Cdi haok a4 by Esther Behan

CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

Meeting needs, making changes, improving outcomes

How Are Our Families? By

Dr Tara Murphy (Childhood Development Initiative) Dr Suzanne Guerin (University College Dublin) 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Foreword Acknowledgements Glossary of Terms/Acronyms used

3 4 5 6 7

Executive Summary

Introduction 2.1 Literature Review 2.2 Background to Current Study 2.3 The Present Study

16 16 18 19

Methodology for the Household Survey 3.1 Design 3.2 Instruments 3.3 Sample 3.4 Ethical Issues 3.5 Method 3.6 Fieldwork

20 20 20 21 22 22 22

Methodology for the Youth Survey 4.1 Design 4.2 Instruments 4.3 Sample 4.4 Ethical Issues 4.5 Method 4.6 Fieldwork 4.7 Data Analysis for the Household and Youth Surveys

23 23 23 24 25 25 26 26

Key Findings from the Household Survey 5.1 Demographics 5.2 Residence 5.3 Sense of Community and Safety 5.4 Parenting 5.5 Physical Health in the Family 5.6 Psychological Health in the Family 5.7 Parental Employment 5.8 Educational Experience 5.9 Out-of-School Activities 5.10 Financial Issues 5.11 Current Problems 5.12 Service Utilisation

27 27 28 29 34 41 42 44 44 46 47 49 52 1

Key Findings from the Youth Survey 6.1 Demographic Details 6.2 Physical Health and Activity 6.3 Health Behaviour 6.4 Psychological Health 6.5 Moods and Emotions 6.6 Self-Perception 6.7 Autonomy 6.8 Parental Relations and Home Life 6.9 School 6.10 Social Support and Peers 6.11 Sense of Community and Safety 6.12 Financial Resources and Personal Belongings

54 54 56 61 63 65 67 68 70 72 74 76 80

Discussion 7.1 Summary of Key Findings 7.2 Feedback from Consultation Process 7.3 Reflection on Methodology 7.4 Conclusion

82 82 83 85 86

References Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7

87 89 Information Sheet for Household Survey 89 Content of Training Programme for Community Fieldworkers 91 Reliability findings for KIDSCREEN-52 94 Information Sheet for the Youth Survey 95 Parental and Youth Consent Form 97 Data Management Plan 98 Additional Information on Psychological Wellbeing of Participants 100

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43

Breakdown of quota sample What do you enjoy most about your home? Sense of community in Tallaght West Experiences of crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues What do you enjoy most about living in Tallaght West? Making Tallaght West a safer place to bring up children Child strengths and personal attributes Good things that happened to the respondent and/or their family Informal and formal support Being a parent/ carer Quality of life (respondent): Physical difficulties Difficulties with child Behavioural difficulties Achieving Potential in School Other types of activities Things that have happened to the respondent/others living in the house Events that occurred most recently for respondents How the event affected respondents How the event affected children in the household How did respondents cope with an event? Access to Sources of Formal Support Type of Disability, Illness or Condition Living and going to school in Tallaght West Ethnicity Physical wellbeing of all participants Participation in after-school activities Participation in sedentary activities during weekdays and weekends Participants’ experience of smoking and drug use Percentage of participants who reported having been “really drunk” Psychological wellbeing of all participants Moods and emotions of participants Self-perception Level of autonomy reported by participants Living situation of participants Quality of relationship with parents (or primary caregiver) Participants’ mode of transport to school or youth organisation School environment of children and young people Mean and standard deviation for close male and female friends Quality of peer relationships Number of times participants’ were injured or in a physical fight Safety in the home and wider community Safety issues: crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues Enjoys most about living in Tallaght West as reported by young people

21 29 30 31 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 43 43 45 46 50 51 51 52 52 53 55 55 55 56 59 60 61 62 64 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 76 78 78 3

LIST OF TABLES contd. Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48

Social acceptance by peers Financial resources Range of personal belongings as reported by participants KIDSCREEN-52 by dimension: dimension properties Psychological wellbeing of all participants

79 80 81 94 100

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22

Ten Dimensions of KIDSCREEN-52 Age distribution of children Problems with Accommodation Problems in the Neighbourhood Parent-child relationship Access to Informal and Formal Support Psychological wellbeing of Respondent Employment Status of Respondent and Second Adult in Household Absenteeism rates as reported by respondents Unable to afford within the past 6 months Financial Management Financial worries over the previous 6 months Current problems Age of respondents in youth survey General health Type and frequency of participation in out-of-school activities Type and frequency of alcohol consumed by participants Satisfaction with life Gender differences: ‘Have you felt that you do everything badly?’ Gender differences: ‘Have you felt that everything in your life goes wrong? Gender differences: ‘Would you like to change anything about your body?’ Sense of community and safety

