本研究採用質性研究方法，運用深入訪談方法來訪談14位處理兒童及少年校園性侵害案件具有實務工作經驗超過5年的警察人員、教職人員、社工員，從中探討社工員在介入校園性侵害案件服務工作的角色扮演及其與警政、學校一同處理案件的衝突，並從中探究社工員本身的工作困境與因應之道，期能作為社工員介入校園性侵害案件服務工作經驗整理的開始，進而可做為社工員在性侵害防治工作領域專業角色扮演，及與他專業合作分工的參考。本研究發現如下: 一、社工員主觀認知的角色功能，與法定職責相似，且社工 員角色在處理性侵害案件與一般兒少保護案件是有所差異的。另警政與教育人員對性侵害業務社工員角色扮演的看法，彷彿停留在社工員可以協助其業務面向或是被害人面對司法問題上。總之，似乎校園性侵害案件真要進入司法程序，社工員的角色功能才得以有所發揮。 二、警察人員最期待社工員能夠先了解案情，且請社工員不要在當事人面前「指揮」警察該如何偵辦案件。又教職人員最期待社工員能夠提供訪談資訊，以協助性平會調查。 三、社工員服務困境主要來自社政體制本身，與對個案及其家屬服務過程的衝突。前者如依法規定24小時訪案沒有彈性、新案影響提供舊案的服務、夜間陪同偵訊問題、與應對司法制度產生之角色衝突困境。後者如被害人拒絕配合調查程序、與家長對案情認定不一致，以及面臨處理兩情相悅案件的複雜性。 四、而專業間對彼此的抱怨，呈現了警察人員最在意社工員過度干涉筆錄製作事項，社工員反覺得警察人員不清楚兒童及少年被害人的情緒反應狀態與行為模式，卻未積極偵辦之情。另一方面，學校教職人員覺得社工員透漏學校通報之情，而破壞學校師生的信任關係，甚至覺得社工員可以不要再重複訪談被害學生了。相對的，社工員對於學校教職人員忽略被害人感受 與對被害人標籤、未能滿足家長期待、不清楚處理流程等等事項有所抱怨。 五、為因應上述之困境，且促進專業間的合作關係，也為個案提供專業服務，社工員對學校性平調查持一定配合程度。另為避免破壞與警政的合作關係，社工員全力協助被害人配合製作筆錄事宜。且為維護被害人的法定權益，社工員應接納被害人的個別差異性，並協調各專業之差異認定與判斷。更重要的是社工員需進行自我心態調整，清楚社工員職責角色的界線，同時接納與了解不同專業的工作內容。 六、綜合受訪者想法、意見，在目前實務工作場域中的情境，發現專業間可以分別辦理共同訓練、整合調查工作、建立跨單位組織、修訂法規等不同方式來建立以被害人為中心的團隊工作模式。 依上述研究發現，從處理兒少校園性侵害案件的制度面與從社工員實務工作面提出建議。首先在制度面上，中央機關可從法令規章的修訂與建立中央跨部會機關間的協調機制來著手，而縣市政府教育局處可成立跨校專責小組以專責處理性平案件調查業務，並結合警政、社政之性侵害業務專責小組成跨專業團隊來專責處理校園性侵害事件。在實務面上，建議社政主管機關要落實性侵害防治業務社工員之在職教育、建立緊急保護社工員的服務體制與倡導社工員的職責角色，且社工員要了解與運用性侵害防治業務相關法律規定，並開放自我與其他專業對話。 / This paper adopts the qualitative research method to have in-depth interviews with fourteen police officers, school faculties and social workers who have the experience of dealing with campus sexual assault cases of children and youth for more than five years. With the conducted interviews, this paper will discuss the role social workers play when involving in the cases of sexual assault on campus and the conflicts aroused among social workers, the police and school faculty. This paper aims to investigate the dilemma that social workers face in their job and the possible solutions to these problems. In hope that these data can serve as an initial record for social workers who work in this disciplinary; a reference for the role social workers play in sexual assault prevention; and a guide for the collaboration with other professions. This paper has thus reached the following findings: I. The subjective perception of social workers’ function is similar to their statutory duty and that their role in dealing with sexual assault cases differs from that handling general child protection cases. Nevertheless, the police and school faculty still have the impression that social workers who handle sexual assault cases can assist them with their respective duties or provide help for the victim’s confrontation with the judicial problems. Ultimately, it seems like it is only when the campus sexual assault case reaches its judicial stage, then social workers can play their part. II. The police expect social workers to understand the case and meanwhile, they do not want social workers to interfere with their investigation, especially in front of the victim or victimizer. On the other hand, the school faculty expects social workers to provide them with the interview information, so as to assist the investigation of the Gender Equality Committee. III. The problems that social workers face are mainly from the rigidity of the social affair system and the conflicts aroused when communicating with the victim, the victimizer, and their relatives. The former problems are such as the inflexibility of the regulation of the law to attend the case in 24 hours; the past cases are affected by the current cases; the problems of accompanied night interrogation; and the conflicts aroused in confrontation with the judicial system. The latter problems are such as the victimizer’s refusal to cooperate