本研究目的旨在探討公私部門互動的情形，著眼於中央政府策劃、地方政府主辦及民間單位承辦之發展遲緩兒童到宅服務實施計畫。本文透過深度訪談及文件分析蒐集研究資料。訪談資料取自承辦此項服務之早療個管中心社工人員、地方政府相關行政人員為訪談對象，輔以自籌經費辦理此項服務之民間單位社工人員；文件資料為中央政府單位之經費核定表及承辦單位之成果報告。研究結果發現：一、此項服務自100年度起己自中央政府單位之推展兒童及少年福利服務補助作業要點中，自政策性補助項目刪除，故本文之6個個管中心所得到的中央政府補助經費僅占原申請經費的22.9至80.0%不等。地方政府以公彩盈餘或社福預算補足民間單位所需的費用。二、個管中心需因應經費申請、支用及核銷等相關行政工作。個管中心所面臨的問題包含「以不同經費支持同一方案」、「未能取得專業人員服務費，以專職人力因應服務需求」、「各層級政府單位的經費核銷標準有所不同」。三、政府單位設有溝通平臺，但是個管中心認為此平臺未必能反映實務工作；部分個管中心則倚重機構間的資源共享機制。本文進而發現，機構間互動多立基在專業人員的人際互動。四、對於此項服務的未來展望是，地方政府期能整合資源，提供完善的家庭支持服務。個管中心期許專業人員能自在職訓練中，習得多重問題之家庭處遇。本文最末針對上述發展，提出學術研究及實務工作相關建議。

In Taiwan, central and local governments have paid attention on home based services for children with developmental delays and their families in recent years. Most services can be hold based on the cooperation between governments and non governmental organizations. This study explored current situation of public-private interaction in home-based services. Data were collected from six case management centers brought by the program for home based services in 2012, two non profit organizations by their own funds and three civil servants mainly responsible for early intervention services. The data were collected through document analysis and in-depth interview. The results of this study indicate (1) Central government subsidies were found less than application fees which means the difference for each center was from NT$ 6,250 to 168,484. Therefore, the services were partly subsidized by local governments. (2) Professionals suffered some difficulties in financial management, such as using different financial resources to supply this program, asking full time staffs to provide services without expense for professional services, and the different standards of allowance cancellation between central and local governments. (3) The communication platform of governments could not reflect clinic works, and most centers depended on the resource-sharing ways of built by themselves. (4) Governments and case management centers had diverse concerns about service development. Civil servants focused on resource integration about family support services; professionals paid attention on staff-training about family intervention. Above all, this study offered some suggestions for future studies and clinic works.