Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2007

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2007

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2009

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2009

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Corrections for the five years ended June 30, 2009

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Corrections for the five years ended June 30, 2009

Study Regarding Implementation of a Uniform Statewide System to Allow for Electronic Transactions for the Registration and Titling of Motor Vehicles

LEGISLATIVE STUDY – The 83rd General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature, in Senate File 2273, directed the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study of how to implement a uniform statewide system to allow for electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. PARTICIPANTS IN STUDY – As directed by Senate File 2273, the DOT formed a working group to conduct the study that included representatives from the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Revenue, the Iowa State County Treasurer’s Association, the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association, and the Iowa Independent Automobile Dealers Association. CONDUCT OF THE STUDY – The working group met eight times between June 17, 2010, and October 1, 2010. The group discussed the costs and benefits of electronic titling from the perspectives of new and used motor vehicle dealers, county treasurers, the DOT, lending institutions, consumers and consumer protection, and law enforcement. Security concerns, legislative implications, and implementation timelines were also considered. In the course of the meetings the group: 1. Reviewed the specific goals of S.F. 2273, and viewed a demonstration of Iowa’s current vehicle registration and titling system so participants that were not users of the system could gain an understanding of its current functionality and capabilities. 2. Reviewed the results of a survey of county treasurers conducted by the DOT to determine the extent to which county treasurers had processing backlogs and the extent to which county treasurers limited the number of dealer registration and titling transactions that they would process in a single day and while the dealer waited. Only eight reported placing a limit on the number of dealer transactions that would be processed while the dealer waited (with the number ranging from one to four), and only 11 reported a backlog in processing registration and titling transactions as of June 11, 2010, with most backlogs being reported in the range of one to three days. 3. Conducted conference calls with representatives of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and representatives of three states -- Kansas, which has an electronic lien and titling (ELT) program, and Wisconsin and Florida, each of which have both an ELT program and an electronic registration and titling (ERT) program – to assess current and best practices for electronic transactions. In addition, the DOT (through AAMVA) submitted a survey to all U.S. jurisdictions to determine how, if at all, other states implemented electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Twenty-eight states responded to the survey; of the 28 states that responded, only 13 allowed liens to be added or released electronically, and only five indicated allowing applications for registration and titling to be submitted electronically. DOT staff also heard a presentation from South Dakota on its ERT system at an AAMVA regional meeting. ELT information that emerged suggests a multi-vendor approach, in which vendors that meet state specifications for participation are authorized to interface with the state’s system to serve as a portal between lenders and the state system, will facilitate electronic lien releases and additions by offering lenders more choices and the opportunity to use the same vendor in multiple states. The ERT information that emerged indicates a multi-interface approach that offers an interface with existing dealer management software (DMS) systems and through a separate internet site will facilitate ERT by offering access that meets a variety of business needs and models. In both instances, information that emerged indicates that, in the long-term, adoption rates are positively affected by making participation above a certain minimum threshold mandatory. 4. To assess and compare functions or services that might be offered by or through a vendor, the group heard presentations from vendors that offer products or services that facilitate some aspect of ELT or ERT. 5. To assess the concerns, needs and interest of Iowa motor vehicle dealers, the group surveyed dealers to assess registration and titling difficulties experienced by dealers, the types of DMS systems (if any) used by dealers, and the dealers’ interest and preference in using an electronic interface to submit applications for registration and titling. Overall, 40% of the dealers that responded indicated interest and 57% indicated no interest, but interest was pronounced among new car dealers (75% were interested) and dealers with a high number of monthly transactions (85% of dealers averaging more than 50 sales per month were interested). The majority of dealers responding to the dealer survey ranked delays in processing and problems with daily limits on transaction as ―minor difficulty or ―no difficulty. RECOMMENDATIONS -- At the conclusion of the meetings, the working group discussed possible approaches for implementation of electronic transactions in Iowa and reached a consensus that a phased implementation of electronic titling that addressed first electronic lien and title transactions (ELT) and electronic fund transfers (EFT), and then electronic applications for registration and titling (ERT) is recommended. The recommendation of a phased implementation is based upon recognition that aspects of ELT and EFT are foundational to ERT, and that ELT and EFT solutions are more readily and easily attained than the ERT solution, which will take longer and be somewhat more difficult to develop and will require federal approval of an electronic odometer statement to fully implement. ELT – A multi-vendor approach is proposed for ELT. No direct costs to the state, counties, consumers, or dealers are anticipated under this approach. The vendor charges participating lenders user or transaction fees for the service, and it appears the lenders typically absorb those costs due to the savings offered by ELT. Existing staff can complete the programming necessary to interface the state system with vendors’ systems. The estimated time to implement ELT is six to nine months. Mandatory participation is not recommended initially, but should be