NEWS ANALYSIS : Social Services Getting the Ax? : Budget policy: Board of Supervisors favors public safety and law enforcement over the health-care sector, critics say.

When California legislators finally came to terms on this year’s state budget, it meant deep cuts in the state’s health-care system, and county officials were forced into painful decisions about which local programs to rescue.

In Los Angeles, supervisors chose to restore a significant portion of cuts in health services, including about $57 million to the county’s indigent-health-care program, which had been set for a $72.2-million cut.

“I think the board recognized its responsibilities and . . . that the county’s trauma care system and other health services are hurting,” said Barbara McGowan, a financial officer for Los Angeles County. “They realized that they needed to do everything they could to not cut too deeply into those programs.”

But Orange County supervisors chose a different course, some critics charge, when they passed their $3.39-billion budget last week, letting the ax fall squarely on sick and poor residents, health care and other social services.

They took this action despite mounting evidence of Orange County’s status as an urban core whose neediest citizens must increasingly look to local government for social services. Critics charge that members of the Board of Supervisors have simply failed to open their eyes to the county’s growing diversity and escalating social needs and that there is little pressure from the voting public to do so.

Many say the board is unwilling to change its priorities to reflect that reality.

“I am concerned that instead of choosing to deal with social problems, they are choosing to elevate public safety and law enforcement,” said Father Jaime Soto, a prominent Catholic official who is outspoken on social issues. “. . . These choices will have a harsh impact on the poor.”

Added Jean Forbath, chairwoman of the Orange County Human Relations Commission: “When it comes to a comparison of spending for health care and social service needs, I think we will find that our county falls short.”

But Supervisor Roger R. Stanton called such criticism misguided.

“I’m aware of these so-called critics and advocates for the needy but they really have blinders on,” he said. “Their premise is inaccurate. All programs suffered. It’s perfectly understandable, and I empathize with their argument that our priorities are wrong, but each group that is affected says that.”

Stanton also said it is not fair to compare Orange County to Los Angeles County.

“They have other means of acquiring revenue that we do not. . . . It is not an apple-apple comparison. We don’t have the ability to get into a general revenue restoration project and continue to meet all of our mandated programs. . . . There just aren’t other areas we can devastate.”

But Forbath and others point to the board’s willingness to restore state-mandated reductions in some departments but not others. Those choices benefit quality-of-life concerns of the middle class at the expense of social issues, they contend.

For example, while the board rejected pleas to use county funds to restore state cuts to many health care and social service programs, other departments fared slightly better.

The district attorney’s office was initially slated to suffer a $1.32-million cut, but supervisors found a way to restore $1.12 million of that.

The Probation Department was initially faced with a $2.05-million cut, but supervisors restored $2.04 million in the final budget.

Many critics contend that the county and its elected representatives suffer from an outdated philosophy that its upscale citizens need little government assistance.

There is increasing evidence of just the opposite, the critics contend. Although the county’s 1990 median income is an extraordinary $53,000 a year, one in five Orange County households (180,000 families) earns less than $20,000 a year, according to the Chapman College Center for Economic Research.

The county has also had to contend with a surge in the number of immigrants--both illegal and documented--and there is evidence of swelling numbers of residents who go hungry and are homeless, according to recent studies.

Supervisors, well aware of Orange County’s reputation for stinginess in social spending, argue that they are attempting to redress past lapses at an impossibly difficult time for local, state and federal governments.

“We’re a very conservative county,” Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder responded to one of many pleas for assistance made at last Wednesday’s budget session. “We started very low and still have a long way to go in addressing some of these social problems.”

County officials also point out that, according to some polls, much of the public places a low priority on health care and other social issues.

Critics counter, however, that county officials have done a poor job of elevating the public’s awareness of critical social concerns.

Although comparisons between California counties are variable and difficult to assess, Forbath points to studies that place Orange County near the bottom in per-capita spending for health care.

According to 1987-88 figures provided by the state Department of Health Services, Orange County spent about $19 per capita for public health inpatient/outpatient services, while the statewide average was about $33.

“We need a kind of parental guidance” from the board, Dr. Robert Miner, president of the Orange County Medical Assn., told the supervisors. “You need to do things that are maybe unpopular but need to be done.”

Ultimately, as the county’s changing demographics translate into an even greater demand for social services, many believe they will bring political consequences.

“There is a growing frustration and anger of those not able to receive proper care or services,” Father Soto said, “and those agencies will be the barometer of those sentiments.”