FINAL 
Project 
Peer: 
The 
Washington, 
DC 
Collaborative1 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Executive 
Summary 


1.0 
The 
DC 
Collaborative 
Late 
in 
2006, 
the 
Lt. 
Joseph 
P. 
Kennedy 
Institute, 
as 
the 
lead 
agency, 
and 
the 
D.C. 
Rape 
Crisis 
Center 
began 
bringing 
together 
a 
group 
of 
7 
of 
the 
8 
organizations 
that 
today 
comprise 
Washington, 
DC’s 
Project 
Peer 
--Lt. 
Joseph 
P. 
Kennedy 
Institute 
(JPKI), 
Anchor 
Mental 
Health, 


D.C. 
Coalition 
against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(DC 
Coalition), 
D.C. 
Rape 
Crisis 
Center 
(DCRCC), 
Project 
ACTION!, 
Quality 
Trust 
for 
Individuals 
with 
Disabilities, 
and 
The 
Roc 
– 
in 
recognition 
that 
the 
supports 
we 
were 
providing 
separately 
overlapped 
and 
intersected 
in 
the 
lives 
of 
women 
with 
cognitive 
disabilities 
and/or 
mental 
health 
issues 
who 
had 
experienced 
violence 
or 
abuse. 
In 
2007, 
we 
submitted 
a 
proposal 
to 
the 
Department 
of 
Justice, 
Office 
on 
Violence 
against 
Women, 
for 
a 
project 
to 
end 
our 
artificially 
fragmented 
(“silo 
effect”) 
approach 
to 
supporting 
survivors 
with 
developmental 
disabilities 
and/or 
mental 
health 
issues, 
transform 
our 
daily 
practices, 
and 
change 
the 
awareness 
and 
operating 
cultures 
of 
our 
organizations 
to 
support 
these 
women 
better. 
We 
received 
a 
cooperative 
agreement 
in 
response 
to 
that 
proposal 
in 
October 
2007. 
In 
spring 
of 
2008, 
we 
recruited 
Ramona’s 
Way, 
as 
the 
8th 
partner 
in 
our 
Collaborative, 
to 
bring 
into 
our 
fold 
the 
knowledge 
and 
experience 
of 
an 
anti-domestic 
violence 
direct 
service 
provider 
organization 
already 
working 
with 
survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
Our 
project’s 
name, 
originally 
an 
acronym 
that 
stood 
for 
Partners 
Engaged 
in 
Enhancing 
Resources, 
we 
soon 
realized 
did 
not 
do 
justice 
either 
to 
our 
Collaborative’s 
shared 
vision, 
mission 
and 
values 
or 
the 
broad 
sweep 
of 
change 
we 
believe 
is 
possible 
within 
our 
“system” 
of 
shared 
expectations, 
responsibilities 
and 
goals. 
Today, 
we 
use 
peer 
to 
mean 
equal: 
Everyone 
involved 
in 
this 
project, 
including 
the 
staff 
and 
women 
who 
first 
became 
familiar 
with 
it 
by 
participating 
in 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process, 
is 
equal 
to 
one 
another 
and 
equally 
invested 
in 
the 
outcomes 
we 
envision. 


2.0 
Our 
Needs 
Assessment 
Process 
2.1 
Needs 
Assessment 
Goals: 
After 
developing 
our 
Collaboration 
Charter 
and 
reaffirming 
our 
project’s 
focus, 
we 
proposed 
to 
the 
Office 
on 
Violence 
against 
Women 
a 
qualitative 
data 
collection 
design 
to 
assess 
the 
related 
strengths 
and 
needs 
of 
our 
organizations, 
individually 
and 
collectively. 
This 
needs 
assessment 
sought 
to 
answer 
the 
following 
5 
questions: 
• 
What 
is 
working 
well 
within 
and 
among 
our 
collaborating 
organizations 
in 
support 
of 
women 
This 
project 
is 
supported 
by 
Grant 
No. 
2007-FW-AX-K010 
awarded 
by 
the 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women, 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Justice. 
The 
opinions, 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations 
expressed 
in 
this 
document 
are 
those 
of 
its 
authors 
and 
do 
not 
necessarily 
reflect 
the 
views 
of 
the 
Department 
of 
Justice, 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women. 



with 
cognitive 
disabilities 
and 
mental 
health 
issues 
who 
are 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
and/or 
sexual 
violence? 


