Welfare Cuts Could Extend to Food Program

For nearly a quarter-century, a widely praised federally funded program known as WIC has provided baby formula, cereal, milk and other nutritious foods to millions of impoverished women and their children regardless of immigration status.

But as a result of the sweeping national welfare overhaul, governors have a choice: continue to feed all WIC participants at no cost to their states, or turn away illegal immigrants and many other noncitizens, thus forfeiting millions of dollars in federal food aid that would go to these immigrants.

Providers around the country generally are confident that their states will continue to accept illegal immigrants and other eligible noncitizens in WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, already has written to federal authorities indicating that he will not change eligibility requirements.

In California, however, Gov. Pete Wilson’s oft-repeated contention that public benefits serve as a “magnet” for illegal immigration has left many wondering whether new restrictions are imminent.

“We think it’s possible that we have the only governor who may want to make a stand about child nutrition programs,” said Eloise Jenks, president of the National Assn. of WIC directors.

Wilson has yet to make a specific policy call on WIC, but all options under the welfare law are being reviewed, said gubernatorial spokesman Sean Walsh. “This is uncharted territory for us,” Walsh said.

At issue are provisions in the welfare blueprint that give states the option to ban “not qualified” immigrants--a broad new category encompassing both illegal immigrants and many others now in temporary legal statuses--from WIC, as well as from several smaller, mostly federally funded children’s lunch programs at day-care centers and summer schools. The nutrition programs in question serve more than 1.5 million women and children in California, including an unknown number of immigrants.

*

Adding urgency to the debate are fears of escalating hunger and illness in the aftermath of overall welfare downsizing--including steep cuts in federal food stamps--and, in California, the governor’s recent move to eliminate prenatal care for illegal immigrants.

The choice is a “no-brainer,” said Laurie True of California Food Policy Advocates.

The organization is one of a number of groups, along with the state Department of Education, urging the Wilson administration to refrain from imposing restrictions on immigrants who participate in the nutrition programs. Illegal immigrant usage at some WIC clinics is estimated at between 5% and 40% of participants.

“From an economic standpoint, it doesn’t make sense for the state to turn back to the federal government money that we are eligible to receive,” said Duwayne Brooks, director of child nutrition for the California Department of Education, which administers the summer and day-care food programs, serving more than 300,000 children. “Hungry children can’t learn.”

Others, however, counter that public giveaways to illegal immigrants are wrong.

“Offering fully paid benefits to illegal aliens just serves as another magnet for illegal entry into our country, and hurts those who play by the rules,” said U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego), who led the charge in Congress for new restrictions on food aid for immigrants.

House Republicans pushed for outright exclusion of illegal immigrants and other “not qualified” noncitizens from the much larger school lunch and breakfast programs. In an eleventh-hour compromise, Democrats were able to retain open eligibility for most school-nutrition efforts, but states were left with broad latitude to restrict WIC and other programs.

With the new state option in place, even some hard-line subscribers to the welfare “magnet” theory of illegal immigration worry that those thrown off the food rolls could end up at county hospitals and other public facilities, raising the price tag for taxpayers. “You have to find out if returning that money is going to put a heavier burden somewhere else,” said state Sen. Richard Mountjoy (R-Arcadia), a coauthor of Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative--strongly supported by Wilson--that sought to restrict benefits for illegal immigrants.

In California, WIC is financed with $800 million in federal funds. The money provides 1.25 million poor women and children statewide with nutritional aid, health-care referrals and an average of $35 in monthly vouchers that can be turned in at grocery stores for staples such as milk, juice and formula.

WIC was created by Congress in 1972, a time when studies showed that many poor mothers were ill-nourished during pregnancy, harming their children, and that a lack of proper foods was retarding many youngsters’ physical and mental development.

*

Today, WIC is seen by many as one of the nation’s most popular--and cost effective--public benefits, particularly for the working poor. Participation is limited to pregnant women, new mothers and children up to age 5 who meet low-income guidelines and are determined to be at “nutritional risk.”

During the most recent session ofCongress, vociferous opposition helped derail House Republicans’ plan to funnel the program’s $3.7-billion budget--which finances nutrition aid for 7 million women and children each month nationwide--into lump-sum payments to the states.

In poor and working-class communities nationwide, young mothers regularly make the trek with their children to storefront WIC “clinics,” typically situated in mini-malls and storefronts, sometimes in hospitals.

The program’s generally user-friendly, decentralized approach has contributed to making WIC a familiar word in the polyglot vocabulary of low-income Los Angeles.

“I was nervous about coming to WIC at first, but the fact that I have no papers at all never made any difference,” said Tomasa Hernandez, 38, at the Hollywood WIC office recently with her 1-year-old, Marisela.

Many providers fear that the mere prospect of case workers checking people’s status will frighten off applicants--even legal immigrants who would be eligible regardless of what the state does.

“There’s a chilling effect that can scare people away from getting services they’re entitled to,” said Jenks, who heads the nation’s largest WIC program, serving 318,000 people in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Another unknown, nutrition workers say, is how the nonprofit agencies and county health departments that run most WIC clinics could accurately screen for status, and whether time spent on verification would detract from more essential services.

Waiting at the Hollywood clinic was Linda Lam, a 33-year-old mother of two, who has a provisional legal status like tens of thousands of recent immigrants.

Lam’s situation illustrates an aspect of the welfare law that has broad ramifications in California, where about 25% of residents are foreign-born--by far the nation’s highest proportion.

Like many Central Americans, Lam is residing legally in the United States while she pursues an application for political asylum. She says she fled El Salvador 10 years ago in the midst of the civil war, fearing for her life. But, despite her provisional legal status and longtime residency, Lam does not fit the new congressional definition of a “qualified” immigrant, and would be barred from WIC if the cutoff option is exercised. Her U.S.-born son, Mario, a U.S. citizen by birth, would remain eligible.

“So much is unsure for those of us in my position,” Lam said.