HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 19 2023December 2019 Vera Institute of Justice 34 35th St, 4 - 2 A
Nancy Smith www.vera.org Brooklyn, NY 11232
Charity Hope
TOPIC PAGE
Introduction 01
The Planning Process 04
The Deaf Community 06
Violence and Abuse in the Lives of Deaf People 10
The Need: The State of Services for Deaf Survivors 14
Figure 1: Map of "for Deaf, by Deaf' Service Providers 24
Figure 2: Map of States without "for Deaf, by Deaf' 28
Promising Approaches to Expanding Services 29
Figure 3: Potential Regions for Regional Centers 32
Figure 4: Comparison of Two Models 33
Recommended Strategy 34
Figure 5: Five -Year Timeline 35
Virtual "For Deaf, By Deaf" Victim Services Program 36
Figure 6: Service Line Hours of Operation by Time Zone 38
Pilot Test Expansion of In -Person Services 58
Scale -Up In -Person "for Deaf, by Deaf" Services 60
Share, Learn, Adapt 61
Sustainability 62
End Notes 64
Acknowledgments 68
i
Deaf individuals in the United States
experience rates of domestic and/or sexual
violence equal to or higher than their
hearing counterparts, with emerging
research pointing to rates twice that of
hearing individuals.[11 Yet, Deaf survivors
While these "for Deaf, by Deaf" programs are
the most effective approach to serving Deaf
survivors, only 21 of these programs exist
around the country. Due to limited funding
and other constraints, these programs
struggle to sustain themselves and other
routinely face barriers when reaching out for communities struggle to develop and launch
help. From 911 systems that only take phone- new programs. The result: "for Deaf, by Deaf"
based calls to domestic violence programs
and rape crisis centers that do not provide
bilingual and bicultural services in American
Sign Language to prosecutors who question
the credibility of Deaf witnesses, the
services and systems designed to respond to
domestic and sexual violence are not
equipped to meet the unique language and
cultural needs of the Deaf community. To
address the unmet needs of Deaf survivors,
Deaf communities have established victim
services agencies that are staffed by Deaf
people, rooted in Deaf culture, and
operated in American Sign Language.
victim services are not available in the vast
majority of the country, and Deaf survivors
living in cities and towns without these life -
sustaining programs often cannot access the
broad range of services and supports
survivors need for safety and healing,
including crisis counseling, information and
referrals, emergency shelter, counseling, and
legal and medical advocacy.
01
In 2017, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera)
received funding from the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office on Violence Against
Women (OVW) to identify and recommend to
OVW strategies to close this gap and
expand advocacy services for Deaf survivors
of domestic and sexual violence nationwide.
The project was premised on the fact that
technology could be used to expand the
reach of victim services to Deaf survivors by
providing these services virtually. This
premise was based on several factors: the
growing and successful use of technology to
overcome distance and other barriers in
other fields, such as telemedicine; the early
success of using technology to increase
survivors' access to hotlines, support groups,
and even forensic exams; and, lastly, the
cultural norms and traditions of using
technology (including videophones, text
messaging, and mobile apps) as a primary
mode of communication within Deaf
communities. Through interviews and focus
groups with experts from Deaf communities
around the country, as well as best practice
research, Vera staff tested this premise and
explored other strategies to expand "for
Deaf, by Deaf" victim services nationwide.
Based on a review of the information
gathered, Vera staff concluded that, while
virtual advocacy services can close
significant gaps in services for Deaf survivors
across the country, the nature and dynamics
of support for domestic and sexual -
especially when engaging with criminal,
civil, medical and other systems -
necessitates some level of in -person victim
services support. Thus, Vera recommends a
multifaceted expansion strategy - the
bedrock of which is the creation of a
nationwide "for Deaf, by Deaf" virtual victim
services program. Additional components of
Vera's recommended strategy include pilot
testing strategies to expand in -person
services and scaling successful models to,
ultimately, make those services available
nationwide.
This report summarizes the key findings from
the planning process we convened and
outlines in detail the national strategy we
recommend to expand victim services to
Deaf survivors across the country based
upon the information we collected. It
provides background information on Deaf
communities and culture in the United States
and what is known about domestic and
sexual violence, as well as other crimes,
against Deaf people. It offers a snapshot of
the current state of services for Deaf
survivors based on best practice research
and listening sessions we conducted. It
discusses several strategies for expanding
"for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services
nationwide that were raised and explored
during the planning process, including the
strengths and limitations of each strategy.
Finally, it concludes with our
recommendation for how to expand services
and provides a plan for implementing the
recommended strategy.
02
A NOTE ABOUT LANGUAGE
In this report, the term Deaf is used as an
all-inclusive term to encompass a number of
diverse identities including those who are
Deaf, deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, late -
deafened, and hard of hearing. We have
chosen to use one term, Deaf, to recognize
that many experiences are shared by diverse
individuals within the Deaf community while
we also acknowledge and honor the
diversity within the Deaf community.
Additionally, the term "for Deaf, by Deaf"
services is used throughout this report to
refer to victim services programs that:
• Are designed and run by members of the
Deaf community;
• Provide services in sign language and
ProTactile language;
• Integrate cultural values and traditions
into all aspects of the organizations and
approaches to service provision and
advocacy;
• Navigate unique considerations around
safety and confidentiality within a small
tight -knit community, the Deaf
community; and
• Leverage strengths in Deaf culture and
communities to support Deaf survivors.
03
��J►1►11►1H
To better understand the unmet needs of
Deaf survivors and to identify, explore, and
recommend strategies to reach more
survivors, Vera staff undertook a
comprehensive planning and development
process that consisted of: an assessment of
current services for Deaf survivors to
determine unmet need; activities to identify
a range of possible strategies to address
unmet needs; information synthesis and
program development to determine and
refine recommended strategies; and
consensus -building activities to
assess/generate support for proposed
strategies from key stakeholders. During this
process, Vera engaged a diverse group of
stakeholders, including individuals with
expertise in serving Deaf survivors of
domestic and sexual violence, people with
experience using technology and other
innovative strategies to close gaps in
services for crime survivors, and individuals
outside of the victim services field who
offered information on a range of relevant
areas including the provision of human
services online, technology, and legal
considerations. Vera completed the
following activities:
• reviewed 8 national hotline and virtual
service programs to better understand
approaches to marketing, service
provision, technology, and accessibility;
• made test calls to 9 national or state-
wide hotlines for survivors of crime
and/or individuals in crisis to assess their
accessibility and readiness to support
Deaf contactors;
• conducted in-depth interviews with the
current provider of the National Deaf
Domestic Violence Hotline;
04
• conducted 52 informational interviews
with advocates and management staff
from Deaf domestic and sexual violence
programs;
• hosted a listening session with Deaf
advocates at the Deaf Anti -Violence
Coalition's biennial conference for
domestic and sexual violence advocates;
• held a two-day, intensive focus group
with 8 Deaf advocates from around the
country to explore strategies, including
technology, that could be used to
increase Deaf survivors' access to healing
and advocacy; and
• held a two-day, consensus -building
meeting with 8 Deaf advocates to
review and refine proposed strategies to
expand services to Deaf survivors
nationwide.
Throughout the planning process,
Vera centered the voices,
perspectives, and expertise of
members of the Deaf community.
Deaf people view being Deaf as a positive
aspect of who they are, not something that
needs to be fixed. Instead of viewing
themselves as lacking hearing, many Deaf
and hard of hearing people identify as
members of a distinct cultural group in the
United States.
Deaf Culture
Deaf culture coalesces around the use of a
shared language and values that encourage
close relationships and connections with
other Deaf people, as well as common
behavioral norms and traditions.
Language
American Sign Language (ASL) is a
visual/gestural language that has no vocal
component. ASL is a complete, grammatically
complex language. It differs from a
communication code designed to represent
English directly. ASL is not a universal
language, however.
There are signed languages in U.S.
territories, such as Guam Sign Language
(GSL) and other indigenous sign languages,
and in other countries such as Mexican Sign
Language (LSM).[4]
ASL similar to English, has regional accents
and dialects. There are regional variations in
sign production, rhythm of signing, and
slang. Other sociological factors, including
age, gender, race and ethnicity, affect ASL
usage and contribute to the diversity of
language use within the Deaf community.[5]
For example:
• Black American Sign Language: Many
people in Black Deaf communities use
Black American Sign Language, a distinct
variety of American sign language that
reflects the unique history (including
segregated education) of Black Deaf
people in the United States and the
influence of Black hearing culture.[6]
• ProTactile Language: ProTactile is a
language that is rooted in touch and used
on the body. DeafBlind people are
empowered by communicating,
connecting, and experiencing the world
through touch (as opposed to sight).[7]
Values
Collectivism is the heart of the Deaf
community. Information -sharing and
resource -sharing among community members
is vital since Deaf people do not have the
same access to information that hearing
people do. One of the primary ways
knowledge is gained is through incidental
learning or informal communication
(including overhearing information) in public
or private settings and, because of language
differences and barriers, Deaf people cannot
access information in hearing environments
in this way.[8] Deaf people are also a critical
source of support and resilience to one
another. They rally around each other and
provide support and solidarity in the face of
systemic discrimination and exclusion in the
hearing world. This support is even more
critical to Deaf community members with
intersecting identities, such as DeafBlind,
Black Deaf, DeafDisabled, and Trans Deaf
people.
Norms and Traditions
Deaf norms and traditions differ from their
hearing counterparts. Eye contact is
essential and communication is direct - often
considered blunt by hearing people. Deaf -
centered spaces, like Schools for the Deaf
and Deaf clubs, are cherished. Deaf events
like social outings and conferences create
rare opportunities for Deaf people to come
together to socialize and network —
opportunities leading many Deaf people to
go out of their way to attend them.
07
Cultural Transmission
Deaf culture is unique because it is not
passed from parent to child as are most
cultures. The vast majority of Deaf people
are born to hearing parents. Because these
parents are not members of the Deaf
community and are not signers, Deaf
children do not have access to their
language or culture from birth. Instead, the
locus of language and culture for the Deaf
community is in Deaf clubs and schools for
the Deaf - where other Deaf people
connect. Paddy Ladd - an internationally
recognized Deaf writer, scholar, and activist
- coined the term "Deafhood" to describe
the journey through which Deaf people
embrace their Deaf identity and reject the
negative ways of deafness as a deficit which
needs to be fixed. Deaf people must pass on
the values, language, and culture to Deaf
children for them to become whole.[9]
Deaf Gain
Many hearing parents or professionals still
do not fully comprehend that being Deaf is
not a "loss" but rather a "gain." The term
"Deaf Gain" has been coined "in opposition
to 'hearing loss' in order to encompass the
myriad ways in which both deaf people and
society at large have benefited from the
existence of deaf people and sign language
throughout recorded human history."[10]
08
Deaf Communities
Size of Community
The Deaf community is not a singular
community. Like the hearing community, for
example, there is diversity in terms of race
and ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and
gender identity, disability, and
socioeconomic status. While American Sign
Language is the predominate language of
the Deaf community in the United States,
there is also diversity within the community in
terms of language use. Lastly, while identity
is very personal and varies from individual to
individual, it is helpful to understand some of
the diverse ways members of the Deaf
community identify:
• Deaf
• DeafBlind
• DeafDisabled
• Late -deafened
• Hard of hearing[12]
Approximately 15 percent of the U.S.
population, or 57.5 million adults, report some
degree of hearing loss.[13] Roughly 2 to 3 of
every 1,000 children in the US are born Deaf or
hard of hearing.[14] These statistics, however,
do not distinguish between people with
hearing loss and members of the Deaf
community. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of
information on how many Deaf people live in
the United States. The most recent population
estimate survey was conducted in 1974. The
authors of this research estimated there were
approximately 500,000 Deaf people at the
time in the United States. While this survey
remains the ultimate source, it is severely
outdated and cannot be used to extrapolate
the number of Deaf people in the United
States today.[15]
Violent Victimization
Research demonstrates that people with
disabilities and Deaf people experience
victimization at higher rates than the
general population. For example, according
to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), people
with disabilities, including those with
"hearing disabilities," were 2.5 times more
likely to experience violent victimization and
3 times more likely to experience serious
violent crime than people without
disabilities.[18]
Domestic and Sexual Violence
Unfortunately, we cannot turn to the well-
known, large-scale national studies on
domestic and sexual violence to understand
the Deaf experience. Many of these studies,
including the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention's National Intimate Partner
and Sexual Violence Survey - the most
current and comprehensive national and
state level data source in the United States,
use research methodologies that are
inaccessible to Deaf people.[19] They rely
exclusively on collecting data via phone -
based interviews or written surveys in
English, limiting the participation of Deaf
signers.[20] Instead, to understand how
prevalent domestic and sexual violence is in
the lives of Deaf people, we have to turn to
a small, but growing body of research
studies that focused on Deaf communities,
specifically, and used accessible research
methodologies, including data collection in
American Sign Language. This research
paints a vivid picture of epidemic rates of
violence and abuse across the lifespan of
Deaf people.
10
Deaf Children
Children who are Deaf or hard of hearing
experience higher rates of physical and
sexual abuse than their hearing counterparts.
One study found that Deaf and hard of
hearing children were 1.4 times more likely to
be neglected and twice as likely to be
physically abused.[21] Studies have also
shown that deaf children are 2-3 times more
likely to experience sexual abuse than
hearing children.[22] In one study, more than
50 percent of Deaf people (males and
females) reported they were sexually abused
as children.[23]
Deaf Adults
Research on domestic and sexual violence
against Deaf people demonstrates higher
rates of domestic and sexual victimization —
intimate partner violence, psychological
aggression and abuse, forced sexual
experiences, and sexual assault — than their
hearing counterparts. A number of
comparative studies have shown that Deaf
individuals are anywhere from 1.5 to 5
times more likely to experience these
forms of violence than their hearing
counterparts.[24] Further, some research
indicates that over 70 percent of Deaf men
and women have been physically assaulted,
and more than 40 percent of Deaf males and
50 percent of Deaf females have
experienced sexual assault.[25] One study
found that Deaf adults were more likely to
experience forced sexual experiences than
hearing adults --at rates that were at least
twice those reported by hearing respondents
in other surveys.[26]
In 2017, researchers analyzed 14 studies on
the prevalence rates of neglect, emotional,
physical and sexual abuse, and intimate
partner violence in the Deaf/hard of hearing
population. Across these 14 studies, they
found:
• Prevalence rates of physical abuse were
higher among Deaf and hard of hearing
individuals compared to their hearing
counterparts in all studies, with rates of
physical abuse varying from 39 to 46.8
percent.
• Prevalence rates of sexual abuse were at
least the same or significantly higher
among Deaf and hard of hearing
individuals as compared to their hearing
counterparts. Among Deaf and hard of
hearing people, rates varied from 34 to
59.6 percent in women and 6 to 52.8% in
men.
• Neglect was the least examined type of
abuse overall.[27]
11
Unique Dynamics
Deaf survivors of domestic and sexual
violence experience many of the same
forms of abuse as their hearing
counterparts (e.g., isolation; intimidation;
blame; and financial, emotional, physical,
and sexual abuse), but they also experience
unique forms of abuse and violence.
Abusers may:
• Intentionally injure a victim's hands to
prevent communication in sign language,
or destroy devices used for
communication, such as smartphones
and videophones.
• Monitor communication by accessing
saved text messages, emails, instant
messenger communication logs, or video
messages, and erase or falsely reply to
emails and text messages.
• Isolate victims from the Deaf community
or intimidate victims by threatening to
move away from the victim's established
Deaf community or to an area with very
few Deaf people.
Abuse thrives in isolation.
Deaf abusers might throw objects, or
use gestures, facial expressions or
exaggerated signs, or put themselves in
close physical proximity to victims, and then
deny the inappropriate or aggressive
behavior by saying it as a culturally
accepted way of communicating. In
addition, hearing abusers may interpret
falsely or inaccurately to the victim to
manipulate situations, including to law
enforcement or child protective service
advocates, reinforcing the general mistrust
Deaf victims may have of dominant hearing
culture.[28]
12
"It was a nightly routine, and we were just little girls. It
was a routine we would come to expect: we would do
homework, take showers and the abuse would begin. It
was normalized."[33]
-Domito Jo Domino, New York Times
13
As part of the planning process, to better understand the unmet needs of Deaf survivors, Vera
conducted an assessment. We reviewed academic literature and policy reports. We also gathered
new information through conducting interviews and listening sessions with Deaf advocates from
across the country and reviewing national hotlines, local programs, and other interventions for
survivors. We synthesized this information to create a snapshot of the state of services for Deaf
survivors and identified three key findings.
The State of Services for Deaf Survivors
Despite higher rates of domestic and sexual violence within the Deaf community, Deaf survivors
face barriers that often prevent them from getting the help they need. When Deaf survivors reach
out for services and support and their needs are not met, their experience of trauma is
compounded by the very systems and services that are intended to help.[34] While these systems
and services intend to be of support, they are mostly run by and designed for hearing people and
present a number of ongoing barriers for Deaf survivors in their attempts to receive services.
FINDING 1: Deaf survivors of domestic and sexual violence face barriers to accessing victim
services that are often insurmountable.
FINDING 2: "For Deaf, by Deaf" domestic and sexual violence programs are the most effective
strategy to meet the needs of Deaf survivors.
FINDING 3: There is a critical shortage of "for Deaf, by Deaf" programs in the United States,
leaving most Deaf survivors in the United States without access to the services offered by
these programs.
14
Survivors of domestic and sexual violence
need an array of lifesaving and life -
sustaining services - from emergency, crisis
intervention to long-term advocacy - to help
increase safety, heal from trauma, and
pursue justice. Through the collective work
of countless advocates and support from
the Federal government, the United States
has established services for survivors of
domestic and sexual violence to meet these
complex needs from hotlines to emergency
shelter to support groups to financial
compensation. According to the recent
National Census of Victim Service Providers,
conducted by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, more than 11,000 victim services
organizations exist in the United States.[55]
However, based on the 2017 Language
Access in Victim Services national survey of
more than 1500 victim service providers, 58
percent of respondents reported their
agency rarely serves Deaf survivors (once
every six months at most) and an additional
11 percent reported their agency has never
served a Deaf survivor.[56] While jaw -
dropping, these statistics are not surprising
given the abundance of barriers that exist
that prevent Deaf survivors from getting
support from these organizations.
OF VICTIM SERVICE
PROVIDERS RARELY SERVED
DEAF SURVIVORS
*Audism is the belief that the ability to hear makes one
superior to those with hearing loss. is
Inaccessible Crisis Hotlines
National hotlines for domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking are perhaps one of the
most widely advertised avenues for help for
survivors. These hotlines include the National
Domestic Violence Hotline, the National Sexual
Assault Hotline, and the National Human
Trafficking Hotline, as well as numerous
hotlines offered by local communities. These
hotlines provide immediate access to an
advocate who can listen and provide support
in a crisis, make referrals to a victim services
program, and provide information and
education. But the services provided by these
hotlines remain largely inaccessible to
members of Deaf communities across the
country.
These hotlines are mostly operated by phone,
and Deaf and hard of hearing people have two
options for communicating with hearing
advocates over the phone and both are
ineffective. First, most hotlines offer a
dedicated TTY number for Deaf and hard of
hearing callers. Unfortunately, while some
older Deaf individuals and those without
access to the internet still use TTY, TTY is an
outdated technology and is no longer widely
used by Deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
Moreover, it isn't an effective method of
communication, especially when discussing
emotionally difficult or emergent situations, as
it requires Deaf people to communicate with
hearing people by typing messages back and
forth in English, which is a second language for
most Deaf people, over the phone line using a
special device.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
16
Alternately, Deaf people could use Video Relay Services (VRS) to communicate with hearing
advocates. Using VRS, Deaf callers would contact a Video Relay provider and be connected
to a sign language interpreter using a videophone; the interpreter would call the hotline and
get connected to the advocate via a phone; and the Deaf person would sign to the interpreter
who interprets and relays the information to the hearing person. While this approach allows a
Deaf person to communicate in American Sign Language, there are several dynamics of VRS
that make it less than ideal to use for emergencies and issues related to domestic and sexual
violence. First, when using VRS, callers are randomly assigned to an interpreter. Without a
vetting process in place, given the small, close-knit nature of the Deaf community, assigned
interpreters might know the caller, the person responsible for the abuse, or people in the
person's community, which can compromise confidentiality and safety for survivors. Moreover,
VRS interpreters do not receive specialized training to prepare them to interpret conversations
on domestic and sexual violence. Without this training, which is severely lacking across the
country, miscommunication is highly likely and victim blaming by interpreters is also common.
Finally, the communication process of VRS is cumbersome and slow and not well -suited for
emergencies or emotionally difficult conversations.* The anticipation of these challenges,
compounded by other negative experiences Deaf people have with VRS and interpreters in
general, creates another barrier that Deaf people have to overcome to make a call many
survivors are already reluctant to make.
- WE MADE 9 HOTLINE CALLS, AND ONLY 1 WAS ANSWERED -
An additional barrier exists that prevent Deaf and hard of hearing people from receiving
support from these phone -based hotlines. Most hotline providers are not prepared to answer
relay calls, either through a TTY or VRS. In our interviews and listening sessions, Deaf
advocates unanimously report that Deaf survivors tell them their relay calls to national and
local hotlines are routinely unanswered or disconnected before communicating with an
advocate. To assess readiness to accept relay calls, as part of Vera's research for this project,
a Vera staff person who is Deaf called 9 national and state-wide hotlines. 6 of the hotlines
provide support for survivors of dating and domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or human
trafficking. The remaining 3 hotlines provide support to specific groups of people, including
youth facing homelessness, veterans, and people considering suicide. Vera's Deaf staff person
was only able to connect with an advocate at one of these hotlines. The remaining 8 hotlines
had no answer, a pick-up with no response, or, in one case, an invalid number. While these
calls were in no way scientific or representative, the results do echo the experiences reported
by Deaf survivors and Deaf advocates and raise serious concerns about the accessibility of
Ill�illl II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
*A demonstration of the Video Relay Service communication process during emergencies can be found online at
https.Ilyoutu. belzlUEa36UICc.
17
Limited to No Outreach and Engagement
Few victim service providers conduct outreach and community education to Deaf communities.
Traditional outreach efforts aren't often conducted in places where Deaf community members
congregate, such as Deaf schools, clubs, or community events. In addition, many outreach
strategies, including television and radio ads, are inaccessible to Deaf community members
and those that rely on print media pose barriers, especially to those for whom English is a
second language. The content of common outreach efforts often does not resonate with Deaf
community members. For example, abusive behaviors commonly used against Deaf survivors
(such as destroying communication devices such as smart or video phones) aren't typically
included in outreach brochures and images that resonate with Deaf people, such as people
signing or using technology to communicate, aren't commonly used either.[38]
While a limited number of programs conduct traditional outreach efforts to Deaf communities,
even fewer are engaged in the most promising strategy to reach Deaf survivors: community
engagement work. Community engagement work is long-term, and it focuses on building
relationships and trust with trusted leaders and institutions within the Deaf community. It also
helps providers understand the dynamics of the community and the needs of Deaf survivors,
which they can draw upon to tailor their services to better meet those survivors' needs. Vera
has used this strategy in our own work with Deaf communities across the country to great
success. It requires a significant investment of staff time, financial resources for interpreters
(among other expenses), and skills in building cross-cultural partnerships. Unfortunately,
outside of the funding provided through the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence
Against Women's Disability Grant Program, no dedicated opportunities exist to support this
time and resource intensive work. Since 2006, out of the 91 collaborations that have been
funded through this grant program, less than 10 percent, or 7, have focused on developing
collaborations between hearing and Deaf organizations, and few such partnerships exist
outside of this funding opportunity.[59]
Because specialized outreach efforts aren't widespread and in-depth partnerships are almost
non-existent in most communities, most Deaf community members don't know where to
reach out for help related to domestic and sexual violence.
is
Sign Language Interpreters Not Provided
Sign language interpretation is necessary for those who support survivors - advocates, medical
personnel, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges - and Deaf survivors to communicate
effectively with one another. Using a qualified interpreter, Deaf survivors can communicate in
their primary language, increasing comfort and trust. Additionally, when qualified interpreters
are used, information is communicated more accurately, which is essential in civil and legal
proceedings. Yet, one of the most significant and enduring barriers Deaf survivors face when
reaching out and receiving help is the consistent absence of sign language interpretation in
victim services. In all of the interviews, listening sessions, and best practice research Vera has
conducted to understand the needs of Deaf survivors dating back to 2008, the absence and,
in many cases, the denial of interpreters to support communication in victim services is
consistently raised by Deaf survivors and advocates as the most persistent barrier Deaf
survivors face when accessing hearing programs and systems. They report a range of issues
that negatively impact or breakdown communication from Deaf survivors being asked to read
lips or write notes back and forth to family members or other unqualified people serving as
interpreters. As shared in Vera's report Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for
Serving Deaf Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, "these ad hoc measures lead to
miscommunication, missed information, and frustration in any circumstance, but they
are particularly problematic in the context of domestic and sexual violence. It is
difficult to exchange information in a person's non-native language in the best
circumstances, and it becomes even more difficult if that person has experienced
trauma, is in crisis, or if the information being conveyed is complex — all of which apply
to Deaf survivors."[40]
19
There are a few factors that contribute to challenges related to the provision of sign
language interpreters in victim service settings.
Lack of Qualified Sign Language Interpreters
For Deaf survivors to effectively access systems of support and safety (such as shelter -based
services, medical and legal services), highly qualified American Sign Language interpreters
are critical. Inexperienced or improperly assigned interpreters can cause significant barriers
and harm. Yet, there is a dearth of qualified sign language interpreters for a number of
reasons. First, in some communities, especially those that are remote, interpreters may not
exist at all. In the 2017 Language Access in Victim Services survey, 23 percent of respondents
reported that no sign language interpreters exist in their community at all.[41] Second, in
communities where interpreters do exist, many lack basic fluency in American Sign Language:
many interpreters only have high school level fluency but are regularly hired to interpret high
risk interactions. Finally, few interpreters have received the specialized training necessary to
interpret effectively for survivors of domestic and sexual violence. As a result, it is not
uncommon for no interpreters or unqualified interpreters to be used in victim services with
Deaf survivors. In the same 2017 survey, 21 percent of respondents indicated that they use
spouses or adult family members of survivors as interpreters, 19 percent rely on gestures and
pictures, and 12 percent have used children of survivors as interpreters.
1 IN 10
PROGRAMS USE
CHILDREN OF
SURVIVORS AS
INTERPRETERS
20
Don't Know How to Find Qualified Sign Language Interpreters
Proactively building a program's capacity to provide qualified interpreters is essential,
especially because the most qualified sign language interpreters book months in advance and
the nature of victim services make scheduling far in advance nearly impossible. Having
relationships with qualified interpreters, agreements on how to secure interpreters with short
notice, and providing training to prepare interpreters to work in victim services are just a few
of the best practices in victim services. However, few victim service organizations employ
them. In the 2017 Language Access survey, 34 percent of respondents reported that they do
not know how to find or work with sign language interpreters, and the vast majority (76
percent) do not have a contract in place with an agency that could provide sign language
interpretation services.[42]
Getting interpreters outside of standard 9-5 business hours poses even greater challenges for
victim services organizations. For example, in the 2017 Language Access survey, only 1 in 5
victim service providers (19 percent) indicated that in a crisis situation after business hours,
their organization could secure sign language interpreters for a Deaf survivor in less than an
hour and almost half (45 percent) indicated that it would take four or more hours.[43]
According to the Deaf advocates we engaged during this project, it is common for Deaf
survivors who present at hospitals for sexual assault forensic exams to regularly wait
four or more hours for interpreters to arrive before the exam and/or reporting can begin.
Moreover, Deaf advocates also routinely report that emergency lifesaving interventions, such
as restraining order hearings, are postponed because interpreters are not available.
OF VICTIM SERVICE
PROVIDERS DO NOT
HAVE A CONTRACT IN
PLACE FOR
INTERPRETERS
4 OU 11111111F 0 5
VICTIM SERVICE
PROVIDERS CANNOT
IMMEDIATELY SECURE
INTERPRETERS AFTER
BUSINESS HOURS
21
No Money to Pay for Interpreters
According to the 2017 Language Access in Victim Services survey, the biggest barrier to
providing language access to Deaf survivors is not having the financial resources necessary to
pay for interpreters. Almost half of the respondents of this survey (47 percent) indicated that
not having money for sign language interpreters impedes their ability to serve Deaf survivors.
At the same time, only slightly more than one-third of respondents (57 percent) indicated that
their organization routinely includes money for sign language interpreters in proposal budgets,
which would easily alleviate this financial barrier.[45] 411117%
VICTIM SERVICE PROVIDERS
REPORT THAT NOT HAVING
MONEY IS THE BIGGEST
BARRIER TO SECURING
INTERPRETERS
22
Lack of Culturally Competent Programs
Without a deep understanding of Deaf culture and the unique cultural context of domestic and
sexual violence, it is difficult for advocates and counselors to effectively safety plan with Deaf
survivors, support Deaf survivors through the criminal or civil legal system, facilitate support
groups involving Deaf survivors, and provide many of the other critical services Deaf survivors
need in crisis and healing. Domestic violence programs and rape crisis centers cannot
eliminate communication and cultural barriers without gaining expertise on the Deaf
community, leaving Deaf survivors alone to navigate the systems involved in victims, lives on top
of the trauma they have experienced. The majority of hearing victim service organizations have
made limited efforts to create culturally competent services for Deaf survivors in their
organization. Domestic violence advocates and rape crisis counselors have not created
opportunities to build relationships with Deaf organizations and the Deaf community in their
service area; educate staff on Deaf culture, and domestic and sexual violence against Deaf
people; or develop an understanding of audism, exploring its role in the barriers Deaf survivors
face. Additionally, these organizations have not reviewed the accessibility of their programs to
identify barriers for Deaf people and nor created plans and dedicated resources to address
these barriers such as inaccessible emergency hotlines/helplines, limited to no outreach or
community engagement efforts, and the critical lack of qualified, trauma -informed
interpreters.
Continued Invisibility
While there is growing awareness among victim
service providers that they are not reaching all
survivors, Deaf survivors continue to be an invisible
community. For example, according to the 2018
Reaching Victims survey conducted by Vera's
National Resource Center for Reaching Victims, only
1 in 4 victim service organizations (190, 25.03%)
participating in the survey identified Deaf and hard
of hearing individuals as underserved by their
aaencv/oroaram.f461
23
In response to the barriers Deaf survivors faced in hearing victim services organizations, the
Abused Deaf Women's Advocacy Services (ADWAS) was founded in Seattle, Washington in
1986.[48] ADWAS offered a new and more effective strategy to meet the needs of Deaf
survivors: victim services that are run by and for Deaf people and rooted in the culture and
language of the Deaf community. Recognizing the success of ADWAS, in 1998, the U.S.
Department of Justice provided funding to replicate this model in 15 communities across the
country. In 2019, the total number of "for Deaf, by Deaf" domestic and sexual violence
programs in the United States is 21. Together, these programs provide services in 16 states
(refer to Figure 1 for a map of the existing "for Deaf, by Deaf' domestic and sexual violence
programs in the United States).
FIGURE 1: "FOR DEAF, BY DEAF" DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
Deaf domestic violence
program
Deaf dual domestic and sexual
violence program
111 Deaf sexual violence
program
24
STATES WITH "FOR DEAF, BY DEAF" PROGRAMS
• California (multiple programs)
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Georgia
• Illinois (multiple programs)
• Iowa
• Indiana
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• New York (multiple programs)
• Ohio (multiple programs)
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin
The majority of these programs are stand-alone organizations with most addressing domestic
violence and only a few addressing both domestic and sexual violence or sexual assault alone.
Some programs are run out of general Deaf service organizations and, in a few instances,
housed in a hearing victim services organization. Regardless of their configuration, these
programs provide the Deaf community with critical victim services - emergency hotlines, crisis
intervention, individual advocacy (including medical and legal), counseling and other
supportive services, peer support opportunities, and community outreach and education,
tailored to meet their unique cultural and linguistic needs.
Services in these programs are designed and delivered by Deaf staff members and volunteers.
Deaf survivors can communicate with advocates and others directly — without an interpreter —
in sign language, and DeafBlind survivors can communicate in Protactile Language using
specially trained Deaf interpreters. Communicating directly is most effective, especially when
individuals have experienced trauma or are discussing sensitive and difficult topics, and
necessary for the healing process.
Support from other Deaf people to achieve safety and
healing is also critical within the context of domestic and
sexual violence. Additionally, in a "for Deaf, by Deaf"
program, Deaf survivors don't have to spend time educating
their advocate about how to use an interpreter or about
the unique dynamics of violence they experience, they can
focus on healing.
25
Resilience in Deaf People: the Case for "for Deaf, by Deaf' Victim Services
"Resilience is understood as a dynamic process of interactions based on factors between the
individual's assets and external resources allowing one to persevere in the context of
stressors."[49] A 2018 study of mental health providers serving Deaf individuals in the United
States identified crucial protective factors in resilience processes for Deaf individuals who
have experienced trauma. While some of these factors are similar to resilience factors for all
people, some are unique to Deaf individuals. In addition to factors within an individual, the
study identified four protective factors for Deaf individuals and those factors are linked to
Deaf identity and culture, community, and language:
• Identity development: seeing oneself as a member of a cultural and linguistic group and
having a positive association with Deaf identity;
• Access to language and communication: being able to communicate with a trusted person
and discuss trauma efficiently through a shared language;
• Access to information, especially through sign language, expands knowledge and breaks
isolation; and
• Supportive networks: consistent access to people for information sharing, support, and
solidarity.
The Deaf community and signing peers were both identified as central components of these
networks and strengths that Deaf individuals experiencing trauma draw from. This study further
supports the "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services model, as "for Deaf, by Deaf" programs are
based on these protective factors and reinforce them within the survivors they serve.[50]
26
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2017 National Census of Victim Service Providers confirmed
11,567 victim service providers in the United States.[51] By contrast, there are only 21 "for Deaf,
by Deaf" victim service providers across the country. These programs represent a mere .002
percent of all victim service providers in the United States.
Almost three-quarters of the states/territories in
the United States (71 percent) do not have any "for
Deaf, by Deaf" victim services available. Deaf
survivors living in these areas have three options: seek
help from hearing victim services programs; navigate on
their own or with the help of family and friends; or
remain in abusive situations. According to the experts
engaged for this project, most Deaf survivors return to
abusive situations or move through trauma without
support because of the barriers, inability to
communicate, and isolation they experience in hearing
programs.
""""' 1 of States
"for Deaf, by Deaf' Services
Even in the 16 states that have "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services, gaps exist in services for
Deaf survivors. Many of the 21 programs are small startups that have yet to build the internal
capacity necessary to apply for or manage public funding, including grant writing experience.
With minimal financial support, most of these programs rely on a small number of paid staff -
an average of 2 to 5 people - to operate. Recognizing the severe shortage of support for Deaf
survivors and knowing that their program is likely the only one of its kind in the area, these
programs serve their entire state, if not surrounding states, as well. The geographic distance
across most states, coupled with these programs limited financial resources and paid staffing,
stretch even the most well -funded program's capacity to serve such expansive service area.
27
FIGURE 2: STATES WITHOUT "FOR DEAF, BY DEAF" VICTIM SERVICES
States in red do not have "for Deaf, by Deaf' services.
STATES WITHOUT "FOR DEAF, BY DEAF" SERVICES
• Alabama
•
Maine
• Alaska
•
Maryland
• Arizona
•
Michigan
• Arkansas
•
Mississippi
• Connecticut
•
Missouri
• Delaware
•
Montana
• Florida
•
Nebraska
• Hawaii
•
Nevada
• Idaho
•
New Hampshire
• Kansas
•
New Jersey
• Kentucky
•
New Mexico
• Louisiana
•
North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• All Territories
• Tennessee
• Virginia
• West Virginia
• Wyoming
28
IIIIII�IU� IIIIII�II
IIIII IIIIII Il111
IIIIIII� IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIV
E00
MPIRE
f
f -
n� t
We began the planning process with the premise that technology could be used to provide
advocacy and other services to Deaf survivors from a distance. This premise was based on
several factors including the growing and successful use of technology to overcome distance
and other barriers in other fields (such as telemedicine), the cultural norms and necessities of
using communication technologies (including videophones, text messaging, and a multitude of
apps) within Deaf communities; and the early success of using technology to expand services
in areas of anti -violence work (including text chat lines, on-line support groups, and forensic
exams through telehealth services). During interviews and listening sessions, experts in the
field of Deaf advocacy continually suggested alternative strategies to expand victim services
to Deaf survivors. Thus, we expanded the expansion strategies we considered as part of this
project to include virtual strategies as well as those that center around increasing the
availability of in -person, "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services. While numerous strategies were
discussed during the planning process, two primary and, at times, competing strategies
emerged for serious consideration:
Model 1: Virtual Services and Advocacy Support for Deaf Survivors
Model 2: Regional Healing and Advocacy Centers for Deaf Survivors
During the course of this project, Vera staff engaged experts in Deaf advocacy and,
collectively, considered and analyzed these two competing models based on a number of
factors including reach and impact, complexity of implementation, feasibility, and level of
community support.
29
MODEL 1: VIRTUAL SER ICES AND AD OCACY SUPPORT
FOR DEAF SUR I ORS
The Virtual Services and Advocacy Support for Deaf Survivors model (referred to as virtual
services hereafter) aims to expand victim services to Deaf survivors who are unable to access
in -person, Deaf -specific services by providing support and other victim services remotely using
a range of technologies, including video conferencing, text messaging, and email (depending
on the needs of individual survivors). A team of Deaf virtual advocates would provide outreach
and education, crisis intervention services, individual support, support groups, and information
and referrals to members of Deaf communities across the country.
This strategy has the potential to quickly broaden the reach of victim services to Deaf survivors,
but its reach has several important limitations. While services could be expanded nationwide,
only a limited range of victim services and supports can be provided virtually. It cannot provide
Deaf survivors with in -person advocacy or accompaniment during interactions with law
enforcement, prosecutors, court personnel, legal services, or medical/hospital support - an
essential set of services given the multitude of barriers Deaf survivors face when interacting
with hearing systems. Additionally, those services would not be accessible by all members of
the Deaf community. They could only be accessed by Deaf people who have internet access
and/or access to smartphones. In addition, the connecting through virtual means creates
access barriers for some survivors in Deaf communities who are marginalized and already face
barriers to in -person services, including DeafBlind survivors (many of whom cannot effectively
communicate using video -based technologies without in -person interpretation and/or
support).
MODEL 2: REGIONAL HEALING AND AD OCACY CENTERS
The Regional Healing and Advocacy Centers model (referred to as regional services hereafter)
aims to expand services to Deaf survivors by leveraging existing Deaf advocacy programs. In
this model, the country would be divided into regions and one existing program in each region
would be selected to expand their services region -wide. The program would operate a
regional victim services agency or healing center that would span multiple states. With
dedicated funding, the selected programs would tailor the strategies they would use to reach
and serve Deaf survivors across their region. Their approach would leverage their current
program design and strengths; respond to the needs of survivors; and fit the region 's culture
and geography. It is likely that services would be delivered virtually and in -person. Given that
this strategy allows for in -person services, the traditional, full range of victim services,
including in -person accompaniment and systems advocacy, could be provided throughout
each region.
The regional services strategy has the potential to expand the availability of a comprehensive
set of "for Deaf, by Deaf" advocacy services to additional areas of the country, but likely not
nationwide. To test this model, Vera divided the country into 9 commonly recognized regions
(refer to Figure 5), and several issues emerged that highlight the limitations of this model. Most
notably, each of the 9 regions span multiple states; have large populations; and cover
considerable geographic distance. These regions are too large for one program to feasibly
serve. When we broke the regions down into more manageable areas, many did not have an
existing "for Deaf, by Deaf" program, which is necessary for this expansion strategy.
Additionally, questions exist about many existing programs' readiness for expansion given
leadership changes, funding challenges, and organizational capacity.
31
FIGURE 3:
POTENTIAL REGIONS
FOR REGIONAL
HEALING CENTERS
MODEL
NORTHWEST
SOUTHWEST
CENTRAL
EASTERN
FAR WEST
Washington ✓
Oregon
Idaho
Montana
Utah ✓
Alaska
Louisiana
Texas ✓
Oklahoma
Mississippi
Arkansas
Alabama
Tennessee
MIDWEST NEW ENGLAND
North Dakota
Maine
South Dakota
Vermont ✓
Minnesota ✓
New Hampshire
Kansas
Connecticut
Colorado ✓
Massachusetts ✓
Wyoming
Rhode Island
Nebraska
Ohio ✓
Kentucky
Illinois ✓
Indiana ✓
Michigan
Wisconsin ✓
Missouri
Iowa ✓
SOUTHEAST
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia ✓
Florida
New York ✓
Delaware
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Washington, DC ✓
Virginia
TERRITORIES
Arizona
Nevada
New Mexico
California ✓
Hawaii
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
I/ Existing "for Deaf, by Deaf" Victim Services
FIGURE 4: COMPARISON OF TWO MODELS
SERVICES PROVIDED
BASIC SERVICES + SUPPORTS
• Outreach + Education
• Information + Referrals
• Crisis Intervention
• Individual Advocacy
• Support Groups
REACH
+ Nationwide geographic coverage
Barriers exist for certain survivors including
those without internet or smartphone access
and DeafBlind survivors
IMPLEMENTATION
STRAIGHTFORWARD
+ One program
+ Builds on existing virtual program models
IMMEDIATE
1 year.
TIME TO SCALE
VIRTUAL SERVICES
• High Feasibility
• Low Community Support
• Lower cost than Regional
SERVICES PROVIDED
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES + SUPPORTS
• Outreach + Education
• Information + Referrals
• Crisis Intervention
• Individual Advocacy
• Counseling Services
• Systems Advocacy (Civil/Legal, Criminal
Justice, Healthcare)
• Support Groups
• Emergency Shelter & Transitional Housing
• Services to Perpetrators
• Prevention Activities
REACH
Increased geographic coverage but only
partial
+ Enhanced accessibility for underserved
survivors in Deaf community
IMPLEMENTATION
COMPLEX
— Multiple programs and implementation
teams
— No tested or proven implementation model
— Requires region -specific strategies and
implementation plan
DELAYED
5+ years.
TIME TO SCALE
REGIONAL CENTERS
• Low Feasibility
• High Community Support
• Highest Cost
Based on the information and guidance we collected and reviewed during the project, Vera
recommends a 5-year, multifaceted strategy to expand "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services
nationwide:
Launch a Virtual "for Deaf, by Deaf" Victim Services Program
The creation of a virtual, "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services program that serves the
entire country is the bedrock of Vera's recommended strategy. This program will
provide immediate assistance to victims of dating violence, domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking through a 24-hour hotline. It will also provide Deaf
survivors and their loved ones with long-term assistance - crisis intervention,
0 individual advocacy, education and support groups, information and referrals, and
community education - through a service line. Services will be provided using a
range of technologies, including video conferencing platforms such as Zoom and
Skype, videophones, smartphones, text messaging, and email.
Pilot Test Strategies to Expand In -Person Services
Given survivors' needs and the complexities of the systems they must navigate, most
issurvivors need in -person advocacy services at some point in their healing journey.
However, a tested and proven model for how to expand in -person "for Deaf, by
Deaf" services does not exist. Vera recommends a three-year, small-scale pilot to
test the feasibility and effectiveness of several promising models for expanding in -
person "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services.
Scale Up In -Person Services
Assuming the results of the pilot test are positive, Vera recommends scaling up in -
person, "for Deaf, by Deaf" services. The details of this component of this overall
expansion strategy depend on the experiences and outcomes of the pilot.
Implementation will need to be done carefully and followa scaling strategy
developed based on the lessons learned fromthe pilot.
On -Going: Share, Learn, and Adapt
Create on -going opportunities to evaluate and adapt throughout the life of the
expansion project to account for changes in any of the assumptions underlying the
recommended strategy, address unforeseen challenges, and mitigate any
unintended consequences.
34
Budget
The anticipated budget for the five-year
expansion strategy is $10 million. This includes
$6,250,000 to design and operate the Virtual
Services Program for the full five years;
$2,625,000 for the four-year pilot to test
strategies to expand in -person "for Deaf, by Deaf"
services; $1,000,000 for training and technical
assistance to support the project and to develop
the scaling -up plan in year 5; and $125,000 for
interpretation services and other access services
to support communication between Deaf
participants and (presumably) hearing funders.
5 YEAR INVESTMENT
S 1110 MILLION
The core of Vera's recommended strategy to expand victim services to Deaf survivors
nationwide is the creation of a virtual, "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services program. Vera
recommends that this Virtual Services Program run two programs at its start: a crisis hotline
and a service line.
Crisis Hotline: Given that the only national "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim hotline is limited to
survivors of domestic violence and, at the time this report was issued, has funding issues that
may preclude its ability to operate 24/7, the Virtual Services Program will operate a
comprehensive, 24/7 national hotline. The hotline will provide immediate support, including
crisis intervention services and information and referrals, and will address dating and
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, expanding the breadth and depth of crisis
support services currently available to Deaf survivors. Importantly, the hotline will serve as a
bridge to the Virtual Services Program's advocacy and other services for survivors who are
interested in longer -term support.
Service Line: To extend victim services to survivors who currently lack access to in -person,
culturally and linguistically specific services, the Virtual Services Program will provide on-
going and long-term assistance to survivors, including outreach and education, crisis
intervention services, individual advocacy and support, support groups, and information and
referrals to members of Deaf communities across the country. Advocates and survivors will
connect with one another using a range of technologies, including video
conferencing/chatting, text messaging, and email. While the Virtual Services Program will not
be able to offer services that can only be provided in -person, it will be able to meet a wide
variety of Deaf survivors' needs and play a key role in enhancing survivors' safety and healing,
filling a vital and critical unmet need.
36
Nationwide Coverage
The Virtual Services Program will provide victim services nationwide. The
hotline will operate nationwide will serve contactors from anywhere in the
United States. While the service component will also serve individuals from
across the country, it will prioritize providing services to survivors and their
-w loved ones who live in states and territories that do not have brick and mortar
"for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services agencies. As of December of 2019, priority
services will be given to contactors from the following areas:
Alabama
Idaho
Nebraska
Puerto Rico
Alaska
Kansas
Nevada
Rhode Island
American
Samoa
Kentucky
New
Hampshire
South
Carolina
Arizona
Louisiana
New Mexico
South
Dakota
Arkansas
Maine
North
Carolina
Tennessee
Connecticut
Maryland
y
North
Dakota
U.S. Virgin Islands
g
Delaware
Michigan
g
N. Mariana
Islands
Virginia
g
Florida
Mississippi
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Guam
Missouri
Oregon
Wyoming
Hawaii
Montana
Pennsylvania
Brick and mortar programs will need to be inventoried on an on -going basis
and the service area of the Virtual Services program will need to shift and
adapt based on the current inventory of in -person programs.
24/7 Availability
The hotline will operate 24-hours a day/7 days a week. The service line will
operate 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (ET). These hours of operation ensure that
advocates are available during peak business hours across Eastern, Central,
C21- L 4 Mountain, and Pacific time zones. Hotline advocates will be available to take
0,00 calls from survivors outside of the service line business hours to ensure those
services are available to individuals who reside outside of the continental
United States.
37
FIGURE 6: SERVICE LINE HOURS OF OPERATION BY TIME ZONE
6AM tc
7AM to 9PM
IIPM
8AM to 10PM
Outside of the Contiguous United States
kiwsisllll,o: 5AM to 7PM UTC
I°° iw V°iiViii: 4AM to 6PM HAST
°n���� iiiu�'k!ouui°i Saiimom3AM to 5PM SST
Giiimimiii:12AM to 2PM ChST
hloiii°, llll eiim Maii,icriia IIIIiIIIaiiid 12AM to 2PM ChST
I��mueiilo Rico: SAM to IOPM AST
t.1111 "Viiuu i iiii IIII IIIIm mduu m 8AM to IOPM AST
Hotline advocates will be available 24/7 to
answer calls outside of these hours.
38
Services
From its inception, the Virtual Services Program will provide the following services to
survivors and their loved ones:
• Outreach and education
• 24-hour national, crisis hotline
• Crisis intervention, emotional support, and safety planning
• Emergency housing in the form of hotel vouchers
• Individual advocacy and support
• Financial assistance (including food, transportation, and other basic needs)
• Education and support groups
• Information and referrals
The Program's advocates will also provide case management services to coordinate
comprehensive support for survivors and their families who are being served by the Virtual
Services Line. Advocates will assess survivors' strengths and needs; develop a service plan;
assist survivors with safety planning or minimizing triggers, help access public benefits
(including victims compensation) and/or services provided by other programs; and provide
on -going support and follow-up.
All services will be free and confidential.
Growth Opportunities
As the Program stabilizes and matures over time, there exist numerous opportunities for
expanding the types of services the program provides in the future. For example, there is a
dearth of court -ordered parenting classes and support/treatment programs for people who
are responsible for harm, especially programming that is offered in American Sign Language
and understands Deaf culture. As another example, the Program could grow to provide
training and guidance to hearing practitioners in victim services and systems to improve their
responses to Deaf survivors.
Limitations
Counseling: Unfortunately, due to state licensing laws, it is not feasible for this program to
provide individual or group counseling (often referred to as distance counseling or telemental
health). Mental health professionals, such as therapists and counselors, cannot provide
services to an individual if they are not licensed in the state where the individual lives. It is not
feasible for the Victim Services Program to hire or contract with mental health
39
professionals in every state. Moreover, doing so would be duplicative of a national practice of
Deaf therapists working to support the mental health of Deaf people (refer to "Partnerships"
on page 52 for more information).
Accompaniment: The systems survivors navigate are complex and often emotionally difficult.
This is especially true for emergency room/hospital exams, law enforcement contacts, and
court proceedings. Advocates routinely accompany survivors to these engagements to provide
them with education and support, and to ensure their needs are being met. This type of
support and advocacy is not possible to provide remotely.
Systems Change: An important role of advocates is to work within the broader community to
promote effective responses to survivors of domestic and sexual violence. This work takes
many forms from participating in coordinated community response teams to advocating with
systems to remove barriers to leading community -wide efforts to address emerging trends in
the areas of domestic and sexual violence. While some advocacy work can be done remotely,
it would be difficult, especially given language differences and barriers, for the virtual
advocates to do this community -based work in the towns and cities the survivors they serve
live.
Outreach
To be successful, members of Deaf communities across the country will need to know the
Program exists and trust it. This can only be achieved through on -going and intensive
outreach and community engagement efforts. Vera recommends that the Program develop a
comprehensive and intensive outreach plan that is tailored to meet the diverse cultural and
linguistic needs of the Deaf community. We anticipate that the Program will need to use
virtual outreach strategies on the national level and heavily emphasize in -person activities
and relationship building at the state and local levels. While these outreach efforts will need
to span the country, we suggest the Program prioritize and concentrate these efforts in states
that do not have brick and mortar "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services.
National Awareness and Education Campaign
The Program will need to launch and sustain a national awareness and education campaign
to increase awareness of the program in communities throughout the country. Given the
proliferation of social media use in Deaf communities, social media channels are one of the
most effective strategies to raise awareness about the Program and build a visible presence
across the country. The Program should work closely with each of the brick and mortar "for
Deaf, by Deaf" programs, as well as other national Deaf -centric organizations, to leverage
their networks. These programs can help get the word out about the Program by including
information about it on their websites and sharing the Program's social media posts. In
addition, the Program should attend existing conferences and community events to increase
awareness and visibility.
State and Local Community Engagement
We recommend that the Program heavily invest in in -person outreach and community
engagement activities with states and local
communities around the country and supplement
these activities with virtual strategies. The Program 's
Outreach Specialists should make frequent trips to
priority states and territories to share information
about the Program with leaders and community
members, learn about local communities and their
needs, and participate in community events. At a
minimum, they should engage the residential and day
schools for the Deaf that exist in every state, state -
level commissions for Deaf and hard of hearing, and
Deaf human services organizations.
41
They should also work with local leaders to identify non-traditional organizations and groups
that play important roles in the lives of people who are the hardest to reach and develop
strategies to engage them specifically.
While the Program's Outreach Specialists will assume primary responsibility for outreach, the
Virtual Advocates play an important role, as well. Vera recommends that these positions also
conduct in -person outreach. This will help to cement relationships and engender trust since
these staff members will be supporting survivors on an on -going basis. It will also allow the
Program and these advocates to have a presence in geographic areas and among community
members with limited access to technology, who would be hard to reach otherwise. These
trips can also create opportunities to provide some in -person services to Deaf survivors who
are engaged in the Program.
42
Technology
In the past decade, there has been an astronomical increase in the number of communication
applications, technologies, and devices available in the United States. The use of these tools
varies considerably from person to person based on a number of factors, including
socioeconomic status, education, culture, and access to technology to name a few. To
maximize opportunities to connect with survivors and others, the technologies used by the
Program will need to mirror the diversity of communication technologies used by members of
the Deaf community. The specific hardware and software the Program's virtual advocates use
will vary and depend on the survivor's access to technology and preferences, safety and
privacy concerns, and the type of service being provided.
Hotline
The Program will establish and advertise several ways for people to contact the hotline for
assistance:
• Video (including a videophone number and video -based social media handle)
• Text
• Email
• TTY
Service Line
To establish a relationship and build trust, the initial "intake" with survivors will occur via video
using the technology that works best for each survivor. For on -going, one on one
engagements, advocates will have the capability to connect with survivors via:
• Videophone
• Video chatting through social media and other applications
• Video calling software for smartphones and computers like Zoom, Skype, and FaceTime
• Video messaging using apps like Glide and Marco Polo
• Text messaging
• Email
For group services, a few options exist for technology depending on the purpose and structure
of the group. For groups that are advertised publicly, open to anyone, and focus on
education, a (non -video) chat -based technology should be used. RAINN has developed a
43
platform for anonymous, on-line group chatting called HelpRoom, which Vera recommends
this Program explore using. For support groups that are not publicly advertised and offered to
the survivors being served by the Program, we recommend a video-conferencing service.
Currently, Zoom is one of the best options for sign language users because it supports high -
definition video streaming, allows video boxes to be resized, and can be used on a computer
or a smartphone. Additionally, it is cost-effective and easy to use. Because mental health
counseling will not be offered by the Program, we do not think a HIPAA compliant video
conferencing service is needed. However, if the Program would ever expand to provide these
services, Zoom does offer a video conferencing service for telehealth that is HIPPA compliant.
Staying Current on Tech
Because technology is a cornerstone of the Program, it will be necessary for the Program to
make a number of ongoing investments in technology. Vera recommends the Program include
money in its budget for technology maintenance and upgrades and designate a staff person
as responsible for overseeing the Program's technology and consider hiring technology
consultants to assist with designing the initial technology environment and security. We also
recommend the Program stay up-to-date on emerging communication technologies; routinely
assess the technology use and needs of Deaf communities; and adapt their technology
platforms and use accordingly.
Structure and Location
Given the significant amount of time and resources that are required to start and maintain an
organization, Vera recommends that an existing "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services agency
house the Virtual Services Program. While an entirely new organization has its benefits,
housing the Program in an existing organization has several competitive advantages. By
leveraging an existing organization's infrastructure, the Virtual Services Program will launch
more quickly and save money by relying on existing staff for management, administrative, and
fiscal services. There might be opportunities for the existing organization to save money as
well since it could replace its local hotline with the national hotline run by the Virtual Services
Program. Finally, the organization would develop a broader understanding of the experiences
and needs of Deaf survivors and be better positioned to evolve the advocacy strategies used
by all of its programs by having virtual and in -person advocates on one team and creating
intentional opportunities for them to support and learn from one another.
While Vera recommends that the Virtual Services Program be housed in an existing
organization, we do not believe that it is necessary for the staff of the Program to work from
the organization's brick and mortar office. In fact, there are benefits to having this Program's
team work remotely. First, there would be a much wider pool of applicants, ensuring the
Program could hire the most talented individuals regardless of where they live. Second, with
intention during the hiring process, the Program can hire people who span each of the
country's time zones, which would make staffing the Program's expansive hours of operation
easier. Similarly, the Program can hire people who live in the Program's priority states (listed
on page 57) to leverage their knowledge of and relationships with local Deaf communities
and resources, which would strengthen outreach efforts and serve as the foundation for the
Program's nationwide network, which is essential for serving survivors nationwide. Incidentally,
this staffing strategy would also benefit local Deaf economies by creating jobs for Deaf
people in multiple communities across the country, which is sorely needed given that only 53.3
percent of Deaf people were employed in 2017 compared to 75.8 percent of hearing people.
[55]
Since staff of the Program will be working from remote locations (likely their homes), the
Program will also need to establish policies and protocols around confidentiality and privacy
and they will need to address staff use and storage of laptops, cell phones, and other devices
used to communicate with survivors, as well as the security of those devices.
45
Staffing
In adherence to the "for Deaf, by Deaf" model, the Virtual Service Line should be operated by
members of the Deaf community who have deep expertise in the anti -violence field. Vera
estimates the Program will need to hire 12 people to operate the hotline (24/7) and the
service line (15 hours a day/5 days a week) nationwide:
Outreach Specialist (2)
These staff members will be responsible for raising awareness about the Program within Deaf
communities across the country. They will conduct a significant amount of their outreach and
community engagement activities in -person in communities across the country. They will
attend and participate in community events; visit Deaf -centered organizations such as Deaf
schools, state -level deaf and hard of hearing commissions, Deaf social service organizations,
and places of worship; and meeting with community leaders and other influencers. They will
also manage the Program's social media accounts and create a significant presence for the
Program on social media. They will also be responsible for creating inclusive and accessible
outreach materials.
Virtual Advocate (9)
Of the 9 advocates hired, 6 will be full-time and 3 will be part-time. These staff members will
be responsible for providing direct crisis intervention and advocacy services to survivors who
contact the Program. While advocates will be cross -trained in the Program's hotline and
service line, they will be assigned to work in one primary program area. Working closely with
the Outreach Specialists, Advocates will also be responsible for conducting outreach, raising
awareness about the Program, and building relationships with key organizations and people in
Deaf communities in designated states.
