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.