United States General Accounting Office + . .-7 CiAO Fact Sheet for the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives August 1990 BUDGETISSUES Effects of the Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester on the Department of Education GAO United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Human Resources Division B-2406 11 August 3,199O The Honorable Leon Panetta Chairman, Committee on the Budget House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This fact sheet is one of a series responding to your request for us to study the effects of the fiscal year 1990 sequester at selected agencies. It presents information regarding the Department of Education. The st,udy’s objectives were to identify (1) how resources were reduced by the sequester and (2) what impact the sequester had on the Depart- ment’s ability to fulfill its mission and on those served by its programs. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as Background amended, establishes deficit targets to, lead to a balanced unified budget by fiscal year 1993. Each year the Office of Management and Budget (OMLI) submits an initial report on August 25 and a final report on October 15, projecting the fiscal year deficit. If OMB projects a deficit in excess of the target, amount plus $10 billion, the President must issue a sequester order to reduce budget resources sufficiently to reach the target deficit level. The amount to be sequestered must be divided between defense and nondefense programs. Sequestration has been implemented only once before, in fiscal year 1986, when defense and nondefense budget resources were reduced by 4.9 and 4.3 percent, respectively. The act set the fiscal year 1990 deficit target at $100 billion. The August 1989 OMB report estimated a $116.2 billion deficit, exceeding the target by $16.2 billion; the October report slightly reduced the overall estimate to $116.1 billion. To comply with the act, both reports would have required a sequester of 4.3 percent in defense programs and 5.3 percent in nondefense programs. Sequestration of this magnitude, however, was not implemented. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, enacted on December 19, 1989, reduced the mandatory sequester amount to 130/365 of the $16.1 billion reduction called for in OMB'S October report. This change effectively reduced sequester requirements to $5.7 billion-l.5 percent in defense programs and 1.4 percent in others. In response to this legis- lation, OMB published its Revised Final Sequester Report on December Page 1 tiAO;HRD-90.150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education B240611 absorbed an across-the-board pay raise in addition to the sequester. Office for Civil Rights officials told us their office was faced with prior financial difficulties stemming from legislation that expanded the office’s authority. They maintained staff and budgetary resources had not kept pace with the resulting increase in work load. In addition, the office absorbed the costs associated with the pay raise. The factors affecting the two accounts, in conjunction with the sequester, generally resulted in Department-wide reductions in funds for computer equip- ment, travel, and technical assistance functions However, after the sequester, net appropriations for both accounts exceeded fiscal year 1989 levels, by 9.1 and 7.1 percent, respectively. (See pp. 14-15.) As you requested, we examined five departments and agencies; one of Scope and those we selected was the Department of Education. With respect to its Methodology budget-about $24 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 1990-the Department ranks in the middle among the five agencies examined. We selected the Department of Education because it administers a wide range of grant and loan programs. Its programs provide grants to sup- port educational and related services to special-needs populations, including disadvantaged elementary and secondary school children, handicapped children, and mentally and physically disabled people. In addition, it supports grant and loan programs to provide financial assis- tance to eligible students for postsecondary education. To determine how resources were reduced by the sequester, we obtained data demonstrating the Department’s allocation of the reduction by pro- grams within each of its 19 budget accounts receiving budget authority subject to sequester. We also gathered data on the Department’s avail- able funding for fiscal year 1989,’ and compared this with fiscal year 1990 funding after sequester. Data for our analyses were obtained from The Budget of the ITnited States Government,Fiscal Year 1991 and the Department of Education. To identify the sequester’s impact, we interviewed Department officials regarding implementation strategies in the program offices adminis- tering the Department’s five largest programs, as well as officials for those areas the Department believes experienced the greatest negative impact. We also requested data from the Department to measure the ‘We defined available l’undmg for each budget account as the net of the appropnatmn plus other sources of funds. such as offsrttmg collections. unobbgatrd balances from pnor years, and transfm. less the seqwstrr and other hud#‘t wdwtions Page 3 GAO/HRD-9@150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department oP Education B-240611 As requested by your office, we did not obtain written comments on this fact sheet from the Department of Education or other interested parties. However, we discussed its contents with Department officials and incor- porated their views where appropriate. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this fact sheet earlier, we will not distribute it until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Educa- tion; the Director, om; the Director, Congressional Budget Office; other congressional committees; and other interested parties. Should you wish to discuss its contents, please call me on (202) 275-1793. Other major contributors are listed in appendix IV. Sincerely yours, Franklin Frazier Director, Education and Employment Issues Page 6 GAO/BID90.15OFS Fkd Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Contents Table 111.1:Comparison of Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990 13 Appropriations for the Department of Education’s Largest Grant Programs Abbreviations FTF 3 full time equivalent IXA local education agency OMB Office of Management and Budget OWE Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation Page 7 GAO,‘HRD9@150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Appendix II SequesterImplementation The fiscal year 1990 sequester reduced the Department of Education’s budgetary resources by $266.1 million, or 1.1 percent, of its $24.5 billion budget authority. Using instructions issued by the Office of Management and Budget, the Department sequestered 14 of the 19 sequesterable budget accounts with budget authority. Sequestered amounts ranged from $271,000 for the Office of the Inspector General to $84 million for Student Financial Assistance, which finances Pell grants, Perkins stu- dent loans, and other campus-based student financial aid programs. (See table II. 1.) Table 11.1: Sequester for the Department of Education (Fiscal Year 1990) Dollars rn thousands Sequesterable Percent of budget budget Account authority ~.Sequester authority Indian educatron $74,658 $1,038 14 Impact ard 732,352 0 0 Compensatory educatron 5,434,777 66,416 12 School improvement 1,414,395 17,653 1.2 Bllrngual education 188,674 0 0 Handcapped educatron 2.083.776 28,521 14 Rehabrlrtatron servtces 1,804,870 24,658 a Special rnstrtutrons 110,893 1,517 14 Vocatronal and adult educatron 1.145,188 15,670 14 Student frnancral assrstance 6.175.097 84.331 14 Hrgher education 632,736 8,205 13 Guaranteed student loans 3,868,826 12,482 d College housmg/ academrc facllltles 35,129 0 0 Howard Universrtv 182.446 0 0 Lrbtarres 136,646 0 0 Research and statrstrcs 96,375 1,134 12 Program admrnrstration 276,946 3,643 13 Office for Civil Rghts 45,178 606 13 Offrce of the lnsoector General 23.381 271 12 TotaP $24,462,343 $266,145 1.1 ‘Sequestered amount was calculated under special rules “Other nonapproprlated spending authority in the college houslng loans account was sequesterable, but because !t recwed no authority I” ftscal year 1990 and no sequester was taken, we have excluded it from this table Page 9 GAO/HRD-9@150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Appendix II Sequester Implementation The Department of Education sequestered appropriations for activities Activities in Accounts within budget accounts proportionally. Examples of Department of Edu- Were Sequestered in cation activities are the chapter 1 program’s basic and concentration Proportion to Their grants in the Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged account. Appropriations Using this methodology, the Department generally reduced the activities within a sequestered account by the same percentage as the reduction against the total account. For example, activities within the Compensa- tory Education for the Disadvantaged account, which included chapter 1 and migrant education programs, were reduced by 1.2 percent, as was the total account. Page 11 GAO/HRB90-150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Appendix III Overall Impact on Agency Was Not Severe Table 111.1:Comparison of Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990 Appropriations for the Department of Education’s Largest Grant Programs Dollars I” mlllrons Appropriations Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal yea; 1990 fess Fiscal year 1990 increase Program 1989 1990 Sequester sequester Amount Percent Chaoter 1 orants ., to LEAS $4.026 $4.827 $59 $4.768 $742 la.4 Pell grants 4,483 4,871 67 4,804 321 72 Handicapped education state grants 1,475 1,564 21 1,543 68 46 Rehabllriatron serwces state grants 1,450 1,550 22 i ,528 