Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 1 of 53 

ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ 


Strategic Plan 


D/deaf and Disability Communities 


March, 2009 



Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 2 of 53 

and 




Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 3 of 53 

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 
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, Texas 
Page 4 of 53 

Strategic Plan 


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


Table of Contents 


I. 
Introduction 
II. 
Overview of Collaboration 
III. Overview of Planning Phase 
IV. 
Needs Assessment Findings Part I: Deaf Community 
V. 
Needs Assessment Findings Part 2: People with 
Disabilities 
VI. 
Identification and Justification of Initiatives 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 5 of 53 

Introduction 


This Strategic Plan provides a history of the federally funded ÒPartnering to Increase Service 
AccessÓ collaboration project between SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc., including an overview of 
the planning and implementation activities that have lead to development of this Strategic Plan. 
The partnering agencies spent considerable time determining a shared vision and mission and 
a developing a formal commitment through a collaboration charter. Goals were established 
based on each agencyÕs interests and needs related to violence and abuse experienced by 
people who are D/deaf or have disabilities living in Austin. A summary of the needs 
assessment plans and findings are detailed first in this Strategic Plan. Then, we provide a 
detail and justification for a set of short term, intermediate and long term initiatives the partners 
are proposing to undertake. Our overarching goal in this project is to address the gaps, 
barriers, and needs in domestic violence and sexual assault services for people who are 
D/deaf or have disabilities living in Austin. 

Separate needs assessment activities were conducted to identify these elements for AustinÕs 
D/deaf community and AustinÕs disability communities. The reports detailing these activities 
and the findings for each representative community have already been submitted to OVW for 
review and approval. This Strategic Plan encompasses the findings and recommendations of 
those reports and proposes initiatives that, once instituted, can build each agencyÕs internal 
capacity to serve survivors who are D/deaf or have disabilities, create the infrastructure 
necessary for the implementation of a plan for outreach to survivors of violence who are D/deaf 
or have disabilities and increase collaborative responses to abuse survivors in Austin and 
Travis County. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 6 of 53 

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


II. Overview of the Collaboration 
The following section provides an overview of the ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ 
collaboration. Included in this overview is a brief history of the collaborationÕs development, 
the vision and mission adopted by the collaboration, and the overarching purposes and goals 
of the collaboration. 

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). 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/deaf1 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. 

History 
During Year I of this project, the partnering agency DAWCAS was dissolved.2 In response to 
the gap in services left by the closing of DAWCAS, SafePlace established a new Deaf 
Services program. The primary goal of this program is to expand the availability of domestic 
violence and sexual assault services to the local D/deaf, hard of hearing and Deaf/blind 
community. Staff hired within the new Deaf Services program participated in conducting Part I 
of the needs assessment and have been and will be active partners in developing and 
implementing the collaborationÕs strategic plan. 

Staff from Advocacy, Inc. and the Disability Services ASAP program at SafePlace also 
participated in conducting Part I and Part 2 of the needs assessment and will have active roles 
in implementing the collaborationÕs strategic plan. 

Separate needs assessments activities focused on the needs in Austin/Travis County of the 
D/deaf, hard of hearing and Deaf/blind community (referred to as Part I) and the disability 
community (Part 2). 

1 In documents produced by the Partnering to Increase Service Access project, we use ÒD/deafÓ out of respect for two groups of people who are D/deaf. The 
word ÒDeafÓ is capitalized when referring to individuals who consider themselves culturally Deaf and have a strong Deaf identity. Deaf individuals tend to 
have attended schools/programs for the Deaf, while individuals who are deaf (lower case) tend to have been mainstreamed and never attended a school for the 
deaf. . 

2 Before DAWCAS closed in 2007, 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, Texas 
Page 7 of 53 

Reports on needs assessment activities for Part I and Part 2 were previously submitted to 
OVW. This Strategic Plan encompasses the information obtained during the course of those 
needs assessment activities and recommends initiatives to be instituted that address the 
barriers, gaps, and needs in domestic violence and sexual assault services for people who are 
D/deaf or have disabilities within Austin and Travis County. 

Vision 
The shared vision of the ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ partners is that people with 
disabilities and people who are D/deaf will live as they choose without experiencing violence in 
the course of their everyday 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.Ó3 


Mission 
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 


Overarching Collaboration Goals 
Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace formed the partnership to identify opportunities to 
build collaborative relationships with D/deaf and disability service and advocacy agencies in 
Austin/Travis County, and to expand resources and supports to abuse survivors who are 
D/deaf or who have disabilities. 

The initiatives in this Strategic Plan were developed from responses to the needs assessment 
activities. Related to the specific needs of the D/deaf community, these initiatives have been 
designed to improve the response of SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. to survivors of violence 
who are D/deaf and to build the new Deaf Services Program at SafePlace. We intend to 
identify and institutionalize practices and policies to ensure that SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. 
are welcoming and provide D/deaf friendly and trauma-informed services and supports. 

The initiatives also reflect the partnering agenciesÕ overarching goals to make sustainable 
improvements within their own agencies so that people with disabilities have access to 
services related to abuse and violence. Accordingly, Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace proposed 
to accomplish the following within their own agencies: 

¥ 
Coordinate services to abuse survivors who have disabilities. 
¥ 
Prepare AIÕs staff working in the community integration team to screen for, respond to, 
and make effective referrals related to violence and abuse. 
¥ 
Identify strategies to conduct targeted outreach to people with disabilities. 
¥ 
Make accessibility improvements and institutionalize new protocols within SafePlace so 
that abuse survivors with disabilities gain access to the full range of victim services 
available. 
3 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, Texas 
Page 8 of 53 

III. Review of Planning Phase 
This section outlines the planning and implementation phase of the collaborationÕs Part I and 
Part 2 Needs Assessment Plans. A brief overview is provided on the scope of the project, 
purposes and goals, timeline, planning activities, and specific needs assessment activities. 

Project Scope 
The geographical scope of this project was determined to be Austin (Travis County) Texas, 
after a period of discussion and deliberation among the partner agencies, Vera Institute of 
Justice (the technical assistance provider to this project) and the Office on Violence Against 
Women (OVW). Needs assessment activities were conducted with staff from Advocacy, Inc. 
and SafePlace, D/deaf and disability community members, D/deaf and disability service 
providers, abuse survivors who are D/deaf and a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE). 

Project Goals 
During the first year and a half of this project, the partners met regularly and spent 
considerable time discussing goals and purposes for the collaboration and determining how to 
assess the needs of D/deaf and disability community members related to abuse and violence. 
During this process, partners learned more about each othersÕ missions, interests, 
vocabularies, philosophies and both unique and shared visions and goals for addressing 
violence in the lives of people with disabilities and D/deaf individuals in Austin and Travis 
County. Each partner also contributed to the formation of a vision and mission statement, 
collaboration charter, project timeline, goals for needs assessment activities and designed 
methods and protocols for conducting needs assessment activities. 

Needs assessment activities were completed according to the following purposes and goals: 

Identify Service Gaps, Barriers and Needs 

o 
What are the areas of need in the D/deaf and disability communities related to 
domestic violence and sexual assault? 
o 
What are the actual or perceived experiences of abuse survivors with 
disabilities and individuals who are D/deaf who are in need of services from 
Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace? 
Build Internal Capacity for Providing Services 

o 
What does SafePlace staff members need to increase their capacity to 
provide D/deaf and disability friendly and accessible domestic violence and sexual 
assault services? 
o 
What do social service providers need to increase their capacity for 
responding in a knowledgeable way to domestic and sexual violence survivors who 
are D/deaf or have disabilities? 
o 
What is the role of D/deaf and disability service providers in responding to 
survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault who they serve? 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 9 of 53 

Expand Outreach and Provision of Services 

o 
How can the newly-formed Deaf Services program of SafePlace provide 
outreach to D/deaf community members to increase their access to domestic 
violence and sexual assault services? 
o 
How can SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. provide outreach to disability 
community members to increase their access to domestic violence and sexual 
assault services? 
Build Collaborative Responses 

o 
What Austin-based D/deaf and disability service organizations are interested 
in building a more collaborative response to abuse survivors who are D/deaf or have 
disabilities through partnering or increased service referral? 
o 
In what ways can Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace coordinate services to better 
respond to domestic and sexual violence survivors who are D/deaf or have 
disabilities? 
Sustain Outreach and Provisions of Services 

o 
In what ways can we institutionalize policies, practices, and strategies that 
ensure welcoming, knowledgeable and friendly responses to D/deaf and disability 
community members? 
Information Gathering 
The needs assessment was designed to gather information about the domestic and sexual 
violence support needs of AustinÕs D/deaf, hard-of-hearing, D/deaf/blind and disability 
community members. To accomplish this goal, we wanted to learn from a variety of sources; 
most directly from abuse survivors who are D/deaf, community members who are D/deaf or 
have disabilities, D/deaf and disability service providers, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners 
(SANEs), and Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace staff. 

The methods for gathering information from these key stakeholders were focus groups and 
individual interviews. Both partner agencies were involved in planning and implementation 
activities. Workgroups within the collaborative team were tasked with developing needs 
assessment goals that represented each of the partner agenciesÕ internal and community 
based self-interests. These goals were reviewed and approved by the full project team. 
Project team members received moderator and interviewer training from Mary Oshwald with 
the Regional Research Institute of Portland State University in August 2007 at SafePlace. This 
training was coordinated by Vera Institute of Justice, the projectÕs technical assistance 
provider. The purpose of the training was to obtain information on best practices in planning, 
moderating, and documenting focus groups so that the collaboration could develop a 
consistent approach for facilitation of focus groups. 

Each focus group and interview was conducted according to a structured protocol. All 
participants received the same information and instructions and responded to a set of 
questions relevant to the assessment goals and target group they represented. Focus group 
moderators and interviewers exercised flexibility in use of various prompts and queries but, 
overall, information was gathered in a similar manner for all participants. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 10 of 53 

Identifying Sources of Needs Assessment Information 
Tools: Overall, SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. generated four (4) sets of focus groups for Part I 
and four (4) sets of focus group questions for Part 2. For Part I, two (2) sets of individual 
interview questions were developed and for Part 2, one (1) set of interview questions was 
developed. Both interview questions and focus group questions were used as the sole needs 
assessment collection activities. Each question set was designed to reflect the key areas of 
interest outlined earlier in this plan. 

Sources: Project staff recruited participants who represented the following stakeholders: 

Individuals 

á Abuse survivors who are D/deaf 
á Community members who are D/deaf or D/deaf/blind 
á Community members with disabilities 
Partner Agencies 

á Advocacy, Inc. staff 
á SafePlace staff 
Victim Services 

á SANE nurses and hospital accompaniment volunteers 
Other Provider Agencies 

á Deaf service provider staff 
á D/deaf/blind service provider staff 
á D/deaf with disabilities service provider staff 
á Disability service provider staff 
Focus groups and interviews with these key informants formed a current picture of the gaps 
and barriers in existing services and resources, along with outreach, training, and technical 
assistance needs. 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. 

