Center on Victimization and Safety

Culture, Language, and Access: 
Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors 
of Domestic and Sexual Violence

Sheri Ann Farinha, Deaf leader and advocate, standing in front of a brick wall, signing ‘advocacy'.
January 2015

Nancy Smith and Charity Hope



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

2

From the Director

The Vera Institute of Justice is committed to enhancing victim services and justice 
responses to better meet the needs of all crime victims, especially those from 
marginalized communities. Vera was introduced to the Deaf community in 2005 
after launching a new project to improve access to services for crime victims with 
disabilities. Despite the fact that Deaf women and girls experience higher rates 
of violence than their hearing counterparts and face unique barriers to support, 
we found few efforts within the field of victimization and disability that specifically 
focused on this community. We interviewed leaders from the Deaf community to 
find out why, and quickly learned that many Deaf people do not view themselves 
as having a disability, but as members of a cultural and linguistic community, 
defined by a language other than English and a unique set of cultural norms, values, 
and expectations. As such, in the aftermath of domestic and sexual violence, 
the experiences and needs of members of the Deaf community are different from 
people with disabilities in important ways that have unique policy and practice 
implications. We went on to review the literature, conduct more interviews, and 
host three national roundtables involving Deaf and hearing experts on domestic 
and sexual violence in the Deaf community. Our goal was to better understand 
the unmet needs and experiences of Deaf survivors, and what is happening—or 
needs to happen—to address them. 

This policy and practice brief summarizes the findings from our work with the 
Deaf community and offers practical suggestions for increasing Deaf survivors’ 
access to victim services and other supports, including those offered by the criminal 
justice and medical systems. This information will provide a framework for 
meeting the needs of Deaf survivors that is grounded in the cultural and linguistic 
needs of this community. It will also ground policymakers, practitioners, and first 
responders in the victim services field in the realities of this often-overlooked 
community. It is our hope that they and others will join us in becoming hearing 
allies to the Deaf community and Deaf survivors of domestic and sexual violence 
across the country. 


Nancy Smith, Director

Center on Victimization and Safety

Vera Institute of Justice



Vera Institute of Justice

3

Contents

4 Foreword by Erin Esposito

5 Introduction

6 The Deaf community in the United States

10 Research on victimization is limited

11 Higher rates of domestic and sexual violence

13 Unique experiences of violence

14 Barriers to services and justice

21 Services for Deaf, by Deaf: a promising strategy 

25 Enhancing the capacity of hearing service 
providers and systems

27 Collaboration between Deaf and hearing programs 

29 Recommendations

31 Conclusion



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

Foreword: The Story of Ruth

Ruth is a Deaf woman who is fluent in 
American Sign Language (ASL) and 
married to a hearing man who knows 
sign language.1 He is physically, emotionally, 
and verbally abusive, and has 
total control over Ruth’s finances. Ruth’s 
friends have been encouraging her to 
leave her husband for years. Finally, after 
her husband comes home one night 
and threatens to kill her, Ruth flees in 
fear for her life with only her purse and 
iPhone. Terrified and sobbing, Ruth 
video chats with her Deaf friend and 
explains what happened. Her friend 
tells her about a domestic violence 
shelter she can go to. Ruth is reluctant 
and hesitates, telling her friend, “But 
the people there don’t know ASL!” The 
friend reassures her, “Probably not, but 
I am sure the staff will get an interpreter. 
And at least you will be safe and that is 
what is most important right now!” 

Ruth places a Video Relay Service (VRS) 
call through her iPhone to reach the 
shelter. Following protocol, the VRS 
operator proceeds to announce that a 
Deaf person is calling using the relay 
service, only to have shelter staff hang 
up the phone. Confused, Ruth advises 
the VRS operator to call again, and they 
get the same results. Frustrated and 
tired, Ruth instructs the VRS operator 
to simply say “Hi. My name is Ruth and 
I need shelter from my abusive husband.” 
The operator calls back and follows 
Ruth’s direction, and she is finally 
able to obtain directions to the shelter.

Upon arriving at the shelter, Ruth struggles 
to get in. There is a speaker outside 
of the locked door but she cannot 
hear whether someone is trying to 
speak to her after she rings the doorbell. 
She rings again and knocks on the 
door, which has no window or open 
space to be able to communicate with 
the shelter staff. After 10 minutes, the 
door opens and Ruth is escorted to a 
small, poorly-lit office space where a 
staff member asks her questions as part 
of intake. Ruth does not understand 
anything being said to her and motions 
for paper and pen. The staff member 
continues to try to talk to Ruth, mouthing 
dramatically “Can you read my 
lips?” Ruth fiercely shakes her head 
and again asks for paper and pen. The 
woman ignores Ruth and picks up the 
phone and starts talking. Ruth grabs 
a pen and finds a piece of paper and 
scribbles, “I am Deaf and need interpreter,” 
to which the staff person writes 
back, “We don’t have money for interpreters. 
We can write back and forth 
instead.” Ruth writes a note asking if 
the shelter serves Deaf women. The 
staff person writes back, “Once before, 
but she didn’t stay long. Don’t worry 
though, you can stay for as long as you 
need.” An hour into the tedious process 
of writing back and forth, frustrated 
and exhausted, Ruth writes one final 
note, gets up, and walks out the door. 
“I’d rather go home than be stuck here 
with no one I can talk to.”

Erin Esposito, Executive Director, Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Victims



Vera Institute of Justice

Introduction

Deaf women 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 women.2 Yet, as “Ruth’s” 
story illustrates, Deaf survivors routinely face barriers when 
reaching out for help. From 911 systems that only take 
phone-based calls to domestic violence programs and 
rape crisis centers that do not provide bilingual and bicultural 
services in ASL, 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. As a result, Deaf survivors are often 
shut off from services and supports that could help them 
safely flee from abuse, heal from trauma, and seek justice 
after they have been harmed. 

In 2005, the Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera) Center on 
Victimization and Safety partnered with the U.S. Department 
of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women to 
better understand the experiences of Deaf survivors and 
the barriers they face. Vera staff conducted a literature 
review and quickly learned that research on domestic 
and sexual violence in the Deaf community was severely 
lacking. We turned to Deaf advocates who were working 
to address the issue to learn more. During the next three 
years, we convened three national roundtable discussions 
with more than 40 experts in this area, including 
Deaf advocates and hearing allies. At the first roundtable 
in March 2006, we sought to better understand Deaf 
survivors’ experiences—both with domestic and sexual 
violence and reaching out for help—and to identify promising 
approaches for meeting their needs. For the second 
roundtable in August 2007, we explored culturally and linguistically 
competent community-based services for Deaf 
survivors in more detail, including their characteristics, 
promising models for delivering such services, and barriers 
to doing so. Our final roundtable in August 2008 focused 
on enhancing criminal justice responses for Deaf survivors. 



