An older Indonesian can remain in the same house for decades while the conditions that make independent living possible change around them. A spouse may die. Adult children may move for employment. Stairs that once presented no difficulty may become a falls risk. Diabetes, arthritis or declining vision may gradually increase dependence. A family that could previously provide occasional help may begin organizing every meal, appointment and medication routine.
That distinction is central to aging in place. Remaining at home is not itself evidence that an older person is living independently, safely or well. Within the Indonesia Aging, Long-Term Care & Community Support Knowledge Hub, aging in place is best understood as a system-design question: what combination of housing, healthcare, rehabilitation, social support, family capacity and community infrastructure allows an older person to remain connected to familiar surroundings without shifting unsustainable responsibility onto the household?
Indonesia is increasingly asking that question explicitly. Bappenas has identified menua di tempat, or aging in place, as part of the policy paradigm required for the country's transition toward an older society. At the same time, community-based long-term care initiatives have been testing how existing local assets can be organized more systematically around older people and their families. The opportunity is significant. Indonesia has an extensive primary-care network, Posyandu community infrastructure, strong family relationships and locally embedded organizations. The challenge is turning those assets into a dependable continuum of support rather than assuming their mere existence guarantees that people can remain at home safely.
Aging in Place Is an Outcome, Not Simply a Location
The phrase “aging in place” can sound deceptively straightforward. It usually reflects a preference to remain in one's own home or community rather than move unnecessarily into institutional care. But the policy value lies in what makes that continued residence possible.
An older person may remain at home while becoming isolated, undernourished or increasingly dependent on an exhausted relative. Another may remain at home because rehabilitation, home adaptation, community contact and family support work together to preserve mobility and choice. Both people have stayed at home, but only one arrangement genuinely supports independence.
For Indonesia, this distinction is especially important because family and community care already carry much of the practical responsibility for later-life support. A policy commitment to aging in place should therefore not become a new label for arrangements that families have historically managed without adequate formal assistance.
The stronger objective is to enable older people to remain in familiar environments when this reflects their preferences and can be sustained with appropriate support. That requires attention not only to medical needs but also to functional ability, housing conditions, transport, nutrition, relationships, caregiver capacity and community participation.
It also requires an exit from the false choice between “home” and “institution.” Older people may need different intensities of help at different stages. Someone recovering from illness may temporarily need substantial rehabilitation and personal assistance before regaining independence. Another person with progressive dementia may require increasingly intensive supervision. Aging in place works best when services can adjust around those changing needs rather than waiting until the home arrangement collapses.
Indonesia Has a Strong Community Starting Point
Indonesia's community infrastructure gives it an important foundation for developing this approach. Puskesmas bring primary healthcare into local areas. Posyandu extend preventive health and community contact closer to households. Village and kelurahan structures can connect residents with local services and social programs. Religious, voluntary and community organizations often provide additional relationships and assistance.
The Ministry of Health's Integrated Primary Health Services transformation, Integrasi Pelayanan Kesehatan Primer, is also moving primary care toward a life-course model that explicitly includes older people. This broadens the opportunity for primary services to identify functional decline before it becomes severe.
A regular health contact can reveal much more than blood pressure or blood glucose if the system is designed to ask the right questions. Has the person fallen recently? Can they still prepare food? Have they stopped leaving home? Are they taking medication correctly? Has the family member who usually helps become unwell?
These questions matter because the earliest sign that aging in place is becoming unstable may not be a new diagnosis. It may be a change in everyday functioning.
The policy opportunity is therefore to use Indonesia's existing community reach as an early-detection and navigation network. The limitation is equally important: community cadres and primary-care staff cannot be expected to absorb every long-term care need simply because they are already close to the population.
Community Contact Needs a Pathway Behind It
Proximity has value only when it leads somewhere. A Posyandu cadre may notice that an older man is walking less steadily. A Puskesmas nurse may identify increasing frailty. A village official may know that his daughter has moved away. Those observations become meaningful when there is a route from recognition to action.
A functioning aging-in-place pathway may require several different responses: clinical review, rehabilitation, assistive equipment, caregiver guidance, social assistance, home adaptation or regular community contact. No single organization necessarily needs to deliver all of them. But someone needs to understand the combined situation.
This is one of the reasons recent Indonesian community-based long-term care pilots are strategically important. The Asian Development Bank's work in Indonesia tested community care hubs and person-centered approaches intended to build on existing local health and social resources. The aim was not simply to add another standalone service. It was to improve how older people's multiple needs were identified and connected.
That principle can be strengthened through systematic assessment. Organizations examining similar coordination questions can use the Governance Maturity Assessment to structure discussion about responsibility, escalation and oversight. It is not an Indonesian regulatory framework, but it illustrates a relevant governance question: when an older person's ability to remain at home depends on several organizations, who is responsible for seeing the whole pathway?
When a small functional change becomes a system test
An older woman in Yogyakarta has lived independently since her husband died. Her son visits several times each week. She attends local community activities and manages most daily tasks herself. After an illness, she becomes weaker and stops walking to the local shop.
Nothing about the situation initially appears dramatic. Her son begins buying groceries. A neighbor checks on her. But she is now leaving the house less often, her appetite is declining and she has become reluctant to use the bathroom at night because she is afraid of falling.
If each observation remains informal, the household may gradually adapt around increasing dependence. Her son performs more tasks, she becomes less active and strength declines further.
An aging-in-place response treats the same pattern differently. Community contact prompts a functional review. The Puskesmas considers whether illness has been adequately treated and whether rehabilitation input is needed. The family receives advice on safe mobility. Simple environmental changes reduce the nighttime falls risk. Progress is reviewed rather than assuming that reduced function is an inevitable consequence of age.
The intervention need not be intensive to be consequential. Its value lies in identifying the point at which ordinary family help is beginning to mask functional decline.
Housing Is Part of the Care System
Aging in place cannot be separated from the physical environment. Housing that works well for a healthy adult may become difficult after mobility, vision, cognition or balance changes.
Steps, uneven surfaces, inaccessible bathrooms, poor lighting and difficult entrances can turn relatively modest impairments into substantial dependency. Conversely, small adaptations may enable someone to continue doing tasks independently.
This means housing decisions have care consequences. A grab rail may reduce reliance on another person for bathing. Better lighting can reduce falls risk. A safer entrance can determine whether someone leaves the home. Appropriate seating and sleeping arrangements can affect whether a caregiver can provide assistance safely.
Indonesia's housing circumstances vary enormously, from dense urban neighborhoods and apartment living to rural houses and homes in remote island communities. A single national adaptation model would therefore be unrealistic. The policy principle is more transferable than the physical solution: assess the interaction between the person and their environment rather than treating functional decline as a characteristic of the person alone.
For local services, that requires practical routes for identifying environmental risk and determining whether low-cost modification, assistive technology or more substantial intervention could preserve independence.
Rehabilitation Can Prevent Temporary Dependency Becoming Permanent
Aging-in-place policy is strongest when it incorporates rehabilitation and restorative practice. Many older people experience sudden reductions in function after illness, injury or hospitalization. The level of help required immediately after discharge does not necessarily represent the level they will require permanently.
This creates a critical operational window. If relatives begin performing every task because that is the quickest short-term solution, the older person may have fewer opportunities to rebuild ability. If support instead combines safety with active recovery, some dependency may be reduced.
Indonesia's developing long-term care architecture therefore needs strong connections between hospitals, Puskesmas, rehabilitation professionals, families and community services. A discharge decision based solely on medical stability can leave the household managing functional consequences without sufficient preparation.
A restorative approach asks a different question: not simply “What help does this person need today?” but “What ability could realistically be regained, and what support will help achieve it?”
This is especially important for system sustainability. Preserving even partial independence can reduce long-duration care demand while improving autonomy and confidence for the person concerned.
Families Need Support, Not an Assumption of Unlimited Capacity
Family care will remain fundamental to aging in place in Indonesia. More than half of older people represented in the Indonesia Longitudinal Aging Survey lived in multigenerational households, illustrating the continuing importance of intergenerational living arrangements.
That proximity can be a substantial protective factor. Family members may notice changes quickly, provide culturally familiar care, accompany people to services and preserve relationships that formal services cannot reproduce.
But proximity does not automatically equal capacity.
An adult child may be employed full time. A spouse providing care may themselves be in their seventies. A relative may understand the person extremely well but have no knowledge of dementia, safe transfers or medication risk. Migration can place hundreds of kilometers between family members. A household may be emotionally willing to provide care but financially unable to reduce paid employment.
