Head Start families mark 60 years of program during Willmar, Minnesota, gathering
May 15---- When United Community Action Partnership recently gathered its Willmar Head Start students and families for a springtime event at Robbins Island, they also celebrated the childhood education program's 60th birthday coming up on May 18.
"We do a lot of things (in Head Start). Our cornerstones are really in family engagement, health and nutrition that we provide. ... we care for children so that families can work. Close to 80% of our families are working families, and without us they wouldn't be able to do that," United Community Action Partnership Head Start director Mary Lockhart-Findling told the West Central Tribune during the family event.
The
describes the program as "centered around early learning and development, health and family well-being." Services are available at no cost for infants and children up to 5 years old in eligible families.
Locally, United Community Action Partnership operates
in locations across nine southwest Minnesota counties — including Kandiyohi, Meeker, Redwood and Renville — serving around 600 children in total. UCAP's largest program is Bright Light Head Start in Willmar.
The Bright Light Head Start family event at Robbins Island featured activities including a scavenger hunt, a snack and a chance to learn about water safety from Kandiyohi County sheriff's officers.
"This is a time for all families to come together with their children so they can meet with each other, play with each other and get to know each other," United Community Action Partnership family service worker Pat Olson said.
The 60-year anniversary has coincided with concerns about the future of the program after reports in April that the White House was considering asking Congress to eliminate funding.
At the Willmar event conducted April 30, Lockhart-Findling called for people to contact their elected representatives regarding the proposal.
The official
released since then does not mention the Head Start program. Nevertheless, the
for program supporters to contact the president and members of Congress, calling the elimination of funding "catastrophic."
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Head Start began as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty." The program was announced in the Rose Garden on May 18, 1965.
Originally, the program was an eight-week project. Since its founding, the program has served more than 38 million children, having grown from the original eight-week demonstration program to one which operates year-round.
According to Lockhart-Findling, local Head Start offerings include dental clinics, help with obtaining physicals and immunizations, kindergarten prep and health and nutrition education.
Alongside the services offered for children, early childhood programs for parents are provided to help educate family members.
"We do a lot of training with our parents that want to and are interested in early childhood (care). We have a (Child Development Associate) program that helps them get qualified to do that," Lockhart-Findling said. "Our goal is to help the kids, and at the same time, work with families to help them get out of poverty."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Forget wheat pennies. How many Indiana pennies are in your couch cushions?
As the U.S. phases out production of pennies, you might be checking your couch cushions or your vacuum for coins that could be worth more than one cent. You also may want to keep an eye out for these redesigned pennies made in 2009 for the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. They may not be worth millions, but they commemorate the time the 16th president spent in Indiana. In 2009, Congress authorized pennies designed to commemorate four locations in Lincoln's geographical history. The four coins also recognized the 100th anniversary of the first year the Lincoln cent was produced. "Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, grew to adulthood in Indiana, achieved fame in Illinois and led the nation in Washington, D.C.," the law reads. Indiana's coin shows a young Lincoln sitting on a log, reading a book. It's meant to depict his time in Indiana from 1816 to 1830. "The design on this coin captures this part of Lincoln's life by showing him reading while he takes a break from his work as a rail splitter," according to the U.S. Mint website. Read about all four coins in the Lincoln Bicentennial One Cent Program at The federal government made its final order of penny blanks in May 2025 — the first step to end the production of the 1-cent coin, a spokesperson for the Treasury Department confirmed to USA TODAY. "The United States Mint will continue to manufacture pennies while an inventory of penny blanks exists," the spokesperson said. The agency did not specify how long the inventory was expected to last, so it's unclear exactly when pennies will no longer be in circulation. Blanks are flat metal discs that eventually become coins, according to the U.S. Mint. In February, Trump instructed the Treasury Department to stop minting the low-value coins. 'For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. Elon Musk, who has started to scale back his work as head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, said in January that penny production in fiscal year 2023 cost taxpayers more than $179 million. In fiscal year 2024, it took 3.7 cents to produce and distribute one penny, according to the 2024 U.S. Mint report. The 2024 cost was up by 20% from the previous year, according to the report. The report said the increase was partly driven by the rising costs of metals like zinc and copper. Similarly, the nickel costs 13.8 cents to produce, according to the U.S. Mint. Penny production: What's next for the penny? The details on US decision to end production So-called "wheat pennies" get their name from the back of the coin having stalks of wheat encircling the "One Cent" text. They were produced from 1909 to 1958. After that, the wheat stalks were shorn and pennies began displaying an engraving of the Lincoln Memorial. Most Lincoln wheat pennies are not super-valuable and are worth just a few cents more than one cent. However, some may escalate into the hundreds of dollars, depending on the condition and when minted. Certain vintages, especially with minting errors, may be worth thousands. You can see the NGC price guide here. Contributing: John Tufts, Minnah Arshad and Fernando Cervantes Jr. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Yes, the penny is being discontinued. Did you know Indiana has its own?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ex-GOP Congressman David Jolly Announces Run For Florida Governor, As A Democrat
