Introduction
Across the world, child protection systems increasingly recognise kinship care as the preferred alternative to institutional care. International conventions, deinstitutionalisation policies and family-centered approaches all encourage children to remain within their wider family whenever this is safe and possible. This policy direction is also consistent with the international social work commitment to promoting family- and community-based care that safeguards children's rights, family relationships and social inclusion (United Nations, 1989; International Federation of Social Workers & International Association of Schools of Social Work, 2014; Pitcher, 2014; Denby, 2015).
Yet, despite this broad international consensus, kinship care families are often treated as a single category. Social policies frequently assume that similar support measures are appropriate for all kinship caregivers. Research and practice suggest otherwise, showing that kinship care families are far from a homogeneous group and often require different forms of support to meet their specific circumstances (Nandy et al., 2011; Holtan et al., 2013).
This policy direction represents an important achievement. Yet its growing success has also exposed an unintended consequence. As kinship care has become the preferred care arrangement, policy frameworks have increasingly been designed around a broad category of "kinship care families", despite growing evidence that these families differ substantially in their resources, responsibilities and support needs (Nandy et al., 2011; Farmer, 2009).
For social workers, this creates a practical dilemma. While policy seeks consistency and standardisation, practice encounters variation. A grandparent raising grandchildren after retirement, an adult sibling assuming parental responsibilities, a non-relative caregiver caring for a vulnerable child, and an informal caregiver supporting a family during a family crisis may all formally belong to the same policy category. Yet their everyday realities, support networks, financial situations and professional needs differ considerably.
This tension between policy simplification and practice complexity is highly relevant to social work. Effective practice requires recognising differences between families rather than assuming uniformity. From a social work perspective, the central question is therefore not simply how to expand kinship care, but how to develop policies that respond to the different circumstances of kinship care families while ensuring equitable and appropriate support. The Latvian experience provides an opportunity to reflect on this broader international challenge.
Latvia as a case study
Latvia provides an informative case for examining this challenge. Similar to many European countries, child protection reforms have increasingly prioritised family-based care over institutional placement. Most children placed in formal guardianship live with relatives rather than in residential care, reflecting the broader international commitment to preserving family relationships whenever possible. At the same time, Latvian family policy, like that of many countries, generally approaches kinship care families as one policy category despite their considerable internal diversity.
My doctoral research explored this diversity by examining the resilience of different kinship care family models in Latvia. Rather than treating kinship care families as a homogeneous group, the study distinguished four types of caregivers: grandparents, other relatives, non-relative guardians and informal caregivers who assume long-term responsibility for children without formal legal guardianship. The analysis focused on how different combinations of individual, family and social factors shape each family's capacity to provide stable care.
The findings suggest that these family models cannot be understood through a single policy lens. Grandparents often experience challenges associated with ageing, health and fixed incomes while simultaneously resuming parental responsibilities. Other relatives frequently struggle to reconcile employment, their own family commitments and the unexpected responsibility of raising a child. Non-relative guardians are more likely to be motivated by a strong sense of commitment but may encounter different forms of social recognition and institutional expectations. Informal caregivers face another reality altogether, often assuming substantial caregiving responsibilities without formal recognition or access to support services. These differences influence not only the risks families encounter but also the types of resources that strengthen their capacity to care for children.
The significance of these findings extends beyond Latvia. They suggest that effective kinship care policy should begin by recognising diversity rather than assuming similarity. Understanding the different realities of kinship caregivers enables social workers and policy makers to design support that responds to families' actual circumstances instead of applying uniform solutions to fundamentally different situations.
What social workers actually see
For social workers, kinship care is never a single reality. Families who share the same legal status often have very different lives, responsibilities and support needs. This is where practice begins to diverge from policy.
Imagine a 68-year-old grandmother who expected retirement to bring stability and rest. Instead, she is raising her eight-year-old grandson after a family crisis. She worries about whether her pension will cover everyday expenses, whether her health will allow her to continue caring for him, and who will step in if she becomes seriously ill. Her priority is not another assessment - it is practical support, respite care and confidence that she will not face these challenges alone.
Now imagine a 32-year-old woman who becomes guardian to her younger sister. She is building her own career, raising a young child and suddenly finds herself responsible for a traumatised teenager. Her greatest concern is not financial assistance alone but balancing work with caregiving, finding reliable childcare and accessing psychological support for both herself and her sister.
Another family tells a different story. A non-relative guardian accepted responsibility because there was simply no one else the child could trust. The motivation is strong, but so is the uncertainty. Questions about cooperation with professionals, contact with the biological family and navigating legal responsibilities become part of everyday life. What this family needs is a supportive professional relationship rather than standardised procedures.
Finally, there are informal caregivers - an aunt, an older sibling or a family friend—who quietly assume responsibility without formal legal recognition. They may successfully care for a child for years while remaining largely invisible to formal support systems. Their resilience is considerable, but their access to services is often limited precisely because their caregiving role is unofficial.
These families all fall within the broad category of kinship care. Yet they do not need the same support. This is the central lesson for social work: effective practice starts not with the question, What type of kinship care is this? but rather, Who is this family, and what resources would enable them to thrive? When policy recognises only one category, social workers must respond to four very different realities.
What policy often misses
Public policy inevitably relies on categories. To allocate funding, define eligibility and organise services, governments need clear administrative definitions. From this perspective, "kinship care" appears to be a practical and coherent policy category. It allows programmes to be designed, statistics to be collected and support to be delivered consistently.
In practice, what works administratively does not always reflect social reality.
The Latvian case illustrates that families grouped under the same policy label may differ profoundly in their life circumstances, resources and vulnerabilities. A retired grandparent, an employed adult sibling, a non-relative guardian and an informal caregiver all provide family-based care, yet the challenges they face - and the support they require - are fundamentally different. Treating these families as a homogeneous group risks overlooking the very factors that determine whether care arrangements remain stable over time.
This does not mean that universal policies are unnecessary. Rather, it suggests that universal policy frameworks should be flexible enough to recognise diversity within kinship care. Equality should not be understood as providing identical support to every family, but as ensuring that different families receive support appropriate to their circumstances.
From a social work perspective, this distinction is crucial. Social workers rarely encounter an abstract policy category. They meet individuals whose caregiving responsibilities emerge from different family histories, relationships and social contexts. Professional assessment therefore begins with understanding the family's situation rather than applying assumptions associated with a legal status.
The central lesson extends beyond Latvia. As more countries expand kinship care within child protection systems, there is a growing need to move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches. Policies should create space for professional judgement and recognise that different forms of kinship care require different combinations of financial support, practical assistance and psychosocial services. The effectiveness of family policy depends not only on supporting kinship care itself, but also on recognising the diversity that exists within it.
The examples presented above suggest that the central question for social work is not whether a family experiences difficulties. Every kinship care family encounters challenges of some kind. The more important question is why some families are able to adapt, reorganise and continue providing stable care despite these challenges, while others struggle.
Much of the existing literature on resilience has focused on the strengths and adaptive capacities of individuals or families (Walsh, 2016; Ungar, 2008). These perspectives have made an important contribution by shifting attention away from deficits and towards protective factors. The findings of this study suggest that resilience cannot be understood solely as a characteristic of the family itself.
Families exist within broader social systems. Their ability to care for children is shaped not only by personal strengths but also by relationships with extended family, local communities, social services, legal frameworks and family policy. In other words, resilience is created through interaction between the family and its social environment rather than residing exclusively within the family. This ecological and systems-oriented perspective is consistent with Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory and Luhmann's understanding of families as dynamic social systems that continuously adapt to changing environments.
This perspective changes the way social workers approach practice. Instead of asking, What is wrong with this family?, social workers may ask, What enables this family to remain resilient? The emphasis shifts from identifying deficits to recognising the resources, relationships and institutional conditions that support families in fulfilling their caregiving role.
Such a perspective also changes the role of social policy. Rather than simply responding to family problems, policy can strengthen the conditions that enable families to remain resilient over time. Professional support, flexible services, financial security, access to information and trusting relationships with practitioners become part of the family's resilience, not external additions to it.
Viewing kinship care through the lens of resilience therefore offers more than a different theoretical perspective. It provides a practical framework for connecting family strengths, professional practice and social policy, recognising that sustainable care emerges through the interaction of all three.
What can the world learn from Latvia?
The Latvian experience demonstrates that the future of kinship care depends not only on expanding family-based care but also on recognizing the variations that exists within it. The central lesson is simple: families who share the same legal status do not necessarily share the same realities.
This insight has implications far beyond Latvia. As countries continue to reduce institutional care and strengthen family-based alternatives, social policies will increasingly need to balance administrative simplicity with the complexity of family life. Standardised policies may improve consistency, but they should not replace professional judgement or overlook differences between families.
Five principles emerge from the Latvian experience.
First, good family policy should recognise diversity, acknowledging that grandparents, relatives, non-relative guardians and informal caregivers often require different forms of support.
Second, informal caregiving should be recognised and strengthened, as many children are successfully cared for outside formal legal arrangements while remaining largely invisible to support systems.
Third, services should be differentiated rather than standardised. Equal treatment does not necessarily mean identical support; it means providing support that corresponds to each family's circumstances.
Fourth, child protection should balance protection with family autonomy. Families require accountability, but they also need trust, partnership and opportunities to build on their own strengths rather than experiencing intervention primarily as control.
Finally, research, policy and social work practice should inform one another. Social workers encounter the diversity of family life every day. Policies become more effective when they are shaped not only by administrative requirements but also by evidence emerging from practice.
The Latvian experience therefore offers a broader message for international social work. Supporting kinship care is not simply about placing children within families. It is about understanding which families need what kind of support, and recognising that resilient family care is created through the interaction of families, communities, professionals and public policy.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press.
Denby, R. W. (2015). Kinship Care: Increasing Child Well-Being Through Practice, Policy, and Research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Farmer, E. (2009). Making kinship care work. Adoption & Fostering, 33(3), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/030857590903300303
Holtan, A., Nilsen, S. A., & Vis, S. A. (2013). Family characteristics and supportive factors in kinship care. Child & Family Social Work, 18(4), 371–381.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), & International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW). (2014). Global Definition of Social Work. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
Nandy, S., Selwyn, J., Farmer, E., & Vaisey, P. (2011). Spotlight on Kinship Care: Using Census Microdata to Examine the Extent and Nature of Kinship Care in the UK. University of Bristol.
Pitcher, D. (Ed.). (2014). Inside Kinship Care: Understanding Family Dynamics and Providing Effective Support. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcm042
Walsh, F. (2016). Strengthening Family Resilience (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.