民間影子報告 · CRC 第二次審查 (2022)
台灣全國兒少安置機構聯盟 2022 CRC 第 2 次國家報告民間影子報告
來源 PDF:34_20220406110734_4628523.pdf
台灣全國兒少安置機構聯盟
兒童權利公約執行之替代報告
2022 年 3 月 28 日
以兒童權利公約第二次國家報告為基準
(公開報告)
0
目錄
第一章【一般執行措施】安置機構兒少申訴權益……………………3
對應條次：第 12 條-尊重兒童意見、第 13 條-表意權
第 17 條-適當資訊之獲取
第 18 條-父母之責任與國家之協助
第 19 條-不受任何形式之不當對待
第二章【一般性原則】尊重兒少意見，安置兒少表意權………….6
對應條次：第 12 條-尊重兒童意見、第 13 條-表意權
第三章【公民權與自由】安置兒少隱私權保障………………….......9
對應條次：第 16 條-隱私權、第 17 條-適當資訊之獲取
第四章【保護兒少免受暴力侵害】………………………………….....11
對應條次：第 19 條-不受任何形式之不當對待
第 37 條-殘忍、不人道或有辱人格之待遇
第五章【家庭環境與替代性照顧】………………………………….....12
對應條次：第 6 條-生存及發展權
第 18 條-父母之責任與國家之協助
第 25 條-安置之定期評估
A. 無法在家庭環境中成長的兒少/喪失家庭的兒少
(a) 安置機構專業化：個案分級、機構分級
(b) 政府對替代性資源挹注
(c) 安置機構與政府的合作關係
B. 家外安置兒少之定期評估
(a)兒少安置決策及家庭重整計畫執行狀況
(b)安置照顧計畫
(c)評量安置機構之各項指標
(d)安置兒少的自立議題
1
第六章【身心障礙，基本健康與福利】
兒少保健措施及醫療照護防疫紓困措施………………………………..30
對應條次：第 23 條-身心障礙兒童
第七章【教育休閒與文化活動】安置兒少在教育現場的歧視…….32
對應條次：第 28 條-教育權、第 29 條-教育之目的
第八章【特別保護措施】…………………………………………………..35
對應條次：第 30 條-少數民族與原住民兒童
第 40 條-刑事司法
A.司法轉向安置兒少處境
B.安置機構原住民兒少及其統計
2
第一章【一般執行措施】安置機構兒少申訴權益
現況：
1. 目前安置兒少的申訴管道設立在不同層級、不同法規內，包含：
(1) 兒少安置機構：需設置內外部申訴機制，各公立兒少安置機構皆已有相關
申訴小組設置辦法或申訴流程辦法；私立兒少安置機構則因需於平日接受
衛福部訂定之兒童及少年安置及教養機構輔導查核及每三或四年一次的兒
童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑，輔導查核及評鑑指標中皆有規範安置
機構應設有內外部申訴處理機制。
(2) 各縣市政府：設有家外安置外部申訴處理機制，含括所有家外安置類型（親
屬家庭、寄養家庭、團體家庭、安置機構），另規定個別安置機構需設置機
構內申訴處理機制。
(3) 監察院：有職權可調查侵害兒少權益之相關事件，但無實質制衡措施。
其中與安置相關之議題，經查該網站公告之調查報告1，自 2017 年 1 月至
2021 年 12 月為止，這 5 年間共 10 件，包含：安置機構發生性侵事件之管
理通報缺失有２件。寄養家庭發生性侵事件之處理缺失、保母安置發生不當
虐待、安置機構不當管教問題、政府未回應寄養家庭高齡化問題、安置兒少
暫停與家庭聯繫之考量、自閉症兒少缺乏家庭支持或安置資源、兒少安置機
構的工作條件受到政府忽視、特殊性侵司法兒少無適當安置處所，以上議題
各 1 件。
2. 目前兒少申訴機制之缺陷：目前兒少安置機構因應政府規定均設置內外部申訴
處理機制，惟外部申訴機制建置於各縣市政府，恐有球員兼裁判不中立之情事
發生，並其他家庭式與社區式安置服務則缺乏申訴機制。。
(1) 各縣市政府的家外安置申訴機制不夠健全，就主責機關及其社工對家外安置
兒少處遇情形，並未提供正式申訴管道。當安置單位遇到主責社工處遇未顧
及安置兒少最佳利益時(包括未傾聽兒少意見)，僅能向其督導或主管反應與
討論，但此意見反應並未能構成正式、有效的申訴程序，抑或是投書至政府
部門信箱時，機關處理方式又是派回業務單位回覆，呈現球員兼裁判的情
形。
(2) 目前監察院所屬之國家人權委員會(簡稱人權會)共設置 10 名委員，下設
1
監察院 (2017~2021)，調查報告。https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxAll.aspx?n=718&sms=0
3
「研究企劃」、「訪查作業」及「教育交流」3 組。目前關注議題包含兒童權
利公約(CRC)、消除一切種族歧視國際公約(ICERD)、消除對婦女一切形式歧
視公約(CEDAW)、身心障礙者權利公約(CRPD)、公民與政治權利國際公約
與經濟社會文化權利國際公約(ICCPR & ICESCR)。但自人權會 2021 年
1~11 月業務統計呈現其業務內涵多為研處專案、訪查、防制酷刑訪視、人
權教育交流、國家報告獨立評估意見等，在司法協處部分僅 1 件，2020 年
8 月迄今也僅有 3 件，該統計數據無法呈現人權會在兒童權利公約上的努
力，其對司法、行政機關的監督也未有明確成效。
具體案例：
案例一
有些安置兒少對於個人安置意見與主責社工意見不一致，如：主責希望兒少選擇自
立方案，兒少卻期待留在安置機構，方能更穩定地繼續完成高中學業。安置單位在
其中，除了與主管機關/主責社工溝通協調外，期待協助安置兒少進行更進一步的
申訴，如：投信總統信箱，但是安置單位不得不多有保留，因：(1)安置單位了解
總統信箱的投信，最後仍會回到社家署及各縣市主管機關的處理。 (2)安置單位亦
擔心代兒少申訴是否會破壞安置單位與政府的和諧關係，不利於其後續合作關係。
回應第二次國家報告 26-30 點及結論性意見 14-17、82：
國家人權委員會目前業務範圍僅有研究、訪查、教育座談及司法協處等功能，對於
非公部門/公務人員危害到兒少權益時僅有建議權，無提供實質介入機制；監察院
至 2021 年 12 月止平均每年僅 2 件處理兒少政策性問題或重大兒少權益受損案
件，且該案件並無非由兒少主動陳情，可見不論監察院或其下設國家人權委員會，
此二組織對兒少權益之宣廣、申訴平台及工具均缺乏可近性及友善性。
建議：
1. 現行之國家人權委員會應重新檢視其設置辦法及相關職權，加強申訴管道的宣
廣及檢討運用效益；對於調查案件應有實質之介入措施，並將案件處理結果製
成公開資訊供民眾查詢。
2. 監察院較各縣市主管機關更具獨立性，應更適合處理各縣市主管機關家外安置
不當決策引起之兒少權益受損議題，但數據顯示目前處理案件數過少(近五年案
件中平均每年 2 件與兒少權益有關)，且常是因媒體報導及輿論產生後才介入調
4
查，建議應提升兒少權益損害之服務量能，有案件後續追蹤其改善成效之呈
現。
3. 政府應積極修法，於兒少權益最主要的母法基本法《兒童及少年福利與權益保
障法》中增加條文，以保障所有接受兒少保護、家外安置之兒少，對其相關安
置決策、處遇有申訴權，由第三章公正單位組成專家小組調查，以落實維護兒
少權益。
5
第二章【一般性原則】尊重兒少意見，安置兒少表意權
現況：
1. 不同安置處所兒少對其表意權之想法：根據趙善如（2021）2提供兩項（未公
開）調查結果：2017 年衛福部進行之「家外安置兒童及少年生活狀況調查結
果」及 2019 年內政部兒童局進行之「特殊需求兒童及少年團體家庭實驗計畫專
業精進暨評估計畫案」，關於兒少於寄養家庭、安置機構或團體家庭均有表達意
見的機會，惟與照顧者討論的有所主題不同，其中寄家兒少最有表達各種意見的
機會，而安置機構及團體家庭兒少在升學、就業的部分能獲得充分的討論，但在
個人空間及生活作息的安排上較為受限。
2. 安置兒少對於其權利義務之知情權：
衛福部於 2022 年實施兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑項目3中，要求兒少
安置機構在收案入住時，須明確告知安置兒少之相關權利義務。相較之下，親屬
家庭、寄養家庭等安置模式較無相關規範，予以落實安置兒少對於其相關權益義
務之認識。
3. 安置兒少參與安置決策之情形：
趙善如（2021）的研究結果顯示，寄養家庭兒少有 40%不同意「我可以有機會
討論我的安置安排」。目前兒少安置個案屬於委託安置者，2019 年頒佈之「各
直轄市、縣（市）政府受理兒童及少年委託安置作業流程」4，在此行政命令之
條文中並未提供安置兒少在其自身的安置決策中有知情、陳述、參與會議之權
利，僅於團體決策評估表中列出一項兒少安置意願；保護安置者亦無相關法規保
障此類兒少參與安置決策過程的權利。
4. 安置兒少在各種安置服務樣態下之知情表意情形
2022 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑指標中規定兒少安置機構訂定安置
照顧計畫、個案處遇計畫及結束安置前準備計畫時，皆應提供安置兒少參與討論
之機會，但在寄養安置、親屬安置中的各項生活安排，兒少的知情表意權利並未
有規範與保障。
2
趙善如、彭淑華、胡中宜(2021)，家外安置需求推估及現行安置模式執行成效評估計畫期末成果報告。衛生福利部社會及
家庭署。https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=581&pid=10600
3
衛生福利部(2022)，兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑。
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=1345
4
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2019)，各直轄市、縣（市）政府受理兒童及少年委託安置作業流程
6
具體案例：
案例一
在安置機構中，工作人員最常與安置兒少（特別是青少年）在手機使用的議題上，
發生衝突。有些安置機構採取：在負起個人學習、生活責任下，可開放兒少使用手
機，較無時間限制；有些安置機構則採取限制時段的方式，讓兒少較無彈性地使用
手機。
安置機構最為擔心的事件之一是：兒少經由網路連結外界，引發其身體安全疑慮之
問題（例如：不當交友、性行為偏差、未成年懷孕、網路上傳裸露畫面等）。除了
事前教育、事後協助，安置機構亦常是在此類重大議題發生時，被政府或甚至是兒
少原生家庭究責的一方。因此，安置機構工作人員在處理兒少表意的議題上，所伴
隨的考量複雜，亦有其困難度。
回應第二次國家報告第 33、34、73，74 點及結論性意見 31.32：
1. 關於 CRC 教育訓練辦理部份，各縣市政府、各兒少安置機構及與安置相關之民
間團體近年來多有辦理「認識兒少權利」、「在安置機構場域內落實兒少權益」
之相關訓練，但因台灣的教養文化一向是以家長為主導的文化，目前安置機構
的照顧者也是在此文化背景成長，即使寄養家庭也難以“專業身分”平等、平
衡的與兒少討論各種議題，因此照顧者與專業人員仍需要經歷一段為期不短的
價值觀翻動、重整的歷程，方能在其中慢慢內化並落實兒少權益之精神。
2. 台灣自 2018 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑5指標中已開始增加保障兒
少表意權之相關規定，包含：需定期召開家庭會議、在院師生共同研擬管理規
則、確保兒少參與決策及享有空間自主權等。許多安置機構將兒少權益的落實
深植到生活各個層面，例如：讓孩子們一起討論小家的日常生活作息、假日小
家活動安排、零用金使用、冷氣使用、手機電腦使用、寵物飼養與照顧等決
定，或甚至是透過活動，協助安置兒少培養其議題發想、自主發表、團隊討論
的能力。
建議：
政府應積極修法，於兒少權益最主要的母法《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》中增
修條文，確立能全面性地保障不同安置模式的兒少在其安置決策過程中的知情、參
5
衛生福利部(2018)，兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑。
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=992
7
與權；而非現行僅透過層級較低的行政規範（評鑑制度），且僅能保障到的是部分
安置兒少在某部分的參與權（即：安置機構兒少在其安置期間的權益知情及處遇決
策參與）。
8
第三章【公民權與自由】安置兒少隱私權保障
現況：
1. 為保障機構安置兒少之隱私權，衛福部於 2022 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構
聯合評鑑指標，已加強在：
(1) 硬體設備方面：規範各安置機構應為安置兒少個人物品提供足夠、可靠和便
於取用的存儲空間，並提供專屬寢室設備、床鋪、衣櫥及書桌等空間安排；
監視器不得設置於影響隱私之空間（寢室、廁所、浴室）。
(2) 兒少資料保密與隱私方面：規範安置機構應對於安置兒少的個人資訊及資料
管理訂有相關規定並進行落實，且須保障兒少個人隱私，如財務、私物、通
話、信件、手機及網路等隱私權保障。
2. 根據趙善如（2021）提供兩項調查結果（未公開）：2017 年衛福部進行之「家
外安置兒童及少年生活狀況調查結果」及 2019 年內政部兒童局進行之「特殊
需求兒童及少年團體家庭實驗計畫專業精進暨評估計畫案」，顯示：多數家外安
置兒少希望個人隱私權能獲得保障。
3. 趙善如（2021）研究中訪談 12 位機構安置的離院生，關於隱私權的部分，受
訪者特別提及：安置機構應避免外人頻繁參訪，減少讓兒少產生「自己是住在
動物園供外人觀賞的猴子」的感受。
回應第二次國家報告 107 點及結論性意見 37:
就安置盟的實務觀察：
(1) 從硬體設備面保障兒少隱私：多數兒少安置機構較無窒礙難行之處。雖然因
著台灣地狹人稠及各機構原本建物設計，或因著安置兒少較年幼仍須他人作伴
等因素，較少有安置機構能提供兒少一人一房；但多數安置機構對於提供獨立
的床位、置物空間，較無困難；其監視器之設置也多符合隱私權的法規。
(2) 從兒少資料保密與隱私：多數安置機構已有相關兒少資料保密或隱私尊重之
原則，並能配合制定相關規範。
(3) 在隱私權的保障上，安置機構尚存在兼顧兒少權利與保護的兩難，如兒少進出
機構時工作人員對違禁物品（如：香菸、毒品等）的檢查，或是在團體生活
中，當兒少自己於公開場合或私下與同儕分享其個人過去生命經驗，卻指控工
作人員方散播其個人資訊的例子。
建議：
9
政府預計於 2022 年底完成兒少安置機構工作人員 CRC 手冊，建議政府不僅應確
實完成該手冊，且應辦理兒少安置機構院內或院外的兒少隱私權保障的討論會，或
委由專業公信的機構辦理示範研討會。工作人員需要針對所遇的實務情境及其相關
聯的議題，進行深入的討論，較有可能真正地改變及提升其對兒少隱私權保障的思
維與做法，進而達到安置兒少隱私權保障之成效提升。
10
第四章【保護兒少免受暴力侵害】
現況：
1. 現行安置機構已明確禁止體罰，但在團體生活中遇到兒少之間有肢體衝突時，
會讓較弱小的兒少先待在自己的房間，而具有攻擊性的兒少安排在牆面地板均
設有保護墊的情緒調整室中，然而此種安排有時會讓受欺負的兒少覺得自己被
隔離在房間中是遭受懲罰，且具攻擊性的兒少仍會慣性的以肢體威脅方式在機
構中生活。
2. 教養方式的改變仰賴工作者的專業知能提升，因此培力工作人員成為最重要的
一塊。政府透過跨網絡合作引進《創傷知情支持計畫》和《家外安置兒少替代
性照顧資源強化計畫》改變「控管」的意識形態，重塑工作人員看待兒少問題
行為的角度，更能看到行為反映的議題。
具體案例：
案例一
機構有安置心理性別與生理性別不同的兒少，機構為預防性騷擾或性侵害事件，安
排該兒少與其他兒少分開生活，機構的立場為降低性侵害風險，但同時也涉及歧視
或有辱人格的議題。
回應第二次國家報告 132、133 點及結論性意見 38、94：
現行政府在 2020 年修訂兒少安置機構輔導查核表，列入定期檢視機構有無酷刑或
其他形式殘忍、不人道或有辱人格待遇或處罰兒少情形之項目，但未列舉行為樣
態，讓安置機構在教養策略的運用上不知所措。
建議：
1. 政府可辦理進階工作坊，針對兒少教養及衝突發生時的案例進行實務演練，讓
安置機構的工作人員在特殊狀況下能保障自己的權益也能兼顧到兒少的權益。
2. 政府應開辦多元性別權益保障的教育訓練課程，並提供安置機構在這方面的教
養指引，以及生活空間、場域安排的指引，以免性侵或歧視的狀況產生。
11
第五章【家庭環境與替代性照顧】
A. 無法在家庭環境中成長的兒少/喪失家庭的兒少
(a) 安置機構專業化：個案分級、機構分級
現況：
1. 根據國家報告(附件 5-8)2020 年兒少保護繼續安置人次及比率，親屬安置佔
6.14%、家庭寄養佔 29.11%、安置機構佔 64.75%，可見台灣目前仍仰賴安置
機構提供替代性照顧服務。而政府近年雖大力宣導發展寄養家庭，但寄養家庭
數卻未有成長(附件 6-22)，中央及地方政府對替代性照顧資源的配置及發展計
畫6不明確，也未公布對親屬安置、寄養家庭及安置機構照顧比例規劃。
2. 安置機構發展現況：
(1) 安置機構最早在 1960 年代開始朝向家庭化照顧，將原本團體式照顧環境
改建成家庭式照顧環境。《兒童及少年福利機構設置標準 》第 20 條規定
安置機構生活空間之規劃應以營造家庭生活氣氛為原則，揭示台灣安置機
構的環境及照顧模式都以家庭化為目標，此後安置機構再發展「小家制」
照顧，提供類家庭式照顧(family-like care)。
(2) 根據安置盟 2021 年調查會員機構中有 73%採小家制照顧，且以 1 小家住
5-8 人為多數。機構的小家制照顧特色包含：a.家庭式的照顧環境和擺
設、b.團體行動時以各小家為單位，便兒少參與社區活動、c. 兒少可討論
自己小家的規範、生活作息及活動、d. 固定照顧人力、e. 提供兒少個別
化需求服務與自主表達的機會。
(3) 兒少安置決定之合適性問題：
a. 安置決策未依兒少利益優先為考量：由上文可知目前兒少安置服務的
樣態包含親屬安置、寄養家庭、機構安置、團體家庭等，但政府僅於
《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法施行細則》第 10 條規定兒少安置順
序(親屬安置→重要他人→寄養家庭→安置機構)，未針對各類兒少提
出最適宜之安置模式。
b. 安置資源缺乏可近性，不利兒少返回社區：趙善如(2021)研究指出
107 年家外安置轄外人數比例，全國為 23.37%，高於此比例之縣市
共有 12 個，顯示各縣市在安置資源的配置上仍有極大差異。
c. 特殊議題兒少安置資源不足：衛福部近三年統計機構安置兒少總人數
6
衛生福利部(2021，4 月 26、28、29 日)，兒少替代性照顧政策草案座談會資料。
12
平均為 2,700 人，其中身心障礙者約占 11%、發展遲緩兒少占 3%，
合計已佔 14%。但依據高雄市政府 2021 年 11 月的調查，至 2021
年 9 月底高雄市家外安置人數共 610 人，其中具特殊議題約 244
人，佔總安置人數 40%，患有兒少精神疾病、情緒障礙、性別認同等
議題，需要個別化之照顧，難以找到合適的安置處所（趙善如
2021）。
d. 頻繁轉換之安置經驗對兒少身心發展具不利影響：根據社家署委託研
究「家外安置需求推估及現行安置模式執行成效評估計畫」指出，
57.4%個案有轉換安置經驗，轉換 1 次的占 43.6%，轉換 2 次以上的
則有 13.6%，研究指出頻繁轉換對兒少的身心發展，包含認知、問題
解決能力、情緒行為及心理健康等都有影響。
具體案例：
案例一
個案 A 是名國中(14 歲)，因有多次自傷記錄，如以尖銳物品割手腕或頸部、或吞
食異物等情形，也曾因與在精神療養院等機構與其他住民發生衝突，被迫轉換住
所，其安置生涯中曾住過的寄養家庭、安置機構、及醫院等單位超過 7 個以上。該
案無法覓得適合的中長期機構，目前持續頻繁出入醫院，政府僅能將其安置於緊急
短期安置單位中。
案例二
某安置機構因在五、六年前接受政府委託安置六、七個有早療需求的兒童，當時為這
群兒童購置了早療設施設備，隨著兒童慢慢長大，此後亦無再收到早療需求的兒童，
因此所建置的早療復健資源就沒有繼續使用。對機構而言，設備資源就浪費了，工作
人員的早療知能儲備也因為沒有繼續運用而逐漸生澀，甚為可惜。
回應第二次國家報告 159、160、162 點及 結論性意見 42 -45 點:
1. 替代性照顧政策以六大政策目標方向停留在口號階段，「留在家庭、重返家庭、
家庭式照顧、優化機構照顧、品質與監督、自立與支持」，未見詳細執行策略如
需求評估、資源盤點、對現行安置資源提出支持或轉型的作法等。
2. 政府在替代性照顧政策中對於安置機構的未來發展定位不明，以至於安置機構
在「去機構化」的口號當中無所適從，亦恐有資源重複建置之虞，或亦無法提
供在地兒少得到需要的照顧資源。
13
回應第二次國家報告 201 點及結論性意見 58、59 點：
針對家外安置之身心障礙兒少，政府在 2021 年辦理《家外安置兒少替代性照顧資
源強化輔導團計畫》7中僅能看到對於安置單位的支持性服務，如媒合醫療、特
教、早療、心理支持等資源，但未見輔導各地安置機構進行分級分類、協助機構轉
型為專業安置機構的作為，以至於特殊需求兒少不斷在不同安置資源中轉換，對其
身心發展相當不利。
建議：
1. 家外安置兒少類型多元，除生活照顧需求外尚需療育、特教、復健、精神醫療
等其他專業支持，才能讓兒少在家外安置的階段獲得良好的身心發展。《兒童及
少年福利與權益保障法》第 53 條要求縣市政府接獲兒保通報案件時應進行分級
分類處理，建議政府強化各縣市跨專業評估小組運作，對於兒少在安置決策前
應比照本法精神，對安置兒少進行分級分類處理，非僅依兒權法施行細則第 10
條規範之安置順序為考量，才能確保兒少被安置到充足支持的環境中成長，減
少兒少在安置資源頻繁轉換的情形。
2. 盤點全國目前家外安置個案及所需安置資源需求，以區域、專業服務劃分，輔
導現有安置機構朝向分級分類方式轉型，編列所需經費給與機構轉型準備及支
持。
3. 盤點具精神醫療及特殊議題的兒少人數(非以持有身心障礙證明的兒少人數做數
據)，思考如何在安置機構社區中配置合適的精神醫療、心理諮商資源，讓安置
機構人員在照顧困難兒少時仍能得到充分的專業支持協助。
7
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，11 月 26 日)，家外安置兒少替代性照顧資源強化輔導團計畫平台會議暨期末座談會資料
14
(b)政府對替代性資源挹注
現況：
1. 監察院 2019 年調查報告8提到，「衛福部漠視地方政府對委託社福團體辦理法
定社會服務的經費，長期以來未合理計算人事及行政經營成本，尤其保護性業
務的兒少安置，是多重需求司法、社福兒少最後的處遇場所，需要高度人力投
入，但委託經費卻不符成本，人事經費更是杯水車薪。」本案迄今未結案，顯
示主管機關衛福部社家署仍未改善。
2. 安置盟調查 2019 年私立機構安置成本為 5.9 萬元到 7.7 萬元間，扣除地方政
府提供之安置費(2 萬 2 千元到 2 萬 7 千元間不等)，中央政府另以專業服務費
補充機構部分人事成本(依照顧人力比補助 1/2 的專業人員人事費)，尚未計入
機構運營之設施設備購置或折舊成本，以及其他人力如行政、總務、廚工等必
要配置人力之補助。
3. 安置機構為配合勞動基準法逐年修法的情況下，照顧人力須不斷增聘，所聘之
照顧人力遠高於《兒童及少年福利機構設置標準》規定人數。111 年政府訂定
之專業服務費補助標準中，機構照顧人力補助員額預計調整為現行補助人數之
1.47 倍9，但因補助金額僅為目前薪資之 1/2，若加計其他雇主應提撥的勞
保、健保、勞退支出，補助金額僅佔人事成本之 1/3，顯示機構愈多增聘工作
人員，人事成本更為增加。
4. 109 年政府修訂之《兒童及少年安置及教養機構輔導查核表》規定，安置機構
「專業人員每人每年應接受至少 18 小時以上在職訓練」，其中又須包含性侵害
防治專業訓練、自衛消防演練及講習(滅火、通報及避難訓練之實施每半年一
次，每次不得低於四小時)、衛生教育或活動，自 2019 年起更規範安置機構工
作人員需接受 CRC 訓練。台灣安置機構普遍遇有工作人力招募困難、現場照
顧人力吃緊及機構需額外支付加班費提供訓練的情況。
5. 政府在安置照顧的專業上僅對安置機構工作人員做出訓練規範，對親屬照顧
者、寄養家庭則無對應的規範，使安置兒少所受到的照顧品質不一致。
8
監察院 (2019，2 月 14 日)，調查報告 108 內調 0009。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=b2ba4ed9-5dea-4dd3-a9ee-317b6a44ba02
9
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，9 月 6 日~10 月 22 日)，強化社會安全網第二期計畫公私協力服務方案說明會會議簡
報。https://topics.mohw.gov.tw/SS/lp-5259-204.html
15
回應第二次國家報告 21、164 點及結論性意見 45 點：
1. 從第 21 點及(附件 1-2)發現，政府在兒少「福利」(協助減輕育兒家庭經濟負
擔與家庭支持之相關措施及替代性照顧)的支出佔比是逐年減少中，無法反映
政府對於家庭支持措施及替代性照顧的看重程度。
2. 政府雖有修訂專業服務費補助標準，但僅依據輪班需求調整補助人員數，未計
入雇主需負擔之勞保、健保、勞退及教育訓練等成本，機構專業人員又被規定
每年須接受各種訓練課程。若依政府專業服務費之設計概念，直接照顧人力勢
必須勻出一定的時間才能完成機構內各種行政、總務、備餐及清潔等工作，最
後犧牲的是現場的照顧人力比，而「提升照顧品質、落實 CRC 理念」成為做
半套、華而不實的口號而已。
建議：
1. 現行兒少替代性照顧模式中，各縣市緊急安置服務、團體家庭服務均由政府全
額補助其人事費、設施設備經費，但中長期安置機構卻無法得到相同標準之補
助。監察院亦已明文糾正主管機關應檢討並重新試算安置機構合理計算人事及
行政經營成本，但本案迄今仍未結案，主管機關衛福部社家署應有正式回應並
公開檢討改善措施。
2. 安置於同一機構之兒少，其安置費因各縣市地方政府補助的標準不同而有所差
異，政府實應針對「個別兒少換算得出的照顧經費差異之價值性問題」做出檢
討回應。
3. 政府以專業服務費為名補助機構人事費，但補助員額僅計照顧人力及社工人
力，未計入機構尚須配置之行政、總務、廚工等人員，政府應公布其專業服務
費計算方式及補助內涵供各界討論，作為修訂補助標準之依據。
(c)安置機構與政府的合作關係
現況：
1. 安置服務中公私協力分工不明，從代行監護執行之權利義務關係來看，《兒童及
少年福利與權益保障法》第 60 條及第 62 條分別範定「縣市主管機關或受其交
付安置之機構或寄養家庭在保護安置兒童及少年之範圍內，行使、負擔父母對
於未成年子女之權利義務。」
2. 實務上家外安置兒少事務涉及層面甚廣，包含：一般生活照顧、學校活動、醫
16
療事宜，另含涉及法定監護人代行事項（如：侵入性醫療、流感疫苗、志願役
報名、出國護照）、兒少重大事件（如：升學規劃、特殊財產管理、身心特殊用
藥）、或兒少涉及民刑事責任及賠償事宜等，上述事務之權責並非全歸屬家外安
置兒少之受託單位。
3. 部分縣市政府已建立家外安置兒少主管機關及受託單位依法代行父母監護權分
工表。然多數直轄市、縣（市）政府與受託單位之間，並無明確規範原則可供
參考，多透過受託單位與各直轄市、縣（市）主管機關，於遇事時一一協調；
且安置機構有一定比例之跨轄安置兒少，故所需協調之主管機關多，各主管機
關對同一狀況認定標準不盡相同。在無明確、全國一致的代行親權分工原則
下，無疑加重受託單位於行政、溝通協調的業務負擔；且權責不明的狀況下，
在遇兒少涉及民刑事責任賠償事宜時，更顯出無法可依循之困境，兒少受託單
位常須概括承受相關的賠償修復責任。
具體案例：
案例一
台灣高等法院判決文提到：一名由縣市政府監護的個案（加害人)在安置機構內與
另一名個案生衝突並將對方打死，死者家屬向法院申請民事賠償。台灣高等法院以
該縣市政府雖為加害人法定監護人，但以為其選擇適當機構進行保護照顧，以盡法
定代理人之監護義務，並無疏失為由判定縣市政府無需負擔損害連帶賠償責任，安
置機構端則須負連帶賠償責任。由此判例發現法定監護人的權利義務規範不明，政
府身為該名個案的法定監護人其責任只須責付適當安置處所，該名個案在安置期間
發生的事情或賠償責任須由照顧單位負擔，照顧單位卻不是該名個案的法定監護
人。
建議：
聯合國兒童替代性照顧準則中亦指出政府應確立代行監護之範圍，該準則第 71
條：「應特別注意保證替代性照料的品質，無論是寄宿照料還是家居照料，特別是
在照料者的專業技能、挑選、訓練和監管方面。應明確界定和澄清這兩類照料者相
對于兒童父母或法定監護人的作用與職責。」建議政府應正視代行監護議題，修法
以落實兒童權利公約，以衛福部 110 年「家外安置兒少主管機關及受託單位依法
17
代行父母親權行使執行分工原則(草案)10」為基礎修正，建立全國法源依據，降低
安置機構協調成本。
10
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，1 月 5 日)，各直轄市、縣(市)政府交付兒童及少年福利機構安置兒少之法律關係及契約
屬性研商會議記錄
18
B.家外安置兒少之處遇計畫與服務內涵
(a)兒少安置決策及家庭重整計畫執行狀況
現況：
1. 兒少安置決策未獲重視
(1)兒少保護個案：現行政府對兒少保護個案服務的重點在於能否結束安置返
家，主責社工的工作重點在於家庭處遇服務而非兒少安置決策服務。政府為兒
少保護個案服務訂定了《兒少保護家庭處遇服務評估決策模式工作人員服務手
冊》，實務上卻發現仍有兒少保護案在結束安置返家後又遭再次通報進案的情
形。又政府未針對兒少保護安置評估訂定相關手冊或作業指引，因此主責社工
的工作重點總是放在家庭功能評估及家庭處遇服務，對於兒少安置的部分未見
積極參與，也未針對不適宜返家之兒少有積極的安置安排，因此兒少可能會被
放在一個不適宜的安置機構 3~6 個月，而期間其就學、醫療復健、社區參與的
安排均受限，呈現剝奪兒少表意權、教育權、資訊權及遊戲權的情況。
(2)委託安置個案：目前依《各直轄市、縣（市）政府受理兒童及少年委託安置
作業流程》採團體決策模式，但實務上發現在團體決策中仍以地方主管機關之
意見為主，當安置機構社工與主責社工持不同意見時，主管機關多以請託的方
式要求安置機構接受主管機關的決定，對於安置機構提出的困難未有積極的配
套作法，又或者在無法繼續協調的情況下，由主責社工再把個案帶走，暫安置
至緊急短期安置單位，讓孩子在安置系統中不斷經歷轉換的經驗。
2. 家庭處遇計畫
對於安置兒少來說（不論其為保護安置、委託安置、司法轉向安置），原生家庭
功能的提升與其是否能夠返家、及其返家後的福祉息息相關。而家庭處遇（家
庭重整）計畫即是安置兒少原生家庭功能改善的重要介入方式，但目前仍觀察
到一些不足：
(1)法規及執行層面：
就現行法規來看，目前僅兒少保護個案之家庭可依《兒童及少年福利與權益保
障法》接受家庭處遇計畫（未安置者：家庭維繫計畫；已安置者：家庭重整計
畫）；屬委託安置兒少只能依行政命令－2019 年實施之《各直轄市、縣（市）
政府受理兒童及少年委託安置作業流程》，方有可能獲得家庭重整計畫之服務，
但其落實情形尚未有相關資料或數據可供參考，同趙善如（2021）報告中所揭
示。
(2)上述保護安置及委託安置兒少之家庭維繫計畫、家庭重整計畫，政府並未提
19
供相關執行成效之檢討成果。另外，尚有一群司法轉向安置的兒少，若其家庭
原未屬於社政系統的扶助對象，則兒少進入安置後，目前亦無相關法規可保障
其家庭獲得服務。而就實務現場發現：此類兒少的行為偏差常源於原生家庭失
功能或原生家庭所獲的支持、資源不足，但在社政網絡中被遺漏，導致兒少最
後以偏差行為進入司法體系。因此，若無家庭處遇計畫的提早介入，僅能待結
案後追蹤輔導方案的介入，這類兒少的原生家庭無法及早獲得資源協助進而提
升家庭能量，將降低這類兒少結束安置、返回家庭後，其行為、處境持續改善
的可能性。
3. 跨網絡合作層面：
衛福部 2018 年委託編制之「家庭功能評估與家庭處遇計畫表單與工作手冊」11
為家庭處遇服務之依據及標準化工具。手冊附錄一「各階段家庭處遇服務內
容」的執行期，包含主管機關主責社工、家處受託單位主責社工及安置社工應
依家庭處遇計畫執行服務，同時亦強調三方協同合作的重要性─主管機關主責
社工、受託單位主責社工及安置社工應於家庭處遇服務期間，互相給予協助與
支持。
然而實務上，主管機關主責社工並未定期知會安置單位（家庭寄養服務單位、
安置機構）受託兒少之家庭處遇計畫進度。亦有安置機構詢問安置兒少其家庭
處遇計畫進展時，主責社工拒絕回應之情事。安置單位常直到家處計畫即將進
入重大決策時（如：預備返家）才獲告知，因此錯過提出意見、參與討論，以
至於調整安置決策的機會，此乃損及安置兒少之最佳利益。
具體案例：
案例一
案母為長年精神疾患，該家庭多名兒少手足（3 名以上）安置於同一安置機構，兒
少安置多年後主責社工評估案母情況有所改善，決定讓兒少朝返家方向進行。安置
機構原與主責社工商議且決議採漸進式返家，並讓年紀最長的孩子先返家，避免突
然暴增的照顧量再次壓垮案母身心狀況，但主責社工最終又改變策略，讓所有孩子
一起返家。而在返家後，最年長的個案數次向安置機構求助，表示案母的情緒不穩
定導致年幼的弟妹生活在緊張的情緒中，自己為了保護弟妹又為了顧及案母身心狀
況，經常感到壓力很大。
11
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2018，2 月 24)，家庭功能評估與家庭處遇計畫表單與工作手冊。
https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-50829-f26ceebc-1e1e-4b54-ac0d-c0e8b584a43c.html
20
案例二
案 112：一名男童在 6 個月大時因遭虐，當時顱內出血、右腿骨折、右腳拇趾指甲
被拔掉等。隨後經過四年安置，於 2020 年 3 月社工評估後，讓男童重回原生家
庭，但在不到 1 個月內，男童身上又出現新傷。
案２13：2016 年一名男童出生後，因家庭經濟問題被安置，至 2019 年評估可返
家。但返家不到 2 個月，即遭案父虐死。
回應第二次國家報告 152、153、165、167 點及結論性意見 46 點:
1. 未見政府針對安置決策、家庭處遇計畫之執行提出成效指標及數據分析，並針
對工作流程等面向提出檢討及改善措施。
2. 安置數據及研究公開方面：
(1)未見「兒少反覆進出安置系統」之數據分析：此項數據目前尚未見有相關公
開資料，可供學者及民間團體進行檢視。
(2)某些重要的委託研究報告並未向大眾公開：目前所知未公開研究報告，如：
2017 年衛福部進行之「家外安置兒童及少年生活狀況調查結果」、2018 年衛福
部委託之「重大兒童及少年虐待事件分析研究」及 2019 年內政部兒童局進行
之「特殊需求兒童及少年團體家庭實驗計畫專業精進暨評估計畫案」等。以
「重大兒童及少年虐待事件分析研究」為例，從研究者們在新聞訪談14及安置
公聽會上的論述可知：許多重大兒虐事件乃為反覆進出安置系統之兒少，且其
建議應強化醫療單位共同預防兒虐的功能及責任，而非單靠社政系統。政府編
列經費而完成的研究調查報告卻不願對社會大眾公開，是否係因顧慮兒少權益
受損情況廣受公評及檢驗，而罔顧社會大眾的知情權。
建議：
1. 政府應積極修法，於《兒童及少年福利與權益保障法》中確立保護安置（緊急
安置除外）、委託安置之開結案皆應採團體決策，團體決策應保障參與者之平等
權利，避免以主管機關或學者專家單方意見做為決議。
2. 政府應修法保障委託安置、司法轉向安置之兒少可同保護安置兒少一樣，獲得
12
ETtoday 新聞雲(2020，5 月 2 日)，6 月嬰慘被「拔甲斷骨」凌虐！獲救 4 年後回原生家庭再現新傷．保母急喊：SOS。
https://www.ettoday.net/news/20200502/1705032.htm#ixzz6ZKLOaElZ
13
蘋果日報(2019，11 月 20 日)，慘．2 歲童受虐凹頭噴血亡 母扯「自殘」全身是傷．醫護罵「沒看過如此嚴重」
https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20191120/4GIYE66TX3VF2MJEWOSLA5U2FE/
14
NOWnews 今日新聞(2019，1 月 19 日)，台南虐童案衛福部提強化訪視！學者批：醫療相關隻字不提
https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/qQ97gy
21
家庭處遇計畫服務。
3. 政府應積極辦理家庭處遇計畫、安置之團體決策機制之相關成效研究，以利提
出明確的檢討改善方向，降低安置兒少返家後，出現不利於其身心情形之可
能。另各項安置相關之研究及數據調查（如：反覆進入安置體系之情形）應完
整公開其研究報告內容，俾各界共同討論提出改善建議。
22
(b)安置照顧計畫
現況：
1. 安置階段之定期評估機制
依據趙善如（2021）調查報告統整發現：中央與地方政府對不同類型之安置照
顧計畫或生活照顧紀錄，所採取的定期檢視頻率及指標不盡相同，造成追蹤兒
少照顧品質與照顧成效之困難。
(1) 安置處遇的定期評估規定：目前政府規定保護安置、委託安置之兒少需每３
個月進行定期評估兒少於安置單位服務使用狀況。主責社工亦需要每 3 個
月至少到安置單位訪視兒少 1 次，並與安置單位討論照顧計畫。
(2) 安置機構照顧計畫定期評估規定：衛福部於 2022 年實施之兒童及少年安置
及教養機構聯合評鑑項目規定「安置 1 年內，以 3 個月為原則(至多不超過
6 個月)；1 年以上視需要至少每 3 至 6 個月檢視調整。」
(3) 家外安置照顧生活紀錄與管理：中央政府對不同安置類型規定不一，安置機
構、團體家庭需填寫，但親屬安置、寄養家庭則無相關規定。各縣市政府則
多透過各自的行政辦法、條例、計畫、輔導服務流程、服務契約來做相關規
範。
2. 主責社工在安置照顧計畫定期檢視中缺席
主責社工在安置照顧定期檢視中未被賦予明確的角色，且實務上發現許多兒少
經安置於受託單位後，主責社工與安置兒少接觸的時間及頻率即迅速下降，多
半透過安置單位社工轉知兒少訊息。而兒少一旦進入安置機構，機構方通常成
為對主責社工〝說明〞兒少情況的角色，主責社工不參與定期檢視照顧計畫亦
不積極了解兒少狀態，導致兒少在安置階段缺乏品質監督的機制。
另外，在趙善如（2021）訪談 12 位機構安置的離院生結果發現：主責社工是
這些離院生口中的「傳說中的人物」，決定兒少的安置與否或轉換，但這些兒少
多半未曾見過此人。此研究亦顯示出某些主責社工與安置兒少的距離似乎太過
遙遠。
回應第二次國家報告 166 點及結論性意見第 47 點：
不同安置模式下，兒少安置定期評估缺乏一致性之評量工具，主責社工在安置照顧
計畫中缺席，也未定期將兒少家庭處遇計畫執行進度告知安置單位，使兒少之全人
發展服務被拆解成塊狀，政府與安置雙方缺乏互相監督機制，也無法讓兒少對自己
所在的階段擘劃出整體的樣貌。
23
建議：
1. 政府應採納趙善如（2021）之建議，具體規劃安置照顧計畫定期評估頻率與評
估指標、照顧生活的紀錄與管理（含落實隱私權與保密）之相關規定，以能確
保兒少在各種安置服務中均能得到品質相同的照顧服務。
2. 主責社工主要負責家庭處遇計畫的擬定與執行，因此幾乎無參與兒少安置計畫
之定期評估與擬定。政府應重新檢視主責社工之工作方向，並檢視案量之合理
性，避免主責社工經常更換導致與兒少(或其家庭)關係無法穩定建立，影響服務
成效。
24
(c)評量安置機構之各項指標
現況：
1. 評鑑制度
(1) 林沛君(2021)15研究認為評鑑執行之程序面規定簡略，除評鑑委員應遵守
保密及利益迴避原則外，對於評鑑應遵循之流程，例如是否由機構代表進
行簡報、評鑑委員應當面訪談之機構人員（如機構負責人或主管）、應如
何與機構內兒少進行對談、於評鑑結束前有無必要向機構提出初步回饋等
事項，在實際執行時存有相當之彈性及空間，可能導致評鑑結果不公平的
情況。
(2) 全國安置機構評鑑在同一年辦理，各機構陸續接受評鑑約需半年時間，至
該年底才能得知評鑑結果，接著又進入成績複查程序，評鑑成績不佳的機
構(丙、丁等)進入輔導改善期，此後再進入複評程序。部份評鑑委員未於
評鑑當天將機構缺失及待改善事項完整揭露，受評鑑機構無法當場與評鑑
委員對話，又整體評鑑實施歷程約需一年以上時間，機構在評鑑後無法即
時得知結果而進行調整改善事項。
2. 針對評鑑委員遴選及訓練
現行評鑑委員多由學者專家組成，對委員之專業領域或實務經驗則未有進一步之規
範，容易出現不同評鑑委員對於指標解釋不同，甚至憑刻板印象給分，及不依照評
鑑指標進行評鑑等現象。又部分評鑑委員對兒少安置機構運作之掌握及理解存有落
差，因此評鑑現場僅有批評但無法提出具體、適切的改善建議。
3. 評鑑指標設計
2022 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑項目中，衛福部已嘗試在權益保障部
分納入《兒童權利公約》中兒少的表意權、平等權、生命生存及發展權、隱私與保
密權、受有效保護的權利。但有關《聯合國兒童替代性照顧準則》的相關原則納入
評鑑中，未見安置安排的評估決策合理性指標，而促進兒少與家人團聚的計畫、有
關當局的積極合作性等則是放在安置機構端的責任，若安置機構遇到較被動之主責
社工，不主動與安置社工說明家庭處遇計畫的進度，也不願意採納兒少或安置機構
社工的意見，安置機構在此兩項指標上實難有積極作為。
具體案例：
15
林沛君(2021)，兒童及少年安置及教養機構評鑑制度之現況檢視與未來發展取向之省思，臺大社會工作學刊，43 期，
107-148。
25
案例一
安置兒少在得知即將返家或轉換安置時，向安置機構/社區安置單位(寄養家庭承接
單位)表達不願意返家或轉換安置時，安置單位得知並評估確實不適宜進行安置轉
換，在向主責社工或其督導反應後，兒少及安置單位的意見常常未獲接受(被駁回
比例超過半數以上)。安置兒少得知其意見未獲重視，往往出現被原安置單位拋棄
的感受及憤怒情緒，嚴重者會出現逃離安置處所的情形，但最終政府主責社工及其
主管卻仍維持原安置決策。
回應國家報告 163 點及結論性意見 48 點：
1. 未見評鑑指標優化研究報告，從現行評鑑指標僅能以評鑑等第區分各安置機構
表現，如林沛君(2021)所述，無法區分各等級優劣差異之所在，亦難以辨識各
機構之特色。
2. 地方政府每年對各家機構進行查核 3-4 次，但仍有機構會在三年進行一次的評
鑑結果中得到丙、丁等的成績，顯示地方政府的查核機制對於機構服務品質的
提升相當有限，也未落實主管機關對機構的監督輔導義務。
建議：
1. 評鑑實施前應針對評鑑人員進行訓練，以對於評鑑標準凝聚共識，提升評鑑人
員專業度及評鑑實施過程之一致性。
2. 評鑑委員之組成應至少 1/3 的委員具備兒少相關之專業及實務經驗，或曾在兒
少組織擔任主管職之實務工作者。
3. 評鑑指標優化研究係政府身為主管機關應展開之重要工作，政府可藉由評鑑指
標的設計，發掘機構專長並對其他機構發揮學習及激盪之功能，亦可引導機構
結合社區資源發展具專業特色的服務。政府應落實評鑑指標優化研究的執行，
而研究成果也應於評鑑指標公布前確實公開，並安排教育訓練讓機構學習，讓
機構評鑑指標成為安置機構服務的領先指標引領機構提升服務品質，而非成為
落後指標來論斷機構已經發生的服務。
4. 機構評鑑整體時間冗長，公平性又具爭議，主管機關仍應審慎評估未來以獨立
專責機關負責評鑑之可行性。
26
(d).安置兒少的自立議題
現況：
1. 結束安置前準備與實際狀況之落差
根據研究（趙善如 2021，劉弘毅 201816）發現：雖然兒少不論安置在寄養家
庭、安置機構或團體家庭，在安置期間，便可接受到相關自立能力之培養
（如：生活、就學、就業、金錢管理等），並能與照顧者或工作人員討論未來發
展，但在真正自立之際，研究中離院兒少仍表達出：經濟自立不易、與家人關
係的磨合有困難、離開安置後情感社交關係上的孤單感、生活自我管理問題
等。對於一些特殊少年，還需要面對其他議題，例如：過去有偏差行為之少
年，更有可能回到偏差的群體裡。
2. 身心障礙青少年之自立議題
安置機構內有智能障礙、自閉症或智力邊緣的兒少人數有逐漸增加的趨勢，但
因其家庭功能不健全無法提供成年後之支持和照顧，又目前對於輕度身障個案
之就業媒合及轉銜資源十分不足，當障礙程度未達中、重度以上，身障機構不
提供服務的情況下，這群身障個案缺乏其他自立的協助資源與管道。
3. 後追、自立方案與安置單位之合作關係
2022 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑項目規定安置機構應提供結束安置
後之兒童少年關懷支持或必要之協助至少 1 年，然而實際上兒少在安置結束
後，部分後追或自立社工不願意安置機構社工繼續兒少關懷輔導的工作，希望
有所切割，係因為兒少與安置機構建立較穩定的關係，遇到問題或情感需求議
題往往仍尋求援安置機構之協助。
具體案例：
案例一
結束安置兒少在自立的路上面對各樣壓力，無適時、足夠的協助，可能侷限了其未
來發展：某結束安置的兒少雖考上國立大學，但因著經濟壓力、無原生家庭的支持
與監督，第一年便放棄學業。
案例二
某縣市監護兒少有輕度智能障礙，滿 18 歲後由於沒有合適的自立單位可媒合，主
責社工將其安置到以身障老人為主的住宿式身障機構。該機構位處偏僻，周遭沒有
16
劉弘毅(2018)，影響安置機構結案青少年生活穩定的關鍵因素，Journal of Youth Studies. Vol. 21 Issue 1, p165-175.。
27
合適的就業場所，個案雖在校已習得初步工作技能但仍無法外出就業，又機構的作
息活動安排多適合身障老人，個案長期安置在此機構中其能力已有退步的情況產
生。
回應國家報告 168、169、170 點及結論性意見 49 點：
1. 政府對於安置結束後追蹤輔導之執行情形，目前於衛福部統計處網站上，僅可
知服務人數，但未見其他相關資訊，例如：服務提供情形、無法聯繫比例等，
未有明確的資料能了解後追服務之成效及檢討改進措施。
2. 目前自立宿舍使用規定以居住三個月為原則，離開自立宿舍後則由社工提供住
宿、生活協助、諮詢與輔導等服務。根據中華育幼機構兒童關懷協會之調查整
理，近十年來，自立宿舍的床位數沒有增減，僅約 100 床，且 22 個縣市中僅
10 個縣市有自立宿舍之規劃(45%)，明顯可見政府在自立資源之布建進度有待
加強17。
回應國家報告 198 點：
政府雖提供身障兒少接受技職訓練的人數，卻未提到後續就業資源媒合的情況。事
實上身心障礙兒少自立生活與相關協助服務亦包含在身心障礙權利公約(CRPD)當
中，政府應正視身障兒少成年後轉銜資源的問題，包含生活安置、就業媒合、融入
社區等服務，讓身心障礙者享有在社區中生活的平等權利。
建議：
１. 各縣市政府安置資源的建置方向應考量不同年齡的比例，且安置機構兒少自立
培訓應包含社區資源之建置與支持系統的運作，自立培訓方案的補助內涵除補
助安置服務提供者使用外，應擴及社區支持系統，否則兒少自立培訓將落於紙
上談兵的空談理想。
２. 衛福部在 2021 年提出「提升少年自立生活適應協助服務量能計畫」的補助
案，但補助計畫空泛，且規定每一地方政府僅能補助單一民間團體。而現行自
立生活服務內涵及成效指標在未建立的情況下，政府不應限制單一民間團體承
接此項服務，應開放有績效的民間團體共同投入此項服務，有助於充實自立生
活方案的內涵及績效。
３. 身障兒少進入安置系統人數漸增，政府應規劃社區中的就業轉銜資源，提早安
17
中華育幼機構兒童關懷協會(2020，3 月 27 日)，媒體報導「自立宿舍」佈建牛步．失家兒僅 6%能入住
https://www.childrenhome.org.tw/link2-1_view.asp?id=428
28
排勞政單位社工介入輔導安置服務提供者及身障兒少，同時評估身障少年成年
後的住宿需求，將所需資源一併規畫於社區中，避免身障少年成年後出現有工
作沒住所，或有住所沒工作的自立困境。
29
第六章【身心障礙，基本健康與福利】
兒少保健措施及醫療照護防疫及紓困措施
現況：
1. 政府防疫措施對「兒少安置機構」定位不明且常遭忽略。以疫苗施打順序為
例，在中央疫情指揮中心 2021 年 6 月 9 日公布的 COVID-19 疫苗公費接種對
象18第五順位中住宿型長照機構住民及其照護者、居家式和社區式長照機構及
身障服務照服員及服務對象、或其他機構（含矯正機關工作人員），無法判斷兒
少安置機構係屬住宿型長照機構或其他機構。又公費流感疫苗施打對象19中，
兒少安置機構既不屬於長期照顧機構，亦不屬於幼兒園托育人員及托育機構專
業人員，但機構屬性及服務對象並無二致，每年施打時均被衛生排除在外，兒
少機構工作人員需自費施打，增加機構負擔且無受到國家重視。
2. 政府僅提供和長照單位一體適用的防疫指引忽略兒少安置機構個案的特性及收
案情況，如：個案活動力強、防疫習慣難以掌控、年紀較小的個案無法自行隔
離、緊急安置個案、兒少轉換機構安置、安置兒少擅自逃跑後返院等情況，且
各縣市對於安排篩檢、隔離空間及照顧人力、備援人力配置作法不一，嚴重損
害兒少生存權及最佳利益。
3. 疫情嚴峻期間學校停課，安置兒少 24 小時生活在機構內，造成安置機構人力不
堪負荷和缺乏的情況，中央政府雖指示地方政府須盤點備援人力並協助調度，
但僅部分縣市有備援人力計畫。
4. 防疫期間政府針對育有未滿 12 歲孩童之家長或監護人提供防疫補貼，未排除依
法安置之兒少其父母無照顧之實，未因須照顧兒少而生計受影響且未支出兒少
相關生活費用。政府回覆未聲請政府改訂監護之個案父母，主管機構仍須與父
母一起工作修復家庭功能，會與父母或監護人共同討論如何將該補貼妥善運用
在照顧兒少。
5. 政府對安置單位的協助有照顧加給及紓困措施20：
18
衛生福利部疾病管制署(2021，6 月 21 日)，COVID-19 公費疫苗接種對象
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/9mcqWyq51P_aYADuh3rTBA
19
衛生福利部疾病管制署(2021)，年度流感疫苗接種計畫
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/MPage/JNTC9qza3F_rgt9sRHqV2Q
20
衛生福利部(2021，6 月 28 日)，住宿式機構受嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎影響之紓困措施
https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/cp-5191-61206-205.html
30
(1) 實際照顧兒少的安置單位政府另提供照顧補貼，疫情停課３個月期間，以
每名個案每月 1500 元為計算基準。
(2) 安置機構的紓困措施強調須「因收到指揮中心停業通知」才能申請停業期
間的基本人事費及維持費、員工薪資貸款及週轉金。安置機構面臨捐款大
幅減少，且人事支出增加的情況，防疫津貼的計算基準不明，又無法申請
紓困，機構面臨嚴峻的經營困境。
回應第二次國家報告 187 點：
1. 政府雖已訂定應變整備作戰計畫給各縣市政府及安置機構，然而對安置機構而
言最難解決的是排班人力及隔離處所的問題卻無法提供實質協助，造成機構的
慌張和焦慮。
建議:
1. 政府應定義兒少安置機構屬性，在衛生防疫政策有清楚的歸類，並考量兒少服
務之特殊性訂定防疫期間的服務指引。
2. 針對人力安排及空間整備上，中央政府應統籌各縣市政府盤點可單人住宿收案
之床位數，以因應停課期間家暴案件可能增加之安置需求。地方政府應事先協
助機構安排備援空間並告知地點，當機構內有人確診時，機構無隔離空間需安
排前往防疫旅館，應由政府全額補助費用。
3. 有關行政院核發之孩童家庭防疫補貼，建議政府未來發放孩童相關津貼時應考
量依法安置之兒少其父母無照顧之實，並未支出兒少相關生活照顧費用，應予
以排除其領用資格。
31
第七章【教育休閒與文化活動】安置兒少在教育現場的歧視
現況：
1. 安置兒少就學遭遇隱性歧視：
(1) 監察院212013 年針對現行安置機構兒少就學面臨教育歧視及輕度障礙者缺乏專
業培育調查報告指出，該年度機構安置兒少中就讀國小者約 955 人、國高中約
1512 人，至少有 12 個學校曾拒收機構兒少。機構兒少在 37 所學校，至少 61
人，不被學校教師歡迎。至少有 11 縣市、29 個機構、22 所國中、12 所國
小，計有 226 名兒少因安置機構學生身分被迫跨區就學，跨區就學，理由包
含：機構就讀該校人數太多、員額管控、學校人力無法負荷、學校拒收、學校
不友善、院生被標籤化、學校與機構衝突等原因。
(2) 政府雖訂有相關轉銜法規，學校雖不再明白拒絕安置兒少入學，卻出現許多隱
形歧視，包含：安置機構兒少在入學前須經過長時間評估與等待、安置機構必
須給予學校對於危機處理的保證，如：入學第一個月須到校陪同，對司法轉向
安置少年學校常「希望機構保證個案到學校不會出問題」或委婉的以「無法提
供司法少年適切的教育服務」為由不希望兒少入學。
(3) 安置盟 2021 年調查，兒少安置後平均等待入學時間最長曾等待 2 個月。有
47%機構的安置兒少被分散到 3 所以上的國中就讀；27%機構的安置兒少分散
到 3 所以上的國小就讀。
2. 就學被要求附帶其他條件：
(1)學校輔導資源不足且城鄉分布不均造成兒少需跨區就讀：
a. 跨學區就讀
一般學校除配置專輔老師人力外，僅各縣市學生諮商輔導中心的學校社工
或諮商師可協助處理學生的情緒和行為議題，一般教師並未有能力處理學
生的情緒和行為議題。在學校輔導資源不足或教師無法負荷等原因下，機
構安置兒少被要求分散到不同學校跨學區就讀。
b.特教資源少
特教及輔導資源不足的問題凸顯城鄉差距的問題，部分縣市因財政資源
不足，或位處偏鄉專業人員招募不易等問題，學校光是要滿足該縣在籍
特教生的需求就很吃力，更無法負擔因跨縣市安置兒少特教生的需求。
(2).學校三級輔導機制無法接住安置兒少學習需求：
21
監察院 (2013，7 月 11 日)，調查報告 102 教調 0038。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=c097621b-7dc8-4527-ba6f-3e2d1d079386
32
a.情緒行為學生三級輔導機制運作方式為：班級導師初步處理情緒與行為
問題學生，輔導處透過專輔老師或巡迴輔導諮商師（學諮中心）進行輔
導，若偏差行為語言種適應困難，則會連結校外資源，如:民間單位資
源、醫療資源、警政單位等介入處理。但安置兒少卻跳過大部分的輔導
措施，從輔導室介入開始就直接請安置單位社工處理或帶回管教，造成
安置兒少無法融入學校，也增加安置兒少對學校的排斥。
b.安置盟 2021 年調查發現，社工因兒少行為被要求到校處理的頻率比例
分布為半年一次 32%、2-3 個月一次 8%、每月 1-3 次 28%、每周 1-3
次 24%、每天都有 8%。過去 3 年內，36%的機構遇到學校要求機構將
兒少帶回管教不得上學，甚至有機構近 3 年內有 10 名以上的兒少遇到
這類情事。
3. 2022 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑項目，在平等權的部分要求機構應
確保「安置兒童少年在社區生活、就學及就業參與等面向都能享有與一般兒少
相同的權益，不因其安置身分遭受差別對待」。安置機構兒少在社區中遭到歧視
或權利剝奪係屬於被害者的身分，政府無提出具體策略制止加害者的霸凌行
為，卻要求安置機構去為兒少主張權益，此邏輯思考著實匪夷所思。
具體案例：
案例一：
一名亞斯伯格症的兒童因跨轄安置，學籍也一併移轉至其他縣市的國小，該國小卻
以額滿為由要求另尋他校，然而經相關人士與縣政府教育處查詢後，得知當時該校
尚有名額，經爭取後案主得以入學，但就學時程已拖延了約兩個星期。入學半年後
因發生咬傷老師事件，家長會會長以維護其他學童的安全及受教權益為由，在網路
上霸凌該學童及安置機構，但教育處及校方並無積極作為維護該兒童受教權。經過
幾次的波折，主責社工考量此社區環境已不適合案主成長，遂再將其轉安置到其他
縣市接受服務。
回應第二次國家報告 48、193、254 點：
1. 國家對於反歧視的措施只有消極保護之功能，現行雖出版《兒少反歧視案例彙
編》手冊22，對安置兒少的反歧視保護措施不足。若歧視的施加者非體制內人
22
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，6 月 29 日)，兒少反歧視案例彙編。
33
員，如學校場域中的家長或校外人士等。則行政單位、司法單位及人權單位皆
無有力措施保障被歧視的人。
2. 《兒童及少年受安置輔導或感化教育之學籍轉銜及復學辦法》及《教育部國民
及學前教育署補助辦理中輟生預防追蹤與復學輔導工作原則》等法規規範各政
府單位應協助安置兒少入學，然而此辦法未建立跨網絡合作機制也無法保障安
置兒少免受歧視。
3. 政府對偏遠地區學校雖已提供適足資源，執行措施以學科教學面為主，尚未處
理專輔人員及特教教師聘僱不易的困境。
4. 一般教師需增強特殊教育知能，但一般教師仍缺乏對安置兒少因創傷經驗而出
現的情緒和行為的理解和知能訓練，造成學校教師無力處理安置兒少學校的行
為議題。
建議：
1. 修訂 2022 年兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑項目在平等權部分的指標，
安置機構兒少在社區中的平等權應評價各項社區服務系統如教育、社 政、勞政
提出的配套改善機制，而非安置機構工作人員的努力程度。
2. 安置兒少的議題不能單靠社政系統或司法體系解決，因此政府應建立跨網絡協
調機制，讓兒少能適應學校穩定就學。
3. 安置機構位於的學區增加專輔人力配置，協助學校一般老師處理安置兒少議
題，讓安置兒少能在學校就學，保障其就學權。
4. 教育單位一般師資人員也須有兒少發展需求、特殊教育需求辨識與評估、及創
傷知情相關專業知能，建議將這些訓練納入專業研習和師資培訓系統，以協助
安置兒少融入學校生活，而非將安置兒少推出校門外。
https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/(X(1)S(rmdlsbcqlvxfrjtedhzfa0yn))/Document/Detail?documentId=D65001A5-CB99-4308-
B9F0-E24B4B8D173B
34
第八章【特別保護措施】
A.司法轉向安置兒少處境
現況：
1. 監察院 2019 年調查報告23提到：
《少事法》為司法系統之少年規劃多樣化、彈
性化的保護處分，包含：訓誡、假日生活輔導、保護管束、安置輔導及感化教育
等，實務上卻有安置需求之保護管束個案卻無法安置的情況。由於未明確規定司
法少年的轉換機制，導致目前僅能由少年保護官召開個案討論會議，轉交地方主
管機關依《兒少法》社政安置規定辦理，法院不負擔相關經費，亦不介入安置機
構的選擇及處遇計畫訂定。
2. 《兒少法》第 67 條明定地方政府提供必要福利服務之義務，然而司法及社政系
統對司法少年的輔導合作存在認知落差，未產生合作模式，導致成效不佳。
(1) 司法系統預算編列僅負擔交付安置輔導之費用，且只處理少年觸法的問題，
認為少年仍在社區，其他福利需求須由社政系統銜接提供協助。
(2) 法官裁判少年安置輔導評估依據為少年家庭教養功能，但現行針對司法轉向
安置個案之家庭未有家庭處遇方案介入，提升家庭親職功能，因此當安置輔
導結束後其家庭並未有任何改善。
(3) 根據《兒少法》第 67 條，地方社政機關僅會持續提供司法少年家庭原已接
受之福利服務，若司法少年之家庭在其安置輔導前沒有接受相關社政服務，
在少年進入安置輔導系統後，也不會提供家庭處遇等資源介入協助。
(4) 2020 年司法院公布《少年法院與相關機關處理少年事件聯繫辦法》
，期待個
案面能建立移送、調查、交付保護處分各階段跨部會橫向聯繫機制；另外，
司法院和社家署有定期召開聯繫會議，討論事項著重如何提供安置床位等議
題，難以涵蓋非行少年遭遇的多元困境，也有院際協調機制溝通業務，但實
際運作成效仍須檢視。
3. 裁判安置輔導人數從 2017 年 128 人下降至 2020 年 57 人，下降的主因為：
(1) 由於欠缺建構涵蓋司法兒少為整體對象的福利輸送網絡，其中涉及藥物濫
用、性議題、精神障礙、智能障礙等特殊需求之非行兒少，因需挹注高度資
源，往往成為「難置兒」。
(2) 司法轉向安置費低亦是另一個原因。2019 年法院安置費落在每月 21000 元
23
監察院 (2019，8 月 14 日)，調查報告 108 司調 0048。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=9ab5a60d-3f6a-48f7-a112-5b0b1fac903d
35
至 24000 元，僅少數法院針對兒少年齡、身心特殊需求等情況訂定級距式安
置費用標準。事實上，各法院編列的安置費用遠不足以支應實際支出，安置
機構多仰賴民間捐款，現實考量下，安置機構普遍有資源不足、專業難以對
應等困境，婉拒這類特殊需求之非行少年，也因難以媒合到合適的安置機
構，裁定安置輔導人數下降。
具體案例：
案例一
少年 H 於 2016 年間因涉性侵害之保護事件，經法院審理裁定保護管束。在保護管
束執行期間，保護官發現 H 少年家庭功能惡化，失去管教及生活照顧功能。保護官
遂與該縣社工召開個案研討會議，由 H 少年主要照顧者簽屬委託安置同意書進行安
置輔導。然而，該縣社會局聯繫多間安置機構均回覆無法協助安置，經法院審酌 H
少年保護管束期間違反應遵守事項，撤銷保護管束，改裁定 H 少年感化教育。
回應第二次國家報告 346、347、351、352 點：
1. 司法少年多有身心狀況議題、特殊教育、毒癮及酒癮戒治需求，然而司法院卻無
相關統計資料，無法全面了解司法少年「需保護性」樣態。
2. 2019 年《少事法》修法時，司法院雖擴大安置輔導處所，將醫療機構、執行過
渡性教育措施或其他適當措施之處所納入，然而司法系統矯治色彩濃厚，仍需與
治療輔導為主的單位磨合形成合作機制。
建議：
1. 針對《兒少法》第 67 條提供必要福利服務應修法有明確規範，並建立中央與地
方跨部會協調機制，結合生活照顧、醫療、教育、就業輔導等資源，提供整合性
服務。
2. 衛福部應積極引導機構分級分類及專業化發展，針對非行少年特性和需求發展合
適的安置模式。
3. 司法院應分析實務案例類型，依非行少年之年齡、身心狀態等特性，訂定不同安
置輔導費用級距，並提供合理符合現行物價水平之實支實付項目及額度，以提供
司法少年完善的輔導服務。
36
B，安置機構原住民兒少及其統計
現況：
1. 根據趙善如(2021)研究結果發現，雖然在 2014-2018 年間，各縣市家外安置
兒少為原住民族之比例不一，以 2018 年為例，原住民兒少的比例最高達
60.41%。家外安置兒少原住民族人數有增加之趨勢，5 年全國原住民整體成長
率為 8.72%。但是，目前現有的安置資源較少考量兒少族群文化連結的需要，
使其缺乏與自己族群文化的連結。
2. 替代性照顧政策中，政府將提升文化敏感度納入改善照顧品質的執行措施。於
2022 年新評鑑指標中，明訂個案處遇計畫需依兒少考量族群特性及文化等個
別訂定。
具體案例：
為滿足兒少文化連結的需要，有安置機構辦理透過獵人學校、編織等原住民文化中
普同性的技藝，培養原住民兒少的文化認同；對於個別族群的文化傳承。機構多是
透過私人網絡為兒少連結同族的網絡與資源，讓兒少建立文化歸屬感。
回應第二次國家報告 315、316 點：
1. 現行具原住民身分之寄養家庭戶數很少，因此無法達到優先將原住民安置兒少
安排在該類寄養家庭中。
2. 國家報告未提供實務工作者文化敏感度相關課程時數等資訊，無法了解評估落
實情況。
建議：
1. 不只需培養家外安置照顧者之文化敏感度外，政府亦需培養及加強主責社工及
家處社工等實務工作者的文化敏感度，以規劃適切的家庭處遇工作，提升整體
替代性照顧服務品質。
2. 現行原鄉有原住民家庭服務中心，建議可建立橫向溝通網絡，提供家外安置單
位文化諮詢，也可一同協助家庭功能恢復工作，也讓兒少返家後有社區支援。
3. 安置決策應審慎考量並保障兒少之表意權及文化認同與發展之權利，落實兒少
文化權利保障，建議修法《兒少法》第 52、56、62 條將安置決策審酌兒少文
化需求入法。
37
38
參考資料：
監察院 (2017~2021)，調查報告。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxAll.aspx?n=718&sms=0
趙善如、彭淑華、胡中宜(2021)，家外安置需求推估及現行安置模式執行成效評估
計畫期末成果報告。衛生福利部社會及家庭署。
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=581&pid=10600
衛生福利部(2022)，兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑。
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=1345
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2019)，各直轄市、縣（市）政府受理兒童及少年委託安
置作業流程
衛生福利部(2018)，兒童及少年安置及教養機構聯合評鑑。
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=992
衛生福利部(2021，4 月 26、28、29 日)，兒少替代性照顧政策草案座談會資料。
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，11 月 26 日)，家外安置兒少替代性照顧資源強化
輔導團計畫平台會議暨期末座談會資料
監察院 (2019，2 月 14 日)，調查報告 108 內調 0009。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=b2ba4ed9-
5dea-4dd3-a9ee-317b6a44ba02
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，9 月 6 日~10 月 22 日)，強化社會安全網第二期
計畫公私協力服務方案說明會會議簡報。https://topics.mohw.gov.tw/SS/lp-
5259-204.html
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，1 月 5 日)，各直轄市、縣(市)政府交付兒童及少
年福利機構安置兒少之法律關係及契約屬性研商會議記錄
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2018，2 月 24)，家庭功能評估與家庭處遇計畫表單與工
作手冊。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-50829-f26ceebc-1e1e-4b54-ac0d-
c0e8b584a43c.html
ETtoday 新聞雲(2020，5 月 2 日)，6 月嬰慘被「拔甲斷骨」凌虐！獲救 4 年後回
原生家庭再現新傷．保母急喊：SOS。
39
https://www.ettoday.net/news/20200502/1705032.htm#ixzz6ZKLOaElZ
蘋果日報(2019，11 月 20 日)，慘．2 歲童受虐凹頭噴血亡 母扯「自殘」全身是
傷．醫護罵「沒看過如此嚴重」
https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20191120/4GIYE66TX3VF2MJEWOSLA5U
2FE/
NOWnews 今日新聞(2019，1 月 19 日)，台南虐童案衛福部提強化訪視！學者
批：醫療相關隻字不提 https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/qQ97gy
林沛君(2021)，兒童及少年安置及教養機構評鑑制度之現況檢視與未來發展取向之
省思，臺大社會工作學刊，43 期，107-148。
