ASPEN 
Site A Needs Assessment Report 
ASPEN 
Governor’s 
Council on 
Disabilities 
and Special 
Education 
Alaska Safety Planning & 
Empowerment Network 

Alaska Safety Planning and Empowerment Network 
Site A Needs Assessment Report 
Table of Contents 
EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY 
1 
OVERVIEW 
OF 
COLLABORATION 
4 
A 
TIMELINE 
OF 
ASPEN’S 
PLANNING 
PHASE 
5 
DESCRIPTION 
OF 
NEEDS 
ASSESSMENT 
6 
GOALS 
7 
METHODOLOGY 
SUMMARY 
8 
CONSENT PROCESS 
8 
ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS 
8 
METHOD 
1: 
FOCUS 
GROUPS 
WITH 
INTERVIEW 
OPTION 
9 
PURPOSE/AUDIENCE/NUMBER 
9 
METHOD 
2: 
STAFF 
AND 
BOARD 
INTERVIEWS 
10 
PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS 
10 
RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES 
11 
THE INTERVIEW PROCESS 
11 
KEY 
FINDINGS 
AND 
IMPLICATIONS 
12 
POSSIBLE 
SOLUTIONS 
39 
CONCLUSION 
39 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 1 
Executive Summary 
The Alaska Safety Planning and Empowerment Network (ASPEN) formed in 2007 to 
promote system change in the disability services and the domestic violence/sexual assault 
sectors that would improve their responses to survivors with disabilities (people with 
disabilities who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking). An 
Education, Training and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against and Abuse of 
Women with Disabilities Grant from the Office on Violence Against Women, US 
Department of Justice, funds ASPEN. ASPEN’s members are: 
• Access Alaska, Inc. (Access) 
• The Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC) 
• Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDV/SA) 
• Center for Human Development (CHD) 
• Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education (GCDSE) 
ASPEN elected to work with local partners outside the collaboration itself to initiate 
system change in two communities. ASPEN found eight local partners in the domestic 
violence/sexual assault (DV/SA) and disability sectors in two communities separated by 
over a thousand air miles, Site A in southeast Alaska and Site B in southwest Alaska. We 
conducted needs assessments in each community to inform ASPEN and its local partners 
of the strengths/assets and weaknesses/gaps in services experienced by survivors with 
disabilities. The goals of the needs assessment were fivefold: 
1. Identify community service delivery strengths, gaps, and barriers in providing 
accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
2. Determine existing relationships between Community Partner organizations and the 
extent to which these meet the needs of survivors with disabilities. 
3. Identify the policies, procedures, and practices of Community Partners and their 
strengths and barriers from the perspectives of people with disabilities, survivors, and 
staff and management Community Partners. 
4. Identify the similarities and differences between the ideal set of effective personcentered 
services and supports from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management of Community Partners 
5. Identify options that enhance collaboration between systems of service, better link 
survivors with those systems of service, and improve the services provided. 
Using two methodologies (focus groups and individual interviews) to elicit information 
from four audiences (staff from each of the two service sectors, women with disabilities, 
and women who were DV/SA survivors), ASPEN worked with approximately 41 people 
from in Site A. It should be noted that while we achieved our overall target in terms of 
the number of women with disabilities and women who were survivors of violence who 
participated in focus groups, the numbers were slightly skewed toward the latter. 
In terms of our interviews with Community Partners’ staff and management, we were 
very successful, but had some difficulty again meeting all our targets, particularly among 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 2 
board members. Two factors are reflected here: 1) the reluctance of volunteer board 
members to commit additional time from their private lives and 2) the timing of the needs 
assessment process. The interview process, intended to wrap by end of spring, stretched 
into the summer, the time during which rural residents are preoccupied by the subsistence 
activities (hunting, fishing, and other traditional indigenous food gathering and 
preparation activities) fundamental to their culture and economy. This was a 
consequence of difficulties re-engaging our partners and unexpected delays attributable 
both to our interview process design and resources as well as to problems unique to 
Alaska which interfered with travel and communication (most notably, the eruption of 
Mt. Redoubt volcano in South Central Alaska and two avalanches near the Snettisham 
Hydroelectric Facility in Juneau). 
Despite these setbacks and limitations, we believe the needs assessment identified several 
consistent themes in each of the two communities, some of which were similar and others 
of which were unique to the community. ASPEN identified eight key findings: 
1. Policies in place at our eight partner agencies addressed concerns such as mandated 
reporting, the Americans with Disability Act, and provision of individualized 
services. There were few, if any, specific written guidelines or procedures concerning 
the safety and service needs of survivors with disabilities. Those guidelines that do 
exist appear to be neither clearly understood nor uniformly implemented by staff, 
management, and boards. 
2. All our partner agencies interact on some level with each other. However 
collaboration beyond the basics (e.g. providing referrals, exchanging resources 
information) is limited. There is a moderate level of awareness of how the partners 
interact with each other within the community. DV/SA agencies were more likely to 
reach out to disability providers than the other way around. 
3. There is wide diversity of perceptions of disability, experiences with disability, and 
accommodation of individual needs among DV/SA agencies. There is likewise wide 
diversity in perceptions regarding people with disabilities and experiences of DV/SA 
among disability agencies. 
4. Community Partners and focus group participants identified behavioral health 
services as a crucial component to meeting the needs of all survivors. 
5. Processes for change within our eight partner agencies are in place—whether through 
strategic plan development, budget development, or staff and client input, however 
each agency had a unique approach. 
6. All our partners have clearly stated the desire, need, and support for training or crosstraining, 
staff orientation, and disability and DV/SA specific training. 
7. Culture, in all its diverse and complex manifestations, plays a key role in service 
provision as it is perceived and experienced by survivors with disabilities 
8. Survivors and people with disabilities identified positive, respectful, and supportive 
attitudes and actions as keys to making them feel safe, welcome, and comfortable. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 3 
The implications of these findings are many and suggest a number of possible solutions. 
Again, these will have to be individualized to be appropriate to the two distinct 
communities we partnered with. These include: 
• Develop strategic plans for each community that recognize each partner’s unique 
approach to change, but create a collaborative approach for community change. All 
other solutions follow from developing a planning model suitable for each partner 
communities. 
• Develop MOA’s and other mechanisms that define how partners collaborate with 
each other, each agency’s roles and responsibilities, and delineate the resources 
available at each. MOA’s should include the creation of an ongoing inter-agency 
council to address new issues as they arise and act as an agent to sustain the purpose 
and results of the project. 
• Develop appropriate policies and procedures for serving survivors with disabilities 
and adequately orient staff to these policies and procedures. These should be similar, 
if not, identical, across our local partners. 
• Develop a regular schedule of training and cross-training among local partners in 
each community, beginning with Disability 101 and DV/SA 101. Cultural 
understanding and competence will be an essential component of the training 
curriculum. 
• Engage key behavioral health providers in our local partnerships in each community. 
• Employ culturally resonant practices, such as potlatches, to engage elders and others 
from different cultural communities. 
ASPEN thanks all those who participated in this needs assessment - obviously it would 
have been impossible to complete this process without their participation. Those are: 
• The women who shared their experiences during focus groups and interviews, 
• Our eight Community Partners in Site A and Site B, their boards, management, and 
staffs. 
• The managers and staff at each of the five ASPEN collaborating agencies 
Note: 
In order to protect the safety and confidentiality of individuals and organizations, the 
original report has been altered to remove all potential identifying information.

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 4 
Overview of Collaboration 
The Alaska Safety Planning and Empowerment Network (ASPEN) formed in 2007 with 
the purpose of promoting system change in the disability services and the domestic 
violence/sexual assault/stalking sectors that would improve the response in both arenas to 
survivors with disabilities who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, or 
stalking. A 2007 Education, Training and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against 
and Abuse of Women with Disabilities Grant from the Office on Violence Against 
Women, US Department of Justice provides the funding for ASPEN’s work. 
ASPEN’s efforts were preceded by the Alaskans Speaks Up (ASU) project, which 
involved several of the members of the current collaboration and which concluded in 
2006. The five members of ASPEN are: 
1. Access Alaska, Inc. (Access), incorporated in 1983, is a federally funded Center for 
Independent Living (CIL) that has two regional centers serving Southcentral, 
Western, Interior, and Northern Alaska. Its services include information and referral, 
advocacy, peer mentoring/support, independent living skills training, and 
deinstitutionalization. 
2. The Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC) is a private, non-profit agency created in 
1993 to address the civil and criminal justice needs of Alaska Natives. ANJC 
addresses a wide range of issues: victim advocacy services, prisoner re-entry 
services, training/technical assistance, and tribal court development. ANJC staff has 
expertise and extensive knowledge regarding Alaska Native culture, history and 
values. 
3. Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDV/SA) is a 
nonprofit statewide coalition of 20 direct service domestic violence and sexual assault 
programs promoting social change to eliminate personal and societal violence in the 
lives of women and children in Alaska for over 30 years. It provides legislative and 
legal advocacy, training, technical assistance, coalition building, policy development 
and public education. 
4. Center for Human Development (CHD) is the University of Alaska Anchorage's 
center on disability education, training, and research; 30% of its employees 
experience disabilities or are parents of individuals with disabilities. In 1991, CHD 
founded a nonprofit clinic to fill service gaps for women with cognitive disabilities 
who were violent crime victims. CHD specializes in staff development, multi-media 
and distance training/education, and research and evaluation and is needs assessment 
project lead. 
5. Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education (GCDSE) is a state 
agency whose members include people with disabilities and their family members 
(60%) and state agency, service provider, and special education representatives 
appointed by the governor. The Council’s 30 years of experience and expertise in 
capacity building, systems change and integration, advocacy and interagency 
collaboration reflect its mission to create change that improves the lives of people 
with disabilities. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 5 
A Timeline of ASPEN’s Planning Phase 
ASPEN began developing its collaboration charter in January of 2008. While completing 
the charter, ASPEN conducted a series of internal cross-trainings and a root cause 
analysis that deepened members’ familiarity with their own purposes for pursuing the 
project and helped us determine each member’s role. The root cause analysis identified 
several conditions impacting survivors with disabilities. We addressed the following 
major areas through this grant: 
1. Women with disabilities do not identify as being abused –address via cross training; 
2. Lack of response from disability service providers—address in sites of change; 
3. Societal issues—address policy and program changes within sites of change; 
4. Lack of response from DV/SA programs—address in sites of change; 
5. Women with disabilities are not aware of DV/SA services and/or don’t know how to 
access services—address in sites of change, especially in the area of accessibility; 
6. DV/SA staff/program attitudes and challenges—address in sites of change; 
7. Disability providers lack knowledge of DV/SA services—address in sites of change; 
8. Women with disabilities don’t report abuse—address through sites of change 
marketing services including individuals with disabilities; and 
9. System issues—can be addressed in our sites of change. 
Major categories that ASPEN recognized as areas of need that must be addressed outside 
this grant include: 1) Lack of justice system response; 2) Difficulty for women with 
disabilities to receive support to safely take empowering steps away from abuse; and 3) 
Lack of prevention. 
