1. Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke NEIGHBOURHOOD DEPRIVATION IN A CHANGING ECONOMIC CLIMATE The Pobal HP Deprivation Index, 1991 - 2011 Dublin, May 2014

2.  Demographic Decline (predominantly rural)  population loss and the social and demographic effects of emigration (age dependency, low education of adult population)  Social Class Deprivation (applying in rural and urban areas)  social class composition, education, housing quality  Labour Market Deprivation (predominantly urban)  unemployment, lone parents, low skills base THE UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE

3. most disadvantaged most affluent marginally below the averagemarginally above the average disadvantagedaffluent very disadvantagedvery affluent extremely disadvantagedextremely affluent MAPPING DEPRIVATION

4. FROM BUST TO BOOM AND BUST AGAIN

5. ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 1991

6. ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 1996

7. ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2002

8. ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2006

9. ED-LEVEL ABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES 2011

10. COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2011  Affluence grew significantly throughout the country over the 15-year period from 1991 to 2006.  Greatest change occurred between 1996 and 2002.  Affluence grew in concentric circles around the main urban centres, demarcating the exceptional expansion of the urban commuter belts.  The recession after 2006 wiped out all progress made over the preceding 15 years.

11. ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 1991

12. ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 1996

13. ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2002

14. ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2006

15. ED-LEVEL RELATIVE INDEX SCORES 2011

16. RELATIVE INDEX SCORES FOR SMALL AREAS (SA) 2006

17. RELATIVE INDEX SCORES FOR SMALL AREAS (SA) 2011

18. COMPARISON OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2011  Despite the phenomenal growth and subsequent decline in Absolute Deprivation Scores, Relative Deprivation Scores have little changed between 1991 and 2011, representing random noise only.  The most disadvantaged areas in 1991 are still the most disadvantaged in 2011 and the most affluent areas in 1991 are still the most affluent in 2011.  The only exception to this general rule is Dublin Inner City, where the boom years have led to a substantial gentrification of previously disadvantaged areas.

19. POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX 1991 – 2011

20. LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING 1991 – 2011 (NOT USED IN INDEX)

21. NEIGHBOURHOOD DEPRIVATION IN A CHANGING ECONOMIC CLIMATE  The following slides contain an analysis of key socio-economic indicators of high density social housing areas over the 20-year period from 1991 to 2011.  Areas are defined on the basis of their share of households in Local Authority rented housing, using 3 contrasts:  Low: less than 5% in LA rented accommodation  Medium: between 5% and 50% in LA rented accommodation  High: more than 50% in LA rented accommodation

22. ELECTORAL DIVISIONS WITH GREATER THAN 50% LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING IN 1991 (N=43) CountyEDCountyEDCountyED Dublin CityUSHERS BDublin CityNORTH DOCK CLimerick CityBALLYNANTY Dublin CityPRIORSWOOD CDublin CityBALLYMUN BLimerick CityJOHN'S A South County Dublin TALLAGHT- FETTERCAIRN Dublin CityPRIORSWOOD BDublin CityUSHERS C Dublin CityMERCHANTS QUAY ADublin CityROTUNDA BDublin CityUSHERS E Dublin CityBALLYMUN DLimerick CityCUSTOM HOUSECork CityGURRANEBRAHER C Dublin CityCHERRY ORCHARD ADublin CityBALLYMUN CDublin CityMERCHANTS QUAY C Dublin CityCHERRY ORCHARD CWaterford CityBALLYBEG NORTHCork CityBLACKPOOL A Dublin Fingal BLANCHARDSTOWN- TYRRELSTOWN Limerick CityGALVONE BWaterford CityLARCHVILLE Dublin Fingal BLANCHARDSTOWN- MULHUDDART Dublin CityBALLYMUN ASouth County Dublin CLONDALKIN- CAPPAGHMORE South County Dublin TALLAGHT- KILLINARDAN Cork CityTHE GLEN ADublin CityROYAL EXCHANGE A South County DublinTALLAGHT-JOBSTOWNDublin CityARRAN QUAY CDublin Fingal BLANCHARDSTOWN- COOLMINE Dublin CityMANSION HOUSE ACork CityMAYFIELDCork CityMAHON B Dublin CityROYAL EXCHANGE BSouth County Dublin CLONDALKIN- ROWLAGH Dublin CityINNS QUAY C Cork CityKNOCKNAHEENYWicklowRATHMICHAEL (BRAY) Dublin CityMOUNTJOY ADublin CityROTUNDA A

23. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 47.647.9 48.048.1.5 Medium (5-50%) 48.948.6 48.4-.4 High (>50%) 3.5 3.4 -.1 Total 100.0.0 LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 1.71.81.92.32.81.1 Medium (5-50%) 13.911.79.910.311.0-2.9 High (>50%) 69.253.941.240.435.8-33.5 Total 9.88.37.17.57.9-1.8 Population Share based on Definition as Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas Percentage of Households in Local Authority Housing * Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991

24. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 37.634.832.131.533.2-4.5 Medium (5-50%) 38.335.332.631.633.2-5.1 High (>50%) 41.436.330.728.027.7-13.7 Total 38.135.132.331.433.0-5.1 LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 7.49.410.514.515.58.1 Medium (5-50%) 12.115.820.225.325.413.3 High (>50%) 30.139.649.354.050.520.4 Total 10.713.816.721.321.610.9 Age Dependency Rate (%) Percentage of Lone Parent Families with Dependent Children * Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991

25. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 31.825.719.116.113.4-18.4 Medium (5-50%) 40.232.424.721.218.1-22.1 High (>50%) 57.443.230.226.922.6-34.9 Total 36.729.522.218.916.0-20.7 LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 16.023.429.734.434.618.6 Medium (5-50%) 10.716.722.827.127.016.3 High (>50%) 3.89.018.822.523.119.3 Total 13.019.726.030.530.617.5 Percentage of Adult Population with Primary Education only Percentage of Adult Population with Third Level Education * Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991

26. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 30.332.937.238.740.29.9 Medium (5-50%) 21.423.127.428.430.28.8 High (>50%) 7.38.914.415.417.910.6 Total 25.227.331.632.934.69.5 LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 22.019.116.014.814.2-7.8 Medium (5-50%) 33.128.523.721.820.4-12.7 High (>50%) 47.843.735.131.728.2-19.6 Total 28.224.420.218.617.5-10.6 Percentage of Adult Population in Higher and Lower Professional Classes Percentage of Adult Population in Unskilled and Semi-skilled Professions * Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991

27. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 12.310.96.66.217.95.6 Medium (5-50%) 22.620.211.510.525.93.3 High (>50%) 48.443.921.520.834.6-13.9 Total 18.416.49.48.822.34.0 LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 10.18.65.96.011.91.8 Medium (5-50%) 16.714.29.59.617.4.7 High (>50%) 38.531.116.617.224.5-14.0 Total 14.112.08.08.115.0.9 Male Unemployment Rate Female Unemployment Rate * Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991

28. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 9.312.917.016.36.6-2.7 Medium (5-50%) -2.62.76.96.4-3.0-.5 High (>50%) -19.9-12.4-6.3 -10.09.8 Total 2.57.011.310.71.4-1.1 LA rented *1991199620022006201120 Year Change Low (<5%) 9.3 8.77.68.0-1.3 Medium (5-50%) -2.6-1.7-1.5-2.9-1.6.9 High (>50%) -19.9-18.2-14.9-16.6-8.611.3 Total 2.53.02.91.72.8.3 Absolute Pobal HP Deprivation Index Relative Pobal HP Deprivation Index * Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991

29. NEIGHBOURHOOD DEPRIVATION IN A CHANGING ECONOMIC CLIMATE  Although relative deprivation has by and large not changed over a 20 year period, the deprivation of high density social housing areas appears to have significantly improved between 1991 to 2011, at least when measured at the level of Electoral Divisions (EDs).  Half of the areas characterised as high density LA housing areas (with more than 50% LA housing at ED level in 1991) are situated in Dublin City.  Dublin Inner City was subject to significant gentrification during the boom years in terms of the development of previously vacant sites and the in- movement of significant populations of higher socio-economic background.  Analysis of Small Area data from the 2006 and 2011 Census show that the EDs of Dublin Inner City now comprise of a patchwork of highly disadvantaged and affluent neighbourhoods in close proximity, masking the continued disadvantage of social housing estates.