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

Additionally, since 2006, we have been supporting communities 
across the country to improve services for survivors 
with disabilities and Deaf survivors. To date, we have 
fostered more than 60 collaborations between organizations 
that serve survivors of domestic and sexual violence 
and those that serve people with disabilities and/or Deaf 
people. After an intensive planning phase to strengthen 
and formalize their collaboration, organizations identify 
strengths and gaps in their capacities to serve these 
survivors, determine how best to address the gaps they 
have identified, and then implement those solutions. 

This policy and practice brief summarizes the findings from 
the Deaf-specific roundtables we conducted and reflect 
the lessons learned from our work with and observations of 
collaborations aimed at addressing domestic and sexual 
violence in the Deaf community from 2006 to 2014. The brief 
offers a framework for understanding and addressing the 
unmet needs of Deaf survivors that is rooted in a cultural 
and linguistic perspective. As such, it includes information 
on the Deaf community and culture in the United States, 
provides foundational information on what is known about 
the incidence and prevalence of domestic and sexual 
violence against Deaf people, and explores the cultural 
and linguistic barriers that prevent Deaf survivors from 
accessing services and other supports that generally exist. 
It discusses several promising approaches to delivering 
culturally and linguistically competent services to Deaf 
survivors and the challenges faced by those delivering 
these services. Finally, it concludes with a set of recommendations 
for policymakers and practitioners in the 
victim services field aimed at creating equal access to 
services and the criminal justice system for Deaf survivors 
in every community.

The Deaf community in the 
United States

Instead of viewing themselves as lacking hearing (or as 
having a disability), many Deaf and hard of hearing 




people identify as members of a distinct cultural group 
in the United States. Like any culture, Deaf culture in the 
U.S. is defined by its unique language, values, behavioral 
norms, and traditions. 

>>Language: ASL—the primary and preferred language 
of the American Deaf community—is a visual-gestural 
language with its own syntax and grammatical structure. 
It employs signs made by moving the hands combined 
with facial expressions and postures of the body. It does 
not have a vocal or written component. Many Deaf 
people in the United States learn written English as a 
second language. ASL even has geographic variations 
akin to accents in spoken languages, as well as slang. 
ASL is not universal; there are distinct signed languages 
in other countries, including but not limited to Spanish 
Sign Language and Chinese Sign Language. 
>>Values: Individualism is a widely-held American value, 
however, Deaf culture values collectivism. Deaf people 
are often deeply connected to one another and regularly 
function as one close-knit group despite being 
spread across the country. Deaf people work hard to 
stay informed about what is happening in other Deaf 
communities and in the individual lives of Deaf people 
they may only know tangentially. Deaf culture commonly 
places a premium on transparency and honesty, as 
keeping secrets or being too private may conflict with 
the culture’s collective spirit. Deaf culture also strongly 
values the visual, especially because this is how communication 
takes place. 
>>Behavioral norms: Personal interaction among Deaf 
people can differ from that of their hearing counterparts. 
While making eye contact is valued in many cultures, it 
is imperative in the Deaf community for communication 
and allows Deaf individuals to read facial expressions 
and body language for additional information. Conversations 
tend to be incredibly direct; it is not uncommon, 
for example, for a Deaf person to inquire about how 
much money someone spent on an item or to com


Deaf culture in the 
U.S. is defined by 
its unique language, 
values, behavioral 
norms, and traditions.



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

ment about a change in a person’s appearance. There 
are also established behaviors to get the attention of a 
Deaf individual who is not in one’s line of sight: flicking 
a light switch, gently tapping a person on the shoulder, 
tapping a table, or stomping on the floor. 
>>Traditions: Because most Deaf people are born to 
hearing parents, the Deaf community relies upon 
Deaf-specific institutions like Schools for the Deaf and 
Deaf clubs to pass down its culture from one generation 
to the next.3 Deaf schools and clubs are strongly 
supported by many Deaf people for this reason. Deaf 
events like social outings, fundraisers, or conferences 
create opportunities for Deaf people to come together 
to socialize and network—opportunities that are rare 
for Deaf people in a society dominated in number by 
hearing people, leading many Deaf people to go out of 
their way to attend them. The Deaf community is also 
known for its widespread adoption and innovative use 
of communication technologies ranging from the teletypewriter 
in the 1960s to videophones and videoconferencing 
in the early 2000s to social media today. 


Members of the Deaf community coalesce around and 
celebrate their shared language and culture. An uppercase 
“D” in “Deaf” is used to reflect identification with Deaf culture, 
whereas a lowercase “d” in “deaf” reflects an audiological 
perspective defined by a loss of hearing. 

The Deaf community in the United States is considerably 
diverse and comprised of people who self-identify 
in a multitude of ways depending on a number of factors 
including the cause and degree of hearing loss, age of 
onset, educational background, communication methods, 
and their personal experiences and journey. While identity 
is very personal and varied from individual to individual, it 
is helpful to understand some of the common ways people 
within the Deaf community identify. Many people identify 
as “Deaf,” reflecting their identification with Deaf culture. 
Others who consider themselves members of the Deaf 
community include individuals who may identify as “hard 
of hearing,” indicating that they have hearing loss, but 

Woman signing ‘oppression’.
oppression



Vera Institute of Justice

some degree of residual hearing. Other Deaf community 
members include those who lost their hearing later in life 
and may call themselves “late-deafened,” and still others 
with some degree of hearing and sight loss who may 
identify as “DeafBlind.” Some members of the Deaf community 
are hearing, most commonly family members of a 
Deaf person, including children of Deaf adults (CODAs), 
and ASL interpreters. Hearing members of the community 
embrace and identify with Deaf culture as well.

According to data from the 2010 Survey of Income and 
Program Participation (SIPP), approximately 7.6 million 
people ages 15 and older in the United States have difficulty 
hearing, while approximately 1.1 million of these 
individuals define their hearing difficulty as severe.4 In the 
SIPP questionnaire, difficulty hearing was defined as experiencing 
deafness or having difficulty hearing a normal 
conversation, even when wearing a hearing aid. Those who 

Legacy of fear and mistrust

Audism—the belief that one is superior based on 
one’s ability to hear—is engrained in our society, 
shaping our world around the idea that hearing 
people are the norm and contributing to the discrimination 
and disparities d/Deaf people face in 
our country. Examples of audism in society at large 
include medical efforts to “fix” or “repair” d/Deaf 
people; the devaluation of signed languages in favor 
of spoken English in education and other settings; 
systematic failures to accommodate d/Deaf people, 
including refusal to provide ASL interpreters; and 
enduring stereotypes, such as d/Deaf people being 
less intelligent or unfit parents simply because they 
are d/Deaf. The collective experiences of discrimination 
and exclusion d/Deaf people have experienced 
as a result of audism has created a legacy of fear and 
mistrust of hearing people, organizations, and systems 
that must be taken into account and overcome 
by hearing professionals in the crime victims field.



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

were deaf or unable to hear a normal conversation were 
described as having a severe difficulty.5 These numbers, 
however, do not distinguish between those who identify 
with Deaf culture and those who do not, making an 
accurate estimate of the Deaf population impossible. The 
unavailability of current, accurate information on ASL users 
highlights how Deaf and hard of hearing individuals have 
often been overlooked in existing research, including studies 
on victimization of Deaf individuals. A review of existing 
estimates for the number of ASL users found estimates as 
low as 100,000 and as high as 15,000,000 users.6 Even the 
commonly-cited estimate of 500,000 users was found to be 
largely derived from reports published in the 1970s.7 

Research on victimization 
is limited

Emerging research indicates rates of sexual and domestic 
violence are higher in the Deaf community, but a dearth 
of Deaf-specific research on victimization make it difficult 
to determine how much higher. For example, there is little 
ongoing data collection that provides national, state, or 
local information on crime victimization of Deaf people. 
The Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime 
Victimization Survey does report rates of nonfatal violent 
victimizations for Deaf and hard of hearing individuals, and 
includes data on the following crimes: rape/sexual assault, 
robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. However, 
these numbers only reflect broad victimization rates at the 
national level, which fail to provide any insight as to when 
and where victimization is likely to occur. The Uniform 
Crime Report, on the other hand, only reviews hate crimes 
against victims with disabilities, and does not distinguish 
Deaf and hard of hearing individuals from those with disabilities. 
While there is a growing body of research on 
victimization and disability, for the most part, the research 
that makes up this knowledge base has not made this distinction 
either. 

There is little ongoing 
data collection that 
provides national, state, 
or local information on 
crime victimization of 
Deaf people.



Vera Institute of Justice

There are efforts underway to address this gap, with 
researchers at Deaf institutions such as the National 
Technical Institute for the Deaf and Gallaudet University 
designing research projects that are culturally and linguistically 
competent. They are using a number of strategies 
to achieve this competency, including broadening the 
descriptions of domestic and sexual violence that guide 
the studies to include Deaf-specific examples of abuse 
and common experiences of Deaf survivors, and conducting 
the research using ASL. One of the largest challenges 
to research within the Deaf community is the difficulty in 
building a representative sample of the population. The 
Deaf community is small and spread across the country, so 
study participants are often gathered from Deaf schools or 
members of a Deaf community organization out of convenience 
due to time and budgetary restrictions. While the 
findings of these studies offer important insight into the 
victimization of Deaf individuals, these samples are not 
representative of the entire community and the findings 
should be interpreted with caution and not generalized to 
the larger Deaf population. 

Higher rates of domestic and 
sexual violence

While limited in number and methodology, research on 
victimization within the Deaf community suggests that 
Deaf and hard of hearing individuals living in the United 
States have higher rates of domestic and sexual victimization—
intimate partner violence, psychological aggression 
and abuse, forced sexual experiences, and sexual assault—
than their hearing counterparts.8

>>Using survey data comparing almost 1,900 students at 
the Rochester Institute of Technology and the National 
Technical Institute for the Deaf, researchers found that 
Deaf and hard of hearing individuals were 1.5 times 
more likely to be victims of sexual harassment, sexual 
assault, psychological abuse, and physical abuse than 
their hearing counterparts.9


While limited in number 
and methodology, 
research on victimizing 
within the Deaf 
community suggests 
that Deaf and hard of 
hearing individuals living 
in the U.S. have higher 
rates of domestic and 
sexual victimization…
than their hearing 
counterparts.



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

>>According to a 2011 study examining intimate partner 
violence among 100 Deaf female undergraduates, 
approximately twice as many deaf respondents reported 
experiencing intimate partner violence in the past 
year than their hearing counterparts.10 
>>A 2014 study found that Deaf adults were more likely 
to experience forced sexual experiences than hearing 
adults. Deaf survey respondents experienced forced 
sexual incidents at rates that were at least twice those 
reported by hearing respondents in other surveys.11 


Children who are Deaf or hard of hearing also experienced 
higher rates of physical and sexual abuse than their hearing 
counterparts.12

>>A 1998 study using a sample of 312 Deaf and hard of 
hearing children found that these children were 1.4 
times more likely to be neglected and twice as likely to 
be physically abused.13 



Prevalence rates of lifetime forced sexual experiences. One in every ten hearing women will experience a forced sexual experience in their lifetime. One in every four Deaf women will experience a forced sexual experience in their lifetime.

Vera Institute of Justice

>>A 2000 study using records of school children enrolled 
in Omaha, Nebraska schools during the 1994–1995 
school year found that children who were Deaf or hard 
of hearing were twice as likely to experience neglect 
and emotional abuse, and almost four times as likely to 
be physically abused than their hearing counterparts.14 


Unique experiences of violence

Deaf survivors of domestic violence experience many of 
the same tactics of abuse as their hearing counterparts 
from abusers attempting to gain power and control (e.g., 
isolation; intimidation; blame; and financial, emotional, 
physical, and sexual abuse), but they also face unique 
tactics that must be understood and accounted for to 
effectively support Deaf survivors.

For example, abusers might:

>>injure a victims’ hands to prevent effective communication 
in ASL or by using assistive equipment; 
>>destroy devices used for communication, including 
smartphones used for texting, videophones, and teletypewriters 
(TTYs); 
>>monitor electronic communication by accessing saved 
text messages, emails, instant messenger communication 
logs, and TTY records;
>>erase or falsely reply to emails, text messages, or 
TTY calls;
>>threaten or abuse hearing dogs (specially trained dogs 
that alert Deaf individuals to important sounds such 
as fire alarms and lead the person to the source of the 
sound); 
>>threaten to or actually move away from the victim’s 
established Deaf community or to an area with very few 
Deaf people to further isolate the victim; 




Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

>>spread lies and rumors about the victim within the 
deeply-connected Deaf community to damage the 
victim’s credibility, good standing in the community, 
and ability to obtain financial independence; and 
>>deny abuse tactics by saying the tactics are culturally 
appropriate behaviors within the Deaf community. For 
example, an abuser might throw objects at a person 
and then claim it’s a culturally accepted way to get a 
Deaf individual’s attention. Similarly, an abuser might 
intimidate by using body language and being in close 
physical proximity while signing and later claim both 
are features of ASL. 


