The Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP) at the University of New South Wales has released a report on 'The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the non-government alcohol and other drug sector: future implications'. NADA commissioned DPMP to undertake the study to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on it's members and provide advice on the immediate, medium and long-term actions that need to follow.

COVID-19 has demanded significant changes to funding arrangements, leadership and strategic planning, the types of care provided, and workforce requirements and support. It provides the opportunity to review all aspects of non government AOD treatment services, including the ways in which services are commissioned and funded by governments, and how services are supported, led, and delivered.

The actions resulting from the study are directed at treatment providers, NADA, and non government AOD funders. Whilst many of these actions have commenced, some are longstanding issues impacting on the sector, such as the underfunding of AOD treatment, and recruitment and retention of staff. NADA is committed to working with sector to implement the actions.

The purpose of this Guide is to provide GPs and other health professionals with up-to-date, evidence-informed guidance on how to manage and minimise harm for people who are contemplating, currently using or wanting to stop non-prescribed anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and other performance and image enhancing drugs (PIEDs).

The Guide is based on the best available evidence and draws upon an extensive literature review and the experience and knowledge of health professionals, researchers, and people who use non-prescribed AAS and other PIEDs.

This scoping document for the Teaching Effectiveness Professional Learning Program 4 - Data in the Classroom (PLP 4) incorporates and responds to the Workshop feedback discussions provided during its development. This document represents an import refinement in the focus and direction articulated in the initial presentation in Workshop 1. This version charts the potential scope for PLP 4 that is consistent, much tighter and more pragmatic in terms of school and classroom emphasis.

Two major occurrences have occurred following our meeting both centred about an aspect of driving change. The first was discussed explicitly in our meeting and documentation, and was related to the audience for the Modules. The second was about the purpose of the program and the related conceptual framework underpinning the program, which was discussed in our presentation, but the full implications were not explored.

This document presents the final scope and sequence program outline proposed for Professional Learning Program (PLP) 1, as well as advice and suggestions concerning participant eligibility, exit certificates, overarching learning design features, learning design at the module level, conceptual framework for adult learners' needs in online and blended learning (OBL), writing style, stakeholder engagement and piloting the program. The final scoping document incorporates revisions based on workshop discussions with, and written feedback from, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL).

This report provides updated evidence-based advice on the selection of evidence sets to include in National Evidence for use in Stage 1 jurisdictional/sectoral moderation processes. The updated advice follows input from the ACT Teacher Quality Institute on the results of the Certification Pilot (Pegg, McPhan, & Hardy, 2013). This report should be read in conjunction with Moderation Advice, which outlines a proposed moderation process than can be implemented within jurisdictions/sectors. The advice on moderation and National Evidence have been provided within a broader project (20-278).

This report identifies evidence sets that would be appropriate for jurisdictions/sectors to utilise in assessing assessor accuracy at the beginning of the Stage 1 moderation process proposed in Moderation Advice. The evidence sets that have been reviewed have been sourced from both successful and unsuccessful Certification applications. Therefore, the range includes evidence sets that clearly meet Descriptors/Standards, are borderline or clearly do not meet Descriptors/Standards.