Forum

Forum, prepared by the newspaper's Editorial Department, is published Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

How do national policy and resource allocation methods affect social welfare operations and the development of social welfare organizations? Are the state's social welfare policies and the operational approaches of social welfare organizations presently protecting the interests of disadvantaged groups? The organizer of today's forum - Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies - has invited academics, experts, and practitioners from related fields to explore the relationship between the state, social welfare organizations, and the people that they serve. They will look at the problems and difficulties that Taiwan's social welfare organizations face as they strive to survive.
在台灣，社會福利組織與國家之間的關係為何？國家政策與資源分配模式又如何影響社福工作的運作與社福組織的發展？目前國家的社會福利政策與社福組織的運作方式，是否守護了弱勢者的權益？主辦單位台灣社會研究季刊特別邀請相關領域的學者專家以及實務工作者，探討國家、社會福利組織及其服務對象之間的關係，與目前台灣社福組織在生存運作上的問題與困境。


　

Cheng Tsun-chi: When I just started at the Bureau of Labor Affairs, many aides told me "Director, let's hand this thing [NT$ 4 billion employment fund for the disabled of Taipei City] to the committee, just in case the social welfare organizations have some opinions and are not satisfied, then you can say it's the committee that made the decision, so we would not be held responsible." Now here we have the problem where rights and responsibilities are disproportionate. I feel it is not appropriate for an official to look to the committee for backup, when he should take responsibility, because actually the ultimate right to manage the fund is still in the hands of officials. The first problem that I discovered when I came to the Bureau of Labor Affairs was that although the law stipulates that officials from government agencies should be in charge, the committee nevertheless makes the decisions.

鄭村祺：我剛到勞工局的時候，很多幕僚跟我說，局長，這個東西 [40億的身心障礙就業基金] 就交給委員會，萬一社會福利團體有什麼意見擺不平的話，你就說是委員會做的決定，那我們就沒有責任了。──這裡就有權責不相稱的問題，官員該負責任的時候，找委員會來背書，我覺得不太妥當。因為事實上基金最後的操控權還是在官員手上。我到勞工局發現的第一個問題就是，法律上規定應該是由政府行政機關的官員負責，可是現在卻是由委員會來決定。

　

Not long after I took up my post at the Bureau of Labor Affairs, a lot of social welfare organizations would frequently come to see me. As an official, I wanted to change this power relationship, but very quickly discovered that the position that the established state machinery had given me was meant to "suppress" them. It is very difficult to carry out change within this bureaucratic system. Civil groups submit proposals to apply for money from the Employment Fund for the Disabled of Taipei City, which are then reviewed by a committee formed by government agencies. I remember that when I had just taken office, the reviews would begin in the early morning. Each time a proposal was submitted, the representatives for the social welfare organizations would all put their papers on the desk in a very meek manner. Then we, us elders, would ask them a few questions, leaf through the documents, and wait until they left the room, before we began to discuss how much money we would give them after all. This is truly absurd, since the social welfare organizations are in fact helping the state do its job. I hold very strong opinions about this power relationship.
我到台北市勞工局沒多久，就經常有很多社會福利團體要來拜訪我。作為一個官員，我想要針對這種權力關係進行改變，很快就發現到舊有的國家機器給我的位子是要我來「鎮壓」它們。要在這個官僚系統裡進行改變很不容易。身心障礙就業基金由民間團體提案申請，經過政府部門成立的審查委員會審查。我記得我剛到任的時候，一大早就開始審查，每一個案子送進來時，社福團體都以非常謙和的態度把資料放在桌上，然後我們這些大爺們就問他們幾個問題，文件翻一翻，等這些團體代表出去之後，大家就開始討論到底要給多少錢。這是很荒謬的，因為其實是社福團體在幫國家做事。我對這樣的權力關係非常有意見。


　

For the sake of power distribution, I changed the committee's original function from an advisor to social welfare organizations into that of a forum for discussing major policy direction instead of discussing individual cases. We even publicly pronounced that it was prohibited to lobby and influence the opinion of the committee. This change generated a very large workload for my colleagues at the Bureau of Labor Affairs, but as far as I am concerned, people were no longer talking my ears off.
為了把權力分散出去，我將原來諮詢團體（委員會）的功能變成做政策大方向的討論，而不做個案的討論，甚至公開明言禁止關說影響委員會的意見，這個改變對勞工局同仁的工作造成非常大的負擔，可是對我來講，從此以後耳根就清靜許多。


　

In fact, smaller social welfare organizations even have difficulties writing up a project plan. At the time, the idea was that if a large social welfare organization is able to apply for and use NT$50 million, then give it to them. But if a small organization is only able to use NT$500,000, you should still give it an opportunity and not use the criteria for large organizations to decide if the smaller group is qualified to receive funding.
事實上，對很多比較小的社福團體來講，連企劃怎麼寫都有困難。當時有一個想法是，如果大的社福團體有辦法申請與使用五千萬的經費，那就發給它；小團體如果只有能力使用五十萬，你還是應該給它機會，而不是用大團體的標準來決定它們有沒有資格拿到經費。


　

Youth welfare work trapped between fund-raising and client interests
陷落在募款與案主權益之間的青少年福利工作

　

Vita Yeh Ta-hwa: Taiwan has only very few youth welfare organizations, but a whole lot of laws concerning youth. These laws are not at all conducive to a fair distribution of national resources, but continue to concentrate resources on work that involves prevention, control, and disciplining of so-called marginalized youth.
葉大華：在台灣，青少年福利團體非常少，但是青少年相關法令卻非常多。這些法令並沒有促成國家資源的公平分配，反而是繼續讓資源集中在預防、控制與規訓所謂邊緣青少年的工作上。


　

Many youth welfare workers must handle these individual cases every day, and for the organization's survival still need to carry a share of the fundraising burden. I remember how the boss of the large organization where I worked previously went as far as publicly demanding during a meeting of the board of directors that each social worker package an individual case from among the people he serviced and use it to raise funds. Each social worker had to bring in NT$1 million. Many social workers spend one third of their energy on communicating and coordinating and one third on fund-raising, so that we have just one third left to spend on our cases. On top of that, the media hope to get cases through our organization. And while social workers are not that willing to provide cases, they can't help it because other indirect service departments will still pressure them to do so. For a social worker client, protection and professional judgment are not the most important considerations. A major reason for packaging individual cases is to enable the organization to survive and run smoothly.
很多青少年福利工作者每天要處理這些個案，還必須為了機構的生存而分攤募款的壓力。我記得我以前待的那個大機構開董事會時，上頭居然公開要求每個社工員從他的服務對象包裝出一個方案出來，然後去募款。每個社工員要負責募一百萬。很多的社會工作者必須把三分之一的力氣花在溝通協調，三分之一力氣花在募款，三分之一才能撥給我們的案主。除此之外，媒體也希望透過我們機構要個案，雖然社工人員不是那麼樂意提供，但是沒有辦法，別的間接服務部門還是會給你壓力。一個社工員對案主的保護或專業的判斷都不是最主要考量，個案包裝有很大一部分的原因是為了讓機構能生存與運作。


　

Eventually you will discover that national resources are, in the end, directly allocated to some 200-people strong large social welfare organizations, while only the remaining bit is allocated to small- and mid-size organizations. Not long ago we held a symposium to discuss why the "Children and Youth Welfare Law" sets such high standards demanding that social workers take all cases. In the past we probably only had to take cases of behavior deviations, but now the scope has been expanded to preventive work. It appears that one has only to be labeled a youth from a high-risk family to be enrolled in integrative work. Since the big organizations have sufficient funding, they can afford not to accept such work. But small- and mid-size organizations are forced to take such cases for the sake of survival.

到最後你會發現，國家資源最後會直接分配到一些一兩百人的大型社福團體，只剩下一點資源分配給中小型機構。我們前不久才辦過一場座談會，檢討為什麼《兒童少年福利法》以這麼高的標準要求社工人員接下所有的案子，過去可能是只針對行為偏差的個案，現在擴大到預防工作，幾乎只要被標籤為高風險家庭中的青少年，就要被列入整合工作中。大機構經費充足，有辦法不接這些工作，但中小型機構為了生存就必須被迫要接。


　

We also often know that our cases are not as the media present them, but we cannot afford not to engage in such manipulation. Some large social welfare organizations even exclusively commission professional public relations firms to market such fundraising packages. These people have basically no direct contact at all with the people that are serviced in each individual case, but they can still raise funds through case packages.
我們也常常知道我們的個案不是像媒體所標籤的那樣，可是我們不得不這樣操作，甚至有些大型社福機構就完全委由其他專業公關公司進行這種包裝募款的行銷企劃，這些人基本上並沒有直接跟這些個案服務對象接觸，但是它還是可以透過包裝個案來募得款項。


　

Our social workers also face a state of alienation in their work. When working in the field, we have contacts with the people that we service. But when we leave the field, we must distance ourselves when we start talking about fund-raising so that our clients become objects, so that the various appearances of the youths that we see in the field are all simplified into a single case that is acceptable to the values of mainstream society, because that is the only way to raise money. Media reports do, of course, also help non-governmental organizations raise a lot of money, but correspondingly they have also trapped us in this contradiction that we have to package cases to be able to raise money.
我們的社工人員也面臨工作上的異化狀態。在實務現場上，我們與服務對象接觸，但是出了實務現場，一談到募款，我們又必須抽離出來，把對方當成是一個客體，將我們在實務現場看到的各種青少年的樣貌，全部簡化成一個可以讓主流社會價值接納的福利個案，因為這樣你才募得到錢。媒體報導當然也幫非政府組織募到很多錢，但相對來講，它也讓我們陷入這種必須包裝案主才能募到錢的矛盾裡。


　

Youth welfare work has always been about handling cases of marginalized youths. After having done so much work helping people, we have not made society and the general populace more receptive of youths, but are stuck in continued labeling and categorizing of these youths.
整個在青少年的福利工作一直在處理所謂邊緣青少年的個案工作裡，在做了那麼多的助人工作之後，我們沒有讓社會大眾更接納我們的青少年，反而陷落在這種不斷地標籤、分類這些青少年的處境裡。


　

Dialogue between social welfare organizations and local villages over the realization of subjectivity
社福組織與在地部落主體性實踐的對話


　

Huang Pen-hao: I have been trained in sociology and social work. During my training I attached a lot of importance to helping my clients develop the strength to get back on their feet themselves. But governmental social workers must rely on government resources. We also need the government to give us legitimacy, as the profession of social worker is positioned within the government system. On the other hand, in our professional work we also need to persistently stand on the side of our clients. Therefore we must ask the state, which gives us resources, whether it truly hopes that the people will become stronger. I have serious doubts about that.
黃盈豪： 我是一個受社會學跟社會工作訓練的人，在我們的訓練裡，很重視幫助案主有力量自己站起來。但是政府的社工員要依賴政府資源，也需要政府給我們合法性，社工的職業位置是在政府的系統裡；另一方面，在我們的專業裡，我們又必須堅持我們跟案主是站在一起的。因此我必須問給我們資源的國家，它是真的希望人民有力量嗎？對這一點我有很大的存疑。


　

Let's take for instance integrated community development, which has been hot in recent years. So-called integrated community development means enabling community residents to truly do things for the community on their own initiative and out of their own ability. But the integrated community development projects that we social workers at the frontline see are not like that. According to the government's rules of the game, integrated community development projects must be submitted to the township office and the township office has to go through the (local) community development association to apply (for government funding). Each applying organization must be a government-registered entity. According to the Civil Associations Act, such registered entities must hold a meeting of their board of directors every few months.
譬如最近幾年很熱門的社區總體營造，所謂社區總體營造，就是讓社區人民有真正的自主能力為社區做事，可是我們第一線工作的社工人員所看到的社區總體營造方案卻不是如此。按照政府的遊戲規則，社區總體營造的方案必須透過鄉公所，鄉公所再透過社區發展協會去申請，申請的每一個團體都必須是政府立案的單位，立案單位又必須依照《人民團體法》，每隔一陣子就要開一次理監事會。


　

One of the jobs of community development workers is to hold classes to assist local residents to write project proposals, to form community development associations, to assist them in selling their ideas, to let them learn the government-set rules of the game to obtain government help in the form of money, instead of enabling them to truly develop their own strength to rely on themselves.
社區營造工作者的工作之一就是開課協助當地居民會寫企劃書，組成社區發展協會，協助他們推銷等等，讓他們學會政府訂下來的遊戲規則，以尋求政府資源上的幫助，而不是讓他們真的自己有力量自給自足。


　

For many years our organization has been working in aboriginal villages, always facing the problem of survival. In order to survive, we have accepted many government projects and we write projects in line with government regulations. If you know how to play this game, you will be able to get projects. But as time goes by, you might become a bit confused as to whether you yourself are not a subordinate unit of a government agency. When the government wanted to hold activities in the aboriginal villages, they would ask us "Don't you want a few stalls selling millet liquor," or in particular when they wanted to hold a garden party in connection with elections, they would ask us to perform in indigenous costumes. These are the experiences that we have had over the past few years.
我們組織在部落工作這幾年，一直面臨生存的問題，為了生存，我們接了很多政府的方案，我們也會照著政府的規定寫方案，只要你會玩這一套，你就可以接到案子，可是日子久了，你就會有點搞不清楚自己是不是政府部門的下屬單位。政府機關要在部落辦活動時，可能會問我們要不要弄幾個攤位來賣個小米酒，尤其是跟選舉有關的園遊會，就可能邀請我們穿原住民的衣服去表演。這是過去兩三年來我們的經驗。


　

As a social welfare organization from outside we are often asked to pay due respect to the subjectivity of the villages and to the idea that the villages are always right. But recently I am less and less convinced that this thing called village subjectivity actually exists. Often when village subjectivity is being highlighted there are certain objectives behind it. For example, recently we and a group of long-term unemployed victims of the 921 (Sept. 21, 1999) earthquake were preparing to release some products for sale. We had prepared for this for a long time and our aim was to reduce the government reliance of the local jobless. As a result, a lot of representatives for established interests in the village came forward to question how come we could open shops in the village, while we couldn't. They also questioned our ability to represent the village. We said, of course, everyone can open shops. But those who came forward to complain were all people who had the ability to open shops in the village or to take on projects. Village subjectivity is often mentioned in discussions when there are conflicts of interest or competition over resources.
作為一個外來的社福組織，我們經常被要求要充分尊重部落的主體性，部落永遠是對的，但最近我越來越不相信有所謂部落主體性這東西，通常部落主體性被挑出來的時候，背後都是有目的的。比如最近我們和一群長期失業的九二一的受災戶準備在近日推出產品販賣，為了這件事我們已經準備很久了，目的是為了減少當地的失業者對政府的依賴。結果部落裡很多既得利益者就跳出來說，為什麼我們可以在部落裡開店，他們不行？他們並且質疑我們是不是能夠代表部落。我們說，當然每一個人都可以。但是這些跳出來說話的人，都是在部落裡有能力開商店或有能力接案子的人。在利益衝突或資源競奪時，往往也是部落主體被提出來討論的時候。

The end 全文完