text:
About Temple Health
Temple University Hospital Performs Nation's Firs...
Temple University Hospital Performs Nation's First Post-FDA Approval Endobronchial Treatment Using the Spiration® Valve System to Treat Severe Emphysema
Temple University Hospital has become the first U.S. hospital to treat a patient with the Spiration® Valve System, a minimally invasive treatment for severe emphysema called bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR), following U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. It is the second time in the past year that TUH became the first hospital in the U.S. to perform a newly FDA-approved minimally invasive treatment for patients with severe emphysema.
Gerard J. Criner, MD, FACP, FACCP, Chair and Professor of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University (LKSOM) and Director of the Temple Lung Center, and his Lung Center team completed the procedure on March 26.
Temple Lung Center team
Tiny Valves that Help Patients with Severe Emphysema
The Spiration Valve is an umbrella-shaped, one-way valve that is placed in the lungs through a flexible bronchoscope during a short procedure and provides surgeons and pulmonologists with a novel method for limiting distal airflow to the damaged or diseased lung.
Spiration valves are indicated for adult patients with shortness of breath and hyperinflation associated with severe emphysema in regions of the lung that have evidence of low collateral ventilation.
"Performing the first procedure post-FDA approval is a critical moment in our continual efforts to expand the treatment options available to Temple Lung Center patients," said Dr. Criner. "We are pleased to be able to offer this minimally invasive endobronchial treatment to patients with severe emphysema and severe hyperinflation."
The Clinical Trial that Paved the Way to this New Treatment
Last September, Dr. Criner announced 12-month results of the EMPROVE multicenter, randomized and controlled study for the Spiration Valve System (SVS)i at the European Respiratory Society International Congress (ERS) in Paris, France. Thanks to those positive results, which indicated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function, target lobe volume reduction, shortness of breath and quality-of-life parameters, the FDA granted the Spiration Valve System approval in December 2018 under its breakthrough medical devices designation along with priority review status.
The EMPROVE trial enrolled 172 patients across 31 centers in the U.S. and Canada and evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Spiration Valve System compared to optimal medical care in patients with severe emphysema in a 2-to-1 randomization. Patients eligible for the EMPROVE trial were those with severe airflow obstruction, dyspnea (shortness of breath) and hyperinflation, which occurs when air becomes trapped in the lungs and makes breathing difficult.
The Temple Lung Center was the EMPROVE study's lead enroller. Dr. Criner presented initial positive results based on a six-month primary endpoint earlier in 2018 at the American Thoracic Society Annual Conference in San Diego.ii The subsequent presentation on Sept. 18 at ERS, one of the largest respiratory meetings of the year, reported on the longer-term 12-month results of the study.
Study Results Mean Patients Breathe Better
Spiration Valve System treatment, designed to isolate and reduce volume in the targeted emphysematous lobe, resulted in a mean reduction of 974 milliliters (52.8 percent reduction). As a result of the target lobe volume reduction, the SVS-treated group had a 100 milliliter (12 percent) improvement in FEV1 at six months compared to the control group, an effect that was durable through 12 months. These changes represented statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in lung function. FEV1, an abbreviation for forced expiratory volume, is a measure of the amount of air a person can forcefully exhale from their lungs in one second and is an important part of a pulmonary function test.
Spiration® valve placed into airway
Additionally, patients treated with the Spiration Valve showed a statistically significant 33 percent relative improvement in shortness of breath (measured by the mMRC score) in the SVS-treated group compared to the control group.
"The improvement in dyspnea (shortness of breath) reflected by the reduction in the mMRC score is a crucial development for patients with severe emphysema and severe hyperinflation, as it is their most common symptom," Dr. Criner said.
The most common procedure-related serious adverse event was pneumothorax (lasting more than seven days) in 12.4 percent of the SVS-treated patients, a complication that is a consequence of effective bronchoscopic lung volume reduction and has previously been demonstrated in patients undergoing endobronchial valve insertion for severe emphysema. COPD exacerbations, pneumonia and death were also observed, but these events were not statistically different between the study groups.
"The approval and availability of new treatments like the Spiration Valve mark key steps in treating this long-term, progressive disease," added Dr. Criner.
The EMPROVE study was sponsored by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System.
Editor's Note: Dr. Gerard Criner has received consulting money from Olympus Corporation.
i Criner GJ, Delage A, Voelker KG, for the EMPROVE Trial Investigator Group. Late Breaking Abstract - Endobronchial Valves for Severe Emphysema – 12-month Results of the EMPROVE Trial. European Respiratory Journal, Sep 2018, 52 (suppl 62) OA4928; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2018.OA4928.
ii Criner GJ, Delage A, Voelker KG, for the EMPROVE Trial Investigator Group. The EMPROVE Trial - a Randomized, Controlled Multicenter Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of the Spiration® Valve System for Single Lobe Treatment of Severe Emphysema. American Thoracic Society International Conference Abstracts. 2018:A7753-A7753. doi:10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2018.197.1_ MeetingAbstracts.A7753.
Contact our media relations team.


text:
The Judge Organization is a multifaceted third-party logistics services organization. Established over 80 years ago in 1924 by Patrick Judge, Sr. in Brooklyn, NY as a trucking company, we have expanded with public warehousing in New Jersey and additional trucking operations in Chicago, Illinois and Bristol, Pennsylvania. We pride ourselves on being a family owned and operated business with members of the family still involved in the day-to-day operations. We built our reputation and business on honesty and service. It was Patrick Judge, Sr.'s philosophy in 1924 and it remains our philosophy today.
Today, the Judge Organization comprises of the following companies:
P. Judge & Sons Trucking - Port Newark, NJ
Port Elizabeth Terminal and Warehouse - Port Newark, NJ
P. Judge and Sons Trucking - Chicago, IL
Judge Organization Logistics Services - Bristol, PA
Amex Shipping Agent - Port Newark, NJ
Judge Warehousing Services, LLC. - Savannah, GA
Judge Logistics Services, LLC. - Savannah, GA
P. Judge and Sons Trucking, LLC - Savannah, GA
If it can be loaded onto a railcar, truck or container, Judge can handle it.
Certified Smartway Transport Partner
We handle, store and cross-dock over 1.8 million tons of paper, 20 million cases of alcoholic beverages and millions of metric tons of bulk goods annually.
The answer to any reasonable request is – yes!
We're here to support our customers with a wide range of value-added services. Over the years, we have often been called on to devise cost-effective systems to support our customers' initiatives.
Repackaging Services
Cleaning and Recovery Systems
Light Assembly Services
Products Handled:
- Printing paper rolls.
- Newsprint rolls.
- Containerboard rolls.
- Palletized copy paper.
- Jumbo rolls in containers
Pulp bales
Non-hazardous Chemicals
Container and Pallet Services

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The following is the introduction to Breaking Through.
View an accompanying data analysis on women-owned businesses in the nation's 25 largest cities.
As technology disrupts entire industries in New York City, another disruption is taking place right alongside—a flood of women entrepreneurs in virtually every industry in the city. Women founders of all ages, races and ethnicities are creating jobs, bolstering the city's economy, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and providing new and creative solutions to the problems of modern life. Fueled by advances in technology, lowered barriers to entry and recession era lay-offs, women throughout the city—from stay-at-home moms to fashion designers and finance pros—are starting and growing new businesses at a remarkable clip.
In the decade from 2002 to 2012, the most recent year for which rigorous data is available, the number of women-owned businesses grew by a whopping 65 percent or 45 new businesses every day, adding more than 56,000 jobs and $3 billion in payroll to the city's economy. As of 2012, there were 413,899 women-owned firms in New York City, compared to 305,198 five years earlier. Today, women-owned businesses make up more than 40 percent of private companies in the city, up from 33 percent five years ago and 32 percent a decade ago.
Two-thirds of the recent growth in women-owned businesses took place in the five years between 2007 and 2012, and the growth from 2002 to 2012 outpaced the 33 percent increase in businesses in the city overall as well as the 44 percent growth in the number of women-owned businesses statewide. Male-owned firms in the city grew just 8 percent between 2007 and 2012.
Women entrepreneurs are increasing their presence in nearly every sector of the city's economy, with the number of women-owned businesses growing by at least 20 percent over the past five years in construction, manufacturing, health care, education, real estate, transportation and warehousing, information, retail and wholesale trade. There is also evidence that women are starting a greater share of the tech companies in New York than in Silicon Valley and Boston, the nation's other leading tech hubs. In the third quarter of 2015, 16.9 percent of New York City companies receiving venture capital had a woman founder, compared to 14.8 percent in Boston and 12.1 percent in San Francisco.
But while women-owned businesses are already making a significant contribution to the city's economy, there is significant potential to increase the number of women entrepreneurs and to help more women-owned businesses grow to the next level. Women make up 52.5 percent of New York City's population, according to the 2010 Census. This is a higher percentage than in all but one of the nation's 10 largest cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston. Yet, women-run firms account for only 40 percent of privately owned businesses in the city, only 21 percent of firms with paid employees, just 17.5 percent of all private sector employees and only 13 percent of annual private business revenues. Moreover, the number of women-run firms in New York is growing at a slower rate than many other large cities.
To be sure, New York is making progress on a number of fronts to create a more supportive environment for women entrepreneurs and women who aspire to be entrepreneurs. Most notably, Mayor Bill de Blasio last year launched a promising new initiative called Women Entrepreneurs New York City (WE NYC) in an effort to expand the economic potential of women entrepreneurs across the five boroughs with a specific focus on the needs of women in underserved communities. But even more could and should be done in the months and years ahead to unlock the full potential of women entrepreneurs in New York City.
This study—the latest in a long line of Center for an Urban Future reports focusing on opportunities to grow and diversify New York City's economy—provides a comprehensive examination of the economic importance of women entrepreneurs in New York and the role that women-owned businesses have played in the city's recent growth. Funded by Capital One's Future Edge Initiative, the report builds on other research about women entrepreneurs, including a 2015 report by the city's WE NYC program. While that study focused on the economic potential of women-owned businesses in low-income and immigrant communities, this report looks at women-owned businesses in all sectors of the city's economy, from health tech startups and digital media firms to hair braiding salons and real estate developers. It documents the size and reach of those businesses, their growth over the past decade and their economic impact compared with other businesses. It analyzes the challenges women entrepreneurs face, many of them unique to women-owned businesses, and the opportunities to expand their contribution to the city's economy.
Based on interviews with more than 100 women entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, business consultants and heads of non-profit organizations, our report makes recommendations for steps the city, private industry and non-profit organizations can take to enable more women to start and grow businesses and add momentum and vitality to city's economy.
What's clear from our research is that women entrepreneurs in New York have come a long way in recent years. More than 62 percent (163,000) of the 262,000 new private companies formed in the city between 2002 and 2012 are women-owned. All told, in 2012, women-owned businesses in the city generated $53 billion in revenue, up 25 percent over 2007, employed nearly 273,000 people, 36 percent more than in 2007. Amazingly, in 2012 New York City accounted for 57 percent of all women-owned businesses in New York State, which is much higher than the city's overall share of the state's businesses and population.
Of the 399 New York City companies that made the 2015 Inc. 5000 list of the 5000 fastest growing private companies in the nation, 74 (or nearly 19 percent) had female founders or CEOs. That's more than the national rate of 14 percent and exactly twice the number of fast growing women-led firms identified by Inc. in 2014, when 37 of 213 New York City companies (17.5 percent) had women founders or CEOs. Of the top 50 women-led companies on the list, seven are based in New York City, more than in any other city or area of the country.
Collectively, the revenues of the 25 largest women-owned firms in the city grew by an impressive 35 percent between 2012 and 2013, from $2.2 billion to $3.4 billion, according to Crain's New York Business.
Female founders are also innovators in some of the most cutting edge technologies. There's Daniela Perdomo, whose Brooklyn-based GoTenna developed a hardware device that lets smartphone users talk to each other even in places without cellular coverage or WiFi, and Limor Fried, an MIT engineering grad who founded Soho-based Ada Fruit, which designs and builds do-it-yourself electronics kits and reportedly generated $33 million in sales in 2014.1 There's also Ayah Bdeir, whose company littleBits makes electronic building blocks that empower kids and adults to create their own inventions.
When compared with other major cities around the country, New York has more women- owned businesses by far: 413,899, and more than double the next nearest competitor, Los Angeles (192,358). Yet, the ranks of women entrepreneurs here are growing more slowly and they are delivering less economic impact than sister businesses in other cities. According to the 2012 U.S. Census, New York City ranks 19th among the 25 most populous cities in the growth of women-owned firms between 2007 and 2012, 18th in average sales and seventh in the average number of people they employ. The average women-owned business in New York City has sales of $128,268, much lower than female-owned firms in Dallas ($198,599), Houston ($181,122), San Francisco ($175,766), Boston ($169,020), Seattle ($162,948), Washington, DC ($162,495), Los Angeles ($142,378) and several other large cities.
Entrepreneurs typically start companies in industries in which they have experience and expertise. So it's not surprising that women entrepreneurs are most visible in industries where women make up a significant share of the workforce. For instance, women own the vast majority of the city's day care businesses and nail salons, sectors in which women currently account for 90 percent and 80 percent of the workforce, respectively. Women also own 70 percent of the enterprises in the city's health care and social assistance sector (where they comprise 77 percent of the workforce) and 60 percent of all businesses in the educational services industry (where they account for 68 percent of all workers).
On the flip side, women entrepreneurs have been less prevalent in fields where women make up a smaller share of the workforce. Businesses owned by women comprise just 15 percent of all private companies in the city's construction industry and 22 percent of firms in wholesale trade, fields where women currently make up 7 percent and 36 percent of the workforce, respectively. The city's tech sector has also historically had a fairly small share of women founders. The disparity is partially explained by the fact that women comprise just 28 percent of those working in computer systems design, the largest of the industries that make up New York's tech sector, and 33 percent of the workforce in the software publishing field.
But even in sectors where they remain a minority, the number of women-owned firms is growing rapidly. Women-owned construction and construction-related businesses increased by more than a third—some 2,600 firms—between 2007 and 2012. That includes an 80 percent jump in Queens alone.3 During the same period, the number of construction related firms owned by men grew a mere 2.3 percent. In transportation and warehousing—which includes taxi, bus and limousine services among other types of businesses—women entrepreneurs own just 8 percent of firms, but their numbers grew by 50 percent during those five years. In finance and insurance, they own 26 percent of private firms, up 9 percent since 2007.
Over the past five years, the number of firms increased by at least 20 percent in nearly every major industry sector, including: manufacturing (23 percent), wholesale trade (20 percent), real estate (20 percent), information (21 percent), professional, scientific, and technical services (38 percent), educational services (46 percent), arts, entertainment and recreation (23 percent), retail trade (26 percent), accommodation and food services (45 percent), health care and social assistance (26 percent).
In tech, the number of women-founded startups has exploded in recent years. A 2014 study by Endeavor Insight found that the number of New York City tech companies with female founders has grown tenfold since 2003.4 And a CUF analysis shows that in 2015, six of the eight companies that received funding from New York Angels, one of the city's leading angel investment groups, had a woman founder. In contrast, between 2003 and 2009, none of the 11 companies receiving funding from New York Angels had a female founder.
Meanwhile, a growing number of women tech entrepreneurs in the city are raising later stage capital or achieving a successful exit, key barometers of success in the sector. In 2015, LearnVest, the personal finance startup founded by Alexa von Tobel, was acquired by Northwestern Mutual for $250 million, one of largest venture-backed exits in the city last year. In the past few months alone, Digital Asset Holdings, the blockchain or tamper-resistant database startup run by Blythe Masters, raised $52 million in Series A financing; ClassPass, the fitness startup founded by founded by Payal Kadakia and Mary Biggins, raised $30 million in Series C financing; Bauble Bar, the fashion jewelry e-commerce company started by Amy Jain and Daniella Yacobovsky, raised $20 million in Series C financing, and PolicyGenius, the insurance startup co-founded by Jennifer Fitzgerald, raised $15 million in Series B financing.
Perhaps more importantly, New York may be better positioned than other leading tech hubs to attract women founders. Several of the women tech entrepreneurs we interviewed say that New York is ahead of Silicon Valley in the overall number of women tech founders and in having a supportive ecosystem for women entrepreneurs. "In my experience, New York has been a much more welcoming and hospitable environment than the Bay Area," says Kathryn Minshew, co-founder of The Muse, an online career advice company that now boasts 75 full-time employees.
Every borough experienced a significant increase in the number of women-owned businesses in the half-decade between 2007 and 2012, with the Bronx topping the list with a 53 percent increase. Queens had the second highest growth rate (40 percent), followed by Brooklyn (39 percent), Staten Island (27 percent) and Manhattan (22 percent). In some boroughs, women-owned businesses have grown faster than male- owned businesses and businesses in the borough as a whole.
