Iowa Uniform Crime Report, 2009

The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.

Forensic science and the paradigm of quality

Due to various contexts and processes, forensic science communities may have different approaches, largely influenced by their criminal justice systems. However, forensic science practices share some common characteristics. One is the assurance of a high (scientific) quality within processes and practices. For most crime laboratory directors and forensic science associations, this issue is conditioned by the triangle of quality, which represents the current paradigm of quality assurance in the field. It consists of the implementation of standardization, certification, accreditation, and an evaluation process. It constitutes a clear and sound way to exchange data between laboratories and enables databasing due to standardized methods ensuring reliable and valid results; but it is also a means of defining minimum requirements for practitioners' skills for specific forensic science activities. The control of each of these aspects offers non-forensic science partners the assurance that the entire process has been mastered and is trustworthy. Most of the standards focus on the analysis stage and do not consider pre- and post-laboratory stages, namely, the work achieved at the investigation scene and the evaluation and interpretation of the results, intended for intelligence beneficiaries or for court. Such localized consideration prevents forensic practitioners from identifying where the problems really lie with regard to criminal justice systems. According to a performance-management approach, scientific quality should not be restricted to standardized procedures and controls in forensic science practice. Ensuring high quality also strongly depends on the way a forensic science culture is assimilated (into specific education training and workplaces) and in the way practitioners understand forensic science as a whole.

Reentry: Communities and Corrections United, Presentation to 2008 Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, January 2008

An overview of offender reentry from institution to the community and the work that is done between corrections and the community.

Delinquents in Iowa Arrest, Services and Sanctions, April 2006

This report was developed to provide summary information to allow practitioners and juvenile justice system officials access to specific sections of Iowa’s Three Year Plan. It includes the “System Flow, “Crime Analysis”, and “Child in Needs of Assistance” sections of Iowa’s 2006 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act formula grant Three-Year Plan. The complete Three Year Plan serves as Iowa’s application for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act formula grant funding. The information included in this report overviews system processing for delinquent youth. It also provides data and analysis from key system decision pointsand services.

Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan, 2006 Update

This report discusses a number of topics and presents data and other information in response to Iowa Code Section 216A.135’s mandate for an annual Plan Update. It was prepared as an edocument and relies mainly on links to other documents which, when combined, make up the complete report. The outline that follows names the issues being presented this year by the CJJPAC and is both a table of contents and a “site-map” for the 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).

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.

Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan 1998 Update

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.

Iowa Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task Force Report to the Iowa General Assembly, January 15, 2007

Over the last several years, lawmakers have been responding to several highly publicized child abduction, assault and murder cases. While such cases remain rare in Iowa, the public debates they have generated are having far-reaching effects. Policy makers are responsible for controlling the nature of such effects. Challenges they face stem from the need to avoid primarily politically-motivated responses and the desire to make informed decisions that recognize both the strengths and the limitations of the criminal justice system as a vehicle for promoting safe and healthy families and communities. Consensus was reached by the Task Force at its first meeting that one of its standing goals is to provide nonpartisan guidance to help avoid or fix problematic sex offense policies and practices. Setting this goal was a response to the concern over what can result from elected officials’ efforts to respond to the types of sex offender-related concerns that can easily become emotionally laden and politically charged due to the universally held abhorrence of sex crimes against children. The meetings of the Task Force and the various work groups it has formed have included some spirited and perhaps emotionally charged discussions, despite the above-stated ground rule. However, as is described in the report, the Task Force’s first set of recommendations and plans for further study were approved through consensus. It is hoped that in upcoming legislative deliberations, it will be remembered that the non-legislative members of the Task Force all agreed on the recommendations contained in this report. The topics discussed in this first report from the Task Force are limited to the study issues specifically named in H.F. 619, the Task Force’s enabling legislation. However, other topics of concern were discussed by the Task Force because of their immediacy or because of their possible relationships with one or more of the Task Force’s mandated study issues. For example, it has been reported by some probation/parole officers and others that the 2000 feet rule has had a negative influence on treatment participation and supervision compliance. While such concerns were noted, the Task Force did not take it upon itself to investigate them at this time and thus broaden the agenda it was given by the General Assembly last session. As a result, the recently reinstated 2000 feet rule, the new cohabitation/child endangerment law and other issues of interest to Task Force members but not within the scope of their charge are not discussed in the body of this report. An issue of perhaps the greatest interest to most Task Force members that was not a part of their charge was a belief in the benefit of viewing Iowa’s efforts to protect children from sex crimes with as comprehensive a platform as possible. It has been suggested that much more can be done to prevent child-victim sex crimes than would be accomplished by only concentrating on what to do with offenders after a crime has occurred. To prevent child victimization, H.F. 619 policy provisions rely largely on incapacitation and future deterrent effects of increased penalties, more restrictive supervision practices and greater public awareness of the risk presented by a segment of Iowa’s known sex offenders. For some offenders, these policies will no doubt prevent future sex crimes against children, and the Task Force has begun long-term studies to look for the desired results and for ways to improve such results through better supervision tools and more effective offender treatment. Unfortunately, much of the effects from the new policies may primarily influence persons who have already committed sex offenses against minors and who have already been caught doing so. Task Force members discussed the need for a range of preventive efforts and a need to think about sex crimes against children from other than just a “reaction- to-the-offender” perspective. While this topic is not addressed in the report that follows, it was suggested that some of the Task Force’s discussions could be briefly shared through these opening comments. Along with incapacitation and deterrence, comprehensive approaches to the prevention of child-victim sex crimes would also involve making sure parents have the tools they need to detect signs of adults with sex behavior problems, to help teach their children about warning signs and to find the support they need for healthy parenting. School, faithbased and other community organizations might benefit from stronger supports and better tools they can use to more effectively promote positive youth development and the learning of respect for others, respect for boundaries and healthy relationships. All of us who have children, or who live in communities where there are children, need to understand the limitations of our justice system and the importance of our own ability to play a role in preventing sexual abuse and protecting children from sex offenders, which are often the child’s own family members. Over 1,000 incidences of child sexual abuse are confirmed or founded each year in Iowa, and most such acts take place in the child’s home or the residence of the caretaker of the child. Efforts to prevent child sexual abuse and to provide for early interventions with children and families at risk could be strategically examined and strengthened. The Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task Force was established to provide assistance to the General Assembly. It will respond to legislative direction for adjusting its future plans as laid out in this report. Its plans could be adjusted to broaden or narrow its scope or to assign different priority levels of effort to its current areas of study. Also, further Task Force considerations of the recommendations it has already submitted could be called for. In the meantime, it is hoped that the information and recommendations submitted through this report prove helpful.