劉弘毅(2018)，影響安置機構結案青少年生活穩定的關鍵因素，Journal of Youth
Studies. Vol. 21 Issue 1, p165-175.。
中華育幼機構兒童關懷協會(2020，3 月 27 日)，媒體報導「自立宿舍」佈建牛
步．失家兒僅 6%能入住 https://www.childrenhome.org.tw/link2-
1_view.asp?id=428
衛生福利部疾病管制署(2021，6 月 21 日)，COVID-19 公費疫苗接種對象
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/9mcqWyq51P_aYADuh3rTBA
衛生福利部疾病管制署(2021)，年度流感疫苗接種計畫
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/MPage/JNTC9qza3F_rgt9sRHqV2Q
衛生福利部(2021，6 月 28 日)，住宿式機構受嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎影響之紓困措
施
https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/cp-5191-61206-205.html
監察院 (2013，7 月 11 日)，調查報告 102 教調 0038。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=c097621b-
7dc8-4527-ba6f-3e2d1d079386
衛生福利部社會及家庭署(2021，6 月 29 日)，兒少反歧視案例彙編。
https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/(X(1)S(rmdlsbcqlvxfrjtedhzfa0yn))/Document/Detail?d
ocumentId=D65001A5-CB99-4308-B9F0-E24B4B8D173B
40
監察院 (2019，8 月 14 日)，調查報告 108 司調 0048。
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=b7942cc0-
5efd-4656-8820-d630a8fd5329
41
---
來源 PDF:34_20220406110750_6127048.pdf
Taiwan Residential Child
Care Alliance Report for CRC
28th March 2022
(Based on the second Implementation of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child-Initial Report)
OpenReports
0
Table of Contents
Chapter 1【General Enforcement Measures】The Complaint Rights of
Children and Teenagers in Placement Agencies ................................................... 3
Article12、17、18、19
Chapter 2【General Principles】Respect of Children Opinions and the
Expression Right of Placement Children ................................................................. 7
Article12、13
Chapter 3【Citizenship and Liberty】Privacy Protection of Placement of
Children .......................................................................................................................... 11
Article16、17
Chapter 4【Protecting Children and Teenagers from Violence】 ................. 13
Article19、37
Chapter 5【Home Environment and Alternative Care】 .................................. 15
Article6、18、25
A. Children who are unable to grow up in a family environment/Children
who have lost their families ..................................................................................... 15
(a) Specialization of placement shelters: case grading, institution
grading ............................................................................................................ 15
(b) Government's alternative resource balancing ................................. 20
(c)Partnership Between Placement Agencies and the Government . 23
1
B. Out-of-home Placement Program and Service Connotation .............. 26
(a)Decision-making of Children’s Placement and Implementation of
Family Reorganization Plan ........................................................................ 26
(b) Placement Care Program ...................................................................... 32
(c) Evaluate Various Indicators of Placement Agencies ....................... 35
(d). Self-reliance Issues of the Placement Children ............................... 39
Chapter 6 【Disability, Basic Health and Welfare】 Children’s Health Care
Measures and Medical Care and Epidemic Prevention Relief Measures ..... 43
Article23
Chapter 7【Educational Leisure and Cultural Activities】Discrimination in
Placement Children in Educational Settings ........................................................ 46
Article28
Chapter 8【Special Protection Measures】 ......................................................... 51
Article30、40
A. Judicial turns to the situations of placement children............................ 51
B. Indigenous children in placement agencies and their statistics......... 55
2
Chapter 1【General Enforcement Measures】The Complaint
Rights of Children and Teenagers in Placement Agencies
Current situation:
1. The existing appeal channels for placement children are established at
different levels and within different regulations, including:
(1) Children and teenager placement agencies (shelters): internal and external
grievance mechanisms are required to be set up, and all public placement
shelters for children and teenagers have relevant methods for setting up
appeal groups or methods for complaint procedures; private placement
agencies for children and teenagers are requested to accept the guidance
and inspection of child and youth placement and correctional institutions
stipulated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare on weekdays and the
joint evaluation of children and youth placement and correctional
institutions every three or four years. All regulated placement agencies
should have internal and external complaint handling mechanisms.
(2) County and city governments: there is an external grievance handling
mechanism for out-of-home placement, including all types of out-of-
home placement (kinship care, foster family, group family, placement
shelters). It is also stipulated that individual placement agencies should
set up an in-house complaint handling mechanism.
(3) Control Yuan: it has the authority to investigate incidents related to
violations of children’s rights, but there are no substantial checks and
balances.
Among issues related to placement, after verifying the investigation
report published on the website1, from January 2017 to December 2021,
there were a total of 10 cases in the past 5 years, including: 2 cases of lack
of management notification of sexual assault incidents in placement
shelters. Lack of handling of sexual assault incidents in foster families,
improper abuse of nanny placement, improper discipline by placement
agencies, government failure to respond to the issue of aging foster
families, consideration of placement of children and suspension of family
1Control Yuan (2017~2021)，investigation report。https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxAll.aspx?n=718&sms=0
3
contact, lack of family support or resettlement resources for children with
autism, working conditions of child and teenager placement shelter are
ignored by the government, special sexual assault judicial children have
no suitable resettlement place, one for each of the above issues.
2. Defects of the current children’s grievance mechanism: at present,
children’s placement agencies have set up internal and external grievance
handling mechanisms in accordance with government regulations, but since
the external grievance mechanism is established in the county and city
governments, there may be a lack of neutrality and grievance mechanisms for
the home-based and community-based placement services.
(1) The grievance mechanisms for out-of-home resettlement of the county
and city governments are not sound enough, and there is no formal
complaint channel provided by the responsible agency and its social
workers for the treatment of children and young children resettled
outside the home. When the placement unit encounters that the social
worker in charge does not take into account the best interests of the
resettled children (including not listening to children’s opinions), they
can only respond and discuss with their supervisors or managers, and
such feedback does not constitute a formal, effective the appeal
procedure; or when submitting a letter to the mailbox of government
department, the agency tends to assign the business unit for the reply,
showing the situation of the player and the referee.
(2) At present, the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred
to as the Human Rights Commission) under the Control Yuan has a total
of 10 members, with 3 groups of “Research Project”, “Visit Work” and
“Educational Exchange”. The current issues of concern include the
Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC), the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW), the Act to Implement the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights & International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights (ICCPR & ICESCR). However, the business statistics of the Human
4
Rights Commission from January to November 2021 show that its
business connotations are mostly the research and investigation of
special projects, interviews, visits to prevent torture, human rights
education exchanges, independent evaluation opinions of national
reports, etc., and only one case in the judicial cooperation section and
three from August 2020 to this day. The statistics have failed to show the
efforts of the Human Rights Commission on the Convention on the Rights
of Children, and its supervision of judicial and administrative organs has
not been clearly effective.
Specific cases:
Case 1
Some placement children have different opinions on personal resettlement
from the responsible social worker. For example, the responsible social worker
hopes that the children and teenager choose the self-reliance plan, but the
children and teenager expect to stay in the placement agency so that they can
continue to complete their high school studies more stably. Among them, the
shelter unit, in addition to communicating and coordinating with the competent
authority/responsible social worker, looks forward to assisting the resettlement
of children and teenager to make further appeals, such as sending a letter to the
President’s mailbox, but the shelter unit has to have more restrictions and
difficulties, because: (1) the shelter unit understands the fact that the letter to
the President’s mailbox will eventually return to the Social and Family Affairs
Administration and the competent authorities of various counties and cities for
processing. (2) The shelter unit is also worried about whether the appeal on
behalf of the children and teenager will damage the harmonious relationship
between the shelter unit and the government and will be detrimental to their
follow-up cooperative relationship.
