The State : That ‘Giant Sucking Sound’ Is the State Siphoning Off Federal Funds

Los Angeles, like all big cities in America, is stuck on a narrow bridge between the oncoming trains of ideology and Washington politics. For all the talk about the private sector being better able to provide services to the poor, most of the resources that enable private groups to help the poor come from government. If the new Republican Congress has its way, however, program money will be cut by up to 15% and the remainder redirected to the states in block grants--on the presumption that the states will know better than Washington what needs to be done.

That may well be, but the argument could be taken a step farther. It is the neighborhood-based organization that knows best what local needs are. Yet, under the new Republican federalism, they would receive less and less money.

SIPA, the Search for Involvement of

Filipino Americans, is a case in point. It serves the youth and community of what is called Filipino Town, around Temple Street downtown. It is 22 years old and one of two agencies that serves the largest Asian community in California. Like many community programs, much of what it does is funding-driven: When there is money to work with gangs, or drugs or tobacco, they do gangs, drugs and tobacco.

Ninety percent of their funding comes from government. Most neighborhood-block organizations and the religious institutions that run food and homeless shelters rely on government money as well. Although all this funding passes through city and county governments, and thus some of it may be siphoned off for other purposes, the rules are clear: If a program qualifies for funds, it stands a good chance of getting the money.

There is much to be said for letting these neighborhood programs define their own needs and spend their grants accordingly. The Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative moves a bit in that direction, coming out of Mayor Richard Riordan’s office with money from the U.S. Department of Transportation, though it is specifically tied to transportation routes.

John W. Mack, president of the Urban League, was “down this road before” in the 1970s, when revenue sharing returned money to the cities. What happened then was that the money was used for government purposes first--shoring up budget shortfalls, paying for the pet projects of the politically powerful. If federal money is routed through Sacramento, odds are good that the state will make itself solvent first, then look to agriculture and the suburbs, where its political base resides, to distribute the remainder.

This siphoning-off process will probably be repeated at the county and city levels of government. For example, it would not be surprising if the Riordan Administration took the opportunity to direct a good portion of the funds to enlarging the Police Department, its political priority. As a result, the neighborhood-based organizations, particularly those serving the new immigrant communities, will be hurt most.

SIPA and its sisters do not have the same kind of access to City Hall, the county or Sacramento that the Police Protective League has. If you set out to cut the size of government--and put the undertaking on a competitive basis with the goal of rewarding the middle class--the losers will be the poor. And most of the poor live in the cities.

The midterm elections seriously weakened the political clout of the cities. When the new Congress takes office this year, a different reality will set in. Washington is going to be much less hospitable in the future and Sacramento has its own priorities. Los Angeles needs to be represented then, and represented well. We need an entirely different lobbying approach--in Sacramento and in Washington--one that can work with the city and can put community coalitions together.

The mayor needs to build on his strengths as a negotiator who can work with leaders of other levels of government and mayors in other cities. He needs to learn more about people beyond his immediate circle of friends. He needs to enlarge his staff with experienced and skillful people in government, business and in community organizations.

The loss of the empowerment zone grant was a serious blow to the city. No matter that the program came into being following the 1992 riots, we failed to take advantage of it because the mayor’s staff did not know how to put together the kind of proposal required. Los Angeles needs to change course. We need to learn from the past, take advantage of the new year and start over.*