Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.
121 writers online
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) task is to oversee the use, preservation, and conservation of the state’s natural resources. There are twelve divisions in the ODNR: Forestry, Parks and Recreation, Soil and Water Resources, Natural Areas and Preserves,
Watercraft, Wildlife, Geological Survey, the Office of Coastal Management, Mineral Resources Management, Oil and Gas Resources Management, and Engineering. The ODNR holds the responsibility of upholding Ohio’s wildlife, forests and other natural areas, state parks, inland lakes and waterways, geological and mineral resources, and the Lake Erie coastline. Overall, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is responsible for over 590,000 acres of land, including 74 state parks, 21 state forests, 136 state nature preserves, and 138 designated wildlife areas. In addition, the Department oversees over 120,000 acres of inland waters, 7,000 miles of streams, 481 miles of the Ohio River, and 2.25 million acres of Lake Erie. It services over 11.5 million Ohioans as well as over 200 million tourists every year with approximately 2,000 employees.
To meet demands required required by Ohio Department of Natural Resources, their appropriations, were finalized by the Governor and Office of Budget and Management to be approximately $342.9 million in FY 2016 and $346.5 million in FY 2017, for a total of $689.4 million in the biennium. The proposed appropriations changes increased FY 2016 by 5.4% compared to FY 2015, and currently, the FY 2017 funds are 1.0% higher than the proposed FY 2016 budget. This fiscal review serves to explore expenditure patterns within the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, highlight trends within the budget and analyze the effectiveness as to where the department is spending its money using performance measures.
We were unable to find any information on the internal procedures the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, but externally the Ohio DNR’s budget is developed like budgets we have studied in this course. There is an executive preparation phase, a legislative consideration phase, an execution phase, and an audit phase. In the executive budget phase, the ODNR works to prepare a budget that will be reviewed by the Ohio Office of Budget and Management and the Governor of Ohio to be submitted in the Executive Summary by the governor. The Ohio Legislature will review the submitted budget and make revisions and changes as they see necessary. The Governor of Ohio then can make line-item vetoes, in which he can veto any lines in the budget before it is finally signed into action. After the budget is passed, the Ohio DNR has the ability to execute and spend the money. In review, the state auditor’s office can audit the agency and review if the agency is using the funds as they stated in their budget and if this is benefiting Ohioans and others whom it serves.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, as a state agency, is a part of the Ohio biennial budget. The state of Ohio’s budget is prepared by the Governor and the Director of the Ohio Office of Budget and Management, John Kasich and Timothy Keen. The current enacted budget is a part of fiscal years 2016-2017. For Ohio, the fiscal years run July 1 through June 30 with the Governor submitting his or her executive budget in early February—within four weeks after its organization early in January of every odd-numbered year. This means that agencies’ budgets are constructed in advance of the fall deadline. The “Operating Budget Guidance” is sent out to agencies, by the OBM, in early July so that they can begin the process and prepare themselves to submit their budgets on time. To make sure that the budget can be approved in time to be reviewed and enacted, state agencies must submit their own budgets almost two years before they will be enacted. For the FY 2016-2017 Budget, state agencies had to submit their “Professional and regulatory board budget and language requests [-] on September 17, 2014, other non-cabinet agency budget and language requests [-] on October 10, 2014,” and finally, “Cabinet, Legislative, and Judicial agencies, as well as constitutional officeholders, [were] required to submit budget and language requests to OBM [-] on October 31, 2014.” 
The internal review procedure was unattainable for our group, but after the budget is submitted by the Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to the OBM, the review processes become clear. The process for operating budgets begins in the middle of each even-numbered year when the OBM requests each agency’s budget. The OBM then “reviews the request and holds meetings and budget hearings with the agency as needed.”  Next, the OBM “works with the Governor and his or her staff to formulate preliminary budget recommendations,” which “are shared with the agencies and may be appealed by them to the Governor.”  Finally, the Governor presents the ODNR’s budget as well as all other agencies’ requests as the executive budget to the Ohio General Assembly. When the General Assembly receives the budget, “the staff of the Legislative Service Commission drafts the Governor’s proposed budget in the form of legislation,” which is then “introduced in the House of Representatives by the Chairperson of the Committee on Finance.”  Hearings before the House Finance Committee on the operating appropriations bills are conducted where changes can be made. After the House passes the budget, the same process occurs in the Senate and is then approved and sent to the Governor to be reviewed a final time and then enacted.
