NEEDS 
ASSESSMENT 
REPORT 


EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY 


Violence 
against 
Women 
with 
Disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
Women 
Project 
(Disability 
Grant 
Program) 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


1. 
Introduction 
In 
October 
of 
2007, 
with 
the 
overall 
goal 
of 
improving 
services 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors, 
the 
DRN, 
PCADV 
and 
PCAR 
received 
a 
three-
year 
grant, 
the 
Disability 
Grant 
Program, 
from 
the 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Justice, 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women. 
This 
grant 
provides 
technical 
assistance 
including 
planning 
phase 
at 
the 
beginning 
of 
the 
funding 
period 
and 
an 
implementation 
phase 
at 
the 
end. 
As 
part 
of 
the 
work 
under 
this 
grant, 
our 
collaboration 
conducted 
a 
comprehensive 
assessment 
of 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
of 
selected 
communities 
in 
the 
central 
region 
of 
the 
state. 
The 
focus 
areas 
of 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process 
were 
accessibility 
of 
services 
for 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
women 
and 
the 
response 
to 
violence 
by 
disability 
services 
providers 
and 
organizations 
serving 
Deaf 
or 
hard 
of 
hearing 
individuals. 


The 
following 
pages 
of 
this 
document 
contain 
the 
summary 
of 
the 
results 
of 
the 
Needs 
Assessment 
that 
was 
conducted 
by 
our 
collaborative 
during 
the 
spring 
and 
summer 
of 
2009. 
The 
findings 
from 
this 
report 
will 
be 
utilized 
to 
inform 
the 
development 
of 
a 
Strategic 
Plan 
that 
will 
guide 
our 
work 
with 
the 
selected 
communities. 
The 
overall 
goal 
of 
our 
collaborative 
is 
to 
improve 
these 
communities’ 
response 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
women 
who 
have 
experienced 
domestic 
and 
sexual 
violence 
and 
to 
increase 
access 
to 
services. 


2. 
Overview 
of 
Collaboration 
The 
Pennsylvania 
collaboration 
consists 
of 
the 
Disability 
Rights 
Network 
(DRN), 
the 
PA 
Coalition 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(PCADV) 
and 
the 
PA 
Coalition 
Against 
Rape 
(PCAR). 
Approximately 
15 
years 
ago, 
the 
Disability 
Rights 
Network 
of 
Pennsylvania 
(DRN) 
joined 
efforts 
with 
the 
Pennsylvania 
Coalition 
Against 
Rape 
(PCAR) 
with 
the 
intent 
to 
eliminate 
sexual 
violence 
in 
the 
lives 
of 
persons 
with 
disabilities. 
In 
the 
summer 
of 
2004, 
DRN 
and 
PCAR 
joined 
efforts 
again, 
this 
time 
in 
conjunction 
with 
other 
organizations 
including 
the 
Pennsylvania 
Coalition 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(PCADV), 
who 
became 
a 
member 
of 
the 
team 
a 
year 
later. 
Our 
work 
together 
has 
focused 
on 
improving 
physical, 
programmatic 
and 
attitudinal 
accessibility 
to 
victims’ 
services 
for 
people 
with 
disabilities. 
Additionally, 
it 
has 
focused 
on 
raising 
awareness 
on 
the 
part 
of 
disability 
services 
providers 
of 
the 
prevalence 
and 
higher 
risk 
to 
violence 
of 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
the 
existing 
community 
resources 
available 
to 
the 
individuals 
they 
support. 


Our 
work 
during 
the 
planning 
phase 
focused 
on 
formalizing 
our 
collaboration 
by 
documenting 
our 
process, 
shared 
values 
and 
shared 
vision 
for 
our 
work. 
Our 
shared 
vision 
will 
guide 
and 
direct 
the 
work 
of 
our 
collaboration 
throughout 
implementation 
and 
for 
years 
to 
come: 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Vision 
Statement 


People 
with 
disabilities 
in 
Pennsylvania 
who 
have 
experienced 
sexual 
or 


domestic 
violence 
will 
receive 
appropriate, 
responsive 
and 
accessible 


supports 
and 
services. 


Our 
funding 
also 
afforded 
us 
the 
opportunity 
to 
assess 
the 
needs 
of 
selected 
Pennsylvania 
communities 
around 
the 
issue 
of 
violence 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities, 
D/deaf 
or 
hard 
of 
hearing. 
Based 
on 
our 
shared 
vision 
for 
Pennsylvania, 
our 
collaboration 
decided 
for 
our 
work 
to 
be 
cross-disability 
and 
cross-violence 
against 
women. 
Additionally, 
we 
developed 
a 
set 
of 
criteria 
that 
assisted 
us 
in 
selecting 
the 
communities 
in 
which 
we 
worked. 
Some 
of 
the 
elements 
taken 
into 
account 
included 
geographic 
and 
cultural 
diversity, 
willingness 
among 
community 
members 
to 
take 
part 
in 
this 
process, 
and 
areas 
where 
collaboration 
among 
disability 
and 
victims’ 
services 
providers 
was 
already 
in 
existence 
or 
about 
to 
occur. 
Ultimately, 
we 
decided 
to 
conduct 
our 
needs 
assessments 
in 
Dauphin/Perry 
and 
Lancaster 
counties. 


While 
the 
work 
of 
our 
organizations 
takes 
place 
at 
the 
state 
level, 
this 
grant 
required 
us 
to 
limit 
the 
number 
of 
participating 
communities 
in 
this 
project. 
In 
addition 
to 
the 
requirements 
of 
the 
grant, 
considering 
the 
size 
of 
the 
state 
of 
Pennsylvania 
made 
it 
impossible 
for 
our 
collaborative 
to 
assess 
the 
needs 
of 
all 
the 
communities 
within 
the 
timeframe 
of 
the 
grant. 
However, 
based 
on 
the 
selection 
criteria 
stated 
above, 
these 
pilot 
sites 
exhibited 
demographic 
characteristics 
representative 
of 
our 
state. 
An 
analysis 
of 
their 
strengths 
and 
needs 
around 
the 
delivery 
of 
services 
to 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities, 
D/deaf 
or 
hard 
of 
hearing 
persons 
will 
provide 
us 
with 
the 
opportunity 
to 
utilize 
the 
results 
of 
the 
needs 
assessment 
in 
the 
future, 
as 
they 
will 
continue 
to 
inform 
our 
work 
for 
many 
years 
to 
come. 
The 
information 
and 
data 
collected 
from 
this 
needs 
assessment 
will 
be 
used 
to 
develop 
a 
strategic 
plan 
that 
will 
guide 
our 
work 
throughout 
the 
implementation 
phase 
of 
this 
grant. 


3. 
Needs 
Assessment 
Goals 
During 
our 
planning 
for 
the 
needs 
assessment, 
our 
collaborative 
arrived 
at 
a 
series 
of 
questions 
that 
guided 
our 
work 
with 
the 
selected 
communities. 
What 
follows 
are 
the 
general 
themes 
our 
team 
explored 
with 
the 
pilot 
sites: 


• 
What 
are 
the 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
that 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
experience 
within 
victims’ 
services 
and 
disability 
service 
providers 
when 
seeking 
safety? 
• 
What 
do 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
victims/survivors 
need 
from 
victims’ 
services 
and 
disability 
providers 
to 
experience 
welcoming, 
comfortable 
and 
responsive 
environments? 
What 
exists 
and 
what 
is 
still 
needed? 
How 
do 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
know 
an 
organization 
is 
welcoming 
and 
comfortable? 

Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


• 
What 
are 
the 
strengths, 
challenges 
and 
barriers 
experienced 
by 
disability 
and 
victims’ 
services 
providers 
when 
serving 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities? 
• 
What 
are 
organizations’ 
understanding 
(including 
DRN, 
PCAR 
and 
PCADV) 
of 
access 
and 
safety 
and 
how 
is 
this 
incorporated 
into 
policy, 
practice, 
training, 
budgets, 
community 
connections 
etc.? 
How 
can 
it 
be 
improved 
upon? 
• 
To 
what 
extent 
do 
relationships 
among 
organizations 
exist 
and 
how 
do 
they 
function 
together? 
4. 
Participating 
Pilot 
Sites 
As 
stated 
in 
the 
previous 
section, 
Dauphin/Perry 
and 
Lancaster 
counties 
are 
the 
selected 
communities 
for 
this 
project. 
Dauphin 
and 
Perry 
counties 
have 
the 
characteristic 
of 
sharing 
resources 
and 
services 
in 
both 
the 
disability 
and 
the 
victims’ 
services 
fields 
and 
served 
as 
one 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites. 
These 
counties 
also 
represent 
urban, 
suburban 
and 
rural 
communities. 
Lancaster 
shares 
this 
profile 
and 
also 
has 
the 
largest 
D/deaf 
and 
hard 
of 
hearing 
community 
in 
our 
state. 
Both 
pilot 
sites 
exhibit 
a 
wide 
array 
of 
ethnic 
and 
cultural 
groups 
and 
specific 
geographic 
characteristics 
representative 
of 
the 
diversity 
existent 
among 
Pennsylvanians 
and 
their 
communities. 


5. 
Participation 
of 
Partner 
Organizations 
One 
of 
the 
most 
important 
elements 
of 
this 
grant 
for 
our 
collaboration 
consisted 
of 
assessing 
our 
own 
organizations 
(DRN, 
PCAR 
and 
PCADV) 
in 
regards 
to 
accessibility 
and 
safety. 
We 
followed 
a 
process 
similar 
to 
what 
took 
place 
within 
the 
pilot 
sites. 
Honoring 
such 
a 
process 
provided 
critical 
information 
that 
will 
influence 
how 
we 
modify 
our 
policies 
and 
procedures 
in 
regards 
to 
accessibility 
and 
safety 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase. 
Additionally, 
subjecting 
our 
organizations 
to 
a 
process 
similar 
to 
that 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites 
assisted 
us 
in 
relating 
to 
these 
communities 
on 
a 
much 
closer 
and 
concrete 
level. 
Our 
collaborative 
appreciated 
this 
opportunity 
particularly 
because 
of 
the 
statewide 
focus 
that 
characterizes 
the 
work 
of 
our 
organizations. 
Although 
focus 
groups 
of 
our 
own 
staff 
were 
not 
conducted 
for 
reasons 
of 
confidentiality, 
objectivity 
and 
feasibility, 
our 
collaborative 
administered 
online 
surveys 
to 
members 
of 
our 
staff 
and 
to 
a 
sample 
of 
each 
of 
our 
board 
of 
directors. 


6. 
Challenges 

Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Although 
the 
original 
intent 
of 
our 
collaborative 
was 
to 
maintain 
a 
cross-disability 
scope 
in 
both 
pilot 
sites, 
there 
were 
some 
unforeseen 
circumstances 
that 
challenged 
our 
original 
plan. 
This 
situation 
modified 
the 
makeup 
of 
one 
particular 
pilot 
site 
in 
a 
significant 
way. 
The 
Dauphin/Perry 
pilot 
site 
is 
no 
longer 
cross-
disability 
in 
scope 
or 
representation. 
Its 
members 
comprise 
sexual 
assault/domestic 
violence 
(sa/dv) 
organizations 
and 
a 
mental 
health 
consumer 
group. 
The 
latter 
makes 
this 
site 
mental 
health 
focused 
and 
not 
cross-disability. 
The 
majority 
of 
the 
problems 
were 
related 
to 
the 
lack 
of 
key 
personnel 
to 
carry 
on 
the 
work 
of 
this 
grant 
without 
additional 
funding. 
Some 
organizations 
experienced 
challenges 
that 
might 
have 
been 
directly 
related 
to 
the 
economic 
climate 
of 
our 
times. 
One 
particular 
Executive 
Director 
(ED) 
expressed, 
when 
withdrawing 
from 
our 
project, 
that 
this 
was 
an 
activity 
her 
organization 
was 
unable 
to 
take 
on 
due 
to 
the 
small 
size 
of 
their 
staff 
and 
without 
additional 
funding. 
Another 
organization 
had 
a 
high 
turnover 
rate 
that 
contributed 
to 
great 
instability 
in 
the 
part 
of 
the 
organization. 
This 
situation 
affected 
that 
agency’s 
commitment 
to 
this 
grant 
and 
the 
different 
individuals 
that 
were 
designated 
for 
coordinating 
the 
activities 
could 
not 
relate 
to 
the 
project 
in 
a 
meaningful 
manner. 
The 
lack 
of 
consistency 
combined 
with 
problems 
in 
responding 
to 
our 
e-mails 
and 
other 
forms 
of 
communication 
in 
a 
timely 
manner 
by 
the 
leadership 
prolonged 
our 
data 
collection 
phase 
in 
a 
significant 
way. 
Small 
staff 
size 
and 
financial 
difficulties 
were 
some 
of 
the 
similar 
challenges 
in 
the 
Lancaster 
site, 
modifying 
the 
number 
of 
organizations 
involved 
to 
date. 
However, 
that 
site 
continues 
to 
be 
cross-
disability 
and 
cross-violence 
against 
women. 
Additionally, 
Lancaster 
has 
representation 
from 
a 
D/deaf 
and 
hard 
of 
hearing 
organization. 


