VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE 
Serving Survivors through Co-Advocacy 
October 18, 20162:00 p.m. ET 

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Good afternoon, everyone. This is 
Shannon Scully with the Vera Institute of Justice. I just want to let everybody know that we are just experiencing a little bit of technical difficulties with our ASL 
interpreters. And so I'm going to pause for a minute to make sure we can get their cameras up and running so that this 
Webinar will be accessible to everyone today. But you are attending "Serving Survivors Through Co-Advocacy" which is 
part of our 2016 End Abuse of People with DisabilitiesWebinar series. So I'm just going to pause for a minute to 
let our ASL interpreters get situated and then we'll getgoing. Thank you.

(Silence.)

>> SHANNON SCULLY: All right, good afternoon. Everyone.
This is Shannon Scully with the Vera Institute of Justice.
And you are here attending "Serving Survivors Through 
Co-Advocacy," part of our 2016 End Abuse of People with 
Disabilities Webinar series. Before we get started and westart in on our Webinar this afternoon, I just want to gothrough a few quick logistical directions. The captioningpod is located in the bottom left-hand corner of your screen 
directly below the presentation. The words I'm speakingshould appear in the captioning pod. If you can see thosewords and you can see the captioning pod, please go ahead andraise your hand with the little person icon at the top of 
your screen. Great. It looks like a lot of people can seethat. If you cannot see that or if you are having trouble 


seeing the captioning pod and you would like to use thecaptioning pod this afternoon to increase your --the 
accessibility of this program, go ahead and use your Q&A, the 
Q&A pod which is to the right of the captioning pod rightbelow our ASL interpreters and Leslie Meyers who is our staffperson who is providing technical support today will help youget that up and running today.

The next thing I want to test out is our ASLinterpreters. Our interpreters for this afternoon or theCODA Brothers and they are right below one of our presentersthere in the video pod. If you can see them, I want you totest out how is their lighting. Is the video clear? If youare having any troubles, again, please go ahead and use thatQ&A pod and let us know and we will work to get that fixedfor you. I'm going to pause just for a moment.

All right. Participants are in listen-only mode which 
means you --we are not able to hear you but you should beable to hear us. If you cannot hear the presenters speakingor if you are having any difficulties with the captioning oragain other technical difficulties during the presentation,
please use that Q&A pod on the right-hand side of the screen 
of the captioning pod below the interpreters and we will goahead and provide technical assistance to you today to makethings a little bit more clear.

We will have time for Q&A at the very end of this 
presentation. If you don't want to lose any of yourquestions or comments during the presentation that might comeup as our panel is discussing today, you can enter that intothe Q&A pod and our staff will hold it for you until the endand we'll ask it of our panel at the very end of the 
presentation.

We are also recording today's Webinar and a link to thatrecording will be sent out along with any other materialsthat we discuss today either tomorrow or the day after, butto anyone who is attending.

All right. Let's begin. So I'm very excited for thispresentation today. Where we're going to be discussingco-advocacy. We know a lot of the times when survivors are 
the people that reach out to us for assistance, they arecoming to us with more than just their experience of 
violence. And a lot of the times the services that we are 
providing tend to be siloed and they've been based on ourexpertise.

So today we're going to discuss co-advocacy which is a 
service model that's going to work to provide cohesive 
services to survivors. And I'm very excited for the panel ofpeople we have lined up here today, all experts in the field 


and people who have been working in various --at various 
intersections with co-advocacy. The first person I wouldlike to introduce is Rachel Porter who is from Deaf Unity inWisconsin. Rachel is the regional advocate for thatorganization and has been with Deaf Unity sinceFebruary 2014. Rachel is a very active member of the Deafcommunity and a strong advocacy for the rights of Deaf 
people. She finds herself working with broadintersectionality with Deaf people with the northern regionof Wisconsin, including

deaf-blind, Hmong, tribal and homeless victims. She 
works with many local programs to provide a quality andeffective co-advocacy services with the survivors' unique 
needs. Rachel also participates in local and statewidespeaking engagements which created more awareness ofhistorical oppression on the Deaf people and how that canaffect the victims receiving the services in the general.

Hi, Rachel. We're glad you are here with us today.

Next we have Christine King who is joining us all the wayfrom Alaska today. Christine works for the 

University of Alaska's Center for Human Development as aProject Director for the Disability Justice Initiative. 
Christine has been in the field of disability inclusion forover 25 years as a self-advocate, peer mentor, direct service 
provider, and systems change advocate. Christine currently isthe Vice Chair Commissioner for the Municipality of 
Anchorage's American's with Disabilities Act AdvisoryCommission as well as an appointed Council member for theState of Alaska's Governor's Council on Disabilities and 
Special Education. She also has the privilege of serving as aboard member for Alaska's Special Education Service Agencyand on the Victims Justice Board. 

Welcome, Christine.

And, finally, we have our final panelist is Heidi Notariowho is the Director of Implementation and Social Change atthe National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and 
Communities, which is a project of Casa De Esperanza. Priorto joining Casa's team, Heidi was the Training Specialist atthe National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. She has 
advocated for the rights of persons with disabilities andDeaf individuals for more than a decade, working closely at 
the intersections of disabilities and violence against peopleof color. Heidi's interests include a wide variety of issuesrelated to the treatment afforded to immigrant survivors ofviolence, those with disabilities and Deaf individuals by the 
criminal justice system, service providers, and society atlarge. Heidi keeps on the forefront of her anti-oppression 


work the elimination of barriers that impact survivors withintersecting identities, such as LGBTQ people of color. Heidi 
views "accessibility" from a human rights framework and iscommitted to bringing this perspective into her work andpersonal life. Heidi is originally from Cuba and has residedin the U.S. since 1995. Heidi holds a Masters' Degree inSociology from Lehigh University.

So I want to welcome --I'm going to go ahead and unmuteall of our presenters now so that they can speak. And I 
would like to welcome you all here to our panel.

So just to get going, I'd like to invite each of our 
panelists to begin by introducing us to their organization,
how their organization or their network engage inco-advocacy, how that began and the kinds of relationships, 
whether they're formal or informal you engage with.

So, Rachel, I'm going to ask you to start us off this 
afternoon discussing a little bit about Deaf Unity up therein Wisconsin. 

>> RACHEL PORTER: Yes, certainly. Again, I am anadvocate for Deaf Unity. And Deaf Unity is a statewidecoalition and it works throughout the entire state of 
Wisconsin. We have two other advocacy works that work in thesouthern region including big cities like Milwaukee, Madison,
and those bigger cities. I'm more in the rural area upnorth. And there are several different smaller size cities 
up north I work with. And all of us, we work in partnershipas co-advocacy because we serve 72 counties throughout the 
state and it's impossible for me to contact and know all ofthe resources and all of the people throughout the state. So 
it's very important for us to partner with hearing programs 
in the local areas where the specific Deaf people need thehelp.

So we partner with the hearing programs, and it isco-advocacy. And it is a big part of our work includingtraining, education, support, communication, whatever those 
clients need in their areas. 

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Great, thank you.

Now, Christine, if you would like to go ahead andintroduce your organization and some of the ways that you areengaging in co-advocacy up there in Alaska.

>> CHRISTINE KING: Sure, my name is Christine King, I 
work for the Center for Human Development which is ourstate-only UCED, University Centers for Excellent in Research 
and Service. As Shannon said, we are housed at theUniversity of Alaska but we are a statewide program and we 
look at addressing issues that impact individuals whoexperience disabilities and their families throughout their 


life span. It could be any area of life domain.

And so for my project, I'm funded through what's calledthe Alaska Mental Health Press Authority, which is a uniquestate funder not found in any other state that specificallyfunds projects and programs that improve the quality of lifeof what they call trust beneficiaries. And trust 
beneficiaries include individuals who experience intellectual 
or developmental disabilities, dementia-related disorders, 
severe behavior health issues, traumatic brain injuries,
FASD, et cetera. 

The Disabilities Justice Initiative project oversees theproject DART, disability abuse response teams. This model 
actually came from the lovely Leslie Meyers of the Vera 
Institute when she was working in Wisconsin at IndependenceFirst. It was a model that we thought was a reallyexceptional model that would work well in our localcommunities. And so we asked Leslie to actually Alaskanizeher program and help us start that out. So we went from 
three programs the first year to now we have eight teams.
And what the teams are, they, basically --it's a 
coordinated, multidisciplinary community approach that can beimplemented in any community to address the needs of 
survivors of interpersonal violence who experiencedisabilities. DART ensures services are person-centered, 
appropriate, and timely. And not only does it benefit theindividual who's needing to use the service but it also 
benefits the community agencies that participate in them andI'll talk about that throughout our discussion.

So, as I said, the teams are currently housed at eightdifferent organizations across Alaska, working on that locallevel to ensure that services, again, are appropriate andaccessible and available for survivors who experiencedisability.

We provide training, each of the local teams providestrainings for their local community providers as well asindividuals with disabilities on how to recognize and respondto DV/SA in Alaska and we also collect data on individualswho experience disabilities who --and who in the communityis supporting them to access safety. So, you know, we allknow that prevalence data on a national level is not that 
strong and it's in our case in Alaska it's very similar. So 
we're not seeing a lot of people collecting the data. So 
people are thinking it's not a problem.

So what we have done with this project is also developeda mechanism to start collecting that data so that if this 
project ever goes away, that our local victim advocacyorganizations can continue to capture the experience of 


survivors with disabilities. Thank you.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Great. Thank you so much, Christine.
I'm looking forward to hearing more about your work as this 
panel continues.

I'd like to invite Heidi now. Heidi, you have a veryinteresting perspective the way that Casa De Esperanzaengages across communities. So I would like to invite younow to share a little bit more about your organization's work 
and some of how they engage in co-advocacy.

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Hi, everyone. Thanks, Shannon. I'm 
very happy to be here today with this panel. And, yes, Ithink what's interesting about Casa De Esperanza is that weare a national organization with a very strong local 
component. So Casa De Esperanza is a Latina organizationthat works intersection from a culture-specific lens. Casa 
was founded in St. Paul, Minnesota, who wanted to providecultural-specific services to survivors of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, et cetera. And they were doing this inresponse to a tremendous gap that existed in that area. So 
as was said earlier, the National Latin@ Network is adivision of co-advocacy and works at the intersections of 
supporting the health and well-being of Latina communities.

So our lens is kind of unique because we engage in theserelationships or co-advocacy relationships on a local and on 
a national level. So locally, we have engaged over the yearswith other organizations that provide similar services butthat could oftentimes be missing some of the pieces that wecould bring to the table like the cultural-specific elements.

So we have formal relationships with some organizationslocally that I speak in detail later about these 
relationships. But as well nationally. The National Latin@
Network concentrates efforts in three main pillars and theyare public policy, research, training and technicalassistance. And in that context, we oftentimes partner withothers and co-advocate with other national partners with a 
similar framework of bridging a gap, meeting a need that wesee nationally in regards to how do we respond to violence asit affects Latina communities. We think of this on two 
levels, locally and nationally. And I will speak more aboutthat later. Thank you.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Great. Thank you so much.

So let's not waste any time because I know you all have awealth of information to share. So I just want to start offwith a broad question. Why co-advocacy? Why should weengage in this system of partnership and collaboration? And,
Heidi, I just want to start with you and from yourperspective in the Latina community, what are some of the 


benefits of engaging in co-advocacy and having those kind of 
co-advocacy relationships and partnerships?

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Definitely. So there are manybenefits to engaging in co-advocacy. First, as we have seenworking with Latina survivors, I don't want to limit this tothe experiences of Latina survivors. I think we have been 
very intentional about providing technical assistance andsupport and advocacy to survivors through an intersectionallens. So it's beyond having that piece of our identity beingLatina-specific. It's also thinking about people that live 
at the intersections of that, of the cultural-specific 
identity but also could identify as members of the LGBTQcommunity that perhaps have a disability and so forth. So we 
try to be very intentional about understanding and respondingto these intersections. Co-advocacy then has many benefits.

First, it enhances the safety of survivors. If we are 
providing services and responses to violence in a way that'sintentional and intersectional, the end result really is asupport that really responds to all of these areas of the 
person's identity and, therefore, restores and enhances thesafety of the survivor.

That brings us to thinking of advocacy and safetyplanning also we see in systems which takes a different formaltogether at times depending on what intersections we're 
trying to address.

I believe that co-advocacy also promotes personal 
centeredness. And all of this work and responses really aredriven by the experiences of survivors. A response that iscomplete intersectional is relevant, is efficient, is 
effective. It's respectful. I think it's respectful ofthese identities and it is respectful of the entireexperience of the survivors. So that's what we've seen in 
terms of our experiences.

I could probably list many more benefits, just to add 
that around being efficient, I think that co-advocacy also 
allows for the sharing of expertise and resources and forthinking outside of the box to really go beyond whatsometimes what we know and we're comfortable with. If we 
have other people at the table that share a value that are 
truly engaged in the process of collaborating, we can reallymaximize what we have. So I'll stop there.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Heidi, I think you bring a reallygood point to the table in that this isn't just about, youknow, language access. This isn't just about being a Latina.
This is about your multiple identities that a survivor mighthave. So just to bring in --I want to bring in Christinehere to kind of talk about, you know, what are some of the 


other benefits that you have seen? Christine, you're workingmore in kind of an area that isn't necessarily about justlanguage access. You are bringing in that disabilityexperience. So, Christine, I wanted you to talk a little bitabout other ways that you see co-advocacy having benefits 
outside of that immediate initial reaction of languageaccess. 

>> CHRISTINE KING: Heidi, everything she said, I canconcur with. (chuckles).

But to add a little bit more in regards to what we dowith the DART program, is for individuals who are survivors 
and who experience disabilities and are reaching out forsupport, it not only ensures that, you know, services areperson-centered and appropriate and streamlined but it 
provides that no-wrong-door approach so when they are 
disclosing to a particular system, whether it be a victim 
advocate, whether it be their case manager at theirdisability organization, whether it be somebody at SocialSecurity or even, like, their housing person if they receivesubsidized housing, it provides that no-wrong-door access of 
I'm being hurt and I need help. And so, you know, when wedon't work in a collaborative fashion, we will lose peopleand they will fall through the cracks. They will not want toretell their story. They may not have a good experience with 
that particular organization to begin with. There's just aplethora of reasons. It takes time to establish trust, todisclose something so personal.

And I really want to emphasize to folks on the line thatwhen we look at co-advocacy, this does not happen magically 
overnight. There's several different layers that we have togo through to make sure that it's successful. And what we 
did with our project is we actually started with the providersystem first because if you don't prepare them to speak the 
same language in regards to, you know, confidentiality anddisability, it's completely different than confidentialityand victim advocacy. I don't mean any disrespect to ourdisability programs out there. But I come from a culture 
before --I have been in the field for a long time --where 
we in the disability field knew an awful lot about ourclients even though they may be our co-worker's clients. So 
confidentiality and privacy is a little bit different thanwhat's in victim advocacy where victim advocacy 
confidentiality and privacy is, like, the crux of safety.

(chuckles)

So we had to prepare the system first by having themdevelop a common language with already --terms and 
definition that is they used in their system and had them 


think a little bit broader than their systems. So 
confidentiality is not only making sure that the person'sneeds are met and that there's that sense of privacy butthat, again, there's that emphasis on safety.

And so once --and what we discovered is that programproviders across system were mostly uncomfortable about 
saying the wrong thing to each other and offending eachother. 

So, we developed a curriculum first for providers to worktogether and have a better understanding and how they aresupposed to be working to support a common client. And 
that's another thing that I need to bring up, is that when wedid several different studies here in Alaska and we asked 
first responders, are you asking the question when you havean incident if the person experiences the disability? And we 
were not capturing that information.

So, you know, what happens is if I'm a survivor and I'mgoing to a victim advocacy organization and they are notasking me about what my particular unique needs are basedupon my disability and either they're ignoring it, they're 
screening me out, or they are --sorry, my computer just wentcompletely black. Okay, here we go. Either they areignoring it, they don't provide any services, I'm going to beunsafe even though I'm in a safe area.

So we prepared the system first and then we did outreach 
to the disability community to say, hey, you know, disabilityproviders and victim advocates are working together. And now 
you can come and use their services and be heard and geteverything you need to be safe.

So the benefit is not only to individuals who experiencedisabilities but for the community systems because they'reworking and doing their area of expertise in partnershipswith another organization that common client needs.

So I think I want to give Rachel an opportunity to talk 
about what they do because there's so many benefits to doingco-advocacy.

>> RACHEL PORTER: What Heidi and Christine just said isexactly the same from where we're coming from. It's a 
cultural-specific community. And our community is small, and 
everyone knows everybody. The confidentiality is of utmostimportance. It's more important than maybe otherorganizations, you know, and working with that first gettingcomfortable, having that person be comfortable with me,
making sure the community doesn't know, really addressing 
many oppressive things that are out there as far as thesystem, any relationships that are oppressive, working withthose first and making sure there are no barriers. Once that 


is established, they will then feel safe and then can start 
to share their story.

So there's a lot of work involved to get to the point ofsharing the story. And co-advocacy is so important because 
Deaf people are --they're all over Wisconsin. There are 
some towns that are larger like Madison and Milwaukee and we 
work with programs within each of these larger cities. But 
for me and myself, I do work with WAU, it's in Wausau, it's acommunity, it's a place where I'm. It's the women's 
community. It is a shelter. And they have resources and 
everything established for them.

DU, which is Deaf Unity, doesn't provide child advocacy.
They are establishing that --the new program but in the pastthey didn't have that. They didn't have legal support. And 
there were some things that were missing.

So if a Deaf client came in and needed support and didn'tunderstand the system and needed a shelter or neededsomething specifically that we couldn't meet, we couldpartner with a hearing program. First we had to work with 
them --with that Deaf person because maybe they don't trust 
hearing people. Maybe they don't trust an interpreter, theydon't trust keeping confidentiality with an interpreterinvolved. There is a variety of reasons to work with themfirst to build trust, build a relationship. Then we can 
bring on the hearing organization, collaborate with them andminimize the oppressive experience within the community andeducate the hearing program where they can provide betterneeds for what the victims need. 

The intersectionality is very strong in our community as 
well. There is a variety of identities out there: African 
American, Hmong, LGBTQ. We've always tried to partner withall the other organizations to provide the specific needs tomatch their intersectionality.

Others, quite a lot of benefit in these hearing programs 
that can become more culturally sensitive. I don't want to 
say they're experts. Just to become culturally sensitive,
learn something new.

And the benefit is then to know what the resources are in 
their local areas, what is the procedure for applying --or 
setting up a restraining order and what does that look like,
what do you do. Where are the forms and what do they looklike. So working with our victims, it helps to collaboratewith them. 

>> CHRISTINE KING: May I add one more point, Shannon?

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Sure, go ahead.

>> CHRISTINE KING: I'm reminded of a time when I of had 
a self-advocate I was working with, and he said, Christine, I 


don't understand why your agencies are out there with our ownthing. You are like strands of string. I don't understand 
why you don't intertwine yourselves because when you do thatwith string or individual programs, it makes it stronginjury. That string turns into rope. And when you engagemultisystems together with a common vision and goal, you have 
a stronger voice in the community. And another benefit that 
we have seen here is, you know --I don't know if anybodyknows this, but Alaska has a $4 billion deficit right now. 
We are facing a recession that you all had back in 2008. So 
services are getting cut left and right, and we are forced toleverage resources and leverage expertise and time in orderto survive this financial crisis. 

And even though that is kind of tough, I'm going to tellyou the most creative, the most passionate, the most amazing 
work comes out of desperate times. So, you know, because weare forced to work together more, it benefits that individualwho is using multiple systems because they're no longer goingto be like, oh, well, I have a 3:00 appointment with myemployment specialist but at the same time I have a

3:30 appointment for my food stamps or for my publicassistance. And so, you know, people oftentimes --because 
we as a system are not streamlined and coordinated, we putthe person that we're supposed to support, we make them 
suffer even more. 
So I just think --I cannot emphasize enough that we needto not be individual strands of support and be a moreinterwoven rope which is stronger. And when you apply forfunding, that's the first thing funders are asking now, is 
how are you leveraging this in your community cross-system. 
So it makes your proposals a lot stronger when you arelooking for additional funds to continue your program.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Thank you Christine, I think you 
bring up a really good point. No matter where we are and 
experiencing at different levels as service providers,
there's limited resources. And I think this came up as wewere all preparing for this Webinar, that, you know, we can'tall just provide one service and we can't all provide all the 
services. And so I think this is about the relationships wehave, you know, and making them more of a --you know, wekeep using this term collaborative. And I know we will get alittle more into that a little bit later. 

