教裕、張錦麗(2004)。《九十三年推動受暴婦女優點個案管理模式之教育訓練、督導與評估研究》。內政部家庭暴力暨性侵害防治委員會委託研究。

    宋麗玉、施教裕、張錦麗(2005)。《九十四年推動受暴婦女優點個案管理模式方案之期末報告》。內政部家庭暴力暨性侵害防治委員會委託研究。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2005)。《94年高風險家庭關懷輔導處遇實施計畫評估報告》。內政部兒童局委託研究報告。

    宋麗玉(2005)。<精神障礙者之復健與復元—一個積極正向的觀點>,《中華心理衛生學刊》,第18期第4卷,頁1-29。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2006a)。《95年高風險家庭關懷輔導處遇實施計畫評估報告》。內政部兒童局委託研究報告。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2006b)。<「高風險家庭關懷輔導處遇實施計畫」執行狀況初探>,《社區發展季刊》,第114期,頁103-117。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2006c)。《高風險家庭服務策略與處遇模式之研究》。內政部兒童局委託研究。

    宋麗玉、施教裕、顏玉如、張錦麗(2006d)。<優點個案管理模式之介紹與運用於受暴婦女之評估結果>。《社區發展季刊》,第113期,頁143-161。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2007)。《96年高風險家庭關懷輔導方案機構督導與服務成效之評估計畫》。內政部兒童局委託研究。
    宋麗玉、施教裕(2008)。《97年高風險家庭關懷輔導方案機構督導與服務成效之評估計畫》。內政部兒童局委託研究。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2009)。《98年高風險家庭關懷輔導方案機構督導與服務成效之評估計畫》。內政部兒童局委託研究。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2009) 。《優勢觀點-社會工作理論與實務》。台北:洪葉。

    宋麗玉、施教裕(2011)。<高風險家庭處遇模式之探究與建構>,《兒童及少年福利期刊》,第19期,頁27-64。

    沙依仁、江亮演(2004)。《社會工作管理》。台北:五南。

    吳芝儀、廖梅花譯,A. Strauss & J. Corbin原著(1998)。《質性研究入門:紮根理論研究方法。嘉義:濤石。

    沈慶鴻(2005)。<保護性社會工作者工作困境之研究-以台北縣家暴中心疑似性侵害案為例>,《台灣社會工作學刊》,第4期,頁113-145。

    林哲立(2001)。《電話自願工作者諮商自我效能之相關研究-以台北縣市機構為例》。輔仁大學社會工作學系碩士論文。

    周秀如(2011)。《督導行為取向、督導關係與受督導者職務勝任感相關性研》究。東海大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。

    施教裕、宋麗玉(2010)。<社會工作處遇的服務項目和結果指標:概念架構及操作定義>,《社區發展季刊》,第130期,頁34-55。

    施教裕、宋麗玉(2011)。<高風險家庭關懷輔導方案的回顧與展望>,《兒童及少年福利期刊》,第19期,頁1-26。

    莫藜藜(1995)。社會工作督導與諮詢。載於李增祿主編,《社會工作概論》。台北:巨流。

    施香如(2003)。<社區輔導機構義務諮商員的被督導經驗>,《應用心理研究》,第18期,頁 145-177。

    翁毓秀(1994)。<兒童虐待指標與處遇策略>,《學生輔導通訊》,第35期,頁30-37。

    翁淑卿(1996)。《督導行為取向與社會工作者職業倦怠感關係之研究-以台灣省縣市政府社 會工作員為例》。東海大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。

