I understand this concept but I have trouble imagining a concrete example, how that plays out. For instance, a situation that happens without applying the principles of intersectionality and the same where they are applied. Could you give us one? Thank you.
For example, in my advocacy with Santa Cruz Cares, the overnight safe parking program connected to the Santa Cruz City Oversized Vehicle Ordinance shows what happens when intersectionality isn't fully applied. Currently, the program serves only about 15 people, and retention is low. It’s not because the need isn’t there but because the program isn’t designed with the full complexity of participants’ lives in mind.
Without Intersectionality:
The program was designed with no input from the people it serves. While it includes some ADA-accessible parking spaces, it fails to account for how its structure creates barriers. For instance:
The requirement to move in and out of spaces at 8 AM and 8 PM creates burdens, especially for people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, work schedules that aren't 9-5, or children. One father was threatened with a ticket when he chose not to wake his sleeping infant to move his vehicle.
The cost of parking, gas, and vehicle maintenance makes daily movement unaffordable for many participants with extremely low incomes.
Some refuse the longer-term program because it’s located in a park outside of town, isolating them from services and community.
Most facilities include only portable toilets and handwashing stations, which many find unpleasant or undignified.
Stakeholder meetings, held at 5 PM at city hall, exclude participants who work or can’t easily attend due to transportation or health issues. These meetings, led by staff, police, and parking enforcement officials—often the same people who enforce punitive measures—lack a trauma-informed approach and alienate participants further. The first few meetings combined pro and anti-OVO stakeholders, with a lot of tension and difficulties. Trust was eroded.
With Intersectionality:
Applying intersectionality would mean designing the program with the direct input of vehicle dwellers from diverse backgrounds, especially those with disabilities, chronic illnesses, work that's not 9-5, or caregiving responsibilities. An intersectional approach might include:
Flexible timelines for moving vehicles, with exceptions for health and family circumstances.
Locations that prioritize proximity to services, work, and community, reducing isolation.
Improved facilities, like permanent restrooms or showers, to restore dignity and hygiene.
Trauma-informed stakeholder meetings held at accessible times and locations, facilitated by neutral parties to ensure participants feel safe and respected.
Active outreach to, and self-organization of participants to co-create program rules and structure, ensuring it meets real, lived needs.
This shift could result in a program that not only increases participation but builds trust and community among its participants. It’s a clear example of how intersectionality isn’t just about understanding identities but about addressing overlapping systems—like disability, poverty, and access—to create inclusive, equitable solutions.
I understand this concept but I have trouble imagining a concrete example, how that plays out. For instance, a situation that happens without applying the principles of intersectionality and the same where they are applied. Could you give us one? Thank you.
For example, in my advocacy with Santa Cruz Cares, the overnight safe parking program connected to the Santa Cruz City Oversized Vehicle Ordinance shows what happens when intersectionality isn't fully applied. Currently, the program serves only about 15 people, and retention is low. It’s not because the need isn’t there but because the program isn’t designed with the full complexity of participants’ lives in mind.
Without Intersectionality:
The program was designed with no input from the people it serves. While it includes some ADA-accessible parking spaces, it fails to account for how its structure creates barriers. For instance:
The requirement to move in and out of spaces at 8 AM and 8 PM creates burdens, especially for people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, work schedules that aren't 9-5, or children. One father was threatened with a ticket when he chose not to wake his sleeping infant to move his vehicle.
The cost of parking, gas, and vehicle maintenance makes daily movement unaffordable for many participants with extremely low incomes.
Some refuse the longer-term program because it’s located in a park outside of town, isolating them from services and community.
Most facilities include only portable toilets and handwashing stations, which many find unpleasant or undignified.
Stakeholder meetings, held at 5 PM at city hall, exclude participants who work or can’t easily attend due to transportation or health issues. These meetings, led by staff, police, and parking enforcement officials—often the same people who enforce punitive measures—lack a trauma-informed approach and alienate participants further. The first few meetings combined pro and anti-OVO stakeholders, with a lot of tension and difficulties. Trust was eroded.
With Intersectionality:
Applying intersectionality would mean designing the program with the direct input of vehicle dwellers from diverse backgrounds, especially those with disabilities, chronic illnesses, work that's not 9-5, or caregiving responsibilities. An intersectional approach might include:
Flexible timelines for moving vehicles, with exceptions for health and family circumstances.
Locations that prioritize proximity to services, work, and community, reducing isolation.
Improved facilities, like permanent restrooms or showers, to restore dignity and hygiene.
Trauma-informed stakeholder meetings held at accessible times and locations, facilitated by neutral parties to ensure participants feel safe and respected.
Active outreach to, and self-organization of participants to co-create program rules and structure, ensuring it meets real, lived needs.
This shift could result in a program that not only increases participation but builds trust and community among its participants. It’s a clear example of how intersectionality isn’t just about understanding identities but about addressing overlapping systems—like disability, poverty, and access—to create inclusive, equitable solutions.