What I think I wanted to start touching on for folks isrelationships. And, you know, I think we all buildrelationships with communities and other organizations withinour community to provide services and refer people. So I 
think what it comes down to is maybe this formal versus 


informal relationship. And I know there's benefits to each. 

Before we start talking about formalizing relationshipsfor this co-advocacy experience, I know, Rachel, you have 
done some work around really informal relationships and been 
able to provide this co-advocacy model through an informal 
relationship.

So I wanted you to be able to speak to that a little bitand how that maybe compares with some of your more formalrelationships and relationships you've created with other 
organizations where they've been solidified a little bit byformal structures. If maybe you can touch on that, I knowyou had some additional information to share.

>> RACHEL PORTER: I did. I would like to let you know,
in Madison, Milwaukee here in Wisconsin, they are large towns 
and have larger Deaf community. Wausau is a good size in theDeaf community and other areas have Deaf communities as well.
But how then I decide whether it's formal or informal, Iwould follow the needs of the Deaf people within thatcommunity.

Oftentimes a use of a program, if someone is using aprogram quite a bit, we will formally agree and sign amemorandum of understanding to make it formal. It's a list 
of specifics that are agreed upon. Like, I will use yourfacility to meet with a client. You're responsible forthese, what I'm responsible for. We each agree on serviceproviding. One thing is interpreters. If you have aone-to-one with a client, I would say you would provide the 
funding for the interpreter. If I need to speak to you, Ithen will provide the funding for the interpreter. I will 
bring on the interpreter. So there is an MOU that we 
establish and partner in the women's community here inWausau. 

The CAP services, that's in Stevens Point, Wisconsin, as 
an example, the women's center in Waukesha, we have an MOUwith those organizations formally. If a need comes up, Ihave a ready formal agreement in place. There is no 
misunderstandings in communication. Everyone knows whatthey're going to do. They are all on the same page.
Oftentimes a common problem is I'm an interpreting agency andI'm just going to provide an interpreter. I say, no, we arenot. 

There's pros and cons for each because there could bethings that are misunderstood in an informal. For example,
there's a rural program, we need to file a RO, restrainingorder, it's the first time I have been in that area whereit's an informal partnership where I would come in and say,
we need help with a restraining order. Let's work together. 


It's informally where we work together.

Will I work with a program like that again? Maybe not.
There might not be very much Deaf people in that area.
That's more of where the informal relationship comes in. And 
there are benefits because I don't want to sign a completeMOU and do a complete training if there's no domesticviolence of Deaf people in that area. So that's just anexample.

Informally, the pros, the first time I went to a veryrural area, a person needed a restraining order. Everything 
the person needed was in one place. It was very interesting.
I talked to the hearing advocate and I said would you mindfiguring out where to go to file for the restraining order asfar as the court system and work with me on this. So we 
worked together on where to go and they guided us and wefaced the commissioner without an interpreter. It was me,
the advocate, and the victim. So it was impossible to get aninterpreter that quick. We are three hours up north and wewere left without an interpreter. And I said, would you mindcommunicating, help with the communication process becausethe only thing we have right now, we don't have aninterpreter.

So the hearing person helped us and explained theimportant pieces and explained that court was --it was an 
injunction where we said in two weeks we needed to have aninterpreter. So we had that in place. So it worked out 
really well informally. We worked together to address thesituation. So that was one brief example that we workedwith. 

In the long run, we didn't have a relationship, just at 
that point. We do have other programs here in Wisconsin.
Hopefully that helps.

>> Interpreter: We're going to switch interpreters atthis point. Just one second. 

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Great. You know, Rachel, I'm 
wondering --and I want to open this up to Christine andHeidi as well because I think you touch on a couple ofchallenges that I think come from both formal and informalrelationships. We've talked about, you know, sometimesthere's just ease but then we've also discussed safety and 
confidentiality.

And so I'm just curious --and if you want to expand forour audience here --how have you managed confidentiality inrespecting the survivor's right to confidentiality and safetywhen you might have some informal relationships? And then 
how do you also address that in your MOUs? And after 
Rachel's done, I'd ask Christine and Heidi to kind of expand 


on this a little bit and your thoughts around safety,
confidentiality, when creating formal and informal 
relationships.

>> RACHEL PORTER: This is a critical piece in our work.
It's very important for our clients as well. That beingsaid, it's a challenge and we still face that challengetoday. In the MOU, we do address it and it's how we're able 
to provide. So, for example, let's suppose the Deaf personshould show up at their shelter. How will they reach me andnotify me? What sort of information will be shared? What 
will you say? What will you do? There's steps in theprocess. So we encourage them to follow those steps first, 
ask them to sign the ROI, the release of information. That 
should be done, first and foremost. We explain to them thatwe have a Deaf person --a Deaf advocate that can work 
together and we're a team. And occasionally that person will 
say, oh, no, another Deaf person, I don't want that. I don't 
want them --what's my privacy? What's my confidentiality?
We encourage to explain to them and that's why we do thatcross-training piece. I training them on the history oftrauma, scarring and they keep that in the back of their mindas they are dealing with this and with the Deaf victim ifthey should show up to their shelter. That's reciprocal. We 
can ask them to sign our ROI and the idea is we can pass thaton, what we're doing, what's the goal of the meeting, the 
interaction, the purpose, and clarify with the client. Of 
course, it's their decision as well. If the client does not 
want me, I will respect that. I won't share information. 
But you can notify that I might --there might be anincident, be prepared, be ready so they can be aware and callthe interpreter or just be prepared if the victim should needservices from them. 

As for a formal arrangement, they have the training.
They also have a list of interpreters and interpreting 
agencies ready to go. They have a process in place forreferrals. They have my ROI on file. They may haveDeaf-specific resource. They will have that ready to go.
And that's a formal. 

In the informal setting, they may not have those sort of 
steps in the process. One program may have a relationshipwith the interpreter, that's great. That's the difference 
between the two different programs.

Did I answer your question properly?

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Yes, perfect.

Christine or Heidi, do you have anything to add regarding 
this kind of structure or formal or informal relationship?

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Hi, this is Heidi. That was a risky 


question to ask one of us. I just guessed and I saidsomething before Christine, I suppose.

I think for us in our experience at Casa, I would say Iagree with Rachel's comments with her experience of workingthrough these informal co-advocacy framework if you will in 
places where she knew that she probably wasn't going to begoing back there.

So when we're thinking of something that's short-term, a 
one-time instance, something that requires something that can 
resolved on the spot or something like that, I think we couldgo with an informal kind of a relationship. But regardlessof whether we have an MOU or just these agreements, it is a 
meaningful relationship with all involved.

