ASPEN 
SITE B NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT 
ASPEN 
Governor’s 
Council on 
Disabilities 
and Special 
Education 
Alaska Community Partner 
safety Planning & 
Empowerment Network 

Alaska Safety Planning and Empowerment Network 
Site B 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 
7 
GOALS 
8 
METHODOLOGY 
SUMMARY 
8 
CONSENT PROCESS 
9 
ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS 
9 
METHOD 
1: 
FOCUS 
GROUPS 
WITH 
INTERVIEW 
OPTION 
9 
PURPOSE/AUDIENCE/NUMBER 
9 
METHOD 
2: 
STAFF 
AND 
BOARD 
INTERVIEWS 
11 
PURPOSE OF INTERVIEWS 
11 
RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES 
12 
THE INTERVIEW PROCESS 
12 
KEY 
FINDINGS 
AND 
IMPLICATIONS 
13 
POSSIBLE 
SOLUTIONS 
35 
CONCLUSION 
35 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 1 
Executive Summary 
The Alaska Community Partner 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 the response in both arenas to 
survivors with disabilities (people 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, funds ASPEN. ASPEN’s members 
are: 
• Access Alaska, Inc. (Access) 
• The Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC) 
• Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) 
• Center for Human Development (CHD) 
• Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education (GCDSE) 
ASPEN pursued a statewide project, meaning it would work with local partners outside 
the collaboration itself to initiate system change in target communities. ASPEN elected to 
work with 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 35 people 
from Site B. 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 somewhat skewed toward the latter in Site 
B. This was the result of several circumstances. First Site B has a large number of 
individuals with disabilities who primarily served through the behavioral health system, 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 2 
which is not a partner on this project. Individuals with behavioral health disabilities who 
did not receive services from our partners in the disability sector were not interviewed for 
this needs assessment; their participation was beyond the scope of this project and they 
were not recruited as individuals with disabilities. Second, among the potential 
participants recruited by our partners were several people with disabilities who 
experienced serious health issues. This ultimately made it difficult or impossible for a 
larger number of people with disabilities to participate in the focus groups. Tragically, 
several potential recruits for the project died during the needs assessment process and 
were not interviewed. Other factors also included transportation obstacles that prevented 
willing participants from villages in the area who used services in Site B from being on 
site as planned. All this said, so many of the participants recruited by the DV/SA sector 
ended up self-disclosing experience with disabilities that we believe we have adequate 
representation of that perspective. 
In terms of our interviews with community partners’ staff and management, we were 
successful, but had some difficulty again meeting all our targets, particularly in Site B. 
One factor reflected here was the timing of the needs assessment process. The interview 
process, intended to wrap up by end of spring, stretched into 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). 
Despite these setbacks and limitations, we believe the needs assessment identified several 
consistent themes. ASPEN identified eight key findings: 
1. Policies in place at our four partner agencies addressed concerns such as mandated 
reporting, the Americans with Disability Act, and provision of individualized 
services. There were few specific written guidelines or procedures concerning the 
Community Partner 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. Our Site B 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. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 3 
5. Processes for change within our four 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 in Site B identified positive, respectful, and 
supportive attitudes and actions as keys to making them feel safe, welcome, and 
comfortable. 
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 a strategic plan that recognizes each partner’s unique approach to change, 
but creates a collaborative approach for community change. All other solutions 
follow from developing a planning model suitable for our 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, 
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. 
• 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 community partners 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.

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 4 
Overview of Collaboration 
The Alaska Community Partner safety Planning and Empowerment Network (ASPEN) 
was 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. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 5 
A Timeline of ASPEN’s Planning Phase 
The five members of ASPEN began development of its collaboration charter in January 
of 2008. While completing the charter, ASPEN conducted a series of internal crosstrainings 
and a root cause analysis that deepened members’ familiarity with their own 
purposes for pursuing the project and helped us determine each others’ roles. The root 
cause analysis identified several conditions impacting survivors with disabilities. We may 
be able to address 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) Difficult for women with 
disabilities to 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 involving two separate pilot sites (Site A and Site B). Approval of our 
focus memo took this long in part due to ASPEN’s unsuccessful bid to include behavioral 
health providers among its local partners. This, in addition to geography, weather, and 
volcanic activity, produced cascading effects on the project progress. Other challenges 
the collaborative faced included loss of staff from amongst the ASPEN team due to 
illness and change of residence or job status. 
ASPEN’s next step was to engage our four local partners, a process which took 
precedence 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. 
In choosing to work in a small Alaskan community, ASPEN understood we would have 
to schedule project activities around the summer subsistence season. Beginning in June 
and into September, residents of rural communities in Alaska increasingly devote time to 
gathering and processing natural food resources (fish, game, berries, plants, etc). Both 
the activities themselves and the food harvested are economic and cultural cornerstones 
of Yupik societies. We believed we could conduct needs assessment activities so as to 
accommodate the subsistence cycle without significant delays to the project. We were 
only partially successful, encountering difficulties scheduling and completing interviews 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 6 
with several of our local partner organizations. As we moved deeper into subsistence 
season, those difficulties were compounded. 
The design of our needs assessment plan also turned out to be a factor that slowed 
progress. ASPEN opted to assign partner organization staff interviews to teams of two 
ASPEN members. Completing interview assignments turned out to be problematic for 
some teams and took well past our targeted deadline. We did provide backup capacity 
for the interview teams in the event of scheduling difficulties, however internal ASPEN 
turnover rendered this backup resource unavailable for several months. Drafting our 
needs assessment report began in July and continued for two months. 
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: 
• 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 
Community Partner safety, empowerment and access. 
Project Scope 
ASPEN elected to pursue a statewide project, meaning that ASPEN would work with 
local partners outside the collaboration itself to initiate system change in target 
communities rather than focusing on the organizations composing ASPEN. ASPEN 
elected to work in two communities separated by over a thousand air miles, Site A in 
southeast Alaska and Site B in southwest Alaska. Both were selected on the basis of 
social and cultural factors and their potential for change, as noted below for Site B. 
Demographics: Site B, a community in XXX Bay about XXX air miles from Anchorage 
has a population of about 2,500, just over half of which is Alaska Native. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 7 
Services, Relationships, and Change Potential: ASPEN identified its local agency 
partners in Site B 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). 