Program Manager (7)
This staff member will oversee and support all aspects of the project. They will maintain
relationships with key stakeholders, including funders and national advisors. With the
assistance of national advisors and other team members, they will develop the project's
policies and practices. They will oversee service delivery and ensure the quality and
consistency of the services provided. They will hire, supervise, and coordinate staff training
and development. They will organize and lead regular staff meetings (some in -person). These
meetings will be an opportunity to celebrate successes, provide support and promote
wellness; and discuss challenges the staff face and identify solutions to those problems. These
meetings also will be an opportunity to re-evaluate the Program's strategies and to decide
how to adjust them to reflect developments in the field.
46
Staff Training and Resources
There are many similarities between providing services to survivors virtually and in -person. In
that respect, the training needs of the virtual advocates mirror those of in -person victim
services advocates. As a base foundation of knowledge, the virtual advocates would be
expected to complete training analogous to the content covered in 40-hour domestic
violence and sexual assault advocate trainings. Specialized training will also be needed in
hotline advocacy and service line advocacy. These trainings would provide more in-depth
information on the protocols and practices of these two programs and expansive training on
the skills required to support survivors in these two programs. An important component of
these trainings will be in-depth information on online/virtual privacy and confidentiality, as
well as tech safety, and how to communicate information on these topics and limitations to
the people being served by the Program.
There are several important differences between in -person and virtual services that impact
the training and resource needs of the staff of the Virtual Services Program. Most notably,
unlike most brick and mortar programs, the Virtual Services Program can serve survivors who
are virtually anywhere in the United States. This requires virtual advocates to know each
state's laws, statutes, and regulations pertaining to domestic violence and sexual assault, as
well as confidentiality, privilege, and mandatory reporting. In addition, these advocates will
need a much more expansive understanding of the resources available in communities across
the country so they can make referrals to services not offered by the Program.
Advocates also need specialized knowledge and skills to ensure the Program can effectively
serve everyone in the Deaf community, especially those who are most marginalized including
DeafBlind, Deaf people of color, Deaf people with disabilities, and Deaf people who do not
have fluency in American Sign Language. To that end, the Program's advocates will need to
mirror the diversity of Deaf communities and be deeply familiar with the diverse cultures
within these communities. They will also need to have a high degree of language fluency and
flexibility to meet the complex and diverse communication needs of the Deaf community. It is
imperative that the Program have people on the team with expertise in Deaf interpreting and
DeafBlind advocacy.
LIVA
Case Management Approach
The Program will need to determine the specific case management approach it will use. Vera
recommends that the Program's advocates be assigned to specific geographic regions.
Advocates would be responsible for serving survivors who contact the Service Line from states
that are located in their region (unless the survivor requests a different advocate). This would
allow advocates to better serve survivors by drawing on their specialized knowledge of a
particular region's relevant laws and statutes and resources available. The Program should
also be flexible and create an environment where survivors become familiar with all of the
advocates on the team and can reach out to anyone for assistance if their primary advocate is
unavailable.
We also recommend a low staff to survivor ratio. Serving Deaf survivors requires much more
time than serving hearing survivors because of language use and consideration, cultural norms
around iterative communication to build understanding, the complexity of need, and systemic
communication barriers. Based on our interviews with Deaf advocates who work at brick and
mortar programs, for every hour hearing advocates spend supporting a hearing survivor,
Deaf advocates spend 6-8 hours doing equivalent work with Deaf survivors.
Documenting Service Provision
Importantly, the Program will need to determine what, if any, personally identifiable
information will be collected, how that information will be used, and who will have access to
this information, keeping in mind local, state, and federal laws regarding privilege within victim
services. As with any victim services agency, the Program will need to be intentional and
diligent about what information is documented and what information is not.
The Program will need to develop policies, procedures, and mechanisms for collecting
information from and sharing information with survivors, including informed consent, privacy
and confidentiality notices, and written releases, as well as for retention of such records.
Given the virtual nature of service provision, the Program will also need to determine how to
share written documents with survivors and electronically obtain signed consent forms, written
releases, and other documents requiring signatures from people served by the program.
48
9
Case Management Software. Vera recommends the Program use a cloud -based case
management software. The software should maintain information about cases, track required
information, and run reports to meet funding requirements. A cloud -based solution will allow
the Program's staff, who are working remotely from different locations across the country, to
use the software and share relevant information in a secure environment. The software should
allow the Program Manager to give staff access to the relevant data and features they need,
while protecting them from information they don't need to see.
Records Retention. Electronic files policies and procedures should comply with record
retention laws and funding requirements, and be backed up regularly with end to end
encryption. At a minimum, Vera recommends that policies should address what records are to
be maintained, how they should be maintained (including the methods of data encryption), the
process for backing up data, how long records should be maintained, and protocols for
destroying records.
49
Accessibility
Vera recommends that the Program be designed and operated with the highest degree of
accessibility to ensure it meets the needs of DeafBlind individuals and Deaf individuals with
disabilities. Because the reach and impact of the Program hinge on the success of its outreach
materials and efforts, high priority should be placed on their accessibility. In addition to
including visuals and videos in American Sign Language, the website, for example, should be
designed in accordance with the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Emphasis
should be placed on accessibility for DeafBlind users, which require websites to offer visitors
the ability to customize features such as font size and color contrast and to use image
descriptions to name a few essential components. Social media posts and any other outreach
materials (written or electronic) will also need to be created with the highest standards of
accessibility in mind including captions, large font, and high color contrast. Additionally, any
online services and software, such as email marketing, video conferencing, and online chat
services, used will need to be vetted and selected with accessibility in mind, including but not
limited to compatibility with screen enlargement software, Braille displays, and color contrast
needs.
With a wide variety of technology options available and being used by the Program, advocates
will need to be familiar with the accessibility considerations and limitations of each and
equipped to make suggestions that best fit the needs of each survivor. To that end, during the
Program's early contact with survivors, advocates will need to talk with survivors to identify any
accommodations they need to fully participate in the services offered by the Program, as well
as any assistive technologies survivors use. Not only will this help the advocates ensure
equitable and inclusive experiences for DeafBlind individuals and individuals with disabilities it
will help advocates better safety plan, navigate systems, and identify potential resources with
these access needs in mind.
s0
Use of Interpreters in "for Deaf, by Deaf' Programs
While "for Deaf, by Deaf" programs create an opportunity for Deaf survivors to receive services in
a sign language environment, sign language interpreters are still needed and Vera anticipates
the Virtual Services Program will have interpreting needs, as well.
Deaf Interpreters. One of the most significant areas of need are interpreters for survivors and/or
their family members who are not fluent in or do not use American Sign Language. These survivors
may have minimal language skills; use home signs and/or gestures to communicate; be
developing their fluency in American Sign Language; or may be from another country and use a
different sign language. In each of these instances, hearing sign language interpreters could not
adequately access communication; thus, Certified Deaf Interpreters are used to ensure effective
communication between these survivors and Program staff. Deaf Interpreters are Deaf, native
signers, and trained as interpreters. They have specialized training in and experience using
gesture, mime, props, drawings and other tools to enhance communication. They also have
extensive knowledge in Deaf community and Deaf culture, which helps to support communication
and understanding of everyone involved.
Protactile Interpreters. "for Deaf, by Deaf" programs also need interpreters and other
communication supports to communicate effectively with DeafBlind individuals. The use of
ProTactile is growing among DeafBlind individuals. ProTactile is a language and it is rooted in
touch and used on the body. It empowers DeafBlind people who can communicate, connect, and
experience the world through touch as opposed to sight, which is critical given the isolation,
exclusion and discrimination DeafBlind people experience in a hearing and sighted world.[54]
ProTactile interpreters are specially trained interpreters who, most often, are Deaf. They can be
used to ensure effective communication between any of the Program's advocates who are not
fluent in Protactile and DeafBlind individuals. In some instances, the Program may need to
provide Communication Facilitators (CFs). CFs provide visual information to those unable to see
the video screen. A CIF is a skilled signer who copies sign language and other visual information
from a videophone screen and provides it to the DeafBlind person through close vision or tactile
sign language.
Hearing Interpreters. Advocates at "for Deaf, by Deaf" programs routinely interact with hearing
people in their day-to-day work In the Virtual Services Program, advocates may field calls from
hearing victim services providers or law enforcement officers who are trying to link Deaf survivors
to more appropriate support, or they may reach out to hearing service providers to assist Deaf
survivors access local resources. While the responsibility to provide interpreters often lies with the
hearing organizations, to ensure communication happens quickly and survivors don't experience
unnecessary delays, Program staff will need access to hearing American Sign Language
interpreters.
51
Partnerships
National Advisors
Vera recommends that the Program assemble a national board of advisors. The purpose of the
board is to ensure that the Program builds on the latest developments in the field and also
contributes to the process of advancing knowledge and practice nationally. The board will
consist of 5 to 7 people with expertise in domestic and sexual violence, advocacy, language
justice, and diversity in Deaf communities, especially communities of color and DeafBlind
individuals. The knowledge and experience of these advisors can influence the Program at
every stage, from start-up and launch to maturation. They will help the team take a step back
from the daily operational details and examine the big -picture questions: Is this Program
having the desired impact on Deaf survivors nationwide? Additionally, they will help the team
refine their approach and strategies to better meet the Program's goals and the needs of
survivors.
Deaf Action
Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, Deaf Action is
a "for Deaf, by Deaf" training and technical assistance project. It provides support, in
American Sign Language, to "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services organizations, programs, and
startups across the United States. Deaf Action provides training, including a 40-hour
advocacy training designed specifically for Deaf advocates, and networking opportunities for
the Deaf advocacy field. Deaf Action also tailors its support to meet the needs of each
program and has helped programs address a wide variety of challenges from hiring and
retaining staff to increasing organizational capacity to developing advocacy practices that
reach the most marginalized of survivors in Deaf communities. Deaf Action can provide
support to the Virtual Services Program and be a source of training for its staff.
52
Brick and Mortar "for Deaf, by Deaf" Victim Services Programs
"For Deaf, by Deaf" victim services programs are crucial partners of the Virtual Services
Program in a number of ways.
• Outreach: Brick and mortar programs can help increase the visibility of the Virtual Services
Program, especially the hotline, by featuring information about it on their websites, social
media channels, and other communications with Deaf communities. Doing this will also
help elevate the Program 's credibility within the community, as well.
• Referrals: The virtual and brick and mortar programs will need to develop strong referral
systems to provide seamless support for survivors. Survivors who live in states with a brick
and mortar program could be served by the Program, if they prefer not to work with the
brick and mortar program in their local community. If, however, they prefer the brick and
mortar program, the Program will make a warm referral. Similarly, if survivors contact brick
and mortar programs and they live outside of programs' service areas, they should be
referred to the Virtual Services Program.
• Information and Resource Sharing: The brick and mortar programs share the same mission
and goals as the Virtual Services Program. As such, these programs can both benefit from
working with one another in a coordinated manner. They can share knowledge, tools, and
other resources with one another to enhance each program and their collective impact.
National Deaf Therapy (NDT)
NDT provides video -based e-therapy in American Sign Language to members of the Deaf
community including individual, couples, and family therapy sessions and group support
circles. NDT provides telemental health services in 9 states: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and
Texas, and they are actively working to expand the
states they serve. Since their licensed practitioners
are Deaf and the Virtual Services Program cannot
provide survivors with counseling services directly, an
opportunity for collaboration exists. With training on
domestic and sexual violence from the Virtual
Services Program, the NDT can be a referral source
for survivors who need mental health services. The
Program can refer survivors to NDT and they receive
services directly from NDT or get a referral to a
culturally -specific practitioner in their area.
53
Other Deaf -Centric Organizations
Deaf -centered organizations at the national, state, and local levels throughout the country
play a critical role in outreach, community engagement, and referrals. These organizations
include Deaf schools, state -level Deaf and hard of hearing commissions, and local Deaf social
service agencies. Importantly, these organizations also include a number that advocate
for members of specific cultural groups within Deaf communities including Council de Manos,
National Black Deaf Advocates, and the National Deaf Asian Congress, as well as
organizations that serve DeafBlind people such as Tactile Communications. These
partnerships can inform the design and practices of the Virtual Services Program, so it
reaches, engages, and meets the needs of the most marginalized survivors in the Deaf
community. As the Virtual Services Program builds strong relationships with these
organizations and demonstrates an on -going commitment to centering these often
underserved communities, the Program's visibility within these communities will increase, as
will trust and credibility, which is essential for survivors to reach out to the Program for
support.
54
Impact and Assessment
Program evaluation is a critical component of any victim service program. Vera recommends
the Program regularly engage staff, volunteers, Deaf survivors, and Deaf community advocates
and stakeholders in the program to inform program evaluation activities. Vera recommends
that the Program, before launch, develop mechanisms for collecting and analyzing
performance measures. At a minimum, the Program should collect and analyze information on:
Service Provision
• Number of survivors served, by crime
type/topic
a Gender
a Age
a Location
• Number of victim services provided, by
service type
a Intake
a Crisis Intervention
a Case management
o Individual advocacy and support
o Documentation assistance
a Information and referral
o Education and support group
a Emergency Housing
a Transportation Assistance
a Other Financial Assistance
• Number of engagements, by engagement
type
o Video, by platform (direct contacts,
social media platforms, and video
messaging apps)
o Text
o Email
o TTY
• Days and hours of engagements
• Unmet requests, by request type
• Number of accommodations provided, by
accommodation type
o American Sign Language Interpreters
(Deaf and Hearing)
o Protactile Interpreters
• Materials in alternate formats (Braille,
large font, etc.)
o Other accommodation requests
Outreach and Education
• Number of outreach and education
activities
• Training and Consultation
o Number of consultations provided to
other service providers
o Number of information or referrals to
other service providers
o Number of trainings provided to other
service providers, and number of
people trained
• Number of professional development
opportunities staff attended
Website and Social Media
o Website visitors by page
o Social Media visitors by platform
This information can be used to report out on
the impact of the Program, as well as to
analyze trends to make refinements.
55
Timeline
Vera recommends that the Virtual Services Program receive funding in Year 1 of the five-year
expansion strategy project and continue to operate over the course of those five years (and
beyond, if proven successful).
In Year 1, the Virtual Services Program will be in the start-up phase. During the start-up phase,
the Program will focus on finalizing the design of the program and building the infrastructure
to support its operation. Importantly, this includes the following interrelated areas of work:
• Hiring and training staff.
• Developing policies and practices to support
the Program's design.
• Building the Program's technology
infrastructure.
• Creating a brand identity for the Program and
its comprehensive outreach plan and initial
outreach materials, including a website,
promotional video, and written materials.
• Orienting brick and mortar agencies to the
Program and coordinating efforts.
• Conducting initial outreach to key, national
and state -level organizations to build
awareness about the Project.
Vera suggests the Program consider having an
initial, public soft -launch in Month 9. This would
allow the team to test the Program's technology
and protocols; identify any unanticipated issues;
and make adjustments before the project
11,117 iiiii Miiiiw ii111". ii1i iiiii
Year 1
Year 2
Virtual services launch
Pilot sites start-up
Year 5
Year 4
Virtual services operates
Pilot sites operates
Year 5
Virtual services operate
Pilot sites operate
Assess impact
Develop scaling -up plan
launches nation-wide. Vera anticipates the project could launch fully in the beginning of
Year 2 and operate through the duration of the expansion project.
56
Budget
The estimated, annual operating budget the Virtual Services
Program is $1.25 million.
• Executive Director = .25 FTE
• Fiscal Manager = .20 FTE
• Project Director (Full -Time) = 1 FTE
• Virtual Advocates (Full -Time) = 6 FTEs
• Virtual Advocates (Part -Time) = 5 FTEs
• Outreach Specialists (Full -Time) = 2 FTEs
• Outreach Engagement to Priority States
• Quarterly Staff Meetings
• Trainings and Conferences for Professional Development
• Website & Graphic Designer (Year 1 only)
• Videographer (Year 1 only)
• Technology Consultants
• Legal Counsel
• American Sign Language (Hearing and Deaf)
• Protactile Interpreters
• Captioning & Braille
• Technology Equipment (Year 1 only)
• Technology Fees and Service Subscriptions
• Outreach and Marketing Service Subscriptions
• Website Hosting Fee
• Case Management Software
• Financial Assistance for Survivors (Year 2 and beyond)
Includes 10% de minimis indirect
cost rate.
57
Given survivors' needs and the complexities of the systems they must navigate, most survivors
need in -person advocacy services at some point in their healing journey. This specific form of
support cannot be provided by the Virtual Services Program as it is designed and discussed in
the previous section and a tested and proven model for how to expand in -person "for Deaf,
by Deaf" services does not exist. Thus, in addition to the Virtual Service Program, Vera
recommends a four-year, small-scale pilot to test the feasibility and effectiveness of several
models to expanding in -person "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services.
Pilot Design
The purpose of the pilot is to test various strategies to expand in -person "for Deaf, by Deaf"
victim services into states that currently do not have them. Vera suggests testing each of the
three promising strategies that emerged during the planning process:
Pilot Site 1: An existing brick and mortar "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services agency
establishing a satellite office and team of local advocates to provide services in a
surrounding state.
Pilot Site 2: An emerging and unfunded "for Deaf, by Deaf" victim services group establishing
an office and team to provide services in the state where they are located.
Pilot Site 3: The Virtual Services Program establishing an in -person office and hiring a team
of advocates to provide in -person victim services in a state that currently lacks services.
The organization selected for each pilot site will need to develop an expansion plan that
builds off these general strategies. The plan should include information on the design of their
project, a detailed implementation plan and measures of success.
58
Learning from the Pilot
Since the lessons learned from the pilot determine if and how in -person services can be
scaled, it is crucial that a dedicated and defined process be used to document and analyze
the pilot. This process should track outcomes and progress towards goals and include
structured and on -going opportunities for pilot site participants to share their experiences,
identify and discuss challenges, and adapt accordingly. These engagements would also be an
opportunity to identify capacity -building and training needs of the pilot sites.
Outcome
The pilot test will:
• Help to determine which, if any, strategy to expand in -person services is viable.
• Identify problems before taking the project to scale.
• Create opportunities to adapt strategies to address unforeseen issues.
• Identify success factors and inform the criteria for participation in the scaling phase.
• Help to determine the financial resources and support needed during full-scale
implementation.
Timeline
IIIIE IIIIr IIIIE IIIII IIII IIIII IIII
The timeline for the pilot test is four years. During the first
year (Year 2 of the overall expansion project), the pilot
°°°° IIIIIm li,I iq li�I
sites will focus on start-up activities. These activities will
Year
depend on the strategy that is being tested, but likely will
Virtual services start-up
include hiring and training staff and/or consultants,
building the technology infrastructure, securing and
Year 2
setting up office space (if applicable), creating an
outreach plan, and raising awareness among and building
Virtual services launch
Pilot sites start-up
relationships with key organizations, groups and people in
the expansion area(s).
Year 3
Pilot sites launch services
Virtual services operates
Budget Year
The total anticipated budget for the four-year pilot test Virtual services operates
is $2,625,000. This budget reflects 3 pilot sites. Each Pilot sites operates
pilot site would receive $125,000 for start-up expenses Year 5
and, then, $250,000 per year for 3 subsequent years. This Virtual services operate
budget estimate does not include expenses associated Pilot sites operate
with training, technical assistance, or other support Assess impact
provided to the pilot sites during the project. Develop scaling -up plan
59
ni��'�IhhI�R
The third component of Vera's recommended strategy is to scale up in -person "for Deaf, by
Deaf" programs. This component should only be pursued if the pilot achieves favorable
outcomes and any scaling should be based on the lessons learned from the pilot.
A Scaling Plan
A necessary first step in the scaling process is to develop w,,, 1Z lil, w IIIII S III IIIII
a scaling plan. The scaling plan should:11,117
IIIII w,, IIIII IIIII 14 w
• Clarify what is being scaled based on what worked
and what is transferable from the pilot. I
Year 1
• Determine the scale and timing of the expansion.
Virtual services start-up
• Detail an implementation plan, including any capacity
building support expansion sites will need. 4
Year 2
• Identify the stakeholders and partners needed and
Virtual services launch
their roles.
Pilot sites start-up
• Assess and determine cost. 4 0Year
3
• Include a monitoring and evaluation plan.
Pilot sites launch services
An organization, different from those operating the
Virtual services operates
Virtual Services Program and the pilot sites will need to 4 1
Year 4
participate in the project to garner lessons learned and
Virtual services operates
develop this plan. They will also need to determine the
Pilot sites operates
implications of this plan on the Virtual Services Program.
Year 5
Virtual services operate
Timeline and Budget
Pilot sites operate
Vera recommends that the scaling up plan be developed
Assess impact
in Year 5 based on the lessons learned from the Pilot Sites
Develop scaling -up plan
first two years of operation. We estimate this will cost $125,000.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
60
To ensure the expansion project is effective and sustainable, we recommend that evaluation
and adaptation be integrated throughout the project. This will allow key stakeholders of the
project - including funders, providers, and advisors - to account for changes in any of the
assumptions underlying the recommended strategy, address unforeseen challenges, and
mitigate any unintended consequences.
The project will need to have on -going and structured forums for stakeholders to convene to
discuss progress, celebrate successes, and problem -solve challenges. The conveners will need
to implement practices that ensure language access and, importantly, structure and convene
the team of stakeholders in ways that foster trust, relationship -building, and open
communication to ensure everyone is comfortable sharing challenges and failures, which is
necessary to scale any innovation.
We recommend the conveners build the project in the spirit of a learning organization and
integrate a learning culture into all aspects and levels of the project. According to the
Corporate Executive Board (CEB), a learning culture is one "that supports an open mindset,
an independent quest for knowledge, and shared learning directed toward the mission and
goals of the organization."[55]
The project will need to include an organization who is responsible for this work. This
organization would also be positioned to provide training and guidance to the organizations
involved in the expansion project. We estimate the five-year cost at $875,000.
A significant challenge to the success and ultimate impact of the proposed expansion plan in
Deaf communities across the country is sustainability. While sustainability is an issue plaguing
most victim services programs, it is even more pronounced for programs that are launched
through a special initiative or demonstration project.
• What happens to the Virtual Services Program and the pilot sites after the 5-year
expansion project?
• What happens to the Deaf survivors across who country who have come to rely on these
programs for support?
What the Research Tells Us
A comprehensive study on sustainability examined 297 diverse, non-profit projects (including
several that focused on victims of crime) and identified factors that strongly predict whether
projects continue or not.[57]
Funding matters.
Projects that continue have more funding and
non -financial support than those that don't
continue. Importantly, they also have more
funding sources. Greater diversity in funding is
important for two reasons. First, it is an
indication of the energy, commitment and
capacity of projects' leaders to sustain projects.
Second, it means projects have more sources of
support to pursue after the initial funding ends.
62
Funders play an important role.
Projects that continue have highly involved funders. Importantly, their funders are oriented
towards the future. They are focused on the sustainability of the project and building the
long-term capacity of organizations involved in the project.
Organizational and project leadership is crucial.
Projects that continue have support from the broader organization's leadership. Those leaders
assume ownership of the project and demonstrate strong support for it. Continued projects
also have a champion within the organization. Moreover, continued projects are perceived by
the staff as the organization's "flagship" project or the project that is most central to
achieving the organization's mission.
Community support is critical.
Continued projects have more community "patrons." Patrons are well-known or influential
people who lend their name and demonstrate strong support to the project.
Implications
The research on sustainability points to conditions that can be built into the expansion project
to increase the likelihood that the programs created and/or supported through the project
continue to provide victim services and have an impact after the initial five-year expansion
project ends.
