Iowa Legal Assistance Program Best Practices, 2009

Legal problems faced by older Iowans are often more critical than those problems faced by any other segment of our population. Older Iowans in poverty are less likely to seek the assistance of an attorney. Often, it is either because they do not have cash resources to pay for services or they do not realize that they have a “legal problem.” The Older Americans Act of 1965 (hereafter, OAA) as amended, which primarily funds the Legal Assistance Program, requires that states have the capacity to improve the quality and quantity of legal programs for older individuals. These Legal Assistance Program Best Practices are meant to provide guidance to providers in the area of priority casework, coordination and collaboration to ensure cohesiveness and uniformity throughout the state’s legal assistance programs. Additionally, Congress mandates that states improve the quality of their Title III-B legal programs. One proven way to ensure a quality program is to have in place best practices to define expectations for not only the legal assistance program provider, but for the state unit on aging (the Iowa Department on Aging) and the area agencies on aging as well. These legal assistance program best practices may be amended from time to time to reflect the change in the legal needs of older Iowans as well as the mandates under the OAA, Iowa Department on Aging (hereafter, department) policy and other governing state and federal laws and regulations.

Training Aids to Reduce Potential County Liability, HR-289, Draft, 1987

Iowans who travel secondary roads regard these roads as a very important part of their lives. These highways provide a means of transporting products to market and children to school. They are also links to nearby cities and towns. Nearly 3.8 billion vehicle miles of travel occur each year on Iowa's nearly 90,000 mile secondary road system. Accidents do happen. However, improvements in highways, in vehicles, in driver education, in legislation, and in enforcement have combined to make driving in Iowa very safe. If our highways are to remain safe, these efforts need to be continued. This presentation was developed to help county highway department personnel in their effort to maintain and improve highway safety. The presentation is not a standard, specification or regulation.

Guidelines for Removal of Traffic Control Devices in Rural Areas, TR-527, 2005

It is commonly regarded that the overuse of traffic control devices desensitizes drivers and leads to disrespect, especially for low-volume secondary roads with limited enforcement. The maintenance of traffic signs is also a tort liability concern, exacerbated by unnecessary signs. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Traffic Control Devices Handbook provide guidance for the implementation of STOP signs based on expected compliance with right-of-way rules, provision of through traffic flow, context (proximity to other controlled intersections), speed, sight distance, and crash history. The approach(es) to stop is left to engineering judgment and is usually dependent on traffic volume or functional class/continuity of system. Although presently being considered by the National Committee on Traffic Control Devices, traffic volume itself is not given as a criterion for implementation in the MUTCD. STOP signs have been installed at many locations for various reasons which no longer (or perhaps never) met engineering needs. If in fact the presence of STOP signs does not increase safety, removal should be considered. To date, however, no guidance exists for the removal of STOP signs at two-way stop-controlled intersections. The scope of this research is ultra-low-volume (< 150 daily entering vehicles) unpaved intersections in rural agricultural areas of Iowa, where each of the 99 counties may have as many as 300 or more STOP sign pairs. Overall safety performance is examined as a function of a county excessive use factor, developed specifically for this study and based on various volume ranges and terrain as a proxy for sight distance. Four conclusions are supported: (1) there is no statistical difference in the safety performance of ultra-low-volume stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections for all drivers or for younger and older drivers (although interestingly, older drivers are underrepresented at both types of intersections); (2) compliance with stop control (as indicated by crash performance) does not appear to be affected by the use or excessive use of STOP signs, even when adjusted for volume and a sight distance proxy; (3) crash performance does not appear to be improved by the liberal use of stop control; (4) safety performance of uncontrolled intersections appears to decline relative to stop-controlled intersections above about 150 daily entering vehicles. Subject to adequate sight distance, traffic professionals may wish to consider removal of control below this threshold. The report concludes with a section on methods and legal considerations for safe removal of stop control.

Report on the Iowa Judicial Retirement System as of June 30, 2015 and the net pension liability as of June 30, 2014

Report on the Iowa Judicial Retirement System as of June 30, 2015 and the net pension liability as of June 30, 2014