Pensioners' Post, Summer 2002

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Winter 2002

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2003

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Winter 2003

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2004

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Inside IPERS and Pensioners’ Post, Winter 2004-2005

I am pleased to send you this special edition newsletter, which includes a fi nancial summary on pages 2 and 3. Providing you fi nancial and performance information refl ects my commitment to accountability. IPERS’ performance continues to be strong, as does the commitment of the Governor, Legislature, employers, members, the Investment Board, the Benefi ts Advisory Committee (BAC), and staff to maintaining a good retirement plan. Unfortunately, IPERS’ good performance and everyone’s commitment does not eliminate the need for a contribution rate increase. There are many reasons for this. We must make up for losses from the recent bear markets. Also, our retirees are living longer; therefore, they are drawing pensions longer.

What makes for peaceful post-conflict elections?

Elections play a crucial role in post-conflict peace and democratization processes as, among other factors, they provide an answer to the question of who is to legitimately rule the country. However, because of the competitiveness arising from their central role in allocating power they can also represent windows of vulnerability where deeply rooted societal conflicts can come to the surface. This working paper focuses on two post-conflict elections (Sierra Leone 2007; Nepal 2008) which, despite perceived high risks, did not result in widespread violence or a return to armed conflict. The aim of these case studies is to identify the factors and measures that may have played an important role in contributing to this outcome. Each of the two case studies first outlines the risks associated with the elections and then analyzes the violence and conflict preventing factors. The paper shows that that the context greatly influences the type of measures that can be taken in such situations, but that there are also some similarities in the two cases studied. In particular, it appears that that the credibility of the elections, largely attributable to a good electoral administration, was an important factor in both Nepal and Sierra Leone. Furthermore, the inclusion of all key stakeholders in decisions regarding key electoral institutions helped to diffuse potential conflict. The study also shows that in both cases the international community played an important role by providing financial, logistical and technical support and by pressuring certain important actors to comply with the rules.

Report on the Iowa Department of Justice for the year ended June 30, 2012

Report on the Iowa Department of Justice for the year ended June 30, 2012

Analcime crystallization and compositional profiles - Comparing approaches to detect post-depositional alterations in archaeological pottery

The approaches of comparative studies and profile measurements, often used in order to detect post-depositional alterations of ceramics, have been applied simultaneously to two sets of Roman pottery, both of which include altered individuals. As analytical techniques, Neutron Activation Analysis and X-Ray Diffraction have been used. Both approaches lead to substantially different results. This shows that they detect different levels of alteration and should complement each other rather than being used exclusively. For the special process of a glassy phase decomposition followed by a crystallization of the Na-zeolite analcime, the results suggest that it changes high-fired calcareous pottery rapidly, and so fundamentally that the results of various archaeometric techniques can be severely disturbed.

A contribution to the study of post-depositional alterations of pottery using TL dating analysis

In luminescence dating, the potassium concentration significantly contributes to the dose rate value in the age estimation. Within this study, fine-grain thermoluminescence dating has been applied on sherds of calcareous pottery of known age, excavated at a Roman site in Mallorca, Spain. For those of the samples that showed signs of severe potassium leaching, according to chemical and mineralogical examination, the thermoluminescence analysis provided overestimated dates. By using the known archaeological age of the samples, a corrected dose rate value can be estimated which provides the potassium concentration averaged for the burial period. Finally, a step-like model can then be used to estimate the fraction of the burial period after which most of the alteration effects took place.

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.

Statewide Process and Comparative Outcomes Study of 2003 Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts, August 2009

A statewide evaluation of the six adult and three juvenile drug courts in operation during calendar year 2003 was conducted. Completion rates, recidivism, substance abuse treatment, and supervision and placement (juveniles only) costs were examined by model (Judge and Community Panel) and by Judicial District. In addition, adult drug court participants were compared with 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 (probationer). The adult participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through December 31, 2007. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of almost 3 years (2.9) for drug court participants. For the juvenile portion, drug court participants were compared with a group matched on several demographic and offense variables (Matched Comparison group) and juveniles referred to drug court who did not enter the program (Referred Comparison group). The juvenile participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through approximately 16 quarters after program discharge with an end date of December 31, 2007.

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.