摘要
安置兒少多元複雜的情緒與行為，以及兒少安置機構相對採取的管理規則間產生的落差與衝突，一直以來都是兒少安置服務的重要議題；近年來，隨著兒少權益保障觀念的提升，國內的兒少安置服務亦漸漸關注到安置園生的表意權益，台北市私立心棧家園於2017年開始規劃園生共同參與家園違規事件的審議，期待藉此制度賦權園生並建立客觀的表意機制，但在實際操作後發現此制度亦同時為園生帶來個人隱私曝光、人際虛假及權力關係不平等操作風險。因此，本研究首先針對自2017年1月至12月，共計18場次的審議會議執行紀錄單進行檢視，以瞭解目前的執行狀況；再以深度訪談及焦點團體的方式來蒐集不同角色參與者之參與經驗（15名在園生、3名離園生、8名工作人員），並蒐集其對於制度的建議，藉此作為未來制度轉型修正的研議參考並將這樣兒少權益提升的操作過程提供予未來實務及政策參考，本研究發現如下：
一、家園現行審議制度執行狀況：審議制度執行後帶來許多正面的影響，如：處置觀念轉變成以正向協助取代負向懲處、合併式懲處的減少、注重園生自發的正向改變計畫等；但也同時帶來許多負向影響，如：冗長的會議參與影響討論成效、園生相當擔憂個人隱私曝光、園生仍反覆出現違規行為。
二、對於家園現行審議制度的看法：在參與審議制度後，園生及工作人員都表達出許多不同的經驗或看法。園生表示可以感受到自己有表意的管道，也相當認同這樣對話的機制，更可以有個為自己爭取權益的機會，但也會擔心隱私曝光，或受到人際關係的威脅壓力；工作人員雖然也相當認同這個溝通的機制，但卻也表達出制度較缺乏效率、園生缺乏理解並缺乏訓練等負向觀點。
三、對家園現行審議制度修正之建議：參與過該制度的園生及工作人員提出在制度規劃上、制度操作上、參與人員上、實務發展上都提出了許多建議，如：進行事先的教育訓練、保密及個別化的處理、陪審園生參與志願制等建議。

Abstract
The gaps and the conflicts between the complicated emotions and behaviors of youths living in residential home and the regulations set by the residential home have always been the central issues of the youth placement institutions. In the recent years, with the public attention to child and youth rights protection, youth participation and empowerment are increasingly much concerned about. In 2017, Shin Jan Residential Home began the plan of the deliberative system for the violations of regulations with the expectation to empower the youths and to establish a system for the youths to express their opinions. However, after practice, it was found that the system would also bring the risks of identity and privacy exposure, phony interpersonal relationship and power inequality; therefore, with the aim to have an overall understanding of the execution of the system, this research firstly reviews 18 copies of conference minutes between January 2017 to December 2017. Secondly, in-depth Interviews and focus groups were conducted to gather experiences from different participants (which includes 15 youths who still live in Shin Jan, 3 youths who have left from Shin Jan, and 8 Shin Jan staffs) and also to collect their suggestions on the deliberative system itself. The purpose of the research is to provide references for the system’s future transformation and the improvement. The findings of the research are shown below:
1. The current situation of the deliberative system in Shi Jan Residential Home:The deliberative system has brought positive influences such as using positive supports instead of negative punishments when managing problems; decreasing numbers of multiple punishments on one violation; emphasizing on the positive self-changing plans of youths. Nevertheless, it has caused negative influences as well. For example, the lengthy meeting would affect the effectiveness of the system; the privacy exposure is the major concern of the youths; violating the regulations still happens repeatedly.
2. Opinions about the deliberative system in Shi Jan Residential Home：The youths and the staff have expressed diverse experiences and opinions after participating in the deliberative system. The youths found that they had an appropriate and official way to express their opinions. Besides, they recognize the system as a great way of communication. Moreover, they consider the system as an opportunity to strive for their rights. In the meantime, they regard the system as a concern of identity and privacy exposure and they feel the threat and peer pressure. Although the staffs agree to the system, they responded that the system is inefficient and the youths need more understanding and training to the system at the moment.
3. Suggestions to the deliberative system in Shi Jan Residential Home:The participants who have attended the system made suggestions on system planning, system execution, participants selecting and practical improvement. For example, the education and the training of the system should be conducted in advance; confidentiality and individuality should be emphasized and managed; the willingness of the participants should be valued.

參考書目
一、中文部分
白尊宇（2010）。論平民參與審判制度的社會意涵─從國民參審試行條例草案觀察。國立台灣大學，台北市。
朱柔若譯（2000）。社會研究方法：質化與量化取向（原作者：W. Lawrence Neuman）。新北市：揚智。
宋麗玉、施教裕、徐淑婷（2015）優勢觀點與精神障礙者之復元。臺北市：洪葉。
李政賢、廖志恒、林靜如（譯）（2007）。質性研究導論（原作者：U. Flick）。臺北市：五南。
李品蓉（2016）。兒少安置機構社工員對「難置兒」之處遇經驗探討。國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
社會及家庭署（2018）。兒童權利公約。取自https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=76
林蕙平（2016）。安置機構照顧者與兒少發展依附關係之經驗探討。國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
林沛君（2017）。兒少「表意權」實質意涵的初探─以被兒置兒少發聲的權利為中心。台灣人權學刊，4(1)，73-96。
高淑清（2008）。質性研究的18堂課—首航初探之旅。高雄市：麗文。
高淑清（2001）。在美華人留學生太太的生活世界：詮釋與反思。本土心理學研究，16，225-285。
陳毓文（2008）。國內接受機構安置少年憂鬱情緒之探究：問題陳顯與解釋因素。中華心理衛生學刊，21（1），75-101。
陳怡芳、李淑沛、王筱汶、胡中宜（2016）。中長期安置機構少女離園轉銜階段之需求與任務。社區發展季刊，156，373-387。
陳慶家（2013）。家的經驗與圖像-以安置機構少年為例。國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。
莊文芳（2009）。賦權vs.父權：論充權觀點在少年安置機構之運用。兒童及少年福利期刊，16，89-105。
莊文芳（2012）。權益保障的建構與實踐：安置少年與工作人員之觀點。東海大學社會工作學所博士論文。
莊文芳（2013）。不只是衣食無虞：安置個案對權益保障的期望。一路有你，夢想未來~CCSA「第三屆兒少安置機構與自立服務論文研討會」發表之論文，台北市：中華育幼機構兒童關懷協會。
張緡鏐（2012）。處遇性兒童及少年保護服務。載於李瑞金（主編），21世紀臺灣蛻變的兒童及少年福利（157-178）。台中市：內政部兒童局。
張麗惠（2013）。安置少年生活適應經驗之研究。國立台北教育大學，台北市。
彭淑華（2006）。機構安置：保護他（她）？傷害他（她）？－兒童少年保護工作人員眼中之機構虐待圖像。東吳社會工作學報，16，1-36。
彭淑華（2006）。保護為名，權控為實？─少年安置機構工作人員的觀點分析。東吳社會工作學報，15，1-36。
黃東益、李翰林、施佳良（2007）。「博感情」或「講道理」？：公共審議中參與者自我轉化機制之探討。東吳政治學報，25（1），39-71。
臺灣社會工作專業人員協會（2012）。社會工作研究倫理守則。【社工專業本土/研究發展】。取自http://www.tasw.org.tw/p1-news-detail.php?bgid=4&gid=11&nid=315
蔡舒涵（2012）。青少年由寄養家庭轉安置機構經驗之初探。國立政治大學，台北市。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與應用。台北市：心理。

二、西文部分
Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Sroufe, L. A. (2005). When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 235–245.
Chama, S., & Octavio, R. (2014). Young people’s perceptions of a group home’s efficacy: A retrospective study. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 31(2), 120-134.
Calheiros, M. M., Patrício, J. N., & Graça, J. (2013). Staff and youth views on autonomy and emancipation from residential care: A participatory research study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 39, 57-66.
Hart, R. A. (1992). Children's participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy: International Child Development Centre, UNICEF.
Kamberelis, G. & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Fous groups: Strategic articulations pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. in N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincolin, eds, The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCarthy, E. (2016). Young people in residential care, their participation and the influencing factors. Child Care in Practice, 22 (4), 368-385.
Moore, T., McArthur, M., Death, J., Tilbury, C., & Roche, S. (2018). Sticking with us through it all: The importance of trustworthy relationships for children and young people in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review,84, 68-75.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers, 2nd Edition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Whittaker, A. (2009). Research skills for social work. Exeter, England: Learning Matters Ltd.