What Can We Learn? Examining Intimate Partner Violence Service Provision in the Deaf Community

Abstract

Recent community-based research indicates that the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the Deaf community exceeds known rates among hearing individuals, yet little is known about services available to Deaf IPV victims. Given the inaccessibility of IPV services, providers (doctors, psychologists, and lawyers) who know American Sign Language become IPV providers while addressing myriad comorbid issues that affect Deaf clients. This article presents data drawn from transcripts of semistructured interviews with 12 interdisciplinary providers who serve the Deaf population. We sought to understand the etiology of abuse involving Deaf victims and what, if any, services are available. We explore similarities and differences between service provision for hearing and Deaf IPV victims. Findings suggest providers working with Deaf IPV victims typically (a) work with victims and perpetrators alike, (b) provide services to couples and families, (c) serve larger geographical areas, and (d) address stigmatization. Perhaps the most important finding is that standard terminology in IPV measures, without linguistic and cultural modifications, may be invalid for use with Deaf individuals. Policy implications are discussed. C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Deaf Victims’ Experiences With Intimate Partner Violence: The Need for Integration and Innovation

“…Moreover, Deaf community leaders tend to focus their attention on discrimination, interpreter services, oppression (e.g., protecting sign language and schools for the deaf from detractors), and the general lack of accessible services for the Deaf community, with less prioritization on specialized services, such as IPV services (Merkin & Smith, 1995). While more recent work notes that there have been increases in the number of Deaf IPV service organizations, this work also found that overall “most IPV providers serving hearing people are IPV specialists, whereas the providers serving Deaf people are usually generalists, required to address an array of complicated needs for their clients due to their unique accessibility of ASL users” (Cerulli et al, 2015, p. 151). One study of women with disabilities and women who are deaf found participants often relied on informal, as opposed to formal, sources of support; findings consistent with female IPV victims without disabilities (Powers et al, 2009).…”

“…These data come from a three-phase research project that examined the etiology of IPV affecting the Deaf community (see Cerulli et al, 2015). This article focuses on the second phase of the project, the purpose of which was to gather data from deaf IPV victims in an effort to investigate and describe risk and protective factors for IPV behaviors in relationships involving one or more deaf individuals who use ASL, with attention to specific factors associated with greater injury and mortality risk.…”

Intimate Partner Violence Among Help-Seeking Deaf Women: An Empirical Study

“…Recent findings from a study of ASL-fluent service providers working with Deaf survivors of IPV observed that while service providers working with hearing survivors tend to be IPV specialists, those serving Deaf survivors tend to be “generalists, required to address an array of complicated needs for their clients due to their unique accessibility to ASL users” (Cerulli et al, 2015, p. 151). Because these providers tend to be housed in non-IPV-specific service agencies, they may find themselves working with both perpetrators and survivors, which presents troubling confidentiality concerns.…”

“…It is important for researchers and practitioners to consider the intersection of various identities, including race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, social class, and immigration, as these identities shape the opportunities available to women as they consider their options when addressing IPV (Child, Oschwald, Curry, Hughes, & Powers, 2011). The ability to find and access appropriate services may be further challenged when clients present with a range of unique issues, such as when a Deaf survivor has immigration-related concerns and faces barriers related to both communication and citizenship (Cerulli et al, 2015). A survivor's education history has an impact on resource knowledge and vocational options.…”

“…To improve access to IPV services for Deaf survivors, hearing professionals must fully understand the dynamics of IPV in the Deaf community, respect the knowledge of Deaf survivors, and strive to accommodate them on both programmatic and cultural levels. There have been multiple calls for research to address these service gaps (e.g., Cerulli et al, 2015; Johnston-McCabe et al, 2011; Pollard et al, 2014). Beyond prevalence rates, studies investigating the various dynamics of IPV against Deaf women are needed (Anderson et al, 2011), particularly the response and resources available to those experiencing it.…”