Completing its charter in July 2008, ASPEN initiated work to narrow its focus, which 
culminated in the approval of our focus memo in January 2009. We elected to pursue a 
statewide focus with two pilot sites (Site A and Site B). ASPEN’s next step was to 
engage our eight local partners, from January through March 2009. Needs assessment 
plan development consumed the period from April 2009 until approval in January 2010. 
We began conducting the needs assessment in February 2010 and finished in July 2010. 
Our Needs Assessment report was approved in October 2010. 
ASPEN Vision 
ASPEN’s vision is that survivors with disabilities will encounter a system where they feel 
empowered, can tell their stories, be believed without judgment, and receive appropriate 
services that are attitudinally, physically, culturally, and programmatically accessible. 
Service delivery systems in Alaska will have expertise and a clear understanding of their 
roles and responsibilities and will provide collaborative, effective person-centered 
services for survivors with disabilities. 
ASPEN Mission 
ASPEN’s mission is to build capacity of the service delivery systems (e.g., disability, 
victim advocacy, and others) by creating systems change designed to enhance the 
provision of collaborative, effective person-centered services for survivors with 
disabilities. ASPEN will strengthen response to survivors with disabilities by: 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 6 
• Identifying and resolving barriers (e.g. attitudinal, physical, cultural, and 
programmatic) to safety, empowerment and access to appropriate, non-judgmental 
services provided by both the disability and DV/SA systems; 
• Fostering local collaborations to link survivors with disabilities to services and 
resources; 
• Providing cross-training, technical assistance, and information that changes 
organizational cultures and practices; and 
• Developing sustainable, innovative policies and practices designed to prioritize 
safety, empowerment and access. 
Project Scope in Site A 
ASPEN elected to pursue a statewide project, meaning ASPEN would work with local 
partners outside the collaboration itself to initiate system change in pilot communities 
rather than focusing on the organizations composing ASPEN. Site A was selected on the 
basis of social and cultural factors and their potential for change, as noted below. 
Demographics: Site A, population 14,000 (15% Alaska Native), is XXX miles by air or 
sea from Juneau. 
Services, Relationships, and Change Potential: ASPEN identified its local agency 
partners in Site A on the basis extensive direct experience and strong relationships. The 
existence of leadership at these agencies that has been at the forefront of systems change 
locally was a key consideration (for example, participation in local Disability Abuse 
Response Team initiatives). ASPEN’s local partners in Site A are: 
1. Community Partner 2 is a regional CIL headquartered in another community with a 
local office in Site A. Community Partner 2 is known for its innovative outlook. 
Community Partner 2 participated in the Alaskans Speak Up trainings that preceded 
and provided a foundation for ASPEN. 
2. Community Partner 3 is a strong local DV/SA shelter program that interacts regularly 
with ANDVSA. Community Partner 3 is committed to social change work and has 
strong links with Community Partner 4 and other Site A programs. 
3. Community Partner 1 is the local developmental disabilities provider in Site A with a 
long history of community involvement. 
4. Community Partner 4 is an active Alaska Native village corporation. The Tribal 
Health Clinic is the division ASPEN will work with at Community Partner 4. Their 
Domestic Violence Program (Community Partner 4 has a model program) is housed 
in the clinic. We will also work with Community Partner 4’s administrator. 
Needs Assessment Description 
Purpose and Goals 
We conducted the needs assessment to inform ourselves, and our local partners, of the 
strengths/assets and weaknesses/gaps in services experienced by survivors with 
disabilities. The process engaged key providers of victim advocacy services, disability 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 7 
services as partners and women who have been the victims of violence, and women who 
experience disabilities from both sites. 
The purpose of engaging these groups was to learn what qualities, processes, and 
relationships in each system and community must be understood and improved in order 
to build service delivery system (disability, victim advocacy, and others) capacity. The 
needs assessment illuminated elements of systems that need strengthening and identified 
opportunities to enhance provision of collaborative, effective, person-centered services 
for survivors with disabilities. The needs assessment will provide information guiding 
development of a strategic plan for system change initiatives. Ultimately, the strategic 
plan stemming from these needs assessments will serve as a blueprint to help a site of 
change better respond to identified needs and to support the development of integrated, 
comprehensive, and timely responses to the service needs of survivors with disabilities. 
ASPEN’s needs assessment activities aimed to determine strengths, weaknesses, gaps and 
barriers to supports for survivors with disabilities and to inform strategic planning 
process in Site A. These aims require we pursue several activities: 
• Develop needs assessment methodologies 
• Employ those methodologies to collect data from people with disabilities, service 
providers, and survivors. 
• Analyze the data collected from these sources. 
Goals 
Needs assessment goals grew out of the purpose of the project, our mission, and vision 
and were identified during an on site technical assistance session with the Vera Institute. 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of community service systems in providing 
accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
2. Determine existing relationships between Community Partner organizations and the 
extent to which these meet the needs of survivors with disabilities. 
3. Identify the existing policies, procedures, and practices of Community Partners and 
their strengths and barriers from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management Community Partners. 
4. Identify the similarities and differences between the ideal set of effective personcentered 
services and supports from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management of Community Partners 
5. Identify options that enhance collaboration between systems of service, better link 
survivors with those systems of service, and improve the services provided. 
How will the information be used? 
ASPEN used this information to develop this needs assessment report, which will, in 
turn, inform ASPEN and its partners in Site A of the findings and implications of the 
needs assessment. The purpose will be to guide ASPEN and its partners in identifying 
which issues they choose to address during the project’s implementation phase and which 
could better be addressed through other means. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 8 
How the Report Relates to the Strategic Plan and ASPEN’s Goal of Change 
The results of the needs assessment will be shared with Site A partners at on-site 
meetings. These sessions will initiate targeting of report findings and implications in 
order to develop a strategic plan creating a targeted initiative promoting seamless, 
comprehensive and timely responses for survivors with disabilities. The strategic plan 
will focus on initiatives within grant parameters and that will create sustainable change. 
Methodology Summary 
Our needs assessment targeted four key audiences: 1) women with disabilities; 2) women 
who were survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking; 3) staff and 
management from our partners in the disability service sector; and 4) staff and 
management from our partner victim services agencies. In this section, we discuss 
participation by each group and the methods used to gather information. We also discuss 
challenges encountered as we engaged our audiences and deployed our methodologies. 
We used two basic methods to gather information from our four target groups, the first 
being focus groups and the second, individual interviews. This section describes each 
method, the audiences to which it was applied, recruitment strategies, and the number of 
people in each audience that eventually participated in needs assessment activities. 
Consent Process 
We used a passive consent with all participants that allowed them to participate in a focus 
group or interview without providing identifying information. In particular during focus 
groups, this limited identifying information available to ASPEN personnel, all mandated 
reporters, should a disclosure requiring a report occur. 
Access Considerations 
ASPEN’s collaboration charter supports equal attitudinal, physical, cultural, and 
programmatic access to women with disabilities and survivors of domestic violence and 
sexual assault. This meant providing a welcoming and supportive environment for the 
broadest range of participants and circumstances. Focus group and interview tools were 
reviewed to ensure accessibility and cultural resonance and available in alternative 
formats. Recruitment included means to address accommodation requests. 
Safety is a core ASPEN value encompassing freedom from abuse, neglect, and 
exploitation and requires environments in which survivors with disabilities are 
welcomed, valued, and respected. ASPEN recognized, by agreeing to participate in focus 
groups or optional interviews, individuals could encounter risk, which we minimized by 
informing all participants of the risks, using locations considered safe, stressing the need 
to respect confidentiality, stressing anonymity, discouraging disclosure, and providing 
supports/resources should a participant be in immediate risk during a session. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 9 
Method 1: Focus Groups with Interview Option 
Purpose/Audience/Number 
Based on community engagement dialogues, collaborative discussions, and our team’s 
experience soliciting input from rural residents, we chose a focus group methodology to 
gather information from individuals with disabilities and from survivors of domestic 
violence and sexual assault in Site A. The perspective and personal experience of 
survivors of domestic violence/sexual assault was the best source of specific information 
about safety, confidentiality and what is welcoming as related to service delivery. 
Likewise individuals with disabilities are the best sources of information on accessibility 
and accommodation issues and what makes with service delivery welcoming. 
Focus groups are primarily used for exploration and discovery of a topic. They provide 
an opportunity for participants to share and compare information. Group participants 
helped us explore and discover what was needed to better serve survivors and women 
with disabilities. The focus group setting allowed participants to explore questions more 
deeply and the peer setting offered comfort and support during those explorations. 
Staff from our partners from Site A assisted with focus group participant recruitment. 
ASPEN provided on-site orientation for recruiters, covering: 
• Purpose of the project and the focus groups 
• Meeting logistics 
• Risk factors, including confidentiality 
• Food and gift cards 
• Personal Care Assistants (PCA) and other care providers arrangements 
• Accommodation requests 
• Consent 
• Focus group protocol and questions, and 
• Interview option for individuals who wanted to participate, but not in a focus group. 
The trained recruiters directly solicited participation in focus group sessions or optional 
individual interviews from the population each provider served. Each agency, or in some 
cases, a pair of agencies, conducted recruitment for one or more focus groups in their 
respective community. The two focus groups held were held, one for women with 
disabilities and a second for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence. Recruiters 
were instructed not to seek out women they believed fell into both categories we wanted 
to interview. Recruiters offered the opportunity to participate via face-to-face, private 
interviews rather than in a focus group to all potential participants 
Group Facilitation and Results 
A team of three ASPEN members conducted the focus groups: one representing domestic 
violence/sexual assault expertise, one with disability experience, and one with Alaska 
Native cultural competence. This balance produced group facilitation with broad 
expertise and grasp of cultural nuances. Advocates from each community were available 
in a safe room on site during the group sessions. ASPEN teams visited for two days to 
conduct four focus group sessions lasting 90 minutes or more. For individuals opting not 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 10 
to participate in a focus group, we offered semi-standardized interviews using the same 
questions and probes, to ensure collection of consistent data. 
ASPEN aimed to recruit a total of 20 – 40 at four focus group sessions. We expected 
some participants to request individual interviews protect their safety and confidentiality. 
