Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: "As he asked Philadelphia City Council to considera $300 million investment in the city's parks and recreation centers, Mayor Jim Kenney told a success story. During his budget address in council chambers last week,the first-year mayor said that when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, ""crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" That seemed like a huge drop in a high-crime area of the city, so we decided to check out the claim. The Kenney administration said it got the statistic from a Dickinson College study conducted in conjunction with Philadelphia Police and the Fairmount Park Conservancy, a nonprofit that leads capital projects and programming across 10,200 acres of Fairmount Park and 100 neighborhood parks throughout the city. Meg Holscher, the Conservancy's senior director of development, said the 87-acre Hunting Park in North Philadelphia was identified in 2008 as an area of development because of how close it was to a high number of families. At the time, prostitution and drug trade were common in and around the park. After community meetings and input from neighbors, the Conservancy -- along with the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation -- presented a master plan for the park in October 2009 that outlined two new playgrounds, a community garden and farmers market, new tennis courts and youth tennis programming, as well as a renovated football and soccer field. One of the most visible changes, though, was 64 lights placed around the park, which Holscher said residents wanted to curb illegal activity and violence. ""This project for us was a little bit of a game changer,"" she said. ""We've started to look at parks and how they are tied to healthy eating, healthy living and violence prevention."" Holscher said the $4.5 million Hunting Park capital projects and programming was funded through both public and private funds. In addition to that, another $500,000 was added through grants and corporate donations, bringing the total amount for phase one of the revitalization to some $5 million. After efforts to spruce up the park started in 2010, Conservancy staff started hearing from community members that it seemed like crime in the area had slowed, but an analysis wasn't completed until 2014. That year, Amanda Vandenburg, then a researcher at Dickinson College in Carlisle, was interested in how parks influence communities. Vandenburg said she analyzed public data from the Philadelphia Police Department and charted crime statistics from 2006, before the revitalization efforts began, through 2013, when the first phase of the project had wrapped up. The data included both part I crimes (violent crimes like homicide, rape and aggravated assault) and part II crimes (like simple assault, prostitution, drug possession and other non-violent offenses.) She mapped instances of crime from inside and a half-mile buffer around the park, and found that there was a spike in crime between 2006 and 2007. After that point, crime began decreasing in 2008 citywide as police enforcement efforts in Philadelphia changed under a new mayoral administration. But crime continued to go down near Hunting Park. Between 2009 and 2013, ""there was an 89 percent drop in the number of crimes,"" according to Vandenburg's study. Rape and theft from vehicle crime incidents increased over that time period, but other crimes decreased, including prostitution and drug use. Vandenburg also conducted a ""hot spot"" analysis that showed areas predicted to have the highest amounts of crime were closer to and in the park in 2009 and moved away from the park by 2013. While she said the revitalization of Hunting Park can't be attributed as the only reason for a decrease in crime in the immediate area, the data does support the theory that illegal activity in the area decreased as the park was improved. Our Ruling Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim ." Claim: When the City and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years.
"Kenney used the efforts in Hunting Park as an example of why City Council should authorize more funds to revitalize parks and recreation centers throughout the city. He said ""when the city and the Fairmount Park Conservancy invested $5 million in Hunting Park, crime went down 89 percent within a half mile radius of the park over the next three years."" The Fairmount Park Conservancy confirmed that it -- along with the city and private donors -- invested about $5 million in revitalizing the park. Vandenburg, who conducted the study, said crime did in fact drop by 89 percent within a half-mile radius over the next three years. We rule the claim True."

Paragraph: The story focused on costs, including information about the relative cost comparison between what are called "open" surgeries and those done laparoscopically (with a thin flexible tube.) The release summarized how minimally invasive techniques reduced the length of hospital stay and complication rates for patients. "Researchers also found that, on average, the minimally invasive approach reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days, and open operations were more than $9,000 more expensive than minimally invasive procedures. The researchers also found that laparoscopic procedures were better for patients in terms of fewer complications. Laparoscopic anti-reflux operations were less likely to result in postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." We rate this, but just barely, for citing cost differences between the two types of surgery and the average reduction in the number of days a patient must remain hospitalized. We do wish the release had delved more into the specifics of reduced complications. How common were the surgical complications in each surgical method? The release names complications associated with both types of surgery for GERD, while stating that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures encountered fewer of them: "postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." The news release gave details about how the study examined records of about 75,000 patients from 1,000 hospitals to compare outcomes in the records for open vs. the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries. That's all to the good. However, the news release didn't mention any of the study's limitations. The key one is that this is a retrospective, observational review of records that isn't capable of supporting cause and effect statements such as the minimally invasive approach "reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days." Nor should this kind of evidence be used as the basis for statements such as laparoscopic procedures "were better for patients" and "should be the standard of care." Patients receiving open vs. laparascopic procedures could differ in unknown ways, which is why the superiority of one approach over the other should ideally be established by a prospective, randomized controlled trial. There were other limitations outlined in the journal article that were not mentioned in the release. Because the NIS database doesn't link to hospital records, researchers weren't able to track and measure outcomes "including complications, readmission, and mortality, occurring after the initial hospital discharge." The researchers were also unable to determine which open surgeries were "re-dos" of previous surgeries. The potential for errors in coding which procedures were used was also cited as a possible limitation. There was no disease mongering. The release also provided useful context on the prevalence of GERD and further specified that smaller group of patients, from the many heartburn suffers, might be candidates for the surgery. Well done. The release does not list any funding source for the research and the published study notes that authors had "nothing to disclose." We'll rate this not applicable since this is an examination of existing data, and there may have been no additional outside funding. The news release does a good job here. It compares different surgical methods and it also names alternatives for treating GERD such as medications and changes in the diet. It also states which group of patients the surgery is aimed at: "Anti-reflux surgery should be considered in patients who do not achieve complete control of their symptoms [regurgitation or cough] with medications; who do not want to take medications for the rest of their lives; or who experience complications of medical therapy." It's clear from the release that both methods of surgery have been widely available nationally and the outcomes of 75,000 surgeries were tracked by the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The release also notes that "urban academic or teaching hospitals" perform laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery more often than "open" procedures, 54.4 percent versus 45.6 percent. And it recommends that anti-reflux surgery should be performed laparoscopically in specialized centers. The news release was not about a novel procedure and made no claim of novelty. However, this isn't the first study to examine laparoscopic vs. open surgery. For example, the British Journal of Surgery published results of a randomized trial of the two methods and the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology published research on long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and open procedures for GERD. We did not observe any unjustifiable language. Claim: Laparoscopic anti-reflux operation for GERD linked to fewer postoperative complications
A new study by the American College of Surgeons, a professional organization, compared records for 75,000 patients who underwent surgery for GERD, or gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. The study looked at two different surgical procedures and found the less invasive one seemed equally effective, but kept patients in the hospital a shorter time with fewer complications. The news release did a good job of discussing surgical alternatives and costs, which were estimated to be $9,000 lower for the less invasive laparoscopic procedure. The release would have been better had it spelled out some of the study limitations, the key one being that a retrospective, observational review of hospital records as this study was isn't capable of supporting the cause and effect statements sprinkled throughout the release. Millions of Americans complain of occasional heartburn, sometimes called a burning sensation in the throat from food coming back up from the stomach. But some estimates are that about 20 percent of US adults fit the definition of GERD, which means they suffer symptoms at least every week. If patients consider a surgical fix, this study shows that a less-invasive procedure could reduce their complications and shorten their hospital stay. It's hard to pin down stats on GERD prevalence. A 2014 review of 16 epidemiological studies of GERD prevalence published in the journal Gut suggest GERD prevalence ranges from "18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America."

Paragraph: The Indian Valley Local Schools in Tuscarawas County sent a letter to parents Saturday that said the student's bus, a school restroom, and other surfaces inside the school will be sanitized. The student hasn't been identified. The Tuscarawas County Health Department in a statement on its website said officials learned Friday that a student had died from a probable case of meningitis. The health department says symptoms of bacterial meningitis can appear quickly and progress rapidly. Symptoms include fever, chills, headache, and a stiff neck. The health department is contacting anyone who recently came in close contact with the student. Claim: Ohio high school closes after probable case of meningitis.
An Ohio school district has announced that its high school will be closed Monday after a student died from what health officials say is a probable case of bacterial meningitis.