Child Poverty, Urban
Regeneration and
Environmental Justice
Des McCafferty Mary Immaculate College, Limerick
Eileen Humphreys University of Limerick
Outline of presentation
• Child poverty in Ireland
• Children in disadvantaged areas: child
outcomes in Limerick’s regeneration
estates
• Children and environmental justice
• Reflections on the regeneration
programme
National social target for poverty
reduction (2012)
• To reduce consistent poverty to 4 per cent
by 2016, and to 2 per cent or less by 2020,
from a baseline rate of 6.2 per cent in
2010
• Two sub-targets:
– To reduce the differential in the consistent
poverty rates for children and adults
– To reduce the concentration of the
consistently poor in jobless households
Poverty indicators 2006-2011
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f P
op
ula
tio
n
At risk of poverty rate
Deprivation rate
Consistent poverty rate
Child poverty indicators
Consistent poverty by household
composition
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 adult aged65+
1 adult aged<65
2 adults, atleast 1 aged
65+
2 adults bothaged <65
3 or moreadults
1 adult withchildren aged
<18
2 adults with 1-3 childrenaged <18
Otherhouseholdswith children
Rate
(%
)
2009
2010
2011
Research Objective: To explore the needs and experiences of children and families in Limerick City, with a particular emphasis on communities targeted for assistance under the Limerick regeneration initiative Research Team: IKOS Research and Consultancy (Eileen Humphreys) and Mary Immaculate College (Des McCafferty and Ann Higgins) Commissioned By: Limerick City Children’s Services Committee
Regeneration areas
Disadvantaged control
Average control
The regeneration estates
Moyross
O’Malley Park, Southill Ballinacurra Weston
St. Mary’s Park
Survey of parents / carers and
children
Area Sample of Parents
/ Carers (N)
Child Sample
(N)
Northside Regeneration 119 42
Southside Regeneration 90 23
Disadvantaged Control 104 39
Average control 105 24
Total 418 128
Note: The survey of parents / carers enquired in all cases about a ‘reference’ child in the family. This child may not have been the same as the child interviewed in the child survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N'sideRegen
S'side Regen Disadv. Area AverageArea
All Areas
%
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Single / never married
Married / Cohabiting
Divorced / separated /widowed
Marital status of parent / carer
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
N'side Regen S'side Regen Disadv Area Average Area All Areas
% p
are
nts
/ c
are
rs
Lower Sec
Up Sec / Vocational
Graduate
Parent / carer: highest level of
educational qualification
Main source of household income
23.3
16.9
51
87.5
45.4
76.7
83.1
46.9
12.5
54.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N'sideRegen
S'sideRegen
Disadv Area AverageArea
All Areas
% p
are
nts
/ c
are
rs
Wages or salaries from work
Social Welfare Payments
Other
Community social capital: Knowing
and trusting most people
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N'sideRegen
S'Regen Disadv Area AverageArea
All Areas
%
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
/
c
a
r
e
r
s
Know most
Trust most
Rating of the neighbourhood as a
place to bring up a family
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
N'sideRegen
S'sideRegen
DisadvArea
AverageArea
All Areas
%
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
/
c
a
r
e
r
s
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very poor
Child perceptions of
neighbourhood safety
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N'sideRegen
S'sideRegen
DisadvArea
AverageArea
All Areas
%
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
I feel safe when I go outside
I'm afraid to go out
There are lots of mean kidsliving here
Children’s wishes to stay or
move
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N'sideRegen
S'sideRegen
Disadv Area AverageArea
All Areas
%
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
I like where I'm living
I want to move
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
N'sideRegen
S'SideRegen
DisadvArea
AverageArea
All Areas
%
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Excellent
Good - healthy a fewminor problems
Fair - sometimes quiteill
Poor - almost always ill
Parent / carer’s assessment of
sample child’s health
Total difficulties scale (SDQ):
Normality ranges and comparison
29.1
33.3
14.8
7
21.1
8 7
5.8
14.1
9.1
7
8.7
5 8
65 52 76.1 86 70 87 85
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N'sideRegen
S'sideRegen
DisadvArea
AverageArea
All Areas US IRL
%
s
a
m
p
l
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
Normal 0-13
Borderline 14-16
Abnormal 17-40
Environmental Justice
• Initial focus on inequalities in the exposure of individuals and communities to environmental risks and hazards, and, consequently environmental health
• More recently broadened to include differences in the availability of, and access to, environmental resources
• In the context of child poverty specifically, Hornberg and Pauli (2007) argue for a more holistic interpretation, to include dimensions such: – The absence or degradation of green spaces and
parks
– Inequalities arising from aspects of the socio-economic environment e.g., differences in levels of social capital and social networks
An issue of environmental justice?
• Children in the regeneration areas experience an environment which is deficient in many respects, including: – The lack of safe play areas
– [Perceived] inability to go out in safety
– Exposure to bullying and other negative peer pressures
• This environment is created by wider socio-spatial processes – Polarisation of the labour market
– Segregation in the housing market
– Spatial concentration of social problems
An issue of environmental justice?
• Children are the least independently
mobile section of the population and
therefore the most affected by the quality
of the neighbourhood environment
• They are also relatively voiceless and
powerless
• The environment in the regeneration
estates may well be hazardous to their
health and development (the SDQ scale)
Summary
• Problems created
by wider social
processes
• Inability to influence
or to move away
• Adverse and long-
term effects on
well-being
√
√
√
Regeneration to date:
New housing in Moyross
Regeneration to date:
Demolition and clearance in Southill
February, 2010 April, 2013
Population change 2006-2011
selected Electoral Districts ED /
Regeneration
Area
2006 2011 % Change
Ballynanty ED* /
Moyross
1,211 863 -28.8
John’s A / St.
Mary’s Park
3,468 2,918 -15.9
Galvone B /
Southill
1,558 878 -43.6
Prospect B* /
Ballinacurra
Weston
1,031 751 -27.2
* Not all of the ED lies within the regeneration boundaries
Conclusions
• The regeneration programme has been a victim of the crisis: roughly €120m spent compared to €3.1b planned
• No certainty that the planned building programme would have succeeded – e.g., would social mix have been achieved? – nevertheless...
• Families now living in estates with high levels of vacant / demolished buildings
• New issues of threats to community services (e.g. crèches) due to declining numbers
• Importance - as a matter of environmental justice - of retaining supports for these communities
