Great Rivers United Way grants $500K for mental health programs
Community impact director Liz Evans says the grants are a way for the community as a whole to work on mental health, which she says is one of the area's top needs.
'We looked at what can great rivers united way do, and we developed this granting program. We have a lot of great organizations that we're going to be able to support at 500,000 dollars a year for the next three years,' says Evans.
Couleecap will use their grant to add to their SOAR program, which works with homeless individuals with a mental health diagnosis looking to apply for social security benefits.
'It's helping folks to connect with mental health services, if they're not already. It can really be a benefit to have a case manager that can help walk you through the medical system and mental health systems. Somebody that's alongside you to give you support if you're seeking those services. Just having a support person walking alongside you while you go through that process can be really beneficial,' says Couleecap housing and community services director Becky Koske.
Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children is also getting a grant. The organization recruits and trains community members to advocate for children who have struggled with abuse and neglect.
CASA officials say they will use their grant funds to focus on the mental well being of the children they work with.
'It's going to allow us to retain our staff, to be able to grow our programming in different ways, providing everything from mentorship to court advocacy,' says CASA for Children executive director Anne Gordon.
Evans says these grants will create a community of practice for supporting mental well being.
'I'm excited for seeing what we can do at united way to help uplift and increase the capacity for organizations to do their work, setting some goals, and some things we can all do together to better serve our region,' says Evans.
Funding for the grants comes from various community donations that were given to United Way.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Yahoo
Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told
The health watchdog's decision to register England's first private clinic offering gender treatment to young people was 'simply not open to it', the High Court has heard. Former nurse Susan Evans and a mother known as XX are taking legal action against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) over its decision to register the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic (GPHC) in Birmingham in January last year. The two are also challenging the regulator's decision to continue the clinic's registration and to allow it to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds without conditions, made last December. The clinic, which was rated outstanding by the watchdog last year, treats people aged 16 and older, including through prescribing gender-affirming – masculinising or feminising – hormones, but, in line with the NHS, does not prescribe puberty blockers. Lawyers representing the two women told a hearing on Tuesday that the watchdog did not consider aspects that were 'obviously material' when making its decision, including the NHS's stance on hormone treatment for children aged 16 and 17 in light of the Cass Review. The watchdog is defending the claim, telling the court that it was 'abundantly clear that there was ample evidence' for its decision, while lawyers for the company which runs the clinic, Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said the legal action was 'fatally flawed'. Opening the women's case on Tuesday, barrister Tom Cross KC said the clinic was believed to be the only hormone treatment provider to 16 and 17-year-olds in England, and that the claimants' concern was about safety, with Ms Evans previously stating she believed the registration 'creates a significant risk of a two-tier approach'. Mr Cross said: 'At arriving at the conclusion that the provider should continue to be registered without any conditions … the CQC has acted irrationally.' He added: 'It has not factored into its conclusion a number of aspects of the process on the NHS, informed by the Cass Review, which serve as important safeguards for children within the cohort and were obviously material.' The barrister said that had the CQC factored these in, it would have 'decided to exercise its power to halt the treatment' of under-18s, and that its decision was 'simply not open to them'. He claimed that 'at the very least' the court 'should require the CQC to think again about the adequacy of the safeguards'. Hormone treatment was previously provided on the NHS at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, where Ms Evans previously worked. But a review published by Baroness Cass in April last year said that 'extreme caution' should be demonstrated when deciding to prescribe the treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there should be 'clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18'. The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five covering the seven NHS regions in England by the end of 2026, but has said that all recommendations for hormone interventions must be endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team (MDT). It is understood that the MDT has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds, since the Cass Review. GPHC was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, who both worked at Gids, and has previously said it primarily treats patients aged between 16 and 25, using its own MDT. But Mr Cross said in written submissions that in the year up to June 2024, GPHC has 'accepted almost every single patient that it considered' for hormone treatment, and that the contrast with the NHS 'could not be more stark'. He said there were 'a number of key differences' between GPHC and the NHS safeguards, including that referrals to the former came from Dr Kelly's company, Kelly Psychology, which is unregulated. He said: 'It is, and ought to have been, obvious that the unregulated nature of the referrer enhanced the risk of patient safety.' He concluded: 'Either the CQC had to impose a condition which rationally ensured patient safety, or, if that were not possible, had to decide not to continue the registration.' Jamie Burton KC, for the CQC, said that there was 'ample evidence' that Kelly Psychology 'did not pose an unacceptable risk' to patients, and that a 'significant number' of those assessed by the company were not referred for treatment at GPHC. The court was told that the CQC found no evidence of 'improper decision making or anything that might flag a concern', and that the clinic was found to be 'committed to the safety and best interests of its patients'. He continued: 'CQC found GHPC to be acting in line with national guidance, including the NHS England 2024 Criteria. 