Iowa Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders 1999 - 2000 Report, 2000

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, as part of its duties to administer the Comprehensive Strategy in Iowa, compiled the information contained in this report.

Long-Range Goals for Iowa's Criminal & Juvenile Justice Systems, 2000

Iowa Code Section 216A.135 requires the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council (CJJPAC) to submit a long-range plan for Iowa's justice system to the Governor and General Assembly every five years. The first plan developed after the creation of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning was issued in 1990 and annually updated through 1994. Since 1992, appropriation law has required the CJJPAC to coordinate their planning activities with those of the Iowa Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (JJAC).

Juvenile Crime and the Welfare of Youth, 1999

This staff report on various factors regarding juvenile issues and crime was prepared by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP). It was prepared to help the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (JJAC) prepare their 3-Year Strategy as prescribed by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act).

Long-Range Goals for Iowa's Criminal& Junvenile Justice Systems, 2005

The attached plan builds upon work done over the last decade. The first plan developed after the creation of the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning in 1986 was issued in 1990 and annually updated through 1994. Since 1992, the CJJPAC has been required to coordinate their planning activities with those of the Iowa Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (JJAC). In 1995, these two councils developed a new plan consisting of a set of long-range justice system goals to assist policy makers and justice system practitioners as they plan and operate the justice system through the next twenty years. The statutory mandate for such long-range planning required the identification of goals specific enough to provide guidance, but broad enough to be of relevance over a long period of time. The long-range goals adopted by these councils in 1995 covered a wide variety of topics and offered a framework within which current practices could be defined and assessed. Collectively, these long-range goals were meant to provide a single source of direction to the complex assortment of practitioners and policymakers whose individual concerns and decisions collectively define the nature and effectiveness of Iowa’s justice system. The twenty-year goals established in 1995 were reviewed by the councils in 2000 to assess their current relevance. It was determined that, with a few revisions, the goals established in 1995 should be restated in 2000 with a renewed emphasis on their long-range status. This plan builds upon those issued in 1995 and 2000, continuing much of the emphasis of plans, with some new directions charted as appropriate.

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.

2007 State of Iowa Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formule Grand Update

This document is Iowa’s 2007 JJDP Act formula grant three year plan update. When specific items of this plan are unchanged from the previously submitted 2006 plan, we have reflected accordingly in the respective topic areas of this document. 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).

DMC Section: 2009 State of Iowa Juvenile Justic and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant Update, March 2009

This document is the DMC Section of Iowa’s 2009 federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) formula grant three year plan update. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) wrote this 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.

DMC Section: 2008 State of Iowa Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant Update, March 2009

This document is the DMC Section of Iowa’s 2009 federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) formula grant three year plan update. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) wrote this 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.

Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grand Fund Outcomes Report and FY2002 Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary, January 2002

This document contains two related, but separate reports. The Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Outcomes Report is a summary of outcomes from services and activities funded through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund in FY2001. The Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary describes Iowa communities’ current prevention and sanction programs supported with funding from the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) during FY2002. The material in Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Outcomes Report is presented in response to a legislative mandate to report specific prevention outcomes for the community Grant Fund. It includes a brief description of a Youth Development Results Framework established by the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development. Outcomes are reported using this results framework, which was developed by a number of state agencies as a common tool for various state programs involving youth development related planning and funding processes. Included in this report is a description of outcomes from the prevention activities funded, all or in part, by the Community Grant Fund, as reported by local communities. The program summaries presented in the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary provide an overview of local efforts to implement their 2002 Juvenile Justice Youth Development plans and include prevention and sanction programs funded through the combined resources of the State Community Grant Fund and the Federal Title V Prevention, Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant and Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant programs. These combined funds are referred to in this document as the Juvenile Justice Youth Development (JJYD) funds. To administer the JJYD funds, including funds from the Community Grant Fund, CJJP partners with local officials to facilitate a community planning process that determines the communities’ priorities for the use of the funds. The local planning is coordinated by the Iowa’s Decategorization Boards (Decats). These local officials and/or their staff have been leaders in providing oversight or staff support to a variety of local planning initiatives (e.g. child welfare, Comprehensive Strategy Pilot Projects, Empowerment, other) and bring child welfare and community planning experience to the table for the creation of comprehensive community longterm planning efforts. The allocation of these combined funds and the technical assistance received by the Decats from CJJP is believed to have helped enhance both child welfare and juvenile justice efforts locally and has provided for the recognition and establishment of connections for joint child welfare/juvenile justice planning. The allocation and local planning approach has allowed funding from CJJP to be “blended” or “braided” with other local, state, and federal dollars that flow to communities as a result of their local planning responsibilities. The program descriptions provided in this document reflect services and activities supported with JJYD funds. In many cases, however, additional funding sources have been used to fully fund the programs. Most of the information in this document’s two reports was submitted to CJJP by the communities through an on- line planning and reporting process established jointly by the DHS and CJJP.

Long-Range Goals for Iowa's Criminal & Juvenile Justice Systems, February 2005

Iowa Code Section 216A.135 requires the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council (CJJPAC) to submit a long-range plan for Iowa's justice system to the Governor and General Assembly every five years. The Criminal and Juvenile Justice Advisory Council directed that the 2005 plan be developed with input from the public. A public hearing was held in September 2004, utilizing the Iowa Communications Network at 5 sites across Iowa. Using the information gained, the Council developed new goals and strategies and modified others from the 2000 plan. The 2005 Long Range Goals for Iowa’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems, organized as follows, are meant to facilitate analyses and directions for justice system issues and concerns in Iowa.

