Just around the corner and down the hall from my classroom, when I taught at a school for pregnant and parenting teens was a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) office. They operated independently but were a vital resource for our students. Margaret Hudson Program, the nonprofit organization who owned the building we occupied, provided space for the WIC office.
The WIC program provided much-needed food and nutritional support for our students, many of whom were disadvantaged. Some families were further stressed by the arrival of a new … and unexpected … family member. For students who qualified, WIC provided vouchers for necessities such as fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, other grocery staples, and infant formula.
WIC doesn’t only supply foodstuffs for its clients, though. They support breastfeeding with tips and encouragement. Our nurse encouraged students to breastfeed—the healthiest nutrition for newborns—but the girls were often reluctant. WIC could step in to make the young moms feel more confident and comfortable in learning to breastfeed and to pump breast milk for future use.
Our campus staff went so far in recommending breastfeeding that we allowed students to feed their babies in class. It made for some distracting classes, to be sure. No one in the classroom could focus on a lesson when there was an infant slurping on brunch or a snack! I could be a little impatient with the smacking and burping, but who could resist the tiny little fingers wrapped around his momma’s fingers and surveying his domain. We were all captivated.
WIC serves pregnant moms through their pregnancy and the children for up to five years, meaning all our students were eligible if they qualified in terms of their financial situation. WIC was allowed to call students down for breastfeeding consultations and to supply food vouchers as needed. We welcomed their counselors into campus activities, in which they gladly participated. The women who worked there were popular with students.
Occasionally, the WIC staff would host an informational session about nutrition for the moms. They kept us on our toes when supplying food or drink on campus also. They helped us negotiate with Coca-Cola not to fill our vending machine with soft drinks, but with water, juice, and vitamin waters.
Colas and teas were a no-no for more than one reason: many are full of sugar, and most are high in caffeine. We encouraged our pregnant moms to limit their caffeine intake and to drink water throughout the day. They snuck a Red Bull onto campus now and then, but our secretary would read them the riot act if she discovered it. All day long, I’d hear complaints about our policy on drinking water. “It tastes bad,” they’d say.
“Water tastes bad?” I’d respond, while shaking my head. “Water doesn’t have a taste.” They insisted it did and poured powdered fruit flavoring into their water bottles to disguise the “bad” taste. The powders contained a little sugar, but there were limits to how far we could go in changing their habits.
For students who didn’t or couldn’t breastfeed, WIC provided vouchers for formula, and this was a lifesaver for many of them. If one formula didn’t sit well with a baby, some moms tried two or three different formulas until they found one their baby could tolerate. WIC was generous with providing samples.
Unfortunately, the current administration has made cuts or promised to cut funding for a lot of programs that WIC provides. They are administered by the US Department of Agriculture, which has sustained cuts this year. As of last month, WIC was facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. This will hurt the millions of low-income families that depend on their assistance.
I hope level heads will prevail in the administration and recognize the short-sightedness of failing to support these babies and children nutritionally during the years when their growth is most robust.
A program such as WIC pays great dividends in the rate of prenatal care low-income mothers receive and the nutritional or vaccination services their children get. Budget tightening policies often seem cost effective in the short term but can be the costliest in the long term. In this case, two generations will suffer.
Janice Airhart 