世界发展银行-Organization-and-Delivery-of-Child-Protection-Services-in-Russia---With-Two-Case-Studies---The-Leningrad-Oblast-and-the-Republic-of-Tatarstan_105页_1mb

Summary of "Organization and Delivery of Child Protection Services in Russia" (with case studies: Leningrad Oblast and Tatarstan Republic)

Core Content

This policy note analyzes the organization and delivery of child protection services in Russia, focusing on the institutional and legal frameworks, service delivery practices, and public spending. It highlights the progress made and the remaining challenges in the child protection system, using two case studies—Leningrad Oblast and the Republic of Tatarstan—to illustrate the diversity of approaches across Russian regions.

Main Points

1. Historical Trends and Current Situation

• Over the last 15 years, Russia has undergone significant conceptual, legal, and institutional changes in its child protection system.
• The system has shifted from a model that primarily removed children from families to one that emphasizes prevention, family placement, and reunification.
• Key trends:
  • The number of children left without parental care has decreased significantly, from 133,034 in 2005 to 43,395 in 2020.
  • The rate of children in public care (per 100,000 population aged 0-17) dropped from 2,790 in 2009 to 1,673 in 2020.
  • Adoption and family-based care (guardianship) have become the dominant forms of care, with institutional care decreasing.

2. Policy Framework

• The National Strategy for Children 2012–2017 was a key policy document that guided the improvement of child protection.
• It aimed to address social disadvantage, child abuse, and family dysfunction by promoting preventive measures and family-based care.
• The Decade of Childhood (2018–2027) was launched to build on the National Strategy and further improve child protection services.

3. Institutional Framework

• The child protection system is regulated at federal, regional, and local levels.
• Key institutions:
  • Guardianship and Trusteeship Authorities – responsible for legal procedures related to children left without parental care.
  • Social Services for Children and Families – provide psychosocial support, family therapy, legal advice, and other services.
  • Commissions on Minors' Affairs – coordinate child protection efforts and make decisions on placement and support.
  • Interdepartmental Cooperation – essential for effective service delivery and case management.

4. Regional Variations

• The Leningrad Oblast and the Republic of Tatarstan are two regions with relatively low rates of children entering public care.
• Both have implemented reforms in child protection, but with different approaches.
• Leningrad Oblast:
  • Emphasizes case management, guardianship, and interdepartmental coordination.
  • Social services are integrated into a broader network of support for vulnerable families.
• Republic of Tatarstan:
  • Has a well-developed system of social services.
  • Implements an information system for monitoring families and minors at social risk.
  • Focuses on prevention, early detection, and reunification of children with families.

5. Public Spending

• Public spending on child protection services has increased, but remains insufficient to meet the needs of vulnerable children and families.
• Key findings:
  • In 2020, public spending on child protection in Leningrad Oblast and Tatarstan was estimated at over 100,000 RUB per child.
  • The budget allocation for child protection services is often fragmented and underfunded.
  • There is a need for more systematic and sustainable funding to support the expansion of social work and care services.

6. Key Challenges

• High institutionalization rates: Even with improvements, 8.1% of children left without parental care in 2020 were still placed in residential care.
• Lack of early identification: Most cases are identified by the police, which is too late for effective prevention.
• Insufficient case management: Few regions have established comprehensive case management systems.
• Limited access to services: Many families face barriers to accessing support due to strict eligibility criteria and limited availability of services.
• NGO involvement: NGOs have become more important in service delivery, but face budgetary constraints and lack of formal recognition as service providers.

7. Recommendations

• Strengthen early identification systems to detect family dysfunction and child abuse before it leads to separation.
• Develop a robust case management system that includes holistic assessment, multi-sectoral intervention, and regular monitoring.
• Enhance interdepartmental cooperation to ensure a coordinated response to child protection issues.
• Improve access to social services by reducing eligibility criteria and ensuring transparency in public procurement.
• Support NGOs through better funding and formal recognition as service providers.
• Ensure equalization of child benefits to encourage adoption and foster care.

Key Messages

(i) Achievements

• A significant reduction in the number of children in public care.
• A shift from institutional care to family-based care, including paid foster care.
• Improved legal and policy frameworks, including the National Strategy and the Decade of Childhood.
• Enhanced cooperation between government agencies and NGOs.

(ii) Issues That Need Attention

• The rate of children in public care remains high (1,673 per 100,000 children).
• Regional disparities in child protection service delivery and outcomes.
• The continued reliance on parental rights deprivation as a pathway to care.
• Insufficient funding and lack of a centralized, efficient system for service delivery.
• Inadequate support for families at risk, leading to high rates of child separation.

(iii) Recommendations

• Implement early identification and prevention mechanisms.
• Develop comprehensive case management systems.
• Promote interagency collaboration and a single gatekeeping system.
• Expand NGO involvement in child protection services.
• Ensure equal child benefits across all care types.
• Increase public investment in child protection services.