Communication & Collaboration to Address Barriers for Deaf Survivors

By Kristen Parsons, Research Associate

Two women sit at a table in a library, communicating in sign language.

Through its CJII-funded Deaf Services Initiative, over the past three years Barrier Free Living has improved support for deaf survivors of abuse by enhancing communication support and technology, improving collaboration among external service providers, and engaging community partners in deaf-specific trainings and resources.

Individuals who are deaf, Deaf (i.e., identify as culturally Deaf), hard of hearing (HOH), or deaf-blind endure higher rates of intimate partner violence compared to those without a hearing disability, yet experience challenges to reporting their victimization to police as well as to accessing American Sign Language (ASL)-specific supports.[1] As a longstanding provider of services for people with disabilities facing violence and bias, Barrier Free Living, Inc. (BFL) expanded its Deaf Services Initiative (DSI) in late 2017 as part of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII). BFL offers services through three avenues: Freedom House, a domestic violence (DV) shelter; Secret Garden, a DV program providing counseling, support groups, advocacy, and safety planning, among others; and BFL Apartments, which offers permanent housing to survivors with disabilities.

An evaluation of BFL’s work by the Urban Institute indicates that CJII funding allowed BFL to hire additional deaf staff, more effectively communicate with deaf survivors, improve collaboration with community partners, and improve knowledge of deaf-specific challenges and care among external providers. Below, we outline key findings and share policy recommendations for the future of disability-focused services.

DSI increased effective communication with deaf survivors

Staff ASL competency

  • BFL provided a six-week ASL training in which all staff were required to participate, including case managers, social workers, and front-desk administrators. Approximately 35 staff participated in five trainings in ASL 101 and a supplemental ASL 201 course between fall 2018 and spring 2020. Classes were held in-person as well as virtually, the latter of which saw increased attendance due to the convenience of an online platform.

Interpretation services

  • Although BFL has consistently used ASL interpreters as part of the DSI, Urban found that this practice improved due to CJII funding. BFL simplified the process for securing interpreters by designating a staff member to set up appointments, training non-deaf management on how to request interpreters, and implementing recurring meetings that interpreters were regularly scheduled to attend. Because of these changes, deaf staff experienced relief from the burden of scheduling interpreters in addition to serving clients.

Communications technology

  • CJII funding allowed BFL to enhance its technological capacity in several ways. In 2018, BFL purchased tablets to facilitate video remote interpreting; replaced outdated devices and introduced new deaf-friendly ones at the Freedom House shelter (e.g., blinking lights for the doorbell); and created a visual hotline with an ASL menu to assist clients in contacting DSI staff. Most recently, BFL developed and disseminated an educational video on topics specific to deaf survivors, such as identifying manipulation in abusive relationships. For example, abusive partners may inhibit access to videophones or other communication devices; withhold or break hearing aids; or limit a deaf individual’s exposure to ASL education.[2]

DSI increased staff communication and collaboration around services provided to deaf clients

Deaf staff integration

  • Prior to the CJII grant, deaf BFL staff only provided services at one of their locations, Secret Garden. CJII funding allowed BFL to increase deaf staff presence at both Secret Garden and Freedom House. The changes in staffing supported communication between deaf clients and staff as well as improved collaboration across BFL’s service sites.

Increased awareness

  • Urban found that BFL since CJII funding, staff are more knowledgeable about deaf-specific needs and barriers than before. DSI staff offer in-house trainings to hearing staff across service sites. The topics include deaf communication, Deaf culture, and the intersection of domestic violence and people with disabilities. According to one non-deaf BFL staff member, “Deaf Services has paved the way for us to really do some deeper, more intentional work…around our hearing privilege.”

DSI increased community service providers’ knowledge of deaf survivors’ needs and services

Coordinated service provision

Community partners indicated that joint referrals and strong communication with BFL were key to their longstanding relationships; in particular; this collaboration has allowed agencies to fill service gaps. For example, one partner described leveraging BFL’s communications technology with deaf clients, which was enhanced and expanded after CJII funding. Community partners also highlighted that BFL is the only service provider to work with survivors with disabilities, and, in particular, deaf individuals who have experienced trauma.

Community outreach and training

  • Between January 2018 and September 2021, DSI conducted approximately 300 direct outreach activities citywide, led over 100 workshops, and conducted nearly 80 trainings on deaf-specific topics for external service providers—such as Deaf Culture 101—which have been well-received. As one community partner noted, “I’ve been doing this work for many years, and I’ve always learned something new when I’ve attended their trainings, even recently.” BFL was also successful in increasing awareness of the unique challenges deaf survivors face through advocacy and other informal means of education.

Policy Recommendations

Urban developed a list of policy recommendations to help address the systems-level barriers that interfere with a deaf survivor’s ability to access appropriate services to meet their needs:

  • Fund programs that serve D/deaf/HOH survivors; specifically, create one funding stream for community agencies similar to those in NYC that specifically fund violence shelters;

  • Improve language accessibility in criminal legal and medical sectors, such as text-to-911 services or video-based technology;

  • Increase accessibility and availability of long-term and permanent housing for deaf survivors;

  • Facilitate communication and networking across agencies to support information sharing and collaboration; and

  • Conduct additional research and evaluation projects to identify best practices and replicate promising service models for deaf survivors.

About the CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance (ISLG) and the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII)

The CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance manages the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII), which was established by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in 2015. ISLG provides technical assistance, conducts oversight, measures performance, and manages all CJII grantees.

The CJII focuses on three investment areas—crime prevention, reentry and diversion, and supports for survivors of crime. The Deaf Services Initiative is funded through the CJII’s crime prevention-focused investments in Victims of Crime.

This evaluation is funded through CJII. This blog accompanies the Urban Institute’s final evaluation report of DSI. Its earlier findings are available here and here.

[1] Except when referring specifically to Deaf culture, for purposes of inclusivity and simplicity, we use “deaf” in this report to refer to people who are Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened, or Deaf-Blind.

[2] Anderson, M., Craig, K., & Ziedonis, D. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to deaf trauma survivors’ help-seeking behavior: Lessons for behavioral clinical trials research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(1), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw066.

Image by SHVETS production from Pexels

Previous
Previous

Lessons Learned: Best Practices for Conducting Research with the Deaf Population

Next
Next

Why Law Enforcement Should Be Doing More Deflection as A Primary Response