    高迪理 (2002)。《同儕互動督導模式。社會工作督導實施方式之理論與實務》。財團法人台灣兒童暨家庭扶助基金會編印。

    陳秋山譯,Ming-sum Tsui原著(2008)。《社會工作督導-脈絡與概念》。台北:心理。

    許雅惠(2002)。<性別、依賴、就業力—台灣婦女的經濟弱勢與保障>,《台大社會工作學刊》,第6期,頁123-173。

    許維素(2007)。<焦點解決督導成效之研究>,《教育心理學報》,第38期第3卷,頁331-354。

    許維素、蔡秀玲(2008)。<高中職輔導教師焦點解決團體督導成效之研究>,《教育心理學報》,第39期第4卷,頁603-622。

    許韶玲、蔡秀玲(2006)。<受督導者提早結束督導:一個督導配對的密集分析>,《教育心理學報》,第38卷第2期,頁213-225。

    許雅惠、廖鳳池(2009)。<督導回饋對受督導者之衝擊與諮商行為影響之研究>,《新竹教育大學教育學報》,第26卷第1期,頁63-92。

    連廷嘉、徐西森(2003)。<諮商督導者與實習諮商員督導經驗之分析>,《應用心理研究》,第18期,頁89-111。

    連廷嘉(2008)。<諮商督導工作同盟關係與受督導者滿意度之相關研究>。《新竹教育大學學報》,第25卷第2期,頁33-63。

    陳向明(2002)。《社會科學質的研究》。台北:五南。

    張淑芬、廖鳳池(2010)。<受督導者知覺之諮商督導關係歷程及督導關係事件研究>,《教育心理學報》,第42期第2卷,頁317 - 338。

    張淑芬(2008)。《不同配對諮商督導關係變化歷程及其重要事件之分析研究》。高雄師範大學輔導與諮商研究所博士論文。

    張素梅(2009)。《兒少保護家庭及高風險家庭接受處遇服務之經驗探討-以台中縣為例》。東海大學社工研究所碩士論文。


    張盈坤、方岷譯,Whittaker, J.K., Kinney, J., Tracy, E.M. & Booth, C.原著(1998)。《積極性家庭維繫服務:家庭政策及福利服務之應用服務》。台北:揚智。

    黃源協(2008)。《社會工作管理(二版)》。台北:雙葉。

    馮燕(1988)。<生存權的捍衛-台灣地區的棄兒保護>,《人口學刊》,第19期,頁161-194。

    馮燕(2010)。<不安家庭與惶恐孩子的減量工程—高風險家庭服務方案的回顧與展望>,發表於「開創與前瞻-實務觀點的高風險家庭服務」研討會。台北:財團法人中華民國兒童福利聯盟文教基金會。

    葉春杏(2006)。《災區社工人員受督導經驗之探究-以台中縣九二一生活重建中心為例》。慈技大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。

    楊秀玲(2011)。《社會工作受督導者知覺督導關係、督導者權力表現與專業服務自主性之相關研究》。東海大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。

    廖榮利(1998)。《社會工作管理》。台北:三民。

    蔡佑襁(2009)。《高風險家庭家庭功能促進-以優勢觀點為取向》。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作研究所碩士論文。

    蔡曉雯、郭麗安、楊明磊(2010)。<督導關係中的權力意涵研究-受督者觀>,《中華輔導與諮商學報》,第27期,頁39 -77。







    英文部分:

    Austin, M.J.(1981).Supervisory management for the human services .Englewood
    Cliffs ,NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Brown, A. & Bourne, I. (1999) .The Social Work Supervisor: Supervision in Community,
    Day Care, and Residential Settings. UK: Open University Press.

    Bandura, A. (1977).Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
    Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

    Barker,R.L.(1995).Social work dictionary(3rd ed.).Washington, DC:NASW Press.

    Cole, E. S. (1995).Becoming family-centered: Child welfare's challenge. Families in Society, 76, 173-181.

    Cohen, B. (1999).Intervention and supervision in strengths-based social work practice. Families in Society, Sept/Oct, 1-17

    Fox,R. (1983).Contracting in supervision:A goal oriented process. The Clinical Supervision,1,37-49.

    Ford,K. & Jones, A.(1987). Student Supervision ,London: Macmillannow Palgrave Macmillan.

