EDITORIAL : HANDOUT HANG-UPS; L.A. CAN'T RELY ON FEDERAL FUNDS TO PAY FOR POLICE.

THIS time the federal gravy train didn't stop in Los Angeles. And Mayor Richard Riordan and some other politicians aren't happy about it.

``We have played by the rules and done our part to reduce crime in our part of the country,'' Riordan complained last week after being told that the Clinton administration didn't put L.A. on the latest list of cities to receive more money to hire more police officers. ``We have demonstrated success and it doesn't seem fair to have the administration ignore us.''

Fairness, however, often is secondary when Washington passes out money. Elected officials in Washington like to spend money where it will do the most good for them politically, not necessarily where it will do the most good for the people.

And that illustrates the hazard of federal giveaway programs. There can be no assurance that Washington will continue to fund them to meet expectations.

For starters, keep in mind that cities using federal funds to hire more police officers are making long-term commitments for salaries, pensions, health insurance, equipment, etc. They can be left holding the bag if Washington decides to change its spending priorities.

Then there's Washington's habit of trying to dictate how local aid money should be spent.

For example, the latest program places a lot of emphasis on community policing. But what works in one city might not work in another. Indeed, what works in one part of L.A. may not be effective in others. Nevertheless, local officials might find their hands tied if Washington, in its typical fashion, mandates a one-size-fits-all approach to community policing.

In our opinion, the real test of federal anti-crime programs shouldn't be whether they are ``fair'' to local agencies looking for more money, but whether they represent the most effective use of federal tax dollars.

Perhaps it would be better if Washington concentrated on using its resources to deal more effectively with federal responsibilities, such as fighting drug traffic, and left local policing to the locals.

That would free local agencies to deal with crime problems in accordance with their own priorities - and reduce the need to spend so much time, energy and money romancing Washington for handouts.