高風險社會工作專業人員之案主暴力風險知覺與人身安全現況研究

Abstract

社會工作者處於人身安全高度危險的工作環境中，國內相關的研究卻不豐富。本研究以處在高風險工作環境中的社會工作者為對象，瞭解他們目前遭受案主暴力對待的現況、回應方式，及對暴力風險的知覺情形。研究以郵寄問卷方式進行，資料蒐集範圍包括臺北市家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心、各區社會福利服務中心、區域級以上醫療及精神醫療院所，發出231份問卷，回收有效問卷共計165份，回收率為71.43％。\n 首先，研究發現81.8％的社會工作者生涯中曾遭受某種形式的暴力攻擊，其中心理傷害80.6％、身體傷害16.4％、財產損害26.1％，經常發生的地點在「辦公處所」。研究尚發現44％的社工員經驗到多種形式的暴力，更有72％經驗到一次以上，顯見案主的暴力威脅並非偶發事件，高風險領域社會工作者確實面臨案主暴力威脅；邏輯迴歸分析發現，機構年資不長、工作經驗較短者面對暴力的可能性較高。其次，平均而言工作者身體風險知覺較心理及財務風險知覺為高，進一步以迴歸分析發現，尚未取得證照、保護性服務工作者、機構年資低、工作經驗較短者其風險意識較高。第三，受暴經驗與風險知覺有關，過去曾有受暴經驗的社工員整體風險知覺較高。最後，有關正式通報的情形，百分之五十七點四的受訪者表示遭遇心理傷害時會通報、受身體傷害和財務損害者則有近八成會通報，受到「形而外且具體」傷害時呈報上級的情形則更為普遍。\n 研究建議如下：實務上，機構應有清楚的政策及通報流程以增加暴力事件的可見度、提供員工情緒支持及教育訓練以提昇工作者風險意識及減緩工作恐懼感；工作者本身應改變信念並增加實務工作知能，避免將暴力事件地下化、私有化，及強化與案主工作時的應對技巧。另外，在教育養成上應有更多人身安全的訓練與關注，以避免社會工作學生因過度擔心阻礙其投入職場的信心。最後，政府政策應針對第一線人身安全高風險的社工員給予實質性保障、儘速將人身安全納入社工師法或專門立法，強調暴力「零容忍」的相關政策，以維護社工人員的尊嚴與生命安全。

Although social workers are at risk of client violence in the workplace, little research on the situation has been done in Taiwan. The present study surveyed 165 social workers practicing in high risk fields in Taipei in terms of their experiences, reaction, and perception of client violence. The following are the findings. First, a prevalence rate of client violence (81.8％) was found. About eighty percent of social workers had experienced some type of psychological assault by clients during their work. Physical attack was reported by 27 workers (16.4％). Property damage was reported by 43 workers (26.1％). In multiple logistic regression, psychological assault was associated with two variables—less seniority and less social work experience. Second, on the average, scores of physical risk perception was much higher than the other two perceptions. Multiple regression showed that workers who were less senior, worked at protection service, with less social work experience, or without license, had higher scores of risk perception. Third, a significant positive correlation existed between client violence and risk perception. Finally, results indicated that only 57.4％ of the subjects who suffered psychological assault had decided to report their experience formally. On the contrary, nearly eighty percent would report when they encountered physical attack or property damage – especially external and concrete harm. Implications for practice, training and policy were discussed.