Figure 1 displays the proposed number of participants from each target audience and 
session, compared to the actual number of participants. We expected participant numbers 
to vary from group to group and planned to conduct groups even if fewer than 5 
individuals attended a particular session. We did not collect demographic data on 
participants, principally because such data can and has been used to identify individuals 
in small Alaskan communities. ASPEN facilitators noted participants in Site A appeared 
to be about 65% Alaska Native or American Indian. 
Figure 1 
Method 2: Staff and Board Interviews 
Purpose of Interviews 
We interviewed staff, management, and boards at all four organizations. We expected 
each to provide unique perspectives. From staff we wanted an understanding of service 
delivery realities, policies and procedures in practice, and barriers to serving survivors 
with disabilities. We sought their knowledge of resources, agencies, and services specific 
to disability and DV/SA/S and history of working with other agencies serving survivors 
with disabilities. We wanted to assess comfort working with survivors with disabilities 
and what would help them better support such clients. Finally, we wanted opinions on 
what they did well and what they would like to do better as collaborative partners. 
Managers, we thought, would provide understanding of budgeting, policies, procedures, 
and existing collaborations. We wanted to understand both informal and formal processes 
for changing policies and procedures. We wanted to know how they supported staff 
including recruitment, training and retention. We sought an understanding of their history 
Focus Groups Target 
Participants 
Actual 
Participants 
Site A 
Survivors of DV/SA Group 1 5-10 5 
Survivors of DV/SA Group 2 5-10 3 
Survivors of DV/SA Interviews Unknown 4 
Individuals w/Disabilities Group 1 5-10 4 
Individuals w/Disabilities Group 2 5-10 2 
Individuals w/Disabilities Interviews Unknown 2 
Total 20-40 20 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 11 
of working with other agencies in support of survivors with disabilities. Lastly, we 
wanted opinions on what they did well and how they wanted to improve as collaborators. 
From executive directors we looked to understand budgeting, relationships with boards, 
organization policies and procedures, and existing collaborations. We also wanted to 
understand how change occurs in the organization, and how they prioritized programs 
and service provision. Finally, we wanted their perspectives on what they did well and 
what they would like to do better as collaborative partners. 
From board members we wanted to understand missions, processes for collaborating with 
other organizations, how change occurred, how strategic plans considered survivors with 
disabilities, how well they thought their organization responded to the needs of survivors 
with disabilities and what they thought were populations they should serve, but were not, 
and the reasons (e.g., budget, expertise, etc.). Finally, we wanted perspectives on what 
their organization did well and how they wanted to improve as collaborative partners. 
Recruitment strategies 
Executive directors helped recruit staff, managers, and board members from their 
organizations. Interview targets for each partner were: 1) Executive Director; 2) Board of 
president and one other member; 3) 10% of staff/managers, randomly selected, a 
minimum of 3 per site (some partners had fewer than 3 staff/managers). ASPEN team 
members set up individual interviews with board members, staff, managers, and 
executive directors. Verbal consent avoided creating documentation with identifying 
information. ASPEN provided accommodations on request. As with focus groups, 
ASPEN minimized the risks to safety and anonymity. 
The Interview Process 
We used a semi-standardized interview designed to take 30-45 minutes. In practice, 
interview ranged from 20 to 90 minutes. Standard questions were asked each 
interviewee, but interviewers had freedom to digress and probe beyond. This allowed us 
to get full answers to questions and allowed interviewees to reveal more about topics they 
felt important. All ASPEN members, in teams of two, did interviews, most by telephone. 
Figure 2 displays the targeted number of participants from each organization and the 
categories within the organization. We completed 21 of a targeted 26 interviews (81%), a 
respectable rate under any circumstances. As the table demonstrates, we were close to 
our targets in each category, with a key exception. Recruiting board members proved to 
be more challenging than any other group; we ended up at 39% of our target. Many board 
members are volunteers who guard their personal time. One board chair felt the issues 
addressed were the responsibility of staff and declined to respond to the questions. 
We did try hard to obtain more board interviews, making numerous phone calls and 
sending many emails to potential interviewees and related contacts, but we had to 
conclude the needs assessment short of our target in this area. Fortunately, board 
interviews are a less important information source in terms of service delivery and other 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 12 
issues. For development and adoption of initiatives that require board involvement or 
concurrence, this circumstance will result, for the former, on greater reliance on evidence 
gathered from agency staff and management and, for the latter, on ASPEN’s capacity to 
be persuasive with a less involved element of our partners’ governance structures. 
Figure 2 
Key Findings and Implications 
Opening statement 
This section presents information and analysis in a manner that highlights similarities and 
differences of two separate systems, disability and victim advocacy. While we did not ask 
about the experience of disability, many survivors in Site A, when describing what 
worked and didn’t work for them, alluded to benefits and barriers from their own 
experience. These often included experiences associated with disabilities. Disability 
service recipients when describing what made them feel welcome often referred to 
comfort or lack thereof based on safety issues. 
Although we asked no leading questions, four focus group facilitators noted 1) many 
participants self-identified as survivors shared experiences of disabilities and 2) many 
self-identified as people with disabilities disclosed DV/SA experiences. People with 
Partner Interviews Target 
Interviews 
Completed 
Interviews 
Site A 
Community Partner 3 
Staff/Managers 3 3 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 2 
Community Partner 4 
Staff/Managers 3 2 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 0 
Community Partner 1 
Staff/Managers 6 5 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 1 
Community Partner 2 
Staff/Managers 2 4 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 0 
Total 26 21 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 13 
disabilities and survivors were literally one and the same. Culture plays a key role in how 
services should be delivered and by whom. Both focus group participants indicated 
provider attitudes (e.g., manner in which direct care staff treated them, policies and 
procedures, confidentiality practices) were crucial to their opinion of the benefits of any 
services. 
Finding 1 
Typically, the policies in place at our partner agencies addressed issues such as 
mandated reporting and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We were unable to identify 
any specific written guidelines concerning the safety and service needs of survivors with 
disabilities. Further, any informal practices that exist appear to be neither clearly 
understood nor uniformly implemented by staff and management. 
This first illustrates considers the following Needs Assessment goal: 
3. Identify the existing policies, procedures, and practices of Community Partners and 
their strengths and barriers from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management Community Partners. 
Interviews and focus groups revealed each partner agency had policies and procedures 
addressing their specific clientele. However, none had policies and procedures focused 
on survivors with disabilities. During the interviews we targeted the following areas in 
regards to policies and procedures (focus groups/interviews participants were not asked 
questions around policies and procedures, but some offered comments): 
• How policies and procedures are shaped 
• How they are used to guide services to survivors with disabilities 
• How they may be barriers to working with survivors with disabilities 
ASPEN’s partner agencies shape policies and procedures using a variety of methods. 
Mostly, boards shape policy, with input from executive directors and, in some cases, staff 
or committees. For example, at the time Of The 
Interviews, The Community Partner 3 Board had 
begun examining their policies and procedures, 
reviewing one policy and procedure per board 
meeting. Interviews with the Community Partner 
3 executive director, line staff, and managers 
indicated the board solicited staff input as they 
worked through updating policies and 
procedures. 
The focus of the policy and procedure review at Community Partner 3 is to ensure 
accessibility to everyone. The current procedure for addressing the needs of program 
participants with disabilities from the executive director’s perspective is to find out what 
is needed to ensure safety, accept into the program, and then attempt to provide 
reasonable accommodations. In practice, this focus helps make sure advocates do not 
screen people out. Community Partner 3 has a high level of clients with behavioral health 
The board shapes policy through 
the Program Committee with 
input from the Executive 
Director. The committee then 
makes recommendations to full 
board –Board Member 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 14 
and/or substance abuse issues and tries to work with each, but in some cases they are 
unable to shelter everyone. Currently there are a number of “gray areas,” in some cases 
policies are not written. 
Staff at Community Partner 2 said they had no formal policies and procedures directly 
addressing needs of survivors with disabilities. They indicated that it was informal - if 
they needed assistance, they called Community Partner 3. The director said there are 
procedures in place and that there has been an effort to revise policies and procedures 
over the last several months, specifically around intake questions. Several Community 
Partner 2 interviewees said that as a Center for 
Independent Living, Community Partner 2 is 
consumer controlled so consumers set their own 
goals and priorities. The local Disability Abuse 
Response Team (DART) was mentioned by the 
director, but not by the manager or staff. 
Community Partner 1 interviewees, said they consider individual need in providing 
services. They mentioned mandatory reporting policy and a procedure to notify proper 
agencies of suspected abuse. At least one interviewee felt this was not a policy issue. 
Although it didn’t appear there were specific policies and procedures to guide services to 
survivors with disabilities, there appeared to be informal practices agencies used. At least 
one interviewee from each of our disability partners identified mandatory reporting as a 
policy. At DV/SA partners, the focus seemed to be on safety and accommodation. 
Community Partner 4 interviewees noted they 
complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act; 
that their facility was accessible and that waivers 
were available for clients in the DV/SA program 
for financial assistance if the individual applying is 
disabled, suffering extensive injuries, or requires 
additional time to recover from mental injury. 
These policies allow staff to provide additional 
services, a path to more effective work with 
survivors. 
Although it didn’t appear there were specific 
policies and procedures to guide services to 
survivors of DV/SA with disabilities, there did 
appear to be practices that some partners were 
using. Some staff indicated they weren’t sure if 
disability issues are addressed in any policy or 
procedure. A Community Partner 4 staff member 
noted, “The intake form does ask if the client needs 
any medical assistance.” Staff described a binder 
I think it’s implied, it’s in place 
(existing policies and 
procedures), looking at the 
individual – Executive Director 
Creating an atmosphere where 
the participant feels safe allows 
for disclosure. Also, many… 
participants tell us if they are 
receiving services from agencies 
such as Community Partner 1 or 
Community Partner 2 - Manager 
Current practice for determining 
if a person has a disability is 
speaking directly to the client 
and/or observing behavior or 
physical limitations – Staff 
Determining whether a person 
has a disability is not in the 
assessment or intake form. The 
intake form does ask if the client 
needs medical assistance - Staff 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 15 
of resources available for staff to go through to provide program participants with a list of 
phone numbers for agencies and individuals able to provide assistance. 
Community Partner 3 Staff indicated they try to accommodate when the need is apparent 
(e.g., “If an individual can’t go downstairs, someone else can assist with the chores,” 
“For a program participant with mental health issues-always having an advocate is 
available to offer moral support; “Making sure a person with a bad back is 
comfortable.”). 
Implications 
Organization leaders (Board Members/Executive Directors) frequently felt the agency 
mission and service provisions implied it would serve the “other” population; most did 
not see the need to include explicit references in missions or policies and procedures 
directed at survivors with disabilities. Although none of our partners have written 
policies specifically addressing survivors with disabilities, all eight partners indicated a 
willingness to address individual needs. 
Policies and procedures addressing survivors with disabilities are not common to either 
our disability or victim advocacy partners. Polices and procedures beginning with intake 
and assessment should be reviewed by all ASPEN partners. Appropriate policies and 
procedures for working with survivors with disabilities should be developed 
collaboratively with the goal of putting in place consistent and complementary guidelines 
that address the unique characteristics of each community. 
Finding 2 
Our Community Partners appear to interact on some level with each other. However 
collaboration beyond the basics (e.g., providing referrals, exchanging resources 
information) is limited. It appeared that DV/SA agencies were more likely to reach out to 
disability providers than the other way around. 
In this section, we considered two Needs Assessment goals: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing service delivery systems in providing 
accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
2. Determine existing relationships between Community Partner organizations and the 
extent to which these meet the needs of survivors with disabilities. 
Our Community Partners acknowledged they worked with overlapping populations to a 
large extent, but did not consciously realize this until becoming involved with ASPEN. 
While the disability community recognized people with disabilities were victimized, they 
usually identified this as generalized abuse - primarily caregiver abuse. Victim advocates 
acknowledged many survivors experienced disabilities, such as behavioral health or 
substance abuse issues; however they did not recognize these as disabilities. Most 
advocates identified only people who experienced cognitive or physical disabilities as 
persons with disabilities. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 16 
Our partners all agreed both systems were crucial to help individuals navigate and access 
resources (e.g., financial, housing, medical) and help them feel safe and empowered. 
Disability providers and victim advocates referred individuals for services they did not 
provide. Providers said follow up could be challenging and sometimes did not occur. In 
some cases, providers tried to address individual needs within their own framework. 
Disability staff we interviewed understood they were mandatory reporters, however, 
some were uncomfortable or reluctant to make reports to authorities (i.e. Adult Protective 
Services, law enforcement, Long Term Care Ombudsman, Office of Children’s Services); 
reports seemed to them to violate confidentiality or rights to self-determination. 
In order to investigate the inter-agency connections among our Community Partners, 
ASPEN’s staff interviews included questions about with whom our partners worked. 
Figure 3 (see below) depicts the collaborations between ASPEN Community Partners. 
We elected not to ask specifically about partner agencies; we didn’t want to lead 
interviewees, and we also wanted to discover what non-partner agencies they found to be 
helpful in serving the needs of clients. Figure 4 lists non-ASPEN agencies that at least 
two of our partners worked with. We also asked focus group participants what referrals 
were made to address service needs that ASPEN partners could not address. 
Figure 3. Site A Partner Connections 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 17 
Figure 4. Other Site A Agencies/Organizations 
Community 
Partner 3 
Community 
Partner 1 
Community 
Partner 4 
Community 
Partner 2 
XX Human Services X X X X 
Senior Service/Senior 
Center/XX Center 
X X X 
Medical Services (Hospital, 
Nursing Facilities) 
X X X 
Adult Protective Services X X 
HOPE X X 
Not only did most of our partners already work together, they all worked with the local 
behavioral health provider. As shown in Figure 4 all four partners interacted with XX 
Center for Human Services, the principal behavioral health provider. 
Interviewees also noted other local groups, task forces and/or coalitions to which their 
organization belonged, including XX, Inc, Violent Crime Compensation Board, the 
Courts, Salvation Army, Site A Regional Youth Facility, school district, city and 
borough, Disability Abuse Response Team, Healing Trauma Through Stories, borough 
transportation, XX Alaska Regional Resource Center, Site A Youth Leap, Domestic 
Violence Task Force and the Wellness Coalition. Some interviewees said there were too 
many other resources to list - these are not captured in this needs assessment. 
How Helpful Were ASPEN Partners? 
We asked focus group participants how well our Community Partners helped them find 
other needed services. While some individuals commented only on how their “home” 
agency assisted them, many described how other agencies as well helped them find other 
services. A synopsis of responses follows. 
Site A Survivors 
Many participants said the ASPEN partners from which they received DV/SA services 
helped them find other needed services. At Community Partner 4, participants said: 
• If Community Partner 4 can’t help, they lead you in the right direction; sometimes 
they are too busy to answer questions, but they usually get back to you. 
• Community Partner 4 Staff was good about offering different solutions, informing 
about meetings and acting in a respectful manner. 
• Financial assistance can be “maxed out;” since Community Partner 4 can’t pay for all 
needs, it should cap assistance to individuals so all who need help can get it. 
• Unable to find needed help from the Office of Children’s Services. 
• Uncomfortable Using Community Partner 4 because it is too easy for people to see 
client folders. 
• Bad experiences have led to mistrust of social workers. 
• Comfortable in the support group on surviving the death of a loved one because they 
are aware of feelings and don’t blame. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 18 
Focus group participants indicated Community Partner 3 helped in the following areas: 
• Public assistance; 
• Alaska housing; 
• Custody lawyer; 
• Alcohol counselor; and 
• Information on getting a job. 
One woman said she was told at Community Partner 4 where to go and she made the 
calls herself. Participants brought up ways in which partner agencies could improve. Two 
Community Partner 4 clients said when they came in there was a lot of paperwork. Both 
said they would have preferred to be listened to and hear about options and available 
resources before doing paperwork. Others wanted Community Partner 4 to keep its 
referral list current and posted, and provide handouts and current resource lists to clients. 
Some clients felt Community Partner 3 could have offered more information on options; 
more information on volunteering; and more focus on preventive practices—including 
more in-school information. One woman said advocates should ask more often if you 
need help. 
Site A People with Disabilities 
Most participants indicated the ASPEN partners from which they received services 
helped them find other services the partner could not provide, including: 
• Filling out paperwork and applications, including paperwork for a Medicaid waiver; 
• Helping with long words and telling her when she needed to come in and sign papers; 
• Referring to counseling. 
• Referring to budget and life skills workshops. 
• Connecting to Community Partner 1 and the Special Olympics. 
Asked how partners could better serve them, one participant said they could help more 
with housing, food, schooling, and employment. Another said she would like to see more 
money for adaptive accommodations. Finally, one felt her agency needed more staff. 
Implications 
Interviews and focus groups identified over 20 other organizations ASPEN partners 
collaborate with. Resource richness was an asset in Site A. People with disabilities and 
survivors felt good about the helpfulness of our partners in linking them with outside 
assistance, another strength. The two groups identified approximately 20 ways in which 
more help could be provided. 
To address these implications, Site A should catalog community resources, develop 
collaboration mechanisms, and facilitate access to resources for survivors with 
disabilities. Partners should review areas focus group participants identified in which 
assistance could be improved and determine how to address those. Resource lists for 
survivors with disabilities should be available at all partners and collaborators. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 19 
Finding 3 
There is wide diversity of perceptions among DV/SA staff about what a disability is; they 
also have varying experiences in working with people with disabilities. Likewise, there is 
great diversity of perceptions among disability staff about what constitutes domestic 
violence/sexual assault of people with disabilities and they have varying experiences 
working with survivors. 
Finding 3 responds to two Needs Assessment goals: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of community service systems in providing 
accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
4. Identify similarities and differences between an ideal set of effective person-centered 
services and supports from perspectives of people with disabilities, survivors, and 
staff and management of Community Partners. 
As we discuss elsewhere, partners from both sectors served survivors with disabilities on 
a routine basis, but often did not recognize they were working with survivors with 
disabilities. The ASPEN interview process seemed to act as a catalyst for this recognition 
in many cases, sparking the understanding that perceptions of who fit into this category 
were incomplete. 
Perception of DV/SA by Disability Partners 
The focus of disability providers is on individualized services and support as it relates to 
the disability. In Site A, front line workers at two disability partners noted they were not 
aware of working with any survivors. 
While some staff were comfortable dealing with 
disclosure, others were not. Strategies for dealing 
with disclosure varied from “go to supervisor” to 
“not an expert in responding, but communication 
skills would go part way.” One staff involved with 
employment of individuals with disabilities noted 
that he/she would go to the service coordinator or 
director to talk about it if he/she were concerned. 
In a number of cases, the thought of taking on 
duties related to DV/SA was overwhelming to 
staff having difficulty keeping up core duties as 
disability providers. 
In asking whether partners have any survivors or 
people with expertise on their boards, one partner 
did have members with experience or knowledge 
of DV/SA or victimization issues, although 
individuals with this expertise were not 
intentionally recruited. 
I really feel like we do so 
much…right now that focusing 
on that [DV/SA] is not 
necessarily in our best interest. 
Especially when so many people 
have multiple issues - Staff 
(Our) strength is in one on one 
services. If we identify need for 
support, we are there. We give 
them the skills to not become a 
victim - Executive Director 
I don’t think it’s inherent in our 
mission statement. It is part of 
our day-to-day work to detect 
DV/SA - Board Member 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 20 
Perception of Disability by DV/SA Partners 
Victim advocacy organizations focus on legal and system advocacy, shelter services, and 
support safety, autonomy, confidentiality, and other relevant concerns of the people they 
serve. The board and executive director in Site A voiced an inclusive notion of the range 
of disability (behavioral, cognitive, physical, etc), but staff and managers perceived 
disability as primarily related to physical or mobility issues. Many discussed problems 
with their facility and how they hoped a new building was in the works. Staff described 
difficulties with stairs, the washer/dryer being on the bottom floor, and barriers stemming 
from many of the rooms not being on the main floor. One person described how a new 
building with critical elements on one floor would be better for many residents, including 
those with infants or small children, the elderly, and pregnant women. 
While most staff members described disability in 
terms of mobility, one individual revealed she 
helped individuals with their writing or reading, 
provided telephonic services for court 
accompaniment and offered other assistance and 
services to individuals with anxiety disorders or 
agoraphobia. She asked us, “Is that working 
with people with a disability?” She said, “I 
never thought of these services as creating accessibility for a person with a disability. I 
always thought of disability access only in terms of what someone needs when they use a 
wheelchair or a cane.” 
As with disability agencies, it was enlightening 
to note if DV/SA partners’ boards had members 
with disability experience. Again, although none 
specifically recruited for such members, our 
DV/SA partner did have board members with such experience. Likewise it was 
enlightening to ask whether people with disabilities, survivors, or people with expertise in 
one or the other served on the board of our tribal partner. Although not specifically 
recruited, our Site A tribal partner did have such board members. In terms of services, 
that organization seemed to focus on individuals with behavioral health and substance 
abuse issues. 