78 54 The Department prepared a statement on the impact of the sequester on The Department its five largest programs-the four grant programs shown in table III. 1 Anticipated No and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. With the exception of Pell grants, the Department concluded that the sequester would not Adverse Impact on adversely affect program recipients. Major Program Recipients The $67 million sequester of the Pell Grant Program will, for school year 1990-91, eliminate grant awards averaging $200 to 14,000 students, and reduce awards to 1.3 million other students by an average of $50 each. The Department considered these reductions relatively small when com- pared to the estimated 3.2 million recipients for fiscal year 1990 whose grant awards averaged $1.600. The maximum grant is $2,300. The sequester will reduce fiscal year 1990 increases in per-pupil expenditures for both chapter 1 and handicapped education grants to states and LEAS. Due to increased 1990 appropriations, however, per- pupil-based expenditures will nonetheless exceed fiscal year I989 levels. Rehabilitation Services state grant funding increased by $78 million over fiscal year 1989, and the Department expects no recipients to suffer from lost revenues. Under the special rules, the sequester of Guaranteed Student Loan Pro- grams (1) decreased the government’s payment to lenders for the Staf- ford loans’ first-year interest subsidy and (2) increased the origination fee charged to borrowers. The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989 lim- ited these measures to new loans made between October 1 and December 31,1989. The Department considered the changes to be slight and expected no reductions in loan volume to result. Page 13 GAO/HRD-90.150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Appendix III Overall Impact on Agency Was K‘ot Severe in 1988. This law restored authority limited by a 1984 Supreme Court decision (Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555) and triggered a dra- matic increase in the number of discrimination complaints requiring action. In fiscal year 1987, the office reported it began 943 complaint investigations; for fiscal year 1990, it is projecting 1,682 such starts. However, the office maintained that its staffing levels and other resources failed to keep pace with the growing work load, partly because of how the Department develops its budget, using projections developed from current year outlays. Since fiscal year 1987, the per- sonnel ceiling for the office decreased from 840 to 820 FTE positions for fiscal year 1990.’ During the same time period, the office reported a drop in compliance review starts-which it considered to provide the greatest return on its resource use-from 240 in fiscal year 1987 to 24 in fiscal year 1990, because resources were concentrated on the growing complaint work load. According to Office for Civil Rights officials, the office’s financial problems affected its ability to (1) meet commitments on contractor- performed school surveys, (2) upgrade obsolete computer equipment, (3) provide training to staff and technical assistance to its constituents, and (4) necessitated some travel restrictions. In addition, because the office was employing more FE staff than its salaries and benefits budget could support, they believed the sequester and other funding shortages might result in staff furloughs unless employee attrition increases or other financial relief is obtained. ‘OPBE indicated that for fiscal yean 1987 through 1989 the office‘s actual FTE usage was 807. 808, and 789 compared to FTE ceilings of 840.820. and 820. Page 15 GAO/HRD-90.16OFs Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education ,f GAO reports should b 5sent ting Office , and 20877 141 of each report are free. Addi tional copies are :nt on orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a : aid by cash or by check or mcwey order made ndent of Documents. Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet Human Resources Joan A. Denomme, Evaluator-in-Charge Division, Washington, D.C. Edith A. Pyles, Assistant Director Accounting and Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Project Manager Financial Management Division, Washington, D.C. (104666) Page 16 GAO IHRD-90.150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of JMucation Appendix III Overall Impact on Agency Was Not Severe Because factors other than the sequester also affected their budget Two Department resources, the Department’s account for Program Administration, which Accounts Experienced P rovides most of the funds for salaries, travel, and other administrative activities, and the account for the Office for Civil Rights were more More Severe Effects adversely affected by the sequester than other accounts. Despite the From the Sequester sequester, however, we found that the fiscal year 1990 appropriations for the Program Administration and Office for Civil Rights accounts increased by 