50 years of The Compass Center
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO)–A nonprofit that helps victims of domestic violence and sexual assault has hit the 50-year-mark.
Candy Hanson remembers the early days of The Compass Center, dating back to the 1970s.
'Those were the bad old days. There simply were not services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. There was no such thing as a rape kit in Sioux Falls,' Hanson said.
Running on trails, tenacity and tradition
The center started as Citizens Against Rape, a crisis hotline answered through what's now known as the Helpline Center.
Volunteers would respond to sexual assault victims at the hospital to support them.
'A group of my friends heard about how they were running the rape crisis line and we thought we could do that for victims of domestic violence,' Hanson said.
Hanson says, those groups later merged, becoming Citizens Against Rape and Domestic Violence.
The former board member says people didn't want to talk about sexual assault and domestic violence back then.
'I think it was a reflection of American society. Those were secrets,' Hanson said.
'I hope it's better than what it was in the 70s, but it's still a tough conversation,' Compass Center Executive Director Michelle Trent said.
The nonprofit's services have grown since it started as a crisis hotline decades ago, a service that's still offered today.
'We offer counseling for victims. We offer advocacy. We go to court with victims. We also do education and prevention,' Trent said.
Amanda Maguire, who had been suffering from past trauma, sought the help of The Compass Center more than five years ago.
'I've learned so much about trauma, about the brain, about how it processes trauma, about the different pieces of the brain and what happens when something is activated inside of you,' Maguire said.
Maguire is one of many who have been helped by The Compass Center over the past five decades.
Hitting the milestone is bittersweet for Trent.
'50 years is a long time, and I would have hoped if I was here 50 years ago that this program would have no longer been here in 50 years, but it is and it's grown, so that part is sad, the fact that we're still needed, the fact that there are more and more victims every day and violence in our community continues to exist,' Trent said.
But there is something to celebrate: a legacy of dedication.
'Incredibly proud of the fact that we started as a bunch of people who said, 'This isn't okay,' and that's still where we are today and being able to stand up for victims for 50 years is an incredibly amazing journey,' Trent said.
While Hanson is no longer a board member, she is still a supporter of The Compass Center.
She echoes Trent's sentiment about 50 years of The Compass Center.
'I think The Compass Center does a wonderful job. I'm proud it's still here, and I'm really sorry that it's still needed,' Hanson said.
The nonprofit will officially celebrate the milestone at its fall fundraiser, Cultivating Courage.Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
33 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Budget's Caps on Grad School Loans Could Worsen Doctor Shortage
President Trump's proposed budget would make deep cuts in government health plans and medical research, and, critics say, could also make finding a doctor more difficult: It restricts loans that students rely on to pursue professional graduate degrees, making the path to becoming a physician harder even as doctor shortages loom and the American population is graying. The domestic policy bill, which passed in the House last month, would cap direct federal unsubsidized loans at $150,000 — far less than the cost of obtaining a medical education — and phase out the Grad PLUS loans that help many students make up the difference. Medicine, dentistry and osteopathic medicine are among the most expensive graduate programs. Four years of medical education costs $286,454 at a public school, on average, and $390,848 at a private one, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical school graduates leave with an average debt of $212,341, the association found. The price of a four-year program in osteopathic medicine is $297,881 at a public school, on average, and $371,403 at a private school, according to the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. The average indebtedness of their graduates is $259,196. The proposed loan caps 'will either push students and families into the private loan market, where they take on more risk and have less consumer protection, or simply push people out of higher education altogether,' said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director at the Student Borrower Protection Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. Private student loans are also not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, which many students rely on to manage their debt. Students from low-income families may have difficulty qualifying for private loans. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) on FJ Research's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on OSCR. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR)'s share was trading at $14.15 as of 4th June. OSCR's trailing and forward P/E were 35.38 and 19.84 respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A female doctor using the latest healthcare IT technology in her medical practice. Oscar Health represents a bold attempt to overhaul the dysfunctional infrastructure of the $4.5 trillion American healthcare industry, which is plagued by inefficiencies, misaligned incentives, and staggering administrative costs. Unlike traditional insurers or consumer-facing telehealth startups like Hims and Hers, Oscar is rebuilding the backend—the core logic layer that powers healthcare transactions. It's a fully integrated, tech-driven insurance stack spans claims processing, risk scoring, provider networks, and member engagement, all powered by proprietary software and increasingly AI. This infrastructure is not only used internally but is also being licensed externally, giving Oscar the potential to become the AWS of health insurance. The company is especially well-positioned in the rapidly evolving Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which has expanded beyond low-income households to include a broader swath of middle-income Americans, thanks to enhanced subsidies under recent legislation. As legacy insurers retreat from this complex segment, Oscar's low admin costs, member engagement capabilities, and tech adaptability put it in pole position to seize market share. Currently active in 20 states, Oscar is on a clear growth trajectory. Despite its compelling fundamentals, the market still undervalues the company, with its stock trading below IPO levels. However, Oscar's long-term vision is backed by Thrive Capital and Josh Kushner, investors with a track record of identifying transformative platforms. Their continued involvement signals deep conviction and a willingness to drive strategic execution. With structural tailwinds, scalable infrastructure, and a highly engaged investor base, Oscar Health offers a mispriced opportunity in one of America's most essential yet broken industries. Previously, we covered a on Oscar Health (OSCR) by convexititties in March 2025, focusing on political overhangs and insider buying. FJ Research's June 2025 thesis complements this by highlighting Oscar's AI-powered backend platform and ACA market leadership, reinforcing the long-term upside case. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 41 hedge fund portfolios held OSCR at the end of the first quarter which was 43 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
