text:
Center for Data Analysis Report #10-05 on Labor
July 7, 2010
July 7, 2010 | Center for Data Analysis Report on Labor
Abstract: Salaries and benefits—for identical jobs—are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers' high skills are unjustified, as this study shows. Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance. Congress should align federal salaries and benefits with market rates—a simple, and fair, move that could save taxpayers nearly $47 billion in 2011. Heritage Foundation labor policy analyst James Sherk provides detailed data on why Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the civil service.
Many news organizations have reported that the average federal employee earns more than the average private-sector worker.[1] Is higher federal pay justified given that the federal government employs a more skilled workforce than the private sector? Detailed analysis shows that the size of the wage discrepancies is not warranted:
Of course, these averages mask large differences in pay across occupations and skill levels. Many federal employees in highly skilled occupations receive market wages. However, semi-skilled federal workers earn substantially more than they would in the private sector. Congress should not cut federal pay across the board—this would unfairly penalize the federal workers who earn market wages.
Instead, Congress should implement a pay-for-performance system with pay bands based on market signals of labor demand, expand the contracting of federal work to private companies, reduce the generosity of federal benefits, and end the near-absolute job security for underperforming federal workers. Doing so would not solve the country's fiscal problems, but would be a solid—and fair—step toward a more responsible fiscal policy. The federal government should not overtax the general public to provide significantly above-average pay and benefits to those who work in the civil service.
Productivity Determines Private-Sector Pay
In the private sector, it is productivity that determines workers' pay.[2] Businesses that pay wages below the associated level of productivity lose quality employees to competitors paying higher wages. Businesses that pay workers more than their productivity lose customers to competitors with lower prices because of lower costs.[3] Broadly speaking, under normal economic conditions, workers in the private sector earn what their productivity merits.[4] In the public sector, they do not. The government sells few goods or services and rarely does so according to market forces, so the market cannot determine pay levels. How much do employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development contribute to the economy? In lieu of paying on the basis of productivity, the federal government determines pay through wage formulas set by Congress.
How the Government Sets Pay Rates
In theory, the Office of Personnel Management constructs federal pay scales to reflect market wages for similar private-sector jobs. In practice, government wages frequently bear little resemblance to market pay.
The basic federal pay scale is the General Schedule (GS) which covers roughly 70 percent of federal civilian employees. Separate pay systems cover political appointees, senior executives, and blue collar workers. This paper reports averages for employees across these different pay systems.
The General Schedule consists of 15 pay grades and 10 steps within those pay grades. GS grades 1 through 7 denote entry-level positions, while grades 8 through 12 mark mid-level positions and grades 13 through 15 are top-level and management positions.[5] The General Schedule also incorporates locality pay adjustments to account for cost-of-living differences across the country and overseas.
Table 1 displays the 2010 General Schedule for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, where one in six of all civilian federal employees work.
Federal employees advance through the steps of the General Schedule by seniority, with faster promotions possible for what managers deem good performance—which may or may not relate to workers' productivity. Except in cases of extreme misconduct, a civil servant will reach the step 10 of his or her grade if he or she remains on the job long enough.[6]
Many federal jobs also involve career ladders that provide for advancement through the grades of the General Schedule. Federal employees begin at the entry level grade for their position and advance, typically annually, through the grades in their career ladder until they reach their full performance level. For example, the Department of Labor had an opening for a staff assistant at a GS-9 level ($51,630 to $67,114 a year).[7] The career track for this position goes from a GS-9 to a GS-11. Consequently, the next year the Department of Labor would promote that staff assistant to the GS-11 grade. That employee would then advance by seniority to step 10 of grade 11, which in the 2010 General Schedule amounts to $81,204 a year.
Significance of a Federal Premium. Very few staff assistants in the private sector earn $81,000 a year with full benefits. But the competition that forces companies to keep costs down does not constrain federal payrolls. Taxes and deficit financing permit the federal government to pay its employees more than they would earn in the private sector. Most Americans find taxing lower-earning private-sector workers to inflate better-paid federal employees' paychecks offensive. Few support reverse redistribution of wealth. But excessive federal pay has broader importance.
Prices send signals about where individuals should work. Although necessary to keep the government running, most federal jobs contribute little or nothing to economic growth. If the federal government overpays its employees, it will lure more productive workers into less productive tasks. The economy grows faster when workers channel their ambitions into productive activities; landing a job with the government should not be the key to getting ahead. Additionally, the taxes that fund government salaries discourage investment and entrepreneurship. Overpaying government employees means less economic growth and fewer jobs for everyone else.[8]
Higher Average Earnings. Table 2 displays various measures of average pay for civilian federal employees and private-sector workers.
The average federal employee earns an annual salary almost 60 percent greater than the average private-sector employee—$79,000 vs. $50,000 a year. Including the value of benefits, such as retirement plans, increases the total compensation gap to 85 percent.
Government Employs Skilled Workforce. The government hires more highly skilled workers, on average, than the private sector. Chart 1 shows the average education level of full-time federal and private-sector workers: 83 percent of federal employees have more than a high school education compared to only 59 percent of private-sector workers. Over one-fifth of federal workers hold more than a bachelor's degree, more than double the rate in the private sector. The average federal employee is also five years older than the average private-sector worker.
A more skilled workforce naturally earns more than a less skilled one; education and experience increase workers' productivity. The fact that federal employees earn more on average than private-sector workers does not by itself prove that the government overpays them.
Accounting for Differences in Productivity
Any analysis of pay differences should account for the greater skills of federal employees. Economists have developed statistical techniques to do just that. One of the most frequently used methods, the Oaxaca decomposition, breaks pay differences between groups into a portion explained by differences in observed characteristics (such as education) and an "unexplained" portion for which these differences cannot account. The unexplained difference in pay estimates how much private-sector workers would earn with their measured skills if they worked in the federal government. Appendix A explains the Oaxaca decomposition in greater detail.
Data. To determine how much of a pay premium the federal pay system gives the average federal worker, The Heritage Foundation examined data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009.[9] The author of this report used an Oaxaca decomposition to examine the explained and unexplained differences in federal and private-sector pay. He restricted the analysis to full-time employees between the ages of 25 and 65. The analysis controls for differences in age, education, marital status, race, gender, citizenship and nativity, state, year, and size of metropolitan area. The study looks at workers in the federal bureaucracy—federal employees in the field of public administration. This excludes some federal workers, such as postal employees. Appendix B explains the data used and methodology in greater detail. Appendices E and F present results for alternative definitions of federal employees, including postal workers.
Higher Cash Hourly Wages. Looking first at cash earnings (excluding benefits such as health insurance) the average federal employee earns $28.64 an hour compared to $18.27 an hour in the private sector—56.8 percent higher pay. The different skills and characteristics of federal employees only partially explain these higher cash wages.
A portion of federal workers' higher cash pay comes from their higher skills. Private-sector workers with the same characteristics as the average federal employee earn 19.6 percent more than average private-sector hourly pay. However, skill differences explain only a minority of the pay gap. The government pays the average federal employee 31 percent more than what can be accounted for by observable characteristics like education and demographics.[10]
Controlling for Occupation. This analysis ignores occupational wage differentials. Some occupations earn higher wages than others; for example, managers typically make more than administrative staff. If the federal government employs a different occupational mix than the private sector, this may account for federal workers' otherwise unexplainably higher wages.
Controlling for occupation presents serious challenges, however, because many federal occupations exist only in government. The Internal Revenue Service's agents, for example, have few private-sector counterparts. This makes it difficult to distinguish between higher pay in occupations that exist in the federal government and the federal government paying more in general. Two approaches to estimating the actual federal wage premium involve controlling for occupational wage differences at an aggregated level or examining only those workers in occupations that exist in both sectors.
Broad Occupational Controls. The first method involves grouping occupations into broad categories of similar positions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies respondents to the Current Population Survey into occupational categories, such as "Business and financial operations," "Healthcare practitioner and technical," and "Office and administrative support" occupations.[11] Table 4 displays the Oaxaca decomposition of the federal–private pay gap using the same methodology as in Table 3, but including controls for these broad occupational categories.
Controlling for occupation raises the amount of the federal–private pay gap that observable characteristics explain to 28.5 percent. That still leaves the federal government paying an unexplained 22 percent average premium—above and beyond what the skills, demographic characteristics, and occupations of federal employees account for.
Occupations Common to Both Sectors
Such broad occupational groupings aggregate hundreds of distinct occupations with different earnings into single categories. Another method is to compare only workers in occupations that exist in both the federal government and the private sector. Many occupations fall into this category: lawyers, receptionists, janitors, and human resource managers, to name a few.[12]
Table 5 shows the wage decomposition for workers in occupations common to both sectors. The government pays these workers a smaller premium than in the overall federal workforce: $29.74 an hour vs. $20.91—a 42.2 percent premium. Observable characteristics, such as education, demographics, and occupation explain about half (19.9 percent) of that difference. That still leaves the federal government paying its average employee 18.6 percent more an hour than otherwise comparable private-sector workers.[13] Looking only at federal employees in occupations that are directly comparable to private-sector workers reduces the federal pay premium only modestly.
Differences by Occupation. The federal government pays its employees an average of approximately one-fifth more than comparable private-sector workers receive. However this premium differs across occupations. Federal employees in some occupations earn less than they would in the private sector and federal employees in other occupations earn much more. Table 6 shows the unexplained hourly pay premium from Table 5 for individual occupations.
In several occupations, federal employees do not receive higher cash pay than private-sector workers. In three occupations the difference is actually negative, although not statistically significant. In other occupations, however, federal workers get paid 40 percent or more above what comparable private-sector workers earn.
Table 6 suggests that the federal workers not getting paid above market rates generally work in highly skilled occupations: engineers, physical sciences, lawyers, and economists. Workers in these occupations earn high wages in the private sector and the government does not pay more than necessary to attract them. Some federal employees would earn more if they left the government. John Roberts, for example, makes $223,500 a year as Chief Justice of the United States. He would almost certainly earn more in private practice.
The federal employees with the largest wage premiums tend to work in more moderately skilled occupations: bookkeeping clerks, security guards, social workers, and receptionists. There are, of course, exceptions to this trend. However, the federal government generally pays employees in semi-skilled occupations very generously. This causes much of the average federal pay premium.
Generous Federal Benefits
On average, federal employees receive higher cash earnings than the private-sector workers whose taxes fund their salaries; observable characteristics account for only a portion of this gap. An employee of the federal government earns an average of 22 percent an hour more than a comparable private-sector worker.
However, hourly wages represent only part of federal employees' total compensation. The federal government also provides its employees with generous benefits. These benefits include:[14]
These are more generous benefits than the average private-sector employer offers. Consider paid leave. A private-sector worker with 10 years experience at a firm earns an average of 23 days of paid time off a year.[19] A federal employee with that experience receives 33 days of paid leave a year (20 days of leave and 13 sick days). Those numbers exclude federal holidays; few private-sector employers give paid vacations for Columbus Day, Veteran's Day, or Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.
Measuring Individual Benefits
Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that the average private-sector worker earns $9,882 a year in non-cash compensation while the average federal civilian employee receives $32,115 a year, over three times as much.[20] These figures include health and life insurance, retirement benefits, and employer contributions for mandatory government benefits, such as Social Security. They exclude some benefits, such as the value of paid leave and student loan repayments.
Determining exactly how generous federal benefits are for individual workers is challenging. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses administrative records to measure the total spent on compensation and total government employment. It does not measure compensation for individual employees. Surveys do not answer this question clearly because most employees do not know how much their benefits cost their employers.
However, surveys can answer some questions about employer-provided benefits. The annual March supplement to the Current Population Survey asks workers whether they have an employer-sponsored pension plan and whether they receive health insurance from their employer. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also estimates the employer contributions toward health costs that these workers receive. Table 7 shows pension and health benefit receipts for federal and private-sector workers.
The federal government offers far more generous benefits than does the typical private-sector employer. While less than half (47.9 percent) of private-sector workers participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan, over four-fifths (81.4 percent) of federal workers do. Federal employees are 7 percentage points more likely to receive health insurance coverage through their employer.[21] They also receive an estimated $1,600 more in employer contributions toward health costs than do private-sector workers.
The Heritage Foundation compiled data from the 2006 to 2009 March supplements to the CPS to determine how much of this difference in benefits are explained by observable differences. The analysis controls for age, education, marital status, race, gender, citizenship, state, year, and metropolitan status. Appendix D explains the data and methodology in greater detail.
Greater Health Benefits. The top panel of Table 8 reports the Oaxaca decomposition for estimated employer contributions to health benefits. The federal government contributes 33.0 percent more toward health care costs than private-sector employers. Observable characteristics explain only 9.1 percent of these greater benefits. Federal employees receive 22.0 percent more in employer payments toward their health care than their observable characteristics explain.
This analysis does not account for occupational differences. The lower panel in Table 8 analyzes employer health benefits for federal employees in occupations with private-sector counterparts. In directly comparable occupations, federal employees receive 11.1 percent more in employer contributions than their observable characteristics can explain. The federal government provides more generous health benefits than the private sector.
More Generous Pension Coverage. The federal government also covers far more of its employees with pension plans than private employers. The CPS asks workers about whether their employers offer pension plans and, if so, whether they participate in them. Table 9 shows the Oaxaca decomposition of pension participation for federal and private-sector workers. The top panel shows the results without occupational controls; the bottom panel shows the results for workers in occupations that exist in both the federal government and the private sector.
The results report the difference in odds of receiving pensions after retirement for federal and private-sector workers. The overall federal workforce has roughly five times greater odds of receiving a pension than private-sector workers, after controlling for other observable characteristics. Restricting the analysis to federal workers in occupations that also exist in the private sector still shows federal workers have almost quadruple the odds of receiving a pension than anything besides working for the federal government explains.
To interpret these figures, consider a private-sector worker who has a 50 percent likelihood of receiving a pension, given his observable characteristics. This represents even 1-to-1 odds of receiving a pension. A federal employee in this occupation with these same characteristics would have nearly 4-to-1 odds of having a pension—nearly an 80 percent chance.22 Federal workers receive far more generous pension benefits than private-sector workers.
All working Americans should have access to a retirement savings plan, not only federal employees. Congress should encourage all private employers to offer retirement savings plans, such as the automatic IRA or a 401(k) to their employees.[22]
Differences in Total Compensation. BEA figures for civilian government employees indicate that the average federal employee receives 85 percent more in total compensation than the average private-sector worker.[23] However, measuring exactly how much of this overall compensation gap is explained by federal employees' greater skills and productivity poses serious challenges.
Because the March CPS does not provide information on the value of benefits beyond health care contributions, it is not possible to directly answer what portion of that premium is comparable to private-sector wages, and what portion represents taxpayer generosity. However, it is possible to approximate the portion of the compensation gap unexplained by workers' characteristics by assuming that it follows the same breakdown as cash earnings.
This is a strong assumption. Total benefits generally rise with income, but not one-to-one.[24] Making this assumption will underestimate the federal compensation premium. Observable characteristics explain a smaller proportion of the difference in benefits between the sectors than they did hourly pay. Consequently, the following estimates are lower bounds on the unexplained federal compensation premium.
The three rows of Table 10 show the results of applying the ratio of unexplained to explained pay differences from the hourly pay models to the aggregate compensation premium. Appendix H explains this methodology in detail.
These estimates are necessarily rough approximations combining data from different data sources. Nonetheless, they give insight into the magnitude of total compensation that federal employees earn: 30 percent to 40 percent greater compensation above and beyond their observable skills. These figures are imprecise approximations of the federal compensation premium. They show that federal employees earn substantially greater total compensation than private-sector workers, even after accounting for their different skills.
Government Jobs: Almost Impossible to Lose
Federal civil servants receive another perk that few private-sector workers enjoy: near-absolute job security. In the private sector, businesses cut hiring and increase layoffs when sales drop. Since the recession began in December 2007, private-sector employers have shed 8 million net jobs. Tens of millions of private-sector employees go to work each day knowing they could lose their job at any point.
Federal employees do not. Civil service rules make it prohibitively difficult to fire federal employees for bad performance once they pass their probationary period—one year on the job. Most federal employees who perform poorly never get fired. They keep their jobs unless their supervisor works through an arduous process of exhaustively documenting their performance and working through a complex appeal process.
The federal government provides its employees with an additional perk: employees who leave government service get preferential treatment if they want to come back. Former federal employees with career status (three or more years on the job) do not have to go through public merit competitions for re-hire. Though the government does not guarantee them a new position, it moves them to the front of the line. Few private-sector workers leave their jobs with similar assurances of re-employment.
Federal employees also do not have to worry about their jobs being eliminated due to economic downturns. The federal government has added 240,000 workers since the recession began—a 12 percent increase.[25] In the private sector, the adult unemployment rate jumped from 4.2 percent to 9.4 percent between 2007 and 2009. For federal employees, unemployment barely budged from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent.[26] Deficit spending and taxes have kept federal payrolls growing even as the economy has experienced its worst slump since the Great Depression. Federal employees have been insulated from the recession.
Even this figure overstates federal unemployment rates because many federal employees voluntarily retire once they qualify for pension benefits.[27] This allows them to earn a double income: They retire on their pension and look for a second job in the private sector. Unemployed federal retirees enjoy much more comfortable jobless spells than unemployed private-sector workers.
The new health care legislation will worsen the imbalance between private and federal payrolls even more. The government will need to hire tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of employees merely to implement the new health care regulations. Even as the taxes and regulations in the health care bill cost jobs in the private sector, they will swell the federal government's payrolls.
Federal Employees Rarely Quit. Federal employees know they get a better deal through their employment. The proof is that they rarely quit. Approximately 2.5 percent of private-sector workers voluntarily left their jobs each month in 2006 and 2007. During that same period, between 0.6 percent and 1 percent of federal employees voluntarily left their jobs, roughly a third the private-sector rate.[28] Since the recession began, that disparity has only grown. If federal employees earned market compensation they would leave their jobs at rates more similar to private-sector workers.
Reduce the Deficit by Cutting the Federal Payroll
Federal employees earn between 30 percent and 40 percent more than equivalently skilled private-sector workers. This represents costly forced sacrifices by lower-earning American taxpayers. The federal government will spend an estimated $180 billion on wages and salaries for civilian federal employees in fiscal year 2011, and another $64 billion on benefits—a total compensation of $244 billion.[29] There is a part of this inflated pay that Congress cannot touch. Congress has contractually obligated the taxpayers to fully fund the generous pensions of the civil service retirement system. Although giving such generous pensions to federal employees was a mistake, Congress should not retroactively void those contracts.
However, most federal compensation is not a contractual obligation and Congress can reduce it in those positions which are overcompensated. If Congress reduced this federal pay to market rates this would save taxpayers about $47 billion a year[30]— more than eliminating the entire Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, or Department of Energy. It would be enough to fully offset the cost of patching the alternative minimum tax in 2012.
Some Members of Congress have proposed raising taxes to reduce the deficit. Congress should reject these proposals. Higher taxes reduce the incentive to invest and create new businesses— which will cost jobs. Congress should instead reduce government spending. Aligning federal pay with market rates would reduce government spending relatively painlessly.
Not All Federal Employees are Overpaid. The fact that the General Schedule and other federal pay scales over-compensate federal employees on average does not mean that all federal employees are overpaid. Many high-performing federal workers actually earn below-market wages. The pay scale and seniority-based system the government uses divorces federal pay from individual performance. The average federal premium is small relative to the dispersion of federal pay from market rates.[31] As a result, Congress should not uniformly reduce the pay of all federal employees.
What Congress Should Do
Instead of a uniform pay cut, Congress should take several steps to equitably align federal pay with market rates. Congress should:
The federal government pays its employees substantially more than they would earn in the private sector. The current federal pay system:
Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the federal civil service. Aligning federal compensation with market rates would save taxpayers between $40 billion and $50 billion a year. Congress should immediately act to bring equity to federal pay. Congress should abolish the General Schedule and implement performance-based pay, require federal agencies to compete with the private sector, and bring the benefits to market levels.
—James Sherk is a Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
Appendix A
Oaxaca Decomposition
Economists use multiple regression analysis to study relationships between variables of interest. Regressions allow researchers to isolate the correlation between two variables while holding other variables constant—for example, how hourly pay correlates with working in the federal government or private sector, independent of the effects of age and education. One method of analyzing the data is to regress hourly pay on a variable indicating in which sector an employee works and on a series of control variables (such as education and age).
However, this approach assumes that the control variables have the same effect on hourly wages in both sectors. This may not be true. For example, earnings may increase more with age in the federal government than in the private sector because the General Schedule guarantees seniority-based raises. Assuming that age has the same effect in both sectors would understate the effect of age on the earnings of federal employees and overstate its effect on the earnings of private-sector workers.
An alternative approach to studying differences between two groups is an Oaxaca decomposition, which allows the effects of control variables to vary between two groups of workers. An Oaxaca decomposition regresses the outcome variable (i.e., hourly wages) on the control variables (age, education, etc.) separately for both groups (federal and private-sector workers). This yields different estimates on the returns to the control variables for each group.
It is then mathematically straightforward to decompose the difference in overall outcomes into a portion that is explained by differences in control variables between sectors and an unexplained portion that stems from the differences in returns to those variables in each sector.
For a detailed mathematical explanation of the Oaxaca decomposition, see Ben Jann, "A Stata Implementation of the Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition," ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers No. 5, May 2008 (forthcoming in The Stata Journal), at http://www.statoek.wiso.uni-goettingen.de/veranstaltungen/statistical%20consulting/jann_oaxaca%202008.pdf (June 25, 2010).
An Oaxaca decomposition (or any other econometric analysis) can only account for differences in observable skills. Economic surveys do not measure all skills. For example, researchers cannot measure self-discipline, ambition, or creativity. If federal employees have more drive and determination than private-sector workers, an Oaxaca decomposition would report this as part of the unexplained difference in wages. In such a case it would appear as though federal employees enjoyed a greater pay premium than they actually do. Interpreting the unexplained portion of the Oaxaca decomposition as a pay premium assumes that federal workers do not have unobserved differences that make them superior to private-sector workers.
This problem is mitigated by the fact that many observed characteristics proxy for otherwise unobserved skills. For example, on average, married men earn higher wages than single men. On the surface it would appear that getting married causes men to become more productive. However, studies controlling for IQ or examining identical twins find married and single men earn roughly the same amount.[32] The average married man earns higher wages primarily because women selectively marry higher-performing men with higher earnings. Including demographic characteristics (such as marital status) proxies for such unmeasured attributes.
Appendix B
Data and Methodology
This paper analyzes data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS uses the CPS to estimate the unemployment rate and other labor market statistics. The sections of the paper examining differences in hourly wages (Tables 2 through 6 and Appendix Tables E.1 and F.1) used data from the monthly CPS from January 2006 through December 2009.
Every March, the CPS also includes supplementary questions about total income and benefits received in the previous calendar year. The sections of the paper examining health and pension benefits used data from the March supplement to the CPS for 2006 through 2009. This data was obtained from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) maintained by Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, Trent Alexander, Donna Leicach, and Matthew Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 2.0 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Minnesota Population Center, 2009), at http://cps.ipums.org (June 29, 2010). IPUMS allows researchers to download selected variables from larger databases and standardizes much of the data across years.
This paper examines full-time workers (35 hours or more per week) between the ages of 25 and 65. The dependent variable in the hourly pay analysis was the log of hourly pay and the independent variables were: age, age squared, and dummy variables for year, sex, marital status, an interaction term for married men, highest level of education completed (high school graduate or less, some college but no degree, associate's degree, bachelor's degree, master's degree, and Ph.D. or a professional degree), race (white, black, Asian, American Indian, and Hispanic), citizenship/nativity, size of metropolitan statistical area, and state of residence. The analysis was restricted to observations in the outgoing rotation groups (months four and eight in the CPS sample).
The author of this CDA report constructed the hourly earnings variable by dividing weekly wage and salary income by the usual number of hours worked per week. He adjusted these hourly wages for inflation using the Chained Consumer Price Index (expressed in 2009 dollars) and trimmed them to remove outlying observations. Observations with reported earnings less than $5 an hour or more than $60 an hour were removed from the analysis. Due to the concerns about earnings imputation biasing results raised by Hirsch and Schumacher, the author dropped observations with imputed weekly earnings from the analysis. See Appendix G for further details on the effect this has on the analysis.[33]
The dependent variables in the analysis using the IPUMS data for the March CPS were employer contributions for health insurance and a dummy variable indicating whether a worker was included in an employer-sponsored pension. The analysis used the same control variables as in the hourly wage analysis, with the exception of metropolitan statistical area size, which was not available in the IPUMS data. Dummy variables for metropolitan status were used in place of city size.
The data was analyzed with an Oaxaca decomposition to reveal the explained and unexplained differences in the dependent variables between federal workers and private-sector workers. Standard linear regression was used for the hourly wage and employer health care contribution analysis while pension differentials were studied with a logit model. Heteroscedasticity robust standard errors were used throughout. The private-sector coefficients were taken for the unbiased coefficients in the Oaxaca decomposition because they are determined by market forces.
The Oaxaca decomposition evaluated differences between workers in the private sector and the federal government. The intent of this CDA report is to examine the differences in earnings between the federal bureaucracy and private-sector workers. The closest approximation of this concept in the CPS is workers who work for the federal government in public administration—the administration, oversight, and management of public programs. This corresponds to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 92.[34] Public administration is a more restrictive concept than the Bureau of Economic Analysis definition of "federal general government, civilian" employees. The analysis of CPS data in the body of this paper uses this public administration definition for federal employees. This does, however, exclude many federal workers. Doctors and nurses in Veterans Affairs hospitals, for instance, do not work in public administration. It also excludes employees of the U.S. Postal Service. Appendices E and F report results using more expansive definitions of federal employees and postal employees.
Appendix C
Table C1 shows the aggregated occupational categories used to control for occupation in Table 4.
Table C2 shows the detailed occupations in the monthly CPS data and the March supplement to the CPS for which there are at least 30 observations in both the private sector and the federal government. These were the occupations deemed common to both sectors used in Tables 5, 6, 8, and 9.
Appendix D
Detailed Oaxaca Decomposition Results
The full regression results were not displayed in the main body of the paper in the interest of conserving space. Table D1 shows the coefficients from the first stage regression of observable characteristics on the natural log of hourly wages for federal employees and private-sector workers. The results are for the model including controls for aggregate occupation displayed in Table 4 in the main text. The coefficient results are expressed in log-points, not as percentages.
Table D2 shows the detailed Oaxaca decomposition of the contribution of observable characteristics toward the explained and unexplained wage gap between federal government and private-sector employees. The contributions have been transformed into percent changes. The coefficient for each characteristic under the "explained difference" shows the percent contribution that differences in that characteristic make toward the overall explained pay gap. The coefficient for characteristics in the "unexplained difference" column show the percent contribution that different returns to that characteristic between the sectors make toward the overall unexplained pay gap.
For example, the coefficient on high school education or less is 1.048 in the explained column. This means that the proportionally smaller numbers of workers with at most a high school degree whom the federal government employs raise the average wages of federal employees by 4.8 percent. The total explained pay gap of 28.5 percent is the product of all the coefficients in the explained column.
In the unexplained column the coefficient on high school educated workers is 1.040. This means that the higher wages that the federal government pays high school graduates raise the average wages of federal employees by 4.0 percent relative to the private sector. This difference in average wages comes from the federal government paying high school graduates more, and cannot be explained by the federal government employing proportionally fewer high school graduates. The total unexplained difference in wages is the product of the coefficients in the unexplained column.
Note that the age variables contribute far more than any other variable to the unexplained federal wage premium. This suggests that the guaranteed job security and advancement up the General Schedule for federal employees contributes significantly to the federal pay premium.
Appendix E
All Federal Employees Except Postal Workers
This paper aims to explore differences in pay between workers in the federal bureaucracy and those in the private sector. The results on hourly wages, employer contributions for health premiums, and pension participation presented in the body of the text cover workers employed by the federal government in the field of public administration. However, not all federal employees work in public administration. The U.S. Postal Service operates as a business that makes either profits or losses and is not considered public administration. Other positions in the federal government, such as doctors and nurses in veterans hospitals, similarly have little to do with public administration and are thus excluded from the estimated pay premium for federal bureaucrats.
Table E1 presents the results of the models used in Tables 3 through 5 on the broader universe of all workers employed by the federal government (except postal employees). Appendix F shows the results for postal employees.
Table E2 shows the results for employer contributions for health care and for pension participation.
Using this broader universe of federal employees shows a somewhat smaller but still substantial hourly pay premium for federal workers. Under both definitions federal employees have similar enhanced health care contributions and odds of receiving an employer pension.
Appendix F
The U.S. Postal Service
Unlike the rest of the federal government, the postal service offers a service that it sells on the market, albeit with a federal monopoly on delivering first class mail. Postal employees also perform very different work than that of civil service employees. Table F1 presents the separate results on hourly wages for postal employees. Table F2 shows the results for health care and pension benefits.
Postal employees earn more than their observable attributes suggest they should. Controlling for various measures of occupation, and looking only at the narrow slice of occupations that exist in both the postal service and private sector, postal employees earn 15 percent to 20 percent more per hour than comparable workers in the private sector. Postal employees receive substantially more employer contributions to their health care plans relative to the private sector (74 percent) than federal employees in public administration (22 percent), and have about the same increased odds of enjoying an employer provided pension.
Appendix G
Imputed Earnings
Some individuals decline to answer questions the government asks in the Current Population Survey. Earnings are a particularly sensitive topic: Roughly 30 percent of those surveyed by the CPS refuse to report how much they earn each week. Rather than dropping these individuals from the survey altogether, the statisticians who produce the CPS keep them in the sample. They deal with the missing questions by "imputing" values to them—assigning to that household earnings of demographically similar households. In many cases using all the observations in the CPS—including those with imputed earnings—provides more accurate results. However, the CPS ignores a number of variables when determining demographically similar households for the purposes of imputing weekly earnings. In particular, it does not account for either labor union status or whether the government or private sector employs that individual. In effect, approximately 30 percent of the earnings observations that are labeled as union members or federal employees in the data actually have the earnings of non-union or private-sector workers.
Averaging the earnings of 70 percent of workers who work for the federal government and earn above-market wages with the 30 percent that do not, naturally lowers the average estimated wage premium. Recent research suggests that this imparts a substantial downward bias in estimates of both union wage premiums and in the public-sector wage premium.[35] To avoid this bias, this report drops observations with imputed weekly earnings. Including observations with allocated weekly earnings would lower the estimated federal wage premium by roughly 30 percent.
Appendix H
Total Compensation Premium
The estimates of federal benefit payments and total compensation come from analysis of data provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), National Income and Product Accounts, Tables 6.2D, 6.3D, and 6.5D. The BEA estimates total wage and salary disbursements, total compensation, and the number of full-time equivalent employees by industry. Non-cash compensation includes employer contributions for health insurance, life insurance, retirement benefits, and social insurance payments (i.e., the employer share of Social Security taxes). It excludes some benefits, such as the value of paid leave and student loan repayments.
The average private-sector wage, benefit, and total compensation estimates come from dividing these aggregate figures for the private sector by the number of full-time equivalent employees in the private sector. Two factors complicate similar estimates for federal employees.
First, the BEA does not distinguish between federal public administration workers and other federal employees. The most detailed BEA federal classification is "general government, civilian employees," which excludes workers in government-sponsored enterprises (i.e., the postal service) but covers all other civilian federal workers. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the compensation of workers in just the federal bureaucracy. It can only be calculated for civilian federal employees outside government enterprises like the postal service; thus BEA figures include workers in both the federal bureaucracy and other federal employees, such as doctors and nurses at veterans hospitals.
Second, the BEA compensation figures include payments to now-retired personnel. The federal government shifted from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) in the 1980s. The CSRS was a pay-as-you-go system with large unfunded-benefit obligations.[36] The federal government makes sizeable payments each year to amortize the cost of promised but unfunded benefits for now-retired personnel, and the BEA includes these payments in its total compensation estimates. Since these payments provide no benefit to current federal employees, including them in the estimates of compensation per worker would be misleading.
The BEA does not report directly the portion of federal compensation that comes from these payments to former personnel. The author estimated these payments using a methodology that BEA staff indicated closely approximated their figures. The author used data on payments to former personnel from the Office of Personnel Management. These figures covered all federal civilian employees, both those in general government and those in government-sponsored enterprises. These total payments were multiplied by the ratio of wage disbursements for general federal employees to disbursements for all federal civilian employees from the BEA National Income and Product Accounting (NIPA) accounts. This yielded the estimated benefits payments going to former employees in the general federal civilian sector. These payments totaled approximately $15 billion in 2008.
The total compensation figures in Table 2 are calculated by subtracting these estimated payments from the NIPA estimates of total compensation for general federal civilian workers. The remaining compensation was then divided by the number of full-time equivalent workers in that sector. These figures were adjusted for inflation using the Chained Consumer Price Index and averaged across 2006, 2007, and 2008. The figures show compensation for the average federal employee 85 percent above that of the average private-sector worker.
The author then estimated the share of this federal compensation premium explained by observable characteristics and the portion remaining unexplained by factors other than working for the federal government. He did so by assuming that total compensation follows the same proportionate decomposition into explained and unexplained premiums that cash earnings do. This is a strong assumption that is almost certainly not true—however, as Tables 8, 9, and E.2 demonstrate, observable characteristics account for a smaller portion of the federal advantage in benefits than they do cash earnings. As a result, this assumption will understate the actual federal advantage and provides a lower-bound estimate on the average federal premium.
Because the most detailed BEA classification is "civilian employees in the general federal government," this is the most detailed level for which it is possible to estimate the total compensation premium. It is not possible to examine only the workers in the federal bureaucracy (public administration). The estimates reported in Table 10 were consequently calculated using the decompositions for federal employees using the models reported in Appendix E, Table E.1. Federal employees in the annual income regressions were again defined as all civilian federal workers outside the postal service and not the narrower category of workers in public administration.
Applying the explained/unexplained decomposition proceeded as follows: The overall federal compensation premium is 84.8 percent, or 0.614 log points. The ratio of the unexplained to the total federal premium (in log points) from the Oaxaca decompositions was applied to this figure to yield the total unexplained compensation difference. To illustrate these calculations consider the estimate in Table E.1 using broad occupational controls. The total difference in wages between federal employees and private-sector workers from this model is 0.3866 log points.[37] Of that difference, 0.2171 log points were explained by observable characteristics and 0.1695 remained unexplained. So, observable characteristics do not explain 43.8 percent of the log-point difference in hourly pay. Multiplying the overall compensation premium of 0.614 log points by 43.8 percent yields an unexplained compensation premium of 0.2691 log points—30.9 percent.
To calculate the taxpayer savings from reducing federal pay to market rates, the author used the lowest estimate from Table 10 of a 30.9 percent federal compensation premium. He estimated federal compensation costs for FY 2011 if civilian federal compensation was reduced by this amount.[38] The author then added to this adjusted compensation figure the cost of amortized promised future benefits for employees currently in the Civil Service Retirement System—$10.5 billion in FY 2011. The government is contractually obligated to pay these benefits, so they should not be considered potential savings. This calculation yielded adjusted federal compensation costs of $197 billion in FY 2011, representing taxpayer savings of $47 billion.
These figures include the cost of compensation for employees in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and excludes the postal service. The author used budget figures from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the payroll costs of the federal workforce because the BEA data ends in 2008. Note: The OMB accounts for federal compensation slightly differently than does the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For details on differences between the NIPA accounting and budgetary accounting, see Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Chapter 28, National Income and Product Accounts, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/spec.pdf (June 25, 2010).
Because of the uncertainty in estimating the overall federal compensation premium and because of the differences between OMB accounting and the NIPA figures used to calculate overcompensation, the estimated taxpayer savings should not be treated as a precise estimate. It is unlikely that the taxpayers would save exactly $47 billion if Congress reduced federal pay to market rates. The taxpayer savings could easily range from $40 billion to $60 billion. The $47 billion figure shows the approximate magnitude of the savings to taxpayers and does not represent a precise accounting measure.
Appendix I
2010 General Schedule for Workers in the "Rest of the United States"
Show references in this report
[1]Dennis Cauchon, "For Feds, More Get 6-Figure Salaries," USA Today, December 11, 2009, at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm (June 23, 2010).
[2]George Borjas, Labor Economics, 3rd edition, Chapters 4 and 5 (Columbus, Ohio: McGraw–Hill, 2005).
[3]For example, the unionized Detroit automakers paid above market wages but steadily lost auto share to non-union competitors charging lower prices, such as Toyota and Honda.
[4]Robert Gibbons, Lawrence F. Katz, Thomas Lemieux, and Daniel Parent, "Comparative Advantage, Learning, and Sectoral Wage Determination," Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 23, No. 4 (October 2005), pp. 682–724.
[5]Note that Senior Executive Service employees—the highest level of civil service management—are not covered by the General Schedule and receive a minimum of 120 percent of the base pay for a GS-15 employee.
[6]U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "General Schedule Within-Grade Increases," at http://www.opm.gov/oca/pay/HTML/ wgifact.asp (June 23, 2010). A federal employee who begins at step 1 of his grade will attain seniority promotions to step 10 of that grade after a maximum of 18 years.
[7]This is a real example for a job opening posted on the Department of Labor job openings site, DOL Online Opportunities Recruitment System (Doors), job announcement number DE-10-HRC-ASP-101, at http://www.doors.dol.gov (April 30, 2010).
[8]Dimitri Demekas and Zenon Kontolemis, "Government Employment and Wages and Labor Market Performance," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 62, No. 3 (2000), pp. 391–415, and Jim Malley and Thomas Moutos, "Does Government Employment 'Crowd-Out' Private Employment? Evidence from Sweden," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 98, No. 2 (June 1996) pp. 289–302.
[9]The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor conducts the Current Population Survey.
[10]Note that the unexplained wage difference is in addition to the explained difference in wages. A worker in the federal government earns 19.6 percent more per hour than the average private-sector worker because of his greater skills and earns an additional 31.0 more in addition to that because of the higher pay in government. The total federal premium is thus 131 percent x 119.6 percent = 157 percent of the hourly wages of the average private-sector worker.
[11]Appendix Table C1 lists the 22 occupational categories in the CPS.
[12]The occupations included in this analysis are those for which there are at least 30 valid observations in both the federal government and private sector in the CPS data. Appendix Table C.2 lists the occupations that meet these criteria.
[13]Note again that the total wage premium is cumulative, not additive: 119.9 percent x 118.6 percent = 142.2 percent.
[14]Data on benefits from Federal Employees Almanac, Federal Employees News Digest, Inc., 2009.
[15]This applies to all federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984. Federal employees hired before that date are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System.
[16]Federal employees with five to 20 years of service may retire with full benefits at the age of 62. Federal employees with at least 20 years of service may retire at the age of 60.
[17]Federal employees with 20 or more years of service who retire at the age of 62 or older receive 1 percent of their average salary in their three highest earning years multiplied by the number of years they have served, plus an additional 0.1 percent of their salary times the number of years served, up to a maximum of 20 years.
[18]The reduced-benefits formula is a 5 percent reduction in pension payments multiplied by the number of years the employee retires before age 62.
[19]Shawn Fegley, "2006 Benefits: Survey Report," Society of Human Resource Management, June 2006, Table G-1c.
[20]Heritage Foundation calculations of non-cash compensation (excluding benefit payments to former personnel) per full-time-equivalent employee using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, and the Office of Personnel Management. Federal employee is here defined as a general federal civilian employee, a broader classification than public administration. See Appendix H for details.
[21]Employees without employer-provided health benefits do not necessarily lack health insurance. They may receive health coverage through a spouse, for example.
[22]The formula for converting odds into probabilities is: probability = odds / (1 + odds).
[23]This figure excludes the value of paid leave benefits and student loan repayments. See Appendix H for details.
[24]Brooks Pierce, "Compensation Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, No. 4 (November 2001), pp. 1493–1525.
[25]Heritage Foundation calculations using data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics / Haver Analytics. Federal employment excludes postal employees and temporary hires for the 2010 Census.
[26]Heritage Foundation calculations using data from the 2006–2009 Current Population Survey. Federal employees are those employed by the federal government in public administration (which excludes postal workers, for instance).
[27]Heritage Foundation calculations. 2006–2009 CPS data show that 34.5 percent of unemployed adult federal workers are between the ages of 55 and 65, while only 14.1 percent of unemployed adult private-sector workers fall into that age range.
[28]Many of the federal workers who leave their jobs do so to take another job with the federal government.
[29]Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Table 10-3 ("Personnel Compensation and Benefits"), at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/spec.pdf(June 24, 2010). Excludes uniformed military personnel and postal employees.
[30]See Appendix H for details of this calculation.
[31]Dale Belman and John Heywood, "Public Sector Wage Comparability: The Role of Earnings Dispersion," Public Finance Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (2004), pp. 567–587.
[32]Harry A. Krashinsky, "Do Marital Status and Computer Usage Really Change the Wage Structure?" Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 39, No. 3 (2004).
[33]Barry T. Hirsch and Edward J. Schumacher, "Match Bias in Wage Gap Estimates Due to Earnings Imputation," Journal of Labor Economics,Vol. 22, No. 3 (July 2004), pp. 689–722, at http://www2.gsu.edu/~ecobth/JOLE_Match%20Bias%20220307.pdf (June 25, 2010).
[34]For more details, see the Census Bureau definition of public administration, "92 Public Administration," U.S. Census Bureau, at http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/NDEF92.HTM#N92 (June 29, 2010).
[35]Hirsch and Schumacher, "Match Bias in Wage Gap Estimates Due to Earnings Imputation."
[36]FERS invests funds to cover the cost of future benefit payments. However, FERS funds are invested solely in federal Treasury Bonds. Consequently, FERS is effectively funded as a pay-as-you-go system as well.
[37]The formula for converting log point estimates β into percentages is eβ – 1. Also note that e0.3866 – 1 = 47.2 percent, as reported in Table E1.
[38]$244 billion in total compensation / 1.309 percent federal premium = $186.5 billion in federal compensation, $57.5 billion below the actual FY 2011 costs.


text:
Efficacy and Safety of Memantine for Parkinson's Disease Dementia (PDD) and Dementia With Lewy Bodies (DLB) (MEMPDD)
This study has been completed.
Helse Stavanger HF
King's College London
Lund University
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Helse Stavanger HF
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First received: February 27, 2008
Last updated: July 27, 2015
Last verified: February 2009
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
A 24-week placebo-controlled parallel group multicentre trial to study the safety and efficacy of memantine in patients with dementia associated with Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. It is hypothesized that memantine will be safe and well tolerated, and more effective than placebo.
Dementia Associated With Parkinson's Disease
Dementia With Lewy Bodies
Drug: Memantine
Drug: Placebo
Phase 2
|Study Type:
|Study Design:
|Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:
|A Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicentre Trial of Memantine in Patients With Parkinson's Disease Dementia or Dementia With Lewy Bodies
Resource links provided by NLM:
Genetics Home Reference related topics: Parkinson disease
MedlinePlus related topics: Dementia Lewy Body Disease Parkinson's Disease
Drug Information available for: Memantine Memantine hydrochlorideU.S. FDA Resources
Further study details as provided by Helse Stavanger HF:
Primary Outcome Measures:
- Clinical Global Impression of Change [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 after baseline ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Secondary Outcome Measures:
- MMSE [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Alzheimer's QUick Test [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Cognitive Drug Research test [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Neuropsychiatric Inventory [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, part III [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Epworth Sleep Scale [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Stavanger Sleep Scale [ Time Frame: Month 3 and 6 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
|Study Start Date:
|February 2006
|Study Completion Date:
|March 2009
|Primary Completion Date:
|February 2009 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
|Assigned Interventions
Active Comparator: Memantine
Active treatment with memantine
Drug: Memantine
Tablets, 5 or 10 mg, twice daily
Placebo Comparator: Placebo
Placebo matching active study drug
Drug: Placebo
Tablets corresponding to 5 or 10 mg, twice daily, 6 months
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|Child, Adult, Senior
|Genders Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Inclusion Criteria:
- a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (Larsen and Dupont, 1994) and dementia (DSM IV(1987; 1994), or Dementia with Lewy bodies (McKeith et al. Neurology 2005)
- mild-to-moderate or moderate dementia (i.e. MMSE 12-26, inclusive)
- the subject has given a written informed consent
- the subject is able and willing to comply with the study procedures and has a reliable caregiver (i.e. relative or nurse/nurse assistant who sees the patient at least weekly)
Exclusion Criteria:
- other brain disease of sufficient severity to cause dementia
- mental retardation
- terminal illness with life expectancy shorter than 6 months
- recent major changes in health status
- known epilepsy or previous convulsive seizure
- major depression
- severe dementia as defined by a Mini-mental State Examination score of 12 or lower
- moderate to severe renal impairment (i.e. serum creatinine > 1,5 upper limit normal (ULN) or creatinin clearance < 40ml/minute/1,73 m2
- moderate or severe heart disease (NYHA III-IV)
- moderate or severe pulmonal disease
- moderate to severe hepatic impairment (bilirubin or transaminases > 2 times ULN
- women of childbearing potential (i.e. not post-menopausal and not taking contraceptive
- the subjects is lactating
- any laboratory value(s) exceeding the limits of normality if deemed to be clinically relevant by the study physician
- known allergies to the investigational product
Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00630500
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00630500
|Stavanger University Hospital, Old Age Psychiatry Clinic
|Stavanger, Norway, 4005
|Clinical Memory Research Unit, Neuropsychiatric Clinic, University Hospital Malmo
|Malmo, Sweden, 20502
|United Kingdom
|Mental Health Unit
|Epping, Essex, United Kingdom, CM16 6TN
|King's COllege London
|London, United Kingdom, SE1 1UL
Sponsors and Collaborators
Helse Stavanger HF
King's College London
Lund University
|Principal Investigator:
|Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD
|Helse Stavanger HF
More Information
Keywords provided by Helse Stavanger HF:
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on January 17, 2017
|Responsible Party:
|Helse Stavanger HF
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|NCT00630500 History of Changes
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|Study First Received:
|February 27, 2008
|Last Updated:
|July 27, 2015
|Health Authority:
|Norway: Norwegian Medicines Agency
Keywords provided by Helse Stavanger HF:
Dementia associated with Parkinson's disease
Dementia with Lewy bodies
Parallel group
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Parkinson Disease
Alzheimer Disease
Lewy Body Disease
Parkinsonian Disorders
Basal Ganglia Diseases
Brain Diseases
Central Nervous System Diseases
Nervous System Diseases
Movement Disorders
Neurodegenerative Diseases
Neurocognitive Disorders
Mental Disorders
Antiparkinson Agents
Anti-Dyskinesia Agents
Dopamine Agents
Neurotransmitter Agents
Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
Physiological Effects of Drugs
Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists
Excitatory Amino Acid Agents
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on January 17, 2017

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Drive linkFebruary 15, 2010 by Tim McAdams
Connecting the rotating swash plate to the rotor shaft is an assembly known as the drive link. Because the swash plate needs to move up and down and pivot, the drive link has a joint that acts like a scissor – as such it is sometimes referred to as a scissors link. I have had several students ask me why it is needed.
The swash plate has a rotating and non-rotating side. The non-rotating side is on the bottom and is connected to the flight controls. The rotating side is on the top and is connected via pitch links to each rotor blade. The collective control moves the entire swash plate assembly up and down to change the pitch on each blade equally. The cyclic control tilts the swash plate, changing each blade's pitch independently depending on its position around the rotor disk. This tilts the rotor disk in the desired direction.
Since the rotor mast runs from the transmission up through a sleeve that the swash plate moves around, there needs to be a method of turning the rotating part of the swash plate. This is the function of the drive link as it connects the mast directly to the swash plate. It is critical that this part be functioning correctly.
During preflight it should be examined closely as the failure of the drive link has caused several accidents. On the Bell 222 an improperly sized bolt that attached the drive link to the swash plate allowed play which caused the bolt to fail. As you can imagine without the drive link the blades will continue turning the swash plate through the pitch links. This stresses the pitch links in a manner they were not designed to handle and can result in a pitch link failure. In this case with the Bell 222 it caused an in-flight break up.
In 1988 the pilot of a Bell 47 spraying a field reported an extreme vibration followed by a loss of control and hard landing. Then in 1992 a CFI and student flying another Bell 47 also felt a sudden and severe vibration and managed to successfully autorotoate to a field. In both cases the center bolt connecting the drive link was missing and disconnected drive to the swash plate.
Tags: Tim McAdams


text:
It's Eclectic | Chad Renfro
Who says you always have to match? It's far more interesting to get creative. Chad Renfro of Chad Renfro Design in Palm Beach says eclecticism is one of the hottest design trends and can be obtained in a number of ways. "There is no rule regarding eclecticism, and that's what makes it so much fun," he says.
Combining vintage and modern pieces is one way to be eclectic. Refurbishing antique chairs or sofas with a modern fabric instantly adds an element of surprise. You can also mix colors, patterns, decades and textures—but proceed with caution. If in doubt about the compatibility of certain styles, rely on the trained eye of a professional.
Below, these eclectic pieces and dressed-up rooms bring an exuberance to any space, matched with a few words of advice to keep things chaotically controlled.
|This living room by HomeLife Interiors combines modern accents and bold art with casual pieces. Photo by Big Blue Photography.
Don't be afraid to mix and match.
If you don't think two things go together, try it anyway. "It's sometimes through these combinations or trials that you come up with the best look."
|Arie chair, The Divine Chair ($1,708, thedivinechair.com).
|Ronda table lamp (far left), Currey & Co. ($990, 561-833-0880).
Old meets new.
Have a great antique sofa or loveseat that looks a little worse for wear? Get crafty and refinish it with a patterned fabric or paint it a bold color.
|Harper sofa, Pal + Smith (price on request, 888-725-7684).
| Estambul print rug, VIU Home ($1,152, viuhome.com).
Make a statement.
Picking one quirky piece and incorporating it into a simply designed room will immediately imbue your space with eclecticism.
|Lily dressing table, Angela Adams ($7,775, angelaadams.com).
|Bark kuba (left) and Flame lattice fabrics, Serena & Lily ($50 per yard, serenaandlily.com).
|This bedroom, by Adelene Keeler Smith, combines a patterned wallpaper and various textures in compatible earth tones.


text:
Stephane Matteau discusses Rangers playoffs so far
Next video starts in : 7 Play
Stephane Matteau discusses Rangers playoffs so far
Hamm's 'moving' Sundance reunion
5:58Now watching Up next
Stephane Matteau discusses Rangers playoffs so far
Former Ranger Stephane Matteau sits down with Laura Behnke in the Sports Spotlight.
1:09Now watching Up next
Hamm's 'moving' Sundance reunion
At the premiere of "Marjorie Prime," actor Jon Hamm talks about reuniting with Sam Elliott at Sundance after 15 years, recalling their time working on "We Were Soldiers." (Jan. 24)
1:30Now watching Up next
Hamill spills the beans about ambiguous 'Force Awakens' ending
Mark Hamill jokes about what Luke Skywalker should have told Rey at end of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." (Jan. 24)
1:10Now watching Up next
Lithgow on Trump: 'It's the worst beginning of a presidency there ever was'
At the Sundance premiere of their film, "Beatriz at Dinner," stars John Lithgow, Salma Hayek, and Connie Britton discuss their hopes for the new president. (Jan. 24)
0:56Now watching Up next
Jovovich: 'I wish the government was more open to everybody's opinion'
At the Los Angeles premiere of her latest action film, "Resident Evil: The Final Chapter," actress Milla Jovovich discusses her hopes for the new government of the United States. (Jan. 24)
1:07Now watching Up next
UK High Court: No Brexit Without Parliament Vote
Britain's Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that The United Kingdom cannot leave the European Union without a vote in Parliament. Prime Minister Theresa May's office says it will respect the decision. (Jan. 24)
2:54Now watching Up next
The Bachelor Week 4 Recap: Nick Goes Home
Nick Viall woos the women in his hometown, running into an ex-girlfriend!
0:54Now watching Up next
Sprint Acquires One-Third of Tidal
The deal will help Tidal compete with bigger music streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music.
1:16Now watching Up next
Raw: NASA Video Shows Pluto Approach
NASA released video of the view from the New Horizons spacecraft as it approached Pluto. The video is made up of more than 100 high resolution images, taken over six months as the spacecraft approached the dwarf planet, flying by in July, 2015. (Jan. 24)
6:35Now watching Up next
DACA Recipients Stand in Solidarity at Women's March
Many young immigrants were protected from deportation by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.


text:
Why Palo Alto Is Oversold
Despite recent declines the stock is still priced at a premium relative to rivals such as Check Point Software (CHKP) and Fortinet (FTNT) . On the other hand, a 30% drop in two months makes the shares very appealing at $49. But did the company do enough in its Q1 earnings report to convince investors that current valuation is anything but a trap?
It's hard to downplay a quarter during which revenue soared 50% year-over-year to $85.9 million and grew sequentially by 14%. Palo Alto also grew its customer base by 1,000 to more than 10,000 -- a pretty remarkable accomplishment for such a young company.
It seems that early investors have gotten satisfied with their gains which soared as high as 30% since its first day of trading. Investors are ready to move on. While I can also appreciate some possible tax selling, still, it's hard to dump shares of a company that is growing at a 50% annual rate.
Equally impressive, Palo Alto saw a 30% year-over-year jump in product revenue, which also grew 12% sequentially. Likewise services revenue soared 113%. These figures indicate that the company is stealing market share from the competition, which doesn't explain why the stock has been sliding.
Then again, profitability might have been a legitimate concern. Non-GAAP net income of $2.9 million during the quarter was considerably lower than the $5.6 million the company earned a year ago. From that standpoint, Palo Alto met its targets. But for a stock that trades at such a premium it's nonetheless disturbing that net income is trending downward.
It did not help investors' confidence that gross margins shed 217 basis points year-over-year, although the company did manage to improve gross margins sequentially by 70 basis points. Relative to expectations it was a good quarter, and management thinks the next quarter might be better.
Palo Alto expects Q2 earnings (excluding items) of 4 cents per share on revenue in the range of $94 million. Not only would this represent a 66% jump, but it also exceeds estimates of $90.8 million. Essentially, the company is doing what it has to do to grow and showing the confidence that it has in its business.
Impressively, after (only) two full quarters as a public issue, Palo Alto is still proving that it can deliver the goods. Investors continue to struggle with the investment case. Considering that the company has no debt while sitting on $324 million in cash, it's hard to imagine a better risk/reward situation.


text:
South Florida's largest music festival has been kicking around for 31 years now, transforming the otherwise tranquil Flagler Drive into the most rollicking parities every spring. And time in, time out, one of the most impressive things about the festival is its dedication to bringing in a stellar musical lineup year after year. With three stages spread out across the downtown waterfront, there is definitely a band or two for whatever your musical inkling may be.
The festival gates open May 1-5. Here's a look at this year's must-see acts. (And don't forget closing night's fireworks display, one of the best shows each year).
The Smashing Pumpkins—A staple of the grunge era, The Smashing Pumpkins' albums Siamese Dream or Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness were some serious tunes back in the day. Now a little long in the tooth, the band is getting back together and kick-starting the SunFest party May 1 from 8:30-10 p.m. on the Ford Stage.
The Offspring—For those filled with angst in the '90s, The Offspring was there to put those emotions to lyrics layered with a quick three- and four-chord punk riff. The band has come a long way since its humble California garage band beginnings, with eight albums under the belt and an international following. The group puts on one heck of a show—definitely worth the price of admission—and will be capping Friday's festivities on the Ford Stage from 9:45-11 p.m.
Train—This multi-platinum, Grammy Award-winning band became a household name with the song "Drops from Jupiter (Tell Me)" in 2001. Since then, Train has gone on to release three additional albums, the latest of which, Save Me San Francisco, has brought the band full circle, tapping into that soulful rock sound that made fans believers. Train will take the Ford Stage on May 2 at 8:45 p.m.
Jimmy Cliff—A reggae legend, Jimmy Cliff has too many accolades to name. Some of his biggest hits are "Many Rivers to Cross," "You Can Get It If You Really Want" and "The Harder They Come." Jimmy Cliff will grace the Tire Kingdom Stage on May 5 at 3 p.m., and you'll want to be there.
Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake—Remember when ska swept the nation in the late '90s? They were simpler times, and SunFest goers have a chance to reminisce about those trumpet and trombone-backed trackswith two of the more prominent names from that era, Less Than Jake (a Florida band through and through) and Reel Big Fish. These two upbeat bands will play back-to-back starting at 3 p.m. on the FPL Stage on May 5.
- Ticket prices have hit full price: $37 for one day, $54 for a two-day pass and $69 for the five-day pass. To purchase, visit sunfest.com.
SunFest 2013 schedule:
Wednesday, May 1
Ford Stage:
- 5:15 p.m. Shatterglass
- 7 p.m. AAN
- 8:30 p.m. The Smashing Pumpkins
Tire Kingdom Stage:
- 6 p.m. Roadkill Ghost Choir
- 7:30 p.m. Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros
Thursday, May 2
Ford Stage:
- 5:30 p.m. Raggy Monster
- 7 p.m. The Curve
- 8:45 p.m. Train
Tire Kingdom Stage:
- 5:15 p.m. The Crazy Carls
- 6:45 p.m. Breeze Davinco
- 8:15 p.m. Big Sean
Friday, May 3
Ford Stage:
- 6:30 p.m. Dharmata
- 8 p.m. Yellowcard
- 9:45 p.m. The Offspring
Tire Kingdom Stage
- 5:15 p.m. Community Property
- 7 p.m. Gary Clark, Jr.
- 8:30 p.m. The Black Crowes
FPL Stage:
- 6 p.m. SJ
- 7:30 p.m. Chris McCarty and The Underground Movement
- 9 p.m. Ed Sheeran
Saturday, May 4
Ford Stage:
- 12:30 p.m. The Duppies
- 2 p.m. Tribal Seeds
- 3:45 p.m. Slightly Stoopid
- 6 p.m. Life in Color featuring Morgan Page and David Solano
Tire Kingdom Stage
- 1:45 p.m. Molly Hatchet
- 3:45 p.m. Dickey Betts and Great Southern
- 5:45 p.m. Shootout Winner
- 7:30 p.m. Jonnie Morgan Band
- 9 p.m. Cheap Trick
FPL Stage:
- 1 p.m. The Chevin
- 3 p.m. The Airborne Toxic Event
- 5 p.m. Stiletto Red
- 6:30 p.m. Rich Caccaro
- 8 p.m. The Lone Bellow
- 9:30 p.m. Phillip Phillips
Sunday, May 5
Ford Stage:
- 1 p.m. Making Faces
- 2:30 p.m. Barenaked Ladies
- 4:30 p.m. Shifta
- 6 p.m. Mac Miller
- 7:45 p.m. Kendrick Lamar
Tire Kingdom Stage
- 12 p.m. Future Prezidents
- 1:30 p.m. Jahguar
- 3 p.m. Jimmy Cliff
- 5:30 p.m. Kaleigh Baker and the Nem
- 7 p.m. Boz Scaggs
FPL Stage:
- 1 p.m. UNRB
- 3 p.m. Less Than Jake
- 4:30 p.m. Reel Big Fish
- 6 p.m. Set the Score
- 7:30 p.m. Gavin DeGraw


text:
One image by police photographer angry about 'Rolling Stone' cover shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev emerging bloodied from boat in back yard.
Angered by the Rolling Stone cover photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a Massachusetts State Police photographer has released previously unpublished images of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, including one of the teenager emerging bloodied from a boat where he had hidden.
The photos, by Sgt. Sean Murphy, appeared Thursday in Boston Magazine. The magazine writes that Murphy, a tactical photographer and liaison to families of slain officers, released the 13 photos because he was angered by what he perceives as Rolling Stone's glamorized treatment of Tsarnaev.
One officer was killed and another wounded before Tsarnaev was captured April 19, hours after his brother died during a shootout with police in Watertown, Mass.
STORY: 'Rolling Stone' defends Tsarnaev glam cover amid outcry
Murphy called the Rolling Stone cover "an insult to any person who has every worn a uniform of any color or any police organization or military branch, and the family members who have ever lost a loved one serving in the line of duty.
"The truth is that glamorizing the face of terror is not just insulting to the family members of those killed in the line of duty, it also could be an incentive to those who may be unstable to do something" to get on the magazine's cover, he wrote.
"This is the real Boston bomber," he said of his photos of Tsarnaev's capture. "Not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover."
Rolling Stone has defended its coverage, saying it was within its tradition of "serious and thoughtful coverage" of important cultural and political issues." Rolling Stone editors said that their hearts go out to the victims of the April 15 bombings but that the cover story was an attempt to grapple with an important issue.
Murphy said he was speaking only for himself, not the state police. State police spokesman David Procopio said the agency did not authorize the release of the photos and will not release them to other media.
Boston Magazine editor John Wolfson later said on the magazine's website that Murphy was "relieved of duty" and has a hearing next week.
One of the images, taken with a telephoto lens, shows Tsarnaev climbing out of the boat with blood covering the left side of his head. His right arm is across his chest.
Boston Magazine says it would publish a "more complete collection" in its September issue.
Contributing: The Associated Press


text:
5 simple maintenance tasks you can tackle in your home garage
For many people, car maintenance is an impossible chore. These people have no hesitation in paying a mechanic to do all the work on their vehicle. Mechanics are rarely cheap, however, and it may surprise you to discover how much money you could save with a bit of DIY car maintenance. Everybody has to start somewhere, so here are five simple maintenance tasks you can tackle at home.
Check tire pressure. Your car runs most efficiently when the tires are inflated to the correct pressure. This ensures that the car handles effectively, which can impact your fuel efficiency. You will also save money by reducing wear on your tires, and your car will be safer to drive, too. With a basic tire pressure gauge and air pump, you can quickly and easily check and maintain the right pressure level.
Change your own engine oil. An engine oil change may seem like a daunting prospect, but with a few simple instructions, you can easily carry out this chore yourself. Your service department or mechanic may charge you quite a lot of money for this simple task. You will find plenty of instruction guides and videos online, which will show you what to do step-by-step.
Replace bulbs and fuses. To change a bulb or fuse in one of your headlights or taillights, you will really only need the replacement bulb or fuse and a screwdriver. Consult your owners manual for more detailed advice on what to do, but it should not be a very tricky task. This is the sort of thing that many drivers will put off, but good visibility at night is critical for you and other drivers, so keep on top of these things.
Change the car battery. Some drivers balk at the suggestion of fixing anything under the hood, but a car battery really is quite simple to change. All you have to do is remove the negative terminal, and then the positive one. Undo any ties and then pull the battery out. Install the new battery with the reverse steps, and you are finished. Remember to dispose of the old battery responsibly, and you will have saved yourself a lot of cash.
Fix a tire puncture. You should never assume that as soon as you have a tire puncture you must buy a new tire. As long as there is no damage to the tires sidewall, then you can quite easily fix the tire yourself. Look for a DIY puncture kit from your local auto parts store, and within no time, you should have plugged the hole. You will also have saved a lot of money.
Car repairs can be complex and expensive, but you dont need to get your mechanic to do everything. Learning some simple tasks could save you a lot of money.Brought to you by: American Profile


text:
October 13th, 2011
The Look Ahead: Architecture at UH, Spazmatics in Clear Lake, and Tribeca on Friday and Saturday
Hello, friends. How's your Thursday thus far? Ours is good. Between reacquainting ourselves with AC/DC this morning, thanks to the NEWScoop and the fact that this day's flyin' by—could we ask for me? No. Just crank the volume. Suck it up. Hit the items on today's list in the mouth, one by one.


text:
Legacy DataPassword Check
Due to copyright issues of accessing raw data as well as the need to protect site localities of species under threat, you will need to enter a password to access raw data.
You may obtain the password by contacting Ken Walker (email@example.com) at Museum Victoria and explaining your need to access the Legacy Data.
Please click here for the password check:


text:
|Full Report
Low Res - High Res
Also in this chapter:
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Global Aggregate Emissions Resulting From The Pledges
3.3 Analysis Of Differences Between The Estimates
Lead authors: Niklas Höhne, Chris Taylor
Contributing authors: Claudine Chen; Rob Dellink; Michel den Elzen; Jørgen Fenhann; Claudio Gesteira; Kelly Levin; Emanuele Massetti; Caspar Olausson; Murray Ward; Zhao Xiusheng
Nearly 140 countries have associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord and over 80 countries, representing about 80 per cent of global emissions, have appended targets (Annex I countries) and/or mitigation actions (non-Annex I countries). The aim of this chapter is to assess the published analyses and to explore what these targets and actions (collectively referred to as "pledges")36 are likely to lead to in terms of 2020 emissions37. Three appendices to this Chapter are available online. Appendix 1 provides detail on the differences between the four cases and the uncertainties around them. Appendix 2 provides a country-by-country analysis of the pledges of the largest emitting countries. Appendix 3 compares the modelling groups' findings and details the adjustments made to their data to ensure consistent comparisons. Chapter 4 then goes on to combine these results with those of the previous chapter on emission pathways in order to assess the extent to which these pledges are consistent with a 2° C or 1.5° C pathway.
Estimating 2020 emissions, based on countries' pledges or submissions to the Copenhagen Accord, is not a simple task. This Chapter explains in detail that it involves inter alia: information on the historical, current and future growth of countries' emissions; interpretations in the cases in which countries have submitted a range of pledges; assumptions on the precise meaning of those pledges where countries have not been specific; and uncertainties in the underlying data used by modelling groups.
Therefore, we separate the emission estimates that are driven by distinct policy choices, either nationally or in the negotiations, from what is driven by different modelling assumptions. We first present the results of this analysis and then move on to explore the modelling uncertainties around them.


text:
Awards & Grants
Through our numerous awards, grants, and fellowship programs, the Association recognizes and supports a wide variety of notable historical work. We offer annual prizes honoring exceptional books, distinguished teaching and mentoring in the classroom, public history, and other historical projects. Over the years, our grants and fellowships have supported the research of hundreds of historians on a range of topics and fields. The work produced by winners of AHA awards, grants, and fellowships is among the best of the historical profession.
Upcoming Deadlines
Each year, the American Historical Association awards several research grants and fellowships with the aim of advancing the study and exploration of history in a diverse number of subject areas.
- February 15 - AHA Research Grants
- April 1 - Awards for Scholarly Distinction, Roosevelt-Wilson Award, Jameson Fellowship, Fellowship in Aerospace History
- May 15 - Book Prizes, Raymond J. Cunningham Prize, Equity Awards, Herbert Feis Award, Nancy Lyman Roelker Mentorship Award, Roy Rosenzweig Prize for Innovation in Digital History, Eugene Asher Award for postsecondary teaching, Beveridge Family Prize for K-12 teaching, William and Edwyna Gilbert Award, Troyer Steele Anderson Prize
Jerry Bentley Book Prize in World History
Thanks to the generous contributions of nearly 300 donors, the American Historical Association is pleased to announce the establishment of the Jerry Bentley Book Prize in World History, which honors Professor Bentley's tireless efforts to promote the field of world history and his signal contributions to it. The prize will be awarded to the best book in each calendar year in the field of world history. Any book published in English dealing with global or world-scale history, with connections or comparisons across continents, in any period will be eligible. The inaugural prize will be awarded at the AHA's annual meeting in New York in January 2015.
2016 NASA Fellowship
Greg Eghigian, After the Flying Saucers Arrived: A History of the Rise and Fall of the UFO and Alien Contact Phenomenon
This work will represent the first English-language monograph on extraterrestrial contact by an academic historian since 1975. It will also be the first to contextualize the topic as a global phenomenon. Eghigian argues that Cold War–era reports of UFO and alien contact channeled more complex cultural concerns and developments than previously believed, raising new questions about the human relationship with science and technology.


text:
School of Social Work
Mission of the Social Work Major
The mission of the Nyack College Baccalaureate Social Work Program at Nyack College is to prepare students in a Christian context to be generalist social work professionals who provide service with competence, compassion, and the highest ethical integrity.
Equipping students with the knowledge, values, and skills of the social work profession, the Nyack BSW program aims to raise social workers who can enhance the well-being of all people and communities, and promote a just and caring environment in a complex and interrelated global society.
- To prepare students to be generalist social work professionals who are guided by a person-in-environment framework, respect for human diversity, scientific inquiry, and a global perspective.
- To provide a transformational learning environment that facilitates a love for learning and prepares students for graduate education, especially in social work.
- To provide a learning environment that models an integration of Christian faith with learning, and prepares students to serve with compassion and the highest ethical integrity.
Graduates of Nyack College's Social Work Major will:
1. Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly.
2. Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice.
3. Apply critical thinking to inform & communicate professional judgments.
4. Engage diversity and difference in practice.
5. Advance human rights and social and economic justice.
6. Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
7. Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.
8. Engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver
effective social work services.
9. Respond to contexts that shape practice.
10. Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations, and communities.
11. Integrate their personal Christian faith with professional social work practice.
Please see the full description of Competencies and Practice Behaviors (PDF).


text:
Here's how RW members rated this race in the past (3 votes).
In short: I love this RaceIn full: OK the weather was horrible this year but it is in December so what do you expect the PB potential is great and the closed roads are a big bonus. the t-shirt needs improving cotton T-shirts aren't running t-shirts. the only other thing I would improve is some kind of baggage storage Date of review: January 10, 2013
Date of review: January 3, 2013
In short: fast course with high pb potentialIn full: This is a big race in every sense. High quality field and large numbers with a big race feel. The course is gently undulating with the second 5k mainly slightly downhill, but with the roads closed and good surfaces to run on it's definitely one to target for a pub. Despite the icy wind I knocked almost a minute off my pb and many others from our club got pbs or season bests.Chip timing is always welcome in a field of over 1000, but why do we still get useless cotton tees at events of this stature? Tech tees cost about a pound more to buy in bulk, stick the price up a quid and give a decent t that people will use, thereby giving more exposure to the sponsors. Win/win.Date of review: December 31, 2012
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Click here
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
Injury Clinics
About Runner's World


text:
Ron Guth: The U.S. Mint at Philadelphia produced no Shield Nickels for circulation in 1877 and 1878. In 1879, production resumed, but only in limited amounts (this was true of every denomination except for the Cent and the Morgan Dollar). In fact, the 1879 Shield Nickel has the second lowest mintage in it series, second only to the 1880. As a result, there is a lot of collector demand for this date, and prices for higher-grade pieces reflect this demand.
Numerous Gem examples have survived, perhaps more so than some other dates. Looking at the PCGS Population Report, one sees that the most common grade for this date is MS-65, followed by MS-64, then MS-66 (where PCGS cites 22 examples). No MS-67 or better examples have been certified by PCGS.
This date features luster ranging from frosty to prooflike. Virtually all examples show good strike details and the die-cracking that plagued earlier issues seems to be much of a non-issue here.


text:
Select a region below to explore Resorts & Lodges in that destination.
Plan your trip to Africa
Select a region using the map to your left or pick one from the drop down below.
Africa Top List Picks
Top Maryland Bed and Breakfasts
While we've gathered them together for our latest Top 10 venture, the delightful properties featured on our Top 10 Maryland Bed and Breakfasts list are more commonly found on the National Register... more
Top 10 South Africa Luxury Hotels
Indulge yourself with an exotic South African experience with the help of our list of Top 10 South Africa Luxury Hotels. We've highlighted the best this 11-languaged country has to offer; from chic... more


text:
Big thank you to Wild fans
To the editor:
Last Saturday evening I went to Applebee's for supper. When I arrived at my booth I sat down and started reading the book which I had brought with me. I noticed that a young couple was sitting across from me. That night I was wearing my Minnesota Wild hat. The young couple sitting across from me finished their supper and prepared to leave – but before they left the young man placed his hand on my shoulder to say that his girlfriend had been looking at me or the Wild hat I was wearing. He said that she was a die-hard Wild fan and she liked my hat. Then they departed.
I finished my supper and asked the waitress for my bill. To my surprise she said that it had been taken care of. Naturally, I asked who paid it, and she said the couple that sat across from me. I didn't have the faintest idea who they were. I asked the waitress if she knew them and she didn't either.
I hope that one of these young people read this because I want to say THANK YOU. I will never forget and will sincerely appreciate the very kind and generous gesture.
Keith Schwager
New Ulm


text:
U.S. National Parks > Capitol Reef National Park > Climber's Log
Capitol Reef National Park Climber's Log
[ Sign the Climber's Log ]
|So much to see in this area. Like a couple of other Utah parks, if you've been to all the places listed in the park literature, you've only scratched the surface.
|Posted May 7, 2016 9:27 pm
|Seldom visited secret place
|Plenty to do here. Favorite areas include Wolverine Petrified Wood area, the main southbound road in the park, and most especially the magnificent Burr Trail road running from near Ticaboo Resort over Waterpocket Fold and on to Boulder, Utah.
|Posted May 1, 2015 7:40 pm
|Jimmy Rivers
|Utah scenery!
Date Climbed: Jul 14, 1997
|Another beautiful Utah Nat'l Park, which is often overlooked in favor of Bryce and Zion. I was here as a kid with the family. We visited every Nat'l Park in the four corner region, and it shaped my view of the Nat'l Park system in general. I will visit again sometime soon.
|Posted Jan 14, 2014 4:12 am
|Amazing geological formation
Date Climbed: Sep 10, 2013
|Camped at Fruita, which was a bit of a surprise for me. But on the following day, had to high-tail it from there due to diluvian rain. I was one of the last ones out on Utah HWY 12 before they shut it down in both directions. Water was storming out of the mountains
|Posted Nov 12, 2013 5:14 pm
|The Reef
Date Climbed: Nov 25, 1995
|I've made numerous trips to Capitol Reef, this being my favorite of all the red rock parks in Utah because it is the least visited. I have been north, south, east and west in the park and have done several of the hikes and a some of the slot canyons and yet I feel like I've hardly seen the place. A friend and colleague of mine is the great grandson of Elijah Behunin, one of the first settlers in the region and the builder of the Behunin cabin that still sits in the park.
|Posted May 20, 2013 4:34 pm
Date Climbed: Apr 19, 2013
|Hiked around the park for a few days! Incredible. Check out Sulpher canyon!!
|Posted May 8, 2013 10:29 pm
|Matt Lemke
|Many times...
|Done a lot of things here...George Benchmark, Halls Creek Narrows, Brimhall Bridge, Muley Twist Canyons, Sheets Gulch, Capitol Gorge, Hickman Bridge, Cohab Canon, Cathedral Valley and more. Still need to do Poe Canyon, Burro and Cottonwood Washes, Ferns Nipple, The Castle, EPH Hanks Tower and Chimney Rock!
|Posted Mar 2, 2013 6:44 pm
|Hike next time!
|Driven through twice. Next time backcountry and/or hiking is a must.
|Posted Feb 1, 2013 12:46 pm
|Capitol Reef
|Driven- through many years ago.
|Posted Dec 13, 2012 2:40 pm
|after graduation
Date Climbed: Jun 10, 2000
|on our way back west
|Posted Nov 30, 2012 3:16 pm
|Hike here every year
Date Climbed: Jul 14, 2012
|We actually went and explored the cathedral valley section of the park this year, very beautiful.
|Posted Nov 9, 2012 1:51 pm
|Great Light, Great Rocks
|Posted Oct 24, 2012 12:31 pm
|Good when driving by
|Good spot to camp between the other major parks
|Posted Mar 19, 2012 8:39 pm
|Been Here Several Times
|On one visit, my youngest fell out of an apple tree and had to have stitches. Ugh!
|Posted Jan 16, 2011 9:24 pm