'It found nothing to suggest that this was merely lip service or that GPHC management held an ideological commitment that was undermining its professional and regulatory commitments, or otherwise threatening the safety of patients.' He also said that the CQC 'had regard' to NHS processes, and that there could not be 'any legitimate doubt about the correctness of the ultimate outcome, or GPHC's continued registration'. He said: 'In its professional judgment, it found that the provider was taking reasonable steps to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds by way of its existing processes.' Peter Mant KC, for Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said that there was no legal requirement for a private provider to mirror NHS care and that the claimants' concerns 'do not have a high-quality evidence base'. He continued that the clinic's model was 'entirely consistent' with the Cass Review and NHS policy, and that patients 'no longer routinely have any input' from Kelly Psychology. He added that concerns related to the rate of accepting new patients were 'unjustified', and that the court should not 'go behind' the CQC's decision. The hearing before Mrs Justice Eady is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Indianapolis Star
16-06-2025
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana AG Todd Rokita touts 'monumental victory' in Sackler family, Purdue opioid settlement
Indiana will receive up to $100 million to support addiction recovery programs as part of the largest settlement to date holding suppliers accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, according to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. In all, $7.4 billion will be dispersed to dozens of states and territories across the U.S. The Sackler family and Purdue Pharma were ordered to pay for "aggressive marketing of opioid products" that "fueled the worst drug crisis in U.S. history," Rokita said. Rokita called the settlement a "monumental victory" for Hoosiers. In Marion County, fentanyl kills more people than homicides and car crashes combined. Drug addiction in Indiana: What a grieving mother's story shows us about the fentanyl crisis in Indianapolis In 2020, Purdue Pharma admitted to paying doctors to encourage them to prescribe more opioids and impeding the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to fight the burgeoning epidemic. The settlement also permanently ends the Sackler family's control of Purdue Pharma, according to the Attorney General's office, and prohibits them from participating in the U.S. opioid industry. Indiana's funds will be released over the next 15 years. Most will be dispersed in the first three years. "This is about accountability and justice," said Rokita. A Marion County program that alerts recipients about bad drug batches or overdose spikes can be accessed by texting SOAR to 765-358-7627. If you or a loved one is struggling with mental health or substance abuse problems, contact the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration at 1-800-662-HELP (4357) for help.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Yahoo
Fewer than 1 in 4 Colorado voters support Medicaid cuts
(Stock photo by) Just 21% of Colorado voters want Congress to decrease Medicaid spending, according to a poll released Tuesday. Concerns about gutted health care access come as U.S. Senate Republican leaders work to push through a tax and spending bill that would cut Medicaid by an estimated $625 billion over the next decade. The poll zeroed in on the 8th Congressional District, which includes the northern Denver metro area and parts of Weld County. In the district, where 1 in 4 residents receive Medicaid benefits, 63% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who voted to cut Medicaid. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 8th District is represented by Republican Gabe Evans, who voted in favor of the plan that would reduce federal Medicaid spending when it was brought to the U.S. House of Representatives in May. A spokesperson for Evans defended the vote, saying a proposed provision to institute part-time work requirements for some people to retain Medicaid eligibility would make 'the program more efficient by cutting out fraud, waste, and abuse.' 'Congressman Gabe Evans has been steadfast in his support of protecting Medicaid for the vulnerable populations it was created to serve — pregnant women, kids, and disabled people,' said spokesperson Delanie Bomar in a statement Tuesday. Evans, who was elected to the House last year, represents one of the country's few congressional swing districts. According to the poll, 42% of voters in the district want to see increased federal Medicaid spending, 20% want it to stay about the same and 28% want it to decrease. Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for lower-income people and some with disabilities, serves more than 70 million U.S. residents. The poll of 675 registered Colorado voters was conducted by Broomfield-based firm Magellan Strategies on behalf of the nonprofit Healthier Colorado. It has a margin of error of 3.7%. 'Politicians are saying that they want to cut Medicaid to make it better, but the poll shows clearly that voters aren't buying what they're selling,' said Jake Williams, CEO of Healthier Colorado. 'It shows that there's real political peril for any candidate who votes to cut Medicaid.' Bomar pointed to the poll's findings that many respondents, especially those who are Republicans or unaffiliated, said Medicaid 'should only be for U.S. citizens or legal residents, with some calling for stricter eligibility enforcement.' Immigrants who are in the U.S. unlawfully are not eligible for federal Medicaid benefits, but Colorado and 13 other states provide some state-funded coverage to immigrants lacking permanent legal status. Under the proposed federal cuts, an estimated 7.8 million people, most of them citizens or lawful residents, would lose access to Medicaid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Some of the main reasons cited in the poll by respondents who said they have favorable opinions of Medicaid are the benefits it provides to low-income Coloradans, seniors, children, people with disabilities and single parents. 'The poll shows that Medicaid cuts would have devastating effects for both our health and economy here in Colorado,' Williams said. 'I also think it shows that Colorado voters aren't dummies.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
