Report shows 15 Arkansas counties at high risk for maternal mental health
According to the report, 15 counties in Arkansas are at high risk. The initial report was published in 2023, providing an analysis of county-level mental health disorders and the availability of maternal mental health providers and programs.
UAMS launches pilot program for statewide initiative to support mothers, infants after childbirth
In an update, the following Arkansas counties are listed at high risk:
Ashley County
Bradley County
Chicot County
Cross County
Desha County
Garland County
Hempstead County
Howard County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Lafayette County
Lee County
Monroe County
Ouachita County
Sevier County
Key report findings highlight that the risk for maternal mental health disorders is rising in the U.S. and 84% of birthing-aged women live in maternal mental health professional shortage areas.
The report said county-level maternal health risk was assessed by using Census data and predictors of maternal mental health, like intimate partner violence and poor mental health days.
'This analysis is critical for those aiming to target support in the most high-need areas of their states, and for national leaders to understand the states with the greatest need,' Joy Burkhard, CEO of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, said. 'Specifically, the report highlights the states with the highest risk: Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Alaska, while highly populated counties in Texas, California, and New York face the largest provider shortages.'
AIM releases maternal health guides for Arkansas moms and families
States with the highest risk and largest provider gaps are Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee and are considered 'dark zones,' according to the report.
The Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health collaborated with George Washington University for the 2025 report.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's answer to numbers he doesn't like: Change them or throw them away
President Donald Trump presented inaccurate crime statistics to justify a federal takeover of D.C. police. He announced plans for the census to stop counting undocumented immigrants. And he ordered the firing of the official in charge of compiling basic statistics about the U.S. economy after a weak jobs report. This month marked an escalation in Trump's war on data, as he repeatedly tries to undermine statistics that threaten his agenda and distorts figures to bolster his policies. The latest instances come on top of actions the administration has taken across federal health, climate and education agencies to erase or overhaul data collection to align with the administration's agenda and worldview. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The president's manipulation of government data threatens to erode public trust in facts that leaders of both parties have long relied on to guide policy decisions. A breakdown in official government statistics could also create economic instability, restrain lifesaving health care and limit forecasts of natural disasters. Trump has routinely spread misinformation since the start of his political career, but his efforts in his second term to bend data to support his agenda have invited comparisons to information control in autocratic countries. 'What he's trying to do is to present the best possible picture of what he's doing, even if that means he has to cook the numbers, even if that means he has to distort the data,' said Robert Cropf, a political science professor at St. Louis University. 'It's basically a page from the authoritarian playbook.' Trump has also tried to use his social media megaphone to influence data produced by private companies. On Monday, he called for Goldman Sachs to replace a veteran economist who produced reports that warned that tariffs could cause inflation. But he may find himself in a game of whack-a-mole: On Thursday, a benchmark that measures the prices producers get for goods and services showed hotter-than-expected inflation, partly because of tariffs. Trump has not commented yet on the report. Other countries have demonstrated the risk of undermining statistics, which can erode citizens' trust in their government and nations' standing in the international community. China has been widely accused of inflating economic figures, prompting other countries to seek alternative data sources for a more trustworthy picture of the nation's financial situation. In Greece, the government produced false deficit numbers for years, and the government repeatedly sought to criminally prosecute the statistician who produced accurate budget figures. Argentina manipulated economic statistics for years to minimize the extent of inflation, even as consumers paid for significantly more expensive groceries and goods. The false deficit numbers in Greece contributed to the country's debt crisis. The cooked numbers in Argentina made it more difficult for the government to enact policies that could limit inflation, and citizens lost faith in the ability to trust the government data to inform major purchases. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said that the president's actions are intended to 'restore' Americans' trust in data so they can make their own decisions. 