Implications 
Site A has a broad history of cross training and collaborations around disabilities as a 
result of involvement and funding with other programs that focus on the victimization of 
people with disabilities/Elders and the need for cross training (i.e., Abuse Prevention for 
Vulnerable Adults, Alaskans Speak Up/DART). There is a broad range of perceptions of 
whom people with disabilities and survivors are and what is done to serve them across all 
our partners in Site A. Basic education on awareness, philosophy, and service delivery 
approaches of both the disability and DV/SA sectors should be developed and provided 
to all current staff and new staff during orientation. 
The focus is on being hopeful 
and helpful - Board Member 
Staff is trained to work with all 
people as long as they are not a 
(danger) to themselves or others - 
Line Staff 
Services are consumer/patient 
drive - Executive Director 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 21 
Finding 4 
Community Partners and focus group participants identified behavioral health services 
as a crucial component to meeting the needs of survivors with disabilities. 
Finding 4 illustrates two ASPEN Needs Assessment goals: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing service delivery systems in providing 
accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
2. Identify the similarities and differences between the ideal set of effective personcentered 
services and supports from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management of Community Partners 
In Site A, when ASPEN originally began to 
engage potential partners in early 2009, we were 
asked why behavioral health providers were not 
at the table. When we returned at the beginning 
of 2010 to begin the needs assessment process, 
the queries were even more emphatic. During the 
assessment itself, interviewees from all our 
partners said local behavioral health providers should be part of the ASPEN project. 
During the needs assessment process, our partners became increasingly aware they 
worked with each other’s populations, despite not recognizing doing so. Disability 
providers acknowledged many people with disabilities experienced victimization, 
although they spoke primarily about caregiver abuse. Victim advocates acknowledged 
many survivors experienced “hidden” disabilities (mental health or substance abuse); 
however they did not generally see these as disabilities precisely because they were 
hidden. They were more likely to describe recognizing survivors with cognitive or 
physical disabilities. 
Our DV/SA partner encountered individuals with mental health and substance abuse 
issues frequently. The “ideal shelter,” as envisioned by its executive director, would have 
mental health and substance abuse counselors on site. The shelter is currently developing 
a new strategic plan that will most likely address behavioral health issues; it is unclear 
whether other disabilities will be addressed. 
Site A disability staff indicated they have no 
guidelines for serving survivors. One partner 
does not provide behavioral counseling, but 
refers to XX Center for Human Services. Staff 
said they are clinicians, a psychologist, and a 
psychiatrist for children. Access to these services 
is difficult for adults, so they refer to XX. They 
said availability of mental health services for people with developmental disabilities is 
very limited. 
Therapists are petrified to provide 
mental health services (to adults 
with developmental disabilities); 
we had kids’ therapists working 
with adults - Manager 
Advocates are not sure what to do 
with people with… schizophrenia. 
This may have to do with fear 
and/or just not feeling 
comfortable - Staff. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 22 
Our tribal partner has a strong behavioral health component, but staff identified two 
barriers to meeting the immediate needs of people with disabilities: 1) When someone 
needs assistance for a severe substance abuse problem, for example, the referral process 
and short staffing lead to a waiting list. Beds may not be available for 6 weeks to 6 
months. This gap between a client decision to seek treatment and accessing treatment 
may result in losing the client; and 2) often there is automatic denial of applicants seeking 
public financial or medical assistance and people must reapply. 
Some of our partners also participate in the Site A Wellness Coalition, which has been 
addressing gaps and deficiencies in services. There was uncertainty whether there was a 
disability subgroup; there is one on youth suicide prevention. 
Implications 
There appears to be commitment across all of ASPEN’s partners to collaborate and 
improve services to survivors with disabilities, most especially those with mental health 
and substance abuse issues. This commitment represents a unique opportunity to address 
a serious gap in services to survivors with disabilities. Our partners in Site A already have 
some sort of relationship with local behavioral health providers. 
Finding 5 
Processes for change within ASPEN’S partner agencies are in place—whether through 
strategic plan development, budgeting process, or staff and client input; however each 
agency has a unique approach. 
This section addresses the following Needs Assessment goal: 
1. Identify the existing policies, procedures, and practices of Community Partners and 
their strengths and barriers from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management Community Partners. 
All our partners have strategic plans and appear to have a formal development process for 
those plans. Neither disability agencies nor victim advocates specifically addressed the 
needs of survivors with disabilities in strategic 
plans. The strategic plans at the four agencies are 
primarily developed through processes driven by 
the boards. In some cases, the executive directors 
or program managers oversee plan development. 
In one case, the plan is developed at a board 
retreat. In two other cases, partners hire 
consultants to review what they are doing and/or 
to assist with the plan development. While it 
appears all request staff input, some noted they 
also request direct consumer or customer input 
(our interviews didn’t specifically ask whether 
consumer input was sought). 
The board is seeking funding for 
a new, improved facility; if the 
needs assessment determines 
there are additional needs, the 
board would look for the funding, 
either within the current budget, 
or…look to reallocate funds, use 
emergency funds or seek grant 
funding to meet existing needs of 
people with disabilities - Board 
Member 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 23 
All partners indicated their board or council approved the budget, but once approved, 
executive directors or managers, as the case may be, have freedom to approve 
expenditures within it. Several reported the executive director or program manager was in 
charge of developing the budget with input from staff and/or community members. Some 
agencies reported substantial funding is tied to grants with specific scopes of work. One 
noted, while there were no budget line items currently addressing disabilities, they might 
be peripherally covered in line items, such as case management or elder care. 
Implications 
Most of ASPEN’s partners appear to employ something of a top down approach to 
planning and budgeting. Services appeared to largely reflect the requirements of funding 
sources, current or potential. For the most part, our partners rely on direct service or line 
staff to voice the perspective of service recipients, as in the below model. 
Client input . Staff . Manager . ED . Board . Agency P&P/services 
Board member participation in our needs assessment was less than hoped. As the needs 
assessment process was one means of introducing the project to our partners, lacking that 
may be an issue for some board members. As a result, particular attention may need to be 
devoted to engaging board members during the strategic planning process in each 
community. Change processes are in place at all our partners and the willingness to 
collaboratively change is also present, based on our needs assessment. 
All our partners expressed an absolute willingness to work more on addressing the needs 
of survivors with disabilities, however they require more information on the scope of the 
problem and possible solutions in order to do so. 
Finding 6 
All ASPEN partners have clearly stated the desire, need, and support for training or 
cross-training, staff orientation, and disability or DV/SA specific training as appropriate. 
This section addresses the following Needs Assessment goal: 
3. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing community service delivery systems in 
providing accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
All ASPEN’s partner agencies supported the need for formal training enabling them to 
better serve survivors with disabilities. Site A has a history of cross training and 
collaborations around disabilities as a result of involvement and funding with other 
programs as noted in previous sections. In terms of current training, some staff indicated 
they received on-the-job or informal training. Other staff stated they had not received any 
formal training, but identified several trainings they would like to have on a regular basis: 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 24 
• Sexuality training; 
• Community Partner 2’s training on victimization; and 
• Trainings from Community Partner 3. 
One executive director indicated the agency doesn’t hesitate to train staff if it is of benefit 
to customers. A manager said they encourage staff to attend local trainings, as well as 
annual education to enhance staff effectiveness 
in working with individuals with disabilities. 
Another executive director indicated her agency 
should provide better basic staff training, 
especially for frontline staff such as 
receptionists. 
Another disability partner doesn’t train 
specifically for work with survivors, but offers 
trainings to staff about core values of respect and 
supporting people’s choice, a culture of 
openness, and accountability with the hope that 
this will instill in staff the proper attitude and 
response to survivors with disabilities. 
Disability staff identified training around how to 
collaborate with the DV/SA provider and how to find DV/SA resources. They wanted a 
process/mechanism for working with Community Partner 3 and more frequent meetings 
with Community Partner 3 to improve collaboration. Such exchange does not happen 
now unless the two agencies happen to serve a common client. Community Partner 3 
always invites their staff to trainings. A disability offers training on vulnerable adults 
abuse prevention. 
While DV/SA staff gets policy and procedure training at hire, they would like more 
training on how to better serve individuals with disabilities. According to a manager, 
they were in the process of starting a “Safe and 
Sober” group based on an Alaska Network on 
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault training. 
DV/SA board members indicated that one way 
their agency could be more effective serving 
people with disabilities would be “placing a 
focus on staff training because, while the staff 
may be good, they may not have the skills to 
work with people with different disabilities.” 
While survivors with disabilities were not 
identified specifically in the budget, the training 
line item was flexible and could include 
disability training. 
It would be good to…offer 
training and also look at the 
accessibility of the facility - staff 
We need…a good orientation 
program for staff. When new 
hires come…we need to provide 
education about community 
resources and cooperative 
ventures. Continuing education is 
needed in disability, co-occurring 
issues, accessibility, and breaking 
down stigma – staff 
Training for staff to better 
understand the signs of 
undetected abuse. We probably 
are not seeing the whole picture. 
Training is probably the area - 
Board Member 
I would really like … to do more 
with Community Partner 3. I saw 
an example (of DV) in a 
disability support group, but 
didn’t know quite what to do - 
Staff 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 25 
Relatively isolated areas such as Site A face significant barriers staging trainings in the 
community. Another significant barrier common to both sectors, indeed to providers 
statewide, is maintaining staff coverage during training events, particularly when the 
event occurs outside the community. Local labor pools are thin in both communities. 
Another concern, in even the largest Alaskan communities, is direct service staff tends to 
turn over at a high rate. Constantly replacing staff brings with it the need for continuous 
training at the local level. 
Implications 
Site A recognizes the need for training across disciplines and is willing to institute such 
training. A history of Alaskans Speak Up training and establishment of a DART augurs 
well for expanded training for serving survivors with disabilities. This foundation of 
experience and willingness provides a good starting point for this training. 
Finding 7 
Culture, 
in 
all 
its 
diverse 
and 
complex 
manifestations, 
plays 
a 
key 
role 
in 
service 
provision 
as 
it 
is 
perceived 
and 
experienced 
by 
survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
Our seventh finding addresses three goals of this needs assessment: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing community service delivery systems 
in providing accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and 
survivors. 
2. Identify the existing policies, procedures, and practices of Community Partners and 
their strengths and barriers from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management Community Partners. 
3. Identify the similarities and differences between the ideal set of effective personcentered 
services and supports from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management of Community Partners 
Our tribal partner reminded us to ensure the voices of elders were heard as we assessed 
what was needed for welcoming and comfortable services. Interviewees stressed many 
elders experience disability and/or domestic violence/sexual assault. For many, this 
experience has been accompanied by the experience of historical trauma related to social 
and cultural devastation including loss of language, the breakdown of family roles 
following the boarding school experience and a cultural legacy that includes decades long 
marginalization, mistreatment and abuse. 