in the investigation, the disagreement on the case with the parents, and the complexity to handle the case involving sexual gratification in mutuality. IV. There are complaints between different professions. For instance, the police concern the most about social workers’ excessive intervention when they are making a report of the case. However, social workers feel that the police are insensitive to the child or youth victim’s emotions and behaviors, and therefore they did not carry out the investigation actively. Moreover, the school faculty feels that social workers’ disclosure of the case would damage the trust between students and teachers. Also, they feel that social workers should not interview the victimized student repeatedly. On the other hand, social workers have complaints about the school faculty. For example, their negligence of the victim’s feelings; their tendency to label the victim; their inability to fulfill the expectations of the parents and their ignorance of the procedure of the case. V. To solve the above problems; to initiate the cooperative relations among different professions; and to provide the case with professional service, social workers will definitely coordinate with the school’s investigation on the gender equality cases. Also, in order not to damage the cooperative relation with the police, social workers will provide full assistance while the police are making a report of the case with the victim. Moreover, social workers should safeguard the legal rights of the victim by accepting the victim’s individual difference and coordinating the difference in judgments between various professions. Most importantly, social workers should undergo an adjustment in mentality to understand their role and the borderline of their duty by accepting and understanding the tasks of various professions. VI. By summing up the interviewees’ ideas and opinions, there comes to a discovery that in the practical practices, it is possible for different professions to conduct trainings together, to synthesize the investigation, to establish a cross-unit organization, to revise regulations and many other ways in order to create a victim-centered working team mode. From the above studies, suggestions can be made on two aspects, the system itself and the practical practices of social workers, while dealing with sexual assault cases on campus. First on the system, the central authority can start with the revision of the laws and regulations and the establishment of the coordination from the central to the other departments. For instance, the County Municipal Bureau of Education Department can set up a cross-school team that deals mainly with gender equality cases, and which is able to synthesize the sexual assault investigative teams from the police and social workers. Next, on the practical practices of social workers, it is suggested that the social affairs authority should implement the in-service education of social workers involving in sexual assault preventive project. Also, it is necessary for the establishment of a service system that protects social workers’ safety in case of emergency and the need to advocate the responsibility of their role. Furthermore, social workers are required to understand and exercise the laws and regulations related to sexual assault preventive cases, and to have an open-mind so that the dialogues with other professions can be made possible.

「國民小學國民中學及直轄市縣（市）政府置專任專業輔導人員辦法」於民國100年頒布，希望透過專任專業輔導人員的進駐，提供青少年與學校輔導工作更專業的協助，期盼學校中的三級輔導能夠更加健全。本研究旨在探討國中輔導教師與專任專業輔導人員（含學校心理師及學校社工師）的跨專業合作經驗、了解專任專業輔導人員加入學校輔導工作團隊後的影響為何？輔導教師對於專任專業輔導人員的期待為何？ 　　本研究以質性研究的方式，以目前服務於新北市北區國中之輔導教師（包含輔導室行政人員、兼任輔導教師及專任輔導教師）為研究對象，進行一對一半結構深度訪談，共訪談六位。以主題分析法進行歸納、統整所蒐集的訪談資料，將實務工作現場所呈現之資料建構出歸納式結論。 　　本研究結果發現如下： 一、跨專業合作現況： （一）輔導教師與專任專業輔導人員合作內容包含直接服務與間接服務。（二）輔導教師與不同專業合作有不同的合作方式。（三）各專業在合作中有不同角色。（四）輔導教師、學校心理師及學校社工師三方共同合作機會少 二、跨專業合作對學校輔導工作的幫助： （一） 與專任專業輔導人員合作帶來的幫助：(1)加快處遇、(2)與個案晤談更深入、(3)促進與家長的合作、(4)減輕輔導教師負擔、(5)提供不同觀點。（二）與學校心理師合作帶來的幫助：(1)提升專業信任、(2)跳脫學校教育的角度與個案工作。（三）與學校社工師合作帶來的幫助：(1)整合資源、(2)更清楚法規上的規定。 三、對跨專業合作的期待： （一）對專任專業輔導人員的期待：(1)專任專業輔導人員對學校需求的瞭解、(2)專任專業輔導人員提供穩定校內督導、(3)專任專業輔導人員可協助增強初級預防。（二）對制度的期待：(1)補足目前應有人力、(2)增置校內專任專業輔導人員。 / In 2011, Taiwan Government draw up the regulations for elementary school and junior high school to having the professions of school counselors and social workers. With the new regulations, the professions of school counselors and social workers are expected to improve the profession and quality of school guidance networks. The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of trans-disciplinary cooperation among the professions of guidance teachers, school counselors, and social workers in junior high school. This study also wanted to know were there any impact brought in when the professions got into school guidance teams and know the expectation of guidance teachers. This study used semi-structured interviews to collect data from 6 guidance teachers (including managers and teachers) who work in junior high school in North Dist of New Taipei City. Thematic Analysis is adopted to transcribe, analyze and code all recordings. The main findings of this study were as follows: 1. The situation of trans-disciplinary cooperation: The cooperation contents include direct service and indirect service. When working with different profession guidance teachers have different mode. In trans-disciplinary cooperation processes all of the professions have their own roles. However the chance of trans-disciplinary cooperation among the professions of guidance teachers, school counselors, and social workers is less common. 2. The assistance of trans-disciplinary cooperation: The school counselors and social workers could accelerate treatments, deeply work with clients, promote the cooperation with parents, release guidance teachers’ pressure, and provide different views. The school counselors could upgrade trust of profession and use another role working in the school. The school social workers could integrate the resources and they know more about the laws. 3. The expectation to trans-disciplinary cooperation: The guidance teachers expect that the school counselors and social workers could know more about junior high school, provide stable supervision in school, and help primary prevention. From a policy perspective, the guidance teachers expect that the government could fill the vacancy and recruit full time school counselors and social workers in junior high school.

兒童少年權益保障向來是社會福利服務法制著重之處，蓋我國憲法基本國策章節第156條作為憲法委託條款，即課予立法者積極建置完善兒童福利法制之義務。從1973年制定兒童福利法後，迄至2011年以「兒童及少年福利與權益保障法」，兒童福利服務相關之法制已趨向完備，尤可見證兒童從「保護客體」至「權利主體」地位轉變之過程。而社工人員基於其對兒童少年發展、家庭政策之認識，以及資源引介與諮商等專業技巧，成為兒少福利服務主要提供者，立法者期待社工發揮賦權功能，協助身心未臻成熟之兒少實踐其權益。 然而，福利服務法制雖高度規範社工職責，卻仍可耳聞因社工人力不足，或專業判斷缺失導致之重大虐兒案件，本文以此為觀察基礎，並提出問題意識：社工專業與兒少權益保障之關係為何？社工人員於行政與司法程序之定位又是如何？而從事社會工作業務者，可能來自公部門行政機關，或是來自私部門民間團體，故本文以「兒少保護安置」與「兒少收出養案件」為研究範疇，前者釐清公部門社工於緊急保護安置公權力行使之界限，及其與司法審查間之關係；至於兒少收出養案件，本文則探討民間兒少福利團體受法院囑託所出具之訪視建議，對於法院裁判有如何拘束力，又如何定性該受託法律關係等問題。 對於社工人員應如何認知自身權利與義務，應如何積極執行履行其法定職務並有效落實兒童權利，本文以英國兒童法制為借鏡，說明英國兒童法對於兒童保護安置有其細膩之評估標準與程序，同時強調多元專業參與之觀點，至於英國收養審判程序中，則由專門機構進行訪視並提出建議。英國法制同時強調司法與行政程序中皆應考量兒童自主意見，並著重兒童與父母家庭生活權之保障。反思於我國，本文具體指出，於兒少保護安置措施中，公部門社工員就法律不確定概念之涵攝及決定安置與否，應透過與法院之對話發展出更完善之準則，避免濫權或怠於行使職權等影響人民權利之憾事發生；至於兒少收出養案件，本文則認為政府應積極建置司法社工，避免囑託委外契約之紊亂，同時應兼顧當事人程序事前事後聽審權保障，又司法與社會工作實務工作者應留意專業自主判斷空間與界限，方能達成跨專業合作保障兒少權益之目的。