State May Lose $1 Billion in U.S. School Meal Plan : Nutrition: California would be hardest hit state if GOP-sponsored legislation becomes law, federal analysis says. Food service officials fear effect on children.

A federal plan to transfer responsibility for national school meals programs to the states would take a $1-billion bite out of child nutrition efforts in California--by far the biggest loss of any of the states, according to an analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

California’s school lunch and breakfast programs would receive at least half a billion dollars less over the next four years than under Agriculture Department budget projections.

And a lesser known program that feeds children in day-care programs would suffer even deeper cuts, said the analysis, which could raise the cost of child care for many working parents.

State officials said that many of the more than 30,000 licensed child-care programs that serve meals under the latter program would probably drop out, meaning that working parents would have to pay more for child care or arrange to provide meals themselves.

That was the daunting news that greeted the 77 members of the California delegation at a meeting of the American School Food Service Assn. in Washington, D.C., this week as they spent several days lobbying members of Congress to reduce the impact of the changes proposed by Republicans.

The proposal to eliminate the nutrition programs and replace them with smaller block grants to the states was approved last week by the House Education and Opportunities Committee and is to be voted on by the full house this month.

It still must go to the Senate, where opponents are promising a lengthy filibuster of the bill in its present form, and then to President Clinton.

“It looks grim,” said Kathleen Corrigan, food service director of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District in Contra Costa County in Northern California. “At best, it looks grim.”

The Agriculture Department analysis issued this week said seven large states with urban centers--including California, New York and Texas--would each lose at least $250 million in support for meal programs over the next four years.

The legislation would slow the growth of the programs and would remove the guarantee that all eligible students automatically receive free or reduced-price lunches and breakfasts--which generally consist of a hot entree, such as pizza or pancakes, a fruit or vegetable, milk or juice, and a dessert.

States would receive a set amount of money and would establish their own programs to spend it. When the money ran out, states would have to allocate more from their own coffers or deny children food. The legislation also drops the requirement that states match the federal contribution, which could lead to deeper program cuts.

“The worst thing about this is that there are so many unknowns,” said Jan Monforte, an Orange County-based consultant to school nutrition programs who heads the California Food Service Assn. “There are a lot of people who are very worked up about it, and we are worried about the effect on the children. That’s the bottom line.”

Warren Lund, the food service director of the Los Angeles Unified School District, estimated that the district would lose at least $20 million.

“We’re not talking about a welfare program here, we’re talking about an integral part of the education program,” Lund said. “Hungry kids can’t learn. That’s been established very, very clearly.”

To offset the deep cuts in the child-care nutrition program, states would have the discretion of transferring as much as one-fifth of their meals money to other nutrition programs.

But Republican members of the congressional committee contend that the proposal would only slow the growth of the school meals program over the next five years, not reduce it. And they reject the prediction by the Agriculture Department and many food service directors that the budget cuts would cause children to go hungry. “We think that is absolutely ludicrous,” one senior committee staff member said.

School food service directors say the legislation, as written, could force school districts to siphon funds from classrooms to allow them to continue feeding needy children. In California, state law requires districts to feed poor children, regardless of whether state or federal programs cover the cost.

Cuts in funding for the child-care food program--which would go from $10 billion to $5 billion over the next four years--would be accomplished by requiring families whose children are receiving the free meals to demonstrate that they are needy.

That rule change--which would render some children ineligible for the free meals--would cause child-care providers serving meals to nearly 60,000 children statewide to withdraw from the program, state officials said.

The income test would “take about 70% of our children out of the program, which essentially will do away with it,” said Andrea Howlett of Crystal Stairs, a Los Angeles-based agency that sponsors 2,400 day-care operators serving more than 15,000 children.

Most of those day-care providers are small and the changes would be unworkable, she said. “It’s not just money out the door,” Howlett said. “We are affecting the community as a whole by making sure there is quality day care.”

School food service directors said the federal legislation is worrisome for several reasons, in addition to its potential financial impact.

They contend that the legislation gives districts incentives to cut corners by reducing food quality. They also said it fails to make provisions for states, such as California, where participation in the meals programs is growing.

“In the last five years, our meals participation increased by 20%,” said Maria Balakshin, who administers the school meals program for the state Department of Education. “That’s a large number.”

Furthermore, they said, it would create administrative problems--not to mention moral dilemmas--by requiring that undocumented immigrants be denied meals.

“We’re talking about hungry kids here,” said Barry Sackin, director of food service for 40 Anaheim schools and president of the Southern California section of the association. “If you have a problem with regulations or money or illegal immigration, you can’t take it out on the kids.”

Several food service directors said that supporters of the proposal in Congress do not appear willing to listen to their concerns.

“We can find places to cut,” said Monforte, the association’s state president. “We are more than willing to work . . . to give them the savings in dollars that they are looking for, but no one is listening. (The bill) was voted on without a hearing.”

* SCHOOL MEAL DEBATE: GOP, Democrats grapple over food program changes. A5