Rethinking Language Access: A Comprehensive Approach to Serving Deaf Victims and Victims with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) FOREWORD Deaf persons in the United States and persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) are at high risk of experiencing victimization. In particular, Deaf individuals experience high rates of domestic and sexual violence, while individuals with LEP are too often victims of robbery, theft, and assault. For these victims, language, communication, and culture can pose additional barriers that prevent equal access to justice and social services. The importance of access to services is underscored by a variety of federal laws that dictate minimum standards of access in service provision. While significant advancements have been made, victim service providers and the criminal and civil justice systems continue to struggle to develop, implement, and evaluate meaningful language access for victims. The inability of victims to access services due to language and cultural barriers can isolate victims, enhance victimsÕ fear and distrust, and exacerbate trauma.1 1 Tate, 2012 INTRODUCTION In 2015, Vera Institute of JusticeÕs (Vera) Center on Victimization and Safety partnered with the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence (API), the National Latin@ Network, Ignite (formerly Advocacy Services of Abused Victims), Mujeres Unidas y Activas (MUA), the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC), and the U.S. Department of JusticeÕs Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to launch and run a national initiative, Translating Justice. Translating Justice aims to enhance access to the justice system for those who experience communication and cultural barriers. This initiative focuses on developing and providing resources, nationwide training, and support to victim service providers, law enforcement agencies, legal service providers, and courts to increase language access for crime victims who are Limited English Proficient (LEP), and people who are Deaf or hard of hearing (D/HOH). To ensure that this national initiative builds upon what has already been done and effectively responds to the needs of victims facing communication barriers, we undertook a comprehensive literature review,2 landscape analysis,3 national survey,4 and interviews with experts and 2 VeraÕs literature review Ð Translating Justice for Victims with Limited English Proficiency and Deaf or Hard of Hearing Victims Ð covers over 100 publications and resources from 2005 to the present regarding both LEP and Deaf individuals. 3 VeraÕs landscape analysis reviews resources (articles, promising practices, trainings, resource hubs, tip sheets) that represent language access efforts nationwide for those with LEP and Deaf people. Resources were collected from 43 project partners and stakeholders in the field. 4 Anonymous survey distributed to victim services providers and allied professionals to better understand their capacity in serving Deaf victims and victims with LEP. A total of 1510 providers from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands completed the survey. In analyzing survey results, Vera differentiated between agencies that primarily serve Deaf populations and populations with LEP as they already have a high capacity to do so. Despite this differentiation, respondents to the survey by and large did not primarily serve victims with LEP or Deaf victims (a total of 1035 or 68.5 percent of total respondents). The data cited in this report refer to the responses of the 1035 respondents that do not primarily serve these victim populations. Note: it is likely that multiple respondents are from the same agency. As such, it is important to not attribute any of the findings as the percent or frequency of agencies. In addition, not all 1035 respondents responded to each question. Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents for the questions cited. practitioners. Overall, we found that while people who are Deaf, hard of hearing, or have limited proficiency in English (LEP) are highly vulnerable to victimization, they experience significant, and sometimes unique, barriers to accessing victim services and police protection. Notable progress has been made, often focused on increasing access for individuals with LEP more so than for Deaf victims, but gaps still remain. It is evident that victim service providers, law enforcement, and other allied professionals need help in overcoming a number of cultural and linguistic barriers that prevent effective communication and meaningful access by all victims to vital services and supports. This report summarizes the key findings from the literature review, landscape analysis, national survey, and interviews with experts and practitioners. The report offers a framework for understanding the gaps that exist in providing meaningful and equitable language access to Deaf victims and victims with LEP. As such, it includes information on Deaf and LEP communities in the United States, provides foundational information on what is known about the incidence and prevalence of victimization among these communities, and explores resource, communication, and cultural barriers that prevent Deaf victims and victims with LEP from accessing and receiving meaningful language access supports and services. Lastly, it discusses the historic bifurcated legal structures in place for language access planning, and concludes with a recommendation for service providers and practitioners to approach language access service provision holistically and comprehensively. These findings will serve as guidance for developing a comprehensive response to ensure equitable and meaningful access to Deaf victims and victims with LEP. ABOUT DEAF COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES WITH LEP FINDING: Communication barriers impact significant numbers of Americans who are Deaf, hard of hearing, or have LEP. While they have this shared reality, there is tremendous diversity among and within these groups. Deaf communities Available data indicate that in the U.S., 2 to 3 out of 1,000 children are born Deaf or hard of hearing,5 and approximately 15 percent of the adult population has functional hearing loss.6 Those that identify with Deaf culture share a unique set of norms and values around interaction and communication and distinguish between the lowercase ÒdeafÓ and uppercase ÒDeaf.Ó For example, the lower case ÒdeafÓ is typically used when referring to the medical condition of not hearing, while people who identify as being ÒDeafÓ see themselves as part of a distinct community with unique cultural traits.7 In the U.S., most Deaf individuals communicate verbally through American Sign Language (ASL).8 ASL is not a form of English, but rather a completely different language with different rules for syntax and grammar.9 Knowledge of and fluency in writing or speaking English, as with any second language, is highly varied among Deaf individuals and depends upon their cultural, educational, and familial backgrounds. 