9.1 and 7.1 percent, respectively, over fiscal year 1989. In addition, both accounts had 7 percent more in obligation authority in fiscal year 1990 than in fiscal year 1989. Sequester Decreased Funds The $3.6 million sequester against the Program Administration account resulted in reductions or delays in fiscal year 1990 planned travel, com- Available for puter procurements, and office improvements throughout the Depart- Administrative Activities ment. Additionally, it experienced some restraint in hiring, and expects to employ about 70 full-time-equivalent (FTE) personnel less than its planned fiscal year 1990 ceiling. But, because it was also forced to absorb a $4.3 million across-the-board pay raise out of this account, the Department found it difficult to isolate the sequester as the source of the administrative reductions from other funding cutbacks. Officials in the Department’s three program offices having responsi- bility for the five largest programs-the Offices of Elementary and Sec- ondary Education, Postsecondary Education, and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services-concurred with the description of the effects of the sequester on administrative functions in their offices. The Office of Postsecondary Education also attributed t,o the sequester reducing the size and, therefore, information included in a student aid handbook available to the public. The officials described the cuts in travel as reductions in fiscal year 1990 planned trips, not as reductions below the prior year’s appropriations, because travel funds increased over 1989. None of the offices anticipated any adverse impact on on-board staff levels-cuts or furloughs-from the sequester. Sequester Aggravated Because the $0.6 million sequester and absorption of the costs associ- Existing Financial ated with the pay raise combined with existing financial difficulties, the Difficulties in the Office Office for Civil Rights was reported to be the most adversely affected of the Department’s sequestered accounts. for Civil Rights According to Office for Civil Rights’ officials, the financial difficulties began with enactment of The Civil Rights Restoration Act (P.L. 100-259) Page 14 GAO/ HRDSO-15OFS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Appendix III Over&UImpact on Agency Was Not Severe Officials in the Department’s Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation (OPBE), which applied the sequester reductions to the budget accounts, did not believe the sequester’s overall impact to be severe. Although OPBE officials said that the Department’s Program Administration and Office for Civil Rights accounts were most negatively affected, their budgetary resources were constrained by other circumstances as well as the sequester. Even with the sequester’s $266.1 million reduction, the Department’s budget authority increased from $23 billion in fiscal year 1989 to $24.2 billion in fiscal year 1990-an increase of 6.1 percent. The impact was also less severe because many of the Department’s programs are forward-funded. For forward-funded programs, such as Pell grants and chapter 1 grants, funds are appropriated at the start of the fiscal year; however, the Department may not award or disburse funds until several months later for use into the next fiscal year. This allowed the Depart- ment and state and local education agencies time to make adjustments with minimal disruption to the programs. In addition, the Department was not mandated to take any other across- the-board reductions in its fiscal year 1990 appropriations to comply with other legislation. The Department’s Program Administration account, however, absorbed a $4.3 million pay increase, which reduced funds available for administrative activities throughout the agency. Although the sequester reduced fiscal year 1990 appropriations for the Post-Sequester Department’s largest grant programs, total appropriations for the pro- Funding for Largest grams exceeded prior year levels. (See table III.1 ,) Grant Programs Exceeded Fiscal Year 1989 Levels Page 12 GAO/HRD90-150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of JMucation Appendix II Sequester Implementation The Department’s final sequester amount fell below the $284.7 million Final Sequester Taken specified in OMB'S Revised Final Sequester Report, issued December 27, Differed From Final 1989. This occurred because certain rules apply to sequester calcula- tions when agency appropriations acts are enacted after the October 15 Sequester Report sequester deadline. Appropriations enacted for the Department’s accounts in November 1989 varied from the sequester bases OMB used to compute the 1.4-percent across-the-board sequester, as mandated by the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989. Under the rules governing sequestration in these circumstances, the agencies were to sequester each account on the basis of its fiscal year 1990 appropriation compared to the sequester base used by OMB to com- pute the sequester amounts shown in its December report. The sequester base for most Department of Education programs was the fiscal year 1989 appropriation plus an inflation factor. The maximum sequester for any account was 1.4 percent, specified by OMB in its December report; the minimum was ‘none” if the agency’s 1990 appropriation was less than OMB'S sequester base after the 1.4-percent reduction. This method- ology, reiterated by the Department in its own internal guidance, resulted in five accounts being subject to the full 1.4.percent sequester while the others were reduced-ranging from 1.3 to 0 percent. See appendix I for a more detailed explanation of these rules. Special rules in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act Special Rules Affected of 1985 prescribed a different methodology for applying the sequester Two Accounts to two of the Department’s accounts-Rehabilitation Services and Guar- anteed Student Loans. The sequester on vocational rehabilitation state grants reduced the amount of the automatic cost-of-living increase applied to the program. The special rule pertaining to guaranteed stu- dent loans (1) reduced the first-year interest subsidy payments to lenders of Stafford student loans by 0.25 percent and (2) increased the origination fee charged to these loan borrowers from 5.0 to 5.5 percent. IJnder the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989, the sequester measures applied only to those Stafford loans made between October 1 and December 31, 1989. The Department did not expect the sequester to otherwise alter loan availability to recipients. Page 10 GAO/HRB90-150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Rules for Sequestration When Appropriations Are PassedAfter the SequesterDeadline Certain rules apply when appropriations have not been enacted by October 15, the sequestration deadline. In such cases, the law requires that an assumed appropriation level-the sequester base-be used for making the sequester c*omputation. That level in most cases is the prior year appropriation adjusted upward for price inflation, estimated as specified in the act. In the event that the appropriation finally enacted is less than the assumed level, the decrease is counted toward (“credited to”) the sequestration requirement. Depending upon the degree of the enacted decrease, the sequester amount and percentage are reduced or totally eliminated. On the other hand, if the final appropriation is larger than the assumed level, the sequestered amount does not change, but the effective sequester percentage goes down. Tables I.1 and I.2 illustrate how real increases in hypothetical appropri- ations are protected from sequestration and decreases are credited to sequestration requirements. In fiscal year 1990, the Department’s appropriations act was enacted on November 21,1989, and conse- quently the Department was subject to these rules. Table 1.1: Hypothetical Sequester Order Estimates Before Appropriation Acts Sequester base (1999 appropriation + Sequester (1.4 Net Percent of Account inflation) percent) appropriation appropriation 1 $100,000 $1,400 $98,600 14 2 100,000 1,400 98,600 14 3 100000 1,400 98,600 1.4 Table 1.2: How Real Increases in Hypothetical Appropriations Are Appropriation Actual Net Percent of Protected From Sequestration and Account (fiscal year 1990) sequester appropriation appropriation Decreases Are Credited to 1 $110,000 $1,400 $108,600 1.3 Sequestration Requirements 2 99,000 400 98,600 04 3 98,000 0 98,000 0 Page 8 GAO JHRD-90.150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education Contents Letter Appendix I 8 Rules for Sequestration When Appropriations Are Passed After the Sequester Deadline Appendix II Sequester Final Sequester Taken Differed From Final Sequester Report Implementation Special Rules Affected Two Accounts Activities in Accounts Were Sequestered in Proportion to Their Appropriations ~ -- - Appendix III Overall Impact on Post-Sequester Funding for Largest Grant Programs 12 Exceeded Fiscal Year 1989 Levels Agency Was Not The Department Anticipated Ko Adverse Impact on Major 13 Severe Program Recipients Two Department Accounts Experienced More Severe 14 Effects From the Sequester ~.. -- Appendix IV 16 Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet Tables Table 1.1: Hypothetical Sequester Order Estimates Before 8 Appropriation Acts Table 1.2: How Real Increases in Hypothetical 8 Appropriations Are Protected From Sequestration and Decreases Arc Credited to Sequestration Requirements Table II. 1: Sequest.er for the Department of Education 9 (Fiscal Year 1990) Page 6 GAO,‘HRDM-150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education B240611 asserted impact. As agreed with your office, we did not verify the infor- mation obtained. Using OMB instructions, the Department of Education applied the Sequester’s Impact sequester of $266.1 million to 14 of its 19 sequestrable budget accounts with budget authority. IJnder the