After 
working 
with 
the 
pilot 
sites 
members 
who 
remain 
involved 
to 
date 
over 
these 
past 
months, 
and 
having 
the 
opportunity 
to 
get 
to 
know 
many 
of 
them 
well 
through 
our 
work, 
it 
is 
obvious 
that 
there 
is 
commitment 
and 
desire 
to 
make 
services 
more 
accessible 
and 
responsive 
to 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
individuals. 
Maybe 
the 
economic 
difficulties 
of 
our 
times 
challenged 
some 
of 
the 
original 
pilot 
site 
members 
to 
remain 
involved 
for 
the 
remainder 
of 
our 
grant. 
However, 
our 
collaborative 
feels 
that 
at 
this 
point 
in 
our 
process, 
the 
organizations 
that 
remain 
at 
the 
table 
continue 
to 
show 
a 
significant 
level 
of 
investment 
to 
this 
work. 
It 
is 
our 
hope 
that 
the 
findings 
contained 
in 
this 
report 
will 
pave 
the 
way 
for 
concrete 
initiatives 
and 
stronger 
community 
connections. 


7. 
Exploring 
what 
we 
knew 
Our 
collaborative 
embarked 
on 
the 
assessment 
of 
the 
selected 
communities 
in 
areas 
related 
to 
accessibility 
and 
responsiveness 
to 
survivors 
of 
violence 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
survivors. 
We 
began 
conducting 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process 
with 
several 
ideas 
and 
information, 
gathered 
through 
the 
work 
of 
all 
the 
partner 
organizations 
from 
the 
lens 
of 
their 
respective 
disciplines. 
The 
following 
sections 
explain 
some 
of 
the 
information 
we 
were 
aware 
of 
before 
starting 
our 
data 
collection 
process. 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


For 
the 
past 
several 
years, 
through 
cross-systems 
work 
and 
collaboration 
among 
members 
of 
the 
disability 
and 
anti-violence 
communities 
at 
the 
state 
level 
in 
Pennsylvania, 
we 
have 
gathered 
some 
useful 
information 
about 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
There 
is 
increased 
awareness 
on 
the 
part 
of 
violence 
against 
women 
services’ 
providers 
of 
the 
needs 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
women. 
Along 
the 
same 
lines, 
there 
is 
also 
a 
gradual 
increase 
in 
understanding 
of 
the 
roles 
and 
responsibilities 
on 
the 
part 
of 
disability 
services 
in 
their 
response 
to 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
However, 
much 
more 
needs 
to 
be 
done 
and 
improved 
in 
both 
fields 
to 
enhance 
the 
responsiveness 
and 
access 
to 
services 
for 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
individuals 
who 
experience 
violence 
in 
their 
lives. 
Although 
there 
are 
some 
programs 
in 
the 
state 
that 
model 
best 
practices 
in 
both 
fields, 
the 
work 
continues 
to 
be 
in 
the 
early 
stages 
for 
many 
of 
our 
violence 
against 
women 
and 
disability 
services’ 
providers. 


For 
persons 
with 
disabilities, 
the 
availability 
of 
services 
and 
access 
to 
them 
vary 
greatly, 
depending 
on 
the 
region 
of 
the 
state. 
For 
example, 
rural 
areas 
face 
the 
majority 
of 
challenges 
related 
to 
transportation 
issues 
and 
limited 
or 
lack 
of 
lack 
of 
options. 
Additionally, 
obstacles 
resulting 
from 
lack 
of 
attitudinal 
access 
on 
the 
part 
of 
service 
providers 
across 
the 
board 
contribute 
to 
these 
challenges. 
Nevertheless, 
the 
existing 
collaboration 
among 
some 
disability 
and 
victims’ 
services 
entities 
serves 
to 
provide 
a 
model 
for 
best 
practices. 


In 
the 
case 
of 
D/deaf 
individuals, 
work 
is 
still 
needed 
in 
the 
areas 
of 
establishing 
and 
fostering 
partnerships 
between 
D/deaf 
and 
hard 
of 
hearing 
organizations 
and 
victims’ 
services 
groups. 
However, 
although 
that 
effort 
is 
in 
its 
infancy 
at 
this 
point, 
a 
commitment 
and 
the 
desire 
to 
move 
in 
this 
direction 
are 
present 
in 
some 
communities. 


Based 
on 
what 
we 
know 
at 
this 
stage, 
gaps 
and 
lack 
of 
services 
continue 
to 
exist 
for 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
trying 
to 
access 
necessary 
and 
appropriate 
supports. 
In 
an 
effort 
to 
learn 
more 
about 
specific 
barriers 
to 
services 
experienced 
by 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
survivors, 
we 
conducted 
a 
series 
of 
focus 
groups, 
interviews 
and 
surveys 
of 
members 
of 
our 
pilot 
sites 
and 
collaboration 
partners. 


8. 
Methodology 
This 
section 
delineates 
the 
process 
that 
our 
collaboration 
followed 
to 
collect 
information 
from 
the 
selected 
communities. 
We 
include 
here 
the 
data 
collection 
methods 
that 
were 
utilized 
and 
all 
the 
elements 
that 
made 
possible 
the 
completion 
of 
this 
phase 
of 
our 
project. 


Defining 
the 
role 
of 
recruiters 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Preceding 
the 
data 
collection 
process 
with 
the 
participating 
organizations, 
persons 
with 
disabilities, 
and 
survivors 
our 
collaboration 
trained 
individuals 
designated 
by 
each 
ED/CEO 
to 
represent 
the 
partner 
organizations. 
These 
individuals 
assumed 
the 
role 
of 
recruiters 
in 
the 
next 
phases 
of 
this 
project. 
The 
training 
provided 
them 
with 
information 
on 
the 
goals 
of 
the 
project 
and 
the 
necessary 
tools 
to 
recruit 
participants 
for 
the 
focus 
groups 
or 
interviews 
when 
requested. 
Both 
disability 
and 
victims’ 
services 
organizations 
posted 
information 
about 
the 
upcoming 
focus 
groups 
provided 
by 
our 
collaboration 
and 
announced 
these 
events 
when 
appropriate 
to 
the 
individuals 
they 
were 
currently 
serving. 
Existing 
venues 
were 
utilized 
to 
recruit 
participants 
such 
as 
support 
groups 
in 
the 
case 
of 
sa/dv 
programs 
and 
consumer 
gatherings 
in 
the 
case 
of 
disability 
organizations. 
Recruiters 
were 
instrumental 
in 
keeping 
track 
of 
the 
RSVP’s 
and 
closely 
monitored 
the 
needs 
of 
each 
group 
in 
terms 
of 
accommodations, 
dietary 
requirements, 
transportation, 
and 
safety 
precautions. 
They 
also 
pointed 
our 
collaborative 
in 
the 
right 
direction 
for 
purchasing 
gift 
cards 
from 
places 
that 
were 
appealing 
and 
useful 
to 
consumers/survivors 
because 
of 
their 
knowledge 
of 
the 
diverse 
communities 
represented 
in 
this 
project. 
Recruiters 
also 
served 
as 
the 
liaison 
between 
our 
collaborative 
and 
their 
organizations 
and 
also 
assisted 
in 
coordinating 
interviews 
and 
focus 
groups 
involving 
their 
colleagues 
and 
supervisors. 
They 
were 
able 
to 
explain 
organizational 
structures 
and 
chains 
of 
command 
facilitating 
the 
processes 
of 
gathering 
information 
from 
key 
personnel. 


The 
following 
section 
describes 
the 
data 
collection 
methods 
that 
were 
utilized 
in 
this 
phase 
of 
our 
project 
and 
the 
rationale 
for 
choosing 
each 
approach. 


Focus 
groups 
took 
place 
at 
each 
pilot 
site 
and 
averaged 
one 
hour 
to 
an 
hour 
and 
a 
half 
in 
length. 
Depending 
upon 
the 
size 
of 
the 
organization, 
one 
to 
three 
focus 
groups 
were 
conducted 
for 
each 
audience. 
There 
were 
two 
kinds 
of 
focus 
groups 
conducted: 
those 
comprised 
by 
non-management 
staff 
and 
those 
with 
consumers/survivors. 
This 
data 
collection 
method 
gave 
us 
the 
ability 
to 
collect 
qualitative 
information 
from 
numerous 
participants 
in 
a 
relatively 
short 
amount 
of 
time. 
We 
provided 
a 
meal 
at 
the 
beginning 
of 
each 
session. 
In 
the 
case 
of 
focus 
groups 
comprised 
of 
consumers/survivors, 
an 
incentive 
consisting 
of 
gift 
cards 
followed 
the 
meal 
($10 
gift 
cards 
per 
participant). 
We 
intentionally 
distributed 
the 
cards 
following 
the 
meal, 
making 
sure 
participants 
understood 
that 
they 
were 
not 
obligated 
to 
participate 
in 
the 
focus 
group 
and 
could 
leave 
at 
any 
point. 
Additionally, 
collaborative 
members 
arrived 
before 
the 
scheduled 
session 
to 
spend 
time 
with 
participants 
in 
an 
informal 
way 
as 
they 
were 
arriving 
for 
the 
focus 
group 
and 
during 
meal 
time. 
Once 
the 
focus 
groups 
began, 
participants 
and 
collaborative 
members 
were 
enjoying 
a 
friendly 
and 
welcoming 
atmosphere. 
All 
of 
these 
factors 
contributed 
to 
productive 
and 
safe 
sessions. 
None 
of 
the 
participants 
requested 
to 
leave 
early. 
All 
requested 
accommodations 
were 
provided, 
which 
solely 
consisted 
of 
ASL 
certified 
interpreters. 
The 
physical 
locations 
where 
the 
focus 
groups 
where 
held 
were 
physically 
accessible 
as 
this 
was 
one 
of 
our 
prerequisites 
for 
hosting 
those 
sessions. 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Interviews 
were 
conducted 
when 
gathering 
information 
from 
the 
leadership 
of 
all 
the 
participating 
organizations, 
including 
the 
partners. 
Two 
phone 
interviews 
were 
conducted 
with 
the 
leadership 
from 
one 
partner 
organization 
due 
to 
scheduling 
difficulties. 


During 
our 
needs 
assessment 
plan 
phase, 
we 
decided 
that 
interviews 
were 
also 
going 
to 
be 
used 
in 
the 
case 
of 
consumers 
and/or 
survivors 
who 
requested 
this 
data 
collection 
method 
for 
privacy 
or 
other 
reasons. 
Although 
no 
one 
specifically 
requested 
this 
method, 
we 
interviewed 
survivors 
from 
Perry 
County. 
We 
were 
unable 
to 
conduct 
focus 
groups 
in 
rural 
Perry 
County 
due 
to 
transportation 
and 
scheduling 
conflicts. 
Members 
of 
our 
collaborative 
met 
with 
survivors 
at 
places 
of 
their 
choosing 
to 
conduct 
interviews. 
Additionally, 
an 
interview 
was 
conducted 
with 
a 
D/deaf/blind 
consumer 
in 
Lancaster 
County. 
A 
member 
of 
our 
collaboration 
performed 
the 
duties 
of 
the 
interviewer 
while 
another 
partner 
acted 
as 
the 
note 
taker. 
However, 
there 
were 
instances 
where 
one 
person 
performed 
both 
duties. 
Similar 
to 
the 
focus 
groups, 
gift 
cards 
were 
also 
provided 
to 
consumers/survivors 
following 
introductions. 
Meals 
were 
provided 
for 
several 
but 
not 
all 
consumers/survivors, 
but 
all 
were 
given 
the 
option. 
This 
data 
collection 
method 
provided 
us 
with 
qualitative 
information 
and 
offered 
participants 
a 
private 
forum 
to 
share 
information. 
This 
method 
was 
also 
utilized 
when 
our 
collaborative 
dealt 
with 
a 
very 
small 
organization 
where 
focus 
groups 
were 
not 
appropriate 
for 
the 
staff 
members. 
This 
was 
the 
case 
of 
the 
Disability 
Empowerment 
Center 
(DEC), 
the 
CIL 
in 
Lancaster 
County. 