Alaska Native focus group respondents in Site A discussed their concerns for children 
who witness violence and stressed both elders and youth face many barriers such as 
limited economic and social power. Many voiced a need for services linking elders with 
youth to help foster intergenerational transmission of cultural values stressing 
nonviolence, cooperation and respect. Safe and welcoming services were described as 
reflecting Alaska Native values rather than services that emphasize mainstream western 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 26 
culture. Subsistence activities including opportunities to learn how to gather and process 
traditional foods were described as critical. 
Contemporary subsistence activities and traditional ceremonies are still essential 
elements of cultural identity to the indigenous peoples of Southeast Alaska, however 
most Northwest Coast Indian peoples in Site A are generally integrated into the western 
economy. In part this reflects a historically more settled and structured life style and a 
greater material wealth due from a milder climate and abundant resources. 
Site A survivors reported that activities celebrating Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimpshian values 
and identity such as “potlatches” (celebrations and food sharing) helped them feel 
welcome and comfortable. They live in a highly sophisticated and structured clan system 
that governs social identity. Site A participants talked about making their first “button 
blankets” and “regalia.” These traditional activities serve as connectors and reminders of 
identity. Some survivors noted they sometimes experienced a sense of being lost or 
disconnected if cultural values were not supported by service providers from “outside.” 
They also stressed, “Knowing who you are and where you come from,” is a very 
important cultural element. Culturally relevant activities serving to connect program 
participants to, “those who came before and those who are to come,” were described as 
meaningful and healing. 
Implications 
Traditional cultural values remain strong in Site A. ASPEN will need to engage elders, 
since elders sanction what is appropriate. Since ASPEN members are “outsiders” cultural 
activities, such as potlatches, will be needed to support collaboration among Community 
Partners. Subsistence activities need to be considered when we strategize how to 
promote collaboration. 
A three-pronged approach to trauma - historical trauma, DV/SA trauma, and disability 
trauma – is necessary. For culturally resonant services that make recipients feel welcome 
and safe, we need to acknowledge intergenerational ties. ASPEN will need to work with 
the community to develop a culturally relevant strategic plan. This plan will also need to 
include strategies to incorporate non-indigenous viewpoints (e.g., Filipina, Latina). 
Finding 8 
Both survivors and people with disabilities in Site A identified, in general and in specific, 
positive, respectful, and supportive attitudes and actions as keys to making them feel safe, 
welcome, and comfortable. 
Finding 8 addresses the following three ASPEN Needs Assessment goals: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing service delivery systems in providing 
accessible and appropriate services to people with disabilities and survivors. 
3. Identify the existing policies, procedures, and practices of Community Partners and 
their strengths and barriers from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management Community Partners. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 27 
4. Identify the similarities and differences between the ideal set of effective personcentered 
services and supports from the perspectives of people with disabilities, 
survivors, and staff and management of Community Partners 
In laying out the basis for this finding, we honored the contributions and lives of the 
women who participated in focus groups and individual interviews. To ASPEN, this 
meant giving them appropriate space in these pages to fully illustrate their experiences 
and perspectives on services as survivors and people with disabilities. To the reader, it 
may appear that this section contains repetition or excessive detail. We did so in order to 
present the full picture of these women’s experiences as they related them to us. 
We found, while conducting focus groups, most of the participants recruited by our 
victim advocacy partners disclosed experiencing disabilities without prompting on our 
part. We must emphasize the vast majority of focus group participants and interviewees 
were generally pretty well satisfied with their experience of services from both sectors. 
Despite this overall satisfaction, they had many ideas how services could be made safer, 
more welcoming, and more comfortable. A number related specific experiences that 
could be described as unsatisfying. Finally, some addressed issues beyond the stated 
focus of our needs assessment; we elected to include some of these in our narrative. 
What was helpful in Site A - Survivors 
When ASPEN asked survivor focus group participants to discuss the helpful aspects of 
DV/SA services, there were a variety of responses. Focus group participants indicated 
Community Partner 3 did a number of helpful things: 
• Helped with restraining insert protection orders (something the police wouldn’t do); 
• Listened; 
• Provided a safe place, warm bed and a warm welcome; 
• Referred to a Pro-Bono program and other legal services; and 
• Provided the manifestations of violence sheet as well as resources for housing, food 
stamps, and custody information. 
Community Partner 3 was helpful when no one else would help - “Within 10 minutes of 
calling, a cab was there to pick me up.” Community Partner 3 offered police protection, 
and was very welcoming, “Both to me and my child.” Another woman described 
wanting to get sober, but not wanting to attend Alcoholics Anonymous because everyone 
knew where it was. The director brought classes to Community Partner 3 that helped her. 
She also said she was comfortable because it was a women’s group and she was 
uncomfortable with men. 
Community Partner 4 provided a variety of 
helpful services, according to focus group 
participants: 
• Immediate assistance--without an 
appointment; 
• Activities reducing stress and helping with 
Community Partner 4 helped me 
by getting kids involved. Every 
kid should be aware of domestic 
violence and sexual assault. It 
happens so much in Southeast 
Alaska. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 28 
sobriety; 
• Child custody assistance: 
• Confidentiality; 
• Information and classes about DV/SA; 
• Help with divorce through a DV lawyer; and 
• Financial help. 
Service Barriers Encountered 
Most focus group participants did not describe experiencing barriers At Community 
Partner 3, with most indicating they couldn’t think of any unhelpful aspects. A few 
indicated they had wanted more direction and, at first, didn’t feel like they got much 
direction and wanted counseling to understand why they kept finding themselves back at 
Community Partner 3. Specific issues, each from a single participant, were: 
• Some advocates felt the participant wasn’t important enough, that her questions 
weren’t important enough (stated in the past tense by the participant). 
• It would be nice to have emergency funding for medications. 
• Community Partner 3 legal advocate was not helpful (again, stated in past tense). 
• Need access to an attorney 
Many survivors indicated Community Partner 4 had been helpful with most concerns; 
two exceptions (again each voiced by a single participant) were: 
• Gave pills, instead of solutions. 
• Batterer intervention program taught perpetrators “how to beat the system and 
manipulate it to their advantage.” 
How providers show they can be trusted to help 
Participants mentioned a number of ways Community Partner 3 inspired trust including: 
• Non-judgmental attitude 
• Locked doors – no one can come in 
• Door always open to victims 
• Supportive and calming treatment of 
victims and their children 
• Patience in explaining the process - willing 
to work to assure safety 
• Confidentiality honored, immediate signing of a confidentiality release reassuring 
Focus group participants said that Community Partner 4 showed they could be trusted 
because staff: 
• Were familiar to victims; 
• Kept confidentiality; 
• Helped with children; 
• Respected choices; 
• Supported victims learning to make their own decisions. 
• Was responsive - they called back. 
If someone calls here they can’t 
say that I am staying here - that 
made me feel safe. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 29 
Other things agencies can do to help 
Many participants said Community Partner 3 already did all it could to help. One noted 
she got a cycle of violence handout, but would have liked to talk to someone about it. She 
needed more information on how to avoid situations that would bring her to Community 
Partner 3 again. Another woman said she lost focus after a major medical incident and 
Community Partner 3ed they had pushed her to get back on her feet. She also Community 
Partner 3ed there had been more counseling for her child (note: now available). Other 
things participants said Community Partner 4 could do to help included: 
• Grief and loss support; 
• More child custody assistance; 
• More parenting support; 
• More counseling for children and teenagers; and 
• More services and facilities for abused teenage boys and men. 
One woman believed perpetrator violations of conditions of release should be reported to 
authorities. Because most perpetrators used some kind of substance, she felt they should 
be tested prior to being allowed to participate in the batterers program. 
People with Disabilities - Helpful vs. unhelpful aspects 
When asked what about our Site A partners helped, women with disabilities participating 
in focus groups offered several answers. They indicated Community Partner 2 helped 
with: 
• Emergency rent money; 
• Outdoor and other recreation through Outdoor Recreation Community Access; 
• Volunteer opportunities; 
• Support groups around disabilities, such as the low vision support group; and 
• Respectful and patient support (use of name and not giving up). 
One woman said Community Partner 2 had not been helpful with her particular disability. 
Community Partner 1 provided monthly bus passes and housing assistance for eligible 
clients, as well as assistance with Social Security eligibility. One individual said an 
unidentified agency provided a Personal Care Assistant; very helpful because a family 
member, her primary care provider, got breaks. As for unhelpful aspects, one participant 
indicated Community Partner 1 had not helped with her rent or other housing, 
employment, or recreational activities. 
How providers show they can be trusted to help 
Two individuals noted Community Partner 2 kept confidentiality. Another said 
Community Partner 2 helped her feel more empowered. Another indicated they showed 
patience and helped when needed. 
Other things that help 
Many indicated prompting them to keep involved and letting them know what things 
were going on would be another way Community Partner 2 could help. One participant 
said additional recreational activities would improve her quality of life and her health. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 30 
Confidentiality 
Site A is a small community, where everybody seemed to know everybody’s business. 
Some, especially those seeking non-residential dv/sa services, found it hard to seek 
services where they knew many staff and/or many family members worked. There were 
concerns that family members had access to confidential records and that their business 
would be spread around town. More than one woman described instances where her 
confidentiality was breached. Many women did indicate that “downstairs” (behavioral 
health) was much better than “upstairs” (medical clinic) as far as keeping confidentiality. 
Many indicated they wouldn’t go to the clinic as a result of confidentiality breaches. 
Other participants described going to the Community Partner 4 pharmacist for 
medications and, if the medication was controlled, being taken to a room where the 
pharmacist went over the medication. These women described how, when they left the 
building, people waited outside to ask what kind of medication they got (looking for 
controlled substances). 
Women indicated that shelter services, for the most part, respected confidentiality. 
Community Partner 3 staff, including acquaintances, were respectful and refrained from 
discussing their situation or acknowledging they had been at the shelter. Although, one 
woman did indicate that within two hours of arriving at Community Partner 3, a family 
member called. An unintended result of confidentiality rules involved the child of a 
woman using services. This child had a friendship with a staff member’s child, but the 
two children were not allowed to play with one another due to the mother’s status as a 
shelter worker. 
A few women had concerns about parking in 
Community Partner 3’s lot, because everyone 
would know they were there. Another 
individual noted that the indoor smoking ban 
made smokers visible to passersby. 
Though we didn’t ask about confidentiality at 
disability services focus groups, there were 
comments. At the Community Partner 2/Community Partner 4 disability group, as we 
described the “flower name” system we used to protect participant identities, one woman 
asked why the big deal about confidentiality. Confidentiality did not come up as 
important in either of the disability focus groups or in individual interviews. 
Who do Focus Group Participants Call? 
