p. 1 p. 5 p. 13 p. 33 p. 41 p. 42 p. 44 p. 46 p. 47 p. 48 p. 50 p. 59 p. 68 p. 80 p. 92 p. 105 p. 120 8.8.2008 p. 149 26.10.2008 p. 150 Reference p. 151 p. 153
. Consultant Team, 2001 Consultant Team, 2003, 2004 1 1 2009 1
. Drop-in service Consultant Team, 2004. 2 2 (2.5.2003) (29.7.2004) (6.1.2005) (17.2.2006) 2
2003 2007 2007 3 2006 3 (24.6.2006) 3
. Delphi Delphi Oracle Dalkey Dalkey, 1967 Brender, Nohr & McNair, 2000; Clayton, 1977; Czinkota & Rohnkainen, 1997; de Loe, 1995; Doke & Swanson, 1995; Gibson, 1998; McKenna, 1994; Poling, 1998; Putman, Spiegel & Bruininks, 1995; Scheffer & Rubenfeld, 2000; Schopper, Ammon, Ronchi & Rougemont, 2000 4
... 1. 2. 5
. 6
. / 7
. Loughlin & Morre, 1979; Mckenna, 1994 60% Yan & Tsang, 2000 70% Sumsion, 1998 80% Green et al., 1999 70 70% 30% 70% 30 69% Linstone & Turoff, 1975 8
. 45 Consultant Team, 2001, 2004. 1 71 72 9 61 70 61 40 21 14 18 9
9% 15% 19% 25% 1 / 15 1 / 71 9 / 61 08 2 1-2 2 3 3 4 4 7 7 13 (18%) 12 (16.7%) 14 (19.4%) 4 (5.6%) 29 (40.3%) 7 (10%) 3 (3.3%) 6 (6.6%) 8 (11.4%) 46 (65.7%) 20 (14.1%) 15 (10.1%) 20 (14.1%) 12 (8.5%) 75 (53.8%) 45.9% 77.1% 62.3% 10
. 72 (100%) 70 (97.2%) 63 (87.5%) 61 (84.7%) 70 (100%) 69 (98.6%) 67 (97.5%) 63 (90%) 142 (100%) 139 (97.9%) 130 (91.5%) 124 (87.3%) 87.3% 11
12
. 4. 1. 1.1 Intake 2.9 3.1 4 13
3.2 3.11 / 5.1.3, 5.1.4 3.7 2.15, 2.16 2.17 5.1.1, 5.1.2 5.1.5 5.1.7 5.1.10 3.8, 3.10 / 2. 2.5 14
15 2.4 / 8.1 / / 8.5 8.6 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.7 8.8 3.6
3. 2.2, 2.3 6.7 2.2, 2.4, 6.5, 6.6 2.3 2.2, 2.3, 6.9 6.8 6.13 6.11 6.10 6.12 4. 16
1. / 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.7, 5.1.8 2. 5.1.3 3. 5.1.4 4. 5.1.5. 5. 5.1.6 5.2.1 5.2.1.1 5.2.2 / 5.2.4, 5.2.5 1. 5.3.1 2. 5.3.2 3. social cost 5.3.3 5.2.1 5.2.14 17
5. 2.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.1.6 7.1.5 / 7.1.3 18
6. 2.9, 3.7 2.13 2.10 3.4, 3.5 case open 9.15 case open 9.15.1 / 9.8 active case 9.9 9.10 9.15 / 9.17 9.16 9.18 9.19 19
7. 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 / 7.2.5 / 9.16 9.17 9.17. 1. 20
21 9.1, 9.7 9.8, 9.11 2003 p.9 13 2003 P.6 Consultant Team, 2004, p.85
3.2, 3.3 3.7 3.11, 5.13, 5.14, 5.1.5 3.5, 4.1 4.7, 5.1.1 5.1.10, 9.8, 9.9, 9.17, 9.18 4.1 4.2 burn-out 4.4, 4.5 4.6 4.7 3.1 22
23 9.1 9.6 9.7 / 9.8 active case 9.9 9.10 2.
24 gate keeper
25 14.2 2.4 19.4 8.2 6.1, 6.3
3. 26
1. 27
2. / 3. 28
. 1. 1. 19.1 2. statutory case 19.2 3. 19.3 1. statutory case DSWI Account 20.1 29
2. 20.2 21 NGO SWD NGO SWD NGO SWD 22% 47% 52% 20% 25% 33% 37% 7% 43% 77% 21% 16% 30% 53% 59% 28% 11% 19% 22% 33% 65% 25% 13% 42% 67% 42% 22% 45% 11% 13% 30
2. 7.3 18.1, 18.2 18.1.1, 18.1.2, 18.1.3, 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.3. 1. 11.2 11.4, 11.5, 11.8, 12.1 31
2. 13.1 14.2 14.1 6.10 32
. 33
.. / 34
. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. / 35
3.. 2.1 2.6, 2.17, 2.9, 3.1, 3.5, 4.1 4.7 boundary setting 36
. 140 Consultant Team, 2001, 2004 37
2.15, 2.16, 2.17 / 3.8, 3.10 3.2 Consultant Team, 2001, 2004. 38
39 FSA FSA
40
1 92704710,,, 1 41
2 1. 3, 4 2 3 The Consultant Team, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong (2001) Meeting the Challenge: Strengthening Families,, Report on the Review of Family Service in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Social Welfare Department. 4 The Consultant Team, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong (2004) The Steps Forward: The Formation of Integrated Family Service Centres. Hong Kong: Social Welfare Department. 42
2. Delphi 5 1. 2. 3. 1. / 2. 4. 1. 2. 5. / 5 43
1. 2. 1.3.2008 31.3.2008 21.4.2008 10.5.2008 1.6.2008 20.6.2008 11.7.2008 30.7.2008 2773 6558 ifsc.review@gmail.com 3. 2 : 9130 2593 4. 44
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 28.2.2008 45
( ) 1. swd-1 round rawdata Questionnaire second round swd 2. (6.1) 6.1 4.3. 4.3. 3. (6.1) 4.3. 4.8 4. (6.2 6.3) (6.2 6.3) 46
( ) 1. ngo 1 round rawdata Questionnaire second round NGO 2. 4.3. 4.3. 3. 4.3. 4.8 4. 47
1. The Consultant Team, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong (2001) Meeting the Challenge: Strengthening Families, Report on the Review of Family Service in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Social Welfare Department. 2. The Consultant Team, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong (2004) The Steps Forward: The Formation of Integrated Family Service Centres. Hong Kong: Social Welfare Department. 1. Meeting the Challenge: Strengthening Families, Report on the Review of Family Service in Hong Kong. 1.1. Full Report http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/first%20report%20-%20part%20one.pdf (Part One) http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/first%20report%20-%20part%20two.pdf (Part Two) 1.2. Executive Summary http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/first%20report%20-executive%20summary.pdf 1.3. Recommendations http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/first%20report%20-recommendations.pdf 2. The Steps Forward: The Formation of Integrated Family Service Centres 2.1. Full Report http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/final%20report.pdf 2.2. Executive Summary http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/final%20report%20-%20executive%20summary.pdf 2.3. The Steps Forward (last Chapter) http://myweb.polyu.edu.hk/~ssyty/final%20report%20-%20steps%20forward.pdf 48
( ) - - point form - - 2773 6558 ifsc.review@gmail.com XXXX XXXX 49
6.1 6.2, 6.3 31.5.2008 ifsc.review@gmail.com, 2773 6558 1. 1.1. swd 1 round rawdata 1.1.1 1.1.2 50
1.1.3 51
2. 2.1. - 77% 2.2. 81% 2.3. 86% 2.4. FSA on call for special roaster duties 77% 2.5. / 86% 52
2.6. intake 76% 2.7. cyber corner, resource corner 70% 2.8. 61% 2.9. 39% 2.10. Director of Social Welfare Incorporated Account 91% 3. 3.1. 38% 3.2. 18% 3.3.. 11% 3.4. 42% 53
4. 4.1. FSA 79% 4.2. 79% 4.3. 70% 4.4. 81% 4.5. - Intake 64% 54
4.6. 55% 4.7. 84% 4.8. 50% 4.9. 26% 4.10. 59% 4.11. 56% 4.12. 26% 4.13. 65% 4.14. 30% 4.15. 27% 4.16. 48% 55
4.17. 38% 4.18. 47% 5. 5.1. 83% 5.2. burn-out 67% 5.3. 39% 5.4. 62% 5.5. 61% 5.6. 69% 6. 6.1. 6.1.1. / 23% 56
6.1.2. FRU FSU FCU 21% 6.1.3. 36% 6.1.4. 47% 6.2. 57
6.3. 7. 58
31.5.2008 ifsc.review@gmail.com, 2773 6558 1. 1.1. 1.1.1. 71% 1.1.2. 56% 1.1.3. 50% 1.1.4. 72% 1.1.5. 53% 1.2. 68% 59
2. 2.1. 94% 2.2. 82% 2.3. 84% 2.4. 79% 2.5. 79% 2.6. 93% 60
2.7. 76% 2.8. 78% 2.9. / / 87% 2.10. 63% 2.11. 79% 2.12. Intake 85% 2.13. FSA 59% 2.14. 81% 61
2.15. 76% 2.16. 62% 2.17. 88% 2.18. 84% 2.19. 75% 2.20. 71% 2.21. 72% 2.22. / 84% 62
2.23. 68% 2.24. 68% 2.25. 62% 2.26. 57% 2.27. / 43% 2.28. 43% 2.29. 71% 2.30. / 59% 63
3. 3.1. 56% 3.2. 54% 3.3. 51% 3.4. 51% 3.5. 34% 3.6. 34% 3.7. 34% 3.8. 49% 3.9. 10% 64
4. 4.1. 63% 4.2. FSA 81% 4.3. FSA 74% 4.4. 56% 4.5. 60% 4.6. 81% 4.7. 54% 4.8. 79% 65
4.9. 43% 4.9.1. 29 4.9.2. 21% 4.10. 69% 4.11. 37% 4.12. 38% 4.13. / 35% 4.14. FSA 26% 4.15. 41% 66
5. 5.1. 88% 5.2. 78% 5.3. burn-out 81% 5.4. 54% 5.5. 69% 5.6. 51% 5.7. 76% 5.8. 71% 6. 67
22.8.2008 ifsc.review@gmail.com, 2773 6558 30% 69% 1. ( ) 1.1. 5% 1.2. 82% 1.3. 13% 2. 77% 44% 68
3. 48% 52% 4. 81% clerical in charge 42% 62% 68% 73% 37% 50% 34% 50% 5. burn-out 79% 34% 69% 69
56% 73% 6. 66% 7. / FRU FSU FCU 24% 53% intake 50% / 35% 10% 21% 19% 52% 23% 8. 8.1. 89% 70
8.1.1. 58% 8.1.2. / 26% 8.1.3.. 55% 8.1.4. 68% 8.1.5. 8.2. 8% 9. 9.1. 85% 9.1.1. 77 9.1.2. 18% 9.1.3. 9.2. 81 9.2.1. 50% 9.2.2. 65% 9.2.3. 34% 9.2.4. / 72% 9.2.5. 48% 9.2.6. 9.3. 11% 9.3.1.. 5% 9.3.2. 3% 9.3.3. 6% 9.3.4. 2% 9.3.5. 71
1. 1.1. 1.1.1. 79% 1.1.2. 53% 1.1.3. 1.2. 1.2.1. 85% 1.2.2. 53% 1.2.3. Empowerment 71% 1.2.4. 1.3. 1.3.1. 1.1 92% 1.3.2. 1.1 69% 1.3.3. social cost 1.2 55% 1.3.4. 2. / 72
2.1. / 94% 2.2. 58% 2.3. 90% 2.4. 2.5. 90% 2.6. 92% 2.7. 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.1. 95% 3.2 3.1.1. 77% 3.1.2. 73
3.1.3. 3.2. 76% 3.3 3.2 3.2.1. 61% 3.2.2. 3.3. 90% 3.4 3.3 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3 3.3.1. 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 3.3.1.1. 50% 3.3.1.1.1. 42% 3.3.1.1.2. 21% 3.3.1.1.3. 3.3.1.2. 31% 3.3.1.2.1. 24% 3.3.1.2.2. 26% 74
3.3.1.2.3. 3.3.1.3. 3.3.2. 3.3.2.1. 71% 3.3.2.2. 3.3.3. 3.3.3.1. 44% 3.3.3.2. 42% 3.3.3.3. 58% 3.3.3.4. 3.4. 4. 4.1. / 85% 4.2. make recommendation on social ground 68% 4.3. 87% 75
4.4. 77% 4.5. 76% 4.6. / / 82% 4.7. 5. 5.1. 5.1.1 87% 5.1.2 / 89% 5.1.3 55% 5.1.4 ( ) 0% 2% 30% 51% 6% 5.2. 76
5.2.1. / / 66% 5.2.2. / / 34% 5.2.3. 56% 5.2.4. / 65% 5.2.5. 5.3. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.2 6 5.3.1. 13% 5.3.2. sub-centre 32% 5.3.3. 42% 6. FSA 6.1. case open 6.1.1. 14% 11% 10% 77
6.1.2. 85% 55% 6.1.3. 6.2. 6.3. 7. 7.1. 7.1.1. 78
7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 79
22.8.2008 ifsc.review@gmail.com, 2773 6558 30% 69% 1. 1.1. 64% 61% 54% 91% 2. 80
83% FSA 66% 79% 64% 75% 79% 46% / 54% 33% / 63% 3. 61% 51% 39% 81
52% 27% 33% 37% 45% 4. 66% 64% 81% 61% 49% 67% 55% 39% / 39% 42% 82
5. 66% 73% 60% 1. 1.1. 1.1.1. 97% 1.1.2. 70% 70% 1.1.3. 1.2. 1.2.1. 91% 1.2.2. 64% 1.2.3. Empowerment 91% 1.2.4. 1.3. 1.3.1. 1.1 90% 83
1.3.2. 1.1 84% 1.3.3. social cost 1.2 73% 1.3.4. 2. / 2.1. / 88% 2.2. 60% 2.3. 91% 2.4. 2.5. 85% 2.6. 94% 2.7. 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 84
3.1. 97% 3.2 3.1.1. 72% 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.2. 81% 3.3 3.2 3.2.1. 62% 3.2.2. 3.3. 90% 3.4 3.3 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3 3.3.1. 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 3.3.1.1. 48% 3.3.1.1.1. 45% 85
3.3.1.1.2. 25% 3.3.1.1.3. 3.3.1.2. 36% 3.3.1.2.1. 27% 3.3.1.2.2. 27% 3.3.1.2.3. 3.3.1.3. 3.3.2. 3.3.2.1. 82% 3.3.2.2. 3.3.3. 3.3.3.1. 40% 3.3.3.2. 52% 3.3.3.3. 64% 3.3.3.4. 3.4. 4. 86
4.1. / 82% 4.2. make recommendation on social ground 84% 4.3. 94% 4.4. 82% 4.5. 81% 4.6. / / 91% 4.7. 5. 5.1. 5.1.1 96% 5.1.2 / 82% 5.1.3 24% 87
5.1.4 ( ) 2% 3% 35% 40% 10% 5.2. 5.2.1. / / 64% 5.2.2. / / 67% 5.2.3. 54% 5.2.4. / 66% 5.2.5. 5.3. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.2 5.4 5.3.1. 11% 5.3.2. sub-centre 35% 5.3.3. 57% 88
5.4. 5.4.1. 76% 5.4.2. 64% 5.4.3. 66% 5.4.4. 69% 5.4.5. 6. FSA 6.1. case open 6.1.1. 21% 13% 14% 6.1.2. 72% 49% 6.1.3. 6.2. 89
6.3. 7. 7.1. 7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.2. 7.3. 90
7.4. 91
- ifsc.review@gmail.com, 2773 6558 1. 1.1. 1.1.1. / 1.1.1.1. 71% 1.1.1.2. location preference 73% 1.1.1.3. 70% 1.1.1.4. DNA 78% 1.1.1.5. 39% 1.1.2. 70% 1.1.3. 81% 1.1.4. 71% 1.1.5. 91% 1.1.6. 73% 1.1.7. / 88% 1.1.8. DSWI account 59% 1.1.9. 54% 92
1.1.10. 46% 1.1.11. Guardianship Order Case 39% 1.1.12. 54% 1.1.13. 54% 1.1.14. / 59% 1.1.15. TAVA Social Enquiry Report 68% 1.1.16. Gazette Probation Officer 64% 1.1.17. 68% 1.1.18. 85% 1.1.19. / 68% 1.2. 1.2.1. 71% 1.2.2. 66% 93
1.3. 1.3.1. 1.1 71% 1.3.2. social cost 1.2 78% 2. / 2.1. 68% 2.2. 73% 2.3. 95% 2.4. 97% 2.5. 86% 2.6. 100% 94
3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1. ( 3.1.1.) 3.1.1. 90% 3.1.2. / 95% 3.1.3. 88% 3.1.4. 93% 3.1.5. 78% 3.1.6. / 69% 3.2. ( 3.2.1., 3.2.2., 3.2.3.) 95
3.2.1. 92% 3.2.2. 81% 3.2.3. / 78% 3.3. ( 3.3.1., 3.3.2., 3.3.3.) 3.3.1. 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 3.3.1.1. 47% 3.3.1.1.1. 40% 3.3.1.1.2. risk assessment 37% 3.3.1.2. 47% 3.3.1.2.1. 46% 3.3.1.2.2. 44% 3.3.2. 96
3.3.2.1. 76% 3.3.2.2. 69% 3.3.3. 3.3.3.1. 41% 3.3.3.2. 59% 3.3.3.3. 54% 3.3.3.4. 64% 4. 4.1. make recommendation on social ground 90% 5. 5.1. 5.1.1. / / 64% 5.1.2. / / 46% 97
5.1.3. 64% 5.1.4. / 78% 5.1.5. 85% 5.2. 63% 5.3. 8% 27% 37% 20% 8% 5.4. 49% 6. FSA 6.1. case open 6.1.1 6.1.1. 85% 6.2. 6.2.1. 78% 6.2.2. 78% 6.2.3. 63% 98
6.3. 6.3.1. Input 61% 6.3.2. 68% 6.3.3. active case 75% 6.3.4. statutory case 81% 6.3.5. 85% 6.3.6. / 86% 6.3.7. 63% 6.3.8. 56% 6.3.9. 68% 6.4. 6.4.1. 76% 6.4.2. 73% 6.4.3. 78% 7. 7.1. 99
7.1.1. statutory case DSWI Account 76% 7.1.2. 47% 7.1.3. statutory case 42% 7.1.4. 53% 7.1.5. 86% 7.2. 7.2.1. 7.2.1.1. 47% 7.2.1.2. 19% 7.2.1.3. 34% 7.2.2. 7.2.2.1. 7% 7.2.2.2. 76% 7.2.2.3. 17% 7.2.3. 7.2.3.1. 52% 7.2.3.2. 29% 7.2.3.3. 17% 100
7.2.4. 7.2.4.1. 34% 7.2.4.2. 25% 7.2.4.3. 39% 7.2.5. 7.2.5.1. 41% 7.2.5.2. 46% 7.2.5.3. 13% 1,, GO case, stream line, GO office liasie above caseworker,,,, ' ' / above jobs cannot be avoided in SWD, ie. IFSC, as being a government body and final resort of social problems. In fact, she needed to co-ordinate with other government departments to resolve the residents problem 1.1.1.1 & 1.1.1.2 H.D. should screen the case and refer suitable cases to SWD for assessment 1.1.4 Depends on whether client is ignorant about community resources and has genuine financial hardship or those who just delay payment or are reluctant to pay. 1.1.10 1.1.11 I think we need a team work to deal with cases without G.O. Team member should include people with legal and account knowledge. / 1.1.13 This related to division of jobs between IFSC / MSS, co-work together very often 101
1.1.14 1.1.17 ISS / 1.1.18 1.1.19 social worker has no responsibility to provide evidence, unless it is ordered by court 1.3 except known case 1.11.17 Apart from medical fees waiving, SW of SWD could not arrange other resources to the clients. The only way was referring them to ISS. However, SW might encounter difficulty to receive prompt rely from NGO. 2.1 (gate-keeper) 2.3 ' ' empowerment 3.1.1-3.1.6! 3.1.3 3.1.5 3.2.2 who has the power to re-educate the senior of other agencies? 3.3.1.1.2 authority 3.3.1.2 102
3.3.1.2.2 Formal support Informal support neighborhood watch 4.1 / I didn't agree with second part, the role of social worker should only rest on social investigation and assessment, each department should approve / disapprove customer's request based on their own department policy and exercise their special consideration. Social worker's judgment alone should not affect the result. Moreover, avoid residents of social worker's recommendation to fulfill personal wishes. 6.4.3 It is quite impossible, group and program planned at least half year ahead, some groups / programs ran regularly is not easily to be cut. Mutual help groups need time to develop member s participations. If you stop to organize them, they will left. 6.4.3 - It is quite impossible, group and program planned at least half year ahead, some groups / programs ran regularly is not easily to be cut. Mutual help groups need time to develop member s participations. If you stop to organize them, they will leave. 7.1.1 NGO IFSC IFSC NGO political send NGO close case NGO IFSC 7.1.3 I think all social workers in NGO or SWD should have ability to handle such cases./ 103
7.1.4 agree first part only, NGO deal with preventive / groups and program / SWD focus crisis intervention, statutory cases and all controversial / remedial problems 7.2.3 Statutory power?? 7.2.3.2 NGO 7.2.5.1 NGO 104
- ifsc.review@gmail.com 2773 6558 1. 1.1. 1.1.1. 1.1.1.1 94% 1.1.1.2 97% 1.1.1.3 Splitting of CSSA account 70% 1.1.1.4 67% 1.1.1.5 75% 1.1.1.6 76% 1.1.1.7 SCNAMO 76% 1.1.1.8 48% 1.1.2. 81% 1.1.3. 81% 1.1.4. 75% 1.1.5. 89% 1.1.6. 83% 105
1.2. 1.2.1. 67% 1.2.2. 95% 1.2.3. 86% 1.2.4. 71% 1.2.5. / 83% 1.2.6. 83% 2. / 2.1. 2.1.1. 71% 2.1.2. 68% 2.2. 2.2.1. 98% 2.3. 2.3.1. 49% 2.3.2. 79% 2.3.3. 83% 106
3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.1. 3.1.1. 75% 3.1.2. / 97% 3.1.3. 90% 3.1.4. 84% 3.1.5. 78% 3.1.6. 73% 3.1.7. 68% 3.1.8. 46% 3.1.9. 57% 3.1.10. 75% 107
3.1.11. / / 59% 3.2. 3.2.1. 97% 3.2.2. 79% 3.2.3. 81% 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.2. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.1.1. 59% 108
3.3.1.1.1. 59% 3.3.1.1.2. - risk assessment 51% 3.3.1.1.3. 42% 3.3.1.2. 46% 3.3.1.2.1. 33% 3.3.1.2.2. 35% 3.3.1.2.3. 33% 3.3.1.3. 56% 3.3.1.4. / 68% 3.3.1.5. / 62% 3.3.2. 3.3.2.1. 81% 3.3.2.2. 78% 3.3.2.3. 75% 3.3.2.4. 59% 109
3.3.3. 3.3.3.1. 51% 3.3.3.2. 73% 3.3.3.3. 76% 4. 4.1. / 78% 4.2. 84% 5. 5.1. 68% 5.2. 13% 46% 25% 14% 2% 5.3. 22% 110
5.4. / / 62% 5.5. / / 60% 5.6. 67% 5.7. / 67% 5.8. 65% 5.9. 73% 5.10. sub-centre 29% 5.11. 78% 5.12. 65% 5.13. 79% 5.14. 71% 5.15. 79% 5.16. 84% 5.17. 87% 111
6. FSA 6.1. case open 5.1.1 5.1.2 6.1.1. case open 86% 6.1.2. case open 51% 6.2. 6.3.10. Input 76% 6.3.11. / 87% 6.3.12. / 67% 6.3.13. 49% 6.3.14. active case 79% 6.3.15. 86% 6.3.16. 76% 6.3.17. 46% 6.3. 6.3.1. waiting list 43% 112
6.3.2. 81% 6.3.3. 41% 6.3.4. 48% 7. 7.1. 7.1.1. statutory case 33% 7.1.2. professional back up 48% 7.1.3. 70% 7.1.4. 95% 7.1.5. statutory case 84% 7.1.6. 83% 7.2. 7.2.1. 113
7.2.1.1. 22% 7.2.1.2. 52% 7.2.1.3. 25% 7.2.2. 7.2.2.1. 37% 7.2.2.2. 43% 7.2.2.3. 21% 7.2.3. 7.2.3.1. 30% 7.2.3.2. 59% 7.2.3.3. 11% 7.2.4. 7.2.2.1. 22% 7.2.2.2. 65% 7.2.2.3. 13% 7.2.5. 7.2.3.1. 67% 7.2.3.2. 22% 7.2.3.3. 11% 1.1.1.1. & 1.1.1.2 4-6 team 4-6 team 114
1.1.1.2 SWD IFSC 1.1.2 1.1.1.2 SWD IFSC / SWD IFSC 1.1.1.4 SWD IFSC 1.1.1.7 : 1.1.4 2 1.1.5 IFSC offer 1.1.6 / / / 1.2.7 2.1.2 2.2.1 / / 2.3.1 / IFSC 2.3.2 / IFSC 115
2.3.3 3.1.1 3.1.4 3.1.1 Housing Appeal SW! Housing appeal? / 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 / 3.1.6 / 3.1.7 / SWD NGOIFSC SWD 3.1.9 ComLik 3.1.10 IFSC / 3.1.11 / 3.2 case IFSC case job 3.2.2 staff training 116
3.2.3 / 3.3. 3.3.1.1.1-3 ideal 3.3.1.1. / 3.3.1.2.3 3.3.1.2.2 however I also agree 3.3.1.3 ( / ) ( ) ( ) 4.1 4.2 / 5.6 5.7 5.9 8 IFSC / 117
5.11 / 5.12 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.17 Or those allocated with a PHU through CR. 6.2.3 FSA 6.1.2 and 6.3.2 At present FSA, if the FSA of new intake case ( 555) more than 10%, the FSA of support and developmental groups (30) and programs (55) can downward 20%, which is allowed by SWD. 6.3 There should be a worker-case ratio. In USA, worker-intensive case ratio is at about 1:25. But I have more than 80 case at hand, with more than 60 cases are intensive case. It s totally impossible. In the 1980s, I was told the Government was going to improve the worker-case ratio from 1:70 to 1:65. It s even worse than in the 80s. 6.3.1. good! walk-in client intake 15 minutes ;! 6.3.2 FSA new intake 10% / 20% 6.12 why? FSA 10%? 7.1.2 (splitting, internal & external transfer) / IFSC / / 118
7.1.4 CT NGO NGO CR CT / rubber stamp 7.1.5 7.1.6 field lab 13 (P.1) role play / 7.2.1.2 IFSC 13-15 7.2.2 If they are doing the same job, NGO should be provided with better man-power ratio as they did not have they same resources and professional support behind. But, the job nature, or division of labour between NGO and SWD should be consider before talking about same manpower provision or not. 7.2.2.2 / statutory case or NGO 7.2.3.2 7.2.5 As NGO we waste lot of energy in learning to deal with the different Gov t departments. They have their own culture. / funding NGO / NGO 119
NGO SWD 1. 1.1. (90% 82%) 2. 2.1. (93% 77%) 2.2. (NGO 94%) 2.3. (SWD 81%) 2.4. NGO 82% 120
2.5. SWD 86% 2.6. NGO 79% 2.7. / / NGO 87% 2.8. NGO 84% 2.9. Intake 85% 76% 2.10. NGO 81% 2.11. NGO 76% 2.12. NGO 75% 2.13. FSA on call for special roaster duties SWD 77% 2.14. cyber corner resource corner SWD 70% 2.15. / 84% 86% 121
2.16. / 83% 89% 2.17. 72% 76% 2.18. NGO 75% 2.19. NGO 79% 3. 3.1. 95% 87% 3.2. NGO 79% 3.3. SWD 70% 3.4. FSA NGO 74% 3.5. FSA SWD 79% 3.6. SWD 81% 3.7. FSA 122
NGO 81% 3.8. NGO 81% 3.9. NGO 79% 3.10. NGO 79% 3.11. SWD 84% 3.12. SWD 73% 4. 4.1. 88% 83% 4.2. 76% 73% 4.3. burn-out NGO 81% 4.4. burn-out SWD 79% 4.5. NGO 78% 4.6. NGO 71% 4.7. NGO 71% 5. 5.1. 5.1.1. Empowerment NGO 90% 123
5.1.2. Empowerment SWD 71% 5.1.3. NGO 92% 5.1.4. SWD 85% 5.1.5. NGO 95% 5.1.6. NGO 86% 5.1.7. NGO 71% 5.1.8. / NGO 83% 5.1.9. NGO 83% 5.1.10. SWD 72% 5.2. 5.2.1. 94% 97% 5.2.1.1. 94% 70% 5.2.1.2. NGO 97% 5.2.1.3. NGO 75% 5.2.1.4. NGO 76% 5.2.1.5. SCNAMO NGO 76% 5.2.1.6. Splitting of CSSA account NGO 70% 5.2.1.7. location preference SWD 73% 5.2.1.8. SWD 70% 124
5.2.1.9. DNA SWD - 78% 5.2.2. 83% 73% 5.2.3. 70% 70% 5.2.4. NGO 81% 5.2.5. SWD 82% 5.2.6. NGO 98% 5.2.7. NGO 81% 5.2.8. NGO 75% 5.2.9. NGO 89% 5.2.10. SWD 72% 5.2.11. SWD 92% 5.2.12. / SWD 88% 5.2.13. SWD 85% 5.3. 5.3.1. 90% 92% 125
5.3.2. 84% 72% 5.3.3. social cost 73% 78% 6. / 6.1. / 89% 94% 6.2. 90% 90% 6.3. NGO 71% 6.4. 84% 90% 6.5. NGO 94% 6.6. SWD 92% 6.7. NGO 98% 126
6.8. 83% 95% 6.9. NGO 79% 6.10. SWD 73% 6.11. SWD 97% 6.12. SWD 87% 6.13. SWD 100% 7. 7.1. 97% 95% 7.1.1. 71% 77% 7.1.2. 75% 90% 7.1.3. / 97% 95% 7.1.4. 90% 88% 127
7.1.5. 84% 93% 7.1.6. 78% 78% 7.1.7. NGO 73% 7.1.8. NGO 75% 7.2. 81% 76% 7.2.1. 97% 92% 7.2.2. NGO 79% 7.2.3. NGO 81% 7.2.4. SWD 82% 7.2.5. / SWD 77% 7.3. 90% 90% 128
7.3.1. 84% 71% 7.3.2. NGO 81% 7.3.3. NGO 78% 7.3.4. NGO 75% 7.3.5. SWD 75% 7.3.6. (NGO 73%) 7.3.7. NGO 76% 8. 8.1. / 86% 85% 8.2. 94% 87% 8.3. 81% 77% 8.4. 83% 76% 8.5. / / 90% 82% 8.6. 129
make recommendation on social ground 83% 88% 8.7. / NGO 78% 8.8. NGO 84% 9. 9.1. 84% 78% 9.2. NGO 78% 9.3. NGO 79% 9.4. NGO 71% 9.5. NGO 79% 9.6. NGO 87% 9.7. SWD 77% 9.8. / 87% 87% 9.9. active case 79% 75% 9.10. 86% 85% 9.11. NGO 76% 130
9.12. Input NGO 76% FSA 9.13. case open 73% 85% 9.13.1. case open 86% 85% 9.14. 81% 75% 9.15. SWD 77% 9.16. / SWD 78% 9.17. SWD 85% 9.18. NGO 73% 10. 10.1. NGO 71% 131
10.2. NGO 72% 11. 11.1. NGO 76% 11.2. NGO 78% 11.3. NGO 83% 11.4. NGO 88% 11.5. NGO 84% 11.6. NGO 79% 11.7. NGO 71% 11.8. NGO 79% 11.9. NGO 71% 12. - 12.1. (NGO 78%) 132
13. 13.1. Director of Social Welfare Incorporated Account SWD 91% 14. 14.1. SWD 81% 14.2. SWD 79% 15. SWD 89% SWD 58% / SWD 26%. SWD 55% SWD 68% 16. 16.1. SWD 85% SWD 77% SWD 18% 16.2. SWD 81% 133
SWD 50% SWD 65% SWD 34% / SWD 71% SWD 48% 17. 17.1. statutory case SWD 82% 17.2. SWD 73% 1. 18. 18.1. 52% 48% 18.1.1. 50% 40% 134
18.1.2. - risk assessment 41% 37% 18.1.3. NGO 42% 18.2. 46% 46% 18.2.1. 33% 45% 18.2.2. 35% 44% 18.2.3. NGO 33% 2. 19. 19.1. NGO 95% 19.2. statutory case NGO 84% 19.3. NGO 83% 19.4. NGO 70% 20. 135
20.1. statutory case DSWI Account SWD 75% 20.2. SWD 87% 21. NGO SWD NGO SWD NGO SWD 22% 47% 52% 20% 25% 33% 37% 7% 43% 77% 21% 16% 30% 53% 59% 28% 11% 19% 22% 33% 65% 25% 13% 42% 67% 42% 22% 45% 11% 13% 136
(30% - 69% ) 1. NGO 62% NGO 59% NGO 54% 2. FSA NGO 65% NGO 65% NGO 48% / NGO 56% NGO 33% / NGO 63% 137
3. NGO 59% NGO 48% NGO 40% NGO 52% NGO 32% NGO 40% NGO 41% 4. NGO 67% NGO 65% NGO 60% NGO 48% NGO 65% NGO 56% NGO 40% 138
/ NGO 40% NGO 41% 5. NGO 60% NGO 68% 6. NGO 68% 13% 46% 25% 14% 2% FSA case open case open NGO 51% 7.3. / / NGO 62% 139
/ / NGO 60% NGO 67% NGO 67% / NGO 67% NGO 65% NGO 46% NGO 49% / NGO 67% waiting list NGO 43% NGO 41% NGO 48% 140
7. NGO 56% / NGO 68% / NGO 62% NGO 59% NGO 51% NGO 68% NGO 46% (NGO 59%) / / NGO 59% 141
8. NGO 48% NGO 67% NGO 67% 9. / NGO 68% NGO 49% 10. statutory case NGO 33% professional back up NGO 48% 142
(30% - 69% ) 1. SWD 44% 2. SWD 48% SWD 52% 3. clerical in charge SWD 42% SWD 62% SWD 68% SWD 37% SWD 50% SWD 34% SWD 50% 143
4. SWD 69% SWD 56% SWD 34% 5. SWD 66% 6. SWD 53% intake SWD 50% / SWD 35% SWD 52% 7. / SWD 69% 144
SWD 68% SWD 42% 7.3.1.1. SWD 58% SWD 55% SWD 65% 8. SWD 67% / SWD 40% DSWI account SWD 60% SWD 55% SWD 46% Guardianship Order Case SWD 38% 145
SWD 68% SWD 53% SWD 53% / SWD 60% Gazette Probation Officer SWD 63% / SWD 68% TAVA Social Enquiry Report SWD 68% 9. / SWD 68% 10. SWD 63% 8% 27% 40% 20% 8% 146
7.4. / / SWD 65% / / SWD 46% SWD 65% SWD 50% SWD 63% SWD 63% SWD 57% SWD 68% SWD 68% Input SWD 62% 11. SWD 48% statutory case SWD 43% 147
SWD 53% 148
149
150
Reference Brender, J., Nohr, C. & McNair, P. (2000) Research needs and priorities in health informatics. International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 58-59, 257-89. Clayton, M.J.(1997) Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decisionmaking tasks in education. Educational Psychology, Vol. 17 No.4, 373-86. The Consultant Team (2001) Meeting the Challenge: Strengthening Families, Report on the Review of Family Service in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong. The Consultant Team (2003) New Frontiers to Family Services: Interim Report on Implementation of Family Service Review Hong Kong: Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong. The Consultant Team (2004) The Steps Forward: The Formation of Integrated Family Service Centres. Hong Kong: Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong. Czinkota, M.R. & Ronkainen, I.A. (1997) International business and trade in the next decade: report from a Delphi study. Journal of International Business, Vol. 28 No.4, 827-44. Dalkey, N.C. (1976) Delphi. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica. de Loe, R.C. (1995) Exploring complex policy questions using the policy Delphi. Applied Geography, Vol. 15 No.1, 53-68. Doke, E.R. & Swanson, N.E. (1995) Decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems: a Delphi study of MIS managers. Information and Management, Vol. 29 No.4, 173-82. Gibson, J.M.E. (1998) Using the Delphi to identify the content and context of nurses continuing professional development needs. Journal of Clinical Nursing Vol. 7, 451 459. Green, B., Jones, H. et al. (1999) Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GP s information requirements. Health and Social Care in the Community, Vol. 7, No.3, 198 205. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. et al. (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 32, 1008-1015. Janus, I. (1982) Group Thinking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kirk, S., Carlisle, C. & Luker, K.A. (1996) The changing academic role of the nurse teacher in the United Kingdom. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 24, 1054-1062. Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. (1975) The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Loughlin, K. Moore, L. (1979) Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a paediatrics department. Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 54, 101-106. McKenna, H.P. (1994) The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 19 No.6, 1221-5. Poling, M. M. (1998) Nursing education planning: a Delphi study. Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 37 No.7, 305-7. 151
Putman, J.W., Spiegel, A.N. & Bruininks, R.H. (1995) Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: a Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, Vol. 61 No.6, 553-76. Scheffer, B.K. & Rubenfeld, M.G. (2000) A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 39 No.8, 352-9. Schopper, D., Ronchi, A.A. & Rougemont, A. 2002 When providers and community leaders define health priorities. The result of a Delphi survey in the canton of Geneva. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 51,.335-342. Sumsion, T. (1998) The Delphi technique: an adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 61, No.4, 153 156. William, P.L. & Webb, C. (1994) The Delphi Technique: An Adaptive Research Tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 61, No.4, 153-156. Yan, M.C. & Tsang, A.K.T. (2005) A Snapshot on the Development of Social Work Education in China: A Delphi Study. Social Work Education, Vol. 24, No. 8, 883-901 2003 2003 Views on Interim Report on The Implementation of Family Service Review. 2003 10.11.2003 http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr03-04/chinese/panels/ws/papers/ws1110cb2-257-2c.pdf 2006. 2007 5.7.2007 2007 2007 152
( ) - 153