Wisconsin’s 
Violence 
Against 
Women 
with 
Disabilities 
& 
Deaf 
Women 
Project 



NEEDS 
ASSESSMENT 
REPORT 


May 
2008 


Disability 
Rights 
Wisconsin 
(DRW) 
Wisconsin 
Coalition 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(WCADV) 
Wisconsin 
Coalition 
Against 
Sexual 
Assault 
(WCASA) 



Acknowledgements 


For 
thoughtful 
and 
compassionate 
implementation 
of 
this 
needs 
assessment 
and 
for 
hosting 
assessment 
events: 


• 
Amy 
Judy, 
Mark 
Sweet, 
Karen 
Lane, 
Joan 
Karan, 
Dianne 
Greenley, 
and 
Jodi 
Hanna 
of 
Disability 
Rights 
Wisconsin 
• 
Tiffany 
Lodholz, 
Armintie 
Moore-Hammonds, 
and 
Linda 
Morrison 
of 
Wisconsin 
Coalition 
Against 
Sexual 
Assault 
• 
C.J. 
Doxtater, 
Diane 
Wolff, 
and 
Patti 
Seger 
of 
Wisconsin 
Coalition 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
• 
Genesis 
1990, 
Inc. 
• 
New 
Horizons 
North, 
Inc. 
• 
People 
First 
of 
Richland 
Center 
• 
People 
First 
of 
Ashland 
• 
New 
Day 
Shelter 
• 
Center 
Against 
Sexual 
and 
Domestic 
Abuse 
• 
North 
Country 
Independent 
Living 
• 
Passages, 
Inc. 
• 
A 
Disability 
Abuse 
Response 
Team 
of 
Brown 
County 
• 
Red 
Cliff 
Band 
of 
Lake 
Superior 
Chippewa 
• 
Bad 
River 
Band 
of 
Lake 
Superior 
Chippewa 
• 
Sovereign 
Oneida 
Nation 
of 
Wisconsin 
• 
Sexual 
Assault 
Center 
of 
Family 
Services 
Special 
thanks: 


• 
Sandra 
Harrell, 
Associate 
Director, 
and 
Nancy 
Smith, 
Director, 
Accessing 
Safety 
Initiative, 
Vera 
Institute 
of 
Justice 
• 
Amy 
Loder, 
Program 
Specialist, 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women, 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Justice 
Dedication: 


This 
Report 
is 
dedicated 
in 
gratitude 
to 
the 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
and 
their 
allies 
who 
shared 
their 
stories 
and 
ideas 
with 
us, 
and 
spawned 
an 
infectious 
enthusiasm 
to 
achieve 
meaningful 
change 
in 
the 
services 
and 
support 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
experience 
as 
a 
result 
of 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault 
or 
stalking. 
We 
thank 
you! 


This 
Project 
was 
supported 
by 
Grant 
No. 
2006-FW-AX-K003 
awarded 
by 
the 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women, 
Office 
of 
Justice 
Programs, 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Justice. 
Points 
of 
view 
in 
this 
document 
are 
those 
of 
the 
author 
and 
do 
not 
necessarily 
represent 
the 
official 
position 
or 
policies 
of 
the 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Justice. 


2 



Table 
of 
Contents 


Introduction 
P. 
4 


Narrowing 
the 
Focus 
Prior 
to 
the 
Assessment 
P. 
5 


Assessment 
Goals 
and 
Objectives 
P. 
6 


Assessment 
Pilot 
Site 
Outcomes 
P. 
7 


Overview 
of 
Needs 
Assessment 
Implementation 
P. 
7 
Methodology 
P. 
9 
Stakeholder 
Interview 
and 
Listening 
Session 
Protocol 
P. 
9 


Needs 
Assessment 
Plan 
Implementation: 
Overview 
of 
Contacts 
P. 
10 
Needs 
Assessment 
Implementation 
Strengths 
and 
Challenges 
P. 
11 
Key 
Learning 
Areas 
and 
Findings 
P. 
13 
Ashland 
and 
Bayfield 
Counties 
P. 
15 
Brown 
County 
P. 
21 
Richland 
County 
P. 
26 
Deaf 
Unity 
P. 
30 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
P. 
31 


Implications 
from 
Key 
Findings 
P. 
32 


Selection 
of 
the 
Two 
Pilot 
Sites 
for 
Project 
Focus 
P. 
32 
Level 
1: 
Implications 
of 
Key 
Findings 
for 
Individuals 
P. 
34 
Level 
2: 
Implications 
of 
Key 
Findings 
for 
Organizations 
P. 
35 
Level 
3: 
Implications 
of 
Key 
Findings 
for 
Systems 
P. 
35 


Conclusion 
P. 
36 


Summary 
of 
Key 
Findings 
P. 
36 
Strategic 
Planning 
P. 
37 


Appendices 


Appendix 
A: 
Narrowing 
Assessment 
Focus 
Appendix 
B: 
Needs 
Assessment 
Tools 


3 



Wisconsin’s 
Violence 
Against 
Women 
with 
Disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
Women: 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 


Introduction 


Wisconsin’s 
collaborative 
project 
addressing 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
women 
provided 
the 
impetus 
to 
formalize 
a 
longstanding 
collaboration 
among 
three 
statewide 
organizations: 


• 
Disability 
Rights 
Wisconsin 
(DRW) 
• 
Wisconsin 
Coalition 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(WCADV) 
and 
• 
Wisconsin 
Coalition 
Against 
Sexual 
Assault 
(WCASA). 
For 
nearly 
ten 
years, 
DRW 
has 
worked 
collaboratively 
in 
a 
number 
of 
ways 
with 
WCADV 
and 
WCASA. 
Currently 
all 
three 
organizations 
are 
collaborating 
successfully 
on 
a 
three-
year 
(FY06-09) 
statewide 
OVW-funded 
Education 
and 
Technical 
Assistance 
Project 
to 
End 
Violence 
Against 
Women 
with 
Disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
Women 
[hereinafter, 
OVW 
Disabilities 
Grant]. 
Reflecting 
on 
our 
past 
relationships 
while 
forging 
a 
more 
strengthened 
and 
sustainable 
effort, 
we 
have 
expressed 
our 
collaborative 
vision 
as: 


Women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
deaf/Deaf 
women 
who 
experience 
sexual 
assault 
and/or 
domestic 
violence 
will 
be 
supported 
by 
people 
who 
have 
actively 
prepared 
for 
access 
and 
who 
think 
about 
the 
meaning 
of 
respect 
one 
woman 
at 
a 
time. 


For 
the 
last 
18 
months, 
the 
three 
collaborating 
organizations 
have 
solidified 
their 
working 
relationship 
through 
writing 
a 
collaboration 
charter 
and 
launching 
a 
planning 
process 
to 
focus 
our 
collaborative 
energies 
for 
systems 
change 
in 
selected 
communities 
in 
Wisconsin. 
The 
OVW 
Disabilities 
Grant 
provided 
a 
unique 
opportunity 
to 
deliberate 
on 
this 
planning 
process 
for 
our 
efforts. 
This 
planning 
process 
involved 
four 
phases: 


1. 
developing 
and 
implementing 
a 
charter 
reflecting 
our 
collaborative’s 
vision, 
operation 
and 
values; 
2. 
devising 
and 
executing 
a 
targeted 
needs 
assessment 
to 
gauge 
interest 
in 
and 
capacity 
for 
systems 
change 
to 
address 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
who 
have 
experienced 
or 
currently 
are 
experiencing 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault, 
or 
stalking; 
3. 
analyzing 
data 
from 
the 
needs 
assessment 
process 
to 
narrow 
our 
focus 
substantively 
and 
geographically; 
and, 
4. 
organizing 
findings 
to 
embark 
on 
the 
development 
of 
a 
road 
map 
(strategic 
plan) 
by 
which 
our 
collaborative 
will 
plot 
a 
course 
of 
strategies 
and 
activities 
for 
systems 
change 
work 
in 
our 
selected 
communities 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase 
and 
beyond. 
4 



Narrowing 
the 
Focus 
Prior 
to 
Assessment 


A 
long 
and 
deliberate 
process 
ensued 
by 
which 
the 
Wisconsin 
Collaborative 
narrowed 
its 
strategic 
focus 
for 
devising 
our 
needs 
assessment 
plan. 
Since 
the 
Project 
team 
already 
had 
identified 
numerous 
factors 
to 
consider 
for 
narrowing 
our 
assessment 
and 
Project 
focus, 
we 
incorporated 
these 
factors 
into 
the 
development 
of 
our 
plan. 
As 
a 
result, 
we 
devised 
three 
primary 
strategies 
to 
explore 
and 
identified 
five 
communities 
in 
which 
to 
implement 
these 
assessment 
strategies. 
The 
five 
assessed 
communities 
were 
selected 
through 
the 
application 
of 
a 
comprehensive 
analysis 
of 
the 
state 
and 
relevant 
primary 
and 
secondary 
criteria 
agreed 
to 
by 
the 
Collaborative.1 


The 
Collaborative 
Project 
conducted 
its 
needs 
assessment 
in 
five 
communities: 
Ashland, 
Bayfield, 
Brown, 
Douglas 
and 
Richland 
counties. 
The 
five 
counties 
embodied 
varied 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
to 
consider 
for 
systemic 
change 
in 
the 
lives 
of 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
women 
who 
have 
experienced 
or 
currently 
are 
experiencing 
violence. 
Summarized 
below 
are 
descriptions 
of 
each 
of 
the 
five 
communities 
assessed 
through 
the 
needs 
assessment 
process. 


Brown 
County 


Since 
2005, 
a 
multi-disciplinary 
group 
has 
operated 
in 
Brown 
County, 
Wisconsin 
to 
collaboratively 
address 
violence 
against 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
in 
that 
community. 
Brown 
County, 
located 
in 
the 
northeast 
section 
of 
the 
state, 
is 
primarily 
rural 
in 
nature, 
but 
contains 
the 
mid-sized 
city 
of 
Green 
Bay 
and 
borders 
the 
Sovereign 
Oneida 
Nation 
of 
Wisconsin. 
The 
needs 
assessment 
process 
provided 
an 
opportunity 
to 
gauge 
the 
actual 
level 
of 
involvement 
reflected 
by 
the 
members 
of 
this 
multi-disciplinary 
group, 
entitled 
“A 
Disability 
Abuse 
Prevention 
Team” 
–ADAPT 
of 
Brown 
County, 
and 
their 
interest 
in 
expanding 
their 
cultural 
and 
disability-related 
constituencies. 


Ashland 
/Bayfield 
Counties2 


These 
contiguous, 
rural 
communities 
contain 
well-run 
anti-violence 
programs, 
an 
active 
mental 
health 
consumer-run 
organization 
and 
People 
First 
chapter, 
a 
committed 
and 
knowledgeable 
independent 
living 
center 
and 
other 
interested 
disability 
service 
providers. 
Two 
Native 
American 
tribes 
and 
their 
respective 
reservations 
are 
situated 
in 
this 
area: 
Red 
Cliff 
Band 
of 
Lake 
Superior 
Chippewa 
and 
Bad 
River 
Band 
of 
Lake 
Superior 
Chippewa. 


Douglas 
County 


This 
county 
is 
primarily 
rural 
with 
a 
well-run 
dual 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
program; 
a 
regional 
Aging 
and 
Disability 
Resource 
Center 
(ADRC) 
will 
be 


1 
See 
Appendix 
A 
for 
documentation 
of 
our 
pre-assessment 
narrowing 
process. 
2 
This 
site 
arrangement 
is 
reflective 
of 
many 
rural 
areas 
in 
which 
the 
“major 
population 
center” 
straddles 
two 
counties 
and 
service 
provision 
and 
people 
who 
receive 
services 
are 
located 
within 
both 
counties, 
but 
use 
the 
population 
center 
as 
the 
locus 
for 
services 
and 
activities. 
We 
believe 
that 
this 
site 
arrangement 
is 
not 
unique 
to 
Wisconsin, 
but 
is 
likely 
reflected 
in 
many 
rural 
areas 
throughout 
the 
country. 


5 



created 
providing 
an 
opportunity 
to 
connect 
with 
a 
wide 
array 
of 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
organizations 
providing 
services 
and 
support 
to 
them; 
North 
Country 
Independent 
Living 
is 
a 
strong 
ILC 
and 
has 
a 
demonstrated 
commitment 
to 
ending 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities; 
and 
there 
are 
other 
disability 
groups 
that 
are 
well-grounded 
in 
this 
region. 


Richland 
County 


A 
primarily 
rural 
area 
with 
a 
well-run 
dual 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
program; 
this 
county 
has 
one 
of 
the 
longest 
standing 
and 
well 
respected 
Aging 
and 
Disability 
Resource 
Centers, 
and 
Independent 
Living 
Resources 
is 
a 
solid 
independent 
living 
center 
(ILC) 
with 
an 
understanding 
of 
and 
interest 
in 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
women. 


In 
addition 
to 
these 
five 
communities, 
the 
Wisconsin 
Collaborative 
acknowledged 
that 
our 
emphasis 
on 
communities 
of 
color 
and 
the 
Deaf 
Community 
could 
be 
subsumed 
by 
other 
strategies 
if 
we 
failed 
to 
highlight 
its 
prominence. 
Therefore, 
deliberate 
attention 
was 
given 
to 
learn 
the 
primary 
service 
needs 
and 
gaps 
affecting 
Deaf 
and 
Latina 
advocates 
through 
discussions 
with 
Deaf 
Unity3 
and 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence4. 
The 
goal 
of 
the 
Project’s 
needs 
assessment 
strategy 
with 
these 
two 
ally 
organizations 
involved 
enhancing 
the 
capacity 
of 
relationships 
among 
them 
and 
stakeholders 
within 
the 
selected 
communities, 
with 
the 
intent 
to 
conduct 
implementation 
phase 
activities 
within 
the 
final 
selected 
communities 
with 
UNIDOS 
and 
Deaf 
Unity, 
when 
it 
is 
agreed 
to 
be 
mutually 
beneficial. 


Assessment 
Goals 
and 
Objectives 


Through 
the 
development 
and 
implementation 
of 
a 
needs 
assessment 
process, 
we 
sought 
to 
achieve 
two 
overarching 
goals: 
(1) 
identifying 
individual, 
organizational 
and 
system 
needs 
within 
five 
geographical 
communities 
that 
led 
to 
our 
second 
goal 
(2) 
selecting 
the 
two 
pilot 
communities 
for 
Project 
implementation. 
Our 
intent 
was 
to 
expand 
our 
knowledge 
about 
the 
interest 
in, 
enthusiasm 
for 
and 
identification 
of 
the 
service 
and 
knowledge 
gaps 
in 
and 
among 
geographical, 
cultural 
and 
service 
delivery 
systems 
and 
communities. 
We 
sought 
to 
ascertain 
community 
and 
cultural 
strengths, 
skills, 
accessibility 
barriers 
and 
resources 
from 
diverse 
cross-disability, 
domestic 
violence 
(DV), 
sexual 
assault 
(SA), 
Deaf 
organizations, 
communities 
of 
color 
and 
individuals 
in 
five 
selected 
Wisconsin 
communities. 
The 
objectives 
we 
sought 
to 
realize 
from 
the 
needs 
assessment 
process 
involved 
six 
areas: 


3 
A 
newly 
created 
network 
of 
Deaf 
and 
hearing 
allies, 
grassroots 
and 
professionals 
alike, 
who 
work 
to 
address 
the 
issues 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
in 
the 
Wisconsin 
Deaf 
community. 
4 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
is 
a 
statewide 
membership 
organization 
whose 
mission 
is 
to 
end 
family 
violence 
in 
the 
Latino/migrant 
communities 
in 
Wisconsin. 


6 



1. 
Identify 
the 
strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
advocates 
and 
programs; 
2. 
Explore 
the 
breadth 
of 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
to 
access 
experienced 
by 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf/deaf 
victims/survivors; 
3. 
Gauge 
the 
strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
that 
disability 
service 
and 
advocacy 
organizations 
experience; 
4. 
Harvest 
the 
tangible 
and 
intangible 
dynamics 
that 
contribute 
to 
the 
success 
of 
community-based, 
multi-disciplinary 
efforts; 
5. 
Identify 
the 
unique 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
that 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf/deaf 
victims/survivors 
from 
communities 
of 
color 
experience; 
and 
6. 
Determine 
how 
best 
to 
serve 
as 
authentic 
allies 
and 
promote 
relationship 
building 
with 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
and 
Deaf 
Unity. 
Assessment 
Pilot 
Site 
Outcomes 


The 
needs 
assessment 
was 
conducted 
in 
the 
five 
selected 
communities 
in 
February, 
March 
and 
April 
2008. 
The 
information 
gathered 
and 
analyzed 
from 
this 
needs 
assessment 
provided 
the 
basis 
for 
the 
Collaborative’s 
final 
selection 
of 
the 
two 
pilot 
sites 
in 
which 
to 
focus 
during 
the 
implementation 
phase: 
Brown 
County 
and 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area.5 


Overview 
of 
Needs 
Assessment 
Implementation 


The 
execution 
of 
our 
needs 
assessment 
encompassed 
two 
overarching 
goals: 


1. 
Gather 
assessment 
data 
to 
inform 
the 
Collaborative’s 
selection 
of 
the 
two 
pilot 
sites 
for 
Project 
implementation; 
and 
2. 
Employ 
the 
Needs 
Assessment 
Plan’s 
strategic 
questions 
to 
identify 
strengths 
and 
needs 
for 
individuals, 
organizations 
and 
systems 
within 
each 
pilot 
community. 
The 
needs 
assessment 
plan 
was 
designed 
to 
expand 
our 
knowledge 
base 
about 
the 
interest 
in, 
enthusiasm 
for 
and 
identification 
of 
the 
service 
and 
knowledge 
gaps 
in 
and 
among 
geographical, 
cultural 
and 
service 
delivery 
systems 
and 
communities. 
We 
learned 
about 
each 
community 
and 
its 
cultural 
strengths, 
skills, 
accessibility 
barriers 
and 
resources 
from 
diverse 
cross-disability, 
DV, 
SA, 
Deaf 
organizations, 
communities 
of 
color 
and 
individuals. 
Through 
the 
assessment 
implementation, 
we 
also 
initiated 
and/or 
enhanced 
relationships 
among 
Project 
organizations 
and 
key 
stakeholders. 


5 
In 
May 
2008, 
the 
Collaborative 
met 
to 
achieve 
two 
goals: 
(1) 
select 
the 
two 
pilot 
sites 
for 
Project 
focus 
and 
(2) 
identify 
the 
salient 
themes 
and 
assessment 
implications 
for 
development 
of 
our 
strategic 
plan. 
See 
the 
“Needs 
Assessment 
Findings” 
section 
for 
more 
detailed 
information 
about 
the 
Collaborative’s 
selection 
and 
determination 
outcomes. 


7 



This 
learning 
involved: 


• 
The 
strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
advocates 
and 
programs 
related 
to 
working 
with 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf/deaf 
women. 
• 
The 
breadth 
of 
accessibility 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
experienced 
by 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf/deaf 
victims/survivors 
who 
seek 
to 
avail 
themselves 
of 
services 
from 
sexual 
assault, 
domestic 
violence 
and/or 
disability 
organizations. 
• 
The 
strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
that 
disability 
service 
and 
advocacy 
organizations 
experience 
in 
working 
with 
their 
clients 
with 
disabilities 
who 
have 
experienced 
or 
currently 
are 
experiencing 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault 
or 
stalking. 
• 
The 
tangible 
and 
intangible 
factors 
that 
contribute 
to 
the 
success 
of 
community-
based, 
multi-disciplinary 
efforts 
to 
collectively 
address 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf/deaf 
women. 
• 
The 
unique 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
that 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf/deaf 
victims/survivors 
from 
communities 
of 
color 
experienced 
or 
anticipate 
experiencing 
to 
access 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault 
and/or 
disability 
services. 
• 
How 
to 
serve 
as 
authentic 
allies 
and 
promote 
relationship 
building 
with 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(a 
Latina-run 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
agency) 
and 
Deaf 
Unity 
(a 
Deaf-run, 
volunteer 
advocacy 
organization 
addressing 
violence 
in 
the 
Deaf 
Community) 
to 
traditionally 
marginalized 
communities. 
More 
specifically, 
our 
needs 
assessment 
sought 
to 
answer 
three 
strategic 
questions 
related 
to 
our 
goals 
and 
objectives: 


Strategic 
Question 
1: 
What 
are 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
a 
relatively 
successful 
multi-disciplinary 
collaborative 
in 
Brown 
County, 
Wisconsin 
that 
has 
interest 
in 
having 
a 
more 
intentional 
cross-disability 
focus 
with 
representation 
within 
communities 
of 
color? 


Strategic 
Question 
2: 
What 
are 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
an 
interested 
community 
with 
limited 
resources 
in 
creating 
a 
cross-disability 
and 
multi-disciplinary 
collaborative 
while 
emphasizing 
a 
multi-cultural 
approach 
to 
the 
work 
from 
the 
outset? 


Strategic 
Question 
3: 
What 
are 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
two 
ally 
organizations 
– 
Deaf 
Unity 
and 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
– 
in 
bringing 
their 
work 
to 
the 
Project’s 
selected 
communities? 


8 



Methodology 


To 
build 
on 
and 
inform 
our 
Collaborative, 
the 
needs 
assessment 
plan 
and 
tools6 
targeted 
specific 
audiences 
using 
tailored 
strategies: 
primarily 
stakeholder 
interviews 
and 
listening 
sessions. 
The 
third, 
less 
tailored 
strategy, 
was 
inquisitiveness 
about 
stakeholder 
perspectives 
and 
how 
they 
described 
the 
strengths 
and 
needs 
within 
their 
respective 
communities. 
While 
the 
data 
gathered 
included 
both 
quantitative 
and 
qualitative 
information 
overall, 
our 
intent 
was 
to 
explore 
the 
nuances 
of 
community 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
through 
an 
emphasis 
on 
stakeholder 
interviews 
and 
listening 
sessions. 
The 
needs 
assessment 
was 
conducted 
in 
Brown, 
Ashland/Bayfield, 
Douglas 
and 
Richland 
counties. 
Throughout 
this 
process, 
we 
learned 
from 
five 
major 
constituencies: 


1. 
Disability 
services 
and 
advocacy 
organizations7 
2. 
Domestic 
violence 
and/or 
sexual 
assault 
agencies8 
3. 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence9 
4. 
Deaf 
Unity10 
and 
5. 
Disability 
self-advocates.11 
In 
Brown 
County, 
a 
survey 
of 
members 
of 
the 
multi-disciplinary 
team 
formed 
to 
address 
violence 
against 
people 
with 
disabilities 
was 
distributed 
to 
learn 
of 
their 
perspectives 
on 
the 
qualities 
and 
factors 
that 
have 
made 
their 
group 
successful. 
The 
information 
will 
help 
inform 
the 
development 
of 
collaborative, 
multi-disciplinary 
efforts 
in 
the 
new 
site 
selected 
as 
part 
of 
the 
planning 
process. 


Stakeholder 
Interview 
and 
Listening 
Session 
Protocol 


Each 
participant 
was 
given 
verbal 
notice 
by 
Project 
staff 
to 
ascertain 
passive 
consent 
for 
participation. 
To 
conduct 
the 
listening 
sessions 
with 
people 
with 
disabilities, 
who 
we 
assumed 
would 
include 
some 
victims/survivors, 
Project 
staff 
arranged 
to 
have 
local 
support 
available 
to 
any 
participant 
who 
wanted 
or 
needed 
to 
talk 
during 
and 
following 
any 
discussions 
that 
impacted 
a 
former 
victim/survivor. 
We 
found 
that 
incorporating 


6 
The 
needs 
assessment 
implementation 
tools 
may 
be 
found 
in 
Appendix 
B. 
7 
Staff/representatives 
from 
independent 
living 
centers 
(ILCs), 
Grassroots 
Empowerment 
Project 
(mental 
health 
consumer-run 
advocacy/recovery 
organizations), 
People 
First 
chapters, 
residential 
and 
case 
management 
organizations 
serving 
individuals 
with 
developmental 
and/or 
psychiatric 
disabilities, 
Tribal 
Human 
Services 
Programs 
and 
County 
Human 
Services 
contacts. 
8 
Executive 
Directors, 
Program 
Directors, 
Shelter 
Coordinators 
(if 
applicable), 
and 
direct 
services 
advocates 
at 
each 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
agency 
in 
the 
selected 
communities. 
9 
UNIDOS 
Executive 
and 
Associate 
Directors 
regarding 
how 
services 
might 
be 
more 
inclusive, 
responsive 
and 
accessible 
to 
the 
Latina 
community. 
10 
Project 
staff 
interviewed 
several 
Deaf 
volunteer 
advocates 
who 
could 
inform 
the 
Project 
about 
how 
services 
might 
be 
more 
inclusive, 
responsive 
and 
accessible. 
11 
In 
partnership 
with 
People 
First, 
Grassroots 
Empowerment 
Project 
and 
the 
ILCs, 
we 
interviewed 
self-advocates 
and 
encouraged 
their 
participation 
in 
listening 
sessions. 