24 27 28 31 36 38 42 44 45 47 48 48 49 54 56 58 62 63 65 65 68 77

FOREWORD In 2003, when a group of concerned parents, residents and service providers came together to consider the needs of children and families in Tallaght West, we were determined that our efforts would lead to an increased understanding of the community, improved connections across services, and ultimately better outcomes. Central to this approach was being evidence-led, making informed decisions, and balancing the strategic efforts with a commitment to local delivery with tangible benefits for children. A central element of this process was the needs assessment conducted in 2004, “How Are Our Kids?” which centrally informed the development and focus of CDI’s strategic plan. Eight years later, CDI has developed five programme manuals, commissioned eight independent evaluations and established strong governance structures with effective links between organisations and community residents. During this period we have learnt a great deal about how to deliver quality services, promote reflective practice and enhance access to supports. As final evaluation reports and findings begin to emerge CDI will increasingly focus on translating and disseminating these lessons, alongside strategies to sustain the delivery of those programmes which have been demonstrated as being effective. The desire to remain evidence-based and maintain a deep understanding of the community led us to revisit the information from “How Are Our Kids?” and consider additional information from both parents and young people. The resulting findings and insights are considered in this report, offering a comprehensive answer to the question ‘How Are Our Families?’ These developments have taken place in the context of unique and dramatic shifts in the economy. When CDI was first established as a company in 2007, the country was still in the throes of the Celtic Tiger. The construction industry was booming, immigration rates were high and there was a general belief that this lifestyle would always sustain. Of course, this was not the case and Tallaght West similar to many other communities experiencing disadvantage, has experienced a deep impact resulting from the financial downturn. As this timely report shows families are managing significant worries about money including high levels of reliance on social welfare and local authority housing and concern about making basic utility payments. However, the report also indicates very positive relationships between children and parents, high levels of support and connectedness within the community and a sense of belonging and ownership in Tallaght West. The range of organisations and services being accessed by families is indicative of both the complexity of need and the levels of motivation amongst families to get involved and seek support. “How are our Families?”offers a snapshot of family life in Tallaght West; it will be of use to those interested in understanding the community better and wishing to ensure the adoption of an evidenced-based approach to the planning of children’s services. It also serves as a reminder of the resilience of the people in Tallaght West, their capacity to ‘put the best foot forward’ and focus on the positives and the enduring commitment of parents to love, care for and nurture their children. We hope this report supports all of us in doing just that. Dr. Noelle Spring Chair CDI Board of Management 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several individuals and organisations made this study possible and the research team would like to thank the following (in no particular order):

■

Members of the Community Survey Advisory Committee who gave their time to carefully advise and consider the survey in its entirety in conjunction with members of the CDI team: ❖ Frances Chance; ❖ Colette McLoughlin; ❖ Maria O’Donoghue; and ❖ Pauline O’Hanlon.

■

Participating schools and youth organisations: ❖ Citywise (John Keogh and Paul Waverly); ❖ Killinarden Community College (Ita Garvey); ❖ Jobstown Community College (Mona Moran); ❖ St. Aidan’s Community College (Sr. Ann); ❖ St. Mark’s Community College (Eithne Kennedy); and ❖ Youth Horizons (Sr. Mairead).

■

Our Community Fieldworkers who demonstrated a strong sense of commitment to the task. To us, they are the ‘Erin Brockovich’s’ of Tallaght West! ❖ Mareta Albogachiev, ❖ Valerie Behan, ❖ Aishling Bolarinwa, ❖ Susan Brennan, ❖ Sinead Casper, ❖ Mary Doyle, ❖ Geraldine Ennis, ❖ Martina Genockey, ❖ Leslie Fagan, ❖ Christine McDonnell, ❖ Val O’Reilly, and ❖ Sarah O’Shea.

■

Those individuals who worked tirelessly on data input including Fiona Horahan, Jennifer Rogers, and Sarah O’Shea.

■

Dr Deborah Ghate (formerly Centre for Effective Services) who co-developed and implemented the original needs analysis survey in the United Kingdom and from whom we were fortunate to receive guidance.

■

Willie Sheils from South Dublin County Council who supported the study and Sean Kennedy from Leisureplex who gave us his best deal for vouchers!

■

Last but certainly not least, to all the young people and families who participated in this study. Your honesty was oftentimes incredible and we hope we have done you some justice by capturing a meaningful picture of family life in Tallaght West.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ACRONYMS CDI

Childhood Development Initiative

CSO

Central Statistics Office

Tallaght West

HAOK

How Are Our Kids?

HBSC

Health Behaviour in School-aged Children

HRQOL

Health Related Quality of Life

HSE

Health Service Executive

ASB

Anti Social Behaviour

Normative data

Information that is taken to represent what is typical or average for a group

Standardised tools

Questionnaires that have been shown to effectively measure particular concepts

SDCC

South Dublin County Council

SPHE

Social, Personal and Health Education

QoL

Quality of Life

GUI

Growing up in Ireland

NEWB

National Educational Welfare Board

CPQ

Current Problems Questionnaire

SDQ

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

KS52

KIDSCREEN 52

Youth Survey

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW The purpose of this study was to update our understanding and information on families in the community of Tallaght West and particularly the risk and protective factors associated with children’s wellbeing. The research focused on extensive child and family demographic information and well-being indicators in order to provide a holistic picture of children’s, young people’s, and family’s lives. Study Method “How Are Our Families?” is a follow-up study to “How Are Our Kids?” (2004). The current study used the same methodology as How Are Our Kids? (HAOK), with an additional youth survey to indicate any changes in child and family well-being over the six years. While not returning to the specific participants from HAOKs, this follow-up study sources participants in the same community. “How Are Our Families?” has been divided into two surveys, 1) Household Survey and 2) Youth Survey. For the household survey community field workers were trained to collect information using a structured survey. The field workers systematically called to houses in the community to invite residents to take part. Survey questions were taken from a range of existing questionnaires examining education and employment, financial issues, health and well-being, child behaviour, sense of community and safety. The survey took up to one hour to complete and in the majority of cases responses were recorded by the field worker. The youth survey was completed in school and youth settings, again with the support of trained fieldworkers. The youth survey drew on questions from previous studies such as KIDSCREEN1 and the Irish Health Behaviour in SchoolAged Children Survey (HBSC)2. Study Participants Overall, 141 families with 313 children participated in “How Are Our Families?”, as well as 208 young people aged 12-17 years attending local secondary schools and youth organisations. Residents completing the household survey were between 19 and 73 years old, with an average age of 33 years. The majority of the young people who participated in the study were aged 12-13 years (65%, n=135) with the average age being 13 years (SD = 1.3). In over half of the cases (57%, n=80) the family was headed by a couple, while just over 40% (n=57) were single parents. In addition families reported having between 1 and 6 children, with an average of 2 children per household. Participants for the household survey were sampled from across five estates in Tallaght West with the largest group living in Jobstown, followed by Brookfield, Fettercairn, Killinarden and McUilliam. The majority of young people who participated in this study lived and attended school in Jobstown followed by Killinarden and Brookfield. Two thirds of residents (67%, n=95) were currently renting their property from the Local Authority compared to 65% in HAOK, with 17% (n=24) owning or buying their home and the remaining renting or sharing privately (16%, n=22).