In 2012, Brooklyn surpassed Manhattan as the borough with the most women-owned businesses in the city. Brooklyn was home to 118,489 women-owned firms, compared to 114,896 in Manhattan, 97,982 in Queens, 68,705 in the Bronx and 13,921 in Staten Island. But Brooklyn is third among all boroughs when it comes to total employment at women-owned businesses. While Brooklyn's female-owned firms have 51,361 employees, that is considerably less than both Manhattan (124,952) and Queens (75,351). And though Manhattan accounted for 28 percent of all women-owned firms in the five boroughs in 2012, it made up 44 percent of women-owned businesses that have paid employees and 59 percent of total revenues at women-owned firms in the city.
While the 2012 U.S. Census Survey of Business Owners does not break down women-owned businesses into racial and ethnic categories at the city or county level, a CUF analysis of women entrepreneurs in New York State shows that businesses owned by African-American, Asian and Latino women all grew at a rapid pace between 2007 and 2012.
In fact, those 5 years of growth saw the number of women-owned minority firms grow by 58 percent. At the state level, African-American women entrepreneurs added nearly 26,000 businesses, a 26 percent increase, and almost $300 million in sales totaling $3.3 billion in 2012. Firms owned by Asian women grew 52 percent, added nearly 53,000 employees and generated $10.8 billion in sales. Similarly, Latina owned businesses grew by 68 percent over the five-year period, adding some 8,000 jobs and generating $4.8 billion in revenue.
In our interviews across the five boroughs, it was apparent that the city's growing immigrant community is spawning thousands of businesses, with women starting companies out of their kitchens and living rooms often to provide or supplement family income or as alternatives to low-wage jobs. In some of those communities, their growth is outpacing that of male-owned businesses.
Accion, a microfinance organization that provides business loans and technical assistance to small-scale entrepreneurs, has nearly doubled its loans in New York City since 2011, with 40 percent of them going to women entrepreneurs. At the New York City-based Business Center for New Americans in Manhattan, a microfinance organization that helps immigrants and refugees achieve self-sufficiency, 90 percent of participants in its workshops and training programs are women. This year, the organization will make 300 loans to entrepreneurs, nearly half of them women.
At the Business Outreach Center Network (BOC), another microfinance organization with several locations across the city, 683 women clients received one-on-one business counseling in 2015, and 73 percent of the clients seeking one-on-one business counseling are women. And at the LaGuardia Community College's Small Business Development Center, nearly half of the 800 to 900 would-be business owners who train there every year are women. Similarly, at the Women's Business Center of the Queens Economic Development Corporation, about 600 would-be entrepreneurs sought advice and support in 2013 and 2014.
While women entrepreneurs are reinventing some industries and changing the make-up of others, women-owned businesses in New York City tend to stay small whether they want to or not. Of the 150 largest private companies in the city, just 17 are headed by or were founded by a woman.5 In 2015, companies with a woman founder accounted for just five of the 50 companies on the Crain's New York Business Fast 50 ranking of the city's fastest growing businesses. Even in the tech community, few female-founded startups have "exited" through an IPO or acquisition.
Like most businesses, women-owned firms start small, often employing just the owner. But they also tend to stay small, their growth stymied by lack of capital and training and limited access to networks and connections needed to get to the next level. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of women-owned businesses in the city are "solopreneurs," businesses that employ only the owner. Those businesses without employees are the fastest growing segment of women-owned firms in the city. Their numbers increased 69 percent between 2002 and 2012 and today make up 91 percent of all businesses in the city that are owned by women, some 376,000 businesses versus only 37,494 women-owned businesses with at least one paid employee in addition to the owner.
If only one quarter of the existing 376,405 women-owned businesses in New York City with no employees added a single employee in the next three years, it would result in more than 94,000 new jobs.
Most businesses owned by men, 78 percent, also are solopreneur ventures. But the average annual sales of women-owned solopreneur businesses, $29,000, are barely more than half the average annual sales of male-owned non-employer businesses, $54,000. That's true as well for businesses that have employees, where annual revenues of male owned firms are more than twice that of female owned companies, $2.3 million versus $1.1 million.
Those differences exist citywide. In Manhattan, women-owned businesses generated $272,000 in annual sales, on average, versus $1.1 million for firms owned by men. In Brooklyn, women entrepreneurs averaged $80,000 in annual sales, just 26 percent of the $303,000 their male counterparts generate.
One reason for the disparity between companies owned by men and women is that half of women-owned businesses in New York City are in low-revenue industries, such as health care and social services, educational services, the arts and personal care businesses. Many are also home-based, which allows women to accommodate their other obligations but also sharply limits their growth potential.
However, as this report documents, women entrepreneurs face a number of significant challenges when trying to start or grow businesses in New York. They encounter the same difficulties as other entrepreneurs—including the city's high rents, taxes and labor costs, and the intense competition that business owners here face—but also face a number of unique barriers.
Perhaps most importantly, several studies have shown that women have less money to invest than men. While virtually every small business owner struggles to access capital, many of the experts we interviewed say that women typically face greater challenges, in part because women generally own smaller businesses and thus seek smaller amounts of credit, a problem since traditional lenders are more apt to make larger loans.
As one indication of this, in fiscal 2014, women business owners in the New York metro area received 386 SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration) loans totaling $97.6 million, about 20 percent of all loans made in the region that year and 12 percent of the total dollars lent.
Even in the tech sector, where it has become cheaper and easier to start a company, women entrepreneurs attract less money. Our analysis of the MoneyTree report, a quarterly study of the nation's venture capital deals published by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, reveals that while 16.9 percent of New York City companies receiving VC funds in the third quarter of 2015 had a female founder, companies with a female founder accounted for just 8.7 percent of the total VC funds received that quarter—$122 million out of $1.41 billion. That's a smaller percentage than San Francisco, where women founded companies accounted for 9.0 percent of total VC funds raised in that quarter ($293.5 million out of $3.27 billion) and Boston, where women-founded companies accounted for 21.8 percent of all VC funds raised in the quarter ($138.4 million out of $634.5 million).
It doesn't help either that at the top 20 most active venture capital firms in the city, just seven percent of the investment teams are women, a ratio that many believe has contributed to lower financing rates for women tech founders.
Access to capital is hardly the only challenge facing the city's women entrepreneurs. Many of the women we interviewed for this report say that a lack of connections can be equally problematic and our research suggests that it's often more difficult for women to navigate traditional business networks.
Another challenge is that many aspiring women entrepreneurs, especially low-income and immigrant women, lack basic business and financial skills. Many women say they don't know where to go for training and advice. While there is a growing cadre of organizations and industry associations mounting programs and allocating capital for women-owned businesses, there are many more women than slots available.
We also found that women often have to work harder to be taken seriously and fight perceptions that female founders are less capable and less committed than their male counterparts. At the same time, several of the entrepreneurs and business experts we interviewed said that women sometimes have to overcome internal challenges, including a lack of confidence and a smaller appetite for risk.
Whether it has a cultural, educational or personal source, the lack of confidence can show up in different ways. At New York Tech Meetup, for example, Executive Director Jessica Lawrence has at times had to beg and cajole female founders to present their companies at the organization's demo nights. Women entrepreneurs, she says, claim they're not ready to go public or their product is not ready or they're "not tech enough." Only when she, reluctantly, organized an all-women demo night, did she get significant numbers of women entrepreneurs willing to go on stage.
Finally, too few women entrepreneurs are applying for and winning city government contracts, a problem since doing business with government can catapult small businesses to new heights. Mayor de Blasio has admirably taken new steps to increase the number of women and minority businesses who receive city contracts, but much work remains. In fiscal year 2015, just 1.5 percent of total city spending went to women-owned businesses. And relatively few women are even certified as Women Business Enterprises (WBEs), a designation needed to apply for the city's Minority and Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) contracting program. As of January 2016, 1,481 businesses were certified WBEs, including 710 in Manhattan, 309 in Brooklyn, 259 in Queens, 125 in the Bronx and 78 in Staten Island.
Despite these and many other challenges, women are contributing enormously to New York City's economy. At the same time, however, the city has only begun to harness the tremendous potential of women entrepreneurs.
Unleashing the full potential of women entrepreneurs in New York would have a far-reaching impact on the city's economy. For instance, if only one quarter of the existing 376,405 women-owned businesses in the city with no employees added a single employee in the next three years, it would result in more than 94,000 new jobs.
In a city where women make up 52 percent of the population, there is undoubtedly an opportunity to increase the number of women entrepreneurs, particularly in low-income communities. But an equally important task will be to help more of the city's women-owned businesses scale up and grow. This means ensuring that more of the women who operate home-based businesses expand into a storefront or office, that more of the small-scale food manufactures export their products beyond New York and that more startup tech firms gain access to venture capital and realize their potential for growth.


Gluten free foods seem to be everywhere. What is gluten and why are so many people avoiding this wheat protein? What is gluten and how does it relate to celiac disease and wheat sensitivity? Find out more in this article.
What's the deal with gluten-free (GF) food?
The majority of my patients come to me already with some vague knowledge about gluten-free (GF) foods. However, many do not know what gluten is or why GF items have been inserted into menus everywhere. I often spend time explaining how gluten causes disease in Celiac disease (CD) patients and why non-celiac disease patients feel better when they stop eating gluten. This conversation often leads further into a discussion of the difference between food allergy and food intolerance. The main misconception I have seen is that many patients without CD feel they have a food allergy when in fact they have a food intolerance.
Gluten is not that mysterious. It is a collection of proteins that are found in wheat, barley, and rye. Gluten is important clinically as it is the main cause of CD. An individual with CD needs to completely avoid Gluten in order to heal from the disease. CD is an autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases are characterized by an inappropriate activation of the immune system. Self or endogenous antigens (markers of self) are 'perceived' as foreign. Once activated, the immune system leads to the destruction of the absorptive surface of the small intestine.
CD is common, found in approximately 1% of the population. I typically tell patients that it is less common than irritable bowel syndrome (1 out of 7), but more common than Crohn's disease (1 out of 500-1000 patients).
If it's only 1% of the population, why are gluten-free foods so ubiquitous? Well, certainly CD patients should be afforded the same rights to eat as safely as non-celiac patients. However, many people without celiac disease have found that removing gluten from their diets makes them feel less full, less bloated, and less fatigued. Clinically, this has been called non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). It is not clear if there is a distinct biological entity that results in pathological changes other than those seen in CD.
If these patients are ill but do not have CD, why do they feel better when they remove gluten? What is more likely happening is that people are responding to the removal of something from their diet that gluten is associated with, rather than the gluten itself. This has actually been shown in a clinical study. My bet is that these patients are responding to the FODMAPs found in foods made with wheat, rye, and barley.
Fermentable Oligosaccharides Disaccharides Monosaccharides and Polyols. These are all forms of carbohydrates or sugars in varying shapes and sizes that are poorly absorbed or not well digested. FODMAPs are fermented in the colon by bacteria which results in the production of hydrogen gas (flatus, bloating, abdominal distention, pain), short chain fatty acids, and causes an osmotic effect to draw in water to the stool (diarrhea).
If you or someone you know has responded to a Gluten-free diet make sure they see a gastroenterologist to learn whether they in fact have an intolerance to foods containing gluten or have CD. CD can be tested by obtaining measurements of circulating antibody markers. Those that have excluded all gluten from their diet will need to be re-challenged with it for 6 weeks with at least 1-2 slices of bread a day. This is because patients with CD lose the diagnostic serum markers of the disease while on a gluten-free diet. If markers are positive, confirmation will be needed by obtaining small intestine biopsies during an upper endoscopy.
What markers are most sensitive and specific? In the presence of normal serum IgA levels, I have found that the IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody is most sensitive and specific. Others tend to have low positive predictive values.
Is there a genetic test? Yes and no. The test is only useful to exclude celiac disease. I utilize HLA DQ2/DQ8 allele testing when results of testing are ambiguous, or their is a high suspicion despite conflicting test results (i.e. positive markers, negative biopsy). A positive test (presence of both alleles) is seen in 99.9% of CD patients while only 40-50% of the general population tests positive. Thus, a positive value does not diagnose CD. Rather, it is the absence of these alleles (negative result) that excludes CD.
What's causing my abdominal pain? When size does matter!
Abdominal pain is a common reason to visit a gastroenterologist's office. The most common scenario I encounter is a patient presenting with right sided abdominal pain after eating. The intensity and temporal relationship to their meals often allows me to more easily determine the cause. Patients often report pain within 30 minutes to 1 hr of eating. They find the discomfort peaks after meals and then decreases towards the start of the next meal. They often wake up feeling well. The pain is also often described as a discomfort rather than pain. Patients often do not have associated symptoms of reflux such as heartburn or regurgitation. Warning signs such as vomiting, weight loss, diarrhea, prompt a different conversation and work up.
In the absence of warnings signs or signs suggestive of a peptic process or reflux I typically find these patients are over-eating and/or are eating too quickly. Many have a history of anxiety, depression, or other mood disorder. I will typically have patients try a proton-pump inhibitor for 2-4 weeks and if there is no improvement I have them focus on portion size, time spent eating, and have them reduce the fat and carbohydrate contents of their meals.
I hypothesize that many of these patients have visceral hypersensitivity. They further have anxiety and busy jobs that require long hours and little time for relaxation. These factors lead to overeating and rushing. Latenight overeating is also a factor so I encourage each of these patients to take a good look at the quality of their life and encourage them to take more time for themselves. I remind them to eat protein and complex carbohydrate rich breakfast (fruits , granola, and yogurt) and to have a good sized lunch. They should be cautious to eat slowly and to chew well. I recommend smaller portions at night so they avoid eating large heavy meals prior to laying down. Avoidance of seltzer and sodas is also helpful.
If medication, life-style changes, or dietary modifications do not help I will obtain an abdominal ultrasound and upper endoscopy to assess for organic causes. There are a select group of patients who have already had these tests so I do not repeat them. If these tests are unrevealing I will recommend a 4-8 week trial of a tricyclic antidepressant, which will treat the underlying visceral hypersensitivity by modulating the output of the enteric nervous system to the central nervous system. Signals representing stretching of the walls of the digestive tract will dampen and patients will have less discomfort with meals.


text:
Q: Why does the closure compiler create void 0 instead of shorter alternatives? Comparing these strings:
{}[0]
[][0]
void 0

Why does Closure Compiler generate
void 0

when it could generate
[][0]

or
{}[0]

or even
[].a

as torazaburo mentioned
which are 1 character shorter?

A: Minimum code size isn't the only goal of the Closure compiler. Another goal (I assume) is to generate code that is as fast as the original.
void 0 is likely to be faster across various JavaScript runtimes. It doesn't have to construct an object or array and dereference a nonexistent property.
A JavaScript runtime engine could possibly optimize away the {}[0] or [][0], but why would the Closure compiler want to depend on that? If those don't get optimized away, they would be significantly slower than void 0.
Keep in mind that JavaScript code is usually downloaded in compressed form, and if void 0 appears in multiple places they are likely to get compressed out.
Also see Blaise's answer for another good reason not to use {}[0] or [][0].

A: {}[0] doesn't (always? see comments) return undefined, and [][0] could in theory return something other than undefined since you can override Array constructors/getters.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Western Connecticut State University is committed to its moral, educational, and legal responsibility for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the ADA Amendment Act of 2008 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998. To this end, discrimination due to a disability is prohibited in programs, services, and activities. The university is resolved to fulfill its responsibilities to students with a disability at Western Connecticut State University.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 states that No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that No qualified individual with a disability shall by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or to be subjected to discrimination by such entity.
In order to respect the independence and rights of persons with disabilities, the university initiates services only after voluntary disclosure of a disability, submission and verification of appropriate documentation of a disability, and a request for an accommodation. An individual's choice not to disclose a disability is fully respected.
AccessAbility Services is the designated service at Western Connecticut State University for individuals to voluntarily disclose a disability, submit appropriate documentation for verification, and request accommodations.


It has been a tough few months for accrediting agencies. These independent nonprofit organizations act as the gatekeepers to federal college aid: They must approve any institution that wishes to get access to student grants or loans from the federal government. A series of recent events—both from within and outside the federal government—have brought their ability to effectively perform this role into question.
In June, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled the CEO of accreditation agency the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, or ACICS, in a congressional hearing for its ineffective investigations of for-profit colleges. ACICS accredited the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges, which is accused of faking job placement rates and defrauding millions of students. How, Sen. Warren inquired, could an accreditor ostensibly focused on quality assurance have allowed Corinthian to continue accessing federal financial aid dollars and enrolling students despite widespread evidence that it was committing fraud? Corinthian, after all, remained accredited until its demise.
Following the hearing, authors Andrea Fuller and Douglas Belkin called accreditors the "watchdogs that rarely bite," in a high-profile Wall Street Journal article. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an investigative demand to ACICS seeking information about the for-profit schools it oversees. Later, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations opened an investigation on the role of accreditors in assessing the quality and financial stability of institutions, and it is requesting the records of numerous agencies, with an enhanced focus on ACICS. To top it all off, in November, the Department of Education released new data about student outcomes—including graduation rates, loan repayment, and job earnings—by accreditation agency and called upon Congress to repeal legislation that currently bans the department from defining or setting standards of student achievement that accreditors must address when reviewing colleges.
Confronted with claims that the accreditation process is ineffective, accreditors consistently claim that their historic role has been about quality improvement, not accountability. After meeting with The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, Judith Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, or CHEA—an umbrella organization for accrediting agencies—made the case that accreditation agencies are under increasing pressure to do more to protect students. Her argument concludes that the largest game changer for accreditation is an increased urgency to protect students against institutions with poor student outcomes such as high debt, student loan defaults, and low graduation rates.
CHEA and the rest of the accreditation establishment, however, are missing a crucial point: The expectation that accreditors protect students and taxpayer funds is nothing new. In fact, a review of major higher education legislation from World War II through the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008 shows that consumer protection has always been the main purpose of federal legislation regarding accreditation. That was the case in 1952, when Congress first leveraged the independent accreditation system as a way to prevent bad actors from receiving federal funds. It still was the goal in 1992, when Congress rewrote many of the rules around accreditation. And it remains true today. If accreditors are still incapable of performing this role, policymakers should explore alternative ways of determining which institutions can and cannot access federal aid.
From the very beginning of the federal reliance on accreditors, the role of accreditation agencies with respect to federal financial aid has been about protecting consumers and preventing fraudulent actors from receiving taxpayer dollars.
The college accreditation process, however, long predates the advent of federal student aid programs; the first accreditation agencies appeared in the late 1800s. At that time, there were a wide range of colleges and universities with differing admissions requirements, curricula, and required lengths of study to earn a degree. A lack of universal standards made it difficult for institutional administrators to determine the differences between programs at secondary schools, colleges, and graduate schools. For institutions, the variation in curricula and degrees complicated the transfer of credits when students transferred. Similarly, institutions had difficulty assessing whether students from other countries were qualified for college or graduate school.
Colleges and universities created accreditors as voluntary membership associations designed to provide clarity and establish curriculum, degree, and transfer of credit standards through a peer-review process. As voluntary associations, representatives from the member colleges were responsible for establishing standards and ensuring that schools met those standards. If a school was accredited, it sent a signal to other institutions that the education it provided was in line with its own quality standards. And for decades, accreditation stayed that way—a separate and voluntary process that had no interaction with the federal government.
In order for an institution's students to access federal grants and loans for college, it must first be accredited. Today, there are 37 accrediting agencies of varying types. Seven regional accreditors are the largest agencies and oversee a majority of public and private nonprofit schools in addition to some for-profit colleges. Each of these accreditors is responsible for schools in a different geographic area. The second-largest category of accreditors is national accreditation agencies, which tend to focus on a specific type of school. For example, national accreditors might focus on overseeing career schools, art schools, or bible colleges. Most schools that are nationally accredited are for-profit colleges and tend to offer career-specific programs.
In the 1940s, however, the federal government's role in higher education began to change. Increased federal involvement and spending created a new set of problems that, eventually, accreditors were relied upon to address.
Starting with the 1944 Servicemen's Readjustment Act—more commonly known as the GI Bill—the federal government began to provide financial aid directly to returning veterans so that they could attend college. From 1944 to 1951, the government spent $14.5 billion on the education and training of 8 million GIs returning from World War II. At first, these dollars were largely unrestricted; veterans could use the money at traditional colleges and universities, vocational training programs, and on-the-job and on-farm training programs. The Veterans Administration administered the federal funds; all it took for educational providers to qualify for federal dollars was approval from a state agency. The GI Bill required that state agencies furnish a list of educational and training institutions qualified to provide training, leaving the task of determining which institutions were worthy of receiving funds to the states.
While the GI Bill was groundbreaking legislation that provided educational opportunity for millions of veterans, it also gave rise to a seedy subindustry of fly-by-night operations. Over the five years following the passage of the GI Bill, almost 6,000 for-profit schools sprung up and took advantage of the new federal education funds. In response, several government entities launched investigations into potential fraud and abuse, including action by the Veterans Administration; the Bureau of the Budget, the predecessor to the Office of Management and Budget; and additional committees formed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the General Accounting Office.
These studies concluded that many of the programs and schools created had no educational background and experience, charged unreasonable and excessive fees, faked attendance records, manipulated state authorities, and offered training in fields with little to no potential for jobs.
An investigation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the Educational, Training and Loan Guaranty Programs Under the GI Bill—known as the Teague Committee for its chairman, Rep. Olin Teague (D-TX)—found that in the state of Pennsylvania, "it was common knowledge among school operators that it was customary to pay inspectors and give them gifts." In one instance, a school operator who also owned an automobile agency sold a state official two cars at an unreasonably low price and installed accessories for which the state official was never charged. A second Teague Committee report found that there was inadequate reporting and student tracking that resulted in more than $200 million in overpayments to veterans. Because veterans and institutions failed to notify the Veterans Administration when a student dropped out of training, the administration continued payments to students who were no longer enrolled. These investigations demonstrated that the system of state approval, broadly defined, was an insufficient check on keeping out bad actors.
Faced with the need to weed out bad college actors and protect students, Congress turned to the accreditation system. In the next authorization of higher education benefits for veterans—the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952—Congress required that institutions receiving GI Bill funds must be accredited. To assist with this task, Congress required the Office of Education—located in the Federal Security Agency, the precursor to the U.S. Department of Education—to publish a list of recognized accrediting and state agencies.
Obtaining accreditation was not, however, the only way a college could still receive federal assistance. Unaccredited nonprofit and public institutions could still access federal aid if they showed that three accredited schools would accept their credits. Alternatively, unaccredited institutions—including for-profit institutions—could seek approval from state agencies to access federal funds if they completed an application process and underwent an investigation to prove that they were a legitimate operation. State agencies were required to determine that an institution was in line with the standards of other accredited institutions in the state, in which case they also would become eligible for federal money.
Since the passage of the second GI Bill, the federal government's relationship with accreditors has been intended to protect students and taxpayers' investments by keeping out fraudulent actors. There was no discussion in these early pieces of legislation about having accreditation agencies work with colleges to improve quality. Relying on accreditors was in some ways an intentional abdication of federal power: The government did not try to create its own oversight system. Rather, it relied on a system that was already in place. But by authorizing a system originally created for quality standards at nonprofit, traditional four-year universities to control the flow of federal funds to a much wider array of institutions, Congress also set the grounds for the quality improvement vs. consumer and taxpayer safeguarding fight that continues today.
Buoyed by the success of the GI Bill, the federal government expanded its federal assistance for college in the 1960s and 1970s to cover students beyond those who had served in the armed forces. Throughout this time, the federal government continued the precedent it set in 1952 by relying on accreditation as the gatekeeper for deciding who could access government dollars.
The two biggest expansions in federal aid for college over this period took place in 1965 and 1972. In 1965, Congress passed the Higher Education Act, or HEA, which opened federal grants and loans to all students who wanted to pursue postsecondary education. The bill limited access to federal grants and loans to accredited public and nonprofit institutions. Similarly, the 1965 National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act allowed for-profit business and trade schools to access federally insured loans—but not grants—if they had accreditation.
The 1972 HEA reauthorization further broadened the type of education providers eligible to receive federal financial aid by allowing grants, in addition to previously authorized loans, to be used at accredited business and trade schools. At the same time, the amendments expanded the volume of federal aid available to students by creating the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant for low-income students, now known as the Pell Grant.
In the 1965 and 1972 amendments, which made expansions to student aid, the federal government continued to rely on accreditation as the process for determining which institutions could receive support. While both acts made it clear that accreditation was the preferred standard for accessing federal aid, they included exceptions to this rule. Under the HEA, unaccredited nonprofit and public schools had to be making reasonable progress toward accreditation, as determined by the commissioner of education, or have three accredited schools accept their credits. The National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, meanwhile, required that unaccredited schools be certified by a state agency or a committee established by the federal commissioner of education if no agency existed.
Even though the HEA expanded aid eligibility to a variety of very different institutions with different missions and approaches to education, it did not contemplate any sort of change to the role that accreditation should play in determining which institutions could receive federal funds. None of the legislative changes addressed how accreditors should carry out assessments despite the rapidly expanding range of institutions they were required to review.
