Gender violence and discrimination in Russia: Learning from an American–Russian partnership

Gender discrimination in Russia since the 1990s

There are significant historical roots for contemporary gender violence and discrimination in Russia. Despite proclamations of gender equality in the former Soviet Union, women were highly dependent on the state, which fostered a ‘protectionist’ philosophy through the state-sponsored social welfare system. Usha (2005) noted the presence of a ‘gender paradox’, in which Soviet women had legal and political rights, as well as high levels of education and employment, yet were virtually absent in political institutions, which is a legacy that continues today. During the Soviet Era, women’s groups were prohibited from independently organizing and only began to emerge in the 1990s (Hemment, 2007). (For a detailed historical review, see Engel, 2004.)

With the fall of communism in 1991, women in Russia obtained new opportunities for travel and education, but despite these changes, women also lost the official state policy of protection for marriage and motherhood (Kalabikhina, 2005). Women were forced out of politics and employment due to the creation of a highly competitive economic environment and new government policies. While Russian women desired to work and focus on their careers, men still retained Soviet-era expectations of the more traditional role of women (Richardson, 1995). Maternity leave was extended, although this was done primarily to discourage women from returning to the labor force after giving birth (Moghadan, 1995). Older, rural, and less educated women in particular were restricted to more traditional household responsibilities.

Women were especially vulnerable to poverty since they were mostly employed in the low-income sector, comprising a large share of pensioners, and headed virtually all single-parent families (Kalabikhina, 2005). After the transition, one-third of the Russian population fell into poverty with more than half of these households headed by women, and with women comprising the overwhelming majority of unemployed workers (Moghadan, 1995). Many of the economic sectors in which women were concentrated, such as health and education, were publicly funded and saw a massive drop in pay. Where cutbacks occurred, women were immediately targeted for ‘administrative leave’, specifically women with children or those approaching retirement (Kay, 2002).

Another problem concerned employment opportunities since the available jobs for women were typically short-term, low-skilled, and minimal wage. This was largely attributed to fewer desirable positions and a preference for hiring men (Zavyalova and Kosheleva, 2010). Further, the labor market not only discriminated based on gender, but also on age, with hiring practices favoring younger women (Kay, 2002). Employers encouraged women to quit when they had children and to become full-time homemakers; but, when their children were grown, it was nearly impossible for them to reenter the labor market. Sexual harassment in employment settings was rampant, and there was (and still is) a cultural norm for responding through informal channels, as opposed to the US model of using legal or institutional mechanisms (Stuchevskaia, 2011).

More recent research reveals a shift in thinking between older women who grew up in the Soviet era and younger Russian women from the post-Soviet era. Older women tend to adhere to more traditional roles and younger women tend to postpone marriage, have fewer children, and pursue a career (White, 2005). Younger women value more egalitarian households, in which both partners work (for equal pay), run the household, and share parental responsibilities. Despite these changes, the identity of Russian women is still closely tied to motherhood, with the result that almost all women have at least one child (Temkina, 2010).

Current gender violence and discrimination problems

Women in Russia today experience a greater amount of role strain and psychological stress than under the Communist system, due to the demanding nature of these rapidly changing expectations. Barrett and Buckley (2009) found that Russian women report lower levels of personal control than men under similar social and economic conditions, which is an important aspect of psychological well-being. Complex challenges for Russian women in both rural and urban regions include job availability and unemployment, healthcare and mental health, reproductive and maternal rights, alcoholism, domestic violence, child maltreatment, and crime victimization.

Russia is still experiencing a demographic crisis that began in the late 1960s with a stagnant birth rate, low life expectancy, high abortion rates, and premature death rates due to unhealthy lifestyles (smoking and alcoholism) (Eke, 2005, 2006). These problems pertain to a lack of preventive and wellness programs and family planning that persist today, especially among young women who are in critical need of educational programs. Russia has an alarmingly high level of maternal mortality, with one-quarter of deaths related to illegal abortion, which is prevalent among adolescents and young women (Solodnikov and Braithwaite, 2011). Russian women have a lower use of reliable contraception (despite its accessibility), and a higher rate of induced abortion than Western European women (Larivaara, 2010). One reason for this incongruent pattern is that abortion is still used as a method of birth control. The government has begun to put restrictions on abortion and, as a result, the number in homeless and orphaned children is increasing to alarming levels. Russia and Ukraine are among the Eastern European countries with the fastest growing rate of HIV infections, including a substantial number of women (Burruano and Kruglov, 2009).

Socio-political, economic, and health care changes occurring in Russia are having some positive impacts on the health and well-being of women and newborns. Financial initiatives are awarded by the Russian government for family planning to encourage a higher birth rate and prenatal health care (Dymchenko and Callister, 2002). Recently, the government has provided more funding for social services and child welfare programs. Social problems such as poverty and alcoholism are now becoming openly acknowledged by the government, whereas they were denied in the past. For example, Green et al. (2000) profile an innovative holistic treatment program in St Petersburg that demonstrates how policy-makers, politicians, and clinicians can advocate for change, work together to promote innovative programs, and collaborate with international colleagues to foster service development.

The problem of domestic violence has only recently started to change from being viewed as a ‘family matter’ to a societal and legal one, despite the past 20 years of advocacy by Russian women for changes in the response to gender violence. This is a similar pattern to the feminist movement in the US during the 1970s, when women gained power and resources through grassroots efforts and legislative reforms. While there were major political, economic, and socio-cultural changes happening in both countries during those respective times, improvements in the US in social and legal services for domestic violence occurred at a faster pace than in Russia due to federal and state legislation and subsequent changes by law enforcement and the courts. A feminist movement similar to that of the US has yet to materialize in Russia, and the popular culture in Russia persists in viewing feminism as a threat to Russian national values and leading to conflict with men (Voronina, 2009). (For a further discussion of feminism in contemporary Russia, see Holmgren, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Kizenko, 2013.)

The extent of domestic violence and its impact on Russian women and their families is profound. Yet, domestic violence is still not registered by most of the police, making accurate statistics nearly impossible to collect, and available estimates are considered to underreport its prevalence (Cubbins and Vannoy, 2005; Zakirova, 2004). Kalabikhina (2005) found that approximately one-half of women surveyed reported experiencing domestic violence. Current estimates are two-thirds of homicides are related to domestic violence, about 14,000 women are killed by husbands or other relatives each year, 40 percent of all serious violent crimes are family related, and 60–70 percent of women suffering from domestic violence do not seek help from law enforcement (ANNA, 2010). Women report not being respected or protected by the police, even when physical injuries are clearly visible, and women rarely take their cases to court for fear of revenge or judgment (Richmond, 2003). Similar to the US, Russian women are more likely to be killed in their homes by an intimate partner (Eckhardt, 2009). It is usually only in family violence situations involving a homicide that the Russian legal system gets involved. (For a further discussion of gender violence in Russia, see Johnson, 2009.)

This lack of trust in law enforcement extends to crimes of sexual assault where reports indicate that no more than 10 percent of rape victims in Russia go to the police, and surveys of crisis centers show that almost 22 percent of Russian women are victims of rape (ANNA, 2010). The National Commission on the Rights of Women and Violence Against Women estimates that approximately 30,000–40,000 sexual assaults are committed in the Russian Federation annually, whereas the Ministry of the Interior registered only 4790 rapes or attempted rape crimes in 2009 (ANNA, 2010). Currently, only NGOs and crisis centers provide services to victims of sexual violence, and the government does not provide any macro-level prevention system, legal services, or professional help for rape survivors (ANNA, 2010). In fact, the Code of Penal Procedure places rape in the category of ‘private-public prosecution’ so that court proceedings are only instigated by petition of the victim or her legal representative, which imposes the burden of prosecution on the victim, and it is estimated that only 50 percent of all sexual assault complaints see any investigation or court involvement (ANNA, 2010).

Another form of gender violence affecting Russian women is sex trafficking with Central and Eastern Europe, with the Russian Federation, being second only to Southeast Asia in incidence (ANNA, 2010; Tverdova, 2011). Social factors of poverty, unemployment, alcoholism/drug abuse, domestic violence, and lack of education are associated with sex trafficking. About one hundred NGOs in Russia are currently working with victims of sex trafficking with the key goal of increasing public awareness, advocacy, legal aid, and counseling services (ANNA, 2010). Bridal abductions and honor killings are also still a concern in certain regions of the Russian Federation; however, there are no official statistics on these types of gender violence (ANNA, 2010).

Services for Russian survivors of gender violence

Beginning in the 1990s, there was some success with the establishment of emergency shelters that were initially funded by Western supporters (Johnson and Saarinen, 2011). Safe houses and other grassroots community resources developed first, and it was only 20 years ago when women’s rights activist Marina Pisklakova started the first crisis hotline and developed legal and counseling programs for battered women. Her organization, ANNA (National Center for the Prevention of Violence), currently operates a network of crisis centers across Russia and established the first National Help Line for Women in March 2011 (Pisklakova, 2010). Current estimates indicate there are 20–40 shelters (operated by both the state and NGOs) in Russia for victims of domestic violence and over one hundred crisis centers and crisis units in social service centers that provide psychological, legal, medical, educational, and social services to survivors (Balmforth, 2013; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2009).

Domestic violence is still not recognized as a crime and there is no legal definition of domestic violence in the Russian Criminal Code (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2009). The Russian government does not compile official statistics on the incidence of domestic violence. Yet, it is estimated that 12,000–14,000 Russian women are killed every year and 50,000 are hospitalized as a result of domestic violence (Balmforth, 2013; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2009; Kuchma, 2011). There are radical changes being proposed in the Russian Duma, however, with the introduction in January 2013 of legislation on domestic violence. This legislation includes legal definitions for family and domestic violence, allows pretrial and judicial protections such as restraining orders, permits financial and medical payments to victims, and mandates arrest and punishment for offenders (Balmforth, 2013; Krainova, 2012). The Duma appears to still be considering this legislation as of June 2014 (see Meyer and Galouchko, 2013). If it is eventually enacted, it will create significant changes in how law enforcement, the courts, and social services work with domestic violence victims (survivors) and offenders.

The contributing problem of alcoholism in relation to domestic violence has also not been addressed adequately by social services. Russia has historically had high rates of alcohol abuse and dependency, with cultural values and political agendas promoting vodka as a traditional icon. Consuming vodka at family and other social gatherings is typical and the government has restricted the wine and beer industries to promote vodka as the national alcoholic beverage. Russia’s vodka sales increased almost 70 percent between 1990 and 2003, and hard liquor consumption in Russia is estimated to be the highest in the world (Currie et al., 2012). A correlation between alcoholism and women is related to child-bearing and child-rearing problems; two-thirds of respondents in one study reported a high rate of drinking among pregnant women (Kristjanson, 2007). In addition, higher rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, alcohol-related birth defects, and alcohol-related neuro-developmental disorders have been observed in Russian orphanages compared to the general population. Alcoholism and alcohol abuse/neglect are the two most common reasons for children being placed in the child welfare system in Russia. Two-thirds of the estimated 700,000 social orphans in Russia today are removed from their families for these reasons (Achmatova, 2010; Currie et al., 2012).

Similar to the US, domestic violence in Russia is closely linked to alcoholism, which has reached epidemic proportions, although there is apparently widespread continued denial regarding the extent of the problem. Trygged (2009) reports that in a survey of social workers across Russia respondents seemed highly ambivalent toward alcohol abuse as a social problem. Historically, values associated with alcohol were obstacles to developing effective substance abuse treatment services and programs. There are approximately 1500–2000 substance abuse treatment centers for alcohol and substance abuse treatment in Russia today (Currie et al., 2012). Self-help and 12-Step programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon, are not widespread or accepted by the Russian Orthodoxy’s leadership; there are around 370 AA meetings in Russia currently (Weitz, 2011). The preferred method of treatment for alcoholism has been biologically oriented, relying on aversive interventions such as Antabuse. Recent legislative mandates recognize the growing need for substance abuse counselors through providing for training of more specialists by 2020 (Currie et al., 2012).

Social work as a profession in Russia

Social work began in Russia during the early 1900s following a similar path as developed in the US, with ‘friendly visitors’, who were usually untrained and unpaid. By 1905 in Russia, there were approximately 60,000 young women and ‘voluntary housewives’ trained by various charitable organizations (Tevlina, 2008). The development of social work as a profession was side-tracked during the Soviet era, since the totalitarian government officially declared a policy of social protection for the Russian people with free health care, education, and social services (Tregoubova, 2000). In the mid-1990s, however, during the time of great political, economic, and social changes, social work reemerged and has been slowly gaining professional status. In late 1991, the first formal program for training social workers in Russia was established at the Moscow Pedagogical University, and by 2004, there were more than 120 social work programs in Russia (Iarskala-Smirnova et al., 2004; Templeman, 2004). State university social work programs can vary from four to five years of educational curriculum. Graduates earn the title of ‘Specialist in Social Work’. In addition, there are ‘social worker’ positions that are often filled by staff personnel who do not hold a social work degree, which is similar to the US prior to licensing requirements.

In 2009, the Russian Ministry of Education and Science added a specialization at the bachelor’s degree level called ‘social psychological help’ which is housed within the university social work programs. It is similar to social work in the US with an emphasis on counseling skills and a strength-based approach, but is designated as help rather than counseling, so as not to be confused with psychological counseling provided by psychologists (Currie et al., 2012). Organizations in the private sector, such as the Russian–American Institute in Moscow and religious-based seminaries, are also offering counseling training programs and continuing education conferences and seminars on trauma and addictions counseling, play therapy, marriage and family counseling, pastoral counseling, and psycho-educational programs (Currie et al., 2012). Russian social workers are integrating innovative and evidence-based practice and research methods that can identify emerging problems, prevent or moderate social conflicts, develop family communication skills and independence, and develop family self-help capabilities.

Social workers in Russia are striving to achieve a stronger professional identity through their professional organization, the Russian Union of Social Workers and Social Pedagogues headquartered in Moscow (n.d.). Although this organization developed a Code of Ethics, there are still no licensing credentials for social workers. To ensure a higher level of professionalism, legislation or requirements for licensing could be enacted, which may include job descriptions, salary guidelines, and continuing education requirements. Other obstacles to professional status may be lack of funding and basic supplies, formal training, high turnover, low pay, and bureaucratization (Iarskaia-Smirnova and Romanov, 2002; Iarskaia-Smirnova et al., 2004; Templeman, 2004). (For a thorough discussion of the development of professional social work in Russia, see Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2011; Iarskaia-Smirnova and Romanov, 2013; Romanov et al., 2011.)

Similar to the US, the vast majority of direct practitioners are female. Iarskaia-Smirnova and Romanov (2008) reported that the Russian state set up inadequate wage policies for social workers, supporting the ‘societal assumption of cheap women’s labor’. Further, they show that ‘power relations in social work practice reinforce social inequalities’. Social work practitioners are overwhelmed with demands to ‘fix’ poverty, poor health, violence, and other devastating social issues. As a result, they report often feeling discouraged; yet, they are eager to learn more and to receive training and literature from social workers from other countries (Templeman, 2004). Currently, social workers have been change agents in social policy, implementing new methods of case work, and developing new technologies for social services that are often adopted from international cooperation (Romanov et al., 2011).

International Russian initiative collaboration

During the past decade, there have been a number of international collaborative projects between Russian social work agencies and educational programs and partners abroad. One such arrangement dating from 2004 involved the authors of this article and other colleagues from Texas State University in collaboration with social work faculty and social service agencies in the Vologda Oblast. Vologda is the administrative center and a major transportation and manufacturing area for the Oblast, which is located in northeast Russia. Vologda is one of three designated historical cities in the Oblast and has a population of over 300,000. It is a large urban city on the Vologda River that is surrounded by rural areas. Vologda has several state universities, including Vologda State Pedagogical University that houses the Department of Social Work.

As a result of the authors’ first contact in 2004, faculty members from Texas State visited Russia again in 2006 and 2008 to further the collaborative academic project and to conduct field visits. At the request of Dr Svetlana Michailova, Director of the School of Social Work at Vologda State, social work faculty wrote lexicon articles and teaching modules on best practices in domestic violence, child abuse and neglect services, juvenile justice, alcohol/drug treatment, and volunteerism. University administrators in Vologda presented the Texas State delegates with a Memorandum of Agreement to conduct research that was signed by the Presidents of both universities in May 2006.

One of the most important ‘lessons learned’ from the collaboration has been the mutually ongoing commitment in time and effort required to develop and maintain a relationship involving numerous social work faculty, students, and social services staff. It appears that, while the Russians were very interested to participate in the project, there was also a level of trust that needed to be established before meaningful exchanges could be pursued. Although the authors are not bilingual, translation was not a problem during the visits and subsequent contacts, since many of the Russian young adults and students were fluent in English. There were also many Russian-origin faculty and students at Texas State who were familiar with the culture and fluent in the language. Direct communication via the Internet turned out to be highly problematic since Vologda State’s computer technology and software programs were not updated. As a result, the Peace Foundation, the NGO in Vologda that sponsored our trips, served as an intermediary.

In addition to writing and translating articles, Texas State faculty members conducted trainings and workshops at social service agencies and presented at social work classes during the second and third trips to Vologda. The authors also visited key agencies to conduct focus groups to explore agency administrator and staff perspectives on social issues and service delivery. Agency visits included the Centre for Social Aid to Families and Children, Phoenix House, and Orphanage #3. The Centre is a regional social service agency that provides basic needs, educational and vocational training, and counseling for victims of family violence. Phoenix House is a NGO that is a residential facility for youth and teens in the region, and Orphanage #3 houses social orphans in state care. Many innovative changes were observed in services delivery and therapeutic programs, such as a gardening project to help orphans build vocational and social skills.

The Centre was expanding to include services for substance abuse and a shelter for battered women and their children. The Vologda region has used safe houses previously that were developed by local advocates, but these facilities were no longer meeting the expanding needs for safe shelter. Phoenix House is developing a foster care and adoption program and their three social work specialists were in charge of that project as well as providing case management services for the residents. The agency used several play therapy and expressive arts interventions, although counseling was being provided by the staff psychologists, not the social workers. Orphanage #3 was in the midst of remodeling by changing the dormitory style housing to family style apartments. Each family apartment will house a married couple as the foster parents and children of varying ages. Both genders will be placed together to provide a family atmosphere, rather than separating children into dormitories based on age and gender. All of these improvements were the result of increased funding received by the government; however, the administrators expressed the need for higher funding to meet service needs.

During the 2006 visit, the authors were able to tour the women’s prison in Vologda and to meet with the prison psychologists. During this meeting, the two female psychologists related that the majority of the women in the prison had childhood sexual and physical abuse histories, were survivors of domestic violence, and had substance abuse problems. The majority of the women were incarcerated for drug and alcohol offenses and prostitution. The prison provided educational and vocational training programs, counseling services, and even had a prison chapel. The women did not wear prison uniforms and were able to dress in their own clothes and decorate their dormitory style barracks with personal items. The level of rehabilitation and individual freedoms found in this prison was quite impressive compared to the US.

In 2008, the School of Social Work at Texas State sponsored a trip to the US by Dr Michailova. She presented to social work and sociology classes and met with faculty and students across campus. She also toured several local social work agencies, including two domestic violence shelters and a substance abuse clinic. She met with administrators and staff to learn how the agencies operate and how the services are provided. In turn, she shared about social work education and practice in Russia. In addition, she co-presented with the authors on our collaborative project at an international multi-disciplinary professional conference held in Miami.