considered after ELT has been implemented and a suitable number of vendors have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. EFT – A previous attempt to implement ELT and EFT was terminated due to concern that it would negatively impact county revenues by reducing interest income earned on state funds collected by the county and held until the monthly transfer to the state. To avoid that problem in this implementation, the EFT solution should remain revenue neutral to the counties, by allowing fees submitted by EFT to be immediately directed to the proper county account. Because ARTS was designed and has the capacity to accommodate EFT, a vendor is not needed to implement EFT. The estimated time to implement EFT is six to nine months. It is expected that EFT development will overlap ELT development. ERT – ERT itself must be developed in phases. It will not be possible to quickly implement a fully functioning, paperless ERT system, because federal law requires that transfer of title be accompanied by a written odometer statement unless approval for an alternate electronic statement is granted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It is expected that it will take as much as a year or more to obtain NHTSA approval, and that NHTSA approval will require design of a system that requires the seller to electronically confirm the seller’s identity, make the required disclosure to the buyer, and then transfer the disclosure to the buyer, who must also electronically confirm the buyer’s identity and electronically review and accept the disclosure to complete and submit the transaction. Given the time that it will take to develop and gain approval for this solution, initial ERT implementation will focus on completing and submitting applications and issuing registration applied for cards electronically, with the understanding that this process will still require submission of paper documents until an electronic odometer solution is developed. Because continued submission of paper documents undermines the efficiencies sought, ―full‖ ERT – that is, all documents necessary for registration and titling should be capable of approval and/or acceptance by all parties, and should be capable of submission without transmittal or delivery of duplicate paper documents .– should remain the ultimate goal. ERT is not recommended as a means to eliminate review and approval of registration and titling transactions by the county treasurers, or to place registration and titling approval in the hands of the dealers, as county treasurers perform an important role in deterring fraud and promoting accuracy by determining the genuineness and regularity of each application. Authorizing dealers to act as registration agents that approve registration and title applications, issue registration receipts, and maintain and deliver permanent metal license plates is not recommended. Although distribution of permanent plates by dealers is not recommended, it is recommended that dealers participating in ERT generate and print registration applied for cards electronically. Unlike the manually-issued cards currently in use, cards issued in this fashion may be queried by law enforcement and are less susceptible to misuse by customers and dealers. The estimated time to implement the electronic application and registration applied for cards is 12 to 18 months, to begin after ELT and EFT have been implemented. It is recommended that focus during this time be on facilitating transfers through motor vehicle dealers, with initial deployment focused on higher-volume dealers that use DMS systems. In the long term an internet option for access to ERT must also be developed and maintained to allow participation for lower-volume dealers that do not use a DMS system. This option will also lay the ground work for an ERT option for sales between private individuals. Mandatory participation in Iowa is not recommended initially. As with ELT, it is recommended that mandatory participation be considered after at least an initial phase of ERT has been implemented and a suitable number of dealers have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. The use of vendors to facilitate ERT is not initially proposed because 1) DOT IT support staff is capable of developing a system that will interact with DMS systems and will still have to develop a dealer and public interface regardless of whether a vendor acts as intermediary between the DMS systems, and 2) there is concern that the cost of the vendor-based system, which is funded by transaction-based payments from the dealer to the vendor, will be passed to the consumer in the form of additional documentation or conveyance fees. However, the DOT recommends flexibility on this point, as development and pilot of the system may indicate that a multi-vendor approach similar to that recommended for ELT may increase the adoption rate by larger dealers and may ultimately decrease the user management to be exercised by DOT staff. If vendors are used in the process, additional legislation or administrative rules may be needed to control the fees that may be passed to the consumer. No direct cost to the DOT or county treasurers is expected, as the DOT expects that it may complete necessary programming with existing staff. Use of vendors to facilitate ERT transactions by dealers using DMS systems would result in transaction fees that may ultimately be passed to consumers. LEGISLATION – As a result of the changes implemented in 2004 under Senate File 2070, the only changes to Iowa statutes proposed are to section 321.69 of the Iowa Code, ―Damage disclosure statement,and section 321.71, ―Odometer requirements.‖ In each instance, authority to execute these statements by electronic means would be clarified by authorizing language similar to that used in section 321.20, subsections ―2‖ and ―3,‖ which allows for electronic applications and directs the department to ―adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for applications made by electronic means.‖ In these sections, the authorizing language might read as follows: Notwithstanding contrary provisions of this section, the department may develop and implement a program to allow for any statement required by this section to be made electronically. The department shall adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for statements made by electronic means. Some changes to DOT administrative rules will be useful but only to enable changes to work processes that would be desirable in the long term. Examples of long term work processes that would be enabled by rule changes include allowing for signatures created through electronic means and electronic odometer certifications. The DOT rules, as currently written, do not hinder the ability to proceed with ELT, EFT, and ERT.

