Social Services Are Broken. How We Can Fix Them | Hilary Cottam | TED.com

譯者: Wink Wong 審譯者: lin quan

I want to tell you three stories

我想給大家講三個故事，

about the power of relationships

關於以人際關係的力量去解決

to solve the deep and complex social problems of this century.

本世紀深層又複雜的社會問題。

You know, sometimes it seems like all these problems

有時候所有的那些困難，

of poverty, inequality, ill health, unemployment, violence, addiction --

如貧窮、不平等、病痛丶 失業、暴力和毒瘾——

they're right there in one person's life.

它們都集中在某個不幸者身上。

So I want to tell you about someone like this that I know.

所以我告訴大家一位 有這樣遭遇的人。

I'm going to call her Ella.

我打算叫她艾拉。

Ella lives in a British city on a run down estate.

艾拉住在英國一座城市𥚃， 一個衰敗的住宅區。

The shops are closed, the pub's gone,

那裡商店倒閉，酒館關門，

the playground's pretty desolate and never used,

遊樂場荒廢，沒有遊人，

and inside Ella's house, the tension is palpable

艾拉家𥚃充滿戾氣，

and the noise levels are deafening.

喧鬧聲震耳欲聾。

The TV's on at full volume.

只聽見電視機開到最高聲浪。

One of her sons is fighting with one of her daughters.

她的一個兒子正在 跟另㚈一個女兒打架。

Another son, Ryan, is keeping up this constant stream of abuse from the kitchen,

另外一個兒子萊恩在廚房 傳來一連串的咀咒聲，

and the dogs are locked behind the bedroom door and straining.

狗狗們被鎖在臥室門後， 并企圖掙脫。

Ella is stuck.

艾拉不知所措。

She has lived with crisis for 40 years.

她在這樣窘境中生活了40年。

She knows nothing else, and she knows no way out.

她一無所長， 也知道沒有出路。

She's had a whole series of abusive partners,

她曾相處過的所有伴侶。 無一例外都虐待她。

and, tragically, one of her children has been taken into care by social services.

可悲的是，她其中一個孩子 被社會福利機構帶走撫養。

The three children that still live with her

其餘三個孩子仍然跟她同住

suffer from a whole range of problems, and none of them are in education.

受盡種種困苦， 沒有一個孩子在上學。

And Ella says to me that she is repeating the cycle

艾拉告訴我她的人生其實是在

of her own mother's life before her.

重蹈她母親的覆轍。

But when I met Ella, there were 73 different services

但是我見艾拉時， 她所在的當地政府

on offer for her and her family in the city where she lives,

為她和她的家人提供了73種不同服務，

73 different services run out of 24 departments in one city,

這73種不同服務來自於 該市24個不同部門。

and Ella and her partners and her children were known to most of them.

這些部門都熟悉 艾拉和伴侶以及她孩子。

They think nothing of calling social services

但艾拉等人覺得沒有必要 請求社會服務機構

to try and mediate one of the many arguments that broke out.

來平息家中的任何一項爭執。

And the family home was visited on a regular basis by social workers,

這個家庭以前定時 有很多人來探訪，

youth workers, a health officer, a housing officer, a home tutor

包括社工丶青年社工丶 衛生官員，

and the local policemen.

家教和當地警員。

And the governments say that there are 100,000 families

政府宣稱英國現今有十萬

in Britain today like Ella's,

像艾拉這樣的家庭，

struggling to break the cycle of economic, social and environmental deprivation.

奮力地想打破因貧困帶來的 經濟、社交及居住環境上的惡性循環。

And they also say that managing this problem

政府同時提到為應付這個問題，

costs a quarter of a million pounds per family per year

每年在每個家庭上花費25萬英鎊，

and yet nothing changes.

然而毫無作用。

None of these well-meaning visitors are making a difference.

沒有一個好心的探訪者 給這些家庭帶來一點點改變。

This is a chart we made in the same city with another family like Ella's.

這張圖表是同一座城市我們替另一個 像艾拉一樣的家庭做的。

This shows 30 years of intervention in that family's life.

它顯示了這個家庭30年來 受到㚈界介入的情況。

And just as with Ella, not one of these interventions is part of an overall plan.

就如艾拉一樣，這些介入 沒有一個是帶著周詳地計劃來的。

There's no end goal in sight.

他們缺乏明確地目標。

None of the interventions are dealing with the underlying issues.

這些介入都沒有著眼于根本的問題。

These are just containment measures, ways of managing a problem.

只是控制的措施， 應付問題的方法。

One of the policemen says to me,

其中一名警員對我說：

"Look, I just deliver the message and then I leave."

＂你看，我只是帶個口信之後便離開。"

So, I've spent time living with families like Ella's

所以我曾花時間 在世界不同的地方

in different parts of the world,

跟像艾拉一樣家庭生活在一起。

because I want to know: what can we learn

因為我想知道：我們能 從這些我們的社福機構

from places where our social institutions just aren't working?

不起作用的地方學到些什麼？

I want to know what it feels like to live in Ella's family.

我想知道艾拉的家庭怎樣生活的。

I want to know what's going on and what we can do differently.

我想知道接下來該如何做， 可否找到不同的解決方式。

Well, the first thing I learned is that cost is a really slippery concept.

首先我學到了 花錢真是不可靠的想法。

Because when the government says that a family like Ella's

因為當政府宣稱他們每年要花費

costs a quarter of a million pounds a year to manage,

25萬英鎊來服務 這些像艾拉的家庭，

what it really means

其實是這整個福利系統

is that this system costs a quarter of a million pounds a year.

每年花費了25萬英鎊。

Because not one penny of this money actually touches Ella's family

因為實際上沒有分毫 花在艾拉的家庭上

in a way that makes a difference.

并讓他們發生一點點改變的。

Instead, the system is just like this costly gyroscope

換言之，這個系統就像 䀚貴的陀螺儀，

that spins around the families, keeping them stuck at its heart,

在這些家庭周圍旋轉， 讓它們困在其中，

exactly where they are.

原地踏步。

And I also spent time with the frontline workers,

我也曾花時間 跟一線的工作人員相處，

and I learned that it is an impossible situation.

然後明白這情況是不合理的。

So Tom, who is the social worker for Ella's 14-year-old son Ryan,

湯姆是萊恩的社工。 萊恩是艾拉的14歲兒子，

has to spend 86 percent of his time servicing the system:

湯姆用他工作的86%時間 來服務系統：

meetings with colleagues, filling out forms,

跟同事開會，填表格，

more meetings with colleagues to discuss the forms,

又加開會議討論表格的問題，

and maybe most shockingly,

最恐怖的可能是

the 14 percent of the time he has to be with Ryan

他用剩餘的14％時間 與萊恩見面的目的

is spent getting data and information for the system.

只是為了幫助系統收集訊息。

So he says to Ryan,

他問萊恩：

"How often have you been smoking? Have you been drinking?

"你多久抽一次菸？ 你喝酒嗎？

When did you go to school?"

你什麼時候上學？"

And this kind of interaction rules out the possibility

這樣的交流阻斷了

of a normal conversation.

正常的對話可能性。

It rules out the possibility of what's needed

破壞了湯姆跟萊恩

to build a relationship between Tom and Ryan.

培養感情的機會。

When we made this chart,

我們完成這個圖表後，

the frontline workers, the professionals --

前線工作人員和專家

they stared at it absolutely amazed.

無不目定口呆，驚訝不已。

It snaked around the walls of their offices.

它們被貼在辦公室四周的墻上。

So many hours, so well meant, but ultimately so futile.

他們滿懷好意，花了不少時間， 到頭來徒勞無功。

And there was this moment of absolute breakdown,

這一係統直到在此刻才真正崩潰，

and then of clarity:

其後才明白：

we had to work in a different way.

我們要改變方法。

So in a really brave step, the leaders of the city where Ella lives

於是艾拉的當地政府 踏出了勇敢地一步，

agreed that we could start by reversing Ryan's ratio.

同意我們將服務萊恩的時間 與服務系統的時間比例調轉。

So everyone who came into contact with Ella or a family like Ella's

於是所有探訪艾拉 或是像艾拉一樣家庭的人，

would spend 80 percent of their time working with the families

必須用80％的時間服務家庭，

and only 20 percent servicing the system.

而只有20％替系統工作。

And even more radically,

甚至更具突破性的的是，

the families would lead

那些家庭將做為主導，

and they would decide who was in a best position to help them.

他們可以決定誰是 最適合幫助他們的人。

So Ella and another mother were asked to be part of an interview panel,

艾拉跟另一位母親 獲邀加入面試小組，

to choose from amongst the existing professionals

挑選現有的專業人員

who would work with them.

將來替她們工作。

And many, many people wanted to join us,

其後很多人都想加入我們的隊伍，

because you don't go into this kind of work to manage a system,

因為你不再是為一個系統或機構服務，

you go in because you can and you want to make a difference.

你加入是因為你能夠 且希望為他們帶來改變。

So Ella and the mother asked everybody who came through the door,

艾拉和另一個母親 問每個進來的人：

"What will you do when my son starts kicking me?"

＂如果我兒子開始踢我， 你會怎麼辦？＂

And so the first person who comes in says,

第一個進來的人答：

"Well, I'll look around for the nearest exit

＂噢，我會找最近的出口，

and I will back out very slowly,

然後慢慢退出去，

and if the noise is still going on, I'll call my supervisor."

如果吵鬧仍然繼續， 我會打電話給上司。"

And the mothers go, "You're the system. Get out of here!"

然後一眾媽媽說： 你只是系統，滾出去！

And then the next person who comes is a policeman, and he says,

跟著下一個進來， 是一位警員，他說：

"Well, I'll tackle your son to the ground and then I'm not sure what I'll do."

“我會將你的孩子按在地上， 但不確定接下來我會怎麼做。”

And the mothers say, "Thank you."

兩位母親說：“多謝你。”

So, they chose professionals who confessed

於是組員選了一些專業人員。

they didn't necessarily have the answers,

那些人員坦承自己 未必有什麼辦法，

who said -- well, they weren't going to talk in jargon.

也不會用專業術語跟家庭說話。

They showed their human qualities and convinced the mothers

他們顯示個人素養， 因此母親們深信

that they would stick with them through thick and thin,

這些人不管任何時候 都會與他們緊密相連，

even though they wouldn't be soft with them.

即使他們不會溫柔地對待家庭成員。

So these new teams and the families

這些新團隊和這些家庭

were then given a sliver of the former budget,

從以前的經費得來一筆錢，

but they could spend the money in any way they chose.

讓他們可以自由地運用。

And so one of the families went out for supper.

其中有一個家庭 用來出㚈吃晚飯。

They went to McDonald's and they sat down and they talked and they listened

他們到了麥當勞，很久以來，

for the first time in a long time.

第一次坐下來互相傾聽對方説話。

Another family asked the team

另一個家庭要求團隊

if they would help them do up their home.

替他們翻新房子。

And one mother took the money

還有另一位母親拿經费

and she used it as a float to start a social enterprise.

用作流動資金開一間社企。

And in a really short space of time,

在很短的時間內，

something new started to grow:

有些新變化萌芽：

a relationship between the team and the workers.

團隊跟隊員建立了關係。

And then some remarkable changes took place.

跟著有些令人驚訝的變化出現.

Maybe it's not surprising

或許這並不意外

that the journey for Ella has had some big steps backwards

艾拉的際遇 曾有過很大的退步

as well as forwards.

此外也有進步。

But today, she's completed an IT training course,

但現在她完成了IT培訓課程，

she has her first paid job, her children are back in school,

得到一份有薪工作， 孩子都上課去。

and the neighbors,

以前那些

who previously just hoped this family would be moved anywhere

希望艾拉一家搬的

except next door to them,

越遠越好的鄰居們。

are fine.

也變的和睦，

They've made some new friendships.

他們產生了新的友誼。

And all the same people have been involved in this transformation --

參與到這場變革中 都是同樣的一群人--

same families, same workers.

一樣的家庭，一樣的工作人員。

But the relationship between them has been supported to change.

因為彼此的友誼支持他們求變。

So I'm telling you about Ella because I think that relationships

我告訴大家艾拉的故事， 因為我認為

are the critical resource we have

人際關係是解決這些難題

in solving some of these intractable problems.

的重要資源。

But today, our relationships are all but written off

但今天我們的人際關係

by our politics, our social policies, our welfare institutions.

卻遭政治、社會政策 和福利機構毀掉。

And I've learned that this really has to change.

所以我知道一定要改變這種情況。

So what do I mean by relationships?

那麼我說的＂關係"指的是什麼呢？

I'm talking about the simple human bonds between us,

指的是人類之間單純的感情紐帶，

a kind of authentic sense of connection, of belonging,

一種真實可靠的關聯感、歸屬感，

the bonds that make us happy, that support us to change,

那種令人快樂的情誼， 支撐我們改變,

to be brave like Ella and try something new.

好像艾拉那般勇敢，勇於嘗試。

And, you know, it's no accident

所以你知道，那並非偶然

that those who run and work in the institutions

那些管理社福機構的工作人員，

that are supposed to support Ella and her family

本應支持艾拉和她的家人，

don't talk about relationships,

但他們不談人際關係。

because relationships are expressly designed out of a welfare model

因為很明顯地人際關係

that was drawn up in Britain and exported around the world.

被這種起源於英國傳遍世界的 福利模式排除在外。

The contemporaries of William Beveridge,

William Beveridge

who was the architect of the first welfare state

第一個福利國家的締造者，

and the author of the Beveridge Report,

也是「Beveridge報告」的作者，

had little faith in what they called the average sensual or emotional man.

他同時代的人不相信 擁有七情六慾的普通人。

Instead, they trusted this idea of the impersonal system

轉而相信缺乏人情味的系統，

and the bureaucrat who would be detached and work in this system.

和為此工作的冷漠官僚。

And the impact of Beveridge

而受Beveridge影響

on the way the modern state sees social issues

現代國家怎樣看待社會問題

just can't be underestimated.

是不容低估的。

The Beveridge Report sold over 100,000 copies

「Beveridge報告」 在出版的第一個星期，

in the first weeks of publication alone.

就已賣出十萬本。

People queued in the rain on a November night to get hold of a copy,

人們在一個11月的晚上， 冒著雨排隊去賣這本書。

and it was read across the country, across the colonies, across Europe,

這本書從國內、 傳到殖民地、歐洲

across the United States of America,

和美國。

and it had this huge impact

它大大影響到

on the way that welfare states were designed around the globe.

全球所有福利國家制訂的福利政策。

The cultures, the bureaucracies, the institutions -- they are global,

它所傳達的文化，官僚主義以及福利機構 ——傳遍全球，

and they've come to seem like common sense.

它們似乎已經成了一種常識。

They've become so ingrained in us,

根深蒂固印在我們的腦袋裡，

that actually we don't even see them anymore.

雖然我們其實不曾見過它。

And I think it's really important to say that in the 20th century,

我們必須鄭重地說 在二十世紀年代，

they were remarkably successful, these institutions.

這些福利機構辦得異常地成功。

They led to longer lifespans, the eradication of mass disease,

它們帶來了人均壽命的延長、 根除了傳染病、

mass housing, almost universal education.

大量住房，甚至幾乎全民普及的教育。

But at the same time,

但同時間，

Beveridge sowed the seeds of today's challenges.

Beveridge 撒下了今日這些問題的種子。

So let me tell you a second story.

讓我告訴大家第二個故事。

What do you think today is a bigger killer than a lifetime of smoking?

你知道比終生吸煙 更致命的因素是什麼嗎？

It's loneliness.

那是孤獨。

According to government statistics, one person over 60 -- one in three --

根據政府統計，超過60歳的市民，

doesn't speak to or see another person in a week.

每3個人中便有1人 整個星期與㚈界隔絕。

One person in 10, that's 850,000 people,

每10個人中便有一個， 也就是有85萬人，

doesn't speak to anyone else in a month.

整個月沒有跟別人說過話。

And we're not the only people with this problem;

並不是只有我們有這種問題；

this problem touches the whole of the Western world.

整個西方國家普遍都是這樣。

And it's even more acute in countries like China,

而且在一些如中國那樣的國家， 問題更加嚴重，

where a process of rapid urbanization, mass migration, has left older people

因為急速的城鎮化， 大量人民遷徙，

alone in the villages.

留下老人孤獨地在鄉村過活。

And so the services that Beveridge designed and exported --

Beveridge 設計和傳遍 全球的福利服務，

they can't address this kind of problem.

它們無法應付這樣的問題。

Loneliness is like a collective relational challenge,

孤獨就是大眾關係的挑戰，

and it can't be addressed by a traditional bureaucratic response.

它無法通過傳統的官僚系統來解決。

So some years ago, wanting to understand this problem,

數年前，我想了解這個問題，

I started to work with a group of about 60 older people

於是我在居住的倫敦南部，

in South London, where I live.

開始跟一群大約60歲的長者相處。

I went shopping, I played bingo,

我去購物，玩賓果遊戲，

but mainly I was just observing and listening.

但主要想觀察和聆聽 他們生活的點滴。

I wanted to know what we could do differently.

我要知道 我們該如何改變。

And if you ask them, people tell you they want two things.

如果你問他們，他們會 告訴你兩件事。

They want somebody to go up a ladder and change a light bulb,

他們希望有人爬上梯子 幫忙換燈泡，

or to be there when they come out of hospital.

又或者有人去接他們出院。

They want on-demand, practical support.

他們要按個人需要 得到實際的支援。

And they want to have fun.

他們想要快樂。

They want to go out, do interesting things with like-minded people,

他們想要出來跟志同道合的朋友玩樂，

and make friends like we've all made friends at every stage of our lives.

像一般人在每個人生階段 結識新朋友。

So we rented a phone line, hired a couple of handymen,

於是我們租了一條電話線 和請了數名雜務員，

and started a service we called "Circle."

展開一項叫"Circle"的服務。

And Circle offers its local membership a toll-free 0 800 number

這項服務提供本地會員 免費電話號碼0800

that they can call on demand for any support.

他們有任何需求都可以立即打來。

And people have called us for so many reasons.

他們因為無數理由打來。

They've called because their pets are unwell,

有的是寵物不舒服，

their DVD is broken, they've forgotten how to use their mobile phone,

有的是DVD 壞了，有的是 忘了怎樣使用手提電話；

or maybe they are coming out of hospital

又或者正要出院

and they want someone to be there.

希望有人在去接他。

And Circle also offers a rich social calendar --

＂Circle"還安排了豐富的社交活動--

knitting, darts, museum tours, hot air ballooning -- you name it.

編織、擲飛標，參觀博物館 、玩熱氣球--你想到的都有。

But here's the interesting thing, the really deep change:

最有趣的是他們生活 有徹底的變化：

over time, the friendships that have formed

經過一段時間，真正的友誼

have begun to replace the practical offer.

已經建立，代替了實際的服務。

So let me tell you about Belinda.

讓我告訴你貝琳達的故事。

Belinda's a Circle member, and she was going into hospital for a hip operation,

她是"Circle"的會員， 正要入院做關節手術，

so she called her local Circle to say they wouldn't see her for a bit.

她打電話告訴當地的"Circle" 她會離開一陣子。

And Damon, who runs the local Circle, calls her back and says, "How can I help?"

戴蒙是那𥚃的負責人，他回覆 電話問：＂我有什麼可以幫忙？"

And Belinda says, "Oh no, I'm fine --

貝琳達 説：啊，沒什麼問題--

Jocelyn is doing the shopping, Tony's doing the gardening,

喬斯林負責購物， 托尼打理花草，

Melissa and Joe are going to come in and cook and chat."

梅麗莎 和 喬會過來聊天和煮飯。"

So five Circle members had organized themselves

5個組員自行分配工作

to take care of Belinda.

去照顧貝琳達。

And Belinda's 80, although she says that she feels 25 inside,

雖然貝琳達已經80歲， 她感覺自己只有25歲。

but she also says

但她也説

that she felt stuck and pretty down when she joined Circle.

最初加入＂Circle"時， 生活困難，心情很壞。

But the simple act of encouraging her to come along to that first event

但是會員的小小鼓勵， 讓她參加第一次活動，

led to a process where natural friendships formed,

在那裡很自然地結識新朋友，

friendships that today are replacing the need for expensive services.

現在友情已經替代了 那些她需要的昂貴服務。

It's relationships that are making the difference.

這是人際關係帶來改變。

So I think that three factors have converged

我認為有3個因素 匯聚一起

that enable us to put relationships at the heart and center

才能讓我們把人際關係 用為核心

of how we solve social problems today.

用來解決今日的社會問題。

Firstly, the nature of the problems --

第一是問題的本質--

they've changed, and they require different solutions.

它們變化無常，需要多種多樣 的解決方法。

Secondly, the cost, human as much as financial, of doing business as usual.

第二是經費，就像普通做生意的那樣， 經費越多人手越多。

And thirdly, technology.

第三是科技

I've talked about the first two factors.

我已談論了首兩個因素。

It's technology that enables these approaches to scale

因為科技，所以這個方式 能夠發揮到極致，

and potentially now support thousands of people.

足以服務現在數以千計的人仕。

So the technology we've used is really simple,

我們採用的科技很簡單，

it's made up of available things like databases, mobile phones.

只是由現有的東西組成， 例如數據庫和手機。

Circle has got this very simple system that underpins it,

正因為"Circle"有一個非常 簡單的系統支援，

enables a small local team to support a membership of up to a thousand.

才使得當地的小組 可以為上千名會員提供服務。

And you can contrast this with a neighborhood organization

你可以把它和70年代的鄰里組織

of the 1970s,

相比較，

when this kind of scale just wasn't possible,

這種規模的服務 在當時是不可能的，

neither was the quality or the longevity that the spine of technology can provide.

更遑論以科技為支柱 讓它變得更優質和長久。

So it's relationships underpinned by technology

所以科技可以鞏固人際關係，

that can turn the Beveridge models on their heads.

完全改變Beveridge 的模式。

The Beveridge models are all about institutions with finite resources,

Beveridge 模式是關於 利用有限資源的社福機構，

anonymously managing access.

不具名的管理和投入。

In my work at the front line,

我在前缐工作時，

I've seen again and again how up to 80 percent of resource

見到多至80%的資源用在

is spent keeping people out.

不停用來把人們拒之門㚈。

So professionals have to administer

專業人員必須要處理

these increasingly complex forms of administration

那些日益複雜的行政表格，

that are basically about stopping people accessing the service

其實是用來阻止人們獲取服務

or managing the queue.

或者管理申請的輪候隊伍。

And Circle, like the relational services that we and others have designed,

所以我們設計了Circle 這種感情化的服務，

inverts this logic.

去顛倒這種邏輯。

What it says is, the more people, the more relationships,

它的宗旨是越多人參與， 所建立起的關係就越廣泛，

the stronger the solution.

解決辦法越強。

So I want to tell you my third and final story,

我想告訴大家第三， 也是最後的故事，

which is about unemployment.

它與失業有關。

In Britain, as in most places in the world,

英國像世界上大部分地方一樣，

our welfare states were primarily designed

制訂國家福利的宗旨

to get people into work,

是要人們就業，

to educate them for this,

讓他們為此受教育，

and to keep them healthy.

讓他們身體保持健康。

But here, too, the systems are failing.

但福利制度，在這些方面 也同樣失效了。

And so the response has been

而政府的反應只是想把舊有制度

to try and make these old systems even more efficient and transactional --

變得更有效率和交易化，

to speed up processing times, divide people into ever-smaller categories,

加快處理時間，把申請人 歸入更小的類別，

try and target services at them more efficiently -- in other words,

更有效率地為市民 提供適合的服務，

the very opposite of relational.

換言之， 它走到了人際關係的對立面。

But guess how most people find work today?

但猜猜今日大多數人 怎樣找工作呢？

Through word of mouth.

那是經口耳相傳的方法。

It turns out that in Britain today, most new jobs are not advertised.

最後發現今日的英國， 大部分的新工作並不賣廣告。

So it's friends that tell you about a job,

全靠朋友告訴你有新工作。

it's friends that recommend you for a job,

全靠朋友介紹你去見工。

and it's a rich and diverse social network that helps you find work.

那是多元和豐富的 社會網絡幫你找工作。

Maybe some of you here this evening are thinking,

或許你們其中有些人今晚會想，

"But I found my job through an advert,"

＂可是我因為看廣告， 才找到這份工。＂

but if you think back, it was probably a friend that showed you the ad

但若你回想起來，可能也是 朋友讓你看到那個廣告，

and then encouraged you to apply.

跟著鼓勵你去申請。

But not surprisingly,

毫無意外地，

people who perhaps most need this rich and diverse network

那些最需要豐富多元的人脈的人，

are those who are most isolated from it.

恰恰是那些被孤立的隔絕者。

So knowing this,

知道這個原因以後，

and also knowing about the costs and failure of current systems,

也知道現時制度失敗 和消耗的經費，

we designed something new with relationships at its heart.

我們制以人際關係為重點 訂了新一套新方案。

We designed a service that encourages people to meet up,

設計了一種鼓勵 人們聚在一起的服務，

people in and out of work,

無論人們失業和就業，

to work together in structured ways

都有組織地合作

and try new opportunities.

和找新機會。

And, well, it's very hard to compare the results of these new systems

這類新制度得來的成果 跟舊制的貿易化模式

with the old transactional models,

這是很難作比較，

but it looks like, with our first 1,000 members,

看上去我們首個有著1千名會員的小組，

we outperformed existing services by a factor of three,

比已存在系統要高效兩倍

at a fraction of the cost.

卻只花費了一小部分的經費。

And here, too, we've used technology,

而且我們也運用科技，

but not to network people in the way that a social platform would do.

但不會像社交平台在網絡連繫。

We've used it to bring people face to face and connect them with each other,

而是利用科技讓人們會面的聯絡，

building real relationships and supporting people to find work.

建立真正的關係， 幫忙會員找工作。

At the end of his life, in 1948,

1948年，Beveridge 到了 他生命的盡頭，

Beveridge wrote a third report.

他寫了第三份報告。

And in it he said he had made a dreadful mistake.

他在報告內提及自己犯了大錯。

He had left people and their communities out.

忽略了市民和社區的重要。

And this omission, he said, led to seeing people,

這種疏漏把政府看待人們，

and people starting to see themselves,

和人們怎樣看待自己

within the categories of the bureaucracies and the institutions.

歸入官僚和機構的範疇。

And human relationships were already withering.

人際關係已經漸漸凋零。

But unfortunately, this third report was much less read

不幸地，第三份報告 遠不如Beveridge 的早期著作

than Beveridge's earlier work.

那樣被人們傳閱。

But today, we need to bring people and their communities

今日我們要帶領社區和人們

back into the heart of the way we design new systems and new services,

返回我們設計的 新系統和新服務方向。

in an approach that I call "Relational Welfare."

採用我們稱為＂福利關係＂ 的方式，

We need to leave behind these old, transactional,

我們必須捨棄以往古舊貿易化，

unsuitable, outdated models,

不適合又過時的模式。

and we need to adopt instead the shared collective relational responses

而是要採用集體的共識

that can support a family like Ella's,

幫助像艾拉這樣的家庭，

that can address an issue like loneliness,

才能關注像孤獨這類的議題，

that can support people into work and up the skills curve

才能幫助人們就業 和提升技能水平

in a modern labor market,

適應現今的勞工市場，

that can also address challenges of education, of health care systems,

也可以應對教育、醫療，

and so many more of those problems that are pressing on our societies.

和無數壓迫社會大眾的問題。

It is all about relationships.

全部都是關乎人際關係。

Relationships are the critical resource we have.

人際關係是我們 至關重要的資源。

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（鼓掌聲）