There are both formal and informal reporting and detection mechanisms that capture information on vulnerable children (risk factors) and/or children with protection concerns (cases/prevalence) based on the visits to NTB and Central Java. Our mapping is limited to be able to generalize these findings to the national level, though from what we were told, systems such as these exist in most areas of Indonesia. Figure 4 represents a child-centered map of common detection alternatives that a child can choose in Indonesia.
Figure 4. System Map and Detection Alternatives that a Child Can Choose
Focus group findings indicated that the large majority of vulnerable children and children with protection problems are not identified. Reasons provided by interviewee’s for this finding included: cultural factors, lack of awareness of programs and support, and fear of being involved in the formal police or judicial system. Unidentified children can be understood as those that are not identified at all (Undetected), those that are known by family or community members but are not identified or reported to any formal or informal reporting mechanism (Family and Community Information), and those that are recorded at the community level only (Community Governance).
• Undetected. In some cases a child in need of prevention (at risk) or response services (case) may not be discovered by either formal or informal reporting systems. Family or community members may not know the child is in a dangerous situation for a number of reasons. For example, a child may be working in hazardous conditions for long hours without pay or be a victim of physical abuse in the home. Such cases
often go undetected because these children are not considered to have a protection concern by the family or the community (lack of awareness on CP)
• Family and Community Information. In other cases, family and community members may detect a vulnerable child or a case, but the concern may not be formally reported. For example, a child who is left behind when a parent leaves to seek work in Malaysia may not be reported. The solution for this child might be dealt with by the family who places the child with an elderly relative, not realizing that this child may now be at increased risk for exploitation. In another example, a family member or neighbor who is not a perpetrator may know about a child who has been abused at home. This problem may first be discussed within the family before it is brought to the community. Community and family members may not realize their legal options or the availability of services to respond to such issues. Also, community and family members may not understand when a case becomes serious or what kinds of cases require legal intervention.
• Community Governance. This detection mechanism contains both formal and informal channels of data including but not limited to: the head of a neighborhood (the “RT”), the community forum, or community level police. Although the community may ultimately consider these governance systems as formal structures, the data on children does not get recorded and counted at a higher level. Individuals at the village level are empowered to monitor, verify and mediate problems in nearly all communities in Indonesia. The RT and other community leaders also play roles in collecting population information on births, deaths, and marriages, and they assist in official registration systems attached to government ministries. While these systems are well-defined and often used at the community level, the critical information that they capture is not recorded and counted in any systematic way, resulting in a major gap in the current information system.
Another community-based system, which works within the community governance system described above, is known as the community forum. Its purpose is to improve the processes for monitoring, mediation, diversion and restitution at the community level. National initiative Skep Kapolri 737/2005, relating to the development of strategies to support police work in local communities, charges police at the district level with implementing these community forums in coordination with police at the community level. Community police are usually best positioned to directly engage with the community forum. Detection of a case that is sent to the community forum generally occurs when a victim, family member or community member reports an incident to an RT or to the community head, known as the Rukun Warga (“RW”).
• Social Welfare Programs. National or provincial level social welfare programs, such as the pilot program for Conditional Cash Transfers, capture data on children that could be used to improve the existing information system.
• Service Providers. Information about a child at risk or with a protection problem may first be captured when the child comes in contact with a formal service provider.
Although not all children in need of protection receive formal services, this is currently the detection mechanism that captures the most data about child protection concerns in Indonesia.
4.5 FINDING FIVE: Community-district-province data management is ineffective.