HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1601

BYRepresentatives Peery, Schoon, K. Wilson, Cole, Valle, Jones, G. Fisher, P. King, Pruitt, Kremen, Winsley, Wang, Holland, Wineberry, Cooper, Jacobsen, H. Myers, Dorn, Basich and Phillips

Establishing a school breakfast program.

House Committe on Education

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendments.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Peery, Chair; G. Fisher, Vice Chair; Brumsickle, Cole, Dorn, Fuhrman, Jones, P. King, Phillips, Pruitt, Rasmussen, Valle and K. Wilson.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (3)

      Signed by Representatives Betrozoff, Ranking Republican Member; Horn and Walker.

House Staff:Susan Patrick (786-7111)

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (21)

      Signed by Representatives Locke, Chair; Grant, Vice Chair; H. Sommers, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Belcher, Bowman, Braddock, Brekke, Dorn, Ebersole, Hine, Holland, McLean, Peery, Rust, Sayan, Spanel, Sprenkle, Valle, Wang and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (5)

      Signed by Silver, Ranking Republican Member; Youngsman, Assistant Ranking Republican Member; Ferguson, Nealey and Padden.

House Staff:      Janet Peterson (786-7136)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS MARCH 2, 1989

BACKGROUND:

In October 1988 the Governor's Task Force on Hunger called for the increased utilization of the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program.  The Task Force recommended that the serving of breakfast be mandated in all schools where more than 25 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced price school meals.  Currently schools where 40 percent or more of the children participating in the school lunch program qualify for a free and reduced priced lunch, schools receive $.95 for each free breakfast served.  In the 1989-90 school year that will increase to $.98 per breakfast served.  These schools are identified as severe need schools.  If the school is not identified as a severe need school, the reimbursement for each free breakfast served is $.79 and will increase to $.82 in the 1989-90 school year.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  The legislature recognizes that nutrition affects a child's development and ability to learn and that hunger can be addressed by providing more food.

The Superintendent of Public Instruction is to conduct a study of school lunch programs to identify schools which are and are not currently participating in the National School Lunch Program.  The report shall identify those schools in each school district which have 40 percent or more of the students participating in the National School Lunch Program receiving free or reduced priced lunches in the second preceding school year.  Those schools will be designated severe need schools.  The report shall also identify schools that had 25 to 39 percent of the students participating in the National School Lunch Program receiving free or reduced price lunches.  The study shall also identify which schools, that do not provide lunches under the National School Lunch Program, would have sufficient students to qualify as a severe need school or a 25 to 39 percent school if they did offer the program.  The Superintendent shall report the results of this study to the Legislature no later than January 15, 1990 and shall notify each school district of the schools identified as severe need schools and schools within the 25 to 39 percent participation rate.

School districts, which have schools identified as severe need schools, shall be required to develop and implement a school breakfast program during the 1990-91 school year.  Each school district shall submit its implementation plan developed by an advisory committee to the Superintendent of Public Instruction no later than July 1, 1990, for implementation no later than the second day of school in the 1990-91 school year.

During the 1990-91 school year the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall conduct a study of the actual costs of providing the school breakfast program in the schools identified as severe need schools.  The study shall consider the total cost of the program including, but not limited to food costs, staff costs, and transportation; and make a determination to what degree funding from the federal government or from other breakfasts sold cover the actual costs of the program.  The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall report to the legislature by January 15, 1992, the results of this study; estimate the cost to districts of providing a breakfast program in schools identified as having 25 to 39 percent participation rate; and shall make a recommendation on whether the breakfast program should be expanded to these school.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The section mandating the implementation of a school breakfast program in schools with a participation rate of 25 to 39 percent of the children buying free or reduced priced lunches is eliminated.  A study of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is added.  During the 1990-91 school year the Superintendent of Public Instruction is to study the actual costs of implementing the breakfast program in school where 40 percent of the students participating in the lunch program are receiving free or reduced lunches.  The report shall estimate the cost of implementing the breakfast program in the schools with a twenty-five to thirty- nine percent participation rate by students receiving free or reduced lunches and recommend whether the program should be expanded to these schools.  The report is due January 15, 1992.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS:  The substitute bill creates a three-year time schedule for implementing the mandate to establish a breakfast program in all severe-need schools.  School districts with over 40 percent free or reduced-price lunches must implement a breakfast program in severe-need schools in the 1990-91 school year.  Districts with over 25 but less than 40 percent free or reduced-price lunches must implement a breakfast program in severe-need schools in the 1991-92 school year.  All other school districts must implement a breakfast program in severe-need schools in the 1992-93 school year.  The breakfast program requirement will lapse if federal reimbursement is reduced or eliminated.  Also, the program is to be supported entirely by federal grants and commodities, charges to students, and other local funds.  No state funding or basic education obligation is implied.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Education)  Marie Korsmo, Principal, Franklin Pierce School District; Lisa Chatterton, Food Service Supervisor, Franklin Pierce School District; Kathleen Clark, Washington State Food and Nutrition Council and Washington State Dietetic Association; and Linda Stone, Governor's Task Force on Hunger.

(Appropriations)  Tony Lee, Washington Association of Churches.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Education)  Kris Van Gorkom, Washington Association of School Administrators; and Dwayne Slate Washington State School Director's Association.

(Appropriations)  None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Education)  In the Franklin Pierce School District there are five high schools and one elementary school which provide a breakfast program.  These programs in schools which have more than forty percent of the participants receiving free and reduced lunches have been able to break even on the federal subsidy of ninety-four cents per breakfast served.  Prior to starting the breakfast program six years ago in the elementary building, students by mid morning paid little attention, were listless, easily upset and morning recess was the source of endless fights.  We finally concluded that many of our children were hungry and began the breakfast program.  There is a marked difference.  You cannot teach a child who is hungry.  Our experience has shown that we have made more efficient use of our staff and better utilization of food since we began the breakfast program.  There are two other elementary buildings in which we should provide the breakfast program.  The primary obstacle is the willingness of the principal.  The purpose of this bill is to target the schools within a district with the children of greatest need.  In talking with districts that have provided breakfast programs, they have been very flexible in how the food is serve to avoid additional costs for supervision and transportation.

(Appropriations)  This direction was recommended by the Governor's Task Force on Hunger.  Federal funding is available.  There will be no state cost.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Education)  We are concerned that there will be added costs for districts in the form of additional costs for supervision of students and transportation.  If we are to do this program, money must be provided to cover our costs.  Also we do not like to see mandates.  The breakfast program should be a local option.

(Appropriations)  None Presented.