9 



someone 
known 
to 
and 
trusted 
by 
the 
local 
community 
also 
served 
to 
reinforce 
relationships 
already 
existing 
in 
that 
community. 


Each 
listening 
session 
and 
face-to-face 
interview 
involved 
giving 
notice 
about 
the 
importance 
of 
confidentiality 
among 
participants, 
including 
reassurance 
that 
no 
personally 
identifiable 
information 
will 
be 
used 
or 
referenced 
in 
any 
way 
in 
the 
needs 
assessment 
findings. 
This 
prohibition 
on 
using 
personally 
identifiable 
information 
also 
included 
an 
explicit 
statement 
that 
no 
audio 
or 
visual 
equipment 
was 
used 
to 
record 
a 
person’s 
participation. 
Notice 
also 
was 
provided 
to 
participants 
about 
the 
implications 
of 
disclosure 
relative 
to 
the 
new 
Adults-At-Risk 
Reporting 
law 
applicable 
in 
Wisconsin. 
Although 
Project 
staff 
is 
not 
“mandated 
reporters” 
per 
se, 
there 
were 
participants 
or 
cosponsors 
who 
held 
different 
positions 
that 
made 
them 
“reporters” 
under 
the 
law. 
No 
instances 
requiring 
a 
mandated 
report 
were 
evident. 


Each 
Project 
staff 
involved 
in 
an 
interview 
or 
listening 
session 
took 
handwritten 
notes 
which 
then 
were 
typed 
and 
sent 
to 
the 
Project 
Coordinator 
to 
include 
in 
a 
single 
document. 
Individual 
notes 
were 
destroyed. 
The 
Project 
Coordinator 
ensured 
that 
all 
personally 
identifiable 
information 
was 
redacted 
from 
the 
report 
prior 
to 
its 
inclusion 
in 
the 
data 
summary. 
The 
Project 
Coordinator 
stored 
all 
hard 
copy 
reports/documents 
in 
a 
locked 
file 
cabinet 
to 
which 
only 
she 
and 
the 
Project 
Director 
have 
access. 
Electronically 
based 
information 
was 
secured 
on 
the 
Project 
Coordinator’s 
hard 
drive 
(accessible 
only 
to 
Project 
Coordinator 
and 
Project 
Director) 
and 
will 
be 
deleted 
from 
the 
hard 
drive 
upon 
completion 
and 
approval 
of 
the 
final 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report. 


Project 
staff 
remained 
mindful 
of 
the 
sensitivity 
and 
respect 
owed 
to 
assessment 
participants, 
especially 
when 
comments 
or 
concerns 
arose 
that 
related 
to 
another 
organization/stakeholder 
within 
that 
community. 
Any 
paraphrased 
comments 
which 
could 
jeopardize 
relationship 
building 
were 
considered 
by 
Project 
staff 
in 
selecting 
the 
two 
communities 
for 
the 
strategic 
planning 
phase, 
but 
the 
information 
was 
not 
implicitly 
or 
explicitly 
included 
in 
this 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
or 
any 
published 
Project 
documents. 


Needs 
Assessment 
Plan 
Implementation: 
Overview 
of 
Contacts 


Number 
of 
Persons 
Totals: 
104 
individuals 
Disability 
Service/Advocacy 
Organizations: 
23 
Domestic 
Violence/Sexual 
Assault 
Agencies: 
27 
People 
with 
Disabilities: 
54 
Individuals 
from 
Communities 
of 
Color: 
15 


10 



Activity 
Totals: 
64 
activities 
Stakeholder 
Interviews: 
Listening 
Sessions: 
Surveys: 
58 
5 
1 
County-by-County: 
Ashland 
/Bayfield 
Counties 
Stakeholder 
Interviews: 
17 
Listening 
Sessions: 
3 
Brown 
County 
Stakeholder 
Interviews: 
Listening 
Session: 
Survey: 
16 
-12 
1 
Douglas 
County 
Stakeholder 
Interviews: 
Listening 
Sessions: 
6 
-13 
Richland 
County 
Stakeholder 
Interviews: 
Listening 
Sessions: 
14 
2 
UNIDOS 
Stakeholder 
Interview: 
1 
Deaf 
Unity 
Stakeholder 
Interviews: 
4 


Needs 
Assessment 
Implementation 
Strengths 
and 
Challenges 


Strengths 


A 
key 
strength 
of 
the 
assessment 
process 
involved 
initiating 
and/or 
enhancing 
relationships 
within 
the 
selected 
communities: 
relationships 
between 
Project 
staff 
and 
community-based 
contacts 
as 
well 
as 
relationships 
among 
community-based 
contacts 
themselves. 
Since 
this 
Project 
is 
designed 
to 
promote 
and 
support 
systems 
change 
through 
collaborative 
efforts 
at 
the 
community 
level, 
the 
assessment 
process 
provided 
an 
opportunity 
to 
initiate 
relationship 
building 
– 
a 
building 
block 
to 
authentic 
and 
meaningful 
collaboration. 
Another 
strength 
identified 
by 
Project 
staff 
included 
the 
breadth 
of 
constituencies 
assessed. 
Our 
aim 
was 
to 
engage 
a 
cross-disability 
spectrum 
of 
voices, 
and 
we 
believe 
we 
achieved 
that 
intent. 


Another 
strength 
derived 
from 
the 
assessment 
process 
arose 
from 
the 
listening 
sessions, 
especially 
those 
held 
with 
individuals 
who 
have 
developmental 
and 
intellectual 
disabilities. 
The 
People 
First 
Chapter 
advisors 
for 
each 
of 
the 
listening 
sessions 
commented 
afterwards 
about 
the 
value 
for 
members 
in 
continuing 
to 
discuss 
issues 
of 
abuse 
and 
safety 
at 
future 
meetings. 
Ongoing 
dialogue 
about 
these 
issues 
would 
help 


12 
Project 
Staff 
attended 
an 
already 
scheduled 
Peer 
Support 
Group 
comprised 
of 
people 
with 
developmental 
disabilities 
who 
talked 
and 
were 
learning 
about 
issues 
related 
to 
safety 
and 
abuse. 
13 
See 
next 
section 
for 
explanation 
regarding 
listening 
sessions 
in 
Douglas 
County. 


11 



“normalize” 
talking 
about 
people’s 
experiences 
and 
learning 
new 
strategies 
to 
seek 
and 
receive 
needed 
intervention 
and 
support. 


Challenges 


As 
for 
challenges 
to 
our 
process, 
our 
first 
listening 
session 
provided 
us 
with 
an 
opportunity 
to 
debrief 
and 
refine 
our 
process 
for 
conducting 
the 
listening 
sessions. 
At 
this 
first 
session, 
we 
experienced 
participants’ 
needs 
to 
discuss 
their 
abusive 
experiences. 
Even 
with 
some 
respectful 
redirection, 
we 
found 
this 
group 
challenging 
in 
its 
deviation 
from 
the 
questions 
we 
had 
developed. 
We 
also 
realized 
that 
it 
might 
be 
helpful 
to 
allow 
for 
more 
time 
to 
socialize 
following 
the 
listening 
session 
– 
provide 
a 
transition 
from 
the 
group 
discussions 
which 
were 
more 
often 
emotional 
in 
content 
to 
more 
informal 
conversation 
prior 
to 
our 
departure. 


As 
a 
result 
of 
this 
experience, 
Project 
staff 
met 
to 
debrief 
and 
determine 
if 
and 
how 
we 
might 
refine 
our 
process. 
The 
debriefing 
itself 
was 
educational 
in 
that 
we 
had 
differing 
perspectives 
about 
whether 
the 
disclosures 
of 
abuse 
were 
problematic/traumatic 
for 
participants 
and 
how 
we 
might 
steer 
the 
discussion 
to 
elicit 
more 
of 
the 
information 
we 
sought. 
We 
agreed 
to 
refine 
the 
process 
through 
utilizing 
more 
visuals 
so 
that 
participants 
were 
consistently 
directed 
to 
the 
question 
at 
hand. 
We 
also 
agreed 
to 
conduct 
a 
debriefing 
with 
the 
coordinators 
of 
the 
group 
we 
attended. 
This 
debriefing 
proved 
enlightening. 
They 
were 
clear 
that 
every 
participant 
provided 
them 
with 
very 
positive 
feedback 
about 
the 
listening 
session, 
felt 
empowered 
by 
the 
opportunity 
to 
share 
their 
stories 
and 
thoughts 
and 
several 
individuals 
who 
were 
unable 
to 
attend 
requested 
that 
we 
conduct 
another 
listening 
session. 
Of 
extreme 
importance 
to 
the 
group 
as 
they 
reported 
to 
us 
was 
that, 
“you 
asked 
to 
talk 
to 
us 
and 
you 
listened.” 


The 
most 
significant 
challenge 
that 
we 
encountered 
was 
the 
large 
geographical 
area 
we 
identified 
to 
assess. 
First, 
three 
of 
the 
five 
counties 
were 
over 
300 
miles 
away 
from 
Madison 
(the 
location 
of 
the 
members 
of 
the 
Collaborative), 
and 
all 
five 
of 
the 
counties 
selected 
for 
the 
needs 
assessment 
are 
sparsely 
populated 
(except 
for 
the 
city 
of 
Green 
Bay 
in 
Brown 
County). 
Geography 
and 
population 
density 
required 
us 
to 
take 
feasibility 
into 
account 
as 
we 
implemented 
the 
actual 
assessment. 
We 
focused 
our 
efforts 
on 
the 
population 
centers 
within 
each 
of 
the 
five 
counties. 
As 
a 
result, 
we 
recognize 
that 
our 
results 
comprise 
data 
from 
individuals 
and 
organizations 
that 
are 
not 
reflective 
of 
the 
entire 
county, 
but 
rather 
the 
population 
centers 
where 
the 
services 
and 
support 
systems 
are 
located. 
While 
we 
recognize 
that 
these 
communities 
were 
selected 
due 
to 
their 
rural 
nature, 
we 
realized 
the 
limits 
of 
our 
county-wide 
implementation 
once 
we 
began 
to 
meet 
and 
talk 
with 
community 
members 
about 
how 
services 
and 
support 
were 
organized 
within 
each 
respective 
county. 


Two 
decision-making 
points 
emerged 
as 
a 
result 
of 
these 
acknowledged 
feasibility 
limitations: 


12 



1. 
Whether 
to 
continue 
assessment 
activities 
in 
Douglas 
County, 
and 
2. 
Whether 
to 
combine 
Ashland 
and 
Bayfield 
Counties 
for 
assessment 
purposes. 
Decision 
#1 
--Douglas 
County: 


Early 
on 
in 
the 
Needs 
Assessment 
implementation 
phase, 
we 
gleaned 
valuable 
input 
from 
pivotal 
stakeholders 
that 
led 
the 
Collaborative 
to 
forego 
additional 
assessment 
activities. 
We 
learned 
from 
key 
stakeholders 
that 
other 
activities 
were 
underway 
that 
would 
limit 
their 
involvement 
and 
we 
were 
made 
aware 
that 
the 
timing 
was 
not 
the 
most 
opportune 
for 
systems 
change 
work 
in 
this 
county. 
Therefore, 
due 
to 
the 
enormous 
geographic 
expanse 
of 
our 
needs 
assessment 
activities, 
we 
consulted 
with 
and 
received 
agreement 
from 
Vera 
Institute 
to 
forego 
further 
assessment 
of 
Douglas 
County. 


Decision 
#2 
--Ashland/Bayfield 
area: 


As 
we 
initiated 
and 
implemented 
assessment 
activities 
in 
both 
Ashland 
and 
Bayfield 
counties, 
a 
more 
informed 
sense 
of 
“community” 
emerged. 
These 
two 
counties 
are 
adjacent 
to 
each 
other. 
The 
area’s 
population 
center 
is 
the 
city 
of 
Ashland, 
located 
on 
the 
western 
border 
of 
Ashland 
County. 
Ashland 
also 
serves 
as 
the 
locus 
for 
services 
and 
support 
for 
individuals 
and 
providers 
in 
both 
western 
Ashland 
County 
and 
eastern 
Bayfield 
County. 
After 
intense 
and 
thoughtful 
discussion 
about 
these 
two 
bordering 
counties 
and 
the 
issues 
of 
feasibility, 
we 
recognized 
that 
the 
“community” 
of 
Ashland 
transcends 
county 
lines. 
We 
also 
noted 
that 
the 
Red 
Cliff 
Band 
of 
Lake 
Superior 
Chippewa 
is 
located 
within 
the 
eastern 
portion 
of 
Bayfield 
County 
and 
is 
a 
primary 
community 
that 
we 
wanted 
included 
in 
our 
Ashland 
“community.” 