Aging-in-place policy therefore needs to treat caregiver capacity as something that changes over time. The relevant questions include whether the family understands the care required, whether tasks can be performed safely, whether respite exists, and what happens if the main caregiver becomes unavailable.
Support does not always require replacing family care with professional care. Training, equipment, scheduled respite, rehabilitation advice, reliable health contacts and limited practical assistance may make the difference between a sustainable arrangement and caregiver exhaustion.
The older caregiver who becomes the hidden point of failure
A husband provides most day-to-day support for his wife, who has reduced mobility and early cognitive impairment. Their adult children live in other cities but contribute financially and call regularly. Because the wife is the person with the diagnosed conditions, services naturally focus on her.
The husband gradually develops back pain. He begins avoiding community activities because he is reluctant to leave his wife alone. He sleeps poorly because she sometimes wakes confused at night. None of these changes immediately alters his wife's formal health status.
Yet the viability of aging in place now depends as much on him as on her.
A stronger community model would regard the caregiving relationship as part of the assessment. Primary or community teams could identify whether he needs instruction in safer assistance, whether equipment would reduce physical strain, whether relatives can share particular tasks, and whether respite or community support is available.
If his ability to continue caregiving declines, that change should trigger reassessment before an emergency occurs. The point is not to medicalize family life. It is to recognize that a care system dependent on families also depends on the resilience of caregivers.
Social Participation Is Part of Independence
Aging in place is often discussed in terms of personal care and safety, but remaining connected to community life is equally important. Someone can have food, medication and a safe bed while becoming progressively isolated.
Indonesia's community infrastructure offers opportunities to address this because Posyandu and other local activities can provide social as well as health contact. Religious institutions, neighborhood networks and older-person groups may also create meaningful participation.
This matters clinically and socially. Loss of mobility can lead to loss of relationships. Bereavement can reduce routine contact. Hearing impairment or cognitive change can gradually make participation more difficult. Families may focus understandably on essential tasks while overlooking the person's shrinking world.
A mature aging-in-place model therefore asks what the person wants to continue doing, not merely what risks need controlling.
For some people, success may mean continuing to attend religious activity, visiting neighbors or participating in a local group. For others, it may mean being able to prepare food, tend a garden or make independent decisions about everyday routines.
This person-centered perspective prevents aging in place from becoming synonymous with passive maintenance at home.
Rural and Island Communities Need Different Delivery Models
Indonesia's geography makes aging in place a fundamentally different operational challenge across localities. Services that can be organized within a dense urban district cannot simply be replicated across sparsely populated islands or remote rural areas.
Distance affects specialist access, rehabilitation, transport and workforce availability. Families may live elsewhere because younger adults migrate for education or employment. Community relationships may be strong while formal service capacity remains limited.
Aging in place in these environments therefore depends on distributed capability. Local health and community workers need enough skill to manage common needs, while specialist expertise may need to be extended remotely or through planned outreach. Referral pathways must account for the real travel burden imposed on older people and their families.
Technology can help but does not remove the underlying logistics. Teleconsultation can reduce unnecessary journeys, but someone may still need to perform a physical assessment, deliver equipment or provide personal assistance in the home.
National policy consequently needs to avoid measuring equity by identical service configuration. A more meaningful test is whether people with comparable needs can achieve reasonably comparable access and safety through delivery models adapted to local geography.
Aging in place on an island where specialist care is distant
An older man living on a smaller island has chronic lung disease and increasing difficulty walking. His daughter works on another island and returns periodically. Neighbors bring food when he is unwell, and a local cadre knows him well.
A specialist review requires significant travel. If every change in his condition produces a journey to a distant facility, the pathway may be technically available but practically difficult to use.
A locally adapted model would define what can safely be monitored through nearby primary care, when remote specialist input is appropriate, and which clinical changes require travel. Functional needs would be considered alongside medical ones. If he can no longer cook safely or reach the bathroom easily, those issues cannot wait for the next specialist appointment.
Community support may help with daily tasks, but responsibility should remain clear. Neighbors cannot become an informal substitute for professional care as complexity increases.
The governance challenge is to ensure that distance changes the method of delivery without lowering the threshold of protection. Data on delayed referrals, unmet rehabilitation needs or repeated emergency transfers can help regional and national leaders identify where geography is producing avoidable inequality.
