NEWS ANALYSIS : Shift in Responsibility to Meet Social Needs Will Test County

The joke these days is that the air of uncertainty hanging over the Hall of Administration is because of all of the county bureaucrats with their windows open, fingers aloft to the north and east, trying to gauge just which way the wind is blowing from Sacramento and Washington.

Never has there been a time of more questioning of just how the nation’s most populous county, buffeted by a multitude of social ills and a lousy economy, will fare in the coming months.

Converging events--the new Republican majority in Congress, new initiatives by the Clinton Administration, the evolving relationship between the state and the county--are moving at a breakneck pace to effect a historic shift of responsibility to local government.

Almost daily, new proposals surrounding such thorny issues as welfare reform, unfunded mandates, entitlements and realignment emanate from Washington and Sacramento. Behind the bureaucratic jargon, though, lies the possibility of profound changes for residents of Los Angeles County, as local government is called on to assume more control of public housing, community development, health, welfare, arts and environmental programs.

Many local officials doubt that the county is equipped to handle the load. Besides contending with one of the worst recessions in half a century, the county since 1992 has been squeezed by a state law that has diverted close to $1 billion in property tax revenues from the general fund to public schools.

This has eaten into health, welfare and other services and especially the public library system, which has been forced to close branches and reduce operating hours.

The state budget proposed recently by Gov. Pete Wilson contains more bad news for the county. The budget seeks to shift more of the responsibility for health and welfare to local officials, but it remains to be seen whether the county will gain more flexibility over how those programs are run.

Budget analysts estimate that counties throughout California could lose some $241 million in state funds, with at least a third of that loss in Los Angeles County.

But the broader issue, one that elicits both hope and anxiety among county officials, lies in the new mood of toughness in Sacramento and Washington.

Some say they welcome the changes as a kind of reality check on what government can actually do for people. Others applaud the prospects of less federal intervention in local affairs. But still others voice concerns that important social programs will be gutted.

Indeed, programs that once seemed assured of public support and government largess--prenatal care, early childhood education, youth intervention programs, health services for the elderly--now seem ripe for the chopping block or at least for debate about their merits.

The county is the provider of last resort for some of the very constituencies--the poor, the sick, the homeless, mentally ill, convicts--with the least clout and sympathy these days. And economic and demographic factors have combined to make Los Angeles County’s overall population increasingly dependent.

According to county figures:

* At least 2.7 million of the county’s 9 million residents--30%--have no health insurance.

* Twenty percent of the population receives some form of welfare.

* During the recession, two-thirds of the state’s job losses have occurred in Los Angeles County.

* More than 25% of all undocumented residents in the nation are thought to live here.

The new powers in Washington and Sacramento may provide a new, expanded role for local government, but the county may well be saddled with even more wrenching social and political choices.

“The move to shift responsibilities back to local government is at a pitch that this county has never seen before, and it could send it into a tailspin just as it’s struggling to get back on its feet,” said H. Eric Schockman, a political science professor at USC who directs that school’s Center for Multiethnic and Transnational Studies.

Schockman says the signals coming from Washington and Sacramento so far offer a mixed bag: A possible renewed emphasis on defense spending under Republican leadership, for example, could bode well for the county, reinvigorating a key sector of the economy.

Likewise, the state’s attempted crackdown on illegal immigration is likely to resonate beyond California, forcing a shift in border policies that could deter illegal entry into the county.

According to a widely reported study commissioned by the Board of Supervisors, illegal immigrants cost the county about $308 million in fiscal year 1991-92, while generating about $36 million in revenues.

Schockman points out, however, that studies purporting to measure the costs of providing services to illegal immigrants often raise more questions than they answer and can be used to support almost any theory.

And many of the initiatives brewing in Washington and Sacramento could usher in a host of new problems for the county.

Welfare reform included in the Republicans’ “Contract With America” would mean increased costs for the county, according to an analysis by Chief Administrative Officer Sally Reed. Under the proposal, legal immigrants who have not become citizens would be denied most federal aid. But they would become eligible for county-funded general relief, health and children’s services.

The Department of Public Social Services estimates that assuming the burden of providing services to legal immigrants could cost the county an extra $335 million annually.

County officials also say the proposal could result in a wave of children flooding the already taxed foster care system.

“The Department of Children and Families is worried that denying AFDC to children who lack other means of support also could result in increased child abuse and neglect,” Reed told the Board of Supervisors in her report.

The proposals could also reduce funding for nutrition programs for the elderly and infants, for foster care, child care and the popular Head Start program, according to local advocates monitoring the debate in Washington.

Welfare reform proposals in Washington and Sacramento would also reduce Supplemental Security Income benefits for the aged and disabled as well as for drug addicts and alcoholics.

