Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Five-Year Strategic Plan July 1, 2003-June 30, 2008

The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Agency Performance Reporting, 2011

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 on the North Iowa Juvenile Detention Services Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on the North Iowa Juvenile Detention Services Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011

Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities, July 10-July 15, 2011

Five day leadership training program for 10th, 11th and 12th grade high school students with disabilities. Model program sponsored by the U.S Department of Labor Office National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability and developed locally by a collaboration of state and private agencies.

Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities Responsibilities of Primary Staff Volunteers, July 2011

Adults who can facilitate small group sessions. As a team they will be assigned to one of three small groups to assist students with completion of leadership exercises, facilitate small group discussions and help students develop their personal leadership plan. Responsibilities also include providing supervision, support and guidance to student delegates.

Insight into oversight : how information commissioners contribute to the achievement of access-to-information policy objectives

This thesis examines how oversight bodies, as part of an ATI policy, contribute to the achievement of the policy's objectives. The aim of the thesis is to see how oversight bodies and the work they do affects the implementation of their respective ATI policies and thereby contributes to the objectives of those policies using a comparative case study approach. The thesis investigates how federal/central government level information commissioners in four jurisdictions - Germany, India, Scotland, and Switzerland - enforce their respective ATI policies, which tasks they carry out in addition to their enforcement duties, the challenges they face in their work and the ways they overcome these. Qualitative data were gathered from primary and secondary documents as well as in 37 semi-structured interviews with staff of the commissioners' offices, administrative officials whose job entails complying with ATI, people who have made ATI requests and appealed to their respective oversight body, and external experts who have studied ATI implementation in their particular jurisdiction. The thesis finds that while the aspect of an oversight body's formal independence that has the greatest impact on its work is resource control and that although the powers granted by law set the framework for ensuring that the administration is properly complying with the policy, the commissioner's leadership style - a component of informal independence - has more influence than formal attributes of independence in setting out how resources are obtained and used as well as how staff set priorities and utilize the powers they are granted by law. The conclusion, therefore, is that an ATI oversight body's ability to contribute to the achievement of the policy's objectives is a function of three main factors: a. commissioner's leadership style; b. adequacy of resources and degree of control the organization has over them; c. powers and the exercise of discretion in using them. In effect, the thesis argues that it is difficult to pinpoint the value of the formal powers set out for the oversight body in the ATI law, and that their decisions on whether and how to use them are more important than the presumed strength of the powers. It also claims that the choices made by the commissioners and their staff regarding priorities and use of powers are determined to a large extent by the adequacy of resources and the degree of control the organization has over those resources. In turn, how the head of the organization leads and manages the oversight body is crucial to both the adequacy of the organization's resources and the decisions made about the use of powers. Together, these three factors have a significant impact on the body's effectiveness in contributing to ATI objectives.

Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan, 1998

Pursuant to Iowa Code 216A, subchapter 9, CJJP is required to issue an annual report containing long-range systems goals, special issue planning recommendations and research findings. CJJP’s 1998 response to its reporting requirement is replicated in the manner of the distribution of the 1997 Update. Again this year, CJJP is issuing one large document which contains many separate reports. Single-issue 1998 Update reports will be made available based on reader interest and need. Having utilized this disseminating approach of CJJP research and reports in 1997, it proved to be cost effective and responsive to the planning activities and information needs of Iowa’s policy makers, justice system officials and others.

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.

Juvenile Delinquency Services Report, 2008

Delinquency services programs (also referred to as graduated sanctions) are available to youth across Iowa who have been adjudicated delinquent and/or placed into such programming by the Courts. Programming is provided through Juvenile Court Services across eight Judicial Districts

Juvenile Delinquency Services Report, 2008

Delinquency services programs (also referred to as graduated sanctions) are available to youth across Iowa who have been adjudicated delinquent and/or placed into such programming by the Courts. Programming is provided through Juvenile Court Services across eight Judicial Districts

Juvenile Delinquency Services Report, October 2009

Delinquency services programs (also referred to as graduated sanctions) are available to youth across Iowa who have been adjudicated delinquent and/or placed into such programming by the Courts. Programming is provided through Juvenile Court Services across eight Judicial Districts.

Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan 1997

Pursuant to Iowa Code 216A, subchapter 9, CJJP is required to issue an annual report containing long-range system goals, special issue planning recommendations and research findings. CJJP’s 1997 response to its reporting requirement is different from past years. Rather than issuing one large document containing many separate reports, single-issue 1997 Update reports now are being made available based on reader interest and need. It is hoped this approach to disseminating CJJP research and planning reports will be more cost effective and more responsive to the planning activities and information needs of Iowa’s policy makers, justice system officials and others.

Audit report on the Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center in Eldora, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2012

Audit report on the Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center in Eldora, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2012

Optimal fiscal policy in overlapping generations models

[eng] This paper provides, from a theoretical and quantitative point of view, an explanation of why taxes on capital returns are high (around 35%) by analyzing the optimal fiscal policy in an economy with intergenerational redistribution. For this purpose, the government is modeled explicitly and can choose (and commit to) an optimal tax policy in order to maximize society's welfare. In an infinitely lived economy with heterogeneous agents, the long run optimal capital tax is zero. If heterogeneity is due to the existence of overlapping generations, this result in general is no longer true. I provide sufficient conditions for zero capital and labor taxes, and show that a general class of preferences, commonly used on the macro and public finance literature, violate these conditions. For a version of the model, calibrated to the US economy, the main results are: first, if the government is restricted to a set of instruments, the observed fiscal policy cannot be disregarded as sub optimal and capital taxes are positive and quantitatively relevant. Second, if the government can use age specific taxes for each generation, then the age profile capital tax pattern implies subsidizing asset returns of the younger generations and taxing at higher rates the asset returns of the older ones.