Just the Facts for 2004

The information in “Just the Facts for 2004” is a snapshot of the workforce, collected, compiled, and presented in a format that will aid agencies and decision makers in strategic planning. In many cases, data cover a number of years and are presented to give the reader a sense of trends. While the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Human Resource Enterprise (HRE) wants to present data in its purist form so readers can draw their own conclusions, we also have a responsibility to clarify anything that may be confusing or misleading. It is important to highlight workforce trends and explain their significance to the work of Iowa state government. The following chapter summaries are intended to do that.

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

U.S. Farm Policy and the Variability of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues, February 2000

A dynamic, three-commodity rational-expectations storage model is used to compare the impact of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 with a freemarket policy and with the agricultural policies that preceded the FAIR Act. Results support the hypothesis that the changes made when FAIR was enacted did not lead to permanent significant increases in the volatility of farm prices or revenues. An important finding is that the main economic impacts of the Pre-FAIR scenario, relative to the free-market regime were to transfer income to farmers and to substitute government storage for private storage in a way that did little to support prices or to stabilize farm incomes.

Girl Connection, October 2005

A monthly newsletter for Iowa Commission on the Status of Women

Department of Human Rights Division of Persons with Disabilities Annual Performance Plan Report, September 2005

This report is published in accordance with the Accountable Government Act to improve decision-making and increase accountability to stakeholders and citizens. This report contains performance information regarding our primary programs including, the Youth Leadership Forum, the College Leadership Forum, the State Access Grant and the Client Assistance Program. Major accomplishments this year include continuation of our core programs, a key role in the Iowa Great Places initiative and providing Cultural Competency training to governmental and non-governmental agencies.

Iowa Department of Corrections Annual Performance Report, 2004

Iowa Department of Corrections Annual Performance Report FY 2004

Inside Iowa's DOC, October 2004, Vol. 2, no. 2

Newsletter from the Department of Corrections

Inside Iowa's DOC, January 2005, Vol. 2, no. 3

Newsletter from the Department of Corrections

Inside Iowa's DOC, April 2005, Vol. 2, no. 4

Newsletter from the Department of Corrections

Inside Iowa's DOC, July 2005, Vol. 3, no. 1

Newsletter from the Department of Corrections

Iowa Department of Corrections Strategic Plan, 2005

Department of Corrections Strategic plan

Olmstead Plan, 2004

Department of Corrections Olmstead Plan

How Much “Safety” Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?, November 2005

Critics of the U.S. proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) made in October 2005 are correct when they argue that adoption of the proposal would significantly reduce available support under the current farm program structure. Using historical prices and yields from 1980 to 2004, we estimate that loan rates would have to drop by 9 percent and target prices would have to drop by 10 percent in order to meet the proposed aggregate Amber Box and Blue Box limits. While this finding should cheer those who think that reform of U.S. farm programs is long overdue, it alarms those who want to maintain a strong safety net for U.S. agriculture. The dilemma of needing to reform farm programs while maintaining a strong safety net could be resolved by redesigning programs so that they target revenue rather than price. Building on a base of 70 percent Green Box income insurance, a program that provides a crop-specific revenue guarantee equal to 98 percent of the product of the current effective target price and expected county yield would fit into the proposed aggregate Amber and Blue Box limits. Payments would be triggered whenever the product of the season-average price and county average yield fell below this 98 percent revenue guarantee. Adding the proposed crop-specific constraints lowers the coverage level to 95 percent. Moving from programs that target price to ones that target revenue would eliminate the rationale for ad hoc disaster payments. Program payments would automatically arrive whenever significant crop losses or economic losses caused by low prices occurred. Also, much of the need for the complicated mechanism (the Standard Reinsurance Agreement) that transfers most risk of the U.S. crop insurance to the federal government would be eliminated because the federal government would directly assume the risk through farm programs. Changing the focus of federal farm programs from price targeting to revenue targeting would not be easy. Farmers have long relied on price supports and the knowledge that crop losses are often adequately covered by heavily subsidized crop insurance or by ad hoc disaster payments. Farmers and their leaders would only be willing to support a change to revenue targeting if they see that the current system is untenable in an era of tight federal budgets and WTO limits.

Iowa Community Empowerment Newsletter, December 2005, Vol.6, no.6

Monthly newsletter for the Iowa Department of Public Health

Iowa Community Empowerment Newsletter, June 2001, Vol.2, no.3

Monthly newsletter for the Iowa Department of Public Health