Key 
Learning 
Areas 
and 
Findings 


The 
needs 
assessment 
was 
designed 
to 
inform 
the 
Collaborative 
about 
five 
substantive 
areas 
regarding 
effective 
and 
trauma-informed14 
responses 
to 
women 
with 
disabilities 


14 
According 
to 
the 
National 
Center 
for 
Trauma-Informed 
Care, 
“Trauma-informed 
programs 
and 
services 
represent 
the 
“new 
generation” 
of 
transformed 
mental 
health 
and 
allied 
human 
services 
organizations 
and 
programs 
who 
serve 
people 
with 
histories 
of 
violence 
and 
trauma. 
Trauma 
survivors 
and 
consumers 
in 
these 
programs 
and 
services 
are 
likely 
to 
have 
histories 
of 
physical 
and 
sexual 
abuse 
and 
other 
types 
of 
trauma-inducing 
experiences, 
and 
this 
often 
leads 
to 
mental 
health 
and 
other 
types 
of 
co-occurring 
disorders 
such 
as 
health 
problems, 
substance 
abuse 
problems, 
eating 
disorders, 
HIV/AIDS 
issues, 
and 
contact 
with 
the 
criminal 
justice 
system. 
When 
a 
human 
service 
program 
takes 
the 
step 
to 
become 
trauma-informed, 
every 
part 
of 
its 
organization, 
management, 
and 
service 
delivery 
system 
is 
assessed 
and 
potentially 
modified 
to 
include 
a 
basic 
understanding 
of 
how 
trauma 
impacts 
the 
life 
of 
an 
individual 
seeking 
service. 
Trauma-informed 
organizations, 
programs, 
and 
services 
are 
based 
on 
an 
understanding 
of 
the 
vulnerabilities 
or 
triggers 
of 
trauma 
survivors 
that 
traditional 
service 
delivery 
approaches 
may 
exacerbate, 
so 
that 
these 
services 
and 
programs 
can 
be 
more 
supportive 
and 
avoid 
re-traumatization.” 
National 
Center 
for 
Trauma-
Informed 
Care, 
Center 
for 
Mental 
Health 
Services, 
Substance 
Abuse 
and 
Mental 
Health 
Services 
Administration, 
U.S. 
Department 
of 
Health 
and 
Human 
Services 
(http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/nctic/). 


13 



and 
Deaf 
women 
who 
have 
experienced 
or 
currently 
are 
experiencing 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault 
or 
stalking: 


1. 
Strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
of 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
programs; 
2. 
Accessibility 
strengths 
and 
barriers; 
3. 
Strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
of 
disability 
service/advocacy 
organizations; 
4. 
Tangible 
and 
intangible 
factors 
that 
influence 
community 
collaboration; 
and 
5. 
Strengths 
and 
barriers 
experienced 
by 
individuals 
from 
communities 
of 
color. 
Responses 
to 
these 
five 
learning 
areas 
were 
provided 
from 
four 
primary 
constituencies: 


1. 
Domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
program 
staff; 
2. 
Disability 
services 
and/or 
advocacy 
agency 
staff; 
3. 
People 
with 
disabilities, 
self-advocates 
or 
consumers 
of 
disability-related 
services; 
and 
4. 
Individuals 
and 
organizations 
from 
communities 
of 
color. 
This 
section 
of 
the 
Needs 
Assessment 
Report 
highlights 
the 
relevant 
findings 
that 
informed 
our 
collaborative 
about 
the 
“landscape” 
in 
assessed 
communities 
in 
each 
of 
the 
learning 
areas. 
The 
key 
findings 
that 
cross 
all 
constituencies 
from 
every 
county 
included: 


• 
Resource 
limitations 
(e.g., 
time, 
funds, 
services, 
and 
skilled 
capacity 
to 
respond); 
• 
Life 
circumstances 
that 
impact 
access 
and 
services 
(e.g., 
poverty, 
unemployment, 
affordable 
housing, 
rural 
transportation, 
and 
an 
economic 
downturn 
that 
impacts 
rural 
areas 
significantly); 
• 
Informal 
coordination 
among 
service 
systems 
(versus 
more 
formal 
collaborations); 
and 
• 
The 
multi-faceted 
divide 
of 
communities 
of 
color 
and 
First 
Nation 
populations 
from 
majority 
population-driven 
community 
resources 
and 
services. 
Detailed 
on 
the 
following 
pages 
are 
county-by-county 
charts 
that 
highlight 
key 
findings 
for 
each 
learning 
area 
within 
each 
assessed 
county 
by 
constituency. 
Since 
the 
driving 
force 
of 
change 
for 
our 
Collaborative 
resides 
in 
the 
words 
of 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
their 
allies, 
it 
is 
their 
voice 
that 
captures 
best 
a 
central 
theme 
for 
each 
county. 
This 
voice 
leads 
off 
the 
key 
findings 
for 
each 
county. 


14 



Ashland 
and 
Bayfield 
Counties 



“There’s 
not 
enough 
time, 
listening 
or 
believing, 
and 
there’s 
not 
enough 
emphasis 
on 
peer 
support.” 


The 
next 
few 
pages 
detail 
the 
specific 
strengths 
and 
needs 
that 
were 
identified 
through 
assessment 
activities 
in 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area. 
Information 
was 
gleaned 
from 
listening 
sessions 
with 
mental 
health 
consumers 
and 
developmental 
disabilities 
self-
advocates 
and 
stakeholder 
interviews 
with 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault, 
human 
services 
and 
disability 
related 
advocacy 
and 
service 
organizations. 
We 
also 
learned 
about 
the 
service 
and 
response 
landscape 
from 
representatives 
of 
the 
Red 
Cliff 
Band 
and 
Bad 
River 
Band 
of 
Lake 
Superior 
Chippewa. 


The 
data 
is 
formatted 
in 
a 
table 
that 
identifies 
the 
source 
(constituency) 
from 
whom 
the 
data 
was 
gleaned 
(row 
across 
the 
top) 
and 
categorizes 
this 
data 
into 
six 
learning 
areas 
(column 
running 
vertically). 
If 
no 
information 
or 
response 
was 
noted 
for 
a 
particular 
learning 
area, 
that 
section 
of 
the 
table 
remains 
blank. 
The 
data 
collected 
from 
all 
of 
the 
sources 
and 
learning 
areas 
is 
summarized 
at 
the 
end 
of 
each 
table. 
This 
summary 
provides 
direction 
for 
individuals, 
organizations 
and 
systems 
within 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area, 
and 
for 
the 
strategic 
planning 
process 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Collaborative 
Project. 


15 



Ashland/Bayfield 
Counties 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
-----------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
Self-Advocates, 
Consumers 
Strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
of 
DV/SA 
advocates 
and 
programs 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-More 
time 
is 
needed 
when 
working 
with 
persons 
with 
disabilities 
-Need 
training 
on 
working 
with 
women 
who 
self-injure 
-Counties 
do 
not 
have 
a 
SANE 
program 
-Need 
more 
peer 
support 
services 
-More 
knowledge 
needed 
about 
how 
to 
support 
victims 
with 
multiple 
issues 
and 
specific 
disabilities 
-Challenge 
of 
knowing 
when 
& 
how 
to 
intervene 
with 
a 
victims 
when 
you 
know 
she’s 
vulnerable 
Strengths: 
-Disability 
agencies 
are 
a 
useful 
referral 
source 
when 
needed 
for 
victims 
with 
mental 
health 
issues 
& 
developmental 
disabilities 
Strengths: 
-The 
DV/SA 
program 
is 
helpful; 
victims 
feel 
believed 
-For 
People 
First 
chapter, 
New 
Day15 
is 
known 
as 
a 
safe 
place 
-CASDA16 
has 
been 
helpful 
with 
understanding 
the 
relationship 
between 
mental 
health 
& 
abuse 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Service 
access 
limited 
for 
men 
with 
mental 
health 
issues 
Strengths: 
-Tribal 
program 
staff 
can 
accomplish 
a 
lot 
for 
a 
victim 
by 
telephone 
-Red 
Cliff 
DV 
peer 
support 
program 
a 
community 
strength 
-Red 
Cliff 
DV 
program 
is 
willing 
to 
use 
consultants 
to 
assist 
with 
survivors 
when 
program 
staff 
don’t 
know 
what 
to 
do 
for 
a 
person 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
--Program 
& 
tribe 
have 
limited 
resources 
Breadth 
of 
accessibility 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
Strengths: 
-Program 
doesn’t 
require 
“imminent 
danger” 
for 
admission; 
uses 
a 
more 
expansive 
context 
of 
“involved 
in 
current 
DV 
situation” 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Limited 
transportation, 
especially 
accessible 
transport 
-Program 
does 
ask 
about 
mental 
health 
diagnoses, 
medications 
& 
disabilities 
at 
intake 
Strengths: 
-Independent 
living 
center 
(ILC) 
is 
a 
strong 
resource 
for 
accessibility 
issues 
in 
the 
community 
-Overall, 
disability 
agencies 
are 
physically 
accessible 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Transportation 
-Affordable 
housing 
a 
barrier 
-Personal 
support 
beyond 
that 
provided 
by 
system 
for 
people 
without 
family 
supports 
-Stigma 
affects 
everything, 
including 
access 
-People 
with 
disabilities 
need 
information 
re: 
healthy 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Transportation 
-Affordable 
housing 
a 
barrier 
-Red 
Cliff 
DV 
program 
is 
not 
physically 
accessible 


15 


New 
Day 
Shelter 
is 
a 
dual 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
program 
based 
in 
Ashland. 


16 


Center 
Against 
Sexual 
and 
Domestic 
Abuse, 
a 
dual 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
program 
with 
a 
satellite 
office 
in 
Bayfield 
County. 



Ashland/Bayfield 
Counties 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
-----------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
Self-Advocates, 
Consumers 
-Sobriety 
is 
a 
service 
eligibility 
issue 
for 
women 
using 
shelter 
services 
-Agency 
has 
no 
service 
animal 
policy 
relationships, 
not 
just 
abusive 
ones 
Strengths 
and 
apprehensions 
of 
disability 
service/ 
advocacy 
organizations 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Community 
has 
minimal 
substance 
abuse 
services 
available 
for 
victims 
-CSP17 
is 
not 
a 
viable 
solution 
for 
most 
people 
who 
need 
mental 
health 
services 
-Program 
sees 
few 
victims 
who 
have 
developmental 
disabilities 
Strengths: 
-Service 
systems 
are 
knowledgeable 
about 
trauma 
& 
disabilities 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-There 
is 
limited 
contact 
among 
some 
key 
disability 
agencies 
-Implementation 
of 
a 
trauma-
informed 
system 
of 
support 
is 
not 
consistently 
practiced 
Strengths: 
-Peer 
support 
is 
a 
core 
resource 
for 
the 
mental 
health 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-People 
experience 
a 
power 
& 
control 
imbalance 
with 
service 
professionals 
-System 
responses 
& 
support 
impacted 
by 
stigma 
& 
lack 
of 
a 
recovery 
model 
-Need 
services 
that 
address 
an 
entire 
person 
versus 
different 
providers 
for 
different 
issues 
-There 
isn’t 
enough 
emphasis 
on 
peer 
support 
as 
a 
core 
service 
response 
-Feel 
hurried 
& 
not 
believed 
when 
working 
with 
professionals 
in 
the 
service 
system 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Tribes 
have 
minimal 
working 
relationships 
with 
county 
service 
systems 
-Tribes 
expressed 
the 
need 
for 
meaningful 
relationships 
with 
non-tribal 
disability 
organizations 
-Red 
Cliff 
Band 
human 
services 
program 
needs 
& 
wants 
effective 
intervention 
programs 
(e.g., 
substance 
abuse, 
mental 
health) 


17 
CSP 
= 
Community 
Support 
Program 
for 
people 
with 
serious 
mental 
health 
issues. 


17 



Ashland/Bayfield 
Counties 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
-----------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
Self-Advocates, 
Consumers 
Tangible, 
intangible 
& 
additional 
factors 
that 
contribute 
to 
the 
success 
of 
collaboration 
efforts 
Strengths: 
-Relationships 
with 
mental 
health 
resources 
a 
strength 
-Program 
enjoys 
solid 
community 
support 
-Expressed 
enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Need 
more 
focus 
from 
SART18 
& 
CCR19 
on 
disability 
issues 
--Minimal 
collaboration 
between 
DV/SA 
agency 
& 
disability 
organizations 
-Ashland 
County 
systems 
operate 
differently 
from 
Bayfield 
County 
systems 
-General 
lack 
of 
community 
awareness 
about 
the 
intersection 
of 
disabilities 
& 
violence 
Strengths: 
-People 
First 
Chapter 
is 
active 
-Expressed 
enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
-ILC 
is 
well-
informed 
about 
abuse 
& 
disability 
-
-ILC 
is 
well-
connected 
to 
other 
organizations 
within 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-System 
relationships 
with 
Genesis 
varies 
as 
Genesis 
leadership 
changes 
-Agencies 
don’t 
utilize 
formal 
operating 
agreements, 
but 
work 
together 
based 
on 
individual 
relationships 
-People 
with 
disabilities 
need 
more 
consistent 
county 
service 
coordination 
Strengths: 
-Peer 
support 
offered 
by 
Genesis20 
is 
a 
key 
to 
recovery 
for 
many 
victims 
with 
mental 
illness 
-Disability
-led 
groups 
have 
a 
strong 
desire 
to 
work 
with 
other 
systems 
in 
community 
-Expressed 
enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Genesis 
would 
like 
to 
experience 
more 
support 
from 
the 
mental 
health 
system 
-Community 
needs 
increased 
awareness 
about 
people 
with 
mental 
health 
issues 
& 
violence 
-Services 
are 
compartmentalized 
– 
it’s 
a 
maze 
trying 
to 
get 
help 
-System 
referrals 
to 
recovery 
services 
are 
not 
emphasized 
Strengths: 
-Native 
American 
Alliance 
of 
groups 
work 
on 
intentional 
injury 
prevention, 
which 
includes 
issues 
related 
to 
domestic 
violence 
-Expressed 
enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
-There 
is 
a 
strong 
sense 
of 
community 
at 
Red 
Cliff 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Helpful 
to 
have 
more 
developed 
relationships 
between 
county 
human 
services 
& 
tribal 
programs 
& 
services 
-Tribes 
operate 
separately 
from 
county 
systems 
and 
county-
funded 
service 
providers; 
impacts 
tribal 
victims 
with 
complex 
needs 
& 
disabilities 


18 


SART 
= 
Sexual 
Assault 
Response 
Team. 


19 


CCR 
= 
Coordinated 
Community 
Response 
team. 
20 
Genesis 
1990, 
Inc. 
is 
a 
non-profit, 
mental 
health 
consumer-run 
organization, 
and 
is 
an 
organizational 
member 
of 
the 
Grassroots 
Empowerment 
Project. 


18 



Ashland/Bayfield 
Counties 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
-----------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
Self-Advocates, 
Consumers 
Strengths 
and 
barriers 
for 
communities 
of 
color 
Strengths: 
-Red 
Cliff 
CCR 
is 
a 
strength 
of 
community 
collaboration 
-It 
is 
helpful 
that 
tribes 
can 
provide 
assistance 
to 
tribal 
members 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Non
-tribal 
DV/SA 
program 
has 
a 
stronger 
connection 
to 
the 
Red 
Cliff 
Band 
than 
to 
the 
Bad 
River 
Band 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Some 
non-tribal 
programs 
use 
tribal 
substance 
abuse 
program, 
but 
there 
is 
no 
formal 
services 
relationship 
with 
the 
Red 
Cliff 
Tribe 
-Disability 
agencies 
generally 
acknowledged 
there 
is 
minimal 
contact 
or 
relationship 
with 
the 
Bad 
River 
Tribe 
-Some 
disability 
groups 
are 
interested 
in 
developing 
connections 
to 
the 
growing 
Latina 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Service 
system, 
especially 
mental 
health, 
could 
benefit 
from 
more 
training 
& 
experience 
with 
various 
cultures 
Strengths: 
-Cultural 
values 
impact 
resources 
available 
for 
services; 
keep 
land 
pristine 
more 
important 
than 
economic 
potential 
(strength 
& 
barrier) 
-Close
-knit 
family 
systems 
support 
the 
tribal 
community 
(strength 
& 
barrier) 
Other 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-CSP 
– 
40% 
of 
clients 
have 
trauma 
histories 
-Need 
transitional 
housing 
-Want 
more 
support 
in 
learning 
about 
healthy 
relationships 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Want 
more 
support 
in 
learning 
about 
healthy 
relationships 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Red 
Cliff 
human 
services 
staff 
want 
in-
services 
regarding 
Deaf 
& 
disabilities 


19 



Ashland/Bayfield 
Area 
Implications: 


For 
Individuals: 


• 
Stated 
power 
imbalance 
between 
individuals 
receiving 
services 
and 
those 
providing 
services 
affects 
victims 
support 
and 
recovery. 
• 
Life 
circumstances 
greatly 
affect 
access 
to 
needed 
services, 
support 
and 
wellbeing 
(e.g., 
unemployment, 
poverty, 
housing). 
For 
Organizations: 


• 
Relationships 
among 
organizations 
vary 
in 
strength 
depending 
on 
the 
individuals 
involved 
within 
the 
respective 
organizations. 
• 
Agency 
understanding 
of 
trauma-informed 
services 
varies 
in 
implementation 
of 
actual 
services 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
have 
experienced 
trauma. 
• 
Some 
organizations 
could 
benefit 
from 
learning 
about 
and 
employing 
a 
cultural 
context 
in 
their 
work 
with 
individuals. 
For 
Systems: 


• 
Tribal 
systems 
and 
programs 
operate 
distinctly 
from 
county-based 
systems; 
relationships 
between 
the 
tribal 
and 
non-tribal 
systems 
are 
minimal. 
• 
Informal 
relationships 
among 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
and 
disability-
related 
organizations 
could 
be 
enhanced 
through 
a 
more 
formalized 
collaboration. 
20 



Brown 
County 



“If 
there 
has 
been 
past 
positive 
experience, 
then 
our 
tribal 
members 
might 
allow 
help 
from 
non-tribal 
programs 
. 
. 
. 
our 
tribal 
members 
are 
likely 
to 
say 
‘no’ 
to 
new 
or 
non-tribal 
contacts 
because 
they’re 
very 
private 
& 
tend 
to 
stay 
within 
the 
tribe.” 


The 
next 
few 
pages 
detail 
the 
specific 
strengths 
and 
needs 
that 
were 
identified 
through 
assessment 
activities 
in 
Brown 
County. 
Information 
was 
gleaned 
from 
a 
survey, 
listening 
session 
with 
developmental 
disabilities 
self-advocates 
and 
stakeholder 
interviews 
with 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault, 
human 
services 
and 
disability 
related 
advocacy 
and 
service 
organizations. 
We 
also 
conversed 
with 
service 
representatives 
from 
the 
Sovereign 
Oneida 
Nation 
of 
Wisconsin. 


The 
data 
is 
formatted 
in 
a 
table 
that 
identifies 
the 
source 
(constituency) 
from 
whom 
the 
data 
was 
gleaned 
(row 
across 
the 
top) 
and 
categorizes 
this 
data 
into 
six 
learning 
areas 
(column 
running 
vertically). 
If 
no 
information 
or 
response 
was 
noted 
for 
a 
particular 
learning 
area, 
that 
section 
of 
the 
table 
remains 
blank. 
The 
data 
collected 
from 
all 
of 
the 
sources 
and 
learning 
areas 
is 
summarized 
at 
the 
end 
of 
the 
table. 
This 
summary 
provides 
direction 
about 
the 
assessment 
implications 
for 
individuals, 
organizations 
and 
systems 
within 
Brown 
County, 
and 
for 
the 
strategic 
planning 
process 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Collaborative 
Project. 


21 



Brown 
County 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
------------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Self-
Agency 
Staff 
Advocates, 
Consumers 
Strengths 
and 
Strengths: 
-SA 
program 
Strengths: 
-Sexual 
assault 
Strengths: 
-Anti
-violence 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
apprehensions 
of 
employs 
an 
advocate 
& 
domestic 
agencies 
appear 
-Tribal 
members 
DV/SA 
advocates 
to 
work 
with 
victims/ 
violence 
agencies 
accessible 
to 
generally 
do 
not 
and 
programs 
survivors 
with 
(separate) 
well-people 
with 
use 
non-tribal 
disabilities 
connected 
to 
disabilities 
services 
-DV 
program 
actively 
committed 
to 
disability 
community 
& 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-The 
Oneida 
tribal 
DV 
program 
disability-related 
advocacy 
& 
support 
involved 
in 
ADAPT21 
-Need 
a 
more 
coordinated 
does 
not 
have 
a 
shelter 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-People 
with 
effort 
among 
consumer 
-Definitions 
of 
DV 
sometimes 
are 
developmental 
groups 
& 
different 
for 
tribal 
disabilities 
need 
& 
programs 
elders 
& 
tribal 
want 
training 
on 
serving 
victims 
& 
community 
as 
a 
sexuality 
& 
healthy 
survivors 
whole 
(family 
relationships 
members’ 
use 
of 
personal 
funds, 
disrespectful 
language 
toward 
elders 
seen 
as 
abusive) 
Breadth 
of 
accessibility 
Strengths: 
-Attitudes 
& 
communication 
are 
Strengths: 
-Individual 
agencies 
try 
to 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-People 
with 
Strengths: 
-Oneida 
Aging 
Program’s 
focus 
strengths 
and 
barriers 
seen 
as 
fundamental 
values 
to 
support 
self-assess 
their 
access 
due 
to 
disabilities 
& 
Deaf 
don’t 
have 
on 
elders 
benefits 
tribal 
members 
clients 
work 
of 
the 
a 
sense 
of 
what 
with 
disabilities 
-Advocates 
provide 
co-advocacy 
to 
A.D.A.P.T. 
of 
Brown 
County 
resources 
are 
available 
within 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
from 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
the 
county 
-Oneida 
Tribe 
has 
no 
domestic 
communities 
of 
color 
-Some 
agencies 
violence 
shelter 
(e.g., 
DD 
advocate 
& 
Latina 
advocate) 
need 
help 
to 
figure 
out 
their 
-Most 
non-tribal 
services 
& 
support 
access 
strengths 
& 
barriers 
not 
frequented 
by 
tribal 
women 
Strengths 
and 
Strengths: 
-Well
-developed 
Strengths: 
-Time 
& 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
apprehensions 
of 
relationship 
between 
resource 
-Mental 
health 
-Disabilities 
disability 
ILC, 
developmental 
commitment 
to 
group 
knows 
issues 
are 
not 
a 
service/advocacy 
disabilities 
services, 
ADAPT 
group 
abuse 
is 
primary 
focus 


21 
ADAPT 
of 
Brown 
County 
= 
A 
Disability 
Abuse 
Prevention 
Team 
of 
Brown 
County. 


22 



Brown 
County 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
------------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
Self-
Advocates, 
Consumers 
organizations 
Aging 
& 
Disability 
Resource 
Center 
& 
domestic 
violence 
& 
sexual 
assault 
programs 
affirms 
its 
usefulness 
to 
community 
& 
programs 
alike 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-For 
some 
agencies, 
involvement 
is 
dependent 
more 
on 
individuals 
than 
organizational 
buy-in 
-Training 
isn’t 
enough; 
need 
to 
have 
more 
conversations 
about 
some 
of 
the 
difficult 
and 
subtle 
issues 
happening, 
but 
is 
not 
something 
members 
talk 
about 
or 
bring 
up 
as 
an 
issue 
-County 
human 
services 
needs 
education 
to 
be 
trauma-informed 
-Training 
& 
guided 
dialogue 
to 
learn 
about 
sexuality 
& 
healthy 
relationships 
is 
important 
for 
people 
with 
disabilities 
to 
understand 
abuse 
-Oneida 
representatives 
need 
assistance 
with 
understanding 
and 
applying 
Wisconsin’s 
new 
adults 
at 
risk 
law 
Tangible, 
intangible 
& 
additional 
factors 
that 
contribute 
to 
the 
success 
of 
collaboration 
efforts 
Strengths: 
-DV 
& 
SA 
programs 
benefit 
from 
the 
multi-disciplinary 
Team’s 
work 
-DV 
& 
SA 
agencies 
key 
players 
in 
the 
collaboration 
-Expressed 
a 
strong 
understanding 
that 
so 
much 
of 
the 
work 
is 
about 
values 
& 
attitudes 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-I
-Team22 
mostly 
focuses 
on 
elder 
abuse, 
not 
disabilities 
-A
.D.A.P.T. 
needs 
to 
enhance 
its 
cross-
disability 
& 
cultural 
focus 
Strengths: 
-Expressed 
enthusiasm 
& 
commitment 
-Addressing 
abuse 
seen 
as 
a 
part 
of 
people’s 
work 
among 
many 
disability 
organizations 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-A
.D.A.P.T. 
needs 
to 
enhance 
its 
cross-disability 
& 
communities 
of 
color 
focus 
Strengths: 
-Interest 
in 
getting 
better 
connected 
to 
SA/DV 
agencies 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Tribal 
members 
saying 
“no” 
to 
new 
or 
non-tribal 
contacts 
is 
an 
example 
of 
“historical 
trauma” 
which 
demonstrates 
that 
relationship 
building 
is 
an 
important 
factor 
in 
services 


Interdisciplinary 
Teams, 
known 
in 
the 
state 
as 
“I-Teams” 
are 
mandatory 
multi-disciplinary 
teams 
located 
within 
each 
Wisconsin 
County 
to 
focus 
on 
elder 
abuse. 
Since 
a 
new 
law 
has 
passed 
that 
expands 
Wisconsin’s 
reporting 
requirements 
to 
include 
“adults 
at 
risk,” 
many 
I-Teams 
are 
expanding 
their 
focus 
to 
encompass 
abuse 
of 
people 
with 
disabilities 
who 
are 
considered 
“adults 
at 
risk” 
under 
the 
law. 


23 



Brown 
County 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
------------and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Agency 
Staff 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
Self-
Advocates, 
Consumers 
Strengths 
and 
barriers 
for 
communities 
of 
color 
Strengths: 
-SA 
program 
conducts 
outreach 
at 
locations 
frequented 
& 
valued 
by 
cultural 
communities 
(Hmong 
community 
event, 
African 
American 
prayer 
group) 
-SA 
program 
funds 
specific 
positions 
to 
work 
with 
varied 
cultural 
communities 
(Hmong, 
Latina, 
African 
American, 
Native 
American) 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-SA 
program 
committed 
to 
communities 
of 
color 
focus, 
but 
lack 
representation 
on 
Team 
Strengths: 
-Family 
and 
tribal 
ties 
give 
the 
community 
strength 
in 
many 
ways 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Anti
-
immigration 
sentiment 
& 
ordinances 
impede 
access 
for 
many 
victims 
-Different 
cultures 
(e.g., 
African 
American, 
Southeast 
Asian, 
Latino) 
hold 
unique 
perspectives 
of 
disability 
Other 
Strengths: 
-Enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Funding 
to 
hire 
and 
keep 
communities 
of 
color 
coordinators 
& 
advocates 
is 
an 
ongoing 
barrier 
Strengths: 
-Enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
Strengths: 
-Enthusiasm 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Funding 
to 
hire 
and 
keep 
good 
people 


24 



Brown 
County 
Implications: 


For 
Individuals: 


• 
Opportunities 
for 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
to 
learn 
about 
and 
be 
involved 
in 
responding 
to 
domestic 
and 
sexual 
violence 
of 
their 
peers 
and 
within 
the 
broader 
community. 
• 
Individual 
relationships 
could 
provide 
a 
firm 
foundation 
for 
building 
connections 
among 
a 
broader 
spectrum 
of 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
the 
service 
agencies 
that 
support 
them. 
For 
Organizations: 


• 
Relationships 
among 
organizations 
vary 
in 
strength 
depending 
on 
the 
individuals 
involved 
within 
the 
respective 
organizations. 
• 
Organizational 
understanding 
of 
trauma-informed 
services 
varies 
among 
disability-related 
agencies, 
and 
victims 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
victims 
could 
benefit 
from 
guided 
instruction 
to 
modify 
organizational 
approaches 
to 
working 
with 
program 
participants 
who 
have 
experienced 
or 
currently 
are 
experiencing 
violence. 
• 
Some 
organizations 
could 
benefit 
from 
learning 
about 
and 
employing 
a 
cultural 
context 
in 
their 
work 
with 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
Deaf 
and 
victims/survivors. 
For 
Systems: 


• 
Tribal 
systems 
and 
programs 
operate 
distinctly 
from 
county-based 
systems; 
relationships 
between 
the 
tribal 
and 
non-tribal 
systems 
are 
minimal. 
• 
The 
multi-disciplinary 
team’s 
membership 
and 
activities 
could 
be 
enhanced 
through 
a 
dedicated 
focus 
on 
diversity 
of 
cultures 
and 
disabilities. 
• 
Co-advocacy 
models 
that 
integrate 
systemic 
responses 
for 
victims 
decrease 
the 
impact 
of 
compartmentalized 
services 
and 
support 
and 
increase 
the 
broader 
community’s 
collaborative 
response. 
25 



Richland 
County 



“Women 
are 
passed 
from 
one 
organization 
to 
another 
. 
. 
. 
you 
begin 
to 
lose 
hope.” 


The 
next 
few 
pages 
detail 
the 
specific 
strengths 
and 
needs 
that 
were 
identified 
through 
assessment 
activities 
in 
Richland 
County. 
Information 
was 
gleaned 
from 
listening 
sessions 
with 
mental 
health 
consumers 
and 
developmental 
disabilities 
self-advocates 
and 
stakeholder 
interviews 
with 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault, 
human 
services 
and 
disability 
related 
advocacy 
and 
service 
organizations. 


The 
data 
is 
formatted 
in 
a 
table 
that 
identifies 
the 
source 
(constituency) 
from 
whom 
the 
data 
was 
gleaned 
(row 
across 
the 
top) 
and 
categorizes 
this 
data 
into 
six 
learning 
areas 
(column 
running 
vertically). 
If 
no 
information 
or 
response 
was 
noted 
for 
a 
particular 
learning 
area, 
that 
section 
of 
the 
table 
remains 
blank. 
The 
data 
collected 
from 
all 
of 
the 
sources 
and 
learning 
areas 
is 
summarized 
at 
the 
end 
of 
each 
table. 
This 
summary 
provides 
direction 
for 
individuals, 
organizations 
and 
systems 
within 
Richland 
County, 
and 
for 
the 
strategic 
planning 
process 
for 
possible 
future 
work 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
Collaborative 
(as 
previously 
noted, 
Richland 
County 
was 
not 
selected 
as 
one 
of 
our 
two 
pilot 
sites; 
however, 
it 
remains 
a 
back-up 
pilot 
site 
to 
our 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area 
selection). 


26 



Richland 
County 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
------------and 
Sexual 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Assault 
Agency 
Advocacy 
Self-Advocates, 
Staff 
Agency 
Staff 
Consumers 
Strengths 
and 
Strengths: 
-Program 
is 
trusted 
Strengths: 
-Work 
well 
Strengths: 
-DV/
SA 
program 
apprehensions 
of 
DV/SA 
advocates 
in 
community 
-Program 
uses 
a 
together 
& 
with 
DV/SA 
program 
is 
helpful 
& 
flexible 
and 
programs 
person-centered 
-They 
listened, 
approach 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Resources, 
mainly 
funding, 
are 
lacking 
believed 
me, 
& 
helped 
-DV/
SA 
agency 
has 
respect 
for 
& 
limit 
responses 
personal 
ways 
of 
-Program 
covers 
multiple 
counties 
healing 
-Need 
to 
know 
when 
to 
wait 
for 
or 
push 
a 
person 
to 
act 
Strengths: 
Strengths: 
Strengths: 
Breadth 
of 
-Agency 
-Independent 
-DV/
SA 
program 
accessibility 
strengths 
and 
understands 
& 
emphasizes 
access 
Living 
Resources23 
applies 
policies 
flexibly 
barriers 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Q
ualified 
ASL 
assists 
with 
addressing 
access 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
interpreter 
access 
-When 
needing 
severely 
limited 
support, 
there 
are 
-Transportation 
lots 
of 
hoops 
to 
jump 
through 
-Transportation 
a 
huge 
barrier 
Strengths 
and 
Strengths: 
-Work 
well 
Strengths: 
-Work 
well 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
apprehensions 
of 
together 
together 
-Heavy 
reliance 
disability 
service/advocacy 
organizations 
(coordinate) 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Need 
more 
substance 
abuse 
(coordination) 
on 
county 
for 
support; 
need 
more 
options 
-Support 
feels 
services 
available 
to 
clinical 
& 
medical 
victims 
-Survivors 
are 
seen 
through 
their 
illness 
first, 
& 
the 
violence 
second 
-Treat 
part 
but 


Independent 
Living 
Resources 
is 
the 
independent 
living 
center 
(ILC) 
serving 
this 
geographical 
area. 


27 



Richland 
County 
Constituency 
Domestic 
Violence 
Disability 
People 
with 
Communities 
of 
------------and 
Sexual 
Services 
and/or 
Disabilities, 
Color 
Learning 
Areas 
Assault 
Agency 
Advocacy 
Self-Advocates, 
Staff 
Agency 
Staff 
Consumers 
not 
whole 
person 
-Family 
Care24 
swoops 
in 
& 
then 
backs 
out; 
service 
runs 
parallel 
but 
not 
together; 
it 
leaves 
women 
vulnerable 
Tangible, 
Strengths: 
-People 
are 
used 
to 
Strengths: 
--Strong 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
intangible 
& 
working 
together 
relationships 
-Community 
additional 
factors 
that 
contribute 
to 
the 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Family 
Care 
county 
– 
perception 
among 
Passages, 
Family 
Care, 
CCS, 
ILC 
& 
APS25 
needs 
education 
about 
abuse 
-Service 
systems 
success 
of 
collaboration 
that 
continuity 
of 
support 
for 
a 
person 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
run 
their 
own 
course 
– 
not 
efforts 
is 
lacking 
-Couldn’t 
coordinated 
or 
identify 
how 
“wrap-around” 
collaboration 
-Need 
to 
learn 
could 
be 
about 
DV/SA 
& 
enhanced 
mental 
health 
Strengths 
& 
barriers 
for 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Latino 
population 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
communities 
of 
has 
grown, 
but 
-Lack 
of 
Hmong 
color 
DV/SA 
program 
is 
interpreters 
who 
not 
connected 
with 
are 
not 
members 
Latino 
resources 
of 
the 
same 
clan 
Other 
Strengths: 
-Enthusiasm 
about 
Strengths: 
-Enthusiasm 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
& 
about 
our 
desire 
to 
meet 
with 
them 
-Women 
are 
referred 
from 
one 
consider 
their 
community 
& 
consider 
their 
community 
organization 
to 
another, 
to 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-Frustration 
with 
confidentiality 
when 
Barriers 
or 
Needs: 
-No 
mental 
another. 
-Person 
needing 
support 
feels 
that 
women/children 
seen 
as 
at-risk 
health 
peer 
group 
-“
If 
I 
robbed 
a 
no 
one 
can 
or 
wants 
to 
help, 
& 
bank, 
I’d 
get 
a 
public 
defender, 
the 
person 
then 
begins 
to 
lose 


24 


According 
to 
the 
Wisconsin 
Department 
of 
Health 
& 
Family 
Services 
website, 
“Family 
Care 
is 
a 
long-term 
care 
program 
being 
piloted 
in 
nine 
Wisconsin 
counties. 
As 
a 
comprehensive 
and 
flexible 
long-term 
care 
service 
system, 
Family 
Care 
strives 
to 
foster 
people's 
independence 
and 
quality 
of 
life, 
while 
recognizing 
the 
need 
for 
interdependence 
and 
support.” 
(http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/LTCare/INDEX.HTM) 
25 
Passages 
is 
the 
dual 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
program; 
CCS 
= 
Coordinated 
Community 
Support; 
ILC 
= 
independent 
living 
center; 
and 
APS 
= 
Adult 
Protective 
Services. 


28 



Richland 
County 
Constituency 
------------
Learning 
Areas 
Domestic 
Violence 
and 
Sexual 
Assault 
Agency 
Staff 
Disability 
Services 
and/or 
Advocacy 
Agency 
Staff 
People 
with 
Disabilities, 
Self-Advocates, 
Consumers 
Communities 
of 
Color 
but 
I 
get 
no 
help 
for 
child 
custody.” 
hope. 