'President Trump is preserving - not eroding - democracy by ensuring that the American people can rely on government data that actually reflects reality,' Rogers said in a statement. Government statistics have traditionally been considered more reliable and comprehensive than those collected by private sector companies motivated by profits, said Paul Schroeder, the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics. The data is needed to provide an accurate picture of what is happening. Without it, governments, corporations and individuals lack information that can inform decisions about everything from mortgage rates to weight loss. 'It's almost like an airline pilot losing his instrument panel when driving the plane,' Schroeder said of the erosion. Trump's decision to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer was widely condemned by statisticians and economists, who warned that the move could have a chilling effect on the work of federal number crunchers who produce reports the president doesn't like. Trump claimed without evidence that the nation's job statistics were 'rigged,' following a revision to the May and June jobs figures that showed the labor market was weaker than previously known. Revisions to job reports are common, but many economists have acknowledged falling response rates to government surveys, and long-standing budget strains have made it harder for economic agencies to collect and analyze reliable data. 'President Trump believes that businesses, households, and policymakers deserve accurate data to inform their decision-making, and he will restore America's trust in the BLS,' Rogers said. Trump's attempts to change how the government collects data have invited backlash, especially his proposal to overhaul the census amid a fight over redistricting. Civil liberties groups have said they would challenge any attempt to change the census, warning that the president's proposal to eliminate undocumented immigrants from the count could erode the political power and financial resources of diverse communities. The census is used not only to determine congressional seats but also to distribute federal funding and decide where to build schools. Trump justified his decision to deploy federal law enforcement and the National Guard on D.C. streets with claims that crime is surging in Washington, but violent crime in D.C. has been on the decline since 2023. The White House has cast doubt on the accuracy of local statistics, citing a July NBC News report that said that the District suspended a police commander accused of manipulating crime numbers in his district. Rogers added that the data 'doesn't change the on-the-ground reality that many D.C. residents and visitors have experienced on our streets.' In other instances, the administration has halted the collection of data that advocates and experts warn is essential for Americans' well-being and safety. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, scientists are now forbidden to collect gender data on any programs. That includes abortion data and information for sexually transmitted disease prevention, violence prevention and mental health programs. The lack of data could undermine efforts to prevent the spread of STDs and prevent school shootings and suicides. Federal collection of abortion data stopped on April 1 following widespread layoffs across the Department of Health and Human Services. Most states put out their own abortion data, but no other federal agency collects abortion data, according to a former CDC employee familiar with those programs. The government uses the data to predict birth rates, a crucial statistic that governments and businesses use to make decisions about the health system, education and the economy. CDC staff members are also no longer collecting concussion data for the creation of a concussion surveillance system, which has had strong bipartisan congressional support. The agency is also no longer analyzing data to prevent drowning - the leading cause of death in children aged 1 to 4 - because all of those staff members were laid off. Researchers have warned about the diminishing of data programs that are key to understanding the ever-evolving drug crisis in the United States - and to building the best prevention and treatment programs. In June, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stopped updating the Drug Abuse Warning Network, a nationwide surveillance system of drug use trends and insights drawn from emergency department visits. The loss of that data will make it more difficult for researchers such as Daniel Ciccarone, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, to track street drugs and overdoses. Ciccarone studies trends in the fentanyl supply, which kills tens of thousands of Americans each year, as well as new synthetic drugs seeping into regional supplies. 