5 National Institute of Health, 2013 6 Blackwell, Lucas, and Clark, 2014 7 Padden and Humphries, 1988 8 National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2014 9 National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2014 The relationship between big ÒDÓ Deaf and Deaf culture is not mutually exclusive Ð Deaf culture can include a number of diverse identities including those who are Deaf, deaf, Deaf-blind, late-deafened, and hard of hearing. Individuals who are Òhard of hearingÓ experience mild-to-moderate hearing loss and may communicate through sign language, spoken language, or both10 with the assistance of hearing aids or assistive listening devices (ALDs) when needed.11 It is important to note that while Deaf individuals and individuals who are hard of hearing can be individuals with disabilities as defined by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, they do not themselves identify as impaired or has having a disability.12 10 DeafTEC. https://www.deaftec.org/content/deaf-definitions 11 Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI). ÒAssistive Technology for Students Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.Ó http://www.wati.org/content/supports/free/pdf/Ch13-Hearing.pdf 12 DeafTEC. https://www.deaftec.org/content/deaf-definitions 13 Ryan, 2013 14 Zong and Batalova, 2015 Communities with LEP A person with LEP can be defined as any person age five and older who has limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English or, per the U.S. Census Bureau, anyone who speaks English less than Òvery well.Ó As of 2013, approximately 25.1 million people qualify as being LEP, representing 8.7 percent of the total U.S. population age five and older.13 Though the majority of these persons are immigrants (documented and undocumented), nearly 4.7 million were born in the U.S. Ð most to immigrant parents.14 The top three languages spoken by individuals with LEP on a national scale are Spanish (62 percent), Chinese (5 percent), and Tagalog (just under 3 percent), with Vietnamese, French, Korean, Arabic, and German being spoken by 2 percent or less of the LEP population. English language skills of those with LEP may vary due to the complexity of the English language, the challenge of acquiring language skills with age, who the language is taught by, and how often the language is being used and reinforced. Individuals with LEP also experience various levels of acculturation, which are often determined geographically, by socioeconomic status, and by experiences with stigmatization, discrimination, or prejudice from the larger community.15 NATURE AND PREVALENCE OF VICTIMIZATION FOR DEAF PEOPLE AND PEOPLE WITH LEP FINDING: Limited research available on these groups confirms that people who are Deaf and/or have LEP are at greater risk of victimization of a number of crimes. Studies show that Deaf individuals experience higher rates of domestic and sexual violence than their hearing counterparts, and that those with LEP are typically at risk of experiencing high rates of victimization largely as it pertains to property crime and crimes against persons. Research also indicates that these groups can experience polyvictimization. The majority of research does not distinguish Deaf people from individuals with disabilities,16 which impacts the ability to understand the nature and extent of their victimization. Generally, 2015 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data report that 16.9 per 1,000 persons with a hearing disability experienced a violent victimization of which 8.4 persons experienced a serious violent victimization (rape/sexual assault, robbery, or 15 Akers, 2008 16 Child et al., 2011; Curry et al., 2011; Glover-Graf and Reed, 2006 aggravated assault) and 8.5 persons were victims of simple assault.17A number of comparative studies, however, show that Deaf individuals specifically are at higher risk of experiencing domestic and sexual violence Ð at least 1.5 times as likely and as many as 4 to 5 times as likely Ð as compared to their hearing counterparts and twice as likely to experience intimate partner violence (IPV). Further, research indicates that over 70 percent of Deaf men and women have been physically assaulted, and more than 40 percent of Deaf males and 50 percent of Deaf females have experienced sexual assault. 17 Harrell, 2015 18 Bucher, Manasse, and Tarasawa, 2010; Douglas and Hines, 2011; Erez and Globokar, 2009; Fussell, 2011; Kercher and Kuo, 2008; Logan, Walker, and Hunt, 2009; Morash et al., 2007; Negi, Cepeda, and Valdez, 2013 19 Kercher and Kuo, 2008 Research about individuals with LEP faces similar challenges in that there is limited amount of data distinguishing between the victimization of ethnic minorities versus ethnic groups with LEP. Also, much of the literature addressing those with LEP explores the frequency and types of victimization experienced by immigrants. Studies show that immigrants with LEP are typically at risk of experiencing crimes such as robbery, assault, theft, human trafficking, and IPV,18 with property crimes (e.g., larceny) and crimes against persons (e.g., robbery) as the most prevalent types of crimes experienced. One study of over 900 immigrants in Houston, Texas revealed that 59 percent had been victimized within a three-year time period and 48 percent of those victimized reported experiencing multiple victimizations. Of the crimes reported, 69 percent were property crimes and 31 percent were crimes against persons.19 Among those with LEP who are not born in U.S., lack of authorized immigration status and acculturation are correlated with victimization. Those who are less acculturated and have lived in the U.S. for a shorter period of time are more likely to experience violence.20 For example, a survey of 90 undocumented immigrants in Memphis, Tennessee revealed that 63 percent had been victims of one or more crimes. The violent attacks decreased the longer they spent in the U.S. though still showing a significant rate of victimization: 80 percent experienced theft after residing six months in the U.S. as compared to 55 percent after 3-5 years.21 Individuals with LEP living in cultural enclaves may also be less able to grasp important cultural subtleties that are critical for personal safety or less likely to develop sufficient English language skills as they have limited interactions with English language speakers.22 Lacking knowledge of cultural nuances and norms, combined with limited English proficiency, makes those with LEP targets for victimization.23 20 Bhuyan and Senturia, 2005; Lipsky, Caetano, Field, and Larkin, 2006; Sabina, Cuevas, and Shally, 2011 21 Bucher, Manasse, and Tarasawa, 2010 22 Shihadeh and Barranco, 2010 23 Crandall, 2005; Sabin, Cuevas, and Schally, 2011; Shihadeh and Barranco, 2010 BARRIERS TO ACCESS FACED BY DEAF VICTIMS AND VICTIMS WITH LEP FINDING: In seeking services following victimization, victims and providers are challenged by a number of barriers that prevent effective communication and meaningful access, specifically lack of knowledge, exposure and resources; lack of policies and prioritization of language access; the frequent use of unqualified and untrained resources; and