Surveys 
were 
administered 
for 
the 
partner 
agencies 
(DRN, 
PCAR 
and 
PCADV) 
to 
assess 
accessibility 
and 
safety. 
Members 
of 
our 
staff 
and 
our 
boards 
of 
directors 
received 
electronic 
surveys. 
We 
used 
“Survey 
Monkey”. 
Additionally, 
surveys 
were 
administered 
to 
obtain 
information 
from 
larger 
numbers 
of 
individuals 
belonging 
to 
the 
pilot 
sites’ 
organizations, 
serving 
in 
the 
capacity 
of 
members 
of 
the 
Board 
of 
Directors. 


9. 
Key 
Findings 
This 
section 
of 
the 
report 
highlights 
the 
overall 
themes 
collected 
across 
pilot 
sites 
after 
analyzing 
the 
data. 
Although 
we 
illustrate 
these 
findings 
in 
more 
depth 
later 
in 
this 
report, 
these 
themes 
are 
reflective 
of 
the 
information 
collected 
and 
will 
assist 
in 
prioritizing 
initiatives 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase 
of 
this 
project. 
Later 
in 
this 
section, 
we 
provide 
quotes 
from 
participants 
with 
the 
intent 
of 
honoring 
their 
voices 
and 
highlighting 
their 
presence. 
Spending 
time 
with 
consumers/survivors 
provided 
our 
collaborative 
with 
invaluable 
information 
as 
well 
as 
gave 
us 
renewed 
energy 
and 
deeper 
understanding 
of 
these 
issues. 
Their 
contributions 
will 
continue 
to 
inspire 
our 
work 
towards 
ending 
the 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
women. 
Additionally, 
we 
are 
also 
documenting 
information 
that, 
although 
cannot 
be 
addressed 
under 
this 
grant, 
is 
worth 
noting 
because 
of 
its 
implications 
for 
consumers 
and 
survivors. 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


The 
lettered 
points 
illustrate 
our 
key 
findings. 
We 
will 
document 
such 
findings 
following 
this 
order: 


A. 
Training 
B. 
Policies 
and 
Procedures 
C. 
Values 
D. 
Community 
Collaborations 
E. 
Violence 
against 
Deaf 
Women 
and 
Other 
Issues 
Affecting 
the 
Deaf 
Community 
F. 
Funding 
A. 
Training 
The 
issue 
of 
training 
came 
up 
consistently 
regardless 
of 
the 
audience. 
Some 
specific 
areas 
where 
training 
is 
lacking 
were 
mentioned, 
however, 
our 
collaborative 
will 
provide 
this 
information 
while 
highlighting 
contrast 
among 
participants 
in 
this 
process. 
Considering 
training 
at 
this 
point 
in 
time 
provides 
us 
with 
ideas 
that 
will 
shape 
specific 
initiatives 
during 
implementation. 
Our 
collaborative 
understands 
that 
training 
in 
isolation 
will 
not 
result 
in 
cultural 
or 
systems 
change 
but 
could 
certainly 
be 
utilized 
as 
a 
tool 
towards 
making 
possible 
the 
necessary 
changes. 
One 
of 
the 
positive 
aspects 
of 
training 
is 
the 
need 
for 
cross 
training. 
We 
view 
this 
as 
a 
positive 
outcome 
because 
the 
expertise 
of 
our 
pilot 
site 
members 
can 
be 
utilized 
under 
this 
initiative. 
Each 
organization 
has 
a 
specific 
area 
of 
expertise 
based 
on 
services 
provided 
to 
the 
community. 
Every 
time 
we 
discuss 
issues 
that 
relate 
to 
the 
lack 
of 
awareness 
and 
knowledge 
about 
disabilities, 
violence 
against 
women, 
and 
the 
Deaf 
community, 
we 
could 
potentially 
refer 
to 
the 
organizations 
already 
at 
the 
table 
to 
share 
what 
they 
know 
on 
these 
topics. 
Doing 
so 
in 
an 
organized 
and 
intentional 
fashion 
will 
be 
one 
way 
to 
respond 
to 
this 
need 
in 
the 
future; 
at 
the 
same 
time, 
fostering 
relationships 
that 
lead 
to 
ongoing 
teaching 
moments 
speak 
to 
the 
sustainability 
of 
this 
initiative. 
For 
example, 
victims’ 
service 
providers 
have 
tremendous 
strength 
in 
the 
areas 
around 
safety; 
conversely 
disability 
service 
providers 
have 
in-depth 
knowledge 
in 
the 
areas 
of 
accessibility. 
The 
D/deaf 
and 
hard 
of 
hearing 
organization 
focuses 
its 
efforts 
to 
provide 
services 
to 
the 
D/deaf 
community, 
giving 
this 
organization 
knowledge 
and 
expertise 
in 
issues 
related 
to 
the 
D/deaf 
culture. 
As 
stated 
earlier, 
beginning 
to 
coordinate 
the 
delivery 
of 
these 
trainings 
based 
on 
their 
topics 
early 
on 
in 
the 
implementation 
phase 
will 
assist 
us 
in 
establishing 
a 
self-sustaining 
mechanism 
for 
the 
future. 


Below, 
we 
point 
out 
the 
areas 
where 
training 
is 
needed 
but 
recognize 
that 
this 
list 
is 
by 
no 
means 
inclusive. 


Need 
for 
cross-training/training 
on 
the 
following 
topics: 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


• 
Disability 
• 
Safety 
and 
abuse 
• 
Deaf 
culture 
• 
Stigma 
(mental 
health, 
other 
disabilities, 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
survivors) 
• 
Violence 
against 
women 
• 
Assistive 
Technology 
• 
Mandates 
under 
ADA, 
Fair 
Housing 
Statues, 
etc. 
However, 
it 
also 
became 
apparent 
that 
training 
needs 
differed 
depending 
on 
the 
organization. 
In 
an 
effort 
to 
clarify 
this 
point 
further, 
we 
will 
separate 
the 
information 
by 
organization. 


Victims 
Services 
Providers 


In 
this 
section 
we 
are 
highlighting 
training 
topics 
that 
are 
relevant 
to 
anti-violence 
organizations 
represented 
in 
our 
pilot 
sites. 
As 
stated 
at 
the 
beginning 
of 
this 
section, 
victims’ 
services 
organizations 
shared 
through 
participation 
in 
our 
focus 
groups, 
interviews 
and 
through 
the 
experiences 
of 
survivors 
that 
there 
was 
a 
need 
to 
improve 
knowledge, 
skills 
and 
awareness 
in 
the 
following 
areas: 


Disability 


The 
need 
for 
disability 
awareness 
training 
for 
victims’ 
service 
providers 
was 
evident 
in 
the 
majority 
of 
the 
organizations 
that 
we 
had 
the 
opportunity 
to 
engage 
in 
our 
project. 
At 
times, 
there 
were 
inconsistencies 
in 
the 
message 
presented 
by 
the 
organization 
to 
the 
community 
it 
served. 
For 
example, 
we 
heard 
difference 
of 
opinions 
between 
the 
leadership 
and 
front 
line 
staff 
in 
organizations 
providing 
domestic 
and 
sexual 
violence 
counseling 
services. 
In 
one 
particular 
example, 
the 
ED 
shared 
that 
in 
her 
opinion, 
the 
staff 
at 
the 
organization 
had 
the 
necessary 
tools 
to 
provide 
services 
to 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons. 
However, 
when 
speaking 
with 
front-line 
staff, 
we 
learned 
that 
there 
was 
great 
variety 
in 
terms 
of 
knowledge, 
skills 
and 
awareness 
regarding 
the 
needs 
of 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors. 
Often, 
people 
would 
determine 
that 
someone 
was 
not 
appropriate 
for 
services 
due 
to 
her 
disability. 
Some 
shared 
that 
there 
was 
a 
generalized 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
of 
the 
agency’s 
mandates 
under 
the 
ADA 
as 
well 
as 
some 
discomfort 
when 
interacting 
with 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons. 
For 
example, 
many 
of 
these 
professionals 
did 
not 
feel 
skilled 
enough 
to 
interact 
with 
persons 
with 
intellectual 
disabilities. 
They 
admitted 
to 
assuming 
that 
such 
individuals 
were 
not 
appropriate 
for 
their 
services, 
and 
were 
subsequently 
screened 
out. 
There 
was 
also 
a 
generalized 
assumption 
among 
some 
of 
the 
participating 
organizations 
that 
these 
survivors 
would 
be 
better 
served 
by 
“another 
system”. 
In 
terms 
of 
working 
with 
the 
D/deaf 
community, 
the 
majority 
of 
these 
organizations 
felt 
that 
it 
was 
appropriate 
to 
communicate 
with 
a 
D/deaf 
survivor 
in 
writing 
without 
really 
exploring 
her/his 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


preferences. 


On 
the 
other 
hand, 
these 
situations 
were 
not 
the 
reality 
for 
all 
the 
organizations 
at 
the 
table. 
Some 
continued 
to 
resolve 
issues 
as 
they 
arose 
in 
a 
creative 
and 
effective 
way, 
regardless 
of 
financial 
challenges. 
A 
welcoming 
and 
accessible 
environment 
is 
something 
that 
survivors 
referred 
to 
when 
speaking 
about 
these 
organizations. 
Therefore, 
providing 
training 
on 
disability 
and 
D/deaf 
etiquette 
could 
be 
done 
not 
only 
from 
the 
disability 
side 
of 
this 
issue, 
but 
also 
from 
the 
perspective 
of 
the 
victims’ 
services 
agencies 
in 
a 
position 
to 
share 
their 
best 
practices. 


Offering 
disability 
sensitivity 
training 
that 
would 
provide 
counselors 
and 
advocates 
with 
tips 
and 
knowledge 
on 
disability 
and 
D/deaf 
culture 
as 
well 
as 
other 
tools 
will 
greatly 
assist 
the 
organizations 
that 
need 
this 
support. 
For 
the 
rest 
of 
the 
organizations, 
refreshing 
these 
points 
will 
be 
useful 
as 
striving 
toward 
accessibility 
is 
a 
fluid 
process, 
a 
goal 
to 
achieve 
for 
many 
years 
to 
come. 
Being 
able 
to 
borrow 
from 
each 
other’s 
expertise 
to 
accomplish 
this 
important 
goal 
speaks 
to 
the 
sustainability 
of 
this 
initiative 
when 
we 
embark 
on 
the 
implementation 
phase 
of 
this 
project. 


Our 
collaborative 
acknowledges 
that 
this 
issue 
is 
twofold. 
There 
is 
a 
real 
need 
for 
training 
but 
also 
for 
policies 
that 
will 
address 
these 
inconsistencies. 
We 
will 
provide 
more 
information 
under 
the 
“Policy 
and 
Practices” 
section 
but 
want 
to 
explain 
that 
these 
two 
initiatives 
will 
work 
in 
concert. 
For 
example, 
mandating 
disability 
sensitivity 
and 
D/deaf 
culture 
awareness 
trainings 
as 
part 
of 
regular 
staff 
development 
opportunities 
will 
assist 
in 
making 
this 
process 
more 
consistent 
and 
manageable. 
This 
is 
a 
concrete 
example 
where 
two 
initiatives 
of 
a 
different 
nature 
will 
be 
supporting 
each 
other 
(training 
and 
policy 
related). 


“Having 
to 
PROVE 
you 
are 
disabled 
is 
a 
big 
barrier” 
(consumer) 


Stigma 


In 
some 
cases, 
stigma 
around 
mental 
illness 
and 
other 
disabilities 
negatively 
affected 
survivors 
who 
had 
chosen 
to 
disclose 
their 
disability 
when 
trying 
to 
access 
SA/DV 
services. 


Recovery 


Training 
sa/dv 
programs 
on 
“Recovery” 
from 
a 
mental 
health 
perspective 
constitutes 
an 
important 
learning 
topic 
in 
the 
process 
of 
increasing 
accessibility 
at 
all 
levels. 
Providing 
this 
education 
will 
supplement 
the 
work 
around 
ending 
stigma 
towards 
persons 
with 
psychiatric 
disabilities. 


Assistive 
Technology 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Becoming 
familiar 
with 
assistive 
technology 
devices 
or 
how 
to 
access 
or 
prepare 
an 
accessibility 
toolkit 
should 
be 
addressed 
as 
training 
activities 
for 
victims’ 
services 
providers. 
In 
terms 
of 
devices 
for 
the 
D/deaf 
and 
hard 
of 
hearing 
community 
in 
particular, 
these 
issues 
can 
be 
addressed 
by 
the 
D/deaf 
and 
hard 
of 
hearing 
organization 
already 
at 
the 
table, 
as 
training 
in 
this 
area 
is 
something 
that 
this 
agency 
routinely 
offers 
the 
community. 
Our 
collaborative 
will 
also 
utilize 
the 
expertise 
of 
the 
Disability 
Empowerment 
Center 
(CIL) 
to 
provide 
additional 
information 
on 
this 
topic 
once 
this 
becomes 
an 
initiative 
under 
implementation. 


Disability 
Service 
Providers 


The 
following 
paragraphs 
contain 
a 
list 
of 
training 
topics 
that 
became 
relevant 
for 
disability 
service 
providers 
based 
on 
the 
information 
that 
our 
collaborative 
gathered 
through 
focus 
groups, 
interviews 
and 
surveys 
of 
consumers 
and 
staff 
at 
the 
organizations 
represented 
in 
our 
project. 


Safety 
and 
Abuse 


Knowledge, 
awareness 
and 
consistency 
about 
safety 
and 
abuse 
varied 
greatly 
among 
participating 
organizations. 
However, 
there 
was 
a 
clear 
need 
for 
training 
in 
the 
areas 
of 
safety 
and 
responding 
to 
violence. 
Raising 
knowledge 
and 
awareness 
about 
these 
issues 
are 
needs 
expressed 
either 
directly 
or 
indirectly 
by 
staff 
from 
disability 
services’ 
organizations. 


Our 
collaborative 
learned 
that 
although 
most 
disability 
services 
providers 
often 
understood 
that 
responding 
to 
abuse 
was 
critical, 
there 
was 
no 
consistent 
way 
of 
defining 
abuse 
within 
the 
an 
organization. 
Issues 
were 
clearer 
when 
they 
related 
to 
physically 
violent 
incidents 
such 
as 
assaults. 
Another 
interesting 
finding 
was 
how 
staff 
at 
these 
organizations 
usually 
assumed 
that 
we 
were 
referring 
to 
acts 
of 
violence 
perpetrated 
by 
consumers 
against 
other 
consumers 
when 
we 
asked 
them 
to 
define 
abuse. 
However, 
if 
prompted 
with 
other 
possibilities, 
they 
usually 
agreed 
that 
there 
were 
other 
forms 
of 
abuse. 
The 
fact 
that 
so 
many 
individuals 
working 
within 
these 
organizations 
had 
preconceived 
notions 
and 
different 
opinions 
about 
how 
abuse 
affected 
peoples’ 
lives 
and 
what 
abuse 
was 
raised 
many 
red 
flags 
during 
our 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews. 
Providing 
training 
in 
these 
areas 
will 
assist 
the 
organizations 
in 
developing 
skills 
around 
recognizing 
and 
addressing 
abuse. 
Our 
collaborative 
is 
aware 
that 
single 
training 
will 
not 
resolve 
this 
issue, 
therefore; 
we 
view 
this 
particular 
training 
topic 
as 
something 
that 
would 
need 
to 
be 
institutionalized 
through 
the 
development 
of 
specific 
policies. 
This 
is 
another 
area 
that 
will 
need 
to 
work 
in 
concert 
with 
policy 
development 
in 
order 
to 
affect 
change 
at 
the 
organizational 
level. 
We 
will 
expand 
this 
idea 
under 
the 
“Policy 
and 
Practices” 
section. 


Violence 
Against 
Women 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Understanding 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
in 
terms 
of 
their 
definitions 
and 
available 
services 
for 
survivors, 
among 
other 
topics, 
are 
areas 
that 
require 
education 
of 
disability 
services 
providers. 


Stigma 


Provide 
training 
to 
staff 
with 
the 
goal 
of 
increasing 
knowledge 
and 
awareness 
of 
their 
own 
sigma 
regarding 
survivors 
of 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence. 


D/deaf 
and 
Hard 
of 
Hearing 


Our 
collaborative 
will 
expand 
on 
the 
needs 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
under 
a 
separate 
section, 
as 
there 
are 
issues 
that 
are 
truly 
specific 
to 
this 
community. 
However, 
we 
wanted 
to 
list 
these 
two 
training 
areas 
under 
this 
section 
for 
consistency. 


Knowledge 
About 
Rights 


Members 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
spoke 
of 
the 
lack 
of 
training 
regarding 
their 
rights 
under 
the 
ADA. 
This 
would 
be 
another 
area 
where 
our 
collaborative 
can 
assist 
the 
D/deaf 
community. 
Conversely, 
this 
community 
through 
DHHS, 
could 
train 
service 
providers 
about 
its 
needs 
and 
characteristics. 


Responding 
to 
Violence 
in 
the 
D/deaf 
Community 


Providing 
training 
on 
violence 
against 
women 
tailored 
to 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
is 
also 
another 
area 
that 
would 
benefit 
DHHS 
and 
the 
community 
it 
serves. 


B. 
Policies 
and 
Procedures 
Themes 
around 
policies 
and 
procedures 
were 
prevalent 
across 
the 
board. 
Although 
the 
points 
of 
view 
expressed 
by 
participants 
varied 
somewhat 
depending 
on 
the 
audience, 
it 
was 
clear 
to 
our 
collaborative 
that 
the 
lack 
of 
consistent 
policies 
and 
procedures 
to 
address 
accessibility, 
confidentiality 
and 
safety 
need 
to 
be 
prioritized 
during 
implementation. 
What 
follows 
are 
the 
main 
policies 
and 
practices 
development 
areas 
shared 
by 
focus 
groups 
and 
interview 
participants: 


• 
The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
procedures 
related 
to 
addressing 
violence 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 

Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


• 
The 
creation 
of 
policies 
to 
provide 
accommodations 
when 
necessary 
• 
The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
procedures 
for 
responding 
to 
abuse 
within 
the 
workplace 
• 
The 
development 
of 
an 
agency 
wide 
process 
to 
communicate 
new 
and 
revised 
policies 
and 
procedures 
to 
current 
and 
new 
staff 
as 
well 
as 
consumers/survivors 
In 
an 
effort 
to 
document 
the 
differences 
shared 
by 
participating 
service 
providers, 
we 
have 
separated 
those 
findings 
based 
on 
the 
agency 
we 
are 
describing 
in 
the 
following 
paragraphs. 


Disability 
Service 
Providers 


“…There 
is 
probably 
something 
in 
the 
employee 
handbook” 
(Disability 
service 
provider 
staff 
when 
asked 
about 
existing 
policies 
to 
address 
abuse.) 


Although 
all 
disability 
service 
providers 
shared 
that 
responding 
to 
abuse 
was 
among 
their 
regular 
practices 
and 
guidelines, 
nobody 
seemed 
to 
know 
whether 
there 
was 
something 
in 
the 
way 
of 
a 
policy 
to 
address 
these 
issues. 
Particularly, 
no 
one 
seemed 
to 
be 
aware 
if 
such 
policies 
existed 
to 
respond 
to 
abuse 
within 
the 
workplace. 
The 
leadership 
of 
these 
disability 
organizations 
acknowledged 
that 
responding 
to 
abuse 
was 
something 
they 
routinely 
did, 
but 
there 
was 
a 
general 
consensus 
that 
the 
majority 
of 
them 
were 
used 
to 
handling 
disclosures 
of 
violence 
within 
the 
organizations. 
When 
thinking 
about 
abuse, 
all 
of 
them, 
without 
exception, 
assumed 
that 
our 
questions 
only 
related 
to 
the 
consumers 
they 
served, 
not 
their 
staff. 
Referrals 
to 
other 
community 
agencies 
(for 
the 
consumers) 
did 
not 
routinely 
occur 
and, 
although 
most 
providers 
were 
aware 
of 
the 
existence 
of 
victims’ 
services 
organizations, 
they 
had 
never 
thought 
about 
referrals 
for 
consumers. 
Responding 
to 
abuse 
was, 
in 
some 
cases 
(as 
expressed 
by 
the 
leadership 
of 
the 
disability 
organizations), 
within 
their 
priorities 
and 
main 
activities 
but 
was 
not 
part 
of 
policies 
adopted 
agency-wide. 
We 
are 
highlighting 
below 
how 
these 
potential 
policies 
relate 
to 
disability 
service 
providers: 


• 
The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
procedures 
to 
respond 
to 
sexual/domestic 
violence 
and 
stalking 
within 
the 
workplace 
In 
the 
case 
of 
developing 
policies 
to 
respond 
to 
violence, 
our 
collaborative 
feels 
that 
disability 
services 
providers 
can 
benefit 
from 
focusing 
their 
attention 
on 
specific 
policies 
to 
address 
violence 
in 
the 
workplace. 
This 
is 
something 
that 
such 
providers 
could 
possibly 
learn 
from 
their 
pilot 
sites 
partners, 
the 
victims’ 
services 
organizations. 
We 
learned 
from 
speaking 
with 
providers 
that 
there 
was 
nothing 
in 
the 
way 
of 
policies 
to 
address 
violence 
in 
the 
workplace 
or 
how 
to 
respond 
to 
disclosures 
of 
violence 
from 
their 
own 
staff. 
In 
terms 
of 
safety, 
victims’ 
services 
organizations 
were 
consistent 
and 
deliberate 
about 
addressing 
abuse 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


and 
providing 
safety 
within 
their 
organization. 
For 
example, 
several 
safeguards 
were 
put 
in 
place 
to 
screen 
visitors 
and 
provide 
safety 
as 
a 
regular 
practice. 
Additionally, 
policies 
were 
in 
place 
to 
address 
abuse 
in 
the 
workplace 
and 
with 
provisions 
specifically 
deigned 
for 
survivors 
of 
violence. 
Such 
policies 
and 
practices 
can 
serve 
as 
a 
model 
for 
disability 
services’ 
organizations. 


• 
The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
procedures 
related 
to 
addressing 
violence 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 
How 
to 
consistently 
respond 
to 
abuse 
cases 
is 
another 
area 
that 
needs 
attention. 
The 
development 
of 
procedures 
that 
outline 
the 
process 
to 
handle 
these 
incidents 
including 
appropriate 
referrals 
is 
another 
area 
where 
work 
needs 
to 
take 
place. 
Knowing 
that 
responding 
to 
abuse 
is 
something 
the 
organization 
does 
is 
not 
enough 
in 
light 
of 
our 
findings. 
As 
we 
learned 
from 
speaking 
with 
line 
staff 
and 
leadership 
from 
the 
disability 
provider 
agencies 
at 
the 
table, 
there 
is 
a 
need 
for 
clarifying 
what 
constitutes 
abuse 
and 
how 
to 
consistently 
address 
it. 
In 
this 
particular 
area, 
training 
that 
will 
cover 
these 
topics 
is 
necessary. 
However, 
this 
kind 
of 
training 
needs 
to 
be 
institutionalized 
within 
the 
agencies 
making 
the 
development 
of 
a 
policy 
that 
mandates 
the 
delivery 
of 
this 
training 
logical 
and 
appropriate. 


• 
The 
development 
of 
an 
agency 
wide 
process 
to 
communicate 
new 
and 
revised 
policies 
and 
procedures 
to 
current 
and 
new 
staff 
as 
well 
as 
consumers/survivors 
Our 
collaborative 
learned 
that 
in 
organizations 
with 
high 
staff 
turnover 
rates, 
there 
is 
a 
need 
to 
develop 
a 
mechanism 
to 
routinely 
communicate 
changes 
in 
policies 
and 
procedures 
agency-wide. 
The 
work 
in 
this 
area 
will 
also 
assist 
with 
the 
delivery 
of 
training 
while 
clarifying 
required 
educational 
events 
for 
staff 
at 
these 
agencies. 
This 
initiative 
speaks 
to 
the 
institutionalization 
of 
these 
practices 
whether 
through 
specific 
training 
topics 
or 
policy 
development. 


“Sometimes 
you 
know 
no 
one 
will 
help 
so 
what’s 
the 
point?” 
(consumer-
survivor) 


Victims 
Service 
Providers 


What 
follows 
are 
our 
thoughts 
after 
analyzing 
the 
data 
collected 
from 
speaking 
with 
victims 
services 
professionals 
and 
survivors 
who 
utilized 
those 
services. 
The 
development 
of 
these 
potential 
policies/procedures 
relates 
to 
victims 
services 
providers 
as 
follows: 


• 
The 
creation 
of 
policies 
to 
provide 
accommodations 
when 
necessary 

Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 
shared 
that 
accessing 
services 
in 
the 
community 
varied 
depending 
on 
the 
culture 
of 
the 
organization. 
Most 
individuals 
did 
not 
know 
whether 
they 
could 
request 
accommodations 
when 
needed 
or 
how 
to 
access 
services 
to 
the 
full 
extent 
possible. 
In 
particular, 
there 
was 
a 
generalized 
lack 
of 
faith 
among 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
individuals 
when 
trying 
to 
access 
‘mainstream’ 
services. 


From 
the 
perspective 
of 
victims’ 
service 
providers, 
most 
front 
line 
staff 
responded 
that 
they 
“provided 
services 
to 
everyone 
who 
needed 
them”. 
However, 
when 
asked 
if 
there 
were 
policies 
at 
the 
agency 
to 
consistently 
guarantee 
that 
providing 
necessary 
accommodations 
took 
place, 
they 
seemed 
to 
be 
unaware 
of 
anything 
of 
that 
nature. 