Number of Needs Assessment Activities 

Number of Focus Groups 

á Community members who are D/deaf Ð One [1] focus group 
á Community members with disabilities Ð Four [4] focus groups 
á Advocacy, Inc. staff Ð Two [2] focus groups 
á SafePlace staff Ð Twelve [12] focus groups 
á D/deaf, D/deaf/Blind, and D/deaf with disabilities service providers Ð Four [4] 
focus groups 
á Disability Service providers - Two [2] focus groups 

Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 11 of 53 

Number of Individual Interviews 

¥ 
SafePlace Staff Ð Seven [7] staff interviews ([1] Chief Operating Officer, [6] Directors of 
direct service programs for adult survivors) 
¥ 
Survivors who are D/deaf ÐTen [10] interviews 
¥ 
People who are D/deaf/blind Ð Two [2] interviews 
¥ 
Individuals with disabilities Ð Eleven [11] interviews 
¥ 
SANE nurses Ð One [1] individual interview 
Overall, 25 focus groups and 31 interviews with 187 key informants were conducted in the 
course of the needs assessment activities. 

All focus groups and interviews were conducted in Advocacy, Inc. board and conference 
rooms, SafePlace meeting rooms, Austin Deaf Club, and the offices of Communication 
Services for the Deaf (CSD). All sites where focus groups and individual interviews were 
conducted were fully accessible. Sign language and other interpreter services, as well as other 
identified accessibility accommodations, were provided as requested. As the lead agency, 
SafePlace paid for these accommodations. 

Outreach and Participant Recruitment 
Recruitment emails, letters, and flyers outlined the purpose, benefits, and voluntary nature of 
the interviews and focus groups, along with staff contact information for those interested. 

Advocacy, Inc. staff. Advocacy, Inc. staff working in the Protection and Civil Rights as well as 
the Community Integration teams participated in focus groups during regularly scheduled team 
meetings. 

Community members who are D/deaf: People who are D/deaf were recruited through contact 
with local Deaf service agencies and other community groups that have contact with people in 
the Austin area D/deaf communities, Austin Deaf Club, and listservs frequented by Austin 
community members who are D/deaf. 

Community members who have disabilities: People with disabilities were recruited through 
disability service agencies and other community groups. 

Deaf service providers: Recruitment from D/deaf, D/deaf/blind and D/deaf with disabilities 
service providers involved contacting a set of specific organizations that regularly provide 
services to or have contact with people in the Austin D/deaf community. 

Disability service providers: Representatives were recruited for focus groups from disability 
service providers that regularly provide services to or have contact with people who have 
disabilities living in Austin. 

SafePlace staff: SafePlace staff participating in focus groups included counselors, shelter 
staff, hotline/intake workers, advocates and transitional housing staff. Individual interviews 
were conducted with Program Directors of direct service programs that primarily serve adult 
survivors (e.g., Shelter, Transitional Housing, Legal Services and Counseling), a Sexual 
Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), as well as the Chief Operating Officer of SafePlace. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 12 of 53 

Survivors: Recruitment of D/deaf survivors of domestic, sexual and caregiver violence 
occurred from within current and former clients of SafePlace or DAWCAS. An information 
letter about the project and interviews was provided to SafePlace counselors and advocates to 
be shared with clients who self-identify as being D/deaf, Deaf/blind or as being Deaf and 
having a disability. 

Safety 

Focus group facilitators and interviewers made strong efforts to create a safe environment for 
potentially upsetting conversations about domestic violence and sexual assault. An advocate 
was available to talk with any participant if needed and written resource information was 
provided including how to contact the interviewer or focus group moderators. 

Confidentiality -Every effort was made to maintain confidentiality (within the limits of the law) 
throughout the focus group and interview processes. Signed consent forms are kept in a 
locked file cabinet, and only project staff has access to these forms as needed. No personally 
identifiable information about an individual person is shared in this or other reports developed 
by the ÒPartnering to Increase Service AccessÓ collaboration. 

The two exceptions were 1) if current abuse was disclosed and 2) if a participant disclosed a 
plan to harm themselves or someone else. In these cases, this information must be reported 
to Adult Protective Services. During the course of Part 2 assessment activities no reports were 
made to Adult Protective Services. 

Consent Protocols 

Informed Consent -Participants were verbally informed at the beginning at the focus group or 
interview that we were going to talk about things related to abuse and violence and that if they 
felt uncomfortable or upset they could leave the room and/or talk to an available safe person. 
Participants were also given information about mandatory reporting so that any disclosure of 
abuse was a fully informed choice. 

Participants were informed and reminded that participation was voluntary and that they had the 
right to pass on any question and to withdraw at any time. Focus group participants were also 
asked to preserve confidentiality about others in the group. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 13 of 53 

IV. Needs Assessment Findings Part 1: Deaf Community Members 
Identifying Service Gaps, Barriers and Needs 

The needs assessment results summarized in this section serve as guide to aid in selection of 
the short and long term initiatives detailed in this strategic plan. Participant groups identified 
several key areas of need and ways that SafePlace, Advocacy, Inc., and D/deaf service 
providers can increase their own capacity to respond and provide services to D/deaf 
community members who are at risk for or who have experienced abuse. The following key 
issue areas are identified as those in which we can work to remove barriers, increase access 
and provide supports and services: facility (security) access, communication, legal advocacy, 
outreach, website accessibility, policy/protocol development, and education and training. 

The remaining sections of this summary will outline themes related a service gaps, access 
barriers, and resource requests that were identified as result of face to face discussions with 
the project's primary beneficiaries as well as service providers. Major findings are organized 
alphabetically under one of three primary goals: building internal capacity, building 
collaborative responses and expanding and sustaining outreach and service provision. 

Building Internal Capacity for Providing Services 

Facility Access 

Entry to main buildings: Most participants indicated that SafePlace needs to modify the 
security technology currently used to gain safe entry to shelter and the main resource building. 
The security system at these points of entry and the security gates present safety issues within 
SafePlace, and perceived barriers to individuals who are D/deaf or D/deaf/blind. If the person 
has an appointment they will have been told the confidential protocol for entry for the D/deaf 
community. If it a walk-in client, the system poses both communication and access barriers. 
Even with those who have appointments, the system could use improvements. The details of 
the current system are not documented here as it would breech SafePlace security. 

Intake paperwork: The required paperwork involved in the intake process was identified by 
SafePlace direct services staff and supervisors as too long and as presenting communication 
barriers to individuals seeking services and for whom English is not a primary language. This 
first interaction with SafePlace does not seem welcoming or culturally sensitive to D/deaf or 
D/deaf/blind community members. New protocols and/or an adaptive intake processes are 
needed at SafePlace. 

Participants who are D/deaf/blind recommended white reflective tape be placed to mark 
directions in hallways and the main reception areas to help track and stay on path. 

Mobility orientation: For individuals who are D/deaf/blind and pursue or receive services at the 
partnering agencies, mobility orientation is a critical need so that they can familiarize 
themselves with and learn to navigate the grounds and buildings. SSPs (Support Service 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 14 of 53 

Provider) may also need to accompany D/deaf /blind clients to provide support services 
including hand over hand interpreting. There is a need to facilitate safe entry to the building for 
individuals who are D/deaf/blind using public transit and who are not familiar with our campus 
or buildings. D/deaf/blind participants shared that taxi drivers are likely to drop a person off 
and drive away without providing escort or orientation to enter and one of our bus stops is 
about a half block away from our front gate. It will be important to design a way to get 
information to bus, taxi and paratransit drivers on how to ensure safe entry to our facilities for 
their riders who are D/deaf/blind or blind. 

Residential Services: SafePlace staff and former clients indicated that SafePlace needs 
additional technology that provides visual and sensory cues, alarms and communication 
capabilities (e.g., visual alarms, deaf kits, pagers, video phones, baby monitors, etc.). 

Confidentiality 

Participants shared that questions regarding professionals maintaining 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 ASL interpreters, Deaf Services and other SafePlace staff would keep a 
personÕs identity, presence at SafePlace and requests for victim services confidential. No 
confidentiality breeches were mentioned specifically; however, there are concerns about 
whether professionals can be trusted by the Deaf community. 

Community: Needs assessment participants who are D/deaf shared that issues related to 
confidentiality create a huge barrier to asking for help when abused. Participants described 
the D/deaf community as small and interconnected and survivors expressed fear that if they 
sought help when abused, community members would find out through the gossip grapevine. 

Email: 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. D/deaf survivors mentioned 
that D/deaf community members need education that although it seems to work well, use of 
email has serious potential to compromise full confidentiality. 

Interpreters: SafePlace direct services staff recommend working 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. 

Social consequences: D/deaf community members and service providers shared that 
survivors may decide not to ask for help because they fear being shamed by members of the 
D/deaf community, or loss of pride or community status or social connections. 

Technology: With increased telephone access by D/deaf clients at SafePlace, a protocol for 
managing the clearing of private information from videophones is needed to better ensure that 
confidentiality is not violated inadvertently or as an unintended consequence of this increased 
usage of videophone technology. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 15 of 53 

Trust: D/deaf survivors and service providers shared that trusting relationships within the 
D/deaf community must be built over time. It was recommended that we use the term ÒairtightÓ 
to more clearly communicate and emphasize the importance of confidentiality at SafePlace 
and in our work. D/deaf community members also suggested that we be repetitive in 
communicating our commitment to confidentiality with outreach and publicity. 

Communication 

The most frequently discussed barriers were related to communication between hearing staff 
and clients who are D/deaf. The majority of participants who are D/deaf indicated they would 
feel most welcomed at SafePlace if at least reception area staff knew some basic signs. 
These same participants thought that access to universal sign boards at both shelter and 
resource center reception area would be acceptable if necessary and should be made 
available. It was clear however, that a D/deaf friendly and welcoming organization would be 
accessible in a personÕs primary language at key areas of service entry (e.g., reception, intake, 
shelter, counseling, etc.). 

When an interpreter is used, both D/deaf community members and SafePlace staff advised 
that we ask the survivor for their preferences and when possible, use that interpreter regularly. 
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. 

Survivor isolation: D/deaf survivors, community members and service providers told us that a 
core barrier to seeking domestic violence and sexual assault services within a hearing agency 
is communication. Survivors who are D/deaf may wait a number of hours before an interpreter 
is available and this is especially true in emergency shelter outside of normal business hours 
or over the weekend. D/deaf survivors reported experiencing considerable isolation given the 
relative lack of staff, volunteers, mentors and other clients who are D/deaf or who are fluent in 
ASL. A better protocol needs to be institutionalized to address wait times. 

Interpreter Services: Some SafePlace staff had questions about the process and etiquette of 
hiring and working with ASL interpreter. There were also questions about how to effectively 
advocate with outside hearing service providers who refuse to provide an interpreter for their 
services. SafePlace staff also 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. 

Although SafePlace staff was complimentary about the interpreter agency that SafePlace 
uses, some concerns or questions were expressed. Survivors and SafePlace staff discussed 
several problems that have come up when ASL interpreters are hired for therapeutic 
counseling sessions. For example, SafePlace staff wanted to know how to work with 
interpreters who interject themselves into the role of co-participant or co-counselor during 
support groups or counseling sessions. Concern was expressed that using interpreters for 
counseling could increase a survivorÕs anxiety, inhibit their participation and interfere with 
building the trust in the relationship with their counselor. We also learned there is concern that 
ASL interpreters may not be accurately interpreting communicating the details of counseling 
sessions. Some D/deaf community members said they would generally prefer working with a 
staff member who is D/deaf and that if not available, they not return for services. However, 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 16 of 53 

there was no general consensus about whether or not survivors who are D/deaf prefer working 
with a Deaf or hearing counselor. 

Interpreter services are essential to a hearing agency committed to being a D/deaf friendly and 
welcoming organization. And, interpreter services are expensive. It is essential that 
SafePlace identify strategies to sustain funding for interpreter services to D/deaf clients who 
work with hearing staff. 

Hotline: D/deaf community members and SafePlace staff identified that domestic violence and 
sexual assault hotline access could be improved at SafePlace by establishing a more private 
cubicle area, an online chat site, and additional time for staff to take hotline calls through relay 
services. 

Print based materials: D/deaf service providers advised that we make certain to provide 
accurate information about accessibility in all of our 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. 

Sexual assault forensic exams: The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) identified 
communication as the key barrier to a survivorÕs willingness to disclose sexual assault 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. 

Technology: SafePlace staff noted that TTYs located in reception and shelter areas at 
SafePlace should be moved to more private areas for client use. Staff would benefit from 
additional Ôhands-onÕ training in the use of the communication devices we are currently using 
and as those options are expanded within SafePlace and AI. There was interest in making 
sure we are using the technology / communication devices most efficiently and effectively and 
that we are using best practices for communicating to individuals who are D/deaf. 

Telephone access: D/deaf/blind survivors reported even more basic barriers to requesting help 
for domestic and sexual violence services. These barriers often include lack of access to a 
telephone to call for help, limited use of a Lifeline system and the need for another person to 
assist them in reaching out for help. 

Time delays: Both survivors and staff discussed the impact of usual delays in getting a live 
interpreter for walk-in appointments or same day shelter admittance. These delays impact a 
survivor who is trying to access domestic and sexual violence services in a hearing agency. In 
some cases, if the wait is too long, a survivor may leave and not return to SafePlace, return to 
their abuser, or experience a degree of isolation while waiting. Deaf service providers advised 
that SafePlace should be ready to provide immediate access to interpreter services at anytime 
in order to serve D/deaf survivors most effectively. Building trust with AustinÕs D/deaf 
community requires that we be candid and inform survivors about delays or typical wait times 
for communication services or supports. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 17 of 53 

Building Collaborative Responses 

Collaborating to Increase Access 

D/deaf service providers: Deaf service providers suggested creating a task force across 
agencies for service coordination and a streamlined referral process. These providers also 
indicated that survivors who are D/deaf and who are at risk for CPS involvement could benefit 
from the option to participate in SafePlaceÕs SafeParenting classes. The same providers 
asked how they might obtain SafePlaceÕs parenting curriculum for integration within their 
existing service system. 

Faith-based organizations: Partnering with local churches or other faith based groups that 
cater to D/deaf community members could provide opportunities to offer outreach and 
educational programs (e.g., parenting programs, personal safety, etc.) and resource advocacy 
to the organizationÕs membership who is D/deaf. 

Legal Advocacy: SafePlace staff reported that survivors who are D/deaf do not consistently 
receive interpreter services when needed in the legal system. In some of these cases, 
SafePlace advocates used pen and paper during court proceedings to try and explain the 
different steps in the process because an interpreter was not provided by the county. 
SafePlace staff also identified a need to develop a list of attorneys who are experienced and 
comfortable in working with D/deaf abuse survivors. 

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. 
Accordingly, survivors thought a legal advocate who is D/deaf would be more accessible to a 
survivor and the possibilities for misunderstandings from communication gaps would best be 
avoided. Participants who are D/deaf clearly stated the need for information about the process 
and proceedings of court before they take place and to prepare for what might happen in 
advance of the experiences. A protocol needs to be in place where an interpreter is made 
available for conversations between a survivor who is D/deaf and a hearing advocate before 
going to court. While in court, the county is responsible for scheduling and paying for 
interpreter services. 

Overall, participants indicated that the legal system needs to become more sensitive and 
aware of the needs and potential for rights violations of persons who are D/deaf or 
D/deaf/blind. 

Protective Services: Deaf service providers and SafePlace staff noted disproportionate 
numbers of D/deaf persons compared to hearing clients who have Child Protective Services 
(CPS) involvement. In many cases, there are possible perceptions of parenting capacity by 
persons who are D/deaf. 

Service Coordination: SafePlace staff was in agreement that having a formal service 
relationship with Advocacy, Inc. would be beneficial to clients who have legal issues that fall 
under Advocacy, Inc. priority service areas. Deaf community members also recommended 
that SafePlace be willing to meet survivors off-site at an alternate confidential location. Some 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 18 of 53 

participants were concerned about safety when using a personal videophone and inquired 
about having access in the community at a location like Advocacy, Inc. 

Expanding and Sustaining Outreach and Provision of Services 

Expanding Outreach 

Advertisement: D/deaf survivors and service providers suggested advertising our services in 
brochures, flyers and mass mailings listing the range of services SafePlace will offer through 
the Deaf Services program. These materials need to also be available in Braille and audio 
formats for people who are D/deaf/blind. 

Dialogue: Participants expressed an interest in finding ways to continue a dialogue with 
SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. about issues related to domestic violence, sexual assault, and 
safety in relationships among D/deaf community members. Participants also stated that 
individuals who are D/deaf need to be supported in normalizing that itÕs OK to get help when 
violence occurs. 

Deaf community members told us that these targeted outreach efforts should unfold over time 
and that the information and a growing trust would be passed through word of mouth within the 
community. 

Presence: D/deaf community members suggested we have a more noticeable presence at 
Deaf sponsored events if we want to sustain an ongoing presence and relationship with 
AustinÕs D/deaf community. Deaf community members shared that a physical presence 
reflects connections important to trusting relationships in the D/deaf community. 

Targeted outreach: Participant groups consistently identified a need for targeted outreach to 
D/deaf community members who do not yet know about the services and supports offered by 
Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace. Deaf community members indicated that most D/deaf 
community members do not yet know about the Deaf Services program. SafePlace project 
staff note 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 collection of forensic evidence in sexual 
assault exams. 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. 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. 

Visual approaches: Other ideas for outreach included hosting dramatic performances targeting 
issues related to violence, recruiting survivors who are D/deaf to tell their stories, hosting a film 
showing that highlight violence within the D/deaf community, and to conduct presentations in 
the D/deaf community about abuse and how to get help. 

Website accessibility: Participants who are D/deaf told us that both Advocacy, Inc. and 
SafePlace need to simplify their agency websites for use by D/deaf and D/deaf/blind survivors. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 19 of 53 

D/deaf and D/deaf/blind survivors identified that our websites should also be compatible with 
Jaws.4 

D/deaf/blind survivors recommended that our websites include a contact person listed with a 
link that goes immediately to that contact person. This was recommended so that individualÕs 
who are D/deaf/blind and being abused by their support service person, could more safety 
address issues without a site like SafePlace being on the screen. 

Our websites are also text heavy and so it was suggested that we have basic information 
about the agencies on the front page of the website. Participants advised that we could find 
good examples of a website that was accessible to the D/deaf/blind communities by exploring 
the AADB (American Association of the Deaf Blind) website. 

Service Provision 

Quality control: Direct service staff at SafePlace asked if we could provide some role 
clarification across programs 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. We identified the need to explore ways to ensure that 
survivors who are D/deaf receive a high quality of services and ways to get feedback on how 
we are doing. One practical suggestion was to conduct exit interviews. 

Support groups: 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 
directed at the issue of isolation experienced by D/deaf survivors in shelter. Participants also 
suggested a peer mentoring program would be beneficial. 

Education and Training Gaps 

SafePlace: SafePlace staff indicated the need for education about the ADA and information 
about the provision of interpreters when referring or collaborating with outside agencies or 
systems in our community. Staff 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 outside agencies. Of specific concern are hospital settings where SANE 
exams are provided, housing offices, child protective services or when clients are involved with 
law enforcement and another part of a criminal justice or legal system. 

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 agency intends to be a D/deaf 

4 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, Texas 
Page 20 of 53 

friendly and welcoming. Participants expressed that a minimum level of competence within our 
agency would be reception staff able to communicate in basic ASL. 

SafePlace staff identified a need for more education about Deaf culture, working sensitively 
with individuals who are D/deaf, and the legal reporting requirements within the state of 
Texas. 

Interpreters and Deaf Service providers: Some participants told us that interpreters and Deaf 
service providers could benefit from information on the dynamics of domestic violence and 
sexual assault, and the unique aspects of violence within the D/deaf community. Direct 
services 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. 

It was notable that D/deaf 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. The partners need to explore specific 
outreach strategies around sexual violence in the D/deaf community so that survivors feel 
comfortable reaching out for help. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 21 of 53 

V. Needs Assessment Findings Part 2: People with Disabilities 
Identifying Service Gaps, Barriers and Needs 

The results detailed in this section guide the partnering agencies in making the short and long 
term initiatives for improving our own services to people with disabilities in relation to domestic, 
caregiver and sexual violence. Results of the assessment will also guide efforts to increase 
the communityÕs awareness of the services that are available to survivors with disabilities and 
aid in identifying gaps, barriers and needs to provide accessible and sustainable victim 
services to people with disabilities. For detailed tables of the compiled information provided by 
focus group and interview participants see Appendix C in the Needs Assessment Report. 

When participants were asked why many people with disabilities donÕt ask for help when 
abused, a range of barriers to speaking out were named. ParticipantÕs responses were related 
to being disbelieved, retaliation, loss of existing social connections and loss of levels of 
independence that for many is hard won. A survivor with cognitive and mental health 
disabilities said if they reported abuse it would be interpreted as a delusion or a 
misunderstanding of what they were saying. The barrier most likely to be identified was a fear 
of losing independenceÑa core value for the majority of people with disabilities. 

Another concern about disclosing abuse was loss of supports and especially if the abuser is 
the care provider. Such loss can result in a nursing home or institutional placement. Others 
thought that asking for help would only result in being blamed for the abuse. For example, one 
participant said they believed their counselor would ask them directly what they had done to 
cause the abuse. Participants also said that a survivor may not speak out because s/he feels 
embarrassed or somehow responsible for the abuse. A major concern for adults with 
disabilities was that disclosures of abuse were likely to result in Adult Protective Services 
(APS) involvement. 