Site B is a community that welcomes new ideas and has demonstrated the capacity to 
take concepts brought to it by others and to shape them into unique, locally appropriate 
adaptations. ASPEN’s partners in Site B are: 
1. Community Partner 1, the DV/SA shelter, was a participant in Alaskans Speak Up 
and in the Delta Project. Community Partner 1 is also a participant in an innovative 
collaboration with the local children’s services agency and provides innovative 
services in partnership with their local substance abuse program. 
2. Community Partner 2 independent living services in Site B are unique in being 
provided by itinerant staff. Community Partner 2 in Anchorage provides independent 
living services to Site B, when requested. Community Partner 2’s representative to 
ASPEN was also the point person in Site B, a circumstance that has since changed 
with the recent appointment of new ASPEN project liaisons. 
3. Community Partner 3 is Site B’s only developmental disabilities provider. 
Community Partner 3 was one of the founding members and leaders of the Key 
Coalition, which advocates for system improvements. Community Partner 3 has a 
long history as one of the more innovative developmental disability providers in the 
state. While TA and training is provided from the Anchorage office, each community 
program operates under local control. 
4. Community Partner 4, Site B’s Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act village 
corporation, is a central point for social and economic development for the local 
Alaska Native population and an enthusiastic participant in Alaska Native Justice 
Center initiatives to reform rural justice. 
Description of Needs Assessment 
Purpose and Goals 
In order to inform both ourselves and our local partners of strengths/assets and 
weaknesses/gaps in services experienced by survivors with disabilities, we conducted a 
needs assessment in Site B. The process engaged key providers of victim advocacy 
services, disability 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 systems (disability, victim advocacy, and others) capacity. The 
needs assessment illuminated elements of these 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 foundational 
information guiding development of a strategic plan for system change initiatives. 
Ultimately, the strategic plan will serve as a blueprint to help Site B better respond to 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 8 
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. 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 
Our needs assessment goals grew out of the project purpose, 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 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. 
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 will use this information to develop this needs assessment report, which will, in 
turn, inform ASPEN and its four partners in Site B 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. 
How the Report Relates to the Strategic Plan and ASPEN’s Goal of Change 
The results of the needs assessment will be shared with the community and four partners 
teleconference and on-site meeting. These sessions will initiate a targeting of the 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 those initiatives that fall within the grant parameters and 
those that will create sustainable change. 
Methodology Summary 
Our needs assessment design targeted four key audiences: 1) women with disabilities; 2) 
women who were survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking; 3) staff 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 9 
and management from our partners in the disability service sector; and 4) staff and 
management from our local partner victim services agencies. 
We used two methods of information gathering 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 process 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 committed to supporting equal attitudinal, physical, 
cultural, and programmatic access to individuals with disabilities and survivors of 
domestic violence/sexual assault. This meant providing a welcoming and supportive 
environment appropriate for the widest range of potential participants and circumstances. 
Focus group and interview tools were reviewed to ensure accessibility and cultural 
resonance and were available in alternative formats. The recruitment process included 
means to address accommodation requests. 
ASPEN defines safety as a core value that encompasses 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 some risks, which we 
minimized by informing all participants of the risks, using locations considered safe, 
stressing the need to respect confidentiality to all participants, neither sharing nor using 
the names of participants, providing alternate PCAs as requested, discouraging disclosure 
during focus groups, and providing supports/resources should a participant be in 
immediate risk during a session. 
Method 1: Focus Groups with Interview Option 
Purpose/Audience/Number 
Based on community engagement dialogs, 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 B. The unique 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 in service delivery. Likewise 
individuals with disabilities are the best sources of information on accessibility and 
accommodation issues and what makes service delivery welcoming. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 10 
Focus groups are primarily used for exploration and discovery of a topic. Focus groups 
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. 
Our partners from Site B assisted with focus group participant recruitment, designating 
staff for that purpose. ASPEN used its recruitment tools and protocols to provide on-site 
orientation for recruiters. The tools covered included the following: 
• 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 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. The two focus groups were: 1) Women 
with disabilities and 2) Survivors. Recruiters were instructed not to recruit based on a 
presumption a woman was a survivor with a disability; in other words they were told 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. Our focus group facilitators completed 
University of Alaska Anchorage Institutional Review Board certification for the 
protection of human research subjects prior to traveling to Site B. ASPEN teams visited 
each pilot site for two days to conduct four focus group sessions lasting 90 minutes or 
more. For individuals opting not to participate in a focus group, we offered semistandardized 
interviews using the same questions and probes as in the focus group, to 
ensure collection of consistent data. 
ASPEN aimed to recruit 20 – 40 participants at four focus group sessions. We expected 
some participants to request individual interviews protect 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 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 11 
to vary from group to group and planned to conduct groups even if fewer than 5 
individuals attended a particular session. 
Figure 1 
We did not realize our goal of two groups for each population in Site B, as the table 
shows. We believe this to be the result of several factors. One was the decision to narrow 
the scope of the project to exclude behavioral health providers and consumers in the 
project. We knew from long direct experience in Site B many of the women we would 
want to talk to were clients of behavioral health providers. Serious health issues and the 
deaths of a number of potential recruits identified by our disability partners during the 
needs assessment process played a role. Other factors included transportation obstacles 
and a smaller recruitment pool identified by disability partners. As a consequence, we 
ended up with 19 focus group participants and one individual interview in Site B, all but 
one individual recruited by victim advocacy partners. 
A last note on the focus groups is in order. We did not collect demographic data on the 
participants, principally because such data can and has been used to identify individuals 
in small rural Alaskan communities. However, ASPEN facilitators noted that virtually all 
the participants in Site B were Alaska Native women. This circumstance appears to bear 
out the statements of our Site B partners during the initial engagement process that 
upwards of 80% of their clients was Alaska Native. 
Method 2: Staff and Board Interviews 
Purpose of Interviews 
We interviewed staff, management, and boards at all four sites of change organizations. 
Because of their unique perspectives and experiences, we felt that executive directors, 
staff and managers, and board members would provide differing information. 
