'Public Welfare' misnomer
In an era of daily political contentiousness, it is refreshing to see such a broad, statewide bipartisan effort by Pennsylvania's Senate and House members to change the name of the state Department of Public Welfare (DPW) to the Department of Human Services.
The legislation's introduction by Rep. Tom Murt, R-Montgomery County, and Sens. Bob Mensch, R-Montgomery County, and Jay Costa, D-Allegheny County, is proof enough that the time has come to end the political rhetoric and focus on bringing this state into the 21st century, as so many states did 10, 20 and 30 years ago. The reason for the name change is simple — 95 percent of those whom the DPW serves and the services it provides do not involve cash-assistance “welfare” support.
The department addresses human service needs as diverse as long-term care for older adults, mental health, intellectual disabilities, behavioral health, drug addiction and domestic violence. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a human issue and a reflection of what this department does.
Whether you live in Pittsburgh or Plum, Moon or Murrysville, or are one of the 2.2 million commonwealth residents who receive services directly or indirectly through the department, this is about people.
There is no time like the present to make this change.
The writer chairs the Greater Pittsburgh Nonprofit Partnership (gpnp.memberclicks.net), a coalition of 340 nonprofit and corporate members.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steel at stake, too
- Pedro must go
- Duty to disclose
- Oberdorf firing
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- ‘Coyote Capitalism’
- Beware this Wolf I
- Punishment pushback II
- Punishment pushback I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility