Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
1 of 77 

A Project of 


and 
ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ 


Needs Assessment Report Part I 


D/deaf Community 


November 2008 



Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 


2 of 77 


This project was supported by Grant No. 2006-FW-AX-K008 awarded by the 
Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
3 of 77 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department 
of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
4 of 77 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of 
Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 


Table of Contents 


I. Overview of collaboration 
II. Overarching purposes and goals 
III. Methodology 
IV. Needs assessment timeline 
V. Strengths, limitations and challenges 
VI. Results and key findings 
VII. Recommendations 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
5 of 77 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: 
A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in 
Austin, Texas 


Part I Ð D/deaf Community 


Overview of the Collaboration 


Introduction 

In October, 2006, the ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ initiative was 
funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women 
(OVW).1 

The three agencies who first initiated this collaborative were Advocacy, Inc. (AI), 
Deaf Abused Women and Children Advocacy Services (DAWCAS), and 
SafePlace. Advocacy, Inc. is the Texas protection and advocacy agency, 
DAWCAS was the local domestic violence service provider catering to the 
D/deaf2 community, and SafePlace is the local domestic violence and sexual 
assault service provider. Advocacy, Inc. has regional or satellite offices in 14 
communities across Texas and partnering agencies have offices located in 
Austin, Texas. 

During Year I of this project, the partnering agency DAWCAS was dissolved.3 In 
response to the gap in services left by the closing of DAWCAS, SafePlace 
initiated expansion of its domestic violence and sexual assault services to the 
D/deaf community through establishment of a new Deaf Services program. The 
primary goal of the program is to increase the availability of domestic violence 

1 The ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ initiative was funded in 2006 by 
the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women through an 
Education and Technical Assistance Grant to End Violence Against Women with 
Disabilities grant program. 
2 Within this report, and similar to other documents produced by the Partnering to 
Increase Service Access project, the term Deaf with an upper case D is used 
when referring to individuals who are Deaf and identify as a member of a Deaf 
community. Individuals who identify as ÒDeafÓ consider themselves as culturally 
deaf and have a strong Deaf identity. Deaf individuals tend to have attended 
schools/programs for the Deaf, while individuals who are deaf tend to have been 
mainstreamed and never attended a school for the deaf. In respect for both 
groups, we will use the following term throughout this report: D/deaf. 
3 Before DAWCAS closed, staff contributed significantly to development of the 
collaborationÕs vision, mission, charter and needs assessment plan. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
6 of 77 

and sexual assault services to the local D/deaf, hard of hearing and Deaf/blind 
community. Staff hired within the new D/deaf Services program at SafePlace 
participated in conducting the needs assessment and will have active roles in 
developing and implementing the collaborationÕs strategic plan, along with other 
members of the collaborative. 

This needs assessment report identifies barriers, gaps, and needs for domestic 
violence and sexual assault services within AustinÕs D/deaf community. 
Separate needs assessment activities were planned and implemented which 
focus on persons with disabilities. A separate needs assessment report will 
follow highlighting this work. 

During the first year and a half of this project, the partners met regularly to 
identify the overarching goals for this collaboration, and to determine how they 
would assess the needs of abuse survivors who are D/deaf in Austin, Texas. 
During this process, partners learned more about each othersÕ missions, 
vocabulary, philosophies and both unique and shared visions and goals for 
addressing violence in the lives of people who are D/deaf in Austin, Texas. Each 
partner contributed to the development of a concrete work plan, project timeline, 
and the process for initiating, developing and maturing working relationships and 
the project. 

The following key activities were undertaken and completed by the partners 
during the initial phase of this collaboration project: 

¥ 
Formalized and deepened existing working relationships among 
partners and began building on past collaborative initiatives when 
responding to individual survivors who are D/deaf or who have 
disabilities. 
¥ 
Participation in all-site meetings facilitated by OVW and Vera Institute 
of Justice (the projectÕs technical assistance provider). 
¥ 
Developed a vision and mission statement, collaboration charter, 
project timeline, and overarching goals for needs assessment 
activities. 
¥ 
Conceptualized and designed methods and protocols for conducting a 
needs assessment within our community. 
¥ 
Identified focus groups and key informant interviews as primary 
methods for gathering information about the needs of AustinÕs D/deaf 
and disabilities communities in relation to domestic, sexual and 
caregiver violence and the accessibility of victim services. 
¥ 
Organized, reviewed and presented the information gathered from 
focus groups and interview participants in the form of this needs 
assessment report. 
¥ 
Subsequent to the approval of this report, the information will be used 
to develop a strategic plan for responding to the identified needs, gaps 
and access barriers. 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
7 of 77 

Vision 

The shared vision of the ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ project partners 
is that people with disabilities and people who are D/deaf will live as they choose 
without experiencing violence in the everyday course of their lives. To reflect this 
vision, the following guiding statement was adopted for this collaboration effort. 

ÒWe envision that people who are D/deaf or have disabilities live free from 
domestic and sexual violence and other forms of abuse.Ó4 

Mission 

The mission of the partners is to work to advance change within our own 
agencies and communities to ensure that disability, D/deaf and victim services 
are available to all people with disabilities and D/deaf community members. The 
following statement was adopted to guide our planning, needs assessment, and 
implementation activities: 

Our mission is Òto advance policies, practices and services that ensure 
culturally aware, sensitive and fully accessible responses to members of 
the disability and D/deaf communities regarding domestic, caregiver and 
sexual violence.Ó 

Project Scope 

After a lengthy period of discussion and deliberation among the partner agencies, 
Vera Institute of Justice (Vera), and OVW, the geographical scope of the project 
was limited to Austin, Texas and surrounding areas (Travis County). All needs 
assessment activities were conducted in the partnersÕ own agencies (Advocacy, 
Inc. and SafePlace) and among D/deaf community members, D/deaf service 
providers and abuse survivors who are D/deaf. 

Workgroups were formed to select and propose assessment goals representative 
of the partnering agenciesÕ internal and community-based interests. The 
selected goals were presented and reviewed by the full project team and a final 
set of project goals were selected based on the overarching purpose in 
developing this needs assessment. 

Overarching Purposes and Goals 


4 The project partners recognize that Òthis statement does not reflect the world as 
it is, but rather our values and beliefs about the world as it should be, and our 
work leads us closer to this...our dream. Our work is about believing in the vision 
and living the dream.Ó 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
8 of 77 

In developing our needs assessment plan, our purpose was to discover what is 
needed within our own agencies and community so that members of AustinÕs 
D/deaf community are consistently welcomed and gain access to needed 
domestic violence and sexual assault services. 

Conducting the needs assessment activities has provided the partnering 
agencies with an opportunity to update our understanding of the needs of 
survivors who are D/deaf in our community. In a less formal way, weÕve noted 
that our methods of data collection have generated interest and dialogue and 
sparked the curiosity of our co-workers about working with survivors who are 
D/deaf in their own job areas. The information detailed in this report will be used 
to develop a strategic plan to more formally address the identified needs, gaps 
and service barriers. This needs assessment was designed and implemented 
according to the following purposes and goals: 

1. Identify Service Gaps, Barriers and Needs 
What are the areas of need in the D/deaf community related to domestic violence 
and sexual assault? 

What are the service gaps and barriers experienced by D/deaf service providers 
when working with survivors of violence? 

2. Build Internal Capacity for Providing Services 
What do SafePlace staff members need to increase their own capacity for 
providing D/deaf friendly and knowledgeable domestic violence and sexual 
assault services to survivors who are D/deaf? 

What do D/deaf service providers need to increase their capacity for responding 
in a knowledgeable way to domestic and sexual violence survivors who are 
D/deaf? 

What is the role of D/deaf service providers in responding to survivors of 
domestic and violence that they serve? 

3. Expand Outreach and Provision of Services 
How can the newly formed Deaf Services program of SafePlace outreach to 
D/deaf community members to increase their access to domestic violence and 
sexual assault services? 

4. Build Collaborative Responses 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
9 of 77 

What Austin-based D/deaf service organizations are interested in building a more 
collaborative response to abuse survivors who are D/deaf through partnering or 
increased service referral? 

In what ways can Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace coordinate their own services to 
better respond to domestic and sexual violence when working with survivors who 
are D/deaf? 

5. Sustain Outreach and Provisions of Services 
In what ways can we institutionalize policies, practices, and other strategies that 
ensure welcoming, knowledgeable, and D/deaf friendly responses to D/deaf 
community members? 

Methodology 


This needs assessment was designed to gather information about the domestic 
and sexual violence service and support needs of AustinÕs D/deaf, hard-ofhearing 
and D/deaf/blind community members. To accomplish this goal, we 
wanted to learn from a variety of sources and most directly from abuse survivors 
who are D/deaf, community members who are D/deaf, D/deaf service providers, 
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs), and SafePlace staff and clients. 
Needs assessment activities were conducted between late March and June of 
2008 in Austin, Texas. 

The primary methods for gathering information from the key stakeholders were 
focus groups and individual interviews. Both partner agencies were involved in 
recruiting participants, moderating or co-moderating focus groups and interviews, 
note-taking and de-briefing data collection activities. Project staff from both 
agencies also shared in the process of developing and revising a set of focus 
group/interview questions until they clearly reflected the interests of each 
partnering agency and the overarching purposes and goals for this needs 
assessment. 

The projectÕs technical assistance provider, Vera Institute of Justice, and OVW 
staff provided assistance to ensure focus group and interview questions and 
necessary prompts reflected the purpose and goals of this needs assessment. 
All focus groups and interviews were conducted in the following locations: 
Advocacy, Inc. board and conference rooms, SafePlace meeting rooms, Austin 
Deaf Club, and the offices of CSD (Communication Services for the Deaf). 

Each focus group and interview was conducted according to a structured 
protocol. All participants received the same information and instructions and they 
responded to a set of questions relevant to the assessment goals and target 
group they represented. Focus group moderators and the interviewers exercised 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
10 of 77 

flexibility in the use of various prompts and queries but overall, information was 
gathered in a similar manner for all participants. 

In preparation for conducting the assessment activities, Vera Institute of Justice 
arranged for Mary Oshwald of the Regional Institute of Portland State University 
to travel to Austin, Texas and provide training on tips and strategies for collecting 
data through focus groups and interviews. The 4-hour training included an 
overview of question selection, process guidelines, moderator responsibilities, 
de-briefing, and the recording, storage and analyzing of focus group and 
interview data. This training provided project staff with information on the current 
practices in the design of focus group and interview protocols and design of 
consistent approaches for moderating focus groups and face-to-face key 
informant interviews. Representatives from collaborating agencies participated in 
this training. 

Accessibility 

All of the sites where focus groups and individual interviews were conducted 
were both physically and attitudinally accessible. Each partner in this 
collaborative was committed to providing full access to individuals participating in 
the needs assessment activities. American Sign Language interpreters were 
provided to participants who are D/deaf or Deaf/blind through live interpreters or 
online interpreter services. All interpreters hired were certified at level 3 or 
higher. The projectÕs lead agency paid for all interpreters and accessibility needs 
using OVW grant funds. There were no other accessibility accommodations or 
modifications requested. Reimbursement for transportation and child care 
services were offered to participants as needed. 

Data Collection 

Tools 

Overall, partnering staff generated four (4) sets of focus group questions and two 

(2) sets of individual interview questions to conduct the need assessment 
activities. Each question set was designed to reflect the key areas of interest 
outlined earlier in this report. The six (6) sets of questions can be found in 
Appendix A of this document. 
Sources 

Focus groups and interviews with the key informants were used to gather 
information and assess the gaps, barriers and access needs for domestic and 
sexual violence services to AustinÕs D/deaf community members. In addition, 
focus groups were held to assess the needs of D/deaf service providers and 
SafePlace staff for education, training, technical assistance, policy review or 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
11 of 77 

development to improve supports and services to individual survivors in AustinÕs 
D/deaf community. 

The partnering agencies are committed to look first within their agencies to 
assess gaps and needs, make improvements, and identify opportunities to 
formalize the coordination of services between SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. 
Within SafePlace, Program Directors and direct services staff were asked to 
identify their needs for information, education, training, technical assistance and 
agency changes to support work with D/deaf abuse survivors. SafePlace staff 
members were also asked to identify gaps and needs to ensure effective 
coordination of services and contacts between direct service staff, D/deaf service 
providers, Advocacy, Inc., and SafePlaceÕs Deaf Services program staff. 

Another group we engaged in the needs assessment were D/deaf service 
providers. We hoped to identify providers interested in expanding their network 
of available resources and supports for serving D/deaf survivors who are their 
clients. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) and hospital advocacy 
volunteers were also targeted to participate in needs assessment activities to 
explore the needs of sexual assault survivors who are D/deaf. To ensure full 
representation of the D/deaf community in the assessment, focus groups were 
held with allies and service providers to individuals who are D/deaf/blind. 
Individual interviews were conducted with community members who are 
D/deaf/blind to ensure that the voices of people themselves who are D/deaf/blind 
are included. A total of thirty (30) needs assessment activities were conducted 
with a total of ninety (90) participants. 

The sourceÕs of information for this needs assessment are summarized in a table 
on page [12]. 

Moderation/Facilitation 

Focus groups and interviews were moderated or co-moderated by SafePlace and 
Advocacy, Inc. (AI) staff. All focus groups with D/deaf service providers and 
allies were facilitated or co-facilitated by a staff member from SafePlace or AI 
who is D/deaf. The rationale was to ensure direct and effective communication in 
American Sign Language. 

Interpreters were included to support note takers (hearing staff) to document the 
content of the meetings. For interviews with abuse survivors, individuals were 
given a choice between being interviewed by someone either D/deaf or hearing. 
The D/deaf community is small and often community members know each other 
or each others families. The rationale for offering the option of being interviewed 
by someone D/deaf or hearing was to be sensitive to the small knit community 
and sense of emotional safety and preference for full anonymity for participation 
by abuse survivors who are D/deaf. In all but one (1) case, survivors who are 
D/deaf chose to be interviewed by Deaf staff. In this one case, the survivor knew 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
12 of 77 

the D/deaf staff member and preferred more anonymity. A live interpreter was 
employed to assist with communication. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
13 of 77 

Table 1: Needs Assessment Participants 

Individual Community Members Victim Services Service Provider 
Agencies 
People who are D/deaf SafePlace Staff D/deaf Services 
á Members of AustinÕs D/deaf Community á Counseling staff 
á Crisis Intervention staff 
á Administrators 
á Direct services staff 
People who are D/deaf/blind á Hospital advocacy staff á Agencies Represented: 
á Members of AustinÕs D/deaf/blind and volunteers o 
Department of Assistive and 
Community á Hotline staff 
á Legal services staff 
Rehabilitative Services (DARS) 
o 
Travis County Services for the 
Abuse survivors who are D/deaf 
á Current SafePlace clients 
á Former DAWCAS clients 
á Former SafePlace clients 
á Program Directors 
á Resource advocates 
á Shelter staff 
á Transitional housing staff 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing 
(TCSDHH) 
o 
Communication Services for the 
Deaf (CSD) 
D/deaf/blind Services 
Other Victim Service 
staff 
á Sexual Assault Nurse 
Examiners (SANEs) 
á Administrators 
á Direct services staff and allies 
á Agencies Represented: 
á Travis County Services for the D/deaf and 
Hard of Hearing (TCSDHH) 
Services for people who are 
D/deaf and have disabilities 
á Direct services staff 
á Agencies Represented: 
o 
Austin Travis County Mental 
Health Mental Retardation 
(ATCMHMR) 
o 
Vaughn House 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
14 of 77 

Participant Recruitment 

SafePlace staff: Focus groups were scheduled and conducted with SafePlaceÕs 
direct services staff who work in the following areas: shelter, transitional housing, 
counseling, hotline, crisis intervention, advocacy/case management, sexual 
assault hospital accompaniment, and legal services. Staff members were invited 
to participate by electronic newsletter, posting on bulletin boards, during team 
meetings and face to face. Program Directors were invited to participate in a key 
informant interview by email, telephone contact, and in person. 

D/deaf service providers: Project staff contacted a set of specific organizations 
that regularly provide services to Austin/Travis County or have contact with 
people in AustinÕs D/deaf community. The invited organizations included: Travis 
County Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Vaughn House, 
Communication Services for the Deaf (CSD), Communication by Hand, Austin 
Travis County MHMR and Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitation 
Services (DARS) - Division of Deaf Service. 

Community members who are D/deaf or D/deaf/blind: Participants were 
recruited by contacting local D/deaf service agencies and other community 
groups in contact with people who are D/deaf or D/deaf/blind in Austin. Methods 
of contact included videophone, email, in person, word-of-mouth, and various 
listservs. 

SANEs: Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners from St. DavidÕs Hospital were invited 
to participate based on contacts provided us by SafePlaceÕs Sexual Assault 
Community Advocacy Program. 

Survivors: Abuse survivors who are D/deaf were invited to participate in an 
individual interview from among current and former clients of SafePlace and 
former clients of DAWCAS. 

The emails, letters and flyers used to invite all participants outlined the purpose 
and voluntary nature of the interviews and focus groups, how to contact project 
staff, compensation, and group dates and times.5 

Confidentiality 

5 Physical and psychological safety was a primary consideration for survivors 
willing to talk about domestic and sexual violence. Project staff made every effort 
to create a safe environment for the conversations and minimize risks. Project 
staff was prepared to provide immediate support and/or access to resources. 
Participants received information on how to contact the interviewer or moderator 
if they had questions or needed any information following the focus group or 
interview. Participants were clearly informed they could withdraw from the group 
or interview at any time without loss of compensation. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
15 of 77 

Every effort was made to maintain participant confidentiality within the limits of 
the law. All participants were informed that no personally identifying information 
would be recorded unless the participant gave us their signed consent for the 
purposes of: 1) contacting them with follow up information or 2) contacting them 
for further needs assessment information. And, even in those two cases, the 
contact information is kept separate from the data gathered. 

Participants were also informed of two exceptions to our consent and 
confidentiality agreements. These exceptions would be: 1) if a participant 
disclosed current abuse, and 2) if a participant disclosed plans to harm 
themselves or someone else. Texas is a mandatory reporting state and 
information in these cases must be reported to Adult Protective Services (APS). 
In this assessment, one case was reported to APS. Participants in focus groups 
were also asked to agree to maintain confidentiality about each others 
participation, names, comments or answers to questions. 

Informed Consent to Participate 

Survivors and D/deaf community members: Participants who were D/deaf or 
D/deaf/blind community members were asked to sign an informed consent to 
participate document. The interviewer or focus group moderator reviewed 
contents of the consent form with participants and answered any questions. All 
consent forms were signed and collected before the interview or focus group 
began. A copy of the consent to participate form, developed by SafePlace and 
Advocacy, Inc., can be found in Appendix B. 

It was important that participants were informed that we were going to ask 
questions about issues related to abuse and that they may feel uncomfortable or 
upset. Participants were also told that they could leave the room, talk to a safe 
person and leave the activity if they wanted without losing the benefit of the cash 
compensation. The following key elements covered in the informed consent 
process were detailed and discussed with participants: 

¥ 
The state law about mandatory reporting of abuse or intention to harm self 
or others. 
¥ 
The voluntary nature of their participation. 
¥ 
Right to pass on any question. 
¥ 
Right to stop participation at any time and still be given the stipend. 
¥ 
Access to a safe person and immediate supports if requested. 
¥ 
The potentially upsetting nature of the topics under discussion. 
¥ 
Resources available after the focus group or interview. 
¥ 
Information about the note-taker and what would be recorded. 
¥ 
The offer to provide a copy of the notes immediately following the group or 
interview. 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
16 of 77 

Service providers and SafePlace staff: Passive voluntary consent was 
considered evidenced when a provider or staff member showed up to participate 
in a focus group or interview. 

Participant Compensation 

Gift Cards: Participants in focus groups for D/deaf service providers were given 
a $5.00 gift card to a local ice cream store or coffee shop. These $5.00 gift cards 
were not advertised prior to the focus groups and were distributed at the 
conclusion of the service provider focus groups in appreciation of their 
participation. 

Cash Stipend: Participants from the D/deaf community (including survivors of 
violence) received a $35.00 cash stipend for their participation in needs 
assessment activities. 

In addition, beverages and snacks were offered to focus group participants and 
individual interview participants were offered their choice of beverages during the 
interview. 

Focus Groups 

A total of 12 focus groups were held with seventy-two (72) participants in this 
needs assessment with an average of 6 participants per focus group. Targeted 
outreach to potential focus group participants was made to members of the 
D/deaf community, the D/deaf/blind community, and people who are D/deaf and 
have disabilities in Austin, Texas. In addition, we sought to engage the 
communityÕs D/deaf service providers and domestic violence and sexual assault 
agency staff (SafePlace). Focus groups were held at SafePlace, the Austin Deaf 
Club or Advocacy, Inc. 

Specific attention was given to include our outreach to the D/deaf/blind 
community, their allies and service providers given this group seems to be 
particularly underserved within SafePlace. 

Individual Interviews 

Eighteen (18) individual interviews were conducted as means of gathering 
information to help improve domestic and sexual violence services and supports 
to AustinÕs D/deaf community. 

Targeted outreach for individual interviews was made to members of AustinÕs 
D/deaf/blind community and to survivors of domestic or sexual violence. 
Survivors who participated were asked where they wanted to meet for an 
interview from among the following options: SafePlace, Advocacy Inc., 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
17 of 77 

Communication Services for the Deaf (CSD) offices, the public library, or a safe 
location of their own choosing. Key informant interviews were also conducted 
with Program Directors within SafePlaceÕs counseling, shelter, and transitional 
housing programs. SafePlaceÕs Chief Operating Officer was also interviewed. 

Project staff had proposed to conduct a focus group with Sexual Assault Nurse 
Examiners (SANEs) who work closely with SafePlace staff and volunteers who 
provide sexual assault hospital accompaniment. At the time that the interviews 
and focus groups were being conducted, a majority of the SANEs had significant 
time limitations and several administrative responsibilities that were required and 
uncompensated. This resulted in the project being able to interview only one 
SANE. Although we were not able to engage the number of SANEs that we had 
hoped, the project was able to obtain data on the number of individuals who are 
D/deaf who went to the emergency room for a sexual assault nurse exam over 
the past two years. Future efforts will be made to gain input from this group about 
how we can improve our sexual assault services and supports to D/deaf 
survivors of sexual assault or rape. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
18 of 77 

Focus Group and Key Informant Interview Participation 

Target Group Number of Focus 
Groups 
Conducted 
Number of Focus 
Group Participants 
Number of Individual 
Interviews Conducted 
Total 
Service 
Providers 
D/deaf Service 
Providers 2 8 0 
Providers for Deaf people 
/ with disabilities 1 6 0 
Deaf/blind Service 
Providers and Allies 1 5 0 
SANEs Ð interviews 0 0 1 
D/deaf 
Community 
Members 
1 8 0 
SafePlace Staff 
Transitional Housing 2 12 1 
Crisis Intervention 
Providers 1 7 0 
Non-residential 
Counseling 2 13 1 
Legal Services/hospital 
accompaniment 1 5 1 
Shelter Advocates and 
Counselors 1 8 1 
Chief Operating Officer --1 
Survivors 
D/deaf Survivors --10 
Deaf/blind Survivors --2 
TOTAL 12 focus 
groups 
72 FG 
participants 
18 individual 
interviews 
30 Activities 
90 Participants 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
19 of 77 

Future Contact with Participants 

Throughout the course of conducting the needs assessment, participantsÕ 
interest in follow up contact was explored by moderators and interviewers. 
Individuals wanting future contact with the project staff gave us information about 
how and when they could be safely contacted. Some of the participants wanted 
to know about the assessment outcomes and any changes that we made as a 
result. The follow up contact information is stored as confidential material in a 
locked file cabinet at the lead agency. 

Data Recording 

Hearing project staff served as note-taker(s) to record the information shared by 
participants during the focus groups and interviews. Paper and pen and laptops 
were the methods used to record answers to the questions asked. The 
transitional housing and counseling services teams were quite large and split into 
two focus groups held concurrently during their weekly staff meeting times. For 
each of the individual interviews conducted, one note-taker was used to record 
information shared by the key informants (survivors, Program Directors and a 
SANE). The decision to employ one note-taker was strategic to reduce the 
number of unknown persons who were in the room during the interview. In 
interviews with individuals who are D/deaf or Deaf/blind, a live American Sign 
Language Interpreter or online interpreter was also present. Interviews were 
comprised of the survivor, one interviewer, one note-taker, and the ASL 
interpreter or online interpreter orÑ one Program Director or SANE, one 
interviewer, and one note-taker. 

Offer of focus group / individual interview notes to participants 

Project staff worked to ensure that that all needs assessment activities were 
transparent to individual participants in this project. In support of this 
commitment, participants were offered a copy of notes recorded immediately 
following the activity or at a future time. Three (3) participants interviewed 
requested a copy of the notes. Participants did express general interest in 
learning about the project outcomes and any changes that would be 
implemented within the community. These requests were noted by project staff 
and will be honored once a Strategic Plan is created and approved. 

Transcription of Notes 

Note-takers were responsible for transcribing their notes immediately following 
an interview or focus group. This information was given to the project manager 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
20 of 77 

highlighting the method of data gathering (individual interview or focus group), 
date, note-taker and interpreter name(s), and the total number of participants. 

All information collected was organized according to the individual questions and 
based on the thematic content of responses. Remarkable quotes and examples 
that illustrated key issues were highlighted. Individual responses were not linked 
with participant names as we discussed earlier in the confidentiality section of 
this document. 

The original notes are stored in a locked file cabinet in the project managerÕs 
office. Electronic copies of this data are stored at the lead agency where access 
is limited to project staff only. The information will be stored according to federal 
guidelines governing the collection and storage of project data. 

Following transcription of the notes taken during each focus group and interview, 
project staff organized the information to facilitate identification of key issues and 
areas of need revealed by individual and collective participants. Participant 
responses were cross referenced according to the population represented (i.e., 
survivor, service provider, direct service staff, etc.), individual questions asked, 
and the core themes and requests. Responses are organized in the results 
section of this report according to: 1) populations represented, 2) issue areas, 
and 3) as response to the projectÕs purposes and goals. 

Needs Assessment Time Line 


The information gathered in the needs assessment will be essential to the 
development of a strategic plan that accurately reflects the resources, barriers 
and opportunities for increasing accessibility to victim and D/deaf services and 
safety options for people who are D/deaf or also have disabilities. 

Workgroups within the collaborative team were tasked with developing needs 
assessment goals that represented each of the partner agencies internal and 
community based self-interests. These goals were presented and reviewed by 
the full project team and a final set of goals were selected which are summarized 
earlier in this document. The focus group and interview questions were 
developed according to these goals (see p. 2-3). Following selection of our 
goals, the project team outlined a plan for completion of the various activities 
necessary for conducting the focus groups and individual interviews. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
21 of 77 

Month Needs Assessment Plan Ð Development Timeline 
Activity and Milestones 
June 2007 Develop needs assessment goals representing each partner agenciesÕ goals and interests 
community based self-interests. 
July - August 
2007 
Select teams to develop needs assessment goals. Draft protocol for conducting needs 
assessment activities and develop focus group and interview questions based on needs 
assessment goals. 
Continue meeting as collaborative. 
Participate in training by Vera Associate on ÒBest Practices in Moderating Focus 
Groups.Ó 
September Ð 
November 2007 
Develop the needs assessment plan and submit to Vera Institute of Justice for review and 
OVW for approval. 
Finalize informed consent documents and stipend plan for participants. 
Continue meeting as collaborative. 
Attend OVW/Vera all-site meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. 
December 2007 Ð 
January 2008 
Pending OVW approval of the needs assessment plan Ð recruit participants and provide 
informed consent information. 
January Ð 
August 2008 
Implement needs assessment protocol; conduct focus groups and individual interviews. 
Continue meeting as collaborative. 
Attend OVW/Vera all site meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. 
August Ð 
November 2008 
December 2008, 
January 2009 
February 2009 
Organize and compile needs assessment data. Develop findings and integrate with other 
sources of information (census, agency self-interests, priority setting by collaboration, 
etc.). Submit needs assessment report to OVW for approval. 
Develop strategic plan based on results of needs assessment data. Submit strategic plan to 
OVW for approval. 
Begin implementation of strategic plan. 

A strategic plan will be developed and proposed to OVW for approval based on 
results presented in this report. The approved plan will reflect the partnerÕs 
recommendations and will guide the remaining project activities. The following 
chart details our estimated timeline for completing the needs assessment 
activities. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
22 of 77 

Assessment Strengths, Limitations and Challenges 


Strengths 

A strength of this collaborative and needs assessment is the relationship among 
project partners. Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace, and DAWCAS and SafePlace 
have worked cooperatively on issues related to advocacy, disability rights, and 
accessible services to individuals with disabilities or who are D/deaf in the past. 
However, this was the first time all three partners (AI, DAWCAS and SafePlace) 
joined forces. Despite the closing of DAWCAS, this project has allowed AI, 
SafePlace and the newly hired Deaf Services program staff within SafePlace to 
deepen their existing relationships and learn more about each otherÕs work, 
agency culture, and roles in serving our community. Project team members are 
committed to continuing this work to ensure that women who are D/deaf or also 
have disabilities in Austin and Travis County can increase their personal safety 
and get the help and supports they need when violence occurs. 

An additional strength of this collaboration has been leadership within the 
partnering agencies who are committed to providing accessible services to 
D/deaf community members. In the course of conducting this needs 
assessment, co-workers, direct services staff, and program leadership readily 
contributed to help identify the service gaps and barriers and how we can better 
coordinate services and reach out to other providers in our community to better 
serve the D/deaf community. 

This needs assessment has also provided opportunities to communicate face to 
face with D/deaf survivors, members of the D/deaf community, D/deaf/blind 
individuals and local D/deaf service providers to build relationships within the 
community. A number of participants indicated that their participation was the 
first time they had an opportunity to talk about some of their fears and 
experiences related to abuse and violence. 

Limitations and challenges 

Given that AustinÕs D/deaf community is interconnected, one of our challenges 
was to hire interpreters and schedule focus groups and interviews in locations 
that best ensured the identity of participants remained confidential. For example, 
one interpreter turned out to have connections to a participant through family and 
friends. Although the interpreter was ethically committed to standards of 
confidentiality, the participant did not want this interpreter to know she was 
participating. To best avoid potential breaches of confidentiality or safety, project 
staff relied heavily on participant identification of their preferences for location, 
facilitator and interpreters. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
23 of 77 

Another challenge in recruiting participants was related to the closing of 
DAWCAS. Because some survivors received past services from DAWCAS 
instead of SafePlace, they initially thought that they were not appropriate to 
participate. We wanted these survivors to know their participation was welcome 
and so project staff made additional contact to explain the purpose and value of 
their participation as survivors no matter where they had received services. 

It was also challenging for note-takers to ensure they were fully scribing the 
information shared in focus groups where ASL was the primary language. In 
these groups, moderators and note-takers were tracking, responding to and 
transcribing the communications of up to 8 participants, 2 moderators, and 
through reliance on 2 interpreters (signing and voicing). 

It also seems important to note several of the weaknesses of the data collection 
methods. The information we gathered is limited to one geographic area and 
collected on a one-time only self-reporting from focus group and interview 
participants. Therefore, generalization of findings, implications and 
recommendations should be limited to the single geographic area under study 
(Austin and Travis County, Texas). 

On the other hand, the methods utilized and the geographic restrictions allowed 
us to 1) focus intensively on our own agencyÕs needs, 2) learn directly from the 
key beneficiaries of our efforts, and 3) support the development of programming 
and service coordination in a newly formed Deaf Services program within a 
hearing domestic violence and sexual assault agency. 

We also noted that participation was greater when focus groups were held at a 
regular meeting place for D/deaf community members (i.e., Deaf Club). 

Results and Key Findings 


Gaps, Barriers and Needs 

The results and findings detailed in this section are intended to guide a new 
developing Deaf Services program within a hearing victim service agency. The 
assessment was also designed to aid the collaborating agencies in identifying 
gaps, barriers and needs for providing sustainable domestic violence and sexual 
assault services to individuals who are D/deaf. The following stake-holder 
groups are represented in this assessment and contributed significantly to our 
findings. 

¥ 
Community members and abuse survivors who are D/deaf, hard of 
hearing or D/deaf/blind 
¥ 
A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) 
¥ 
SafePlace leadership and direct service staff 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
24 of 77 

á D/deaf service providers 
For detailed tables of the compiled information provided by focus group and 
interview participants see Appendix C. 

Building Internal Capacities for Providing Services 

Participant groups identified the following areas of need and ways that 
SafePlace, Advocacy, Inc., and D/deaf service providers can increase their 
internal capacity for providing knowledgeable and sensitive domestic and sexual 
violence response to individuals within our community who are D/deaf: 

Facility Access 

There was near universal agreement among participants, that current security 
methods used by SafePlace at the facilities two (2) primary points of entry (i.e., 
resource center and shelter) present access limitations to survivors who are 
D/deaf or who are D/deaf/blind. Although the barriers are not insurmountable, 
modification of current technology is an important step in communicating 
SafePlaceÕs commitment to providing D/deaf friendly and welcoming services in 
our community. 

Currently, the entrance is accessible by use of a speaker system. Individuals 
enter SafePlace facilities at the resource center front gate or drive in at shelter by 
gaining access through security gates. On approaching the entrances, a person 
first notes a speaker box and then reads an instruction to press a red button to 
communicate with a SafePlace worker. The staff on duty will provide further 
instructions on how to enter the facilities based on the personÕs answer to several 
questions (i.e., do you have an appointment, who do you want to see, how can 
we help you, etc.). If an individual who is D/deaf or D/deaf/blind has an 
appointment, they will know the SafePlace confidential protocol for entry for the 
D/deaf/blind community. If the individual does not have an appointment, then 
this poses communication barriers. 

Upon entry to SafePlace facilities, an individual would have opportunity to work 
with an intake counselor about the kinds of support or services they are seeking 
(e.g., shelter, counseling, advocacy, etc.). A number of participants identified 
that the paperwork involved in the intake process constitutes a central barrier to 
service access. The required paperwork and form is long and given English is 
not the first language of many people who are D/deaf, this initial interaction does 
not seem welcoming or culturally sensitive. Participants also identified the need 
for technology like visual alarms, baby monitors and TTY or videophone 
capabilities for survivors who are D/deaf and are pursuing or receiving services 
at the SafePlace Family Shelter. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
25 of 77 

Participants who are D/deaf/blind indicated that mobility orientation is a critical 
need for clients who are blind to familiarize themselves with and learn to navigate 
SafePlaceÕs grounds and buildings. In addition, the lighting needs to be 
improved in the reception area, white reflective tape needs to mark directions in 
hallways, and information about Deaf Services at SafePlace should be available 
in Braille when needed. Participants indicated that survivors who are D/deaf/ 
blind may need to be accompanied by an SSP (Support Service Provider) whose 
function is to provide a wide range of services including hand over hand 
interpreting. 

D/deaf service providers pointed out that it may seem especially intimidating to 
survivors when they first to enter our larger facilities, negotiate the size of the 
campus and interact with a range of direct service workers and other clients if 
they access emergency shelter. Providers stated that it would be important to 
communicate clearly how to get to and enter SafePlace facilities. Service 
providers also expressed a need for SafePlace to be prepared to provide pagers, 
deaf kits, support service providers, and other supports on an individual and as-
needed basis. 

SafePlace direct services staff identified the primary barriers and needs 
encountered are related to communication, referral information for D/deaf 
services, technological supports like videophone access, and safe entry to 
resource and shelter facilities. 

The project staff added that sexual assault survivors who are D/deaf are not seen 
on a regular basis for services at SafePlace nor at the emergency room for 
sexual assault nurse exam. During focus groups and interviews, most 
participants were quite reticent to talk about why that might be or about the issue 
of sexual assault in general. 

Survivors who are D/deaf noted that our intake process and paperwork needs to 
be more accessible and that the wait time for D/deaf survivors who wish to 
pursue counseling needs to be shortened (note Ð the actual wait time to access 
counseling services is not longer for D/deaf survivors than hearing survivors. 

Confidentiality: 

Participants shared that issues related to confidentiality create significant barriers 
to speaking out or asking for help when abuse occurs. Concerns about 
confidentiality were voiced by both focus group and interview participants. Of 
major concern was whether or not SafePlace staff and ASL interpreters would or 
could keep a personÕs identity, presence at SafePlace and requests for services 
confidential. 

Survivors who are D/deaf indicated that the smaller size and interconnectedness 
of the D/deaf community creates a particular difficulty with issues of 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
26 of 77 

confidentiality. Survivors told us this was of primary concern and that 
confidentiality is a huge issue within the D/deaf culture and community. For any 
survivor, a breach of confidentiality is a serious matter and likely to have far 
reaching consequences. For survivors who are D/deaf, questions about 
confidentiality are functioning as an enormous barriers to asking for help. 

In addition to confidentiality, participants stated that D/deaf Pride can also be a 
barrier to speaking out or asking for help when abused. According to focus 
group members, the potential for loss of D/deaf Pride was another reason that 
survivors are not asking for help. Participants suggested that we hold a 
ÒcampaignÓ to clearly communicate SafePlaceÕs commitment to confidentiality 
while recognizing that trusting relationships with a community must be built over 
time. Deaf service providers recommended that we use the term ÒairtightÕ to 
more clearly emphasize the importance of confidentiality at SafePlace and in our 
work. 

D/deaf community members thought we should be repetitive in communicating 
that we are committed to confidentiality. Participants suggested that we provide 
clients who are D/deaf with a careful explanation of the grievance policy that is in 
place for clients who may feel that confidentiality was violated. 

SafePlace direct services staff suggested that we work with interpreter services 
such as CSD (Communication Services for the Deaf) to ensure there are no dual 
relationships between a particular interpreter and a client. With the increasing 
use of technology at SafePlace, it was suggested that private information be 
cleared from the videophone more frequently in order to better ensure that 
confidentiality is not violated inadvertently or as an unintended consequence of 
increased usage of videophone technology. 

Communication 

The most frequently discussed service barrier was related to communication 
between staff and clients who are D/deaf. The majority of participants who are 
D/deaf indicated that they would feel most welcomed at SafePlace if the 
reception area staff had basic ASL survival skills and if other program staff were 
interested in learning ASL. These same participants thought that access to 
universal sign boards at both shelter and resource center reception area would 
be acceptable and should be made available. 

Participant groups had a number of questions about the process and etiquette 
around hiring interpreters and determining who is responsible for providing an 
interpreter when SafePlace clients are meeting and working with outside 
ÒhearingÓ service providers. SafePlace direct services staff identified a need for 
developing a policy or protocol for working with survivors who are D/deaf and 
consistently do not show up for appointments or counseling sessions where an 
interpreter has been hired. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
27 of 77 

The overall experiences of SafePlace staff providing supports and services to 
survivors who are D/deaf have been effective. However, there were several 
barriers and service issues that came up around how to best work with 
interpreters during support groups or counseling sessions. The next few 
paragraphs will focus on this and several additional communication related 
barriers that were identified by each participant group. 

Survivors who are D/deaf and SafePlace staff indicated that the use of 
interpreters for counseling sessions may interfere with trust building. However, 
there was not a consensus about whether or not survivors who are D/deaf prefer 
working with a Deaf or hearing counselor or advocate. Both survivors and staff 
brought up the impact of the usual delays we experience when accessing a live 
interpreter for walk-in appointments or same day shelter admittance and how 
those delays impact a survivor who is trying to access domestic and sexual 
violence services in a hearing agency. In these cases, a survivor may leave and 
not return to SafePlace, return to their abuser, or experience a degree of isolation 
that most clients are not experiencing at SafePlace. D/deaf/blind survivors 
reported even more basic barriers through the lack of access to a telephone to 
call for help, limited use of the Lifeline system and the need for 24 hour access to 
communication supports. D/deaf community members told us that they would 
generally prefer working with a staff member who is D/deaf and that if not 
available, the survivor may not return for services. 

Service providers who participated in focus groups advised that SafePlace 
should be ready to provide immediate access to interpreter services at any given 
point in order to serve D/deaf survivors most effectively. These same providers 
advised that we make certain to provide accurate information about accessibility 
in all Deaf Services program materials. Survivors who are D/deaf need to know 
their true options when deciding whether or not to pursue services with 
SafePlace. In order to build trust between the newly formed Deaf Services 
program at SafePlace and the D/deaf community, we need to be candid about 
delays or typical wait times for communication services or supports. It was also 
suggested that program effectiveness and client comfort levels may be increased 
if we can provide the same interpreter to a survivor throughout their services at 
SafePlace. It was also noted that interpreter services are quite expensive and 
although staffÕs experiences with interpreters have been positive overall, there 
may be a need for increasing the amount of program funds available for 
interpreter services. Service providers offered several examples where the lack 
of ready access to interpreters impacted a survivorÕs employment options, 
availability of housing, and CPS involvement. 

The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) interviewed identified 
communication as the key barrier to a survivorÕs willingness to disclose abuse 
and get help. The SANE also noted that survivors are not likely to know that an 
interpreter is available for survivors requesting a forensic exam following a sexual 
assault. SafePlaceÕs crisis intervention and resident advisor team identified 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
28 of 77 

communication as a key service barrier to hotline, hospital accompaniment 
following a sexual assault, and general access to SafePlace services. Crisis 
intervention staff indicated that hotline access to survivors who are D/deaf would 
require establishing a private cubicle area, an online chat and more time to 
process hotline calls through video relay services. SafePlace direct service staff 
stated that access to videophones and other technology needs to be made 
available for use by residents in shelter and in the community. 

Survivors and direct services staff discussed several communication barriers 
when ASL interpreters are utilized in therapeutic counseling sessions. 
Counselors are concerned that interpreters may not be interpreting the details of 
a counseling session accurately. Concern was also expressed that therapeutic 
progress may be inhibited when a survivorÕs anxiety is increased when an 
interpreter is one not preferred by a survivor or is not available consistently week 
to week. Staff also requested information about how to work with interpreters 
who interject themselves into the role of co-participant in a counseling session. 
In addition to these concerns related to progress in counseling, the service intake 
paperwork was reported to be especially difficult to negotiate for survivors who 
are Deaf. 

Other technological barriers included the fact that the TTY is not in a private 
place for clients needing TTY access at shelter. Staff also asked for some 
additional Ôhands-onÕ training in the use of the communication devices as those 
options are expanded within SafePlace and AI. There was concern expressed 
about how to use communication devices efficiently and effectively as well as 
best practices for communicating to individuals who are D/deaf through written 
communication. 

We also learned that although e-mail is an acceptable form of communication 
between individuals who are hearing and D/deaf Ñ use of email can create legal 
problems for a survivor if those communications can be obtained and used in 
court proceedings. It seems especially important to note that the use of email 
has serious potential to compromise confidentiality although it seems to work 
well. 

Building Collaborative Responses 

Legal Advocacy 

Overall, participants reported knowledge of past cases where the civil rights of 
survivors who are D/deaf were violated within the legal system because 
interpreters were not provided when necessary. In some of these cases, 
SafePlace hearing advocates had to resort to using pen and paper during court 
proceedings to try and explain the different steps in the process because no 
interpreter was provided by the county. There was some consensus that this 
practice continues frequently enough that we are compelled to explore how we 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
29 of 77 

can work to change this practice. We also identified the need for increased 
sensitivity on the part of the legal system when interacting with survivors who are 
D/deaf. 

Participants also shared that a disproportionate number of D/deaf persons 
compared to hearing clients have Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement 
and in many cases that involvement results from communication and cultural 
differences in the D/deaf and hearing communities. Deaf service providers and 
SafePlace staff thought that survivors who are D/deaf and who are at risk for 
CPS involvement may benefit from the option to participate in SafePlaceÕs Safe 
Parenting training. Deaf service providers in specific asked the moderators how 
they might obtain this parenting curriculum for integration within their existing 
service system. 

Survivors expressed a strong need and preference for legal advocates who are 
D/deaf and who could be present when a survivor who is D/deaf must be 
involved in the legal system. Survivors thought that a D/deaf legal advocate 
would be more accessible to the survivor and the possibilities for 
misunderstandings resulting from communication gaps would best be avoided. 
Survivors who are D/deaf and advocates clearly stated the need for information 
about the process and proceedings of court before they take place and in 
preparation for what they might expect to happen in advance of the experiences. 
It was also noted that a disproportionate amount of CPS involvement occurs 
among our D/deaf survivors and those difficulties are compounded by a system 
that is often not accessible to survivors because interpreters are not provided by 
the Protective Services system when they are needed. 

Additionally, advocates indicated that discrimination has also occurred when 
there were communication barriers in the areas of housing for survivors who are 
D/deaf, barriers to communication results in confusion and misinformation related 
to the kinds of supports and services that SafePlace can and cannot offer within 
the legal system. During focus groups and interviews, it was clear that a process 
or protocol would benefit our clients whereby an interpreter is available for 
conversations between a survivor who is D/deaf and our legal services team 
members. While in court, the county schedules and pays for the interpreter 
services. 

Expanding and Sustaining Outreach and Provision of Services 

Targeted Outreach 

Participants in this needs assessment clearly identified that both AI and 
SafePlace need to conduct targeted outreach so that AustinÕs D/deaf community 
members know about the range of services and supports the agencies provide. 
Consistently and across participant groups there were several needs for targeted 
outreach that were identified. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
30 of 77 

First, there is a general lack of information and knowledge about the newly 
formed Deaf Services program at SafePlace. This alone is a deterrent to 
survivors who are D/deaf reaching out for help when they experience violence. 
Next, is a noticeable absence of SafePlace presence at Deaf sponsored events. 
The lack of representation at these events was identified as an important issue to 
address if we intend to sustain an ongoing presence and relationship with 
AustinÕs D/deaf community members. Participants then highlighted that 
individuals who are D/deaf are highly visual and that our physical presence would 
be reflective of a connection that is central to the development and maintenance 
of trusting relationships in the D/deaf community. Recently, Deaf Services staff 
hosted several open house events at the SafePlace facilities to announce the 
newly formed Deaf Services program. And yet, participants in focus groups and 
interviews stated that it would be culturally consistent for SafePlace staff to meet 
D/deaf individuals through D/deaf service providers or through D/deaf 
cultural/social events. Others suggested that SafePlace hold more open houses 
and that SafePlace advertise these to the D/deaf community. 

In addition, participants indicated that it was important to advertise about our 
services through brochures and flyers listing the range of services SafePlace will 
offer through the Deaf Services program. We were also encouraged to have 
more presence in a local newsletter and through Deaf service providers (e.g., 
Texas School for the DeafÕs Parent Teacher Association, Communication 
Services for the Deaf, Travis County Services for the Deaf, etc.). 

Overall, participant groups told us that a reasonable expectation would be that 
targeted outreach efforts should unfold over time and information would be 
passed through word of mouth within the community. The remaining barriers 
and needs identified were related to our 1) access to more up to date 
technologies, 2) participation within the community and 3) access to outreach 
and educational materials. 

While direct service workers thought that SafePlace should increase outreach 
and education regarding sexual assault, local Deaf service providers 
recommended that we include some focused attention on issues related to 
domestic violence in the workplace. 

Ideas for Outreach: Participants creatively offered thoughts and ideas on 
methods we could use to increase knowledge about our services and supports to 
our community. Here are some of the various ideas: 

¥ 
Advertise the issue and services through television spots 
¥ 
Design key chains and magnets with hotline information 
¥ 
Education and outreach to the Ushers Syndrome support group 
¥ 
Ensure that materials are available in Braille and audio formats for people 
who are D/deaf/blind 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
31 of 77 

¥ 
Get the word out about services through a mass mailing that includes 
email 
¥ 
Have services available at alternative locations or by videophone 
¥ 
Host a dramatic performance targeting issues related to violence 
¥ 
Host film showing that highlights violence within the D/deaf community 
¥ 
Make educational materials available to the community 
¥ 
Conduct presentations in the D/deaf community about abuse and how to 
get help 
¥ 
Produce small palm or business cards with contact information 
¥ 
Recruit survivors to tell their stories 
A number of participants expressed their interest in finding ways to continue to 
dialogue with SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. about issues related to domestic 
violence, sexual assault, and safety in their relationships. Participation as a 
volunteer was suggested as a reasonable means for continuing this dialogue. 
Participants also stated that individuals who are D/deaf need to be supported in 
normalizing that itÕs OK to get help when violence occurs. 

Website Accessibility 

Participants across most groups represented in this needs assessment reported 
that Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace needed to simplify their agency websites for 
use by D/deaf and D/deaf/blind survivors. And, once the websites are more 
accessible to D/deaf and D/deaf/blind community members, it was suggested 
that we identify that through use of an appropriate accessibility indicator. 