Executive Order Number Twenty-Five, August 6, 2010

July 24, 2010, the breach of the Lake Delhi dam caused flash floods and massive damage to persons and businesses and public infrastructure in Delaware and Jones counties and surrounding areas, including Jackson County, resulting in gubernatorial declarations of emergency and applications for federal disaster assistance for these areas.

Executive Order Number Seventy Five, 2011

This act applying to a competitive and dynamic environment for job creators is needed to achieve our goals of 200,000 new jobs for Iowans and a 25% increase in family incomes over the next five years

Iowa Prison Industries Five Year Transition and Business Plan 2011-2015, 2011

IPI is comprised of three divisions. Private Sector funds are handed over to the General Fund. Traditional Industries and Farms funds are managed by IPI. The auditor of the state provides oversight on policies, procedures, and compliance with state law. Each year, the auditor is responsible for providing the Governor, legislature, Director of Corrections, and the public the findings of their comprehensive audits. IPI has received a clean bill of health and has not been cited for any violations in ten (10) years. IPI operates under the guidance of an advisory board, comprised of seven members. The advisory board meets at least four (4) times per year at a location of the board‟s choice, generally at a different prison each quarter. The board reviews the financials, policies, approves any new private sector ventures and offers comprehensive guidance on issues that will impact correctional industries as well as the public and local businesses. Each member serves for two (2) years and may be re-appointed. IPI has found that retaining board members has helped immensely with the continuity of transition and has afforded IPI with superb leadership and guidance. IPI is 100% self-funding. We receive no appropriations from the general fund. We hire our staff, pay their salaries, and pay the stipend of the offenders. We pay for our raw materials, equipment, and construct our buildings all from the proceeds of our sales. We operate with a revolving fund and retain any earnings at year-ends. The retained earnings are used for expansion of our work programs.

LSTA Five Year Plan Evaluation Report 2008-2012, March 29, 2012

The evaluation’s overarching question was “Did the activities undertaken through the state’s LSTA plan achieve results related to priorities identified in the Act?” The evaluation was conducted and is organized according to the six LSTA priorities. The research design employed two major methodologies: 1. Data sources from Iowa Library Services / State Library of Iowa2 as well as U.S and state sources were indentified for quantitative analysis. These sources, which primarily reflect outputs for various projects, included: Statistics from the Public Library Annual Survey Statistics collected internally by Iowa Library Services such as number of libraries subscribing to sponsored databases, number of database searches, attendance at continuing education events, number of interlibrary loan transactions Evaluation surveys from library training sessions, professional development workshops and other programs supported by LSTA funds Internal databases maintained by Iowa Library Services Impact results from post training evaluations conducted by Iowa Library Services 2010 Iowa census data from the U.S. Census Bureau LSTA State Program Reports for the grant period 2. Following the quantitative analysis, the evaluator gathered qualitative data through interviews with key employees, a telephone focus group with district library consultants and two surveys: LSTA Evaluation Survey (Public Libraries) and LSTA Evaluation Survey (Academic Libraries). Both surveys provided sound samples with 43 representatives of Iowa’s 77 academic libraries and 371 representatives of Iowa’s 544 public libraries participating. Respondents represented libraries of all sizes and geographical areas. Both surveys included multiple choice and rating scale items as well as open-ended questions from which results were coded to identify trends, issues and recommendations.

Executive Order Number Seventy Five, October 24, 2011

This act is a competitive and dynamic environment for job creators is needed to achieve our goal of 200,000 new jobs for Iowans and a 25% increase in family incomes over the next five years.

Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Five-Year Strategic Plan July 1, 2003-June 30, 2008

The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Corrections for the five years ended June 30, 2011

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Corrections for the five years ended June 30, 2011

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2011

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2011

Special plates report

This report is submitted by the Iowa Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division in compliance with Administrative Rule 761-401.18(3) Discontinuance. This rule requires the department to report to the legislature if 250 paid applications for any of the special registration plates subject to this rule are not submitted within one year after the date the department makes the plate available for application in order to request authority to discontinue any of the special registration plates established under Iowa Code section 321.34, new subsections 20C, 25 and 26 as amended by 2011 Iowa Acts, House File 651, section 2.

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2012

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Human Services for the five years ended June 30, 2012

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Corrections for the five years ended June 30, 2012

Combined report on the institutions under the control of the Iowa Department of Corrections for the five years ended June 30, 2012