Two Crucial Local Commissions That Receive Virtually No Money : Race: Pre- and post-riot ethnic attitudes argue for weighing the human-relations impact of deciding how to spend our resources.

Many had hoped that the deep, underlying racial tensions and hostility that fed the most destructive urban rebellion of this century would be potent wake-up calls for the people of Los Angeles, as well as for the nation. But as the city moves to rebuild, there are still no signs that a new, revolutionary attitude toward the city’s problems has emerged.

It was easy, of course, to fall into the trap of assuming that the jarring images of late April would stimulate new thinking about enduring problems. Encouraging pronouncements by Tom Bradley, Pete Wilson and other local officials, as well as visits by George Bush and Bill Clinton, also contributed to the belief that the old approaches would have to go.

Sadly, a UCLA-conducted survey, titled “Ethnic Anatagonisms in Los Angeles,” shows that how people think about the causes of poverty or how they think about the sources of black economic disadvantage were unaffected by the April violence. For example, before the riots, blacks and Latinos--76% and 68%, respectively--were the most likely to regard social barriers as a cause of poverty. Less than 50% of Anglos, and 57% of Asians, held this view. The percentages were essentially identical after the riot.

There was also no change in support for spending more to assist the poor. Blacks (88%) and Latinos (76%) were more likely to support increased spending, while Anglo (61%) and Asian (61%) populations remained less convinced.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Among the county’s Anglo population, there was a significant rise in openness to the idea of living in integrated neighborhoods. Only 22% of Anglos said they would favor living in a half-Asian neighborhood before the riots, compared with 40% after the violence. The percentage of Anglo interest in a half-Latino neighborhood rose from 21% to 39%, and in a black neighborhood, from 15% to 28%. Many Anglos, it appears, think the great physical separation of racial groups is a principal cause of the city’s problems.

This sign of progress is more than offset, however, by growing pessimism in the black community. Indeed, the survey suggests that the most affluent segment of the black community has developed new and profoundly deeper doubts about ever successfully integrating into the American mainstream. The growth in black pessimism applies not merely to perceptions of whether racial discrimination is a serious problem but to the fundamental likelihood that blacks will ever be treated fairly in the United States. The percentage of blacks who felt that American society owed their “ethnic group a better chance in life” rose from 55% before the Rodney G. King-beating verdict/rebellion, to 75% afterward.

Strikingly, this change was largest among the most economically successful black households. The percentages rose from 51% to 83% among blacks earning $50,000 or more. More than any other pattern, this result may have far-reaching and long-term effects.

If we wish to know why history repeats itself, the survey results give us clues. Even after the most devastating riot of this century, few minds were changed about how society works, and the disadvantaged felt ever more aggrieved.

The moment has arrived for both city and county governments to invest more in the work of their respective human-relations commissions. Last year, Los Angeles County spent approximately $1.3 million on its Commission on Human Relations. For 1992, city government budgeted roughly $120,000 for its Human Relations Commission. Both numbers amount to less than 1% of county or city expenditures. This is a woefully inadequate investment in fostering harmonious intergroup relations.

But not only must efforts to promote human relations command a higher budgetary priority for local governments--even and perhaps especially so in these tight economic times; the level of input and influence of human-relations groups in city and county government decision-making and allocations must be expanded. We must move in the direction of explicitly and routinely considering the “human-relations impact,” not merely the environment impact, of where and how resources are spent.

Upheavals such as the L.A. rebellion of 1992 tend to be viewed as acute crises. Fundamental problems and causes tend to be overlooked. Despite all the commission reports and careful analyses produced after each round of major social unrest, the underlying negative attitudes and indifference, residential isolation of different groups, labor-market discrimination and government policies that allow minority communities to fall ever farther behind go on largely as before.

One of the differences this time is that we have a record of how things changed--and failed to change. If we are to avoid “the fire next time,” this information must be added to our ideas about the range of issues that demand urgent and steadfast attention.