In addition, hearing abusers commonly use their hearing 
privilege to maintain control over Deaf individuals. “Hearing 
privilege” is a term coined by the Deaf community to 
describe the advantages and entitlements one receives by 
being able to hear in our society. For example, an abuser 
might play off commonly held societal values that view 
d/Deaf people as incompetent by saying the victim is not 
good enough, in general, or an unfit parent, specifically, 
because the victim is d/Deaf. An abuser might refuse to 
use sign language with the victim to further isolate or punish 
her or him. An abuser might take advantage of institutions 
that are inaccessible, like child protective services or 
job and family services, by interpreting falsely or inaccurately 
for the victim.

Barriers to services and justice

Despite higher rates of domestic and sexual violence 
within the Deaf community, Deaf survivors face barriers 
that prevent them from getting help. 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.15 The 
challenges that underlay these barriers include: 

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.



Vera Institute of Justice

Invisibility 

Despite high rates of domestic and sexual violence within 
the Deaf community, it is largely invisible to victim service 
providers. Most providers have limited to no exposure to 
the Deaf community and haven’t received specialized training 
on Deaf culture or domestic and sexual violence within 
the community. Without an awareness of Deaf people’s 
unique needs and experiences, victim service providers do 
not commonly recognize this community as underserved or 
marginalized. Such recognition is what typically spurs communities 
and programs into action to remove barriers and 
enhance services for survivors from recognized communities.

Lack of specialized outreach by 
victim service providers

Few victim service providers tailor their outreach and 
education efforts to meet the needs of the Deaf community. 
Deaf people’s unique experiences with domestic and 
sexual violence are rarely reflected in educational curriculum 
and outreach brochures. For example, it is common 
for domestic violence awareness trainings to include a list 
of abusive behaviors so potential victims can determine if 
they are in an abusive relationship. The behaviors listed, 
however, rarely include those such as destroying videophones 
and channeling physical abuse towards the victim’s 
hands. Similarly, victim services outreach brochures rarely 
include Deaf-specific language or information, including 
the unique dynamics of abuse specific to the community 
and important information regarding accessibility, such as 
information on the availability of interpreters. Additionally, 
programs rarely conduct educational activities or leave 
outreach brochures where Deaf people are likely 
to congregate, such as Deaf schools, clubs, and Deaf 
community events. 

Phone-based emergency hotlines

Those Deaf survivors who do reach out for assistance are 
often met with barriers that prevent a connection from 
being made. In most communities, for example, help—
whether from an advocate or law enforcement officer—is 



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

only accessible by phone. For Deaf individuals, this means 
using a TTY to communicate by typing messages back and 
forth, but these methods are cumbersome, slow, and ineffective 
in an emergency. Moreover, many Deaf individuals 
no longer use or own TTYs because of advances in technologies 
such as email, instant message, and videophones. 
Having a call relayed is also an option for Deaf individuals, 
but most law enforcement and victim services agencies are 
not prepared to receive relay calls (or TTY calls) and Deaf 
survivors commonly report being hung up on or never 
having their call answered at all.16 

Lack of language access

Language access presents a significant barrier to Deaf 
survivors. Qualified ASL interpreters are rarely used to 
facilitate communication between Deaf survivors and law 
enforcement officers, advocates, and medical professionals. 
More commonly, Deaf survivors are forced to use ad 
hoc and often ineffective communication measures that 
present their own challenges: writing notes back and forth 
requires a level of fluency in and comfort with written 
English that many Deaf survivors do not possess; speech 
or lip reading is difficult for most Deaf survivors, imprecise, 
and can lead to confusion; and family members acting as 
interpreters can present problems, especially since they 
often lack the skills and fluency to interpret the information 
being conveyed accurately. 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.

In the rare instances when certified interpreters are used, 
they often do not have the proper qualifications or preparation 
to work in the context of domestic and sexual violence, 
which presents unique linguistic needs, practice 
considerations, and safety concerns for interpreters. Resi


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.



Vera Institute of Justice

dential programs, such as domestic violence shelters, can’t 
afford interpreters around the clock. Instead, they reserve 
them for high-priority events such as program orientations 
and case management meetings, making it difficult for 
advocates and Deaf survivors to have impromptu conversations 
as issues come up or for Deaf survivors to interact 
with other residents who often provide invaluable support.

The practices of law enforcement and service providers 
contribute to the challenges Deaf survivors face around 
access to interpreters:

>>Unfamiliarity with legal obligations: The Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires service providers 
and law enforcement agencies to provide auxiliary aids 
to ensure effective communication so Deaf people have 
an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from 
their services.17 For many Deaf people, this means ASL 
interpreters. Many providers and law enforcement officers 
are unfamiliar with their obligations under the law 
and often don’t meet their legal obligations. 
>>Lack of qualified interpreters: A qualified interpreter is 
one who can interpret accurately, effectively, and impartially, 
and use specialized vocabulary, as needed. ASL 
interpreters require specialized training to effectively 
interpret in courtrooms and domestic and sexual violence 
contexts. This training covers vocabulary specific 
to domestic and sexual violence, trauma and communication, 
ethics, safety planning, and self-care. Few interpreters 
have this specialized training.
>>Lack of funds allocated for interpreters: Most domestic 
violence programs and rape crisis centers do not 
have money set aside in their budget to cover costs 
associated with ASL interpreters. While rates vary from 
community to community, the average cost for an ASL 
interpreter is between $55 and $65 per hour. ASL interpreters 
are required to work in two-person teams and 
many agencies have a two-hour minimum for each interpreting 
assignment. However, most funding sources—
especially local, state, and federal governments—allow 




Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

their funds to cover the costs associated with accommodations 
for access. 
>>Lack of ability to secure ASL interpreters: Program 
staff and law enforcement officers often have little 
knowledge of the world of sign language interpreting, 
including how to locate interpreters, how to contract 
with them for these services, and how to determine if 
interpreters are qualified for a given assignment. It is 
critical that interpreters be vetted for language fluency, 
interpreting skills, specialized training (as described 
below), and to determine whether they have pre-existing 
relationships with the parties involved—especially 
the person responsible for the abuse—given the small, 
tight-knit nature of the community. Interpreters must 
also be prepared for the potentially difficult nature of 
the subject matter being discussed and to plan for their 
own safety, as there have been instances of abusers 
harassing or physically assaulting interpreters for their 
role in legal proceedings.
>>Challenges in securing interpreters in a crisis: Securing 
interpreters for a scheduled appointment can take 
up to three weeks, but emergency engagements, such 
as Deaf survivors’ initial calls for help, or impromptu 
meetings, such as conversations with staff at residential 
programs as new issues arise, present challenges. Aside 
from court proceedings, few interactions surrounding 
domestic and sexual violence can be scheduled. Victim 
service professionals struggle to quickly secure qualified 
interpreters during times of crisis, such as fleeing 
domestic violence to an emergency shelter, calling the 
police for help, and going to the hospital for a sexual 
assault forensic exam—interactions when communication 
access is arguably most critical for survivors.


