本研究以桃園市區公所急難救助制度為範圍，探討基層官僚在案件審查過程中行政裁量權之運作方式，及其角色行為對政策執行所產生的實質影響。研究目的包括：（一）分析承辦人員如何在法定標準與個案需求之間調整審查策略；（二）釐清技術性裁量與規範性裁量在實務中的具體內涵及彼此交互作用；（三）說明承辦人員如何透過角色定位回應制度要求與民眾期待，進而影響政策公平性與可近性。 本研究採質性研究方法，結合文獻分析與深度訪談，訪談桃園市六個行政區八位社會課承辦人員，並配合《社會救助法》、《桃園市急難救助辦法》及《急難救助金核發基準表》進行資料對照與脈絡分析。分析架構奠基於基層官僚裁量理論與角色取向觀點，以連結制度規範與前線執行現場的差異。 研究結果顯示，基層官僚在制度規範與時間/案件壓力下，呈現三類角色定位：其一，守門員型以嚴格依循規範與文件完備為核心，強調程序一致與可稽核性；其二，協助者型於合法範圍內提供補件與替代佐證協助，以兼顧審查與可近性；其三，資源分配者型則於制度補助不足時啟動外部慈善及社福資源，以強化支持連續性。角色差異反映行政負荷、資訊可近性及外部協作強度之不同，進而造成制度公平性與實際可近性之落差。 本研究建議：建立分層責任與審查指引、強化外部資源整合平台及提供基層情緒支持與專業督導，以協助基層官僚在依法行政與回應需求之間取得平衡。;This study examines how street-level bureaucrats exercise administrative discretion in the urgent relief system implemented by district offices in Taoyuan City, Taiwan. The research focuses on three core questions: (1) how frontline caseworkers adjust their decision-making between statutory criteria and individual needs; (2) how technical discretion and normative discretion interact in practice; and (3) how role orientation shapes the balance between legal compliance, service responsiveness, and policy accessibility. A qualitative research approach was adopted, combining document analysis and in-depth interviews with eight caseworkers from six administrative districts. Policy documents, including the Social Assistance Act, Taoyuan’s Urgent Relief Regulations, and relevant eligibility guidelines, were used to contextualize and cross-validate interview findings. The analytical framework draws on theories of street-level bureaucracy and role orientation, linking formal institutional rules with frontline implementation conditions. Findings indicate that caseworkers demonstrate three role orientations in practice. The Gatekeeper role prioritizes procedural consistency and risk avoidance through strict adherence to documentation and eligibility rules. The Facilitator role seeks feasible flexibility within legal boundaries by assisting with supplementary documentation and interpretation of requirements. The Resource Connector role emerges when formal benefits are insufficient, prompting caseworkers to engage external charity networks to extend support. Variations in workload, resource accessibility, and support networks shape these role differences, resulting in disparities between formal policy fairness and actual accessibility. This study suggests strengthening layered responsibility mechanisms, establishing integrated resource coordination platforms, and providing professional supervision and emotional support for frontline workers to enhance both administrative consistency and service responsiveness.
