Problem at PBH

By the end of last year, Phillips Brooks House could boast that one out of every five undergraduates was contributing some of his time to the growing list of PBH activities. But despite this increase in student interest, the group's program faces damaging curtailment. As the plight of its Mental Hospitals Committee illustrates, PBH does not have a large enough annual income.

This acute financial shortage was the inevitable result of the method by which the Combined Charities Drive has been conducted since 1948. Ever since the Combined Charities Committee and the Student Council agreed to allow students to allocate their own donations, the amount given to PBH has steadily decreased. From a high of $5,000 in 1947, the total dropped to about $1,600 last year.

Before 1947, the House conducted its own fund-raising appeal. Cooperating with the Student Council's plan to have one drive for all charities, it gave up its campaign in 1948. In return the Council made in informal guarantee to "allot to PBH. . . the sum the Council considers necessary to aid in its operation, provided that PBH shall not conduct an individual drive for funds."

With this understanding, PBH joined Combined Charities. Just one year later, however, the Drive committee changed its policy, permitting students to select their own charities. Consequently, the money donated to Brooks House, while usually the largest single amount, fell considerably from the 1947 high.

Until last year, Brooks House was not seriously hampered in its work by Combined Charities' policy. During and after the war, it had been able to save almost $10,000. Now, however, these savings are gone. PBH's budget this year, covering only minimum expenditures, amounts to $7,000. As usual, about $3,000 of this figure will come from the endowment fund for the House, and possibly another $2,000 will come from alumni. But PBH must receive at least $2,000 more from Combined Charities merely to maintain its present program, excluding all special projects and expansion plans. As a solution, PBH could again run its own drive, but this would defeat the purpose of Combined Charities.

To meet the needs of PBH's expanding program, the Combined Charities Committee and the Student Council should retract the 1948 decision. Instead of permitting students to specify how their contributions are to be distributed, the directors of the Drive should specify on the solicitation cards what percentage of the donations will go to each of the recommended groups. Students who do not want to give to these six could still put down the names of other organizations and contribute their money to them. With such a percentage system, the Drive could give Brooks House a higher, more stable income.

In 1947 the Council made what was essentially a promise to PBH. Now Brooks House needs the implementation of this promise to maintain an effective program. If Combined Charities is to remain Harvard's sole drive for philanthropic organizations, it must meet the needs of Brooks House.