1. Bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 3, 18; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1924/25 uchebnomu godu, 78; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1925/26 uchebnomu godu, 63; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1924, no. 12: 30; Sokolov, Detskaia besprizornost’, 4; Na pomoshch’ rebenku, 20–21, 32–33; TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 155, ll. 5, 9–10 (for the slogans); Deti posle goloda, 8–9 (for the first quotation), 103–104; Maiakovskii, “Besprizorshchina,” 170.

2. TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 155, ll. 5, 9 (for the slogan); Ia. R. Gailis, ed., V pomoshch’ perepodgotovke rabotnikov sotsial’nogo vospitaniia, 2d ed. (Moscow, 1924), 92; Deti posle goloda, 52; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 76; Na pomoshch’ rebenku, 8, 33; Drug detei, 1926, no. 2: 24.

3. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, l. 93; TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 51, l. 1; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 4–5: 186–187; nos. 7–8: 28, 42; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 86; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 3–4; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1924/25 uchebnomu godu, 79; Krupskaia, Pedagogicheskie sochineniia 3:122–123.

4. Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 115, 131; Vasilevskii, Besprizornost’, 84–85; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 59; 1923, no. 9: 41–54; 1924, nos. 4–5: 187.

5. Raymond A. Bauer, The New Man in Soviet Psychology (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), 38; Walter D. Connor, Deviance in Soviet Society: Crime, Delinquency, and Alcoholism (New York, 1972), 29–31.

6. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, no. 3: 91. Pravda ran a series of articles on the conference. For a brief description of the attack on the theory of “moral defectiveness,” see Pravda, 1924, no. 64 (March 20), p. 4.

7. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, no. 3: 92; nos. 4–5: 187; 1925, no. 4: 141; Bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 8, 43; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 12–13, 99–100; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 89–90; Krasnaia nov’, 1932, no. 1: 39–42. By no means all who referred to besprizornye as “defective” meant to suggest that the youths became homeless and delinquent because of defects in their personalities. Numerous commentators who employed this terminology, especially in remarks before the controversy over “moral defectiveness” reached the boiling point in 1923–1924, assumed that besprizornye acquired their “defectiveness” from their environment after reaching the street. Some, including Lunacharskii in an address to the First All-Russian Congress of Participants in the Struggle with Juvenile Defectiveness, Besprizornost’, and Crime (in the summer of 1920), even maintained that if a “defective” child’s environment were changed for the better, the “defectiveness” would disappear. Thus the term “moral defectiveness” did not always carry the meaning later claimed by its opponents. See Detskaia defektivnost’, 12–13. A number of authors sought middle ground, arguing that both a child’s environment and his own predisposition (the proportions varied with the author) accounted for his antisocial acts. See for example Liublinskii, Bor’ba, 60–61; N. P. Grishakov, Detskaia prestupnost’ i bor’ba s neiu putem vospitaniia (Orel, 1923), 15–16. For illustrations of the argument—vigorously rejected by the reformers—that many besprizornye were so poisoned by their experiences on the street that they could never be rehabilitated completely, see Sokolov, Spasite detei! 44 (a quotation from the Soviet newspaper Trud); Vasilevskii, Besprizornost’, 24. This view did not prevent Vasilevskii from voicing strong support (pp. 84–85) for those engaged in the assault on the theory of “moral defectiveness.”

8. TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 349, l. 3; Bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 41–42 (for the Moscow conference’s resolution); Kufaev, Iunye pravonarushiteli (1924), 135; Maro, Besprizornye, 6, 10, 226; Maro [M. I. Levitina], Rabota s besprizornymi. Praktika novoi raboty v SSSR (Khar’kov, 1924), 14–19; Livshits, Detskaia besprizornost’, 6–8; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 59, 174; 1924, no. 3: 89–90; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1924, nos. 4–6: 23; no. 9: 135–139. These beliefs also inspired claims that besprizornye had to be studied in their natural street habitat (rather than in clinics and other institutions) if one wished to understand them and their actions; see Bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 43; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 131; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 2: 16, 24; Borovich, Kollektivy besprizornykh, 42–43.

9. TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 155, l. 9 (for the slogan); Poznyshev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 14; Proletarskii sud, 1923, no. 4: 15. Of course some people, not only in Moscow but in the provinces as well, objected prior to 1923–1924 to the practice of labeling difficult children “defective” or criminal. For illustrations of such misgivings in the provinces, see Prosveshchenie (Riazan’), 1918, nos. 2–3: 87; Izvestiia otdela narodnogo obrazovaniia (Petrozavodsk), 1918, nos. 4–5: 121; Vestnik prosveshcheniia i kommunisticheskoi kul’tury (Tashkent), 1921, nos. 7–8: 7.

10. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 1924, nos. 4–5: 164–166, 174–175; Put’ prosveshcheniia (Khar’kov), 1924, no. 3: 53; Bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 41; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 143; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, no. 3: 89, 91; nos. 4–5: 188–189; nos. 7–8: 35, 46–47; Maro, Besprizornye, 42, 228; Kaidanova, Besprizornye deti, 20; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 6–7 (for the quotation).

11. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, no. 3: 88–89.

12. Livshits, Detskaia besprizornost’, 15–16 (includes quotation); Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 6; Vasilevskii, Besprizornost’, 93.

13. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 67; 1924, nos. 4–5: 187; nos. 7–8: 39, 141; 1927, no. 2: 85; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 7, 18, 87–90; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 102–103, 116; Vserossiiskoe obsledovanie, 15, 36; Sokolov, Spasite detei! 51. Personnel in some detdoma were quick to regard rude, peevish, and other difficult children as “defective” and transfer them out of the institutions; see Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 78; 1924, nos. 7–8: 29. For an indication that agreement on proper disciplinary measures had not been reached during the middle years of the decade, see Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1928, no. 3: 8. Anton Makarenko employed stricter discipline and punishment in his colony for besprizornye than many in Narkompros considered appropriate, which exposed him to frequent criticism and reprimands throughout the 1920s—until he left his Gorky colony at the end of the decade to administer a children’s institution sponsored by the secret police. For more on the criticism leveled at Makarenko, and his own views on discipline, see Voprosy izucheniia i vospitaniia lichnosti (Leningrad), 1928, no. 2: 44–45; James Bowen, Soviet Education: Anton Makarenko and the Years of Experiment (Madison, Wis., 1962; reprint, 1965), 136, 202; Makarenko, Road to Life 1:41, 43–44, 157–158; 2:360. Regarding contemporary colonies for juvenile delinquents, see Moscow News, 1990, no. 30: 8–9; Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 1988, no. 9: 17–18; no. 51: 25.

14. Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 107–108, 114; Maro, Besprizornye, 229; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 4: 139–140; 1927, no. 2: 81; Put’ prosveshcheniia (Khar’kov), 1924, no. 3: 55.

15. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, l. 10. A decree from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars, issued in November 1925, permitted provincial officials to reserve a few spaces in detdoma for youths whose parents (workers, peasants, or officials) paid for their children’s support in the institutions. These platnye spaces were not to exceed 10 percent of the number of free places in any detdom. See SU, 1925, no. 76, art. 589. It is not known how many detdoma adopted this practice, or how many parents sought to place their children in such facilities for an upbringing among besprizornye.

16. For a sampling of instructions on the proper operation of detdoma, see TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, ll. 10–12; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika (250 pages, issued by Glavsotsvos, on the organization and operation of detdoma); Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 13–14; Prosveshchenie na transporte, 1925, no. 9: 32–38; Sibirskii pedagogicheskii zhurnal (Novo-Nikolaevsk), 1925, no. 2: 24–42; Voprosy prosveshcheniia (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, nos. 6–7: 50–60. Conferences of detdom personnel were held in Moscow and the provinces to explain and discuss the “new methods of work”; see for example Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 3: 199; no. 4: 146.

17. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, l. 11; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 86–87; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 7; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 4–5: 189–190; nos. 7–8: 44; 1927, no. 2: 83; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 9.

18. Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1925/26 uchebnomu godu, 67; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 14; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 97; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 43–44; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 192; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 3: 32; Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1926, no. 11: 34. Other benefits said to follow from the transfer of schools out of detdoma included a reduction in the operating expenses of detdoma and access to better-equipped schools outside the institutions.

19. Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 37–53; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 184; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 44; 1927, no. 2: 86; Smolensk Archive, reel 45, WKP 402, p. 17 (on reorganizing detdoma along Pioneer lines). For a detailed description of a summer excursion undertaken by children from a Saratov receiver to a camp in the countryside, see Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, no. 9: 79–90. The receiver had come to resemble a detdom in that children remained there for extended periods. While at the camp, Pioneer and circle activity occupied a good deal of the youths’ time.

20. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, l. 94; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1927, no. 2: 81–82, 85–87; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 14, 136–137. Regarding Narkompros’s desire for “self-government” in Soviet schools in general, see Stolee, “Generation,” 110, 118, 176; Sheila Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921–1934 (Cambridge, 1979), 27; Bauer, New Man, 43. Teachers often ignored the policy or twisted it to enhance their control of the students; see Larry E. Holmes, “Soviet Schools: Policy Pursues Practice, 1921–1928,” Slavic Review 48 (Summer 1989): 238.

21. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, l. 93; SU, 1925, no. 48, art. 364; Kufaev, Pedagogicheskie mery, 135; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 15, 91, 118, 122; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 43; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 189. Training in workshops was to be coordinated with classroom education. Measuring, counting, and record keeping in a workshop, for example, were also opportunities for a child to develop skills taught in the classroom. For more information on the guidelines presented by reformers—including detailed plans of instruction for carpentry and leatherworking shops and a model daily schedule—see Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 109–112, 118, 120, 146–165. A good deal of controversy was sparked by the question of whether youths should receive any of the money realized by the sale of goods they produced. Wages and other payments were variously described as a corrupting influence on the children and a means to motivate them. For an array of views, see TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 349, l. 15; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1926, nos. 5–6: 53; 1927, no. 2: 86; Makarenko, Road to Life 2:369–370; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 85–92, 108.

22. Bukharin and Preobrazhenskii, ABC of Communism, 237; Sheila Fitzpatrick, ed., Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928–1931 (Bloomington, Ind., 1984), 83–84; Bauer, New Man, 44–45; Bowen, Soviet Education, 31–32. For more on the new curriculum, known as the “complex method,” see Stolee, “Generation,” 152–155; Bowen, Soviet Education, 139–140; Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility, 19–20; Holmes, “Soviet Schools,” 235–236; Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1924, no. 9: 14–87. The reforms were often misunderstood, disliked, and/or ignored by teachers in the field; see Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility, 20–21, 34–35; Holmes, “Soviet Schools,” 237–240. The educational reforms desired by Narkompros in the early postrevolutionary years were largely reversed or abandoned at the decade’s turn; Stolee, “Generation,” 190; Fitzpatrick, Cultural Revolution, 99–104.

23. Quoted in Stolee, “Generation,” 146.

24. Liublinskii, Bor’ba, 278–279; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 41; Vserossiiskoe obsledovanie, 10; Otchet o sostoianii narodnogo obrazovaniia v eniseiskoi gubernii, 16; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 118; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 81; 1924, nos. 7–8: 43; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 15. Narkompros instructed local officials to combine petty workshops of individual detdoma into larger, better-equipped, regional workshops to which institutions throughout the area could send children for labor training; see Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 97. Little progress appears to have been made in this direction except in a few provinces where local budgets were comparatively robust; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 190.

25. Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 102–197; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 4: 141–142.

26. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1927, no. 2: 78; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 13–14; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 21; Poznyshev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 114–115 (for the quotations); Pravda, 1927, no. 112 (May 20), p. 5. Nikolai Semashko, the commissar of health, argued that besprizornye should be rounded up and placed in special colonies with a “strict labor regime, guarantees against escape, and so on”; Izvestiia, 1925, no. 201 (September 4), p. 5. See also his article in Izvestiia, 1927, no. 109 (May 15), p. 5. For more on the continuing swirl of disagreement over these issues, see Juviler, “Contradictions,” 271–273.

27. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, l. 94; TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 51, l. 1.

28. Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1925, no. 1266 (October 22), p. 5; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 6: 30; Kaidanova, Besprizornye deti, 60; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 167; Prosveshchenie na Urale (Sverdlovsk), 1927, no. 2: 61; Krasnushkin et al., Nishchenstvo i besprizornost’, 146. Shortly before the October Revolution, a Provisional Government ministry advocated the establishment of similar institutions; American Red Cross, box 866, file 948.08 (“Commission to Russia [First], Billings Report, Oct. 22, 1917”), Appendix to “Report of the Committee on Child Welfare,” August 28/September 10, 1917. A handful of nochlezhki for besprizornye appear to have functioned in the years immediately following the Revolution. See Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 2: 22–26, for a description of a nochlezhka in Ekaterinoslav in 1918. In most cities, however, nochlezhki materialized in 1923–1924 as institutions new not only in name but also in purpose.

29. Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 175–176; Maro, Besprizornye, 390; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 7; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1926, no. 4: 70; no. 11: 67–68; 1927, no. 2: 78–79. Some authors referred to a nochlezhka as a dom bez dverei or a dom otkrytykh dverei; see for example Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 49; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1925, no. 272 (December 1), p. 4.

30. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 4–5: 156–159; 1925, no. 6: 83–84; 1926, no. 4: 68–71; no. 11: 67–76; 1927, no. 2: 79–80. A daytime division of a nochlezhka was usually known as a dom dnevnogo prebyvaniia or a dnevnoi dom.

31. Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 6: 32–33 (for the study); Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 49; Drug detei, 1925, no. 2: 21.

32. Moskovskii meditsinskii zhurnal, 1925, no. 10: 59; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 2: 27–29; no. 6: 30, 33; 1927, no. 2: 29; Kaidanova, Besprizornye deti, 60; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 138, 167; Drug detei, 1925, no. 2: 11; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 6: 82–83; Bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 32; Pomoshch’ detiam, 30; Sibirskii pedagogicheskii zhurnal (Novo-Nikolaevsk), 1925, no. 2: 70.

33. Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 137.

34. For data from nochlezhki in Moscow and Odessa, see Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 5: 43; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 5; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 176. For a description of a nochlezhka that began operation in very poor condition but thereafter improved gradually, see Sibirskii pedagogicheskii zhurnal (Novo-Nikolaevsk), 1925, no. 2: 70–72. Of course the passage of time by no means eliminated all squalid nochlezhki. At the end of the decade a group of youths, intoxicated with alcohol and hashish, went on a rampage in a nochlezhka, beating several of the other inhabitants. When the police were called, the young hooligans barricaded themselves in a room and greeted their besiegers with bricks, sticks, and anything else at hand. See Detskii dom, 1929, no. 4: 73.

35. For more on playgrounds (ploshchadki), see L. I. Chulitskaia-Tikheeva, Doshkol’nyi vozrast i ego osobennosti (Moscow, 1923), 92; Detskii dom, 1928, no. 1: 42–44; no. 3: 17–22; Glatman, Pionery i besprizornye, 52–54, 58–59; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 98; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 3: 41; Besprizornye, comp. Kaidanova, 51–57; TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, l. 94; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 3; Rabochaia moskva, 1924, no. 107 (May 14), p. 7. Clubs and cafeterias were also set up in some cities to entice besprizornye off the street temporarily; see Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 98; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 1: 34–36; no. 9: 49–50; TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, l. 94; Na pomoshch’ detiam. Obshchestvenno-literaturnyi i nauchnyi sbornik, 61; Maro, Besprizornye, 382–387.

36. Livshits, Detskaia besprizornost’, 22; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 11–12; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 133; Krasnaia nov’, 1932, no. 1: 42. A handful of children’s institutions had taken the name trudovaia kommuna as early as 1918–1920, though this did not necessarily mean that they shared all the features intended for labor communes in 1924. For references to pre-NEP and even prerevolutionary forerunners of the mid-1920s’ labor communes, see TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 4, ll. 136–137; N. V. Shishova, “Sozdanie sistemy detskikh uchrezhdenii dlia spaseniia besprizornykh detei na Donu i Kubano-Chernomor’ia v period vosstanovleniia narodnogo khoziaistva” (Rostov-on-the-Don, 1986; MS. 25907 at INION AN SSSR, Moscow), 8; Juviler, “Contradictions,” 266, 268. In some documents and articles, an institution may be identified as a trudovaia kommuna and elsewhere in the text labeled a colony (koloniia) or even a new type of detdom; see for example Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 4: 146, 150; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 4–5.

37. Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 47, 180–181; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 132; nos. 10–12: 85–86, 92; 1925, no. 4: 147; 1927, no. 2: 80; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 186–187; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 8; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 88, 96–97. Narkompros’s regulations on trudovye kommuny, issued in 1925, stipulated that communes admit youths from twelve to sixteen years of age. Some institutions accepted adolescents as old as eighteen. See TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, l. 1; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 14–15; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 143; TsGALI, f. 332, o. 1, ed. khr. 52, l. 185. For a brief description of a trudovaia kommuna intended for younger children, see Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 4: 146–147.

38. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 133; nos. 10–12: 92; 1925, no. 4: 149; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 60, 176; Kufaev, Pedagogicheskie mery, 148.

39. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 133–134; nos. 10–12: 87–88. The second article also describes the similar recruitment to another labor commune of a group of besprizornye living in a railroad car at Moscow’s Kursk Station.

40. Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 86–87; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 10–12: 86; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 15–16. One often encountered the term “self-organization” (samoorganizatsiia) used together with, or in place of, “self-government” (samoupravlenie). According to Narkompros’s regulations on labor communes, the director of a commune could block any decision of the general assembly that he or she regarded as illegal or clearly inexpedient. Such impasses were to be resolved by the local Narkompros office.

41. Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 12, 14–15; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 133, 146; nos. 10–12: 87, 89–90; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 86–87, 97; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 62; TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, l. 10; TsGALI, f. 332, o. 1, ed. khr. 52, l. 185. Some communes sought to operate self-sufficiently, producing everything they needed or purchasing necessities with money earned through sales of goods manufactured in their own workshops. Such efforts appear to have failed sooner or later. In 1925, Narkompros instructed that communes not be established with the intent of meeting all their own needs. Funds were to come from subsidies (generally via the state) as well as from income generated by the commune’s own enterprises and wages paid to commune youths who worked outside the institution. See Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 92–93; TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 349, l. 15; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 16. In some communes, youths received a portion of the money they earned in wages or from the sale of goods they produced. Practices differed as to the size of this share and the degree of freedom the members had in disposing of it. In at least one institution they were allowed to purchase tobacco. Narkompros instructed communes in 1925 to accumulate a portion of these earnings in accounts for youths to receive on their discharge from the facilities. See Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 136; nos. 10–12: 90; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 15; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 62–63.

42. On the appearance of trudovye kommuny in 1923–1924, see Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 92–94; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 175; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 143; nos. 10–12: 85; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 60, 176.

43. Regarding Narkompros’s regulations for labor communes, see TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, ll. 1–2; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 14–16.

44. Richard Stites, Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution (Oxford, 1989), 205–222.

45. Astemirov, “Iz istorii,” 259–260; Nesovershennoletnie pravonarushiteli, 17–18; Min’kovskii, “Osnovnye etapy,” 46; Pogrebinskii, Fabrika liudei, 3–9; Detskii dom, 1928, no. 1: 41n.; Juviler, “Contradictions,” 268–269; Gerson, Secret Police, 127 (for the “baby farm” comment and the figure of thirty-five OGPU communes by 1928). Gerson’s statement that the first OGPU commune opened at Bolshevo in 1925 is contradicted by other Western and Soviet sources—including Juviler, Pogrebinskii, and Astemirov—who place the event in 1924. E. Vatova writes that the first juveniles arrived at the Bolshevo commune on August 18, 1924; see Vatova, “Bolshevskaia trudovaia kommuna,” 92. For more on Makarenko’s Dzerzhinskii Commune, see TsGALI, f. 332, o. 2, ed. khr. 1–78; Makarenko, Road to Life 2:411–453; Juviler, “Contradictions,” 267. The Commissariat of Labor also operated some labor communes; see Nesovershennoletnie pravonarushiteli, 18; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 262.

46. For references to, and descriptions of, labor communes that appeared to be enjoying some success, see Prosveshchenie Sibiri (Novosibirsk), 1927, no. 5: 61–62; 1928, no. 9: 72–73; Komsomol’skaia pravda, 1926, no. 29 (February 5), p. 3; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 48, 61; Detskii dom, 1929, no. 5: 86; no. 6: 21–22; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 187–188; Drug detei, 1927, no. 2: 8; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 172–173; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 138; nos. 10–12: 86, 90; 1925, no. 4: 150–153; 1927, no. 2: 81; Kufaev, Pedagogicheskie mery, 148; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 262; Pravda, 1927, no. 97 (May 1), p. 3; TsGALI, f. 332, o. 2, ed. khr. 29, l. 18. For indications of success in establishing “self-government,” see Na pomoshch’ detiam. Obshchestvenno-literaturnyi i nauchnyi sbornik, 30–31; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 134–135; 1925, no. 4: 148, 151; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 63–64. Regarding the largely successful efforts of several communes to dissuade their members from fleeing, see Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 136–137, 139; nos. 10–12: 91; 1925, no. 4: 147; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 48; Kufaev, Pedagogicheskie mery, 148.

47. Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 134, 139–141; 1925, no. 4: 149–150, 153; no. 6: 84; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 149–150; Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 66. Some communes were also plagued by inadequate facilities and schooling; see Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 4: 158. Makarenko’s commune was among those that experienced difficulties from time to time. For one set of problems, see TsGALI, f. 332, o. 2, ed. khr. 29, l. 16.

48. Vozhatyi, 1925, nos. 5–6: 8; Livshits, Sotsial’nye korni, 195; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 10–12: 88; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 9: 48; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 8 (for the article mentioned).

49. Astemirov, “Iz istorii,” 260–261; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, no. 4: 156.

50. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, l. 72 (regarding the comment at the State Scientific Council meeting); Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 177.

51. See for example Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 86–87; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 12.

52. Besprizornye, comp. Kaidanova, 63 (for the statistics). Nadezhda Krupskaia, in a retrospective gaze at the 1920s, noted that “labor communes never became particularly numerous”; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 5.

53. Regarding the government’s need for assistance from society in this endeavor, see Na pomoshch’ rebenku, 6; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 9: 44; Deti posle goloda, 52; Sokolov, Detskaia besprizornost’, 62; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1926, no. 3: 23; Liublinskii, Bor’ba, 197–198; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1925, no. 1216 (August 25), p. 5; 1925, no. 1175 (July 7), p. 5; Krasnushkin et al., Nishchenstvo i besprizornost’, 149n. Calls for the greater involvement of society in the struggle with besprizornost’ continued throughout the decade. See Drug detei, 1927, nos. 8–9: 17; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1927, no. 12: 73; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 6, 40, 191, 214, 238.

54. On the decline in assistance from various organizations in 1923, compared to 1921–1922, see Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 5: 39; Drug detei, 1927, nos. 11–12: 1–2; Put’ prosveshcheniia (Khar’kov), 1924, no. 3: 168.

55. Deti posle goloda, 51–52; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 3 (May 1923): 59.

56. For assertions of inadequate involvement on the part of the Pioneers, Komsomol, and other segments of society in work with besprizornye, see Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 133; Maro, Besprizornye, 380; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 219; Deti posle goloda, 52; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 178–179; Kalinina, Komsomol i besprizornost’, 22–23. For a collection of stories, poems, and essays designed to acquaint the public with the lives of besprizornye and thereby motivate citizens to participate in assisting the youths, see Asfal’tovyi kotel, 3 in particular. The title page indicates that all proceeds from the sale of the book would go to aid besprizornye.

57. Izvestiia, 1926, no. 47 (February 26), p. 5 (for the challenge issued by the authors); Pravda, 1926, no. 169 (July 25), p. 5 (regarding the opening of the labor commune, named the Trudovaia kommuna besprizornykh im. chitatelei “Pravdy”). The fund-raising column in Izvestiia appeared frequently from mid-February 1926 well into 1927. Narkompros asked provincial executive committees to direct newspapers in their regions to conduct campaigns similar to the one in Pravda. See Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 34. Many other newspapers solicited contributions from their readers to aid besprizornye; see for example Leningradskaia pravda, 1926, no. 73 (March 31), p. 2; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 25 (January 31), p. 4; 1926, no. 28, (February 4), p. 2; 1926, no. 31 (February 7), p. 4; 1926, no. 34 (February 11), p. 4; 1926, no. 54 (March 7), p. 4; and several subsequent issues. For one of the numerous announcements that donations rather than wreaths had been received following Dzerzhinskii’s death in 1926, see Pravda, 1926, no. 206 (September 8), p. 6.