Response to points 26 to 30 of the second national report and
concluding observations 14 to 17, 82:
The National Human Rights Commission’s current business scope is limited to
research, interviews, educational discussions, and judicial cooperation. It only
has the right to make suggestions when non-public departments/public
5
officials endanger the rights of children and teenager and does not provide a
substantive intervention mechanism; as of December 2018, there were only 2
cases per year dealing with policy issues or major violations of children’s rights
and interests, and the cases were not initiatively made by children or teenager.
It can be seen that regardless of the Control Yuan or the National Human Rights
Commission under it, both organizations lack accessibility and friendliness in
the publicity, complaint platform and tools of children’s rights and interests.
Recommendations:
1. The existing National Human Rights Commission should re-examine its setup
methods and related functions and powers, strengthen the publicity of
complaint channels and review the effectiveness of its use; there should be
substantive intervention measures for investigating cases, and the results of
case handling should be made into public information for public inquiry.
2. The Control Yuan is more independent than the competent authorities of
each county and city and should be more suitable for dealing with the issue
of damage to the rights of children and teenager caused by the improper
decision-making of the competent authorities of each county and city for
placement outside their homes. However, the data shows that the number of
cases currently handled is quite small (only an average of 2 cases per year in
the past five years are related to children’s rights and interests), and
investigations are often conducted after media reports and public opinions
arise. It is advised that the service capacity of children’s rights and interests
damage should be improved, and the follow-up tracking of cases should be
followed up with the presentation of the improvement effect.
3. The government should actively revise the law and add provisions to the
“Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act”, the most
important parent law for children’s rights and interests, so as to ensure that
all children who receive child protection and placed outside the home can
have the right to appeal for their relevant placement decisions and treatment,
and an expert group should be formed by the impartial unit mentioned in
Chapter 3 to carry out and safeguard the rights and interests of children.
6
Chapter 2【General Principles】Respect of Children Opinions and
the Expression Right of Placement Children
Current situation:
1. Views and ideas of children and children in different resettlement places:
according to the two (unpublished) survey results provided by Chao Shan-Ju
(2021)2: the results of “Investigation on the Living Conditions of Children
and Adolescents Relocated Outside the Home” conducted by the Ministry
of Health and Welfare in 2017 and the “Special Needs Children and Youth
Group Family Experiment Project Professional Improvement and Evaluation
Project” conducted by Child Welfare Bureau, Ministry of the Interior in 2019,
regarding children in foster families, placement agencies or group families,
there are opportunities to express opinions, but the topics discussed with
caregivers are different. Among them, children from foster homes have the
most opportunities to express various opinions, while children from
placement agencies and group families, though having the opportunity to
discuss in the part of further education and employment, are more limited in
the arrangement of personal space and daily routine.
2. Placement children’s right to know their rights and obligations:
The joint evaluation project for the placement of children and juveniles and
correctional institutions implemented3 by the Ministry of Health and Welfare
in 2022 require children and teenager placement shelters to clearly inform
them of their rights and obligations when accepting the case. In contrast,
resettlement models such as kinship families and foster families have no
relevant regulations, and the understanding of the rights and obligations of
the resettled children should be fulfilled.
3. Circumstances in which placement children participate in resettlement
decision-making:
Chao Shan-Ju’s (2021) research results show that at least 40% of children in
foster families disagree with “I can have the opportunity to discuss my
2
Chao Shan-Ju, Peng Shu-Hua, Hu Chung-Yi (2021), estimated placement needs outside the home and report on the
final results of effectiveness evaluation plan of the current placement model implementation. Social and Family Affairs
Administration, MOHW. https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=581&pid=10600
3
Ministry of Health and Welfare (2022), Joint Evaluation of Child and Adolescent Placement and Correctional
Institutions. https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=1345
7
placement arrangements”. At present, the placement cases for children and
teenager belong to the entrusted resettlement persons. The “Municipality,
County (City) Government Accepting the Entrusted Placement Operation
Procedures for Children and Teenagers” 4 promulgated in 2019, the
provisions of this executive order do not provide the right to know, state and
participate in the meeting of the placement children in their own
resettlement decisions, but only list out the willingness of child placement in
the group decision-making evaluation form; there is also no relevant
regulation to protect resettlement persons to guarantee the right of such
children to participate in the placement decision-making process.
4. Informed consent and expression conditions s of resettled children under
various placement services
The 2022 Joint Evaluation Indicators for Child and Adolescent Placement and
Correctional Institutions stipulates that child placement agencies should
provide opportunities for placement children to participate in discussions
when formulating placement care plans, case treatment programs, and
preparation plans before ending placement. However, in the various living
arrangements in foster care placement and kinship care, the rights of children
and teenagers to know and express are not regulated and guaranteed.
Specific cases:
Case 1
In placement shelters, staff most often conflict with placement children
(especially teenagers) over the use of mobile phones. Some placement shelters
have adopted: under the responsibility of personal study and life, children can
be allowed to use mobile phones without time limit; some placement shelters
use time-limited methods to allow children to use mobile phones with less
flexibly.
One of the things that placement shelters worry the most is the physical safety
of children and teenagers (for example, inappropriate dating, sexual behavior
deviation, teenage pregnancy, uploading nudity pictures online, etc.) when they
come into contact with the outside world through the Internet. In addition to
4
Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW (2019), the municipal and county (city) governments’ accepting the
entrusted placement work process for children and juveniles.
8
pre-education and post-event assistance, placement shelters are often the ones
who are held accountable by the government or even the children’s original
families when such major issues occur. Therefore, when the staff of placement
shelters deal with the issues of children and teenagers’ expressions, the
accompanying considerations are complex and difficult.
Response to points 33, 34, 73, 74 of the second national report
and concluding observations 31.32:
1. Regarding the management of CRC education and training, the county and
city governments, various child and teenager placement agencies, and non-
governmental organizations related to placement in recent years have been
frequently handled the relevant training and procedures of “Knowing
Children’s Rights” and “Implementing Children’s Rights and Interests in
the Field of Placement Organizations". However, since the parenting culture
in Taiwan has always been a parent-led culture, the caregivers of the current
placement agencies also grew up in this cultural background, and even foster
families are difficult to discuss various issues with children and teenagers on
an equal and balanced basis using “professional identify”. As a result,
caregivers and professionals still need to go through a long process of value
flipping and restructuring before they can slowly internalize and implement
the spirit of children’s rights.
2. Since 2018, Taiwan has begun to add relevant provisions to protect the rights
of expression of children and adolescents in the joint evaluation index of
child5 and adolescent placement and correctional institutions, including: the
need to hold regular family meetings, the joint development of management
rules by teachers and students in the agency, and ensuring the participation
of children and teenagers decision-making and enjoyment of spatial
autonomy, etc. Many placement shelters have deeply rooted the
implementation of children’s rights in all aspects of life, such as: allowing
children to discuss the daily routine of a small family, holiday arrangements
for small family activities, use of pocket money, use of air conditioners, use of
mobile phones and computers, pet keeping and care and other decisions, or
5Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018), Joint Evaluation of Child and Adolescent Placement and Correctional
Institutions. https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=992
9
even help placement children to develop their ability to think about issues,
speak independently, and discuss in groups through activities.
Recommendations:
The government should actively revise the law and add provisions of “The
Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act”, the most important
parent law for children’s informed rights and participation interests, to
establish a comprehensive protection for children and teenagers under
different placement models in their placement decision-making process
instead of the existing lower-level administrative norms (evaluation system)
where only the right to partake in a certain part of the placement children can
only be guaranteed (i.e. informed rights and interests of children and teenagers
in placement agencies during their resettlement period and participated in
treatment decision-making).
10
Chapter 3【Citizenship and Liberty】Privacy Protection of
Placement of Children
Current situation:
1. In order to protect the privacy rights of children and teenagers placed in
institutions, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has strengthened the
indicators for the joint evaluation of child and adolescent placement and
correctional institutions in 2022.
(1) In terms of hardware equipment: it is standardized that each placement
shelter should provide sufficient, reliable, and easy-to-access storage
space for the resettlement of children’s personal belongings and
provide space arrangements such as exclusive dormitory equipment,
beds, wardrobes, and desks; monitors must not be installed in spaces that
affect privacy (bedrooms, toilets, bathrooms).
(2) Confidentiality and privacy of children’s data: regulating placement
shelters to formulate and implement the relevant regulations on personal
information and data management of resettlement children and
teenagers, and it is obliged that these regulations actually protect
children’s personal privacy, including finances, personal belongings,
calls, letters, mobile phones and Internet access.
2. According to two survey results (unpublished) provided by Chao Shan-Ju
(2021): the results of the “Investigation on the Living Conditions of Children
and Adolescents Relocated Outside the Home” conducted by the Ministry
of Health and Welfare in 2017 and the “Special Needs Children and Youth
Group Family Experiment Project Professional Improvement and Evaluation
Project” conducted by Child Welfare Bureau, Ministry of the Interior in 2019
show that most children who are placed outside the home hope that their
right to privacy can be protected.
3. Chao Shan-Ju (2021) study interviewed 12 children/teenagers that were once
placed by institutions. Regarding privacy, the interviewees specifically
mentioned: placement shelters should avoid frequent visits by outsiders and
reduce the possibility of children and teenagers’ feeling that “I am like a
monkey living in a zoo for people to see and enjoy”.
11
Response to point 107 of the second national report and
concluding observations 37:
Practical observation of the placement alliance:
(1) Protecting children's privacy from the perspective of hardware equipment:
most children’s placement institutions are less obstructive and difficult to
navigate. Although there are only few placement shelters that can provide
children with one room per person due to factors such as Taiwan’s narrow
land and dense population, the original building design of each agency, or
the need for others to accompany the placement of young children, most
resettlement agencies have no difficulty in providing independent beds and
storage spaces; the settings of their monitors are also mostly in line with
privacy regulations.
(2) Confidentiality and privacy of children’s information: most placement
shelters have already established policies or principles to keep children’s
information confidential or respect the privacy of children and are able to
cooperate with the formulation of relevant norms.
(3) In terms of privacy protection, placement shelters still have the dilemma of
considering both the rights and protection of children and teenagers: for
example, the staff inspects prohibited items (such as cigarettes, drugs, etc.)
when children enter and leave the institution, or when children share their
personal past life experience with peers in public or privately but accusing
staff of disseminating their personal information in group life.
Recommendations:
The government expects to complete the CRC manual for the staff of child and
teenagers placement shelters by the end of 2022. It is suggested that the
government should not only complete the manual but also conduct discussions
on the protection of children’s privacy rights in or outside the children and
teenager placement shelter or entrust a professional and credible institution to
conduct a demonstration seminar. The staff should be required to conduct in-
depth discussions on the practical situation and related issues encountered, and
it is more likely to truly change and improve their thinking and practices on the
protection of children's privacy rights so as to achieve the goal of improving the
effectiveness of children’s privacy rights protection.
12
Chapter 4【Protecting Children and Teenagers from Violence】
Current situation:
1. The current placement shelters have clearly prohibited corporal punishment,
but when there is physical conflict among children and teenagers in group
life, the weaker children will be made to stay in their own rooms in the first
place while the aggressive children be arranged in emotional adjustment
rooms with protective pads on the walls and floors. However, this
arrangement sometimes makes the bullied children feel that they are being
punished by being isolated in the room, and the aggressive children will still
live in the institution using habitually physical threats.
2. Since the change of parenting style depends on the improvement of
professional knowledge of workers, the training of workers has become the
most essential part. Through cross-network cooperation, the government
introduced the Trauma Informed Support Program and the Out-of-Home
Alternative Care Resource Enhancement Program to change the ideology of
“control”, reshape the staff's perspective on children’s problem behaviors,
and improve issues that can be seen reflected in behaviors and conducts.
Specific cases:
Case 1
The agencies have placed children with different psychological and biological
genders. In order to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault, the agency
tend to arrange the child or teenager to live separately from other children or
teenagers. The position of the organization is to reduce the risk of sexual assault,
but it also addresses issues of discrimination or degrading humiliation.
Responses to points 132, 133 of the second national report and
concluding observations 38, 94:
The government revised the existing Counselling Checklist for Children and
Teenagers’ Placement Agencies in 2020 to include items that regularly inspect
the establishment for torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment of children and juveniles. However, the behavior
patterns were not listed, which made the placement agency feel overwhelmed
in the application of parenting strategies.
13
Recommendations:
1. The government can organize advanced workshops to conduct practical drills
for children’s upbringing and conflict cases in order that the staff of
placement shelters are able to protect their own rights and consider the rights
and interests of children and teenagers under special circumstances.
2. The government should provide education and training courses on the
protection of the rights and interests of multiple genders and provide
placement shelters with guidance on upbringing in this regard, as well as
guidelines on living space and venue arrangements so as to avoid situations
of sexual assault or discrimination.
14
Chapter 5【Home Environment and Alternative Care】
A. Children who are unable to grow up in a family
environment/Children who have lost their families
(a) Specialization of placement shelters: case grading, institution
grading
Current situation:
1. According to the national report (Appendix 5 to 8), the number and ratio of
continued placements for child protection in 2020, kinship care accounted
for 6.14%, family foster care accounted for 29.11%, and placement agencies
accounted for 64.75%. It can be seen that Taiwan still relies on placement
agencies to provide alternative care services. Although the government has
been vigorously promoting the development of foster families in recent years,
the number of foster families has not grown (Appendix 6 to 22). Both the
Central and local governments are not clear about the allocation and
development plans of alternative care resources6, nor have they announced
the proportion of care for kinship care, foster families and placement
agencies.
2. Development status of placement agencies:
(1) The placement shelter first began to move towards family care in the
1960s by transforming the original group care environment into a family
care environment. Article 20 of the “Standards for Establishing Children
and Youth Welfare Institutes” stipulates that the environment and care
mode of Taiwan placement agencies should all aim at Familisation. Since
then, placement agencies have developed “small family care” to
provide family-like care.
(2) According to the survey conducted by Taiwan Residential Child Care
Alliance in 2021, 73% of member institutions adopt a small family system
for care, and most of them live in a small family with 5 to 8 people. The
6
Ministry of Health and Welfare (April 26th, 28th, 29th, 2021), Symposium on the Draft Alternative Care Policy for
Children and Teenagers
15
small family care features of the institution include a. family-style care
environment and furnishings, b. small families are used as units in group
actions so that children can participate in community activities, c. children
can discuss the norms of their own small families, daily routine and
activities, d. fixed care manpower, e. providing children with
individualized needs services and opportunities for self-expression.
(3) Appropriateness of children and teenager placement decisions:
a. The placement decision is not based on the priority of the interests of
children and teenagers: it can be seen from the above that the current
forms of placement services for children and teenagers include
placement by relatives, foster families, institutional placement, and
group families. However, the government only stipulates the order of
placement of children and young children (kinship care → significant
others → foster family → placement agency) in Article 10 of
Enforcement Rules of the Protection of Children and youth Welfare and
Rights Act and does not propose the most suitable placement model
for all types of children and teenagers.
b. The lack of accessibility of placement resources makes it difficult for
children to return to the community: the study of Chao Shan-Ju (2021)
points out that the proportion of children and teenagers outside the
home resettled outside the jurisdiction in 2018 was 23.37% nationwide,
and there were 12 counties and cities higher than this proportion.
There are still great differences in the allocation of placement resources.
c. Insufficient resources for placement of children with special issues:
according to statistics of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the
placement shelters have placed an average of 2,700 children over the
past three years, about 11% of which are physically and mentally
handicapped children, and 3% are children with developmental delays,
accounting for 14% in total. However, according to a survey conducted
by the Kaohsiung City Government in November 2021, by the end of
September 2021, a total of 610 people were resettled outside their
homes in Kaohsiung City, and about 244 of which had special issues,
accounting for 40% of the total number of placement children and
teenagers. Issues such as mental illness, emotional disturbance, and
16
gender identity require individualized care, and it is difficult to find a
suitable resettlement place (Chao Shan-Ju 2021).
d. Frequent changes of placement experience have a negative impact on
the physical and mental development of children and teenagers:
according to the study “Assessment of Out-of-Home Placement
Needs and Implementation Effectiveness Evaluation Plan for Current
Placement Models” commissioned by Social and Family Affairs
Administration, MOHW, 57.4% of the cases had experience in
converting placement. 43.6% of them had been converted once, and
13.6% had been converted more than twice. The study points out that
frequent changes have an impact on the physical and mental
development of children and teenagers, including cognition, problem-
solving ability, emotional behavior, and mental health.
Specific cases:
Case 1
Case A is a junior high school student (14 years old) who was arrested for having
multiple records of self-injury, such as cutting the wrist or neck with sharp
objects or swallowing foreign objects. He was also forced to change his
residence due to conflicts with other residents in mental sanatoriums and other
institutions, and he has lived in more than 7 foster families, placement shelters,
hospitals, and other units during his resettlement career. This case was unable
to find a suitable medium and long-term institution and can only continue to
pay frequent visits to the hospital for the time being. The government can only
place him in an emergency short-term resettlement unit.
Case 2
A resettlement agency was commissioned by the government to place six or seven
children in need of early treatment five or six years ago. At that time, early treatment
facilities were purchased for these children. As the children grew up, the placement
shelter did not receive any children that need such kind of early treatment.
Therefore, the established early treatment and rehabilitation resources are not used.
For institutions, equipment resources are wasted, and the early treatment
knowledge reserves of staff are gradually jerky because they are not continuously
required and used, which is quite a pity.
17
Response to points 159, 160, 162 of the second national report
and concluding observations 42 to 45:
1. The alternative care policy remains in the slogan stage with six policy goals:
“stay at home, return to family, family-style care, optimized institutional care,
quality and supervision, self-reliance and support” and no detailed
implementation strategies such as needs assessment, resource inventory,
propose of support or transformation of existing placement resources, etc.
2. The government’s position on the future development of placement
agencies in the alternative care policy is unclear, so that placement agencies
have no idea what to do under the slogan of “de-institutionalization”. There
may also be the risk of duplication of resources, or it may not be able to
provide the care resources needed by the children in the local area.
Response to 201 points of the second national report and 58 and
59 points of concluding observations:
For children with disabilities who are resettled outside the home, only
supportive services for placement shelters such as matching medical care,
special education, early treatment, psychological support, etc. can be seen
when the government handles the “Intensive Counseling Group Plan for
Alternative Care Resources for Children and Children Resettled Outside the
Home”7 in 2021, but there is no act of counseling local resettlement agencies
to classify and assist them with transforming into professional placement
shelters. As a result, children and teenagers with special needs are constantly
changing between different resettlement resources, which is quite detrimental
to their physical and mental development.
Recommendations:
1. There are various types of children and teenagers placed outside the home.
In addition to life care needs, other professional supports such as medical
education, special education, rehabilitation, and psychiatric care are required
in order that children and teenagers can achieve good physical and mental
development during the stage of home placement. Article 53 of “The
7
Social and Family Department, Ministry of Health and Welfare (November 26 th, 2021), data on the Platform Meeting
and Final Symposium of Alternative Care Resources for Children and Teenagers Placed Outside the Home.
18
Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act” requires that the
county and city governments should conduct classification and grading when
they receive a notification of child insurance. It is suggested that the
government should strengthen the operation of inter-professional evaluation
teams in each county and city. They should follow the spirit of this law before
making decisions on placement of children and teenagers and classify and
categorize the placement of children and teenagers instead of just observing
the order of placement regulated in Article 10 of Enforcement Rules of the
Protection of Children and youth Welfare and Rights Act for ensuring that
children are placed in an environment with sufficient support to grow up and
reduce the frequent conversion of placement resources.
2. Make an inventory of the current out-of-home resettlement cases across the
country and the demands for placement resources before dividing them into
regions and professional services. Guide the existing placement shelters to
transform towards a hierarchical and classified approach and compile the
required funds to prepare and support the transformation of the agencies.
3. Make an inventory of the number of children with mental health care and
special issues (not the number of children with disability card) and think
about how to allocate appropriate mental health care and psychological
counseling resources in the placement agency community so that the
personnel of placement shelter can obtain full professional support and
assistance when caring for children in need.
19
(b) Government's alternative resource balancing
Current situation:
1. The 2019 investigation report of Control Yuan stated8 that “the Ministry of
Health and Welfare has ignored the local government’s funding for
entrusting social welfare organizations to provide statutory social services
and has failed to properly calculate personnel and administrative costs,
especially for the placement of children and teenagers in protective services
for a long time. The placement of children and teenagers in protective
business is the last place for children and teenagers with multiple needs of
justice and social welfare. It requires a high degree of human input, but the
entrusted funds are not in line with the cost, and the personnel funds are a
drop in the bucket.” The case has not been closed so far, which shows that
the competent authority, Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW,
has not improved.
2. The placement alliance surveyed that the placement cost of private
institutions in 2019 was between NTD 59,000 and 77,000, after deducting the
resettlement fee provided by the local government (ranging from NTD
22,000 to 27,000), and the central government also supplements part of the
personnel costs of the organization with professional service fees
(subsidizing 1/2 of the professional personnel expenses according to the
ratio of caring labor), which has not yet been included in the cost of
purchasing or depreciating facilities and equipment operated by the
organization, as well as subsidies for other necessary allocation of manpower
such as administration, general affairs, kitchen, etc.
3. In order to comply with the annual revision of the Labor Standards Act, it is
necessary that the placement agency continue to hire more care workers, and
the number of care workers hired is much higher than the number specified
in the “Standards for Establishing Children and Youth Welfare Institutes”. In
the professional service fee subsidy standard set by the government in 2022,
the number of staff subsidized by institutions is expected to be adjusted to
1.47 times9 than the current subsidy number, but since the subsidy amount
8
Control Yuan (February 14th, 2019), Investigative report 2019 was adjusted to 0009.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=b2ba4ed9-5dea-4dd3-a9ee-317b6a44ba02
9
Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (2021, September 6th to October 22nd),
presentation of the briefing meeting on the second phase of the strengthening social safety net plan for public-
20
is only one half of the current salary, the subsidy amount only accounts for
one third of the personnel cost if the labor insurance, health insurance, and
labor retirement expenses that other employers should provide are added,
which shows the fact that the more employees are recruited by the
organization, the more personnel costs will increase.
4. The “Checklist for Child and Adolescent Placement and Rehabilitation
Institutions Counseling” revised by our government in 2020 stipulates that
“professionals in placement shelters should receive at least 18 hours of on-
the-job training each year ” , which must also include sexual assault
prevention and control professional training, self-defense fire drills and
lectures (firefighting, notification and evacuation training is carried out every
six months, and each time shall not be less than four hours), health education
or activities, and the staff of placement shelter are required to received CRC
training starting from 2019. The placement agencies in Taiwan generally
encounter difficulties in recruiting staff, shortage of on-site care staff, and the
need to pay extra overtime to provide training.
5. In terms of professional placement and care, the government only provides
training standards for the staff of placement agencies, and there is no
corresponding standard for relative caregivers and foster families, resulting
in inconsistent quality of care for children and teenagers who are resettled.
Response to points 21, 164 of the second national report and the
concluding observations 45:
1. From point 21 and (Appendix 1 to 2), it is found that the proportion of the
government’s expenditure on “welfare” (measures to help reduce the
financial burden of child-rearing families and family support and alternative
care) is decreasing year by year, which does not reflect the government’s
emphasis on family support measures and alternative care.
2. Although the government has revised the subsidy standards for professional
service fees, it only adjusts the number of subsidized personnel according to
the needs of shifts and does not include the costs of labor insurance, health
insurance, employee retirement plan, and education and training that
employer need to pay. Institutional professionals are also required to
private cooperation service plan. https://topics.mohw.gov.tw/SS/lp-5259-204.html
21
undergo various training courses each year. According to the design concept
of the government’s professional service fee, the direct caring staff must
allocate a certain amount of time to complete various administrative, general
affairs, meal preparation and cleaning work in the organization. In the end,
the ratio of on-site caring staff is sacrificed, and “improving the quality of
care and the implementation of the CRC concept” has just become a half-
hearted and flashy slogan.
Recommendations:
1. In the current alternative care model for children and teenagers, emergency
placement services and group family services in each county and city are fully
subsidized by the government for their personnel costs, facilities, and
equipment funds, but medium and long-term placement shelters cannot
receive the same standard of subsidies. The Control Yuan has also expressly
corrected that the competent authority should review and re-calculate the
reasonable calculation of personnel and administrative operating costs by
the resettlement agency. However, the case has not been closed so far.
2. For children who are placed in the same institution, the placement fee varies
due to the different subsidy standards of the local governments in each
county and city. The government should review and respond to the “value
issue of the difference in the care funds calculated by the conversion of
individual children and teenagers”.
3. The government subsidizes the personnel expenses of the organization in the
name of professional service fees, but the subsidized posts only include the
nursing manpower and social worker manpower, with the exclusion of
administrative, general affairs, kitchen workers and other personnel that the
organization still needs to deploy. The government should publish its
professional service fee calculation method and subsidy content for
discussion by all walks of life, as a basis for revising subsidy standards.
22
(c)Partnership Between Placement Agencies and the Government
Current situation:
1. The division of labor between public and private cooperation in resettlement
services is unclear. From the perspective of the rights and obligations of
acting guardianship, Articles 60 and 62 of the “Protection of Children and
Youths Welfare and Rights Act” respectively stipulate that “In the scope of
placement of children and youth, municipal or county (city) competent
authorities, foster families or institutes shall exercise parental rights and
assume parental obligations” and “During the placement, special
municipal or county (city) authorized agencies, assigned placement
institutions or foster families shall exercise and assume the responsibilities
and obligations for underage children within the scope of protection of
children and youth under placement.”
2. In practice, the affairs of relocating children outside the home involve a wide
range of aspects, including: general life care, school activities, medical
matters, and issues involving the representation of legal guardians (such as:
invasive medical treatment, influenza vaccine, volunteer service registration,
passport for traveling abroad), major incidents of children and teenagers
(such as planning for further studies, special property management, special
medicines for body and mind), or matters involving civil and criminal liability
and compensation for children and teenagers, etc., the powers and
responsibilities of the above-mentioned matters are not entirely vested in the
entrusted unit that places the children outside the home.
3. Some county and city governments have established a division of labor for
parental guardianship in accordance with the law. However, there is no clear
normative principle for reference between most municipal and county (city)
governments and the entrusted unit, and the entrusted unit and the
competent authorities of the municipality and county (city) usually
coordinate one by one in the event of an incident; moreover, the resettlement
agencies have a certain proportion of cross-jurisdictional placement children,
so there are many competent authorities that need to coordinate, and each
competent authority has different standards for identifying the same
situation. In the absence of a clear and nationally consistent principle of the
division of labor on behalf of parents, it will undoubtedly increase the
23
business burden of the entrusted unit in administration, communication and
coordination; and under the situation of unclear rights and responsibilities,
when children and teenagers are involved in civil and criminal liability
compensation issues, it is even more difficult to follow. Children and teenager
trustee units often have to bear the relevant compensation and restoration
responsibilities.
Specific cases:
Case 1
The Taiwan High Court’s judgment mentioned that a case (the perpetrator)
under the guardianship of the county and city government had a conflict with
another case in the placement agency and beat the other person to death. The
family of the deceased applied to the court for civil compensation. It is decided
by Taiwan High Court that the county and city government did not need to bear
joint and several liability for damages because of no negligence although the
county and city government was the legal guardian of the perpetrator because
it chose an appropriate institution for protection and care and fulfilled the
guardianship obligations of the legal representative. However, the placement
agency should be jointly and severally liable for compensation. From this
precedent, it is found that the legal guardian’s rights and obligations are
unclear. The county/city government as the legal guardian of the case was only
responsible to the appropriate accommodation while the care unit should bear
the responsibility for the incident or compensation for the case during the
placement period; however, the care unit was not the legal guardian of the case.
Recommendations:
The United Nations Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children also point
out that the government should establish the scope of substitute guardianship,
Article 71 of the guidelines: “Particular attention should be paid to ensuring
the quality of alternative care, be it residential or home care, in particular with
regard to the professional skills, selection, training and supervision of caregivers.
The relationship between these two categories of caregivers should be clearly
defined and clarified in relation to the child’s parents or roles and
responsibilities of legal guardians.” It is suggested that the government should
24
face up to the issue of acting guardianship, amend the law to implement the
Convention on the Rights of Children, and revise it on the basis of the 2021
“Principles of the Ministry of Health and Welfare that the competent
authorities and entrusted units to exercise parental rights on behalf of parents
in accordance with the law (draft) 10 “, to establish a national legal basis to
reduce the coordination cost of placement agencies.
10
The Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (2021, January 5 th), the minutes of
session on the legal relationship and contractual attributes of the municipal and county (city) governments handing
over the child and juvenile welfare institutions to the placement of children
25
B. Out-of-home Placement Program and Service Connotation
(a)Decision-making of Children’s Placement and
Implementation of Family Reorganization Plan
Current situation:
1. The decision on placement of children and teenagers has not been taken
seriously
(1) Child and teenager protection case: the current focus on child protection
case services of the government is whether the resettlement can be
completed and returned home. The main social worker’s work focuses
on family treatment services rather than child placement decision-
making services. The government has formulated the “Service Manual
for Staff on the Evaluation and Decision-making Model of Child and
Teenager Protection Family Treatment Services” for child and teenager
protection case services, but it is found that there are still cases of child
protection cases being reported again after returning home after
resettlement in practice. Moreover, the government has not formulated
relevant manuals or operational guidelines for the assessment of child
protection and placement, so the social workers in charge tend to put
focus on family function assessment and family treatment services. Since
there are few active placement arrangements for children who are not
suitable for returning home, children and teenagers may be placed in an
unsuitable placement shelter for 3 to 6 months, during which time their
schooling, medical rehabilitation, and community participation
arrangements are limited, showing the deprivation of children’s rights
of expression, education, information, and games.
(2) Entrusted placement case: the group decision-making mode is adopted
in accordance with the “Operating Procedures for Accepting Children
and Adolescents Entrusted Placement by the Municipal and County (City)
Governments” at the time being, but in practice, it is found that the
opinions of the local competent authorities are still the mainstay in group
decision-making. When social workers hold different opinions, the
competent authority usually requests the placement shelter to accept the
decision of the competent authority by means of entrustment. There are
no active supporting measures for the difficulties raised by the placement
26
agency, or in the case where coordination cannot be continued, the social
worker in charge will take the case away and temporarily place it in an
emergency short-term placement unit and the child can only continue to
undergo transition experiences in the resettlement system.
2. Family treatment program
For the placement of children and teenagers (regardless of whether it is
protection placement, entrusted placement, or judicial-turned placement),
the improvement of the function of the family of orientation is closely related
to whether they can return home and their well-being after returning home.
The family treatment (family reorganization) program is an important
intervention method to improve the function of the family of orientation of
the children and teenagers, but some deficiencies are still observed:
(1) Regulatory and enforcement levels:
As far as the current regulations are concerned, currently only families
with child and teenager protection cases can accept the family treatment
plan in accordance with the “Protection of Children and Youths Welfare
and Rights Act” (not placed: family maintenance plan; placed: family
reorganization plan); children and adolescents who are entrusted
resettlement can only obtain the services of the family reorganization
plan in accordance with the administrative order - the “Operating
Procedures for Acceptance of Entrusted Placement of Children and
Teenagers by Municipal and County (City) Governments” implemented
in 2019; however, there is no relevant information or data for reference on
its implementation, as revealed in the report of Chao Shan-Ju (2021).
(2) The government has not provided the results of the review on the
implementation of the above-mentioned protection and placement and
entrusted placement of the family maintenance plan and family
reorganization plan. In addition, there are still a group of children who
have been turned to placement by the judicial system. If their families
were not previously supported by the social administration system, there
are currently no relevant laws and regulations to guarantee their families
access to services after they enter the placement shelter. In terms of what
we found on the practical scene: such behavioral deviations of children
and teenagers are often caused by the dysfunction of the family of
27
orientation, or the lack of support and resources received by the family of
orientation, but they are missed in the social and political network,
resulting in children and teenagers finally entering the judicial system
with deviant behavior. Therefore, if there is no early intervention of the
family treatment program, the intervention of the counseling program
can only be followed up after the case is closed. The original families of
such children and teenagers cannot obtain resource assistance as soon
as possible to enhance the family energy, which will reduce the possibility
that such children will continue to improve their conduct and situation
after they complete resettlement and return to their families.
3. Cross-network cooperation level:
The “Family Function Assessment and Family Disposal Planning Form and
Workbook”11 commissioned by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2018
is the basis and standardized tool for family disposal services. Appendix 1 of
the handbook “Family treatment service content at various stages”
includes the implementation period of the responsible social worker in the
competent authority, the social worker in charge of the family entrusted unit,
and the resettlement social worker should implement the service according
to the family treatment plan. At the same time, it also emphasizes the
importance of tripartite cooperation - the responsible social worker of the
competent authority, the responsible social worker of the entrusted unit, and
the resettlement social worker should assist and support each other during
the family treatment service period.
However, in practice, the social worker in charge of the competent authority
has not regularly informed the placement unit (family foster care service unit,
placement agency) of the progress of the treatment program for families with
young children in care. There are also cases where the social worker in charge
refused to respond when the placement agency inquired about the progress
of the resettlement plan for the children and their families. The placement
unit is often not informed until the home plan is about to enter a major
decision (such as preparing to return home), so it misses the opportunity to
provide opinions and participate in discussions so that the opportunity to
11
Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018, February 24 th), Family Function
Assessment and Family Treatment Plan Form and Workbook. https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-50829-f26ceebc-1e1e-
4b54-ac0d-c0e8b584a43c.html
28
adjust the placement decision is detrimental to the best interests of the
placement of children.
Specific cases:
Case 1
The mother of the case had been mentally ill for many years, and many children
(more than 3 siblings) of the family were resettled in the same placement shelter.
After the children were resettled for many years, the social worker in charge
determined that the situation of the mother had improved according to the
assessment and decided to send the children home. The placement agency
originally discussed with the social worker in charge to let the children return
home step by step by sending the oldest child home in the first place so as to
avoid the sudden surge in the amount of care from overwhelming the
mother’s physical and mental condition again. But the social worker in charge
finally changed the strategy and let all the children return home together. After
returning home, the eldest case asked the placement agency for help several
times, saying that the mother’s emotional instability caused the younger
siblings to live in a tense mood or feel extremely stressful.
Case 2
Case 112：A 6-month-old baby boy was abused and suffered from intracranial
hemorrhage. Back then, the baby fractured his right leg and had his right big
toenail pulled out. After four years of resettlement, the boy was allowed to
return to his originally family after a social worker assessment in March 2020.
However, within a month, the boy had new injuries.
Case２13：After a boy was born in 2016, he was resettled due to family financial
problems and could return home after evaluation in 2019. But within less than
2 months after returning home, he was tortured to death by his father.
12
ETtodayNews (May 2nd, 2020) the baby of six months old was tragically abused by “removing nails and breaking
bones”! Four years after being rescued, the baby returned to his family of orientation and reappeared with new
injuries. The nanny shouted: SOS. https://www.ettoday.net/news/20200502/1705032.htm#ixzz6ZKLOaElZ
13
Apple Daily (2019, November 20th), extremely tragic. A 2-year-old boy was tortured and spit blood to death. The
doctor scolded “I have never seen such severe and terrible case”
https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20191120/4GIYE66TX3VF2MJEWOSLA5U2FE/
29
Response to points 152, 153, 165, 167 and 46 of the concluding
observations of the second national report:
1. Neither any effectiveness indicators and data analysis aiming at the
implementation of resettlement decisions and family treatment plans have
been proposed by the government, nor the review and improvement
measures for workflow and other aspects.
2. In terms of placement data and research disclosure:
(1) There is no data analysis of “repeatedly entering and leaving the
resettlement system for children and teenagers”: there is no relevant
public information with regard to this data that can be reviewed by
scholars and non-governmental organizations.
(2) Certain important commissioned research reports are not publicly
available: research reports that are not publicly known to the present,
such as: the “Investigation Results of the Living Conditions of Children
and Adolescents Placed Outside the Home” conducted by the Ministry
of Health and Welfare in 2017, the “Analysis and Research on Major Child
and Adolescent Abuse Incidents” commissioned by the Ministry of
Health and Welfare in 2018, and the “Special Needs Children and Youth
Group Family Experiment Project Professional Improvement and
Evaluation Project” conducted by the Child Welfare Bureau, Ministry of
the Interior in 2019, etc. Taking “Analysis and Research on Major Child
and Adolescent Abuse Incidents” as an example, we can see from the
researchers’ remarks in news interviews and resettlement public
hearings: 14 many major child abuse incidents are caused by children
repeatedly entering and leaving the placement system, and it is
suggested that the function and responsibility of medical units to jointly
prevent child abuse should be strengthened rather than relying solely on
the social and administrative system. The research and investigation
reports completed by the government allocated funds are reluctant to
disclose to the general public, whether it is because of the concern that
the rights and interests of children are damaged by public evaluation and
inspection, and the public’s right to know is disregarded.
14
NOWnews today's news (January 19th, 2019), the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the Tainan Child Abuse Case
offered an intensive visit! Scholar criticized: not even mention anything related to medical support
https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/qQ97gy
30
Recommendations:
1. The government should actively revise the law, and the establishment of All
cases of protection and placement (except emergency placement) and
entrusted placement of should be decided by group decision-making in
Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act to avoid making
decisions based on the unilateral opinions of competent authorities or
scholars and experts.
2. The government should amend the law to ensure that children and teenagers
who are entrusted and resettled by judicial turn can receive family treatment
program services in the same way as protecting and relocating children.
3. The government should actively conduct research on the effectiveness of the
family treatment program and the group decision-making mechanism for
placement so as to provide a clear direction for review and improvement and
reduce the possibility of unfavorable physical and mental conditions for the
resettled children after returning home. In addition, various research and data
surveys related to placement (such as cases of repeated entry into the
placement system) should fully disclose the contents of their reports in order
that all circles can discuss and propose improvement suggestions.
31
(b) Placement Care Program
Current situation:
1. Periodic evaluation mechanism in placement phase
According to Shan-Ju’s (2021) survey report, it is found that the regular
inspection rates and indicators adopted by the central and local governments
for different types of placement care plans or life care records are not the
same, resulting in the difficulty of tracking the quality and effectiveness of
childcare.
(1) Provisions for periodic evaluation of placement treatment: the
government stipulates that any children under protection and placement
and entrusted placement should be regularly assessed every 3 months
on the use of services by the placement unit at present. The social worker
in charge is also required to visit the children at the placement unit at least
once every 3 months and discuss the care plan with the placement unit.
(2) Provisions for periodic evaluation of institutional care programs: the joint
evaluation project of placement and correctional institutions for children
and juveniles implemented by the Ministry of Welfare in 2022 stipulates
that “the placement within 1 year shall be based on the principle of 3
months (no more than 6 months at most); for more than 1 year, review
and adjustments shall be made at least every 3 to 6 months as required”.
(3) Out-of-home placement care record and management: the central
government has different regulations for different types of placements.
Placement agencies and group families are required to fill in, but there
are no relevant regulations for kinship care and foster families. The county
and city governments use their own administrative measures, regulations,
plans, counseling service procedures, and service contracts to restrict the
relevant conducts.
2. The lead social worker is absent from the regular review of the placement
care plan
The social worker in charge is not assigned a clear role in the regular review
of placement care, and in practice, it is found that after many children and
teenagers are placed in the entrusted unit, the time and frequency of the
contact between the social worker in charge and the placement of children
and teenagers decreases rapidly. Most of the information about children
32
and teenagers is passed on through social workers of the placement unit.
Once the children and teenagers enter the placement agency, the agency
usually takes the role of “explaining” the situation of the children and
teenagers to the social worker in charge. The social worker in charge does
not participate in the regular inspection of the care plan and does not
actively understand the status of the children and teenagers, resulting in the
lack of quality supervision mechanism for children and teenagers during the
placement stage.
In addition, Chao Shan-Ju (2021) conducted an interview with 12 children
who had been resettled by placement shelters and found that the social
workers in charge were the “legendary characters” who decided whether
or not to place or switch children in the mouths of these leavers, but most of
these children had never seen this person. The study also shows that some
social workers who are in charge of social workers seem to be too far away
from the placement of children.
Response to point 166 of the second national report and point 47
of the concluding observations:
Under different placement modes, the regular evaluation of children and
teenagers’ resettlement lacks a consistent evaluation tool. The social worker
in charge is absent from the placement care plan and does not regularly
inform the placement unit of the progress of the implementation of the child
and teenager family treatment program. As a result, the whole-person
development service for children and teenagers has been dismantled into
blocks, and the government and the resettlement parties lack a mutual
supervision mechanism, and it becomes impossible for children and teenagers
to delineate the overall appearance of their stage.
Recommendations:
1. The government should adopt the suggestion of Chao Shan-Ju (2021) and
specifically plan the regular evaluation frequency and evaluation indicators
of the placement care plan, together with the relevant provisions on the
records and management of caregiving life (including the implementation of
the right to privacy and confidentiality) so as to ensure that children and
33
teenagers are provided with various resettlement services and can receive the
same quality of care services.
2. Since the social workers in charge are mainly responsible for the formulation
and implementation of the family treatment program, there is little
participation of them in the regular evaluation and formulation of the
children’s placement plan. The government should re-examine the work
direction of the social worker in charge and review the rationality of the
caseload so as to avoid frequent replacement of the social worker in charge,
which would lead to the inability to establish a stable relationship with
children (or their families) and affect the effectiveness of services.
34
(c) Evaluate Various Indicators of Placement Agencies
Current situation:
1. Evaluation system
(1) According to Lin Pei-Chun’s (2021) 15 study, the procedures for
evaluation implementation are simple. In addition to the evaluation
committee’s abiding by the principles of confidentiality and interest
avoidance, the process that should be followed in the evaluation, such as
whether to be briefed by the agency representative, the institutional
personnel (such as the person in charge or director of the institution) that
the evaluation committee should interview, how to carry out a
conversation with the children in the organization, whether it is necessary
to provide preliminary feedback to the organization and other matters
before the end of the evaluation, etc. There is considerable flexibility and
space in actual implementation, which may lead to unfair evaluation
results.
(2) The national placement shelter evaluation is conducted in the same year.
It takes about half a year for each shelter to accept the evaluation one
after another. The evaluation results are not known until the end of the
year, and it then comes to the score review process where institutions with
poor evaluation performance (C, D, etc.) enter the counseling
improvement period before entering the re-evaluation process again.
Some evaluation committees does not fully disclose the organization’s
shortcomings and matters to be improved on the day of evaluation. The
evaluated organization cannot talk to the evaluation committee on the
spot, and the overall evaluation implementation process takes more than
one year. Adjustments and improvements cannot be made without
immediate results.
2. Selection and training of evaluation committees
The current evaluation committees are mostly composed of scholars and
experts, and there is no further specification for the professional fields or
15
Lin Pei-Chun (2021), review of the current situation and future development orientation of the evaluation system of
child and adolescent placement and correctional institutions, NTU Social Work Review, Journal No. 43, 107 to 148.
35
practical experience of the committee members. It is easy for different
evaluation committees to interpret the indicators differently, and even give
points based on stereotypes instead of following the evaluation indicators.
Furthermore, some evaluation members have a gap in their grasp and
understanding of the operation of the children’s placement agency.
Therefore, the evaluation site only criticized but could not put forward
specific and appropriate improvement suggestions.
3. Design of evaluation indicators
In the 2022 joint evaluation project of placement and correctional institutions
for children and adolescents, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has tried to
include the rights and interests of children and adolescents in the
“Convention on the Rights of Children”, including children’s rights of
expression, equality, life survival and development, privacy and
confidentiality, and the right to be effectively protected. However, with regard
to the relevant principles of the “United Nations Guidelines for the
Alternative Care of Children” are included in the evaluation, no indicators of
the rationality of the evaluation and decision-making of placement
arrangements can be found, and it is the responsibility of the resettlement
agency to promote the reunification of children with their families and the
active cooperation of the relevant authorities. If the placement shelter
encounters a social worker who is more passive and does not take the
initiative in explaining the progress of the family treatment program to the
placement social worker and is unwilling to accept the opinions of the
children or the social worker of the placement agency, it becomes difficult for
the placement shelter to take a positive role in these two indicators.
Specific cases:
Case 1
When the resettled children know that they are about to return home or
change placement, they express their unwillingness to return home or change
placement to the placement agency/community placement unit (the foster
family undertaking unit), and the placement unit learns and evaluates that it is
indeed unsuitable for carrying out placement conversion. After responding to
the responsible social worker or his/her supervisor, the opinions of the
36
children and the placement unit were often not accepted (over half of them
were rejected). When the resettled children learned that their opinions were
not taken seriously, they often felt abandoned by the original placement unit
and got angry. In severe cases, they would escape from the placement shelter.
However, in the end, the government’s responsible social worker and his/her
supervisor still insisted on the original resettlement decision.
Response to point 163 of the second national report and the
concluding observation 48:
1. There is no research report on the optimization of evaluation indicators. From
the current evaluation indicators, the performance of each placement shelter
can only be distinguished by the evaluation grade, as described by Lin Pei-
Chun (2021), it is impossible to distinguish the difference between the pros
and cons of each level, and it is difficult to identify the characteristics of each
agency.
2. Although the local governments audit each institution 3 to 4 times a year,
there are still agencies that get grades C, D, etc. in the evaluation results
conducted once every three years, which shows that the local government’s
audit mechanism is quite ineffective in improving the service quality of
agencies and did not implement the supervision and guidance obligations of
the competent authority to the agency.
Recommendations:
1. Before the evaluation is implemented, the evaluation personnel should be
trained to build a consensus on the evaluation standards for improving the
professionalism of the evaluation personnel and the consistency of the
evaluation implementation process.
2. The composition of the evaluation committee should be at least one third of
the committee members with professional and practical experience related
to children and teenagers, or practitioners who have served as supervisors in
children and teenagers’ organizations.
3. Evaluation index optimization research is an important task that the
government should carry out as a competent authority. Through the design
of evaluation indicators, the government can explore the expertise of
37
institutions and play the role of learning and agitation for other institutions.
It can also guide organizations to develop professional services in
combination with community resources. The government should implement
the execution of the evaluation index optimization research, and the research
results should also be disclosed before the evaluation index is announced
and arrange education and training for agencies to learn so that the agency
evaluation index can become the leading indicator of placement agency
services that lead institutions to improve service quality rather than being a
lagging indicator for judging the services that have taken place in the
organization.
4. The overall evaluation time of the institution is lengthy, and the fairness is
controversial. The competent authority should still carefully evaluate the
feasibility of using an independent and specialized agency to be responsible
for the evaluation in the future.
38
(d). Self-reliance Issues of the Placement Children
Current situation:
1. The gap between the preparation before the end of the placement and the
actual situation
According to research findings (Chao Shan-Ju 2021, Liu Hung-Yi 2018 16 ):
although children and teenagers are placed in foster families, placement
agencies or group families, they can receive relevant self-reliance skills (such
as living, schooling, employment, money management, etc.), and can discuss
future developments with caregivers or staff during the placement period.
But when they were truly self-reliant, the young children who left the agency
in the study still expressed: it is not easy to be financially independent, it is
difficult to adjust the relationship with family members, the loneliness in
emotional and social relationships after leaving the resettlement, and the
problems of self-management in life, etc. For some special teenagers, other
issues need to be faced, for example: teenagers who have deviated behaviors
in the past are more likely to return to deviant groups.
2. Issues of self-reliance among adolescents with disabilities
The number of children and teenagers with intellectual disabilities, autism or
intellectual borderline in the placement institutions is gradually increasing,
but they cannot be provided with support and care in adulthood because of
their incompetent family functions. Moreover, there are currently very few
resources for employment matching and transfer for cases with mild
disabilities. Under the circumstances where the degree of disability is not
moderate or severe and the disabled institutions do not provide services, this
group of disabled cases lack other independent resources and channels for
assistance.
3. Cooperative relationship between follow-up tracking, self-reliance plan and
placement unit
The 2022 Joint Evaluation Project for Child and Adolescent Placement and
Correctional Institutions stipulates that placement agencies should provide
child and adolescent care support or necessary assistance after placement
for at least one year; however, in fact, after the resettlement of children and
16
Liu Hung-Yi (2018), Key Factors Affecting the Stability of the Life of Adolescents in Placement Institutions, Journal of
Youth Studies. Vol. 21 Issue 1, p165-175.
39
teenagers, some social workers who follow up or self-support are reluctant to
let social workers of the placement shelter continue their work of caring and
counseling for children and teenagers and hope to make a difference. This is
because children and young children have established a relatively stable
relationship with the placement agency, and they often still seek assistance
from the placement agency when they encounter problems or emotional
needs.
Specific cases:
Case 1
Children who terminate the placement face various pressures on the road to
self-reliance, and the lack of timely and adequate assistance may limit their
future development: although a child who had finished placement was
admitted to a national university, he gave up his studies in the first year due to
financial pressure and lack of support and supervision from his family of
orientation.
Case 2
There are few children with mild intellectual disabilities in some county and city.
After turning 18 years old, the social worker is in charge of placing them in a
residential disability institution mainly for the disabled elderly because there is
no suitable independent unit for carrying out matching. The institution is
located in a remote location, and there is no suitable place for employment
around. Although the case has acquired preliminary work skills in school, he is
still unable to go out to work. Moreover, since the organization’s schedule of
work and rest or other activities is mostly suitable for the disabled elderly, the
ability of this case has deteriorated after having been placed in this institution
for a long period of time.
Response to points 168, 169, 170 of the national report and point
49 of the concluding observations:
1. The government’s implementation of tracking and counseling after
placement is currently available on the website of the Department of Statistics
of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Only the number of people served can
be found and with no other relevant information such as: service provision,
40
unreachable ratio, etc.; there is no clear information to understand the
effectiveness of the follow-up service and review the improvement measures.
2. At present, the use of self-supporting dormitories is based on the principle of
living for three months. After leaving the self-supporting dormitory, social
workers will provide services such as accommodation, living assistance,
consultation, and counseling. According to a survey conducted by Chinese
Children-home & Shelter Association, the number of beds in self-supporting
dormitories has not increased or decreased in the past ten years, with only
about 100 beds, and only 10 of the 22 counties and cities have plans for self-
supporting dormitories (45%) , it is obvious that the progress of the
government’s deployment of self-reliant resources needs to be
17
strengthened .
Response to point 198 of the national report:
Although the government provided the number of disabled children receiving
technical vocational training, it did not mention the matching of subsequent
employment resources. In fact, the independent living and related assistance
services for children with disabilities are also included in the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), so the government should face
up to the problem of transition resources for disabled children and
adolescents after they reach adulthood, including services such as life
placement, employment matching, and integration into the community in
order that the disabled enjoy equal rights to live in the community.
Recommendations:
1. The configuration direction of resettlement resources of each county and city
government should consider the proportion of different ages, and the
children’s self-reliance training of placement shelters should include the
establishment of community resources and the operation of support system.
In addition to subsidizing the use of resettlement service providers, the
subsidy content of the self-reliance training program should be extended to
the community support system, otherwise the self-reliance training of
17
Chinese Children-home & Shelter Association (March 27th, 2020), media reports on the slow construction of “self-
reliant dormitory that only 6% of homeless children can move in. https://www.childrenhome.org.tw/link2-
1_view.asp?id=428
41
children and adolescents will become just an empty idea.
2. The Ministry of Health and Welfare proposed a subsidy plan for the
“Enhancing Service Capacity of Juvenile Self-Reliance and Living Adaptation
Assistance” in 2021, but the subsidy plan is vague and stipulates that each
local government can only subsidize a single non-governmental organization.
However, if the connotation and effectiveness indicators of the current self-
reliance living service have not been established, the government should
open up the performance of civil society to jointly invest in this service instead
of restricting a single non-governmental organization to undertake this
service; this will help to enrich the content and performance of self-reliance
living programs.
3. The number of disabled children entering the placement system is increasing.
The government should plan employment transition resources in the
community, arrange for social workers of labor administration units to
intervene in counseling and placement service providers and disabled
children in advance and assess the accommodation needs of disabled
children after reaching adulthood at the same time. Resources need to be
planned together in the community to avoid the self-reliance dilemma of
having a job but no residence or having a residence but no job when the
disabled teenagers become adults.
42
Chapter 6 【Disability, Basic Health and Welfare】 Children’s
Health Care Measures and Medical Care and Epidemic Prevention
Relief Measures
Current situation:
1. The positioning of government’s anti-epidemic measures aiming at
“children placement agencies” is unclear and often negligible. Taking the
order of vaccine administration as an example, residents of residential long-
term care institutions and their caregivers, home-based and community-
based long-term care institutions, attendants and service recipients of
disabled services, or other institutions (including correctional institution staff)
are ranked in the fifth place18 of public-funded COVID-19 vaccine recipients
as announced by the Central Epidemic Command Center on June 9th, 2021. It
is impossible to judge whether the placement institution for children is a
residential long-term care institution or another institution. Besides, among
the recipients of the public-funded influenza vaccine, 19 the placement
institutions for children and young people are neither long-term care
institutions, nor kindergarten nursery personnel and nursery professionals,
but the attributes of the institutions and the service targets are the same.
They are excluded from the health care every year, and the staff of the
children and teenagers’ institutions have to get the vaccine at their own
expense, which increases the burden of the institution and does not receive
the attention of the state.
2. The government only provides epidemic prevention guidelines that are
applicable to long-term care units, ignoring the characteristics and receipt of
cases in child placement institutions: the case is highly active, the epidemic
prevention habits are difficult to control, the younger case cannot be self-
isolated, the emergency placement case, the placement of children and
18
Centers for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare (June 21st, 2021), object of state-funded COVID-19
vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/9mcqWyq51P_aYADuh3rTBA
19
Centers for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare (2021), annual influenza vaccination program.
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/MPage/JNTC9qza3F_rgt9sRHqV2Q
43
teenagers in institutions, the placement of children and teenagers who
escape without authorization and return to the hospital, etc., for instance. In
addition, different counties and cities have different practices in arranging
screening, isolation space, and manpower for caring and backup, which
seriously damages children’s right to survival and their best interests.
3. The schools were closed during the severe epidemic, and the placement
children lived in the shelter for 24 hours, resulting in the situation that the
placement shelter was overwhelmed and lacked for manpower. Although the
central government instructed the local government to take stock of the
backup manpower and assist in deployment, only some counties and cities
have drawn up backup manpower plan.
4. During the epidemic prevention period, the government provided epidemic
prevention subsidies to parents or guardians with children under the age of
12. It has not ruled out the fact that the parents of children who are placed in
accordance with the law have not truly taken care of them, and their
livelihood was affected due to the need to take care of children and no living
expenses related to children and teenagers were paid. The government
replied that the parents of the cases that did not apply for the government to
change the guardianship, the competent agency still has to work with the
parents to restore the family functions and will discuss with the parents or
guardians about how to properly use the subsidy in caring for children.
5. The government gives assistance to placement units with additional care and
relief measures 20:
(1) The placement unit that actually takes care of the children will also be
provide with a care subsidy by the government. During the 3-month
suspension of classes due to the epidemic, the calculation basis is NTD
1,500 per month per case.
(2) The relief measures for the placement agency emphasized that the basic
personnel and maintenance fees, employee salary loans and working
capital during the period of closure can only be applied after having”
received the notice of recession from the Central Epidemic Command
Center”. The placement agency is faced with a substantial reduction in
20
Ministry of Health and Welfare (June 28th, 2021), relief measures for residential institutions affected by severe
special infectious pneumonia.
https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/cp-5191-61206-205.html
44
donations and an increase in personnel expenses. The calculation basis of
the epidemic prevention allowance is unclear, and it is unable to apply for
subsidy. The agency is facing severe operational difficulties.
Response to point 187 of the second national report:
1. Although the government has formulated a contingency plan for the county
and city governments and placement agencies, it cannot provide substantial
assistance aiming at the most difficult problem of scheduling manpower and
isolation places that the placement agencies need to solve, causing panic and
anxiety of the agencies.
Recommendations:
1. The government should define the attributes of child and teenager placement
shelters, clearly classify them in health and epidemic prevention policies, and
consider the particularity of child and teenager services to formulate service
guidelines during the epidemic prevention period.
2. In terms of manpower arrangements and space preparation, the central
government should coordinate the county and city governments to make an
inventory of the number of beds that can accommodate single-person cases
in order to cope with the possible increase in housing needs for domestic
violence cases during the suspension of classes. The local government should
assist the shelter in arranging the backup space and inform the location in
advance. When someone in the shelter is diagnosed and confirmed, the
shelter needs to arrange for going to the epidemic prevention hotel if no
isolation space is set up, and the government should fully subsidize the cost.
3. Regarding the family epidemic prevention subsidy for children issued by the
Executive Yuan, it is suggested that the government should consider the fact
that the parents of the children who are placed in accordance with the law
have no parental care when distributing the relevant subsidies. If parents have
not paid for the living care expenses related to children and teenagers, their
qualifications should be excluded.
45
Chapter 7【Educational Leisure and Cultural Activities】
Discrimination in Placement Children in Educational Settings
Current situation:
1. Placement children encounter implicit discrimination when they go to
school:
(1) The Control Yuan’s 21 2013 survey report on children facing education
discrimination and lack of professional training for those with mild
disabilities in current placement shelters pointed out that in that year, the
institutions placed about 955 children and teenagers in elementary
schools, 1,512 in high schools, and at least 12 schools rejected to receive
institutional children. The institution had at least 61 children in 37 schools
and was not welcomed by schoolteachers. There are at least 11 counties
and cities, 29 institutions, 22 middle schools and 12 elementary schools,
with a total of 226 children and teenagers were forced to study across
districts due to their status as students in placement institutions. The
reasons include too many people of the institution attending the school,
staff control, the school’s manpower cannot be loaded, the school
refuses to accept the children and teenagers, the school is not friendly,
the students are labeled, and conflicts between the school and institution,
etc.
(2) Although the government has enacted relevant transfer regulations that
it is forbidden for schools to clearly refuse to place children in school,
there are many implicit discriminations, including: it is required that
placement agencies go through a long evaluation and waiting period
before admission, and placement agencies must give the school
assurance about crisis management. For example, going to school under
escort is required in the first month of admission. When the judiciary
turns to resettlement schools for children and adolescents, they often
“hope the institution to ensure that there will be no problems when the
case arrives at the school” or euphemistically reject owing to “being
21
Control Yuan (July 11th, 2013), investigative report 102 adjustment 0038.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=c097621b-7dc8-4527-ba6f-3e2d1d079386
46
unable to provide appropriate educational services for judicial
adolescents” and do not want children and adolescents to be admitted
by the school.
(3) According to a survey conducted by the Taiwan Residential Child Care
Alliance in 2021, the average waiting time for children and adolescent to
be enrolled in school after resettlement was up to 2 months. 47% of the
institutional placement children are scattered to more than three junior
high schools for studying; 27% of the resettled children are scattered to
more than three primary schools.
2. Other conditions are required for attending school:
(1) Insufficient school counseling resources and uneven distribution between
urban and rural areas cause children to study across districts:
a. Studying across school districts
In addition to the provision of specialized teachers in general schools,
only school social workers or counselors in the student counseling and
counseling centers in each county and city can assist in dealing with
students’ emotional and behavioral issues. Due to the lack of school
counseling resources or the unavailability of teachers, institutional
placement of children is required to be distributed to different schools
and across school districts.
b. Few special education resources
The problem of insufficient special education and counseling resources
highlights the gap between urban and rural areas. In some counties
and cities, schools are struggling to meet the needs of special
education students in the county owing to insufficient financial
resources or the difficulty of recruiting professionals in remote villages
and cannot afford the needs of inter-county and city placement of
children and special education students.
(2). The school’s tertiary guidance mechanism cannot meet the learning
needs of the placement of children:
a. The operation mode of the tertiary counseling mechanism for
emotional and behavioral students is as follows: class teachers initially
deal with students with emotional and behavioral problems, and The
counseling office will provide counseling through specialized tutors or
47
itinerant counseling counselors (study counseling centers); if the
deviant behavior is difficult to adapt to the language, it will connect to
resources outside school, such as private unit resources, medical
resources, police units, etc. for intervention in processing. However, the
resettled children skipped most of the counseling measures and
directly asked the social worker of the resettlement unit to deal with it
or brought them back for correction from the intervention of the
counseling room, which resulted in the resettled children not being
able to integrate into the school, and also increased the exclusion of
the resettled children from the school.
b. The 2021 survey by the Taiwan Residential Child Care Alliance found
that the frequency of social workers being asked to attend school for
handling of children and teenagers’ behavior is distributed as follows:
32% every six months, 8% every 2 to 3 months, 28% every 1 to 3 times
a month, 1 to 3 times a week, 24% every day, and 8% every day. In the
past 3 years, 36% of the agencies have encountered schools requiring
them to bring their children back to school for correction, and even
some agencies have encountered such a situation with more than 10
children in the past 3 years.
3. The 2022 Joint Evaluation Project for Child and Adolescent Placement and
Correctional Institutions requires agencies to ensure that “the replaced
children and adolescents can enjoy the same rights and interests as ordinary
children in community life, schooling, employment participation, etc., and
shall not be discriminated against because of their placement status”.
Replaced children and teenagers who are discriminated against or deprived
of rights in the community belong to the status of victims. The government
has not proposed specific strategies to stop the bullying behavior of the
perpetrators but requires the placement agency to advocate the rights and
interests of children and teenagers. Such logical thinking is really
inconceivable.
Specific cases:
Case 1
A child with Asperger Syndrome was placed across jurisdictions, and his school
48
roll was also transferred to a primary school in another county. The primary
school requested him to find another school on the grounds that the quota was
full. However, However, after inquiries made by relevant persons from the
Education Department of the county government, it was learned that there were
still places available at the school at that time. The case was admitted after
jumping at the opportunity, but the school schedule has been delayed for about
two weeks. Six months after entering school, due to the incident of biting the
teacher, the president of the parents’ association bullied the student and the
placement agency on the Internet on the grounds of safeguarding the safety
and education rights of other students. After several twists and turns, the social
worker in charge considered that the community environment was no longer
suitable for the case’s growth and relocated the case to other county and city
for receiving further services.
Response to points 48, 193, 254 of the Second National Report:
1. The state’s anti-discrimination measures only have the function of negative
protection. Although the manual “Compilation of Anti-Discrimination Cases
for Children and Teenagers”22 is currently published, the anti-discrimination
protection measures for the placement of children are insufficient. If the
perpetrator of discrimination is not a person within the system, for example
a parent in the school field or a person outside the school, etc. Then the
administrative unit, judicial unit and human rights unit have no effective
measures to protect those who are discriminated against.
2. Regulations such as the “Measures for the Transfer of Student Status and
Return to School for Children and Adolescents Receiving Placement
Counseling or Probationary Education” and the “Principles for the
Prevention, Tracking and Return to School Counseling of Dropouts in the
Subsidy of the National and Preschool Education Department of the Ministry
of Education” stipulate that all government units should assist in the
placement of children and teenagers. However, this method does not
establish a cross-network cooperation mechanism and cannot guarantee the
22
Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (June 29th, 2021), Compilation of Anti-
Discrimination Cases for Children and Teenagers.
https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/(X(1)S(rmdlsbcqlvxfrjtedhzfa0yn))/Document/Detail?documentId=D65001A5-CB99-4308-
B9F0-E24B4B8D173B
49
placement of children from discrimination.
3. Although the government has provided adequate resources to schools in
remote areas, the implementation measures are mainly based on subject
teaching, and the dilemma of the difficulty of hiring specialized auxiliary
personnel and special education teachers has not yet been resolved.
4. It is necessary that teachers try to enhance their knowledge of special
education; however, most teachers still lack the understanding and
knowledge training of the emotions and behaviors of children and teenagers
in placement owing to traumatic experiences, which makes schoolteachers
unable to cope with the behavioral issues of placement in schools.
Recommendations:
1. Revise the indicators of the 2022 Joint Evaluation Project of Child and
Adolescent Placement and Correctional Institutions in the Equality Section,
and the equal rights of children in placement agencies in the community
should be evaluated by the supporting improvement mechanisms proposed
by various community service systems such as education, social affairs, and
labor administration rather than the efforts of the staff of placement agency.
2. The issue of placement of children cannot be solved by the social and
administrative system or the judicial system alone. Therefore, the
government should establish a cross-network coordination mechanism to
allow children to adapt to stable school attendance.
3. The school district where the placement agency is located has increased the
allocation of specialized auxiliary manpower to assist teachers at school to
cope with the issue of placement of children and teenagers so that the
resettled children and teenagers can go to school and protect their right to
education.
4. Teachers in educational institutions must also have the developmental needs
of children, identification and assessment of special educational needs, and
professional knowledge related to trauma awareness. It is recommended that
these trainings be incorporated into the professional study and teacher
training system to help the placement of children into school life rather than
pushing them out of the school gate.
50
Chapter 8【Special Protection Measures】
A. Judicial turns to the situations of placement children
Current situation
23
1. The 2019 Investigation Report of the Control Yuan mentioned: the
“Juvenile Justice Act” provides diversified and flexible protection measures
for juveniles in the judicial system, including admonitions, holiday life
counseling, protection and restraint, placement counseling and probationary
education, etc., but there are cases where there are protection and control
cases that need to be resettled but cannot be resettled in practice. Since the
conversion mechanism for judicial juveniles has not been clearly defined,
currently only the juvenile protection officer can hold a case discussion
meeting and transfer it to the local competent authority for handling in
accordance with the “Juvenile Justice Act” social affairs and political
placement regulations. The court does not bear the relevant funds, nor does
it interfere with the selection of resettlement agencies and the formulation of
treatment programs.
2. Article 67 of the “Juvenile Justice Act” clearly stipulates that it is the
obligation of local governments to provide necessary welfare services.
However, the judicial and social administration systems have a gap in
cognition of judicial juvenile counseling cooperation, and no cooperation
model has emerged, which results in poor results.
(1) The budget of the judicial system only covers the cost of providing
placement counseling, and only deals with the issue of juveniles breaking
the law. It is believed that the juveniles are still in the community, and other
welfare needs must be assisted by the social affairs system.
(2) The judge ruled that the evaluation of juvenile placement counseling is
based on the juvenile’s family upbringing function. However, there is
currently no family treatment program for the families of judicial referral
placement cases to improve the family’s parenting function. Therefore,
after the placement counseling is over, the family has not experienced any
23
Control Yuan (August 14th, 2019), investigation report 108 judicial investigation number 0048.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=9ab5a60d-3f6a-48f7-a112-5b0b1fac903d
51
improvement.
(3) According to Article 67 of the “Juvenile Justice Act”, local social affairs
and administrative agencies will only continue to provide the welfare
services that the judicial juvenile family has already received. After the
system is installed, resources intervention such as family treatment will not
be provided for assistance.
(4) The “Contact Method for Juvenile Courts and Relevant Organs for
Handling Juvenile Incidents” announced by the Judicial Yuan in 2020
expects to establish a cross-ministerial and horizontal communication
mechanism at each stage of transfer, investigation, and delivery,
protection, and punishment; in addition, the Judicial Yuan and the Social
and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW hold regular liaison meetings
to discuss issues such as how to provide resettlement beds. It is difficult to
cover the diverse difficulties encountered by delinquent juveniles. Though
there is also an inter-academic coordination mechanism for
communication business, the actual operation effect still needs to be
reviewed.
3. Reasons for the number of referee placement counselors dropped from 128 in
2017 to 57 in 2020 mainly include:
(1) Due to the lack of construction of a welfare delivery network covering
judicial children as a whole, delinquent juveniles with special needs such
as drug abuse, sexual issues, mental disorders, intellectual disabilities, etc.,
often become “children that are hard to be placed” due to the high level
of resources required.
(2) The low judicial referral placement fee is another reason. In 2019, the court
resettlement fee ranges from NTD 21,000 to NTD 24,000 per month. Only
a few courts have set a graded resettlement fee standard for children’s
age and special physical and mental needs. In fact, the resettlement fees
compiled by the courts are far from enough to cover the actual expenses.
The placement agencies mostly rely on private donations. Considering the
reality, the placement agencies generally rejecting such delinquent
juveniles with special needs because of having difficulties such as
insufficient resources and problems in dealing with professionals. It is also
ruled that the number of resettlement counselors decreased due to the
52
difficulty in finding a suitable placement agency.
Specific cases:
Case 1
In 2016, due to the protection incident involving sexual assault, Juvenile H was
tried by the court and ruled to be protected and restrained. During the
implementation of the protection restraint, the protection officer found that the
family function of Juvenile H deteriorated and lost the functions of discipline and
life care. The protection officer then held a case study meeting with the county
social worker, and the primary caregiver of Juvenile H signed the entrusted
placement agreement for placement counseling. However, the county social
affairs bureau contacted several placement agencies, all of which responded that
they could not assist with the resettlement. After the court decided that the
juveniles violated the matters to be observed during the period of protection
and restraint, the protection and restraint were revoked, and the judgment was
changed to corrective education for Juvenile H.
Response to points 346, 347, 351, 352 of the second national
report:
1. Most judicial juveniles have physical and mental issues, special education,
drug addiction and alcohol addiction treatment demands. However, the
Judicial Yuan has no relevant statistics and cannot fully understand the
“protective” status of judicial juveniles.
2. When the “Juvenile Justice Act” was revised in 2019, although the Judicial
Yuan expanded the places for placement and counseling to include medical
institutions, places where transitional education measures or other
appropriate measures were implemented, the judicial system had a strong
color of correction, and it is still necessary to form a cooperation mechanism
with units that focus on treatment and counseling.
Recommendations:
1. In response to Article 67 of the “Juvenile Justice Act”, the provision of
necessary welfare services should be clearly regulated, and a central and local
inter-ministerial coordination mechanism should be established to provide
53
integrated services in combination with resources such as life care, medical
care, education, and employment counseling.
2. The Ministry of Health and Welfare should actively guide the classification and
professional development of institutions and develop appropriate placement
models for the characteristics and needs of delinquent juveniles.
3. The Judicial Yuan should analyze the types of practical cases, set different
levels of placement counseling fees according to the characteristics of
delinquent juveniles’ age, physical and mental status and provide actual
payment items and quotas that are reasonably in line with the current price
level so as to provide judicial juveniles with a comprehensive counselling
service.
54
B. Indigenous children in placement agencies and their statistics
Current situation:
1. According to the research results of Chao Shan-Ju (2021), although from 2014
to 2018, the proportion of children who were resettled outside their homes
as aboriginals varied in different counties and cities. Taking 2018 as an
example, the proportion of indigenous children and teenagers had reached
up to 60.41 %. There is an increasing trend in the number of indigenous
people resettled outside their homes, and the overall growth rate of
indigenous people in the country is 8.72% for the past five years. However,
the existing placement resources at present do not consider the cultural
connection needs of children and teenagers, so that they lack the connection
with their own ethnic culture.
2. The government has incorporated cultural sensitivity into the implementation
measures to improve the quality of care in the alternative care policy. Also, in
the new evaluation indicators of 2022, it is clearly stipulated and required that
the case treatment program be individually formulated according to the
characteristics of the ethnic group and culture of the children and teenagers.
Specific cases:
To meet the needs of children’s cultural connection, some placement agencies
have begun cultivating the cultural identity of indigenous children through
hunter schools, weaving and other common skills in indigenous culture; with
regard to cultural heritage of individual ethnic groups, organizations mostly use
private networks to link up children and teenagers with networks and resources
of the same clan, so that children can build a sense of cultural belonging.
Response to points 315, 316 of the second national report:
1. Since the current number of foster families with indigenous status is very
small, it is impossible to prioritize the placement of indigenous children in
such foster families.
2. The national report does not provide information such as the number of
hours of courses related to cultural sensitivity of practitioners, and it is
impossible to understand the implementation of the assessment.
55
Recommendations:
1. Aside from cultivating the cultural sensitivity of caregivers outside the home,
the government also needs to cultivate and strengthen the cultural sensitivity
of practical workers such as social workers in charge and social workers at
home so as to plan appropriate family treatment work and improve the
overall quality of alternative care services.
2. There is currently an aboriginal family service center in the aboriginal village.
It is advised that a horizontal communication network be established to
provide cultural consultation to the placement unit outside the home. It can
also assist in the restoration of family functions and also allow children and
teenagers to have community support after returning home.
3. The placement decision should carefully consider and protect children’s
rights of expression and cultural identity and development and implement
the protection of children’s cultural rights. It is recommended that Articles
52, 56, and 62 of the “Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights
Act” be amended to incorporate placement decision-making into
consideration of children’s cultural needs.
56
References:
Control Yuan (2017~2021), investigation report.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxAll.aspx?n=718&sms=0
Chao Shan-Ju, Peng Shu-Hua, Hu Chung-Yi (2021), estimated placement
needs outside the home and report on the final results of effectiveness
evaluation plan of the current placement model implementation. Social and
Family Affairs Administration, MOHW.
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=581&pid=10600
Ministry of Health and Welfare (2022), Joint Evaluation of Child and Adolescent
Placement and Correctional Institutions.
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=1345
Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW (2019), the municipal and
county (city) governments’ accepting the entrusted placement work process
for children and juveniles.
Ministry of Health and Welfare (2018), Joint Evaluation of Child and Adolescent
Placement and Correctional Institutions.
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=992
Ministry of Health and Welfare (April 26th, 28th, 29th, 2021), Symposium on the
Draft Alternative Care Policy for Children and Teenagers
Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW (November 26th, 2021), Data
on the Platform Meeting and Final Symposium of Alternative Care Resources
for Children and Teenagers Placed Outside the Home.
Control Yuan (February 14th, 2019), investigative report 108 internal
investigation number 0009.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=b2ba4ed9-
5dea-4dd3-a9ee-317b6a44ba02
Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW (September 6th to October
22nd, 2021), presentation of the briefing meeting on the public-private
cooperation service plan of the second phase of the strengthening social
safety net plan. https://topics.mohw.gov.tw/SS/lp-5259-204.html
Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW (January 5th, 2021), the
minutes of session on the legal relationship and contractual attributes of the
municipal and county (city) governments handing over the child and juvenile
welfare institutions to the placement of children
57
Social and Family Affairs Administration, MOHW (February 24th, 2018), Family
Function Assessment and Family Treatment Plan Form and Workbook.
https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-50829-f26ceebc-1e1e-4b54-ac0d-
c0e8b584a43c.html
ETtodayNews (May 2nd, 2020) the baby of six months old was tragically
abused by “removing nails and breaking bones”! Four years after being
rescued, the baby returned to his family of orientation and reappeared with
new injuries. The nanny shouted: SOS.
https://www.ettoday.net/news/20200502/1705032.htm#ixzz6ZKLOaElZ
Apple Daily (2019, November 20th), extremely tragic. A 2-year-old boy was
tortured and spit blood to death. The doctor scolded “I have never seen such
severe and terrible case”
https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/20191120/4GIYE66TX3VF2MJEWOSLA5U2
FE/
NOWnews today’s news (January 19th, 2019), the Ministry of Health and
Welfare of the Tainan Child Abuse Case offered an intensive visit! Scholar
criticized: not even mention anything related to medical support.
https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/qQ97gy
Lin Pei-Chun (2021), review of the current situation and future development
orientation of the evaluation system of child and adolescent placement and
correctional institutions, NTU Social Work Review, Journal No. 43, 107 to 148.
Liu Hung-Yi (2018), Key Factors Affecting the Stability of the Life of
Adolescents in Placement Institutions, Journal of Youth Studies. Vol. 21 Issue 1,
p165-175.
Chinese Children-home & Shelter Association (March 27th, 2020), media
reports on the slow construction of “self-reliant dormitory that only 6% of
homeless children can move in. https://www.childrenhome.org.tw/link2-
1_view.asp?id=428
Centers for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare (June 21st, 2021),
object of state-funded COVID-19 vaccines.
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/9mcqWyq51P_aYADuh3rTBA
Centers for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare (2021), annual
influenza vaccination program.
https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/MPage/JNTC9qza3F_rgt9sRHqV2Q
58
Ministry of Health and Welfare (June 28th, 2021), relief measures for residential
institutions affected by severe special infectious pneumonia.
https://covid19.mohw.gov.tw/ch/cp-5191-61206-205.html
Control Yuan (July 11th, 2013), investigative report 102 adjustment 0038.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=c097621b-
7dc8-4527-ba6f-3e2d1d079386
Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (June
29th, 2021), Compilation of Anti-Discrimination Cases for Children and
Teenagers.
https://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/(X(1)S(rmdlsbcqlvxfrjtedhzfa0yn))/Document/Detail?do
cumentId=D65001A5-CB99-4308-B9F0-E24B4B8D173B
Control Yuan (August 14th, 2019), investigation report 108 judicial
investigation number 0048.
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1&n=133&_Query=b7942cc0-
5efd-4656-8820-d630a8fd5329
59
資料來源:SQLite external_shadow_report 表 · markdown body 來自 data/external_shadow_reports/ESR-2022-TNCA.md