本研究採用質性研究方法來探討高雄市、台中市的兒童保護服務網絡之合作現況，其中網絡成員的認定有別於過去跨專業角色，而是聚焦於服務家庭及兒少的公部門、家庭處遇單位、寄養單位與機構安置單位之間的合作關係，並以社會工作者及中階管理者作為此次研究的受訪對象。本研究的目的為：第一，了解「家庭重整服務」與「家外安置服務」之間的網絡合作情形；第二，探討現有的網絡合作情形所產生的優勢與挑戰；第三，藉由本研究結果之發現，期能對於「家庭重整服務」與「家外安置服務」之間現有的合作關係，提出具體的改善建議。本研究分別於高雄市、台中市抽取了十一個組織，共計十一個社工人員、十個中階管理者進行深度訪談，研究結果如下：一、高雄市與台中市的合作關係大多係基於「行政管理」與「個案需求」所產生，不同組織間的合作關係之正式化程度不一；二、影響網絡合作的原因可區分為「脈絡因素」、「過程因素」、「個別組織因素」與「服務對象因素」，在「脈絡因素」因素中包含了「環境因素」、「歷史文化因素」、「權力落差」以及「組織間的界線」。在「過程因素」中包含了「關係的維持」、「溝通順暢度」、「認知落差」、「所有權的挑戰」、「角色與責任的分工」、「團體領導者的適任度」、「網絡成員組成」和「合作架構與機制的清楚度」。「個別組織因素」則含括了「組織因素」、「員工因素」和「領導者因素」這幾個向度。在最後的「服務對象因素」中則包含了「特殊性」、「急迫性」與「重大改變」；三、受訪者在與不同組織間的合作感受有所差異，其中合作對象分別為公部門社工、家庭處遇單位社工、寄養社工與機構安置社工；四、受訪者對於目前的網絡領導者、合作關係與合作機制提出期待，在對網絡領導者部分，期待能「提升網絡合作的統籌能力」與「建立合作機制」。在合作關係的期待部分為「期待的一致性」、「提升資訊交換的完整性」與「合作對象單一化」。在合作機制的期待部分則是「重視網絡成員作為服務提供者的主體性」與「提升專業自主性，避免過度依賴」。 除了上述研究結果外，另根據研究資料，研究者提出以下六點討論意見：一、委外作為服務提供的選擇？二、不對等的合作關係；三、評估落差的議題；四、安置服務的規劃特性；五、永久性服務規劃的執行困境；六、返家的可能性愈來愈低？這六大項次的討論呈現雖非本研究的主要目的，然與現行兒童保護服務的網絡運作有密不可分的關係，值得注意。根據上述研究結果，研究者另分別對於實務面與政策面提出建議，期能做為未來實務工作及政策制定之參考。 / This research adopts qualitative research method to discuss the status quo of child protection network cooperation in Kaohsiung and Taichung city. In which, the network members' identification differentiates from cross-professional roles in the past; instead, it puts focus on cooperation relationship between public sectors serving family and children, family intervention service unit, foster family care unit and also institute care unit. Social workers as well as mid-level managers are main respondents in this research. The purpose of this research is showed as follow: First, to understand the cooperation between family reunification service and out-of-home care service. Second, to discuss the advantages and challenges caused by current network cooperation. Third, to be able to offer a concrete suggestion to improve the current cooperation relationship between family reunification service unit and out-of-home service unit. In-depth interviews are taken with eleven organizations including eleven social workers and ten mid-level managers in Kaohsiung and Taichung city in the research. The results show that: one, the cooperation in these row cities mostly bases on administrative management and case requirement. The degree of formalization among organizations is different; two, the factors that influence the cooperation can be divided into context, progress, the individual organize and service object. Mentioning the factor of context, it covers the factor of environment, factor of historic culture, factor of authority gap and factor of boundary existing among organizations. The factor progress includes maintenance in relationships, stability in communication, gap in awareness, challenge in possession, division in roles and responsibility, appropriateness of group leaders, combination of network members and last, clearness of cooperation structure as well as its mechanism. The factor of individual organize includes factor of organization, factor of employees and factor of leaders. The lastly mentioned factor of service object covers aspect of uniqueness, urgency and massive changes; three, respondents have various cooperation experience with different organizations, in which, the cooperators are social workers from public sector, family intervention service unit, foster family care unit and care institute; four, respondents express their expectation toward current network leaders, cooperation relationship and cooperation mechanism. Respondents also expect that their cooperation relationship could have consistency in expectation, integrity in information exchanging and simplification in service object. Their expectation toward cooperation mechanism put emphasis on how to value network members as main service provider and how to heighten professional autonomy for not being over dependent. Besides the research result mentioned above, the researcher has also pointed out six arguments based on the research data found. First of all: first, possibility that outsourcing becomes another option for service providing; second, imbalance cooperation relationship; third, issue of evaluation disparity; fourth, the characteristic of out-of-home care service; fifth, the impediment in conducting permanent service; sixth, lower and lower possibility for children to return home. These six arguments are not main purpose of this research; however, they are the other side of the coin meaning that they are inseparable with current functioning of child protection service network, which is noticeable. In accordance to the research results mentioned earlier, the researcher offers suggestions to actual practice, and to policy making, wishing to become future prototype.