Iowa Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task Force Report to the Iowa General Assembly, January 15, 2008

Over the last several years, lawmakers have been responding to several highly publicized child abduction, assault and murder cases. While such cases remain rare in Iowa, the public debates they have generated are having far-reaching effects. Policy makers are responsible for controlling the nature of such effects. Challenges they face stem from the need to avoid primarily politically-motivated responses and the desire to make informed decisions that recognize both the strengths and the limitations of the criminal justice system as a vehicle for promoting safe and healthy families and communities. Consensus was reached by the Task Force at its first meeting that one of its standing goals is to provide nonpartisan guidance to help avoid or fix problematic sex offense policies and practices. Setting this goal was a response to the concern over what can result from elected officials’ efforts to respond to the types of sex offender-related concerns that can easily become emotionally laden and politically charged due to the universally held abhorrence of sex crimes against children. The meetings of the Task Force and the various work groups it has formed have included some spirited and perhaps emotionally charged discussions, despite the above-stated ground rule. However, as is described in the report, the Task Force’s first set of recommendations and plans for further study were approved through consensus. It is hoped that in upcoming legislative deliberations, it will be remembered that the non-legislative members of the Task Force all agreed on the recommendations contained in this report. The topics discussed in this first report from the Task Force are limited to the study issues specifically named in H.F. 619, the Task Force’s enabling legislation. However, other topics of concern were discussed by the Task Force because of their immediacy or because of their possible relationships with one or more of the Task Force’s mandated study issues. For example, it has been reported by some probation/parole officers and others that the 2000 feet rule has had a negative influence on treatment participation and supervision compliance. While such concerns were noted, the Task Force did not take it upon itself to investigate them at this time and thus broaden the agenda it was given by the General Assembly last session. As a result, the recently reinstated 2000 feet rule, the new cohabitation/child endangerment law and other issues of interest to Task Force members but not within the scope of their charge are not discussed in the body of this report. An issue of perhaps the greatest interest to most Task Force members that was not a part of their charge was a belief in the benefit of viewing Iowa’s efforts to protect children from sex crimes with as comprehensive a platform as possible. It has been suggested that much more can be done to prevent child-victim sex crimes than would be accomplished by only concentrating on what to do with offenders after a crime has occurred. To prevent child victimization, H.F. 619 policy provisions rely largely on incapacitation and future deterrent effects of increased penalties, more restrictive supervision practices and greater public awareness of the risk presented by a segment of Iowa’s known sex offenders. For some offenders, these policies will no doubt prevent future sex crimes against children, and the Task Force has begun long-term studies to look for the desired results and for ways to improve such results through better supervision tools and more effective offender treatment. Unfortunately, much of the effects from the new policies may primarily influence persons who have already committed sex offenses against minors and who have already been caught doing so. Task Force members discussed the need for a range of preventive efforts and a need to think about sex crimes against children from other than just a “reaction- to-the-offender” perspective. While this topic is not addressed in the report that follows, it was suggested that some of the Task Force’s discussions could be briefly shared through these opening comments. Along with incapacitation and deterrence, comprehensive approaches to the prevention of child-victim sex crimes would also involve making sure parents have the tools they need to detect signs of adults with sex behavior problems, to help teach their children about warning signs and to find the support they need for healthy parenting. School, faithbased and other community organizations might benefit from stronger supports and better tools they can use to more effectively promote positive youth development and the learning of respect for others, respect for boundaries and healthy relationships. All of us who have children, or who live in communities where there are children, need to understand the limitations of our justice system and the importance of our own ability to play a role in preventing sexual abuse and protecting children from sex offenders, which are often the child’s own family members. Over 1,000 incidences of child sexual abuse are confirmed or founded each year in Iowa, and most such acts take place in the child’s home or the residence of the caretaker of the child. Efforts to prevent child sexual abuse and to provide for early interventions with children and families at risk could be strategically examined and strengthened. The Sex Offender Treatment and Supervision Task Force was established to provide assistance to the General Assembly. It will respond to legislative direction for adjusting its future plans as laid out in this report. Its plans could be adjusted to broaden or narrow its scope or to assign different priority levels of effort to its current areas of study. Also, further Task Force considerations of the recommendations it has already submitted could be called for. In the meantime, it is hoped that the information and recommendations submitted through this report prove helpful.

