本研究背景始於 2024 年震驚社會的「剴剴案」，該案揭示台灣已推動多年的「強化社會安全網計畫」在跨機構協作上的集體失靈。儘管政策強調了「一主責、多協力」的整合目標，且試圖打破體系間的孤島效應，但實務現場仍呈現各體系各自為政的狀態，導致最脆弱的兒童在系統裂縫中墜落。本研究旨在跳脫傳統功能論視角，從一線兒少保護社工的主體經驗出發，深度剖析協作中的權力政治，其中探究在社安網框架下，兒少保護社工與警、衛、教等核心網絡協作時存在的權力不對等與論述優勢，並分析在面對「主責化陷阱」與權力擠壓時，社工可能發展的生存邏輯與回應策略，進而揭示政策預設與實務經驗間的結構落差。
在研究方法上，本研究採取質性研究法中的「大 Q」研究範式，承認並運用研究者的主觀性與反身性作為知識生產的工具。資料蒐集方法採用立意抽樣與滾雪球抽樣，其中深入訪談五位任職於北台灣家防中心、具備一年以上協作經驗的一線兒保社工，並採取情節式訪談法引導受訪社工敘述具體的協作個案與互動細節。在資料分析上，研究遵循 Braun 與 Clarke 提出的反思性主題分析法，以確保研究發現具備深度詮釋力與真實性。
本研究發現顯示，台灣兒少保護協作呈現四項核心特徵：首先是協作啟動受限於科層門檻與危機驅動，尤其高度依賴風險極端升級與正式行政文書完備而非主動預防。其次，實務現場存在嚴峻的知識論斷裂與專業霸權，醫療與心理體系憑藉論述優勢主導決策，可能導致社工基於社會脈絡的評估遭到消音，而警政端則嚴守外顯證據法則，減緩早期介入的可能。再者，網絡單位也發展出防禦性實踐，如透過簽名切結將風險外包，使社工成為主責化陷阱下唯一的代罪羔羊。最後，社工在行政異化下被迫進行官僚妥協以求自保，但在制度失靈處，部份社工亦會動用私人人脈進行非正式的「節點工作」以修補安全網，然而這種制度性剝奪最終可能引發專業出走潮。
　　基於上述研究發現，本研究提出以下建議以翻轉現有跨網絡的協作困境，首先應建立實質的責任共擔機制，打破流於形式的任務編組，將協作成效納入各局處核心 KPI 並建立具備實權且風險共擔的跨局處單位。政策也應正式認可社工對「家庭功能」評估的法定效力，建立平等的跨專業對話平台，將社工的在地知識轉化為處遇依據並翻轉專業霸權。行政端則應推動減負與成效轉型，精簡表單流程並將質性報告高效化，讓協作回歸解決案家困境的初衷而非追求指標分數。最後，政府應將第一線非正式的互助默契制度化，建立跨領域的動態支援機制，並正視勞動正義，解決兒保與心衛社工間薪酬與風險不均的問題，以建構具備韌性與溫度的保護體系。

關鍵字： 強化社會安全網計畫、跨網絡協作、兒少保護社工、權力不對等、反思性主題分析法

This study examines the high-profile 2024 child abuse case in Taiwan (the “Kai-Kai Case”), which exposed systemic institutional failures in inter-agency collaboration under Taiwan’s multi-year “Enhancing Social Safety Network Project.” Although the policy promotes an integrated approach based on a “single lead-case model with multi-agency cooperation” to dismantle organizational silos, its practical implementation remains fragmented. Consequently, the most vulnerable children continue to be overlooked due to structural deficiencies. Moving beyond traditional functionalist perspectives, this research investigates the lived experiences of frontline child protection social workers to critically examine the micro-politics of power in collaborative processes. The study specifically addresses structural power asymmetries and discursive dominance between child protection social workers and key network entities, including police, healthcare, and education systems. It also analyzes the survival logic and adaptive strategies employed by social workers facing the “trap of primary responsibility” and institutional power compression, thereby highlighting the structural disconnect between policy design and frontline realities.
　　Utilizing a qualitative methodology within the “Big Q” paradigm, this study acknowledges and incorporates researcher subjectivity and reflexivity as essential components of knowledge production. Data collection employed purposive and snowball sampling strategies. In-depth episodic narrative interviews were conducted with five frontline child protection social workers from Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Centers in Northern Taiwan, each possessing more than one year of inter-agency collaboration experience. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s Reflexive Thematic Analysis to ensure interpretive depth and empirical rigor.
The findings identify four core characteristics of inter-agency child protection collaboration in Taiwan. First, the initiation of collaboration is constrained by bureaucratic thresholds and is primarily crisis-driven, relying on extreme risk escalation and formal administrative documentation rather than proactive prevention. Second, practice is fragmented by significant epistemological divides and professional hegemony. Medical and psychological systems exercise discursive dominance in decision-making, often marginalizing social workers’ context-based social assessments, while law enforcement strictly adheres to overt evidence rules, which impedes early intervention. Third, collaborating agencies adopt defensive practices, such as outsourcing risk through signed waivers and liability releases, resulting in social workers becoming sole scapegoats in the primary-responsibility trap. Fourth, administrative burdens alienate social workers, compelling them to make bureaucratic compromises for self-preservation. Where institutional mechanisms fail, some social workers mobilize personal networks to perform informal “nodal work” to repair the safety net. However, such institutional deprivation ultimately leads to systemic professional turnover.
Based on these findings, the study proposes several recommendations to reform inter-agency collaboration. First, a substantive shared-responsibility mechanism should be established that surpasses token task forces by embedding collaborative outcomes into the core key performance indicators of all relevant departments and creating an inter-departmental body with genuine authority and shared risk management. Second, social workers’ statutory authority in evaluating family functioning should be formally recognized, equitable interprofessional dialogue platforms should be developed, and social workers’ localized knowledge should be translated into actionable interventions to dismantle professional hegemony. Third, administrative burdens should be reduced and evaluation frameworks streamlined by simplifying documentation and optimizing qualitative reporting, thereby refocusing collaboration on addressing family crises rather than fulfilling quantitative indicators. Finally, informal frontline tacit cooperation should be institutionalized by establishing dynamic cross-sector support networks and addressing labor justice, specifically by rectifying salary and risk disparities between child protection and mental health social workers, to build a resilient and humane protection system.