The cumulative result was that by 1972, Congress brought the role of accreditation to sectors of higher education it was not created to serve, leading to the creation of many new accrediting agencies focused only on approving for-profit schools. Before Congress made accreditation a prerequisite for government support, it had, for the most part, existed for quality assessment at traditional public and private nonprofit schools. Although some accreditors focused on career education prior to the federal government's accreditation requirements, a majority of the accreditors that oversaw for-profit institutions were created after changes in the law. As a result, new entities emerged in the accreditation space having no history of serving a quality improvement function and no road map for how they should think about quality differently.
By the end of the 1980s, it had become increasingly clear that accreditation alone was an insufficient check on determining which colleges could receive federal student aid. Beset by concerns about rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, Congress created more formal roles for states and the federal government to act as gatekeepers as well. As with prior federal efforts, the emphasis was on ensuring that bad actors could not gain access to federal funds.
Student debt at for-profit trade schools was a significant problem in the 1980s. These institutions had almost four times the default rate as traditional schools. Over a period of six years, loan defaults at these institutions increased 338 percent, to 39 percent. For-profit schools were leaving too many with high debt, no degree, and an inability to pay back their loans. These results prompted numerous federal investigations, including a highly publicized one led by Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).
The Nunn investigation, which included numerous hearings, found that accreditation failed to protect against fraud at for-profit institutions. Many of the witnesses in the hearings testified that accreditation was not well-suited to provide oversight of for-profit schools because the concept was based on traditional two-year and four-year schools, not for-profit businesses. These investigations turned up troubling findings such as for-profit schools securing accreditation by purchasing accredited nonprofit schools, creating new branch campuses without checks on quality, and bribing and manipulating accreditors. To fix the problem, the Nunn committee's final report recommended that Congress create minimum quality standards for all accrediting agencies, as well as uniform consumer protection standards.
Shortly after the Nunn committee wrapped up its work, the 1992 HEA reauthorization laid out a vision that clearly defined what Congress expected of a gatekeeper. The law tried to make up for the failings of accreditors by being more explicit about what accreditors had to assess when they gave schools access to financial aid. Adding states as a primary oversight authority acknowledged that accreditation alone was not sufficient and that there needed to be someone checking the gatekeeper.
Acting on the Nunn committee's recommendations, the 1992 HEA amendments focused on improving gatekeeping for federal aid by strengthening the role of state oversight. The act created new State Postsecondary Review Entities, or SPREs, to work with the Department of Education and identify problematic institutions. Under the law, each state would establish an authority to conduct oversight and define acceptable standards for its institutions. Standards had to include potential indicators of abuse, including high default rates, a majority of institutional funding derived from federal financial aid, and high year-to-year fluctuation of amounts received through financial aid.
States had the freedom to determine how high or low to set the bar of what was deemed acceptable performance, but the secretary of education had final authority over approving the standards in each state. Once states established a reliable authority, defined minimum standards, and received approval from the secretary, they would then review all of the institutions in their state. Any institution that did not meet the standards would be subject to a second, more thorough investigation by the SPREs. If the institution was not in compliance, the Department of Education could then use negative reviews from SPREs to bar access to federal financial aid.
The 1992 amendments not only created the first set of federal standards for how accreditors should do their job but also strengthened oversight through other means. First, the secretary of education received new authority to establish standards for approving accrediting agencies that they would have to meet before serving as gatekeepers to federal aid. Second, the 1992 HEA bill also defined specific indicators that accreditors had to create standards around when approving schools for accreditation. The list of requirements included the same indicators that would be measured by state review agencies.
Finally, the 1992 amendments eliminated the provision permitting institutions that got three other institutions to accept their transfer credits to access federal student aid, requiring instead that all institutions receiving funds be accredited without exception. The 1992 reauthorization established accreditation as the only available route to participating in the federal aid programs, while providing additional state and federal oversight in a gatekeeping role.
What was supposed to be a shared gatekeeping role ended up losing state support soon after the passage of the 1992 amendments. State support for SPREs was lukewarm to begin with: States that were already strong on oversight supported SPREs, while those that did not have strong oversight or had a small number of institutions opposed them. Some states were already involved with accountability and actively pursuing oversight within their states and objected to the dominance of the Department of Education. Other states did not have the same high default rates as other states and found the requirements unnecessary.
The higher education community also objected. Individual institutions were caught by surprise when the Department of Education began to notify approximately 2,000 institutions that they had failed to meet at least one of the requirements laid out in the law and would be subject to a more thorough investigation. Private colleges were particularly outspoken against SPREs because they wanted to maintain independence and viewed the standards outlined in the law as a threat to institutional autonomy and freedom.
In November 1994, the newly elected House majority—led by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)—promised to reduce government regulation under its Contract with America. Already unpopular, SPREs were a prime target for elimination. Eventually, Congress withdrew funding and eliminated the legal requirement of state review agencies. States no longer had spelled-out expectations for reviewing institutions and serving as gatekeepers.
The plight of SPREs was a harbinger of what was to come for the role of the federal government's oversight of higher education funding. Following the original passage of the 1992 amendments, the pendulum swung quickly back in the direction of deregulation: New accountability measures lasted just less than two years. The changes were discarded before state review agencies and accreditors could ever implement stronger oversight.
Following the backlash against the 1992 HEA reauthorization, legislative changes continued to claw back at the strict federal standards imposed on accreditors and institutions under the law. Future reauthorizations of the HEA reflected a reduction in what was required of both states and accreditors.
After walking back state accountability following the 1992 amendments, the 1998 amendments to the HEA reversed many of the new requirements aimed at accreditors. For instance, Congress eliminated the requirement that accreditors check tuition and fees in relation to subject matter and program length. The 1998 bill also eliminated a requirement that accreditors review default rates and conduct their own investigations, with one saying they had to review a record of compliance with default rates provided by the secretary. It also eliminated mandatory unannounced site visits for vocational programs, making them optional. Together, the dialed-down language and requirements reflected the view of the new House majority that the federal government should stay out of the business of enforcing standards altogether.
The 2008 HEA amendments continued the trend—started in 1998—of reducing the role of the federal government, giving accreditors greater freedom to act without strong oversight and affording institutions more leeway. First, the amendments required that accreditors apply quality standards with respect to the individual institution mission. In effect, this made accreditors serve the role of gatekeeper while letting schools define what it takes to unlock the door. Second, the act prohibited the secretary of education from establishing standards that accreditors have to abide by in assessing student achievement. All of the changes combined made accountability increasingly difficult to demand and even harder to define. For a table describing major changes to the HEA after 1992, see the PDF.
In the years following 2008, there has been a growth of the same problems that were seen in the 1950s and 1980s and 1990s in terms of concern about for-profit fraud. A 2012 Senate committee investigation led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), for example, found significantly lower completion rates, higher student loan debt, and higher loan default rates in the for-profit sector when compared with public and nonprofit institutions. Instead of refocusing on accreditation, as the 1992 amendments sought to do, the federal government has increasingly sought alternatives to accreditors for the purpose of protecting access to federal student aid.
Some of this has been accomplished through federal regulations administered by the Department of Education through negotiated rulemaking. The Obama administration has enacted two major regulations aimed at rooting out fraud. One, known as gainful employment, judges career training programs based on how much their graduates earn upon graduation vs. the debt borrowed. If a program is in violation, it loses access to federal funds. A second attempt—the state authorization standards, which has been challenged in court and has yet to go into effect—includes state authorization regulations. The rule requires institutions offering distance education to students in a state where they are not physically located to meet requirements in each state where they have students. The goal is to create a more formal role for states in approving schools.
Gainful employment, state authorization, and the executive actions announced earlier this month are all important efforts to create greater accountability among institutions that receive taxpayer funds. Accreditors, however, remain the primary gatekeepers. The legislative history of accreditation shows that fraud and abuse of the federal aid system have persisted despite repeated attempts to enact oversight and steer accreditors toward consumer and taxpayer protection. If accreditors are incapable of performing this function, then maybe it is time for an entirely new gatekeeper.


text:
SINGLE TICKETS: Thur.-$22, Fri.-$27, Sat.-$28, Sun.-$25 - Active Military, Student & Senior Discount & Great Group Rates.
Coronado Playhouse Box Office
Playhouse 2019 Season
Cast Bios
Thursday, Friday, Saturday @ 8pm & Sunday @ 2pm
Music and Lyrics by Frank Loesser
Book by Abe Burrows, Jo Swerling
Based on The Idyll of Sarah Brown and characters by Damon Runyon
Director: Justin Allen Slagle
Music Directors: Larry Wilson & Amanda Graham Hyden
Choreographer: Mary Allison Dunsmore
A Musical Fable of Broadway
"The show that defines Broadway dazzle." —The New York Times
Guys and Dolls begins with a bet. Nathan Detroit bets high-rolling gambler Sky Masterson that Sky cannot persuade Save-A-Soul Missionary, Sister Sarah Brown, to accompany him on a trip to Cuba. While Sky works his charms on the wary Sister Sarah, Nathan is doing his best to stay outside the matrimonial clutches of his long-suffering fiancée, Miss Adelaide, and at the same time, is trying to set up the biggest crap game in town as the authorities breathe down his neck!
Set in New York City in the mid-20th century, Guys and Dolls is populated with gangsters and gamblers, missionary dolls and scantily clad showgirls, and one of the greatest musical scores in the history of American theatre. Larger-than-life characters-Nicely Nicely Johnson, Benny Southstreet, Harry The Horse, Big Jule-join Nathan, Sky, Sarah and Adelaide to deliver hit song after hit song, including Luck be a Lady, Sit Down You're Rocking the Boat, If I Were a Bell, and Take Back Your Mink.
BUY TICKETS SUBSCRIBE NOW
David Guthrie: Nicely-Nicely Johnson
Scott Kolod: Benny Southstreet
Olivia Torres: Sarah Brown
Steve Jensen: Harry the Horse
Adam Sheldon: Lt. Brannigan
Dave Rivas: Nathan Detroit
Alyssa Anne Slagle: Miss Adelaide
Christopher T Miller: Sky Masterson
Tom Welch: Arvide Abernathy
Cecile Pham: Hot Box Girl/Mimi
Cassiopeia Guthrie: General Matilda B. Cartwright
Daniel Hall: Big Jule
Tyra Carter: Hot Box Girl
Gabriella Cerebros: Hot Box Girl
Bailee Coleman: Hot Box Girl
Vladymir Wong: Ensemble
Victor Reveles: Ensemble
Liam Sullivan: Ensemble
Heather Barton Tjalma: Mission Band
Lindsey Davies: Mission Band
Miguel Vasquez: Ensemble
Peter Mamonis Jr.: Ensemble
Cade Smith: Ensemble
The Playbill
The program is available here.
Press images are not yet available for this production.
TYRA CARTER(Hot Box Girl) is ecstatic and blessed to make her debut at Coronado Playhouse. She is currently studying theatre arts at San Diego City College. Tyra is also known for her performances including Gary Coleman from Avenue Qat OB PLAYHOUSE, as well as Chicago(2017), Rocky Horror Show(2018) and Midsummer Night's Dream(2018) from San Diego City College. She would like to thank her mother for pushing her to pursue her dreams.
GABRIELLA CEBREROS(Hot Box Girl) is so excited to make her debut on the Coronado Playhouse stage. Other appearances include ensemble roles in In the Heights(2016), Thoroughly Modern Millie(2015) and Legally Blonde (2014) with UCLA's HOOLIGAN Theatre Company.
BAILEE COLEMAN(Hot Box Girl) is very excited to be making her Coronado Playhouse debut. Some of her past credits include: Logainne in The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, Chava in Fiddler on the Roof, Babette in Beauty and the Beastand Tammy in Hairspray. She'd like to thank her family, boyfriend, and friends for their endless support and the artistic team for this wonderful opportunity.
LINDSEY DAVIES(Mission Band) is blessed to have played the lead roles of Cinderella in Cinderella, Laurie in Oklahomaand Louisa in Fantasticks,all at SDCC. She also had the pleasure of playing a supporting lead role in Mikadoas Peep Bo at SDCC as well as 11 shows in Christian Youth Theater (CYT) growing up. She is excited to be in Guys and Dollsat Coronado Playhouse for the first time ever.
CASSIOPEIA GUTHRIE (General Cartwright) is enthused to be making her Coronado Playhouse debut! Cassiopeia was most recently seen in Jesus Christ Superstar (2018), Beau Jest (2017; Aubrey: Best Lead Actress in a Comedy), and I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change (2013), all at Patio Playhouse, where she also serves on the board. Cassiopeia is thankful to her family and friends (especially David, Xander, and Jasper) for the love and support. Enjoy the show!
DAVID GUTHRIE (Nicely Nicely Johnson) is thrilled to be returning to Coronado Playhouse after appearing as Pilate in Jesus Christ Superstar and Kevin in In The Heights this past Summer. Other appearances at CPH include Sugar (2016), Chicago(2014) and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas(2012). Elsewhere: Les Miserables (413 Project) and I Love You You're Perfect Now Change! (Patio Playhouse). David thanks his family for their love and support.
DANIEL HALL (Big Jule) is thrilled to join CPH for Guys and Dolls. Previously seen at Lamplighters (1940's Radio Hour,Dames at Sea), Onstage Playhouse (I Hate Hamlet, Social Security) and Black Rabbit Theater. Principal and featured roles at Lyric Opera San Diego (Amahl and the Night Visitors, Pirates of Penzance), Starlight (Oliver!,The Sound of Music) and San Diego Opera (Chorus).
STEVEN JENSEN(Harry the Horse) has performed in seventeen Coronado Playhouse shows since 2010, including King Charles III, Hamlet, Spamalot,The Drowsy Chaperone, Tartuffeand Little Shop of Horrors. Many plays elsewhere, too, including Edward II(Diversionary), Macbethand Who Am I This Time?(Vanguard), The Tempest(Poor Players), She Loves Me(Lamplighters), Julius Caesar(New Village Arts) and multiple operettas (Lyric Opera San Diego).
SCOTT KOLOD(Benny Southstreet) was born in Vegas and has always been a gambler! Benny is a favorite role. Scott began his acting career in New York during the 1960's in the Broadway Musical, Flower Drum Song. He has continually performed since. He recently played Gomez (Addams Family) atthe Historic Lyceum Theatre. Other favorite roles: Pilate/King Herod(Jesus Christ Superstar); Mysterious Man/Narrator(Into The Woods);Thenardier(Les Miserables) andMushnik(Little Shop of Horrors).
PETER MAMONIS JR.(Ensemble) is proud to be a part of the G&Dcast for his premiere theatre credit and honored to share his talents at Coronado Playhouse. Peter has been performing with the San Diego Civic Dance Arts for nearly a decade and has danced down Main Street USA in Disneyland as well as the Toyland Paradein North Park. Special thank you to Deborah Hardesty and Mary Allison Dunsmore for this incredible opportunity.
CHRISTOPHER T. MILLER(Sky Masterson) is thrilled to revisit the Coronado Playhouse stage for this coveted role, following previous appearances in The Addams Familyand Songs of Burt Bacharach. Chris has performed extensively around the region and (occasionally) the world; highlights include two tours of Evita, an Assassinsbenefit concert (Cygnet, 2009), both leads in Jesus Christ Superstar(OB Playhouse / Star Rep, 2018) and the American in Chess(LJSC, 2005). Loving gratitude to my wife Keri for her gracious support.
CECILE PHAM(Hot Box Girl/Mimi) is a longtime lover and dabbler in the performing arts and is excited to come back to Coronado Playhouse. Previous productions include Christmas Eve in AvenueQ(OB Playhouse), Connie in A Chorus Line(Coronado Playhouse), Liat in South Pacific(CCT), ensemble in Hello Dolly(CCT) and Rosa Bud in The Mystery of Edwin Drood(UCSD Muir Musical). Classically trained in ballet, she has appeared in Nutcrackerand Alice in Wonderlandwith Pacific Arts Dance.
VICTOR ERTÉ REVELES(Ensemble) is currently awaiting transfer at Southwestern College. Local: In The Heights (Sonny @ Patio Playhouse), Some-BODY and Sina and the Eel (Body/Tetuna @ Playwrights Project), La Pastorela del Plata (Popo / Crespo u/s @ Teatro Mascara Magica). SWC: American Idiot (Will), Godspell (John the Baptist / Judas), In The Heights (José, Usnavi u/s). VAPA: Miss Saigon (John), Pippin (Lewis), West Side Story, Les Miserables. CSU Chico: Inkprov, The Off- Broadways. Intern at OnStage Playhouse in 2013-2014. Victor extends this to his family and friends who have shown him love and support, even when irrationality was common.
DAVE RIVAS (Nathan Detroit) proudly returns to CPH in the show that made him want to be an actor. He first saw the movie, Guys and Dollsat age 8. CPH shows include Jack in The Importance of Being Earnest andTito in Lend me a Tenor. Dave is a voice actor and produces theatrical, commercial & podcast sound at his studio, DaveyBoy Productions. Dave is also a producer of theatre group, Amigos del REP.
