community advisory groups

Other DWI court models

National Centre for DWI courts (U.S)

Victorian Drug Court (VIC)

NZ AODT court pilot

Jurisdictional authority

Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas)*

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)*

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas)

Magistrates Court

Benefits of an advisory group

What stakeholders should be considered - diversity

Is there a current best practice model for community advisory groups and what is included (guiding principles??)

Is there any review of benefits from a community advisory group

How are they evaluated?

Are they self funded or do they rely on public purse?

How do they serve as an intermediary?

What positive outcomes have come from establishing community advisory groups?

Challenges of establishing a community advisory group

Sustainable commitment

Are they taken seriously?

Will it be a funding burden and take funds away from the program?

Will opposing views hinder process?

Will the group have any powers? How will they have any impact on process without power?

Will a breakdown in commitment from agencies cause delay?

Identifying stakeholders

consider current models. Who are participate in the groups and why?

NZ AODT court pilot representatives

Data from the Paper to establish characteristics of offenders and support services needed

Who can contribute positively to rehabilitation

what community leaders can contribute effectively to communicating the work of community advisory groups

What research methodology should I employ

Evidence based

Primary and Secondary sources

CQU Law Library

Google Scholar

Foundation for advancing alcohol responsibility: DWI courts 2016

National Centre for DWI courts (U.S)

Ministry of Justice, New Zealand, Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment (AODT) court pilot

Reference papers and websites noted in issues paper on pages 73-79