State budget pinches local agencies, but they feared worse

After long anticipating fire and brimstone in the governor's May revised budget, Jewish service agency heads' reaction to the actual item mirrored the title of the classic 1960s comic novel: "Been down so long it looks like up to me."

"Certainly it's not as bad as we thought it was going to be," said Ted Feldman, executive director of the Jewish Family and Children's Services of the East Bay. "Many of the proposed cuts were eliminated in the May revision."

That being said, Feldman and others aren't dancing circles around their desks, and they are anticipating more significant funding cuts by August, when the budget is finalized.

Anita Friedman, Feldman's San Francisco JFCS counterpart, takes things a step further. She sees this budget as the death knell of the government taking the lead in social programs.

"I think that the days of the government having a pre-eminent role in financing many of these programs is over," she said.

"The shift in public policy to the private sector has been happening for 20 years. So this is not a short-term episode ... many people feel that the government doesn't have the capacity and has taken on too much responsibility."

Friedman said she has ramped up efforts to raise private dollars with programs such as mental heath services, elder transportation, citizenship programs and some food programs facing hefty cuts and being threatened by slashed budgets on the state, county and citywide levels.

Abby Snay, executive director of the Jewish Vocational Service, takes a different tack, however, claiming it is not the mission of private entities to take over, and fund, government services — nor is it feasible.

"I don't think it's possible for the private sector to take the role of government. I don't think it has the scale or the scope. I think that's our job as community providers and advocates," she said.

"One of the historic roles of the Jewish community is to keep reminding the government of its responsibilities. That's one of the reasons we have a government."

She is heartened that state community colleges won't be impacted as much as anticipated, nor will programs providing child care for people leaving support programs. On the other hand, CalWorks —- which provides temporary financial assistance and employment-focused services to poor families — has upped required work hours and dropped some cash grants by 25 percent. Finally, Snay pointed out that services such as the JVS rely more heavily on federal money than state funds, but "that's not looking too great either."

Friedman and Feldman, meanwhile, are breathing a sigh of relief that the state isn't following through on proposed 10 percent reductions of the Medi-Cal reimbursement fees for service providers.

Any less, claimed Feldman, and his organization would start losing serious money.

"This agency is reimbursed $40 to $43, depending on the county, for an hour of psychotherapy. And that amount is not quite what it costs to deliver that service," he said.

"Any threat to cap [the numbers of Medi-Cal enrollees] or reduce those amounts [of reimbursement] brings us to the question: 'Can we continue to service this population?'"

Friedman believes that many of the most potentially destructive cuts were staved off by agencies' aggressive lobbying.

Many legislators, she added, were simply unaware that some of the proposed short-term fixes could have cost the state a fortune in the long run, in addition to making people's lives miserable right away.

Her favorite example from the January budget was a curtailing of new adult day health-care programs in favor of nursing facilities. But, if you do the math, Friedman pointed out, day programs cost only $15,000 a patient, while nursing facilities can run around $50,000 a year.

But, even with the lobbying, "We have lost significant money for specific programs and we expect to lose more money," Friedman added. "It's the most difficult funding year we've ever had."