'We need surveillance data at a historic time of an undulating drug supply - we don't know what's going to happen next,' Ciccarone said. Public health advocates have raised concerns about the future of the National Youth Tobacco Survey, an annual report that measures how young people are using nicotine products. The report helped alert the country to the epidemic of teen vaping and led to stricter controls on the industry. The program has long been run through the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, which was shut down in the spring. An HHS spokesperson did not respond when asked about the future of the survey, saying only that the CDC 'remains deeply committed to tobacco prevention and control and … continues to support this critical public health priority through a range of efforts, including outreach, education, and surveillance.' The Trump administration has also discontinued dozens of climate databases and government-funded studies, including efforts to quantify the damage caused by natural disasters and to understand how the heaviest rainfall will intensify as the planet warms. Officials have removed key climate data and reports from the internet. The administration took down the website of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which shared congressionally mandated reports about climate change impacts across the country. And it deleted a repository for research and forecasts, though it said such information would continue to be posted on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website. Trump's budget proposal for NOAA would eliminate nearly all of the agency's labs focused on climate, weather and oceans - institutions whose studies are key to weather and climate forecasting and improving our understanding of everything from summer thunderstorms to the El Niño climate pattern. Businesses rely on this data to inform plans for tourism, fisheries and shipping. The changes reflect the administration's commitment to 'eliminating bias and producing Gold Standard Science research driven by verifiable data,' Rogers said in a statement. As the Trump administration attempts to shutter the Education Department, its ability to publish accurate and timely data was thrown into question after deep cuts to the department's staff. Virtually the entire staff of the National Center for Education Statistics was laid off, and while much of the work is done by contractors, researchers worry that there are no longer enough government workers to check and disseminate collected data. The center's work is critical to researchers, policymakers and journalists, with a wide range of data including the demographics of students and schools, courses offered, crime on campuses, and school spending. Already, the Education Department missed its June deadline to publish the annual Condition of Education report, the authoritative source for education data from preschool through university. The agency has continued to publish some data tables but far fewer than in past years. The Trump administration has also called for more information about the consideration of applicants' race in college admissions. 'Greater transparency is essential to exposing unlawful practices and ultimately ridding society of shameful, dangerous racial hierarchies,' Trump said in a memorandum issued last week, as he ordered the Education Department to begin collecting detailed data from all colleges that receive federal financial aid. That includes grades and test scores for both applicants and students, broken down by race. The White House has argued that a lack of data has hindered enforcement of a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that the use of race-conscious admissions is unconstitutional. But a higher education leader argued that the information requested won't provide good data: Applicants don't disclose their race, and while colleges do survey students who enroll, participation is voluntary, and even those who respond may choose not to disclose their race. 'They're going to gather a bunch of information and try to make sense of it,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. 'I worry that they're not going to be able to make much sense of it.' The impact of these changes could affect the nation long after Trump leaves office, Cropf said. Even if the government resumes collecting data, there will be gaps from the Trump era, and the public may view the figures as more politicized. 'It taints the waters,' he said. 'It seriously undermines faith in our institutions if we can't have any guarantees the institutions are providing us with reliable data or that they're making decisions based on reliable data.' - - - Lena H. Sun and Susan Svrluga contributed to this report. Related Content Ukraine scrambles to roll back Russian eastern advance as summit takes place Her dogs kept dying, and she got cancer. Then they tested her water. D.C.'s homeless begin to see the effects of Trump's crackdown
Dominion Post
14 hours ago
- Dominion Post
Morgantown opioid allocation a fraction of state's other cities
MORGANTOWN — Would it surprise you to learn that the city of Charleston – a city of 48,864 people per the 2020 Census – will receive around 46 times more directly allocated opioid settlement funds than the city of Morgantown and its 30,347 residents? Or that Beckley, with a population of 17,286, will receive about 28 times as much? Or that Morgantown doesn't even get the largest direct allocation among Monongalia County's municipalities? All true. In fact, when it comes to the direct allocation of opioid settlement dollars going to local governments, the city of Morgantown is a glaring outlier among the state's major cities. Of the approximately $980 million in opioid settlement dollars coming to West Virginia, 24% – some $235 million – will be distributed directly to local governments over the next several years based on default percentage allocations set forth in the West Virginia First Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed into law in 2023. The