Based on the exploratory field visits during our three visits to Russia and Dr Michailova’s visit to the US, a clear picture emerged regarding pressing social problems, service delivery gaps, and the urgent need for effective policy and best practice guidelines. The Russian practitioners particularly emphasized the challenges of addressing alcoholism and family violence. They regard these two issues as related, on the increase, and exacerbated by the extreme social upheaval associated with the change from communism to capitalism. They also stressed that this is an opportune time to explore policy and program innovations in Russia because of recent increases in governmental funding for social services and their society’s expanding willingness to address these problems.

Unfortunately, grant and research funding from the US has decreased in the past five years due to a more contentious political climate between the two countries. An example is the current policy preventing the adoption of Russian children by potential parents in the US. This change has been seen by both Americans and Russians as a political agenda that has had severe negative impacts for Russia’s social orphans. Further, the authors have not been able to travel back to Russia to follow-up on the earlier initial field visits in order to determine changes since 2004 and to evaluate additional service needs in the region. The authors have applied for several grants to fund continued collaboration with Russian colleagues, but have not been successful to date, given the difficult funding climate that currently exists in the USA.

Concluding discussion: Implications for policy, practice, and research

Based on the knowledge gained from the ongoing Russian–American collaborative project described in this article, it appears that social workers in Russia and their international colleagues currently have an historic opportunity to promote innovative changes in legislation and social policies related to their criminal, health/mental health, child welfare, and social service delivery systems. Recent governmental financial investments in social services and the emergence of professional social work education in Russia have been influential developments to facilitate such changes (Alekseeva, 2007; Gassmann and Notten, 2008). This increased funding by the government is particularly important, since social services in Russia are provided primarily by government-funded agencies, and development of more non-profit, faith-based, and/or volunteer social services is needed to fill the gaps in public services.

In both the legal and social services systems, social workers in Russia indicate that they could advocate for women’s rights in terms of equal pay, workplace discrimination, and domestic violence. Gender violence is a critical area that requires innovative policy and cultural changes in Russia, including a shift to a human rights agenda and more effective community-based approaches (Alekseeva, 2007; Shakhmanova, 2010). Community-based services, such as shelters for battered women, are still limited to few areas in Russia. If the currently proposed domestic violence legislation is enacted by the State Duma, then dramatic changes could be expected in both funding and services provided through social service agencies and the legal system. The legal system and law enforcement could be targets for change through education and promotion of pro-arrest policies and increased services for survivors of domestic and gender violence. This would be an opportune time for further research in how these changes manifest for survivors of domestic violence and professionals who work in this practice field.

Concurrently, related problems of alcoholism and child abuse are increasing, although former cultural taboos about discussing these issues are lessening (Alekseeva, 2007; Koposov et al., 2005; Korneshov, 2010). Across Russia, emergency shelters and orphanages are populated primarily by ‘social orphans’ whose parents are still alive, yet a foster home system is practically non-existent and there are limited potential adoptive homes and adoption services (Aref’ev, 2005; Goodman et al., 2005; Shakhmanova, 2010). Social workers in Russia recognize that macro-level changes in social policy and funding to support community-based child welfare services are needed, along with an increase in substance abuse treatment facilities. From a US perspective, family-based reunification services are recommended, such as family group decision-making approaches that include kinship systems for out-of-home placements. Another crucial area in child and family services is the need for more education and promotion of safe sex practices, healthy methods of birth control, family planning services, and proper education of prenatal care.

Russian social workers have identified the need for continued professionalism of social work to address the problems of inadequate pay, high turnover, and the low status of the profession. Social work licensing and educational standards could be mandated. Professional social workers and educators could incorporate evidence-based practice standards and empirical research in curriculum development and agency polices and services. Collaborative scholarship and advocacy initiatives might promote human rights, legislative and policy changes, and gender equality. Additional funding for computer and communication equipment is needed to foster international networking and consultation. Despite differences in history, culture, and language, there have been many partnerships between Russian, American, Canadian, and European social work colleagues. The social work profession can strongly benefit from such international collaborative approaches that enable professionals in both countries to pursue social justice and gender equality.