Evening star., 1942-06-08
PurIey Might Save
Public Welfare Bourd
Writer Suggests Means
For Settling Differences
With District Commissioners
By John w. Thompson, T.

BY JOhn W. THOmpSOH, JT.
While there Is plenty of room for i'm
proved public welfare administration in
Washington, the proposal the Commits
sioners recently sent to the Capitol to
administrative powers may not be the
best solution to the problem.
The city heads probably can make
good case for their plan to assume well
fare administration responsibilities them
selves and leave the board In an advisory
capacity only by citing the numerous
difficulties in that department during
the past few years.
In the Public Assistance Division, the
Burdette Lewis report of few years
ago. though never really accepted by
District officials, brought about the
resignation Of the director Of PAD and
of the welfare director himself not long
after. Since then there have been other
changes in that division, and the General
Accounting Offlce now is conducting an
investigation Of alleged over-payments
and frauds in direct relief.
In the administration Of the institu-
tions. there have been repeated flare
ups over conditions prevailing at the
Blue Plains Home for the Aged and
Infirm, the Receiving Home for Chill
dren and the National Training School
for Girls. Only last Friday Mrs. Roose-
welt called District and congressional
leaders to the White House for discus
sions on the home for the aged and the
receiving home. These and numerous
other conditions brought criticism not
only of the welfare board but OF the
Commissioners themselves.
What probably was the climax came
about year ago in the battle between
the board and the Commissioners over
a successor to Welfare Director Robert
E. Bondy, who resigned. The Commits
sioners wanted as a successor Paul Ed
wards, then director of District WPA.
The board wanted Ray Huff, superin-
tendent of District penal institutions.
The board interviewed Mr.. Edwards and
then nominated Mr.. Huff. The Com
missioners rejected Mr.. Huff and called
again for Mr. Edwards. The appoint
ments are made by the city heads on
recommendation of the board. For sew
eral weeks there was an impasSe, until
both parties finally agreed to accept
Conrad Van Hyning, then assistant well
fare director, as a compromise appolnee.
1t was not very long after this incident
that a campaign was initiated to center
administration of welfare in the Com
missioners instead of in the board.
The board itself has contributed to the
problem by the inadequacy Of its public
relations Although it represents the
citizens Of the District, nobody knows
what 1t is doing except a few social work
groups, which include welfare staff
members in their membership. Although
it thinks OF itself as an independent
board it never has publicly stood up for
its rights. Its members seldom will
speak ION the record" on anything, and
on controversial matters. in two in
stances they have been sworn to secrecy
bv the chairman. Some of its own en-
ployes call 1t weak" board. It's stand
in the Huf1-Edwards case disproves this.
But it is fair charge that the board
has not taken the public into its conf
dence or sought open public support for
what it believes should be done. Many
of the troubles within its institutions
and divisions, for which the board has
been criticized, are not by any means
chargeable wholly to the board. Many
improvements they sought to make have
been stymied by previous boards of Com
missioners or at the Capitol. Usually
the board position leaks out only through
the Commissioners, with whom they
deal.
The Board of Public Welfare consists
of nine citizens appointed for slx-year
terms by the Commissioners OF
them we'll known and outstanding resi-
dents Of the city. 1t was set up in 1875
to administer the city's dozen or more
institutions and welfare services. linen
expenditures were about 100000 as
compared to about 100000 now. With
the development of social security and
public expenditures for relief during ana
after the depression, responsibility LOT
these activities was vested by law IN
the Commissioners, who turned over ad-
ministration to the board.
Although it has no jurisdiction over
commitments, the board has to pay as
much as s3,00o,o00 for the expenses of
District patients at st. Elizabeth S
Hospital.
There is no consolidated public as
sistance law for the District, most OF 1t
being carried from year to year IN the
annual appropriations bill.
In addition the board divisions and
institutions are sprawled all over the
city and in the nearby counties In
decentralization that makes proper ad-
n1inistration extremely difficult.
All in all, 1t is impossible to escape
the following conclusions:
I. That there is a great deal of con-
fusion in authority and responsibility
that should be Strengthened out.
2. That the proposed bill to strip the
board of its administrative powers Is
directed at this particular board and
not against the theory Of citizen board
participation in city government.
The success of the Board of Education
| in giving the city a top notch school
| system and of the Board of Library
Trustees in providing excellent library
administration is proof of the ability OF
| citizen boards. In this voteless commu-
nifty they are even more essential than
| elsewhere. 1t would be unfortunate to
| sacrifice the third big citizen board be-