Overhauling Russia’s Child Welfare system: Institutional and Ideational Factors behind the Paradigm Shift

Abstract

OVERHAULING RUSSIA'S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM: INSTITUTIONAL AND IDEATIONAL FACTORS BEHIND THE PARADIGM SHIFTThis article studies the causal factors behind the major overhaul of Russia's system for children in substitute care that has been taking place since the late 2000's. A series of reforms have promoted fostering and family-like care in contrast to the large residential homes used in the Soviet period and 1990's. We highlight the fundamental change in the 'ideal of care' represented by the move to 'deinstitutionalise' the care system by promoting domestic adoptions, increasing the number of foster families, creating early support services for families as well as restructuring remaining residential institutions into smaller, home-like environments. These are all key elements of the global deinstitutionalisation trend that is taking place around the globe. We look at the evolution of the related policies and ask why this policy shift happened during the 2010's even though the issue of reform had partially been on the Russian policy agenda for some time. Building on an explanatory approach to family policy changes by Magritta Mäztke and Ilona Ostner, which incorporates material and ideational driving forces, we explain that the 'political will from above' behind these major reforms was shaped by a range of other societal and political factors. instance, the increasing conservative turn in policies towards children and families, which are driven by the severe demographic decline in the country, work alongside the influence of international norms around children's rights and changing socio-economic circumstances. In the 1990's Russian NGOs had considerable input into the reforms as 'epistemic communities' in policy formation thanks to the high level of expertise that they developed in international networks and the increasing number of cross-sector consultative platforms at governmental bodies in contemporary Russia. We conclude that ideational factors were necessary preconditions for the reforms, but that political forces were ultimately the key driving force. The recentralisation of power and prioritisation of social policy under President Putin allowed new ideas to gain concrete policy realisation.

NGOs and the policy‐making process in Russia: The case of child welfare reform

“…See for the details of this specific set of legislation in Bogdanova, Cook, and Kulmala (2018). 6 At its worst, the population was shrinking by 700,000 per year during the 1990s (Cook, 2011, p. 21 Kulmala et al, 2017). 14…”

The Carrot or the Stick? Constraints and Opportunities of Russia’s CSO Policy

“…They framed domestic violence within the family policy code of 'difficult life situations', fitting it into the national concern about protecting Russian families. Similarly, child rights advocates have relied on child welfare framing instead of child rights framing, even though the reform their support builds on is the global rights-based and child-focused approaches (Kulmala et al 2017). Thus, activists' ability and agency to navigate within the current political environment show the importance of framing the issues to resonate in the given circumstances.…”

“…Even within social policy, the government welcomes input mainly in areas it prioritises, such as family and child welfare policy (which connects to its concerns about demographic decline). Kulmala et al (2017) and also Bindman et al (2018) witnessed how, at the federal level, Russian CSOs specialised in child welfare served as the agents of change by providing expertise for the massive child welfare reform that is now being implemented. The globally driven deinstitutionalisation reform, which constituted a major part of the child welfare reform, was a high priority on the government's agenda in the early 2010s.…”

Entrepreneurial NPOs in Russia: Rationalizing the Mission

“…The overwhelming theoretical conclusion is that Russian nonprofits are too adaptive to their environment (ibid.). They may gain ability to transform the life around them when norms and expectations of nonprofits and public authorities align; however, factors that facilitate such alignment are mostly external to organizations (Kulmala et al 2017). Through mimetic (Henderson 2002) and coercive (Ljubownikow and Crotty 2017) isomorphism, civil society seems to have gradually been deprived of its own institutional constituents.…”

“…Although nonprofits are wary of the unpredictable legislative process, the brutality of the bureaucratic machine and the lack of trust in the long-term stability of state programs, they consider procurements as a way to influence policy. Building relationships with policy-makers, many strive to influence which services are included in state programs and how delivery standards are defined, thus acting not only as a complement or an alternative to, but a driving force for the failing public welfare system (Kulmala et al 2017, cf. Badelt 1997.…”