• 
The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
procedures 
related 
to 
addressing 
violence 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 
There 
is 
a 
need 
to 
develop 
policies 
and 
procedures 
delineating 
these 
organizations’ 
mandates 
to 
serve 
ALL 
victims 
of 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
who 
attempt 
to 
access 
these 
services 
as 
required 
by 
the 
ADA, 
fair 
housing 
statutes, 
etc. 
Clear 
policies 
and 
procedures 
that 
outline 
how 
to 
respond 
to 
abuse 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 
including 
necessary 
and 
appropriate 
referrals 
and 
partnerships 
with 
other 
organizations 
are 
critical 
in 
improving 
these 
agencies 
response 
to 
the 
needs 
of 
the 
disability 
and 
D/deaf 
community. 
Additionally, 
institutionalizing 
training 
in 
these 
areas 
by 
designing 
policies 
that 
require 
these 
staff 
development 
opportunities 
contribute 
to 
the 
overall 
cultural 
shift 
of 
the 
organizations 
involved. 


One 
area 
that 
needs 
to 
be 
mentioned 
relates 
to 
the 
impact 
of 
shelter 
rules 
and 
their 
inflexibility, 
creating 
at 
times 
an 
atmosphere 
more 
punitive 
than 
healing 
particularly 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors. 
The 
development 
of 
procedures 
as 
well 
as 
the 
delivery 
of 
training 
on 
how 
to 
reduce 
shelter 
rules 
and 
provide 
accommodations 
to 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors 
is 
critical 
to 
this 
process. 


• 
The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
procedures 
related 
to 
addressing 
violence 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 
There 
is 
a 
need 
to 
develop 
policies 
and 
procedures 
delineating 
these 
organizations’ 
mandates 
to 
serve 
ALL 
victims 
of 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
who 
attempt 
to 
access 
these 
services 
as 
required 
by 
the 
ADA, 
fair 
housing 
statutes 
etc. 
Clear 
policies 
and 
procedures 
that 
outline 
how 
to 
respond 
to 
abuse 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
persons 
including 
necessary 
and 
appropriate 
referrals 
and 
partnerships 
with 
other 
organizations 
are 
critical 
in 
improving 
these 
agencies 
response 
to 
the 
needs 
of 
the 
disability 
and 
Deaf 
community. 
Additionally, 
institutionalizing 
training 
in 
these 
areas 
by 
designing 
policies 
that 
require 
these 
staff 
development 
opportunities 
contribute 
to 
the 
overall 
cultural 
shift 
of 
the 
organizations 
involved. 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


One 
area 
that 
needs 
to 
be 
mentioned 
relates 
to 
the 
impact 
of 
shelter 
rules 
and 
their 
inflexibility, 
creating 
at 
times 
an 
atmosphere 
more 
punitive 
than 
healing 
particularly 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors. 
The 
development 
of 
procedures 
as 
well 
as 
the 
delivery 
of 
training 
on 
how 
to 
reduce 
shelter 
rules 
and 
provide 
accommodations 
to 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors 
is 
critical 
to 
this 
process. 


• 
The 
development 
of 
an 
agency 
wide 
process 
to 
communicate 
new 
and 
revised 
policies 
and 
procedures 
to 
current 
and 
new 
staff 
as 
well 
as 
consumers/survivors 
Our 
collaborative 
learned 
that, 
just 
as 
in 
the 
case 
of 
disability 
service 
providers, 
with 
high 
staff 
turnover 
rates, 
there 
is 
need 
to 
develop 
a 
mechanism 
for 
routinely 
communicating 
changes 
in 
policies 
and 
procedures 
agency 
wide. 
This 
area 
will 
also 
assist 
with 
the 
delivery 
of 
training 
while 
clarifying 
required 
educational 
events 
for 
staff 
at 
these 
agencies. 
This 
initiative 
speaks 
to 
the 
institutionalization 
of 
these 
practices 
whether 
we 
are 
speaking 
of 
specific 
training 
topics 
or 
policy 
development. 


The 
lack 
of 
consistent 
policies 
and 
practices 
regarding 
safety, 
abuse 
and 
accessibility 
can 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
organizations 
providing 
services 
to 
the 
community. 
When 
these 
exist, 
as 
it 
was 
somewhat 
true 
in 
the 
case 
of 
one 
organization, 
services 
reach 
most 
members 
of 
the 
community 
in 
a 
more 
inclusive 
and 
effective 
manner. 
Additionally, 
when 
policies 
are 
in 
place 
and 
staff 
members, 
consumers 
and 
survivors 
are 
aware 
of 
them, 
a 
culture 
is 
fostered 
where 
accessibility 
and 
safety 
are 
promoted 
and 
honored. 
All 
practices 
then 
fall 
into 
place 
in 
a 
more 
consistent 
way. 
However, 
the 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
practices 
alone 
will 
not 
suffice 
when 
cultural 
change 
is 
needed. 
Policies, 
training 
and 
other 
crucial 
aspects 
are 
necessary 
to 
affect 
sustainable 
change, 
as 
it 
will 
be 
delineated 
in 
this 
report. 


C. 
Values 
The 
need 
to 
examine 
personal 
values 
regarding 
safety, 
abuse, 
disabilities, 
mental 
illness, 
Deaf 
culture, 
etc. 
among 
sa/dv 
and 
disability 
organizations’ 
staff 
members 
was 
another 
theme 
present 
throughout 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process. 
Values 
drive 
most 
practices 
and 
permeate 
cultures, 
shape 
processes 
and 
policies 
whether 
or 
not 
we 
are 
aware 
of 
them. 
How 
to 
measure 
the 
existing 
values 
of 
an 
organization 
is 
something 
that 
cannot 
always 
be 
done 
in 
a 
tangible 
way. 
However, 
our 
collaborative 
anticipates 
an 
exploration 
of 
personal 
values 
through 
training, 
the 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
partnerships 
among 
pilot 
sites’ 
members. 
Therefore, 
we 
view 
the 
topic 
of 
“values” 
as 
a 
supplement 
to 
the 
work 
that 
will 
be 
taking 
place 
under 
other 
initiatives. 
However 
we 
are 
including 
this 
section 
here 
because 
of 
its 
prevalence 
and 
relevance 
across 
all 
groups 
represented 
by 
our 
pilot 
site 
members. 


There 
are 
two 
main 
sets 
of 
values 
that 
became 
evident 
during 
our 
needs 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


assessment 
process. 
These 
are 
the 
existing 
values 
and 
beliefs 
of 
those 
providing 


services 
regarding: 


a) 
Victims/survivors 


b) 
Persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons. 


“Fear 
of 
judgment 
stopped 
me 
from 
seeking 
help” 
(survivor) 


Values/Beliefs 
About 
Victims/Survivors 


Consumers 
and 
survivors 
spoke 
about 
stigma, 
for 
example. 
We 
were 
made 
aware 
of 
a 
situation 
where 
a 
survivor 
was 
questioned 
at 
the 
public 
assistance 
office 
for 
not 
leaving 
a 
domestic 
violence 
relationship 
“soon 
enough”, 
according 
to 
her 
assigned 
caseworker. 
We 
heard 
about 
stigma 
related 
to 
mental 
illness 
and 
the 
Deaf 
culture 
and 
how 
pervasive 
the 
views 
and 
personal 
values 
of 
the 
individuals’ 
providing 
services 
could 
be 
as 
they 
colored 
the 
way 
in 
which 
they 
related 
to 
others 
in 
need 
of 
such 
services. 


In 
the 
case 
of 
disability 
service 
providers, 
often 
personal 
values 
would 
be 
evident 
when 
speaking 
about 
safety 
and 
abuse. 
Some 
individuals 
attributed 
the 
prevalence 
of 
violence 
among 
the 
community 
they 
served 
as 
a 
generalized 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
about 
relationships. 


Values/Beliefs 
About 
Persons 
with 
Disabilities/Deaf 
Persons 


“One 
person 
in 
legal 
office 
is 
hard 
of 
hearing, 
and 
when 
this 
information 
was 
brought 
up, 
another 
staff 
member 
said, 
oh 
that 
explains 
the 
feelings 
I 
have 
about 
her” 
(SA/DV 
advocate) 


Among 
victim 
services’ 
providers, 
personal 
values 
about 
disabilities 
and 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
would 
present 
themselves 
as 
people 
shared 
sometimes 
‘discomfort’ 
when 
working 
with 
these 
individuals. 
Although 
no 
one 
referred 
to 
these 
feelings 
as 
“discomfort”, 
there 
was 
a 
visible 
attitude 
of 
creating 
barriers 
and 
establishing 
clear 
separations 
between 
“us 
and 
them”. 
There 
was 
at 
times 
a 
sense 
of 
helplessness 
among 
these 
service 
providers 
with 
statements 
such 
as 
“they 
[persons 
with 
disabilities] 
are 
not 
appropriate 
for 
our 
services”. 
Unfortunately, 
personal 
values 
of 
those 
providing 
the 
services 
can 
interfere 
with 
their 
service 
delivery. 


Our 
collaborative 
understands 
that 
values 
are 
often 
ingrained 
and, 
on 
the 
part 
of 
helping 
professionals, 
do 
not 
necessarily 
emerge 
as 
a 
result 
of 
bad 
intentions. 
However, 
their 
effects 
can 
be 
very 
pervasive 
and 
determine 
how 
individuals 
relate 
to 
one 
another. 
Changing 
personal 
values 
often 
results 
from 
educating 
each 
other. 
In 
this 
particular 
instance, 
the 
provision 
of 
training 
accompanied 
by 
the 
development 
of 
policies 
that 
promote 
safety 
and 
accessibility 
will 
contribute 
to 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


improving 
issues 
affected 
by 
personal 
values. 


Changing 
personal 
values 
can 
be 
a 
difficult 
and 
lengthy 
process. 
Our 
collaborative 
believes 
that 
an 
honest 
examination 
of 
those 
values 
may 
oftentimes 
result 
in 
the 
beginning 
steps 
towards 
changing 
them. 
As 
most 
of 
these 
attitudes 
are 
deeply 
ingrained, 
the 
majority 
of 
these 
individuals 
might 
be 
unaware 
of 
some 
of 
them 
and 
their 
devastating 
impact 
for 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons. 
Being 
intentional 
about 
the 
impact 
on 
values 
of 
our 
initiatives 
is 
something 
that 
our 
collaborative 
will 
practice 
throughout 
our 
implementation 
phase. 


Our 
collaborative 
is 
aware 
that 
the 
honest 
analysis 
of 
values 
and 
beliefs 
is 
a 
process 
that 
does 
not 
take 
place 
overnight. 
However, 
this 
is 
a 
critical 
step 
in 
order 
to 
improve 
the 
services 
provided 
to 
victims 
and 
survivors 
with 
disabilities/D/deaf 
victims 
and 
survivors. 
It 
is 
our 
intent 
to 
support 
the 
exploration 
and 
analysis 
of 
personal 
values 
and 
beliefs 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase 
through 
training 
and 
the 
development 
of 
necessary 
policy 
and 
procedures 
that 
will 
result 
in 
cultural 
change. 


D. 
Community 
Collaborations 
Another 
theme, 
shared 
by 
all 
participants 
related 
to 
the 
need 
for 
the 
establishment 
of 
community 
partnerships 
among 
SA/DV, 
disability, 
D/deaf/HoH 
and 
consumer-run 
organizations. 
It 
was 
a 
shared 
sentiment, 
across 
the 
board, 
that 
addressing 
accessibility, 
safety 
and 
abuse 
were 
tasks 
that 
could 
not 
be 
effectively 
handled 
in 
isolation. 
Most 
service 
providers 
admitted 
to 
not 
knowing 
much 
about 
each 
other 
but 
recognized 
that 
making 
those 
connections 
was 
necessary. 
However, 
there 
were 
major 
differences 
amongst 
our 
two 
pilot 
sites. 
In 
this 
section 
of 
the 
report, 
our 
collaborative 
is 
going 
to 
highlight 
such 
differences, 
as 
they 
will 
impact 
the 
specific 
initiatives 
that 
will 
be 
developed 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase 
of 
our 
project. 


Lancaster 
Site 


The 
Lancaster 
site 
is 
comprised 
of 
a 
group 
of 
organizations 
were 
the 
conditions 
exist 
to 
begin 
developing 
long 
lasting 
partnerships, 
as 
most 
members 
are 
eager 
to 
start 
this 
process 
or 
were 
primed 
to 
do 
so 
preceding 
this 
grant. 


One 
of 
the 
interesting 
practices 
adopted 
countywide 
is 
a 
human 
services 
directory 
that 
is 
shared 
among 
its 
members 
and 
in 
which 
all 
of 
the 
pilot 
site 
organizations 
are 
currently 
listed 
as 
community 
agencies. 
Having 
such 
a 
resource 
assists 
individuals 
when 
trying 
to 
locate 
resources. 
However, 
our 
collaborative 
acknowledges 
that 
having 
such 
a 
useful 
resource 
does 
not 
guarantee 
continuity 
of 
these 
services. 
On 
the 
other 
hand, 
for 
that 
community, 
we 
will 
utilize 
this 
already 
existing 
mechanism 
and 
build 
upon 
such 
idea. 
We 
have 
discussed 
the 
possible 
development 
of 
a 
more 
in 
depth 
directory 
among 
the 
members 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites 
with 
description 
of 
the 
services 
that 
are 
provided. 


In 
addition 
to 
having 
such 
a 
resource, 
most 
partners 
at 
the 
table 
are 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


already 
working 
collaboratively 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
violence 
perpetrated 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons. 
One 
of 
the 
unintended 
consequences 
of 
working 
on 
this 
project 
was 
the 
increase 
in 
the 
reporting 
of 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
by 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
and 
consequently, 
an 
increase 
in 
the 
number 
of 
those 
persons 
who 
are 
seeking 
victims’ 
services. 
Although 
the 
number 
of 
reports 
continues 
to 
challenge 
the 
existing 
infrastructure 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
and 
HoH 
agency 
and 
their 
ability 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
needs 
of 
these 
survivors, 
it 
has 
pushed 
the 
organization 
toward 
working 
collaboratively 
with 
the 
local 
sa/dv 
programs. 
Our 
collaborative 
has 
witnessed 
the 
diligent 
work 
of 
these 
local 
pilot 
site 
partners. 
A 
Deaf 
case 
manager 
from 
DHHS 
has 
become 
the 
point 
of 
entry 
for 
D/deaf 
survivors 
who 
seek 
her 
assistance 
and 
have 
chosen 
her 
as 
the 
person 
to 
disclose 
to 
for 
cultural 
and 
other 
reasons. 
Our 
collaborative 
learned 
of 
creative 
solutions 
and 
sacrifices 
already 
being 
set 
in 
motion 
in 
an 
effort 
to 
meet 
the 
increasing 
needs 
of 
D/deaf 
survivors. 
For 
example, 
we 
learned 
that 
the 
ED 
at 
DHHS 
volunteered 
his 
time 
for 
a 
month 
in 
order 
to 
be 
able 
to 
compensate 
the 
Deaf 
case 
manager 
for 
her 
time. 
She 
typically 
works 
only 
one 
day 
a 
week 
at 
that 
agency 
but 
the 
increase 
in 
the 
demands 
for 
services, 
she 
found 
herself 
putting 
in 
many 
more 
hours 
than 
what 
her 
part-time 
status 
permitted. 
In 
turn, 
the 
dv 
and 
sa 
programs 
are 
discussing 
the 
possibility 
of 
sending 
an 
advocate 
to 
DHHS 
to 
collaboratively 
work 
with 
the 
Deaf 
case 
manager 
and 
offer 
competent 
services 
to 
D/deaf 
survivors. 
This 
example 
highlights 
the 
level 
of 
commitment 
already 
present 
among 
the 
partners 
at 
the 
Lancaster 
site. 


In 
addition, 
all 
the 
EDs 
agreed 
to 
visit 
each 
other 
and 
hopefully 
pursue 
some 
funding 
opportunities 
for 
local 
efforts 
in 
the 
future. 
This 
includes 
the 
Arch 
St. 
Center, 
a 
consumer-run 
organization 
supports 
to 
individuals 
living 
with 
a 
mental 
illness. 
This 
organization 
is 
equally 
engaged 
in 
this 
process 
and 
is 
willing 
to 
provide 
support 
in 
the 
way 
of 
“recovery-centered” 
training 
and 
other 
initiatives 
in 
the 
future 
of 
this 
collaboration. 


The 
development 
of 
these 
partnerships 
is 
a 
process 
that 
continues 
to 
happen 
organically 
with 
little 
help 
from 
our 
collaborative. 
At 
this 
point 
in 
our 
project, 
we 
are 
able 
to 
propose 
suggestions 
to 
this 
site 
and 
receive 
critical 
thinking 
solutions 
in 
return. 
These 
organizations 
are 
active 
partners 
in 
this 
process. 
Additionally, 
our 
collaborative 
has 
witnessed 
first 
hand 
their 
commitment 
to 
increasing 
accessibility 
and 
responsiveness 
to 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors. 


Dauphin/Perry 
Site 


The 
Dauphin/Perry 
site 
experienced 
several 
challenges 
during 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process. 
These 
resulted 
in 
changes 
to 
the 
configuration 
of 
this 
site 
from 
five 
original 
organizations 
at 
the 
beginning 
of 
the 
grant 
to 
three 
at 
this 
stage 
of 
the 
project. 
Our 
collaborative 
will 
provide 
support 
and 
resources 
to 
this 
pilot 
site 
to 
facilitate 
collaboration 
among 
its 
members 
as 
much 
as 
possible. 


A 
note 
about 
consumers/survivors 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Consumers 
and 
survivors 
in 
the 
Dauphin/Perry 
site 
spoke 
of 
the 
need 
for 
community 
collaborations 
in 
a 
different 
way. 
Most 
of 
them 
shared 
the 
desire 
to 
have 
a 
more 
centralized 
service 
delivery 
system. 
We 
believe 
that 
although 
the 
concept 
of 
“one 
stop 
shop” 
will 
not 
be 
possible 
in 
this 
instance, 
yet 
having 
organizations 
that 
routinely 
collaborate 
with 
one 
another 
are 
expected 
to 
provide 
an 
effective 
referral 
system. 
Many 
survivors 
and 
consumers 
expressed 
frustration 
about 
most 
service 
providers 
and 
their 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
about 
other 
organizations 
outside 
of 
their 
realm 
of 
expertise 
when 
making 
referrals. 
This 
issue 
caused 
many 
of 
these 
referrals 
to 
be 
inappropriate 
or 
simply 
not 
the 
right 
match 
for 
the 
person 
who 
needed 
these 
services. 


Our 
collaborative 
will 
make 
a 
deliberate 
effort 
to 
develop 
initiatives 
with 
input 
from 
our 
pilot 
sites, 
which 
will 
result 
in 
community 
partnerships. 
Addressing 
this 
need 
can 
be 
accomplished 
from 
several 
different 
fronts. 
As 
stated 
in 
the 
previous 
paragraphs, 
our 
collaborative 
anticipates 
that 
this 
initiative 
will 
occur 
as 
a 
direct 
result 
of 
working 
on 
training 
and 
policy 
development 
among 
the 
members 
of 
our 
pilot 
sites, 
among 
other 
initiatives. 


Once 
partnerships 
are 
developed 
we 
will 
include 
information 
about 
such 
collaborations. 
Our 
collaborative 
is 
suggesting 
that 
this 
resource 
be 
created 
as 
an 
online 
tool. 
This 
is 
an 
initiative 
that 
will 
be 
explored 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase 
of 
our 
project. 


E. 
Violence 
against 
Deaf 
Women 
and 
Other 
Issues 
Affecting 
the 
D/deaf 
Community 


Although 
the 
key 
findings 
generated 
from 
the 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews 
with 
members 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
are 
consistent 
with 
the 
rest 
of 
the 
data, 
our 
collaborative 
decided 
to 
share 
in 
more 
detail 
some 
of 
the 
issues 
affecting 
D/deaf 
women 
in 
Lancaster 
County. 
This 
geographic 
area 
of 
Pennsylvania 
houses 
the 
largest 
concentration 
of 
Deaf 
individuals 
between 
Philadelphia 
and 
the 
District 
of 
Columbia. 
One 
of 
the 
reasons 
why 
this 
is 
the 
case 
is 
because 
of 
the 
existence 
of 
the 
Deaf 
and 
Hard 
of 
Hearing 
Services 
of 
Lancaster 
County 
(DHHS), 
one 
of 
the 
members 
of 
our 
pilot 
site. 
This 
organization 
provides 
an 
array 
of 
services 
to 
the 
D/deaf 
community. 


Our 
data 
collection 
process 
took 
place 
only 
in 
Lancaster 
County. 
However 
due 
the 
high 
concentration 
of 
D/deaf 
individuals 
in 
this 
community, 
we 
feel 
confident 
that 
our 
findings 
provide 
some 
information 
that 
can 
be 
potentially 
generalized 
to 
the 
rest 
of 
this 
population 
in 
Pennsylvania. 
Below 
are 
the 
major 
key 
findings 
affecting 
this 
community 
based 
on 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process: 


• 
Need 
for 
training 
about 
rights 
of 
D/deaf 
persons 
under 
the 
ADA 
• 
Need 
for 
certified/qualified 
interpreters 
in 
SA/DV 
situations 
• 
Need 
for 
funding 
to 
address 
the 
needs 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
(i.e. 
case 
management) 

Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


“We 
need 
to 
learn 
our 
rights 
under 
the 
law” 
(Deaf 
consumer) 


The 
lack 
of 
certified 
and 
qualified 
interpreters 
to 
interpret 
in 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
situations 
is 
an 
issue 
that 
has 
dramatic 
implications 
for 
D/deaf 
survivors. 
The 
use 
of 
signed 
waivers 
during 
medical 
procedures 
and 
emergency 
situations 
often 
leaves 
the 
survivor 
at 
the 
mercy 
of 
interpreters 
without 
the 
proper 
credentials 
and 
basic 
knowledge. 
In 
these 
cases, 
the 
D/deaf 
person 
is 
offered 
the 
services 
of 
an 
interpreter 
who 
is 
not 
certified 
and 
the 
survivor 
or 
family 
member 
is 
asked 
to 
sign 
a 
waiver 
stating 
that 
s/he 
agrees 
with 
the 
services 
of 
such 
interpreter. 
Often 
times 
the 
D/deaf 
person 
agrees 
due 
to 
the 
emergency 
nature 
of 
the 
situation 
or 
because 
s/he 
simply 
is 
unaware 
that 
there 
is 
another 
avenue. 
We 
learned 
of 
cases 
where 
sexual 
assault 
survivors 
were 
only 
provided 
with 
an 
interpreter 
for 
part 
of 
the 
rape 
exam 
or 
only 
for 
a 
few 
hours 
during 
medical 
proceedings. 
When 
speaking 
with 
members 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
at 
length 
it 
became 
apparent 
that 
there 
is 
a 
generalized 
lack 
of 
knowledge 
about 
their 
rights 
under 
the 
ADA. 
However, 
we 
also 
learned 
that 
the 
ADA 
alone 
falls 
short 
in 
advocating 
for 
the 
services 
of 
an 
interpreter 
for 
long 
period 
of 
times, 
as 
there 
is 
room 
to 
interpret 
how 
long 
is 
required 
or 
“sufficient”. 
Oftentimes 
providing 
an 
interpreter 
just 
for 
part 
of 
the 
hospital 
stay 
is 
considered 
“reasonable”. 
More 
organized 
and 
effective 
advocacy 
efforts 
are 
needed 
but 
in 
order 
to 
sustain 
these 
interventions 
additional 
funding 
might 
be 
required. 


One 
of 
the 
culturally 
specific 
characteristics 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
relates 
to 
the 
closeness 
of 
its 
members 
or 
the 
“Deaf 
grapevine”. 
Although 
this 
is, 
without 
a 
doubt, 
a 
strength 
in 
many 
situations, 
it 
oftentimes 
represents 
severe 
challenges 
for 
survivors 
of 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence. 
Most 
individuals 
know 
each 
other 
or 
are 
somehow 
connected 
to 
one 
another. 
This 
connection 
adds 
a 
new 
layer 
to 
the 
many 
difficulties 
faced 
by 
survivors 
when 
deciding 
whether 
or 
not 
to 
report 
their 
case 
to 
the 
proper 
authorities. 


We 
also 
learned 
of 
instances 
in 
which 
the 
court 
decided 
to 
assign 
the 
same 
interpreter 
to 
both 
sides 
the 
plaintiff 
and 
the 
defendant, 
in 
domestic 
violence 
cases. 
In 
one 
situation 
the 
defense 
attorney 
“took 
ownership” 
of 
the 
interpreter 
and 
spent 
the 
majority 
of 
the 
time 
in 
court 
communicating 
with 
the 
defendant. 
The 
victim, 
on 
the 
other 
hand, 
was 
unable 
to 
keep 
up 
with 
what 
was 
happening 
and 
assumed 
that 
everything 
was 
going 
well 
because 
as 
her 
advocate 
stated 
“everyone 
seemed 
happy”. 


Unfortunately, 
we 
could 
keep 
listing 
many 
more 
of 
these 
cases 
however 
this 
is 
not 
the 
purpose 
of 
this 
report. 
We 
are 
including 
this 
section 
here 
because 
as 
a 
result 
of 
our 
interactions 
with 
the 
members 
of 
the 
D/deaf 
community 
during 
the 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews, 
there 
has 
been 
an 
increase 
in 
the 
number 
of 
reports 
of 
violence 
against 
Deaf/d 
women. 
Although 
we 
followed 
the 
protocol 
utilized 
with 
all 
the 
other 
communities 
during 
the 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews, 
one 
of 
the 
unintended 
consequences 
of 
this 
process 
is 
the 
above-mentioned 
phenomenon. 
After 
careful 
analysis 
we 
realized 
that 
our 
focus 
groups 
provided 
the 
D/deaf 
community, 
for 
the 
first 
time, 
with 
a 
forum 
to 
share 
their 
experiences 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


when 
accessing 
services. 
The 
presence 
of 
our 
partners 
representing 
anti-
violence 
organizations 
added 
an 
important 
element 
to 
this 
process: 
safety. 
Participants 
found 
themselves 
thinking 
about 
these 
issues 
and 
seeking 
help 
to 
stop 
the 
violence 
in 
their 
lives 
and 
for 
deaf 
friends 
and 
family. 
Hope 
and 
new 
connections 
resulted. 
Fortunately, 
the 
D/deaf 
and 
HoH 
organization 
and 
the 
domestic 
violence 
program 
in 
the 
county 
are 
both 
pilot 
sites 
members. 
They 
have 
already 
established 
a 
relationship 
that 
will 
continue 
to 
grow 
overtime. 
This 
is 
one 
of 
the 
cases 
where 
we 
are 
seeing 
concrete 
positive 
consequences 
happening 
in 
the 
present 
time. 


F. 
Funding 
The 
lack 
of 
sufficient 
funding 
to 
address 
some 
of 
the 
needs 
prevalent 
among 
the 
communities 
studied 
in 
our 
needs 
assessment 
process 
was 
another 
tangible 
challenge 
faced 
by 
most 
organizations. 
This 
was 
particularly 
prevalent 
in 
light 
of 
current 
economic 
challenges 
affecting 
our 
nation 
at 
large. 
Securing 
funding 
to 
provide 
accommodations, 
particularly 
ASL 
interpreters, 
was 
something 
that 
most 
victims’ 
service 
organizations 
struggled 
with 
at 
the 
time. 
This 
was 
particularly 
difficult, 
of 
course, 
in 
those 
cases 
where 
a 
line 
item 
in 
the 
budget 
had 
not 
been 
dedicated 
to 
funding 
these 
efforts. 
Providers 
shared 
that 
oftentimes 
they 
had 
to 
figure 
out 
how 
to 
provide 
such 
accommodations 
at 
the 
time 
of 
the 
crisis. 
This 
kind 
of 
situation 
added 
a 
new 
set 
of 
challenges 
to 
the 
already 
existing 
issues 
faced 
by 
Deaf 
survivors. 
The 
results 
included 
returning 
to 
the 
abusive 
situation 
where 
communication 
was 
possible. 
The 
lack 
of 
technologically 
accessible 
features 
particularly 
in 
shelters 
made 
the 
stay 
difficult 
and 
sometimes 
impossible 
for 
Deaf 
survivors. 
Other 
providers 
spoke 
of 
the 
limits 
in 
the 
services 
they 
offered 
because 
of 
funding. 
Some 
were 
time 
limited 
and 
providers 
oftentimes 
were 
forced 
to 
close 
cases 
after 
the 
number 
of 
counseling 
sessions 
had 
come 
to 
an 
end 
even 
when 
the 
survivor 
was 
still 
in 
need 
of 
that 
service 
and 
without 
having 
an 
appropriate 
referral 
source. 


Although 
our 
collaborative 
is 
not 
sure 
whether 
this 
issue 
can 
be 
addressed 
under 
this 
grant, 
we 
felt 
it 
was 
necessary 
to 
mention 
in 
this 
section 
of 
the 
report. 
Almost 
all 
providers 
(disability 
and 
victims’ 
services) 
shared 
their 
need 
for 
more 
funds 
for 
training 
initiatives 
and/or 
the 
purchase 
of 
accessibility 
kits. 
These 
will 
be 
among 
the 
initiatives 
that 
we 
are 
expecting 
to 
support 
financially 
after 
we 
are 
able 
to 
re-budget. 


In 
terms 
of 
funding, 
our 
collaborative 
feels 
like 
this 
topic 
is 
closely 
related 
to 
other 
initiatives, 
as 
it 
will 
offer 
the 
means 
to 
address 
some 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites’ 
needs 
in 
a 
tangible 
way. 
Some 
other 
funding 
needs, 
especially 
those 
shared 
by 
consumers/survivors 
such 
as 
those 
related 
to 
transportation, 
fall 
unfortunately 
outside 
the 
scope 
of 
this 
grant. 
However, 
if 
some 
of 
these 
above 
mentioned 
initiatives 
are 
put 
into 
place 
their 
impact 
will 
positively 
affect 
consumers/survivors. 
On 
the 
other 
hand, 
our 
collaborative 
is 
currently 
at 
a 
stage 
where 
more 
information 
is 
needed 
to 
list 
some 
concrete 
activities 
that 
will 
require 
allocation 
of 
funds. 
We 
anticipate 
the 
development 
of 
specific 
initiatives 
with 
input 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


from 
the 
members 
of 
our 
pilot 
sites. 
This 
is 
a 
process 
yet 
to 
occur. 


Issues 
that 
came 
up 
but 
cannot 
be 
addressed 
under 
this 
grant 


Transportation 


Consumers 
and 
survivors 
cited 
the 
following 
examples: 


• 
Lack 
of 
accessible, 
reliable, 
and 
affordable 
transportation 
particularly 
in 
rural 
areas. 
• 
Delays 
in 
getting 
to 
or 
missed 
appointments 
because 
transport 
for 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
show 
up 
late 
or 
require 
a 
wide 
time 
range 
for 
arrival 
and 
pick 
up. 
DV/SA 
programs 
that 
schedule 
some 
of 
their 
services 
by 
appointment 
lose 
sight 
of 
the 
struggles 
experienced 
by 
persons 
who 
rely 
on 
this 
kind 
of 
transportation. 
• 
Inability 
of 
victims 
with 
disabilities 
to 
access 
timely 
transport 
can 
result 
in 
missed 
appointments 
in 
court, 
inability 
to 
participate 
in 
support 
groups, 
etc. 
10. 
Conclusions 
and 
Implications 
for 
pilot 
sites 
In 
this 
section 
of 
the 
report, 
we 
will 
be 
highlighting 
the 
overall 
conclusions 
that 
our 
collaborative 
arrived 
at 
after 
the 
analysis 
of 
the 
collected 
data. 
Additionally, 
we 
will 
be 
explaining 
the 
impact 
of 
these 
findings 
as 
they 
have 
several 
long 
and 
short-term 
implications 
for 
all 
the 
parties 
and 
individuals 
involved 
in 
this 
project. 
This 
includes 
the 
partner 
organizations. 
However, 
we 
will 
report 
those 
findings 
and 
implications 
in 
a 
separate 
section 
of 
this 
report. 


Based 
on 
our 
findings, 
there 
are 
specific 
areas 
on 
which 
our 
work 
will 
focus 
in 
the 
upcoming 
months 
in 
the 
way 
of 
initiatives 
for 
implementation. 
The 
major 
focus 
areas 
as 
reflected 
by 
our 
key 
findings 
are: 
training, 
policies 
and 
practices, 
values, 
community 
collaborations 
and 
funding. 
The 
following 
paragraphs 
provide 
an 
analysis 
of 
the 
implications 
of 
our 
findings. 


Training 


It 
is 
not 
surprising 
that 
training 
appears 
as 
such 
a 
consistent 
theme 
across 
the 
board. 
The 
provision 
of 
training 
constitutes 
a 
critical 
step 
in 
the 
process 
of 
increasing 
capacity 
and 
competency 
building. 
It 
will 
also 
contribute 
to 
fostering 
relationships 
among 
community 
members 
for 
years 
to 
come. 


In 
the 
area 
of 
training 
we 
anticipate 
the 
development 
of 
concrete 
initiatives 
to 
support 
a 
series 
of 
activities 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase 
that 
will 
focus 
on 
the 
provision 
of 
training 
and 
cross 
training 
among 
pilot 
sites. 
Members 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites 
will 
have 
numerous 
opportunities 
to 
provide 
input 
and 
guidance 
in 
terms 
of 
training 
topics 
and 
their 
delivery. 
Therefore, 
our 
collaborative 
will 
make 
a 
concerted 
effort 
to 
guarantee 
that 
pilot 
site 
members 
are 
taking 
ownership 
of 
this 
project 
before 
implementation. 
In 
the 
case 
of 
dv 
and 
sa 
organizations 
each 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


agency 
has 
staff 
designated 
as 
trainers/educators. 
Their 
skills 
and 
expertise 
will 
be 
incorporated 
into 
both 
the 
planning 
and 
provision 
of 
training. 
Our 
goal 
is 
to 
develop 
initiatives 
that 
can 
be 
sustained 
over 
time 
regardless 
of 
new 
or 
additional 
funding. 
We 
anticipate 
the 
design 
and 
development 
of 
training 
in 
the 
following 
areas: 


• 
Disability 
• 
Safety 
and 
abuse 
• 
Deaf 
culture 
• 
Stigma 
(mental 
health, 
other 
disabilities, 
sexual 
and 
domestic 
violence 
survivors) 
• 
Violence 
against 
women 
• 
Assistive 
Technology 
• 
Other 
topics 
as 
suggested 
(i.e. 
legal 
mandates 
under 
the 
ADA, 
Fair 
Housing 
etc.) 
Policies 
and 
Practices 


The 
development 
of 
policies 
and 
practices 
to 
increase 
accessibility 
and 
provide 
safety 
in 
a 
systematic 
and 
consistent 
manner 
constitutes 
another 
priority 
area 
for 
the 
implementation 
phase 
of 
our 
grant. 
The 
lack 
of 
policies 
requiring 
the 
provision 
of 
accommodations 
on 
a 
consistent 
basis 
as 
well 
as 
a 
systematic 
and 
effective 
way 
to 
respond 
to 
violence 
and 
abuse 
demonstrates 
the 
need 
for 
implementation 
activities 
in 
these 
areas. 
The 
findings 
collected 
from 
interviewing 
leadership 
and 
line 
staff, 
and 
surveying 
members 
of 
the 
board 
of 
directors 
strongly 
support 
this 
point. 
Experience 
has 
taught 
us 
that 
when 
policies 
are 
developed, 
their 
effects 
remain 
overtime 
regardless 
of 
funding. 
They 
also 
have 
the 
capacity 
to 
affect 
change 
at 
all 
levels 
of 
the 
organizations. 
We 
anticipate 
intense 
work 
in 
these 
areas 
with 
leadership 
and 
board 
of 
directors 
as 
the 
development 
of 
policies 
often 
require. 


Values 


A 
careful 
examination 
of 
individuals’ 
values 
as 
they 
relate 
to 
disabilities, 
Deaf 
culture, 
violence 
and 
abuse, 
will 
be 
part 
of 
another 
initiative. 
Our 
collaborative 
understands 
that 
training, 
in 
some 
levels, 
can 
support 
this 
initiative. 
However, 
training 
alone 
will 
not 
suffice 
as 
values 
and 
beliefs 
are 
often 
well 
ingrained. 
In 
order 
to 
modify 
them 
a 
process 
of 
honest 
and 
careful 
analysis 
in 
conjunction 
with 
education 
and 
policies 
is 
required. 
When 
working 
in 
concert, 
all 
these 
elements 
can 
have 
everlasting 
impact, 
as 
they 
will 
operate 
as 
agents 
of 
change, 
cultural 
change 
from 
within 
the 
participating 
organizations. 
These 
processes 
are 
not 
simple 
but 
crucial. 
Values 
shape 
how 
we 
do 
things 
and 
how 
we 
understand 
violence, 
abuse, 
disabilities 
and 
other 
cultures. 
Paternalistic 
practices 
towards 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
persons 
succeed 
unchallenged 
when 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


individuals 
and 
organizations 
have 
not 
examined 
their 
values. 
Most 
times, 
as 
we 
observed 
during 
our 
interactions 
with 
disability 
and 
victims’ 
services 
organizations, 
these 
practices 
are 
also 
ingrained 
and 
often 
times 
the 
result 
of 
good 
intentions. 
We 
anticipate 
that 
this 
process 
of 
value 
analysis 
will 
take 
many 
forms 
and 
will 
need 
to 
be 
supported 
by 
other 
initiatives. 
Our 
overall 
goal 
is 
promoting 
and 
fostering 
sustainable 
cultural 
change 
from 
within. 


Community 
Collaborations 


The 
lack 
of 
partnerships 
between 
disability 
and 
victims’ 
services 
organizations 
was 
a 
consistent 
theme 
throughout 
our 
focus 
groups 
and 
interviews. 
Establishing 
and 
fostering 
these 
partnerships 
is 
another 
way 
to 
coordinate 
activities 
in 
a 
more 
intentional 
way. 
The 
initial 
goal 
of 
our 
collaboration 
is 
to 
focus 
around 
fostering 
partnerships 
between 
the 
existing 
members 
of 
the 
pilot 
sites. 
To 
date, 
some 
of 
these 
organizations 
have 
begun 
working 
together 
on 
their 
own, 
motivated 
by 
the 
meetings 
and 
conversations 
that 
have 
taken 
place 
from 
the 
work 
of 
our 
grant. 
Once 
these 
partnerships 
are 
well 
established 
and 
individuals 
begin 
working 
together 
through 
training 
activities, 
for 
example, 
we 
anticipate 
an 
increase 
in 
the 
number 
of 
community 
partnerships. 
This 
initiative 
will 
hopefully 
begin 
a 
process 
of 
ongoing 
community 
collaborations 
and 
resource 
sharing, 
not 
necessarily 
linked 
to 
funding. 


Funding 


Providing 
funding 
to 
participating 
pilot 
site 
members 
with 
the 
purpose 
of 
carrying 
on 
their 
initiatives 
will 
also 
be 
an 
initiative 
by 
itself. 
We 
anticipate 
re-budgeting 
and 
distributing 
the 
funding 
based 
on 
the 
needs 
and 
size 
of 
each 
organization 
and 
their 
particular 
activities. 
As 
with 
the 
training 
aspect 
of 
our 
implementation 
phase, 
we 
will 
include 
the 
pilot 
sites 
prior 
to 
the 
beginning 
of 
implementation 
to 
provide 
us 
with 
input 
related 
to 
the 
areas 
where 
they 
find 
allocation 
of 
funds 
would 
be 
most 
useful. 


11. 
Partner 
organizations: 
Key 
Findings 
The 
following 
sections 
of 
this 
report 
include 
the 
findings 
collected 
from 
the 
collaborative 
partners: 
DRN, 
PCAR 
and 
PCADV. 
This 
data 
is 
the 
result 
of 
interviews 
conducted 
with 
the 
leadership 
of 
these 
organizations, 
and 
surveys 
administered 
to 
the 
staff 
and 
the 
boards 
of 
directors. 
An 
identical 
process 
was 
utilized 
with 
all 
the 
partners. 


It 
is 
important 
to 
note 
that 
although 
these 
partners 
provide 
services 
at 
the 
statewide 
level, 
both 
coalitions 
house 
their 
respective 
National 
Resource 
Center. 
This 
is 
a 
situation 
unique 
to 
Pennsylvania. 
Therefore, 
the 
scope 
of 
both 
coalitions, 
in 
terms 
of 
their 
resource 
centers, 
is 
national. 
Although 
we 
are 
aware 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


that 
this 
grant 
is 
only 
focused 
on 
the 
communities 
designated 
during 
our 
needs 
assessment 
plan, 
we 
know 
that 
anything 
with 
impact 
at 
the 
organizational 
level 
can 
also 
have 
potential 
impact 
at 
the 
national 
level. 


We 
are 
including 
the 
main 
themes 
collected 
from 
the 
analysis 
as 
well 
as 
a 
more 
detailed 
section 
that 
includes 
the 
result 
of 
the 
surveys 
utilizing 
some 
of 
the 
tools 
that 
Survey 
Monkey 
provides. 
That 
information 
appears 
following 
the 
Key 
Findings’ 
section. 


Key 
Findings 


Although 
some 
of 
the 
themes 
are 
consistent 
with 
what 
we 
found 
among 
the 
pilot 
sites, 
there 
are 
clear 
differences 
among 
DRN, 
PCAR, 
and 
PCADV. 


As 
a 
disability 
rights’ 
organization, 
DRN 
devotes 
its 
attention 
to 
protecting 
and 
advancing 
the 
rights 
of 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
persons. 
Promoting 
accessibility 
is 
at 
the 
core 
of 
the 
mission 
of 
this 
organization, 
which 
offers 
DRN 
an 
advantageous 
position 
in 
reference 
to 
the 
other 
partners, 
PCAR 
and 
PCADV 
in 
this 
area. 
However, 
DRN 
lacks 
some 
of 
the 
practices 
and 
policies 
that 
are 
at 
the 
forefront 
of 
the 
two 
coalitions 
because 
of 
their 
emphasis 
on 
safety. 
As 
anti-violence 
organizations, 
much 
has 
been 
done 
to 
promote 
safety 
in 
both 
PCAR 
and 
PCADV 
while 
there 
are 
some 
areas 
that 
lack 
accessibility. 
In 
other 
words, 
if 
the 
three 
organizations 
could 
work 
together 
on 
a 
day-to-day 
basis, 
one 
could 
complement 
one 
another. 
This 
almost 
symbiotic 
relationship, 
for 
lack 
of 
a 
better 
term, 
is 
something 
that 
our 
collaborative 
is 
planning 
to 
nurture 
during 
implementation 
to 
design 
initiatives 
that 
will 
utilize 
each 
other’s 
expertise. 
Our 
collaborative 
will 
explain 
this 
relationship 
in 
more 
depth 
in 
the 
following 
sections 
of 
this 
report. 


Below 
are 
our 
key 
findings: 


A. 
Training, 
cross-training 
• 
Disability 
awareness 
• 
Violence 
against 
women, 
SA/DV 
• 
Safety 
• 
Deaf 
culture 
B. 
Policies 
and 
practices 
• 
Develop 
policies 
and 
practices 
specifically 
tailored 
to 
respond 
to 
violence 
and 
address 
abuse 
in 
the 
workplace 
• 
Develop 
policies 
and 
practices 
to 
provide 
accommodations 
in 
a 
consistent 
manner. 
This 
is 
expected 
to 
result 
in 
an 
increase 
in 
service 
delivery 
to 
and 
participation 
of 
all 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
individuals. 
C. 
Values 

Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


• 
Examine 
personal 
values 
and 
the 
values 
of 
the 
organization 
at 
large, 
in 
terms 
of 
violence, 
abuse, 
disabilities, 
D/deaf 
culture, 
accessibility 
etc. 
Overall 
goal: 
Cultural 
Change 


In 
the 
case 
of 
the 
partner 
organizations, 
our 
collaborative 
believes 
that 
when 
all 
the 
initiatives 
are 
implemented, 
they 
will 
result 
in 
cultural 
change. 
It 
is 
our 
intention 
that 
once 
the 
above 
findings 
are 
turned 
into 
concrete 
initiatives 
organizational 
changes 
at 
all 
levels 
will 
begin 
to 
take 
place. 
These 
changes 
will 
not 
be 
tied 
to 
funding 
and 
will 
remain 
over 
time. 


Findings 
that 
cannot 
be 
addressed 
under 
this 
grant 


• 
Need 
for 
installation 
of 
locks 
and/or 
intercoms 
to 
secure 
the 
buildings 
• 
Physical 
alterations 
of 
the 
buildings 
to 
increase 
accessibility 
where 
necessary 
12. 
Conclusion 
for 
the 
partner 
organizations 
The 
work 
under 
the 
Disability 
Grant 
program 
is 
providing 
the 
partners 
in 
this 
project, 
for 
the 
first 
time, 
with 
the 
opportunity 
to 
deliberately 
and 
much 
more 
intentionally 
than 
in 
the 
previous 
years, 
focus 
energy 
and 
resources 
towards 
increasing 
access 
to 
services 
for 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors 
and 
pay 
closer 
attention 
to 
current 
practices 
and 
policies 
across 
the 
board. 
This 
process 
has 
taken 
a 
two 
level 
approach, 
not 
only 
outwards 
(towards 
the 
selected 
pilot 
sites) 
but 
inwards. 
Our 
collaborative 
appreciates 
the 
repercussions 
of 
this 
process 
because 
this 
kind 
of 
approach 
has 
only 
strengthened 
the 
commitment 
among 
the 
partners 
to 
this 
important 
work. 
Although 
all 
three 
partners 
had 
already 
demonstrated 
a 
commitment 
to 
addressing 
these 
issues, 
all 
parties 
involved 
lacked 
a 
formalized 
process 
to 
pursue 
this 
work. 
The 
Disability 
Grant 
Program 
has 
provided 
us 
with 
this 
incredible 
opportunity. 


Each 
partner 
has 
learned 
valuable 
information 
related 
to 
areas 
where 
work 
still 
needs 
to 
be 
done. 
We 
are 
more 
aware 
than 
ever 
before 
of 
agency 
wide 
practices 
that 
hinder 
the 
process 
of 
responding 
to 
violence 
and 
abuse 
against 
persons 
with 
disabilities, 
D/deaf 
persons 
or 
even 
ourselves, 
working 
in 
these 
fields. 
Our 
collaborative 
is 
certain 
that 
we 
will 
continue 
to 
work 
in 
concert 
with 
one 
another, 
supplementing 
expertise 
towards 
improving 
upon 
each 
other’s 
deficit 
areas. 
Our 
collaborative 
is 
stronger 
than 
at 
the 
beginning 
of 
this 
project, 
as 
we 
have 
learned 
and 
thought 
about 
very 
tangible 
ways 
to 
make 
a 
difference 
in 
people’s 
lives 
for 
years 
to 
come. 


All 
of 
our 
partners 
provide 
technical 
assistance 
at 
the 
state 
level. 
Increasing 
the 
accessibility 
and 
responsiveness 
of 
our 
service 
delivery 
to 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
persons 
will 
translate 
into 
an 
enhanced 



Executive 
Summary-Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


technical 
assistance 
provision 
in 
Pennsylvania 
for 
the 
member 
sa/dv 
programs, 
consumers, 
and 
survivors. 
Changes 
in 
our 
cultures, 
policies 
and 
practices 
will 
serve 
as 
models 
for 
our 
pilot 
sites. 
This 
is 
a 
tangible 
way 
to 
continue 
engaging 
in 
this 
process 
as 
equal 
partners, 
as 
it 
is 
clear 
to 
all 
parties 
involved 
that 
we 
are 
moving 
in 
the 
same 
direction 
and 
share 
common 
goals. 
Therefore 
our 
implementation 
activities 
are 
expected 
to 
mirror 
what 
we 
hope 
to 
see 
taking 
place 
within 
the 
pilot 
sites. 


As 
stated 
earlier 
in 
this 
report, 
each 
coalition 
houses 
its 
national 
resource 
center. 
Changes 
within 
those 
organizations 
will 
impact 
their 
practices 
at 
the 
national 
level. 
This 
is 
certainly 
an 
unintended 
consequence 
of 
this 
work 
and 
outside 
of 
the 
realm 
of 
this 
grant, 
but 
a 
positive 
outcome 
without 
a 
doubt. 


All 
partners 
continue 
to 
be 
actively 
involved 
as 
co-chairs 
of 
the 
Pennsylvania 
Cross-Systems 
Advocacy 
Coalition, 
which 
serves 
as 
an 
advisory 
entity 
to 
this 
project. 
The 
Coalition 
brings 
together 
advocacy 
organizations 
from 
a 
variety 
of 
disability 
related 
fields 
and 
anti-violence 
organizations. 
The 
results 
of 
this 
report 
will 
be 
shared 
with 
the 
members 
of 
the 
Coalition, 
and 
it 
is 
expected 
to 
serve 
as 
a 
guide 
to 
expand 
our 
work 
to 
all 
the 
coalition 
members 
and 
their 
respective 
organizations. 
This 
is 
another 
unintended 
consequence 
of 
this 
grant, 
but 
certainly 
a 
positive 
outcome. 


Our 
collaborative 
believes 
that 
through 
the 
development 
of 
new 
policies 
and 
practices 
within 
our 
own 
organizations 
we 
will 
be 
able 
to 
better 
meet 
the 
needs 
of 
survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
D/deaf 
survivors 
while 
responding 
to 
abuse 
in 
a 
more 
proactive 
and 
efficient 
manner. 
All 
of 
these 
results 
will 
enhance 
and 
support 
the 
mission 
and 
values 
of 
our 
organizations 
and 
pave 
the 
way 
for 
more 
culturally 
affirmative 
services 
at 
all 
levels.