Office of Drug Control Policy, Agency Performance Plan

Annual Report, Agency Performance Plan

Report of Recommendations to the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, June 30, 2002

State Agency Audit Report

Final Report on the Polk County Adult Drug Court, 2001

An evaluation has been conducted on the Polk County Drug Court, comparing clients entering the program from its inception through September 30, 1998 with a group of revoked probationers from FY96 (the “pilot group”) and other offenders referred to drug court who did not enter them program (the “referred group”).

Final Report on the Polk County Adult Drug Court Executive Summary and Summary of Findings, 2001

An evaluation has been conducted on the Polk County Drug Court, comparing clients entering the program from its inception through September 30, 1998 with a group of revoked probationers from FY96 (the “pilot group”) and other offenders referred to drug court who did not enter the program (the “referred group”).

Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, Notification Letter, July 25, 2005

State Audit Reports - Notification Letter

Portland Cement Concrete Patching Techniques vs. Performance and Traffic Delay, January 2004

Standards for the construction of full-depth patching in portland cement concrete pavement usually require replacement of all deteriorated based materials with crushed stone, up to the bottom of the existing pavement layer. In an effort to reduce the time of patch construction and costs, the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at Iowa State University studied the use of extra concrete depth as an option for base construction. This report compares the impact of additional concrete patching material depth on rate of strength gain, potential for early opening to traffic, patching costs, and long-term patch performance. This report also compares those characteristics in terms of early setting and standard concrete mixes. The results have the potential to change the method of Portland cement concrete pavement patch construction in Iowa.

Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY 2004

Agency Performance Report

Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Report, FY 2005

Agency Performance Report

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.

Volume of Traffic on the Primary Road System, 2002

The Office of Transportation Data, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, prepares this biennial traffic report. This report is used by federal, state, and local governmental agencies in determining highway needs, construction priorities, route location and environmental impact studies, and the application of appropriate design standards. The general public uses this information in determining the amount of traffic that passes a given area as they make their development plans and propose land use changes. The above reflects only a few of the many technical uses for this data.

Iowa's Drug Control Strategy, November 2006

Iowa's Drug Control Strategy produced by Office of Drug Control Policy for the 2007 year.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, November 1, 2006

The attached annual report is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialists, law enforcement officers, a prevention specialist, a judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy were in developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Agency Performance Reporting, 2006

The Agency Performance Report for the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy is published in accordance with the Accountable Government Act. The information provided within this report is to aid in decision-making and to illustrate accountability to stakeholders and citizens. The report is indicative of the agency’s progress in meeting performance targets and achieving goals consistent with the enterprise strategic plan, the agency strategic plan and agency performance plan.

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Agency Performance Reporting, 2007

The Agency Performance Report for the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy is published in accordance with the Accountable Government Act. The information provided within this report is to aid in decision-making and to illustrate accountability to stakeholders and citizens. The report is indicative of the agency’s progress in meeting performance targets and achieving goals consistent with the enterprise strategic plan, the agency strategic plan and agency performance plan.

Audit report of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy for the year ended June 30, 2006

Audit report of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy for the year ended June 30, 2006