1 2

KIDSCREEN (Kidscreen Group Europe, 2006) is a 52-item instrument designed to assess the subjective health and wellbeing of children and young people (health-related quality of life, HRQOL). The Irish Health Behaviour in School Aged Children Survey (HBSC, Ireland) is a study that assesses the health and well-being of young people from their perspective.

KEY FINDINGS: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FAMILY ISSUES EMPLOYMENT EDUCATION LIVING CIRCUMSTANCES FINANCIAL ISSUES SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND SAFETY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE UTILISATION

1: FAMILY ISSUES ■

In over half of the cases (57%, n=80) the family was headed by a couple, while just over 40% (n=57) were single parents;

■

21% of respondents reported experiencing difficulties with former partners while 16% reported having regular fights with their partner;

■

16% of respondents stated that they felt unsafe in their home with 8% reporting that their child felt unsafe in the home;

■

11% of respondents stated that they had a problem with alcohol or drugs;

■

The top three most frequently reported events by respondents were experiencing difficulties with their children, the death of a close friend or relative, and difficulties with close relationships/ friends.

Parenting ■ Overall 45% (n=63) reported that they wanted their child to go to college or to have a good education, 8% (n=12) wanted their child to get a good job and 16% (n=23) reported they wanted their child to be happy [Non-response 14%]; ■

81% (n=114) reported that they believe their child has a happy future ahead of them (all or most of the time);

■

50% (n=71) of parents who answered the question about their child’s strengths referred to child’s personality characteristics (e.g. child is happy, clever, determined);

■

In terms of good things that happened to the family recently, 27% (n=39) who responded reported a family holiday or family activity;

■

2: EMPLOYMENT The most frequent response for the participant was fulltime carer (43%, n=61), followed by more than a quarter reporting that they were in full or part time work. Among the second family member the most frequent responses were fulltime paid employment (23%) or unemployment/signing on (21%).

3: EDUCATION ■

Overall, 12% of the index3 children (n=17) were not yet of school going age, 12% (n=15) were in preschool/nursery etc, nearly 60% of children attended primary school (59%, n=83), 10% were in secondary school (n=14) and one child was in a special school;

■

In terms of school absenteeism, almost one third reported being absent for 5-20 days. The most common reason being illness (55%, n=78), with fewer participants reporting the reason as appointments (16%, n=22), holidays (11%, n=15), truancy (3%, n=5) or temporary exclusion (1%, n=2);

■

Just over half (52%, n=72) of children were involved in after-school activities [Non-response <1%], the most frequently reported categories being music, dance and drama (30%, n=42) and sports (26%, n=37).

■

62% of participants (n=87) believed their child was achieving their potential at nursery/school [Non-response = 21%].

■

45% of parents reported that they wanted their child to go to college or have a good education.

4: LIVING CIRCUMSTANCES ■

Two thirds of respondents (67%, n=95) were currently renting the property from the Local Authority compared to 65% in HAOK, with 17% (n=24) owning or buying their home and the remaining renting or sharing privately (16%, n=22);

■

Overall 80% (n=113) reported they had lived in the same home for two years or more [Non-response <1%], with 93% (n=131) reporting that they have lived in the same neighbourhood for a similar length of time;

■

81% (n=116) were generally positive about their home.

5: FINANCIAL ISSUES ■

The most frequently reported item/commodity that participants reported not being able to afford was a family holiday (62%) followed by a private vehicle (32%);

■

Participants were asked if they were seriously behind in terms of paying the following bills:

■

❖

TV licence (31%);

❖

Other loans (19%);

❖

Electricity (18%) compared to 15% in HAOK;

❖

Rent (17%) compared to 26% in HAOK;

❖

Gas (11%) compared to 3% in HAOK;

❖

Road tax (11%);

❖

Goods on hire purchase (9%);

❖

Phone (8%) compared to 16% in HAOK.

46% of respondents indicated that they were ‘getting by’ financially. However, 33% reported have financial worries ‘almost all of the time’ within the previous 6 months of the current study. Where there was more than one child in the house aged less than 18 years, respondents were asked to randomly select one child (referred to as the ‘index’ child in this report).

6: SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND SAFETY ■

Two-thirds of respondents (67%, n=95) reported that they felt a sense of community with other people in their area [Non-response 10%];

■

Interestingly 93% (n=131) reported that they knew at least one/two of their neighbours personally – that is, knowing their names and stopping to talk to them at least every once in a while;

■

Nearly 90% (88%, n=124) reported that their child/children feel a sense of community with other children in the area;

■

Three quarters of the sample (76%, n=107) reported that they would allow their child to play outside [Not applicable/Non-response 11%] and a similar number (77%, n=108) reported that their child/children did in fact play outside [Non-response 11%].

■

There was a high reporting of crime (87%, n=123), anti-social behaviour (79%, n=111) and environmental issues (77%, n=109) in the area. However, the extent to which the problems impact on respondents’ own households was less;

■

83% (n=119) were generally positive about living in Tallaght West.

7: PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ■

Overall, 75% of participants in this study believed that their own health in the last 12 months was ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’ (n=105), 13% (n=18) of respondents described their health as neither good nor poor and 6% (n=9) described their health as very poor [Unclear/Non-response = 6%];

■

13% (n=18) of respondents reported that someone in the house was in receipt of disability benefit [Non-response = 6%];

■

In the present study 76% (n=107) reported that someone in their house has a medical card;

■

43% (n=60) indicated that state benefits are the household’s only source of income [Non-response 33%];

■

27% of participants self-reported difficulties with anxiety or depression (n=38, Nonresponse 6%), while 16% (n=22, Non-response 47%) reported anxiety and depression in their partners;

■

Overall 35% (n=49) of parents reported that their child had difficulties with emotions, concentration, behaviour or being able to get on with other people to some extent.

8: SERVICE UTILISATION In terms of accessing formal support, we have grouped these into four catagories, Medical support, educational support, other supports and financial supports. As you can see from the charts below the most frequently reported services accessed by respondents in this study were the GP/doctor (81%, n=112), school staff (34%, n=47), and the St. Vincent de Paul (33%, n=46), Credit Union (29% n=41) and Public health Nurse (26% n = 26). Previous research by Nolan (2008) found a positive relationship between the frequency of visits to the GP among adults and eligibility for the medical card.

KEY FINDINGS: YOUTH SURVEY 1 2 3 4 5 6

PARENT RELATIONS AND HOME LIFE HEALTH SELF-PERCEPTION AND AUTONOMY SCHOOL AND OUT-OF-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES PERSONAL SAFETY, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND BULLYING FINANCIAL RESOURCES

1: PARENT RELATIONS AND HOME LIFE ■

Nearly 40% (n=80) of children and young people in this study reported living with one to three people in their home while half (n=103) indicated living with four to six people;

■

Over half of the participants (56%, n=116) reported living in a household that was headed by a couple, whereas 37% (n=77) were living in a lone parent household. These findings are in line with those previously reported in HAOK (2004) and the CSO (2006)4;

■

In general, participants in this study reported having a more positive relationship with their parents (or primary caregivers) compared to participants in KIDSCREEN.

2: HEALTH ■

67% (n=139) of participants in this study believed that their health was ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ which is similar to that reported in KIDSCREEN (67%) and only slightly higher to that reported in the HBSC survey (64%);

2.1: Health behaviour ■ 30% (n=62) of participants reported having ever smoked which is lower than that found in the HBSC5 survey (36%); ■

Nearly one third (n=57) stated having ever been drunk which is lower than that reported in the HBSC survey (36%).

2.2: Psycho-emotional health and wellbeing ■ In general, participants in this study were more satisfied with life compared to their peers nationally (e.g. has your life been enjoyable? Have you felt cheerful? Have you had fun?); ■

However, participants also reported experiencing more negative moods and feelings compared to those in KIDSCREEN (e.g. have you felt that you do everything badly? Have you felt sad? Have you felt fed up?).

A greater proportion of participants (76%, n=159) reported having a ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ enjoyable life compared to 72% in KIDSCREEN. Of the 207 valid responses to the question ‘Have you felt pleased you are alive?’, a welcome 83% (n=174) of participants felt ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ pleased to be alive which is line with their peers nationally (83%).

4 5

At the time of collection, data from census 2011 was not available. Note: Older participants (i.e. aged 15 years and over) competed this section in the HSBC. Therefore, comparisons drawn between How are our families? and HBSC must be interpreted with this in mind.

2.3: Social Support and Peers ■ The majority of children and young people in this study reported having a wide circle of close male and female friends, with participants reporting that they have on average 12 (SD=31) close male friends and 13 (SD=27.9) close female friends; ■

The majority of respondents reported having very positive relationships with their friends;

■

86% (n=179) stated that they and their friends ‘very often’ or ‘always’ helped each other compared to 67% in KIDSCREEN.

3: SELF-PERCEPTION AND AUTONOMY 3.1: Perception ■ An exploration of self-perceptions revealed that 75% (n=156) of young people in this study felt very often or always happy with the way they are which is higher than that reported by their peers nationally (60%); ■

Over 80% (n=171) reported very often or always being happy with the clothes they have compared to nearly 70% nationally, while 28% of participants are very often or always worried about the way the looked which is in line with national findings;

■

25% (n=53) of participants reported that they would very often or always like to change something about their body which is lower than reported for their peers nationally (35%).

3.2: Autonomy ■ Overall, children and young people in this study reported having a greater sense of independence compared to their peers in KIDSCREEN; ■

64% (n=133) of participants in this study reported that they have ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough time for themselves compared to 54% in the KIDSCREEN survey;

■

71% (n=148) stated that they are ‘often’ or ‘always’ able to do the things that they want to do in their free time while only half indicated the same in KIDSCREEN;

■

In response to the question ‘have you had enough opportunity to be outside’, 81% (n=171) of participants indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had an opportunity to be outside which is greater than that report in KIDSCREEN (64%);

■

Nearly 80% (n=164) of the participants in the youth survey reported that they have ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough time to meet friends compared to 57% in KIDSCREEN;

■

78% (n=159) of participants reported that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had been able to decide what they did in their free time compared to 62% of participants in KIDSCREEN.

Note: Older participants (i.e. aged 15 years and over) competed this section in the HSBC. Therefore, comparisons drawn between How are our families? and HBSC must be interpreted with this in mind.

4: SCHOOL AND OUT-OF-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ■

The majority of participants reported walking to school (83%, n=173) while 28% (n=58) reported being taken to school by car;

■

Children and young people in this study felt happier and more satisfied in their school or youth organisation compared to their peers nationally:

■

35% (n=74) of participants ‘often’ or ‘always’ attended an after-schools club compared to 13% in HAOK;

■

While one in three (n=62) reported ‘often’ or ‘always’ going swimming, more than 59% (n= 122) stated that they ‘never’ or ‘seldom’ visited the library (or conversely, approximately 20% (n=42) indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ attend a library outside of school hours).

■

Just over one in three participants (32%, n=67) stated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ were a member of a music, drama or dance group which is higher than that found in HAOK (11%).

