Study Halts Bid to Curb Smoking : Health: Supervisor Molina says she wants to delay funding until county can eliminate ineffective programs.

Los Angeles County has delayed the distribution of $5.2 million in state anti-smoking funds pending a review of contract agencies that provide stop-smoking programs targeting black, Latino and Asian-American populations.

The review was initiated by Supervisor Gloria Molina, who said she wants to screen out any “nebulous” or ineffective programs.

But some activists said the delay has stalled the county’s efforts to reach minority groups that have high smoking rates or are heavily targeted by cigarette advertising. Some program officials said they have been forced to cut services or lay off staff while they await the funds, which were expected by March but will be withheld at least until July.

The money comes from the 25-cents-a-pack cigarette tax hike approved by California voters in 1988. The $5.2 million is earmarked for anti-smoking programs, though Molina--who has accepted $3,500 from the world’s largest tobacco company since joining the board--tried unsuccessfully earlier this year to divert it to other county health care needs.

When that bid failed, Molina urged a review of the 35 community agencies selected last year to receive the funds. Her April 28 motion, which set no deadline for completing the review, passed 3 to 0, with Supervisors Ed Edelman and Deane Dana voting with Molina.

The inquiry is being conducted by the Department of Health Services and the chief administrative officer. One CAO official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that of about 20 contracts scrutinized so far, significant questions have been raised about the effectiveness of one.

Officials said none of the contracts are expected to come before supervisors until July 7.

Anti-smoking advocates said the delay is having an impact on some of the 35 groups that are expecting funds ranging from $30,000 to $300,000.

“I’m . . . quite discouraged over the whole thing,” said Bill Andress, health educator for the Little Tokyo Service Center, which is awaiting $59,700. The center had “begun to make an impact here in the Japanese-American community,” Andress said, but “a lot of the momentum . . . has been lost.”

The Asian Youth Center in Rosemead, which serves Chinese-Americans and is expecting $187,000, has had to lay off one worker and assign two others to part-time work in other programs, said executive director May To.

Other agencies feeling the squeeze include the Watts Health Foundation and the tobacco control program at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, located in the unincorporated county area of South Los Angeles.

Molina blamed the delays on bureaucrats’ slow pace in conducting the review. Calling herself a strong supporter of Proposition 99--the ballot measure that raised the tobacco tax--Molina said she also is “a passionate, passionate advocate” for spending the tax funds wisely.

“I’m watching this money like a hawk,” she said.

To complaints from community agencies, she responded: “I am not out to kill anybody off. . . . They should be mad at the bureaucrat who can’t answer the question.”

County officials defended the pace of their inquiry, saying it has been time-consuming to respond to Molina’s questions, which have required going back to the 35 agencies for information.

In requesting the review, Molina asked for reports on how each program contributed to the county’s broader tobacco control plan. The reports will also analyze and justify the cost of the programs and provide evidence that they work.

Molina said her concerns were triggered, in part, by an electronic tote board erected by health officials at the edge of the County-USC Medical Center grounds.

The $61,000 billboard, paid for with an earlier installment of state tobacco tax funds, was put up amid a concentration of cigarette billboards to illustrate the high cost of treating tobacco-related illness.

Beneath the words “ Dinero Para Quemar ?” (Money to Burn?), the tote board was to tick off treatment figures every 20 seconds until it hit $1.5 billion--the estimated yearly bill for smoking-related disease in the county. A message in Spanish told smokers where to call for help in kicking the habit.

But when health officials invited Molina to the January unveiling, they learned she did not share their enthusiasm for the sign. She questioned its cost and the effectiveness of the message. To avoid antagonizing her, a health department source said, officials canceled the unveiling and have yet to activate the tote board.

Molina’s skepticism about the sign continues. “I don’t think it’s a good expense at all,” she said in an interview this week.

She also complained about officials providing money last year for a rap music program. Molina said her first thought was, “A rap song! What else have you done?”

But Ingrid Lamirault, director of the tobacco control section of the county Department of Health Services, said the tote board “brings visibility to the issue and makes it relevant to a lot of people.”

As for the rap program, Lamirault said its cost was only $123.40, used to pay a student employee for 20 hours of work helping adolescents create anti-smoking raps.

Julia Carol, co-director of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, said the rap concept is “a great idea.” “What are kids listening to?” she said. “Pictures of dirty lungs won’t do.”

Still, Molina is not the only one looking into the county’s anti-smoking efforts. The Tobacco Education Oversight Committee, a state advisory committee, recently asked the state Department of Health Services to review anti-smoking programs here and in San Francisco.

Dr. Lester Breslow, a UCLA professor of public health and the panel member who requested the inquiry, said the two reviews are unrelated and that he was unaware of Molina’s concerns.

He said Los Angeles and San Francisco were chosen because they are the largest recipients of tobacco control funds.

Since her election last year, Molina has repeatedly criticized county officials for their spending habits. A particular target has been the health department.

On Tuesday, she joined fellow supervisors in asking the district attorney’s office to investigate whether charges should be lodged against county health officials whose failed fund-raising efforts wasted $726,019 in public money.

But on the tobacco program, one health official said Molina is acting out of a general sense of distrust rather than responding to problems. Molina is sure “we’re doing silly things with the money. . . . We haven’t been able to beat that rap with her,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

However, anti-smoking advocates take another view. Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and a researcher on the tobacco industry’s role in politics, charged that Molina’s main interest is in holding up the funds.

She is doing “what the tobacco companies have been trying to do everywhere,” Glantz said. “By holding these organizations up like this and breaking their stride, the money that they eventually get will be much less effectively used.”

Campaign reports indicate that since she took office last year, Molina has been the board’s largest recipient of tobacco industry funds.

In 1991 and the first five months of this year, Molina received $3,500 in campaign contributions from Philip Morris, the world’s largest tobacco company.

During the same period, Philip Morris donated $2,000 to Dana and $2,270 to Mike Antonovich. Records show that Kenneth Hahn last year accepted $1,000 from the company, while Edelman received nothing; Hahn and Edelman have not filed campaign reports for the first part of this year.

In addition, Alma Fitch of Fitch/Davis Associates, leading local lobbyists for Philip Morris, hosted a Molina fund-raiser last July that netted $48,000 in campaign contributions. Fitch did not return phone calls seeking comment.

As a member of the Los Angeles City Council, Molina voted against proposals to ban smoking in restaurants. As a supervisor, she voted against a ban on smoking in county buildings, which her colleagues passed in January.

But Molina said she has never been influenced by tobacco companies. “If you’re thinking that I am a vehicle of the tobacco industry, you’re absolutely wrong,” she said. “My concern is the bureaucrats that can’t answer basic questions.”