Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-03-08
United Givers Fund

1AlC 00fdIltdSCS VI LCOuClIlS
the number of requests for
financial assistance from
health and welfare agences
naturally appeal strongly to
government and business in
the District, and to all of us
individuals whose morning
mail seldom fails to bring at
least one request for a con-
tribution. 1t is also claimed
that a zone package" cam
paign will yield a larger re-
turn. although whether this is
an accurate forecast of what
will take place under the spe-
cial conditions which obtain
in the District remains to be
seen. Washington is not like
other cities which have been
mentioned in this connection.
If there is not a much larger
return, presumably there will
be more claimants for a posi-
bly, not proportionately larger
pie.
In spite of this obvious APP
peal and this optimism, there
are certain other aspects of the
United Givers Fund which de-
serve very careful considera-
ton. Because of the absence
of industry in the District, our
business community is more
conservative than similar COM
munities in many other cities.
That conservative business
community is a controlling fac
tor in health and welfare work
in the District. There are
persons-hopefully, there are
fewer of them-who still think
of such work in terms of
charity" of the rendering of
sO-called direct services and
who fail to understand that
the primary goals of health
and welfare work today are
prevention and education, that
this work is carried on chiefly
by persons who are profession
ally trained and that much of
it is necessarily controversial
and will always be. Further
more. a great deal that is sig
nif1cant and creative in the
field is and must be the re-
sponsibility and privilege of
newly established agencies the
value of which for an initial
period of varying length is APP
preciated only by a small mi
nority of the community.
In. the setup of the United
Givers Fund it is therefore
pertinent to ask what pro-
vision will be made for two
kinds of agencies:
Cd The agency which is I'M
popular with some segment of
the community; for example,
the Washington Housing AS
ISOLATION, which was expelled
from Chest support primarily
because its moderate espousal
of public housing incurred the.
enmity of powerful segment
of the business community.
ca The agency which in all
probability will be accepted
and supported by the COM
nnunity, but which, because of
recent establishment and
therefore limited financial
resources, is unable for the
time being to conform to such
regulations as are applied by
the membership of United
Community Services.
For purposes of considera-
ton and discussion, I submit
three suggestions:
Cd Flexibility in the appli-
cation of standards for mem
bership in the United Givers
Fund.
(2) A liberal attitude in
dealing with the educational
activities of unpopular agen-
cies and more f1rmness than
has heretofore been shown
when confronted with protests
against such activities.
90 The necessity of recog-
nizing that some agencies are
so controversial in character
that in the interest of their
own freedom of action they
should not be included in the
membership of the United
Givers Fund. However, in such
a case or cases to assure at
least measure of protection
against the individual who
will be inclined to use the exist
ence of the fund as an alibi,
and in order to avoid the
danger of a tendency to freeze
the status quo in the health
and welfare field in the Dis
trict, an unequivocal declara-
ton that the setting-u of a
"one package" organization
and campaign is in no sense
an indication of what indivi-
dual givers should or should
not do with respect to agen-
cies not covered by the fund.
G. Rowland Shaw.