Executive Order Number Thirty-Eight, October 2004

Excecutive order signed by Governor Thomas Vilsck

Executive Order Number Thirty Nine, January 2005

Excecutive order signed by Governor Thomas Vilsck

Executive Order Number Forty, March 2005

Excecutive order signed by Governor Thomas Vilsck

Girl Connection, June 2005

A monthly newsletter for Iowa Commission on the Status of Women

5B Judicial District Youth Services, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements, Schedule of Findings, Eight Months ended February 28, 2005 and Year ended June 30, 2004

Other Audit Reports - 28E Organizations

Annual Report and Budget Summary, 2004

Annual report for the Department of Public Health

Iowa State University Strategic Plan 2005-2010, 2005

Stragtegic plan for Iowa State University

Strategic Plan Performance Indicators, 2002-2003

Stragtegic plan for Iowa State University

Strategic Plan Performance Indicators 2003-2004

Stragtegic plan for Iowa State University

Strategic Plan Performance Indicators, 2001-2002

Stragtegic plan for Iowa State University

Girl Connection, August 2005

A monthly newsletter for Iowa Commission on the Status of Women

Just the Facts for 2004

The information in “Just the Facts for 2004” is a snapshot of the workforce, collected, compiled, and presented in a format that will aid agencies and decision makers in strategic planning. In many cases, data cover a number of years and are presented to give the reader a sense of trends. While the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Human Resource Enterprise (HRE) wants to present data in its purist form so readers can draw their own conclusions, we also have a responsibility to clarify anything that may be confusing or misleading. It is important to highlight workforce trends and explain their significance to the work of Iowa state government. The following chapter summaries are intended to do that.

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

U.S. Farm Policy and the Variability of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues, February 2000

A dynamic, three-commodity rational-expectations storage model is used to compare the impact of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 with a freemarket policy and with the agricultural policies that preceded the FAIR Act. Results support the hypothesis that the changes made when FAIR was enacted did not lead to permanent significant increases in the volatility of farm prices or revenues. An important finding is that the main economic impacts of the Pre-FAIR scenario, relative to the free-market regime were to transfer income to farmers and to substitute government storage for private storage in a way that did little to support prices or to stabilize farm incomes.