In our experience at Casa De Esperanza, what we'velearned is that formal partnerships are the ones that havereally helped us in processes where we have to work withsurvivors long-term. I wanted to pause for a moment andbring to the table the fact that we work with many survivorswho are still in contact with their abusive partners. And I 
think that kind of advocacy and co-advocacy relationship in 
that context is very different. And it's just likeconfidentiality and safety and safety planning. That takes a 
different --that takes things to a different level and we dobenefit most from formal relationships, something that wouldbring everybody to the same page where we can work through 
challenges around values and opinions related to violence andideas about survivors that --why survivors don't leave andthose kind of things. So I think for us in those contexts 
that are very real in the communities that we work withrequire a more formal process and relationship.

So that's what I wanted to say with this now.

>> CHRISTINE KING: My program is a lot different. With 
DART, it's not an agency, it's an infrastructure and itprovides a process when people go back to their localcommunities on how they can better co-advocate and 
collaborate together.

So for us, we really don't manage confidentiality becauseit's more when we look at the actual infrastructure in the 
local community, all of them are doing what they wouldnormally do at their day jobs, which is they would get a 
release of information. If I come in and I see one of the 
DART team members disclose I'm being hurt, they would offerme, like, the resources of what's available in my localcommunity and provide me options. And then I get to pick and 
choose who I want them to help me engage with by signing theROI. So for my purposes, it's relatively cut-and-dry and 
easy. 


But with that being said, confidentiality is never aneasy thing when you go to the local communities, especially 
when you have small, rural communities or what we callvillages in Alaska where, you know, you could have --if youwere to take demographic information of a potential survivor,
they might be the only person in that village who experiencesdeafness. So confidentiality has automatically gone out thewindow. So we do struggle with the complexities of how youmaintain appropriate and responsive confidentiality and atthe same time meeting the needs of the individual and meetingthe needs of our funders who want that demographic 
information. 

I fight all the time with my funders that I will get youaggregate statewide. But if I tell you this one communitythat it's an African American male who is gay who is in awheelchair, I have just --I have just disclosed who this 
person is. And so we do struggle with that. Like Heidi 
said, it's a risky topic (chuckles) to talk to us about. I 
don't know if I clarified things or made things moreconvoluted. 

>> SHANNON SCULLY: I think all information in this topicis important, and I'm not sure if we will get to the bottomof every issue that comes in co-advocacy this afternoon. But 
I think we're definitely giving folks, you know, like wediscussed, our goal is to give folks some of the idea of whatthe complexities are of a true co-advocacy relationship which 
makes me want to kind of dive a little bit into that keypiece right there of relationship because, you know, Heidi,
you commented on it of creating these relationships. Rachel,
you've also touched on it. We build these relationships 
through just our daily engagements with other organizations.

So what I want to kind of touch on here is how do you inyour goals --because I want Heidi and Rachel to address this 
because I think it comes when there is an agency that has 
language-specific --a language-specific skill set. How do 
you define and how have you managed maybe some challengesthat come from defining the roles of each organization andensuring that, you know, you don't become just aninterpreting organization? And what kind of strategies haveyou used to kind of make sure that there's some equality thatcomes from each of the partners working many this co-advocacy 
relationship?

Heidi, why don't you start off.

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Okay. Thank you. So that's a greatquestion. I think it's hard as you said to be constantlyreminding partners and others in the field that arecontributions to this relationship, both beyond language 


access. So that's difficult to do. And oftentimes we're 
called to these tables because we understand the language.
So I think I can relate here a lot with the Deaf community,
I'm sure, because our efforts around advocacy are usuallyalso explaining that we're talking about very specificcultural groups with their own nuances and traditions and 
ways of doing things. And that we come to these tables with 
different angles that we can provide when we're having thesediscussions and conversations, right? And we come to these 
tables with expectations to be equal partners in the process,
not just a box in a little corner because our expertise islimited to language, for example, right? So it takes a lot 
of --a lot of time and the building and fostering of truepartnerships.

And I really think that I want to highlight this idea oftrue partnerships so that are developed over time and have in 
the context of new collaboration, for example, that havetangible resources given to all partners the same amount ofresources or very similar so that we're talking --we're 
partners but it's really a true relationship or the resources 
are distributed equally among the partners.

It takes a lot of cross-training of our own realities. 
It's like this cross-pollination that requires tremendous 
flexibility from all of us that are in these relationships.

I think what happens sometimes is when these 
relationships don't go well, I think one of the challenges -and 
you'll hear more from everyone else, but they relate toturf and ego. And I have the expertise kind of approach,
right? You're just coming here to provide this little piece 
in this process. And I think we have to dismantle those kind 
of approaches in order to truly collaborate partners,
co-advocate. 

So I think being flexible, promoting that kind ofapproach, being open minded, being open to always learning. 
It is impossible to know everything there is to know in ourcase, for example, about Latinas. Lass are an incrediblydiverse group of people. We are talking about more than 22countries, and we are talking also about indigenouscommunities within Latinos. So it's not possible for Casa orany organization to really know everything there is to knowabout Latinos. 

Co-advocacy provides that extra support, more resources, 
more opinions, more knowledge. And I think it's reallyimportant to --this is something we promote in these kind ofrelationships. The time to intentionally reflect on ourprocesses. And I think it was Christine who said it. 
Evaluation, we have to build in a mechanism to evaluate our 


processes. Are we really doing what we said we were going to 
do? And so forth. And I'll stop here now.

>> RACHEL PORTER: Yes. I completely agree, Heidi, onwhat you just mentioned. Wow. We really have to make surewe are building those relationships with those programs wework with. And I speak of a program, it could be other 
service providers. It could be systematic groups. It could 
be different sexual assault/domestic violence groups Deafvictim's needs. Oftentimes we are making a lot of timeinteracting them, helping them understand the systematic 
approaches, why things have to happen, what this is becausemost of the time, the Deaf communities have been so oppressedthat education isn't there, language oppression happens and awhole variety of things. There are a lot of things that have 
to be addressed, first and foremost. They may not understandwhat sexual assault even means. We explain it to him.
There's hours and hours with the client. Once that 
understanding happens, what choices are available, what theywant to do, how they want to proceed, then we move forward. 
Then we work with the various hearing programs. I'm givingthem that cultural understanding. I can see it from their 
point of view. They may not think: Why does this not make 
sense to you? I'm like, no, no, no. This is the perspective 
here. It's a cultural sensitivity issue.

Just like Heidi mentioned, every culture is so different,
it's impossible for me to know every Deaf person and everycommunity. It's impossible. I'm just learning myself. It's 
so important at the same time as we work together with that 
hearing program, they're learning from us and I'm learningfrom them. I'm learning the system, how the steps work, whatresources are available, what challenges do they face intheir community.