• 
What 
are 
the 
gaps 
or 
barriers 
that 
survivors 
with 
cognitive 
disabilities 
and 
mental 
health 
issues 
encounter 
when 
they 
use 
anti-DV/SA 
supports 
in 
and 
among 
our 
member 
organizations? 
• 
What 
policies 
and 
practices 
does 
each 
of 
our 
collaborating 
organizations 
have 
to 
address 
issues 
of 
domestic 
and 
sexual 
violence 
and/or 
support 
survivors 
who 
have 
cognitive 
or 
mental 
health 
disabilities? 
What 
policies 
and 
practices 
do 
we 
need? 
• 
What 
are 
the 
elements 
that 
can 
contribute 
to 
enhancing 
effective 
co-advocacy 
among 
the 
organizations 
collaborating 
in 
our 
system? 
• 
What 
support 
or 
assistance 
will 
each 
of 
our 
collaborating 
organizations 
need 
to 
continue 
our 
collaboration 
and 
sustain 
the 
changes 
we 
undertake 
after 
OVW 
funding 
ends? 
2.2 
Data 
Collection: 
To 
collect 
the 
data 
to 
answer 
these 
questions, 
we 
developed 
a 
variety 
of 
qualitative 
tools 
for 
use 
in 
surveying 
staff/managers 
and 
members 
of 
the 
Boards 
of 
Directors 
of 
our 
organizations 
and 
conducting 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
for 
several 
different 
audiences 
within 
each 
organization. 
We 
implemented 
the 
needs 
assessment 
design 
beginning 
in 
January 
2009. 
Facilitation 
teams 
for 
focus 
groups 
were 
comprised 
of 
volunteers 
from 
among 
the 
staffs 
of 
our 
8 
working 
group 
partner 
organizations. 
For 
interviews, 
the 
team 
was 
comprised 
of 
either 
the 
Project 
Director 
as 
facilitator 
with 
the 
Principal 
Investigator 
as 
notetaker 
or 
the 
PI 
as 
both 
facilitator 
and 
notetaker. 
Despite 
the 
number 
of 
people 
involved 
in 
data 
gathering, 
we 
believe 
we 
achieved 
a 
high 
degree 
of 
continuity 
across 
methods 
because 
we 
• 
used 
approved 
scripts 
for 
each 
interview 
and 
focus 
group; 
• 
held 
a 
common 
training 
session 
for 
all 
facilitation 
team 
members, 
which 
included 
several 
practice 
(problem-solving) 
focus 
groups; 
• 
distributed 
and 
processed 
all 
surveys 
electronically, 
using 
KeySurvey, 
and 
• 
used 
the 
principal 
investigator 
as 
either 
notetaker 
or 
facilitator 
for 
100% 
of 
our 
interviews 
and 
81% 
of 
the 
focus 
groups 
we 
conducted. 
Over 
the 
course 
of 
our 
data 
collection, 


• 
We 
spoke 
directly 
with 
139 
people 
using 
two 
different 
methods: 
o 
18 
women 
and 
men 
through 
individual 
interviews 
for 
Executive 
Directors, 
staff, 
women 
with 
developmental 
disabilities 
or 
survivors 
and 
o 
121 
women 
and 
men 
through 
a 
total 
of 
21 
organization-specific 
focus 
groups 
for 
staff, 
volunteer 
staff, 
survivors, 
women 
with 
mental 
health 
issues, 
women 
with 
developmental 
disabilities, 
and 
for 
DC 
Coalition 
member 
organizations 
only 
mixed-organization 
focus 
groups 
for 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staffs. 
• 
We 
received 
responses 
from 
136 
people 
through 
two 
different 
surveys: 
o 
99 
staff 
and 
managers 
(47.4% 
response 
rate) 
in 
response 
to 
a 
survey 
sent 
to 
6 
out 
of 
8 
organizations 
represented 
in 
the 
working 
group 
(our 
2 
self-advocacy 
groups 
have 
no 
staff) 
and 