58. A “Week of the Child” (“Nedelia rebenka”) was held in the Russian Republic as early as November 1920 to engage the public in aiding children already institutionalized and to collect provisions for other starving youths in Moscow, Petrograd, and elsewhere; see SU, 1920, no. 86, art. 431; Krasnushkin et al., Nishchenstvo i besprizornost’, 139; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 46–47; Vserossiiskoe obsledovanie, 4. Similar “weeks” were also staged in some localities during the famine, though their results often proved disappointing, especially in stricken regions where much of the population possessed little to contribute. See for example Prosveshchenie (Krasnodar), 1921–1922, nos. 3–4: 153; Prosveshchenie (Viatka), 1922, no. 1: 21. These campaigns became more frequent by 1923–1924, and now almost invariably bore titles referring to the besprizornye. They continued throughout the decade and into the next. See TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 156, l. 7; Turkestanskaia pravda (Tashkent), 1923, no. 11 (January 16), p. 2; Pravda, 1923, no. 94 (April 29), p. 4; 1923, no. 96 (May 3), p. 3; 1923, no. 97 (May 4), p. 1; 1923, no. 98 (May 5), p. 4; 1923, no. 99 (May 6), p. 3; 1923, no. 100 (May 8), p. 3; Obzor deiatel’nosti, 79; Deti posle goloda, 97; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1925, no. 1223 (September 12), p. 5; Vestnik prosveshchentsa (Orenburg), 1926, nos. 11–12: 86; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 1: 44; Komsomol’skaia pravda, 1927, no. 104 (May 11), p. 4; Detskii dom, 1929, no. 7: 72; 1930, no. 4: 63–65; Prosveshchenie Sibiri (Novosibirsk), 1927, no. 3: 102; 1928, no. 10: 46–47; 1929, no. 12: 11; 1932, no. 8: 59.

59. TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 145, ll. 2–3; ibid., ed. khr. 151, ll. 1–7; Vozhatyi, 1924, no. 1: 32; Deti posle goloda, 116–117, 122–139; Glatman, Pionery i besprizornye, 33; Na pomoshch’ detiam (Semipalatinsk, 1926), 10; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, nos. 97–98, (April 30–May 1), p. 6; Konius, Puti razvitiia, 146; Dzerzhinskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia 1:321.

60. TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 146, ll. 1–14; ibid., ed. khr. 151, l. 7; Na pomoshch’ rebenku, 3–4; Deti posle goloda, 116–120; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 96 (April 29), p. 2; 1926, nos. 97–98 (April 30–May 1), p. 6; 1926, no. 235 (October 13), p. 2; 1926, no. 302 (December 31), p. 4; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 242; Sibirskii pedagogicheskii zhurnal(Novo-Nikolaevsk), 1925, no. 2: 70. For approximately two dozen slogans prepared for use in the “Week of the Besprizornyi and Ill Child” (April 30–May 6, 1923), see TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 155, ll. 9–10; Na pomoshch’ rebenku, 51–52.

61. Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, no. 1383 (March 16), p. 5; 1926, no. 1399 (April 4), p. 3; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 28 (February 4), p. 2; 1926, no. 279 (December 4), p. 2; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 1: 43; Vozhatyi, 1924, no. 1: 32; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 243; Makarenko, Road to Life 2:431; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 50. Numerous issues of Komsomol’skaia pravda for October and November 1927 contain articles on subbotniki (extra days of work without pay) organized by Komsomol units in order to raise money to combat besprizornost’.

62. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 1926, no. 8: 66; N. V. Shishova, “Rol’ obshchestvennosti v preodolenii detskoi besprizornosti na severnom Kavkaze v 1920–1926 gg.”(Rostov-on-the-Don, 1979; MS. 4764 at INION AN SSSR, Moscow), 13–14; TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 152, l. 5; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 51, 215; Maro, Besprizornye, 375.

63. Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1927, nos. 9–10: 23.

64. Detskii dom i bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 16.

65. TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 6, ed. khr. 147, ll. 4, 6–7; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 4: 19, 21; 1926, nos. 6–7: 18; Sokolov, Besprizornye deti, 5–6; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 171–172; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 7; Detskoe pravo, comp. Krichevskaia and Kuritskii, 444; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 86–87; Liublinskii, Bor’ba, 187, 201; Detskaia besprizornost’, 10–11; Besprizornye, comp. Kaidanova, 61; Statisticheskii obzor narodnogo obrazovaniia v permskom okruge, 39. Krupskaia reported in 1926 that “over two thousand students from pedagogic institutions” were working as volunteers with besprizornye; Krupskaia, Pedagogicheskie sochineniia 2:241. “Volunteers” also helped Narkompros respond to besprizornost’ prior to 1924; see for example Pravda, 1924, no. 55 (March 7), p. 5; Pravo i zhizn’, 1925, nos. 4–5: 95–96. For more on the inadequate number of children’s social inspectors in many regions, see Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1927, no. 10: 58; Kirsanov, Rukovodstvo, 21–22; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR k 1926/27 uchebnomu godu, 59; TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 349, l. 25.

66. TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 349, l. 5; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 4: 19; no. 5: 37; 1926, no. 2: 27; Besprizornye, comp. Kaidanova, 61; Vozhatyi, 1924, no. 1: 32; Drug detei, 1928, no. 4: inside back cover; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 87; Sokolov, Besprizornye deti, 6–9; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 46 (February 26), p. 1; Kufaev, Iunye pravonarushiteli (1929), 29. “Volunteers” also worked with former besprizornye in institutions; see, for example, Makarenko, Road to Life 1:254; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1924, nos. 7–8: 137–138; no. 9: 83, 89; 1925, no. 4: 149; Na pomoshch’ detiam. Obshchestvenno-literaturnyi i nauchnyi sbornik, 28.

67. Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 9: 52; 1926, no. 2: 27; Pravda, 1926, no. 292 (December 17), p. 6. Some college students, Pioneers, and others working to establish contact with besprizornye reported that it was virtually impossible to gain the confidence of hardened youths who had been on their own for years. Instead, these druzhinniki focused their attention on younger, less seasoned children, trying to divert them to institutions before they became deeply embedded in the underworld. See Vecherniaia moskva, 1924, no. 225 (October 1), p. 2; Vozhatyi, 1928, no. 12: 19.

68. Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 1: 8, 10–11; no. 2: 40; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 83; Vecherniaia moskva, 1927, no. 75 (April 4), p. 2; Pravda, 1926, no. 68 (March 25), p. 1; Drug detei, 1927, nos. 6–7: 32; Krasnaia gazeta (Leningrad), evening ed., 1926, no. 242 (October 14), p. 3; 1926, no. 247 (October 20), p. 3; 1926, no. 274 (November 19), p. 3; Izvestiia, 1926, no. 73 (March 31), p. 4; 1927, no. 77 (April 5), p. 6.

69. Pravda, 1926, no. 68 (March 25), p. 1.

70. Komsomol’skaia pravda, 1925, no. 88 (September 8), p. 3; 1926, no. 241 (October 19), p. 2; Asfal’tovyi kotel, 229–234; Krasnaia nov’, 1932, no. 1: 39; Pravda, 1926, no. 68 (March 25), p. 1; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 1: 8–9; no. 2: 25; no. 3: 28; nos. 8–9: 18; 1927, no. 1: 6–7; nos. 7–8: 43; Vecherniaia moskva, 1927, no. 75 (April 4), p. 2; Enik and Blok, Iz trushchob na stroiku, 23. For literary descriptions of militiamen conducting roundups (oblavy) of besprizornye, see Vchera i segodnia, 136, 160; Kozhevnikov, Stremka, 16–24.

71. Komsomol’skaia pravda, 1925, no. 88 (September 8), p. 3; Vecherniaia moskva, 1927, no. 75 (April 4), p. 2; TsGALI, f. 332, o. 1, ed. khr. 55, l. 12; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1926, no. 1: 8–11; no. 2: 25; no. 3: 28; nos. 8–9: 18; 1927, no. 1: 6–7; nos. 9–10: 2–3; Borovich, Kollektivy besprizornykh, 42; Maro, Besprizornye, 333; Prosveshchenie na Urale (Sverdlovsk), 1929, nos. 5–6: 89; Drug detei, 1927, no. 2: 16; nos. 6–7: 32; Enik and Blok, Iz trushchob na stroiku, 23, 25. As late as 1927, Pravda reported that a recent roundup of besprizornye netted 450; Pravda, 1927, no. 81 (April 10), p. 5. Some of the accounts cited above also indicated that many of the children apprehended soon found opportunities to escape.

72. On the genesis of ODD (whose cells existed under slightly different names in various locations), see Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 1926, no. 8: 65; Spasennye revoliutsiei, 68; Detskoe pravo, comp. Krichevskaia and Kuritskii, 22–23. N. V. Shishova claims that Rostov-on-the-Don was the first city to follow Moscow’s example in establishing an ODD chapter in December 1923; see Shishova, “Rol’ obshchestvennosti,” 5–6. For figures on the expansion of the ODD network in the 1920s, see Drug detei, 1925, no. 1: 5; Krasnushkin et al., Nishchenstvo i besprizornost’, 145–146; Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 1926, no. 8: 65; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 242; Obzor raboty po bor’be s detskoi besprizornost’iu i beznadzornost’iu v RSFSR za 1927/28 g. (Moscow, 1928), 39. By the beginning of the 1930s, ODD claimed two million members; see Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 239.

73. For more on the structure of the ODD network, the fund-raising channels open to it, and other organizational details, see Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 43–44, 228–236; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 15, 69–81; Obshchestvo “Drug detei,” comp. B. S. Utevskii (Moscow-Leningrad, 1932), 17–19, 27–30, 36; Bor’ba s detskoi besprizornost’iu, 72; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1925, no. 3: 205; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1927, no. 2: 37; Gilev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 25; Pomoshch’ detiam, 45; Ural’skii uchitel’ (Sverdlovsk), 1926, nos. 11–12: 60–61.

74. For instructions on the proper tasks for ODD cells to undertake, see Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 43–44, 124–125, 229–231, 234–235; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 14, 69–70; Pomoshch’ detiam, 44–47. On the actual activities of cells around the country, see Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1925, no. 4: 44; no. 9: 49; 1927, no. 1: 4; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1924/25 uchebnomu godu, 82; Drug detei, 1926, no. 4: 3; 1927, nos. 6–7: 31–32; Vestnik prosveshchentsa (Orenburg), 1926, nos. 11–12: 86; Ural’skii uchitel’ (Sverdlovsk), 1926, nos. 11–12: 60–61; Prosveshchenie Sibiri (Novosibirsk), 1927, no. 3: 102; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 94 (April 27), p. 4; 1926, no. 241 (October 20), p. 2; Krasnoiarskii rabochii (Krasnoiarsk), 1925, no. 141 (June 24), p. 3. For samples of ODD publications on besprizornost’, see Sokolov, Detskaia besprizornost’; and journals titled Drug detei, published in a number of cities, including Moscow and Khar’kov. For information on the activities of ODD in the early 1930s, see TsGA RSFSR, f. 393, o. 1, ed. khr. 81, ll. 1–53; TsGA RSFSR, f. 393, o. 1, ed. khr. 201, ll. 1–110.

75. British Foreign Office, 1926, reel 3, vol. 11785, p. 78; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 255; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 215; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 14–15; Krasnoiarskii rabochii (Krasnoiarsk), 1925, no. 141 (June 24), p. 3; Ural’skii uchitel’ (Sverdlovsk), 1926, nos. 11–12: 60; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1925, no. 272 (December 1), p. 4; 1926, no. 169 (July 27), p. 4; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, no. 1462 (June 20), p. 5.

76. Bor’ba s detskoi besprizornost’iu, 66; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 190, 193, 196, 199, 238; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 14–15; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, no. 1567 (October 23), p. 3. For more on various shortcomings of ODD, see Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 255; Gilev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 25; TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 2, ed. khr. 58, l. 43. Little assistance in the struggle with rural besprizornost’ was available from Peasant Mutual Assistance Committees (Krest’ianskie komitety obshchestvennoi vzaimopomoshchi), another network of “voluntary organizations” based (where they existed at all) in the countryside. For more on Peasant Committees and rural besprizornost’, see Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 1926, no. 8: 66; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 15, 42; Gilev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 21; Shishova, “Rol’ obshchestvennosti,” 14; Na putiakh k novoi shkole, 1927, no. 12: 73; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1925, no. 1150 (June 6), p. 1; 1926, no. 1454 (June 10), p. 2.

77. Obshchestvo “Drug detei,” 21; SU, 1932, no. 73, art. 328; SU, 1934, no. 23, art. 131 (for the All-Russian Central Executive Committee quotation); Drug detei, 1931, no. 7: 27 (for the film review).

78. Zaria Vostoka (Tiflis), 1922, no. 15 (July 6), p. 2; Golod i deti, 15; Vserossiiskoe obsledovanie, 37; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 176 (for the estimate of one hundred thousand); Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 63; Otchet o sostoianii narodnogo obrazovaniia v eniseiskoi gubernii, 17; Otchet vladimirskogo gubispolkoma, 56; Smolenskaia nov’ (Smolensk), 1922, no. 1: 5; New York Times, March 23, 1923 (regarding the children adopted by the Kalinins).

79. TsGAOR, f. 5207, o. 1, ed. khr. 43, l. 66; American Red Cross, box 866, file 948.08 (“Commission to North Russia”), “Report on Investigation into Children’s Summer Holiday Arrangements at Kholmogori,” June 12, 1919; Leningradskaia oblast’ (Leningrad), 1928, no. 4: 112; Voprosy prosveshcheniia na Severnom Kavkaze (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1928, no. 2: 41–42; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 17–18; Kalinina, Desiat’ let, 52; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 166, 176 (for the “huge percentage” quotation), 181.

80. Regarding the diminished utilization of patronirovanie in 1923–1924 compared to 1921–1922, see Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1924/25 uchebnomu godu, 91.

81. TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, o. 10, ed. khr. 178, l. 9; TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, o. 69, ed. khr. 51, l. 1; Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1925, no. 4: 56; nos. 9–10: 88–89; 1926, nos. 6–7: 29–30; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1926, no. 1: 3; Gilev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 13; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 63; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 17, 49; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 152 (July 7), p. 6; Ural’skii uchitel’ (Sverdlovsk), 1925, nos. 5–6: 41. Regarding the survey of 1925 and its influence on patronirovanie decrees, see Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 215–216.

82. For indications of misgivings at Narkompros meetings and on the part of some authors, see TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, o. 1, ed. khr. 45, ll. 22–23; Ural’skii uchitel’ (Sverdlovsk), 1925, nos. 5–6: 42; Detskii dom i bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 19.

83. On the premature application of patronirovanie by some local officials, see Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1925/26 uchebnomu godu, 68.

84. Leningradskaia oblast’ (Leningrad), 1928, no. 4: 112; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 18, 49–50, 52; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 152 (July 7), p. 6; Kratkii sbornik zakonodatel’nykh materialov po bor’be s detskoi besprizornost’iu (Voronezh, [1926]), 18. The basic patronirovanie decree for the Russian Republic was issued on April 5, 1926, by VTsIK and Sovnarkom; SU, 1926, no. 21, art. 168. Little over a month later (May 13, 1926) the Ukrainian TsIK and Sovnarkom issued a similar decree for Ukraine. For a side-by-side presentation of the two decrees, see Detskoe pravo, comp. Krichevskaia and Kuritskii, 466–469. A series of decrees and instructions appeared thereafter, especially in 1928, providing amendments and elaborations of the regulations issued in 1926. For instance, the decree of April 5, 1926, had limited to one the number of detdom children who could be placed in a single family, with local authorities authorized to raise this to two at their discretion. On May 21, 1928, VTsIK and Sovnarkom raised each of these limits by one; SU, 1928, no. 58, art. 429. For other rulings and orders, see Sobranie zakonov i rasporiazhenii raboche-krest’ianskogo pravitel’stva Soiuza Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik [hereafter cited as SZ], 1928, no. 24, art. 212; SU, 1928, no. 27, art. 196; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 49; Leningradskaia oblast’ (Leningrad), 1928, no. 4: 116. Regarding the transfer of orphaned or abandoned infants and very young children (under four years of age) to private families for upbringing, see Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 216–218; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 104–105; Drug detei, 1927, no. 1: 12.

85. Kratkii sbornik zakonodatel’nykh materialov, 19–20; Sbornik uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii pravitel’stva Soiuza SSR i pravitel’stva RSFSR o meropriiatiakh po bor’be s detskoi besprizornost’iu i po ee preduprezhdeniiu (Moscow, 1927), 14; SU, 1926, no. 21, art. 168; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 62. In May 1926, Narkompros instructed its local officials that a youth be provided with a complete set of clothing and shoes before transfer to a peasant family. The child was also to be accorded priority in admission to school and, once enrolled, receive free books and supplies. See Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 50–51.

86. Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 18, 50–51, 53–54; Kratkii sbornik zakonodatel’nykh materialov, 18.

87. SU, 1926, no. 21, art. 168; Sbornik uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii, 37–40. Narkompros also instructed its local offices to draw up agreements with families that had taken in children prior to the decree, cited above, of April 5, 1926; see Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 53.

88. Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 30, 51–52, 54; Ural’skii uchitel’ (Sverdlovsk), 1925, nos. 5–6: 42. Guardianship (opeka)—unlike patronirovanie, which was a voluntary agreement between an individual and Narkompros—represented an obligation that one could not refuse except in special circumstances. The actual responsibilities assumed by the adult in each case, however, sometimes differed very little. In general, patronirovanie was meant to apply first and foremost to besprizornye—in other words, destitute, abandoned children otherwise earmarked for institutions—while guardianship was meant to apply to a wider range of youths, including those with property and those only temporarily deprived of parental care. See Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1926, no. 1: 4; Ryndziunskii et al., Pravovoe polozhenie (1927), 64; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 219. For more on guardianship of children, some of whom were former besprizornye, see Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 147, 150–156, 158–167; Detskii dom, comp. Utevskii, 64; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR k 1926/27 uchebnomu godu, 67; Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia 5:789; Sovetskoe stroitel’stvo, 1927, nos. 2–3: 159; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1927, no. 11: 142.

89. Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 18, 47–48, 52.

90. For more details on these arrangements, see Shveitser and Shabalov, Besprizornye, 186–188; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii (1929), 65–70, 91; Volna (Arkhangel’sk), 1926, no. 152 (July 7), p. 6. In 1928 and 1929 the government issued guidelines for placing homeless children in the families of urban workers. The terms of these patronirovanie measures were generally similar to those of laws previously discussed. See SU, 1928, no. 64, art. 462; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 223–225.

91. The figures for 1927 are “incomplete,” so the actual increase over 1926 was doubtless even greater. For data on patronirovanie in the period 1925–1927, see Na pomoshch’ detiam. Obshchestvenno-literaturnyi i nauchnyi sbornik, 16; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v R.S.F.S.R. k 1925/26 uchebnomu godu, 71; Drug detei, 1928, no. 4: 8; Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia 5:789; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR k 1927–28 uchebnomu godu, 60; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 6; Detskii dom i bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 19; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, no. 1568 (October 24), p. 2. For data pertaining to individual cities and regions, see Drug detei(Khar’kov), 1925, no. 2: 45; 1927, no. 2: 44; nos. 5–6: 33; Drug detei, 1928, no. 2: 15; Leningradskaia oblast’ (Leningrad), 1928, no. 4: 113.

92. Regarding the policy’s sluggish progress and disappointing results in many regions, see Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1926, no. 11: 34; 1928, no. 12: 18–19; Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 181; Gilev, Detskaia besprizornost’, 14; Detskoe pravo, comp. Krichevskaia and Kuritskii, 470; Drug detei, 1927, nos. 8–9: 18; Molot (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, no. 1579 (November 6), p. 3.

93. One of Lunacharskii’s adjutants, Moisei Epshtein, confirmed in 1927 that the government still relied on detdoma to raise most waifs. All other means (including patronirovanie, which he mentioned specifically) played a “comparatively modest role.” Epshtein added that approximately 60 percent of all besprizornye were under the age of fourteen—and thus next to impossible to place in jobs or the families of peasants and craftsmen. See Pravda, 1927, no. 78 (April 7), p. 3.

94. Leningradskaia oblast’ (Leningrad), 1928, no. 2: 103; no. 4: 113–115; Detskii dom i bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 20; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 6–7; Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1926, no. 11: 36; Severo-Kavkazskii krai (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1926, no. 5: 27; Vestnik prosveshchentsa (Orenburg), 1926, nos. 7–8: 29. In certain provinces, children were discharged from detdoma and dumped in groups on district authorities, along with orders to place the youths with peasants by a certain date. When it proved impossible to find enough willing families, officials sometimes “attached” a child to several households—in other words, several families were made responsible collectively for the youth’s support. Such assemblages of unwilling hosts, Narkompros complained, doomed children to poverty. No doubt many soon returned to the street. See Detskoe pravo, comp. Krichevskaia and Kuritskii, 470; Komsomol’skaia pravda, 1926, no. 109 (May 14), p. 4.

95. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 1927, no. 7: 11; Shkola i zhizn’ (Nizhnii Novgorod), 1928, no. 12: 18. Problems might also develop when peasants received city youths. The latter, unaccustomed to village life and work, often did not agonize long over a decision to head for urban terrain. See Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 49; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 220.

96. Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1926, no. 1: 3; 1927, no. 11: 141–142; Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1927, no. 2: 44; nos. 5–6: 32–33; Na pomoshch’ detiam. Obshchestvenno-literaturnyi i nauchnyi sbornik, 17 (regarding the figure of 2 percent for Samara province); Krasnushkin et al., Nishchenstvo i besprizornost’, 151; Vozhatyi, 1926, no. 6: 31.

97. Kalinina, Komsomol i besprizornost’, 19; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1929, no. 1: 164; Vestnik prosveshchentsa (Orenburg), 1926, nos. 7–8: 29; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 49. Regarding the figures for Irkutsk, see Drug detei (Khar’kov), 1927, no. 2: 44; Prosveshchenie Sibiri (Novosibirsk), 1929, no. 11: 52. Some families, unable to support the children they had previously accepted, asked to return the youths to institutions. For an example, see TsGALI, f. 332, o. 2, ed. khr. 20, l. 5. When juveniles failed to flourish in host families, most sources blamed the families. Occasionally, however, an author placed principal responsibility on the children (said to be undisciplined) and their detdoma, which had allegedly failed to provide them with suitable labor habits. See for example Prosveshchenie Sibiri (Novosibirsk), 1927, no. 8: 55–56.

98. Sovetskoe stroitel’stvo, 1927, nos. 2–3: 167; Detskii dom i bor’ba s besprizornost’iu, 16; Tizanov et al., Pedagogika, 245; Voprosy prosveshcheniia na Severnom Kavkaze (Rostov-on-the-Don), 1928, no. 2: 42. On the shortage (or complete absence) of Narkompros’s social workers in the countryside, see Tizanov et al., Detskaia besprizornost’, 170–171; Tizanov and Epshtein, Gosudarstvo i obshchestvennost’, 26.

99. Drug detei, 1929, no. 11: 8; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, 1929, no. 1: 165; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 222; Prosveshchenie Sibiri (Novosibirsk), 1928, no. 9: 74; 1929, no. 12: 11; Detskii dom, 1929, nos. 8–9: 106.

100. For contemporary statements and predictions on the declining role of patronirovanie, see Detskii dom, 1930, nos. 2–3: 7; Ryndziunskii and Savinskaia, Detskoe pravo, 218–219; Drug detei, 1929, no. 11: 8. For a patronirovanie decree from 1936, see SU, 1936, no. 9, art. 49. For the figure of 350,000 orphans placed in families at the end of the Second World War, see A. M. Sinitsin, “Zabota o beznadzornykh i besprizornykh detiakh v SSSR v gody velikoi otechestvennoi voiny,” Voprosy istorii, 1969, no. 6: 28.