中文部分
王秀燕（2012）。〈兒童及少年保護網---網絡機制的運作與困境〉。《社區發展季刊》，139，114-127。
胡中宜、李訢瑜、劉宛欣、吳挺鋒（2020）。〈家庭福利中心社工員面對脆弱家庭之文化能力的反思：基隆市為例〉。《社區發展季刊》，172，268-282。
張子午、陳曉威、楊子磊（2024年3月21日）。〈剴剴之死背後1：聯繫斷裂公務機器裡，缺乏一致監管標準的保母托育系統〉。《報導者 The Reporter》。https://www.twreporter.org/a/problems-behind-a-boy-death-in-nanny-care
曹馥年、張子午、馬雨辰、楊子磊（2024年3月22日）。〈剴剴之死背後2：除了支援社工，收出養制度中長期缺位的國家角色怎麼補上？〉。《報導者 The Reporter》。https://www.twreporter.org/a/problems-behind-a-boy-death-in-adoption-system
游美貴（2020）。〈心理衛生社工發展跨網絡協同合作與提供整合性服務〉。《社區發展季刊》，172，165-176。
黃秋霞（2016）。〈淺談量化和質性研究的反思〉。《臺灣教育評論月刊》，5（9），149-154。
衛生福利部保護服務司（2023）。兒少保護結構化決策模式(SDM)安全評估教材資料(112年度更新)。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOPS/lp-2702-105.html
監察院（2025）。《糾正案文 114社正0005》。台北：監察院。
衛生福利部（2018）。《強化社會安全網計畫（核定本）》。台北：衛生福利部。
衛生福利部（2024）。《衛福部偕同教育部共同聯合查核兒福聯盟結果說明》。台北：衛生福利部。
鍾慧紜（2022）。〈社會安全網：網絡合作下的困境〉。《社區發展季刊》，177，240-249。

英文部分
Atkinson, M., Wilkin, A., Stott, A., Doherty, P., & Kinder, K. (2002). Multi-agency working: A detailed study. National Foundation for Educational Research.
Benson, J. K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 229-249. doi: 10.2307/2391696
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Crawford, K. (2012). Interprofessional collaboration in social work practice. SAGE.
Deverell, K., & Sharma, U. (2000). Professionalism in everyday practice: Issues of trust, experience and boundaries. In N. Malin (Ed.), Professionalism, boundaries and the workplace (pp. 25-46). New York, NY: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-39). Cambridge University Press.
Firn, J., Preston, N., & Walshe, C. (2017). Ward social workers’ views of what facilitates or hinders collaboration with specialist palliative care team social workers: A grounded theory. BMC Palliative Care, 16(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0214-z
Flick, U. (2007). Managing quality in qualitative research. SAGE.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE.
Flick, U. (2014). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE.
Flick, U. (2021). Doing interview research: The essential how to guide. SAGE.
Frost, N. (2017). From “silo” to “network” profession – a multi-professional future for social work. Journal of Children's Services, 12(2-3), 174–183. doi: 10.1108/JCS-05-2017-0019
Frost, N., Robinson, M. and Anning, A. (2005), Social workers in multidisciplinary teams: issues and dilemmas for professional practice. Child & Family Social Work, 10: 187-196. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2005.00370.x
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE Publications.
Good, B. J. (1994). Medicine, rationality and experience: An anthropological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration and change in children’s services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(1), 55-69. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.01.007
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
Johnson, T. J. (1972). Professions and power. Macmillan.
Levine, S., & White, P. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4), 583-601. doi: 10.2307/2390622
Lin, Y.-W. (2024). Strained multi-agency collaboration in the multi-tiered prevention system: A critical study of Taiwan’s Social Safety Network Project. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 34(1), 18-31. doi: 10.1080/02185385.2022.2148726
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Loxley, A. (1997). Collaboration in health and welfare. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
Oliver, C. (2013). Social Workers as Boundary Spanners: Reframing our Professional Identity for Interprofessional Practice. Social Work Education, 32(6), 773–784. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2013.765401
Opie, A. (1997). Thinking teams, thinking clients: Issues of discourse and representation in the work of health care teams. Sociology of Health & Illness, 19(3), 259-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.1997.tb00019.x
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Percy-Smith, J. (2006). What works in strategic partnerships for children : a Research Review. Children & Society, 20(4), 313-323. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2006.00048.x
Reder, P., & Duncan, S. (2003). Understanding communication in child protection networks. Child Abuse Review, 12(2), 82-100. doi: 10.1002/car.787
Roets, G., Roose, R., Schiettecat, T., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2014). Reconstructing the foundations of joined-up working: From organisational reform towards a joint engagement of child and family services. British Journal of Social Work, 46(2), 306-322. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu121
Williams, P. (2002). The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration, 80: 103-124. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00296