• Efforts should be made to fund the five-year expansion project from multiple sources, and
its funders should infuse sustainability and support into the project (and scaling activities
that would take place after the five-year project) from its inception.
• The organizations that run the Virtual Services Program and the pilot site expansion
projects need to be carefully vetted. The expansion project should be central to the
mission of the organization and the leadership of the organization needs to demonstrate a
high-level of commitment and support for the project.
• The staff leading the expansion projects also need to be carefully selected, with an
emphasis on people who are fierce supporters of the project and who have strong
leadership, program development, and fundraising skills.
• Throughout the expansion project, a significant emphasis needs to be placed on garnering
support from Deaf community members.
63
INTRODUCTION
1. Melissa L. Anderson and Irene W. Leigh, "Intimate
partner violence against deaf female college
students," Violence Against Women 77 (2013): 822-
834.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
2. Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center,
"200 Years of Deaf Education," accessed December
15, 2019, https://www3.gallaudet.edu/clerc-
center/info-to-go/deaf-education/200-years-of-
deaf-education.html.
THE DEAF COMMUNITY
3. Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center,
"American Deaf Culture," accessed December 7, 2019,
https://www5.gallaudet.edu/clerc-center/info-to-
go/deaf-culture/american-deaf-culture.html.
W*Ve A
5. National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders, "American Sign Language,"
accessed December 5, 2019,
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/american-sign-
language.
6. C. McCaskill, C. Lucas, R. Bayley, and J. Hill, The
Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure
(Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2011).
7. granda, aj and Nuccio, Jelica. "Pro -Tactile VLOG
#5." Pro -Tactile: the DeafBlind Way. March 2016.
Accessed October 11, 2019. http://www.protactile.org.
8. Mindy J. Hopper, "Positioned as Bystanders: Deaf
Students' Experiences and Perceptions of Informal
Learning Phenomena" (PhD diss., University of
Rochester, 2011).
9. Paddy Ladd, Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search
of Deafhood (Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters,
2005).
10. H.Dierksen and J. Murray, eds., Deaf Gain: Raising
the Stakes for Human Diversity (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota, 2014).
11. 3 Play Media, "Faces Behind the Screen: Jessica
Flores," accessed December 3, 2019,
https://www.5playmedia.com/resources/faces-
behind-screen/jessica-flores/.
12. I. Leigh, J. Andrews, and R. Harris, Deaf Culture:
Exploring Deaf Communities in the United States (San
Diego, California: Plural Publishing Incorporated, 2016).
13. National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders, "Quick Statistics About
Hearing," accessed December 5, 2019,
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick
statistics -hearing.
14.Ibid.
15. R. Mitchell, T. Young, B. Bachleda, and M. Karchmer,
"How many people use ASL in the United States? Why
estimates need updating." Sign Language Studies 6, no.
3 (2006): 506-555.
16. Paddy Ladd, "In Search of Deafhood: Towards an
Understanding of British Deaf Culture" (PhD diss.,
University of Bristol, 1998). Accessed online at
https://research-
information.bris.ac.uk/files/34490405/297970.pdf.
17. Irene W. Leigh, Jean F. Andrews, and Raychelle L.
Harris, "Deaf Community: Past and Present" in Deaf
Culture: Exploring Deaf Communities in the United
States, (San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, 2018).
64
VIOLENCE AND ABUSE IN THE LIVES OF DEAF
PEOPLE
18. Erika Harrell, Crime Against Persons with
Disabilities, 2009-2015 -Statistical Tables (Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2017).
19. Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G.,
Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R.
(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
20. Cerulli, C., Pollard, R.Q., Jr., Thew, D.,
Mastrocinque, J.M., Raimondi, C., DeWindt, L., Haynes,
S., Kelstone, K., Stone, J.T. and Chin, N. (2015), WHAT
CAN WE LEARN? EXAMINING INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE SERVICE PROVISION IN THE DEAF
COMMUNITY. J. Community Psychol., 45: 142-155.
doi:10.1002Acop.21670.
21. Patricia M. Sullivan and John F. Knutson,
"Maltreatment and behavioral characteristics of youth
who are deaf and hard of hearing," Sexuality and
Disability 16, no. 4, (1998): 295-319.
22. Kvam, Marit Hoem. "Sexual Abuse of Deaf
Children. A Retrospective Analysis of the Prevalence
and Characteristics of Childhood Sexual Abuse
among Deaf Adults in Norway.
23, Child Abuse & Neglect 28(3), March 2004, 241-
251.[1] Sullivan, P.M., Vernon, M. & Scanlan, L. "Sexual
Abuse of Deaf Youth." Annals of the Deaf 32(4), 1987,
256-262.
24. Porter, Judy L. and Laverne McQuiller Williams.
"Dual Marginality: The Impact of AuditoryStatus and
Sexual Orientation on Abuse in a College Sample of
Women and Men." Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment
& Trauma 22, no. 6 (2013): 577-589.; Porter, Judy L.
and LaVerne McQuiller Williams, "Auditory Status and
Experiences of Abuse Among College Students."
Violence and Victims 26, no. 6 (2011): 788-798.;
Pollard Jr., Robert Q., Erika Stutter, and Catherine
Cerulli. "Intimate Partner Violence Reported by Two
Samples of Deaf Adults via a Computerized American
Sign Language Survey." Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 29, no. 5 (2014): 948-965.;
Anderson, Melissa L. and Caroline M. Kobek
Pezzarossi. "Violence Against Deaf Women: Effect of
Partner Hearing Status." Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education (2013). doi: 10.1093.; and
Harrell, 2017.
25. Schild, Sven and Constance J. Dalenberg.
"Consequences of Child and Adult Sexual and
Physical Trauma among Deaf Adults." Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 24, no. 3 (2015):
237-256.
26. Pollard Jr., Robert Q., Erika Stutter, and Catherine
Cerulli. "Intimate Partner Violence Reported by Two
Samples of Deaf Adults via a Computerized American
Sign Language Survey." Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 29, no. 5 (2014): 948-965.
27. Elizabeth Wakeland, Sally Austen & John
Rose (2018) What is the prevalence of abuse in the
deaf/hard of hearing population?, The Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29:5, 434-
454, DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2017.1416659.
28. Nancy Smith and Charity Hope. Culture, Language,
and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf
Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence. New York:
Vera Institute of Justice, 2015.; Cerulli, et al, 2015.
29. Watson, Cherrie (2014) "Violence in Deaf Culture:
My Story, My Voice," Dissenting Voices: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1,
Article 9.
65
ABUSE IN DEAF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS
THE STATE OF SERVICES FOR DEAF VICTIMS
50. PBS, "Through Deaf Eyes: The Formation of a
Community," accessed December 10, 2019,
https://www.pbs.org/weta/throughdeafeyes/deafIif
e/community.html.
51. Ginia Bellafante, "She was 4 and Deaf. That's
When the Sexual Abuse Began, She Said." New York
Times, October 16, 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/nyregion/new
-york-school-deaf-sexual-abuse.html.
32. To learn more about abuse in Deaf residential
schools, read:
https://www.nyfimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wiscon
sin.html;
hftps://www.howaiinewsnow.com/story/32214432/
exclusive -court -papers -allege -deaf -and -blind -
school -principal -tried -to -cover -up -sex -assault
scandal/;
https://www.pe.com/2015/08/15/riverside-8216sex
club8217-operated-at-school-for-deaf-lawsuit
claims/;
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Decades-
of-sex-abuse-plague-deaf-school-1053009.php; and
hftps://bangordailynews.com/2013/04/14/opinion/I
essons-learned-after-sexual-exploitation-of-deaf-
students-in-maine/.
34. Candice Tate, Trauma in the Deaf Population:
Definition, experience, and services (Alexandria, VA:
National Association of State Mental Health Program
Directors, 2012).
55. Barbara A. Oudekerk, Heather Warnken, and Lynn
Langton, Victim Service Providers in the United State,
2017, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010).
36.Vera Institute of Justice, Language Access Survey
for Victim Service Providers and Allied Professionals,
2017, produced by the Vera Institute of Justice.
37. The National Resource Center for Reaching
Underserved Victims, Survey on Serving Unclerservecl
Victims, 2018, produced by the Vera Institute of
Justice.
38. Vera Institute of Justice, 2017.
59. Brickman, Jannette. (Senior Program Associate,
Accessing Safety Initiative at the Vera Institute of
Justice, in discussion with the authors. December
2019.
40. Smith and Hope, 2015.
55. Bellafonte, 2019. 41. Vera Institute of Justice, 2017.
42. Ibid.
C=001
44. The National Resource Center for Reaching
Underserved Victims, 2018.
45. Vera Institute of Justice, 2017.
46. The National Resource Center for Reaching
Underserved Victims, 2018.
47. Gallaudet University Library, " What is Audism:
Introduction," accessed on November 17, 2019,
http://Iibguides.gallaudet.edu/c.php?
9=773910&p=5553053.
66
SUSTAINABILITY
48. Abused Deaf Women's Advocacy Services.
"Herstory." adwas.org.
https://www.adwas.org/herstory/ (accessed
December 12, 2019).
49. S. Luthar. and D. Cicchetti, "The construct of
resilience: Implications for interventions and social
policies, "Development and Psychopathology, 12 (2000)
857-885. doi:10.1017/S0954579400004156.
50. P. Johnson, S. Cawthon, B. Fink, E. Wendel, and S.
Schoffstall, "Trauma and Resilience Among Deaf
Individuals," Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, (2018): 517-330.
51. Oudekerk, et al., 2017.
VIRTUAL "FOR DEAF, BY DEAF" VICTIM
SERVICES
52. Federal Communications Commission. 2016
Broadband Progress Report. Washington, DC, January
2016.
55. C.L Garberoglio, J.L. Palmer, S. Cawthon, and A.
Sales, Deaf People and Employment in the United
States: 2019. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs, National Deaf Center on
Postsecondary Outcomes, Washington, DC: 2019.
54. Clark, John Lee. "Distantism." Tumblr: John Lee Clark.
August 2017. Accessed on October 19, 2019.
https:/Aohnleeclark.tumblr.com/post/163762970913/dis
tantism.
55. T. Chamorro-Premuzic and J. Bersin, "4 Ways to
Create a Learning Culture on Your Team," Harvard
Business Review, 2018, https://hbr.org/2018/07/4-
ways-to-create-a-learning-culture-on-your-team.
56. Davide Garvin, "Building a Learning Organization,"
Harvard Business Review, 1993,
https://hbr.org/1995/07/building-a-learning-
organization.
57. R. Savaya and S. Spiro, "Predictors of sustainability
of social programs," American Journal of Evaluation, 33
(2012) 26-43.
58. M. Scheirer and J. Dearing, "An agenda for research
on the sustainability of public health programs,"
American Journal of Public Health, 101 (2011), 2059-2067.
67
We would like to thank those who have contributed their expertise, time, and perspective to
this program plan through participation in an interview, listening session, or focus group,
including but not limited to: Aracelia Aguilar, Malibu Barron, Tiffany Bridgett, Paula Clark,
Sarita Cooper, Keri Darling, Alicia Devine, Megan Erasmus, Kim Grebert, Aaron Gutzke, Marie
Goodman, Kala Hargens, Amber Hodson, Tara Holcomb, Najma Johnson, Rose Larson, Raylene
Lotz, Stephanie Mathis, Michelle Mendiola, TJay Middlebrook, Dolly Morrow, Nicolyn Plummer,
Joan Philip, Rachel Porter, Jacqueline Pransky, Ana Price, Lisa Oshman, Peggie Reyna, Shannon
Shriver, Libby Stanley, Stephanie Taksel, Erin Kelly Watkins, and Sari Williams.
We would also like to extend a special thanks Roberta Eaton, who played an important role in
making this program plan a reality, for her time, energy, and contributions and Erin Esposito for
their invaluable guidance and assistance in the plan's development.
Finally, we would like to thank Amy Loder of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence
Against Women for her support throughout the development of this program plan.
68