Richland 
County 
Implications: 


For 
Individuals: 


• 
Life 
circumstances 
greatly 
affect 
access 
to 
needed 
services, 
support 
and 
wellbeing 
(e.g., 
unemployment, 
poverty, 
housing). 
• 
Opportunities 
for 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
outside 
of 
the 
formal 
service 
delivery 
system 
(Family 
Care) 
are 
limited; 
this 
limitation 
isolates 
individuals. 
For 
Organizations: 


• 
Relationships 
among 
organizations 
vary 
in 
strength 
depending 
on 
the 
individuals 
involved 
within 
the 
respective 
organizations. 
• 
The 
opportunities 
within 
disability-related 
and 
anti-violence 
agencies 
to 
foster 
effective 
peer 
support 
resources 
for 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities. 
• 
Agency 
understanding 
and 
implementation 
of 
trauma-informed 
services 
varies 
to 
individuals 
with 
disabilities 
who 
have 
experienced 
trauma. 
For 
Systems: 


• 
Informal 
relationships 
among 
domestic 
violence/sexual 
assault 
and 
disability-
related 
organizations 
could 
be 
enhanced 
through 
a 
more 
formalized 
collaboration. 
• 
Changing 
service 
delivery 
so 
that 
the 
impact 
of 
compartmentalized 
services 
on 
individuals 
is 
diminished 
and 
strategies 
are 
developed 
to 
encourage 
systems 
responses 
that 
collectively 
support 
a 
survivor’s 
life 
and 
recovery. 
29 



Key 
Learning 
Areas 
and 
Findings: 
Deaf 
Unity 
& 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 


Our 
needs 
assessment 
plan 
also 
was 
devised 
to 
learn 
how 
our 
Collaborative 
Project 
could 
learn 
and 
benefit 
from 
an 
alliance 
with 
Deaf 
Unity 
(a 
volunteer-run 
Deaf 
DV/SA 
advocacy 
network) 
and 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
(a 
Latina-run 
DV/SA 
advocacy 
agency 
serving 
Latina 
and 
migrant 
farm 
worker 
women). 
We 
set 
out 
to 
understand 
how 
to 
serve 
as 
authentic 
allies 
and 
promote 
relationship 
building 
with 
Deaf 
Unity 
and 
UNIDOS 
to 
traditionally 
marginalized 
communities. 
The 
key 
findings 
gleaned 
from 
this 
assessment 
will 
inform 
our 
alliances 
for 
addressing 
needs 
within 
our 
respective 
communities. 


Deaf 
Unity 


“My 
favorite 
motto 
is 
that 
“working 
as 
a 
team” 
provides 
the 
best 
outcome 
for 
achieving 
the 
goals 
for 
everyone. 
I 
believe 
whether 
the 
hearing 
and 
deaf 
community 
realize 
it, 
we 
will 
always 
need 
or 
depend 
on 
each 
other 
for 
support 
in 
every 
step 
of 
the 
way.” 


• 
Relationships 
between 
Deaf 
& 
hearing 
o 
Hearing 
agencies 
and 
staff 
must 
learn 
about 
Deaf 
culture 
& 
experiences 
o 
All 
hearing 
environments 
make 
Deaf 
anxious 
– 
too 
much 
trust 
is 
expected 
– 
just 
wait 
& 
trust 
that 
help 
that 
promotes 
communication 
will 
arrive 
• 
Hearing 
have 
to 
appreciate 
the 
hesitance 
about 
Deaf 
contacting 
them 
o 
Face-to-face 
contact 
is 
much 
better 
than 
email 
or 
other; 
it 
involves 
building 
relationships 
o 
Building 
relationships 
takes 
time 
and 
continued 
contact 
– 
it’s 
evolutionary 
• 
Stated 
commitment 
and 
ongoing 
presence 
matters. 
• 
Deaf 
community 
education 
o 
Community 
needs 
to 
learn 
basics 
about 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
o 
Create 
a 
learning 
tool 
that 
will 
be 
utilized 
in 
the 
Deaf 
community 
(e.g., 
a 
DVD 
in 
ASL 
to 
teach 
about 
violence 
interventions 
and 
support) 
o 
Sponsor 
an 
Open 
house 
in 
the 
Deaf 
community 
to 
announce 
and 
demonstrate 
that 
Deaf 
Unity 
is 
ready 
to 
serve 
the 
Deaf 
community 
o 
Hearing 
agencies 
and 
staff 
should 
team 
up 
with 
Deaf 
provide 
mutually 
beneficial 
training 
and 
co-advocacy 
30 



o 
Deaf 
advocates 
can 
learn 
a 
lot 
by 
being 
located 
on-site 
within 
hearing 
service 
organizations. 
• 
General 
community 
education 
o 
Responders 
(police, 
doctors) 
have 
to 
learn 
not 
to 
defer 
to 
hearing 
o 
Announce 
and 
promote 
the 
existence 
of 
Deaf 
Unity 
and 
Deaf 
advocates 
as 
resources 
o 
Hearing 
attend 
Deaf 
events. 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 


“We 
don’t 
hear 
of 
our 
advocates 
working 
with 
many 
women 
with 
disabilities, 
but 
that 
doesn’t 
mean 
they’re 
not 
there.” 


Access 


• 
Lack 
knowledge 
about 
physical, 
attitudinal 
and 
programmatic 
access, 
but 
strongly 
desire 
help 
to 
learn 
about 
it 
and 
make 
necessary 
changes. 
• 
Don’t 
hear 
of 
advocates 
working 
with 
many 
women 
with 
disabilities, 
but 
doesn’t 
mean 
they’re 
not 
there. 
• 
Economic 
independence 
is 
more 
important 
for 
the 
women 
• 
Shelters 
often 
a 
not 
a 
good 
option 
for 
women 
• 
Not 
interested 
in 
setting 
up 
a 
“separate” 
shelter; 
tried 
in 
St. 
Paul 
and 
it 
didn’t 
work; 
can’t 
have 
only 
Latina 
women 
so 
it 
just 
becomes 
another 
shelter. 
• 
They’re 
interested 
in 
learning 
what 
additional 
questions 
they 
need 
to 
be 
asking 
women 
with 
disabilities. 
• 
Believe 
that 
women 
with 
disabilities 
are 
even 
more 
hidden 
within 
the 
Latino 
community. 
• 
Broader 
community 
and 
service 
providers 
need 
to 
understand 
the 
differences 
among 
groups 
that 
make 
up 
Latino 
populations 
in 
Wisconsin. 
People 
with 
mental 
illness 


• 
A 
lot 
of 
stigma, 
and 
need 
to 
learn 
the 
stigmas 
that 
women 
are 
coming 
with, 
e.g., 
mental 
health, 
PTSD, 
etc. 
Deaf 


• 
Interested 
in 
learning 
how 
they 
can 
provide 
more 
effective 
communication 
to 
Deaf 
Latina 
women. 
31 



Implications 
from 
Key 
Findings 


The 
implications 
gleaned 
from 
our 
needs 
assessment 
findings 
allowed 
Wisconsin’s 
Collaborative 
to 
achieve 
its 
two 
overarching 
goals: 


1. 
Gather 
assessment 
data 
to 
inform 
Collaborative’s 
selection 
of 
the 
two 
pilot 
sites 
for 
Project 
implementation; 
and 
2. 
Employ 
the 
Needs 
Assessment 
Plan’s 
strategic 
questions 
to 
identify 
strengths 
and 
needs 
for 
individuals, 
organizations 
and 
systems 
within 
each 
pilot 
community. 
The 
data 
gathered 
from 
this 
needs 
assessment 
informed 
the 
Collaborative’s 
selection 
of 
the 
two 
pilot 
communities 
and 
answered 
the 
strategic 
questions 
we 
outlined 
in 
the 
assessment 
plan. 
Following 
the 
pilot 
community 
selections, 
we 
sought 
to 
capture 
the 
breadth 
of 
the 
key 
findings 
across 
all 
of 
the 
sites 
assessed. 
We 
have 
framed 
these 
key 
findings 
into 
three 
levels 
of 
relevant 
implications 
for 
our 
strategic 
planning: 


a. 
Implications 
for 
individuals, 
b. 
Implications 
for 
organizations, 
and 
c. 
Implications 
for 
systems. 
Selection 
of 
the 
Two 
Pilot 
Sites 
for 
Project 
Focus 


We 
knew 
from 
the 
beginning 
that 
it 
would 
not 
be 
feasible 
to 
try 
to 
achieve 
meaningful 
systems 
change 
in 
all 
of 
the 
five 
communities 
we 
identified 
to 
assess. 
As 
a 
result 
of 
that 
acknowledgement, 
a 
primary 
outcome 
of 
the 
needs 
assessment 
involved 
key 
findings 
that 
informed 
our 
final 
community 
selections. 
To 
determine 
which 
of 
the 
five 
communities 
we 
would 
select 
for 
strategic 
planning 
purposes 
and 
beyond, 
the 
Collaborative 
used 
the 
Strategic 
Questions 
as 
the 
touchstone 
throughout 
our 
deliberations. 


Our 
responses 
to 
each 
Strategic 
Question 
reflect 
gleaned 
implications 
from 
the 
key 
findings 
that 
we 
felt 
were 
most 
relevant 
to 
the 
pilot 
site 
selection. 


Strategic 
Question 
1: 
What 
are 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
a 
relatively 
successful 
multidisciplinary 
collaborative 
in 
Brown 
County, 
Wisconsin 
that 
has 
interest 
in 
having 
a 
more 
intentional 
cross-disability 
focus 
with 
representation 
within 
communities 
of 
color? 


Answer: 
The 
Collaborative 
unanimously 
agreed 
that 
Brown 
County 
would 
remain 
one 
of 
the 
Project’s 
two 
communities 
for 
focus 
throughout 
the 
strategic 
planning 
and 
implementation 
phases. 
The 
interest 
in 
and 
enthusiasm 
for 
our 


32 



Project 
to 
continue 
and 
expand 
its 
assistance 
to 
the 
multi-disciplinary 
collaboration, 
the 
needs 
and 
gaps 
identified, 
the 
strength 
of 
disability, 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
agencies 
as 
well 
as 
the 
prevalence 
of 
communities 
of 
color 
living 
within 
Brown 
County 
led 
to 
our 
selection. 


Strategic 
Question 
2: 
What 
are 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
an 
interested 
community 
with 
limited 
resources 
in 
creating 
a 
cross-disability 
and 
multi-disciplinary 
collaborative 
while 
emphasizing 
a 
multi-cultural 
approach 
to 
the 
work 
from 
the 
outset? 


Answer: 
Answering 
part 
of 
this 
Strategic 
Question 
was 
the 
most 
difficult 
decision 
that 
our 
Collaborative 
made 
throughout 
this 
process: 
which 
of 
the 
assessed 
communities 
would 
be 
selected 
as 
the 
“interested 
community” 
for 
our 
work. 
To 
further 
guide 
our 
deliberations, 
we 
considered 
two 
additional 
questions: 
(1) 
where 
can 
we 
do 
the 
most 
good 
and 
(2) 
on 
what 
themes 
can 
we 
make 
an 
impact? 
The 
communities 
that 
were 
considered 
for 
the 
final 
community 
selection 
were 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area, 
Douglas 
County, 
and 
Richland 
County. 


Douglas 
County: 
The 
Collaborative 
agreed 
that 
Douglas 
County 
did 
not 
rise 
to 


the 
same 
level 
of 
interest 
as 
the 
other 
remaining 
communities.26 


Ashland/Bayfield 
Area 
and 
Richland 
County: 
With 
Douglas 
County 
omitted 
for 
final 
consideration, 
two 
communities 
remained: 
Ashland/Bayfield 
and 
Richland. 
In 
the 
end, 
we 
voted. 
The 
unanimous 
first 
choice 
for 
implementation 
was 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area. 
Both 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
and 
Richland 
communities 
communicated 
enthusiastic 
interest 
in 
the 
Project. 
Both 
communities 
have 
organizations 
and 
systems 
that 
work 
well 
together, 
albeit 
informally. 
Both 
communities 
demonstrated 
a 
commitment 
to 
addressing 
violence 
in 
the 
lives 
of 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf. 
The 
ultimate 
determinant 
was 
the 
third 
element 
of 
our 
strategic 
question: 
a 
multi-cultural 
approach. 


o 
From 
what 
we 
learned 
throughout 
conducting 
assessment 
activities, 
we 
know 
that 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area 
includes 
two 
Native 
American 
reservations 
and 
a 
significant 
Native 
American 
population 
(9.4% 
in 
Bayfield 
County 
and 
10.4% 
in 
Ashland 
County); 
Richland 
County 
includes 
no 
reservations 
and 
a 
small 
Native 
American 
population 
(less 
than 
1%).27 
o 
While 
both 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area 
and 
Richland 
County 
have 
small 
Latino 
populations, 
the 
rate 
is 
higher 
in 
the 
Ashland/Bayfield 
area 
(1.3%) 
than 
it 
is 
in 
Richland 
County 
(1%).28 
26 
As 
noted 
in 
the 
“Needs 
Assessment 
Implementation 
Strengths 
and 
Challenges” 
section, 
we 
removed 
Douglas 
County 
from 
consideration 
as 
we 
conducted 
the 
needs 
assessment 
due 
to 
the 
information 
we 
gleaned 
from 
pivotal 
stakeholders. 