sequester rules, the other five accounts were not required to take any reductions. The sequestered amount, which was 1.1 percent of the Department’s fiscal year 1990 budget authority, was below the anticipated 1.4-percent reduction because appropriations passed by the Congress after the October sequester deadline differed from the estimates OMI3used to calculate the sequester amounts specified in its final report. Except for the Guaran- teed Student Loan account and Vocational Rehabilitation state grants, which were sequestered under special rules, sequesters against indi- vidual accounts ranged from 1.4 to 1.2 percent, depending on each account’s enacted appropriation. The Department was not subject to any across-the-board reductions pertaining to other legislation. The sequester’s impact on the Department’s largest programs was judged by agency representatives to be minimal. For example, planned increases in per-pupil expenditures under chapter 1 grants for educa- tionally disadvantaged students and education grants for handicapped students were reduced, but still grew beyond fiscal year 1989 levels, as did grants to states for rehabilitative services. An estimated 14,000 stu- dents will not receive Pell grant awards averaging $200, and grant awards to about one-third of the estimated 3.2 million grantees will be reduced by an average of $50. However, the Department considers this reduction to be minor for the $4.8 billion Pell Grant Program. Special rules under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 affected the Stafford Student Loan Program. The Depart- ment temporarily (1) increased fees to student borrowers who obtained their first loans and (2) reduced the government’s interest subsidies. These changes, which applied to only those new loans made during the first 3 months of fiscal year 1990, were judged by the Department to be slight and were not expected to reduce the availability of loans to eli- gible students. Only Program Administration and the Office for Civil Rights reported negative impact, and that was the result of a combination of other budget problems and not the sequester alone. Page 4 GAO ,HRD90-150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education R-240611 27, 1989, which specified the $5.7 billion reduction. The President issued the New Final Order on the same date. Certain rules apply to sequestration when agency appropriations laws are enacted after the October 15 sequestration deadline. The Depart- ment of Education’s appropriation was not enacted until November 1989. As a result, the amounts and percentages by which its budget accounts’ were reduced by sequestration frequently varied from the 1.4- percent reductions OMH specified in its final sequester report. Some of the Department’s accounts lost less through sequestration than the 1.4 percent shown in the report, because appropriations differed from the sequester bases OMHused to compute the reductions in accordance with the law. These rules are discussed in greater detail in appendix I. The fiscal year 1990 sequester reduced the Department of Education’s Results in Brief budgetary resources by $266.1 million-l. 1 percent of its $24.5 billion budget authority for the year. It decreased funding for 14 of the agency’s 19 budget accounts receiving budget authority subject to sequester, with reductions ranging between 1.2 and 1.4 percent for each account. (See app. II.) Department officials believe the sequester’s overall impact was minimal, for several reasons. After the sequester, the Department’s funding was 5.1 percent higher than in fiscal year 1989. Although program appropri- ations were reduced from initial fiscal year 1990 levels, net funding for most of the Department’s programs exceeded that available in the prior year. In addition, many of its programs, such as chapter 1 and Pell grants, do not disburse their funds until several months into the fiscal year for use into the subsequent year, allowing the Department and state and local education agencies (LEAS) time t,o make adjustments with minimal disruption to the programs. In general, the Department believed the sequester would not adversely affect its major program recipients. (See app. III.) The greatest negat ivc impact was reported in two departmental accounts that experienced funding difficulties beyond those created by the sequester. Program Administration, which provides administrative funds, including salaries and travel, for most of the Department, ‘Budget accounts are the pnrndry appmpnation categories dlsplaycd in The Budget of the Lkuted States Government. ExampIt+ of Ikparnnent of Education budget awounts are impact aid and higher education Page 2 GAO/HRD-90.150FS Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester: Department of Education
Budget Issues: Effects of the Fiscal Year 1990 Sequester on the Department of Education
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-08-03.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)