For example, I work with a shelter, and they had a Deaf 
person in the shelter. I was looking for a place to movewith an advocate. I said, housing is really horrible in thisarea. I said it's impossible to find. I got thatinformation that housing is difficult. If it wasn't for 
information, I would have wasted my time. It was good toknow. I talk to my client and said what other options do youwant to look into? It it's helpful to know that.

At the same time, back to the misunderstanding, thinkingI'm an interpreting agency and I communicate for the client, 
the answer is no, I'm not a communication advocate. It's not 
my job to really facilitate clear communication. That's not 
what I'm here for. I can point out if there's any breakdownsor misunderstandings or something's not going right. I will 
definitely point something out and kind of inform you, of 


course, with the client's permission. If we noticed on how 
we're feeling about that particular situation, what do wewant to do about it, I'm here for the client. That's always.

At the same time, I want to help build that relationshipwith that person as well. I'll encourage clarifications,
what to do if there's not understanding happening, have theclient ask more questions. Is it appropriate, is theinterpreter quality decent? There are other factors to 
consider as well. Again, safety is huge. They have adifferent perception on safety. They think they shouldcommunicate with their partner, but encouraging to leavedoesn't happen. We are encouraging how to be more safe, how 
to have more choice, how to be more empowered and build theirlife. That's my part of it. I'm providing that service tothe client. 

And so, again, that's the cultural expertise or they'resharing their knowledge on resources and that's the 
co-advocacy that happens to provide a more safe environment 
for the client. 

>> CHRISTINE KING: To kind of wrap up this topic --this 
is Christine --for us here in Alaska, relationships take areally, really, really long time. Relationshipscross-system, relationships with the consumer base, you 
know --I mean, just relationships is key on this. I'm a 
firm believer that you have walk your talk. Because I'm a 
statewide organization and my partner is --the Alaska 
domestic violence and sexual assault is a statewide training 
arm of victim advocacy in our state. The Council on Domestic 
Violence and Sexual Assault is basically our coalition, ourstatewide coalition, ensuring that our independent livingcenters are on board, ensuring that our behavioral health 
system is on board because we want to make sure that when welook at disability, that it's --I mean, individuals areunique and diverse and beautiful and what will help oneperson with a particular disability is not going to beappropriate for the other person.

So we really have to be cognizant on that uniqueness andwhat we bring in in terms of expertise. On a statewide 
level, we walk our talk. We have a statewide team. That waywhen we go and ask communities to have their own local teamand develop that competence and competency in their local 
community to be able to be co-advocates, effective 
co-advocates, we're modeling how they should behave.

And so --and then what we permit here in Alaska is thatthe relationships that happen --like, for example, when 
Leslie came here, she had to Alaskanize the Wisconsin modelbecause what works in Wisconsin is not going to work in 


Alaska. And then for me, what works here in Anchorage whichis our biggest community does not work in Bethel which is asmall hub that overseas, like, 56 other villages. So we 
really had to honor and respect each of the layers' communityprofile and personality and let them kind of direct wherethey wanted to go with this infrastructure. And that reallyempowered them.

So, you know, for me, relationships is walking our talkso we're not just telling people what we expect them to dobut that we're actually doing it ourselves and then providingthem that flexibility to make it community relevant.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Thank you so much. I know there's 
rich information and experience out there about creatingthese relationships that really help for the advocacy to kindof move forward. 

But I want to --you know, it sounds --as you guys havebeen talking about some of this relationship building and 
your engagement in this work, you know, it appears thatthere's a lot of kind of on-the-job training and education.

Christine, I know that you do a lot of formal training.
So I wanted to kind of open up for some of the formaltrainings and for all of you to share some of the formal 
trainings you do around your co-advocacy partners and to 
really touch on why that might be --formalizing some of thistraining might be an important aspect to the co-advocacy 
relationship instead of it kind of happening organically a 
little bit every day on the job when you are engaging withsurvivors. 

So, Christine, can you just start us off on that, in someof the ways you have done some formal training?

>> CHRISTINE KING: Sure. What we do in Alaska, when we 
go and engage a community that's potentially interested inhaving their own DART, the first thing I do is I go in and Ido a training which is a curriculum that was developedthrough the Washington State Coalition Against DomesticViolence. And I highly recommend that every single programthat deals with victim advocacy have the "In Her Shoes"
curriculum on their bookshelf and use it. We received 
permission from Washington State Coalition to add a strongerdisability etiquette component to it.

So one of the profiles has an individual who utilizes awheelchair. So we do bring in an actual wheelchair to thetraining or two, depending on the size of the community. We 
have blindfolds. We got the blood alcohol content levelgoggles, the drunk goggles to address substance abuse issues. 

We got ear plugs which only really captures more of beinghard of hearing and not necessarily deafness, but we try. 


(chuckles).

So we need to bring Rachel to Alaska, I think.

(laughter)

So we use whatever we can, whatever we can, to give the 
experience of what the barriers that our population is facingand it gives that empathetic exercise, lets the providers whoare participating in the training go, oh, my gosh, I didn'trecognize it was hard for people to navigate the system. And 
I'm like, okay, try to navigate the system outside of thesefour walls. Now, you know, what if you had to go across townand you can't get on the bus or there is no bus. How would 
you do that?

It makes them think outside of their own need when 
they're serving clients, and it puts them in the shoes of theindividual and why, you know, sometimes people don't accesshelp.

And so then they kind of have that a-ha moment of, wow, 
we should be working together because, you know, the supportsthat are necessary, it's way bigger than what I can provide 
as a case manager. We really dispel the perception of beinga master of all trades. We really want people to be a masterof their own area of expertise and not burn themselves outtrying to work across the system that they don't understand.

So that to me is the primary training when we're lookingat co-advocacy. That's the why. This is why it's important.
What we do is we really encourage one-on-one trainings. It 
could be disability 101. Like, here are some particular 
disabilities that you might engage with and here's how -here's 
their safety concerns and here are some solutions toaddress that as well as DV/SA 101. Here's the statute of 
victimization in Alaska. A lot of people didn't know thatcould be up to your fourth cousin, it could be a formerpartner 20 years ago. Our state is very, very broad.

I think for the disability community, people don't thinkthat individuals with disabilities have relationships, whichI find really mind boggling. So it makes them --it 
challenges their own attitudinal biases of the people theyare serving when they think outside their system.

So we try to be exceptionally responsive. We do have 
some core trainings like, as I said, DV/SA 101, disability101, an understanding of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
mandatory reporting both on adults and on children. So 
just --those are the primers that people should be gettingand where their intersectionalities and commonalities 
overlie. 

Once we do that and they're able to think outside of 
their own box, that a-ha moment is such a beautiful 


revelation to watch them go --I have a person in mycommunity I thought was a barrier because I thought their -I 
had misperceptions of what their agency provides when theyare an asset and they have things I can't offer my clientsand I should be bartering and have a better relationship withthem so we can co-support a common person.

So I think --the training components are so unique towhatever that community is wanting and needing. And here's 
the other thing we try to do, I'm trying to work myself outof a job. I want there to be local experts. I don't want 
people calling me Ann asking me how to help them when theirresources are in their home community. So developing those 
relationships and having them do cross-training on here's 
what our agency does and here's what you thought or thecommunity thought we'd do but we know longer do or have neverdone. I can't tell you how many times in our state peoplego: I hate the division of vocational rehabilitation. Theydon't help people get jobs. And it's like, well, they arehelp you to get the job. You get the job.

And if you don't like them for whatever reason, they havea lot of money that they can help you get a job. So it helpsdispel some of those myths or misperceptions that a serviceprovider might have.

And then it's offering that --you want to show thatbenefit of, you know, why it's important and crucial in howyou can partner together where when you walk away at the end 
of the day, you're glad that you did.

>> RACHEL PORTER: To those comments about training inyour shoes, oh, man, we do the same thing. We do a whole 
variety of trainings that we specialize in. I work veryclosely with our state coalition for domestic violence and 
sexual assault. And I work very closely with those twogroups. They host events, outreach opportunities, trainings,
meetings. And I would go there to present to them aboutco-advocacy or about the, quote-unquote --"It's a Deaf 
World" is the title of this activity. And the theme I 
believe is from Washington State as well. I think it is. We 
have modified it to a DV/SA focus on how victims getfrustrated trying to access the system, trying to get help,
what frustration points exist because they are more focused 
on speech or hearing or English because this person may nothave that capability on how to interact and communicate. So 
we're making participants zip their lip, not use resources atall. You have to write back and forth, learn sign language 
or gesture to get through. It's really a cumbersome,
frustrating and it can be an a-ha moment that happens.

Also, we do training like the history of trauma in the 


Deaf community. We also do who is the Deaf community? How 
do you improve services provided to the Deaf community? 
That's what I do with different programs and trainings we do.

I'm quite involved with the CCR, DART, and providinginformation and feeding them on training, et cetera. So it's 
a whole variety of different things that are happening and 
training is a huge thing of what we do. It's a big part ofour work and our co-collaborations. 

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Hi, everyone. Just to add to what the 
two co-presenters have shared, training depends on the 
specific intersections we are trying to address. And I think 
overall, the undertones of the training usually have to dowith anti-oppression work. And then we bring the lens thatwe're --like I said, we're trying to address.

But, overall, we actually developed a specific assessment 
tool years ago to determine organizational readiness to workwith Latina survivors and their assessment tool. When we are 
typically entering into these kind of relationship withanother organization who will go through the process oftaking these assessments, based on their results, then we 
develop a training plan to address the gaps that wereidentified. 

It's a process that really requires commitment andengagement from the organization that goes through it.
Everyone in the organization has to take the assessment. 
Otherwise, we can't get an accurate picture. And that's justone of the examples of something that we do in terms oftrainings.

But speaking to something that I think Christinementioned, it's one of our philosophical principles at CasaDe Esperanza and it's this notion that communities will endviolence (indiscernible). We also created a trainingcurriculum that was really created to be adapted so to thepoint of what happens in Alaska is very different from whathappens in Wisconsin, really speaking to the context of where 
the training is taking place.

This is called the leadership manual. It is it is to 
promote leadership within communities, the idea of increasingcommunity's capacity to respond to violence. That's another 
training manual that we have. Again, it has been adapted ina number of different communities and evaluated. And it 
really supports the capacity of the communities to getinvolved in these processes. So those are two of the 
examples.

In general, when we are called to do trainings in a 
co-advocacy kind of a relationship, we speak a lot about 
Latinas' realities. And that is our lens, if you will, to 


talk about some of the cultural characteristics of the Latino 
community in the context of violence, really highlighting the 
importance of looking at the entire context when trying torespond to violence.

>> CHRISTINE KING: I want to add something to what Heidisaid, though, too. For me, the success is when I'm gone andI don't have a funded position anymore that even if DART 
isn't seen as the entity but they're still meeting where it'sbeen attitudinally this idea of co-advocacy and collaboration 
becomes not like a model process but is institutionalizedacross systems. For example, to see one of the biggestsuccesses I felt we had here in Alaska was the Alaska Network 
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault which creates the 
40-hour training, they took our materials and infused it into 
their curriculum. If I were to die tomorrow, it's going tolast forever. 

But we want to see that also in the disability realm, 
that when they have trainings or they're doing, like, a newstaff person orientation, that they're talking about thepotential of victimization and where you go to help survivorswho experience disabilities when that comes across your table 
or your desk.

So it's really important that anything that we do, and asHeidi said, anything that we do --that it perpetuates pastany project, any program, any organization that has beenassigned that particular area and it becomes a broader-base 
experience so we're not just talking about victims withdisabilities, we're talking about here's resources to helppeople get out of their abusive situation if they choose toand, you know, where you're not working outside your scope of 
experience.

So I'm really proud to say that we have done theinfiltration across system where people are kind of takingeach other's training curriculums and infusing it in theirown or ensuring that when they have in-services, that they're 
inviting their partner agencies on the team to their 
organizational to teach all staff, not just one person whattheir organization provides.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Thanks so much, Christine. I think 
that's a really good example of what we're kind of workingtowards in terms of all of our work and looking at thisintersectionality, is that eventually people will pick upsome of this training and some of this information and itwill become part of their process. I want to be conscious 
that it is after 3:15 and we are approaching 3:30 which is 
when this presentation is supposed to end.

So I'll ask a couple more questions just to keep the 


conversation going. But if anyone in our audience has aquestion for our panel, I encourage you to enter that intothe questions or technical difficulties pod which is to the 
right of the captioning pod. And that will appear and wewill ask it to our panelists.

Just two of the questions that came in during thediscussion for everyone, Christine referenced a curriculumdone by the Washington State coalition. And curriculum was 
called "In Her Shoes." 

And then, Heidi, you mentioned two --you mentioned anorganizational assessment. Could you share with our audiencewhat the formal name of that assessment is called and where 
they might be able to access it?

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Okay. So the formal name is that, isthe organizational assessment tool. We call it the OAT for 
short, the acronym of that tool.

Now, we do not give out the assessment without training.
And the reason is we have had experiences in the past that 
people have taken that assessment and kind of did theassessment just with a few people in organizations and thentook it out of context, basically. So we always feel like inorder to give out the assessment and that kind of thing, we 
really want to engage in the process to those that areinterested so we can walk them through the actual assessment.
So it's not available online is the short answer. That's one 
of them. 

The other one, the leadership curriculum, that one I canmake available for those that are interested in that. That's 
the one for the leadership development. And I didn't mention 
this before but another area that we are really interested intraining and do trainings and have created an actual toolkitis on language access because I feel like our work around 
dispelling soft misunderstandings about what language accessis, is beyond saying people use the language line. That's 
typically a standard answer that we get. We really supportorganizations in developing their own language access plans. 
And that's a toolkit that's available on our website at the 
National Latin@ Network. I can share the link if people areinterested in that. 

>> SHANNON SCULLY: That would be, great, Heidi. Whydon't you send me that information and I can definitely put 
it into our follow-up materials.

We also had a question, if our presenters would becomfortable with people reaching out to them for additionalquestions. Heidi, there's specifically someone who wouldlike to know if they could be in contact with you to --for 
that organizational assessment tool --or for the --yeah, 


for the organizational assessment tool.

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: Absolutely. That's what we're here to 
do. So by all means. And I'm guessing that, Shannon, you'llshare our contact information, right?

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Yes, absolutely. I can share the 
contact information with everybody.

So we have a question that's come in here that I want tokind of pivot to, just to make sure we're getting some ofthese answered. 

How do you --they want to know how you do collaboratewith other agencies? And what is the best method that youuse to reach out to those other agencies that you want tocollaborate with? 

Rachel, why don't we start with you on this question, ifthat's okay. 

>> RACHEL PORTER: Sure. It depends on the client'sneeds, first and foremost. If they needed a specific serviceI don't currently offer or have or a resource in thecommunity that they want to reach out, that's where wetypically start based on client need.

Let's suppose I myself needed something for --I want to 
learn something or learn more about something, I'll reachout. I can email the group or organization or call them ormeet them in person and interact with that person. Typicallyit starts when the need arises, that's what prompts 
everything.

I want to add one other piece here. We do provideassistance with technical assistance, language access plans,
we do have a LAPD, our director is currently working on apolicy to guide and help prepare readiness for people who are 
Deaf who may sign in American Sign Language or those whodon't know American Sign Language, how do you communicate,
how do you make sure your shelter is accessible. What other 
considerations should you have regarding your shelter or 
program. Is it actually accessible is the question? So we 
do that as well. 

Yes, anything else you want to add? Other one? 

>> CHRISTINE KING: I would like to add to that. For 
me --and I hate to say it that way but it's a quid pro quosituation where you have something that another organizationacross a different system that they need. So it's being ableto graciously offer that to them but also getting your needsmet. 

I'm all about infiltrating systems. I highly recommendif you noticed at my bio, I'm on a lot of different boards 
and commissions. And there's a reason why I do that, I wantto ensure that the voices of survivors with disabilities is 


going to be addressed whether it's a victim advocacyorganization or if it's a disability provider organization. 
So I highly, highly recommend if you're looking at --if youdon't have any funding to offer an agency or you're trying tofigure out what the need is, you know, with a differentorganization, get involved. Either join their board. 
Volunteer at their organization. Participate in theircelebrations and get on their radar that you're around andyou're willing to be part of a solution and encourage to lookfor and apply for funding together.

I know that people --this is a shortage of money. So as 
I said before, when you're applying for funding using amultidisciplinary approach, that looks so incredibly good toa funder. So I would just really highly encourage toinfiltrate that system with not only your expertise and yourknowledge but your time and your passion and your compassion.

And then another way if you're trying to introduceyourself and develop a relationship is look for what commonbarriers that both systems might have and then make an offerto work on it together. Here in Alaska, we have a hugehousing --and especially housing shortage as well as we havea problem with huge accessible transportation and employmentfor people with disabilities.

So find a common foe, so to speak, a common barrier, andwork together towards that. And you'll be amazed at howmuch --how strong that relationship will end up becoming.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Thanks so much. 

Go ahead, Heidi.

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: I was just going to ask you if youwanted to take the next question.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Yeah. So the next question that'scome up is, you know, it looks like there's a person thatworks with a rural population. So do you all have --do anyof you have any specific tips for doing co-advocacy with 
rural populations?

>> CHRISTINE KING: I have a question for Chelsea. Is 
she actually outside going into a rural population or is shefrom a rural community? Because there's two different 
ways --I mean, there's two different approaches with that.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: We'll pause and see if she can 
clarify for us.

>> CHRISTINE KING: I can keep talking.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: I want to be conscious we have two 
minutes left to our panel. I can put you in touch with thisperson if that's okay with you.

I also just wanted to open it to the panel for any final 
thoughts or comments on this topic. I know this was a lot of 


information in a short period of time, but I wanted to openit to you guys to offer any final thoughts about co-advocacy 
and engaging in this advocacy model.

>> HEIDI NOTARIO: I will try to be very brief aboutthis. I think for successful co-advocacy, we have to come at 
it with tremendous humility. That would be the one piece ofadvice I could give. I think it's a learning process. We at 
Casa have thought a lot about questions to ask our potential 
partners. I will be happy to share those as well. We look 
at a lot of different pieces and we don't have time here togo over all of them. But I will be happy to share and reallyto look at what other organizations have done well and draw 
from the wisdom of I think cultural-specific communities. I 
think the Deaf community, people from other countries, and soforth have worked well with very few resources over time. So 
I really think uplifting those experiences will really helpus a lot and really doing this work in community. I think 
trying to bring something from the outside unless we arewilling to adapt it probably won't work either. That's all I 
will say and I will turn it over to my co-presenters. 

>> RACHEL PORTER: As was mentioned, being aware of what 
you can and what you cannot do. Knowing who's in thecommunity, many times people don't think of that. Oh,
there's no Deaf victims here but there are Deaf victims in 
the community.

Oh, what do we do? It's important to take time to 
process. We are learning as well on our end. It is 
interacting. Again, humility and being aware of your biasesand be aware of your power. That's all I'll mentioned at 
this time. Thank you.

>> CHRISTINE KING: I totally agree with everything bothpresenters said. And I also want to recommend to leave room 
for mistakes. We're going to make mistakes when we'reworking cross-system. And they're going to make mistakes.
So not only being --having that humility but also beingpositive and patient and continuing to work past a common 
goal because they are all going to be teachable moments forall of us, not just for my partners. So I'm just a firmbeliever, co-advocacy is the only way to go in this world now 
a day ifs we want to do our clientele great services.

>> SHANNON SCULLY: Great. I want to thank each of mypanelists that were here this afternoon. I know we onlybegan to scrape the surface of this topic and there's so muchmore we can learn. I will be sending out their contactinformation so that anyone who's on and has additional 
questions or wants to engage further with any of ourpanelists will be able to do so. 


I just want to switch over here to provide you with somemore information. If you could take a moment to complete ouronline survey, you can do so by clicking on that link in the 
PowerPoint slide you see in front of you.

There are also going to be two more Webinars in our EndAbuse of People with Disabilities Webinar series that areleft for the year. So you can register for those on our End 
Abuse of People with Disabilities website under our eventssection. So I'm going to leave everybody open just for a fewmoments. 

There's also a record of attendance for those of you thatmay need it. Again, thank you to all of our presenters this 
afternoon and also to our ASL interpreters. We greatlyappreciate you and lots of shout-outs from our participants. 
So, again, please look for some follow-up materials from you 
and thank you so much again for joining us this afternoon.

>> Thank you, Shannon.

>> Thank you.