From staff we wanted an understanding of service delivery realities, policies and 
procedures on the ground as related to survivors with disabilities and barriers to 
providing services to survivors with disabilities. We also sought to understand their 
knowledge of resources, agencies, and services specific to disability and DV/SA/S and 
their history of working with other agencies working with survivors with disabilities. We 
Focus Groups Target 
Participants 
Actual 
Participants 
Survivors of DV/SA Group 1 5-10 11 
Survivors of DV/SA Group 2 5-10 7 
Survivors of DV/SA Interviews Unknown 1 
Individuals w/Disabilities Group 1 5-10 0 
Individuals w/Disabilities Group 2 5-10 0 
Individuals w/Disabilities Interviews Unknown 1 
Total 20-40 20 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 12 
wanted to assess their comfort working with survivors with disabilities and what would 
help them better support survivors with disabilities. Finally, we wanted their perspectives 
on what they did well and what they would like to do better as collaborative partners. 
From managers we looked for understanding of budgeting, information about policies, 
procedures, and existing collaborations. We also wanted to understand both informal and 
formal processes for changing policies and procedures. We wanted to understand how 
they supported staff including recruitment, training and retention. We also sought an 
understanding of their history of working with other agencies in support of survivors with 
disabilities. Lastly, we wanted perspectives on what they did well and how they wanted 
to improve as collaboration partners. 
From executive directors we looked to understand budgeting processes, 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 from Site B partners helped recruit staff, managers, and board 
members from their organizations, providing a complete staff list to ASPEN. ASPEN 
interview targets for each organization included: 
1) Executive Director 
2) Board of Directors president and one other board member 
3) 10% of staff/managers, randomly selected, with a minimum of 3 per site (some 
partners had fewer than 3 staff/managers). 
Assigned ASPEN team members set up individual interviews with board members, staff, 
managers, and executive directors. If a potential participant did not wish to participate, 
we referred to a list of alternates to secure the appropriate sample. Verbal consent 
avoided creating documentation with identifying information. ASPEN provided 
accommodations on request. As with focus groups, ASPEN minimized the risks to 
Community Partner safety and anonymity by avoiding the use of names, considering the 
Community Partner safety of the interview time and location, discussing mandated 
reporting, and other means. 
The Interview Process 
We used a semi-standardized interview format designed to take 30-45 minutes to 
complete. In practice, we found interview times ranged from 20 to 90 minutes. 
Standardized questions were asked of each interviewee, but interviewers had freedom to 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 13 
digress and probe beyond those questions. This allowed us to get answers to specific 
questions and also allowed interviewees to reveal more about topics they felt to be 
important. The process employed all ASPEN team members as interviewers. We hoped 
this interaction with our community partners’ staffs would foster both a sense of 
investment in the project and open and honest communication. Most interviews were 
conducted by telephone. Two team members, one from each discipline, conducted each 
interview. All team members conducted one or more interviews. 
Figure 2 
Figure 2 displays the targeted number of participants from each organization and the 
categories within the organization. We completed 15 of a targeted 22 interviews (68%), a 
respectable rate under any circumstances. 
Key Findings and Implications 
Opening statement 
This section presents information and analysis in order to highlight both similarities and 
differences. Because only one participant with a disability was interviewed in Site B, 
information from our Site A interviews and focus groups of women with disabilities are 
included in this report in some cases. While we did not ask about the experience of 
disability, many survivors in Site B when describing what worked and didn’t work for 
them alluded to benefits and barriers from their own experience. These often included 
experiences related to disabilities. Disability service recipients in both communities when 
Partner Interviews Target 
Interviews 
Completed 
Interviews 
Site B 
Community Partner 2 
Staff/Managers 1 1 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 2 
Community Partner 3 
Staff/Managers 2 1 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 1 
Community Partner 4 
Staff/Managers 3 1 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 0 
Community Partner 1 
Staff/Managers 4 4 
Executive Director 1 1 
Board Members 2 1 
Total 22 15 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 14 
describing what made them feel welcome often referred to comfort or lack thereof based 
on Community Partner safety issues. 
Although we asked no leading questions, focus group facilitators observed that many 
women with disabilities in both communities were survivors of domestic violence/sexual 
assault and that many women who were survivors experienced disabilities. People with 
disabilities and survivors were one and the same, essentially. Our 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. 
Finding 1 
Typically, the policies in place at the four 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 Community Partner 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. 
Each of our Findings sections addresses one or more Needs Assessment goal. This first 
finding considers the following 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 specific policies and procedures 
focused on survivors with disabilities. During the interviews we targeted the following 
areas in regards to policies and procedures (program participants in the focus 
groups/interviews were not specifically asked questions around policies and procedures, 
but some did offer comments on them): 
• How policies and procedures are shaped 
• Policies and procedures used to guide services to survivors with disabilities 
• Policies and procedures that may be barriers to working with survivors with 
disabilities 
ASPEN’s partner agencies shape their policies and procedures using a variety of 
methods. Most used their boards to shape policy, with input from executive directors and, 
in some cases, staff or committees. 
Community Partner 2 staff highlighted mandatory reporting policy. One noted that 
although victimization is prevalent in the lives of people with disabilities, this was not the 
focus for services provided at the agency. Community Partner 3 interviewees noted that 
service provision is based on individualized services. They also highlighted their 
mandatory reporting policy. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 15 
Although it didn’t appear that there were specific policies and procedures to guide 
services to survivors with disabilities, there did appear to be practices that agencies were 
using. At least one interviewee from each of our disability partners identified mandatory 
reporting as one of their policies. At DV/SA partners, the focus seemed to be on safety 
and accommodation. 
According to Community Partner 1’s executive director, the organization does have 
policies on screening and working with individuals with disabilities. The line staff 
however did not seem to be aware of these policies. Everyone interviewed explained that 
work with people with disabilities would be accomplished through creative collaboration 
and other means. Interviews with line staff indicated they desire written policies on 
identifying and working with survivors with disabilities. Community Partner 4 policies 
and procedures primarily focus on wellness. Serving people with disabilities falls within 
that overarching mandate, staff there believed. 
Although we didn’t find consistent, specific policies and procedures guiding services to 
survivors with disabilities, there did appear to be practices some partners used. Some 
staff said they weren’t sure if disability issues are addressed in any policy or procedure. 
Implications 
Organization leaders (Board Members/Executive Directors) frequently felt the agency 
mission and service provisions implied the agency would serve the “other” population 
and most did not see the need to include explicit references in missions or to develop 
policies and procedures directed at survivors with disabilities. Although our partners 
have very limited written policies addressing survivors with disabilities, all four 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 in Site B. Polices and procedures beginning 
with intake and assessment should be reviewed at all partner agencies. 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 of the Needs Assessment, we considered two ASPEN goals: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing community service delivery 
systems in providing accessible and appropriate services to people with 
disabilities and survivors. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 16 
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 that 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. 