o 
37 
board 
members 
(50.7% 
response 
rate) 
in 
response 
to 
our 
survey 
sent 
to 
members 
of 
Boards 
of 
Directors 
of 
7 
out 
of 
8 
organizations 
represented 
in 
the 
working 
group 
(The 
Roc 
has 
no 
Board). 
3.0 
Our 
Needs 
Assessment 
Findings 
Throughout 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process, 
the 
PI 
drew 
up, 
and 
we 
circulated, 
lists 
of 
themes 
that 
arose 
in 
interviews 
(grouped 
for 
like 
respondents, 
e.g., 
“EDs 
of 
disability-related 
organizations”, 
in 
an 
effort 
to 
preserve 
confidentiality), 
focus 
groups 
(separately 
for 
each 
focus 
group, 
released 
to 
the 
working 
group 
only 
after 
comments 
from/approval 
by 
facilitation 
team 
members) 
and 
surveys 
(by 
organization). 
We 
discussed 
these 
themes 
and 
their 
implications 
during 
regularly 
scheduled 
meetings 
of 
our 
working 
group. 


Although 
statistical 
sampling 
was 
not 
part 
of 
our 
qualitative 
methodology, 
our 
ongoing 
review 
of 
the 
data 
and 
our 
companion 
discussions 
have 
enabled 
us 
to 
identify 
commonalities 
across 
collection 
methods, 
audiences 
and 
organizations 
to 
arrive 
at 
the 
key 
findings 
that 
follow. 
Findings 
that 
might 
appear 
to 
be 
contradictory 
(e.g., 
comments 
about 
high 
levels 
of 
staff 
preparation 
in 
Sec. 
3.1 
and 
item 
3.5.1 
compared 
to 
clarifying 
statements 
in 
items 
3.5.3 
and 
3.5.5 
and 
the 
extensive 
training 
requests 
appearing 
in 
3.5.9), 
are 
usually 
complementary. 
They 
arose 
as 
the 
result 
of 
facilitators’ 
probing, 
using 
scripted 
prompts, 
which 
gradually 
guided 
respondents 
either 
to 
have 
a 
fuller 
understanding 
of 
some 
of 
the 
terms 
we 
were 
using 
or 
begin 
to 
grapple 
with 
what 
they 
thought 
they 
knew 
but 
didn’t 
really 
know 
– 
at 
least 
not 
in 
the 
way 
that 
a 
topic 
or 
issue 
is 
understood 
across 
all 
of 
our 
intersecting 
fields. 


Project 
Peer: 
Summary 
of 
Key 
Findings 


• 
Shared 
Values, 
Common 
Strengths 
#1: 
Across 
the 
organizations 
involved 
in 
our 
working 
group, 
our 
needs 
assessment 
confirmed 
that 
a 
core 
strength 
of 
our 
collaborative 
is 
our 
shared 
values. 
Most 
Board 
members, 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
affirm 
the 
importance 
of 
the 
core 
values 
we 
set 
out 
in 
our 
project’s 
Collaboration 
Charter. 
Across 
our 
organizations 
we 
also 
have 
a 
person-centered, 
responsive 
approach 
to 
supports 
in 
common. 
These 
qualities 
are 
the 
common 
ground 
on 
which 
we 
built 
our 
partnership 
and 
will 
develop 
and 
implement 
the 
short-and 
long-term 
goals 
in 
our 
strategic 
plan. 
They 
will 
also 
be 
the 
foundation 
for 
sustaining 
this 
collaborative 
at 
the 
end 
of 
the 
grant 
period. 


