An Examination of Iowa State Patrol Traffic Stops, October 2000 - March 2002

this report describes traffic law enforcement data collected by the Iowa State Patrol (ISP) related to traffic stops made by Troopers for October 1, 2000 through March 30, 2002. The data contained in this report summarizes the activities of approximately 435 troopers who are assigned to 15 posts throughout the State of Iowa The purpose of this voluntary data collection process was to provide the ISP with the ability to review traffic law enforcement variables in relation to traffic stops. The methodology for this research project was developed and implemented by ISP. Following the data collection period, the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) was asked to assist in the analysis and reporting phase of this ambitious project.

Whose DNA is this? How relevant a question? (a note for forensic scientists).

This communication seeks to draw the attention of researchers and practitioners dealing with forensic DNA profiling analyses to the following question: is a scientist's report, offering support to a hypothesis according to which a particular individual is the source of DNA detected during the analysis of a stain, relevant from the point of view of a Court of Justice? This question relates to skeptical views previously voiced by commentators mainly in the judicial area, but is avoided by a large majority of forensic scientists. Notwithstanding, the pivotal role of this question has recently been evoked during the international conference "The hidden side of DNA profiles. Artifacts, errors and uncertain evidence" held in Rome (April 27th to 28th, 2012). Indeed, despite the fact that this conference brought together some of the world's leading forensic DNA specialists, it appeared clearly that a huge gap still exists between questions lawyers are actually interested in, and the answers that scientists deliver to Courts in written reports or during oral testimony. Participants in the justice system, namely lawyers and jurors on the one hand and forensic geneticists on the other, unfortunately talk considerably different languages. It thus is fundamental to address this issue of communication about results of forensic DNA analyses, and open a dialogue with practicing non-scientists at large who need to make meaningful use of scientific results to approach and help solve judicial cases. This paper intends to emphasize the actuality of this topic and suggest beneficial ways ahead towards a more reasoned use of forensic DNA in criminal proceedings.

E-learning initiatives in forensic interpretation: report on experiences from current projects and outlook

This paper reports on the purpose, design, methodology and target audience of E-learning courses in forensic interpretation offered by the authors since 2010, including practical experiences made throughout the implementation period of this project. This initiative was motivated by the fact that reporting results of forensic examinations in a logically correct and scientifically rigorous way is a daily challenge for any forensic practitioner. Indeed, interpretation of raw data and communication of findings in both written and oral statements are topics where knowledge and applied skills are needed. Although most forensic scientists hold educational records in traditional sciences, only few actually followed full courses that focussed on interpretation issues. Such courses should include foundational principles and methodology - including elements of forensic statistics - for the evaluation of forensic data in a way that is tailored to meet the needs of the criminal justice system. In order to help bridge this gap, the authors' initiative seeks to offer educational opportunities that allow practitioners to acquire knowledge and competence in the current approaches to the evaluation and interpretation of forensic findings. These cover, among other aspects, probabilistic reasoning (including Bayesian networks and other methods of forensic statistics, tools and software), case pre-assessment, skills in the oral and written communication of uncertainty, and the development of independence and self-confidence to solve practical inference problems. E-learning was chosen as a general format because it helps to form a trans-institutional online-community of practitioners from varying forensic disciplines and workfield experience such as reporting officers, (chief) scientists, forensic coordinators, but also lawyers who all can interact directly from their personal workplaces without consideration of distances, travel expenses or time schedules. In the authors' experience, the proposed learning initiative supports participants in developing their expertise and skills in forensic interpretation, but also offers an opportunity for the associated institutions and the forensic community to reinforce the development of a harmonized view with regard to interpretation across forensic disciplines, laboratories and judicial systems.

The Child Welfare Decategorization Program, August 2010

This Handbook is designed to outline the purposes, goals, structure, and operational procedures for Iowa’s Child Welfare Decategorization Program. The Handbook incorporates experiences gained since the inception of Decategorization in 1987. As with any initiative that began on a pilot basis, Decategorization has been an evolving program in which parameters and procedures have undergone modifications to achieve the desired results. The Handbook serves as a guidebook for implementation and operation of Decategorization and a means of communicating information on program parameters and procedures. Purposes of Decategorization of child welfare and juvenile justice funding is an initiative intended to establish systems of delivering human services based upon client needs to replace systems based upon a multitude of categorical funding programs and funding sources, each with different service definitions and eligibility requirements. Decategorization is designed to redirect child welfare and juvenile justice funding to services which are more preventive, family centered, and community-based in order to reduce use of restrictive approaches that rely on institutional, out-of home, and out-of-community care.