The community agreed both systems were crucial in helping to navigate and access 
resources (e.g., financial, housing, medical) and helping individuals to feel safe and 
empowered. Both disability providers and victim advocates referred individuals for 
services they did not provide. Providers indicated follow up could be challenging and 
sometimes did not occur. In some cases, providers tried to address individual needs 
within their own service framework. 
Disability staff we interviewed understood they were mandatory reporters, however, 
some were uncomfortable or reluctant to make reports to the appropriate authorities (i.e. 
Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, Long Term Care Ombudsman, Office of 
Children’s Services); reports seemed to them to violate an individual’s confidentiality or 
right to self-determination. 
In order to investigate the inter-agency connections among our four community partners, 
ASPEN’s staff interviews included questions about with whom our partners worked. 
Figure 3 (see below) visually depicts collaborations that occur between ASPEN 
community partners. We elected not to ask specifically about the partner agencies, as we 
didn’t want to lead interviewees, and we also wanted to discover what other non-partner 
agencies in the communities they found to be helpful in serving the needs of clients. 
Figures 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. 
Not only did most of our partners already work together, they all worked with the local 
behavioral health provider. Note: arrows in Figure 3 indicate ASPEN partner 
connections. For example, Community Partner 4 interviewees said they interact with 
Community Partner 2 and Community Partner 1, but did not identify Community Partner 
3 during any interviews. 
Interviewees also noted other local groups, task forces and/or coalitions to which their 
organization belonged. These, along with other resources noted by only one partner are 
listed following. In Site B, these included the Community Justice Alliance, local hotels, 
Alaska Center for Blind and Visually Impaired, Adult Basic Education, Leadership 
Advance Youth Coalition, DELTA program for youth, the Children’s Advocacy Center, 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 17 
STAR, Early Childhood/Infant Learning Interdisciplinary Team, CANDU – city of Site B 
prevention and wellness program, and the school district. Some interviewees said there 
were too many other resources to list, these are not captured in this needs assessment. 
Figure 3. Site B Partner Connections 
Figure 4. Other Site B Agencies/Organizations 
Community 
Partner 1 
Community 
Partner 4 
Community 
Partner 3 
Community 
Partner 2 
XX Area Health Corporation 
(including XX Counseling 
Center, XX place) 
X X X X 
XX Native Association 
(including Tribal Vocational 
Rehabilitation & Care 
Coordinators) 
X X 
XX Housing Authority X X 
Site B Senior Center X X 
Other Native Corporations, 
Tribal Councils 
X X 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 18 
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 (the partner that recruited them to participate) assisted them, many described how 
it helped them find other services. A synopsis of responses follows. 
Site B Survivors 
Many participants said the ASPEN partners from which they received DV/SA services 
helped them to find services the ASPEN partner did not provide, including: 
• Getting on a housing list; 
• Getting an apartment; 
• Seeing the doctor; 
• Helping with their children; 
• Finding or providing legal and financial help; 
• Finding and arranging for a counselor to come to the shelter; 
• Providing the names of mental health providers; 
• Getting a restraining or protective order; 
• Applying for food stamps; 
• Helping get in touch with Alaska Legal Services. 
One woman said she was called and reminded 
when her restraining order was up. Several 
women listed the following services: XX Place, 
Community Partner 1, XX Counseling Center, 
Community Partner 4, Community Partner 3, 
XX Housing Authority, and XX economic 
development. Some women said Community 
Partner 1 showed cultural respect by asking what type of food they preferred and then 
providing moose meat and fish. Community Partner 1 also encouraged people to 
participate in traditional food gathering activities such as berry picking. One woman said 
she wished there were more people like Community Partner 1 staff and its executive 
director. She said the executive director was the backbone of the organization. Another 
said Community Partner 1 was a long time coming, that in the past people were taught to 
stay quiet about sexual and physical abuse. 
Participants also listed some ways Community Partner 1 could do better, including: Staff 
could be more informed on resources; provide a Yupik speaking advocate to talk about 
Community Partner 1 services especially to surrounding villages; and have an on-site 
attorney. One woman wanted them to advocate for counseling in surrounding villages. 
She described how her child needed services, but these were not available because “The 
mental health counseling center is packed with kids” and how in the past there was no 
place for troubled kids to go, “they got sent out of state.” Another woman said, “It would 
be nice if there were money in the budget for appliance repairs. This would mean less 
worry for the advocates.” 
All the love in her (the executive 
director) heart has built 
Community Partner 1 to what it 
is today – Focus Group 
Participant 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 19 
Site B People with disabilities 
One participant indicated she received help her with environmental modifications, but she 
also needed further modifications. 
Implications 
Site B’s outstanding strength was the collaborations built by Community Partner 1 with 
many of the other provider agencies and businesses in the community. These 
collaborations appear to provide the flexibility for Community Partner 1 staff to make a 
few phone calls, when presented with a survivor with a disability, to secure Community 
Partner 1, appropriate services for that individual. Conversely, disability providers in 
Site B appear to have a much lower level of awareness and utilization of potential 
collaborative resources when a survivor is encountered. Focus group participants were 
generally positive about DV/SA partners finding them needed outside help, another 
strength. This is less clear on the disability side given the limited input. Focus group 
participants did list some areas in which additional assistance would be valuable. 
In order to address these implications, the community should devote attention to 
cataloging resources: developing memorandums of agreement on collaboration, and 
facilitating access to those resources for survivors with disabilities. Partners should 
review the areas focus group participants identified where assistance could be improved 
and determine ways to address concerns. Current resource lists for survivors with 
disabilities should be available at all ASPEN partners and collaborators. 
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 ASPEN Needs Assessment goals: 
1. Identify strengths, gaps, and barriers of existing community service delivery 
systems in providing accessible and appropriate services to people with 
disabilities and survivors. 
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. 
As we discuss elsewhere in this report, partners 
from both sectors served survivors with 
disabilities on a routine basis, but did not 
recognize they were providing some 
accessibility and other services to survivors with 
We try to provide individualized 
services to the individual - 
Manager 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 20 
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. An Community Partner 2 board member noted that in Site B they would 
not turn away a victim with a disability if they were to disclose allegations of abuse. 
Further, although their mission didn’t state so directly, the board member felt the agency 
would respond and refer victims to appropriate services. 
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 and 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 their core duties as disability providers. 
All our partners had board members with DV/SA or victimization experience, although it 
was not recruited. 
Perception of Disability by DV/SA Partners 
Victim advocacy organizations focus on legal and system advocacy, shelter services, and 
support targeted on Community Partner safety, autonomy, confidentiality, and other 
relevant concerns of the people they serve. A Community Partner 1 board member noted 
that while their mission did not expressly hone in on disabilities, its goal was to enhance 
the safety of all people served. 
Community Partner 1 interviewees expressed pride their facility was one of the only 
accessible buildings in the area. They added, because Community Partner 1 has an 
accessible building and the agency is so well connected, they perceived being a sort of 
“drop off” agency for people with mobility impairments who may not be survivors. They 
also said they strove to meet the needs of survivors with disabilities in a variety of 
creative ways (developing the XX program for women with substance use disorders, 
using visual communication formats with program participants with Fetal Alcohol 
Spectrum Disorder, and providing child care for program participants who experience 
substance use disorders). Interviewees 
perceived themselves as the point of referral 
when other providers are unsure how to work 
with or assist a person with a disability. 
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. We also asked 
The inclusion (of board members 
with disabilities or expertise in 
disabilities) represents the life 
experience of our people - 
Executive Director 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 21 
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, Community 
Partner 4 had board members with experience. Community Partner 4 line staff/manager 
seemed to focus on the need of individuals with physical mobility issues (citing the need 
for ramps). 
Implications 
Site B’s non-behavioral health disability services tend to be itinerant or have a high 
vacancy factor, which impacts community perception of whether these services exist. 
Interviewees were more familiar (and comfortable) with services from XX Area Health 
Corporation, which has full-time staff located in Site B to provide behavioral health and 
senior services. Community Partner 1 has a very strong presence and community identity 
and is seen as the local go-to agency for FASD issues. 
There is a broad range of perceptions of whom people with disabilities and survivors are 
and what is done to serve them in all but one of our partners. The exception is 
Community Partner 1, which has extensive experience with people with disabilities. 
Basic education on awareness, philosophy, and service delivery approaches of both the 
disability and DV/SA sectors should be developed and provided to all staff. 
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 community 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 
person-centered services and supports from the perspectives of people with 
disabilities, survivors, and staff and management of community partners 
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, particularly in Site B; we nearly lost one of our partners before we could begin 
the needs assessment over the issue of exclusion 
of behavioral health providers. 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 
XX Area Health Corporation 
(has) policies and procedures 
specifically related to serving 
individuals with disabilities and 
should be included - Executive 
Director 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 22 
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. 
Community Partner 1 interviewees noted they encountered individuals with mental health 
and substance abuse issues frequently. Community Partner 1 indicated they also saw 
many women who experienced mental illness or Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders 
(FASD). The agency has been creative in serving these individuals in an isolated area that 
offers few resources for people with disabilities in general. For example, in Site B, 
Community Partner 1 created the XX program, collaborating with the local substance 
abuse program, to allow women to stay at the shelter while in treatment, providing 
childcare and other support. Community Partner 1 also developed a graphic 
communication system for survivors with FASD. 
Site B interviewees said was some discussion whether the XX Area Native Association 
was going to assume some of the functions of a center for independent living for elders 
and people with disabilities. Community Partner 4’s Executive Director stated that the 
local organizations serving people with behavioral health issues should be included in the 
ASPEN project. 
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 B already have 
some sort of relationship with local behavioral health providers. Community Partner 1’s 
collaboration with behavioral providers is especially strong and provides a model for 
improving service delivery. 
Finding 5 
Processes for change within ASPEN’S four 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 have a formal development process for those 
plans. Neither disability agencies nor victim advocates specifically addressed the needs of 
survivors with disabilities in their plans. The strategic plans at the four agencies are 
primarily developed through processes driven by the board or tribal council. In some 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 23 
cases, the executive directors or program managers oversee plan development. It appears 
all request staff input. Community Partner 4 uses a formal process in which the executive 
director works with the Tribal Council to develop the plan. Community Partner 2’s 
formal process is apparently mostly internal, without outside involvement. 
All four 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, such as Community Partner 2, reported substantial funding is tied to grants with 
specific scopes of work. 
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 
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. 
In this section, ASPEN 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 B has some history in training across 
disciplines. Disability Abuse Response Team (DART) protocols are in place for the 
region and Community Partner 1 is a team member. In addition, Community Partner 1 
has had trainings specific to working with people with disabilities. Six to eight staff in the 
past six months has attended several ADA national and statewide trainings. Line staff, 
however, felt they needed some help to become aware of opportunities for training on 
working with people with disabilities. Community Partner 2 trainings are driven by the 
needs of the individuals they are working with and staff relies on existing community 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 24 
resources to address issues affecting clients. Community Partner 3 provided no training 
specific to working with survivors with disabilities, but is open to doing so. 
Isolated areas such as Site B face significant barriers staging trainings in the community. 
Community Partner 1 recruits trainers for staff and board development, striving to get the 
best training possible, but it is often difficult to find trainers willing to travel to Site B. 
They have had to send staff out of town for disability specific training, both in the 
contiguous U.S. and elsewhere in Alaska. Community Partner 1 has hosted a conference 
in Site B on FASD, with national and statewide presenters and invited community 
providers to attend. 
Another significant barrier common to both communities and 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 
In Site B, Community Partner 1 again provides an excellent model for what an individual 
agency that values focused training can do in a small community. Community Partner 
1’s leadership and role as a builder of collaborations with DART and other local 
providers are strengths to build upon in broadening the scope of cross-training in Site B. 
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 of the 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 
Community Partner 4 interviewees 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 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 25 
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 both Site B 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 
culture. Subsistence activities including opportunities to learn how to gather and process 
traditional foods were described as critical. 
In Site B an elder survivor shared how she was able to achieve Community Partner safety 
and economic security during the winter by making kuspuk patterns with ulu pockets 
during her shelter stay. Staff support of these activities made her feel safe and welcome 
as well did their willingness to let her, “come and go” as needed. The elder shared with 
us that the Yup’ik people living in Site B and the XX area still depend upon subsistence 
fishing, hunting, and gathering for food (as is confirmed in the XX Native Association’s 
2004 Regional Economic Development Plan) 
Historically the Yup’ik people are very mobile, traveling with the migration of game, fish 
and plants. During the summer months everyone from the small villages works together 
at seasonal fish camps throughout the XX region. Focus group respondents shared, “Our 
lives are closely interwoven.” “They (Community Partner 1) don’t make us stay in one 
place. We can come here if we need help and they let us come back if we have to go.” 
Due to the remote location and harsh climate of the XX area, life is geared toward 
survival and cooperation. Culturally relevant services ensuring these realities are 
addressed help program participants feel safe, welcome and valued. 
Focus group participants for survivors in Site B described “potlatches,” and communal 
food sharing as activities that help them feel safe, welcome and connected. While Site B 
participants also described the shelter’s provision of a “steam,” as making them feel 
welcome. These traditional activities also 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 (non-local).” 
Implications 
Traditional cultural values remain strong in Site B and 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 is needed to address historical trauma, DV/SA 
trauma, and disability trauma. For culturally relevant services that make recipients feel 
welcome and Safe, we need to acknowledge intergenerational ties. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 26 
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 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 community 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. 
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 have chosen to honor the contribution 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 how they 
viewed their own 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 believe this was necessary 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. Elsewhere in this report, we noted the small number of participants identified as 
people with disabilities in Site B. However, given that so many of the focus group 
participant’s self-disclosed experience with disabilities (mostly behavioral and cognitive 
in nature), we believe we have strong representation of that perspective as well. 
We want to 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 
thoughts concerning how services could be made 
safer, more welcoming, and more comfortable. 
A number related specific experiences that could be accurately described as unsatisfying. 
If someone calls here they can’t 
say that I am staying here - that 
made me feel Community 
Partner 1. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 27 
Finally, several addressed issues were beyond the stated focus of our needs assessment; 
we elected to include some of these in our narrative. 
Helpful Aspects vs. Unhelpful Aspects 
When participants were asked about what partners do to help, there were a variety of 
answers. Many women described how thankful they were for Community Partner 1 and 
said it had been a really good program for the region—“Before Community Partner 1 
there was nowhere to go.” They also said they received sufficient support from staff. One 
woman said, “Community Partner 1 helped me get out of a situation that would have 
taken my life.” 
Many of the women described Community Partner 1’s XX program as very accepting, a 
place not just for anxiety/alcoholism, but a place to visit, network, and talk without 
judgment. They also said the groups for “ladies only are very helpful.” Other women 
were thankful they had somewhere to go, instead of the streets or jail. One said childcare 
is important – “It is nice to have someone help you with children.” Women also received 
help with protective custody, housing, food stamps, and jobs. Community Partner 1 
helped pay for some to come back home. 
A few women also described the thrift store Community Partner 1 runs as very useful. 
The steam house at Community Partner 1 was especially popular. Many women said it 
was helpful especially when they were feeling tense. One woman described how they 
stay in the steam until late, just talking and relaxing and how helpful and healing that 
was. 
One woman said Community Partner 1 allowed people to leave to handle personal 
business (in her case an elderly relative) and, “When you return, your things are safe, and 
you are welcomed back with open arms.” She said staff brought children to work and 
once a staff member’s child asked her, “Are you safe?” It touched her - she realized how 
sincere staff was. 
Community Partner 2 helped a woman with a disability put in a ramp to her house for 
better accessibility. She said she would like additional accessibility work in her house 
(rehabbing her bathroom, an additional exit). 
Asked about unhelpful circumstances participants 
had encountered, we heard several responses. One 
woman said she felt there was no follow-through 
and they need one person to walk you through the 
process. Another felt they didn’t point her in the 
directions she needed which were housing and custody and that she really wanted them to 
tell her what to do. Some women felt the advocates needed more training, especially on 
alcoholism—they needed to understand what it is like to be coming off of alcohol, 
including DTs. They also need training on depression. Another woman said advocates 
needed to understand the dynamic array of violence in the villages. 
Some of us will take longer to 
heal, but…there is real potential 
for healing. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 28 
How Providers show they can be trusted to help 
Participants emphasized how important trust was in a community as small as Site B. One 
woman said she was more comfortable when she knew the workers than when she didn’t. 
Another said that trust is equivalent to a confidentiality agreement—knowing that what is 
said in the room stays in the room. One participant said when people try to call, the 
advocates and other staff members don’t let the callers know she is there. Another said 
she knows that confidentiality cannot be broken or staff will be fired, which lets her know 
they take confidentiality very seriously. Participants mentioned a number of other ways 
staff showed they can be trusted to help including: 
• Being calm and confident; 
• Calling to see if you need help; 
• Helping you with paperwork; 
• Allowing you to stay with your intake person as long as needed; 
• Helping with doctor and other appointments; 
• Having closed walls and privacy; 
• Helping with Community Partner safety plans; 
• Helping with court stuff; and 
• Providing clothing and meals. 
Some women said they were not comfortable seeking services at first, but after they 
stayed, they felt more comfortable with it. Hearing from staff that domestic violence is 
not something to be ashamed of and that you are there to grow, showed they could be 
trusted. 
Other things Providers can do to help 
Advertise XX program and Community Partner 1 more, especially in the villages. A 
back-up Yupik interpreter would be helpful, especially in the courts. Other helpful things 
would be: 
• More parenting classes; 
• More support in the schools; 
• Education on intergenerational grief; 
• Support for younger boys; 
• Support group options for couples; 
• Anger management for men; and 
• An exercise room and more focus on healthy living. 
Confidentiality 
Confidentiality is important for Site B survivors and it appears, from their responses, that 
confidentiality is honored in most cases. A number of women who use Community 
Partner 1 services said they feel safe there and know confidentiality is maintained. One 
woman said “maintaining confidentiality” is in their policies and bylaws so she trusts it. 
Another said confidentiality is held as top priority, at the XX group 
Still, women noted instances of confidentiality breaches. In one case, a woman described 
how an employee approached her in a public place and asked questions without ensuring 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 29 
no one could overhear. She also said that if she ever heard things she said while at 
Community Partner 1 from someone who wasn’t there, she would know confidentiality 
had been breached. Another said she wouldn’t tell some advocates anything because 
“they are too nosy.” 
In response to what makes one feel safe enough to disclose personal information, a 
number of women mentioned signing of the confidentiality agreement. One woman said 
when the advocates gave her the 
confidentiality agreement she realized 
everybody who went to Community Partner 1 
had to sign it, which gave her a feeling of trust. 
She went on to say she never heard anything 
about her situation in the community so she 
knew she could say anything and it would not 
go out. 
When asked how to better protect confidentiality one woman said providers should 
remind everyone that “everything said here is going to stay here.” Another said she felt 
more trusting if an advocate shared with her, because then “I can tell about her, if she 
talks about me.” Another said she protected herself by keeping things to herself. Other 
women had a different take on confidentiality. One did not regard confidentiality issues 
as a major problem - she has four sisters and the abuse was never confidential. Another 
said she trusts everybody, unless trust is broken. After trust is broken, it has to be earned 
back. 
Two women suggested the need for Community Partner 1 services in rural areas. Another 
said they could work with Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO) to form a group of 
women in domestic violence situations and provide a safe place until they can get to Site 
B. She went on to say that village domestic violence was out of hand and women can’t 
tell anybody. 
Who do they call? 
As Figure 5 shows, over 40% of Site B focus group participants said they would call a 
friend if they needed help. Others would call or talk to family members, medical 
professionals, a pastor or preacher, a neighbor, the police, former bosses, children’s 
services, counselors, therapists, advocates, or support groups. One said she would look 
through the phone book. Another said she hadn’t known she could get help, though she 
saw Community Partner 1 posters at the hospital, she didn’t understand what Community 
Partner 1 was. Also her husband made her feel like “don’t you shame me or embarrass 
me” by going there. Another woman said she had been everywhere, to the doctor, the 
native health clinic, to elders asking what she should do. Many women (8 out of 19) 
found out about the agency through some sort of law enforcement officer (Public Safety 
Officer, VPSO, Police). 
Spread these buildings and 
facilities out to other rural areas 
for other women who can’t afford 
to travel to Community Partner 1. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 30 
Figure 5 
Agency People talk to or call Found out about agency 
1 CP 1/CP 4 The authorities Police, VPSO 
2 CP 1/CP 4 CP 1 (for shelter); XX Place; 
Churches; friends 
Word of mouth 
3 CP 1/CP 4 Police, next door neighbor Police 
4 CP 1/CP 4 Village counselor; friends; 
preacher; on-call counselor 
Law enforcement officer 
5 CP 1/CP 4 friend Police 
6 CP 1/CP 4 Female and male relatives; 
police 
Police (was forced to go there) 
7 CP 1/CP 4 Pastor; friends; ambulance; 
look through phone book 
and start searching 
Saw job openings at CP 1 
8 CP 1/CP 4 unclear VPSO; hospital 
9 CP 2 unclear Female relative 
10 CP 1/CP 4 unclear Friend; saw CP 1 poster at 
hospital, but didn’t understand it 
11 CP 1/CP 4 Friends, kids, former bosses, 
CP 1 staff, male relative, 
Can’t remember 
12 CP 1/CP 4 Female relatives, CP 1 staff, 
Children’s services 
I remember when it opened 
13 CP 1/CP 4 Friend Police 
14 CP 1/CP 4 Friend Can’t remember 
15 CP 1/CP 4 unclear Family member working at the 
hospital; female relative 
16 CP 1/CP 4 Female relative; CP 1 
counselors 
XX Place, XX group 
17 CP 1/CP 4 Female relatives; friends VPSO handed out cards; 
hospital gave information 
18 CP 1/CP 4 CP 1 staff Referred by hospital 
19 CP 1/CP 4 XX meetings Heard about it in court 
CP = Community Partner 
Feeling Welcome, Comfortable and Safe vs. Unwelcome, Uncomfortable 
and Unsafe 
Survivors 
Although questions asked focus group participants what makes one feel welcome, 
comfortable and safe, or conversely, unwelcome, uncomfortable, or unsafe, when seeking 
services for the first time, many described their experiences in addition to hypothetical 
situations. Many did not just receive services through DV/SA or disability providers, but 
were referred to or sought assistance from other services, such as mental health, 
substance abuse, medical, etc. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 31 
Staff: For survivors of domestic violence/sexual 
assault, the attitude of staff was critical. Several 
women described a place where they felt welcome, 
where someone greeted them, accepted them with 
open arms, and allowed them to sit down and talk. 
Staff would tell them about available services, 
honor confidentiality, act respectful, wear a warm 
smile, not be fake, and were nice, not grumpy. 
Finally, they liked staff that wouldn’t open the 
door for just anyone, who would allow you your 
privacy and who asked for a list of visitors who 
could contact you. One woman said she could 
sleep and not have headaches, knowing she is safe. 
For survivors, a negative attitude by staff could cause to them feel unwelcome, 
uncomfortable and unsafe. Many comments were related to the first person encountered, 
the receptionist. Two women said they felt uncomfortable when that person didn’t know 
answers to questions or turned away and avoided answering. Others said when a 
receptionist is unfriendly, unpleasant, or curt, they felt unwelcome. Other women 
described that as being bossy, controlling, rude, uncompassionate, not understanding or 
waiting to hear you out, poor eye contact, or not listening. Another said workers who 
don’t honor confidentiality made her feel uncomfortable. In one case someone found out 
about her medical condition from a relative who worked at the hospital. Another said she 
wouldn’t feel safe to open up if the person wasn’t culturally sensitive. Finally, a couple of 
women said they would feel unwelcome if staff neglected them. 
Service Location: Women talked about DV/SA services delivered in both shelter and 
community settings. In a shelters, they wanted a place that looked like a home, was 
comfortable, had food, and was clean. One would ban alcohol, drugs, and violence. She 
said it should be a place where you can reflect on what needs to be changed. Many 
women described a safe place where their perpetrator could not get to them. Others said 
they would like a tour of the place, or an open house to let women know what type of 
services they provide. Others cited the steam house at Community Partner 1 as important, 
but were concerned about the security of the building, which is separate from the main 
building. One woman said she liked having other kids there and that she could go to the 
store to get things for her kids. 
Focus group participants said an unwelcoming, unsafe, and uncomfortable shelter was a 
place that wasn’t secure, where policies and procedures weren’t clear, or was 
unsanitary—with trash everywhere. A 
convenient location and or accessibility were 
also important. One woman said she felt unsafe 
in a dark place. Two women said there were 
three doors into the shelter and felt one door 
could be more secure. Others said, “When you 
go outside, you get locked out,” but they were 
The courts, the cops, not even 
lawyers are allowed to touch us 
in here—that’s how safe we are 
here. 
When you first arrive they keep 
repeating what you need to hear, 
so it gets in your head that you 
are safe. 
(People who) encourage you, 
make you want to finish your 
exercises, are helpful and don’t 
treat you bum or rude (make one 
want to return to a place). 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 32 
torn on how to resolve that. As mentioned above, the steam house is very important, but 
there were concerns about its security, about who was watching it. One woman thought a 
guard at the front door would help her feel safer. 
Returning to a Service Location: When asked about what would make one feel 
welcome, comfortable, and safe enough to return to a place, a welcoming, respectful 
attitude by staff was paramount: “We’re here for you if you need our services again.” 
Many said knowing they were welcome back anytime was important. Several said 
follow-up phone calls were important to her. 
People with Disabilities 
Staff: For women with disabilities, as with survivors, staff attitude was critical to feeling 
welcome, comfortable and safe. Our respondent 
described it succinctly as “really nice” when staff made 
her feel that way. Alternatively negative staff attitudes 
could lead to feeling unwelcome, uncomfortable and 
unsafe. One woman described “negative staff” as those 
who were “sassy,” didn’t believe her, or told her nothing 
is medically wrong when she knew something was 
wrong. 
Service Location: For a place that was welcoming, 
safe, and comfortable, the participant described it as place that is accessible. When asked 
what makes a place unsafe, uncomfortable or unwelcoming, she didn’t like it when 
people used the “handicapped bathroom or parking spaces.” 
Returning to Service Location: When asked what would make one feel welcome, 
comfortable, and safe enough to return to a place, the woman identified, “ kind people.” 
When asked about what unsafe Partner 1 that they wouldn’t go back, she described 
people who are very rude or mean. 
Understanding and respecting needs, choices, and culture 
Survivors 
In general, survivors indicated staff showed understanding and respect for individual 
needs and choices by “greeting you, asking you how you were doing, giving you insight, 
helping you set up goals, not passing judgment, offering guidance and encouraging you.” 
One woman also said it was good when staff encouraged program participants to speak 
up - when she was able to say, “I think we need a house meeting” and her request was 
honored. 
Actions or words that show staff respect them as individuals 
Participants said staff showed respect for them as individuals by being patient and letting 
them take your time. One described respect as valuing choices. Another woman described 
respect as asking, not telling. Calling to check in with survivors no longer in residence at 
the shelter also demonstrated respect. Another said telling one who is new to staff was 
(Attitudes that) make you 
feel bum, some people 
can make you feel 
miserable, like you don’t 
belong—like they are 
better than you and they 
don’t want to help you 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 33 
important, so she could be more patient with staff just learning. An elder survivor said 
Community Partner 1 staff valued her status as a grandmother whose patience and 
common sense provided a different perspective. 
Participants saw hiring staff “who had been there, who can understand your situation, and 
can share their story” as demonstrating respect. Staff with lived experience “can provide 
a listening ear and not just a big pile of advice.” One woman said she would stay longer if 
staff would give her rides to church so she could attend services. Another participant 
replied staff would find someone to provide rides if asked. 
How a service provider shows they understand their situation 
Focus group/interview participants described several ways a service provider can show 
they understand their situation including listening and informing staff what they value, so 
they learn from program participants too. 
People with disabilities 
In general, this interviewee indicated staff showed they understood and respected her 
individual needs and choices by being kind, helpful and not looking down on her. She 
also said they can show they understood her disability by not making fun of her or her 
disability. 
Implications 
DV/SA program participants stressed physical safety. e.g. locks, lighting, cameras, etc. 
Similarly 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, etc. 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. 
Both groups talked about safety in terms of how people made them feel and whom they 
could trust; indicating a friendly attitude by staff is critical. Both survivors and consumers 
described in detail barriers stemming from messages provided through 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. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 34 
Confidentiality concerns existed in both groups although DV/SA program participants 
appeared more anxious about physical Community Partner safety as well as emotional 
harm if confidentiality was breeched. Disability service consumers also expressed 
concerns about physical and emotional Community Partner safety yet often 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 sections, 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: 
• Some disability sector staff appeared to believe a focus on individualized services 
was sufficient to ensure that necessary services are competently delivered to survivors 
with disabilities. At the same time, most staff interviewed believed that targeted 
training and cross-training was necessary in order to collaboratively serve survivors 
with disabilities adequately. 
• There appeared to be differences in perception between management and line staff. 
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 Community Partner 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 significant basis for change to local service systems exists. Site B has a historical 
focus on behavioral health, but less on other forms of disability. Our DV/SA partner has, 
in fact, been a leader, in this regard. The community is open to training and collaboration 
across disciplines, the need for which is a major finding of this needs assessment. 
Our DV/SA partner appeared to believe that collaborative training and cross-training are 
crucial to their ability to appropriately serve people with disabilities. This belief has led 
it 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. Site B’s victim advocacy organization 
has a very strong presence and is perceived as the local provider to go to for FASD 
concerns. 
Disability services, other than behavioral health, in Site B are often itinerant or 
experience high turnover and thus have a different presence and image compared to 
services headquartered there; the community is more familiar and comfortable with 
services provided by XX Area Health Corporation. All our community partners work 
closely with them; engaging them in should be a long-term goal for the community. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 35 
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 suitable local 
planning model. 
• 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 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, 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 training. 
Conclusion 
Site B and awaits our return to share needs assessment results and are excited at that 
prospect and the opportunity for us to facilitate development of a plan geared to meet 
local needs. Although it would be simpler to develop a plan without their input, long 
experience in Alaska’s smaller communities has taught us that they do not react 
positively to being told what to do. Because ASPEN members don’t live or work in the 
selected communities, it is imperative ASPEN works collaboratively with its local 
partners when suggesting change to local systems. 
Key Findings And Opportunities For Change 
• Policies and procedures at ASPEN’s partners in Site B 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. 
• 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. 

ASPEN Needs Assessment Report/Site B – December 2010 Page 36 
• 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. 
• 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 B identified positive, respectful, and 
supportive attitudes and actions as keys to making them feel safe, welcome, and 
comfortable. 
Next Steps 
We will share the results of the needs assessment with our partners. 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 to 
implement these initiatives. We will involve individuals with disabilities and survivors 
of DV/SA in this planning work.