Strengths 
and 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
from 
the 
State 
of 
Idaho 
Idaho 
Equal 
Access 


Collaborative 


This 
project 
is 
supported 
by 
Grant 
No. 
2006-FW-AX-K011 
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 
authors 
and 
do 
not 
necessarily 
reflect 
the 
views 
of 
the 
Department 
of 
Justice, 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women. 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Table 
of 
Contents 
Section1–Overview 
oftheIEACProject..................3 
Section 
2 
– 
Criteria 
for 
Pilot 
Site 
Selection 
& 
Communities 
Involved 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
5 
Section3–Overview 
oftheStrengthsand..................7 
Needs 
Assessment 
Plan 
Section 
4 
– 
Strengths 
and 
Needs 
Assessment 
Findings 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
9 
Barriers, 
Needs 
and 
Gaps 
in 
Accessing 
Services 
Section 
5 
– 
Strengths 
and 
Opportunities 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
23 
Section 
6 
– 
Implications 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
29 
Appendix 
A 
– 
Demographic 
and 
Statistical 
Information 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
33 


2 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


_________________________________
Section1OverviewofIEACCollaborationandProject
Collaboration 


In 
October 
2006 
the 
State 
Independent 
Living 
Council 
received 
a 
three-year 
cooperative 
agreement, 
entitled 
the 
Educational 
and 
Technical 
Assistance 
Grant 
to 
End 
Violence 
Against 
Women 
with 
Disabilities, 
from 
the 
Department 
of 
Justice, 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women, 
to 
examine 
and 
propose 
changes 
to 
the 
systems 
responding 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
experience 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence. 


The 
State 
Independent 
Living 
Council 
(SILC), 
which 
is 
Idaho’s 
only 
gubernatorial 
advocacy 
organization 
run 
by 
and 
for 
people 
with 
disabilities, 
then 
formed 
a 
project 
team. 
The 
project 
team 
was 
comprised 
of 
the 
Idaho 
Coalition 
Against 
Sexual 
and 
Domestic 
Violence—the 
State’s 
largest 
umbrella 
organization 
of 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
(dv/sa) 
service 
providers 
and, 
Boise 
State 
University 
Gender 
Studies 
Program—Idaho’s 
largest 
university, 
nationally 
recognized 
for 
its 
work 
in 
public 
policy, 
research, 
and 
service. 
Together, 
these 
three 
organizations 
formed 
the 
Idaho 
Equal 
Access 
Collaborative 
(IEAC) 
and 
began 
the 
Planning 
Phase 
of 
the 
grant 
project. 


The 
mission 
of 
the 
Idaho 
Equal 
Access 
Collaborative 
(IEAC) 
is 
to 
promote 
attitudinal 
and 
systemic 
change 
to 
achieve 
equal 
access 
to 
services 
for 
all 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
seeking 
safety 
and 
protection 
from 
sexual 
assault 
and/or 
domestic 
violence 
through 
the 
collaborative 
efforts 
of 
Domestic 
Violence, 
Sexual 
Assault, 
and 
Disability 
organizations. 


It 
is 
the 
vision 
of 
the 
Idaho 
Equal 
Access 
Collaborative 
(IEAC) 
that 
any 
victim, 
regardless 
of 
ability, 
has 
equal 
access 
to 
the 
comprehensive 
services 
the 
individual 
chooses, 
no 
matter 
where 
the 
individual 
accesses 
the 
integrated 
network 
of 
service. 


Overview 
of 
Project 
Planning 
Phase 


During 
the 
first 
six 
months 
of 
the 
planning 
phase, 
the 
IEAC 
worked 
collaboratively 
to 
develop 
the 
scope 
and 
goals 
of 
the 
project. 
As 
part 
of 
this 
process, 
the 
IEAC 
selected 
three 
Idaho 
pilot 
sites, 
six 
pilot 
site 
partners, 
and 
developed 
two 
guiding 
documents: 
the 
Collaboration 
Charter 
and 
the 
Strengths 
and 
Needs 
Assessment 
Plan. 


Selection 
of 
the 
Pilot 
Sites: 
As 
established 
by 
the 
cooperative 
agreement 
between 
the 
IEAC 
partners 
and 
the 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women, 
this 
cooperative 
agreement 
funding 
must 
be 
used 
to 
create 
attitudinal 
and 
systemic 
change 
within 
the 
collaborating 
IEAC 
partners, 
as 
well 
as 
in 
the 
three 
selected 
Idaho 
pilot 
site 
communities. 
To 
meet 
these 
objectives, 
the 
IEAC 
commenced 
selection 
of 
its 
Idaho 
pilot 
sites, 
which 
would 
work 
closely 
with 
the 
IEAC 
to 
achieve 
the 
goal 
of 
enhancing 
the 
services 
available 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
have 
experienced 
domestic 
or 
sexual 
violence. 
The 
IEAC 
identified 
criteria 
for 
selecting 
pilot 
sites. 
Based 
on 
those 
criteria, 
three 
sites 
in 
Idaho—Coeur 
d’Alene, 
Rexburg, 
and 
Nampa—best 
met 
the 
selected 
criteria 
(Selection 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
is 
described 
in 
Section 
2.) 


Selection 
of 
Pilot 
Site 
Partners: 
At 
each 
of 
the 
three 
pilot 
sites, 
the 
IEAC 
selected 
one 
disability 
and 
one 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
provider 
to 
collaboratively 
work 
together 
to 


3 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


create 
attitudinal 
and 
systemic 
change 
within 
and 
between 
their 
own 
organizations. 
The 
selection 
was 
based 
on 
pre-existing 
relationships, 
previous 
collaborative 
work, 
willingness 
to 
build 
on 
pre-existing 
relationships, 
and 
community 
demographics. 
The 
IEAC 
assisted 
by 
providing 
technical 
assistance, 
support 
and 
information 
as 
needed 
to 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities. 
(Selection 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
and 
an 
overview 
of 
those 
communities 
are 
described 
in 
Section 
2.) 


Collaboration 
Charter: 
The 
IEAC 
worked 
extensively 
to 
develop 
a 
collaboration 
charter. 
The 
collaboration 
charter 
describes 
the 
IEAC’s 
mission, 
vision, 
guiding 
principles, 
roles 
and 
responsibilities 
of 
each 
collaborative 
partner, 
decision 
making 
and 
dispute 
resolution 
protocols, 
policies 
pertaining 
to 
internal 
and 
external 
communications, 
and 
a 
media 
plan. 
The 
IEAC 
Collaboration 
Charter 
also 
contains 
definitions 
of 
terms 
that 
have 
been 
used 
throughout 
the 
project. 


Strengths 
and 
Needs 
Assessment 
Plan 
(SNAP): 
Upon 
completion 
of 
the 
Collaboration 
Charter 
and 
the 
first 
six 
months 
of 
the 
Planning 
Phase, 
the 
IEAC 
commenced 
developing 
the 
SNAP. 
The 
objective 
of 
the 
SNAP 
was 
to 
identify 
initiatives 
that 
will 
ensure 
commitment 
and 
participation 
between 
the 
IEAC 
and 
the 
pilot 
sites 
in 
order 
to 
increase 
access 
to 
services, 
capacity 
and 
community 
building 
and 
to 
create 
attitudinal 
and 
systemic 
change. 


The 
IEAC’s 
SNAP 
outlined 
the 
process 
for 
conducting 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
at 
each 
pilot 
site 
to 
identify 
their 
needs 
and 
strengths. 
The 
SNAP 
also 
included 
the 
roles 
and 
responsibilities 
of 
the 
IEAC 
partners 
and 
an 
extensive 
recruitment 
plan 
that 
promoted 
and 
provided 
for 
the 
safety, 
comfort, 
respect, 
accessibility 
and 
confidentiality 
of 
all 
participants. 


The 
SNAP 
was 
submitted 
to 
and 
approved 
by 
OVW 
on 
July 
28, 
2008, 
and 
the 
IEAC 
commenced 
implementation 
of 
the 
SNAP 
in 
each 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities, 
by 
conducting 
targeted 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews. 
After 
completion 
of 
the 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
in 
each 
pilot 
site, 
the 
IEAC 
analyzed 
the 
information 
that 
was 
gathered 
and 
compiled 
the 
information 
into 
this 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
(NAR), 
which 
documented 
the 
findings 
of 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment. 


Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
and 
Development 
of 
the 
Strategic 
Planning 
Phase 


Upon 
receiving 
approval 
of 
the 
NAR, 
the 
IEAC 
will 
select 
from 
the 
reported 
strengths 
and 
needs 
of 
each 
pilot 
site 
and 
create 
a 
broad 
“menu 
of 
initiatives” 
for 
each 
site. 
This 
will 
be 
the 
first 
step 
toward 
narrowing 
the 
focus 
of 
the 
final 
pilot 
site 
project. 
Upon 
completion 
of 
the 
“menu 
of 
initiatives,” 
the 
IEAC 
will 
again 
narrow 
the 
focus 
by 
selecting 
only 
those 
initiatives 
for 
each 
pilot 
site 
which 
appear 
to 
be 
obtainable, 
sustainable 
and 
allowable 
under 
OVW 
programmatic 
conditions. 
The 
IEAC 
will 
then 
schedule 
a 
series 
of 
visits 
to 
each 
pilot 
site 
to 
discuss 
the 
selected 
initiatives 
with 
the 
pilot 
site 
partners 
and 
further 
narrow 
the 
focus 
to 
just 
those 
initiatives 
that 
each 
pilot 
site 
perceives 
to 
be 
most 
useful 
in 
their 
community. 
These 
proposed 
initiatives 
will 
then 
be 
submitted 
to 
OVW 
for 
approval. 


Upon 
approval 
of 
the 
NAR, 
the 
IEAC 
and 
it’s 
pilot 
site 
partners 
will 
work 
collaboratively 
to 
develop 
and 
implement 
a 
strategic 
plan 
that 
will 
ensure 
the 
success 
of 
each 
selected 
initiative. 
The 
IEAC 
will 
also 
utilize 
ongoing 
technical 
assistance 
from 
the 
Vera 
Institute 
of 
Justice 
to 
ensure 
development 
of 
a 
strategic 
plan 
that 
incorporates 
the 
findings 
identified 
in 
the 
needs 
assessment 
report. 


4 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


The 
strategic 
plan 
will 
utilize 
the 
strengths 
that 
are 
currently 
present 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
as 
well 
as 
addressing 
the 
barriers 
and 
gaps 
in 
services 
that 
have 
been 
identified 
in 
the 
report. 
The 
strategic 
plan 
will 
also 
assist 
in 
creating 
new 
collaborative 
opportunities 
between 
the 
organizations 
and 
advocacy 
groups 
as 
well 
as 
strategies 
addressing 
future 
sustainability 
of 
the 
project 
beyond 
the 
current 
grant. 


Section2PilotSiteSelection
The 
IEAC 
identified 
the 
following 
criteria 
for 
selecting 
pilot 
sites: 


1. 
Demographics-Most 
areas 
of 
Idaho 
are 
populated 
by 
mid-sized, 
predominantly 
rural 
cities 
and 
towns. 
To 
increase 
the 
chances 
of 
replication 
of 
IEAC 
efforts 
at 
other 
sites 
at 
a 
future 
time, 
such 
mid-size, 
partly 
rural 
towns 
and 
cities 
from 
different 
regions 
of 
the 
state 
were 
the 
most 
desirable. 
2. 
Pre-existing 
relationships 
– 
Of 
importance 
in 
selecting 
pilot 
sites 
was 
identification 
of 
sites 
with 
pre-existing 
relationships 
between 
local 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers 
and 
disability 
service 
providers. 
3. 
Previous 
collaborative 
work 
-Also, 
of 
high 
importance 
in 
selecting 
pilot 
sites 
was 
identification 
of 
sites 
which 
had 
previously 
demonstrated 
their 
willingness 
to 
work 
collaboratively 
with 
local 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers 
and 
disability 
service 
providers. 
4. 
Willingness 
to 
build 
on 
pre-existing 
relationships 
-Additionally, 
selection 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites 
was 
based 
on 
a 
demonstrated 
willingness 
to 
build 
on 
their 
pre-existing 
collaborative 
relationships 
with 
local 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers 
and 
disability 
service 
providers. 
This 
willingness 
was 
ascertained 
through 
telephone 
conversations 
with 
the 
Executive 
Directors 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
domestic 
violence 
and 
or 
sexual 
assault 
service 
providers 
and 
the 
pilot 
site 
Independent 
Living 
Centers. 
After 
evaluating 
each 
potential 
pilot 
site 
against 
the 
criteria, 
the 
IEAC 
concluded 
that 
it 
would 
not 
be 
possible 
to 
find 
three 
sites 
that 
perfectly 
met 
all 
four 
criteria, 
especially 
the 
criteria 
of 
pre-
existing 
relationships. 
For 
those 
sites 
without 
pre-existing 
relationships, 
an 
evaluation 
of 
their 
willingness 
to 
collaborate 
was 
made. 
The 
IEAC 
determined 
that 
three 
sites 
in 
Idaho—Coeur 
d’Alene, 
Rexburg/Idaho 
Falls, 
and 
Nampa/Caldwell—best 
met 
the 
criteria. 
In 
each 
of 
these 
communities 
the 
IEAC 
identified 
one 
domestic 
violence 
program 
and 
one 
independent 
living 
center 
that 
had 
a 
history 
of 
pre-existing 
relationships, 
previous 
collaborative 
work, 
or 
a 
willingness 
to 
collaborate. 


Coeur 
d’Alene, 
Idaho: 
Coeur 
d’Alene 
is 
a 
medium 
size 
community 
located 
in 
the 
northern 
“panhandle” 
of 
the 
state. 
In 
Coeur 
d’Alene, 
the 
community 
pilot 
site 
partners 
are 
the 
Women’s 
Center 
and 
Disability 
Action 
Center 
Northwest 
(DAC-NW). 
This 
pilot 
project 
site 
meets 
IEAC 
criteria 
because 
of 
its 
mid-size, 
partly 
rural 
population, 
its 
diverse 
population, 
and 
its 
geographic 
location 
in 
the 
northern 
part 
of 
the 
state. 
The 
Disability 
Action 
Center 
Northwest 
and 
Women’s 
Center 
are 
in 
close 
geographic 
proximity 
to 
one 
another. 
Although 
they 
have 
not 
previously 


5 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


worked 
together, 
the 
leaders 
of 
both 
organizations 
have 
expressed 
willingness 
to 
collaborate 
with 
one 
another 
and 
the 
IEAC 
to 
engage 
in 
this 
work. 


Rexburg/Idaho 
Falls, 
Idaho: 
Rexburg 
and 
Idaho 
Falls 
are 
located 
in 
the 
south-eastern 
Idaho 
area. 
The 
community 
pilot 
site 
partners 
are 
the 
Family 
Crisis 
Center 
in 
Rexburg, 
Idaho 
and 
Living 
Independently 
for 
Everyone, 
Inc. 
(LIFE), 
which 
is 
located 
30 
miles 
away 
in 
Idaho 
Falls, 
Idaho. 
The 
Rexburg/Idaho 
Falls 
area 
is 
a 
mid-size, 
predominantly 
rural 
valley. 
LIFE 
and 
the 
Family 
Crisis 
Center 
have 
a 
good 
pre-existing 
relationship 
and 
both 
organizations 
have 
expressed 
willingness 
to 
work 
with 
the 
IEAC 
and 
one 
another 
to 
address 
issues 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
in 
their 
community. 


Nampa/Caldwell, 
Idaho: 
Nampa 
and 
Caldwell 
are 
located 
in 
the 
south-western 
Idaho 
area. 
The 
community 
pilot 
site 
partners 
are 
the 
Valley 
Crisis 
Center, 
in 
Nampa 
and 
Living 
Independence 
Network 
Corporation 
(LINC), 
approximately 
ten 
miles 
away 
in 
Caldwell. 
The 
Nampa/Caldwell 
area 
is 
a 
mid-sized 
community 
bordered 
on 
the 
north, 
east, 
and 
south 
by 
many 
rural 
communities 
that 
have 
no 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers, 
but 
do 
have 
a 
high 
number 
of 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
crimes. 
Although 
they 
have 
not 
previously 
worked 
together, 
both 
the 
Valley 
Crisis 
Center 
and 
LINC 
have 
expressed 
willingness 
to 
work 
with 
the 
IEAC 
and 
one 
another 
to 
address 
issues 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
in 
their 
community. 


_______________________________________
Section3StrengthsandNeedsAssessmentPlan
To 
accurately 
assess 
the 
current 
state 
of 
services 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
those 
who 
are 
Deaf 
in 
the 
three 
pilot 
site 
communities, 
the 
IEAC 
planned 
and 
conducted 
a 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment. 
The 
results 
of 
a 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment 
can 
provide 
important 
information 
about 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
in 
their 
pilot 
site 
community’s 
service 
area, 
the 
services 
available 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
the 
resources 
of 
the 
organizations 
responsible 
for 
providing 
those 
services 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities. 
By 
comparing 
this 
current 
snapshot 
of 
each 
pilot 
site 
community 
with 
the 
IEAC’s 
vision 
statement, 
describing 
how 
things 
should 
be, 
the 
IEAC 
will 
be 
able 
to 
identify 
unmet 
needs 
and 
be 
one 
step 
closer 
to 
developing 
a 
plan 
to 
address 
those 
needs 
and, 
ultimately, 
improving 
services. 
Ultimately, 
the 
results 
of 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment 
will 
be 
used 
to 
guide 
the 
IEAC’s 
decisions 
about 
how 
to 
improve 
services 
for 
each 
community 
and 
how 
to 
build 
the 
capacity 
of 
the 
organizations 
providing 
these 
services. 


Global 
Questions 
central 
to 
the 
SNAP 


The 
IEAC 
based 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment 
activities 
on 
the 
following 
global 
questions, 
which 
formed 
the 
basis 
for 
the 
specific 
questions 
that 
were 
used 
for 
each 
pilot 
sites’ 
focus 
groups 
and 
individual 
interviews. 


1. 
What 
resources 
and 
services 
do 
disability 
and 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers 
currently 
have 
available 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
have 
experienced 
violence? 
2. 
To 
what 
extent 
do 
organizational 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
protocols 
at 
the 
service 
organizations 
hinder 
or 
promote 
meeting 
the 
particular 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault? 
6 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


3. 
What 
barriers 
exist 
for 
service 
providers 
which 
hinder 
them 
from 
providing 
services 
and 
which 
we 
could 
plan 
strategically 
to 
minimize 
or 
overcome? 
4. 
What 
barriers 
and 
facilitators 
to 
utilizing 
services 
exist 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities, 
which 
we 
could 
plan 
strategically 
to 
minimize 
or 
overcome? 
5. 
What 
relationships 
currently 
exist 
among 
service 
providers 
and 
how 
could 
the 
IEAC 
foster 
new 
relationships 
and 
collaborations 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
areas? 
What 
is 
the 
history 
of 
these 
relationships? 
6. 
What 
do 
women 
with 
disabilities 
in 
pilot 
site 
areas 
know 
about 
the 
services 
currently 
available 
to 
them? 
Target 
Audiences 


The 
IEAC 
conducted 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment 
plan 
(SNAP) 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
during 
August, 
September 
and 
October 
of 
2008. 
The 
“target 
audiences” 
of 
the 
strength 
and 
needs 
assessment 
were: 
(1) 
the 
pilot 
site 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers; 
(2) 
the 
pilot 
site 
disability 
service 
providers; 
and 
(3) 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities. 


The 
IEAC 
conducted 
one 
focus 
group 
with 
each 
of 
these 
target 
audiences 
in 
each 
pilot 
site 


community. 
Specifically, 
the 
IEAC 
conducted: 


• 
one 
focus 
group 
with 
disability 
service 
providers; 


• 
one 
focus 
group 
with 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers; 
and 


• 
one 
focus 
group 
with 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
each 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities. 


In 
each 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities, 
the 
IEAC 
also 
conducted: 


• 
one 
interview 
with 
the 
disability 
service 
providers’ 
executive 
director; 
and 


• 
one 
interview 
with 
the 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers’ 
executive 


director. 


The 
results 
of 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment 
interviews 
and 
focus 
groups 
will 
guide 
the 
IEAC 
in 
developing 
a 
strategic 
plan 
that 
will 
be 
specific 
to 
each 
pilot 
site’s 
assessment. 


Interview 
Participant 
Recruitment 


The 
following 
chart 
documents 
the 
number 
of 
focus 
group 
and 
interview 
participants. 


Pilot 
Site 
Disability 
Service 
Providers 
DV/SA 
Service 
Providers 
Disability 
Executive 
Directors 
DV/SA 
Executive 
Directors 
Individuals 
with 
Disabilities 
Pilot 
Site 
#1 
3 
4 
1 
1 
11 
Pilot 
Site 
#2 
3 
7 
1 
1 
7 
Pilot 
Site 
#3 
2 
7 
1 
1 
4 
Total 
Individuals 
at 
Focus 
Groups 
& 
Interviews 
8 
18 
3 
3 
22 


7 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


• 
Independent 
Living 
Center 
Executive 
Directors 
-The 
IEAC 
Co-directors 
contacted 
the 
independent 
living 
center 
executive 
directors 
in 
each 
pilot 
site 
and 
arranged 
for 
an 
individual 
interview 
at 
the 
independent 
living 
center 
office. 
Our 
goal 
was 
to 
interview 
all 
three 
independent 
living 
center 
executive 
directors. 
We 
were 
successful 
in 
reaching 
this 
goal. 
Each 
interview 
was 
conducted 
by 
the 
co-directors, 
with 
one 
co-director 
asking 
questions 
and 
the 
other 
taking 
notes. 
An 
audio 
recording 
of 
the 
interview 
was 
made 
to 
ensure 
that 
the 
information 
gathered 
was 
accurate. 
• 
Independent 
Living 
Center 
Staff 
-The 
IEAC 
Co-directors 
contacted 
the 
executive 
director 
of 
the 
independent 
living 
center 
in 
each 
pilot 
site 
and 
asked 
them 
to 
select 
up 
to 
eleven 
staff, 
board 
members, 
and 
volunteers 
to 
participate 
in 
a 
focus 
group 
to 
be 
held 
at 
their 
office 
at 
a 
mutually 
agreeable 
date 
and 
time. 
Our 
goal 
was 
to 
interview 
between 
twelve 
and 
fourteen 
individuals 
who 
serve 
on 
the 
board, 
work 
or 
volunteer 
at 
independent 
living 
centers. 
We 
were 
successful 
in 
interviewing 
eight. 
Each 
independent 
living 
center 
office 
was 
staffed 
by 
a 
total 
of 
three 
people. 
At 
two 
of 
the 
three 
offices, 
all 
three 
staff 
people 
participated. 
At 
one 
office, 
two 
staff 
of 
three 
were 
available 
to 
participate. 
No 
independent 
living 
center 
board 
members 
elected 
to 
participate. 
Volunteers 
elected 
to 
participate 
in 
the 
women 
with 
disabilities 
focus 
group 
instead. 
A 
typed 
transcription 
and 
audio 
recording 
of 
the 
focus 
group 
was 
made 
to 
ensure 
that 
the 
information 
gathered 
was 
accurate. 
• 
Domestic 
Violence 
Program 
Executive 
Directors 
-The 
IEAC 
Co-directors 
contacted 
the 
executive 
directors 
in 
each 
pilot 
site 
and 
arranged 
for 
an 
individual 
interview 
at 
the 
domestic 
violence 
program 
office. 
Our 
goal 
was 
to 
interview 
all 
three 
domestic 
violence 
program 
executive 
directors. 
We 
were 
successful 
in 
reaching 
this 
goal. 
Each 
interview 
was 
conducted 
by 
the 
co-directors, 
with 
one 
co-director 
asking 
questions 
and 
the 
other 
taking 
notes. 
An 
audio 
recording 
of 
the 
interview 
was 
made 
to 
ensure 
accuracy. 
• 
Domestic 
Violence 
Program 
Staff 
-The 
IEAC 
Co-directors 
contacted 
the 
executive 
director 
of 
the 
domestic 
violence 
program 
in 
each 
pilot 
site 
and 
asked 
them 
to 
select 
up 
to 
eleven 
staff, 
board 
members, 
and 
volunteers 
to 
participate 
in 
a 
focus 
group 
to 
be 
held 
at 
the 
domestic 
violence 
program 
office 
at 
a 
mutually 
agreeable 
date 
and 
time. 
Our 
goal 
was 
to 
interview 
seventeen 
individuals 
who 
serve 
on 
the 
board, 
work 
or 
volunteer 
at 
domestic 
violence 
programs. 
We 
were 
successful 
in 
reaching 
eighteen 
individuals. 
A 
typed 
transcription 
and 
audio 
recording 
of 
the 
focus 
group 
was 
made 
to 
ensure 
accuracy. 
• 
Individuals 
with 
Disabilities 
-To 
recruit 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
for 
the 
focus 
groups 
and/or 
interviews 
in 
each 
pilot 
site 
the 
IEAC 
talked 
to 
advocates 
at 
the 
appropriate 
organizations 
* 
about 
recruiting 
women 
with 
disabilities 
from 
their 
community 
to 
participate 
in 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews. 
The 
criteria 
for 
participation 
was 
that 
the 
individuals 
must 
live 
in 
the 
community, 
identify 
as 
having 
a 
disability, 
and 
be 
willing 
to 
express 
their 
insights 
pertaining 
to 
their 
experiences 
as 
a 
person 
with 
a 
disability. 
The 
advocates 
were 
advised 
that 
they 
should 
not 
target 
particular 
individuals 
to 
participate, 
especially 
those 
individuals 
with 
a 
known 
history 
of 
violence. 
The 
advocates 
at 
the 
independent 
living 
centers 
took 
requests 
for 
accommodations, 
private 
interviews, 
transportation 
and 
daycare. 
The 
advocates 
assisted 
the 
IEAC 
with 
arrangements 
for 
all 
* 


The 
name 
of 
the 
appropriate 
organizations 
shall 
not 
be 
disclosed 
to 
protect 
the 
confidentiality 
of 
participants. 


8 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


requests. 
The 
goal 
set 
out 
in 
the 
SNAP 
was 
to 
reach 
thirty-three 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
The 
IEAC 
was 
successful 
in 
interviewing 
twenty-two 
individuals, 
and 
they 
provided 
extensive, 
substantive, 
information, 
which 
easily 
met 
our 
needs 
without 
conducting 
additional 
interviews. 


Each 
individual 
who 
participated 
in 
the 
focus 
groups 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
was 
greeted 
upon 
their 
arrival 
by 
IEAC 
Co-directors. 
Each 
participant 
was 
provided 
with 
a 
confidentiality 
waiver 
prior 
to 
participation, 
an 
explanation 
of 
that 
waiver, 
and 
a 
$25.00 
cash 
gift 
card. 
This 
personal 
contact 
offered 
an 
opportunity 
for 
the 
IEAC 
to 
welcome 
participants, 
ensure 
that 
their 
accommodation 
requests 
were 
appropriately 
met, 
and 
thank 
them 
for 
their 
time 
and 
input. 


Methodology 


Memorandum 
of 
Understanding: 
The 
IEAC 
and 
each 
pilot 
site 
partner 
signed 
a 
memorandum 
of 
understanding 
that 
outlined 
their 
mutual 
commitment 
to 
this 
grant 
project. 


Strengths 
and 
Needs 
Assessment 
Administrators: 
The 
strengths 
and 
needs 
assessment 
was 
administered 
at 
each 
of 
the 
three 
pilot 
sites 
by 
the 
IEAC 
Project 
Co-directors. 
Boise 
State 
University’s 
Director 
of 
the 
Gender 
Studies 
Program 
assisted 
with 
SNAP 
administration 
at 
each 
focus 
group 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
In 
each 
interview, 
the 
IEAC 
Co-directors 
made 
an 
audio 
recording 
to 
ensure 
the 
accuracy 
of 
their 
notes. 
In 
each 
focus 
group 
the 
IEAC 
Co-
directors 
made 
an 
audio 
recording 
and 
a 
transcriptionist, 
hired 
by 
the 
IEAC, 
was 
present 
to 
type 
verbatim 
answers. 
All 
participants 
were 
informed 
that 
the 
discussion 
would 
be 
recorded 
verbatim 
without 
any 
identifying 
information 
attached 
to 
the 
individual. 
Each 
participant 
also 
received 
a 
written 
waiver 
advising 
them 
that 
they 
were 
being 
recorded 
and 
that 
the 
information 
they 
provided 
would 
be 
used 
in 
a 
report, 
but 
would 
not 
identify 
them 
specifically. 


The 
IEAC 
also 
developed 
the 
privacy 
policy, 
outlined 
in 
the 
SNAP 
that 
requires 
all 
recordings 
and 
transcriptions 
be 
kept 
by 
the 
IEAC 
in 
a 
locked 
cabinet, 
for 
a 
minimum 
of 
120 
days, 
accessible 
only 
by 
authorized 
staff, 
and 
not 
made 
available 
to 
the 
general 
public. 
All 
original 
and 
copied 
focus 
group 
and 
interview 
recordings 
and 
transcriptions 
will 
be 
erased 
or 
shredded 
no 
later 
than 
twelve 
months 
after 
being 
recorded 
or 
transcribed. 


Section4StrengthsandNeedsAssessmentFindings
The 
information 
gathered 
from 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
conducted 
at 
all 
three 
pilot 
sites 
has 
been 
compiled 
into 
a 
composite 
set 
of 
findings, 
which 
are 
as 
follows: 


• 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
have 
inconsistent 
knowledge 
about 
resources 
available 
within 
their 
communities 
and 
no 
known 
or 
easily 
usable 
centralized 
resource 
from 
which 
to 
obtain 
that 
knowledge. 
• 
In 
every 
pilot 
site 
community, 
there 
is 
a 
need 
for 
greater 
knowledge 
about, 
and 
discussion 
of, 
disability, 
the 
dynamics 
of 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault, 
and 
the 
intersections 
between 
them. 
The 
need 
for 
this 
education 
and 
dialogue 
exists 
9 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


among 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
in 
the 
community 
at 
large. 


• 
Accessibility 
of 
services 
includes 
physical 
accessibility 
of 
service 
providers’ 
facilities 
but 
also 
entails 
broader 
issues 
of 
attitudes, 
atmosphere, 
and 
ability 
to 
be 
referred 
to, 
and 
participate 
in, 
the 
variety 
of 
available 
programs 
and 
services 
appropriate 
to 
the 
individual’s 
needs. 
• 
Accessibility 
of 
services 
includes 
physical 
accessibility 
of 
service 
providers’ 
facilities 
but 
also 
entails 
broader 
issues 
of 
attitudes, 
atmosphere, 
and 
ability 
to 
be 
referred 
to, 
and 
participate 
in, 
the 
variety 
of 
available 
programs 
and 
services 
appropriate 
to 
the 
individual’s 
needs. 
• 
Policies, 
procedures, 
protocols, 
and 
dedicated 
budgetary 
expenditures 
aimed 
at 
addressing 
the 
particular 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
currently 
do 
not 
exist 
at 
service 
provider 
organizations. 
Executive 
directors 
and 
staff 
at 
these 
organizations 
are, 
however, 
interested 
in 
assistance 
in 
creating 
and 
implementing 
such 
policies, 
procedures, 
and 
protocols 
and 
have 
provided 
information 
on 
how 
their 
boards 
determine 
budget 
priorities. 
• 
Lack 
of 
transportation 
options 
and 
long 
geographical 
distances 
between 
service 
providers 
limits 
the 
ability 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
to 
utilize 
services. 
• 
Both 
the 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
are 
well 
networked 
into 
a 
variety 
of 
outside 
services 
available 
within 
their 
communities. 
Their 
respective 
networks 
do 
not 
always 
overlap 
but 
might 
be 
made 
to 
do 
so 
in 
the 
future 
to 
better 
serve 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence. 
• 
Domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault, 
disability 
service 
providers, 
and 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
share 
common 
values 
and 
an 
enthusiasm 
for 
improving 
accessibility 
around 
which 
collaboration 
can 
begin. 
The 
goal 
of 
generalizing 
these 
findings 
is 
to 
assist 
in 
long 
term 
strategic 
planning 
at 
each 
of 
the 
current 
pilot 
sites, 
but 
also 
to 
aid 
in 
the 
creation 
of 
effective 
models 
that 
would 
be 
replicable 
in 
subsequent 
pilot 
sites 
in 
Idaho. 
These 
findings 
should 
be 
viewed 
as 
working 
together 
to 
create 
a 
snapshot 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
as 
a 
whole. 
With 
this 
goal 
in 
mind, 
the 
findings 
have 
not 
been 
prioritized. 
Each 
finding 
is 
as 
important 
as 
the 
next 
to 
understanding 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
of 
pilot 
site 
communities. 
The 
findings 
are 
organized 
by 
headings 
and 
subheadings. 
At 
the 
end 
of 
the 
discussion 
of 
composite 
findings, 
a 
brief 
section 
of 
considerations 
specific 
to 
each 
pilot 
site 
is 
included. 


The 
IEAC 
recognizes 
that 
advocates, 
victims/survivors, 
and 
abusers 
can 
be 
male, 
female 
or 
transgender. 
When 
there 
is 
occasion 
to 
identify 
such 
individuals 
by 
personal 
pronoun 
in 
this 
discussion 
of 
findings, 
however, 
the 
IEAC 
has 
chosen 
to 
use 
female 
pronouns 
to 
refer 
to 
advocates 
and 
victims/survivors 
since 
most 
of 
the 
respondents 
were 
female. 
In 
references 
to 
abusers, 
the 
IEAC 
has 
elected 
to 
use 
male 
pronouns, 
since 
national 
studies 
indicate 
the 
majority 
of 
abusers 
are 
male 
and 
since 
information 
collected 
from 
focus 
group 
participants 
statewide 
was 
consistent 
with 
nationwide 
trends. 


10 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Barriers, 
Needs, 
and 
Gaps 
in 
Accessing 
Services 


Finding 
– 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
have 
inconsistent 
knowledge 
about 
resources 
available 
within 
their 
communities 
and 
no 
known 
or 
easily 
usable 
centralized 
resource 
from 
which 
to 
obtain 
that 
knowledge. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 


The 
IEAC 
found 
that 
the 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
(dv/sa) 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
regularly 
referred 
clients 
to 
a 
variety 
of 
community 
resources. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
at 
all 
three 
pilot 
sites, 
however, 
reported 
challenges 
finding 
out 
about 
services 
in 
their 
community. 
They 
expressed 
frustration 
at 
the 
piecemeal 
fashion 
in 
which 
they 
gradually 
learned 
what 
services 
were 
available 
and 
at 
a 
perceived 
minimal 
level 
of 
overlap, 
coordination, 
and 
interagency 
knowledge 
among 
service 
providers 
about 
services 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
were 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence. 


Inconsistent 
knowledge 
about 
available 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
services 
is 
a 
significant 
barrier 
to 
usage 
of 
services. 
You 
cannot 
access 
services 
you 
do 
not 
know 
about. 
The 
level 
of 
knowledge 
about 
local 
services 
available 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
varied 
from 
site 
to 
site 
and 
from 
individual 
to 
individual. 
Although 
every 
woman 
with 
a 
disability 
participating 
in 
the 
focus 
group 
knew 
of 
some 
local 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
services, 
one 
or 
two 
individuals 
would 
know 
of 
a 
particular 
local 
service 
while 
the 
remainder 
of 
participants 
did 
not. 
Focus 
group 
participants 
often 
educated 
one 
another 
about 
what 
services 
were 
available 
in 
their 
communities 
during 
the 
course 
of 
the 
focus 
groups. 


“Why 
was 
it 
so 
hard? 
You 
have 
to 
make 
so 
many 
calls 
and 
phone 
calls 
and 
stuff. 
. 
.It 
was 
confusing 
and 
tiring. 
. 
.So 
many 
people 
and 
so 
many 
different 
opinions.” 


Individual 
with 
a 
disability 


Many 
focus 
group 
participants 
discussed 
how 
they 
discovered 
an 
organization 
or 
service 
by 
“luck” 
or 
“chance.” 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
frequently 
expressed 
their 
desire 
for 
“wrap 
around 
services,” 
“one 
stop” 
services, 
a 
simplified 
web 
of 
services, 
and 
an 
easily 
usable 
central 
information 
resource 
for 
services 
where 
it 
is 
clear 
how 
services 
overlap 
and 
interconnect. 
What 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
reported 
often 
exists 
now 
are 
lists 
containing 
names 
of 
agencies, 
addresses 
and 
phone 
numbers. 
Instead, 
individuals 
indicated 
that 
what 
would 
be 
more 
useful 
for 
them 
would 
be: 


• 
Roster 
of 
service 
providers 
including 
agency 
names, 
specific 
person 
to 
contact, 
services 
offered, 
hours 
of 
operation, 
phone 
numbers, 
and 
addresses; 
• 
Roster 
could 
be 
indexed 
by 
agency 
and 
also 
by 
services 
offered; 
• 
Roster 
should 
include 
physicians 
and 
psychiatrists; 
• 
Should 
be 
made 
available 
in 
large 
print 
format; 
• 
Might 
be 
made 
available 
in 
booklet 
or 
community 
bulletin 
board 
format 
or 
both. 
Such 
resources, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
indicated, 
should 
be 
available 
in 
ways 
that 
are 
accessible 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
also 
in 
locations 
that 
people 
with 
disabilities 


11 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


frequent. 
Suggestions 
for 
how 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
would 
like 
to 
receive 
such 
information 
included: 


• 
Television 
and 
radio 
public 
service 
announcements 
• 
Local 
TV 
station 
“tip 
lines” 
• 
Ads 
in 
local 
newspapers 
• 
Fliers 
from 
local 
agencies 
such 
as 
welfare 
office, 
food 
stamps 
office, 
Medicaid, 
sheriff’s 
office, 
police 
departments, 
behavioral 
health, 
unemployment 
office, 
hospital 
emergency 
rooms 
• 
Victims 
Advocate 
services 
• 
Libraries 
• 
2-1-1 
Careline 
• 
Disabilities 
service 
organizations 
• 
Doctors’ 
offices 
• 
Psychiatrists’ 
offices 
• 
Psycho-social 
rehabilitation 
(PSR) 
workers 
• 
Attorneys’ 
offices 
• 
Grocery 
stores 
• 
Churches 
• 
Posters 
in 
women’s 
restrooms, 
including 
bar 
restrooms 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
tended 
not 
to 
want 
information 
via 
the 
internet—at 
least 
not 
exclusively—since 
many 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
do 
not 
have 
access 
to 
a 
computer 
on 
a 
regular 
basis. 
While 
this 
grant 
does 
not 
support 
activities 
that 
would 
meet 
this 
need, 
the 
information 
may 
be 
useful 
to 
the 
pilot 
sites 
when 
developing 
other 
projects. 


Finding 
– 
In 
every 
pilot 
site 
community, 
there 
is 
a 
need 
for 
greater 
knowledge 
about, 
and 
discussion 
of, 
disability, 
the 
dynamics 
of 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault, 
and 
the 
intersections 
between 
them. 
The 
need 
for 
this 
education 
and 
dialogue 
exists 
among 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
in 
the 
community 
at 
large. 


Knowledge 
about 
the 
intersections 
of 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
was 
minimal 
at 
all 
pilot 
site 
service 
providers. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
staff 
at 
every 
service 
provider 
at 
every 
pilot 
site 
advocated 
for 
a 
larger 
inter-organizational 
and 
community-wide 
effort 
to 
cross-train 
themselves 
and 
educate 
others 
about 
these 
issues 
as 
a 
first 
step 
to 
addressing 
the 
needs 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence. 
Such 
an 
effort 
would 
provide 
three 
perceived 
benefits. 


• 
First, 
it 
would 
train 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
advocates 
in 
how 
to 
best 
meet 
the 
needs 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
seek 
services 
for 
domestic 
violence. 
• 
Second, 
it 
would 
educate 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
how 
to 
identify 
what 
is 
happening 
to 
them 
as 
abuse, 
including 
disability-specific 
abuse. 
• 
Finally, 
it 
would 
make 
disability 
more 
visible 
and 
normative 
and 
lessen 
the 
popular 
stigmas 
surrounding 
domestic 
violence, 
thus 
making 
it 
easier 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
to 
break 
through 
attitudinal 
barriers 
which 
limit 
their 
ability 
and 
willingness 
to 
seek 
services 
they 
want. 
In 
sum, 
an 
increased 
community 
dialogue 
concerning 
these 
issues 
and 
the 
services 
available 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
become 
victims/survivors 
of 
dv/sa 
could 
help 
foster 
the 
type 
of 
interagency 
networking, 
communication 
and 
referral 
that 
would 
facilitate 
the 
IEAC’s 
vision 
of 


12 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


women 
enjoying 
equal 
access 
to 
the 
comprehensive 
services 
of 
her 
choice, 
no 
matter 
where 
she 
accesses 
the 
integrated 
network 
of 
services. 
Service 
providers 
discussed 
this 
training 
and 
education 
as 
a 
necessary 
beginning 
step 
toward 
meeting 
these 
goals, 
but 
recognized 
that 
training 
and 
education 
alone 
are 
insufficient 
to 
improve 
access 
to 
services 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence, 
and 
must 
be 
supplemented 
by 
a 
variety 
of 
other 
interactions 
and 
initiatives 
discussed 
in 
greater 
detail 
below. 


Staff 
openly 
discussed 
their 
need 
for 
more 
training. 
Among 
staff 
who 
had 
some 
education 
upon 
these 
issues, 
individuals 
opined 
that 
although 
they 
may 
receive 
some 
initial 
training 
about 
issues 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
experienced 
by 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
when 
they 
join 
an 
agency, 
most 
of 
their 
knowledge 
about 
these 
issues—and 
how 
to 
best 
serve 
such 
individuals 
who 
walk 
through 
their 
doors 
or 
phone 
their 
office—comes 
from 
their 
experiences 
serving 
such 
clients 
which 
they 
gain 
over 
time, 
as 
discussed 
above. 
Currently, 
there 
is 
no 
cross-
training 
among 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
and 
no 
community-wide 
education 
efforts 
regarding 
the 
intersections 
of 
disability 
and 
dv/sa. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 


Staff 
requested 
more 
knowledge, 
particularly 
about 
mental 
health-related 
disabilities 
and 
issues 
such 
as 
disability 
specific 
abuse, 
ethics, 
how 
to 
be 
more 
proactive 
to 
better 
serve 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
and 
the 
Americans 
with 
Disabilities 
Act 
(ADA). 
Staff 
members 
also 
expressed 
interest 
in 
learning 
about 
some 
of 
these 
issues 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
themselves 
as 
well 
as 
disability 
service 
providers. 
A 
majority 
of 
staff 
members 
acknowledged 
that 
their 
training 
on 
these 
issues 
was 
minimal. 
Many 
staff 
hesitantly 
suggested 
that 
information 
on 
disability 
specific 
abuse 
was 
probably 
in 
their 
initial 
training, 
but 
admitted 
they 
cannot 
remember 
clearly. 


Dv/sa 
service 
provider 
personnel 
also 
suggested 
increased 
community 
awareness 
of 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault, 
disability, 
and 
violence 
committed 
against 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
the 
services 
available 
to 
them 
was 
an 
important 
factor 
in 
being 
able 
to 
meet 
the 
needs 
of 
all 
victims/survivors, 
including 
those 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
One 
staff 
member 
commented 
on 
her 
community’s 
unwillingness 
to 
admit 
publicly 
that 
violence 
exists 
or 
that 
disability 
exists. 
Community 
silence 
on 
such 
issues 
contributes 
to 
few 
individuals 
knowing 
about 
their 
dv/sa 
program 
and 
services. 
A 
staff 
member 
at 
another 
pilot 
site 
observed 
a 
similar 
situation 
and 
noted 
an 
additional 
consequence: 
that 
some 
men 
and 
women 
with 
disabilities 
do 
not 
recognize 
what’s 
happening 
to 
them 
as 
abuse. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
disability 
service 
providers 


Disability 
advocates 
at 
all 
three 
pilot 
sites 
want 
more 
knowledge 
about 
the 
dynamics 
of 
dv/sa 
and 
its 
intersections 
with 
disability. 
Overall, 
staff 
members 
report 
that 
they 
have 
not 
been 
trained 
to 
recognize 
abuse 
or 
how 
to 
appropriately 
serve 
the 
needs 
of 
clients 
who 
disclose 
abuse. 
One 
or 
two 
staff 
members 
among 
those 
interviewed 
appear 
to 
have 
informal 
knowledge 
about 
cycles 
of 
violence, 
which 
they 
incorporate 
into 
their 
attempts 
to 
serve 
clients, 
but 
such 
knowledge 
was 
rarely 
evident 
in 
the 
focus 
groups. 
They 
suggested 
their 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
pilot 
site 
partner 
could 
help. 


Impacts 
of 
this 
need 
for 
further 
education 
are 
that 
clients 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
are 
not 
receiving 
optimal 
access 
to 
available 
assistance, 
community 
service 
providers 
are 
not 
collaborating 
as 
well 
as 
they 
might 
to 
meet 
client 
needs, 
and 
community 
service 
providers 
current 
interactions 
may 
be 
negatively 
impacting 
the 
relationship 
between 
the 
systems. 
Staff 
reported 
that 
they 
tried 
to 
help 
clients 
as 
best 
they 
could 
but 
that 
sometimes 
their 
attempts 


13 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


“backfired,” 
and 
advocates 
place 
guilt 
and 
blame 
upon 
themselves. 
At 
other 
times, 
a 
disability 
service 
provider 
who 
received 
a 
referral 
from 
a 
local 
dv/sa 
agency 
did 
not 
agree 
with 
the 
dv/sa 
agency’s 
assessment 
that 
abuse 
was 
occurring. 
The 
consequences 
to 
the 
client 
of 
this 
disagreement 
are 
not 
clear. 


There 
were 
also 
often 
misunderstandings 
about 
what 
services 
shelters 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
organizations 
provided 
and 
how 
such 
services 
were 
provided. 
Central 
to 
this 
misunderstanding 
may 
be 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
about 
each 
other’s 
philosophical 
underpinnings, 
which 
distorts 
their 
perceptions 
of 
each 
other’s 
work. 
Information 
about 
each 
other’s 
philosophical 
underpinnings 
is 
needed. 
One 
disability 
service 
provider, 
for 
example, 
regretted 
that 
shelters 
were 
not 
more 
proactive, 
although 
this 
is 
not 
a 
shelter’s 
role. 
Another 
feared 
that 
if 
a 
woman 
with 
a 
disability 
was 
referred 
to 
a 
shelter, 
that 
they 
would 
simply 
put 
her 
in 
a 
nursing 
home 
because 
they 
simply 
have 
no 
money 
to 
provide 
accommodations 
such 
a 
woman 
might 
require. 
Yet 
another 
was 
frustrated 
that 
she 
never 
received 
follow 
up 
information 
on 
clients 
after 
referring 
them 
to 
dv/sa 
service 
providers, 
not 
realizing 
that 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
cannot 
provide 
such 
information 
on 
clients 
who 
utilize 
their 
services. 
Finally, 
another 
staff 
member 
expressed 
perturbation 
that 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
were 
not 
“coming 
up 
with 
accommodations” 
for 
clients 
with 
disabilities. 
Does 
disability 
staff 
understand 
that 
a 
client 
must 
request 
accommodations 
first 
and 
that 
dv/sa 
staff 
are 
limited 
in 
what 
they 
can 
ask 
clients 
relating 
to 
disability? 


Moreover, 
two 
pilot 
sites 
reported 
that 
they 
rely 
upon 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
to 
report 
suspected 
abuse. 
One 
site 
trains 
its 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
to 
look 
for 
abuse 
and 
asks 
them 
to 
report 
it 
in 
the 
comment 
section 
of 
weekly 
report 
forms. 
Under 
state 
law, 
all 
centers 
for 
independent 
living 
must 
screen 
their 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants. 
However, 
no 
recognition 
of 
the 
possibility 
of 
abuse 
by 
the 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
as 
a 
form 
of 
abuse 
specific 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
was 
ever 
mentioned 
by 
staff, 
nor 
were 
additional 
methods 
to 
uncover 
abuse, 
described. 
Education 
and 
technical 
assistance 
on 
caregiver 
abuse 
and 
methods 
of 
discovery 
and 
reporting 
may 
be 
helpful. 


“We 
don’t 
know 
what 
we 
don’t 
know.” 


Staff 
member, 
disability 
service 
provider 


Regarding 
community 
education 
on 
disability 
and 
domestic 
violence, 
disability 
service 
providers 
were 
generally 
confident 
that 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
their 
communities 
knew 
about 
their 
organization, 
however 
they 
were 
less 
assured 
that 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
considered 
them 
a 
conduit 
for 
resources 
related 
to 
dv/sa. 
Community 
members 
and 
public 
discourse 
do 
not 
generally 
include 
discussions 
about 
the 
intersection 
between 
disability 
and 
domestic 
violence. 


“Because 
we’re 
information 
referral, 
people 
know 
to 
call 
us 
about 
some 
things 
(i.e. 
utilities) 
and 
we 
can 
then 
refer 
them 
to 
resources 
for 
domestic 
violence. 
But 
we 
don’t 
specifically 
advertise 
that 
we 
help 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors, 
so 
unless 
they 
disclose. 
. 
.” 


Staff 
member, 
disability 
service 
provider 


Disability 
service 
providers 
generally 
indicated 
that 
they 
had 
no 
plans 
to 
increase 
awareness 
of 
dv/sa 
in 
their 
communities, 
however 
staff 
at 
some 
pilot 
site 
organizations 
recognized 
the 
need 
to 
educate 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
about 
what 
abuse 
and 
healthy 
relationships 
look 
like. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 


This 
issue 
was 
of 
critical 
importance 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
at 
every 
pilot 
site. 
Based 
on 
their 
past 
experiences 
with 
a 
variety 
of 
service 
providers, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
intuited 
that 


14 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


service 
providers 
were 
untrained 
in 
these 
areas. 
This 
created 
a 
barrier 
to 
seeking 
services, 
as 
was 
discussed 
above. 
Moreover, 
because 
such 
information 
is 
absent 
from 
their 
lives 
and 
communities 
as 
a 
whole, 
many 
individuals 
indicated 
that 
it 
took 
a 
long 
time 
for 
them 
to 
identify 
what 
was 
happening 
to 
them 
as 
abuse 
because 
no 
one 
in 
their 
community 
would 
talk 
openly 
about 
these 
matters. 
Individuals 
wanted 
education 
on 
issues 
such 
as 
dv/sa 
and 
what 
healthy 
relationships 
look 
like, 
beginning 
in 
secondary 
schools 
and 
in 
churches 
for 
both 
young 
women 
and 
men. 
Some 
suggested 
building 
upon 
programs 
that 
already 
exist 
in 
their 
community, 
such 
as 
the 
“Healthy 
Hands 
are 
Not 
for 
Hitting” 
program. 
Such 
education 
should 
then 
continue 
in 
the 
broader 
population. 
Some 
suggested 
public 
service 
campaigns. 
Others 
proposed 
a 
central 
community 
training 
center. 
Overall, 
they 
desired 
frank, 
open, 
public 
discussion 
about 
disability 
and 
violence 
to 
help 
garner 
community 
support 
for 
services 
and 
victims/survivors. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
should 
play 
a 
significant 
role 
in 
this 
dialogue, 
encouraging 
peers 
to 
assist 
peers. 


“The 
only 
way 
things 
are 
going 
to 
change 
is 
if 
each 
and 
every 
one 
of 
us 
who 
has 
lived 
through 
this 
kind 
of 
situation 
does 
something 
to 
contribute 
to 
the 
change 
of 
the 
way 
things 
are 
now.” 


Individual 
with 
a 
disability 
who 
is 
a 
survivor 
of 
domestic 
violence 


Finding 
– 
Accessibility 
of 
services 
includes 
physical 
accessibility 
of 
service 
providers’ 
facilities 
but 
also 
entails 
broader 
issues 
of 
attitudes, 
atmosphere, 
and 
ability 
to 
be 
referred 
to, 
and 
participate 
in, 
the 
variety 
of 
available 
programs 
and 
services 
appropriate 
to 
the 
individual’s 
needs. 


Full 
access 
to 
services 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
involves 
more 
than 
physically 
getting 
the 
individual 
through 
the 
front 
door. 
While 
this 
initial 
physical 
access 
is 
certainly 
an 
important 
aspect 
of 
access 
which 
needs 
to 
be 
addressed 
at 
two 
out 
of 
the 
three 
pilot 
sites 
(#s 
1 
& 
3), 
it 
is 
only 
the 
beginning. 


Virtually 
all 
service 
providers 
explained 
that 
they 
try 
to 
serve 
everyone 
who 
walks 
through 
their 
doors 
and 
will 
get 
clients 
whatever 
they 
need 
while 
at 
the 
same 
time 
reporting 
that 
few 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
seek 
services 
or 
accommodations 
from 
their 
organizations. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
on 
the 
other 
hand, 
had 
no 
reticence 
discussing 
the 
many 
factors 
which 
had 
discouraged 
them 
from 
asking 
for 
needed 
accommodations 
or 
even 
seeking 
or 
following 
through 
with 
referrals 
and 
services 
from 
such 
service 
providers. 


There 
is 
an 
obvious 
disconnect 
between 
service 
provider 
perceptions 
and 
individuals’ 
with 
disabilities 
opinions, 
which 
must 
be 
overcome. 
To 
best 
serve 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault, 
both 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
should: 


• 
broaden 
their 
definitions 
of 
accessibility; 
• 
understand 
the 
state 
and 
federal 
legal 
requirements 
for 
providing 
accessible 
services; 
and 
• 
explore, 
recognize 
and 
confront 
attitudes 
and 
assumptions 
about 
domestic 
violence 
and/or 
disability 
and 
their 
provision 
of 
services, 
which 
unintentionally 
limit 
access 
to 
services. 
What 
we 
learned 
from 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
service 
providers 


While 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
were 
typically 
skilled 
at 
discussing 
many 
sensitive 
issues 
surrounding 
violence 
and 
abuse 
with 
their 
clients, 
they 
were 
often 
under-informed 
about 


15 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


disability 
and 
accessibility 
issues 
and 
uncomfortable 
or 
inexperienced 
in 
assisting 
clients 
with 
disabilities. 


Service 
provider 
knowledge 
about 
what 
constitutes 
accessibility 
needs 
to 
be 
broadened. 
Typically, 
when 
asked 
about 
past 
successes 
in 
addressing 
accessibility 
issues, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
discussed 
wheelchair 
accessibility, 
ramps, 
bathroom 
accessibility, 
availability 
of 
American 
Sign 
Language 
(ASL) 
interpreters, 
ability 
to 
accommodate 
personal 
care 
attendants, 
availability 
of 
rooms 
equipped 
for 
Deaf 
individuals, 
and 
the 
ability 
to 
accommodate 
special 
diets 
in 
shelter 
facilities. 


“…there 
are 
so 
many 
things 
we 
have 
done, 
i.e. 
security, 
alarms 
and 
lights, 
for 
those 
that 
are 
hearing 
and 
visually 
impaired. 
We 
also 
had 
a 
lady 
who 
was 
terminally 
ill 
stay 
with 
us 
a 
couple 
of 
times. 
We 
accessed 
community 
services 
outside 
the 
agency 
for 
a 
provider 
to 
come 
in 
4-5 
times 
a 
day 
for 
medication, 
transportation, 
etc.” 


Executive 
Director, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


All 
of 
these 
are 
important 
aspects 
of 
accessibility, 
and 
service 
provider 
efforts 
to 
provide 
such 
accommodations 
and 
become 
educated 
on 
the 
legal 
requirements 
of 
accessibility 
mandated 
by 
federal 
laws, 
should 
be 
facilitated 
further. 
Service 
providers 
often 
expressed 
that 
they 
were 
“as 
accessible 
as 
[they] 
can 
be” 
due 
to 
financial 
limitations 
and/or 
structural 
constraints 
of 
their 
buildings 
and 
thus 
did 
not 
have 
an 
action 
plan 
aimed 
at 
increasing 
accessibility. 


Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
at 
all 
three 
pilot 
site 
areas 
did 
not 
consider 
their 
community 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
facilities 
and 
programs 
to 
be 
accessible. 
Beyond 
these 
accessibility 
issues, 
discussed 
by 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
staff 
and 
executive 
directors, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
have 
unique 
service 
needs 
related 
to 
intake, 
later 
interactions 
with 
staff, 
and 
access 
to 
programs, 
such 
as 
counseling, 
education, 
communal 
life 
in 
the 
shelter, 
and 
support 
groups. 
If 
these 
needs 
are 
not 
addressed, 
individuals 
report 
that 
they 
feel 
unwelcome, 
are 
confused 
about 
their 
options, 
are 
unable 
or 
unwilling 
to 
ask 
for 
accommodations 
they 
need, 
and 
are 
unable 
or 
unwilling 
to 
fully 
utilize 
facilities 
and 
programs 
offered 
through 
the 
service 
provider. 
In 
the 
end, 
the 
client 
probably 
will 
not 
receive 
the 
services 
she 
wants 
or 
needs 
and 
may 
not 
attempt 
to 
access 
services 
in 
the 
future. 
It 
is 
not 
surprising, 
then, 
that 
service 
providers 
discussed 
few 
cases 
when 
they 
had 
actually 
had 
the 
opportunity 
to 
serve 
a 
client 
with 
a 
disability, 
although 
most 
staff 
assumed 
it 
is 
because 
there 
is 
little 
need 
in 
their 
area. 


A 
handful 
of 
staff 
members, 
however, 
introspectively 
questioned 
whether 
their 
organizations 
were 
doing 
enough 
to 
reach 
out 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
were 
victims/survivors 
and 
were 
beginning 
to 
question 
where 
opportunities 
to 
do 
so 
might 
be 
found. 


“Few 
people 
with 
physical 
disabilities 
come 
to 
the 
dv/sa 
program 
and 
shelter. 
Are 
we 
alienating 
this 
population? 
What’s 
a 
way 
to 
draw 
them 
in? 
Maybe 
we 
don’t 
have 
a 
large 
population 
with 
physical 
disabilities 
in 
need 
here. 
But 
maybe 
not.” 


Staff 
member, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


This 
statement 
raises 
several 
key 
issues. 
Studies 
have 
been 
conducted 
in 
many 
states 
that 
confirm 
the 
high 
occurrence 
of 
physical, 
emotional, 
sexual, 
and 
disability-specific 
domestic 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities. 
There 
is 
no 
reason 
to 
believe 
this 
would 
not 
hold 
true 
for 
Idahoans. 
In 
fact, 
there 
is 
substantial 
anecdotal 
evidence 
that 
the 
rate 
of 
domestic 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
in 
Idaho 
is 
as 
high 
as 
in 
other 
states. 
A 
need 
exists 
for 
dv/sa 
services 
for 
these 
women. 
Yet, 
if 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
perceive 
that 
the 
dv/sa 
facilities 
and 
programs 
are 
not 
accessible, 
why 
would 
they 
seek 
services? 
This 
staff 
member 
has 
begun 


16 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


asking 
the 
pertinent 
questions. 
Despite 
the 
best 
of 
intentions, 
are 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
unintentionally 
alienating 
victims 
and 
survivors 
who 
have 
disabilities? 
And 
if 
so, 
what 
changes 
could 
be 
made 
to 
reach 
out 
to 
this 
segment 
of 
the 
service 
population, 
increase 
accessibility, 
and 
boost 
utilization 
of 
services? 


Dv/sa 
service 
provider 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
at 
each 
pilot 
site 
recounted 
both 
successes 
and 
challenges 
in 
serving 
women 
with 
disabilities. 


“We 
had 
a 
woman 
in 
a 
wheelchair 
. 
. 
.. 
She 
had 
no 
mobility. 
She 
was 
a 
victim 
of 
domestic 
violence. 
I 
think 
the 
reason 
I 
see 
her 
as 
a 
success 
was 
because 
we 
were 
able 
to 
make 
phone 
calls. 
We 
had 
the 
call 
center 
take 
over 
to 
kind 
of 
get 
the 
ball 
rolling. 
. 
.. 
It 
took 
about 
two 
months 
to 
get 
everything 
done, 
but 
that 
was 
only 
because 
we 
just 
would 
not 
let 
up 
. 
. 
.. 
Eventually 
it 
all 
worked 
out.” 


Executive 
Director, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


Assumptions 
about 
individuals 
with 
mental 
health 
disabilities 
were 
also 
prevalent 
at 
another 
pilot 
site, 
with 
fear 
and 
misunderstanding 
of 
such 
individuals 
expressed 
through 
the 
use 
of 
words 
such 
as 
“crazy,” 
“psycho,” 
and 
“these 
types 
of 
people.” 
At 
this 
site, 
staff 
without 
training 
disclosed 
incidents 
wherein 
they 
attempted 
to 
informally 
diagnose 
clients 
(in 
contrast 
to 
the 
client’s 
diagnosis 
by 
a 
qualified 
physician) 
and 
then 
provided 
clients 
with 
what 
they 
thought 
would 
best 
meet 
the 
client’s 
needs 
(or 
choose 
not 
to 
provide 
services) 
based 
on 
that 
informal 
diagnosis. 


“You 
have 
to 
treat 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
differently 
and 
make 
sure 
they 
are 
medicated 
properly.” 


Staff 
member, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


The 
Executive 
Director 
and 
staff 
at 
this 
site 
indicated 
it 
is 
sometimes 
unsafe 
to 
help 
women 
with 
mental 
health-related 
disabilities 
in 
a 
shelter. 
They 
call 
law 
enforcement 
when 
they 
feel 
this 
is 
the 
case. 
Staff 
members 
related 
that 
they 
sometimes 
panic 
when 
a 
woman 
with 
a 
mental 
health-related 
disability 
requests 
services 
and 
they 
would 
like 
more 
training 
and 
information 
rather 
than 
simply 
trying 
to 
deduce 
what 
to 
do 
on 
their 
own. 
Others 
would 
like 
to 
know 
how 
to 
determine 
if 
a 
client 
has 
a 
“mental 
problem” 
or 
if 
it 
is 
“just 
a 
bad 
day.” 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
disability 
service 
providers 


While 
disability 
service 
providers 
were 
typically 
skilled 
at 
discussing 
many 
referral 
and 
accommodation 
issues 
with 
their 
clients, 
they 
admitted 
a 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
about 
identifying 
and 
discussing 
abuse 
with 
their 
clients, 
making 
referrals 
to 
dv/sa 
programs, 
and 
in 
how 
to 
assist 
such 
clients 
appropriately. 
“We 
are 
not 
trained 
in 
trauma 
response, 
said 
one 
staff 
member. 
Other 
staff 
members 
seemed 
discouraged 
by 
previous 
experiences 
with 
clients 
suffering 
abuse 
that 
they 
had 
tried 
to 
assist 
but 
who 
went 
back 
to 
the 
abuser. 


Regarding 
access, 
disability 
service 
provider 
staff 
reported 
both 
successes 
and 
challenges 
on 
issues 
similar 
to 
the 
ones 
reported 
by 
dv/sa 
service 
providers, 
such 
as 
the 
need 
for 
greater 
wheelchair 
access, 
accommodations 
for 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
(PCAs) 
and 
accommodations 
for 
service 
animals. 
They 
also, 
however, 
discussed 
the 
need 
for 
greater 
programmatic 
access. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
often 
needed 
accommodations 
to 
fully 
participate 
in 
dv/sa 
programming. 
For 
example, 
staff 
members 
encountered 
the 
need 
for 
a 
disability 
staff 
member 
to 
attend 
education 
or 
support 
groups 
with 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
at 


17 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
to 
assist 
with 
the 
reading 
and 
understanding 
of 
written 
materials. 
This 
corroborates 
the 
need 
to 
take 
a 
broader 
view 
of 
programmatic 
accessibility, 
as 
discussed 
above, 
to 
ensure 
an 
individual 
is 
able 
to 
take 
full 
advantage 
of 
the 
programs 
and 
services 
which 
she 
is 
offered. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 


Many 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
were 
able 
to 
describe 
positive 
experiences 
with 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
that 
empowered 
and 
supported 
them 
in 
their 
choices. 
Many 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
however, 
also 
described 
previous 
experiences 
with 
service 
providers 
in 
which 
they 
felt 
unwelcome, 
judged, 
and 
misunderstood 
and 
which 
thus 
deterred 
them 
from 
seeking 
further 
services. 
Victims 
and 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
explained 
that, 
in 
order 
to 
seek 
and 
follow 
through 
with 
services, 
they 
must 
enter 
what 
they 
perceive 
to 
be 
a 
safe, 
welcoming 
environment 
in 
which 
they 
do 
not 
feel 
stigmatized 
or 
judged 
either 
for 
their 
disability 
or 
for 
being 
victimized 
by 
an 
abuser. 
They 
were 
able 
to 
identify 
many 
specific 
characteristics 
that 
would 
facilitate 
their 
use 
of 
services. 


Being 
placed 
with 
service 
provider 
staff 
who 
understand 
the 
particular 
situation 
and 
needs 
of 
women 
who 
identify 
as 
both 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
as 
victims/survivors 
of 
violence 
is 
critical, 
according 
to 
these 
women. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
pilot 
site 
communities 
perceived 
that 
service 
providers 
at 
both 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
often 
were 
not 
trained 
in 
how 
to 
recognize 
signs 
of 
abuse 
in 
women 
with 
disabilities. 
They 
requested 
that 
service 
provider 
staff 
be 
trained 
to 
recognize 
these 
signs 
and, 
moreover, 
be 
trained 
in 
how 
to 
assist 
such 
women 
in 
a 
manner 
appropriate 
to 
their 
situations. 
For 
example, 
one 
focus 
group 
participant 
suggested 
that 
dv/sa 
service 
providers, 
emergency 
personnel 
and 
law 
enforcement 
need 
to 
learn 
how 
to 
determine 
what 
clients 
with 
mental 
disabilities 
need 
immediately 
to 
“de-
escalate” 
them, 
before 
trying 
to 
provide 
their 
regular 
menu 
of 
services. 
Another 
participant 
proposed 
that 
service 
providers 
not 
place 
conditions 
on 
receiving 
aid. 
Utilizing 
a 
referral 
for 
dv/sa 
services 
is 
not 
the 
same 
as 
utilizing 
a 
referral 
for 
assistive 
devices. 
If 
an 
individual 
is 
not 
ready 
to 
make 
a 
change, 
i.e. 
leave 
an 
abusive 
situation 
immediately, 
service 
providers 
should 
respect 
that 
choice 
and 
still 
provide 
all 
information 
anyway, 
understanding 
that 
these 
situations 
sometimes 
take 
time 
to 
resolve. 


Moreover, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
or 
near 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
reported 
how 
perceived 
service 
provider 
attitudes 
had 
deterred 
them 
from 
seeking 
services 
in 
the 
past. 
Within 
the 
focus 
groups, 
individuals 
with 
a 
variety 
of 
disabilities—but 
particularly 
individuals 
who 
self-
identified 
as 
having 
a 
mental 
health-related 
disability—explained 
how 
they 
felt 
judged 
or 
stigmatized 
by 
some 
service 
providers. 
When 
seeking 
disability 
services, 
they 
felt 
judged 
for 
being 
a 
victim/survivor. 


“I 
think 
some 
of 
it 
is 
not 
so 
much 
the 
service 
provider 
as 
the 
attitude 
that’s 
behind 
it. 
I 
don’t 
think 
there’s 
an 
awareness 
of 
how 
to 
deal 
with 
victims, 
survivors, 
overcomers 
[with 
disabilities] 
. 
. 
. 
So 
then 
they 
come 
at 
your 
with 
questions 
and 
sometimes 
. 
. 
. 
there’s 
this 
judgment 
that’s 
behind 
it 
. 
. 
. 
that’s 
one 
thing 
that’s 
really 
difficult. 


Individual 
with 
a 
disability 


When 
they 
sought 
domestic 
violence 
services, 
they 
felt 
stigmatized 
for 
having 
a 
disability. 
Individuals 
either 
did 
not 
want 
to 
disclose 
their 
disability 
and 
request 
needed 
accommodations 
from 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
or 
they 
did 
not 
want 
to 
disclose 
abuse 
to 
disability 
advocates. 
Offered 
services, 
therefore, 
could 
be 
insufficient 
to 
meet 
a 
client’s 
needs. 


18 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


“The 
judgment 
makes 
you 
so 
you 
don’t 
want 
to 
go 
in 
and 
talk 
about 
it, 
because 
you 
know 
people 
aren’t 
going 
to 
be 
compassionate.” 


Individual 
with 
a 
disability 


Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
identified 
several 
factors 
that 
led 
to 
their 
feeling 
welcome 
and 
to 
an 
increased 
ability 
to 
speak 
up 
and 
voice 
their 
need 
for 
accommodations 
and 
services. 
These 
factors 
included: 


• 
Atmosphere: 
Attractiveness 
and 
informality 
of 
facilities 
made 
a 
big 
impression 
on 
focus 
group 
participants, 
contributing 
to 
a 
“normalizing 
of 
atmosphere”. 
When 
entering 
a 
service 
provider’s 
facility 
for 
the 
first 
time, 
some 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
found 
placement 
of 
desks 
in 
reception 
areas 
off-putting 
because 
of 
the 
resemblance 
to 
a 
doctor’s 
office. 
They 
preferred 
a 
casual, 
“laid 
back” 
environment 
to 
an 
overly 
professional, 
clinical 
atmosphere. 
• 
Explanations 
of 
intake 
process 
and 
why 
certain 
questions, 
particularly 
those 
related 
to 
sexual 
experiences, 
need 
to 
be 
asked. 
• 
Attitude 
and 
appearance 
of 
staff. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
lauded 
those 
service 
providers 
whose 
compassion, 
sensitivity, 
and 
nonjudgmental 
attitudes 
helped 
them 
feel 
accepted 
and 
hopeful 
in 
an 
unfamiliar 
environment. 
They 
encouraged 
service 
providers 
to 
“be 
real.” 
Staff 
language 
and 
dress 
could 
be 
intimidating 
for 
some 
focus 
group 
participants. 
Such 
individuals 
expressed 
discomfort 
about 
being 
served 
by 
staff 
that 
were 
too 
formally 
dressed, 
preferring 
casual 
attire 
more 
in 
tune 
with 
what 
clients 
themselves 
might 
be 
wearing. 
• 
Perception 
of 
being 
safe 
while 
receiving 
services. 
• 
Consistency 
of 
experience: 
Rather 
than 
being 
handed 
off 
to 
different 
staff 
members, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
said 
they 
would 
prefer 
to 
stay 
with 
one 
person. 
• 
Staff 
experienced 
in 
helping 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
or, 
at 
a 
minimum, 
staff 
willingness 
to 
admit 
their 
inexperience 
assisting 
this 
particular 
population 
and 
to 
move 
forward 
from 
there. 
Ideally, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
would 
like 
peer-to-
peer 
interactions 
at 
service 
providers. 
• 
Trust: 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
repeatedly 
requested 
that 
staff 
wait 
until 
trust 
develops 
between 
the 
individual 
and 
the 
service 
provider 
before 
asking 
questions 
about 
sensitive 
issues 
such 
as 
abuse 
or 
sex. 
• 
Confidentiality 
being 
kept. 
In 
addition 
to 
requesting 
these 
qualities 
of 
service, 
several 
individuals 
emphasized 
the 
broader 
implications 
and 
importance 
of 
offering 
accessible 
services, 
which 
were 
validation 
of 
a 
victim’s 
experience 
and 
service 
providers’ 
work 
to 
end 
domestic 
violence. 


“…this 
isn’t 
just 
about 
services, 
this 
isn’t 
just 
about 
a 
house, 
this 
isn’t 
just 
about 
providing 
someone 
with 
some 
information. 
This 
is 
about 
ending 
domestic 
violence. 
This 
is 
about 
ending 
abuse. 
And 
when 
you’re 
out 
there 
and 
you’re 
able 
to 
give 
to 
us, 
then 
what 
you’re 
doing 
is 
giving 
hope. 
. 
.Every 
one 
of 
us 
lives 
that 
life. 
Every 
one 
of 
us 
knows 
it. 
When…there’s 
a 
place 
you 
can 


19 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


go 
that 
says. 
‘Hey, 
we 
have 
this 
for 
you. 
This 
is 
a 
place 
for 
you 
to 
live. 
This 
is 
a 
place 
where 
you 
can 
have 
transportation, 
this 
is 
a 
place 
where 
you 
can 
get 
a 
group,’ 
what 
you’re 
doing 
is 
offering 
hope.” 


Individual 
with 
a 
disability 


Finding 
– 
Policies, 
procedures, 
protocols, 
and 
dedicated 
budgetary 
expenditures 
aimed 
at 
addressing 
the 
particular 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
currently 
do 
not 
exist 
at 
service 
provider 
organizations. 
Executive 
directors 
and 
staff 
at 
these 
organizations 
are, 
however, 
interested 
in 
assistance 
in 
creating 
and 
implementing 
such 
policies, 
procedures, 
and 
protocols 
and 
have 
provided 
information 
on 
how 
their 
boards 
determine 
budget 
priorities. 


Generally, 
any 
policies, 
procedures, 
and 
protocols 
currently 
in 
existence 
at 
any 
pilot 
site 
organization 
are 
reported 
to 
be 
informal 
and 
unwritten. 
All 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
expressed 
interest 
in 
the 
future 
creation 
of 
formalized 
written 
policies, 
procedures, 
and 
protocols 
aimed 
at 
addressing 
the 
particular 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault. 
Executive 
Directors 
at 
disability 
service 
providers 
at 
all 
pilot 
sites 
reported 
that 
they 
did 
not 
have 
line 
items 
within 
their 
budgets 
specifically 
dedicated 
to 
handling 
issues 
of 
domestic 
violence 
among 
their 
clients. 
Executive 
Directors 
at 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
at 
all 
pilot 
sites 
indicated 
that 
they 
did 
not 
have 
line 
items 
within 
their 
budgets 
specifically 
designated 
for 
accommodating 
the 
needs 
of 
clients 
with 
disabilities. 


Executive 
Directors 
described 
the 
process 
of 
helping 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
as 
a 
reactive 
process, 
rather 
than 
a 
proactive 
one. 
Executive 
Directors 
at 
all 
service 
providers, 
whether 
disability 
or 
dv/sa, 
discussed 
how 
budgetary 
priorities 
are 
developed 
by 
examining 
the 
needs 
of 
the 
populations 
who 
accessed 
their 
services 
in 
the 
recent 
past. 
As 
one 
Executive 
Director 
commented, 
“Allocation 
of 
funding 
depends 
on 
who 
walks 
through 
the 
door.” 
However, 
since 
all 
Executive 
Directors 
believed 
that 
few 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
had 
attempted 
to 
obtain 
services 
for 
domestic 
violence 
issues, 
this 
resulted 
in 
no 
specific 
budgetary 
commitments 
to 
assist 
this 
particular 
population’s 
needs. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 


Staff 
and 
Executive 
Directors 
at 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
generally 
reported 
that 
no 
formal 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
protocols 
aimed 
at 
addressing 
the 
particular 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
exist 
at 
their 
agencies, 
except, 
perhaps, 
on 
intake 
forms. 
There 
was 
some 
confusion 
among 
staff, 
however, 
about 
what 
types 
of 
questions 
were 
allowed 
to 
be 
asked 
on 
these 
forms 
and 
what 
questions 
could 
be 
asked 
subsequently. 
Some 
staff 
members, 
for 
example, 
indicated 
they 
asked 
clients 
about 
medications 
while 
others 
would 
not. 
Most 
staff 
expressed 
frustration 
that 
they 
could 
not 
simply 
ask 
clients 
about 
disability 
issues 
and 
some 
suggested 
ways 
to 
get 
such 
information 
“under 
the 
table,” 
i.e. 
from 
law 
enforcement. 


In 
general, 
staff 
members 
reported 
that 
the 
awareness 
that 
a 
client 
has 
a 
disability 
and 
may 
need 
an 
accommodation 
comes 
from 
talking 
with 
clients, 
filling 
out 
intake 
forms, 
and 
then 
observing 
and 
using 
their 
“intuition,” 
“common 
sense,” 
and 
informal 
consultations 
with 
other 
staff 
members. 
This 
usually 
results 
in 
each 
staff 
member 
doing 
what 
each 
thinks 
is 
best 
to 
meet 
the 
clients’ 
needs. 
As 
one 
staff 
member 
commented, 
“We 
get 
creative.” 


20 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Most 
staff 
members 
did, 
however, 
express 
their 
strong 
desire 
to 
assist 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
whenever 
possible 
to 
provide 
the 
victim/survivor 
with 
what 
they 
needed. 
The 
policy 
at 
one 
site, 
as 
one 
Executive 
Director 
responded, 
is 
not 
to 
turn 
anyone 
away 
and 
that 
encompasses 
women 
with 
disabilities 
as 
well 
as 
all 
women. 
Then 
once 
a 
client 
with 
a 
disability 
is 
in 
the 
shelter, 
the 
staff 
assists 
in 
determining 
her 
needs 
and 
how 
to 
meet 
them. 


“We 
take 
care 
of 
her 
needs 
so 
she 
doesn’t 
have 
a 
reason 
to 
go 
back.” 


Executive 
Director, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


What 
would 
build 
upon 
these 
service 
providers’ 
admirable 
vision 
and 
strengthen 
their 
ability 
to 
take 
care 
of 
the 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
is 
the 
creation 
of 
written 
policies, 
procedures, 
and 
protocols 
which 
simultaneously 
formally 
recognize 
the 
unique 
needs 
of 
such 
women 
and 
incorporate 
those 
needs 
and 
considerations 
into 
organizational 
training 
and 
protocols. 
Without 
this 
type 
of 
official 
systemic 
change, 
service 
provider 
intentions 
may 
be 
laudable 
but 
actual 
service 
delivery 
may 
be 
confusing 
for 
staff 
and 
inconsistent 
for 
clients. 
Intake 
processes 
may 
be 
inappropriate, 
accommodations 
may 
not 
be 
requested 
or 
offered, 
and 
services 
may 
not 
be 
appropriately 
tailored 
to 
the 
client’s 
individualized 
needs. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
disability 
service 
providers 


Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
at 
disability 
service 
providers 
report 
that 
organizational 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
protocols 
regarding 
violence 
perpetrated 
against 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
tend 
to 
be 
informal 
and 
unwritten. 
Staff 
at 
disability 
service 
providers 
generally 
do 
not 
ask 
a 
client 
about 
abuse 
directly 
but 
do 
look 
for 
it 
informally, 
each 
in 
their 
own 
way. 
Many 
staff 
members 
reported 
“reading 
between 
the 
lines” 
or 
using 
“gut 
instinct” 
and 
“intuition.” 


“. 
. 
. 
you 
just 
start 
drawing 
out 
more 
information 
and 
then 
you 
realize 
the 
bells 
and 
whistles 
go 
off 
in 
your 
head 
that 
the 
person 
is 
abused.” 


Staff 
member, 
disability 
service 
provider 


If 
a 
client 
discloses 
abuse, 
staff 
inquires 
about 
the 
abuse 
in 
more 
depth, 
often 
consult 
with 
other 
staff 
members 
or 
the 
Executive 
Director, 
and 
then 
typically 
refer 
the 
client 
to 
community 
dv/sa 
service 
providers. 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
(PCAs) 
were 
considered 
important 
to 
identifying 
and 
reporting 
abuse 
at 
two 
of 
the 
three 
pilot 
sites. 
A 
formalized 
procedure 
to 
report 
suspected 
abuse 
existed 
at 
one 
of 
these 
sites, 
but 
not 
at 
the 
other. 
There 
was 
no 
discussion 
of 
possible 
abuse 
by 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
(PCAs). 


Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
appeared 
willing 
and, 
indeed, 
enthusiastic 
about 
creating 
such 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
protocols. 
They 
requested 
assistance 
to 
do 
so, 
often 
with 
the 
stipulation 
that 
such 
policies 
allow 
flexibility 
when 
assisting 
clients 
because, 
in 
their 
experience, 


“every 
scenario 
is 
different. 
. 
.you 
can’t 
say 
‘step 
one, 
step 
two, 
step 
three, 
step 
four,’ 
because, 
you 
know, 
you’re 
not 
buying 
a 
car. 
. 
.Not 
every 
policy 
or 
procedure 
would 
work 
with 
every 
individual.” 


Overall, 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
at 
both 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
organizations 
recognize 
the 
benefits 
of 
establishing 
and 
formalizing 
protocols 
to 
assist 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
and 
have 
requested 
advice 
on 
how 
to 
do 
so. 
If 
specific 
line 
items 
in 
budgets 
are 
to 
be 
dedicated 
to 
providing 
services 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors, 
however, 
Executive 
Directors 
were 
clear 
that 
they 
must 
demonstrate 
need 
to 
their 
boards. 
In 
the 
past, 
need 
has 
been 
established 
by 
perceived 
numbers 
of 
clients 
walking 


21 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


through 
the 
service 
providers’ 
doors 
requesting 
particular 
types 
of 
accommodations 
or 
services. 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
board 
members 
must 
be 
convinced 
to 
define 
need 
differently 
and 
proactively 
if 
systemic 
change 
is 
to 
occur. 
To 
effect 
change 
in 
the 
way 
funding 
is 
allocated, 
board 
members 
and 
Executive 
Directors 
will 
need 
to 
formally 
recognize 
the 
unique 
needs 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors. 
Board 
members 
and 
Executive 
Directors 
will 
also 
need 
to 
consider 
the 
possibility 
that 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
have 
experienced 
violence 
may 
not 
be 
seeking 
their 
services, 
because 
they 
do 
not 
see 
the 
service 
providers 
as 
accessible 
or 
as 
a 
safe 
place 
to 
disclose 
abuse. 
A 
proactive 
approach 
to 
creating 
an 
accessible 
and 
welcoming 
environment 
may 
be 
necessary 
before 
people 
will 
seek 
their 
services. 


Finding 
– 
Lack 
of 
transportation 
options 
and 
long 
geographical 
distances 
between 
service 
providers 
limits 
the 
ability 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
to 
utilize 
services. 