cultural barriers. Victims may encounter these barriers at different points of the criminal justice system to varying degrees. (1) Lack of knowledge, exposure, and resources The lived experience of isolation by some linguistic minorities in areas largely populated by hearing or English-speaking persons has led to the formation of tight-knit communities and enclaves amongst some in the Deaf community and individuals with LEP, which can impact the help seeking behaviors of these victims. For example, community education and outreach initiatives provided by hearing service providers may not reach the Deaf communities, which can impact their proclivity to seek help as their limited knowledge around violence and available supports may prevent them from reaching out to providers within and outside of the Deaf community.24 Similarly, the linguistic isolation experienced by many LEP persons (i.e., living in a household where all persons over the age of 14 speak a language other than English and no residents speak English Òvery wellÓ) decreases their likelihood of reporting victimization despite their increased risk of experiencing violence.25 This isolation, which can lead to incorrect social perceptions or cultural understandings of these linguistic minority communities by service providers, impacts the frequency in which service providers encounter Deaf victims and victims with LEP, as well as their preparedness to serve them. 24 Barber, Wills, and Smith, 2010; Mastrocinque, 2015; Smith and Hope, 2015 25 Siegel, Martin, and Bruno, 2011 Victim services providers, law enforcement, and allied professionals may lack knowledge of appropriate methods and tools for overcoming language barriers with Deaf victims and victims with LEP. Deaf individuals, for example, utilize a number of technologies to communicate with hearing individuals, and vice versa. However, many hearing providers may be unfamiliar with these assistive technologies, such as video relay services, or how to interact with Deaf victims when using interpreters. Responses to the national survey corroborate this lack of familiarity with assistive technology with 44 percent of respondents acknowledging not knowing how to use remote interpreting methods and technology as a barrier to providing language access. Further, providers may lack connections to interpreting agencies or formal contracts with interpreters, or not have the foresight or support to budget for the costs associated with interpretation services.26 For victims with LEP, the quantity and quality of interpreters or translated material differ by language and resources become more limited as the language spoken becomes less common. On average, interpreter availability for languages in the bottom third of commonly spoken languages is less than 50 percent in population centers and 16 percent in rural counties.27 In cases where victims speak languages of limited diffusion (LLDs) and there are no interpreters available to translate the LLD directly into English, relay interpreting28 may be required.29 26 Smith and Hope, 2015 27 Lobo, 2015 28 Relay interpreting is the process whereby interpreters of different languages are used to communicate into English. Relay interpreters translate these rare dialects into a similar language or a more commonly spoken form of the original language, and in turn another interpreter will translate that language into English. 29 National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, 2005 Providers need to be aware that in serving the needs of these victims resources will be more difficult to procure and that service provision can be delayed due to the time-consuming nature of obtaining and utilizing the appropriate language services. Responses to the national survey support the assertion that the lack of availability of resources generally has a visible impact on timely service provision. Deaf victims served by respondentsÕ agencies, for example, experience longer wait periods overall when in crisis than victims with LEP (29 percent of respondents are able to secure an interpreter for Deaf victims within an hour during business hours as opposed to 59 percent for victims with LEP). (2) ProvidersÕ lack of policies and prioritization of language access To ensure access, service providers need specialized knowledge and resources, as well as formal language access policies and protocols, to deliver services to Deaf victims and victims with LEP. The lack of availability of language access policies within provider organizations is a significant barrier to equitable service provision. Responses collected through the national survey reflect that less than half of respondents (48 percent) work at agencies that have a language access plan addressing both victims with LEP and Deaf victims. And, while some organizations have written policies and procedures in place, staff report a lack of knowledge around the existence of these policies: only 27 percent are Òvery knowledgeableÓ about policies governing the use of spoken language interpreters; 22 percent of the use of translators; 17 percent of the use of sign language interpreters; and 3 percent of the use of captionists. This is concerning given that at least 25 percent of respondents serve victims with LEP on a daily basis. Similarly, the landscape analysis highlighted needs and gaps in the field, including the need for policies, protocols, and implementation-related training on how to secure and work with qualified interpreters across all disciplines. Language access is also not a fiscal priority for service providers. Less than half of respondents to the national survey, for example, work at agencies that budget for spoken language interpreters (46 percent), sign language interpreters (36 percent), translators (37 percent), and captionists (6 percent), or have contracts in place to secure spoken language interpreters (38 percent), sign language interpreters (24 percent), translators (30 percent), and captionists (5 percent). Not surprisingly, funding is the most frequently cited barrier by respondents to providing language access. (3) ProvidersÕ frequent use of untrained and unqualified resources Both victims and providers have differing language needs and proficiencies. As a result of not having formal contracts, policies, or procedures in place to provide linguistically appropriate services, providers may rely on informal communication methods to communicate with Deaf victims and victims with LEP. When untrained providers employ informal tactics they often render the communication ineffective and these strategies can allow for misunderstandings or confusion. For example, fingerspelling, lip reading, and writing or typing notes Ð informal tactics service providers employ to communicate with Deaf victims Ð are often ineffective strategies due to their reliance on a victimÕs knowledge of the English language. Deaf victims who are unfamiliar with English words will not necessarily recognize a wordÕs meaning or a concept because it has been spelled out; meaning is not implied through spelling, but rather it is learned through exposure and context. Similarly, the use of