• 
Welcoming/supportive 
environments 
(access) 
#2: 
Women 
say 
that 
a 
welcoming 
and 
supportive 
environment 
results 
from 
their 
trusting 
individual 
staff 
members. 
The 
staff 
members 
whom 
they 
trust 
listen 
thoughtfully, 
are 
non-
judgmental, 
take 
them 
seriously, 
connect 
with 
them 
as 
individuals 
and 
treat 
them 
with 
dignity 
and 
respect. 
Feeling 
that 
staff 
is 
protecting 
their 
privacy 
and 
confidentiality 
is 
crucial 
to 
building 
this 
trust; 
women 
want 
to 
have 
control 
over 
their 
stories. 
Women 
are 
comfortable 
when 
they 
see 



people 
like 
themselves 
among 
the 
staff 
who 
support 
them 
and 
are 
accepted 
for 
who 
they 
are. 
Reflecting 
on 
these 
criteria, 
we 
found 
that 
our 
organizations 
had 
a 
varying 
degree 
of 
welcoming 
environments. 


#3: 
Welcoming 
environments 
can 
also 
include 
issues 
of 
access. 
The 
DC 
Coalition 
against 
Domestic 
Violence 
should 
model 
and 
serve 
as 
an 
example 
that 
encourages 
its 
members 
to 
think 
beyond 
physical 
access 
to 
the 
broad 
range 
of 
accommodations 
they 
should 
be 
making. 


• 
Policies 
and 
procedures 
#4: 
None 
of 
the 
organizations 
in 
our 
collaborative 
has 
formal 
policies 
or 
procedures 
to 
guide 
identification, 
responses 
or 
accommodations/supports 
for 
survivors 
with 
mental 
health 
issues 
or 
cognitive/developmental 
disabilities. 
Similarly, 
the 
DC 
Coalition 
does 
not 
have 
internal 
policies 
or 
procedures 
to 
prioritize 
its 
own 
accessibility 
and 
accommodations 
practices, 
and 
it 
does 
not 
have 
policies 
that 
prioritize 
public 
policy/advocacy 
positions 
involving 
issues 
related 
to 
survivors 
with 
disabilities, 
defined 
broadly, 
or 
specific 
to 
our 
focus 
populations. 
The 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
related 
training 
for 
incident 
reporting 
and 
management 
in 
our 
disability-related 
agencies 
are 
not 
equivalent 
to 
guidance 
on 
effective 
ways 
to 
identify, 
respond 
to 
and 
support 
survivors. 
The 
use 
of 
comprehensive 
intake 
forms 
and 
procedures 
meant 
to 
help 
identify 
survivors’ 
disability-related 
needs 
does 
not 
mean 
that 
our 
partner 
organizations 
are 
identifying 
survivors 
and/or 
their 
disability-related 
needs, 
addressing 
accessibility 
issues 
or 
making 
effective 
accommodations 
for 
them. 
None 
of 
our 
disability-related 
organizations 
has 
policies 
to 
guide 
them 
in 
how 
to 
assist 
survivors, 
when 
appropriate, 
to 
take 
advantage 
of 
the 
legal 
rights 
and 
protections 
associated 
with 
domestic 
violence. 
None 
of 
this 
means 
that 
staff 
is 
not 
responding, 
supporting, 
making 
accommodations, 
etc., 
Instead, 
it 
indicates 
that 
supports 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
are 
more 
informal 
than 
formal 
across 
our 
organizations; 
they 
are 
wholly 
dependent 
on 
the 
good 
intentions, 
initiative, 
sensitivity 
and 
skill 
of 
individual 
staff 
members. 
This 
procedural 
informality 
also 
opened 
the 
door 
for 
us 
to 
find 
that 
there 
are 
male 
staff 
members 
in 
our 
organizations, 
who 
have 
women 
in 
their 
“caseloads”, 
who 
indicate 
indirectly 
that 
they 
are 
less 
then 
open 
to 
encountering, 
let 
alone 
proactively 
identifying, 
the 
possibility 
that 
any 
of 
the 
women 
whom 
they 
support 
might 
experience 
either 
sexual 
abuse 
or 
domestic 
violence. 