27 


U.S. 
Census 
2000. 
28 


U.S. 
Census 
2000. 
33 



o 
No 
significant 
difference 
existed 
between 
the 
two 
communities 
in 
addressing 
the 
African 
American 
or 
Hmong 
populations 
(both 
populations 
less 
than 
1% 
in 
each 
community).29 
Strategic 
Question 
3: 
What 
are 
the 
current 
needs 
of 
two 
ally 
organizations 
– 
Deaf 
Unity 
and 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
– 
in 
bringing 
their 
work 
to 
the 
Project’s 
selected 
communities? 


Answer: 
While 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
has 
been 
in 
existence 
for 
a 
decade, 
and 
Deaf 
Unity 
just 
a 
couple 
of 
years, 
both 
organizations 
believe 
strongly 
that 
there 
is 
mutual 
organizational 
benefit 
and 
direct 
positive 
impact 
that 
can 
be 
achieved 
in 
working 
together 
in 
our 
selected 
communities 
and 
through 
limited 
technical 
assistance. 


Following 
the 
pilot 
site 
selection 
analysis, 
we 
analyzed 
the 
implications 
of 
the 
key 
findings 
across 
the 
sites 
on 
three 
levels: 
individual, 
organizational 
and 
systems. 


Level 
1: 
Implications 
of 
Key 
Findings 
for 
Individuals 


o 
There 
are 
disparate 
perceptions 
of 
power 
and 
control 
that 
exist 
in 
the 
relationships 
between 
those 
providing 
services 
and 
those 
receiving 
services. 
Several 
providers 
of 
disability 
related 
services 
believed 
that 
they 
were 
person-centered 
and 
empowering, 
while 
the 
persons 
receiving 
services 
felt 
controlled 
and 
defeated. 
Trainings 
designed 
for 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
service 
provider 
agency 
staff 
and 
facilitated 
dialogue 
among 
people 
providing 
and 
people 
receiving 
services 
were 
suggested 
strategies 
that 
could 
be 
effective 
in 
addressing 
these 
issues. 
o 
Many 
individuals 
with 
disabilities, 
especially 
those 
with 
mental 
health 
issues 
and 
some 
Deaf, 
commented 
that 
the 
stigma 
associated 
with 
their 
disability 
puts 
them 
at 
a 
disadvantage 
because 
they 
are 
treated 
as 
inferior 
beings. 
Education 
opportunities 
and 
trainings 
designed 
by 
people 
with 
disabilities 
and 
learning 
opportunities 
on 
recovery 
and 
trauma-informed 
services 
were 
suggested 
strategies 
that 
could 
be 
effective 
in 
addressing 
these 
issues. 
o 
We 
recognized 
that 
some 
needs 
cannot 
be 
overcome 
through 
the 
Project’s 
focus 
and 
activities 
(e.g., 
poverty 
and 
unemployment); 
however, 
understanding 
these 
real 
life 
circumstances 
for 
so 
many 
people 
with 
disabilities 
– 
especially 
in 
the 
more 
rural 
areas 
– 
impacts 
organizational 
and 
systems 
responses 
to 
violence 
in 
the 
lives 
of 
people 
with 
disabilities. 
It 
affects 
what’s 
needed, 
what’s 
provided, 
how 
it’s 
provided, 
and 
how 
useful 
it 
is 
for 
the 
victim/survivor. 
U.S. 
Census 
2000. 
34 



Level 
2: 
Implications 
of 
Key 
Findings 
for 
Organizations 


o 
The 
additional 
time 
needed 
and 
more 
measured 
pace 
required 
to 
effectively 
support 
a 
victim/survivor 
with 
a 
disability 
or 
a 
Deaf 
victim/survivor 
adds 
a 
level 
of 
stress 
and 
frustration 
to 
already 
overloaded 
agencies 
and 
negatively 
impacts 
the 
victim/survivor. 
o 
Organizations 
– 
regardless 
of 
affiliation 
– 
could 
benefit 
greatly 
in 
achieving 
their 
respective 
missions 
to 
provide 
confident 
and 
competent 
services 
and 
support 
by 
embracing 
a 
trauma-informed 
framework 
and 
understanding 
how 
this 
framework 
could 
systemically 
change 
individual 
organizations. 
Being 
“trauma-informed” 
is 
not 
just 
about 
knowing 
the 
effects 
of 
trauma, 
but 
understanding 
how 
it 
affects 
service 
delivery 
and 
the 
dynamics 
between 
the 
person 
providing 
and 
the 
person 
receiving 
services. 
o 
Physical, 
programmatic 
and 
attitudinal 
accessibility 
remain 
significant 
barriers 
for 
Deaf 
and 
individuals 
with 
disabilities. 
Several 
needs 
assessment 
participants 
suggested 
accessibility 
assessments 
as 
a 
means 
to 
learn 
about 
and 
undertake 
modifications 
in 
their 
services 
and 
facilities 
as 
a 
strategy 
to 
address 
access. 
o 
Enhanced 
skill 
building 
& 
capacity 
to 
effectively 
serve 
women/victims/survivors 
with 
any 
form 
of 
disability 
and 
Deaf 
is 
a 
common 
theme 
among 
disability 
and 
antiviolence 
organizations. 
Throughout 
the 
needs 
assessment 
activities, 
training 
strategies 
were 
frequently 
suggested 
as 
an 
initial 
method 
to 
address 
skill 
and 
capacity 
building. 
One 
participant 
specifically 
suggested 
that 
facilitated 
conversations 
and 
ongoing 
dialogue 
would 
best 
serve 
providers 
struggling 
with 
some 
of 
the 
nuances 
for 
serving 
victims 
with 
disabilities. 
Level 
3: 
Implications 
of 
Key 
Findings 
for 
Systems 


o 
Recognizing 
that 
the 
need 
for 
relationship 
building 
among 
tribal 
and 
non-tribal 
disability-related 
and 
anti-violence 
programs 
could 
positively 
impact 
victims 
and 
survivors 
generally, 
and 
specifically 
Deaf 
and 
those 
with 
disabilities. 
Having 
an 
ongoing 
presence 
and 
mutual 
respect 
in 
building 
relationships 
will 
serve 
as 
important 
foundations 
for 
bridging 
the 
collaborative 
divide 
between 
tribal 
and 
non-
tribal 
systems 
that 
address 
disabilities 
and 
violence. 
o 
The 
need 
to 
develop 
and 
sustain 
a 
meaningful 
understanding 
of 
and 
support 
for 
the 
role 
and 
importance 
of 
Deaf-run 
services 
being 
made 
available 
to 
Deaf 
victims. 
Collaboratively 
developing 
relationships 
among 
Deaf 
advocates, 
hearing 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
programs 
and 
related 
services 
systems 
is 
an 
important 
first 
step 
toward 
promoting 
systems 
change 
that 
will 
positively 
impact 
Deaf 
victims. 
35 



Several 
specific 
strategies 
were 
suggested 
by 
Deaf 
advocates 
to 
foster 
understanding 
of 
Deaf 
and 
the 
need 
for 
building 
respectful 
alliances 
to 
best 
serve 
Deaf 
victims/survivors. 


o 
The 
recognition 
that 
many 
culturally 
specific 
populations 
remain 
underserved 
(e.g., 
Latina 
victim/survivors 
with 
disabilities) 
among 
mainstream 
human 
services 
and 
anti-violence 
systems, 
and 
supporting 
the 
role 
and 
importance 
of 
Latina 
advocates 
in 
bridging 
this 
cultural 
divide. 
o 
Systemic 
impact 
could 
emerge 
that 
builds 
on 
the 
coordination 
opportunities 
that 
already 
exist 
among 
systems 
and 
organizations 
to 
leverage 
their 
knowledge 
and 
resources 
to 
best 
educate, 
train, 
intervene 
and 
support 
each 
other 
to 
affect 
the 
quality 
of 
and 
access 
to 
meaningful 
services 
and 
support 
for 
victims. 
o 
Changing 
service 
delivery 
so 
that 
the 
impact 
of 
compartmentalized 
services 
on 
individuals 
is 
diminished 
and 
strategies 
are 
developed 
to 
encourage 
systems 
responses 
that 
collectively 
support 
a 
survivor’s 
life 
and 
recovery. 
Conclusion 


Summary 
of 
Key 
Findings 


The 
key 
findings 
relevant 
to 
our 
goals, 
objectives 
and 
strategic 
questions 
can 
be 
condensed 
into 
the 
following 
eight 
areas 
of 
learning. 
(These 
learning 
areas 
are 
listed 
randomly 
and 
not 
in 
order 
of 
importance.) 


1. 
The 
ways 
in 
which 
the 
systems 
and 
agencies 
work 
within 
and 
between 
Ashland 
and 
Bayfield 
Counties. 
2. 
The 
historic 
separation 
that 
exists 
between 
tribal 
and 
non-tribal 
governments, 
programs 
and 
services. 
3. 
The 
interest 
among 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
programs 
to 
enhance 
their 
accessibility 
in 
policies, 
procedures 
and 
physical 
space. 
4. 
The 
desire 
among 
domestic 
violence 
and 
sexual 
assault 
programs 
to 
better 
understand 
and 
more 
effectively 
serve 
women 
with 
mental 
health, 
substance 
abuse 
and 
cognition 
issues. 
5. 
The 
detrimental 
effects 
experienced 
by 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
victims/survivors 
when 
varied 
services 
and 
support 
are 
compartmentalized. 
36 



6. 
The 
necessity 
for 
disability 
services 
and 
advocacy 
organizations 
to 
better 
understand 
abuse 
and 
trauma, 
and 
integrate 
this 
understanding 
into 
their 
day-
to-day 
work 
with 
Deaf 
and 
people 
with 
disabilities. 
7. 
The 
paramount 
importance 
of 
Deaf 
victims/survivors 
and 
victims/survivors 
with 
disabilities 
having 
a 
greater 
voice 
that 
is 
listened 
and 
responded 
to 
within 
and 
among 
organizations 
and 
systems 
affecting 
them. 
8. 
The 
opportunities 
for 
building 
relationships 
among 
and 
between 
culturally 
specific 
organizations 
(e.g., 
UNIDOS 
Against 
Domestic 
Violence 
and 
Deaf 
Unity) 
and 
mainstream 
domestic 
violence, 
sexual 
assault, 
human 
services 
and 
consumer-run 
organizations. 
Strategic 
Planning 


After 
our 
needs 
assessment 
report 
and 
findings 
have 
received 
approval 
from 
the 
Office 
on 
Violence 
Against 
Women 
(OVW), 
the 
Collaborative 
will 
engage 
in 
a 
comprehensive 
strategic 
planning 
process, 
commencing 
with 
an 
11/2 
day 
strategic 
planning 
session 
to 
be 
facilitated 
by 
Accessing 
Safety 
Initiative 
Associates 
from 
the 
Vera 
Institute 
of 
Justice. 
This 
facilitated 
planning 
discussion 
is 
intended 
to 
assist 
the 
Collaborative 
to 
further 
narrow 
and 
flesh 
out 
its 
implementation 
focus. 


Following 
the 
initial 
strategic 
planning 
session, 
the 
Collaborative 
will 
engage 
in 
a 
purposeful 
discussion 
among 
its 
members 
and 
with 
identified 
stakeholders 
from 
the 
two 
selected 
communities 
to 
develop 
a 
strategic 
plan 
that 
will 
address 
the 
needs, 
accessibility, 
and 
barriers 
identified 
in 
each 
community 
while 
highlighting 
its 
community 
strengths 
and 
potential 
for 
developing 
collaborative 
responses 
to 
violence 
against 
women 
with 
disabilities 
and 
Deaf 
women. 
The 
final 
plan 
will 
be 
devised 
to 
promote 
sustainability, 
and 
will 
be 
guided 
by 
a 
commitment 
to 
ensuring 
that 
all 
activities 
undertaken 
reflect 
a 
feasible 
approach 
to 
systemic 
change 
both 
during 
the 
grant 
period 
and 
beyond 
it. 


37