The first major candidate to announce a run for the Democratic nomination for Florida governor is a former Republican member of Congress who could possibly roll through the primary without a serious challenge. David Jolly, who served three years in the House representing a Tampa Bay district and is likely best known now as an MSNBC contributor, on Thursday announced his bid to become the first Democrat in Tallahassee's governor's mansion since Buddy MacKay held the job for three weeks finishing out the term of Lawton Chiles, who died in late 1998. 'Something is happening in Florida,' Jolly told HuffPost, describing the town-hall style meetings he has held around the state, including in solidly Republican areas, over the past several months. 'We've got a shot in this governor's race.' MacKay, who had been Chiles' lieutenant governor, lost to Republican Jeb Bush in November 1998, and a Republican has held Florida's governorship ever since. The closest Democrats have come to winning over that stretch was 2018, when Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum came within 32,000 votes of defeating then-congressman Ron DeSantis. DeSantis won reelection, however, by 19 points over Charlie Crist, another Republican-turned-Democrat. Jolly said he and Crist came to the Democratic Party quite differently. While Crist has said that the Republican Party left him by moving away from his values, Jolly said he over the years changed his views on issues ranging from gun control to abortion. He left the Republican Party in 2018, after its takeover by President Donald Trump, but was an independent for seven years before formally registering as a Democrat in late April. 'I test the theory in politics: Is it OK to change your mind?' he said. 'I think I reflect where a lot of voters are.' Nikki Fried, the chair of the Florida Democratic Party and the last Democrat to serve on the elected Cabinet as agriculture commissioner, said that it was conceivable that no well-known Democrat will enter the race between now and the qualifying deadline next year. Whether that happens or not, though, Jolly has his work cut out for him to persuade hardcore Democrats in Florida that he truly is one of them. 'He will need validators from the progressive community…. There is some skepticism in the Black community,' said Fried, who herself ran for governor in 2022 but lost the primary to Crist. She added, though, that Jolly has impressed her thus far with his willingness to go everywhere and to talk to everyone. 'He is showing up,' she said. Crist held two elected statewide positions before running for governor as a Republican in 2006. He decided to run for U.S. Senate in 2010, but was on course to losing that primary to Marco Rubio, leading him to leave the GOP and run as an independent. Rubio ended up winning the Senate seat and Crist two years later became a Democrat. He ran for governor again in 2014 against then-incumbent Rick Scott and came within 1 percentage point of winning. From there, he ran for Congress against Jolly in 2016, beating him and serving three terms before leaving to run for governor again in 2022 against DeSantis, getting crushed this time. Fried said Jolly probably has a better chance at winning than Crist did, particularly if the mood of the electorate is similar to what it was in 2018, when Trump had energized Democrats everywhere including Florida. 'People are willing to give him a shot,' she said of Jolly. Florida is a tough and expensive place to run for statewide office, with 11 different television markets across a thousand miles and two time zones. To win, Jolly or any Democrat would need tens of millions of dollars or more to compete, at a time when many donors may be skeptical of a state that DeSantis won in a landslide in 2022 and Trump won easily in 2024. Florida's term limits disallow another four years for DeSantis, although his wife, Casey, is considering a run while GOP House member and outspoken Trump ally Byron Donalds announced his candidacy in February. Jolly, though, said that Democrats nationally understand the importance of Florida in the elections to come given that the 2030 Census will likely give Florida and Texas four more House districts between them and thus a near-lock on the Electoral College unless Democrats can put at least one of them in play. 'If we win the governor's race in '26, the road to the White House runs through Florida in 2028,' he said. Republicans, even anti-Trump ones who would love to see Jolly win, say that is a sizeable 'if.' 'I think his only path even to the Democratic nomination is a large and steady influx of soft money and outside support,' said one Republican consultant who spoke on condition of anonymity. 'He will need to catch lightning in a bottle to get the small-donor national network engaged to help him, and they won't be as likely to give to a very recent Democrat.' Mac Stipanovich, a decadeslong Republican who left the party after Trump's rise, agreed that Jolly faces a steep hill. 'The fundamentals, and, therefore, the odds, are against him. He will need to run a well-funded, nearly error-free campaign and be lucky to boot, catching some breaks beyond his control,' he said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How to Tyranny-Proof America's Future
COMPARED TO HIS PREDECESSORS, Donald Trump has moved faster and on a much larger scale to target individuals, categories of people, and organizations for reasons personal (think 'revenge tour') and political (think mass deportations, attacks on law firms). If a future Congress ever wants to prevent a repeat of these kinds of abuses, there are many specific reforms that should be enacted. But it's not enough to focus narrowly on Trump's actions. The presidents who came before him set their own precedents and examples—often affirmed by Congress and the courts—that have also contributed to the present breakdown of our constitutional order. If Congress and the courts had not ceded so much raw, coercive power to the presidency, we might not now be facing a chief executive busily subverting the few remaining meaningful constitutional safeguards separating a republic from a tyranny. To think more clearly about how Congress must act to provide independence to both law enforcement and the judiciary, let's start with a turbo-speed history lesson. In my new book, The Triumph of Fear, I catalogue a sixty-year period from William McKinley through Dwight Eisenhower in which, with perhaps the sole exception of Warren Harding, every man elected to the presidency misused the power handed to him to spy on and even politically persecute his political enemies—real or imagined. Share Following the exposure in the 1970s of many unconstitutional government-run surveillance and subversion programs, Congress passed multiple reforms to try to prevent future presidents from engaging in such abusive conduct. Unfortunately, every one of those 1970s-era reforms—be it the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Inspector General Act, or the creation of the House and Senate intelligence committees—has failed to prevent presidential misconduct. The underlying assumption when they were adopted—that future presidents would find it difficult to work around or subvert them—was false. Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary stretch back to his first term in office and have only increased during the first months of his second term. His invocation of the two-century-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for lightning-fast, due process–free mass deportation operations is best thought of as a 'proof of concept' of his playbook for authoritarian consolidation in the presidency at the expense of Congress, the courts, and ultimately the Constitution itself. Trump's ongoing defiance of court orders in the AEA cases is reinforced by the willingness—if not eagerness—of federal law enforcement agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the FBI, and even federally deputized state and local law enforcement officers to carry out his deportation orders despite multiple federal court rulings to the contrary. Which brings to mind one area where Trump hasn't yet abused his power—but he might. Let us help you see around corners: Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription to get our independent journalism delivered to your inbox. Under current law, all federal law enforcement officers fall under the control of the executive branch, including the United States Marshals Service, which is charged by statute with protecting both court facilities and staff (especially judges). But what if Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, elected to declare that statute unconstitutional? What if Bondi asserted that Trump could, at his discretion, order the marshals to leave their judicial-protection duties and instead join ICE, HSI, FBI, and other law enforcement on mass deportation operations? An Office of Legal Counsel opinion, written during the Jimmy Carter administration and updated during the Obama administration, asserts that, 'While there is no general privilege in the Executive to disregard laws that it deems inconsistent with the Constitution, in rare cases the Executive's duty to the constitutional system may require action in defiance of a statute. In such a case, the Executive's refusal to defend and enforce an unconstitutional statute is authorized and lawful.' That OLC opinion, accepted by every one of Trump's predecessors over the last forty-five years, could provide Trump and Bondi with at least a fig leaf of bipartisan political and legal cover to reduce or eliminate marshals protection for judges Trump deems 'radical' or otherwise objectionable. This threat has prompted some members of Congress to propose a solution designed to provide protection for judges that Trump or any of his successors could never remove. Shortly before the Memorial Day holiday, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Alex Padilla (D-Cal.), and Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), along with Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-Cal.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), introduced the MARSHALS Act, legislation that would move the Marshals Service out of the executive branch and place it under the control of the federal judiciary. It's a great idea that has zero chance of becoming law this session—but it demonstrates that at least some Senate and House members are willing to remove some of the armed, coercive law enforcement power currently under presidential control. That alone is a mental and political breakthrough that all those loyal to the constitutional republic should embrace. Share The Bulwark THE MARSHALS ACT IS JUST ONE example of the kind of legislative action that needs to be taken to prevent future presidential domestic political repression. Many other changes are needed as well; law professors, political activists, and commentators on constitutional matters are all likely to have their own lists of needful reforms—most of which will boil down to taking away the tools that make repression possible. My preference, as someone who has closely studied the abuses arising from presidential control of law enforcement, would be for a constitutional amendment that would move all but two federal law enforcement organizations from the executive branch to the control of the federal judiciary. The Secret Service (which protects the president and vice president) and the Federal Protective Service (which secures most federal buildings) would remain in the executive branch, but all other federal law enforcement would come under the control of the federal judiciary . . . and thus outside the control of an inherently political branch of government. Such a constitutional amendment should also modify current law to ensure that no president can call up a state's National Guard units for 'civil disturbance,' immigration enforcement, or any other domestic mission without the express written consent of the state's governor. This would safeguard against a future president calling up National Guard troops to shoot political protesters, as Trump wanted to do in the summer of 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests. Such an amendment would go far to restore and preserve our constitutional republic. But it would unquestionably be a very heavy political lift, to put it mildly. In the meantime, advocates should start laying the groundwork—doing the necessary research and drafting legislative language—for congressional action on other reforms, such as strengthening search and seizure protections, setting national training standards for all law enforcement officers, and creating a meaningful private right of action for police misconduct. Absent a dramatic (perhaps tragic) major political event, it's all but impossible to imagine any of these proposals becoming law while Trump is still in office. But introducing them now is critical for building support for them so that once he's out of office and a new Congress committed to preserving the constitutional order is in place, it can act quickly, while the memory of Trumpian abuses is fresh, to prevent a recurrence. We owe that to ourselves and to generations to come. Share