Dual Diagnosis Program Works Best for Minorities, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, September 2011

The Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning recently released a report summarizing its evaluation of the Dual Diagnosis Offender Program (DDOP) administered by the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services.

Evaluation Gives STAR High Marks, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, February 2010

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently released an evaluation of the intensive substance abuse treatment program at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) – STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery). STAR is a licensed inpatient program utilizing a genderbased therapeutic community model (TC).

Drug Court Evaluation Documents Program's Success, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, August 2009

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently released its study of Iowa’s six adult drug courts, all of which are administered by community corrections agencies. Making heavy use of DOC’s ICON data base, CJJP examined completion rates, recidivism and substance abuse treatment. CJJP also compared drug court results with those of 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 (probationers). CJJP tracked the offenders for approximately three years.

Evaluation Findings: Rural Reentry Program Works, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, April 2010

Iowa’s Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently completed an evaluation of the 2nd Judicial District’s Rural Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI), which provided reentry services to offenders both while in prison and after release.

CJJP Forecasts Increase in Special Sentence Sex Offenders Caseloads, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, December 2011

The Iowa Sex Offender Research Council recently released a report to the Iowa General Assembly focusing on sex offender registration and the special sentence for sex offenders. Regarding the latter, the Council (staffed by the state’s Division of Criminal & Juvenile Justice Planning) projected a steady increase in community-based corrections’ special sentence caseloads from 619 offenders in 2011 to 2,651 offenders in 2021:

Special Sentence Revocations High, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, May 2010

In addition to their original sentence, persons convicted of sexual abuse, incest or sexual exploitation of a minor also receive a “special sentence” of ten years, or in some cases, life. In its prison population forecast, the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning noted “an unexpectedly high rate of revocation among those released to the special sentence, particularly given past research that has shown Iowa sex offenders having very low rates of re-arrest and/or return to prison.”

Special Sentence Sex Offender Caseloads Adding Up, Data Downloads, Iowa Department of Corrections, December 2008

Several years ago the General Assembly increased the penalties for certain sex offenses by an additional ten years of community-based supervision, and in some case lifetime supervision. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) studied the effect the new law would have on CBC supervision caseloads:

Serving Iowa Youth and Families With a Youth Development Approach, 2003

This report is Iowa’s Three-Year Plan, which serves as the application for federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act formula grant funding (JJDP Act). The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) wrote Iowa’s Three-Year Plan. CJJP is the state agency responsible for administering the JJDP Act in Iowa. Federal officials refer to state administering agencies as the state planning agency (SPA). The Plan was developed and approved by Iowa’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council. That Council assists with administration of the JJDP Act, and also provides guidance and direction to the SPA, the Governor and the legislature regarding juvenile justice issues in Iowa. Federal officials refer to such state level groups as state advisory groups (SAG’s). The acronyms SPA and SAG are used through this report.

Academic Court Schoolbased Lisison Statewide Date, 2006

Prepared by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Iowa Department of Human Rights

DMC Section from Iowa’s 2007

This document is the DMC Section of Iowa’s 2007 JJDP Act formula grant three year plan update. The bulk of this 2007 plan is an “update” of the program plan completed since submission of the original 2006 plan. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) wrote Iowa’s three year plan update. CJJP is the state agency responsible for administering the JJDP Act in Iowa. Federal officials refer to state administering agencies as the state planning agency (SPA). The Plan was developed and approved by Iowa’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council. That Council assists with administration of the JJDP Act, and also provides guidance and direction to the SPA, the Governor and the legislature regarding juvenile justice issues in Iowa. Federal officials refer to such state level groups as state advisory groups (SAG’s). The acronyms SPA and SAG are used through this report.

Iowa Prison Population Forecast FY 2004-2014

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.