D/deaf and D/deaf/blind survivors identified that our websites should also be 
compatible with Jaws.6 D/deaf/blind survivors recommended that our websites 
include a contact person who is listed with a link that goes immediately to that 
contact person. This was recommended based on knowledge that when a 
person who is D/deaf blind is being abused by their support service person, there 
is need for a link where they could more safety address issues without a site like 
SafePlace on the screen. Given that our websites are text heavy, it was also 
suggested that we have the basic information about SafePlace and our services 
on the front page of the website. Participants advised that we could find good 
examples of website that was accessible to the D/deaf/blind communities by 
exploring the AADB (American Association of the Deaf Blind) website. 

D/deaf community members stated that they would like to see websites more 
clearly reflect that SafePlace serves men, women and children. 

6 Jaws (Job Access With Speech) is a screen reader software program used by 
people who are blind or have low vision. The technology makes personal 
computers accessible to people who are blind or have low vision. The program 
does this providing the information on the screen by text-to-speech or by a Braille 
display. Jaws also allows for keyboard interaction with the computer. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
32 of 77 

Education and Training Gaps: 

Nearly everyone who participated in a focus group or interview identified gaps 
and needs for basic knowledge in the areas of Deaf culture, domestic violence, 
and about the range of services provided by SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. 
Notably, participants were quite reticent to talk about issues or needs associated 
with sexual violence within the D/deaf community. However, participants 
expressed interest in learning more about sexual assault services and how to 
make referrals to clients or friends who had been sexually assaulted. Deaf 
service providers and SafePlace direct services staff requested education for 
staff in their respective agencies or departments on how to make effective 
referrals to SafePlace and/or D/deaf and disability service providers in the 
community. 

Participants thought it would be beneficial to have more training on the various 
methods for facilitating communication between hearing staff and a D/deaf client 
or worker. The topics most often requested in this area were: working sensitively 
with survivors who are D/deaf, hands on training in communication supports like 
video phones, TTY, online interpreting, and working with live interpreters. In 
addition, participants expressed their needs for accurate information about 
responding to D/deaf survivors who disclose and the legal reporting requirements 
within the state of Texas. 

Survivors and community members who are D/deaf were clear that SafePlace 
staff should be involved in ongoing efforts to learn and use basic ASL if the 
agencies intention was to be D/deaf friendly and welcoming. Participants 
expressed that a minimum level of fluency within our agency would be reception 
staff able to communicate in basic ASL. 

In turn, some participants identified that interpreters and Deaf service providers 
would benefit from education and training about the basic dynamics of domestic 
violence and sexual assault, and unique aspects of violence within the D/deaf 
community. SafePlace direct service staff thought this kind of training could 
facilitate a greater understanding of the importance of confidentiality policies in 
working with survivors and facilitate stronger working relationships when using 
interpreters with survivors in educational or therapeutic situations. 

All groups of service providers indicated the need for education and training 
about who is responsible, according to the ADA, for providing interpreter services 
when referring or collaborating with outside agencies or systems in our 
community. Participants expressed concern that civil rights of survivors who are 
D/deaf are being violated when interpreter services are necessary but not 
provided when interfacing with agencies and systems outside of a referring 
agency. Of specific concern are hospital settings where sexual assault services 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
33 of 77 

are provided, housing offices, or when clients are involved with law enforcement 
and another part of a criminal justice or legal system. 

Within SafePlace, the following needs were identified to better support and 
improve services to survivors who are D/deaf: 

¥ 
In-service training or workgroups to clarify roles and accountabilities of Deaf 
Services and other programs to avoid duplication of services 
¥ 
Additional education on D/deaf culture and community 
¥ 
Increase resources items available on working with survivors who are D/deaf 
¥ 
Education for clients on dynamics of interacting with other service systems 
including law enforcement, Child Protective Services, Adult Protective 
Services, and housing providers 
¥ 
Practical skills development (budgeting, childcare, training programs, etc.) for 
survivors who are D/deaf 
¥ 
Education on differences in parenting in D/deaf and hearing cultures 
Direct services 

Overall, participant groups told us the core barrier to seeking domestic violence 
and sexual assault services within a hearing agency is communication. 
Survivors who are D/deaf may wait for some hours before an interpreter arrives 
to facilitate intake or service entry, especially to emergency shelter outside of 
normal interpreter agency business hours. D/deaf survivors reported 
experiencing considerable isolation in a hearing agency given the relative lack of 
staff, volunteers, mentors and other clients who are D/deaf or who are fluent in 
ASL. Other barriers that were identified by participant groups were related to 
physical access, service coordination, and working with interpreters. 

Direct service providers identified that rights violations were occurring when 
community based agencies were unwilling to provide interpreters to D/deaf 
clients who were being referred to them for ancillary services. This kind of 
communication barrier in particular impacts D/deaf survivors who are working to 
transition from emergency shelter back into the community and especially in the 
areas of employment and housing. 

Another need is to find additional funding sources so that we can meet more of 
the practical and technological needs of survivors who are D/deaf. For example, 
video phone access in all SafePlace service areas (currently only available at 
resource center where only non-residential services are provided), funds to 
purchase Sidekicks7 or blackberry devices and cover monthly access costs, 
financial assistance with past due bills, and to purchase computers with Instant 
Message and Skype capabilities.8 

7 Handheld mobile communication device. 
8 Supports PC to PC communication that includes making calls to people 
anywhere. 



Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
34 of 77 

Direct service staff at SafePlace asked if we could provide clarification of the 
various roles across programs and across the agency in light of the Deaf 
Services program. Staff are concerned that survivors who are D/deaf may not 
receive the full range of services available to them or that efforts and services will 
be duplicated. Participants also asked that we explore ways to make sure that 
survivors who are D/deaf receive a high quality of services and to obtain 
feedback on how we are doing. One practical suggestion was to conduct exit 
interviews with survivors who are D/deaf which could also allow us to collect 
some statistical information about services. SafePlace staff also suggested that 
we select one Deaf Services worker to serve as the primary contact and 
consultant to other SafePlace programs 

D/deaf survivors were interested in having options at SafePlace for both open 
and closed support groups and improved follow-up on the part of counselors and 
advocates after services have been provided or terminated. Survivors who are 
D/deaf indicated that having adequate time and space to share their stories was 
integral to D/deaf friendly and respectful services. D/deaf community members 
asked if survivors who are D/deaf could be accompanied by someone from their 
community upon entry to services. This request was intended to help address 
the issue of extreme isolation experienced by D/deaf survivors in the past. 
Participants also suggested a peer mentoring and volunteer program would be 
beneficial. 

Participants recommended that SafePlace be willing to meet survivors off site 
and in places that would be confidential. D/deaf service providers suggested 
creating a task force across agencies for service coordination and a streamlined 
referral process. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
35 of 77 

Recommendations 


The following overarching recommendations represent the areas of greatest 
need identified by participants in this needs assessment: 

Service gaps, barriers and needs: 

¥ 
Develop and implement a plan by which abuse survivors who are D/deaf 
may safely contact the partnering agencies (i.e., Advocacy, Inc. and 
SafePlace). 
¥ 
Design solutions for individuals who are D/deaf and D/deaf/blind to travel 
from bus stop or taxi to front door and entry to SafePlace service areas. 
¥ 
Construct an annual outreach plan to provide information to the D/deaf 
community and local Deaf service providers about domestic and sexual 
violence, how to respond to abuse disclosures, and where to find help. 
Building internal capacity: 

¥ 
Establish an infrastructure to support use of communication devices in 
SafePlaceÕs emergency shelter and for public use at Advocacy, Inc. 
¥ 
Determine the feasibility of a simplified intake process and conducting a 
client exit interview for quality assurance purposes. 
¥ 
Institute a protocol for service coordination with survivors who are D/deaf 
or D/deaf/blind across programs within SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. (and 
possibly other additional agencies). 
¥ 
Review and modify practice for welcoming D/deaf clients at SafePlace that 
includes entry to facilities and strategies for reducing isolation within 
shelter for survivors who are D/deaf or D/deaf blind. 
¥ 
Improve the accessibility of the project partnerÕs websites to individuals 
who are D/deaf and / or D/deaf/blind. 
Sustaining outreach and services 

¥ 
Establish means for continued engagement with AustinÕs D/deaf 
community. 
¥ 
Make promotional and educational materials available for D/deaf 
community members about where to find help when abused. 
¥ 
Plan and Implement a peer mentoring and/or volunteer program for D/deaf 
community members to become engaged within SafePlace. 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
36 of 77 

Building Collaborative Responses 

á Invite Deaf service providers and faith based organizations who 
specifically cater to Deaf community members to meet and explore 
methods for coordinating outreach activities and service to D/deaf 
community members. 
á Develop concrete plans for increasing Advocacy, Inc. and 
SafePlaceÕs visibility, responsiveness, and trust with AustinÕs D/deaf 
community. 
á Explore strategies to formally coordinate services with Advocacy, 
Inc., for D/deaf survivors when their civil rights might be violated and/or 
they are in need of legal representation. 
á Develop policy for contacting, hiring and working with ASL 
interpreters across the agency that includes strategies for decreasing wait 
time for sexual assault survivors, emergency shelter access and walk-in 
clients. 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
37 of 77 

Appendix A 
Focus Group and Key Informant Interview Questions 



Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
38 of 77 

D/deaf Service Providers 
Focus Group Questions 


SafePlace Services 

1. 
What do D/deaf people need to feel welcome in a service organization? 
Possible Prompts: What policies or procedures could be put in place to support people to feel 
welcome? 

2. 
What barriers are there to the D/deaf community accessing domestic violence and rape crisis services? 
3. 
What can hearing organizations do to tell the D/deaf community about available domestic/sexual 
violence services? 
Provider / Service Agencies 

4. 
If a client told you that their partner or spouse was being abusive, what would you do? 
Possible Prompts: What is already working well in your agency when clients report abuse? What do 
you think is needed to do better? Is there training or technical assistance you need in order to respond? 

Collaboration 

5. 
How do you see domestic violence, sexual assault and D/deaf service providers working together to 
respond to abuse against D/deaf people? 
Possible Prompts: What type of service coordination do you think needs to be developed? Would 
your agency be interested in talking in more depth about how changes could be made for recognizing and 
responding to abuse with D/deaf clients? 

Outreach 

6. 
Sometimes people who are D/deaf who are experiencing domestic violence, rape or abuse do not reach 
out for help. Why do you think this is? 
Possible Prompts: What would help people reach out for help if theyÕve been abused? What training 
or policies/procedures could support you/other staff to talk about suspicions that you might have that a 
client has been abused? What training or policies/procedures could support you/other staff to respond 
to clients who disclose abuse? What ideas do you have for reducing barriers? What do you think 
would support D/deaf individuals in requesting support/services related to abuse? 

7. 
What advice do you have for reaching out to the D/deaf community about domestic violence or sexual 
abuse or rape? What about survivors of sexual abuse or rape? 
Possible Prompts: Where and how should the outreach take place? What type of messages should be 
included? What types of messages would support D/deaf individuals who have been sexually abused 
in asking for help? 

Vision 

8. 
What is your vision for how D/deaf service providers and hearing organization can work better 
together? 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
39 of 77 

D/deaf Community Members 
Focus Group Questions 

SafePlace Services: 

1. 
What are your thoughts about why D/deaf people may not reach out for help when theyÕve been 
abused? 
Possible Prompts: What would help people reach out for help if theyÕve been abused? How 

comfortable are you in talking about abuse? 

2. 
What ideas do you have for reducing barriers to the D/deaf community accessing domestic violence and 
rape crisis services? 
Possible Prompts: What do you think would support D/deaf individuals in requesting supports and 

services related to abuse? What would not be supportive? 

3. 
What do you think D/deaf people need to feel welcome in a domestic violence or sexual assault agency? 
Possible Prompts: What is your vision of the perfect service provider agency? 

D/deaf Service Agencies 

4. 
What are important things that service providers need to know about assisting D/deaf people who have 
been hurt by abuse? 
Possible Prompts: What do providers need to do if a client discloses abuse? What should providers 

not do? 

Confidentiality 

5. 
Some D/deaf participants will worry about confidentiality when seeking services from other D/deaf 
people. What can be done to ensure confidentiality? 
Possible Prompts: Do you prefer services by someone D/deaf, hearing but sensitive to D/deaf 

culture, or having the option of both? 

Outreach 

6. 
What advice do you have for service providers reaching out to the D/deaf community about domestic 
violence? What about sexual assault or rape? 
Possible Prompts: What messages are important to include in the outreach? What can SafePlace do 
to tell the D/deaf community about available services? Sexual abuse specifically can be a sensitive 
topic in the D/deaf community, how can the messages promote safety in coming forward about sexual 
abuse? 

Vision 

7. 
What is your vision for how SafePlace and D/deaf service providers can work together to meet the 
needs of the D/deaf community? 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
40 of 77 

* This document is written English format. Yet, during facilitation of focus groups, the questions will be adapted by 
facilitators to be culturally sensitive and meet the communication needs of the participants. 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
41 of 77 

SafePlace Staff 
Individual Interview Questions 

1. 
In general, what have been your experiences in working with clients who are D/deaf? 
Possible Prompts: What are we doing well? What are the strengths we can build on? What hasnÕt 
gone so well or is challenging? How do you think the challenges or any barriers could be addressed? 
What are the areas that could use more support? What have been your departmentÕs experiences in 
using interpreters (positive and problems)? 

2. 
Are there some strategies that youÕve thought about in terms of how hearing staff can best work with 
D/deaf clients who prefer to work with a hearing staff member? 
Possible Prompts: What type of technical assistance, consultation or training does staff in your 
department need to effectively work with D/deaf clients? What types of changes do we need to make 
internally to best serve the D/deaf community? 

3. 
From your experience, how are D/deaf service agencies or systems responding to people who are D/deaf 
and are experiencing abuse/violence? 
Possible Prompts: What are the problems you or clients have identified? How could service and 
system response be improved for people who have experienced abuse? 

4. 
How do you see disability, D/deaf service and domestic violence / sexual assault agencies working 
together to address abuse against people with disabilities or who are D/deaf? 
Possible Prompts: What has it been like for you when you (or staff in your department) have tried to 
link D/deaf clients to other community resources? What types of legal issues came up when working 
with D/deaf survivors or survivors with disabilities?* What type of collaboration or agreement with 
an advocacy agency could improve options for persons who are D/deaf?** 

5. 
What is the best practice approach SafePlace should adopt for coordination of services between Deaf 
Services and other direct service departments? 
Possible Prompts: What do you need from the D/deaf service department to make our work successful 
with the D/deaf community? 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
42 of 77 

** This question will be asked to assess needs for developing a Memorandum of Understanding between Advocacy, Inc. 
and SafePlace for cross-referrals and service coordination. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
43 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Service Staff 
Focus Group Questions 

1. 
What are your thoughts about why people who are D/deaf may not reach out for help when they are 
abused? 
Possible Prompts: What would help people reach out for help if theyÕve been abused? 

2. 
What are some of your experiences working with D/deaf clients? 
Follow up questions: What is working well when you serve D/deaf clients? What does not go so 
well? What have been your experiences in using interpreters (positive and problems)? 
Possible Prompts: When do you feel strongest in working with D/deaf people? What barriers do you 
come up against? Are there any changes in the way we do things that might better support D/deaf 
clients? What improvements are needed to make sure services are more effective with clients who are 
D/deaf? 

3. 
What has it been like when youÕve tried to link D/deaf clients to D/deaf or disability related services 
in the community? 
Possible Prompts: What are your ideas for improving services internally? If you could change one 
thing to improve services for clients who are D/deaf, what would that be? How could we improve 
coordination of services with D/deaf service organizations? 

4. 
What have been the legal issues that came up in your work with D/deaf survivors?** 
5. 
What do you think is most important for other agencies to know when helping survivors who are D/deaf 
and have been hurt by abuse? 
Possible Prompts: How can other service providers improve their response to abuse against individuals 
who are D/deaf? 

6. 
Are there any kinds of training or consultation that would support your own work with D/deaf 
clients? 
Possible Prompts: What types of changes do we need to make internally to best serve the D/deaf 
community? Do you need information/training on different technology options for working with 
D/deaf clients? 

7. 
What is your vision for how we can better serve survivors who are D/deaf? 
Possible Prompts: What best practice approach should SafePlace adopt for coordination of services 
between Deaf Services and other direct service programs? What do you need from the Deaf Services 
program to make our work successful with the D/deaf community? 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
44 of 77 

** This question will be asked to assess needs for developing a Memorandum of Understanding between Advocacy, Inc. 
and SafePlace for cross-referrals and service coordination. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
45 of 77 

Survivors of Domestic or Sexual Violence or Stalking 
Individual Interview Questions 

1. 
What are your thoughts about why people who are D/deaf may not reach out for help when they are 
abused? 
Prompt: What can we do so that more of the D/deaf community will reach out for help when they are 
abused? 

2. 
What are the important things that Deaf service providers need to know to help people hurt by abuse? 
Possible Prompts: What would you want service providers to know about helping people hurt by 
abuse? What do you think service providers should do if they think someone is being abused? What 
could service providers do to better help someone who tells them about abuse? What should they not do? 

3. 
What are the important things that domestic violence and rape crisis workers (hearing or D/deaf) need 
to know to help people hurt by abuse? 
Possible Prompts: How can SafePlace be more welcoming to D/deaf individuals? 

4. 
What do you know about SafePlace? 
Possible Prompts: How can SafePlace improve their services and be more welcoming to people who are 
D/deaf? 

5. 
What was helpful about the domestic/sexual services you received? 
Possible Prompts: Was there anything that was not helpful? If so, what would have made it better? 
6. 
What advice do you have for other women who are D/deaf and are being hurt by abuse? 
Follow up questions: What advice do you have for women who are D/deaf who decide to reach out for 
help? Do you have any advice for the person they reach out to? 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
46 of 77 

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) and Hospital Advocates 
Focus Group Questions 

1. 
What are your thoughts about why people who are D/deaf donÕt reach out for help when they 
experience rape or sexual assault? 
Possible Prompts: What do you think might help? 

2. 
What have been your experiences in working with D/deaf individuals? 
Possible Prompts: What went really well? What didnÕt go so well? What could be done to better 
support your work with people who are D/deaf? Do you have ideas for what could help to increase 
rapport (if necessary)? 

3. 
What have been your experiences in working with sign language interpreters during exams? 
Possible Prompts: How long do you usually have to wait for an interpreter? How could the process of 
a forensic interview be streamlined for a D/deaf survivor when interpreters are needed? What 
organizations do you think could help streamline that process? 

4. 
What is the protocol for conducting a forensic exam with a survivor who is D/deaf? 
Possible Prompts: Is there anything you would like to change about the protocol to better support the 
survivor or your own work during the SANE? 

5. 
What kinds of training or technical assistance would be useful related to working with survivors who are 
D/deaf? 
Possible Prompts: Do you have contacts or relationships with D/deaf service providers? 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
47 of 77 

Appendix B 

Consent for Participation in a Focus Group or Interview 
Date: _________________________ Focus group or Interview (circle one) participant 
I _______________________________________________________________ (participant 
name) agree to be part of a focus group or individual interview and talk about ways that domestic violence and 
sexual assault services can be improved or made better with people who are D/deaf or people who have disabilities 
in Austin, Texas. 
SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. (AI) also want to make their services better and more available to any person 
with a disability or who is D/deaf by finding out what they could do differently. 
I will be part of this project by answering questions in a small group of people (focus group) or by talking 
individually with someone from SafePlace or AI. 
I know I will be answering questions about domestic, sexual, and caregiver abuse. 
I am volunteering to participate in the focus group and interview and will be answering these questions. 
I know that if I talk about abuse that is personally happening to me, the focus group leader may need to call 
Adult Protective Services (APS) and let them know about the abuse. 
I can also make a report to APS about the abuse myself by calling the APS hotline at 1-800-252-5400. 
If Adult Protective Services staff investigates or talks with me about the abuse-- they may offer me services. I 
have the right to refuse or accept those services or help. I understand that this is the law in Texas. 
I can change my mind at any time about participating. I can also say ÒpassÓ if there is a question I do not want to 
answer. Even after the focus group or the interview starts, I can decide at any time to stop and leave. 
If I decide to leave or ÔpassÕ on any question, I will still receive compensation for my participation. 
If I do stop answering questions or decide to leave, I can talk to a safe person at the focus group or interview. I 
can also still call Advocacy, Inc. or SafePlace if I need help with abuse. I also know that participation in a 
focus group or interview does not mean that I am a client of Advocacy, Inc. or SafePlace. 
It is OK with me that a project person from SafePlace or AI will be taking notes on what everyone is talking 
about and the answers that everyone is giving. This person is taking notes to help project staff remember the 
things we talked about until they can write a report with all of the information from everyone. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
48 of 77 

After the focus group / interview is over, SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. are hoping to know more about what 
they can do to better serve people who are D/deaf or have disabilities and who have been abused. 

I know the information I give will be put together with information from other peopleÕs comments and all of my 
comments and answers will be confidential. 

This means that no one will be told that I gave any of the specific comments / information and no one will be told 
that I participated in the focus group or that I was interviewed. 

I agree that I will keep confidential and not share names of individuals who participate in focus groups or 
information that other people who are in the focus groups share during the group, after leaving the focus group. 

I know that SafePlace cannot guarantee that other people in the focus group will keep my name private, but 
everyone is being asked to keep each otherÕs names private. 

I can ask to meet with someone (a safe person) before, during, or after the focus group or interview to get support 
and information about where to find more support about anything hurtful or confusing that I thought about or 
felt during the focus group or interview. 

If I have any worries or questions about the focus group or interview I can call 
_______________________ or write by email to: ____________________________________. 

I ____________________________________________________________________ (my 
name) agree to be part of this project called ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ to help identify how 
SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. can improve services in Austin for people who are D/deaf or have disabilities 
about issues and needs about domestic, sexual and caregiver violence and abuse. 

Signature _____________________________________________________________ 
(participant) 

Date _________________________________________________________________ 

I agree for the facilitators to contact me at the following telephone number or email address after the focus group 
or interview if they have any other questions. 

Telephone: 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
49 of 77 

Email address: 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
50 of 77 

Appendix C 

Tables of Results and Key Findings 

The following issue areas were identified by participant 
groups: 

1. 
Possible social, cultural and safety consequences 
for reaching out for help when abused 
2. 
Communication gaps, barriers and needs 
3. 
Legal advocacy gaps and needs 
4. 
Website accessibility 
5. 
Accessing SafePlace facilities 
6. 
Targeted outreach to the D/deaf community 
7. 
Education and training gaps and needs 
8. Confidentiality 
9. Direct service barriers and need 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
51 of 77 

Survivors who are D/deaf 
Gaps, Barriers or Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety á Fear of retaliation, rejection, being pitied, judged or shunned 
consequences for reaching out for á Loss of connection to community 
help when abused á Embarrassment or shame 
á Deaf pride 
á Self-blame 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á Interferes with therapy / trust to have a different interpreter at counseling or support group 
sessions 
á Wait time too long for interpreters at intake or in crisis 
á Prefer counselors and intake workers who are Deaf 
á Need more staff fluent in ASL 
á Receptionist needs at least survival or basic ASL skills 
á Paper / pen communication not acceptable 
á Need 24/7 access to video phone in shelter 
á Need access to video phones in all service areas and in the community 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á Need or prefer legal advocates who are Deaf 
á Explain court/legal process to Deaf survivors ÔbeforeÕ court 
á Trust is increased when advocate is Deaf 
á Tell survivor what is going to happen in court 
Website accessibility á Current websites are too wordy 
á Simplify agency website 
á Create a separate link for users who are D/deaf 
á Ensure site is JAWS compatible 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á Operating gates at resource and shelter creates barriers 
á Current buzzer system is not effective -communication is a problem when arriving at gates 
á Need to provide mobility orientation for people who are D/deaf/blind 
Targeted outreach to D/deaf 
community 
á Deaf community does not know what SafePlace does 
á DAWCAS reputation poor or not so great for some D/deaf community members 
á Have open houses throughout the year Ð serve food 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
52 of 77 

Survivors who are D/deaf ContinuedÉ. 
Targeted outreach to D/deaf 
community 
á Distribute brochures & flyers 
á Give presentations Ð put a face to SafePlace 
á Have info in accessible formats for people who are D/deaf/blind (audio text, Braille) 
á Teach about domestic violence using films 
á Have presence at D/deaf events 
Education and training gaps and 
needs 
á Educate law enforcement / legal professionals about Deaf culture 
á Educate Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services Vocational Rehabilitation 
counselors 
á Train Deaf service providers on how to make an appropriate referral to SafePlace 
á Educate Deaf community and service providers about what services SafePlace offers 
á Educate Deaf community about what DV and SA is and where to get help 
á Reduce shame / embarrassment about being a victim by asking survivors to present at 
events 
á Train interpreters about domestic and sexual violence and issues of confidentiality 
á Train your staff on Deaf culture and sensitivity 
á Para transit taxi drivers need information on how to drop a D/deaf/blind person off at agency 
Ð need escort or orientation to the space 
Confidentiality á Confidentiality is central issue 
á Train staff and interpreters on importance of confidentiality 
á Word of mouth and gossip causes confidentiality to be lost 
á Deaf community size and connectedness creates problems with confidentiality 
Direct service barriers and needs á D/deaf community needs options for closed and open support groups 
á Use same interpreter for counseling or support groups with hearing staff 
á Counselors and advocates need to do better job of following up with clients soon after 
services end 
á Isolation in shelter is difficult when everyone else is hearing 
á Prefer Deaf advocates 
á Need access to interpreters for Deaf children to participate in childrenÕs programming 
á Need faster access to interpreters when entering shelter 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
53 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
54 of 77 

D/deaf Community Members 
Gaps, Barriers and Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety 
consequences for reaching out for 
help when abused 
á Afraid to get help because they may get found out 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á Receptionists & staff should learn ASL 
á Prefer D/deaf workers 
á May not return if D/deaf worker isnÕt available 
á Keep in mind that D/deaf people are ÔvisualÕ 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á None detailed 
Website accessibility á Change search terms to include Deaf abuse, Deaf Services 
á Have separate part of website focused on Deaf Services 
á Have information about services for men and children 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á Improve system for entering physical space 
á Need video camera, flashing light system, use tactile/vibration technology 
á Front gate / buzzer system difficult to navigate and understand 
Targeted outreach to D/deaf 
community 
á Hold open houses and offer tours of your facilities 
á Take pictures of facilities and give slideshow presentations 
á Hold performances (drama) instead of presentations 
á Get word out to service providers about your services 
á Distribute flyers at Deaf social clubs 
á Can advertise by word of mouth 
á Distribute promotional items such as business cards, key chains, magnets with SafePlace 
contact information 
á Use media to reach D/deaf community 
á Mass email people about services 
á Develop a brochure listing services 
á Educate community about what abuse is 
á Train service providers on referring to SafePlace Deaf Services 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
55 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
56 of 77 

D/deaf Community Members ContinuedÉ. 
Education and training gaps and 
needs 
á Train service providers on responding to disclosures 
á Develop a Òfriends of SafePlaceÓ program for service providers 
á DonÕt use jargon or lingo 
á Use less blunt words if educating on sexual assault 
á People may not know they were sexually assaulted until later 
á Let community know about your sexual assault services 
á Get this information out to group homes (participant made list of providers/group homes) 
á Have workshop on signs and symptoms of sexual assault 
Confidentiality á Important 
á Be sure interpreters hold confidentiality 
á Take time, repeat information about confidentiality 
á Let people know about grievance policies if confidentiality is broken 
á Keep repeating the confidentiality message to community 
á Have a confidentiality campaign 
á Talk about confidentiality in all presentations 
á Have a shirt campaign Ð ÒI practice confidentialityÓ 
Direct service barriers and needs á Develop peer mentor programs/support groups 
á Allow an ÔescortÕ from community with Deaf persons 
á Have volunteers who are D/deaf 
á Have 24 hour access to SafePlace 
á May leave and not come back if Deaf worker isnÕt available 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
57 of 77 

D/deaf/blind Community Members 
Gaps, Barriers and Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety á Fear that others in the community will find out 
consequences or implications for á Will lose support if person relies on the abuser 
reaching out for help when abused á Dependence on abuser 
á If SSP9 is abuser Ð where can they get someone to help 
á No contact with outside world Ð has contact with service support person 24/7 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á People who are D/deaf/blind canÕt place phone calls by themselves to ask for help 
á Be clear about who is required to provide interpreters services and in what situations 
á Have communication supports 24/7 for people who are D/deaf/blind 
á Use lifeline for people to access SafePlace 
á Use technology, vibrating pagers, tactile pagers, silent call/communicator 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á None detailed 
Website accessibility á Website needs to be JAWS compatible 
á Note on homepage that you work with people who are D/deaf/blind 
á To much text to be accessible 
á List a contact person for people who are D/deaf/blind 
á Have a link that goes immediately to the contact person 
á Answer basic questions on safety 
á Compare your site with AABD (American Association of the Deaf blind) for access example 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á Change lighting in reception area 
á Have information available in Braille 
á Allow person to bring their SSP or have an SSP available 
á Need technology supports in shelter (clocks, alarms, etc.) 
á Get a Braille label maker 
á Need accessible supports 24/7 
á Get reflective tape (white) in middle of hallway Ð helps person track staying on paths 
á Front entry areas needs to be more D/deaf/blind friendly 

9 Service Support Person (SSP) 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
58 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
59 of 77 

D/deaf/blind Community Members ContinuedÉ. 
Targeted outreach to Deaf 
community 
á Reach out to the D/deaf/blind community 
á Outreach through service providers 
á Present at the Ushers Syndrome Support Group 
Education and training gaps and 
needs 
á Educate on Ôwhat abuse isÕ 
á Train taxi and para transit drivers on how to safely drop D/deaf/blind person off at gate 
á Train staff and drivers on mobility orientation 
Confidentiality á Communicate your agencies commitment to confidentiality 
Direct service barriers and needs á Work with other agencies to provide O/M (Orientation Mobility) and have it available 
immediately if someone D/deaf/blind comes for services 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
60 of 77 

D/deaf Service Providers 
Gaps, Barriers and Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety á Fear 
consequences for reaching out for á Worried about loss of confidentiality 
help when abused á Violence will increase 
á Isolation 
á Asking for help would violate the social rules that people donÕt speak out 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á List accessibility features in Deaf Services materials 
á Clarify who is required to use interpreters Ð for example, St. DavidÕs Hospital with SANEÕs 
á SafePlace should have immediate access to interpreters when clients need them 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á None detailed 
Website accessibility á Have a v-log on your website 
á Indicate clearly on website that services are available for D/deaf survivors 
á Homepage is too text heavy 
á Website not accessible to people not fluent in English 
á Have basic information signed on front page 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á Isolation is a problem when pursuing SafePlace services 
á Receptionist should be able to sign 
á Have deaf kits available when staying in shelter 
á Have pocket talkers available 
á Have service support person available 
á Improve the process for accessing your buildings 
á Too intimidating 
á Need clearer directions on how to get to SafePlace 
Targeted outreach to Deaf 
community 
á Not knowing about services prevents disclosures 
á Have information about SafePlace for workers to go over with their clients 
á Not knowing SafePlace is D/deaf friendly prevents disclosures 
á Work with service providers to get the word out to the D/deaf community 
á Make short, small presentations consistently over time 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
61 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
62 of 77 

D/deaf Service Providers ContinuedÉ 
Targeted outreach to Deaf á Publish articles in D/deaf newsletters 
community (continuedÉ) á Present at Southwest Collegiate Institute for the Deaf in Big Spring, Texas 
á Have information on domestic violence in workplaces 
á People knew about DAWCAS but donÕt know about the new Deaf Services at SafePlace 
á Put up posters and brochures at Communication Services for the Deaf, Texas School for 
the Deaf, Travis County Services for the Deaf 
á Stay consistent in the community 
á Staff booths at festivals 
á Work with survivors to get the word out about your services 
á Advertise so people know how to access services, including on TV 
á Use actors who are Deaf in ads 
á Reach out to the community consistently 
á Use Pictures Communication Symbols (PCS) 
á Develop and distribute small palm cards 
Education and training gaps and 
needs 
á Educate on forms of abuse and dynamics of abuse 
á Present at conferences 
á Present information on domestic violence and sexual harassment 
á Train Austin Police Department on abuse and D/deaf people 
á Train service providers on dynamics of abuse and how to make a referral to SafePlace 
á Train SafePlace staff on how to use technology to facilitate communication 
á Train staff on sensitivity in working with D/deaf survivors 
á Train group home staff on dynamics of abuse 
á Check in at group homes where people who are D/deaf resideÑpeople arenÕt safe there 
á Train other systems on the importance of interpreters 
á Educate residents of group homes 
á Provide clear information on reporting requirements 
á Train day program staff on when to refer, when to report abuse 
á Have posters on how to respond to disclosures 
Confidentiality á People donÕt speak out because of confidentiality concerns 
á Integrate the sign ÔairtightÕ rather than confidentiality 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
63 of 77 

D/deaf Services Providers ContinuedÉ. 
Direct service barriers and needs á Need to improve access to services Ð quicker response 
á Improve the process for what happens next after hotline 
á Have a videophone on the hotline 
á Have one person who is accessible 24/7 who will provide follow up 
á Have survivors tell their story of service access 
á Distribute information on your Safe Parenting classes 
á Have staff available who can sign 
á Give staff training on Deaf sensitivity 
á It will take time to rebuild trust with the community 
á Meet survivors in places other than SafePlace 
á Recruit D/deaf volunteers, including survivors 
á Have task force across agencies 
á Shelter should have flashing alerts so clients donÕt rely on hearing staff 
á Use videophone on hotline instead of TDD 
á Have Certified Deaf Interpreter available at SafePlace or on call all the time Ð not through 
Communication Services for the Deaf 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
64 of 77 

SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) and Hospital Advocacy Volunteers 
Gaps, Barriers and Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety 
consequences for reaching out for 
help when abused 
á Ostracized if the perpetrator is also a member of the community 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á Survivors may not know interpreters are available at the hospital 
á Include follow-up with clients after they receive services for closure to support clients 
á Have interpreter before the SANE arrives 
á Interpreters help establish rapport right away 
á Clarify who is responsible for providing interpreters in what settings 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á None detailed 
Website accessibility á None detailed 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á None detailed 
Targeted outreach to Deaf 
community 
á Community doesnÕt know about the services, and this prevents them from coming forward 
Education and training gaps and 
needs 
á Train SANEs on basic sign language, Deaf sensitivity, and available services for Deaf 
community 
Confidentiality á None detailed 
Direct service barriers and needs á None detailed 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
65 of 77 

SafePlace Leadership 
Gaps, Barriers and Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety 
consequences for reaching out for 
help when abused 
á None detailed 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á Have consistent interpreters over time for service provision 
á Providing interpreter services is expensive 
á Services from Communication Services for the Deaf (CSD) have been good experiences 
á Communication barriers can create Adult Protective Services (APS)/Child Protective 
Services (CPS) involvement 
á Put D/deaf friendly picture on walls for visually welcoming experience 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á Protective services systems are not D/deaf friendly 
á Need to be aware that email with clients who are D/deaf can end up being used in legal 
proceedings and can jeopardize aspects of a case (e.g., child custody) 
á Communication barriers can create misunderstandings 
á Difficulty with APS and reporting abuse against a D/deaf client (disability vs. culture issues) 
á Disproportionate number of CPS cases for parents who are D/deaf 
á Housing discrimination against persons who are D/deaf 
á Legal system needs D/deaf sensitivity training and especially around Protective Orders 
Website accessibility á None detailed 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á Create accessible paperwork for someone whose primary language is ASL 
á Make changes to the entrance and greeting areas to make them more accessible 
Targeted outreach to Deaf 
community 
á None detailed 
Education and training gaps and á Develop a video to help with orientation 
needs á Provide staff training on differences between Deaf culture and hearing culture 
á Train staff on etiquette, sensitivity and Deaf culture 
á Train staff on resources that are available through the new Deaf Services program 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
66 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
67 of 77 

SafePlace Leadership ContinuedÉ 
Education and training gaps and 
needs (continued...) 
á Create a list of D/deaf services in community 
á Publish more articles on serving D/deaf clients / sensitivity in SafePlace Staff Matters 
(internal staff electronic newsletter) 
á Create fact sheets on using technology used by D/deaf community 
á Increase staff comfort / confidence through ASL classes 
á Train staff on working with interpreters 
á Educate outside agencies on providing interpreters Ð some outside agencies have expected 
SafePlace to provide interpreters if we refer a client who is D/deaf 
á Provide education to hearing service providers about the impact of showing up late for 
meetings when working with D/deaf clients and interpreter 
á Create better connections with Department of Assistive Rehabilitation Services (DARS) Ð 
bring in providers to educate our staff on their services and how to qualify 
Confidentiality á None detailed 
Direct service barriers and needs á Integrate D/deaf individuals into counseling groups 
á Need help with coordinating interpreter services 
á Need Deaf community member on SafePlace board 
á Use the Resource Advocacy team to coordinate services 
á Decrease the isolation of D/deaf clients in shelter 
á Integrate D/deaf individuals into counseling groups 
á Improve resources available to shelter staff serving clients who are D/deaf 
á Have difficulty with no-shows and must still pay interpreter fees 
á Develop a video tape with instructions in ASL for completing intake and orientation 
paperwork and welcoming to shelter / services 
á Interpreters for support groups are expensive because we need 2 interpreters 
á Need our paper work to be more accessible 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
68 of 77 

SafePlace Leadership ContinuedÉ 
Direct service barriers and needs 
(continuedÉ) 
á Critical needs for service coordination between Deaf Services and other SafePlace 
programs 
o 
Good communication 
o 
Use existing forms to coordinate services 
o 
Clarify who will be the primary contact for a client to avoid duplication of services 
o 
Create trust between SafePlace and D/deaf community 
o 
Continue to learn and grow in working with people who are D/deaf 
o 
Could we develop a systematic way to let Deaf Services know when a D/deaf client 
comes in for other services? 
o 
Need to work out a better system for getting through our gated areas 
What does SafePlace direct service 
staff need to better serve clients 
who are Deaf? 
á Training (deaf culture, etiquette, raising awareness, what should staff be aware of and what 
are the differences in working with a client who is D/deaf) 
á Training, fact sheets and hands on practice using the various communication technologies 
á Up to date info on what Deaf Services is offering 
á List of available services for D/deaf community 
á Use email to communicate and share information Ð best method 
á More experience in working with clients who are D/deaf 
á Staff interpreter 
á Information on how to communicate and prepare for D/deaf clients in a hearing agency 
á More articles in agency newsletter 
á Have someone in shelter who can sign / integrated 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
69 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Services Staff 
Gaps, Barriers and Needs According to Participant Group 
Possible social, cultural and safety 
consequences for reaching out for 
help when abused 
á CPS involvement seems to be higher with clients who are D/deaf 
á Callers using lifeline say by the time police arrive the abuser is already gone 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs 
á Writing back and forth can create more barriers for survivors 
á Barriers create situations where kids ÔhaveÕ to interpret for parent 
á Calls with D/deaf clients take more time Ð on hotline 
á Need to develop online chat program like NDVH/RAINN 
á Assign a cubicle with a computer for easier documentation with TTY calls 
á Glad we have a protocol to access interpreters 
á Create universal sign board for shelter and reception 
á Staff is enthusiastic to learn sign language 
á Need communication technology at shelter 24/7 Ð not just at resource 
á Hospitals are a problem sometimes Ð donÕt always schedule an interpreter for clients 
á Need portable visual alarm kits to take from room to room at SafePlace shelter 
á Communication Services for the Deaf is prompt and helpful, friendly and flexible 
á Experiences using interpreters have been: 
o 
prompt 
o 
efficient 
o 
they stay clear on the conversation 
o 
ask questions as they need to 
o 
give good estimates about ETA (estimated time of arrival) 
á Getting in the gates and using buzzer system difficult for clients who are Deaf 
á Interpreters for SANE exams need to be scheduled to allow time with advocate 
accompanying survivor 
á Staff and residents get frustrated when Deaf mothersÕ kids are crying 
á We need a staff interpreter 
á Need better equipment and hands-on training on how to use 
á Important to use client-preferred interpreter if available 
á Limited interpreters available for working with tri-lingual families (Spanish, ASL, English) 
á Wonder if nuances are get interpreted 
á Have to explain counseling terms to interpreter (cognitive dissonance) 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
70 of 77 



Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
71 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Services Staff ContinuedÉ 
Communication gaps, barriers and 

¥ 
Had to explain counseling terms to interpreter (cognitive dissonance) 
needs (continued...) 

¥ 
Paperwork is not accessible, needs to be simplified 
¥ 
Staff should know signs about safety and to fill out forms 
¥ 
Once client told me the interpreter was not interpreting well and the client didnÕt feel safe 
¥ 
Consistency in using same interpreter for week to week counseling sessions is helpful 
¥ 
Could we have an internal rating system for interpreters 
¥ 
Staff needs information effectively using interpreters (talking to interpreter without client 
present, ethical and confidentiality issues, etc.) 
¥ 
Receptionist does not sign 
¥ 
Need interpreter for our cluster meetings at shelter 
¥ 
The 24 hour interpreter cancellation required is difficult to work with in shelter setting 
¥ 
Cost is an issue (for interpreters and technology) 
¥ 
Once an interpreter showed up and was a family member 
¥ 
Sometimes staff needs an interpreter [for walk-in for shelter intake and clients have to wait 
for an interpreter] in less than 24 hours 
¥ 
Currently staff are communicating via email with clients who are D/deaf and Deaf Services 
¥ 
staff Ð not safest way to communicate 
¥ 
Video Relay Services are great 
¥ 
DonÕt like being able to only partially communicate 
¥ 
When using video relay for official documents Ð translation did not go well 
¥ 
Barrier is not being able to serve a client who is D/deaf in same way as a hearing clients 
due to communication 
¥ 
Hard to know if we can request an interpreter due to funding availability 
¥ 
The video phone at resource center is in a private place [but kids have had access and 
broken it in the past] 
¥ 
It becomes confusing when the interpreter begins to speak for herself/himself 
¥ 
Sometimes there is a language barrier in the interpretation 
¥ 
Pressure to make sure a client shows up is different than other clients if there is an 
interpreter scheduled 
¥ 
If we canÕt have a staff interpreter, it would be good to have a pool of 2-3 interpreters we 
can use 
¥ 
Agency has been supportive about getting interpreters 
¥ 
ItÕs hard for clients who are homeless to access a videophone 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
72 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
73 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Services Staff ContinuedÉ 
Communication gaps, barriers and 
needs (continuedÉ) 
á Large communication barriers between person who is D/deaf and law enforcement 
á It helps that Deaf Services staff are signing slower for us 
á Legal terminology may not have the same meaning for D/deaf survivors 
á Legal advocates need to use paper and pen to communicate [if interpreter doesnÕt show up] 
á Email works well for communication 
á I have to remember to slow down when I talk when working with an interpreter 
Legal advocacy -gaps and needs á Need to work with legal system to clarify [clientsÕ] right to interpreter 
á Would be helpful to have Advocacy, Inc. do court accompaniment and ensure confidentiality 
á CPS is disproportionately involved with clients who are D/deaf 
á Advocacy, Inc. (AI) could help when D/deaf clients rights are violated 
á Had to advocate with other systems to ensure access according to ADA 
á Attorneys donÕt always understand Deaf culture Ð AI could help with this 
á AI could help with CPS issues and rights violations 
á Ensure the client has access to interpreters [when applying for protective orders] 
á The barriers between survivors who are Deaf and law enforcement are bigger 
á Clients tend to prioritize crisis issues over legal access issues 
á Awesome to work with AI and have assistance from someone who knows barriers and law 
á [Some] Clients who are D/deaf donÕt understand that SafePlace cannot represent them in 
court [but can provide advocacy] 
á Interpreters are not necessarily provided in the legal system 
á County provides interpreters Ð but mostly for work with an attorney 
á Is there possibility of exploring a role with AI when clients who are Deaf have their parental 
rights terminated based on Òdisability statusÓ 
á Could we get technical assistance with an attorney at AI on various cases involving 
domestic violence 
Website accessibility None detailed 
Accessing SafePlace facilities á Need to implement a new reception/entry process to be more D/deaf friendly 
á Buzzer entry system needs updating Ð does not consistently work to allow access to 
families who are D/deaf in shelter or at resource center at SafePlace 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
74 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Services Staff ContinuedÉ 
Accessing SafePlace facilities 
(continuedÉ.) 
á For walk-ins need staff interpreter to be more immediately accessible 
á Develop communication board for front desk (basic language) 
á Paperwork is not ASL accessible Ð including the confidentiality agreements 
á We need faster way for clients who are D/deaf to access counseling 
á HavenÕt seen clients who are D/deaf for sexual assault services 
á Need a videophone at the shelter to be available 24/7 as are telephones for hearing clients 
á Clients need a Deaf Kit 
á We need a TTY and videophone at Grove Place (housing complex adjacent to SafePlace) 
Targeted outreach to Deaf 
community 
á Outreach to community regarding sexual assault services 
á Need to explore why ItÕs been several years since weÕve had referrals of D/deaf survivors to 
our Supported Housing Program (tend to get more services through Passages program) 
Education and training gaps and 
needs 
á Train other service providers on their ADA responsibilities on when to provide interpreters 
á Training shelter staff on how to access interpreters 
á Provide parenting classes to D/deaf parents 
á Ongoing staff training on D/deaf sensitivity and etiquette 
á Bring service providers in to talk with us about available services and how to refer 
á Training on how to develop rapport when using Relay Services 
á Develop fact sheet on working with interpreters and communication technology 
á Hands on, serious training on using communication technology 
á Need examples of how to email D/deaf individuals (written communication sometimes 
confusing) 
á Train interpreters on the ethics of working with survivors 
á Develop resource guide / service agencies available in community for D/deaf services 
á Train service providers and systems on D/deaf friendly services 
á Continue training staff on etiquette of working with survivors who are D/deaf 
á Continue ASL classes for staff Ð love the classes Ð need to be ongoing 
á Diversity Committee could show a film about Deaf culture, etc., 
á Training on how to work with interpreters specifically in counseling sessions 
á Need to clearly define various roles, responsibilities given the new Deaf Services program 
á Need education resources, books, etc., in our library 
á Educate service providers to better serve survivors who are D/deaf 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
75 of 77 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
76 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Services Staff ContinuedÉ. 
Education and training gaps and á Need to know more about how to work with clients who are D/deaf/blind 
needs (continuedÉ.) á Need information and training about parenting in the D/deaf community 
á Training on Deaf culture, interactions and use of technology Ð hands on 
á Working with clients who are D/deaf can be intimidating 
á Interpreters should go through our volunteer training 
á Identify where resources are and who to contact 
á Need to train other providers on ensuring ADA access 
á I love getting the information [about issues related to the Deaf community] in Staff Matters 
[SafePlace electronic internal newsletter] 
á Clarify that SafePlace cannot represent clients in court 
á Training to demystify the criminal justice system for clients who are D/deaf 
á Education on the resources that are available through the new Deaf Services program 
á Clarify where the interpreter costs are coming from 
Confidentiality á Ensure interpreters do not have relationships with a client [conflict of interest] 
á Information sometimes is left on the video phone [call log] by clients and this violates 
confidentiality 
Direct service barriers and needs á Suggest an exit interview for clients who are Deaf to get a sense of their experiences here Ð 
were we accessible? 
á Need to have D/deaf hospital advocates Ð hearing advocates go without interpreters [and 
wait for hospital to contact interpreters] 
á Shelter needs equipment/technology to serve clients better 
á Provide Deaf kit for Deaf shelter residents 
á Develop a new video with shelter rules in ASL 
á Communication Services for the Deaf needs to be more flexible around cancellations 
á Clarify roles between the new Deaf Services program and other programs 
á Need case management support from new Deaf Services program 
á Love having Deaf Services more integrated at SafePlace and showing up at meetings 
á Streamline the referral process 
á Need to keep stats on how many clients who are D/deaf that we are serving 
á Need a resource guide with information about Deaf services in the area 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, TX 
77 of 77 

SafePlace Direct Services Staff ContinuedÉ 
Direct service barriers and needs 
(continuedÉ.) 
á Need money for sidekicks, cell phones [for text paging] 
á Need more [direct client assistance funds] for clients who are Deaf for help with past due 
bills 
á Need computer for clients who are D/deaf so that have access with Instant Messaging 
á Need job training resources in community for clients who are D/deaf 
á Would like a main contact person with whom we can build relationships and work with in 
Deaf Services 
á Need help in doing intake with Deaf clients Ð paperwork is not accessible / Deaf friendly 
á Would like to see Deaf Services program staff more often here in shelter Ð itÕs great when 
they come over and they do a great job of supporting us 
á We need a [Deaf services resource] manual about services similar to the hotline manual 
á Training on how to make email [communication] be more to the point 
á Will there be a referral process or protocol to Deaf Services 
á Have the Deaf Services staff office at the shelter 
á Clients who are D/deaf seem isolated