The internal budget adoption process is unable to be found for the Ohio DNR, but when it is finalized it is sent to the Office of Budget and Management to be analyzed. They will make recommendations to the Governor for his consideration, and then he will “lead a review process to determine the content of his Executive Budget to be submitted to the General Assembly.”  The budget is then reviewed and adopted by the Ohio Legislature. The General Assembly will then return the budget to the Governor for a final review where he can line-item veto portions of the budget. When the Governor signs the budget, the ODNR as well as all other agencies, receive their biannual operating budgets.
There was not transparency as to if the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has internal audit procedures but there are external ones. The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 117.46 requires the Auditor of the State of Ohio to conduct performance audits of at least four state agencies each budget biennium. There are over 170 state agencies. With these measures in place, there is the potential for agencies to go unchecked for over 85 years or 42 biennial budgets. The ODNR was luckily selected for a review in the FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 biennium. In their audit, the State sought to review “six distinct scope areas including Capital Planning and Budgeting, Parks and Recreation Operations, Seasonal Workforce Strategies, Wildlife Licenses and Participation, Fleet Management, and Fish Hatchery Operations, but the ODNR “requested the addition of a seventh and final scope area, Watercraft Registration Operations.”  To aid in the audit, “The United States Government Accountability Office develops and promulgates Government Auditing Standards that provide a framework for performing high-quality audit work with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence to provide accountability and to help improve government operations and services” these are commonly referred to as GAGAS, or generally accepted government auditing standards. These audits are performance based audits, which mean that they review “specific requirements, measures, or defined business practices” to provide an objective analysis. The Auditor’s office worked closely and openly with the ODNR to discuss enhancements and improvements. The final report, upon completion, was shared with the agency.
We did not find any earmarked revenue when analyzing the budget, but we were unable to find any original ODNR reports before they were sent to the Governor and the OBM.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, as a state agency, has a separate capital budget. It is a simpler and shorter process to enact a biennial capital budget than it is to enact the operating budget. The capital budget “occurs within the context of another activity—the preparation of the state’s six-year Capital Improvements Plan.”  Every two years it is “updated by OBM on the basis of recommendations it receives from affected state agencies.”  This process tends to start “in the late summer of each odd- numbered year when OBM distributes guidelines to the agencies for the preparation of both the Capital Budget and the six-year Capital Improvements Plan.”  The process for capital budgets are the same as operating budgets. The requests are processed by the OBM, sent to the Governor for approval, and then it is sent to the Legislature, but this process is a matter of weeks instead of months. In 2014, the ODNR was allocated $88.5 million by the Governor to its capital budget for improvements to state parks. We were unable to find any Ohio DNR capital budget requests because of the lack of transparency.
The internal processes for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources was unable to be located, but the external process for Ohio state agencies was adopted by the General Assembly and is mandated by the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 22, which states: No money shall be drawn from the state treasury, except in pursuance of a specific appropriation, made by law; and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period than two years. This makes it clear that state agencies must submit a budget every two years to the legislature for approval. They cannot directly submit their budgets to the legislature because the Director of the ODNR is not the chief officer of the executive branch for the State of Ohio—the Governor is. That is why ODNR’s director submits their budget to the Governor and the Office of Budget and Management–who works for the Governor. The OBM will then submit their proposals and revisions to the Governor for a final submission to the Ohio Legislature. After their review the Governor receives the revised budget and has the power to veto specific lines and enact the budget. The line-item veto was established in 1912. 
While we could not find any original documents from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the documents we analyzed were performance-based styles. The ODNR released a 2015 annual report that discussed all aspects of their agency. They highlighted new projects and improvements to each division the agency oversees. For example, when speaking about improvements from 2014, the report said that nature education was “one of the goals for state nature preserves. Department staff increased public programming in FY 2015, reaching hundreds of people around the state.”  In the Legislative Services Commission’s budget analysis, there were also features of performance budgeting like that in the 2015 report by the ODNR.
When the Governor submits his budget, it is line-item form. It is no longer in performance style. This is important because the Ohio Governor has the privilege of a line-item veto, in which, before the budget is enacted, he can veto any line in the budget.
There is little transparency provided by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. When reviewing their budget process, we found that the ODNR does not accessibly publish a budget viewable to the public. Upon review of their online site, ohiodnr.gov, there was not a link that gave any light on their budget process, nor could we find the past or current budgets. There was an article that discussed the allocation of funding from the governor for their capital budget, but it only listed ideas as to what it could potentially be used for. We tried to contact an agency administrator Susan Erb, who is the Fiscal Specialist for the Ohio DNR , but she did not contact us back. To derive information on the ODNR’s budget, we found an audit performed by the State Auditor in February 2015, the Legislative Service Commission’s analysis of the ODNR’s proposed budget for FY 2016 and FY 2017, and Governor Kasich’s FY 2016 and FY 2017 executive budget. The lack of transparency made it difficult for us to clearly and accurately perform an evaluation of their budgetary process. As noted in most subsections of the budgetary process review, we were unable to find or locate any internal information on the Ohio DNR’s budgetary processes. We do not know how decisions are made in developing the budget, nor do we know any internal procedures or internal controls in place. All of the answers to the budgetary process for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources came from general information that applies to all Ohio state agencies.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is made up of 2,089 employees, 1,555 of which are fixed term staff and 534 project employees. In order to fully understand the scope of the department’s budget, it is important to look at how it has expanded over recent years. In FY 2011-12, the department’s operating expenses were roughly $270.96 million; In FY 2012-2013 expenditures totaled 299.91 million; In FY 2013-2014, $326.10 million; and in FY 2014-15 the expenditures reached $326.61 million. Over the past four years, expenditures increased 20.5% and a whopping $55.65 million. That being said there was but a minimal $510,000 increase between FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, which is seemingly tedious compared to the sizable increases of $28.95 and $26.19 million between FY 2011-12/12-13 and FY 2012-13/13-14 respectively. Over this four year time span, the vast majority of funds (75.2%) went directly to three primary areas in the department: The General Revenue Fund, the State Special Revenue Fund, and the Wildlife Fund Group. In this period the General Revenue fund received $94.68 million a year and focuses primarily on parks, whereas the state Special Revenue Fund received $72.24 million for maintenance and equipment expenses, and the Wildlife Fund received $62.97 million for payroll primarily for payroll, maintenance, and other operating expenses.
There are many divisions of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources whose budgets are explained and briefly evaluated in this report. They are listed below: I. Fleet Management
The Fleet Management sector of the ODNR focuses on providing appropriations for vehicles for each operating unit within the department. The number of vehicles used by each operating unit (as of 2014) is seen in the chart below:
The majority of the vehicles used by these different divisions were ½ and ¾ ton pickup trucks, as well as SUVS. The rate and cost of maintenance for the different vehicles used is provided in the table below, but an accurate cost and performance analysis is difficult to achieve as there is little to no data regarding other “direct and indirect costs for maintenance, repairs and fuel for each vehicle” (16).
The lack of information regarding costs of vehicles handcuffs us in establishing an adequate performance measure. So, the recommendation here would be to ensure all costs and performance measures should be recorded in the future so efficiency of the vehicles and department as a whole can be analyzed.
This division also is not maximizing its use of idle and broken down vehicles. Many vehicles had been unused for a period of “201 to 434 days while waiting for new hires” when this performance evaluation was done (18). If the department were to dispose of vehicles that are impractical for repair, it would save $16,601 (18). If idle vehicles were reassigned to other areas instead of purchasing new ones, it could avoid paying up to $156,222, as illustrated below (18).