Local Government Is Critical to the Infrastructure Around the Home
Aging in place is inherently cross-sectoral. Ministries can establish national policy, but many of the practical conditions influencing whether an older person can remain safely at home are experienced locally.
Kabupaten and kota governments sit close to health services, social-welfare activity, community institutions and local infrastructure. Village and kelurahan structures add another level of proximity. This gives local government an important coordinating role even when no single local agency controls every relevant resource.
The operational requirement is to identify where responsibilities intersect. An older person may simultaneously interact with a Puskesmas, a social-welfare program, local community cadres and family members. Housing or transport may sit elsewhere again.
A local aging strategy can therefore add value by clarifying pathways rather than attempting to centralize every service. It can establish how functional decline is identified, where referrals go, how families access information, what happens when no appropriate service exists, and which patterns are escalated into local planning.
Recent Indonesian community-based LTC pilots are relevant precisely because local adaptation has been part of their development. The Asian Development Bank notes that local governments have been adapting community-based models to expand support for older people and families. That experience provides an evidence base for scaling principles while allowing different localities to develop different operational arrangements.
LLT Offers a Potential Coordination Layer
Layanan Lansia Terintegrasi, or Community-Based Integrated Elderly Services, provides an emerging example of how local coordination could be strengthened. Bappenas has described LLT as a village- or kelurahan-level referral mechanism connecting older people and families with healthcare, social protection and participation in community life.
Its strategic relevance to aging in place is obvious. The person does not have to fit entirely within one institutional category before receiving help. Instead, the local mechanism can help connect needs across systems.
But integration needs to go beyond issuing referrals. A mature approach should establish whether a referral was completed, whether the response addressed the need, and what happens if no suitable service is available.
This is where information becomes particularly important. If multiple households repeatedly require a type of support that the locality cannot provide, that pattern is not simply an individual referral problem. It is evidence of a capacity gap.
Organizations examining comparable community outcomes can use the Community Impact Report Builder to structure how local activity is translated into evidence about access, outcomes and community benefit. It is not an Indonesian reporting requirement, but the underlying principle is useful: community-based care should be able to demonstrate what difference it makes rather than relying only on counts of contacts or activities.
Financing Determines Whether Aging in Place Is a Real Choice
A policy preference for home and community living has limited meaning if households cannot access the support required to sustain it.
Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional can finance covered healthcare, but aging in place often depends on assistance that is not conventional medical treatment. Personal care, household help, caregiver respite, transportation, home modification and supervision may require different sources of finance or remain largely family responsibilities.
This creates a distributional issue. Higher-income households may be able to purchase help privately. Families with fewer resources may provide more unpaid care even when the intensity of need is similar.
The true cost of aging in place therefore cannot be assessed only through public program expenditure. It also includes unpaid family labor, lost employment, transport, equipment and housing adaptation.
Sustainable policy will need to consider how these costs are shared. Indonesia does not necessarily need one particular foreign financing model, but it does need mechanisms capable of supporting the service model it wants to promote.
If the strategic direction is community living, public financing should not inadvertently make institutional or acute care easier to access than lower-cost preventive assistance that keeps people independent.
Formal Home Support Will Need to Grow Carefully
As demand increases, Indonesia is likely to see a larger formal care economy around the home. This may include personal support, rehabilitation, nursing, respite, technology-enabled services and care coordination.
Expansion creates opportunities for employment and can relieve pressure on families, but growth also raises questions about quality and workforce status.
Who is competent to provide personal care? What training is required for dementia or complex health needs? How are workers supervised? What happens when a worker fails to attend? How can older people raise concerns? How should private services interact with Puskesmas or social-welfare structures?
These questions become more important as care moves into private homes because much service delivery becomes less visible than care delivered in institutional settings.
Indonesia therefore has an opportunity to develop workforce and quality infrastructure alongside market growth rather than after problems become established. Standards should remain proportionate to different roles, but older people and families need confidence that paid support is safe, dependable and accountable.
Technology Should Extend Independence Rather Than Replace Care
Digital technology can strengthen aging in place in several ways. Telehealth can extend specialist access. Digital records can support coordination. Messaging systems can keep geographically distant family members informed. Assistive technology may improve mobility, medication management or safety.
