(WITHDRAWN) Comprehensive Needs Assessment for Deaf Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Seeking Emergency Crisis and Shelter Services in Florida

The purpose of the study was to examine emergency crisis and shelter services available to Deaf women who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in Florida. Twice the number of Deaf women experience intimate partner violence than women without a hearing disability. Yet, little is known about this population, in general, and about recovery, in particular (Cerulli et al., 2015). Many Deaf individuals use American Sign Language (ASL) instead of spoken language, they are often at increased risk of violence and targets of abuse because of their vulnerabilities (Barnett, 2011). Perpetrators may view their intended victim as having limited access to communication, reducing the likelihood of the abuse being reported or isolating the victim because of the lack of spoken language ability (Crowe, 2015). There is a shortage of social workers and other clinical professionals who have the training and experience to work with clients/patients who are Deaf. This includes qualified sign language interpreters, especially those with specialized training in mental health settings (Chapple, 2019).

Methodology

A culturally responsive mixed-methods design was used to answer the following research questions.

1. What services are available to Deaf individuals who are survivors of IPV seeking emergency crisis and shelter services?
2. What are the identifiable gaps in service for this population?

Phase 1: A computerized Qualtrics survey was administered to crisis shelters in Florida. The goal was to identify existing organizations providing services to Deaf women.

Phase 2: Conducted interviews with identified agencies who supported Deaf women to learn about social supports and identify service gaps.

Findings

The survey was sent out to 20 shelters, and 9 responses were received (45% response rate). This report includes data from 6 shelters; the other three were excluded due to not being in Florida or not being a shelter. All respondents (n=6) described their agencies as providing services to Deaf women and having some training. However, the agencies were very limited in terms of their training and programming. Eighty-three percent of the agencies had some training; one agency did not report any training. Upon further inspection of the data, it was discovered that none of the agencies had any training or programming exceeding basic service accommodations and minimum training requirements (i.e., DCF online modules). Agencies served an average of 3 Deaf women per year. Despite the low numbers, 66% reported not having engaged in outreach efforts in the Deaf community to increase their numbers.

Conclusion and Implications

The initial study design sought to identify providers engaged in the culturally responsive work with this population to learn from them. Instead of identifying providers engaged in best practices, however, this study identified a service gap. As a result, we shifted our focus for the second phase of the research and interviewed agencies and researchers engaged in specialized services with this population; all of whom were outside of Florida. Findings highlight gaps in culturally sensitive programming and trained providers available to meet the needs of Deaf women seeking shelter services.