Lillibeth Navarro, a 39-year-old Los Angeles resident disabled by polio, fears that she and others with disabilities will suffer greatly if the cuts go through.

“For many of us, SSI is the only thing that keeps us home and off the streets,” said Navarro.

Her movement is limited and she requires a wheelchair. Nevertheless, she put herself through USC and works as a substitute teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District. However, her ability to work has been limited by both physical and transportation problems and any cut in her grant would hamper her still further, she says.

“Welfare reform should focus on where the greed is,” says Navarro. “Don’t focus on people who are only living a marginal existence.”

The Clinton Administration’s plan to cut housing programs could also wreak havoc locally, forcing more of the costs of public housing, rental assistance and community development onto county government. Some analysts foresee rising rents, declining neighborhoods and more homelessness.

Local arts programs also many not weather the storm as Congress considers reducing or eliminating federal funding for the arts. Such action could be devastating because the county has also has been forced to reduce its support for arts organizations.

Major organizations such as the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art could be forced to slash community outreach and educational programs.

CAO Reed will occupy a front-row seat as new initiatives begin to fly, and must shepherd the county through it all.

A pragmatic, fiscally conservative manager, she says the county is likely to be stung by the federal government’s retrenchment.

“But in the end, people who are told no will be told so by the board (of supervisors), and not because they don’t believe in the programs but because there is no money there.”

It is the proposal to shift responsibility for health, welfare and other costly programs from federal to state and local jurisdiction that has caused Reed and others most concern.

The rhetoric of returning decision-making to communities sounds good but could emerge as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, some say.

“The sham of all of the realignment talk is that it is really a realignment of the tax burden; they are getting it off their books and putting it on our books,” says the county’s newest supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, a former city councilman and experienced budget hand.

Yaroslavsky worries that political expediency is preventing serious debate of the vast implications of many of the proposals that have gained force.

“What bothers me is that the statements coming from leaders at both the state and national level sound like political campaign brochures,” he says. “I want to see change too, but it can’t be done in 10 days.”

He adds: “We, at this level, have to be involved. This county should be represented at the Ways and Means Committee. We are the laboratory. We can’t bounce checks like the Feds and we don’t have taxing ability like the state. We can’t pass on the burden.”

Yaroslavsky and others cite the shifting thinking on entitlements as one of the most far-reaching ideas emanating from Washington. An entitlement is a program that is funded to meet whatever need arises, with the government paying a share of the costs based on the number of people who qualify for help.

New proposals would supplant entitlement funding with a single, formula-driven lump sum of money--a block grant--that would have to cover all costs no matter how many people apply for aid. Local officials fear that the new system would hurt huge, urban communities like Los Angeles, leaving little flexibility to deal with local economic and social dynamics.

“I think the public doesn’t fully understand the ramifications of what’s being proposed,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles). “It’s an attempt to paralyze government and make it impossible to respond to local needs. But it won’t just impact poor people on AFDC, it will have ramifications for everybody.”

Roybal-Allard said that everyone--the well-off and the poor alike--will have to worry about the impact in such areas as safe-drinking water, clean air and sanitation laws.

The proposals could jeopardize funding for lead and asbestos removal programs, toxic waste and air pollution plans. In addition, both the state and federal government are proposing a reduction in funding for transportation needs. It is unclear whether local government would continue to receive direct funding for airport, transit and highway money, according to the Washington-based National Assn. of Counties.

But others worry that such shifts will have the greatest impact on the neediest in society.

A single lump sum of money or block grant, for example, might limit the ability of Los Angeles County to expand or contract its welfare rolls to meet need, said Casey McKeever, a Sacramento-based attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

“What’s left is an enormous amount of human distress that’s not capable of being addressed,” he added. “What I see on the ascendancy at both the state and national level is making it more difficult to be poor and reducing what little safety net there is.”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich offered a different viewpoint, insisting that the new initiatives will provide incentives for people to be less dependent and will force local officials to be more innovative.

“Block grants are better than having the federal government dictate policy,” said Antonovich. “It allows for flexibility of local needs and allows innovation to take place in the communities where you have problems.”

One silver lining in the whole debate may be to reduce the expectation of what local government is capable of, said Reed and others.

“For years, we have been expected to provide far more programs than we’ve been funded for,” she said. “Some of the things going on now might force us to realize that government is a scarce resource and that we can only do what we have the capability of doing.”

Others, too, see in the debates raging in Washington and Sacramento short-term pain but possibly a longer term gain. Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Panorama City) believes that only a realignment of the structure of state, city and county government will alleviate the current strains on local government.

He wonders: “Does the structure in place for decades meet the needs of today or is there a better way?”

As an example, Katz said many city and county functions--animal regulation, the issuing of film permits, law enforcement academies and crime labs--could be consolidated.

“In a time of limited resources,” he said, “these are the kinds of issues we have to be looking at.”