Idaho 
is 
a 
large, 
frontier, 
state, 
and 
each 
pilot 
site’s 
service 
area 
includes 
large 
rural 
populations. 
Dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
are 
often 
located 
a 
substantial 
geographic 
distance 
from 
one 
another. 
In 
two 
pilot 
site 
areas, 
the 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
are 
located 
in 
two 
different 
towns, 
because 
there 
are 
so 
few 
service 
providers 
in 
these 
areas. 
A 
lack 
of 
transportation 
hinders 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
from 
seeking 
services. 
The 
lack 
of 
transportation 
may 
take 
many 
forms, 
such 
as 
insufficient 
public 
transportation 
options 
to 
service 
provider 
locations, 
no 
wheelchair 
accessible 
van, 
no 
money 
for 
a 
taxi 
to 
service 
provider 
location, 
and 
no 
friend 
or 
service 
agency 
staff 
member 
available 
to 
provide 
a 
ride. 
Even 
when 
public 
transportation 
options 
to 
service 
providers 
are 
available, 
it 
is 
often 
unsafe 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
to 
utilize 
public 
transport. 
Provision 
of 
reliable, 
safe, 
transportation 
options 
is 
extremely 
important 
so 
that 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
can 
take 
advantage 
of 
offered 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
services. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
DV/SA 
service 
providers 
and 
Disability 
service 
providers 


Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
from 
both 
types 
of 
service 
providers 
recognize 
that 
a 
lack 
of 
transportation 
often 
limits 
the 
ability 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
to 
seek 
services. 
Many 
staff 
members 
drive 
women 
around 
when 
they 
can, 
but 
recognize 
that 
this 
informal 
and 
uncoordinated 
effort 
is 
frequently 
insufficient 
to 
meet 
clients’ 
full 
needs. 
They 
are 
doing 
the 
best 
they 
can 
with 
the 
resources 
they 
have 
available. 
Many 
service 
providers 
expressed 
a 
wish 
for 
a 
wheelchair 
accessible 
van. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 


Lack 
of 
transportation 
to 
service 
providers 
was 
frequently 
mentioned 
by 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
as 
a 
significant 
and 
prohibitive 
barrier 
to 
seeking 
services, 
particularly 
in 
the 
two 
pilot 
sites 
where 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
operate 
in 
two 
separate 
towns. 


“Many 
people 
with 
disabilities 
may 
be 
landlocked. 
They 
may 
not 
have 
the 
ability 
or 
resources 
to 
drive, 
to 
get 
there, 
transportation, 
to 
connect, 
to 
talk 
to 
someone, 
especially 
if 
they 
are 
being 
totally 
controlled.” 


Individual 
with 
a 
disability 


Moreover, 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault 
report 
that 
their 
safety 
while 
waiting 
for 
public 
transportation 
when 
it 
is 
available 
is 
a 
concern. 
As 
one 
woman 
related, 
“. 
. 
.my 
abuser 
is 
here 
and 
all 
his 
friends 
are 
here. 
So 
I 
have 
to 


22 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


wait 
out 
on 
the 
street 
corner. 
. 
.So 
even 
having 
the 
public 
transportation 
is 
really 
difficult 
for 
me 
because 
you 
can 
run 
into 
anybody 
that 
knows 
him. 
. 
.” 


To 
offset 
the 
geographical 
distance 
between 
service 
providers 
that 
operate 
in 
different 
towns, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
suggested 
bringing 
services 
of 
the 
two 
towns 
together. 
And, 
ideally, 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
would 
like 
a 
shuttle 
service 
which 
would 
pick 
them 
up 
at 
their 
homes 
rather 
than 
on 
public 
street 
corners 
or 
other 
locations 
where 
they 
would 
have 
to 
wait 
in 
visible 
locations 
alone. 


Section5StrengthsandOpportunities
Finding 
– 
Both 
the 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
are 
well 
networked 
into 
a 
variety 
of 
outside 
services 
available 
within 
their 
communities. 
Their 
respective 
networks 
do 
not 
always 
overlap 
but 
might 
be 
made 
to 
do 
so 
in 
the 
future 
to 
better 
serve 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence. 


Both 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
pilot 
site 
partners 
participate 
in 
large, 
informal 
networks 
incorporating 
a 
diversity 
of 
services 
and 
service 
providers 
throughout 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
to 
serve 
women 
in 
their 
communities. 
They 
do 
not, 
however, 
participate 
in 
the 
same 
networks. 
An 
individual 
with 
a 
disability 
who 
was 
a 
victim/survivor 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
who 
attempted 
to 
access 
services 
would 
be 
offered 
a 
different 
set 
of 
uncoordinated 
options 
depending 
on 
which 
service 
provider 
she 
consulted. 
Service 
providers 
know 
about 
each 
other’s 
agencies; 
however 
no 
firm, 
formal 
relationship 
of 
trainings, 
collaboration 
or 
referrals 
has 
been 
established. 
While 
forging 
a 
collaboration 
between 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers, 
it 
should 
be 
feasible 
to 
merge 
elements 
of 
the 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
networks 
to 
enhance 
options 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence. 


“We 
are 
quite 
a 
ways 
from 
the 
ideal, 
but 
it 
could 
be 
good!” 


Staff 
member, 
disability 
service 
provider 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
DV/SA 
service 
providers 


Staff 
and 
Executive 
Directors 
at 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
typically 
revealed 
an 
impressive 
knowledge 
of 
local 
resources 
available 
to 
help 
victims 
and 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault. 
Executive 
Directors 
were 
confident 
in 
staff 
knowledge. 
Staff 
provided 
the 
names 
of 
numerous 
local 
agencies 
with 
which 
they 
enjoyed 
regular 
interactions, 
reciprocal 
referrals 
and 
interdependent 
relationships 
to 
meet 
clients’ 
needs. 
Very 
few 
of 
organizations 
discussed, 
however, 
were 
disability 
service 
providers. 
In 
two 
out 
of 
the 
three 
pilot 
sites, 
dv/sa 
advocates 
specifically 
mentioned 
that 
they 
did 
not 
enjoy 
connections 
to 
the 
disability 
service 
providers 
with 
which 
they 
would 
be 
partnered 
on 
this 
initiative. 
When 
dv/sa 
staff 
was 
aware 
of 
the 
existence 
of 
disability 
service 
providers, 
this 
awareness 
was 
often 
limited 
to 
the 
name 
of 
an 
organization, 
an 
address 
and 
a 
phone 
number 
listed 
on 
a 
sheet 
of 
paper. 
There 
was 
little 
meaningful 
interaction, 
reciprocal 
referral, 
or 
combined 
advocacy 
occurring. 
One 
dv/sa 
staff 
member 
at 
an 
organization 
that 
is 
proud 
of 
how 
well 
networked 
they 
are 
into 
community 
resources 
for 
dv/sa, 
reported 
that 
she 
made 
home 
visits 
to 
one 
client 
with 
a 
disability 
because 
she 
did 
not 
know 
where 
she 
could 
refer 
her. 
Advocates 
were 
aware 
that 
this 
situation 
was 
not 
necessarily 
the 
most 
effective 
and 
efficient 
way 
to 
provide 
services 
to 
clients, 
and 
could 
create 
confusion 
for 
both 
service 
providers 
and 
clients. 


23 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Let’s 
come 
up 
with 
one 
comprehensive, 
consistent, 
non-contradictory 
plan 
to 
help 
a 
client 
rather 
than 
“all 
these 
different 
tentacles 
coming 
off 
an 
octopus.” 


Staff 
member, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


Domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
advocates 
generally 
expressed 
interest 
in, 
and 
recognized 
the 
advantages 
of, 
creating 
a 
greater 
degree 
of 
interagency 
collaboration. 
They 
requested 
more 
integration 
between 
their 
services 
and 
networks 
of 
resources 
and 
referrals 
with 
those 
of 
disability 
service 
providers. 
They 
suggested 
various 
measures 
to 
effect 
such 
an 
integration, 
which 
are 
enumerated 
below. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
disability 
service 
providers 


Executive 
Directors 
at 
disability 
service 
providers 
praised 
their 
staff 
for 
their 
knowledge 
of 
community 
resources 
available 
to 
assist 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
Phrases 
such 
as, 
“My 
staff 
know 
about 
every 
service 
in 
town,” 
were 
frequently 
repeated. 
This 
can 
partly 
be 
explained 
by 
the 
mission 
of 
the 
disability 
service 
providers. 
Staff 
described 
themselves 
as 
“generalists” 
whose 
primary 
responsibility 
is 
often 
referring 
clients 
out 
to 
appropriate 
community 
services. 
Staff 
exhibit 
positive 
“can 
do” 
attitudes. 
“I’ll 
call 
anyone,” 
one 
staff 
member 
commented. 
When 
staff 
were 
asked 
to 
describe 
their 
relationships 
with 
other 
local 
service 
providers 
and 
the 
history 
of 
these 
relationships, 
the 
discussions 
were 
lengthy, 
encompassing 
a 
wide 
variety 
of 
local 
service 
providers 
offering 
a 
plethora 
of 
services. 
“We 
invite 
agencies 
to 
come 
and 
meet 
us, 
or 
we 
go 
out 
and 
meet 
them.” 
Disability 
staff 
members 
frequently 
attend 
local 
interagency 
meetings 
of 
service 
providers 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
Some 
serve 
on 
boards 
of 
other 
service 
provider 
organizations. 
Others 
frequently 
exhibit 
at 
information 
fairs, 
senior 
fairs 
and 
housing 
summits. 
”Collaborating 
works 
for 
us,” 
one 
staff 
member 
opined. 


“Connections 
to 
other 
organizations 
are 
our 
strength.” 


Executive 
Director, 
disability 
service 


provider 


Although 
dv/sa 
services 
were 
among 
those 
described 
and 
although 
disability 
service 
providers 
at 
all 
three 
pilot 
sites 
described 
having 
referred 
clients 
for 
dv/sa 
services, 
these 
were 
not 
the 
service 
providers 
with 
which 
they 
enjoyed 
frequent, 
regular, 
and 
collaborative 
relationships. 
For 
example, 
at 
one 
pilot 
site, 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
enjoys 
a 
strong 
networked 
relationship 
with 
a 
variety 
of 
community 
agencies 
providing 
services 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
Staff 
reported 
that 
they 
have 
visited 
many 
local 
agencies 
to 
“share 
what 
we 
do 
and 
find 
out 
about 
what 
they 
do, 
but 
not 
with 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider.” 
Even 
the 
staff 
members 
at 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
at 
another 
pilot 
site, 
which 
exhibited 
the 
best 
knowledge 
of 
local 
dv/sa 
resources 
and 
the 
most 
developed 
relationships 
with 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
among 
all 
the 
pilot 
sites, 
expressed 
misunderstandings 
and 
uncertainty 
about 
what 
exactly 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
could 
provide 
and 
what 
a 
relationship 
between 
their 
organizations 
would 
look 
like. 
Instead, 
disability 
advocates 
reported 
they 
sometimes 
were 
not 
sure 
about 
all 
the 
services 
their 
local 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
offered 
and 
wished 
they 
had 
more 
communication 
and 
understanding 
of 
what 
such 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
provided 
for 
clients 
and 
how 
they 
functioned. 
There 
is 
little 
cross-training 
among 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
currently 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
locations. 
One 
staff 
member 
at 
a 
disability 
service 
provider 
well 
networked 
into 
local 
resources 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
acknowledged 
that 
she 
sent 
clients 
to 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
when 
she 
did 
not 
know 
what 
to 
do 
for 
them. 
Another 
staff 
member 
at 
a 
different 
organization 
admitted 
she 
did 
not 
know 
where 
to 
send 
clients 
when 
abuse 
was 


24 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


disclosed. 
Despite 
the 
current 
gap 
in 
communication 
between 
the 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers, 
their 
experience 
working 
with 
other 
community 
service 
providers 
give 
them 
experiences 
from 
which 
to 
draw 
when 
they 
eventually 
work 
with 
each 
other. 


Like 
dv/sa 
advocates, 
disability 
advocates 
generally 
expressed 
interest 
in, 
and 
recognized 
the 
advantages 
of, 
creating 
a 
greater 
degree 
of 
interagency 
collaboration 
and 
integration 
between 
their 
services 
and 
networks 
of 
resources 
and 
referrals 
with 
those 
of 
dv/sa 
service 
providers. 
They 
suggested 
similar 
measures 
to 
integrate 
assistance 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
become 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence, 
which 
will 
now 
be 
enumerated. 


Finding 
– 
Domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault, 
disability 
service 
providers, 
and 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
share 
common 
values 
and 
an 
enthusiasm 
for 
improving 
accessibility 
around 
which 
collaboration 
can 
begin. 


What 
we 
learned 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 


Focus 
group 
participants 
asked 
service 
providers 
to 
devise 
a 
simpler 
system 
that 
works 
equally 
for 
everyone. 
Individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
as 
discussed 
above, 
repeatedly 
requested 
a 
more 
centralized, 
simplified, 
and 
rationalized 
resource 
for 
service 
provision 
“with 
people 
who 
know 
how 
resources 
overlap 
and 
interconnect.” 
Both 
disability 
services 
and 
dv/sa 
services 
“need 
to 
be 
connected 
immediately” 
in 
“wrap-around 
service 
for 
that 
client.” 
The 
proposed 
collaborations 
between 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
and 
the 
integration 
of 
their 
networks 
of 
service 
providers 
may 
offer 
one 
way 
to 
meet 
this 
request. 


Although 
the 
language 
used 
may 
differ, 
disability 
advocates, 
dv/sa 
advocates 
and 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
want 
the 
same 
thing: 
to 
support 
and 
empower 
individuals 
by 
offering 
them 
choices 
to 
better 
their 
circumstances, 
while 
respecting 
an 
individual’s 
dignity 
and 
right 
to 
choose. 
dv/sa 
advocates 
described 
their 
roles 
in 
listening 
closely 
to 
their 
clients 
and 
in 
providing 
a 
safe, 
welcoming, 
supportive 
environment 
in 
which 
victims/survivors 
can 
explore 
options 
for 
their 
futures. 
“We 
listen, 
and 
let 
people 
know 
they 
are 
loved,” 
one 
staff 
member 
said. 
An 
Executive 
Director, 
stating 
her 
philosophy 
of 
advocacy, 
described 
her 
“number 
one 
priority” 
as 
providing 
the 
resources 
to 
meet 
clients’ 
needs 
so 
that 
the 
client 
does 
not 
feel 
she 
has 
to 
return 
to 
an 
abuser. 


“If 
I 
can 
eliminate 
this 
and 
say, 
‘No, 
no. 
I 
can 
help 
you 
with 
that. 
I 
can 
take 
care 
of 
that. 
Then 
she 
doesn’t 
have 
a 
reason 
to 
go 
back. 
But, 
if 
you 
want 
to 
go 
back 
because 
you 
want 
to 
go 
back, 
that’s 
fine. 
That’s 
your 
choice. 
But 
I 
don’t 
want 
a 
woman 
to 
leave 
here 
saying 
she 
has 
to 
go 
back 
because 
we 
can’t 
give 
her 
something 
she 
needs.” 
Advocates 
empower 
women 
while 
respecting 
their 
right 
to 
choose.” 


Executive 
Director, 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 


Domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
advocates 
empower 
women 
while 
respecting 
their 
right 
to 
choose. 
This 
sounds 
strikingly 
similar 
to 
disability 
advocates’ 
explanation 
of 
their 
role 
with 
clients. 
Advocates 
explain 
that 
their 
job 
is 
not 
to 
fix 
what 
may 
be 
wrong 
in 
a 
client’s 
life. 
Instead, 
it 
is 
to 
lay 
out 
options, 
resources, 
and 
choices 
from 
which 
a 
client 
can 
choose. 
In 
the 
end, 
it 
is 
the 
client’s 
choice 
and 
responsibility 
to 
follow 
through 
on 
those 
choices. 
Disability 
advocates, 
like 
dv/sa 
advocates, 
cultivate 
close 
listening 
skills 
and 
provide 
“hugs 
and 
Kleenexes” 
in 
their 
effort 
to 
provide 
a 
safe, 
supportive 
environment 
in 
which 
clients 
can 
feel 
comfortable 
making 
those 
choices. 
The 
importance 
of 
dignity, 
respect, 
choice, 
and 
self-empowerment 
were 
also 
powerful 
messages 
emerging 
from 
the 
focus 
groups 
with 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 


25 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Participants 
asked 
for 
services 
to 
be 
provided 
without 
judgment, 
with 
respect 
for 
the 
individual 
choice 
and 
with 
input 
from 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 


Overall, 
individuals 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
communities 
evinced 
willingness, 
and 
indeed 
an 
enthusiasm, 
to 
collaborate 
and 
build 
bridges 
between 
organizations, 
with 
individuals, 
and 
with 
communities 
to 
work 
on 
these 
issues. 
These 
shared 
values 
should 
form 
a 
powerful 
foundation 
from 
which 
to 
begin 
such 
work. 


OBSERVATIONS 
ON 
INDIVIDUAL 
PILOT 
SITES 


While 
the 
pilot 
sites 
exhibited 
many 
similar 
characteristics 
as 
described 
above, 
and 
while 
the 
creation 
of 
broad 
strategies 
and 
replicable 
models 
is 
critical 
to 
effective 
statewide 
systemic 
change, 
each 
current 
pilot 
site 
exhibited 
particular 
challenges 
and 
strengths 
that 
should 
also 
become 
part 
of 
the 
strategic 
planning 
process. 
As 
the 
last 
question 
of 
each 
focus 
group 
and 
interview, 
the 
IEAC 
asked 
participants 
for 
any 
additional 
information 
the 
IEAC 
would 
need 
to 
know 
to 
work 
effectively 
within 
that 
community 
that 
had 
not 
already 
been 
discussed. 
The 
resulting 
body 
of 
information 
must 
be 
incorporated 
with 
the 
generalized 
findings 
during 
the 
strategic 
planning 
process 
to 
suggest 
menus 
of 
initiatives 
that 
are 
simultaneously 
general 
enough 
to 
be 
replicated 
at 
future 
pilot 
sites 
but 
specific 
enough 
to 
work 
within 
the 
particularized 
environment 
of 
a 
specific 
pilot 
site 
community. 


Pilot 
sites 
were 
assigned 
a 
number 
randomly 
to 
allow 
the 
IEAC 
to 
discuss 
individual 
sites 
while 
protecting 
the 
confidentiality 
of 
the 
executive 
directors, 
staff, 
and 
individuals 
at 
those 
sites. 


Pilot 
Site 
#1 


Pilot 
Site 
#1appears 
to 
have 
many 
resources 
to 
assist 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
become 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence, 
and 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
as 
a 
group 
seemed 
better 
informed 
about 
this 
wide 
array 
of 
services 
than 
at 
the 
other 
pilot 
sites. 
The 
potential 
of 
these 
services 
to 
be 
utilized 
most 
effectively, 
however, 
is 
not 
being 
fully 
tapped. 
Services 
could 
be 
coordinated 
with 
greater 
consistency 
and 
publicized 
to 
a 
greater 
degree 
to 
better 
reach 
out 
to 
and 
serve 
these 
individuals. 
Among 
pilot 
sites 
1,2 
and 
3, 
the 
disability 
and 
dv/sa 
Executive 
Directors 
and 
staff 
at 
pilot 
site 
1 
revealed 
the 
greatest 
enthusiasm 
about 
working 
with 
one 
another. 
There 
is 
a 
great 
degree 
of 
leadership 
and 
buy-in 
from 
both 
Executive 
Directors. 
A 
practical 
reality 
of 
both 
agencies’ 
operations 
that 
will 
need 
to 
be 
taken 
into 
account 
with 
strategic 
planning 
is 
that 
this 
leadership 
is 
not 
available 
on 
site 
on 
a 
consistent 
basis. 
The 
dv/sa 
service 
provider’s 
Executive 
Director 
is 
often 
out 
of 
the 
office 
on 
professional 
travel. 
The 
disability 
service 
provider’s 
Executive 
Director 
is 
not 
resident 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
community 
and 
is 
typically 
connected 
to 
staff 
by 
telephone, 
as 
he 
coordinates 
four 
offices 
over 
a 
broad, 
rural 
and 
semirural 
geographic 
area 
in 
the 
region. 
Also, 
staff 
at 
both 
organizations, 
while 
enthusiastic, 
also 
indicated 
they 
are 
very 
much 
overcommitted 
to 
pre-existing 
projects. 
When 
beginning 
specific 
strategic 
planning 
for 
this 
pilot 
site, 
planners 
should 
address 
ways 
to 
convey 
to 
staff 
how 
certain 
initiatives 
can 
actually 
save 
them 
time 
by 
increasing 
systemic 
efficiency. 


Finally, 
more 
so 
than 
at 
any 
other 
pilot 
site 
disability 
service 
provider, 
staff 
repeatedly 
discussed 
the 
need 
for 
all 
that 
they 
do 
to 
adhere 
to 
Independent 
Living 
(IL) 
Philosophy. 
The 
heart 
of 
this 
philosophy 
centers 
around 
asking 
clients 
about 
what 
they 
want 
to 
achieve 
and 
helping 
them 
meet 
these 
goals. 
Advocates 
at 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
seemed 
unsure 
as 
whether 
the 
proposed 
initiatives 
to 
aid 
victims/survivors 
of 
abuse 
would 
be 
consistent 
with 
the 
Independent 


26 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Living 
Philosophy 
and 
the 
type 
of 
work 
they 
performed 
with 
clients. 
The 
Executive 
Director, 
however, 
stated 
that 
if 
there 
is 
any 
suspicion 
of 
abuse 
occurring 
or 
that 
a 
client 
is 
in 
imminent 
danger, 
“We 
overstep 
pure 
Independent 
Living 
Philosophy.” 
Strategic 
planning 
will 
need 
to 
accommodate 
these 
views, 
ensuring 
that 
any 
menu 
of 
options 
is 
presented 
in 
an 
Independent 
Living 
Framework 
for 
our 
services. 


Pilot 
Site 
#2 


Strengths 
of 
this 
partnership 
include 
that 
the 
leadership 
of 
both 
pilot 
site 
partners 
is 
strong 
and 
that 
the 
service 
providers 
are 
located 
near 
to 
one 
another 
geographically, 
which 
should 
increase 
opportunities 
for 
face 
to 
face 
communications 
and 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
to 
make 
use 
of 
the 
services 
of 
both 
organizations. 
The 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
is 
the 
most 
physically 
accessible 
of 
all 
the 
pilot 
sites, 
and 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
refers 
more 
of 
its 
clients 
to 
local 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
than 
any 
other 
disability 
service 
provider 
interviewed. 
The 
approaches 
of 
the 
two 
organizations 
revealed 
the 
most 
commonalities, 
with 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
staff 
being 
cognizant 
of 
protecting 
client 
safety 
and 
training 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
(PCAs) 
to 
look 
for 
abuse 
and 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
having 
resources 
to 
make 
many 
needed 
accommodations. 
There 
was 
little 
apprehension 
voiced 
about 
assuming 
the 
extra 
responsibility 
of 
this 
collaborative 
work, 
even 
with 
limited 
monetary 
resources 
available. 


Although 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
has 
the 
most 
comprehensive 
services 
and 
resources 
of 
any 
pilot 
site 
dv/sa 
service 
provider, 
strategic 
planning 
should 
take 
into 
account 
the 
facility’s 
desire 
to 
meet 
as 
many 
of 
its 
clients’ 
needs 
in-house 
as 
possible. 
The 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
philosophy 
is 
that 
if 
they 
meet 
a 
client’s 
needs, 
she 
will 
have 
no 
need 
to 
return 
to 
an 
abusive 
situation. 
The 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
philosophy 
is 
laudable. 
The 
staff 
and 
Executive 
Director 
reported, 
however, 
that 
they 
can’t 
get 
clients 
the 
services 
they 
need 
unless 
the 
clients 
are 
in 
the 
shelter. 
The 
problem, 
report 
the 
Executive 
Director 
and 
staff, 
is 
with 
“outside,” 
i.e. 
any 
services 
they 
don’t 
provide 
in 
house. 
As 
the 
Executive 
Director 
stated, 
“If 
others 
aren’t 
willing 
to 
do 
as 
much 
as 
I’m 
doing. 
. 
.” 
She 
says 
she 
is 
trying 
to 
provide 
a 
full 
service 
agency 
but 
recognizes 
she’s 
not 
able 
to. 
There 
may 
be 
an 
attitudinal 
barrier 
that 
could 
impact 
their 
ability 
to 
work 
effectively 
and 
reciprocally 
with 
other 
community 
service 
providers 
that 
the 
IEAC 
could 
plan 
to 
work 
around. 


The 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
at 
this 
pilot 
site 
seemed 
the 
most 
aware 
and 
knowledgeable 
about 
the 
unique 
service 
needs 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims 
or 
survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
or 
sexual 
assault. 
The 
staff 
and 
Executive 
Director 
were 
aware 
that 
their 
organization 
served 
women 
with 
disabilities, 
but 
opined 
that 
they 
generally 
cannot 
get 
clients 
with 
disabilities 
the 
services 
they 
need 
unless 
they 
are 
in 
the 
shelter. 
The 
problem, 
as 
they 
see 
it, 
is 
“outside,” 
with 
other 
service 
providers. 
They 
do 
not 
see 
any 
problems 
with 
their 
organization 
meeting 
the 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
but 
“it 
is 
just 
harder”. 


Lastly, 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
works 
primarily 
with 
multiple 
shelters 
in 
the 
immediate 
area. 
They 
described 
one 
shelter 
as 
being 
more 
effective 
than 
the 
others. 
Another 
less 
effective 
shelter, 
however, 
is 
closer 
to 
the 
disability 
service 
provider. 
It 
has 
sometimes 
been 
easier 
for 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
to 
find 
shelter 
space 
for 
clients 
at 
this 
nearer 
shelter. 
Strategic 
planning 
should 
recognize 
the 
sensitive 
nature, 
in 
a 
community 
this 
size, 
of 
these 
relationships 
and 
work 
to 
minimize 
any 
problems 
that 
might 
occur 
with 
other 
shelters 
due 
to 
the 
expanded 
relationship 
between 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
and 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider. 


27 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Pilot 
Site 
#3 


The 
LDS 
Church, 
including 
the 
LDS 
Church’s 
Brigham 
Young 
University(BYU), 
is 
a 
strong 
influence 
in 
this 
pilot 
site 
community. 
The 
pilot 
site 
partners 
will 
need 
to 
work 
within 
that 
influence. 
Fortunately, 
the 
Church 
provides 
many 
social 
support 
services 
and 
resources 
that 
are 
unavailable 
elsewhere 
in 
the 
community. 
At 
the 
same 
time 
as 
the 
LDS 
Church 
engages 
in 
such 
valuable 
work, 
it 
tends 
to 
work 
in 
isolation. 
Partners 
will 
need 
to 
focus 
on 
creating 
openings 
into 
the 
Church’s 
work 
and 
on 
creating 
collaborative 
opportunities. 


A 
critical 
starting 
point 
would 
be 
to 
establish 
a 
representative 
from 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
in 
the 
pilot 
site 
community 
who 
would 
work 
with 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider, 
the 
LDS 
Church, 
its 
members, 
and 
non-LDS 
individuals, 
building 
bridges 
between 
these 
groups. 
The 
disability 
service 
provider 
Executive 
Director 
pledged 
money 
to 
fund 
this 
position 
when 
such 
a 
person 
is 
found. 


A 
positive 
relationship 
should 
also 
be 
forged 
between 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
and 
BYU, 
which 
supports 
many 
of 
the 
dv/sa 
programs 
services 
by 
providing 
social 
work 
interns. 
A 
way 
to 
link 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
into 
this 
pre-existing 
relationship 
should 
be 
discussed. 
Overall, 
the 
influence 
and 
resources 
of 
the 
LDS 
Church 
and 
BYU 
in 
this 
pilot 
site 
community 
must 
be 
worked 
into 
the 
strategic 
planning 
for 
the 
collaboration 
between 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
and 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider. 


Domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
staff 
believed 
that 
there 
are 
resources 
in 
the 
community 
for 
dv/sa 
if 
the 
victim/survivor 
has 
money. 


Overall, 
the 
need 
in 
this 
pilot 
site 
was 
greater 
than 
in 
any 
other 
pilot 
site. 
For 
example, 
services 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
were 
the 
least 
coordinated 
of 
all 
the 
pilot 
sites. 
The 
disability 
service 
provider, 
as 
described 
above, 
has 
tried 
to 
work 
with 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
but 
has 
not 
enjoyed 
a 
great 
deal 
of 
success, 
which 
they 
attribute, 
in 
part, 
to 
religious 
and 
cultural 
issues. 
Moreover, 
the 
Executive 
Director 
at 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
stated 
she 
was 
not 
coordinated 
with 
other 
local 
agencies 
to 
provide 
services 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
needed 
accommodations. 
The 
dv/sa 
staff 
describes 
their 
shelter 
as 
having 
no 
accommodations 
for 
clients 
who 
are 
deaf 
or 
blind. 
The 
shelter 
is 
also 
not 
wheelchair 
accessible. 
There 
were 
no 
efforts 
at 
broader 
programmatic 
accessibility 
discussed 
by 
the 
dv/sa 
staff 
or 
the 
Executive 
Director. 
Staff 
members 
were 
unfamiliar 
with 
identifying 
assistive 
technology 
resources 
in 
the 
area. 


Both 
disability 
service 
providers 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
seemed 
the 
most 
misinformed 
about 
the 
intersections 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
disability, 
harboring 
many 
misconceptions 
and 
biases 
that 
are 
a 
barrier 
to 
effectively 
providing 
services 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 
who 
become 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence, 
as 
was 
discussed 
in 
detail 
above. 
Some 
first 
steps 
the 
IEAC 
could 
assist 
each 
organization 
in 
taking 
would 
be 
in 
creation 
of 
a 
Domestic 
Violence 
Workplace 
Policy 
for 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
and 
increased 
training 
for 
their 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants. 
The 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
requested 
assistance 
with 
policies 
and 
procedures 
on 
medications, 
confidentiality, 
and 
the 
legal 
and 
ethical 
ways 
to 
ask 
clients 
about 
disability 
issues 
and 
needed 
accommodations. 


Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
were 
also 
very 
misinformed 
about 
their 
local 
services 
to 
assist 
victims 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
and 
exhibited 
a 
great 
deal 
of 
anger 
as 
a 
result 
of 
this 
misperception. 
Their 
criticisms 
were 
leveled 
primarily 
at 
a 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
that 
is 
NOT 
the 
community 
pilot 
site 
partner. 
Focus 
group 
participants 
perceived 
that 
women 
with 


28 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


disabilities 
and 
human 
trafficking 
victims 
had 
a 
particularly 
difficult 
time 
accessing 
services. 
Although 
individuals’ 
anger 
was 
not 
directed 
at 
the 
pilot 
site 
dv/sa 
service 
provider 
partner 
in 
particular, 
significant 
effort 
will 
need 
to 
be 
made 
to 
re-establish 
trust 
between 
service 
providers 
and 
the 
individuals 
they 
attempt 
to 
serve. 


Section6ImplicationsofStrengthsandNeedsAssessmentFindings
The 
information 
gathered 
from 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
conducted 
at 
all 
three 
pilot 
sites 
was 
compiled 
into 
the 
above 
composite 
set 
of 
findings, 
which 
shall 
assist 
in 
long 
term 
strategic 
planning 
at 
each 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites. 
The 
implications 
of 
these 
findings, 
shall 
be 
used 
to 
identify 
possible 
initiatives 
that 
the 
IEAC 
can 
undertake 
in 
general, 
as 
well 
as 
in 
each 
particular 
pilot 
site 
location. 


Implications: 


• 
WWD 
would 
like 
“wrap 
around 
services,” 
available 
at 
one 
easily 
usable 
central 
information 
resource 
for 
services, 
where 
it 
is 
clear 
how 
services 
overlap 
and 
interconnect. 
They 
specified 
that 
they 
would 
like: 
o 
A 
roster 
of 
service 
providers 
including 
agency 
names, 
specific 
person 
to 
contact, 
services 
offered, 
hours 
of 
operation, 
phone 
numbers, 
and 
addresses; 
o 
The 
roster 
could 
be 
indexed 
by 
agency 
and 
also 
by 
services 
offered, 
o 
The 
roster 
would 
include 
physicians 
and 
psychiatrists; 
o 
The 
roster 
would 
be 
available 
in 
alternative 
formats 
and 
in 
ways 
and 
locations 
that 
are 
accessible 
to 
people 
with 
disabilities; 
and 
o 
It 
might 
be 
made 
available 
in 
a 
booklet 
or 
community 
bulletin 
board 
format 
or 
both. 
Suggestions 
for 
how 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
would 
like 
to 
receive 
such 
information 
included: 


o 
Television 
and 
radio 
public 
service 
announcements 
o 
Local 
TV 
station 
“tip 
lines” 
o 
Ads 
in 
local 
newspapers 
o 
Fliers 
from 
local 
agencies 
such 
as 
welfare 
office, 
food 
stamps 
office, 
Medicaid, 
sheriff’s 
office, 
police 
departments, 
behavioral 
health, 
unemployment 
office, 
hospital 
emergency 
rooms 
o 
Victims 
Advocate 
services 
o 
Libraries 
o 
2-1-1 
Careline 
o 
Disabilities 
service 
organizations 
o 
Doctors’ 
offices 
o 
Psychiatrists’ 
offices 
o 
Psycho-social 
rehabilitation 
(PSR) 
workers 
o 
Attorneys’ 
offices 
o 
Grocery 
stores 
o 
Churches 
o 
Posters 
in 
women’s 
restrooms, 
including 
bar 
restrooms 
29 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Individuals 
with 
disabilities 
tended 
not 
to 
want 
information 
via 
the 
internet—at 
least 
not 
exclusively—since 
many 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
do 
not 
have 
access 
to 
a 
computer 
on 
a 
regular 
basis. 
While 
this 
grant 
does 
not 
support 
activities 
that 
would 
meet 
this 
need, 
the 
information 
may 
be 
useful 
to 
the 
pilot 
sites 
when 
developing 
other 
projects. 


• 
At 
each 
pilot 
site 
there 
is 
a 
need 
for 
education 
and 
dialogue 
among 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
disability 
service 
providers 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers. 
The 
IEAC 
must 
foster 
this 
type 
of 
interagency 
networking, 
communication 
and 
referral 
to 
facilitate 
the 
IEAC’s 
vision 
of 
women 
enjoying 
equal 
access 
to 
the 
comprehensive 
services 
of 
her 
choice, 
no 
matter 
where 
she 
accesses 
the 
integrated 
network 
of 
services. 
• 
Currently, 
pilot 
site 
disability 
service 
providers 
and 
dv/sa 
service 
providers 
hold 
inconsistent 
views 
as 
to 
what 
constitutes 
abuse. 
Occasionally, 
when 
referrals 
have 
been 
made 
to 
one 
another, 
the 
receiving 
agency 
has 
disagreed 
that 
abuse 
was 
occurring. 
Education 
to 
bring 
both 
service 
providers 
to 
the 
same 
understanding 
of 
what 
constitutes 
abuse 
is 
needed 
to 
prevent 
damage 
to 
their 
working 
relationships. 
• 
Currently, 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
hold 
misconceptions 
about 
the 
services 
each 
provides. 
Cross-training 
to 
educate 
each 
other 
about 
what 
services 
they 
offer 
is 
needed 
to 
alleviate 
these 
misunderstandings 
and 
resulting 
frustration 
over 
what 
service 
providers 
think 
the 
other 
should 
be 
doing. 
As 
well, 
cross-training 
on 
each 
other’s 
philosophical 
underpinnings 
is 
required 
so 
that 
they 
understand 
why 
each 
organization 
offers 
the 
services 
they 
do, 
and 
the 
spirit 
in 
which 
those 
services 
are 
offered. 
• 
Currently, 
pilot 
sites 
rely 
on 
Personal 
Care 
Attendants 
to 
report 
suspected 
abuse, 
despite 
the 
fact 
that 
PCAs 
may 
be 
the 
abusers. 
The 
pilot 
sites 
would 
benefit 
from 
education 
on 
this 
topic. 
Technical 
assistance 
in 
developing 
alternative 
avenues 
and 
methods 
of 
identifying 
and 
reporting 
abuse 
is 
also 
needed. 
• 
Service 
providers 
currently 
have 
a 
narrow 
view 
of 
what 
constitutes 
accessibility. 
Education, 
technical 
assistance 
and 
cross-training 
to 
provide 
a 
broader 
view 
of 
what 
constitutes 
accessibility 
would 
be 
helpful 
to 
make 
their 
programs 
welcoming 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
For 
example, 
education 
and 
technical 
assistance 
regarding: 
the 
Americans 
with 
Disabilities 
Act 
(ADA) 
intake 
procedures, 
interactions 
between 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
staff, 
program 
accessibility, 
counseling, 
support 
groups, 
education, 
communal 
shelter 
life, 
and 
survivor 
education, 
would 
be 
helpful. 
Also, 
reviewing 
all 
website, 
documents 
and 
materials 
to 
make 
sure 
they 
are 
integrating 
disability 
and 
creating 
a 
welcoming 
environment 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
would 
be 
helpful. 
• 
Service 
providers 
may 
benefit 
from 
education 
about 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
dv/sa 
victims 
to 
increase 
appropriateness, 
understanding, 
and 
comfort 
when 
working 
with 
these 
populations. 
• 
Collaboration 
among 
community 
service 
providers 
is 
integral 
to 
meeting 
the 
many 
unique 
service 
needs 
of 
survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
Service 
providers 
should 
receive 
technical 
assistance 
to 
facilitate 
this 
collaboration 
and 
create 
avenues 
for 
making 
referrals 
or 
combining 
advocacy. 
30 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


• 
Service 
providers 
should 
be 
provided 
with 
technical 
assistance 
in 
creating 
and 
implementing 
formal, 
accessible, 
policies, 
procedures, 
and 
protocols 
within 
their 
agency, 
including 
formalized, 
but 
flexible, 
procedures 
for 
reporting 
suspected 
abuse 
of 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
• 
Currently, 
Boards 
of 
Directors 
do 
not 
perceive 
enhancing 
service 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
as 
a 
priority. 
They 
cite 
to 
the 
low 
number 
of 
individuals 
contacting 
their 
programs 
for 
assistance. 
Unfortunately, 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
report 
that 
they 
do 
not 
contact 
these 
service 
providers 
because 
the 
programs 
do 
not 
appear 
to 
be 
welcoming 
or 
accessible. 
Boards 
of 
Directors 
should 
be 
educated 
about 
this 
dynamic 
and 
encouraged 
to 
proactively 
allocate 
funding 
to 
enhance 
their 
program’s 
services 
such 
that 
they 
are 
more 
welcoming 
and 
accessible 
to 
survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
• 
Service 
providers 
should 
be 
provided 
with 
technical 
assistance 
to 
develop 
a 
web 
of 
coordinated 
and 
collaborative 
working 
relationships 
and 
resulting 
referral 
systems 
that 
is 
simple 
and 
works 
equally 
well 
for 
everyone. 
• 
Service 
providers 
should 
receive 
cross-training 
about 
each 
others’ 
philosophies 
and 
services 
so 
they 
find 
common 
ground 
from 
which 
to 
enhance 
their 
working 
relationships. 
• 
Ensure 
that 
development 
and 
implementation 
of 
outreach 
materials 
and 
public 
awareness 
campaigns 
send 
a 
message 
of 
a 
welcoming 
environment. 
• 
Increase 
their 
confidence 
in 
each 
other 
such 
that 
they 
can 
work 
together 
and 
make 
referrals 
to 
one 
another. 
How 
DV/SA 
and 
Disability 
Advocates 
Envision 
Future 
Collaborations 


• 
Increased 
coordination 
and 
regular 
communication 
between 
local 
dv/sa 
advocates 
and 
disability 
advocates 
and 
their 
organizations, 
possibly 
through 
interagency 
meetings 
where 
each 
agency 
has 
a 
spokesperson 
who 
then 
takes 
information 
back 
to 
share 
with 
the 
entire 
staff 
at 
the 
home 
agency. 
o 
Each 
agency 
should 
know 
specific 
contact 
persons 
within 
other 
agencies, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
specific 
services 
each 
agency 
provides 
or 
refers 
out 
to. 
Desired 
formats 
were 
written, 
CD, 
and 
website 
formats. 
o 
Face 
to 
face 
contact 
was 
considered 
critically 
important. 
Agency 
representatives 
should 
visit 
one 
another’s 
facilities 
and 
meet 
staff 
and 
Executive 
Directors. 
This, 
it 
was 
felt, 
would 
increase 
trust 
among 
the 
organizations 
and 
individuals. 
o 
Communication 
between 
organizations 
should 
be 
frequent 
and 
transparent. 
o 
Such 
communication 
should 
involve 
a 
frank 
discussion 
of 
what 
resources 
each 
agency 
provides, 
what 
each 
hopes 
for 
from 
other 
organizations, 
and 
what 
each 
agency 
understands 
as 
its 
ethical 
and 
legal 
obligations 
regarding 
service 
provision, 
confidentiality, 
and 
mandatory 
reporting, 
among 
other 
issues. 
• 
Joint 
trainings 
and 
conferences 
with 
local 
dv/sa 
advocates 
and 
disability 
advocates, 
ideally 
with 
Continuing 
Education 
Units 
(CEUs) 
offered. 
Attendees 
and 
presenters 
should 
attend 
with 
a 
“we 
need 
to 
learn 
from 
you” 
attitude 
rather 
than 
a 
“come 
in 
and 
fix 
you” 
attitude. 
• 
Exchange 
of 
board 
members. 
31 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


• 
Creation 
of 
multidisciplinary 
teams 
composed 
of 
representatives 
from 
different 
agencies 
to 
aid 
clients 
to 
“reintegrate 
[the 
client] 
into 
the 
community 
as 
a 
healthy, 
employed, 
successful 
woman.” 
• 
Avoid 
duplication 
of 
efforts 
and 
services. 
The 
desired 
outcomes 
of 
such 
collaborative 
efforts 
are 
that 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
victims/survivors 
of 
domestic 
violence 
could 
be 
offered 
a 
consistent 
set 
of 
choices 
to 
meet 
their 
needs. 
For 
example, 
the 
dv/sa 
staff 
at 
one 
pilot 
site 
reported 
that 
they 
have 
never 
referred 
to 
the 
disability 
service 
provider 
in 
that 
community 
and 
have 
no 
access 
to 
assistive 
technology 
for 
a 
client 
who 
might 
need 
such 
an 
accommodation. 
By 
effectively 
integrating 
the 
disability 
service 
provider’s 
network 
and 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider’s 
network, 
an 
individual 
could 
have 
access 
to 
the 
same 
assistive 
technology 
(AT) 
resources, 
whether 
she 
sought 
services 
at 
the 
disability 
or 
the 
dv/sa 
service 
provider. 
Certainly 
there 
are 
not 
unlimited 
resources 
in 
each 
community, 
but 
the 
integration 
desired 
by 
both 
dv/sa 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
could 
increase 
opportunities 
for 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
identify 
as 
victims 
or 
survivors 
to 
access 
the 
services 
they 
need 
and 
want. 


32 



AppendixADemographicandStatisticalInformationAppendixADemographicandStatisticalInformation
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


Demographics 
of 
Pilot 
Sites 
and 
Pilot 
Site 
Selection 
Process: 


• 
Coeur 
d’Alene, 
Idaho: 
Women’s 
Center 
and 
Disability 
Action 
Center 
Northwest 
(DAC-
NW) 
Located 
in 
the 
upper 
panhandle 
of 
Idaho 
in 
Kootenai 
County, 
Coeur 
d’Alene 
is 
the 
third 
fastest 
growing 
county 
in 
Idaho. 
The 
IEAC 
chose 
this 
pilot 
project 
site 
because 
of 
its 
diverse 
population, 
geographical 
location 
and 
the 
location 
of 
the 
Disability 
Action 
Center 
Northwest 
DAC-NW, 
independent 
living 
center. 
It 
is 
the 
least 
populated 
of 
the 
IEAC’s 
pilot 
project 
sites 
with 
a 
population 
of 
approximately 
40,000. 
Coeur 
d’Alene 
is 
the 
county 
seat 
and 
the 
largest 
city 
of 
Kootenai 
County. 
The 
city 
has 
grown 
significantly 
in 
recent 
years 
due 
to 
a 
substantial 
increase 
in 
tourism; 
however 
the 
median 
household 
income 
is 
$33,000. 
There 
are 
several 
smaller 
cities 
located 
within 
50 
miles 
that 
do 
not 
have 
any 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
services 
so 
the 
Women’s 
Center 
is 
the 
only 
dv/sa 
resource 
for 
these 
communities 
other 
than 
the 
services 
provided 
by 
Washington 
State. 
The 
same 
holds 
true 
for 
the 
disability 
community. 
The 
DAC-NW 
is 
the 
only 
independent 
living 
center 
serving 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
in 
the 
community. 


It 
was 
the 
intent 
of 
the 
IEAC 
in 
the 
initial 
discussions 
during 
the 
selection 
of 
this 
site 
to 
work 
with 
the 
Coeur 
d’Alene 
Indian 
Tribe, 
however, 
after 
the 
VERA 
retreat 
in 
June 
2007 
we 
were 
informed 
that 
the 
tribe 
was 
in 
the 
process 
of 
forming 
their 
own 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
coalition 
and 
was 
not 
interested 
in 
participating 
at 
this 
time. 


• 
Rexburg/Idaho 
Falls, 
Idaho: 
Family 
Crisis 
Center 
and 
Living 
Independently 
for 
Everyone, 
LIFE, 
Inc. 
Located 
in 
east 
central 
Idaho 
in 
Bonneville 
County, 
Idaho 
Falls 
is 
the 
largest 
city 
with 
a 
population 
of 
approximately 
53,000 
city 
and 
an 
area 
population 
of 
110,220. 
The 
median 
household 
income 
in 
the 
city 
is 
$40,512. 
Idaho 
Falls 
has 
many 
faith 
based 
organizations 
that 
serve 
families 
in 
need 
but 
the 
only 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
provider, 
the 
Family 
Crisis 
Center, 
is 
located 
in 
Rexburg, 
Idaho 
which 
is 
approximately 
20 
miles 
from 
Idaho 
Falls. 
The 
IEAC 
chose 
this 
pilot 
project 
site 
for 
that 
reason 
and 
because 
LIFE, 
Inc. 
had 
already 
established 
a 
relationship 
with 
the 
Family 
Crisis 
Center. 


• 
Nampa, 
Idaho: 
Valley 
Crisis 
Center 
and 
Living 
Independence 
Network 
Corporation, 
LINC. 
Located 
in 
the 
western 
part 
of 
Idaho, 
Nampa 
is 
the 
second 
largest 
city 
in 
Idaho 
and 
the 
largest 
city 
in 
Canyon 
County 
with 
a 
population 
of 
approximately 
78,000. 
Nampa 
is 
20 
miles 
from 
Boise 
with 
many 
rural 
communities 
that 
have 
no 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
service 
providers. 
In 
some 
cases 
victims 
of 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
have 
sought 
services 
in 
Ontario, 
Oregon 
which 
is 
approximately 
45 
minutes 
away. 
Nampa 
has 
a 
large 
Hispanic 
population 
due 
to 
the 
agricultural 
industry 
in 
the 
out 
lying 
areas. 
The 
median 
household 
income 
is 
$34, 
758. 
The 
IEAC 
chose 
this 
site 
due 
to 
the 
number 
of 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
crime 
statistics, 
lack 
of 
public 
transportation, 
and 
it’s 
close 
proximity 
to 
the 
city 
of 
Boise. 


33 



Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
-IEAC 


• 
State: 
Idaho 
is 
a 
large 
(84,000 
sq. 
miles), 
geographically 
diverse 
state 
with 
a 
widely 
dispersed 
population 
of 
1.4 
million, 
approximately 
half 
of 
which 
is 
female. 
Approximately 
12% 
of 
Idahoans 
live 
at 
or 
below 
the 
poverty 
level. 
Idaho 
is 
considered 
a 
frontier 
state, 
17 
of 
its 
44 
counties 
have 
6 
or 
fewer 
people 
per 
square 
mile. 
Domestic 
violence 
is 
prevalent 
in 
all 
communities, 
but 
rural 
communities 
are 
unique 
in 
that 
they 
increase 
isolation 
and 
create 
special 
considerations 
for 
victims. 
According 
to 
a 
statewide 
statistically 
valid 
assessment 
conducted 
in 
2005 
by 
Boise 
State 
University 
for 
the 
State 
Independent 
Living 
Council, 
44% 
of 
Idaho 
households 
have 
at 
least 
one 
member 
with 
some 
form 
of 
disability. 
At 
least 
60%, 
or 
92,400, 
of 
Idahoans 
with 
disabilities 
are 
female. 


Idaho’s 
social 
climate 
is 
unique. 
Idahoans 
possess 
a 
strong 
“pull 
your 
self 
up 
by 
the 
bootstraps” 
attitude 
which 
can 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
initiation 
and 
sufficient 
funding 
of 
desperately 
needed 
social 
services. 
Support 
from 
agencies 
outside 
of 
Idaho 
provide 
Idaho 
with 
much 
needed 
funding 
to 
develop 
important 
social 
service 
systems 
allowing 
us 
to 
positively 
affect 
change 
and 
to 
help 
those 
most 
in 
need. 


Idaho’s 
disability 
related 
service 
organizations, 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
programs, 
and 
supporting 
groups 
including 
faith-based, 
law 
enforcement, 
legal 
assistance, 
healthcare, 
counselors, 
caregivers, 
and 
families, 
all 
report 
both 
a 
high 
occurrence 
rate 
of 
abuse 
and 
difficulties 
serving 
women 
with 
mental, 
physical, 
and/or 
emotional 
disabilities. 
Service 
providers 
at 
all 
levels 
complain 
of 
difficulty 
serving 
women 
with 
disabilities 
because 
of 
a 
widespread 
lack 
of 
cross-disciplinary 
collaboration, 
training, 
and 
services. 


34