5: PERSONAL SAFETY, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND BULLYING ■

Half of the participants (50%, n=104) in this study indicated having acquired an injury that required medical attention once or more within the previous 12 months which is greater than the 43% reported for participants aged 10-17 years in the HBSC survey [nonresponse=2%];

■

Over one third (34%, n=72) have been bullied at least once or more which is higher that found in the HBSC survey (24%) and slightly lower than that reported by caregivers in HAOK (39%);

■

Nearly half (49%, n=101) participants stated that crime was an issue in their neighbourhood whilst 10% (n=21) reported that they were affected by it;

■

In terms of the incidence of anti-social behaviour, half (n=102) of the participants in this study indicated that this was a problem in their neighbourhood with 13% (n=26) indicating that they were directly affected by it;

■

Nearly half (49%, n=100) reported there being environmental issues (e.g. presence of graffiti, rubbish or traffic pollution) in their neighbourhood whilst 14% (n= 28) stated that it directly affected them;

■

This suggests that parents and/or schools may be mediating the effects of negative experiences of crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental problems.

6: FINANCIAL RESOURCES

■

A greater proportion (71%, n=148) of participants in this study reported ‘very often’ or ‘always’ having enough money to do the same things as their friends compared to KIDSCREEN (69%);

■

The most frequently reported items owned by participants in this study include TVs (89%, n=186), DVD players (86%, n=179), mobile phones (89%, n=186), laptops (78%, n=162) and bicycles (68%, n=141).

CONCLUSION “How Are Our Families?” provides a detailed report on the lives of a group of families living in Tallaght West in 2010. Overall, findings from this study suggest that families are coping well in relation to health, parenting, and general wellbeing. For example, there is a positive sense of community and family support appears to be forthcoming for the majority of respondents. There is also less school absenteeism and bullying for children and young people as reported by respondents. Also, nearly half of respondents in the household survey and just under half in the youth survey reported participation in out-of-school activities. However, the findings also highlight the struggles that some families have particularly in relation to paying bills including gas and electricity. This is also reflected in the types of formal services accessed by respondents. The findings of “How Are Our Families” will be of interest to those living and working in Tallaght West and can provide the basis for understanding and indeed meeting the needs of these families in a more comprehensive way. Different stakeholders will take varying lessons from this report, but decisions taken in response to this information will be evidence-based. It would be difficult to identify a set of recommendations that come from this report, and instead we have attempted to highlight key findings, which may have meaning to stakeholders. Nevertheless, we would argue that central to the learning from this report is the clear theme that while many families in Tallaght West, and perhaps other similar communities face many challenges on a day to day basis, and indeed a significant minority experience multiple and major challenges, there is strong evidence of resilience and coping within the community. Members of the community report positive experiences, a sense of community, and developed social networks. They also provide examples of coping with challenges, drawing on and providing supports both through friends and family and engaging with formal services. Perhaps the main conclusion is that supporting the development and wellbeing of children and families in Tallaght West relies on understanding the challenges the community faces, recognising the resources that are clearly evident within the community and identifying the gaps between these as areas for future development.

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Literature Review Some of the most influential factors in shaping young people’s lives are their family, peer and school/out-of-school environment, as well as the wider community. The association between child outcomes and socioeconomic background has been well documented (e.g. Nolan, Layte, Whelan & MaÎtre, 2006; Williams, Greene, Doyle, Harris, Layte, McCoy et al., 2009). Recent studies on child wellbeing indicate that children living in marginalised and disadvantaged communities are likely to have poor outcomes (Marmot & Wilkinson, 2001). Factors such as high unemployment, extensive social housing and difficult psychosocial issues may have a significant and negative impact on children’s health and psychosocial wellbeing (e.g. Di Liberti, 2000; Young, Berensonk, Cohen & Garcia, 2005). Equally, there is evidence that children demonstrate huge resilience when faced with significant challenges in their lives (Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990) and it is therefore equally important to identify those factors or support systems that protect children from adversity. Early intervention and prevention has been shown to promote positive outcomes for children (Brooks-Gunn, Fuligni & Berlin, 2003). Enhancing the quality of service provision, promoting evidence-based practice and targeting the needs of children and their families more effectively may improve children’s life chances and provide greater opportunities and choices (TWCDI, 2005). There is a plethora of international research on the risk and protective factors for children, young people, and their families. For example, the following findings are noteworthy and are particularly relevant to the current study: ■ Children living in marginalised and disadvantaged communities are more likely to have poorer outcomes (Marmot & Wilkinson, 2001; Nolan, et al., 2006; Williams, et al., 2009);

■

High unemployment, extensive social housing and difficult psychosocial issues are associated with poor outcomes for children (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Di Liberti, 2000; Young, et al., 2005);

■

Exposure to adverse experiences in early life such as family turmoil, maternal depression, neglect, neighbourhood violence, and persistent poverty may impact on later physical health and emotional development for children (Edwards, Holden, Felitti & Anda, 2003 and cited in National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2008);

■

Persistent stress in young children may affect the biological development of the brain and disrupt a range of developmental outcomes including school readiness, and school achievement (Kaufman & Charney, 2001);

■

Some children cope effectively in the face of adversity and such resilience may be related to personality traits such as self-efficacy, socioeconomic circumstances, emotional support, peer relationships, and access to quality educational and out-of-school opportunities (Masten, et al., 1990; Rutter, 1985, Werner & Smith, 1992);

■

Early intervention and prevention significantly improves outcomes for children and is costeffective in the long-term (Aos, et al., 2004; Brooks-Gunn, et al., 2003; Bierman, Greenberg, et al., 1996).