    Gitterman, A. (1972).Comparison of education models and their influences on supervision. In F. W. Kaslow et al. (Eds.), Issues in human services(pp.18-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Green, B. L., McAllister, C.L. & Tarte, J.M. (2004).The strengths-based practices inventory: a tool for measuring strengths-based service delivery in early childhood and family support programs. Families in Society, (85/3), 326-334.

    Greenspan,R. ,Hanfling,S.,Parker,E. ,Primm,S., & Waldfogel,D. (1991).Supervision of experienced agency workers:A descriptive study. The clinical Supervision ,9(2),31-42.

    Holloway, W. L. (1995).Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Sage publications.

    Hafford-Letchfield, T.(2006). Management and Organizations in Social Work, East Exeter:Learning Matters Ltd.

    Harkness, D.,& Poertner, J.(1989)Research and social work supervision:A conception review. Social Work,34(2),115-118.

    Harkness, D., & Hensley, H.(1991).Changing the focus of social work supervision:Effects on client satisfaction and generalized contentment. Social Work, 37,506-512.

    Hawkins, P. &Shohet, R. (1989).Supervision in the helping professions. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Holden, E.W. , & Banez, G. A.(1996).Child Abuse and Parenting Stress Within Maltreating Families. Journal of family Violence, 11, 1-12.

    Harkness,D.(1995).The art of helping in supervised practice: Skills, relationships, and outcomes. The Clinical Supervisor, 13(1)63-76.

    Jeson, J., Fraser, M. (2006). A Risk and Resilience Framework for Child, Youth and Family Policy, in Jensom, J., Fraser, M. Social Policy for Children and Families: A Risk and Resilience Perspectives, Sage.

    Kadushin, A. (1992).Supervision in social work(3 ed). NY: Columbia University

    Kadushin, A. & Harkness, D. (2002).Supervision in Social Work, Columbia University Press:NY.

    Kadushin,A.(1974).Supervisor-supervisee:A survey. Social Work,19(3),288-298.

    Kearney,P.(1999).Managing Practice: Report on the Management of Practice Expertise Project, London: National Institute for Social Wok.

    Lincoln Y. S. & Guba E. G.(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

    Lewis, J.A.,Lewis M.D. ,&Souflee Jr. F.(1991).Management of Human Service Programs, California:Books/Cole.

    Latting, J. E.(1986).Adaptive supervision : A theoretical model for social workers. Administration in social work ,10(2),15-23.

    Laufrr,H.(2003).Long-Experienced Social Workers and Supervision:Perceptions andImplication .The Clinical Supervisor,22(2),153-171.

    Lowy,L.( 1983).Social work supervision:From models toward theory. Journal of Education for Social Work,19(2),55-62.

    Lansford, J. E., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge., K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, 0. S. (2004).Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent externalizing behaviors . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 45 (4).
    801-812.

    Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Monette , D.R., Sullivan ,T. J., and DeJong ,C.R.(2010).Applied Social Research:Tool for the Human Services(8th Ed.,).New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Munson, C. E. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision(3rd ed.). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

    Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Rabinowitz, J.(1987).Why ongoing supervision in social casework:An historical analysis. The Clinical Supervisor, 5(3) ,79-90.

    Shulman,L. (1993). Interactional Supervision, Washington:NASW.

    Stoltenberg,C. (1981).Approaching supervision from a development perspective: The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(1),59-65.

    Tsui,M.S.,&Ho,W.S.(1997).In search of a comprehensive model of social work supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 16(2), 181-205.

    Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2004). Supporting families in a high-risk setting: Proximal effects of the SAFEChildren preventive intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 855-869.

    Williams,A.J.(1988).Action methods in supervision. The Clinical Supervisor,6(2)13-27.

    Weinstein, J., Whittington,C. and Leiba,T. (2003).Collaboration in Social Work Practice, London:Jessic and New York.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    社會工作研究所
    99264002
    101
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099264002
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[社會工作研究所 ] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML261View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback