Rethinking Care in Indonesia, Why the Pati Case Demands a Structural Shift Away from Institutionalisation

The recent case of alleged sexual violence in a pesantren in Pati, Central Java, has triggered public outrage, governmental intervention, and renewed attention to child protection in residential settings. While the immediate response has rightly focused on legal accountability and victim support, the case raises a more fundamental question,

What are the structural risks inherent in institutional care environments in Indonesia, and why do they persist?

This contribution argues that the Pati case should not be understood as an isolated failure, but as a manifestation of a broader systemic issue, namely, the continued reliance on institutionalisation as a response to child vulnerability.

Indonesia maintains a diverse ecosystem of residential care arrangements for children, including orphanages (panti asuhan) and religious boarding schools (pesantren). While these institutions are typically framed as distinct in purpose, social perception, and legitimacy, their functional characteristics often converge. Research into childcare institutions in Indonesia has demonstrated that:

• a significant proportion of children in residential care are not orphans

• placement is frequently driven by economic hardship and access to education

• children experience long-term separation from their families

Importantly, in both orphanages and many pesantren, children often live full-time within institutional environments. In their daily lives, they depend heavily on institutional actors for basic needs as well as key decisions affecting their lives. At the same time, their autonomy is limited, and their access to external support systems is often constrained. This creates a situation where children are highly dependent, with minimal control over their circumstances and limited avenues to seek help beyond the institution. From a child protection perspective, these characteristics are not incidental, they are defining.

Institutionalisation as a Risk Environment

A substantial body of international and national research has established that institutional care environments, regardless of cultural or religious context, carry inherent structural risks when certain conditions are present.

These include:

• concentration of authority within hierarchical structures

• limited external oversight and monitoring

• high levels of child dependency on caregivers

• restricted or ineffective reporting mechanisms

Under such conditions, institutions may inadvertently create environments where:

• abuse can occur without detection

• victims face barriers to disclosure

• harmful practices persist over extended periods

The Pati case reflects precisely these dynamics. Reports indicating prolonged abuse and delayed disclosure are consistent with patterns observed in other institutional settings globally. This suggests that the issue is not solely one of individual misconduct, but of systemic vulnerability.

The Convergence of Orphanages and Pesantren

Public discourse in Indonesia often resists comparisons between orphanages and pesantren, primarily due to the latter’s religious and educational role. However, from a structural and child welfare perspective, such distinctions become less meaningful when examining the lived realities of children.

Where pesantren function as full-time residential environments, they assume responsibilities that extend beyond education into the domain of care. This convergence has already been noted in earlier research, which highlights:

• the increasing overlap between educational and care functions

• the growing difficulty in distinguishing between institutional types

• the expansion of residential systems linked to broader social and organisational networks

The implication is clear, any institution that assumes primary responsibility for a child’s daily life must be evaluated through a child protection lens, regardless of its formal designation.

Poverty, Education, and the Logic of Separation

A critical driver of institutionalisation in Indonesia is not abandonment, but poverty. Many families place their children in orphanages or pesantren because these institutions provide access to education, food and accommodation, and help reduce the financial burden on households.

In this context, institutionalisation often functions as a form of informal social protection.

However, this arrangement reflects a structural misalignment. Instead of addressing the root causes of vulnerability by directly supporting families, the system responds by separating children from their families.

This has significant implications. It normalises long-term family separation, shifts responsibility from households to institutions, and embeds institutional care as a default response rather than a last resort.

Institutionalisation Is Not a Neutral Intervention

It is often assumed that institutional care is a pragmatic solution in contexts of poverty. However, evidence consistently demonstrates that institutionalisation has profound developmental, social, and protective limitations. Children raised in institutional settings are more likely to experience:

• weakened family attachment

• reduced emotional and social development

• limited preparation for independent adult life

More critically, institutional settings can obscure harm.

Closed environments, combined with power asymmetries, create conditions in which abuse is not only possible, but difficult to detect and address.

Toward a Family-Centred Approach

If institutionalisation is understood not as a solution but as a risk factor, then a reorientation of policy and practice becomes necessary.

This requires moving from an institution-based model of care to a family-centred approach, grounded in the principle that:

Children should grow up within families wherever possible.

Such an approach prioritises:

* direct economic and social support to vulnerable families

* accessible education without requiring residential placement

* community-based care systems

* robust oversight mechanisms for any remaining residential facilities

Importantly, it also requires recognising that not all forms of care are equal.

The mere provision of shelter and education does not constitute adequate protection.

Conclusion, From Case to System

The Pati case has prompted strong reactions from government and society. These responses are necessary and appropriate. However, if the analysis remains confined to the level of individual accountability, the underlying structural issues will remain unaddressed.

The persistence of institutionalisation in Indonesia reflects a broader policy challenge, how to support vulnerable children without separating them from their families.

This is not simply a technical question. It is a normative one.

It requires a shift in how care is understood, from a model that prioritises institutional provision to one that recognises the centrality of family, community, and relational environments in child development and protection.

Until such a shift occurs, cases like Pati will continue to emerge, not as anomalies, but as symptoms of a system that has yet to fully align with the best interests of the child.