Indonesia's archipelagic geography makes some of these applications particularly attractive. But technology should be introduced around real problems rather than treated as an alternative to service capacity.
A remote consultation cannot help someone transfer safely from bed if no practical support is available. An electronic referral does not constitute integration if nobody acts on it. A monitoring device creates a new responsibility: someone must understand what an alert means and respond appropriately.
Older people also have unequal access to connectivity, devices and digital skills. Families may become informal intermediaries, which can support access but may also affect privacy and autonomy.
The stronger approach is therefore technology-enabled aging in place rather than technology-dependent aging in place.
Organizations considering digital support models can use the Digital Transformation, AI and Cybersecurity Readiness Assessment to examine whether governance, workforce, information and security arrangements are sufficiently mature for new technology. It does not provide Indonesian regulatory assurance, but it offers a useful discipline: begin with the operating model and the person rather than with the technology.
Safeguarding Must Remain Visible Inside Family and Community Care
Home is often the place where people feel most secure, but care delivered within homes is not inherently free from risk. Dependency can increase vulnerability to neglect, financial exploitation, coercion or abuse. Caregiver exhaustion can also create unsafe situations without malicious intent.
This requires sensitive governance in Indonesia because family relationships are central to care. A safeguarding system should not treat families as inherently risky, nor should cultural respect become a reason to overlook harm.
Community cadres, health professionals and social-welfare staff may be among the few people outside the household who have regular contact with an older person. They therefore need sufficient awareness to recognize concerning changes and clear routes for escalation.
Possible warning signs may include unexplained injuries, sudden financial difficulty, severe neglect of personal needs, fearfulness around particular relatives, repeated medication problems or a caregiver expressing that they can no longer cope.
The response should be proportionate and person-centered. Some situations require practical support to an overwhelmed family. Others may require protective intervention. The system needs enough clarity to distinguish the two while preserving the older person's rights and voice.
When “coping at home” hides deteriorating safety
An older man with significant mobility problems lives with a nephew who provides most care. During routine community contact, staff notice that the man has lost weight and has several skin injuries. The nephew explains that he is working longer hours and is finding personal care increasingly difficult.
An aging-in-place system focused only on location might record that the man remains with family and therefore does not require residential support.
A stronger response examines actual conditions. The older man's health and nutrition need review. The nephew's capacity needs to be understood without assuming deliberate neglect. Additional personal care, equipment or respite may be required. If there are signs of abuse or serious neglect, the appropriate protective route must be available.
Governance should also ask whether the problem is isolated. If community teams repeatedly encounter families unable to meet high levels of physical dependency, this may indicate that formal home-support capacity has not kept pace with population need.
Safeguarding information can therefore contribute to service planning as well as individual protection.
Good Aging-in-Place Governance Looks Beyond Activity Counts
A community-based care system can appear busy without necessarily improving people's lives. Numbers of visits, screenings, referrals or community activities are useful operational measures, but they do not reveal whether older people remain independent or whether families can sustain care.
Indonesia's aging-in-place strategy will increasingly need outcome evidence.
Relevant questions include whether people maintain or regain functional ability, whether avoidable falls are reduced, whether hospital transitions are successful, whether caregiver strain is detected earlier, and whether people remain socially connected.
Geographic equity also matters. National averages can conceal areas where older people have substantially weaker access to rehabilitation, home support or specialist advice.
The Quality Dashboard Builder can help organizations structure comparable thinking about indicators and performance review. It is not designed to set Indonesian national measures, but it demonstrates how activity, quality and outcome indicators can be considered together.
For government, the most useful data are those that change decisions. If repeated falls are concentrated in particular communities, that should influence prevention activity. If hospital discharges repeatedly break down because families lack support, that should influence pathway design. If caregivers consistently report the same unmet need, that should influence resource planning.
Person-Centered Assessment Is the Connecting Mechanism
Many of the components required for aging in place already exist in Indonesia. The more difficult task is deciding which combination is appropriate for each person.
That makes assessment central. A useful assessment should look beyond diagnosis to functional ability, cognition, emotional wellbeing, housing, family support, economic circumstances and personal goals.
The purpose is not to create an unnecessarily complex administrative process. It is to avoid solving the wrong problem.
An older person who repeatedly falls may need medical review, but they may also need strength training, better lighting and a safer bathroom. Someone who misses appointments may not be disengaged; they may lack transport. A person whose daughter is “coping” may actually be close to caregiver breakdown.
Person-centered assessment turns these observations into a coherent picture.
It also creates a basis for review. Aging in place is dynamic. A plan that is adequate today may be unsafe six months later. Conversely, someone who required intensive support after hospitalization may recover and need less assistance.
Review should therefore respond to change rather than locking people permanently into assumptions about dependency.
Scaling Community Models Requires Fidelity to Principles, Not Identical Replication
Indonesia's recent community-based LTC pilots provide valuable evidence, but national expansion should not mean copying an identical service configuration into every locality.
The pilot environments in Yogyakarta and Bali have particular community structures, service capacity and local leadership. Other provinces may face different geography, workforce markets and levels of infrastructure.
The element worth scaling is therefore the operating principle: person-centered assessment, use of local assets, coordination across health and social support, caregiver involvement, clear escalation and systematic learning.
Local delivery can then adapt around those principles.
This distinction is important for governance. If replication is judged primarily by whether every area establishes the same named structures, systems may reproduce form without function. A locality can establish a community hub while referrals remain incomplete or families remain unsupported.
Conversely, another locality may achieve strong integration through a somewhat different mechanism.
National oversight should therefore focus increasingly on what local arrangements achieve as well as whether particular structures exist.
International Learning From Indonesia’s Approach
Indonesia's emerging aging-in-place model offers useful international lessons because it is developing within a context where formal LTC remains relatively limited and community and family care are deeply embedded.
The first lesson is that aging in place can be built from existing community institutions. Countries do not necessarily need to construct an entirely separate delivery network before improving support around older people.
The second is that community capacity has limits. Volunteers, neighbors and family members add substantial value, but complex needs still require skilled professional input and clear escalation.
The third is that housing and functional ability should be understood as part of the care system. Supporting someone at home means changing the environment around them as well as treating medical conditions.
The fourth is that family-supported care must be economically and operationally visible. A system cannot accurately assess its own sustainability if it measures only formal services while ignoring the time and income absorbed by households.
The fifth is that local flexibility and national stewardship are complementary. Indonesia's geography makes standardized service delivery unrealistic, but national policy still has a role in setting expectations, developing evidence and identifying geographic inequality.
These lessons are transferable as principles rather than institutional templates. Indonesia's Puskesmas, Posyandu, village structures and governmental arrangements arise from its own context. Another country can learn from the coordination logic without reproducing the mechanisms themselves.
The Next Stage Is to Build the Infrastructure Around Independence
Indonesia's explicit recognition of aging in place creates an important opportunity. It can shape long-term care around independence and community living before large-scale institutional dependence becomes the default response to population aging.
Doing so will require deliberate investment in the infrastructure that sits around the home. Primary care needs to recognize functional decline. Rehabilitation must be accessible enough to restore ability where possible. Families need practical support. Housing needs to become safer and more adaptable. Community services need referral routes. Local government needs visibility of unmet need. Digital systems should connect rather than fragment information.
Formal home-care capacity will also have to expand as the number of older people with substantial needs rises. The strategic challenge is to grow that capacity without replacing community strengths or treating unpaid family care as limitless.
This is not a choice between formal systems and traditional care. Indonesia's strongest opportunity lies in combining them more deliberately.
Conclusion
Aging in place in Indonesia should mean more than remaining inside the family home. It should describe an environment in which older people can retain as much autonomy, function, dignity and community connection as possible while receiving support proportionate to changing needs.
Indonesia already possesses important foundations for that model. Puskesmas and Posyandu provide community reach. Families contribute extensive care and continuity. Local institutions understand their communities. LLT and related community-based pilots are demonstrating how assessment, coordination and referral can be organized more deliberately. National policy increasingly recognizes aging in place as part of the country's response to demographic transition.
The implementation challenge is to build dependable infrastructure around those strengths. Housing, rehabilitation, caregiver support, safeguarding, technology, financing and formal home care must develop alongside community provision. Local flexibility needs national stewardship, and success must be judged through outcomes rather than simply whether an older person has avoided institutional care.
The central strategic test is ultimately human. An older person should not remain at home merely because no alternative exists, and a family should not sustain community living only by absorbing unmanageable care. Aging in place becomes a meaningful policy achievement when home remains a place of choice, participation and security because the wider system is capable of supporting life there.