Machine Translation (MT) when communicating with victims with LEP can be problematic. MTs are Internet-based technologies (e.g., Babelfish or Google Translate) that automatically translate written material from one language to another without the use of a qualified translator.30 Despite their accessibility, the nuances of languages are not accounted for in these tools often muddling translations or changing the meaning of the text altogether. Additionally, using friends, family members, intimate partners, or others who are not trained or qualified interpreters to interpret, such as bilingual staff or volunteers, can have a negative impact on service provision for both communities. Importantly, it is possible that the individual interpreting is also the perpetrator. In this case, abusers may take advantage of victim services providers by interpreting falsely or inaccurately for victims, thus 30 Sperling, 2011 compromising their safety and their ability to seek help. Responses collected through the national survey support what the research tells us about the fieldÕs reliance on untrained and unqualified resources to provide language access. While respondentsÕ agencies make use of in-person interpreters, telephone-based interpreters, and bilingual staff to communicate with Deaf victims and victims with LEP, approximately a third continue to rely on informal communication methods (community volunteers, adult family members or spouse of victim, friends of victim, and Machine Translation) to provide access to services. There is a clear training need here as approximately 50 percent of respondents indicate how to find interpreters, working with interpreters, and assessing interpreter competency as top training needs to effectively serve Deaf victims and victims with LEP. (4) Cultural barriers While research indicates that addressing the language needs of victims is a major factor in providing adequate language access, the larger issue is resolving and overcoming communication differences between victims and service providers. Communication extends beyond language, as it also includes culture. Culture dictates the particulars of interaction and the meanings that those interactions carry. Language becomes integrated and normalized as a culture takes shape, and in turn cultural norms dictate meanings and understanding of language, as well as physical variables of communication (such as gesturing or body positioning). Therefore, closing language gaps through interpretation and translation is not sufficient; language access services must also be delivered in a culturally considerate way. Victim service providers Ð particularly those who are culturally specific victim service agencies Ð must consider all nuances of culture, including the tight-knit nature of the communities they serve. For example, culturally specific victim service agencies that provide victim services for Deaf victims may employ Deaf individuals as providers, advocates, or case managers from the same community as the victim.31 Deaf victims, therefore, may have to interact with familiar individuals during service provision. These interactions may compromise the privacy of victims and raise issues of confidentiality around service provision within the Deaf community with the unintended impact of further deterring members to seek services (e.g., Deaf victims might not seek out services because they fear others knowing personal or sensitive information, the ways this knowledge may impact their status in the community, or due to threats or retaliation from the perpetrator(s) and/or members of the Deaf community32). 31 Cerulli et al., 2015 32 Anderson, Leigh, and Samar, 2011; Barber, Wills, and Smith, 2010; Cerulli et al. 2015; Mastrocinque 2015 For LEP communities, segregation and isolation, as well as the likelihood that people with LEP may be one of few foreign language speakers within a larger English-speaking community, pose cultural barriers to victims seeking services. As a result of such segregation, incorrect social perceptions or cultural understandings of LEP communities may arise and impact service provision. Providers should be aware of the differences between recent immigrants and long-standing citizens with LEP, for example. While newer immigrants and those who have LEP may have shared language needs, recent immigrants may be less familiar with American cultural norms and may need additional support to receiving meaningful access. Cultural competency allows service providers to provide both linguistic and cultural access to those from diverse cultural backgrounds, and ultimately lessen the frequency of stereotyping and discrimination that may occur in service provision. The resources collected through the landscape analysis contained a tremendous amount of information about interpretation service delivery, including interpreter qualifications, availability, and challenges in securing culturally and linguistically qualified interpretation services. The latter finding is supported by responses to the national survey, which identify Òproviding culturally competent servicesÓ as the training topic most selected by respondents when considering what knowledge and skills will help increase their capacity in serving Deaf victims and victims with LEP. These findings reinforce the need for any provider that seeks to serve all victims (regardless of language spoken) to be committed to being culturally sensitive by grounding their work in the cultural realities, beliefs, and practices of those they serve and ensuring staff are equipped with the necessary knowledge, resources, and training to do so. Language Access Planning Required By Law The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and American Disabilities Act of 1990 each mandate aspects of language access for those who have LEP and those who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. While important, a legal mandate alone cannot ensure that these members of these groups are in fact able to seamlessly access victim services as those who can fluently communicate in English. (See Table 1.) Effective capacity building among providers in our justice system is necessary to ensure that services are implemented in accordance with the spirit of the law. Table 1: Legal Requirements for Language Access Planning Populations with LEP Populations who are D/d/HoH Legal foundation ¥ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and applicable regulations ¥ Executive Order 13166 ÒImproving Access to Services for Persons ¥ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and applicable regulations with Limited English Proficiency (2000)Ó and applicable regulations ¥ Case Law, such as Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974) ¥ Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and applicable regulations ¥ Federal guidance, such as recent settlement agreement reached between DOJ and the City of Columbia, SC Police Department Determining language access needs Goal: provide meaningful access to services by applying the following four-factor assessment: 1. Demography: number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered 2. Frequency of contact: frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program and / or activities 3. Importance: nature and importance of the program, activity, or service to peopleÕs lives 4. Resources: resources available and costs Goal: provide effective communication via auxiliary aids and services, given the nature of what is being communicated and the personÕs method of communication. ¥ Title II entities (State and local governments) are required to consult with the person with a disability to discuss what specific aid or service is appropriate; Title III entities (businesses, for profit and non-profit organizations that serve the public) are encouraged to do so. Comprehensive plan Language access plans are most beneficial when based on sound planning, have adequate financial backing, and are periodically reviewed and revised. Specifically, plans should follow five steps: 1. Identification of LEP persons to determine demography and frequency of contact 2. Language assistance measures to determine how language services will be provided 3. Training staff to ensure their awareness of LEP policies and procedures in place 4. Providing notice to LEP persons to ensure awareness of available services and resources 5. Monitoring and updating the plan to ensure changes in demography or availability of resources are taken into account No formal requirement exists. As such, language access planning has historically been approached differently for these two groups and is typically associated with addressing the needs of individuals with LEP. Practitioners have developed more resources for use with communities with LEP than for use with the Deaf community due to the prescriptive guidance and approach to providing meaningful access. VeraÕs landscape analysis revealed that language access resources for individuals with LEP are much more detailed and reflective of the specific planning and implementation requirements outlined in the applicable statutes, administrative regulations, agency policies and procedures than are resources produced as a result of the reasonable accommodation processes employed through the Americans with Disabilities Act for Deaf individuals. For example, practical, step-by-step guidance is offered to develop language access plans for individuals with LEP, including how to gather needed demographic data to determine the size of the LEP population in a given jurisdiction and the number of languages spoken within the population; formulaic assistance on analyzing the demographic data; the relative access to professional interpreters for each language identified; and the entityÕs internal capacity (personnel, financial resources, technology) to address language access. Similar guidance documents for use with Deaf individuals are not statutorily required; therefore, the language access planning process for Deaf individuals has not followed a parallel process. Notably, among the resources gathered from the landscape analysis to assess training and technical assistance efforts on language access, only two resources were found to address language access for both individuals with LEP and Deaf individuals.33 Few other tools, trainings, tip sheets, or model policies address the spectrum of language access strategies for justice-related entities. Instead, training and technical assistance efforts require entities to approach their language access planning, provision, training, monitoring and quality assurance, and outreach separately for LEP and Deaf individuals. 33 Resource Guide for Advocates & Attorneys on Interpretation Services for Domestic Violence Victims, developed by the Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence (2009); ABA guidance on best practices for using interpreters when representing crime victims. BRIDGING THE GAP: A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO LANGUAGE ACCESS While the federal laws mandating the minimum guidelines for language access have arisen out of two discrete mandates, and outline two different standards for Deaf individuals and individuals with LEP, there is an opportunity to approach access for these diverse groups through one comprehensive process. Resources assessed in the landscape analysis reveal promising practices and field-tested strategies that can be modified and used with either population resulting in a comprehensive approach to language access. Key strategies include: ¥ A demographic assessment of language needs; ¥ A clear standard and guidelines for determining eligibility for language assistance; ¥ A user-friendly process to identify effective methods for language assistance (oral, signed, and written); ¥ A process to discern and ensure that interpreters and translators are qualified, skilled in the relevant subject matter, and adhere to professional ethical standards; ¥ Comprehensive and ongoing training for employees responsible for carrying out language access plans and front-line language access services; ¥ Effective outreach strategies that reach Deaf and LEP individuals and provide notice to LEP and Deaf individuals of their rights to receive language assistance; and, ¥ Consistent monitoring and updating of language access plans and policies to reflect changing demographics, service and programmatic realities, and personnel changes. Looking to the future, the language access gaps that exist today can be bridged by the development of curricula, tools, training resources, policies, and protocols that integrate and simultaneously address in detail the language access needs and issues of both people who have LEP or are Deaf among victim services providers, courts, law enforcement, and other allied professionals. Practitioners have also indicated their need for complementary training and additional capacity as reflected in the responses received through the national survey. Access is about choice and knowledge Ð victims having the power and right to choose the language access strategy that best suits their needs and that allows them to seek supports from service providers. By providing victims with language service options, providers increase the likelihood that victims will take an active stance in obtaining the supports and resources that would best serve their needs. Empowering victims to be active participants in service provision may in turn build their confidence in the systems that serve them, and ultimately their needs will become integrated into and recognized by the criminal justice system. Providers and victims alike will be more satisfied throughout the process of service provision, in determining goals or needs, and with resulting achievements. Ultimately, ensuring all victims have access to justice, regardless of primary language, is the mission and responsibility of every victim services provider. Communication barriers do not have to stand in the way of victimsÕ healing and support. References ADA National Network. ÒEffective Communication.Ó Akers, Becky. ÒLanguage, Loyalty, and Liberty.Ó Freeman 58, no. 8 (2008): 21-25. Ahmad, Muneer I. ÒInterpreting Communities: Lawyering Across Language Difference.