Kin and Kith Residential Child Care = an inclusive Family First policy

Residential child care serves as a vital resource for preserving family continuity and fostering community-like support systems for children who cannot live with their birth families.

Kin

Research from the Rees Centre and The Children’s Commissioner notes that residential homes are often better suited for larger sibling groups that cannot be easily accommodated in traditional foster homes, making residential child care a practical necessity for maintaining these kin networks.

Kith

Kith and its attributes is an aspect that has been under-considered yet aligns closely that of kin relationships. Think of blended families consisting of grown-ups and 2 or more children with other partners, the relationships are non-family, non-biological. Such families, along with single parents, out number the traditionally defined family. The traditional family is now an exception rather than the norm. Families and households in the UK – Office for National Statistics

Kith = more in common

44% of those born at the start of the century didn’t live with both biological parents their entire childhood – a marked change from 21% for children born in 1970.

The 2022 Independent Family Review by England’s Children’s Commissioner found that nearly half of children were not living with their biological parents for their entire. The report makes the point that whatever the ‘family’ type it can have a “protective” effect in tough times and that it is the quality of the relationships that matters.

1. Residential Care: Keeping Siblings Together

Residential child care is often the only placement type capable of accommodating larger sibling groups, preventing the secondary trauma of separation.

• Shared History and Identity: Siblings are “witnesses to each other’s past”. Living together in a residential setting allows them to maintain a shared narrative and sense of belonging, which is often the only constant in their lives during times of significant change.
• Emotional Stability and Healing: Sibling bonds provide a “protective effect,” offering unique emotional support that peers or adults cannot replicate. Being placed together allows siblings to process trauma and heal collectively rather than in isolation.
• Lifelong Support: These relationships are often the most enduring connections a child will have. Residential care keeps these bonds alive by ensuring daily interaction, which prevents the “wilting” of relationships that often occurs when contact is reduced to infrequent visits.
• Mitigating Anxiety: For children who have previously functioned as caregivers for younger siblings, staying together alleviates the intense anxiety and worry that comes with separation.

2. Residential Care as “Residential Kith”

The concept of Kith refers to an informal network of friends and community members who provide a sense of belonging and support.

2.1 Residential care framed as a structured version = “Residential Kith.”

• A community of support: unlike the more private nature of foster care, residential settings function as small, outward-facing communities where children are nurtured by a team of committed professionals who function as kith.
• Shared daily life: informal, trust-based relationships are built on the daily interactions, like shared meals, activities, or routines. This mirrors the support typically found in kith networks.
• Mimicking family structures: group living offers unique opportunities for children to form sibling-like connections with peers who share similar backgrounds, creating a vital network of support that mimics a family-like structure.
• Safety and Nurture in community: A Residential Kith approach views the staff not just as paid employees, but as key figures in a child’s social fabric, providing the unconditional support and stable presence necessary for healthy development.

2.2 Residential Kith is currently an emerging conceptual framing rather than a formal legal term.

However, several policy frameworks and research papers advocate for the underlying principles of keeping siblings together and fostering community-like support in residential care.

Policy Frameworks Advocating for Sibling Continuity

National and international policies increasingly mandate that siblings be placed together unless it is clearly not in their best interests.

• Scotland’s “Staying Together and Connected” (2021): This national practice guidance is a leading example of a policy that prioritises sibling relationships. It establishes a duty for local authorities to ensure siblings live in the same place or near each other, regardless of whether the setting is foster, kinship, or residential care.
• France’s Taquet Law (2022): This legislation explicitly requires that siblings stay together in alternative care as long as it is in their best interests, aiming to balance the right to live with siblings with individualised care.
• UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children: These international guidelines stipulate that as a general rule, siblings should not be separated unless there are compelling reasons, and they urge governments to prioritise keeping families together.

2.3 Research Supporting the Residential Kith Approach

Research highlights the protective effects of these community-like and sibling-focused bonds.

• Protective effect of siblings: Studies by Hegar (2005) and Wojciak et al. (2018) indicate that siblings placed together often experience greater placement stability and better mental health outcomes, such as lower levels of internalising problems (anxiety and isolation).
• Residential weekends for connection: Research into projects like Siblings Forever demonstrates how intensive residential experiences can overcome the limitations of traditional, time-restrained contact sessions. These programs foster ‘normal’ shared experiences, which is central to the kith idea of building relationships through daily life.
• Stability and Belonging: Trasler (1960) and more recent work by Leathers (2005) show that co-placement is a strong predictor of placement stability. This supports the kith model’s goal of creating a stable, long-term social fabric for children in care.

3. Staffing & Professional Models

   Funding and staffing models for sibling-group residential homes vary significantly based on national philosophies of child welfare, ranging from highly professionalised “social pedagogy” models in Europe to market-driven, private-sector models in the UK and USA.

The Residential Kith concept is most visible in countries that treat residential care as a high-status professional field rather than a last-resort intervention.

• Social Pedagogy Model (Continental Europe): In countries like France, Germany, and Italy, a high proportion of residential staff are qualified at a degree level social pedagogues. These professionals focus on upbringing and daily life sharing, which directly supports the kith ideal of building deep, informal bonds through shared routines.
• Countries with higher educational requirements for staff, such as those in Western Europe, tend to have a higher utilization of residential care and longer average stays.
• Family-Style Residential:  Some non-governmental organisations, such as Asia’s Hope, operate family-style homes where groups of orphaned siblings live together in a permanent, community-based setting rather than a revolving-door institution.

4. Funding & Market Structures

   In the state invested Nordic & European models, notably Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, residential care is heavily invested in by the state and local authorities, financed through income and local taxes. This allows for a universal approach to sibling care where funding is less tied to individual per-child daily rates. These funding mechanisms create long-term stability required for siblings and kith to grow up together.

   Here is the comparison of how different countries fund and staff kith/sibling-group residential care.

Western Europe (e.g., France)

In Western Europe, residential care is primarily funded through a combination of central and regional taxation. These systems are characterised by a high level of professionalisation, where staff are typically degree-level Social Pedagogues. This professional standing supports the Residential Kith model by viewing care as a sophisticated educational and social mission. Policies, such as France’s Taquet Law, mandate the co-placement of siblings as a primary requirement to ensure family continuity.

Nordic Countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway)

The Nordic model relies on heavy state and local subsidies funded through high levels of taxation. This creates a universal service environment where residential care is seen as a high-quality community resource rather than a last resort. Staffing is highly integrated with the broader education and healthcare sectors, ensuring that children are supported by highly trained professionals. Their sibling policy focus is deeply rooted in a family service philosophy, where maintaining natural support networks is viewed as a fundamental right.

United Kingdom

In the UK, funding is derived from general taxation and distributed via local councils, which often purchase placements from a market dominated by private providers. Staffing professionalisation is currently mixed; while there are ongoing national efforts to increase mandatory training and qualifications, the sector has historically faced high turnover. Legally, the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 places a duty on authorities to keep siblings together, though this is often balanced against the availability of suitable placements within a commercial market.

United States

Funding in the U.S. is largely public but often means-tested, with a significant reliance on private non-profit and for-profit agencies to deliver care. Staffing qualifications are highly variable across different states, often featuring lower entry-level qualification thresholds compared to European counterparts. While there is a focus on ‘transnational investment’ and improving outcomes, sibling co-placement often depends on the specific capacity and funding of individual private providers.