The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History


tatyana of CAMCOHEHKO


In article the fight of the Soviet vpasta against homelessness of children is considered. Such ways of overcoming homelessness as the organization of orphanages, adoption, a method of guardianship (patronizing), etc., allowed to overcome generally by the end of the 1930th this problem in vultures and villages of the South of Russia.

The article deals with the struggle of Soviet power with homelessness of children. Such methods as organization of children’s homes, adoption, guardianship (patronage), etc. made it possible to almost overcome this problem up to the end of the 1930s in villages and stanitsas of Russian South.

collectivization, cash desks of public mutual aid, collective farmer, guardianship, patronizing, rural institutions of social assistance, rural activist; collectivization, mutual aid fund, kolkhoz members, guardianship, patronage, village institutions of social relief, village activist.

In process of implementation of collectivization and a dispossession of kulaks in the village there were more and more orphans whose parents got under a skating rink of Stalin repressions. As the children's homelessness and neglect represented the phenomena interfering normal activity of collective-farm society, the authorities led fight against it. Collective farms and rural social institutions, first of all the cash desk of public mutual aid of collective farmers (CDPMACF) were connected to this fight.

Fight against homelessness was conducted by the placement of orphans to orphanages, transfers of orphans on care of citizens or adoption. All these methods were applied in the 1920th, and in the Soviet dokolkhozny village the greatest distribution was received by guardianship (patronizing). Individual country farms could not carry out financing of orphanages, and adoption always represents one of the least widespread ways of overcoming homelessness.

Continuous collectivization did not bring essential innovations in a technique of fight against children's homelessness, but replaced priorities in this sphere. The fact is that in the conditions of "a great change" the Don, Kuban, Stavropol collective farmers (not to mention individualists) met huge vital difficulties and therefore they extremely reluctantly agreed to registration of guardianship over orphan children. Therefore orphanages became in the conditions of continuous collectivization the main centers of contempt of orphan children. These houses with the assistance of regional party and Soviet officials (in particular, employees of the area) and employees of the Village Councils were organized, and the main part of funds for their maintenance was allocated by KOVK and collective farms.

In most cases orphanages were created on the general means of several cash desks of public mutual aid of collective farmers and collective farms (though there were also small institutions for orphan children which were contained separate collective farms). In particular, summer of 1933 in the Salsk district of the North Caucasian region local KOVK organized orphanage, in



Aleksandrovna — to. and. N, associate professor of tourism and resort business of Sochi State University of tourism and resort business of Zatzstgpko1962 @

which was 100 sirot1. In 1934. The Yeysk interdistrict cash desk of mutual aid of Azovo-Chernomorsky edge contained "the house of orphans" in which there were "42 persons of children of humble origin" 2.

Creation and establishing effective functioning of orphanages were interfered by the deficiency of means representing the burning issue for KOVK and collective farms in the first half of the 1930th. Many orphanages in the south of Russia tried to improve a situation by self-sufficiency. Sometimes workers of KOVK and collective-farm managers with assistance of the regional management tried to shift functions of financing of orphanages to the local budget. But such attempts met a sharp rebuff from higher power structures. So, the Azovo-Chernomorsky regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) rejected on March 23, 1935 a request of the Rostov district committee of party for financing of collective-farm orphanage at the expense of the local budget and confirmed the former decision that such institutions have to contain exclusively collective hozyaystvami3.

In a set of areas and collective farms of Don, Kuban, Stavropol Territory the orphanages were not in the best situation. In the resolution of SeveroDonskiy district committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) adopted on February 7, 1936 it was noted that in agricultural artel "World October" of Chertkovsky district "the collective-farm orphanage (8 children of homeless children) is in exclusively thriftless and insanitation, children school students [here] without footwear and are not provided with food" 4.

