NAPIS Report YTD 1st Quarter-4th Quarter 2007

INAPIS Title III Client Service Unit Report - INAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) Service Unit Report collects and reports service/performance data and related program management information to the federal and state government. This report shows the number of older Iowans who receive services and the number of units by service category from Title III funding of the Older Americans Act, the Administration on Aging (AoA) and limited state general fund dollars. Additionally, it shows the number of persons served by individual services and total "unduplicated" client count across all services. In other words, if you add the total number of clients from all services it is higher than the actual number of persons served across all services, because some people need and receive more than one service. (Please note: this is preliminary data, and may be subject to change.)

Title III-E Report YTD 1st Quarter-4th Quarter 2007

Family Caregiver Support Program (Title III-E) - The Administration on Aging (AoA) has determined that for Title III-E, the actual family caregiver is the client, not the older person receiving the services. Iowa NAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) collects and reports Title III-E service/performance data and related program management information to the federal and state government in a format like the other Title III services. The major shift in reporting relates to who is the client. As a result, this Title III-E Client/Service Unit Report shows the number of caregivers who receive services and the number of units by service category from the Title III-E funding of the Older Americans Act, the AoA, and limited state general fund dollars. Additionally, it shows the number of persons served by individual services and total "unduplicated" client count across all services. In other words, if you add the total number of clients (caregivers) from all services, it is higher than the actual number of persons served across all services because some people need and receive more than one service. (Please note: this is preliminary data, and may be subject to change.) Title III-E Report YTD 1st Quarter 2007 Title III-E Report YTD 2nd Quarter 2007 Title III-E Report YTD 3rd Quarter 2007 Title III-E Report YTD 4th Quarter 2007

Unmet Needs Report, July 2006-June 2007

Despite the successes of the Senior Living Program and other efforts of the Iowa Aging Network, there continue to be documented unmet needs throughout the state, in part because of general fund budget reductions. These are needs identified for elderly Iowans that the community service networks are unable to meet. The sources for this data are interdisciplinary teams with the Case Management Program for the Frail Elderly (CMPFE) and service providers under contract with the Area Agencies on Aging. June 2007 Unmet Needs Report May 2007 Unmet Needs Report April 2007 Unmet Needs Report March 2007 Unmet Needs Report February 2007 Unmet Needs Report January 2007 Unmet Needs Report December 2006 Unmet Needs Report November 2006 Unmet Needs Report October 2006 Unmet Needs Report September 2006 Unmet Needs Report August 2006 Unmet Needs Report July 2006 Unmet Needs Report

Socioeconomic Effects of Gambling on Iowans Study Committee, 2004

Overview. The Studies Committee received an in-person progress report from the consultants retained by the Legislature to conduct a study of the socioeconomic effects of gambling on Iowans. Dr. Deepak Chhabra and Dr. Gene Lutz, both of the University of Northern Iowa, presented an update on the conduct of the study. Gambling Study Description. The consultants indicated that the study objectives are to determine the economic impact of gambling at existing Iowa casinos on the local community, the socioeconomic characteristics of gamblers, the social impact of gambling on the local community, and the impact of problem gambling. The consultants stated that the major research methods they would use would be historical data, telephone surveys of local residents, telephone interviews with key personnel, and use of an economic impact model. In conducting the study, the consultants indicated they would examine four study areas within Iowa. Study area I would be all of Iowa, area II would be that area in Iowa within a 50-mile radius of a casino, area III would be counties with a casino, and area IV would be based upon casino employee zip codes. The consultants briefed the Committee on the data collected so far and described current challenges in obtaining data on all casino visitors and from obtaining information from several convention and visitor bureaus and chambers of commerce.

Iowa Gender Wage Equity Study, 2008

In 1993, Iowa Workforce Development (then the Department of Employment Services) conducted a survey to determine if there was a gender gap in wages paid. The results of that survey indicated that females were paid 68 cents for every dollar paid to males. Another study was conducted in 1999 which found that females made approximately 73 cents for every dollar made by males in Iowa. These calculations took into account the average number of hours respondents worked weekly. In January 2008, Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) was contacted by the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women (ICSW) to request that IWD conduct research to update the 1999 gender wage equity study to determine if the wage disparity between males and females has changed since the 1999 study. This study was completed by IWD using 2007/2008 Laborshed data consisting of responses from 5,669 employed respondents. Of the respondents, 59.6 percent (3,379) were female, 40.3 percent (2,285) were male, and 0.1 percent (5) refused to identify their gender. Statewide sampling was provided by the University of Northern Iowa’s Institute for Decision Making based on the population per ZIP code. The results of the survey show that females who are paid an hourly wage earn 21.8 percent (78.2 cents for every dollar) less than males earn and females who are salaried earn 21.6 percent less than males. Additional survey results detail the occupational categories, industries and the education and experience levels. All of these characteristics contribute to the disparity.