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.

Governor's Youth Race and Detention Task Force; Full Force, May 2009

This report, the Full Report, is the culmination of the Task Force’s responsibilities as set out in Executive Order 5, dated October 30, 2007. The Executive Order specifies a number of goals and report requirements.There is a commonly held perception that the use of detention may serve as a deterrent to future delinquency. Data in this report reflect that approximately 40% of youth detained in 2006 were re-detained in 2006. Research conducted by national experts indicates that, particularly for low risk/low level offenders, that the use of detention is not neutral, and may increase the likelihood of recidivism. Comparable data for Iowa are not available (national data studied for this report provide level of risk, but risk level related to detention is not presently available for Iowa). The Task Force finds no evidence suggesting that recidivism levels (as related to detention risk) in Iowa should be different than found in other states. Data in this report also suggest that detention is one of the juvenile justice system’s more costly sanctions ($257 - $340 per day). Other sites and local jurisdictions have been able to redirect savings from the reduced use of juvenile detention to support less costly, community-based detention alternatives without compromising public safety.

Intelligence-led crime scene processing. Part I : Forensic intelligence.

Forensic science is generally defined as the application of science to address questions related to the law. Too often, this view restricts the contribution of science to one single process which eventually aims at bringing individuals to court while minimising risk of miscarriage of justice. In order to go beyond this paradigm, we propose to refocus the attention towards traces themselves, as remnants of a criminal activity, and their information content. We postulate that traces contribute effectively to a wide variety of other informational processes that support decision making inmany situations. In particular, they inform actors of new policing strategies who place the treatment of information and intelligence at the centre of their systems. This contribution of forensic science to these security oriented models is still not well identified and captured. In order to create the best condition for the development of forensic intelligence, we suggest a framework that connects forensic science to intelligence-led policing (part I). Crime scene attendance and processing can be envisaged within this view. This approach gives indications abouthowto structure knowledge used by crime scene examiners in their effective practice (part II).

What is the value of forensic science? : an overview of the effectiveness of forensic science in the Australian criminal justice system project

Forensic science is increasingly relied upon by law enforcement to assist in solvingcrime and gaining convictions, and by the judicial system in the adjudication ofspecific criminal cases. However, the value of forensic science relative to the workinvolved and the outcome of cases has yet to be established in the Australiancontext. Previous research in this area has mainly focused on the science andtechnology, rather than examining how people can use forensic services/science tothe best possible advantage to produce appropriate justice outcomes. This fiveyearproject entails an investigation into the effectiveness of forensic science inpolice investigations and court trials. It aims to identify when, where and howforensic science can add value to criminal investigations, court trials and justiceoutcomes while ensuring the efficient use of available resources initially in theVictorian and the ACT criminal justice systems and ultimately across Australiaand New Zealand. This paper provides an overview of the rationale and aims ofthe research project and discusses current work-in-progress.