Lack of cultural competency in victim services 
and advocacy

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 


interpreter

Image of hands showing the sign for ‘interpreter.’

Vera Institute of Justice

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. These advocates also play an important role 
in advancing justice for survivors by advocating to close 
gaps and address troubling trends in the responses of key 
systems—civil, criminal, medical—to domestic and sexual 
violence. 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.

Consequences of miscommunication

The consequences of miscommunication can be 
dire when survivors are navigating life or death situations, 
complex systems, and their healing or the 
healing of their children. Inaccurate or ineffective 
communication can have far-reaching and negative 
ramifications in criminal proceedings, which require 
a high degree of accuracy throughout, from the 
initial police report to testifying in court. For example, 
survivors are often denied protection orders and 
their abusers’ criminal cases are often dismissed due 
to insufficient evidence or conflicting testimony. 
Without communication access, it’s difficult for 
advocates working in domestic violence programs 
or rape crisis centers and Deaf survivors to connect 
with one another, develop understanding, and build 
trust, which is the foundation for any relationship 
and essential when supporting survivors in the aftermath 
of trauma. It also limits an advocate’s ability to 
tailor potential services and supports to meet the 
unique needs of Deaf survivors and to build on their 
strengths, especially those related to Deaf survivors’ 
often rich cultural heritage.



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

Audism in mainstream services and systems

Services and supports designed for survivors of domestic 
and sexual violence are not immune to audism, which can 
influence how these services are designed and implemented, 
as well as the culture and attitudes that define them. 
Many professionals in the crime victims field construct their 
work through an anti-oppression framework, but most are 
unfamiliar with audism. Awareness is a necessary first step 
toward understanding how it contributes to disparities 
Deaf survivors experience and identifying strategies to 
eradicate it in our responses to survivors.

Lack of capacity among Deaf service providers to 
address violence

Deaf organizations and groups within the Deaf community 
weren’t designed to address domestic and sexual violence 
and, thus, usually are not sources of support for Deaf survivors. 
Their staff or volunteers lack specialized knowledge 
about domestic and sexual violence, best practices, and 
protocols to guide services to survivors, and other resources 
necessary to safely and effectively support survivors at all 
stages in their journey. Without specialized capacity, these 
programs cannot address complex and critical issues that 
have dire consequences for survivors, including confidentiality 
and how information is quickly shared from person 
to person in the Deaf community (often referred to as the 
Deaf grapevine). Additionally, these programs often struggle 
to navigate relationships and interactions with perpetrators 
who are members of the community and may be clients 
of their programs. As a result, these programs run the 
risk of contributing to safety concerns for survivors rather 
than mitigating them. Additionally, the lack of attention 
and misinformation about domestic and sexual violence 
within the Deaf community coupled with the invisibility of 
the Deaf community within domestic violence programs 
and rape crisis centers creates a double code of silence 
for many Deaf survivors.



Vera Institute of Justice

Services for Deaf, by Deaf: 
a promising strategy 

In 1986, in response to the lack of accessible services for 
Deaf survivors in Seattle, a small group of Deaf women 
and their allies founded Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy 
Services (ADWAS). They sought to fill these gaps by providing 
Deaf survivors with services that were rooted in the 
culture and language of the Deaf community. To achieve 
their goal, they created ADWAS to be run by and for Deaf 
people, making it the first victim services organization of 
its kind in the world. Since then, ADWAS has provided 
thousands of people in the Deaf community in the Seattle 
area and beyond with an array of Deaf-centered services, 
including education and outreach, crisis intervention, 
advocacy, and housing. Its success was recognized in the 
mid-1990s when it received federal funding to replicate its 
victim services model in 15 cities across the country. 

Today, thanks to this and other replication efforts, there 
are a small number of agencies that provide Deaf-centered 
services to Deaf survivors in the United States. The 
majority of these agencies are stand-alone Deaf-specific 
victim services organizations like ADWAS. To a lesser 
extent, some programs are run out of general Deaf social 
service organizations and, in a few rare instances, administratively 
housed in a hearing victim services organization 
(such as a domestic violence shelter or a rape crisis center). 
Regardless of the configuration, these Deaf-specific 
programs provide the Deaf community with emergency 
hotlines, crisis intervention, medical and legal advocacy, 
counseling and other supportive services, peer support 
opportunities, and community outreach and education. 
The design and delivery of these standard victim services 
is tailored to meet the needs of the Deaf community. For 
example, many offer email, text, and video-based emergency 
hotlines and routinely use social media to educate 
the community about domestic and sexual violence, which 
better meets the technology and communication norms of 
the community. 

Woman signing ‘help’.
advocacy



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

Map showing the 15 agencies providing Deaf-specific services to Deaf survivors in the United States. Services as located in Washington state, California, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Washington D.C., New York, and Vermont.
Map showing the 15 agencies providing Deaf-specific services to Deaf survivors in the United States. Services as located in Washington state, California, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Washington D.C., New York, and Vermont.
1

15

7

14

9

13

2

8

10

5

3

11

12

6

4

Agencies providing Deaf-specific services to Deaf survivors in the United States

Information provided by: ADWAS, Seattle, WA

1. Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy 
Services, Seattle, WA

2. Deaf Survivor Advocacy for 
Empowerment, North Highlands, CA

3. DeafHope, Oakland, CA

4. Peace Over Violence, Los Angeles, CA

5. Salt Lake City Sego Lily Center for the 
Abused Deaf, Salt Lake City, UT

6. Deaf Overcoming Violence Through 
Empowerment, Denver, CO

7. Communication Service for the Deaf, 
Saint Paul, MN

8. Deaf Iowans Against Abuse, 
Cedar Rapids, IA

 9. Deaf Unity, Madison, WI

10. Chicago Hearing Society, Chicago, IL

11. Deaf Women Against Violence 
Everywhere, Worthington, OH

12. Deaf Abused Women’s Network,
Washington, DC

13. Barrier Free Living, New York, NY

14. Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf 
Victims, Rochester, NY

15. Deaf Victims Advocacy Services,
South Barre, VT



Vera Institute of Justice

These programs also provide services unique to the Deaf 
community. For example, Deaf Hope in the Bay Area and a 
few other Deaf-specific programs are developing non-criminal 
justice based approaches to holding abusers accountable 
and curbing their abusive behavior, such as limiting 
their access to Deaf cultural events or boycotting their 
businesses. Developing these approaches is more possible 
in a small, close-knit community that often values collectivism, 
such as the Deaf community, but the lessons learned 
can be instrumental for the crime victims field as a whole. 
Additionally, these programs have expanded services that 
include advocacy and training efforts aimed at hearing 
programs to help them better understand the needs of 
the Deaf community and increase their ability to provide 
accommodations and other cultural needs of Deaf survivors 
seeking their services. 

The provision of services to survivors by specially trained 
advocates who themselves are Deaf is perhaps the most 
promising model for serving Deaf survivors. Because 
services are delivered by Deaf staff members and volunteers, 
survivors are able to communicate to advocates and 
other professionals directly—without an interpreter—in 
their native language. Using one’s native language makes 
communication easier, especially when individuals may be 
experiencing trauma or discussing particularly sensitive and 
difficult topics. It is also easier for Deaf survivors to connect 
with one another and provide valuable peer support in 
Deaf-specific programs because they are not the only Deaf 
survivors being served. The result is victim services that not 
only account for Deaf culture, but also are defined by it. 

Challenges facing Deaf programs

Despite the progress made, there continues to be a severe 
lack of Deaf-specific services in the United States. According 
to Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services, there 
are only 15 programs nationwide designed to serve Deaf 
survivors, with a few others in the early stages of development.
18 By contrast, there are more than 1,905 programs 
that address domestic violence, according to the National 
Network to End Domestic Violence, and 1,100 that address 

The provision of 
services to survivors 
by specially trained 
advocates who 
themselves are Deaf 
is perhaps the most 
promising model for 
serving Deaf survivors.



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

sexual assault in general listed on the U.S. Department of 
Justice’s Directory of Crime Victim Services.19

To expand and sustain their work into the future, Deaf-specific 
victim service providers will have to overcome unique 
funding and staffing challenges that limit their ability to 
deliver more resource-intensive essential services, such 
as emergency shelter or transitional housing for survivors 
fleeing abuse.

>>Funding: Like most victim services organizations, many 
Deaf-specific programs struggle to secure funding 
to support their operations—especially from public 
sources, which are arguably the largest source of funding 
in the victim services field. But Deaf programs face 
unique barriers, as well.


• Many of these programs are small startups that 
have yet to build the internal capacity necessary 
to apply for or manage public funding, including 
grant writing experience.

• Funders often place a premium on programs being 
able to serve large numbers of survivors and Deaf 
programs can’t compete with the numbers promised 
by hearing programs. 

Graphic pie chart showing the number of programs addressing domestic and sexual violence in the United States. 1,100 Sexual violence programs. 1,905 Domestic violence programs. 15 Deaf-specific domestic and sexual violence programs.
Graphic pie chart showing the number of programs addressing domestic and sexual violence in the United States. 1,100 Sexual violence programs. 1,905 Domestic violence programs. 15 Deaf-specific domestic and sexual violence programs.
Number of programs addressing domestic and sexual violence in the United States

1,100

Sexual violence programs

15

Deaf-specific domestic and 
sexual violence programs

1,905

Domestic violence 
programs



• Specialized grant programs focusing on underserved 
victim groups are emerging that don’t 
emphasize quantity in service provision, but not all 
of them specifically identify the Deaf community as 
an underserved or priority population.

• Having a relationship with a potential funder 
often plays a key role in whether or not funds are 
secured, but many Deaf victim services providers 
do not have ready access to funders to build those 
relationships due to communication barriers. Without 
readily available interpreters, for example, it 
is difficult for Deaf professionals to network with 
or have in-person informational meetings with 
funders.

>>Staffing: With minimal to no financial support, most 
Deaf programs operate with a small number of paid 
staff, if lucky, or a cadre of specially trained volunteers. 
They are often tasked with serving Deaf survivors from 
across an entire state or even multiple states because 
their program is likely to be the only one of its kind in 
the area, spreading these programs’ limited resources 
even thinner. Staff are also less likely than their hearing 
counterparts to access training opportunities, either 
because hosts do not have the resources for on-site 
interpreters or to caption virtual trainings. 


Enhancing the capacity of 
hearing service providers 
and systems

Given the lack of Deaf-specific services and the resources 
needed to develop them, enhancing the capacity of existing 
mainstream service providers and systems to better 
meet the needs of Deaf survivors has emerged as an interim 
step. Several national efforts, like Vera’s, have emerged 
in recent years to build capacity within existing domestic 
violence programs, rape crisis centers, and allied systems 



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

(criminal justice, medical, etc.).20 This not only ensures that 
Deaf survivors have greater access to services and support 
in their community, but also increases the number of 
options Deaf survivors have when deciding where to go 
for support. A small but growing number of organizations 
have answered the challenge, enhancing their capacity by:

>>Building relationships with Deaf organizations and the 
Deaf community in their service area. 
>>Working with members of the Deaf community to educate 
staff on the local Deaf community and culture, and 
domestic and sexual violence against Deaf people. 
>>Developing an understanding of audism, exploring 
its role in the barriers Deaf survivors face, and 
engaging in a process of becoming hearing allies to 
the Deaf community. 
>>Reviewing the accessibility of their physical, communication, 
information, policy, and attitudinal environments 
to identify barriers for Deaf people and creating plans 
to remove them.
>>Establishing agreements with interpreter agencies to 
ensure qualified, trauma-informed interpreters are available, 
especially during nights and weekends. 
>>Finding money (often by including costs related to 
accommodations in grant proposal budgets) to cover 
the costs of auxiliary aids or other accommodations, 
such as sign language interpreters, that create equal 
access for Deaf survivors, staff and volunteers, and 
community partners. 
>>Recruiting staff and volunteers who are fluent in ASL 
or teaching existing staff basic sign language. 
>>Creating captioned videos to communicate critical 
information about their services that has previously 
only been available in writing.


College-age women standing outside communicating in American Sign Language.

>>Adopting policies on effective communication that 
outline a law enforcement agency’s responsibilities for 
creating communication access, procedures for securing 
auxiliary aids (such as interpreters), and tips for 
communicating effectively with Deaf and hard of 
hearing people.


None of these initiatives can occur, however, without the 
buy-in from hearing programs, financial resources, and 
participation from the Deaf community. 

Collaboration between Deaf 
and hearing programs 

Collaboration between the Deaf community, hearing 
victim service providers, and allied systems (such as criminal 
justice and medical) is essential in every community 
so Deaf survivors can access services and supports that 
aren’t provided by Deaf-specific programs, such as transitional 
housing, forensic exams, and protection orders. The 
degree and nature of the collaboration depends on whether 
Deaf-specific victim services are already in place and, if 
so, what they offer. In communities without Deaf-specific 
services, for example, a more intensive and structured 
process is necessary to bring representatives from the Deaf 
and victim services communities together on equal footing 
to determine how to best meet the needs of the community. 
Communities with a more defined strategy for serving 
Deaf survivors might center their collaborative efforts on 
cross-training to build the baseline capacity of both Deaf 
and hearing programs, developing protocols for how the 
organizations can work together to support a Deaf survivor, 
and strategizing for removing barriers Deaf survivors 
routinely face in the community.

