State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2003

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2006

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2007

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2008

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

Audit report of the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy for the year ended June 30, 2012

Audit report of the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy for the year ended June 30, 2012

Drug Court Process Evaluation Report, February 2008

The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation conducted a process evaluation in 2007 on the seven adult and juvenile drug courts existing in Iowa in 2003. (A list of adult and juvenile drug courts established in Iowa from 2004 through 2007 appears in the appendix.) The drug courts evaluated in this study differ on several important factors, including the judicial supervision model used, resources available, and the severity level of clients served. The divergent resources and clients should be considered when comparing outcomes across courts. Section 1 provides an overview of each drug court included in this study.

Statewide Process and Comparative Outcomes Study of 2003 Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts, August 2009

A statewide evaluation of the six adult and three juvenile drug courts in operation during calendar year 2003 was conducted. Completion rates, recidivism, substance abuse treatment, and supervision and placement (juveniles only) costs were examined by model (Judge and Community Panel) and by Judicial District. In addition, adult drug court participants were compared with a group of offenders who were screened and declined or were rejected by drug court in 2003 (referred) and a sample of offenders starting probation in 2003 (probationer). The adult participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through December 31, 2007. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of almost 3 years (2.9) for drug court participants. For the juvenile portion, drug court participants were compared with a group matched on several demographic and offense variables (Matched Comparison group) and juveniles referred to drug court who did not enter the program (Referred Comparison group). The juvenile participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through approximately 16 quarters after program discharge with an end date of December 31, 2007.

Iowa Medicaid Pharmaceutical and Therapeutics Committee and Diabetes Treatment Preferred Drug List, December 16, 2008

This document was produced to help the state and citizens of Iowa with the price list of preferred drug list of medicines that diabetics can use.

Review of Iowa Department of Human Services Drug Testing Process, December 2008

This report outlines the current drugs testing practices and using these practices for testing requirements.

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY2004

Agency Performance Report

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY2005

Agency Performance Report

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY2006

Agency Performance Report

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY2007

Agency Performance Report

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY2008

Agency Performance Report

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY2009

Agency Performance Report