Q&A on Exploitation, iCanConnect, and Accountability

Andrew Moore
Oct 6
6 min read

Image Description: Three bubble messages with a question mark in them.

Over the past months, our Campaign has received many questions about LightHouse’s record of mismanagement, the iCanConnect program, and what accountability should look like. This Q&A provides clear answers based on documents, testimony, federal law, and community reports. Our goal is to make the facts accessible to everyone—so the truth cannot be hidden, ignored, or spun by those seeking to evade accountability.

1) What do you mean by a “well-documented history of mismanagement and gross abuse of power” by Brandon Cox?

Documents and testimony in our possession leave no doubt: Cox has routinely abused workers, especially women, people of color, and DeafBlind staff. Credible accounts describe how he retaliated against those who challenged him, cutting them out of opportunities or pushing them out altogether. Under his leadership, LightHouse fell into financial freefall, mass layoffs, and service disruption—while Cox tightened his control.

At the same time, his own pay ballooned. According to IRS Form 990:

In 2022, Cox took home $225,575 as COO.
In 2023, that figure jumped to $306,479, even as programs shrank and staff were terminated or laid off.
LightHouse’s executive team (led by Cox) pocketed about $1.5 million in 2023 and 2024, while frontline workers and community members bore the brunt of cuts. (For context, that’s more than the nearly $1 million the FCC allocated for California’s DeafBlind population.) These numbers expose the gap between the executive team’s self‑enrichment and the community’s suffering.
For FY 2024, CEO Sharon L. Giovinazzo reported $295,983 in compensation, while Cox reported $273,126. In the prior fiscal year ending Sept. 2023, Cox reported $306,479 while the CEO reported $52,975. Nevertheless, the pay gap is only approximately $25,000, and the 2024 compensation is still higher than 2022.

2) What are the qualifications to be an iCanConnect trainer?

The FCC requires certified state programs (not individuals) to demonstrate they have staff with the skills and experience to train DeafBlind people on accessible communications equipment. Trainers must know how to work with DeafBlind consumers, communicate effectively in sign language, tactile, Braille, and assistive technology, and have real experience teaching others. It’s a federal rules–driven standard of expertise, not a favoritism-based credential.

3) How does the iCanConnect certification process work?

The FCC certifies one program per state to run iCanConnect (NDBEDP). Certification lasts five years and requires proof of expertise, staff, and training capacity.
DeafBlind consumers apply through their state program. They must show (1) they are DeafBlind (verified by a professional), and (2) they meet income guidelines (generally under 400% of poverty level).
Once approved, the state program provides equipment and in-home training so people can connect with family, work, school, and healthcare.

It’s supposed to be about access, not abuse. When a certified program mismanages funds or mistreats staff and clients, it undermines the entire purpose of iCanConnect.

4) How many DeafBlind people are currently unemployed?

More than half of working-age DeafBlind adults—around 58%—are not even in the labor force. Among those seeking work, the unemployment rate has been measured near 16%, roughly double the general population. This is a human rights crisis: weak accountability in access programs shuts out people already fighting for survival.

5) Why move to a national or regional iCanConnect model?

Because DeafBlind people need consistent, accountable service—not a patchwork that rises and falls with local politics or personalities. A national or regional model can reduce duplication, set uniform training and quality standards (e.g., timeliness of assessments, Braille/tactile‑first access, interpreter availability), ensure coverage for rural and underserved areas, centralize oversight and complaint resolution with transparent metrics, separate roles to reduce conflicts of interest, and make DeafBlind leadership structural (e.g., majority DeafBlind governance on advisory and oversight bodies).

Efficiency, neutral and non‑partisan: This structure reduces duplicative administration, standardizes training and reporting, and aligns with the FCC’s requirement for “effective, efficient, and consistent administration” of the program (47 CFR § 64.6205). The current one‑program‑per‑state patchwork creates confusion and promotes inconsistency in quality—the opposite of effective, efficient, and consistent administration mandated by the FCC’s own rules.

6) What could a national or regional model look like in practice?

Single National Provider: One entity holds federal certification, with mandated DeafBlind governance and binding performance targets, and regional teams for local coverage.
Regional Hubs (Consortium): Several regional providers operate under a unified national standard, shared data/reporting, and an enforcement framework; funding is contingent on outcomes.
Hybrid Model: A national standards body certifies multiple regional programs; training, equipment, and support follow the same requirements nationwide so compliance with existing rules is easier to monitor.

7) Can you elaborate more on the revocation of Alaska?

The FCC moved to revoke the certification of Assistive Technology of Alaska (ATLA) after years of violations: failure to submit required audits for three years, chronic late or missing reports, and ignoring repeated FCC communications. This highlights the limits of a patchwork system where compliance and quality vary by state.

8) What is 47 CFR § 14.21 and how does it exclude DeafBlind access?

47 CFR § 14.21 sets performance objectives for Advanced Communications Services (ACS): “operable without vision,” “operable without hearing,” etc. But it treats blindness and deafness as separate categories and does not mandate Braille or tactile access—often leaving DeafBlind users without a guaranteed pathway. Providers can comply on paper while locking DeafBlind people out in practice.

9) How do federal laws (HKNC Act, CVAA, ADA) support a national or regional approach and economic participation?

Congress passed the Helen Keller National Center Act (29 U.S.C. Chapter 21) recognizing that no single state can meet the need alone—supporting a nationally coordinated responsibility for services and training. The Communications Act, as amended by the CVAA, requires that advanced communications be accessible and adopts the ADA’s disability definition (which includes DeafBlind people). Taken together, these laws support national‑scale accountability via a national or model. To participate in society, DeafBlind people need equal access to communication; for iCanConnect, this means enforceable standards, transparent metrics, and DeafBlind participation in program governance. It makes no sense to administer a patchwork system to serve the same population that is excluded from effective participation in its administration.

Economic participation is part of the statutory purpose: access to communications should enable employment, education, and independent living. iCanConnect’s fragmented administration with an inaccessible consumer complaint system undermines that purpose. A national or regional model can better align funding, standards, and outcomes.

Closing

DeafBlind people have civil and human rights. They deserve more than excuses and exploitation. They deserve accountability, respect, and genuine access. As a Campaign, we will continue to document abuses, demand enforcement, and amplify community leadership. Our work does not end until programs that claim to serve us actually reflect our values of transparency, equity, and dignity.

10) Why is the absence of DeafBlind input in iCanConnect certification a problem?

Because programs are being certified about us, without us. The FCC certifies and re-certifies iCanConnect providers every five years, but DeafBlind people are not at the table when those decisions are made. Certification is driven by agency paperwork, audits, and reports — while the lived experiences of DeafBlind consumers are left out.This gap creates fertile ground for exploitation: providers that abuse or neglect DeafBlind people can still get re-certified because the FCC has no formal process for weighing DeafBlind community testimony. Programs can file glowing reports that conceal retaliation, discrimination, and service failures, while DeafBlind voices go unheard.Even worse, the FCC’s public comment process isn’t fully accessible to most DeafBlind people, effectively silencing the population the program is meant to serve.A single national iCanConnect provider — or a nationally mandated program supervising regional providers — would improve accountability and ensure DeafBlind community input is built into certification and oversight, rather than ignored.