50 Host DeafBlind Convention in MN
Issue: DeafBlind Minnesotans need more information about services and resources available to them; service providers need more information on service gaps.
Proposed Solution: Commission partner with SSB and DeafBlind organizations to host a DeafBlind Convention (a gathering of DeafBlind Minnesotans). This convention would serve multiple purposes including: Making space for DeafBlind individuals to connect socially and professionally Creating opportunity to gather information for the DeafBlind study (#49) Sharing information about Minnesota state resources available for DeafBlind individuals This would be a predomitly DeafBlind space, with significant input from DeafBlind community members on the agenda and set up of the event. Topics already identified to address within the DeafBlind community’s discussion include PT/EF, DB interpreter, PT interpreter, intervener, co-navigator.
Expected outcome: A greater understanding of the communication needs, barriers to services and gap areas for DeafBlind Minnesotans could be gathered. Further information could be shared with DeafBlind Minnesotans about services and programs available. DeafBlind Minnesotans can connect and learn with and from each other.
Who is impacted: DeafBlind consumers; service providers and interpreters who gain a better understanding of successfully interpreting with the DeafBlind community
Timeline: 6 months
Summary of Support Image Description
The stacked bar charts show how respondents rated their level of support and the total number of responses. The percentage for the five support levels is shown from left to right: Strongly Oppose (Dark Red), Oppose (Light Red), Neutral (Yellow), Support (Light Blue), and Strongly Support (Dark Blue).
Respondents may identify with multiple subgroups. The overall level of support is:
Overall
Strongly Oppose: 1%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 23%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 36%
Click to see the detailed image description for each subgroup.
Interpreter
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 22%
Support: 35%
Strongly Support: 41%
DeafBlind
Strongly Oppose: 0%
Oppose: 0%
Neutral: 0%
Support: 0%
Strongly Support: 100%
DDBHH Consumer
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 22%
Support: 38%
Strongly Support: 37%
System Stakeholder
Strongly Oppose: 2%
Oppose: 2%
Neutral: 28%
Support: 39%
Strongly Support: 27%
Overview of Respondents Opting for In-Depth Solution Analysis
After indicating their support level, 2% of the 120 respondents opted in to further assess whether the solution would worsen or improve on five metrics. Of the opt-in reviewers (3 respondents), 100% supported the solution, 0% were neutral on the solution, and 0% opposed the solution.
The remaining 117 respondents did not opt in to further assess the solution. Of these people, 73% support the solution, 23% were neutral on the solution, and 2% opposed the solution.
Reviewer Evaluation of Solution Effectiveness
Solution Effectiveness Image Description
The stacked bar charts show how respondents assessed the effectiveness of this solution based on five metrics. For each metric, the percentage of respondents is shown from left to right: Worsens (Red), Improves (Blue), No Impact (Gray).
DDBHH Quality of Life
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%
Interpreter Satisfaction
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 50%
No Impact 50%
Consumer Choice
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%
Interpreting Availability
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 75%
No Impact 25%
Interpreting Quality
Makes It Worse 0%
Makes It Better 100%
No Impact 0%
Reviewer Feedback and Insights
Interpreter
Comments from Interpreters emphasize leveraging the experience of Minnesota’s large DeafBlind population to ensure the success of the convention.
Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing
Comments from DDBHH Consumers express enthusiasm for the convention and emphasize the need for DeafBlind individuals in the planning process. Additionally, comments express concern about MNCDHH or SSB’s capacity to organize such an event due to the lack of DeafBlind staff and suggest hosting an event at a smaller scale instead of a convention. One comment expresses concerns regarding providing appropriate support for DeafBlind individuals with additional needs, such as mobility assistance or communication barriers.
System Stakeholder
Comments from System stakeholders focus on the potential impact of the convention, suggesting that it could enhance awareness and provide valuable insights into the needs of the DeafBlind community.
PREVIOUS SOLUTION
49 Conduct a DeafBlind Minnesotans Study
Issue: More information is needed about the quality of life for DeafBlind Minnesotans
NEXT SOLUTION
51 Host ProTactile Language Interpreting Intensive in Minnesota
Issue: More interpreters are needed to provide effective communication for DeafBlind interpreting requests
Leave a Reply