Despite their benefits, collaborations of this nature are 
rare. As discussed earlier, the invisibility of Deaf survivors in 
most communities, the communication and cultural barriers 
they face, the Deaf community’s frequent mistrust of 
mainstream services and systems, and the lack of accessi



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

bility to most mainstream interventions can impede relationship 
building and meaningful participation. Without 
a foundation to build from, it is difficult for hearing professionals 
to make in-roads into the Deaf community and 
for Deaf providers to advocate for changes within hearing 
victim service organizations and allied systems without 
leading to strained relationships and challenging dynamics 
at the collaboration table. 

Developing Deaf-allied services

Vera House, a comprehensive domestic and sexual 
violence service agency, and the local Deaf community 
in Syracuse, New York built a strong collaboration 
to develop Deaf-allied services for Deaf survivors of 
domestic and sexual violence using the following ingredients 
for success.21 After uncovering the unmet needs 
of Deaf survivors in its community through a series of 
focus groups with service providers and Deaf community 
members, Vera House committed itself to addressing 
the gaps and working to ensure Deaf survivors 
have equal access to services and supports. The staff 
embarked on a journey that begin with building their 
own capacity and stressed ongoing relationship and 
trust building with the Deaf community. They created 
opportunities to build their knowledge of Deaf culture; 
developed policies and protocols that support communication 
access for Deaf survivors; brought on Deaf and 
signing advocates; supported training of American Sign 
Language interpreters; and began having their events 
interpreted. Alongside these efforts, they met with 
leaders in the Deaf community; convened open forums 
with Deaf community members; held an open house for 
the Deaf community; invited Deaf survivors to serve on 
advisory groups; and attend Deaf events and meetings 
in the community. This multi-pronged approach has led 
to strong connections, mutual understanding, and trust 
between Vera House and the Deaf community in Syracuse 
that serves as a strong foundation as they develop 
and implement Deaf-allied services.

“Collaboration between 
hearing service 
providers and the Deaf 
community is crucial 
in ensuring culturally 
and linguistically 
competent services are 
being provided to Deaf 
survivors of domestic 
and sexual violence. 
Vera House in Syracuse 
is a fabulous model 
for others to consider 
emulating.”

 Erin Esposito, Advocacy 
Services for Abused 
Deaf Victims



Successful collaborations require commitment, financial 
resources, time, and mutual understanding, among other 
things. All participants must embark on the hard work of 
developing a joint vision for serving Deaf survivors in a community. 
This requires intentional conversation, deliberate 
planning, and execution. It also requires skilled leadership to 
help create a work process that is culturally and linguistically 
appropriate, to facilitate that process, and to help the group 
find common ground and have an impact. Financial resources 
are also needed for ASL interpreters and other accommodations 
members need to participate.

Recommendations

What follows is a list of initial recommendations for improving 
Deaf survivors’ access to and experiences with victim 
services and criminal justice system interventions. 

>>Recognize Deaf as a distinct cultural and linguistic 
group. Specifically naming the Deaf community is 
a powerful way for policymakers and practitioners to 
communicate an understanding of the community’s 
uniqueness; build trust; and, subsequently, more effectively 
appeal to and reach Deaf individuals, whether 
they are survivors in need of services and support or 
practitioners in the victim services field. This recognition 
can take many forms, such as mentioning the Deaf 
community in outreach brochures, referencing the experiences 
of Deaf survivors in annual reports and other 
publications, and including the Deaf community as an 
underserved or priority community in strategic plans 
and funding solicitations. 
>>Dedicate resources to address domestic and sexual 
violence in the Deaf community. Effectively addressing 
violence in the Deaf community requires services 
and supports that are built on a high degree of cultural 
and linguistic competence. Funders, state-level administrators 
and advocacy groups, and practitioners should 
consider how best to dedicate resources to ensure 
that Deaf survivors have access to such services. This 


Woman signing ‘help’.
help



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

includes financial resources to support the development 
and ongoing operations of Deaf-specific programs, 
as well as the enhancement of hearing programs and 
systems so they can effectively work in tandem with 
Deaf-specific programs. It also includes staff time, meeting 
space, and the cost of accommodations, like ASL 
interpreters, to support a community-based planning 
effort to determine how to achieve culturally competent 
services in communities where they currently don’t exist.
>>Prioritize Deaf expertise. Deaf people with expertise 
in domestic and sexual violence should not only 
be included in any Deaf-specific efforts in the victim 
services field, but should be engaged as leaders or 
co-leaders. In addition to understanding the unique 
needs of Deaf survivors, Deaf experts bring an understanding 
of the culture, dynamics, and needs of the 
Deaf community in the jurisdiction in question. If 
engaged in meaningful ways, Deaf leaders can increase 
the credibility of the effort, which is likely to increase 
support for the effort in the broader Deaf community. 
>>Fill research gaps. Fundamental questions about 
domestic and sexual violence in the Deaf community 
remain unanswered, making it difficult for policymakers 
and practitioners to craft effective prevention and 
intervention approaches. More research in the following 
three priority areas is required: (1) incidence and prevalence 
of domestic and sexual violence against Deaf 
individuals; (2) utilization of victim services and criminal 
justice system interventions; and (3) evaluations of 
Deaf-specific programs and other promising approaches 
to serving Deaf survivors.
>>Collect data on Deaf cultural status. Domestic violence 
programs and rape crisis centers routinely collect 
basic information about the people who contact them 
for help and the people they ultimately serve, and similar 
information is collected on the victims and offenders 
involved at various points in the criminal justice system. 
Few entities across the country, though, collect informa



Vera Institute of Justice

tion on Deaf cultural affiliation. Gathering data about 
Deaf cultural status, like other diversity data, is essential 
to understanding these survivors’ needs and planning 
services to meet them. In addition, this information can 
be used to identify disparities in service use and justice 
system experiences and to develop benchmarks for 
reducing those disparities. 


Conclusion

No one should have to choose between their culture and 
language and their safety and healing. Yet, in the absence 
of cultural and linguistic services, Deaf survivors of domestic 
and sexual violence are forced to make that choice 
every day. They are faced with impossible dilemmas such 
as, “Should I flee to safety in a shelter where I can’t communicate 
with anyone and no one understands my culture? 
Or should I stay in my home where my safety and 
well-being is at risk, but I can freely communicate and be 
part of a culture that brings me pride and strength?” By 
recognizing the Deaf community as a cultural and linguistic 
minority and supporting services tailored to this community, 
the victim services field can take the critical first steps 
toward a time when Deaf survivors don’t have to make that 
choice, and can easily obtain the services and support they 
need to live safe and fulfilling lives.

“ To be accountable, 
each member of the 
community has to 
engage in healthy 
dialogue and ask 
themselves how we 
perpetuate violence 
or create safety. When 
a survivor speaks out, 
what is our reaction? 
How do we provide 
support?”