Finally, if the department got rid of the 34 unnecessary patrol vehicles, it would gain $41,719 and “reduce annual expenditures by 44,579” (21). It is thus that the recommendation here would be to sell or dispose of idle vehicles or reassign them for use in other areas to reduce the costs associated with purchasing new ones.
The final area the division can save money in is by instituting a more aggressive fleet cycling plan. By recognizing “a vehicle lifecycle of 6 years and/or 90,000 miles”, analyzing the most efficient vehicle to use by determining “the current cost per mile compared to that of newer vehicles” and by salvaging vehicles nearing the end of their life “to capture as much residual value as possible” the department could save $683,565 (38).
It is important first to look at costs associated with the wage of workers, specifically those in the Natural Resource Specialist and Natural Resources Worker categories. The auditor’s office demonstrated that unemployment expenses, paid for by the department, total roughly $252,000 (42). This means that in reducing unemployment expenses, there is a great opportunity to save money. By toying with the hour requirements for the NRS and NRW according to CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) standards, the auditor’s office provided several solutions that could save money in the long run. (51).
Any one of these solutions would be more sustainable and be more efficient than the current seasonal work system.
It is also worth mentioning that there were few clear performance measures in place for department managers here, making it difficult to hold administrators accountable and efficiently manage resources within the ODNR. Clear performative measures that relate directly back to data associated with who has accomplished what should be established.
There are currently a number of rules associated with establishing a set price for overnight accommodations through the Parks Department. While these regulations might not pose a direct, measurable cost to the department, they limit the flexibility necessary to establish competitive and efficient prices. By increasing the flexibility of the parks, it leaves the department with two options to increase revenue: Raise prices on sold-out nights, or raise prices on nights where lodging is not sold out. The analysis conducted by the auditor’s office as to which would be more lucrative is seen in the table below: (86).
Clearly, it would be most beneficial to have the flexibility to increase prices on non-sold out nights.
Gross revenue for lodge properties has decreased substantially from 2001 to 2013, as is seen in
the chart on the top of the next page:
The auditor’s office looked at which parks were operating efficiently (generating cash flow) and which were operating inefficiently (those responsible for losses). “Maumee Bay, Salt Fork, and Shawnee” were the most productive, generating $1,218,590 in CY 2013. Hueston Woods, Mohican, and Punderson were also productive, but only produced a total of $66,846 (107). Burr Oak and Deer Creek saw huge losses equalling $426,956 (107). This data is crucial to seeing what parks are and are not effective in bringing in money. These lodge properties should be managed and watched in order to map how they are performing as the years go on, making cuts where necessary, and appropriating more funds to lodges that successfully meet their performance measures.
Furthermore, the concession-based model currently used by lodges do provide cash flow in the long-term, but there are other options that would maximize “financial performance including; soliciting matching funds from concessionaires, extending agreement term lengths, and implementing alternative agreement structure” (119). So, while the current operating system of the Parks Department’s – Lodge Properties Division is effective, it could do more to bring in revenue.
The Parks and Recreation Operations Department sees inefficiency in how it is currently operating. Certain cabins on campgrounds see huge profits, where others’ profitability is severely lacking. While it does not directly pertain back to the 2013-14 budget, it is important to look at potential investment opportunities to increase revenue and cut losses within the Parks Department. By investing in specific cabins that are performing well, the Parks Department could see “an immediate value gain of $41,244,069” (142). By “disposing of the 29 cabins experiencing an operating loss rather than investing in renovations” there would be a “one-time cost avoidance of $3,830,900” (142). For full Cabin Operating and Investment Profiles of the individual Ohio cabins reference the Performance Audit.
The general qualms associated with the Wildlife Licenses and Participation division have to do with the low costs of hunting and fishing licenses, as this makes up the division’s primary source of revenue outside of federal aid. The breakdown of revenue sources is seen in the pie chart below:
By increasing both the resident and non-resident price of “annual fishing licenses to $23.00 and $48.00, respectively” the ODNR could see an increase of $1,748,000 annually (253). By “increasing the non-resident deer permit” fee to $38.00, the department could see an additional $254,175 annually (260).
The ODNR’s fish hatchery is both competitive and efficient, “especially when producing at high volumes” (288). They could see an increase in efficiency if the Fish Hatchery Operations were to obtain largemouth bass from an outside supplier, and should see a net gain of $54,944 (288).
The vast majority of revenue brought in by the Watercraft Registration Division comes from the state motor fuel tax and federal grants. Together, these two made up 80.9% of revenue for the division, with an addition 18.3% coming from registration and titling fees (290). RTS, or the Registration and Titling Section, has seen an increase of $267,995 in revenue between CY 2011 and CY 2013 (296). Likewise, “total operating cost has declined over the last three years while registrations have been increasing” as seen below:
(299). Thus, the Watercraft Registrations Division is bringing in more money than they are spending, operating efficiently.
When attempting to perform a performance audit, the State of Ohio Auditor’s Office ran into a number of obstacles. The report proposed that the ODNR attempt to eliminate organizational barriers, streamline delivery, and promote clear lines of authority and accountability. (7). The economic effect of these hindrances were not directly assessed by the performance budget, but further evaluation was proposed for the following areas: prescribed divisions, prescribed positions, and ambiguous wording. Having both prescribed divisions and positions could have a negative impact on efficiency as they might “negatively reinforce organizational silos” and “increase the overall size and cost of the organization due to the presence of multiple, distinctly separate leadership, support, and tactical structures” (7). The ambiguous wording poses a potential issue as it seems to grant “significant authority to division chiefs without oversight”, also potentially reinforcing “organizational silos”, prohibiting the ODNR from being efficient.
The department might also benefit from instituting an “asset management” approach similar to that of the National Park Service (NPS). The ODNR currently uses the OAKS Asset Management module, but this system is “neither used uniformly across all divisions nor is it used in a way that is informative to the actual capital asset management needs of the Department or the divisions” (223). “[The] goal of asset management is to “Focus investments from all maintenance fund sources on high priority national park assets to address critical deferred maintenance and code compliance needs” (222). A successful asset management system such as that implemented by the NPS could prove invaluable to the assessment of future appropriation allocation for the ODNR, and is absolutely a recommendation that could foster success in the future.
As stated earlier, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ONDR) has a total of 2,089 employees that carry out day-to-day operations. This total includes 1,555 full-time and part-time permanent and fixed-term staff and an additional 534 part-time and full-time temporary, intermittent, seasonal, interim, and project employees. With a decent size staff for a state government department, the operating expenditures can add up quickly and thus increase the demand for revenue. In FY 2011-2012, total operating expenditures were $270.96 million and $299.91 million in FY 2012-13. The ODNR was appropriated $326.10 million and $326.61 for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15, respectively (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). This section of our analysis will cover how the ODNR collects revenue from a variety of different sources and examine different trends and shifts in revenue, and challenges the ODNR may face in the future.
There are three funds which within the ODNR that account for an average 75.2 percent of all of the department’s expenditures and appropriations: the General Revenue Fund, the State and Special Revenue Fund Group, and the Wildlife Fund Group. The General Revenue Fund accounts for an average of $94.68 million per FY, which is about 30.9 percent of the total. The Parks Division is the largest single division user of this fund, averaging $30.03 million per FY (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). Within the State Special Revenue Fund Group, “State Parks Operations” account for $28.54 million of the funds $72.24 million per FY. This fund accounts for 23.6 percent of the department’s total expenditures and appropriations. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC), “these funds are used to cover most of the Division’s maintenance and equipment expenses, as well as payroll…this line item is supported by the State Park Fund, which receives income from various revenue-generating functions of [Parks]…the largest revenue source was camping fees (39.3 percent), followed by cabin rentals (14.6 percent), self-operated retail (13.9 percent), dock permits (9.8 percent), concession agreements (4.4 percent), and golf course greens fees (4.4 percent)” (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). This fund also includes funding sources such as land leases, getaway rentals, group lodge sales, private donations, 75 percent of the proceeds of timber sales from state park lands, and other fees and charges. The Wildlife Fund Group accounts for an average of $62.97 million or 20.7 percent of the total per FY, with the “Division of Wildlife Conservation” accounting for average $54.74 million per FY. According to the LSC, “this line item is the primary source of operating support for the Division’s programs and contains most of the Division’s payroll, maintenance, and other operating costs” (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). This division is primarily funded from revenue brought in from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, as well as, federal funding from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015).
The Performance Audit, discusses how the ODNR operates 74 park locations across Ohio, which vary in size and purpose. These parks provide a decent amount of the total revenue the ODNR receives. Larger parks attract national and international visitors while offering amenities such as lodge and cottage facilities, camping; boating; and access to resources with historical, natural, and/or cultural significance. The smaller parks attract local and regional visitors and focus on providing day-use amenities like picnic areas, hiking, and fishing access. Many of these amenities are provided free of charge to users, while some, such as lodging and camping, come at a cost. The revenue collected from these services is used in part to cover the operating cost of the services. ODNR Parks offer a variety of overnight accommodations. The main options available are lodges, campgrounds, cabins, and unique “getaways”. ODNR owns all of the lodges and 185 cabins, which are managed by third-party concessionaires (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). The Table 5-1 shows Parks self-managed overnight accommodations for calendar year (CY) 2013. As can be seen in the table, Parks operated 9,543 individual overnight accommodations in CY 2013, mostly weighted towards campgrounds; 95.5 percent or 9,118 of the total. Campgrounds and cabins make up the majority of Parks’ self-managed inventory as well as the self-generated revenue; 98.6 % and 96.2 %, respectively (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). Electric campsites clearly dominate the total income for the self-managed overnight accommodations with over $11 million and the inventory count by 4,000 compared to the other accommodations. However, it should be noted, within these two categories, ODNR, and Parks leadership have expressed concerns that current shortcomings are affecting the ability to meet customer needs in a competitive manner. Specific concerns have been raised regarding an insufficient number of full hook-up campsites and an aged cabin inventory that is no longer sufficiently able to attract customers and meet their needs in an efficient and effective manner (ODNR Performance Audit, February 2015). ODNR has a limited amount of property that can be used for such purposes. In the coming years, new strategies will need to be implemented to keep up with the demand of electrical campsites.
It should be noted that on a daily basis, the median preferred cabin, the most common cabin offering, earns over eight times, or $30.48 more revenue per day than the median electric campsite, the most common campsite offering (see Table 5-3 below).
The ODNR also collects revenue from a variety of taxes and fees from mining, oil, and gas. Take for example the table below:
The chart above shows revenue from the State Special Revenue Fund Group that was collected from application fees for mining purposes. This line item is used to administer safety tests and precautions for mine workers in Ohio (LSC Redbook Analysis of the Executive Budget Proposal Department of Natural Resources, 2013). We found it interesting that in FY 2010 and FY 2011 there was none or minimal funding allocated to a service that would seem very necessary. However, in FY 2012, more money was granted, and by FY 2013, funds increased to $28,135. This could potentially be caused by an increase in applications to mine across Ohio. In the latter FY years of 2014 and 2015, we see the funding to stabilize. This could be for the estimate that demand for applications will stay steady.
The table below depicts the Strip Mining Administrative Fee that the ODNR collects to administer and enforce coal mining laws and reclamation activity, which it does through the Division of Mineral Resources Management. This fund is capitalized through 80.95% of the total revenues from the state severance tax on coal, and may also receive income from fines for violations of coal mining regulations and other administrative fees. (LSC Redbook Analysis of the Executive Budget Proposal Department of Natural Resources, 2013). After analyzing this data, we noticed some substantial shifts in proposed funding from FY 2010 to FY 2015. For example, between FY 2010 and FY 2011, there was a
We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Attention! this essay is not unique. You can get 100% plagiarism FREE essay in 30sec
Sorry, we cannot unicalize this essay. You can order Unique paper and our professionals Rewrite it for you
Your essay sample has been sent.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out!