Social Agencies Fear Loss of Revenue Sharing Funds

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors heard a united message Tuesday from representatives of social agencies serving a spectrum of county residents ranging from abused children to handicapped senior citizens:

Revenue sharing money will disappear if Congress votes to heed President Reagan’s recommendation to eliminate the program, but the problems that led to the creation of those social agencies will not. And failure to replace the funds traditionally allocated to the agencies (about $12 million this fiscal year) will cost the county more in the long run.

“Prevention is far more cost effective than not dealing with crisis assistance for juveniles at an early stage and then having them enter the criminal justice system,” said Nancy Ajemian, director of the San Diego Youth Services Network.

“Eliminating agencies for the poor would push families to the edge of destruction, if not through the need to turn to crime or drug addiction, then through suicide or just plain hopelessness,” said Jaime Castaneda of North County Centro, which provides social services for Latinos.

Their comments typified the testimony at the supervisors’ first public hearing on how the county should prepare for the possible elimination of revenue sharing.

The county received about $24 million in revenue sharing for the current fiscal year, and about half those funds were allocated to a myriad of social agencies. The wisdom of the decision to spend the money on social programs rather than on capital improvement projects has long been questioned, as freshman Supervisor Brian Bilbray was quick to point out.

“Our predecessors were always warned that a day of judgment might come on facing the future of providing the essential services these agencies offer if they were given revenue sharing money instead of general fund money,” Bilbray said.

“Now we’ve inherited the problem that for them was a really nice political idea.”

About $3 million remains in the county’s revenue sharing fund, and the board voted Tuesday to set priorities for spending the money by May 7. By then, county officials hope, it will be clear whether Congress intends to heed President Reagan’s recommendation to eliminate revenue sharing.

Should the federal government cut off the money, testimony from the overflow crowd Tuesday indicated, the board will be faced with some excruciating decisions regarding which social agencies will receive money from the county’s bare-bones general fund.

Supervisor Susan Golding, anticipating the heat, reminded the crowd that “we are not the ones cutting revenue sharing. All we can do is listen to everybody and decide which group should receive money from the general fund.”

Nevertheless, numerous speakers scolded the supervisors, charging that they are insensitive to the plight of the disadvantaged.

Dr. Betty Bassoff, representing the East County Community Clinic, which received about $150,000 in revenue sharing this year, said the “modest little clinic serves working people who do the best they can to pay for the services they receive.”

When the group first heard that it might have to close its doors because of revenue sharing cuts, Bassoff said, “we thought about setting up bake sales and that kind of thing. But the responsibility to help these people lies with the entire community--and that’s the county. And cutting our funds would be a clear message that the working poor who want to pay their own way aren’t considered a priority in this county.”

Supervisor Paul Eckert bristled at Bassoff’s remark. “I’ve never heard anything like this at the county, and if anybody said that, they ought to be shot at sundown,” Eckert said. “We’re going to do everything possible to meet our social responsibilities.”

Bilbray, however, said that in the long run, social agencies would have to compete with those providing basic county services such as street maintenance and law enforcement. “We’re going to have to pool them all in an open market, and we’ve got some tough decisions ahead of us.”