課程資訊
課程名稱
 高風險兒童社會工作處遇
Working with Children in Crisis the Role of Social Workers 
開課學期
 106-1 
授課對象
 社會科學院  社會工作學研究所  
授課教師
 林敬軒 
課號
 SW5024 
課程識別碼
 330 U1510 
班次
  
學分
 3.0 
全/半年
 半年 
必/選修
 選修 
上課時間
 星期五2,3,4(9:10~12:10) 
上課地點
 社205 
備註
 限學士班三年級以上
總人數上限：25人
外系人數限制：2人 
Ceiba 課程網頁
 http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1061SW5024 
課程簡介影片
 
核心能力關聯
 核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述

本課程為大學部高年級及研究所的選修課程。主要目的在介紹同學高風險兒童的成因與影響，以及社會工作者在實務上相對應的評估和處遇模式，使同學對於兒童少年福利服務中的次級預防有初步認識。本課程尤其著重在探討和檢視高風險兒童實證處遇模式，幫助同學系統性且批判性的了解相關處遇模式的成效與適用性。上課方式為教師授課為主，並搭配時事及案例討論，培養同學對於高風險兒童與家庭相關議題的敏感度，並對自我專業價值的反思，以投入兒少福利領域工作的興趣。 

課程目標
  認識高風險家庭與兒童的成因和影響。
 了解兒童少年福利服務的發展趨勢與理論基礎。
 學習高風險兒童與家庭的實證處遇模型。
 學習高風險兒童與家庭的實務評估與處遇技巧。
 培養分析、檢視和批判現行處遇模型和服務方案的能力。
 探討高風險兒童與家庭福利服務相關實證研究。
 探索自我價值及了解面對高風險兒童與家庭時可能遇到的困境。 
課程要求
 1. 課堂出席：請同學準時出席課堂，課堂間會不定期點名。如需請假，臨時需遲到或早退，請於上課當天6:00 am 前email給老師，並於請假系統上申請。
2. 課堂參與：課程進行需要每位同學積極參與，包括自我分享、小組討論、課堂問答、互動活動，同學的參與可使課堂學習更豐富，也建立合作學習的氛圍。
3. 課前準備：請同學務必在課前完成指定閱讀，並瀏覽參考閱讀文章。期待同學將課前閱讀過程中習得的知識、心得、疑問，帶入課堂討論中。
4. 課後實踐：課程期待同學能將課堂所學知識技能延續到課後，老師會依主題出課後生活小作業，鼓勵同學在網路討論版上與同學、老師做分享、討論、反饋。
5. 作業繳交規範：不接受遲交作業！如果學期中有困難，或有特殊情況，請盡早與老師聯繫。只接受打字作業，如有困難，請盡早與老師告知，討論替代方式。
6. 電子產品使用規範：上課請勿使用手機、筆電或其他電子產品從事非協助課堂學習的活動，尊重上課同學及老師權益。 
預期每週課後學習時數
  
Office Hours
 每週五 16:00~17:00 備註： 或來信另約時間 
指定閱讀
 各週指定書本章節或期刊論文 
參考書目
 1. 郭靜晃。（2013）。兒童福利概論。臺北：揚智。
2. 彭淑華、吳鄭善明、蔡嘉洳、賴宏昇、林廷華、林惠娟、范書菁、賴月蜜（2015）。兒童福利
－理論與實務。臺北：華都文化。
3. 蘇秀枝、黃瑋瑩、蘇文賢（合譯）（2014）。兒童福利：從實務觀點出發（原作者：C.
Crosson-Tower）。臺北：學富文化。
4. Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K., Maluccio, A. N., & Barth, R. P. (2012). The
child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. New Brunswick, NJ:
Aldine Transaction.
5. Wulczyn, F., Barth, R. P., Yuan, Y.-Y. T., Harden, B. J., & Landsverk, J.
(2005). Beyond common sense: Child welfare, child well-being, and the evidence
for policy reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

網路資源:
1. 衛生福利部社會及家庭署兒少福利 – http://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/List.aspx?
nodeid=30
2. 聯合國兒童權利公約 – http://crc.sfaa.gov.tw/news.php
3. UNICEF (聯合國兒童基金會) – https://www.unicef.org/
4. US Children’s Bureau Child Welfare Information Gateway –
https://www.childwelfare.gov/
 
評量方式
(僅供參考)
  