Ó UCLA Law Review 54, no. 999, 2007. Anderson, Melissa L. and Caroline M. Kobek Pezzarossi. ÒViolence Against Deaf Women: Effect of Partner Hearing Status.Ó Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (2013). doi: 10.1093. Anderson, Melissa L. and Irene W. Leigh, ÒIntimate Partner Violence Against Deaf Female College Students.Ó Violence Against Women 17, no. 7 (2011): 822-834. Anderson, Melissa L., Irene W. Leigh, and Vincent J. Samar. ÒIntimate partner violence against Deaf women: A review.Ó Aggression and Violent Behavior 16, no. 3 (2011): 200-206. Andres, Ellie, Matthew Wynia, Marsha Regenstein, and Lauren Maul. ÒShould I Call and Interpreter? Ð How do Physicians with Second Language Skills Decide?.Ó Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 24, no. 2 (2013): 525-539. Barber, Sheli, Dov Wills, and Marilyn J. Smith. ÒDeaf Survivors of Sexual Assault.Ó Psychotherapy with Deaf Clients from Diverse Groups. Ed. Irene W. Leigh. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2010. 320-340. Baurer, Danielle, Julie C. Yonek, Alan B. Cohen, Joseph D. Restuccia, and Romana Hasnain- Wynia. ÒSystem-Level Factors Affecting CliniciansÕ Perceptions and Use of Interpreter Services in California Public Hospitals.Ó Journal of Immigrant Minority Health 16, no. 2 (2014): 211-217. Bhuyan, Rupaleem and Kirsten Senturia. ÒUnderstanding Domestic Violence Resource Utilization and Survivor Solutions Among Immigrant and Refugee Women.Ó Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20, no. 8 (2005): 895-901. Biafora, Frank and George Warheit. ÒSelf-Reported Violent Victimization Among Young Adults in Miami Florida: Immigration, Race/Ethnic and Gender Contrasts.Ó International Review of Victimology 14, no. 1 (2007): 29-55. Blackwell, DL, JW Lucas and TC Clarke. ÒSummary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2012.Ó National Center for Health Statistics. 2014. Bucher, Jacob, Michelle Manasse, and Beth Tarasawa. ÒUndocumented Victims: An Examination of Crimes Against Undocumented Male Migrant Workers.Ó Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 7, no. 2 (2010): 159-179. Bui, Hoan. ÒPerceptions of Intimate Violence and Attitudes Toward Interventions: The Role of Acculturation.Ó Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 3, no. 4 (2005): 1-27. Bureau of Justice Statistics. ÒNational Crime Victimization Survey: Technical Documentation.Ó 2014. California Department of Social Services. ÒCommunication Options for A Child Who is Deaf or Hard of Hearing.Ó California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. ÒThe California Victim Compensation Program Needs Assessment Report: CaliforniaÕs Underserved Crime Victims and their Access to Victim Services and Compensation.Ó 2015. Casa de Esperanza. ÒIncreasing Language Access in the Courts.Ó 2005. Cerulli, Catherine, Robert Q. Pollard Jr., Denise Thew, Jeanna M. Mastrocinque, Christina Raimondi, Lori DeWindt, Sharon Haynes, Kim Kelsone, Jennifer Thompson Stone, and Nancy Chin. ÒWhat can we learn? Examining Intimate Partner Violence Service Provision in the Deaf Community.Ó Journal of Community Psychology 43, no. 2 (2015): 142-155. Child, Beckie, Mary Oschwald, Mary Ann Curry, Rosemary Hughes, and Laurie E. Powers. ÒUnderstanding the Experiences of Crime Victims with Disabilities and Deaf Victims.Ó Journal of Policy Practice 10, no. 4 (2011): 247-267. Clark, Tracy, Anne Marx, and JosŽ Varela. ÒRecommended Guidelines for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) for ASL-Interpreted Events.Ó Judicial Council of California, Court Language Access Support Program. 2012. Clark, Tracy and Anne Marx. ÒRecommended Guidelines for the Use of Deaf Intermediary Interpreters.Ó Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. 2010. Crandall, Marie, Kirsten Senturia, Marianne Sullivan, and Sharyne Shiu-Thornton. ÒÒNo Way OutÓ: Russian-Speaking WomenÕs Experiences with Domestic Violence.Ó Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20, no. 8 (2005): 941-958. Curry, Mary Ann, Paula Renker, Susan Robinson-Whelen, Rosemary B. Hughes, Paul Swank, Mary Oschwald, and Laurie E. Powers. ÒFacilitators and Barriers to Disclosing Abuse Among Women with Disabilities.Ó Violence and Victims 26, no. 4 (2011): 430-444. Davidson, Fiona, Velimir Kovacevic, Mark Cave, Kathryn Hart, and Frances Dark. ÒAssessing Fitness for Trial of Deaf Defendants.Ó Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 22, no. 1 (2015): 145-156. DeafTEC. ÒDeaf and Hard of Hearing: Some Definitions.Ó Douglas, Emily M. and Denis A. Hines. ÒThe Reported Availability of U.S. Domestic Violence Services to Victims Who Vary by Immigration Status, Primary Language, and Disability. Partner Abuse 2, no. 4 (2011): 427-451. Erez, Edna and Julie Globokar. ÒCompunding Vulnerabilities: The Impact of Immigration Status and Circumstances on Battered Immigrant Women.Ó In Immigration, Crime and Justice, edited by William Frank McDonald, 129-145. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009. Festinger, Nancy. ÒPreparing Interpreters in Rare Languages.Ó National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators. 2005. Fileccia, Joyceann. ÒSensitive Care for the Deaf: A Cultural Challenge.Ó Creative Nursing 17, no. 4 (2011): 174-179. Flores, Glenn. ÒThe Impact of Medical Interpreter Services on the Quality of Health Care: A Systematic Review.Ó Medical Care Research and Review 62, no. 3 (2005): 255-299. Friedman, Joshua L. and Gary C. Norman. ÒThe Norman/Friedman Principle: Equal Rights to Information and Technology Access.Ó Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights 18, no. 1 (2012): 47-100. Fussell, Elizabeth. ÒThe Deportation Threat Dynamic and Victimization of Latino Migrants: Wage Theft and Robbery.Ó The Sociological Quarterly 52, no. 4 (2011): 593-615. Glickman, Neil. ÒDo you Hear Voices? Problems in Assessment of Mental Status in Deaf Persons with Severe Language Deprivation.Ó Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 12, no. 2 (2007): 127-147. Glover-Graf, Noreen M. and Bruce J. Reed, ÒAbuse against Women with Disabilities.Ó Rehabilitation Education 20, no. 1 (2006): 43-56. Gonzales, Alberto R. and Regina B. Schofield. ÒSupporting Limited English Communities.Ó Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice. 2005. Guntzviller, Lisa M. ÒIncreasing medication adherence in LEP (low-English proficiency) Latino populations: Merging speech act theory and cultural competency.Ó International Public Health Journal 3, no. 1 (2011): 17-29. Hamby, Sherry. ÒThe Path of Helpseeking: Perceptions of Law Enforcement Among American Indian Victims of Sexual Assault.Ó Journal of Prevention & Intervention 36, no. 1-2 (2008): 89-104. Harrell, Erika. ÒCrime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2009-2013 Ð Statistical Tables.Ó U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 2015. Harrell, Sandra, Allison Hastings, and Margaret diZerega. ÒMaking PREA and victim services accessible for people with disabilities: an implementation guide for practitioners on the adult and juvenile standards.Ó Vera Institute of Justice. 2015. Healey, Lucy, Cathy Humphreys, and Keran Howe. ÒInclusive Domestic Violence Standards: Strategies to Improve Interventions for Women With Disabilities?.Ó Violence and Victims 28, no. 1 (2013): 50-68. Heinecke, Jeannine. ÒCommunications Technology.Ó Law Enforcement Technology 33, no. 4 (2006): 104-111. Houry, Debra, Sudha Reddy, and Constance Parramore. ÒCharacteristics of Victims Coarrested for Intimate Partner Violence.Ó Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21, no. 11 (2006): 1483-1492. Humphries, Tom. Communicating across cultures (deaf-hearing) and language learning. Diss. Union Institute and University. Cincinnati, OH: 1977. Print. Hurtado-de-Mendoza, Alejandra, Felisa A. Gonazles, Adrianna Serrano, and Stacey Kaltman. ÒSocial Isolation and Perceived Barriers to Establishing Social Networks Among Latina Immigrants.Ó American Journal of Community Psychology 53, no. 1-2 (2014): 73-82. Ingram, Eben M. ÒA Comparison of Help Seeking Between Latino and Non-Latino Victims of Intimate Partner Violence.Ó Violence Against Women 13, no. 2 (2007): 159-171. Jatoi, Aminah and Carmen Radecki Breitkopf. ÒIs Spanish Language a Barrier to Domestic Violence Assessment?.Ó Journal of WomenÕs Health 20, no. 7 (2011): 1111-1116. Johnston-McCabe, Paula, Mic˜l Levi-Minzi, Vincent B. Van Hasselt, and Agusut Vanderbeek. ÒDomestic Violence and Social Support in a Clinical Sample of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Women.Ó Journal of Family Violence 26, no. 1 (2011): 63-69. Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. Prepared by ALTA Language Services, Inc. ÒStudy of CaliforniaÕs Court Interpreter Certification and Registration Testing.Ó 2007. Kercher, Glen and Connie Kuo. ÒVictimization of Immigrants.Ó Crime VictimÕs Institute at Sam Houston State University. 2008. Kim, Chunrye and Hung-En Sung. ÒCharacteristics and Risk Factors of Chinese immigrant Intimate Partner Violence Victims in New York City and the Role of Supprotive Social Networks.Ó The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 24, no. 1 (2015). Kulwicki, Anahid, Barbara Aswad, Talita Carmona, and Suha Ballout. ÒBarriers in the Utilization of Domestic Violence Services Among Arab Immigrant Women: Perceptions of Professionals, Service Providers & Community Leaders.Ó Journal of Family Violence 25, no. 8 (2010): 727-735. Kushnalnagar, Poorna, Joan Naturale, Raylene Paludneviciene, Scott R. Smith, Emily Werfel, Richard Doolittle, Stephen Jacobs, and James DeCaro. ÒHealth Websites: Accessibility and Usability for American Sign Language Users.Ó Health Communication 30, no. 8 (2015): 830-837. Kyriakakis, Stavroula. ÒMexican Immigrant Women Reaching Out: The Role of Informal Networks in the Process of Seeking Help for Intimate Partner Violence.Ó Violence Against Women 20, no. 9 (2014): 1097-1116. Lee, Mihan. ÒBreaking Barriers: Addressing Structural Obstacles to Social Service Provision for Asian Survivors of Domestic Violence.Ó Violence Against Women 9, no. 11 (2013): 1350-1369. Lee, Natalia, Daniel J. Quinones, Nawal Ammar, and Leslye E. Orloff. ÒNational Survey of Service Providers on Police Response to Immigrant Crime Victims, U Visa Certification and Language Access.Ó National Immigrant WomenÕs Advocacy Project at American UniversityÕs Washington College of Law. 2013. Lemon, Nancy K. ÒAccess to Justice: Can Domestic Violence Courts Better Address the Need of Non-English Speaking Victims of Domestic Violence.Ó Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 21, no. 1 (2013): 38-58. LEP.gov. ÒFrequently Asked Questions.Ó Lipsky, Sherry, Raul Caetano, Craig A. Field, and Gregory L. Larkin. ÒThe Role of Intimate Partner Violence, Race, and Ethnicity in Help-Seeking Behaviors.Ó Ethnicity and Health 11, no. 1 (2006): 81-100. Lobo, Eliana. ÒWhat are Languages of Limited Diffusion?Ó InDemand Interpreting. 2015. Logan, T. K., Robert Walker, and Gretchen Hunt. ÒUnderstanding Human Trafficking in the United States.Ó Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 10, no. 1 (2009): 3-30. Lysakowski, Matthew, Albert Anthony Pearsall III, and Jill Pope. ÒPolicing in New Immigrant Communities.Ó Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice. 2009. Mathos, Kimberly K., Amy M. Kilbourne, Randall R. Myers, and Edward P. Post. ÒDisparities in Mental Health Services for Persons who are Deaf: Advancing Research Towards Action.Ó Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association 42, no. 3 (2009): 152-166. Mastrocinque, Jeanna M., Denise Thew, Catherine Cerulli, Christina Raimondi, Robert Q Pollard, Jr., and Nancy P. Chin. ÒDeaf VictimsÕ Experiences With Intimate Partner Violence: The Need for Integration and Innovation.Ó Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2015). doi: 10.1177/0886260515602896. McCart, Michael R., Daniel W. Smith, and Genelle K. Sawyer. ÒHelp Seeking Among Victims of Crime: A Review of the Empirical Literature.Ó Journal of Trauumatic Stress 23, no. 2 (2010): 198-206. McQuiller-Williams, Laverne and Judy L. Porter, ÒAn Examination of the Incidence of Sexual, Physical, and Psychological Abuse and Sexual Harassment on a College Campus Among Under - represented PopulationsÓ (paper presented at the Western Society of Criminology Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 2010). Mitchell, Ross E., Travas A. Young, Bellamie Bachleda, and Michael A. Karchmer. ÒHow Many People Use ASL in the United States?: Why Estimates Need Updating.Ó Sign Language Studies 6, no. 3 (2006): 306-335. Morash, Merry, Hoan Bui, Yan Zhang, and Kristy Holtfreter. ÒRisk Factors for Abusive Relationships: A Study of Vietnamese American Immigrant Women.Ó Violence Against Women 13, no. 7 (2007): 653-675. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers. ÒDeaf Interpreter.Ó National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). ÒAmerican Sign Language.Ó Last Modified June 24, 2015. National Institute of Health. ÒNewborn Hearing Screening.Ó Last modified March 29, 2013. National Institute of Justice. ÒCrime, Violence & Victimization Research DivisionÕs Compendium of Research on Violence Against Women.Ó 2014. National Institute of Justice. ÒImmigrants as Victims.Ó Last modified May 17, 2011. National PREA Resource Center. ÒPrisons and Jails Standards.Ó Negi, Nalini Junko, Alice Cepeda, and Avelardo Valdez. ÒCrime Victimization Among Immigrant Latino Day Laborers in Post-Katrina New Orleans.Ó Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 35, no. 3 (2013): 354-369. Obinna, Jennifer, Sarah Krueger, Constance Osterbann, Jane M. Sadusky, and Wendy DeVore. ÒUnderstanding the Needs of the Victims of Sexual Assault in the Deaf Community.Ó Council on Crime and Justice. 2005. Orloff, Leslye. Amanda Baran, and Martha Cohen. ÒEnsuring Language Access to Immigrant Victims of Sexual Assault.Ó National Immigrant WomenÕs Advocacy Project at American UniversityÕs Washington College of Law. 2010. Padden, Carol and Tom Humphries. Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Partida, Yoldanda. ÒAddressing Language Barriers: Building Response Capacity for a Changing Nation.Ó Journal of General Internal Medicine 22, no. 2 (2007): 347-349. Pfortsch, Karen. ÒViolence Against Women with Disabilities and Deaf Women Grant: D/deaf/Hard of Hearing and Deaf Culture.