Evening star., 1953-01-28
Confusion on Relief Secrecy

It is not surprising that conflicting news
accounts of the Citizens Advisory Councils
action on welfare secrecy have been given the
public. The confusion outside the District
Building over this touchy subject is matched
by that which seems to prevail within official
circles. The tangle needs to be Strengthened
out promptly, as an important question of
public policy is involved.
The mystery revolveS around two welfare
bills which were before the council for con-
sideration. One was Welfare Department bill
which contained controversial proviso against
the opening of relief rolls for public inspection
The other was bill, approved by the Senate
last year, which would give the Commissioners
full discretion in the matter. There was lot of
discussion about the merits and dement's of the
two measures, with particular reference to the
issue Of open or closed relief rolls. Most of the
talk was favorable to continued confidential
ity" Of all welfare records.
unanimous vote was recorded on one of
the bills but the unanimity of opinion ends
right there. The big question that has de-
veloped since this action of the council is
whether the vote was in favor of the Welfare
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES measure, with its ban on
open rolls, or of the Senate-approved BILL
which would let the Commissioners decide the
publicity question. Welfare Director Shea,
strong advocate of relief secrecy, says he
thought the council was voting on the bill
prepared by his department. Some news
stories so reported. But Council Secretary
Thornett, who is also secretary to the Commits
sionerS and Assistant Corporation Counsel
Bryan thought the council was approving the
Senate-passed bil with its discretionary au-
thority on secrecy. Mr.. Shea may write to the
council for Qualification. But apparently MEM
bers of the council also were confused The
transcript of the meeting iss.not available, as
the stenographer is on sick leave.
Under the circumstances "a reconsideration
by the council of the whole subject of welfare
legislation-and particularly OF the secrecy
question-would seem to be in order. And the
reconsideration might well include a study of
the, Tax Foundations juSt-released report on
how open relief rolls are working out in IS
States. The findings may surprise many persons
who have been disturbed by the freely expressed
fears Of social workers that serious evils would
result from giving the public access to welfare
lists. Not only did the foundation, a nom
profit research organization, fail to find any
evidence of the predicted evils but they learned
that Salutary results have followed opening of
the rolls. Among the advantages cited were
more effective screening of relief clients, in
creased administrative efficiency and, perhaps
most important of all, increased public conf
dence in the welfare program.
In short there is no support for the We'll
fare Departments anti-secrecy policy in the
report The council and the Commissioners
would be wise in rejecting the Welfare Depart
mert'S bill, with It's congressional fat against
publicity, and urging passage, instead, of the
bill passed last year by the Senate authorizing
the Commissioners to decide the confidentianty
question as the public interest requires.