The Larned A. Waterman Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center eNewsletter, July 2004

Newsletter produced by Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center

The Larned A. Waterman Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center eNewsletter, May 2005

Newsletter produced by Iowa Non Profit Resource Center

The Larned A. Waterman Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center eNewsletter, February 2003

Newsletter produced by Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center

The Larned A. Waterman Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center eNewsletter, April 2004

Newsletter produced by Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Human Services - Central Distribution Center, June 30, 2004

State Audit Reports - DHS Institutions

Iowa State Center Business Office, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statements, June 30, 2004 & 2005

State University Audit Report

Report on Special Investigation of the Rural Iowa Waste Management Association for the Period July 1st, 1999 through October 15th, 2004

Other Audit Reports - Special Investigation

Rural Iowa Waste Management Association Independent Auditor's Reports Finanical Statement and Required Supplementary Information Schedule of Findings for the period ending June 30, 2004.

Rural Iowa Waste Management Association Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statement, Required Supplementary Information and Schedule of Findings for the Period Ending June 30, 2004.

The Collective-Quality Promotion in the Agribusiness Sector: An Overview, October 2005

This paper reviews the economic effects of collective-quality promotion through a survey of the recent literature devoted to common labeling and professional groups. Benefits and costs of common labeling and professional groups for improving quality are detailed. Some empirical facts are presented, mainly focusing on some European examples, since many European countries have a long history of producer-owned marketing programs. This paper shows that in some cases the collective-quality promotion can be a successful strategy for firms/farmers.

Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, August 31, 2004 & June 30, 2005

State Audit Reports

Adair County Sanitary Landfill and Recycling Center, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statement and Required Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings, June 30, 2005

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations

Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statement and Required Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings, June 30, 2005

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations

Iowa Corn Promotion Board, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statements, Supplementary Information and Schedule of Findings, August 31, 2004 & 2005

State Audit Reports

Guidleines for Removal of Traffic Control Devices in Rural Areas, October 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.

Rural Iowa Waste Management Association, Independent Auditor's Reports, Financial Statement and Required Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings, June 30, 2005

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations