'WHY CLOSE A MODEL SHELTER?'

In her column titled "Why Close a Model Shelter?" {Outlook, Oct. 29} , Mary McGrory spent a great deal of time and attention focusing on a microcosm of an issue that many municipalities, including the District and the federal government, are trying to deal with. Unfortunately, she has missed an excellent opportunity to report with objectivity on the larger issue of the plight of homeless women -- primarily black women -- which needs to be looked at in this city.

She chose instead to focus on a leaf, while the mayor and I, as his representative, and the human services staff, must focus on the forest. Mary McGrory's column presents such a distorted view of our position that I could hardly contain my anger enough to respond.

One of the first glaring errors suggests that Mayor Barry wants to close down New Endeavors by Women, a transitional program for homeless women, and turn it into an emergency shelter. Wrong. I know that if the mayor had the power there would be no homeless in need of shelters, transitional or emergency. But in the absence of the ideal, I also know that the mayor supports the kind of transitional program New Endeavors operates. Tragically, he is constrained in what the city can fund because the District is under court order to provide emergency beds.

Mary McGrory would have been better informed if she had read the Post's Sept. 26 editorial on this issue {"Paying for the Homeless"} . Perhaps she would have understood that this administration is doing a great deal to handle a very difficult situation. She would have known that "the city paid for a total of 724,289 'shelter nights' in fiscal 1988, more than three times the number recorded in 1984, the year before {Initiative 17} went into effect." She would have understood that "in the next fiscal year the D.C government will devote $32 million to the homeless."

And, according to The Post editorial, "that, in comparison with other cities, is a large sum of money, representing more than the combined expenditures of Chicago ($14 million) and Philadelphia ($15.9 million) in 1988." With this money, we want to provide more transitional homes for men and women and families -- homes that allow all of the occupants to grow and learn in a supportive environment.

But under the present court order, and in a world of limits, hard choices must be made. Because of the court order, emergency shelters take precedence over transitional shelters.

What Mary McGrory further refers to as a "defensive" posture in my response to Housing and Urban Development official Anna Kondratas was simply an effort on my part to correct Mary McGrory before her statement was allowed to be printed as fact. Obviously, my efforts proved fruitless.

Additionally, I would be the last one to suggest that the requirement for cleanliness and habitability of shelters was offensive to me or the mayor.

Mary McGrory seems to take great offense at my comment about homeless women in the District Building who look like me. Once again she missed the point. Those black women residents in attendance knew exactly what I was referring to. Mary McGrory should realize that most of the women in the District Building are black like me.

Too bad that in her haste to print, Mary McGrory missed the final comments that I had with the shelter operators -- that is, a commitment to work with them, to make sure that the outcome will be in the best interests of the shelter residents, the service providers and the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mary McGrory took a cheap shot. MAUDINE R. COOPER Staff Director, Executive Office of the Mayor Government of the District of Columbia Washington

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.