As Figure 7 shows, nearly half of focus group participants indicated they would call a 
family member if they needed help. Others would talk to friends, medical professionals, 
police, counselors, therapists, advocates, or “anybody who would listen.” One noted she 
was taught “not to air dirty laundry,” until recently she wouldn’t talk to anyone about 
DV/SA. Many women who used services at Community Partner 4 had either used 
services or known about Community Partner 4 much of their lives. Women interviewed 
I wait until the borough parking lot 
empties out, so that people I know 
won’t see me going into 
Community Partner 3. 
My perpetrator might see my car in 
the lot and know that I am there. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 31 
accessed Community Partner 3 through several sources: friends or family; newspaper 
ads; signs in the police station, medical offices, or other facilities; notices on community 
bulletin boards; and other domestic violence programs. At disability programs, women 
learned of services through friends and family; agency staff; and other agencies. 
Figure 7 
Agency People talk to or call Found out about agency 
1 CP 3 Stepmom-female family 
member 
225-CP 3, bulletin boards at MD 
office, health dept; boyfriend’s 
mom 
2 CP 3 Grandma Son’s grandma 
3 CP 3 Sister, other family members Sister 
4 CP 3 Friends, through the Police 
station 
Signs in ER, friends, police 
station 
5 CP 3 Family Ad in newspaper, came here first, 
didn’t want family to know 
6 CP 3 Friends, work friends, other 
women 
Contacted Domestic Abuse in 
another community 
7 CP 2 CP 4 Grandma Grandma 
8 CP 2 CP 4 Sister, Doctor Friend 
9 CP 2/CP 4 Home Health, the hospital Through CP 2 staff—family told 
me to follow-up 
10 CP 2/CP 4 Therapist, psychiatrist DVR, SILC 
11 CP 2 CP 4 Depends on help needed: 
kids - family; DV/SA - CP 3; 
counseling - CP 4 
Learned about them as a kid-used 
services 
12 CP 2 CP 4 Staff at CP 2 From staff at CP 2 
13 CP 1 Friend, police, library ? 
14 CP 1 Family, foster mom Foster mom-have used services 
since I was a kid 
15 CP 4- 
Survivor 
Foster mom Learned about them as a teenused 
services 
16 CP 4- 
Survivor 
Counselors at school; 
counselors at school 
Been coming here most my life 
17 CP 4- 
Survivor 
Wouldn’t talk to anyone 
about DV/SA; need hotline 
Always known about CP 4 
18 CP 4- 
Survivor 
Law enforcement officer Known CP 4 for years. Police 
hand you a card for CP 3, CP 4 
19 CP 4- 
Survivor 
Anybody who will listen Known about CP 4 all her life 
20 CP 4- 
Survivor 
Comfortable speaking with 
DV/SA staff and agency staff 
Worked for another agency-knew 
about services that way 
CP = Community Partner 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 32 
Feeling Welcome, Comfortable & Safe vs. Unwelcome, 
Uncomfortable & Unsafe 
Survivors 
While we asked what makes one feel welcome, comfortable and safe or, conversely, 
unwelcome, uncomfortable or unsafe, when seeking out services for the first time, many 
survivors described their own experiences in addition to hypothetical situations. Many 
did not receive services only through DV/SA or disability providers, but were referred or 
sought help through other services, such as mental health, substance abuse, or medical. 
Staff: For survivors of domestic violence/sexual assault the attitude of staff was critical 
to making them feel welcome, comfortable and safe. Manifestations of this included: 
• The vibe of the people and knowing that they helped the first time. 
• Explaining things not understood 
• Seeking information. 
• Allowing a family member to come into the room with her. 
• Staff seeming like they wanted to be there - it wasn’t just a job. 
• Staff wore regular clothes (rather than business suits, etc.). 
• Good eye contact, good communication skills, and being non-judgmental. 
• First contact critical - a smile, a laugh, gentle hug, shake of the hand was calming. 
• Not being pushed onto an advocate when first walking in the door. 
• Conduct (from providing stuffed animals to respectful behavior) toward children. 
• Access to a 24-hour crisis line. 
• A welcome basket. 
• Patience. 
While most focus group participants had few complaints about services received from our 
Community Partners, they indicated what might make them feel uncomfortable, 
unwelcome, or unsafe: 
• Negative comments such as “you’ll never get 
a house or your kids back”; 
• Indifference or disrespect 
• Disbelief or minimization of experiences; 
• Accusations of drinking; and 
• Staff attitudes of bother or superiority. 
Many said it could be uncomfortable when they 
knew a staff person; one woman described an 
experience when people found out where she was 
because staff told others. Another said she wouldn’t go to one provider because a family 
member worked there. Another said she felt unsafe because her perpetrator was right 
there (at mental health services), he was in the same services and wanted to be in every 
counseling session. 
Putting me down; not paying 
attention to me; not having time 
for me; or blowing me off. 
Don’t say I’m sorry or 
apologize… one day, I won’t 
forget what they were like the 
day before. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 33 
Paperwork also led to negative experiences for many. One person said, “I am dyslexic, 
don’t give me a form and say, here write your feelings." She explained “I would prefer to 
do hands on or practice rather than read about it.” An interviewee shared, “I had to have 
my former abuser help me with my paperwork because I wasn’t able to do it.” Another 
said she felt unwelcome when she was given a stack of papers to complete. 
Confidentiality breaches made interviewees feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, or unsafe. 
When people, such as the receptionist, asked questions in front of other people, many felt 
unsafe. One participant said “Don’t blurt things out.” 
Service Location: DV/SA services can be delivered in shelter or community based 
settings. There is a community-based domestic violence victim program at Community 
Partner 4; Community Partner 4 also provides health care, behavioral health, and social 
services. Community Partner 3 provides a shelter as well as community based services. 
Most women described the ideal shelter environment as having an interior that resembled 
a home: big chairs and a place to put up feet, a couch in the front room, blankets, pillows, 
a warm bed and a welcome basket - the comforts of home. Many women said locked 
doors, locked windows, and a safe neighborhood, also made them feel welcome, 
comfortable and safe. Other factors included: 
• Not knowing a building was a shelter - it looked like a house. 
• A place for kids to play where they wouldn’t disturb other people. 
• A place with pictures on the wall, comfortable chairs, not sterile like a hospital. 
• A well-run organization 
• Knowledge no one from outside was going to talk to residents. 
Focus group participants said a shelter that looked institutional or that “gave you a 
number” would feel unwelcoming, unsafe, and uncomfortable. Likewise, open windows, 
unlocked doors, and lax visitor screening and security would provoke the same feeling. 
Other physical conditions noted as negative by survivors included: 
• Spaces that were dirty, untidy or a fire hazard. 
• Dark stairs, alleys, parking lots or isolated areas. 
• Chaotic or disorganized. 
In a community-based setting, participants said that 
receptionists 
closing 
the 
window 
or 
ignoring 
customers 
or 
acquaintances 
or 
perpetrators 
present 
in 
waiting 
rooms 
made 
them 
feel 
unsafe, 
unwelcome, 
or 
uncomfortable. 
They suggested a creative 
solution to these concerns: use pagers like at restaurants. 
Returning for Services: Asked what made one feel welcome, comfortable, and safe 
enough to return to a location, several participants identified the attitude of staff: 
• A calming attitude when people arrived frazzled, shaken, angry, or upset, good staff. 
• Caring people. 
• Advocates who were willing to help or give advice and direction. 
• The door was always open. 
• Ability to pick up the phone and be welcomed her back - “let’s get you safe tonight” 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 34 
• Feeling helped or benefited—received the information needed. 
• Confidentiality; 
• Ability to speak openly and be believed. 
• When you walk in the front door, people know why you go there. 
When asked what would make one feel so unwelcome, uncomfortable, or unsafe that one 
wouldn’t want to go back, the attitude of staff again was key. For example, if staff were 
rude, unhelpful, unsupportive, breached confidentiality, or spread rumors. People would 
not want to return if staff: 
• Acted superior. 
• Shared other people’s stories around town. 
• Showed disrespect to survivors or their children. 
• Disbelieved or minimized survivors’ stories. 
Other concerns would be shelters in which the spaces for mothers and children felt unsafe 
or presented a risk of harm. Violent people in a place would also be cause for not 
returning. One woman said the police station made her feel unsafe with its “what do you 
want” attitude. 
People with Disabilities 
Staff: For women with disabilities, as with to survivors, the attitude of staff was critical 
to feeling welcome, comfortable and safe. Staff that smiled and engaged in conversation 
engendered these feelings. One person 
described it as, “treating me like a good friend 
they’ve known forever.” Also the option of 
meeting face-to-face was important. Other 
characteristics of welcoming staff included: 
being really nice, approaching in a friendly 
manner, listening, being respectful, reassuring, 
and having unconditional acceptance of the 
individual. One woman emphasized the need for staff to use understandable language. 
Another woman, who experiences a sensory disability, said staff at her current disability 
agency took the time to make sure she understood and to make sure she was understood. 
For her, as well as other interviewees, patience and respect were critical in making them 
feel comfortable, safe and welcome. One woman said she felt safe with one staff because 
he had a cell phone. 
Focus group participants also identified sources of help in the community not associated 
with social services, including the 
library, city 
bus 
drivers, and city 
workers. 
Although we asked, “When you ask for help for the first time, what makes you feel safe, 
welcome and comfortable?” many women said family and friends made them feel safe, 
welcome and comfortable. One indicated she doesn’t talk to strangers much, and/or share 
with social service staff, including our partner agency that recruited her, but she does 
have a close relationship with some family members. 
When I’m in a social group, the 
conversation could be about 
potatoes and I chime in and talk 
about tomatoes and people 
would drift away. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 35 
For people with disabilities, just as survivors, a negative attitude on the part of staff could 
lead to them feeling unwelcome, uncomfortable and unsafe. Five of the eight said men 
made them uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwelcome. One indicated she was uncomfortable 
if forced to go to a male in a position of authority. Others said when people act like they 
are better than you, judge you, try to tell you how act, push you down, or stick their noses 
up, they felt unwelcome, uncomfortable, and unsafe. Another, although not specifically 
related to staff, described how screaming, disrespectful children and teenagers 
engendered these feelings. 
Returning for Services: Many women described a place that was welcoming, safe, and 
comfortable as having a open, homey feel with warm colors (e.g., soft yellow, light 
violet). In a hospital setting, one woman said a “comfort room” instead of a “seclusion 
room” was much better. While one individual said that a deadbolt made her feel safe, 
others liked windows being open just a bit, open doors, and space to move around. 
Several described a place free of drugs, alcohol, name-calling, loud parties and violence, 
including domestic violence. 
Two women interviewed used animals, one service and one companion. Both of them 
said these animals helped them feel safer. One told a story about how her dog had 
prevented her being injured to emphasize its importance. Responses to what makes a 
building unsafe, uncomfortable or inaccessible, individuals said: 
• Not being able to get out because there is no plan for safe evacuation in a building 
with multiple floors; 
• Tight corners and clustered living arrangements; 
• Cracks in the walk; and 
• Dark streets. 
Returning: When asked about what would make one feel welcome, comfortable, and 
safe enough to return to a place, there were a variety of answers: 
• Always being welcome and encouraged with her sobriety 
• Help with anxiety and depression 
• A deadbolt on the door 
• Allowing animals 
• Allowing her space 
• Kind words from the staff 
• We are here to help, not harm attitude 
When asked about what would make them feel so unwelcome, uncomfortable, or unsafe 
that they wouldn’t want to go back, women said: 
• People yelling at them; 
• Men approaching them; 
• People know your history from gossip; 
• People who are drunk around or the potential to be alone with a drunken man; 
• Agencies, such as Office of Children’s Services, say one thing and do something else 
(it was important to have a witness in these situations); 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 36 
• Service providers made one feel like one was trying to rip off services, as if services 
weren’t really needed; 
• Meetings/events at night; and 
• Nothing happening or services didn’t meet needs. 
Understanding and respecting needs and choices 
Actions Or Words That Show Staff Respect For Survivors As Individuals 
In general, survivors said staff showed they understood and respected individual needs 
and choices by focusing on the person, taking their time, listening, showing they are there 
for the person, valuing the person’s time; helping the person from one goal to another; 
being respectful, and treating the person kindly. Other specific demonstrations of 
understanding and respect included: 
• Positive body language - turning towards you when talking, polite demeanor; 
• No blaming or judgment; 
• Timely information and encouragement in making choices; 
• Advocates being prepared and knowledgeable; 
• Follow-up phone call to see if she was following her guidelines; 
• Listening; 
• Showing empathy; 
• Going out of the way to write supporting documentation; 
• Willingness to explain things numerous times; 
• Keeping confidentiality; 
• Asking if there is anything else that would help or whether a question was answered; 
• Accompanying to court, help with documents, and explaining the process; and 
• Being there without regard for anger or upset. 
How Providers Show They Understand Participants’ Situations 
Focus group participants described several ways a service provider showed understanding 
of their situations including: they try to get you the help you need—they go out of their 
way more than an average person; and try to help 
people out in their situation. One woman said 
she appreciates an advocate who has been 
through the situation and says reassuring things 
like, “you’re not the only one” or ” that’s 
typical.” She said it helps to know you’re not, 
“crazy or alone.” 
People with Disabilities 
In general, people with disabilities indicated staff showed they understood and respected 
individual needs and choices through listening, not judging, and allowing individuals to 
make their own choices. Specific offerings included: 
• Suggestions, options and ideas, rather than being told what to do; 
• It was OK to make mistakes; 
• Understanding it was one day at a time; 
Don’t speculate the worse of me 
is as bad as him. 
You shouldn’t require proof from 
victims. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 37 
• A friendly, instead of a clinical, manner, and understandable language; 
• Staff of comparable in age; and 
• Staff not being so controlling. 
Actions or words that show staff respect participants as individuals 
Participants described various ways that staff showed respect for them as individuals: 
• Giving positive praise, saying, “good job, that’s the way”; 
• Commiserating and/or sharing a little of their personal self; 
• Asking why someone is upset or crying; 
• Showing empathy, which is more important than sympathy; 
• Treating people as they would like to be treated; and 
• Being understanding; one woman said staff show they respect her when they do the 
best they can to help her. Another said when staff members show respect, “They 
don’t imply I shouldn’t be alive.” 
How A Service Provider Shows They Understand A Disability 
Participants described various ways service providers can show they understand 
participants’ disability including: suggesting different tools that may be helpful, for 
example, magnifying glasses; not looking down on their choices; not treating them like 
an outsider, using their history to help them; not using their disability against them; role 
playing with them for better understanding; giving unconditional acceptance, and 
recognizing their education. 
Implications 
Consistently, DV/SA program participants 
stressed physical safety e.g. locks, lighting, 
cameras, places to park car that were hidden. 
Recipients of tribal services talked about 
security issues as well. Both groups stressed 
the need for privacy and confidentiality. 
Interestingly, DV/SA service recipients often expressed a need for more guidance and 
direction while disability service recipients expressed a need for less. This suggests 
autonomy needs be directed by the service recipient and that both victim advocates and 
disability service providers may need to evaluate how they can meet individual needs, 
adhere to their philosophy and support empowerment as it is perceived from the service 
recipient’s point of view as well as their own. 
Disability service users discussed safety as well - people not yelling, not being drunk and 
not being violent is essential. This group seemed less concerned about locks, secure 
windows, and hidden parking but shared more frequently how others not necessarily 
aligned with our partners, e.g. bus drivers, receptionists, librarians and strangers on the 
street had been helpful. While our focus is on ASPEN and our Community Partners, we 
need to be aware of what others are doing in the community to help and support survivors 
and people with disabilities. 
I don’t want to feel like I have to 
apologize for my existence. 
Are they here for you or here for 
a paycheck - that doesn’t come 
from a book or form. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 38 
Both groups talked about safety in terms of how people made them feel and whom they 
could trust; a friendly attitude by staff was critical. Both survivors and people with 
disabilities described in detail barriers caused by non-verbal communication and attitude. 
Findings indicate both DV/SA and disability service recipients felt uncomfortable when 
rushed, not listened to, interrupted by phones, staff, or others or made to feel their 
concerns are unimportant by a brusque attitude or a cookie cutter approach. 
Both groups had confidentiality concerns although DV/SA program participants appeared 
more anxious about physical safety as well as emotional harm if confidentiality was 
breached. Disability service users also expressed concerns about physical and emotional 
safety yet appeared more concerned about gossip and lack of privacy in a broader sense. 
Broader Implications 
In addition to the implications presented in each of our eight findings, there are other 
issues we believe some or all of our partners should address. Some of these manifested as 
community attributes, others as artifacts of the two service systems. That said, the extent 
or intensity of some findings varied noticeably. Key examples of such distinctions were: 
• The need for training and cross-training was expressed consistently in Site A. 
• Site A wanted behavioral health providers included somehow in strategic planning. 
Our tribal partner has a behavioral health component (services are available only to 
Alaska Natives) and there are several other behavioral health providers. 
• A significant element of disability sector staff in Site A, appeared to believe a focus 
on individualized services was sufficient to ensure all necessary services are 
competently delivered to survivors with disabilities. At the same time, most staff 
interviewed believed targeted training and cross-training was necessary in order to 
collaboratively serve survivors with disabilities adequately. 
• There appeared to be some significant differences in perception between management 
and line staff in all service sectors. We encountered examples of management citing 
the existence of policies related to working with survivors with disabilities of which 
direct service staff were unaware. 
• Unsurprisingly, survivors and people with disabilities expressed some differences in 
what they looked for from providers in terms of safety, comfort, and welcoming 
characteristics, as we described in Finding 8. In some ways these differences are 
complementary and thus could potentially be addressed through universal design 
principles as we move into collaborative implementation. 
Change Opportunities and Obstacles 
A strong basis for change to local service systems exists in Site A, which has a strong 
history of cross training and collaboration resulting from the involvement with and 
funding from other programs focusing on the victimization of people with 
disabilities/elders and the need for cross training. 
Our DV/SA partners appeared to universally believe that collaborative training and crosstraining 
are crucial to their ability to appropriately serve people with disabilities. This 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 39 
belief has led some of these agencies to attempt to do just that and this is an attribute that 
ASPEN should be able to build on in its strategic planning and implementation work. 
This project has already contributed to the forging of stronger relationships between the 
disability and victim advocacy sectors in Site A. One example is our tribal partner’s 
major sponsorship of our DV/SA partner’s principle annual public awareness event. 
Possible Solutions 
• Develop a strategic plan that recognizes each Community Partner’s unique approach 
to change and create a collaborative approach for community change consistent with 
ASPEN’s strategic plan. All other solutions follow from developing a planning 
model suited the partner community. 
• Facilitate Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) and other mechanisms that define how 
partners collaborate with each other, each agency’s roles and responsibilities, and 
delineate the resources available at each. MOAs should include the creation of an 
ongoing inter-agency council that addresses new obstacles and opportunities as they 
arise and acts as an agent that sustains the purpose and results of the project. 
• Develop policies and procedures for serving survivors with disabilities and orient 
staff to these policies and procedures. These should be similar, if not, identical, 
across our local partners, allowing for differences between the service sectors. 
• Develop a regular schedule of training and cross-training to facilitate collaboration 
among local partners, beginning with Disability 101 and DV/SA 101. Cultural 
understanding and competence will be an essential component of the curriculum. 
Conclusion 
Key Findings And Opportunities For Change 
• Policies and procedures at ASPEN’s partners in Site A include few, if any, specific 
guidelines concerning the safety and service needs of survivors with disabilities. 
Guidelines that do exist appear to be neither clearly understood nor uniformly 
implemented by staff or management. 
• In Site A, our partners interact on some level with each other. However collaboration 
is at a basic level (e.g. providing referrals, exchanging resources information). There 
is some awareness of how the partners interact with each other within the community. 
DV/SA agencies were more likely to reach out to disability providers than the other 
way around. 
• There is wide diversity of perceptions of disability, experiences with disability, and 
accommodation of individual needs among our DV/SA partners. There is likewise 
wide diversity in perceptions regarding people with disabilities and experiences of 
DV/SA among disability partners. 
• Community Partners and focus group participants identified behavioral health 
services as a crucial to meeting the needs of all survivors. 
• Change processes within our four partner agencies exist—whether through strategic 
plan or budget processes. In some cases, these processes were self-contained; in 
others they included client input. 

Site A Needs Assessment Report – December 2010 Page 40 
• All our partners clearly stated support for training or cross-training, staff orientation, 
and disability and DV/SA specific training. 
• Culture, in all its diverse and complex manifestations, plays a key role in service 
provision as it is perceived and experienced by survivors with disabilities 
• Survivors and people with disabilities in Site A identified positive, respectful, and 
supportive attitudes and actions as key to feeling safe, welcome, and comfortable. 
Next Steps 
We will develop and submit to the Office on Violence Against Women a strategic plan 
outlining how we will work with our Community Partners to implement initiatives 
identified by the needs assessment. We will collaborate with our partners to develop a 
strategic plan specific to the community to implement these initiatives. We will involve 
individuals with disabilities and survivors of DV/SA in this planning work.