percentage agreed to by Morgantown – the state's third most populous city – is the 40th highest municipal distribution percentage in the state. Exactly how those percentages were arrived at isn't abundantly clear. What is clear is that those tiny numbers will add up to big money. On July 15, the West Virginia First Foundation issued its 2025 Qualified Settlement Fund Expenditure Report. A requirement of the MOU, the annual report details how much money was distributed directly to towns, cities and counties between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024, and how those dollars were spent. The report represents the first, and likely largest, direct allocation provided directly to local governments. Charleston received $4.2 million. Huntington is listed at $2.7 million. Beckley brought in $2.5 million. In fact, no city of at least 17,000 residents received less than Fairmont's $624,579. Except one. Morgantown received way less – $90,856.10 according to the report. Granville, with 1,355 residents, received $112,306.69. The city of Morgantown responded to several questions. Why is its direct share so low? Did it opt out of any settlements? Did it try to negotiate? 'The City of Morgantown did not opt out of opioid settlements presented by the WVAG's office, nor did we engage in negotiations,' Communications Director Brad Riffee said, explaining the city is grateful for the funds it received. Neither the West Virginia First Foundation nor the attorney general's office could provide clarification as to how the local distribution percentages were formulated. 'The Attorney General's Office was not involved in calculations for cities and counties. That was handled by the lead attorneys for local governments,' Kallie Cart, deputy chief of staff and director of communications for the attorney general's office noted, providing Paul Farrell Jr., Tony Majestro or Bob Fitzsimmons as suggestions. Farrell, who served as co-lead counsel on the national opioid litigation and lead counsel on West Virginia's case, responded. He indicated that each county was allocated an overall set number as a geographic area and it was up to the county commissions and their respective municipalities to sort out amongst themselves how much each governmental body would receive — otherwise, the default percentages listed in the MOU were assigned. Adding up the initial allocations received by Monongalia County Commission, Granville, Morgantown, Westover and Star City, the total provided to Monongalia County in the 2024 fiscal year was $1,279.054.80. That's about what the city of Martinsburg received on its own, at $1,224,848.41. The Berkeley County Commission received $3,688,693.32. DIRECT ALLOCATIONS A list of West Virginia's largest cities based on the 2020 census, including population data, as well as what each received as its initial direct allocation of opioid settlement funds according to the 2025 Qualified Settlement Fund Expenditure Report, which includes all direct allocations to local governments from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. Charleston (pop. 48,864) – $4,204,398.49 Huntington (46,842) – $2,726,135.42 Morgantown (30,347) – $90,856.10 Parkersburg (29,738) – $1,076,824.65 Wheeling (27,052) – $746,316.55 Weirton (19,163) – $941,142.23 Martinsburg (18,777) – $1,224,848.41 Fairmont (18,416) – $624,579.26 Beckley (17,286) – $2,535,348.48 Direct government allocations to Monongalia County and its municipalities according to the 2025 Qualified Settlement Fund Expenditure Report. Monongalia County (105,822) – $1,039,159.83 Granville (1,355) – $112,306.69 Morgantown (30,347) – $90,856 Star City (1,779) – $28,151.69 Westover (3,955) – $8,580.49
Newsweek
21 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Democratic Plan for New California Districts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Democrats have unveiled a proposed congressional map that would reshape political boundaries across the state and could give their party up to five new seats. "Earlier today, the DCCC submitted a proposed congressional map to the legislative public portal with collaborative input from stakeholders and legislators. We anticipate this proposal will have widespread support both among California office holders and various stakeholders across the state," Julie Merz, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement on Friday. "We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters. It's increasingly clear that Republicans will do anything to protect their narrow majority because they know they can't win on their disastrous legislative record which has raised costs and rips away health care for millions, all to give the ultra-wealthy a tax break," she continued. Why It Matters Redistricting, usually done once a decade after the Census, is being pushed mid-cycle in response to President Donald Trump's call for Texas to send "five more Republicans" to Congress. Trump urged Texas Republicans to redo the state's districts to help the party. Democrats, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, say they are "fighting fire with fire" by proposing new districts that could benefit their party. The move could reshape the 2026 midterms, where Democrats are hoping to retake the House and Senate. What To Know The proposed California redistricting plan targets five Republican representatives: Doug LaMalfa (District 1), Kevin Kiley (District 3), David