No.
項目
百分比
說明
1. 
 課程出席與參與 
20% 
 請同學準時出席上課，課前閱讀各週指定閱讀教材，上課積極參與小組和課堂討論和活動，課後在網路討論版上交流。課程參與的評量會參考出席率、課堂發言率、小組討論積極度、網路討論版參與。 
2. 
 反思小作業 
30% 
 本學期會有二（三）次反思小作業，反思小作業的目的在於，以理解課堂閱讀和實證知識為基礎，透過自我覺察與反思，培養同學分析高風險兒童相關社會議題的能力。因此，每一份反思小作業期待同學能融合課堂閱讀、個人想法和經驗、媒體素材、網路資源等，呈現面對高風險兒童與家庭的社工專業思考。 每一份小作業篇幅以3-5頁、1.5倍行距（不包含封面頁和參考資資料）為限、最大12號字為限。每份作業需加入封面頁和參考資料頁。每份作業需至少引用三篇以上指定或參考閱讀，或自行搜尋加入其他相關學術文獻或網路資源。作業繳交需正確使用APA格式。作業均須融入個人意見，包括想法或是經驗，鼓勵同學在作業中融入社會福利單位實習或志願服務相關經驗。作業評分會根據同學理解閱讀程度、自我覺察與個人和相關議題的連結、以及融合閱讀、反思、經驗的深度。 作業於當週上課前（09:00 am）上傳至ceiba，以系統的時間戳記為原則。請同學即早完成繳交，避免系統的問題。不接受遲交作業，亦不接受紙本或手寫繳交。 1) 反思小作業一：反思心得 同學可針對課程中實務工作者演講、機構參訪、影片賞析（請參考推薦影片清單），擇一寫反思心得。作業中，同學可先摘要演講、機構、影片大綱內容，針對特定主題進行反思，融合課程閱讀、參考資料、個人經驗，撰寫心得。繳交期限請遵循下列時間：(1) 演講心得於演講隔週上課前繳交。(2) 機構參訪或影片賞析心得於第11週，11/24上課前（09:00 am）繳交。 2) 反思小作業二：新聞時事評估與反思 同學挑選近期（3年內）高風險兒童與家庭相關的新聞議題，對於該議題進行分析、評估、批判與反思。同學可先摘要該新聞，說明為什麼挑選此新聞，運用課堂知識和閱讀，分析此新聞或案例對於你和社會的影響為何，評估或批判此新聞或案例，反思個人想法與經驗跟此新聞的相關性。以上為建議寫作方向，同學撰寫作業時不侷限於這些方向。繳交期限為期中考週，11/10週五上午09:00 am前。 3) 反思小作業三：實證處遇研究文章檢視（加分作業） 同學挑選實證處遇模式當週指定或參考閱讀（第7~12週），針對一篇或以上文章做批判性的檢視。同學可先摘要挑選的文章（若挑選超過一篇文章，可做個別或整合摘要），針對文章做評估、批判與提問，鼓勵同學以其他閱讀或文獻做為評估佐證，亦可加入個人經驗。繳交期限為同學挑選的主題當週上課前（09:00 am）。 研究生加分導讀：研究生若有興趣於當週做文章導讀，請於兩週前告知老師，並鼓勵同學提早與老師諮詢討論。文章導讀包括：摘要文章、分析評估文章重點、提出二至三個問題、描述為什麼提這些問題、帶領班上同學進行問題討論。文章導讀請用powerpoint簡報進行，以15~20分鐘為原則，另10分鐘帶課堂討論。老師視同學導讀準備、帶大班討論情況，進行加分。  
3. 
 期末高風險兒童社工處遇計畫 
35% 
 同學於期初分組，每組3-4人，選定一高風險兒童與家庭議題，訂定處遇計畫。計畫內容包括：案例描述（具議題獨特性）、高風險定義與評估、處遇目標、理論基礎、實證處遇方式，並針對處遇計畫進行執行上的評量（如：可行性、可能的限制）。鼓勵同學計畫制定融入創意，例如訪談實務工作者（實習單位優先）、做志願服務、電影或書籍賞析、融合流行藝術等。處遇計畫需引用課程閱讀，並融入至少三篇以上非課程指定或參考閱讀的學術文章。個別組員亦須附上評估與處遇研擬的專業價值反思，融合個人價值的自我覺察，反思針對此議題，未來實務上如何因應。 為確保各分組的報告進行順利，鼓勵同學與老師諮詢，並注意以下時間點的提醒： 團體一：第3週（09/29）：繳交確定分組名單與議題認養。 團體二：第6週（10/20）：繳交預計進行方式及案例描述。 團體三：第9週（11/10）：繳交參考文章名單，包含簡短摘要（各300以內）。 團體四：第12週（12/01）：提供額外閱讀全文給全班同學，至多二篇。 以上團體部分報告亦會評分，遲交或缺交扣總成績1分。 完整團體報告於第18週（01/12）繳交。團體報告篇幅以12-15頁、1.5倍行距（不包含封面頁和參考資料頁）、最大12號字為限，，並加入封面頁和參考資料頁。同學必須引用課程指定或參考閱讀，或相關學術文章或網路資料（此部分非必要）。報告呈現需正確使用APA格式。團體報告須包含個別組員反思，個別組員另撰寫2-3頁針對於此處遇計畫制定過程的反思心得，以及小組分工的自評與互評。與團體報告一同繳交。  
4. 
 期末團體報告 
15% 
 各分組於選定高風險兒童與家庭議題週數做報告發表，並提出問題帶大堂的討論或活動。報告、討論、活動形式不拘，鼓勵同學融入創意，並能帶領全班同學參與。各分組需於報告前一週與老師口頭報告進度及方式。 
 
課程進度
週次
日期
單元主題
第1週
 9/15  主題：課程介紹與規劃
說明：介紹課程目標、授課方式、評分標準、課程期待。老師與同學互相認識，了解對此課程的期待與付出。 
第2週
 9/22  主題：高風險兒童：成因與影響
說明：討論何謂高風險兒童？何謂兒童虐待？何謂兒童創傷？高風險的成因為何？高風險、兒虐、創傷對兒童、家庭、社會的影響為何？為什麼我們要重視這議題？

指定閱讀：
1. 蘇秀枝等(2014)。兒童福利:從實務觀點出發。pp. 234-253
2. 彭淑華等(2015)。兒童福利-理論與實務。pp. 342-346
3. Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012). The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(2), 156-165.

參考閱讀：
1. Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C. H., Perry, B. D., ... & Giles, W. H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174-186.
2. Brearley, P.C.(1982). Risk and Social Work, London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3. DiLauro, M. D. (2004). Psychosocial factors associated with types of child maltreatment. Child Welfare, 83(1), 69-99.
4. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 445-479.
5. Pecora et al. (2012). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Chapter 5 Child Maltreatment Types, Rates, and Reporting Procedures pp. 119-148.

 
第3週
 9/29  主題：兒童的最佳利益
說明：介紹介紹兒童權利、兒童最佳利益、童年負向經驗，兒童少年福利服務發展與趨勢，兒少保護三級預防概念。討論兒童保護（child protection）與家庭維繫（family support and preservation）概念下的兒童最佳利益（best interests of the child）。

指定閱讀：
1. 彭淑華等。(2015)。兒童福利－理論與實務。第一章，兒童福利的意涵與歷史發展 pp. 3-24.
2. Lindsey, D. (1994). Family preservation and child protection: Striking a balance. Children and Youth Services Review, 16(5-6), 279-294.

參考閱讀：
1. Cole, E. S. (1995). Becoming family centered: Child welfare's challenge. Families in Society, 76(3), 163-172.
2. Lin, C. H., & Lee, M. J. (2016). A Comparative Policy Analysis of Family Preservation Programs in the US and in Taiwan. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1131-1144.
3. Pecora et al. (2012). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. pp. 5-22.

 
第4週
 10/06  主題：兒少福利理論基礎：風險觀點
說明：介紹兒少福利服務的理論，從風險觀點看家庭的危險因子，著重在評估和管理風險、家庭壓力理論以及累積風險模型。

指定閱讀：
1. 周月清（譯）。（1994）。家庭壓力管理（原作者：P. Boss）。臺北：桂冠。第二章：定義：家庭壓力理論入門 pp. 25-61.
2. Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1342.

參考閱讀：
1. Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., Dulmen, M. H., & Alan Sroufe, L. (2005). When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 46(3), 235-245.
2. Linder, S. H., & Sexton, K. (2011). Conceptual models for cumulative risk assessment. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1), S74-S81.
3. Masten, A. S., & Wright, M. O. D. (1998). Cumulative risk and protection models of child maltreatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2(1), 7-30.
4. McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. Marriage & Family Review, 6(1-2), 7-37.
5. Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(4), 337-356.
6. Stalker, K. (2003). Managing risk and uncertainty in social work: A literature review. Journal of Social Work, 3(2), 211-233.
7. Patwardhan, I., Hurley, K. D., Thompson, R. W., Mason, W. A., & Ringle, J. L. (2017). Child maltreatment as a function of cumulative family risk: Findings from the intensive family preservation program. Child Abuse & Neglect, 70, 92-99.
8. Pecora, P. J. (1991). Investigating allegations of child maltreatment: The strengths and limitations of current risk assessment systems. Child & Youth Services, 15(2), 73-92.

 
第5週
 10/13  主題：兒少福利理論基礎：優勢觀點
說明：介紹兒少福利服務的理論，從優勢觀點看家庭的保護因子，著重評估家庭個別成員及整體優勢，討論家庭資源與支持如何使家庭產生復原力。

指定閱讀：
1. Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 349-360.
2. 沈瓊桃。（ 2010）。 暴力的童年、堅韌的青年：目睹婚暴暨受虐青年復原力之探討 。中華輔導與諮商學報，第 27期， 115-160。

參考閱讀：
1. 宋麗玉、施教裕。（2010）。優勢觀點－社會工作理論與實務。第二章，優勢觀點社會工作概論。pp. 41-68.
2. Brady, S. S., Winston, W., & Gockley, S. E. (2014). Stress‐Related Externalizing Behavior among African American Youth: How Could Policy and Practice Transform Risk into Resilience?. Journal of Social Issues, 70(2), 315-341.
3. Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: Transforming the dominant paradigm. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 82(3), 233-242.
4. Robinson, D. L. (1997). Family stress theory: Implications for family health. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 9(1), 17-24.
5. Taylor, Z. E., & Conger, R. D. (2014). Risk and resilience processes in single-mother families: An interactionist perspective. In Defining prevention science (pp. 195-217). Springer US.
6. Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41(3), 296-305.
7. Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42(1), 1-18.
8. Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35(3), 261-281.
9. Zolkoski, S. M., & Bullock, L. M. (2012). Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2295-2303.

 
第6週
 10/20  主題：高風險兒童與家庭評估理論與實務技巧
說明：討論生態系統理論、生命週期理論等在高風險兒童與家庭實務評估的運用。介紹child forensic interview，學習如何透過與受創兒童問答，取得受虐資訊。
客座演講：邀請桃園市學生輔導諮商中心吳心嘉社工師做實務經驗分享，請同學準備問題。

指定閱讀：
1. Davies, D., Cole, J., Albertella, G., McCulloch, L., Allen, K., & Kekevian, H. (1996). A model for conducting forensic interviews with child victims of abuse. Child Maltreatment, 1(3), 189-199.
2. Wulczyn et al. (2005). Beyond common sense: Child welfare, child well-being, and the evidence for policy reform. Chapter 2 Well-being: bio-ecological, life course, and public health perspectives.

參考閱讀：
1. 鄭麗珍譯。（2011）。兒少保護社會工作。趙葳，第7章：風險評估。pp. 191-231
2. Cohen-Liebman, M. S. (2003). Drawings in forensic investigations of child sexual abuse. In C. A. Malchiodi (Ed.) Handbook of Art Therapy, pp. 167-180. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
3. D’Andrade, A., Benton, A., & Austin, M. J. (2005). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare: Instrument comparisons. Berkeley, CA: The Center for Social Services Research.
4. Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision‐making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: are we ‘just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes’?. Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), 412-421.
5. Newlin C., et al. (2015). Child forensic interviewing: Best practices. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
6. White, A., & Walsh, P. (2006). Risk assessment in child welfare: An issue paper. NSW, AU: Center for Parenting & Research.


 
第7週
 10/27  主題：高風險兒童社工處遇（一）：兒童個案實證處遇模式
說明：介紹實證為基礎的服務模式與社會工作實務的關聯，介紹認知行為治療於高風險兒童處遇的應用，討論創傷為焦點之認知行為治療的應用時機、方式與評估。

指定閱讀：
1. 耿文秀譯。(2013)。心理創傷與復原：兒童與青少年心理創傷 的認知行為療法（原作者：J. A. Cohen）。上海：華東師範大 學出版社。第三章：TC-CBT
2. Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., Murray, L. K., & Igelman, R. (2006). Psychosocial interventions for maltreated and violence-exposed children. Journal of Social Issues, 62(4), 737-766.
3. Mullen, E. J., Shlonsky, A., Bledsoe, S. E., & Bellamy, J. L. (2005). From concept to implementation: Challenges facing evidence-based social work. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(1), 61-84.

參考閱讀：
1. Brohl, K. (1996). Working with traumatized children. A handbook for healing. Washington, DC: CWLA.
2. Chaffin, M., & Friedrich, B. (2004). Evidence-based treatments in child abuse and neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(11), 1097-1113.
3. Forte, L. A., Timmer, S., & Urquiza, A. (2014). A brief history of evidence-based practice. In Evidence-Based Approaches for the Treatment of Maltreated Children (pp. 13-18). Springer Netherlands.
4. Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), 338-357.
5. MacDonald, G. (2001). Effective Interventions for Child Abuse and Neglect: An Evidenced-based Approach to Planning and Evaluating Interventions. England, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
6. Mannarino, A. P., Cohen, J. A., & Deblinger, E. (2014). Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Evidence-based approaches for the treatment of maltreated children (pp. 165-185). Springer Netherlands.
7. Pagoto, S. L., Spring, B., Coups, E. J., Mulvaney, S., Coutu, M. F., & Ozakinci, G. (2007). Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based practice perceived by behavioral science health professionals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(7), 695-705.
8. UNHCR. (2015). Working with children. Action for the Rights of Children (ARC). New York, NY: UNICEF. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/pdf/ARC_working_with_children.pdf
9. Wharton, T. C., & Bolland, K. A. (2012). Practitioner perspectives of evidence-based practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93(3), 157-164.

 
第8週
 11/03  主題：機構參訪與電影欣賞
說明：這週安排參訪機構台北市南區家扶中心，了解實務上兒少保後追的處遇服務（參訪時間為一小時左右）。本週同時公布影片欣賞清單，請同學自行挑選一部電影或紀錄片觀看。 
第9週
 11/10  主題：高風險兒童社工處遇（二）：兒童個案實證處遇模式
說明：延續針對高風險兒童實證處遇的闡述，介紹其他相關的實證處遇以及團體工作模式。

指定閱讀：
1. O’Reilly, L., & Dolan, P. (2016). The voice of the child in social work assessments: Age-appropriate communication with children. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 1191-1207.
2. Tourigny, M. et al. (2005). Efficacy of a group therapy for sexually abused adolescent girls. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(4), 71-93.

參考閱讀：
1. Cary, C. E., & McMillen, J. C. (2012). The data behind the dissemination: A systematic review of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for use with children and youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 748-757.
2. Child Welfare Information Gateway. [CWIG]. (2012). Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for children affected by sexual abuse or trauma. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau.
3. de Arellano et al., (2014). Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services, 65(5), 591-602.
4. Doyle, C. (1990). Working with abused children. London, UK: MacMillan Education.
5. Landreth, G. L. (2000). Innovations in play therapy: Issues, process, and special populations. New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Reeker, J., Ensing, D., & Elliott, R. (1997). A mega-analytic investigation of group treatment outcomes for sexually abused children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 669-680.
7. Silovsky, J. F. (2005). Group therapy with children who have experienced maltreatment. In P. F. Talley (ed.). Handbook for the Treatment of Abused and Neglected Children (pp. 231-265). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
8. Slade, M. K., & Warne, R. T. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy and play therapy for child victims of abuse. Journal of Youth Investigators, 30(5), 36-43.
9. Wanlass, J., Moreno, J. K., Thomson, H. M. (2010). Group therapy for abused and neglected youth: Therapeutic and child advocacy challenges. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 31(4), 311-326.
10. Wagar, J. M., & Rodway, M. R. (1995). An evaluation of a group treatment approach for children who have witnessed wife abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 295-306.

 
第10週
 11/17  主題：高風險兒童社工處遇（三）：照顧者個案實證處遇模式
說明：介紹增進高風險家庭照顧能力與親職關係的臨床實證處遇，討論相關兒童照顧者建立關係與工作技巧。

客座演講：邀請國立師範大學社會工作所李孟蓉助理教授演講
請同學預習Staying Connected with Your Teen的方案內容，參考https://www.channing-bete.com/prevention-programs/staying-connected-w-your-teen/staying-connected-w-your-teen.html

指定閱讀：
1. Haggerty, K. P., Skinner, M. L., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D., & Crutchfield, R. D. (2015). Long-term effects of staying connected with your teen® on drug use frequency at age 20. Prevention Science, 16(4), 538-549.
2. Schreiber, J. C., Fuller, T., & Paceley, M. S. (2013). Engagement in child protective services: Parent perceptions of worker skills. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4), 707-715.
3. Storer, H. L., Barkan, S. E., Sherman, E. L., Haggerty, K. P., & Mattos, L. M. (2012). Promoting relationship building and connection: Adapting an evidence-based parenting program for families involved in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1853-1861.

參考閱讀：
1. 馬宗潔、江建仁。（2012）。兒童團體工作實務概述。社區發展季刊，140，79-93。
2. Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family Transitions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832-1843.
4. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting styles as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
5. Filcheck, H. A., McNeil, C. B., & Hercschell, A. D. (2005). Parent interventions with physically abused children. In P. F. Talley (ed.) Handbook for the Treatment of Abused and Neglected Children. (pp. 285-314). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
6. Forrester, D., McCambridge, J., Waissbein, C., & Rollnick, S. (2008). How do child and family social workers talk to parents about child welfare concerns?. Child Abuse Review, 17(1), 23-35.
7. Lundahl, B. W., Nimer, J., & Parsons, B. (2006). Preventing child abuse: A meta-analysis of parent training programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), 251-262.
8. Steinberg, L., Blatt‐Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(1), 47-58.
9. Thomas, R. & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2011). Accumulating Evidence for Parent–Child Interaction Therapy in the Prevention of Child Maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 82(1), 177-192.
10. Wilsie, C., Campbell, C. Chaffin, M., & Funderburk, B. (2017). Parent-child interaction therapy in child welfare. In D. M. T. (Ed.) Parenting and Family Processes in Child Maltreatment and Intervention (pp. 107-125). Switzerland: Springer International Publishings.

 
第11週
 11/24  主題：高風險兒童社工處遇（四）：以家庭為中心的服務模式
說明：介紹以家庭為中心的處遇服務模式，包括家庭支持服務、家庭維繫服務、家庭整合服務，討論家庭服務的功效與成果。

指定閱讀：
1. 林萬億。(2010)。建構以家庭為中心、社區為基礎的社會福利 服務體系。社區發展季刊，129，20-51。
2. McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1998). Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness. The Future of Children, 8(1), 54–71.

參考閱讀：
1. Bariar, K. H., Broussard, C. A., Ronnau, J., & Sallee, A. S. (1995). Family preservation and support: Past, present, and future. Family Preservation Journal, 1(1), 5–23.
2. Borrego, J., Anhalt, K., Terao, S. Y., Vargas, E. C., & Urquiza, A. J. (2006). Parent-child interaction therapy with a Spanish-speaking family. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 13(2), 121-133.
3. Burns, C. E., Dunn, A. M., Brady, M. A., Starr, N. B., Blosser, C. G., & Garzon, D. L. (2012). Pediatric Primary Care-E-Book. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences.
4. Coyne, I., Hallström, I., & Söderbäck, M. (2016). Reframing the focus from a family-centred to a child-centred care approach for children’s healthcare. Journal of Child Health Care, 20(4), 494-502.
5. Doyle, C. (1990). Working with abused children. London, UK: MacMillan Education.
6. Forrester, D., Westlake, D., & Glynn, G. (2012). Parental resistance and social worker skills: Towards a theory of motivational social work. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 118-129.
7. Lin, C. H., & Lee, M. J. (2016). A Comparative Policy Analysis of Family Preservation Programs in the US and in Taiwan. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1131-1144.
8. Majamanda, M. D., Munkhondya, T. E. M., Simbota, M., & Chikalipo, M. (2015). Family Centered Care versus Child Centered Care: The Malawi Context. Health, 7(06), 741-746.
9. Pecora et al. (2012). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Chapter 7 Family-based services.
10. Trotter, C. (2015). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Yatchmenoff, Y. (2005). Measuring client engagement from the client’s perspective in non-voluntary child protection services. Research on social work practice, 15(2), 84-96.

 
第12週
 12/01  主題：高風險兒童社工處遇（五）：以社區為基礎的服務模式及社會支持的角色
說明：討論社會支持與社會網絡於高風險兒童和家庭的重要性，介紹以社區為基礎的處遇模式以及預防服務。
次主題：寄養、收養議題
說明：討論高風險兒童於寄養安置和收養家庭的相關議題。

指定閱讀：
1. Brooks, D., James, S., & Barth, R. P. (2002). Preferred characteristics of children in need of adoption: Is there a demand for available foster children?. Social Service Review, 76(4), 575-602.
2. Cox, K. F. (2005). Examining the role of social network intervention as an integral component of community-based, family-focused practice. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(3), 443-454.
3. Rolock, N., Pérez, A. G., White, K. R., & Fong, R. (2017). From Foster Care to Adoption and Guardianship: A Twenty-First Century Challenge. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 1-10.
4. 黃錦敦、卓紋君（2006）。受虐少年接受寄養安置適應之分析研究 。輔導與諮商學報，28(1)，51-72。

參考閱讀：
1. Daro, D., & Dodge, K. A. (2009). Creating community responsibility for child protection: Possibilities and challenges. The Future of Children/Center for the Future of Children, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 19(2), 67-93.
2. Havlicek, J., Lin, C. H., & Villalpando, F. (2016). Web survey of foster youth advisory boards in the United States. Children and Youth Services Review, 60, 109-118.
3. Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support theory and measurement. In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gittlieb (Eds.), Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists (p. 29-52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. Ray, D. C., Lilly, J. P., Gallina, N., MacIan, P., & Wilson, B. (2017). Evaluation of Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA) program: a community intervention for child abuse victims. Evaluation and program planning, 65, 124-130.
5. Salazar, A. M., Haggerty, K. P., de Haan, B., Catalano, R. F., Vann, T., Vinson, J., & Lansing, M. (2016). Using communities that care for community child maltreatment prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(2), 144-155.

 
第13週
 12/08  主題：實務工作者演講：經驗分享與實務現況
客座演講：邀請台北南區家扶中心王育蓁社工督導分享高風險方案
次主題：社會工作的高風險：安全與倫理
說明：討論社工與高風險兒童家庭工作時的安全議題，以及可能遇到的倫理議題和決策。

指定閱讀：
1. 吳明珍、徐瑋婷、鄭友芳、蕭丞芳、陳淑玫、張英陣（2015）。真的嚇著了：社會工作者的恐懼經驗。東吳社會工作學報，29，87-110。
2. Lynch, R., & Garrett, P. M. (2010). ‘More than Words’: touch practices in child and family social work. Child & Family Social Work, 15, 389-398.

參考閱讀：
1. 林貞岑（2013）。搶救兒虐，哪個城市最努力？康健雜誌，178。
2. 劉淑瓊（2014）。危險的專業？保護性社工的安全防護與精進作為。社區發展季刊，147，168-191。
3. 衛生福利部（2016）。社會工作人員人身安全維護手冊。
4. Halverson, G., & Brownlee, K. (2010). Managing ethical considerations around dual relationships in small rural and remote Canadian communities. International Social Work, 53(2), 247-260.

 
第14週
 12/15  高風險兒童與家庭議題：家內亂倫、兒童性侵害

參考閱讀：
1. Finkelhor, D. (1999). Child sexual abuse: Challenges facing child protection and mental health professionals. In E. Ullmann & W. Hilweg (Eds.) Childhood and trauma: Separation, Abuse, War (pp. 101-115). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
2. Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: a conceptualization. American Journal of orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530-541.
3. Follette, V. M., Polusny, M. A., Bechtle, A. E., & Naugle, A. E. (1996). Cumulative trauma: The impact of child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and spouse abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 25-35.
4. Futa, K. T., Hsu, E., & Hansen, D. J. (2001). Child sexual abuse in Asian American families: An examination of cultural factors that influence prevalence, identification, and treatment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8(2), 189-209.
5. Lalor, K. ,& McElvaney, R. (2010). Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high risk sexual behavior and prevention/
treatment programmes. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, (11), 1-34.
6. Schreier, A., Pogue, J. K., & Hansen, D. J. (2017). Impact of child sexual abuse on non-abused siblings: A review with implications for research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 254-262.

 
第15週
 12/22  高風險兒童與家庭議題：物質濫用、精神衛生

參考閱讀：
1. Biebel, K., Nicholson, J., Williams, V., & Hinden, B. R. (2004). The responsiveness of state mental health authorities to parents with mental illness. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 32, 31–48.
2. Calhoun, S., Conner, E., Miller, M., & Messina, N. (2015). Improving the outcomes of children affected by parental substance abuse: a review of randomized controlled trials. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 6, 15-24.
3. Gifford, E. J., Eldred, L. M., Vernerey, A., & Sloan, F. A. (2014). How does family drug treatment court participation affect child welfare outcomes?. Child Ａbuse & Ｎeglect, 38(10), 1659-1670.
4. Green, B. L., Rockhill, A., & Furrer, C. (2007). Does substance abuse treatment make a difference for child welfare case outcomes? A statewide longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(4), 460-473.
5. Lander, L., Howsare, J., & Byrne, M. (2013). The impact of substance use disorders on families and children: from theory to practice. Social Work in Public Health, 28(3-4), 194-205.
6. Munồz, R. F., Beardslee, W. R., & Leykin, Y. (2012). Major depression can be prevented. American Psychologist, 67, 285–295.
7. Ryan, J. P., Marsh, J. C., Testa, M. F., & Louderman, R. (2006). Integrating substance abuse treatment and child welfare services: Findings from the Illinois alcohol and other drug abuse waiver demonstration. Social Work Research, 30(2), 95-107.
8. Traube, D. E., He, A. S., Zhu, L., Scalise, C., & Richardson, T. (2015). Predictors of substance abuse assessment and treatment completion for parents involved with child welfare: One state's experience in matching across systems. Child Welfare, 94(5), 45-66.
9. Wahl, P., Bruland, D., Bauer, U., Okan, O., & Lenz, A. (2017). What are the family needs when a parent has mental health problems? Evidence from a systematic literature review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 30(1), 54-66.

 
第16週
 12/29  高風險兒童與家庭議題：家暴目睹兒少、多元文化家庭

參考閱讀：
1. Baumann, A. A., Powell, B. J., Kohl, P. L., Tabak, R. G., Penalba, V., Proctor, E. K., ... & Cabassa, L. J. (2015). Cultural adaptation and implementation of evidence-based parent-training: A systematic review and critique of guiding evidence. Children and Youth Services Review, 53, 113-120
2. Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, Acculturation and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5-34.
3. Borrego, J., & Terao, S. (2005). The consideration of cultural factors in the context of child maltreatment. In P. F. Talley (ed.), Handbook for the Treatment of Abused and Neglected Children (pp. 341-358). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
4. Ferguson, G.M., Bornstein, M.H., & Pottinger, A.M. (2012). Tridimensional Acculturation and Adaptation among Jamaican Adolescent–Mother Dyads in the United States. Child Development, 83(5), 1486-1493.
5. Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Ａbuse & Ｎeglect, 32(8), 797-810.
6. Katz, E. (2015). Domestic violence, children's agency and mother–child relationships: Towards a more advanced model. Children & Society, 29(1), 69-79.
7 .Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 445-479.
8. Øverlien, C. (2010). Children exposed to domestic violence: Conclusions from the literature and challenges ahead. Journal of Social Work, 10(1), 80-97.
9. Padilla, A.M., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New Perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 35-55.
10. Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Stockhammer, T., & Hood, J. (2002). An ecological framework for understanding risk for exposure to community violence and the effects of exposure on children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(5), 423-451.

 
第17週
 1/05  主題：回顧、反饋與總結
說明：回顧同學這學期所學，給予老師課程設計與教學上的反饋，為這學期的課程做總結。
次主題：高風險兒童社工自我照顧，及延伸議題討論
說明：介紹助人工作者的替代性創傷，討論社工在高風險工作環境的自我照顧，以及討論台灣現階段兒童福利服務工作環境之相關議題。
請同學參考網頁：http://socialwork.buffalo.edu/resources/self-care-starter-kit.html

指定閱讀：
1. 汪淑媛（2014）。替代性創傷是助人工作者不可避免之風險？社區發展季刊，147，136-154。
2. Salloum, A., Kondrat, D. C., Johnco, C., & Olson, K. R. (2015). The role of self-care on compassion satisfaction, burnout and secondary trauma among child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 49, 54-61.

參考閱讀：
1. Bell, H. (2003). Strengths and secondary trauma in family violence work. Social Ｗork, 48(4), 513-522.
2. Glisson, C., & Green, P. (2011). Organizational climate, services, and outcomes in child welfare systems. Child abuse & Neglect, 35(8), 582-591.
3. Newell, J. M., & Nelson-Gardell, D. (2014). A competency-based approach to teaching professional self-care: An ethical consideration for social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(3), 427-439.
4. Sprang, G., Craig, C., & Clark, J. (2011). Secondary traumatic stress and burnout in child welfare workers: A comparative analysis of occupational distress across professional groups. Child Welfare, 90(6), 149-168.
5. Strolin-Goltzman, J., Kollar, S., & Trinkle, J. (2010). Listening to the voices of children in foster care: Youths speak out about child welfare workforce turnover and selection. Social Work, 55(1), 47-53.
 
第18週
 1/12  期末考週不上課，上傳繳交團體分組處遇計畫