ADAM SHELDON (Lt. Brannigan) is very happy to make his debut on the CPH stage and to work with all involved in this production. Selected Regional credits: Wait Until Dark, Bell Book and Candle, Lend me a Tenor (2 productions), Importance of Being Earnest, Our Town,Barefoot in the Park, Miracle on 34thStreet. In addition to many local film short credits, he is a voice over artist and directed and produced for several theater and film productions.
ALYSSA ANNE SLAGLE(Miss Adelaide) is thrilled to be appearing in her dream role with this stellar team at Coronado Playhouse. She was last seen at CPH as Mrs. Beineke inThe Addams Familylast year. Favorite roles include Peggy Sawyer in 42nd Street, Anytime Annie in 42nd Street, Kevin in To Gillian on her 37th Birthday (AACT award/regional winner) and Sandy in Grease (AACT award). Alyssa holds a BA in Theatre Arts from UCSD and studied at BADA. She would like to dedicate this performance to her grandparents, who are watching from above and give a huge shout out to her Aya fam!
CADE SMITH(Ensemble) is thrilled to be making his debut at Coronado Playhouse. This is his second show in SoCal after moving from Oregon, the first being Patio Playhouse's Every Christmas Story Ever Told. Most recently, Cade has been seen in Camelot Theatre's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valanceand in CTP's Snow Queenand Seven Dreams of Falling. Cade has also choreographed several shows, including Pippin, Rent, Music Man, and My Fair Lady.
LIAM SULLIVAN (Ensemble) is happy to be making his debut on the Coronado Playhouse stage in the classic show Guys and Dolls. You may have recently seen him performing on The Ghost Cruise at Legoland's Brick-or-Treat event. Some of Liam's favorite roles include Lurch in Addams Family and Bill Sikes in Oliver (Star Repertory Theatre) as well as Tony Kirby Jr in You Can't Take It With You (Palomar College).
HEATHER BARTON TJALMA(Mission Band/Ensemble) is elated to be back at Coronado Playhouse. She was last seen on the CPH stage as Muzzy in Thoroughly Modern Millie and as Jewel in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Recently you will find her dancing at Culture Shock or performing musical improv at FCI. Special thanks to her hubby for his continued encouragement at finding new challenges in life and to the artistic team for the opportunity to join this show.
OLIVIA TORRES(Sarah Brown) is thrilled to make her debut with Coronado Playhouse. She graduated from UCSD with a Bachelor of Science in physiology and neuroscience and a minor in theatre. Her credits include Skriker (Old woman)/Hag in The Skriker (UCSD), Athena in The Odyssey(UCSD), and Ophelia in Hamlet (Shakespeare Ensemble Co.). She would like to thank God for the many blessings in her life, including being part of this amazing show.
MIGUEL F. VASQUEZ (Ensemble) is stoked to work with the cast and crew of Guys and Dollsas his first time appearing at Coronado Playhouse. Previously with the San Diego Civic Dance Company and Innervision dance group, he is grateful to be part of this production and hopes you have fun too.
TOM WELCH (Arvide Abernathy) is making his debut with Coronado Playhouse. His performances elsewhere: appeared as Thurio in Two Gentlemen of Verona, Motel inFiddler on The Roof, Al inA Chorus Line, Rusty Charlie inGuys & Dolls, Gherardo inGianni Schicchi, Peterman inRSVP, Man of La Mancha, H.M.S. Pinafore, The Gondoliers, Patience, Don Carlo, Marriage of Figaro, Rigoletto, San Diego Gay Men's Chorus and San Diego La Jolla Symphony Chorus.
VLADYMIR WONG(Ensemble) is thrilled to be making his debut at Coronado Playhouse. He is currently studying dance and musical theatre at San Diego City College where he performed in TheRocky Horror Show(2018) as Frank-n-Furter's understudy. Other theatre credits include A Midsummer Night's Dream(2018) and Chicago(2017). In his spare time he enjoys modeling, drawing and dancing.
Photos by Pete Shaner
JUSTIN ALLEN SLAGLE (Director) is an award-winning actor and director and is pleased to be making his Coronado Playhouse debut. Select local directing credits include: God of Carnage (OnStage Playhouse), Disney's Beauty and the Beast (TCCS), You're A Good Man Charlie Brown (TCCS, Broadway Players), Little Women (RVCS) and The Music Man (CYT). An accomplished theatre educator Justin is passionate about keeping the Golden Age classics alive for the next generation, who think that High School Musical is "classic" theatre.
LARRY WILSON (Co-Music Director) has served as music teacher/professor for over 40 years, the last 30 of which were at San Diego Christian College. He has musically directed, accompanied and/or conducted over 25 musical theater productions for both the college and CCT/CYT. Favorites include Fiddler on the Roof, West Side Story, The Mikado, Oklahoma!, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat and (an unexpected favorite!) Seussical! He is the choir/orchestra director for his church in El Cajon. He and his wife Kay have a married son and a married daughter along with six beautiful grandchildren.
AMANDA GRAHAM HYDEN (Co-Music Director) is delighted to be musically directing Guys and Dolls at CPH. Amanda has performed as actress, pianist, conductor, and musical director in a variety of productions, including An American Christmas, Lamb's Cabaret (LPT), The Mikado, Cinderella, A Year with Frog and Toad, Snoopy!!! and Oklahoma! (SDCC). She has also served for many years with the worship ministry at New Vision Christian Fellowship. She has a degree in music from San Diego Christian College. When she is not working, she loves to spend time with her husband, Brent and their daughter, Tiana. She would like to thank her family, friends, and music teachers for their continued support and inspiration in her music endeavors. Soli Deo Gloria.
MARY ALLISON DUNSMORE (Choreographer) is a native San Diegan & is thrilled to be returning back to CPH after many years. A graduate of AMDA in NYC. Professional credits include Story Salad Productions (2004), Disney Cruise Line (2004/2005, 2007), Starlight Bowl: The Wizard of Oz (2006), Crazy for You (2008), My Fair Lady (2008), Moonlight: Hairspray (2011), My Fair Lady (2014). In addition to dance, she also has circus training in Spanish Web. She's currently a teacher & choreographer with SDCDA & a member of their Young Adult Ensemble. Many thanks to my family for their love & support, especially My Boys! (Romans 16:27)
ANTHONY ZELIG (Resident Producer) is proud to be a part of the wonderful team bringing you this production of Guys and Dolls. Anthony spent 24 years in New York, working on and off Broadway as well as surviving a career as a personal assistant. He is very happy to have made his way to San Diego and found a home at Coronado Playhouse. Previous CPH credits include designing lights for three 2018 shows: A Man of No Importance, Follies in Concert and Joseph and The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat as well as helping produce Next to Normal. Enjoy the show and thank you for supporting live theatre!
MARCENE DRYSDALE (Costume Designer) has been costuming shows at Coronado Playhouse for three years. Shows include Thoroughly Modern Millie, Seussical the Musical, Sugar, The 39 Steps, The Addams Family and A Man of No Importance. She has also costumed several shows throughout San Diego such as West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Anything Goes, The Drowsy Chaperone, Aida, and Spring Awakening. Thank you to my seamstress, Kelly Fox, who is always there to sew a last-minute costume piece.
PAM EVERETT (Resident Props Master) is thrilled to be working with this extraordinary cast and crew. She has been volunteering with CPH for over 14 years. In addition to Props and Set Dressing, she creates the table and lobby decorations. She is also one of the House Managers and a CPH Board Member. Thank you to my wonderful family for joining in the fun and helping make CPH the GREAT Theatre it is.
Photos with the exception of Ms. Dunsmore, by Pete Shaner
OPENING NIGHT MEMBERS' MINGLER
Friday, January 18, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.
Celebrate open nights at Coronado Playhouse!
You're a loyal supporter of The Community's Theatre and we want to show our appreciation. Playhouse members are invited to a hosted Happy Hour at CPH for drinks and appetizers before every opening night of each new main-stage production. Mingle with fellow theatre lovers and enjoy the ambience and excitement of opening night.
Not a member? Not a problem! Membership starts at just $50 and can be purchased in advance or at the event.
Coronado Playhouse is committed to giving back to the local community, beyond offering quality entertainment, by using its public platform to help those in need.
During the run, Coronado Playhouse is raising money and awareness to benefit Ronald McDonald House Charities of San Diego. Ronald McDonald House Charities of San Diego provides a "home- away-from-home" for families with children being treated for serious, often life-threatening conditions at local hospitals.
For more information, visit www.rmhcsd.org
To donate, click here.
Share:FacebookTwitterGooglePinterestPocketEmail