How and Why PEH Feel Included in the Community

On the whole, PEH felt more excluded than included in the community when it came to their citizenship experience and access to/use of urban space. Several PEH went as far as to say that the word “inclusive” was not something applicable to the experience of homelessness.

Having said that, there were certain aspects of citizenship and urban space that could be considered inclusive, which the following sections explore.

6.1.2.1 Inclusive Citizenship

There were several aspects of life that PEH and professionals perceived as having

inclusionary effects with regards to PEH’s citizenship. Specifically, participants felt Olympia was better than other places for PEH, and participants discussed the intricate social structures among the community of PEH in Thurston County.

6.1.2.1.A Olympia is Better

Participants frequently expressed that they thought Olympia was “better” than other places in the US for PEH. Multiple PEH interviewed said they had experienced homelessness in other states, or other counties, and the Olympia area was the best. As Sarah put it,

“You can’t go hungry in Thurston County” (Sarah, Date)

Other PEH said they recently got iPads, or tablets, from local organizations, but PEH still did not have access to electricity to charge them. Gestures such as these made PEH feel more included, but do not solve their problems. Many participants spoke about how Olympia had more services for PEH than other places. Participants said the flip side was that PEH from other places in the US flock to Olympia for services, and there is not enough help for everyone.

6.1.2.1.B The Vulnerability Index

Otherwise, professionals were able to discuss inclusion on a system level. The VI (as presented in the context chapter) is a tool to ensure that those PEH most likely to die while experiencing homelessness are given first priority when it comes to accessing resources and services. Margaret, a professional, stated that in the last couple of years, she and other professionals in the community have redesigned the VI to include more factors, such as skin color, to accurately capture intersectional inequity. In doing so, the VI has become more inclusive. Jen said,

“People who are most vulnerable, which I would say includes BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of color) people, folks that are gender non-conforming, or LGBTQ folks that are using substances, folks that have mental health issues or other disabilities, they need priority over others, when it comes to housing.” (Jen, Date)

6.1.2.1.C Social Structures within the Homeless Community

Aside from the perception that Olympia, and Thurston County to a lesser extent, is more inclusive for PEH was the description of the close social structures within the “homeless

community”. The sense of community described provided a sense of inclusion for PEH. Many described their friendships with other PEH as deeply vital for their sense of belonging. Five PEH described their friends as family, and the phrase “we take care of each other” was used

frequently.

Overall, participants perceived that Olympia, and Thurston County more generally, was more inclusive than other places due to the many services, and systemic changes occurring for vulnerable PEH. They also perceived their close friendships with other PEH as helping them feel included.

6.1.3 Inclusive Urban Citizenship

There were a couple aspects of urban space which participants felt had indirect inclusive effects, including “neighborhood” choice and the use of visible space for accountability.

When asked what spaces PEH felt most comfortable in, PEH had very different answers.

Some PEH felt more comfortable downtown, others felt more comfortable in encampments in the woods. Simon, a professional, explained this by saying,

“Most people live in a neighborhood… Is it a neighborhood because people are

neighbors? Or is it a neighborhood because it has a certain reflection of who you are and what your identity is? Well, the same is true for people who don’t have a home. They are going to seek out a reflection of themselves.” (Simon, 03/02/22)

Simon’s statement seemed to be true because most PEH interviewed had some form of community, or network they interacted with and were a part of. There were different factors that participants described for why they liked being in a particular part of the county versus the other.

Rob felt more comfortable in West Olympia because he felt there was more comradery than there was downtown. Ava felt comfortable downtown because she knew everybody and her friends lived there. Overall, PEH chose “neighborhoods” that reflect who they are, and just like with any group, there is difference of opinion because PEH are heterogenous. As such, in finding a place, or “neighborhood,” where they feel comfortable, they may feel included to a certain extent.

Aside from this, several PEH explained that they used visible space for their safety, and accountability of others. Clearly, their feeling threatened relates to their social exclusion, but

their choice of urban space indirectly relates to inclusion. It relates to inclusion because PEH perceived safety in visibility, suggesting housed people, cameras, or anyone else present may help PEH if they were being threatened. Junior said,

“I feel more comfortable down by the capital building because it’s more secure. People won’t attack me there because it’s a federal crime since they’re on federal land and there’s cameras everywhere.” (Junior, 18/03/22)

Overall, participants perceived urban space as having indirect inclusionary effects through neighborhood choice, and visible space for their safety and others’ accountability.