CONCERN OVER GRANTS NO WAY TO JUDGE SECESSION MERITS.

Byline: Shirley Svorny Local View

A key concern expressed by those who oppose the secession of the San Fernando Valley from Los Angeles is that the breakup will reduce the influence of the area in Washington, making it harder to attract federal funds.

An analysis of federal funds received by the largest cities in the country in 1998 suggests it is not that simple; there doesn't appear to be much of a relationship between city size and per-capita receipts of federal funds.

Some smaller cities received more per capita than Los Angeles, others received less.

The simple correlation between city size and per-capita federal funds for the largest independent cities (about 2 dozen cities) in 1998 was .09; in 1996 it was .19.

Research on the distribution of federal funds across the country by political scientists and economists suggests that politics may be a bigger factor than need or population. Researchers have been able to tie such things as legislative seniority, Senate and House committee membership, representation on appropriations committees, and other political influences to the distribution of federal funds across states.

There is some evidence that politicians who face contentious re- elections are able to garner greater benefits for their districts.

It takes effort on the part of politicians to attract funds, and not everyone needs them.

My own research has found evidence that federal funds are distributed in an attempt to sway voters in close congressional races.

Political observers have suggested that the generosity of the federal government in responding to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake (compared with how residents in Northern California were treated after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake) reflected the fact that, in 1994, President Clinton needed California's support in his run for re-election.

Most studies of the nationwide allocation of federal funds cannot find a statistical relationship between the need in a district or area and funds allocated to that area, even where funds are specifically set up to solve particular problems, such as mass layoffs or lack of job skills.

It appears that efforts to obtain funds may be more important than need in the allocation of federal funds.

These observations about the distribution of federal funds nationwide are consistent with the recent findings of Daily News reporter Beth Barrett, who took a close look at federal transfers to Los Angeles (``L.A., Valley fare poorly,'' Sept. 17).

Barrett found that Los Angeles did not receive funds on par with its size and that the San Fernando Valley's poor neighborhoods received little in the way of federal support.

Barrett's article emphasized the importance of setting up a coordinated effort to attract grants.

Herb Lemmons, who has worked to bring federal funds to San Diego, was quoted as saying that Los Angeles has an undisciplined approach to attracting and distributing federal funds.

A recent example illustrates how the size of the city can actually work against attracting federal funds.

In 2001, funding for a Housing and Urban Development renewal community grant was limited to one contiguous area in a city. Los Angeles' decision to apply for funds for areas near downtown left poor areas in the Valley out of the running.

In this case, and many others, it is not clear that Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley could not attract more funds as separate cities than if they were to remain together.

Concern over federal funds is often couched in terms of a loss to poor residents by opponents of secession. Economists, however, have found little evidence that programs intended to help the poor - job training and economic development programs - are effective in improving conditions in poor communities.

The mayor has blamed a ``disjointed'' economic development effort for the lack of economic improvement in poor communities in Los Angeles, ignoring the fundamental reality that improving living conditions in poor neighborhoods is more about reducing crime than about public training programs and subsidized commercial development.

Because the allocation of federal funds appears to be unrelated to city size and because Los Angeles has not used economic development funds well, voters would be ill-advised to weigh this concern heavily in their deliberations over secession.

Concern over federal funds is a poor criterion for judging the merits of secession.

Instead, residents would be better advised to consider the consequences of smaller jurisdictions for participation, monitoring of government, efficiency in service provision and local control.

In each of these areas, secession offers substantial advantages.