 Amber Hodson, DeafHope



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

Endnotes

1 Ruth is a fictitious character whose story is a 
composite of several Deaf survivors of domestic 
violence.

2 Melissa L. Anderson and Irene W. Leigh, “Intimate 
partner violence against deaf female college 
students,” Violence Against Women 17 (2013): 
822–834. 

3 Ross Mitchell and Michael Karchmer, “Chasing the 
mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf 
and hard of hearing students in the United States,” 
Sign Language Studies, 4 (2004): 138–163.

4 The Survey of Income and Program Participation 
(SIPP) is a statistical survey conducted by the United 
States Census Bureau. Matthew W. Brault, Americans 
With Disabilities: 2010, Current Population Reports, 
(Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012); 
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf 
(accessed November 21, 2014).

5 Ibid, p. 8.

6 Ross E. Mitchell, Travas A. Young, Bellamie Bachleda, 
and Michael A. Karchmer, “How many people use 
ASL in the United States? Why estimates need 
updating.” Sign Language Studies 6, no. 3 (2006): 
306−335.

7 Ibid. 

8 According to Vaughn I. Rickert et al., “Rates and 
risk factors for sexual violence among an ethnically 
diverse sample of adolescents,” Archives of Pediatrics 
& Adolescent Medicine 158, no. 12 (2004): 
1132–1139, forced sexual experiences can include 
“verbal sexual coercion (being talked or pressured 
into having unwanted intercourse),” while sexual 
assault includes “unwanted sexual contact (touching 
or kissing without permission)” and “rape/attempted 
rape (use of physical force, alcohol, or other drugs 
or position of power).”



Vera Institute of Justice

9 Laverne McQuiller Williams and Judy L. Porter, 
“An Examination of the Incidence of Sexual, 
Physical, and Psychological Abuse and Sexual 
Harassment on a College Campus Among Underrepresented 
Populations” (paper presented at the 
Western Society of Criminology Conference, 
Honolulu, Hawaii, February 2010).

10 Melissa L. Anderson and Irene W. Leigh, “Intimate 
partner violence against deaf female college 
students,” Violence Against Women 17 (2011): 
822–834. 

11 Robert Q. Pollard, Erika Sutter, and Catherine 
Cerulli, “Intimate Partner Violence Reported by Two 
Samples of Deaf Adults via a Computerized American 
Sign Language Survey,” Journal of Interpersonal 
Violence, (2014): 948–965.

12 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.

13 Ibid.

14 Patricia M. Sullivan and John F. Knutson “Maltreatment 
and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological 
study.” Child Abuse & Neglect 24, no. 10, 
(2000): 1257–1273.

15 Candice Tate, Trauma in the Deaf Population: 
Definition, experience, and services (Alexandria, 
VA: National Association of State Mental Health 
Program Directors, 2012).

16 When making a relay call, a Deaf individual contacts 
the national Telecommunications Relay Service 
using a TTY or computer. The caller is connected to 
a communications assistant who relays communication 
between the caller and the recipient. A Deaf 
caller, for example, types the message to the assis



Culture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors

tant, who speaks and relays it to the hearing recipient. 
The recipient responds with a spoken message, 
which the assistant types to the Deaf caller who 
reads it on their TTY or computer screen.

17 ADA: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. 
Public Law 101–336. § 35.160 and 36.303. 108th 
Congress, 2nd session (July 26, 1990).

18 Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services, http://
www.adwas.org/, (accessed November 21, 2014).

19 National Network to End Domestic Violence, 
Domestic Violence Counts: Census 2013 Report, 
http://nnedv.org/projects/census/4225-domestic-
violence-counts-census-2013-report.html (accessed 
June 2, 2014); U.S. Department of Justice, Office 
for Victims of Crime, “Directory of Crime Victim 
Services.” http://ovc.ncjrs.org/findvictimservices/
search.asp (accessed June 2, 2014).

20 The name of Vera’s project is Increasing Culturally 
and Linguistically Competent Services Initiative. To 
learn more about this initiative, visit Vera’s website. 

21 Vera House is not affiliated with the Vera Institute 
of Justice.

Acknowledgments

A special thanks to those who have contributed their expertise, time, and perspective to 
this policy and practice brief through participation in a focus group, reviewing the publication, 
or helping us to better understand the needs of Deaf survivors: Keri Darling, director, 
Deaf Vermonters Advocacy Services; Ashley Demyan, research associate, Vera Institute of 
Justice; Erin Esposito, executive director, Advocacy Services for Abused Deaf Victims; Amy 
Loder, senior program specialist, U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against 
Women; Libby Stanley, program director, Abused Deaf Women’s Advocacy Services; and 
Deaf advocates and hearing allies Wendie Abramson, Vonnie Basham, Martina “MJ” 
Bienvenu, Sheri Farinha, Jessalyn Frank, Amber Hodson, Tara Holcomb, Cathy Hoog, 
Amy Judy, Soon Sun Kim, Damara Paris, Kim Parra, Jennifer Pfau, Sasha Ponappa, Cheryl 
Prusinski, Julie Rems-Smario, Peggie Reyna, Lindsay Ryan Anthony, Amy Rousseau, Tess 
Sakolsky, Marilyn Smith, Alice Sykora, Gretchen Waech, and Aimee Whyte.



© Vera Institute of Justice 2015. All rights reserved.

The Vera Institute of Justice is an independent nonprofit organization that combines 
expertise in research, demonstration projects, and technical assistance to help leaders in 
government and civil society improve the systems people rely on for justice and safety. 
For more information, visit www.vera.org.

The Center on Victimization and Safety works with communities around the country to 
fashion services that reach, appeal to, and benefit all victims. Our work focuses on communities 
of people who are at elevated risk of harm but often marginalized from victim 
services and the criminal justice system. We combine research, technical assistance, and 
training to equip policymakers and practitioners with the information, skills, and resources 
needed to effectively serve all victims. 

For more information on the Center on Victimization and Safety, please contact 
cvs@vera.org or 212.376.3096.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2011-TA-AX-K124 awarded by the Office on 
Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence 
Against Women.

Cover image used with permission of ASL4DeafKids. Photographer: Clare Cassidy.

Layout and infographic design by Stephanie Grey Design.



Suggested citation

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.

Vera Institute of Justice

233 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10279

Tel: (212) 334-1300

Fax: (212) 941-9407

Washington DC Office

1100 First St. NE, Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: (202) 465-8900

Fax: (202) 408-1972

New Orleans Office

546 Carondelet St. 

New Orleans, LA 70130

Tel: (504) 593-0937 

Fax: (212) 941-9407

Los Angeles Office

707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850 
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel: (213) 223-2442

Fax: (213) 955-9250