Valadao (District 22), Ken Calvert (District 41) and Darrell Issa (District 48). LaMalfa's rural district would lose many Republican voters and extend west to more Democratic coastal areas. "If you want to know what's wrong with these maps—just take a look at them," LaMalfa wrote on X on Friday. "How on earth does Modoc County on the Nevada and Oregon Border have any common interest with Marin County and the Golden Gate Bridge? Voters took this power from Sacramento for just this reason. This is naked politics at its worst." Kiley's redrawn district would add Democratic-leaning Sacramento County and cut out much of the Eastern Sierra. "Make no mistake, I will win reelection to the House regardless of the proposed changes to my district," he said in a news release. "I fully expect that the beautiful 3rd District will remain exactly as it is. We will defeat Newsom's sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters." Kiley has opposed gerrymandering, introducing legislation to block mid-decade redistricting. Meanwhile, Democratic Representative Ami Bera, who represents California's 6th congressional district, is weighing options to continue representing Sacramento, possibly by running in District 3. A redistricting map of California that Democrats have submitted. A redistricting map of California that Democrats have submitted. California State Assembly "I have had the honor of representing the Sacramento region in Congress since 2013. I intend to continue representing the Sacramento region in the next Congress," Bera said in a statement posted on X. "Right now, we must stop Donald Trump and Texas Republicans from gerrymandering their way to a House majority in 2026. I look forward to supporting this ballot initiative to level the playing field and fight back against Donald Trump's destructive agenda." Newsom said he would call a special election on November 4 to let Californians decide whether to adopt new congressional districts, a move that would bypass the state's independent redistricting commission. He said the proposal included a trigger clause, meaning it would take effect only if Texas or another Republican-led state advanced its own redistricting plan. California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher criticized the proposed redistricting plan, calling the maps "rigged" and drawn "in secret to give Democrat politicians more power by dismantling the independent commission Californians created." He argued that the plan discarded years of public input, saying, "These maps shred the fair, transparent process voters demanded" and amount to "a rigged scheme cooked up behind closed doors." Gallagher accused Democrats of rushing the plan to meet a deadline, saddling taxpayers with a November special election and leaving "no real opportunity for public input." He added: "This is a mockery of democracy. If they can neuter the commission here, they can neuter it anywhere. Californians should choose their representatives, not the other way around." Newsom has also received criticism from Democrats. Jeanne Raya, a former Democratic member of the commission, voiced concern about transparency. "Somebody's going to be drawing maps, whether behind a real door, a virtual door," she said. "There will not be that transparency that is written into the independent commission's work and voters will suffer for that." Several good-government groups also oppose the governor's proposal, arguing that it politicizes redistricting and undermines the independent commission. Newsom defended the plan, saying it remained transparent because voters would have the final say. Unlike California's proposal, he said, the Texas plan would not go before voters. "We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas and we will nullify what happens in Texas," Newsom said at a news conference alongside Texas Democrats. "We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people and that is the difference between the approach we're taking and the approach [Texas Republicans are] taking." Other Democratic-led states, such as New York and Illinois, are weighing new redistricting efforts but face legal obstacles or limited opportunities to gain seats. Meanwhile, Republican strongholds such as Ohio, Indiana, Florida and Missouri are seen as having greater potential to expand their representation through redistricting. What People Are Saying Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote on X on Friday: "I'm getting ready for the gerrymandering battle." California Governor Gavin Newsom said during a news conference earlier this month: "We have the opportunity to de facto end the Trump presidency in less than 18 months. That's what's at stake." Julie Merz, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: "We applaud Governor Newsom and legislative leaders for their commitment to put this measure in front of voters, which not only levels the playing field against corrupt Republican efforts in Texas, but also reaffirms Democrats' commitment to redistricting reform and the use of fair, nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide." What Happens Next If lawmakers finish the plan by August 22, California voters will decide on November 4 whether to approve maps that would apply in 2026, 2028 and 2030—contingent on Republican-led states redrawing their lines first. Since 2010, California's maps have been drawn by an independent citizen commission.