#5: 
None 
of 
our 
disability-related 
organizations 
does 
safety 
planning, 
as 
understood 
in 
the 
anti-
domestic 
violence/sexual 
abuse 
fields, 
with 
the 
women 
they 
support 
even 
though 
they 
all 
have 
either 
annual 
support 
or 
treatment 
plans. 


#6: 
Across 
all 
of 
our 
collaborators, 
we 
found 
no 
clear, 
shared 
understanding 
of 
the 
concept 
of 
confidentiality 
or 
familiarity 
with 
related 
provisions 
in 
DC 
laws, 
funding-source 
regulations, 
or 
internal 
policies 
and 
procedures, 
especially 
as 
they 
relate 
to 
reporting 
requirements 
for 
survivors 
with 
developmental 
disabilities 
or 
mental 
health 
issues. 


• 
Knowledge: 
Women’s 
access 
to 
information/support/accommodations 
#7: 
Women 
with 
developmental 
disabilities 
and 
mental 
health 
issues 
are 
not 
well 
informed 
about 
sexual 
abuse 
or 
domestic 
violence. 
As 
survivors, 
they 
might 
not 
recognize 
that 
how 
they 
have 



been 
or 
are 
being 
treated 
is 
abuse 
or 
that 
it 
should 
not 
be 
happening 
to 
them. 
They 
do 
not 
have 
practical 
information 
about 
how 
to 
stop 
abuse 
or 
violence 
or 
how 
to 
get 
help 
or 
support 
to 
heal, 
if 
they 
are 
survivors. 
Some 
feel 
that 
staff 
does 
not 
listen 
to 
them. 
It 
is 
unclear 
how 
many 
of 
them 
know 
how 
to 
speak 
up 
in 
their 
own 
behalf. 


• 
Knowledge: 
Staff 
roles/preparation 
#8: 
Staff 
members 
identify 
the 
unique 
relationships 
they 
develop 
with 
women 
as 
a 
“safe 
place” 
for 
survivors 
to 
disclose 
abuse 
or 
violence 
in 
their 
lives 
and/or 
mention 
disability-related 
accommodation 
needs. 
Our 
disability-related 
organizations 
expect 
that 
their 
staffs 
will 
identify 
and 
support 
survivors, 
but 
they 
offer 
limited 
access 
to 
training 
that 
would 
prepare 
them 
to 
meet 
these 
expectations. 
Although 
our 
anti-sexual 
abuse 
or 
domestic 
violence 
organizations 
expect 
that 
they 
are 
fully 
accessible 
and 
their 
staffs 
will 
meet 
the 
accommodations 
needs 
of 
survivors 
with 
cognitive/developmental 
disabilities 
or 
mental 
health 
issues, 
they 
offer 
limited 
access 
to 
training 
that 
would 
prepare 
them 
to 
meet 
these 
expectations. 


#9: 
In 
our 
cognitive/developmental 
disability 
organizations, 
staff 
has 
limited 
understanding 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
its 
potential 
relevance 
to 
the 
people 
they 
support. 
This 
means 
they 
are 
also 
unaware 
of 
the 
range 
of 
protections 
and 
resources 
available 
to 
them. 
Although 
health 
and 
safety 
are 
critical 
concerns 
at 
both 
DMH 
and 
DDS/DDA, 
none 
of 
our 
disability-related 
organizations 
prepares 
its 
staff 
to 
do 
sexual 
abuse/domestic 
violence 
risk 
assessment/safety 
planning 
for 
all 
the 
women 
it 
supports. 


#10: 
Beyond 
offering 
24-hour 
hotline 
access, 
staffs 
in 
our 
anti-sexual 
abuse 
and 
domestic 
violence 
organizations 
are 
not 
clear 
about 
the 
range 
of 
accommodations 
they 
could 
be 
making 
to 
support 
survivors 
with 
disabilities, 
especially 
developmental 
disabilities. 