An over-riding concern was retaliation. Any efforts to address barriers and gaps in service 
systems must include a thoughtful review of the possible risks of further violence and safety 
planning. 

Building Internal Capacities for Providing Services 

Participant groups identified the following areas of need and suggestions for how SafePlace, 
Advocacy, Inc., and disability service providers can increase their capacity for providing 
knowledgeable and sensitive domestic and sexual violence response and services to people 
with disabilities in our community: 

Accessibility 

Attitudinal Accessibility Ð People with disabilities told us that attitude is a critical aspect of 
accessibility. One participant with a disability thought SafePlace should orient new employees 
so that they know staff is expected to have attitudes that remove barriers to serving people 
with disabilities. SafePlace direct services staff pointed out that new employees may bring 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 22 of 53 

negative experiences, fears or a lack of knowledge that results in biases toward clients who 
have mental health or substance abuse issues. People with disabilities shared that friendly 
staff at the front reception area is important in showing a welcoming attitude toward people 
with disabilities. 

Programmatic Accessibility Ð Most participants talked about barriers to getting in for services 
that people with disabilities experience if they live in restrictive settings (e.g., staffed group 
homes, state schools and hospitals, etc.). For example, limits may be placed on telephone 
access, access to computers, transportation, or connection with people other than caregivers 
or roommates. These limitations are likely to prevent a person being abused from reaching out 
for help. Advocacy, Inc. is interested in partnering with SafePlace to explore ways that 
screening and service entry for people with disabilities who live in these restrictive settings can 
be facilitated. 

Several participants with disabilities asked if case managers could accompany them to 
appointments at SafePlace. Disability service providers recommended that SafePlace set up a 
voice mail for requests for services and follow-up with individuals who may have limited or 
sporadic access to a telephone. 

Participants with disabilities pointed out that they wanted staff to know that time delays in 
showing up for appointments may be a result of transportation or other supports they rely on 
others to provide. Participants asked SafePlace, Advocacy, Inc. staff and disability service 
providers to make sure they disclose the mandatory reporting requirements to clients with 
disabilities and to first inform survivors if an APS report is going to be made. 

When asked what SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. could do to improve services to people with 
disabilities, participants made some of the following observations and suggestions: review the 
intake process and paperwork to make sure we use People First Language; simplify intake 
paperwork for survivors with sensory and cognitive disabilities; walk-in group orientation at 
SafePlace may be stigmatizing or isolating for survivors with cognitive disabilities; explore 
ways to format and conduct the parenting classes and support groups (e.g., simplified 
language, shorter sessions over longer periods of time, etc.) to increase access to survivors 
with cognitive disabilities or who use communication devices; and extend the number of 
allowable sessions or time limits in shelter as a reasonable modification that increases access 
and the effectiveness of our counseling and advocacy services. 

SafePlace staff shared concerns that law enforcement may not respond well to survivors who 
are having a mental health crisis. SafePlace staff expressed interest in developing more of a 
relationship with the Austin Police Department and Travis County SheriffÕs office and to 
develop a formal protocol with trained and experienced mental health officers when a client 
requires crisis intervention. 

Disability service providers indicated that it can be confusing and seem inconsistent when we 
conduct outreach and then they or their clients are told that shelter is full. This situation could 
better be addressed by providing more clarity about the ÔintakeÕ protocol and how shelter 
admissions are prioritized. The demand for shelter services is high in our community. Service 
providers thought it might help if SafePlace developed a Òuniversal scriptÓ for use when shelter 
is denied. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 23 of 53 

Physical Accessibility -Stakeholders expressed significant concern at the current entry system 
on the SafePlace campus. Two aspects of the system were highlighted as barriers. The doors 
(that open out) create a barrier to access for individuals who are blind or have low vision and 
create potential risk for injury during the entry process. Also, the current buzzer and audible 
entry system both at the main reception entrance as well as the walk-in gate were identified as 
confusing and inaccessible at times for individuals with disabilities. 

Other physical accessibility barriers identified include: 

¥ 
The glass door in the reception area creates a risk if it closes too quickly. 
¥ 
The time delay is too short on the automatic door openers and can close on clients 
using a wheelchair, 
¥ 
The bathroom door in the reception area bathroom is too heavy and is difficult for some 
people with disabilities to open. 
¥ 
The walk in gate at the shelter needs a ramp. 
¥ 
The latch on the walk-in gate in front of the Resource Center is too high for someone 
using a wheelchair to reach. 
¥ 
The two-door security system in the entry to the Resource Center can be confusing to 
clients. Participants with disabilities recommended that staff meet clients in the atrium. 
¥ 
Despite the fact that 20% of showers in shelter are roll-in for wheelchair access, some 
people with disabilities thought that number is too limited. 
¥ 
Occasionally, a client will need a wheelchair and it can be difficult to find the resource. 
Participants with disabilities also identified a need to make the websites more accessible such 
as using simple language, large bold wording and using links to navigate to other parts of the 
site. 

Building Collaborative Responses 

Coordination of Services 

Most participants identified that service coordination needs to be improved when serving 
individuals with disabilities. This section will outline some of the gaps, barriers and needs 
identified by participants as related to the coordination of community based disability and 
domestic, caregiver and sexual violence services. 

Range of services and referral information: All stakeholders shared that many people with 
disabilities, community members and service providers need more information about 
SafePlace and may not know the range of services that SafePlace offers to people with 
disabilities. Service providers asked that we consider ways to make sure area disability 
service and advocacy agencies are clear on what we do and what we do not offer, and the 
protocol for making referrals to SafePlace. People with disabilities asked that we identify back 
up contacts should the primary contact (when given a referral) is not available. 

Peer mentoring: Two stakeholder groups suggested we have peer mentors for people with 
disabilities at SafePlace. For example, staff thought that clients with cognitive disabilities get 
bored or feel neglected when staying in shelter. In addition, more frequent supports are 
needed for survivors with cognitive disabilities staying at shelter with day-to-day activities like 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 24 of 53 

cooking, cleaning and caring for children. Some shelter clients with cognitive disabilities came 
from more structured environments with fewer opportunities to make everyday decisions about 
their activities or schedule. A peer mentor might help address any sense of isolation in shelter 
while supporting the individual to build more independent living skills. 

Mental health services: Participants thought that SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. could increase 
and formalize service coordination with MHMR (Mental Health and Mental Retardation) and 
APS (Adult Protective Services). Advocacy, Inc. staff is interested in helping SafePlace staff 
work more effectively with MHMR. It would be helpful to SafePlace staff to identify a person or 
formalize a liaison at MHMR to streamline referrals to clients wanting mental health services. 
Disability service providers recommended that SafePlace develop a collaborative relationship 
with the staff of the MHMR East 2nd Street Clinic. The ADAPT advocacy office is across the 
street from the East 2nd Street Clinic and service providers recommend SafePlace work to 
coordinate services and outreach between those two agencies. 

SafePlace staff also indicated a need to improve our relationships with other developmental 
disability and mental health service providers Ð the Austin State School, Austin State Hospital, 
and Psychiatric Emergency Services (PES). Related to this need, SafePlace leadership 
discussed the delayed response from the Austin State Hospital as an area where more 
coordinated services may improve the experiences of SafePlace clients who need 
psychological and emotional support during a crisis. 

SafePlace participants shared that it is quite difficult to find trauma-informed therapists in 
Austin who accept Medicare or Medicaid. As a result, some clients must depend on the 
MHMR system for mental health services and MHMR has extended waiting lists. SafePlace 
staff said that clients with mental health needs would benefit from an on-staff or on-site mental 
health provider (e.g., psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, psychologist, etc.). Staff also asked for 
more up to date information about how and where clients might better access routine and 
emergency mental health care from MHMR. 

Adult Protective Services: Advocacy, Inc. staff is interested in working more closely with 
SafePlace and APS (Adult Protective Services). Advocacy, Inc. staff believes that APS 
workers need additional legal supports in making their cases stronger regarding people with 
disabilities who are experiencing abuse. At the same time, SafePlace participants talked about 
needing more supports when Child Protective Services (CPS) workers are not allowing 
modifications that would support parents who have disabilities in accomplishing their parenting 
goals. In addition, SafePlace staff noted that APS workers tend to close cases when a client 
comes into shelter rather than continuing to support the client in preparation for the clientÕs 
exit. When clients with disabilities leave shelter but are not returning to their families, it can be 
difficult to know where the survivors can find long term and safe housing options. Advocacy, 
Inc. staff would like to institute an agreement or plan developed with SafePlace and APS to 
provide safety planning, and follow up and follow-along services when someone returns to 
their perpetrator or is transitioned into the community. People with disabilities asked for some 
degree of follow up with survivors who have disabilities during and after they receive services 
at SafePlace. 

Guardianship: Participants with disabilities talked about their risks for future violence if they 
have a guardian who is also their abuser. For example, a guardian may use their power to 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 25 of 53 

retaliate against a person if they ask for help. In these cases, the survivor will need to take 
extra time and caution to decide and take steps to leave their perpetrator and change 
guardianship. 

Resource advocacy: SafePlace participants need support in developing a more streamlined 
process for obtaining resources or negotiating waiting lists for clients with disabilities (e.g., 
Home and Community Based Services, accessible housing, guardianship issues, etc.). They 
are also interested in having more face-to-face contact with staff from disability service and 
advocacy agencies and they want to increase their knowledge about resources/services, and 
streamline the referral process for clients with disabilities. 

State institutions: Advocacy, Inc. focuses on the needs of people with disabilities living in 
Texas state institutions. Staff said they would like to partner with SafePlace to reach out to 
institutional treatment teams who could provide options for trauma informed supports to abuse 
survivors living in those institutions. Although beyond the scope of this project, SafePlace and 
Advocacy, Inc. staff also talked about their commitments to research and development of how 
they can work with state entities to integrate personal safety and healthy relationship education 
into the transition plans of individuals with disabilities transitioning from institutional to 
community based settings. We are hopeful these transitions will increase as directives are 
issued to close Texas institutions. 

Screening for domestic violence: Advocacy, Inc. leadership wants their own staff to receive 
additional training from SafePlace about domestic and sexual violence, screening for abuse, 
responding to disclosures, supporting survivors after disclosure, and how to make more 
referrals for local domestic and sexual violence services. While Advocacy, Inc. staff report 
they take few calls related specifically to domestic violence, they also recognize that these 
calls may be identified or prioritized in other ways. Advocacy, Inc.Õs intake protocol does not 
include specific questions about domestic violence or sexual assault. One initiative suggested 
is to explore how Advocacy, Inc. could modify their current intake to screen specifically for 
domestic and sexual violence cases. At the same time, both agencies recognize this initiative 
should be carefully balanced so that workers have information for responding to disclosures 
during intake, options for assistance in safety planning, and an effective referral protocol so 
that clients who disclose are not further harmed as result of that disclosure. Advocacy, Inc. 
staff also expressed an interest in continuing to work with SafePlace and some of the following 
initiatives: providing a forum so that staff can explore the legal and ethical obligations of 
reporting abuse; development of a formal protocol on reporting abuse; and partnering on a 
healthy relationships initiative. 

Attendant care: Disability service providers suggested that SafePlace review and update the 
process or policy around supporting clients to utilize attendant care services. People with 
disabilities recommended that SafePlace develop good relationships with staff from a home 
health agency to streamline obtaining these services when needed. Disability service 
providers shared that there may be services in the community that SafePlace is not currently 
utilizing such as a consumer abuse and neglect reporting system administered by Mental 
Health Mental Retardation (MHMR). Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace are interested in working 
on a protocol so that people with physical disabilities have needed attendant care in shelter or 
transitional housing. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 26 of 53 

Transportation 

People with disabilities and disability service providers identified limited or no accessible 
transportation (and especially after hours) as a significant barrier to some survivors with 
disabilities. Private transportation may be controlled by a personÕs care provider or abuser. 
And public transportation may not be an option for survivors who do not have access to 
telephones or money. The Austin Police Department, Capital Metro Transit Authority and 
Medicaid were identified as community based resources available to support someone who 
needs accessible transportation. Participants with disabilities said that even if a person could 
privately pay for a taxi cab, there are only 3-4 accessible cabs in Austin. Given these and 
other transportation barriers, community members with disabilities suggested that SafePlace 
have alternate locations in Austin to meet with survivors who want to pursue services. 

Durable medical equipment: When seeking safety or emergency shelter or services at 
Advocacy, Inc., people with disabilities need to be able to transport their Durable Medical 
Equipment (DME) (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers, cane crutches, communication devices, 
prosthetics, etc.). Some participants stated that they would probably not come to shelter if 
they had to leave these supports behind or if they knew they would have to wait for many 
hours or days to get replacements. Obtaining durable medical equipment is often difficult for 
people with disabilities. The equipment is expensive and insurance companies may not cover 
DME or that coverage is limited. Pre-approval wait times can be months long and getting the 
equipment after placing an order can also take months. People with disabilities were 
concerned that use of durable medical equipment might present a barrier to services if the 
equipment is interpreted as evidence of a personÕs medical fragility or as indicator of the 
seriousness of a personÕs disability. A more realistic interpretation of durable medical 
equipment is as a sign of increased independence. 

Legal Advocacy 

SafePlace direct services staff asked for information (format could be a one-page fact sheet) 
detailing the kinds of legal services Advocacy, Inc. could provide to clients with disabilities. 
Staff reported that legal issues that SafePlace clients tend to encounter are housing 
discrimination, guardianship issues, changing payees for incomes, and denial of SSI or SSDI 
benefits. Participants also discussed that many SafePlace clients attend ÒProject OptionsÓ 
classes to learn about the complex decisions that must be made when survivors of family 
violence are deciding whether or not to press charges against their abuser/perpetrator. 

Child Protective Services: Several stakeholder groups brought up that when Child Protective 
Services (CPS) is involved with parents who have disabilities, for whatever reasons, an 
additional burden is placed on the abused parent who is battling for child custody. The 
example shared is when parents with mental health disabilities must take psychotropic 
medications to be compliant with mandated plans related to child custody. SafePlace direct 
service staff asked if Advocacy, Inc. could work with them and survivors with disabilities who 
are experiencing difficulties completing mandated CPS plans. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 27 of 53 

Expanding and Sustaining Outreach and Provision of Services 

Targeted Outreach 

Participants in this needs assessment told the partnering agencies that we need to conduct 
more intensive outreach to AustinÕs disability community and disability service organizations 
about the range of services and supports we provide. Participants discussed what they 
described as an overlooked group of citizens who have disabilities and could benefit from our 
services. For example, there are many people who do not identify as a person with a disability 
and they are not linked with social or disability service systems. Since there is a group of 
people with disabilities who choose to not identify as such, they would best get information 
about SafePlace services in general campaigns or through information shared in public places 
like grocery stores, public transportation systems, radio spots, posters placed in public 
buildings, bingo halls, and through community presentations. 

Service provider groups pointed out the importance of considering unintended consequences 
of outreach efforts and whether or not we will be putting individuals with disabilities at a higher 
risk of violence. These cautions were welcomed and consistent with SafePlaceÕs outreach to 
people with disabilities. Decisions about outreach initiatives will be made based on the first 
principal- do no harm. 

One participant with disabilities recommended that disability service providers routinely screen 
ÒallÓ clients by asking about experiences of abuse. In this way, questions about abuse are less 
likely to become a red flag or alert a perpetrator and that could help reduce the risk with a 
perpetrator. 

Participants asked SafePlace to make sure they are including images of people with 
disabilities in brochures and other printed materials to increase community awareness that 
SafePlace also serves people with disabilities. Participants with disabilities thought that 
information about SafePlace does not consistently trickle down to many people with disabilities 
despite communication with providers by SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. Another suggestion to 
increase communication about our access is to post the universal disability symbol on our 
website, doors and front gates. 

Stakeholders said that the general knowledge about SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. is not as 
well known as we might think: Participants were energetic in offering thoughts and ideas about 
how and where SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. could increase the communityÕs knowledge 
about our services and supports. 

Durable Medical Equipment providers: A particularly innovative outreach idea was identified by 
people with disabilities. SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. could partner with local DME providers 
like Travis Medical, to include SafePlace hotline and Advocacy, Inc. intake number listed on 
the emergency number sticker included on the equipment. These numbers would become part 
of the universal number set on all equipment. The numbers would be accessible to a person 
when and if they should need them without arousing any particular suspicions on the part of a 
perpetrator. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 28 of 53 

Group homes: SafePlace staff also discussed the gap in services for sexual assault survivors 
who are living in group homes. Since the mid-90Õs, SafePlace staff have provided personal 
safety education to group homes and group home residents in Austin and surrounding areas. 
And yet, there are still a significant number of group home providers who do not respond to 
outreach related to sexual assault services. Despite the incidence of sexual abuse 
experienced by women and men in group homes, disability service providers do not routinely 
provide supportive responses or seek access to healing services for those survivors. 
SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. were encouraged to explore how we might better reach out to 
these underserved survivors. 

Public transportation: Service providers also recommended that we make SafePlace and 
Advocacy Inc.Õs contact information available on placards in city buses to increase access and 
the communityÕs knowledge about our services to individuals with disabilities. 

Education and Training 

All participant groups identified gaps and needs for Education and Training. 

Disability Service Providers: Advocacy, Inc. intake workers and other disability service provider 
staff requested additional education on screening for abuse and responding to disclosures of 
abuse within the time constraints of a screening call or intake interview. 

Service providers pointed out a continued need for training on methods of identifying when 
abuse is happening to their clients and basic knowledge about the dynamics of violence 
perpetrated against individuals with disabilities, the different types of abuse that violence can 
take, and the long-term effects of abuse (including sexual violence) in the lives of people with 
disabilities. 

Disability service providers indicated needs for education on responding to disclosures their 
clients make after participating in educational programs on personal safety or healthy 
relationships. Stakeholders also indicated that service providers need to continue client 
education that it is OK to speak out and ask for help if they have been abused. 

First responders (including police and sheriffÕs departments) need continuing education on the 
issue of violence against individuals with disabilities. 

People with disabilities stated that disability service providers need up to date information so 
they can clearly identify what resources are available for survivors with disabilities. In addition, 
service providers need continuing education on how to safety plan with individuals when their 
abuser is also their caregiver, parent or guardian. 

Individuals with disabilities also want staff of disability services agencies to know how to give 
their clients information about abuse and what they could do to support clients who are 
survivors. 

In addition, the disability community members thought that service providers should do a better 
job of screening new employees [presumably to screen out perpetrators]. In addition, 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 29 of 53 

participants with disabilities want service providers to provide more training to their staff on the 
issue of appropriate boundaries with clients they are serving. 

Service providers also thought it was more likely that they would identify domestic violence 
than sexual assault among their clients. One response to sexual abuse may be acting out 
which can result in being identified / prosecuted as an offender. In these cases, a survivor is 
even less likely to be provided with needed support and healing services. Service providers in 
congregate or institutional facilities also need education and training on the differences 
between sexual abuse and sexual activity between consenting adults. 

Disability service providers who participated stated that disability service systems need 
continuing education on issues related to domestic, caregiver and sexual violence. Service 
providers also identified needs for information on how to stay safe when they enter someoneÕs 
home and what to do if an allegation is made against one of their staff. Providers would also 
like to see more training in the community about the intersection of domestic/caregiver 
violence, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and employment. 

SafePlace direct services staff: Participants indicated that SafePlace staff needs continuing 
education for a general familiarity, comfort and sensitivity in working with individuals who have 
a range of disabilities. 

Some staff at SafePlace indicated they feel overwhelmed and intimidated when working with 
clients who have disabilities. For many disability groups, services are limited, waiting lists are 
incredibly long, programs or budgets continue to be cut or frozen, and financial resources are 
limited if non-existent. The resource needs and the lack of available resources are so great 
that staff can feel drained when working with clients with disabilities. 

SafePlace staff members feel they need more ongoing education and information in working 
with individuals with mental health disabilities (including PTSD), hidden disabilities, seizure 
disorders / cognitive disabilities, and substance abuse issues. Staff also said that it would help 
to have more information on how various disabilities might impact their interactions with staff. 
Staff would like continuing education on mental illness, treatment options and how symptoms 
affect an individual. Staff also expressed the difficulty in prioritizing clients with mental health 
disabilities and serving sexual assault survivors with mental illness. 

Advocacy, Inc. staff: Staff of Advocacy, Inc. identified a need to know more about how they 
can work with SafePlace to better support their clients. And, SafePlace staff would like to 
know how they can work with Advocacy, Inc. to support their clients and work. Advocacy, Inc. 
staff asked to learn more specifically what resources are available in the community for clients 
whose cases of abuse were determined to be unfounded. Staff also indicated a need for 
Advocacy, Inc. intake workers and managers to know more about domestic violence and 
sexual assault and would like more training from SafePlace. Advocacy, Inc. staff reported that 
the trainings SafePlace provided several years back were helpful, but more advanced training 
is necessary to make changes in how business is conducted. AI staff also requested to have 
access to the SafePlace Disability ServicesÕ fact sheets on their internal server. Advocacy, 
Inc. staff also indicated a need to know more about assessments of survivors to ensure that 
the assessments their clients receive from institutional staff are complete and include the 
clientÕs trauma history. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 30 of 53 

People with Disabilities: People with disabilities want information about where they can get 
counseling and support related to abuse. Additionally, individuals with disabilities asked for 
information on sexuality, boundaries, respect and definitions of sexual assault. If people with 
disabilities were to experience sexual assault, individuals with disabilities want survivors to 
know that St. DavidÕs is the hospital in Austin where forensic exams are given. 

SafePlace staff requested that education be provided to people with disabilities who are clients 
of SafePlace similar to the current community education classes offered to adults with 
disabilities. Service providers recommend that education currently offered to individuals with 
disabilities be presented through the lens of Òhealthy relationshipsÓ and that we add more 
interactive activities. 

Finally, community members with disabilities indicated an interest in continued opportunities to 
dialogue about the issue of abuse Ð not in a therapeutic or clinical format. This request came 
as a direct result of the focus groups and individual interviews in that people with disabilities 
were interested in sharing more of their ideas and experiences in an informal way. 

Stakeholders indicated a need to provide opportunities for individuals with disabilities to have 
social interaction and to build self-esteem. Other stakeholders indicated a need for a peer 
mentor program for individuals with cognitive disabilities receiving services from SafePlace in 
order to build the individualÕs capacity to complete Activities of Daily Living. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 31 of 53 

VI. Identification, Justification of Short-Term Initiatives 
Service Gaps, Barriers and Needs 

While conducting needs assessment activities, we were reminded that many people who are 
D/deaf or have disabilities in our community are still not receiving information about the 
services and supports that are available in our respective agencies (Advocacy, Inc. and 
SafePlace). Participants also shared a number of attitudinal, emotional, legal, physical and 
social barriers or consequences that discourage survivors who are D/deaf or who have 
disabilities from seeking help when abused. The short and long term goals and initiatives 
identified in this plan are in direct response to the service gaps, barriers and needs identified 
by the 183 participants in this needs assessment. And, the voices heard most clearly and well 
represented in the following short and long term initiatives are those of community members 
who are D/deaf, D/deaf/blind, or who have disabilities. 

Development of this strategic plan is guided by the following overarching goals: building our 
own agencies capacity for providing services, building and sustaining a collaborative response, 
and expanding and sustaining outreach and service provision to individuals who are D/deaf, 
D/deaf/blind or who have disabilities. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 32 of 53 

Short Term Strategic Plan (0 Ð 6 Months) 

Goal 1 Ð Increase or build internal capacity for providing services to individuals who are D/deaf, 
D/deaf/blind, or who have disabilities. 

Initiative 1 

Employee and volunteer education: Develop, incorporate and institutionalize training for new and existing SafePlace 
employees, interns and volunteers on Deaf culture and on working sensitively with clients who are D/deaf or who have 
disabilities. 

Justification: To create a welcoming and accessible experience for survivors who are D/deaf or have disabilities, SafePlace staff 
and volunteers in primary entry and services areas should have information about Deaf culture and sensitivity in working with 
people with disabilities or who are D/deaf. During the needs assessment, staff of SafePlace specifically requested hands-on 
training using technology including videophones and training on working with people who have disabilities or who are D/deaf. This 
training, resulting in increased comfort, knowledge, and competence, will help to streamline services for clients who are D/deaf or 
have disabilities and enhance communication between both hearing and D/deaf staff and volunteers at SafePlace. The training 
will be institutionalized and sustained through the following ways: 1) incorporated as part of mandatory training for new staff, 2) in-
service training offered quarterly for existing staff with continuing education units available for social workers and licensed 
professional counselors, and 3) offer training for new volunteers as part of the curriculum. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Shell Schwartz 
Schedule time and meet with volunteer 
coordinator and human resources to 
establish timeline to complete project 
Shell Schwartz Month 1 Verbal commitments to institutionalize training 
in new staff orientation, volunteer training and 
in-service training schedules 
Identify key training topics for trainings: 
á New Staff Orientation 
á Volunteer & In-Service Training 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 1-2 Key topics identified 
Research / identify curricula available at 
SafePlace and needed supplementary 
materials for development of trainings 
specific to each audience 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Month 1-2 List of available and needed curriculum / 
resources for use in development of training 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 33 of 53 

Develop detailed topic outlines for 
training modules 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 2 Topic outlines ready for internal review. 
Submit topic outlines for SafePlace 
internal review 
. 
Shell Schwartz 
Wendie Abramson 
Volunteer Services 
staff 
Human Resources 
staff 
Month 2 Topic outlines approved internally. 
Develop training exercises and activities Heather Kamper 
Shell Schwartz 
Month 2-3 Training activities ready for internal review 
Submit exercises and activities for 
internal review 
Shell Schwartz Month 3 Exercises and activities reviewed internally 
Obtain feedback from Volunteer Services 
Manager and Director of Human 
Resources and incorporate needed 
changes 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 3-4 Feedback from Volunteer Services and Human 
Resource Department incorporated 
Submit curricula to OVW for approval and 
incorporate edits as needed. 
Wendie Abramson Month 4 OVW approval 
Place training module in volunteer 
training curriculum. Implement training 
curricula as part of ongoing training for 
volunteers and new staff. 
Volunteer Services 
Human Resources 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 5-6 Trainings institutionalized at SafePlace 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 34 of 53 

Initiative 2 

Security System Access: Research text based or visual technology for current security entry system. Select and install 
based on feasibility with modifying current systems and OVW approval. 

Justification: Improvements in accessing the SafePlace facilities must be addressed so that D/deaf survivors experience 
SafePlace as a more welcoming and accessible agency. This initiative is chosen to address secure entrance into SafePlaceÕs 
facilities for people who are D/deaf. Stakeholder groups expressed that the current buzzer and auditory entrance process is not 
accessible to D/deaf survivors. Although SafePlace currently has a simplistic protocol in place, there are safety concerns with the 
current system and perceived barriers by the D/deaf community. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Heather Kamper 
Review findings of needs assessment to 
identify specific barriers to entry into 
SafePlace facilities for D/deaf individuals 
Heather Kamper 
Faye Kuo 
Wendie Abramson 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 1-2 List of gaps/needs identified by stakeholders 
regarding entry into SafePlace facilities. 
Use findings to inform and conduct 
research on possible text or visual based 
security systems for use at SafePlace 
(Resource and Shelter) 
Heather Kamper 
Faye Kuo 
Wendie Abramson 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 2-3 List of possible systems to institute at 
SafePlace to improve accessibility of entry for 
clients who are D/deaf. 
Identify costs of system(s) identified. Heather Kamper 
Faye Kuo 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 2-3 List of systems with respective costs for 
installation and maintenance 
Explore availability of funds and feasibility 
of installation and effectiveness of system 
Heather Kamper 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 3 Completed feasibility study of purchase, 
installation and maintenance of new system(s) 
at SafePlace facilities 
Submit feasibility results for internal 
review 
Wendie Abramson 
Patty Carvajal 
Diane Rhodes 
Julia Spann 
Month 3 Decision among SafePlace leadership on 
feasibility of acquiring, installing and 
maintaining chosen system(s) 
Submit information on system selected for 
OVW review and approval for installation 
Wendie Abramson 
Amy Loder 
Month 4-5 Clarification on possible utilization of project 
resources to install new security / entrance 
systems at resource and shelter 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 35 of 53 

Install, test and operate selected 
system(s) as approved 
Wendie Abramson 
Diane Rhodes 
Month 5 New system ready to be used by staff, 
volunteers/clients, other visitors 
Train SafePlace staff on how to use new 
system. 
Vonnie Basham 
Faye Kuo 
System Technicians 
Month 6 Improved and accessible entrance areas at 
SafePlace facilities for clients who are D/deaf 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 36 of 53 

Initiative 3 

Technology: Identify additional technology needs (and purchase) for D/deaf, hard of hearing, or Deaf/blind clients 
receiving domestic and sexual violence services (e.g., D/deaf kits or specific technology for shelter and transitional 
service. 

Justification: SafePlace staff indicated a need for technology to be available to residential clients who are D/deaf. Having 
technology such as visual alarm clocks and a baby cry signaler all go toward helping SafePlace provide the most effective and 
accessible services possible. Resources that are available to hearing individuals (such as an alarm clock) should also be made 
available to clients who are D/deaf Ð in an accessible form. Currently, SafePlace staff will wake residential clients (if agreed 
upon), but the current protocol does not promote independence and is somewhat intrusive. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Vonnie Basham 
Review needs assessment findings to 
identify current technology gaps in 
SafePlace services. 
Vonnie Basham 
Wendie Abramson 
Shell Schwartz 
Month 1 Compiled list of technology needs that are 
needed to increase access for D/deaf, D/deaf 
blind or hard of hearing clients 
Research possible solutions and 
resources for identified technology 
needs. 
Vonnie Basham 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 2 List of possible technology resources available 
to acquire, implement and/or purchase 
Identify costs associated with purchase, 
installation and maintenance of identified 
technology. 
Vonnie Basham 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 2 Comprehensive list of possible technology 
resources for internal dialogue 
Conduct internal dialogue among 
SafePlace leadership about needed 
technology and identified resources 
available for implementation, purchase 
and/or to acquire. 
Wendie Abramson 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 2 Develop plan for purchasing and/or acquiring 
new technology resources based on need, 
costs and infrastructure 
Submit proposal to OVW for approval. Wendie Abramson Month 3 Clarification on possible utilization of OVW 
funds to acquire new technology resources 
identified 
Purchase technology. Install as needed. Vonnie Basham 
Shell Schwartz 
Month 4-6 Increased accessible services for D/deaf, 
D/deaf Blind and hard of hearing clients 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 37 of 53 

Goal 2 Ð Build Collaborative Responses 

Initiative 1 

Education: Develop and provide training to Advocacy, Inc.Õs PAMI council on issues related to the dynamics of 
domestic, caregiver and sexual violence and people with disabilities. 

Justification: The (PAMI) council serves Advocacy, Inc. in an advisory capacity. AI leadership has requested that we provide 
training for this advisory group to help improve the councilÕs effectiveness in supporting AIÕs partnership and endeavors to provide 
sensitive services and resource linkages to their clients and callers who are abuse survivors. At minimum, PAMI council training 
would include a solid foundation of knowledge about the 1) dynamics of domestic violence, caregiver abuse, sexual assault and 
disability, 2) resources available to abuse survivors with disabilities, and 3) the ÒPartnering to Increase AccessÓ collaboration and 
partnership between Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace. These training topics will become even more critical as AI begins routinely 
screening (see long term initiative) specifically for abuse during their regular course of business. AI leadership requested that we 
pilot this training with the PAMI council members and then provide a similar training in the future to Advocacy, Inc.Õs governing 
board. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Shell Schwartz 
Telephone AI to identify who will be 
coordinating the PAMI council training 
facilitated by SafePlace project staff. 
Shell Schwartz 
Mary Faithfull 
Month 1 á Identify AI contact 
Telephone AI contact and schedule a 
meeting to discuss/schedule training. 
Shell Schwartz Month 1 á Initial meeting scheduled. 
Meet with AI contact and identify key 
topics related to domestic, caregiver and 
sexual violence and people with 
disabilities. 
Heather Kamper 
Mary Faithfull 
Shell Schwartz 
Month 1 á Date for event on SafePlace training 
schedule. 
á Core training topics and content are 
confirmed 
Develop training content outline, activities 
and exercises. 
Heather Kamper 
Shell Schwartz 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 1 á Training curriculum developed 
Conduct training Heather Kamper 
Shell Schwartz 
Month 1 á Training completed 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 38 of 53 

Evaluations Shell Schwartz Conclusion 
of training 
á Participant evaluation of the training 
usefulness & value to their work. 
Debriefing activity for trainers All Following 
training 
á Trainers provide feedback, input, & check-
ins. 
á Review evaluations 
á Identify areas for training modifications 
Training revisions Heather Kamper Month 2 Revised training content / activities / 
exercises / handouts. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 39 of 53 

Initiative 2 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): Develop a MOU between SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. for working with abuse 
survivors who are D/deaf or have disabilities. 

Justification: Stakeholders indicated that the legal system can be confusing for D/deaf survivors and that required 
accommodations are sometimes not provided (such as ASL interpreters) in both the legal system and within social service 
systems utilized by survivors. In partnership with SafePlace, Advocacy, Inc., the local Protection and Advocacy organization, can 
work to ensure the civil rights of a client are not violated during interactions with the legal and social service providers. There is a 
need to coordinate services and make cross-referrals between the two partnering organizations for abuse survivors with 
disabilities or who are D/deaf and are seeking protective orders or experiencing civil rights violations with other service support 
systems. Additionally, it is important to consider that geographically SafePlace is located in southeast Austin and Advocacy, Inc. 
is located in northwest Austin. And while there are resources to provide transportation assistance (e.g., Capital Metro, etc.), many 
individuals who are D/deaf or have disabilities still experience barriers to getting to the SafePlace campus. Having access to a 
meeting space in northwest Austin would allow survivors with transportation barriers to access both Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace 
resources. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Mary Faithfull / Wendie 
Abramson 
Schedule initial meeting of partners to 
begin work on this initiative 
Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull 
Month 1 á Meeting scheduled 
Meet as needed (telephone, email, face 
to face) to identify the following: 
á What does AI need from SafePlace? 
á What does SafePlace need from AI? 
á What types of coordination would 
benefit abuse survivors with 
disabilities or who are D/deaf? 
Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull 
Lisa Sneed (AI) 
Gail Rice (SP) 
Kerrie Key (SP) 
Month 1Ð2 á List of primary needs 
á List of elements as possibilities for inclusion 
in MOU 
Develop or identify case studies or 
scenarios for how the MOU would 
functionally benefit survivors who are 
D/deaf or have disabilities 
All Month 2-3 á Case studies or scenarios that realistically 
portray how we could support each others 
work with survivors 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 40 of 53 

Develop protocol for how the various 
MOU elements could be enacted. 
Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull 
Lisa Sneed (AI) 
Month 3 á Protocol for implementing MOU 
á Definition of how AI and SafePlace will 
enact the elements included in the MOU or 
request needed technical assistance 
Draft, review and revise MOU document. Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull 
Lisa Sneed (AI) 
Month 3-4 á Draft of MOU document 
Internal review and approval of MOU 
document (AI and SafePlace) 
Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull (AI) 
Diane Rhodes (SP) 
Julia Spann (SP) 
Month 4 á Partners internal approval of MOU 
Develop and implement plans to educate 
SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. staff about 
the new initiatives for coordinating 
services and making cross-referrals 
Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull 
Lisa Sneed (SP) 
Month 6 á Staff at new agencies aware of new MOU 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 41 of 53 

Goal 3 Ð Expanding and Sustaining Outreach and Provision of Services 

Initiative 1 

Listening Project / Critical Conversations: Develop and pilot a forum whereby people with disabilities and people who 
are D/deaf can meet and continue dialogue about victimization issues and provide ongoing input to SafePlace and 
Advocacy, Inc. for increasing service access to a wide range of survivors (hold no more than 3-4 meetings with each of 
the 2 pilot groups). 

Justification: Focus group and interview participants expressed interest in giving input and continuing dialogue about violence 
against persons with disabilities. Specifically, stakeholders stated their appreciation for having a forum in which to meet and 
discuss issues related to abuse and asked to be included in similar meeting or forums in the future. Team members have decided 
that the initial groups be limited to 3-4 meetings with persons with disabilities and D/deaf community members to give more 
specific input into the long term initiatives to be completed in the next 7 Ð 18 months. These groups will be convened as critical 
conversation groups or listening projects to avoid perceptions that we are establishing therapeutic support groups. The meetings 
can also provide additional information and feedback to AI and SafePlace about the quality of current services we are providing 
abuse survivors who are D/deaf or who have disabilities. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Shell Schwartz 
Identify primary purpose/s of meetings 
and number of groups that will run (1 - 4) 
All Month 1-2 Established purpose of group, number of 
groups and number of meetings 
Select populations for inclusion in groups 
(e.g., D/deaf community members, 
people with cognitive disabilities/mental 
illness/physical disabilities, etc.) 
All Month 1-2 List of groups/populations to be invited 
Select method for facilitation of group 
(listening project, focus group, critical 
conversation group) 
All Month 1-2 Meeting method selected 
Research and determine best practices 
for implementation of method selected 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 2-3 Understanding of best practice for method and 
how to implement 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 42 of 53 

Determine meeting location, length of 
meetings, and dates / times 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 2-3 Location, date and time of meetings selected 
and on calendar 
Select facilitators / moderators Shell Schwartz Month 2-3 Facilitators/moderators identified 
Create subject pool for recruitment 
purposes (limit group to 5-7 adults) 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 3 List of possible participants and their contact 
information 
Recruit participants for (1 Ð 3) groups Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 3-4 Participants contacted and signed up 
Design questions or activities to facilitate 
group discussions (1-4 questions) 
All Month 3 Agenda and meeting protocol established 
Identify needed accommodations Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 3-4 Accommodation needs identified and planned 
for 
Set up meeting room / snacks / 
beverages 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 3-5 Meeting room / snacks set up 
Conduct sessions Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Faye Kuo 
Month 3-5 Meetings conducted 
Summarize information gathered from 
each meeting 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 5-6 Findings summarized in report 
Facilitators / moderators de-brief after 
meetings 
Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Faye Kuo 
Month 3-5 Debriefing completed 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 43 of 53 

Report findings to agencies leadership Shell Schwartz 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Faye Kuo 
Month 5-6 Internal reporting of what was learned 
Determine strategies for using input from 
community 
All Month 6 Plan developed for utilizing community input 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 44 of 53 

Initiative 2 

Identify necessary content for development of visual communication boards for use in resource center, shelter and by 
legal advocates in court. 

Justification: Over half of SafePlace staff took basic sign language classes offered at SafePlace in 2008. However, SafePlace 
staff is not equipped to functionally communicate with D/deaf clients without an interpreter and especially with individuals who are 
in crisis. A number of D/deaf participants relayed that it is critical that receptionist staff can communicate with D/deaf survivors. 
The project will develop communication boards with vocabulary and icons specific to shelter, legal advocacy and reception. Note 

Ð this initiative is not intended to replace ASL interpretation, but rather to support communication with walk-in clients. 
Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Heather Kamper and 
Vonnie Basham 
Review findings of needs assessment to 
identify specific barriers to entry into 
SafePlace facilities for D/deaf individuals 
that could be addressed using a visual 
communication board in shelter, resource 
center and by legal advocates in court 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Wendie Abramson 
.Month 1 Identification of specific barriers to be 
addressed 
Identify content needs for development of 
communication boards in consultation 
with staff from key service areas 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 1 List of experts vocabulary needs for 
communication boards that are location 
specific 
Use findings to inform and conduct 
research on possible existing 
communication board systems and those 
consistent with best practices 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 1-2 List of possible systems for use in board 
development 
Determine if one communication board 
could serve in all three environments or if 
3 individual boards should be developed 
All Month 2 Select number of boards to create 
Identify necessary costs for developing 
board/s 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 2 Resource costs and availability for 
communication board development activity 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 45 of 53 

Identify topic areas and icons that need 
to be included in a single or multiple 
communication boards and prioritize 
board development project 
All Month 3 List of topics / communications needed 
Select communication symbol / board 
system that will be used for development 
All Month 3 System selected 
Submit feasibility results, preferred 
system and development method for 
internal review by program area 
Wendie Abramson Month 3 Decision reached by leadership on 
development method and use 
Select symbols and develop initial board 
template 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 3-4 Template / sample completed 
Create mock up boards Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 4 Mock up board for pilot and field testing 
Pilot test board usefulness / effectiveness 
with forum groups, agency staff and end 
users 
Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 4 Pilot / field test completed 
Make necessary revisions Heather Kamper 
Vonnie Basham 
Month 4-5 Communication Board completed 
Submit for internal review by program 
areas 
Wendie Abramson Month 5 Revisions required / communication board(s) 
approved for use 
Develop timeline for producing 
communication boards 
Shell Schwartz Month 6 Timeline for completion developed 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 46 of 53 

Initiative 3 

Voice Carryover: Research infrastructure for voice carryover telephone options for SafePlace clients to use while 
receiving services.* 

Justification: For individuals who are hard-of-hearing, having a telephone that allows the individual to speak using their voice 
while using a TTY or videophone is a welcome and needed resource. Team members will research the capability of providing this 
resource for clients who receive services to increase accessibility to individuals who are D/deaf or hard-of-hearing. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Heather Kamper and Faye 
Kuo 
Research and identify what is needed to 
establish the infrastructure for voice 
carryover telephone. 
Heather Kamper 
Faye Kuo 
Month 1 Identification of infrastructure needs. Flow 
chart or mapping of process for infrastructure 
for voice carryover 
Determine set up and maintenance costs 
of establishing / installing voice carryover 
telephone option for SafePlace clients. 
Faye Kuo 
Heather Kamper 
Month 2 Set up costs identified 
Internal review of standard set-up 
process and costs for voice carryover 
Heather Kamper 
Faye Kuo 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 3Ð4 Internal review completed 
Develop timeline for infrastructure 
enhancements and any technological 
needs 
Wendie Abramson 
Faye Kuo 
Month 5-6 Timeline established 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 47 of 53 

Initiative 4 

Website Accessibility: Explore feasibility of providing basic information in ASL about Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace 
services on our websites. Identify priority information to include and develop script. 

Justification: Many D/deaf survivors rely on technology for access to services in todayÕs world. Having a website that is 
accessible for the D/deaf community will increase the number of people accessing Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace services by 
ensuring that the information shared clearly communicates (in the individualÕs primary language) that the partnering agencies are 
D/deaf friendly and committed to serving the D/deaf community. Several focus group participants indicated that the partner 
agencies websites are too wordy and recommended that we have information from the website in ASL format. 

Communicating the services available to survivors who are D/deaf can support more survivors to come forward and pursue 
healing services. Due to the relative new implementation of the Deaf Services program at SafePlace, this website modification will 
be important in order to reach out to the D/deaf community in a consistent and safe way as community members and service 
providers have asked in these needs assessment activities. 

Based on stakeholder feedback, D/deaf survivors may not know that Advocacy, Inc. is an agency that can ensure a D/deaf 
survivorÕs civil rights are upheld. This knowledge is particularly important for a D/deaf survivor at a time when they are in crisis 
and need to access the systems of support that are in place for survivors. Having information about Advocacy, Inc. and available 
services in ASL on the Advocacy, Inc. website will increase the potential for D/deaf survivors to learn more about Advocacy, Inc. 
and the supports that the agency can provide in a difficult time. 

Activities Who When Outcome 
Lead Staff: Heather Kamper and Faye 
Kuo 
Research and identify standards for 
linking to a web spot where information 
for AI and SafePlace could be provided 
ASL (e.g., You Tube) 
Heather Kamper Month 1 Identification of standards for designing and 
installing an ASL spot on the web 
Conduct internal assessment of websites 
& identify information to include in ASL 
Faye Kuo 
Wendie Abramson 
Month 1-2 Major content identified 
Determine costs and resource needs for 
creating ASL spots (e.g., production 
filming / editing, interpreters, web 
designer costs, etc.) 
Heather Kamper 
Mary Faithfull 
Faye Kuo 
Month 2 Costs identified 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 48 of 53 

Write script for ASL spot links (AI and 
SafePlace) 
Heather Kamper 
Faye Kuo 
Month 3Ð4 Script for ASL spot identifying contact 
information and services available in 
partnering agencies 
Review script and obtain in-house 
approval of script 
Vonnie Basham 
Wendie Abramson 
Mary Faithfull 
Month 4-5 Script approved by AI and SafePlace 
Develop timeline for completing 
production of website information in ASL 
Shell Schwartz 
Wendie Abramson 
Faye Kuo 
Month 6 Timeline for initiative completed 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 49 of 53 

Intermediate Term Initiatives (7 Ð 18 Months) 

Advocacy, Inc. Board 

Develop and present to Advocacy, Inc. Board of Directors on issues related to the dynamics of 
domestic violence, caregiver abuse and sexual assault. 

Justification: Advocacy Inc. leadership would like their governing board to receive training 
that could better support Advocacy, Inc. in their endeavors to provide sensitive services 
and resource linkages to their clients and callers who are abuse survivors. The training would 
include information about the 1) dynamics of domestic violence, caregiver abuse, sexual 
assault and disability, 2) resources available to abuse survivors with disabilities, and 3) their 
partnership and MOU with SafePlace. These training topics will become even more critical for 
the governing board as AI begins routine screening during their regular course of business. 

ASL Interpreters 

Develop content and provide training to ASL interpreters (ethics, confidentiality, dynamics of 
violence, secondary trauma). Obtain certification for Continuing Education Credits for this 
training. 

Justification: Stakeholders in the needs assessment activities indicated that there are 
instances where interpreters do not exhibit appropriate professional boundaries (e.g., 
interjecting information rather than interpreting). Interpreters are typically used when a client 
who is D/deaf prefers to work with a hearing staff or for services that are only provided by 
hearing staff. Because the Austin D/deaf community is small and closely knit, interpreters are 
sometimes family members or friends of the survivor or perpetrator. Training ASL interpreters 
on the ethics of holding confidentiality, maintaining professional boundaries, and domestic and 
sexual violence terminology and dynamics can help ensure that services are delivered 
effectively to the D/deaf community. 

Deaf Services Advisory Committee 

Initiate and maintain an advisory committee composed of D/deaf community members and 
other relevant community members. 

Justification: Creating and maintaining an advisory committee that meets on a regular basis 
can provide SafePlace with continuous feedback about the agency, our reputation within the 
D/deaf community and how to improve and/or expand our services or relationships with D/deaf 
community members. 

Outreach Plan 

Develop an annual plan to outreach AustinÕs D/deaf community to provide information about 
SafePlace and Advocacy Inc.Õs services and information about domestic violence and sexual 
assault. 

Justification: Stakeholders indicated a need for targeted outreach to the D/deaf community 
about the issues of sexual assault and domestic violence as well as SafePlaceÕs Services. 
Stakeholders indicated that more education, training and increased awareness about the issue 
and about the Deaf Services Program is necessary. Stakeholders expressed concerns that 
the D/deaf community does not know what SafePlace does, referrals to SafePlace programs 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 50 of 53 

such as Transitional Housing have decreased significantly and stakeholders expressed a need 
for SafePlace to staff booths and tables at D/deaf events. The following initiatives were 
developed to help increase awareness of SafePlaceÕs Deaf Services program, increase 
SafePlaceÕs presence in the D/deaf community and increase the awareness of the issues of 
domestic/sexual violence within the D/deaf community Ð including deaf service providers. 

Many stakeholders identified that it would take time with consistent and thoughtful outreach 
within the community in order to build relationships with the Deaf community. Stakeholders 
also indicated that community members and service providers had an interest in learning more 
about SafePlace and the services offered to the D/deaf community. Stakeholders shared that 
the open houses that were offered previously were well received but more events should be 
offered. Developing a plan to be implemented on an annual basis can demonstrate to the 
community that SafePlace is committed to serving D/deaf survivors in the short and long-term. 

Screening for Abuse 

Develop and pilot a protocol within Advocacy, Inc. for screening for domestic, caregiver, and 
sexual violence, responding sensitively, and making effective referrals (pilot with community 
integration staff). 

Justification: Advocacy, Inc. staff expressed interest in learning about screening for abuse 
and responding to disclosures. Staff also requested that community integration team members 
at Advocacy, Inc. who work primarily with individuals who are institutionalized need training on 
how to conduct screenings for abuse. Advocacy, Inc. staff asked to be provided current 
information about SafePlace services and how to make effective and appropriate referrals to 
SafePlace programs. 

Shelter Access 

Create script and produce DVD in ASL to welcome new clients into shelter. 

Justification: At intake into shelter, all residents are welcomed and given information about 
the expectations of their stay in shelter. A DVD would not be used as an alternative to 
providing an interpreter but would be used to provide information to clients during the waiting 
period when an interpreter is not immediately available when a D/deaf client first arrives at 
shelter. This information can also give clients some sense of what they can expect in their 
shelter experience at a time when they may feel anxious and overwhelmed. Having this 
session available in an accessible format can help D/deaf residents feel more comfortable to 
receive services from SafePlace in a residential hearing environment. 

Videophone North Austin 

Explore feasibility to Install videophone at Advocacy, Inc.* 

Justification: Geographically, SafePlace is located in southwest Austin and Advocacy, Inc. is 
located in northwest Austin. And while there are resources to provide donated videophone 
technology, many individuals cannot afford the monthly expenses associated with using this 
technology (e.g., high speed internet access). Having access to a videophone to the Deaf 
community in northwest Austin would allow survivors to contact SafePlace and other 
necessary resources to address their safety needs. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 51 of 53 

Visual Communication Board 

Develop visual communication boards and provide training to key staff on use of visual 
communication boards for resource center, shelter and legal advocates. 

Justification: Over half of SafePlace staff took basic sign language classes offered at 
SafePlace in 2008. However, staff is still not equipped to functionally communicate with D/deaf 
clients without an interpreter, especially individuals who may be in crisis and walk-in clients. A 
number of D/deaf participants relayed that it is critical that receptionist staff can communicate 
with D/deaf survivors. The project will develop communication boards with vocabulary and 
icons specific to shelter, legal advocacy and reception and resources to help reduce the need 
for note-writing with walk in clients. 


Partnering to Increase Service Access: A Project of Advocacy, Inc. and SafePlace in Austin, Texas 
Page 52 of 53 

Long Term Initiatives (18 month - 5 Years) 

Program Evaluation 

Expand program evaluation activities within SafePlace to gather information from clients with 
disabilities and who are D/deaf to assess service effectiveness and use this data to 
continuously make service improvements. 

Justification: This initiative will help address quality control and client satisfaction issues as 
SafePlaceÕs Deaf Services program continues to evolve and grow within a hearing 
organization. SafePlace currently has a tool for collecting qualitative data about client 
satisfaction that could be adapted to include an assessment of how D/deaf survivors and 
survivors with disabilities are experiencing SafePlace services. Knowing this information, 
SafePlace can implement new policies and procedures as needed to continue ensuring that 
survivors who are D/deaf or have disabilities receive the most sensitive and welcoming 
services possible. 

Service Coordination 

Develop a formal structure for coordination of services to clients who are D/deaf and who are 
receiving services from SafePlace programs. 

Justification: Stakeholders repeatedly indicated a need for coordinated services between the 
new Deaf Services program and other programs within SafePlace. Clarification of the roles of 
Deaf Services and other programs (e.g., resource advocacy, transitional housing advocacy, 
counseling, etc.) is a need that was highlighted by participants in the needs assessment. 
Effective service coordinating will help ensure that clients are not missing out on available 
services or receiving duplication of services. There are currently nine (9) direct service areas 
within SafePlace and service coordination is an ongoing process that can be improved upon 
and institutionalized to ensure quality services are delivered to the D/deaf community. 

Simplified Intake 

Create, pilot and implement a simplified intake process within SafePlace to increase 
accessibility for persons who have limited reading skills. 

Justification: Several stakeholder groups indicated that the intake process for SafePlace 
services (e.g., counseling, shelter and transitional services) is cumbersome and not accessible 
to individuals who are D/deaf or have cognitive disabilities. Although funding entities require 
certain elements be included in our intake documents, a feasibility study is needed to look at 
the possibility of adapting intake materials so that they are accessible to individuals who are 
D/deaf or have cognitive disabilities. 

Technical Assistance 

Develop and pilot protocol for providing/ensuring comprehensive education, consultation and 
technical assistance to SafePlace direct service staff working with clients with disabilities. 

Justification: SafePlace direct service staff expressed some interest in furthering the 
relationships between Disability Services and opportunities to increase the availability of 
technical assistance from the program. One suggestion was to attend direct service staff 

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

meetings and provide [mini-trainings] and offer technical assistance around current challenges 
and hear about what is going well for staff working with clients with disabilities. 

Volunteer Recruitment 
Design a targeted recruitment plan to engage people with disabilities and Deaf community 
members as volunteers within SafePlace (including but not limited to a Speakers Bureau, peer 
mentors, board members, and Advisory Committee members). 

Justification: Developing a plan to involve persons with disabilities and Deaf community 
members as volunteers will help increase the diversity of SafePlaceÕs volunteer pool and 
provide opportunities to engage this segment of our community as advisors, policy makers, 
educators, or in providing direct services to SafePlace clients. 

Policy Review 
Review SafePlace and Advocacy, Inc. policies to ensure that survivor who have disabilities or 
who are D/deaf gain access to the full range of resources, supports and services available. 

Justification: A thorough review of partner agency policies is needed to identify gaps, 
necessary modification to existing policies and development of new policies to inform and 
ensure agency services are accessible to abuse survivors.