Probation Revocation Project in Iowa's Sixth Judicial District, 2002

Sixth Judicial District Pilot Project treats probation violation hearings in the same manner as parole violation hearings. When a probationer is serving a suspended prison sentence, the project permits an administrative law judge to dispose of the case rather than requiring the District Court to adjudicate the violation.

State of Iowa Inmates at Mid-Year, 2001

This report was compiled at the request of the Department of Corrections. The statewide analysis of Iowa’s prison population at mid-year (June 30) 2001 includes the following information: · Type of Most Serious Offense (e.g., arson, assault, burglary, etc.) · Offense Class of Most Serious Offense · Sex · Race/Ethnicity · Age (median, or middle value) · Inmate Custody Level (minimum, medium, maximum security) · Educational Level (average) · Reading Score (average)

An Examination of Iowa's School Liaison Program, 2001

In the early 1990’s the Chief Juvenile Court Officers (JCOs) and other key players desired to provide services, such as school support, family support, and community support to both juvenile court and at-risk youths within the school setting. With strong support from both Iowa’s Attorney General and Governor the Iowa State Legislature first appropriated funds for school liaisons in 1994. The liaison program is currently funded with 75 percent state dollars appropriated to the Department of Human Services and a minimum of 25 percent match from the local school districts. In some cases the schools do not actually match funds with “school money,” rather they may utilize community money from other sources, such as the local decategorization process. In 1994, the state legislature funded this effort at $400,000. Since that time the amount has grown to more than $3,000,000. In the early years there were just a handful of liaisons working in a few school districts, but by the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year there were 304 schools served by 147 liaisons. The cost per liaison, including salary and benefits, was estimated at approximately $34,324 including both the DHS and school contributions. It was a desire of the Chief JCOs to place the liaisons under the school districts and thus allow them to be independent of the juvenile court. Agreements were developed between the schools and juvenile court regarding employee status, funding, information sharing, and other such issues.

Iowa Prison Population Forecast, FY 2002-2011

CJJP takes a look at the forecast of inmates population in the state of Iowa in a ten year period. Information was produced by Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. This report was made possible partially through funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and its program for State Statistical Analysis Centers. Points of view or opinions expressed in this report are those of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP), and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Recidivism of State FY96 Prison Releases in Iowa, 2001

This report presents recidivism data on offenders released from Iowa prisons during State FY1996 (July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996).

The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism, 2000

The Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) received funding through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) State Justice Statistics (SJS) Program for the purpose of collection and analysis of data related to implementation of the Iowa Sex Offender Registry. The research had two specific goals: · To enhance understanding of the State’s Sex Offender Registry through collection and analysis of data on sex offenders before and after the Registry’s implementation. · To develop and validate a unique Iowa Sex Offender Risk Assessment tool to assist in identifying those offenders who constitute the highest risk to re-offend. Few studies have addressed the impact of a Sex Offender Registry program on recidivism rates or other variables. It was the purpose of this first study to examine and compare two groups of individuals to determine what effect, if any, the requirement to register as a sex offender had on recidivism rates over a 3-4 year period.

Youthful Offender Program Follow Up Report, 2001

In 1996, the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning was asked by the Governor’s Alliance on Substance Abuse (GASA) to examine the five Youthful Offender Programs (YOPs) that were in operation at that time. The focus of the original study was to describe the programs, their clientele, and two outcome measures (program completion and recidivism). One section of the report provided a detailed description of each of the five programs in operation at the time of the original study and the findings for each. Another section of the report highlighted program completion rates and recidivism rates. The Youthful Offender Programs were designed to operate as part of a partnership with a number of different agencies (county attorneys, the district departments of correctional services, and a variety of different treatment agencies) to provide a holistic approach in the rehabilitation of youthful offenders. These programs were designed specifically for offenders between the ages of 16 and 21 who had committed first time felonies or aggravated misdemeanors as an alternative to incarceration or in response to non-compliant probationer behaviors. Offenders who were 16 and 17 years of age had to have been waived to the adult court to be eligible for entry to the program.

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”).

State of Iowa Inmates at Mid-Year, 2000

This report was compiled at the request of the Department of Corrections. The statewide analysis of Iowa’s prison population at mid-year (June 30) 2000 includes the following information: l. Type of Most Serious Offense (e.g., arson, assault, burglary, etc.) 2. Offense Class of Most Serious Offense 3. Sex 4. Race/Ethnicity 5. Age (median, or middle value) 6. Inmate Custody Scores (median value) 7. Educational Level (average) 8. Reading Scores (average)

Iowa Prison Population Forecast FY 2001-2010

CJJP takes a look at the forecast of inmates population in the state of Iowa in a ten year period. Information was produced by Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. This report was made possible partially through funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and its program for State Statistical Analysis Centers. Points of view or opinions expressed in this report are those of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP), and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice.

State of Iowa 1999 Inmate Profile, 2000

This report was compiled at the request of the Department of Corrections. The statewide analysis of Iowa’s prison population at mid-year (June 30) 1999 includes the following information: • Type of Most Serious Offense (e.g., arson, assault, burglary, etc.) • Offense Class of Most Serious Offense • Sex • Race/Ethnicity • Age (median, or middle value) • Inmate Custody Scores (median value) • Educational Level (average) • Reading Scores (average)

Iowa Prison Population Forecast FY 2000-2009

CJJP takes a look at the forecast of inmates population in the state of Iowa in a ten year period. Information was produced by Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. This report was made possible partially through funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and its program for State Statistical Analysis Centers. Points of view or opinions expressed in this report are those of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP), and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Iowa Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task Force Report to the Iowa General Assembly, January 15, 2006

Over the last several years, lawmakers have been responding to several highly publicized child abduction, assault and murder cases. While such cases remain rare in Iowa, the public debates they have generated are having far-reaching effects. Policy makers are responsible for controlling the nature of such effects. Challenges they face stem from the need to avoid primarily politically-motivated responses and the desire to make informed decisions that recognize both the strengths and the limitations of the criminal justice system as a vehicle for promoting safe and healthy families and communities. Consensus was reached by the Task Force at its first meeting that one of its standing goals is to provide nonpartisan guidance to help avoid or fix problematic sex offense policies and practices. Setting this goal was a response to the concern over what can result from elected officials’ efforts to respond to the types of sex offender-related concerns that can easily become emotionally laden and politically charged due to the universally held abhorrence of sex crimes against children. The meetings of the Task Force and the various work groups it has formed have included some spirited and perhaps emotionally charged discussions, despite the above-stated ground rule. However, as is described in the report, the Task Force’s first set of recommendations and plans for further study were approved through consensus. It is hoped that in upcoming legislative deliberations, it will be remembered that the non-legislative members of the Task Force all agreed on the recommendations contained in this report. The topics discussed in this first report from the Task Force are limited to the study issues specifically named in H.F. 619, the Task Force’s enabling legislation. However, other topics of concern were discussed by the Task Force because of their immediacy or because of their possible relationships with one or more of the Task Force’s mandated study issues. For example, it has been reported by some probation/parole officers and others that the 2000 feet rule has had a negative influence on treatment participation and supervision compliance. While such concerns were noted, the Task Force did not take it upon itself to investigate them at this time and thus broaden the agenda it was given by the General Assembly last session. As a result, the recently reinstated 2000 feet rule, the new cohabitation/child endangerment law and other issues of interest to Task Force members but not within the scope of their charge are not discussed in the body of this report. An issue of perhaps the greatest interest to most Task Force members that was not a part of their charge was a belief in the benefit of viewing Iowa’s efforts to protect children from sex crimes with as comprehensive a platform as possible. It has been suggested that much more can be done to prevent child-victim sex crimes than would be accomplished by only concentrating on what to do with offenders after a crime has occurred. To prevent child victimization, H.F. 619 policy provisions rely largely on incapacitation and future deterrent effects of increased penalties, more restrictive supervision practices and greater public awareness of the risk presented by a segment of Iowa’s known sex offenders. For some offenders, these policies will no doubt prevent future sex crimes against children, and the Task Force has begun long-term studies to look for the desired results and for ways to improve such results through better supervision tools and more effective offender treatment. Unfortunately, much of the effects from the new policies may primarily influence persons who have already committed sex offenses against minors and who have already been caught doing so. Task Force members discussed the need for a range of preventive efforts and a need to think about sex crimes against children from other than just a “reaction- to-the-offender” perspective. While this topic is not addressed in the report that follows, it was suggested that some of the Task Force’s discussions could be briefly shared through these opening comments. Along with incapacitation and deterrence, comprehensive approaches to the prevention of child-victim sex crimes would also involve making sure parents have the tools they need to detect signs of adults with sex behavior problems, to help teach their children about warning signs and to find the support they need for healthy parenting. School, faithbased and other community organizations might benefit from stronger supports and better tools they can use to more effectively promote positive youth development and the learning of respect for others, respect for boundaries and healthy relationships. All of us who have children, or who live in communities where there are children, need to understand the limitations of our justice system and the importance of our own ability to play a role in preventing sexual abuse and protecting children from sex offenders, which are often the child’s own family members. Over 1,000 incidences of child sexual abuse are confirmed or founded each year in Iowa, and most such acts take place in the child’s home or the residence of the caretaker of the child. Efforts to prevent child sexual abuse and to provide for early interventions with children and families at risk could be strategically examined and strengthened. The Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task Force was established to provide assistance to the General Assembly. It will respond to legislative direction for adjusting its future plans as laid out in this report. Its plans could be adjusted to broaden or narrow its scope or to assign different priority levels of effort to its current areas of study. Also, further Task Force considerations of the recommendations it has already submitted could be called for. In the meantime, it is hoped that the information and recommendations submitted through this report prove helpful.

European Council of Legal Medicine (ECLM) accreditation of forensic pathology services in Europe.

Forensic experts play a major role in the legal process as they offer professional expert opinion and evidence within the criminal justice system adjudicating on the innocence or alleged guilt of an accused person. In this respect, medico-legal examination is an essential part of the investigation process, determining in a scientific way the cause(s) and manner of unexpected and/or unnatural death or bringing clinical evidence in case of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse in living people. From a legal perspective, these types of investigation must meet international standards, i.e., it should be independent, effective, and prompt. Ideally, the investigations should be conducted by board-certified experts in forensic medicine, endowed with a solid experience in this field, without any hierarchical relationship with the prosecuting authorities and having access to appropriate facilities in order to provide forensic reports of high quality. In this respect, there is a need for any private or public national or international authority including non-governmental organizations seeking experts qualified in forensic medicine to have at disposal a list of specialists working in accordance with high standards of professional performance within forensic pathology services that have been successfully submitted to an official accreditation/certification process using valid and acceptable criteria. To reach this goal, the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) has elaborated an accreditation/certification checklist which should be served as decision-making support to assist inspectors appointed to evaluate applicants. In the same spirit than NAME Accreditation Standards, European Council of Legal Medicine (ECLM) board decided to set up an ad hoc working group with the mission to elaborate an accreditation/certification procedure similar to the NAME's one but taking into account the realities of forensic medicine practices in Europe and restricted to post-mortem investigations. This accreditation process applies to services and not to individual practitioners by emphasizing policies and procedures rather than professional performance. In addition, the standards to be complied with should be considered as the minimum standards needed to get the recognition of performing and reliable forensic pathology service.