Ó Poe, Christina. ÒAmerican Sign Language: Communication with Deaf Students.Ó 2006. Pollard Jr., Robert Q., Erika Stutter, and Catherine Cerulli. ÒIntimate Partner Violence Reported by Two Samples of Deaf Adults via a Computerized American Sign Language Survey.Ó Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29, no. 5 (2014): 948-965. Porter, Judy L. and LaVerne McQuiller Williams. ÒDual Marginality: The Impact of Auditory Status and Sexual Orientation on Abuse in a College Sample of Women and Men.Ó Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 22, no. 6 (2013): 577-589. Porter, Judy L. and LaVerne McQuiller Williams, ÒAuditory Status and Experiences of Abuse Among College Students.Ó Violence and Victims 26, no. 6 (2011): 788-798. Pujari, Saritha. Ò4 Different Types of Barriers to Effective Communication.Ó Reina, Angelica S., Brenda J. Lohman, and Marta Mar’a Maldonado. ÒÒHe Said TheyÕd Deport MeÓ: Factors Influencing Domestic Violence Help-Seeking Practices Among Latina Immigrants.Ó Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29, no. 4 (2014): 593-615. Ryan, Camille. ÒLanguage Use in the United States: 2011.Ó U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Sabina, Chiara, Carlos A. Cuevas, and Jennifer L. Schally. ÒThe Cultural Influences on Helpseeking Among a National Sample of Victimized Latino Women.Ó American Journal of Community Psychology 49, no. 3 (2012): 347-363. Schild, Sven and Constance J. Dalenberg. ÒConsequences of Child and Adult Sexual and Physical Trauma among Deaf Adults.Ó Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 24, no. 3 (2015): 237-256. Schild, Sven and Constance J. Dalenberg. ÒTrauma Exposure and Traumatic Symptoms in Deaf Adults.Ó Psychological Trauma: Research, Practice, and Policy 4, no. 1 (2012): 117-127. Schoenborn, C & Heyman, K. (2008). ÒHealth disparities among adults with hearing loss: United States, 2000 Ð 2006.Ó Health E-Stats. CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Shah, Susan, Insha Rahman, and Anita Kashu. ÒOvercoming Language Barriers: Solutions for Law Enforcement.Ó Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice and the Vera Institute of Justice. 2007. Shihadeh, Edward S. and Raymond E. Barranco, ÒLatino Immigration, Economic Deprivation, and Violence: Regional Differences in the Effect of Linguistic Isolation.Ó Homicide Studies 14, no. 3 (2010): 336-355. Siegel, Paul, Elizabeth Martin, and Rosalind Bruno. ÒLanguage Use and Linguistic Isoaltion: Historical Data and Methodological Issues.Ó U.S. Census. 2001. Smith, Nancy and Charity Hope. ÒCulture, Language, and Access: Key Considerations for Serving Deaf Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence.Ó Vera Institute of Justice. 2015. Smith, Rebecca A. Elliot and Lawrence H. Pick. ÒSexual Assault Experienced by Deaf Female Undergraduates: Prevalence and Characteristics.Ó Violence and Victims 30, no. 6 (2015): 948-959. Sperling, Jessica. ÒCommunicating More for Less: Using Translation and Interpretation Technology to Serve Limited English Proficient Individuals.Ó Migration Policy Institute. 2011. Steinberg, Annie G., Steven Barnett, Helen R. Meador, Erin A. Wiggin, and Philip Zazone. ÒHealth Care System Accessibility: Experiences and Perceptions of Deaf People.Ó Journal of General Internal Medicine 21, no. 3 (2006): 260-266. Subtirelu, Nic. ÒLanguage privilege: What it is and why it matters.Ó Linguistic Pulse. 2013. Tate, Candice. ÒTrauma in the Deaf Population: Definition, Experience, and Services.Ó National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. 2012. Teitelbaum, Joel, Lara Cartwright-Smith, and Sara Rosenbaum. ÒTranslating Rights into Access: Language Access and the Affordable Care Act.Ó American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2-3 (2012): 348-373. Theodore, Nik. ÒInsecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement.Ó Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. 2013. Torres, Myriam, Deborah Parra-Medina, Jessica Bellinger, Andrew O. Johson, and Janice C. Probst. ÒRural Hospitals and Spanish-Speaking Patient with Limited English Proficiency.Ó Journal of Healthcare Management 53, no. 2 (2008): 107-120. Truman, Jennifer L. and Lynn Langton, ÒCriminal Victimizations, 2013.Ó U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 2014. Uekert, Brenda K., Tracy Peters, Wanda Romberger, Margaret Abraham, and Susan Keilitz. ÒServing Limited English Proficient (LEP) Battered Women: A National Survey of the CourtÕs Capacity To Provide Protection.Ó The National Center for State Courts. 2006. University of Maryland Medical Center. ÒHearing loss.Ó 2016. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights. ÒSection 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.Ó U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights. ÒYour Rights Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.Ó 2006. U.S. Department of Justice. ÒExecutive Order 13166.Ó U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. ÒPublic Accommodations and Commercial Facilities (Title III).Ó U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. ÒState and Local Governments (Title II).Ó U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. ÒEffective Communication.Ó U.S. English. ÒOfficial English.Ó Venkatraman, Bharathi A. ÒLost in Translation Limited English Proficient Populations and the Police.Ó Police Chief Magazine. 2006. Vickstrom, Erik. ÒHow Well Do You Speak English? Assessing the Validity of the American Community Survey English-Ability Question.Ó U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Vidales, Guadalupe T. ÒArrested Justice: The Multifaceted Plight of Immigrant Latinas who Faced Domestic Violence.Ó Journal of Family Violence 25, no. 6 (2010): 533-544. Vivero, Sofia, Leslye E. Orloff, Daniel J. Quinones, Benish Anver, and Charles Palladino. ÒImmigrant Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Human Trafficking and Access to Legal Services.Ó National Immigrant WomenÕs Advocacy Project at American UniversityÕs Washington College of Law. 2013. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. ÒInformation Gaps on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Population: A Background Paper.Ó 2006. Wheeler, Krista, Weiyan Zhao, Kelly Kelleher, Lorann Stallones, and Huiyun Xiang. ÒImmigrants and Crime Victims: Experience of Personal Nonfatal Victimization.Ó American Journal of Industrial Medicine 53, no. 4 (2010): 435-442. World Federation of the Deaf. ÒInterpreting.Ó Yonaka, L., M. K. Yoder, J. B. Darrow, and J. P. Sherck. ÒBarriers to Screening for Domestic Violence in the Emergency Department.Ó Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 38, no. 1 (2007): 37-45. Zatz, Marjorie S. and Hilary Smith. ÒImmigration, Crime, and Victimization: Rhetoric and Reality.Ó Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8 (2012): 141-159. DOI: 10.1146. Zong, Jie and Jeanne Batalova. ÒThe Limited English Proficient Population in the United States.Ó Migration Policy Institute. 2015. This material was produced under Grant Number 2015-VF-GX-K011, awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.