#11: 
The 
DC 
Coalition’s 
internal 
staff 
has 
limited 
training 
about 
access 
and 
accommodations 
either 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
in 
general 
or 
survivors 
with 
mental 
health 
issues 
or 
developmental 
disabilities 
in 
particular. 
EDs 
of 
the 
Coalition’s 
member 
organizations 
see 
a 
need 
among 
their 
staffs 
for 
more 
preparation 
(advanced) 
in 
access 
and 
accommodations. 
Their 
staffs 
express 
a 
keen 
interest 
in 
the 
Coalition 
taking 
a 
strong 
lead 
in 
assuring 
that 
its 
members 
are 
all 
“on 
the 
same 
page” 
re 
access 
and 
accommodations 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
They 
describe 
an 
absence 
of 
and 
need 
for 
connections 
to 
appropriate 
resources 
and 
best 
practice 
guidelines 
and 
companion 
training. 


• 
Use/availability 
of 
outside 
resources 
#12: 
None 
of 
our 
direct 
service 
provider 
organizations 
currently 
has 
formal 
partnerships 
for 
referrals 
to 
or 
consultations 
with 
outside 
resources 
(either 
our 
partners 
or 
more 
broadly 
in 
the 
community) 
to 
enhance 
their 
support 
for 
survivors 
in 
our 
focus 
population. 
In 
all 
but 
two 
of 
our 
partners, 
it 
is 
unclear 
whether 
staff 
uses 
the 
outside 
resources 
they 
mention. 
Most 
staffs 
indicate 
access 
to 
resource 
manuals, 
either 
internally 
or 
externally 
prepared, 
to 
guide 
their 
use 
of 
outside 
resources, 
although 
the 
quality 
of 
the 
available 
information 
and 
how 
up 
to 
date 
it 
is 
varies. 
The 
members 
of 
our 
self-advocacy 
groups 
indicate 
little 
knowledge 
of 
available 
resources 
for 



supporting 
survivors 
among 
their 
members. 
With 
the 
exception 
of 
their 
general 
familiarity 
with 
the 
DC 
Rape 
Crisis 
Center, 
across 
the 
board 
the 
staffs 
of 
the 
partners 
in 
our 
collaborative 
and 
the 
members 
of 
our 
two 
collaborating 
self-advocacy 
groups 
have 
limited 
familiarity 
with 
the 
other 
organizations 
within 
the 
collaborative, 
what 
they 
do 
and 
how 
each 
might 
benefit 
from 
collaborating 
with 
the 
others. 


#13: 
Developing 
outside 
resources 
(to 
offer 
technical 
assistance, 
advanced 
training, 
etc.) 
for 
the 
use 
of 
its 
member 
organizations 
is 
one 
of 
the 
DC 
Coalition’s 
core 
functions. 
The 
Coalition’s 
members 
have 
high 
praise 
for 
its 
web-based 
resource 
manual 
and 
suggest 
its 
potential 
as 
a 
resource 
for 
our 
Collaborative. 
Member 
organizations 
develop 
their 
own 
relationships 
with 
outside 
resources. 
With 
the 
exception 
being 
their 
awareness 
of 
the 
DC 
Rape 
Crisis 
Center, 
staff 
of 
the 
member 
organizations 
is 
unfamiliar 
with 
the 
members 
of 
our 
collaborative 
and 
with 
developmental 
disability 
service 
providers 
in 
general. 


The 
leadership 
of 
our 
Collaborative 
partners 
has 
voiced 
a 
keen 
interest 
in 
the 
positive 
changes 
that 
can 
accrue 
to 
their 
organizations 
and 
our 
Collaborative 
as 
a 
system 
through 
this 
project. 
Most 
of 
the 
Executive 
Directors 
(or 
equivalents) 
of 
our 
partners 
have 
considerable 
control 
over 
proposing 
and 
leading 
change 
within 
their 
organizations, 
including 
policy 
development. 
Most 
of 
their 
staffs 
and 
the 
women 
who 
use 
their 
services 
perceive 
that 
these 
organizations 
are 
flexible 
and 
open 
to 
change. 
Building 
on 
our 
shared 
values 
and 
common 
organizational 
cultures, 
the 
findings 
we 
highlight 
above 
will 
guide 
our 
strategic 
planning. 
And, 
as 
we 
plan, 
the 
many 
opportunities 
we 
have 
identified 
throughout 
this 
report 
will 
suggest 
activities 
for 
our 
Collaborative 
to 
implement 
during 
the 
remainder 
of 
the 
grant 
term 
and 
beyond 
so 
that 
we 
develop 
and 
sustain 
among 
ourselves 
a 
seamless 
system 
of 
supports 
for 
survivors 
with 
either 
developmental 
disabilities 
or 
mental 
health 
issues 
living 
in 
the 
District 
of 
Columbia. 


***** 


Project 
Peer 
takes 
this 
opportunity 
to 
share 
our 
appreciation 
with 
everyone 
who 
participated 
in 
our 
needs 
assessment. 
This 
includes: 


• 
The 
many 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
survivors 
who 
volunteered 
to 
share 
their 
stories 
and 
offered 
us 
guidance 
through 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
– 
you 
inspired 
and 
educated 
us. 
We 
are 
committed 
to 
making 
our 
service 
system 
more 
sensitive, 
accessible 
and 
accommodating 
for 
you 
and 
women 
like 
you 
than 
it 
is 
today. 
• 
The 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staffs 
of 
our 
working 
group 
partner 
organizations 
who 
volunteered 
to 
meet 
with 
us 
– 
the 
level 
of 
honesty 
and 
commitment 
that 
you 
demonstrated 
in 
discussing 
your 
agencies’ 
strengths 
and 
needs 
in 
interviews 
and 
focus 
groups 
fill 
us 
with 
confidence 
that 
this 
project 
will 
make 
a 
real 
difference 
in 
the 
lives 
of 
survivors 
and 
achieve 
lasting 
changes 
for 
our 
system. 
• 
The 
members 
of 
our 
working 
group, 
who 
helped 
draft 
our 
assessment 
tools 
and 
then 
completed 
countless 
hours 
of 
ground 
work 
to 
recruit 
volunteer 
participants 
for 
our 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
from 
among 
your 
fellow 
staff 
members 
and 
your 
organizations’ 
service 
recipients 
– 
the 
data 
we 
gathered 
is 
as 
rich 
as 
it 
is 
solely 
because 
of 
the 
questions 
you 

wanted 
to 
ask, 
the 
thoughtfulness 
of 
your 
recruiting 
efforts 
and 
the 
level 
of 
access 
you 
made 
possible. 


• 
The 
several 
members 
of 
our 
working 
group 
and 
your 
colleagues 
whom 
you 
recruited 
to 
serve 
on 
facilitation 
teams, 
usually 
more 
than 
once 
– 
we 
are 
so 
grateful 
that 
you 
found 
a 
way 
to 
give 
us 
this 
extra 
time 
from 
your 
already 
busy 
schedules 
and 
shared 
so 
sensitively 
in 
gathering 
the 
data 
that 
are 
crucial 
to 
our 
making 
the 
improvements 
it 
will 
take 
to 
make 
our 
system 
more 
accessible 
and 
accommodating. 
• 
The 
members 
of 
the 
Boards 
of 
Directors 
and 
staffs 
of 
our 
working 
group 
partners 
who 
took 
the 
time 
to 
complete 
our 
surveys 
– 
your 
comments 
on 
your 
organizations’ 
values 
and 
priorities 
and 
the 
level 
of 
preparation 
staffs 
feel 
they 
have 
received 
to 
respond 
to 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
have 
reaffirmed 
that 
we 
share 
a 
foundation 
of 
common 
values 
and 
organizational 
cultures 
open 
to 
change 
on 
which 
we 
can 
build 
– 
working 
together 
– 
to 
improve 
our 
system. 
Thank 
you 
all!