The authorities, of course, undertook measures for improvement of the situation of collective-farm and intercollective-farm orphanages. In January (1934) the resolution of the Veshensky district committee of the All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) where serious omissions and shortcomings of providing orphan children were listed, also the program of measures for improvement of the developed negative situation was stated. The district committee decided: "... under personal responsibility of secretaries of cells,

1 State Archive of the Rostov Region (SARR), t. R-1390, op. 7, 442, l. 80.
2 E.A. Lysikov. Immediate tasks of cash desks of mutual aid in collective farms for 1935//Social security, 1935, No. 1, page 14.
3 Center of Documentation of the Contemporary History of the Rostov Region (CDCHRR), t. 8, op. 1, 122, l. 12.
4 TsDNIRO, t. 76, op. 1, 59, l. 49 (about).

chairmen] village of the village (Village Councils. — A bus) and collective farms in 5 dnevny time to create all necessary conditions of normal life to children. To provide their warm, clean with accommodation, normal food, the equipment, beds, bedding, clothes, footwear and also to allocate the best collective farmers with constants zavedyvayushchy a boarding school, to provide visit by children of schools" 5.

In view of unsatisfactory functioning of many orphanages, colonies, boarding schools, representatives of the Bolshevist management in the mid-thirties for decided to completely change priorities in a technique of fight against children's homelessness. Orphanages and other similar institutions ceased to be considered as the main means of contempt of orphan children. The main emphasis was put on guardianship (patronizing) and adoption of children.

The order of the patronizing which turned into the leading method of overcoming homelessness was defined in a number of normative legal acts. VTsIK and snk RSFSR on April 1, 1936 adopted the resolution according to which patronizing (patronage) was defined as transfer of the children who did not reach age of 14 years on education in "families of workers". Education of children as patronizing continued "before achievement patronized 15-year age" 6.

At the beginning of June, 1936 there was an instruction Narkomprosa, Narkomzdrava and Narkomsobesa supplementing and specifying a patronizing order. In the instruction, in particular, it was noted that "on education children in a condition of sharp and chronic infectious diseases and also umstvennootstaly are not given". Before patronizing the appropriate authorities had to survey at first any given accepting family to find out whether it is capable to accept the orphan on education. It was forbidden to transfer children to families, "where payment for patronage would be the main source of existence of family",

5 TsDNIRO, t. 36, op. 1, 38, l. 2 (about).
6 The resolution of VTsIK and SNK of RSFSR "About an order of transfer of children on education (patronage) in families of workers" of April 1, 1936//the Reduced collection of laws of USSR and RSFSR for village councils, 1936, the issue 10, page 281.

"where there are alcoholics, addicts, etc.". It was specified that it was necessary to transfer only one child to the same family (for brothers and sisters, however, the exception could be made). 14 years are more senior than orphan children it was recommended not to patronize, and to employ. The size of the grant paid to the trustee was determined: not less than 350 rub money and nature in a year on keeping of one rebenka1.

The main share of expenses on keeping of orphan children in the village laid down on cash desks of mutual aid. According to plans in 1936 KOVK was allowed, "in view of special importance" fight against homelessness, to increase maintenance costs of patronirovanny orphan children and assistance to children of temporarily needing collective farmers on average to 25% of all which were available sredstv2. Thus, financing of patronage turned into the leading item of expenditure of KOVK. In the next years the cash desks of public mutual aid of collective farmers of the South of Russia continued to spend a considerable part of the material and financial funds which are saved up by them for patronizing of orphan children and the maintenance of orphanages (which, though decreased in number, nevertheless continued to function). In the first half of 1939 of cash desk of mutual aid of collective farms of the Ordzhonikidzevsky region transferred to keeping of orphan children 524 thousand rubles 3 On norms of 1940 of KOVK of the Ordzhonikidzevsky region spent for providing one deserted child of 525 rub, KOVK of the Rostov region — 548 rub. In general, in 1940 the cash desks of mutual aid of the Rostov region allocated for the aid to orphan children and children of the collective farmers who fell into need, over 1.1 million rubles that made more than 25% from

1 The instruction Narkomprosa, Narkomzdrava and Narkomsobesa about an order of application of the resolution of VTsIK and SNK of April 1, 1936. "About an order of transfer of children on education (patronage) in families of workers" (on June 2, 1936)//the Reduced collection of laws of USSR and RSFSR for village councils, 1936, the issue 19, page 576 — 578.
2 The resolution Narkomsobesa of RSFSR "About directives for creation of plans of work of cash desks of mutual aid in collective farms for 1936" of October 14, 1935//the Reduced collection of laws of USSR and RSFSR for village councils, 1936, the issue 6, page 169.
3 N. Gushchin. For further improvement of work

cash desks of collective-farm mutual aid//Social

providing, 1939, No. 11, page 22.

their total costs estimated by figure about 4 million rubles 4

The fact that collective farmers evaded from official registration of patronage because of unstable position of the farms and especially acted as an essential brake of patronizing when took on education of the children who were left without parents owing to a dispossession of kulaks. In other words, collective farmers were constrained as socio-political (unwillingness to contact children of "dispossessed"), and by purely material factors (poverty). And contrary to the general figures (testifying to considerable expenses of cash desks of mutual aid in favor of orphans), many KOVK could not stimulate potential trustees financially. In 1940 the staff of the Rostov regional social security stated poorness of supply of patronirovanny children manufactured goods "in connection with not resolution of a question of an order of a holiday of manufactured goods for orphan children since on places the employees of trade organizations approach this business especially formally, releasing manufactured goods in accordance with general practice, on the first-come, first-served basis, etc." 5.

In conditions when the party soviet leadership demanded to patronize as much as possible orphan children, and many collective farmers evaded from it because of poverty or being afraid to take in seven offsprings of "fists", KOVK appeared between a hammer of an imperious initiative and an anvil of country passivity. It was good to take those a Qassam of public mutual aid which functioned in economically developed collective farms and could interest financially collective farmers of orphan children on education. But the similar option remained outside opportunities of workers of weak KOVK (and those was much in the south of Russia even by the end of the 1930th).

Understanding that unsatisfactory carrying out patronizing will cause anger of the authorities, and seeking to avoid punishment, some workers of financially weak KOVK looked for compromises with villagers. So, they closed eyes to what instead of patronizing the collective farmers practiced with assistance of orphan children

4 V. Kozhin is 10 years old of the Rostov cash desks of mutual aid of collective farms//Social security, 1941, No. 4, page 23.
5 GARF, t. A-413, op. 1, 115, l. 67.

an old country way of sequence when not one family, but all village in turn cared for homeless children. Each family fed and supported the orphan throughout a certain period of time (from two-three weeks to one year), giving him after this term to the sosedyam1. One more compromise option was the room of several children at once in that collective-farm family which expressed readiness to issue patronage. Caseworkers and authorities, certainly, criticized such compromises. For example, concerning the last option it was specified that it contradicts the legislation (forbidding to the same trustee to accept in seven several pupils who were not brothers and sisters), and the group of patronirovanny children in one family is, in essence, "the hidden orphanage" 2.

We will add that not always patronizing was for homeless children the better lot in comparison with orphanage. Of course, in the collective-farm village many cases of model education of orphan children were observed. But examples deystvi-

1 L. Prozorov. How to patronize orphan children//Social security, 1940, No. 9, page 8.
2 GARF, t. A-413, op. 1, 115, l. 69.

telny care of orphans adjoined to frequent cases of neglect their needs. Even conscientious performance of KOVK of the obligations not always guaranteed to patronirovanny children provided life. Protesting against improper treatment with them, other pupils ran from trustees.

By the end of the 1930th the patronizing turned into the leading method of fight against homelessness in the collective-farm village of the South of Russia at preservation on the second plan of other methods — orphanages, adoption, etc. The number of street children in the collective-farm village of Don, Kuban and Stavropol Territory decreased. In 1940 1,372 cash desks of mutual aid of the Ordzhonikidzevsky region contained, according to different data, from 3,284 to 3,398 orphan children from whom there were patronirovan 2,491 children and contained in orphanages 907. 17 more children were adopted, "is brought to independent work on attainment of majority of 386 children" 3. As we see, by the end of the 1930th in villages and villages of the South of Russia was much less street children, and the problem of children's neglect and homelessness in the collective-farm village of the South of Russia was generally solved.

3 GARF, t. A-413, op. 1, 114, l. 26, 28, 30.
Ryan Wade
Other scientific works: