Cuts in L.A. County Services

It seems that Joe Domanick (“L.A. Turns Its Back on Its People,” Commentary, June 20) has difficulty coping with the reality that Los Angeles County simply does not have the funds to be everything to everyone, and taxpayers do not want to pay more property taxes for more services. The county budget has not been the same since voters gave us a clear message a dozen years ago when California became the birthplace of the taxpayers’ revolt. Domanick shows a lack of information or understanding of county financing, which leads him to make erroneous conclusions that mislead his readers.

Domanick presents himself as a defender and voice of the people, and protests cuts to health services. Ironically, he criticizes the Board of Supervisors for their aggressive and forward-thinking action of including Proposition 99 (tobacco tax) funds in the county’s 1988-89 budget, an action that basically “saved” the health-services system. In July, 1988, to avoid severe health-services curtailments, the board courageously, and correctly, anticipated the voter’s subsequent approval of the Proposition 99 initiative. Los Angeles County budgeted the use of these funds in 1988-89 for services/programs included in the initiative and in accordance with the initial enabling legislation, AB 75. At issue with the state is subsequent legislation, AB 1154, enacted in April, 1990, 10 months after the close of the 1988-89 fiscal year, which states that Proposition 99 funds could not be used prior to July 1, 1989. The county is in negotiation with the state regarding this issue, which may result in litigation.

He also criticizes the Board of Supervisors for allocating funds for jail construction at the same time mental health clinics are proposed for closure. This is a comparison of apples and oranges and leads readers to believe that jails are expanding at the expense of mental health programs, which is not the case. Jail construction is financed through state and local bonds--funds approved by the voters--and these funds cannot be used for any other purpose.

Domanick also notes funding increases for the Sheriff’s Department amounting to 125% since 1982-83. He fails to mention that the County Jail inmate population has increased 136% during the same period, and that the already overcrowded jail system, which has a capacity of 15,528, has consistently had to deal with a population in excess of 20,000 during the past few years. The Sheriff is mandated to house all pre-sentenced inmates and inmates sentenced to a year or less in the county of Los Angeles, and is currently under a federal court order to provide facilities to ease overcrowded conditions.

Domanick contrasts increases in the budget for the Sheriff’s Department to the needs of the poor and indigent, which he says have been “contemptuously dismissed.” The fact is, since 1982-83, indigent aid has grown from $69 million to $168.8 million, a 144.6% increase.

Domanick also mischaracterizes the mental health budget, placing primary responsibility with the county. Mental health is a state program--the county is only the agent of the state required to provide a match to state dollars. The mental health program in Los Angeles County is not a $29-million county program; it is a $242-million program funded 85-90% with state funds, as required by law, with a 10-15% county match. The reduction in funding is not caused by county reductions but by the state’s failure to fund the program adequately. Costs for mental health services have increased and the number of mentally ill has increased, but state funding has basically remained the same for the “grime-encrusted souls” referenced by Domanick.

Every year for the past four years, the Board of Supervisors has compassionately taken up the responsibility of the state and allocated considerable amounts over and above the legally required match to state funds to maintain critically needed mental health services for the chronically and severely mentally ill in this county. In 1989-90 alone, the board allocated over $8 million more for mental health services than was required by law.

Domanick would be well-advised to focus his complaints on the funding responsibility at the state level. Realistically, we must, however, also acknowledge the critical budgetary problems facing the state--there is not enough money to meet all the needs. Something has to give and difficult choices must be made.

RICHARD B. DIXON

Chief Administrative Officer

Los Angeles County