Process and Outcome Evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) Program, September, 2010

In July of 2009, the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) received Byrne Justice Assistance Grant/American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding from the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) program housed at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) in Mitchellville, Iowa. The STAR Program is a licensed inpatient substance abuse treatment program that utilizes a Therapeutic Community model (TC). All offenders exiting the STAR program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2008 were included in the study (n=173). A comparison sample was drawn of offenders exiting the ICIW during the same release time frame with identified but untreated substance abuse needs (n= 173). March 31, 2010 was designated as the cut-off date for the study. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of 3.1 years. The STAR group was further divided into two groups by time of program exit. Participants exiting the program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were designated as STAR 1 (n=78) and those exiting the program between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 were designated as STAR 2 (n=95). In order to have comparable tracking time between STAR groups, tracking time for STAR 1 concluded July 31, 2008. This yielded an average post release follow-up time of 2.4 years for both groups. Demographic, Program, Intervention, and Outcome data were examined. Comparisons were made between groups as well as categories of participation.

To analyse a trace or not? Evaluating the decision-making process in the criminal investigation

In order to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the decision steps in the criminal investigation process, we started by evaluating the decision to analyse a trace and the factors involved in this decision step. This decision step is embedded in the complete criminal investigation process, involving multiple decision and triaging steps. Considering robbery cases occurring in a geographic region during a 2-year-period, we have studied the factors influencing the decision to submit biological traces, directly sampled on the scene of the robbery or on collected objects, for analysis. The factors were categorised into five knowledge dimensions: strategic, immediate, physical, criminal and utility and decision tree analysis was carried out. Factors in each category played a role in the decision to analyse a biological trace. Interestingly, factors involving information available prior to the analysis are of importance, such as the fact that a positive result (a profile suitable for comparison) is already available in the case, or that a suspect has been identified through traditional police work before analysis. One factor that was taken into account, but was not significant, is the matrix of the trace. Hence, the decision to analyse a trace is not influenced by this variable. The decision to analyse a trace first is very complex and many of the tested variables were taken into account. The decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis.

The evaluation of hazardous gas components caused by the thermal degradation of plant oils and animal fats

Neste Oil has introduced plant oils and animal fats for the production of NExBTL renewable diesel, and these raw materials differ from the conventional mineral based oils. One subject of new raw materials study is thermal degradation, or in another name pyrolysis, of these organic oils and fats. The aim of this master’s thesis is to increase knowledge on thermal degradation of these new raw materials, and to identify possible gaseous harmful thermal degradation compounds. Another aim is to de-termine the health and environmental hazards of identified compounds. One objective is also to examine the formation possibilities of hazardous compounds in the produc-tion of NExBTL-diesel. Plant oils and animal fats consist mostly of triglycerides. Pyrolysis of triglycerides is a complex phenomenon, and many degradation products can be formed. Based on the literature studies, 13 hazardous degradation products were identified, one of which was acrolein. This compound is very toxic and dangerous to the environment. Own pyrolysis experiments were carried out with rapeseed and palm oils, and with a mix-ture of palm oil and animal fat. At least 12 hazardous compounds, including acrolein, were analysed from the gas phase. According to the experiments, the factors which influence on acrolein formation are the time of the experiment, the sphere (air/hydrogen) in which the experiment is carried out, and the characteristics of the used oil. The production of NExBTL-diesel is not based on pyrolysis. This is why thermal degradation is possible only when abnormal process conditions prevail.

CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF SLUDGE FROM STP AND WTP IN PAVING

ABSTRACT Water and sewage treatment plants (STP and WTP) generate as byproduct a significant amount of sludge with environment harmful elements. Sending to landfills or depositing on the ground or rivers are respectively expensive and dangerous alternatives. In this scenario, the use of this waste in paving processes is a promising alternative for disposal thereof. In this study, we focused on characterizing sludge and evaluating its use in paving, which showed satisfactory results for use in base and sub-base floors.

La responsabilité civile de l'industrie pharmaceutique : le risque de développement : étude comparative des droits brésilien et québécois

D’une part, le développement scientifique dans le domaine pharmaceutique fournit des bénéfices substantiels à la santé des personnes, améliorant par conséquent leur qualité de vie. Toutefois, créer et mettre en marché une nouvelle substance thérapeutique n’est pas une tâche facile. Les laboratoires investissent du temps et de l’argent en recherche et développement pour y parvenir. D’autre part, malgré les bienfaits de la science et les efforts des chercheurs, les médicaments sont des produits potentiellement dangereux. Ils présentent des risques inhérents à leur nature, capables de causer des préjudices graves et irréversibles. D’ailleurs, la nature dangereuse de ces produits a incité l’instauration de normes qui imposent des critères stricts aux fabricants de médicaments dans le but de protéger le public. En suivant cette tendance mondiale, les législateurs brésilien et canadien ont instauré des régimes statutaires qui édictent des règles rigoureuses de conception, de fabrication et de commercialisation des médicaments. Néanmoins, à cause de la nature pénale et administrative de ces normes, elles ne sont pas efficaces lorsqu’il s’agit de dédommager le consommateur ou le tiers qui est victime du fait du médicament. Dans une telle situation, il faut recourir au droit civil dans le cas du Brésil et du Québec, ou à la common law dans les autres provinces canadiennes. Dans une étude comparée sur le sujet, nous avons appris que les droits civils brésilien et québécois ainsi que la common law canadienne ont des ressemblances très importantes, cependant en ce qui concerne l’exclusion de la responsabilité fondée sur le risque de développement scientifique, différentes solutions s’appliquent.