Several national studies on children and young people’s quality of life have been conducted over the last number of years in order to explore key aspects of their lives. These include the KIDSCREEN National Survey (2005), the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey (2006 and more recently State of the Nation’s Children 2010, and the National Longitudinal Study (Growing Up in Ireland, GUI) which commenced in 2009. A national set of child wellbeing indicators was developed by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs6 to examine how well children are performing in, for example, health, education, relationships, as well as social, behavioural, and emotional outcomes (Brooks, et al., 2010). While a selection of findings is presented here, normative data are cited throughout the report where available. ■

A higher proportion of babies born in the low birth weight category are born to mothers who are reported to be ‘unemployed’ (9%) compared to mothers in ‘higher professional’ groups (4%);

■

Nearly two thirds of children with a disability are boys (Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO), 2006);

■

Parental separation can have a significant influence on children’s routines (GUI, 2011);

■

Younger children report to have more positive relationships with their parents compared to older children (GUI, 2011; HBSC Survey, 2006);

■

26% of children aged 11, 13 & 15 reported that they had been bullied at school at least once in the past couple of months compared to the European average of 32% (HBSC Survey, 2006);

■

29% of Irish children aged 15 years reported that they had been drunk at least once in the last 30 days compared to the European average of 22% (HBSC, 2006);

■

Friendships play a significant role in the lives of nine year old children (GUI, 2011);

■

Children aged nine aspire to be healthy, get a good job and to stay close to family and friends (GUI, 2011);

■

Boys are more likely to participate in sports than girls (GUI, 2011).

The CSO published findings from its 2006 census and these data are reported for comparative purposes throughout the report. The CSO conducted a follow-up survey to the 2006 census in April 2011. While most of the data will not become available until early 2012, there has been a 32.8% increase in the total population in Tallaght West (from 24,252 in 2006 to 28,138 in 2011) (CSO, 2011).

Formerly the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

2.2 Background to Current Study In 2004, CDI conducted a community survey to profile the needs of children and families living in the local community of Tallaght West. This was an anonymous survey conducted with 79 families (or 187 children aged between 0 and 14 years). The survey identified the primary needs of families in key areas including living circumstances, education and employment, quality of life (for parents and children) and service utilisation. Findings from the survey, which were launched in a report entitled “How Are Our Kids?” (HAOK) were used to inform the development of CDI’s 10-year strategy aimed at significantly improving the outcomes for children and families in Tallaght West. Briefly, findings from HAOK (2004) reported on several risk and protective factors associated with child wellbeing. These indicated a high level of complex need among children and families in Tallaght West. For example, children in this study were reported by their primary caregivers (usually a parent) to be living in difficult accommodation circumstances. 28% of children were living with heating problems while a similar proportion was living with dampness. In terms of family relationships, 41% of children were living with a parent who was moderately or extremely depressed. On a more positive note, 46% of respondents who felt depressed had reported talking to someone in the previous month. Further findings on health and wellbeing highlighted that 15% of children were reported to have a long-term illness, condition, or disability that limited their daily activities. 14% of children were reported by their parents to be moderately or extremely anxious or depressed. However, the survey did find that the majority of children were in good physical and psychological health. There was a significant issue with school absenteeism as reported by primary caregivers. For example, 41% of children missed school between one and five days within the previous 12 months, while 43% of children missed between five and twenty days. Only 8% of children were reported to have missed no days. The main reason for missing school was due to illness. Also, 41% of children were found to live in a family where state benefits were the only source of household income. 26% of households with children were regularly behind in paying their rent. The survey found that 37% of children lived in households who had not been behind in paying bills within the previous 12 months of the study. The HAOK report painted a stark picture of many families who participated in the study and the findings went on to inform the development of CDI’s ten-year strategy for improving the lives of children and families in Tallaght West.

2.3 The Present Study Six years after HAOK, a follow-up survey using a revised version of the original survey was undertaken. Conducted during the summer of 2010, How are our Families? aims to re-examine the needs of children and families in the community, and to explore any significant changes in the pattern of needs during that six year period. As the original study was an anonymous cohort survey, this phase was conducted with a comparable cohort though not necessarily with the same individuals. The survey was completed by 141 families with 313 children. 20 community members also received intensive fieldwork training in order to carry out the survey. A youth survey was added to the original study design in order to assess the needs of young people aged 12 to 17 years living in the area in terms of their general wellbeing. The purpose of the youth survey was to explore the general health and psychosocial wellbeing of young people living in Tallaght West. The primary rationale for including a youth element to the original study design reflected both a greater national interest in young peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives particularly around those risk factors for poor mental health, as well as a desire to include their voice in any future planning of youth services or supports in Tallaght West. CDI conducted the youth survey with young people attending school and out-of-school organisations from October to November 2010. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of key findings and trends emerging from the community survey and to highlight some of the methodological challenges associated with implementing a community survey involving community members as fieldworkers. Chapters Two and Three provide a detailed description of the methodology and analysis plans for the household and youth surveys. Chapter Four summarises the main findings from the household survey, drawing comparisons with HAOK and the Community Safety Consultation Report (CDI, 2008) as well as with relevant statistics at a local and national level where feasible. Chapter Five presents key findings from the youth survey, using a similar format to those presented in the KIDSCREEN National Survey (2005) and drawing comparisons with findings from KIDSCREEN (2005) and the Healthy Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC, 2006) where relevant. Findings from this report were presented to and/or shared with key organisations and participating groups including schools, youth organisations, and community members including local service providers to increase the credibility of the findings. Their comments are highlighted in the report where appropriate. It is intended that a series of public meetings will be held in 2012 to share some of the main findings with community members including frontline practitioners and support agencies. Any additional findings or comments from these interactions may be included as an addendum to the report.

3. METHODOLOGY FOR THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 3.1 Design This was a cross-sectional research design using an amended version of the original survey in How Are Our Kids? (2004). Questions pertaining to parent and child wellbeing and behaviour were incorporated from the following standardised instruments7: ■ EQ-5D (parent/carer and proxy versions) (EuroQol Group, 1990); ■

Current Problems Questionnaire - adapted (CPQ) (Mitchell, S.K., Magyary, D.L., Barnard, K.E., Summer, G.A. & Booth, C.L. 1998)8;

■

Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-DP; Radloff, 1977);

■

Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997);

3.2 Instruments The health questionnaire (EQ-5D) (parent/carer and proxy versions) (EuroQol Group, 1990) is a standardised measure of health status designed to provide a simple, descriptive measure of health. The measure consists of two sections: (1) a descriptive system comprising 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/ depression; and (2) the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). The Current Problems Questionnaire (CPQ) (Mitchell, S.K., Magyary, D.L., Barnard, K.E., Summer, G.A. & Booth, C.L. 1998) is a 23-item questionnaire which examines the problems or difficulties that some individuals may experience in their lives. Two additional items have been added to the CPQ in relation to the individual’s sense of safety as well as their child’s sense of safety within the home. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997) is a behavioural screening questionnaire for 3-16 year olds. It contains 25 items divided between the following five scales: (1) emotional symptoms; (2) conduct problems; (3) hyperactivity/ inattention; (4) peer relationship problems and strengths; and (5) prosocial behaviour. It may be completed by parents and teachers. In this case, it was completed by parents. The Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-DP; Radloff, 1977) is a short, selfcompleting scale designed to measure depressive symptomatology in the general population. It contains items from other validated depression scales. The remainder of the survey examined the family’s income and living standards; physical health; family and social relationships, parent and child’s level of education, as well as the parental employment. For example, how long has the individual been living in this neighbourhood? What is the highest level of education s/he has obtained? Does s/he or any member of the household have any long-term illness, health problem or disability which limits his/her daily activities or the work s/he can do? Five additional areas for exploration were drawn from the larger CDI Community Survey (2008). These focused on children and young people’s participation in extracurricular activities; sense of connectedness to their neighbourhood and wider community; personal safety in relation to their home, school and wider community; problems with crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues; and positive experiences of growing up in the community of Tallaght West. 7 8

Permission was sought and granted from the developers to use their instruments in the current study. A comparison of home-based prevention programs for families of newborns. In L.A. Bond & B.M. Wagner (eds.) Families in transition: primary prevention programs that work. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Finally, the next items were included following the consultation process with the survey advisory group and the CDI team: Living situation/child or family-related ■ What do you enjoy most about your home? ■ What do you enjoy most about living in Tallaght West? ■ What expectations do you have for your child in the future? ■ What are your child’s strengths? ■ What do you enjoy most about your child? ■ What good thing happened to you / your family recently? Educational/financial issues ■ Does mother/father make financial contributions to help pay for the child’s upkeep? ■ Are these court-ordered payments? ■ Are these payments regular (i.e. consistent) and frequent (often)? ■ Are you receiving any language support? ■ Is your child on a waiting list for any service(s) or assessments? If so, how long? ■ Does anyone in your house have a medical card? 3.3 Sample A quota sampling method was used in ‘How Are Our Kids’ (2004), to identify an approximate proportionally representative sample of households. This study used three strata: (1) number of households with one or more children; (2) number of family units by age of youngest child; and (3) type of household (i.e. couples with children or lone parent with children). A sample size of 250 households was deemed sufficient to allow for a meaningful analysis of the data and the generalisation of findings to the community. The same sampling method was used to ensure that the sample was reasonably representative of households in the communities. The ethnic or cultural background of participants was also included as a stratum. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the sample. Table 1

Breakdown of quota sample Number of family units by age of youngest child (years) 0-4 years

5-9 years

10-14 years

15-19 years

Number of households with one or more children

1 child (n=95)

2 children (n=83)

3 children (n=43)

4 children (n=17)

5+ children (n=12)

Total (N=250) Note: CO (couple), LO (lone parent)

Houses were selected at random from the four communities in Tallaght West. All street names were identified and assigned to fieldworkers who were familiar with those areas. See Chapter 3 for a profile of the sample and response rates. 21

3.4 Ethical issues The study originally received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee: Humanities Subcommittee (University College Dublin) in September 2008 but was postponed. Additional ethical approval was secured to undertake the study in January 2010. The following key issues were identified by the researchers as potential risks to participants by participating in the study: 1. It was possible that some participants might find sections of the survey particularly sensitive, for example, questions in relation to psychological well-being, moods and emotional wellbeing or parental relationships; 2. It was possible that participants might provide information concerning the participant or another child/young person being at risk while they were completing the survey. In this case, the researcher and fieldworkers had a duty of care to respond to any such information in line with the Children First National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children (2009); 3. There was a risk that some participants might have literacy and/or language difficulties. In cases where this occurred, the survey was administered by the researcher and fieldworkers verbally, or support was offered to participants whilst trying to avoid any influencing of responses. Participants were also informed about how the information from the survey would be anonymised and archived9 for future use by other bone fide researchers at the end of the study. No personally-identifying information was included in any of the surveys. Hard-copies of the survey were stored in a locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s office while any electronic information was stored in SPSS and on a password-protected computer. All participants who completed the survey received a voucher for the local leisure centre (Leisureplex©) which was sponsored by the Local Authority in recognition of their participation. See Appendix 1 for a copy of the Information Sheet for the Household Survey. 3.5 Method The survey took 1 hour (+/- 15mins) to complete. In the majority of cases, participants’ responses were recorded by the fieldworker, except where participants were invited to respond to selfcompletion sections themselves. A pilot study was conducted with a smaller number of participants prior to the main study. The purpose of the pilot study was to test the suitability of the instruments, to assess the experiences of the fieldworkers in implementing the survey and to establish how long it took to complete. The survey was conducted over a period of four months (i.e. from June – September 2010). 3.6 Fieldwork Given the sensitive nature of the survey, fieldworkers were carefully selected on the basis that they had received intensive training, either from the researcher or as part of their own postgraduate research studies on issues around informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity. Fieldworkers were also Garda vetted and paid a gratuity for implementing the survey. An outline of the fieldwork training is included in Appendix 2. While initial fieldwork training took place from March – April 2010, this was followed by a booster session in May and early June ’10 due to there being a delay with the Garda vetting for fieldworkers. In some cases, fieldworkers made several repeated visits to houses in order to increase the response rate and meet the intended quota. 9

Archived with the Irish Social Sciences Data Archive (University College Dublin) and the Irish Qualitative Data Archive (NUI Maynooth)

4. METHODOLOGY FOR THE YOUTH SURVEY 4.1 Design Data were collected through the use of an anonymous self-completion survey. The questionnaire items were drawn from the following three surveys10: 1. The full version of the Quality of Life Tool ‘KIDSCREEN-52’, which is recommended by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs as the framework for assessing children’s and young people’s wellbeing; 2. The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC, 2006) survey; and 3. An adapted version of Ghate and Hazel’s ‘UK Poor Parenting Survey’ (2002) (used in ‘How Are Our Kids?’) and used more recently in the CDI Community Survey (2008). 4.2 Instruments KIDSCREEN (Kidscreen Group Europe, 2006) is a 52-item instrument designed to assess the subjective health and wellbeing of children and young people (health-related quality of life, HRQOL). There are two versions of the questionnaire targeting 8 – 11 year olds and 12 – 17 year olds. The latter version was used in the current study and explored ten key areas of wellbeing (Figure 1). The reliability of the KIDSCREEN questionnaire was assessed for this study sample and compared to that obtained from the national KIDSCREEN sample (see Appendix 3). The Irish Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey (HBSC, Ireland) is a self-completion standardised questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed to gain a deeper understanding of the health and well-being of youth people from their perspective, with a particular focus on health-related behaviours and attitudes. While the full version of the survey examines the health behaviour of young people in nine key areas, the current study focused on the following areas as part of the youth survey: 1.

Smoking;

Alcohol use;

Drug use;

Exercise and physical activity; and

Personal injury.

Permission was sought and granted from the developers of all three surveys to use their instruments in the current study.

Figure 1

Ten Dimensions of KIDSCREEN-52

Five additional areas for exploration were drawn from the larger CDI Community Survey (2008). These focused on children and young peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in extracurricular activities; sense of connectedness to their neighbourhood and wider community; personal safety in relation to their home, school and wider community; problems with crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues; and positive experiences of growing up in the community of Tallaght West. 4.3 Sample A purposive sample of three secondary schools and four youth organisations was used in this study. Participants were selected based on their membership of three class years (1st, 2nd and 5th). It was originally envisaged that 63 participants would be randomly selected from each school (n=189), with the remaining 61 participants being randomly selected from four local youth organisations which were smaller in size. All schools contained multiple classes within the years (e.g. three to five classes in 1st year alone) and schools were asked to randomly select at least two classes within each year to increase the response rate. The researcher aimed to recruit at least 16 students from each class. However, this was not always feasible due to difficulties securing parental consent, student or teacher absenteeism, and time constraints. For the youth organisations, groups were much smaller in size. In this case it was more difficult to recruit a sufficient number of young people, especially given that attendance in some cases was sporadic. See Chapter 3 for a profile of the sample and response rates. 24

4.4 Ethical issues Refer to section 3.4. Parental consent was requested for all participants prior to participating in the Youth Survey. All young people who completed the survey received two vouchers for the local leisure centre (Leisureplex©). Copies of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for Parents and Young People are included as Appendices 4 and 5. 4.5 Method The researchers had originally intended to conduct the youth survey in late April/early May 2010. However, this coincided with school exams, particularly state exams, and so a decision was made to postpone the survey until the following October which was considered a quieter period for most schools. A pilot study was conducted with 15 students from a local secondary school in May 2010 to test the validity of the instrument and the research process in general. It was initially proposed that participants would have the option of completing the survey on-line using a software programme called Survey Monkey©. However, the logistics of booking the computer room at specific times within each setting proved more difficult than expected. It was therefore decided that a paper and pencil version of the survey would be more efficient. The survey was implemented in all settings in one of two ways. For some schools, it was easier for the School Principal or Assistant Principal to coordinate the survey by randomly selecting classes, speaking initially with the head teachers and introducing the researcher to the students. In other schools, the School Principals assigned the coordination of the survey to a specific member of staff (e.g. School Guidance Counsellor, or SPHE11 teacher) who then linked in directly with the researcher. Students from twelve classes (or five sites) were initially met by the researcher in order to introduce and explain the purpose of the survey. Each meeting occurred during class time and took on average fifteen minutes to complete. The researcher started the meeting by holding up four separate headshots of famous bands or singers and providing a ‘careless’ estimate of the percentage of students in the class who preferred one singer or band over another12. Students were then invited to respond to the researcher’s assertion and to indicate what band or singer they in fact preferred by raising their hands. The purpose of this activity was to illustrate to students how inaccuracies can occur in depicting the lives of children and young people when other individuals (usually adults) make decisions about their lives without taking their opinions into account. In some cases, teachers also raised their hands which made for some interesting responses from their students! Following this, the consent forms and information sheets were disseminated to students. The researcher emphasised the benefits of participating in the study and asked the class teachers to encourage their students to participate in the study. The survey was implemented within a week or less after the researcher’s initial meeting with students. It was not always feasible to identify a free space in a setting where participants could complete the survey and in most cases, the surveys were completed in the classroom while the teacher continued teaching the other students (i.e. those who did not have consent). For the youth organisations, either the service manager or a senior member of staff facilitated the survey by circulating consent forms and organising space for participants to complete the survey. Some participants from the youth organisations had individual support available to them to complete the survey. 11 12

Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE). Those bands and singers were: Black Eyed Peas, The Script, Jedward and Lady Gaga.

In some cases, the researcher made several repeated visits to settings over the course of three weeks in order to increase the response rate, particularly among the older age groups who appeared less engaged with the study. The response rates were higher for schools where the teachers had a keen interest in the purpose and findings from the survey. The survey took on average 20-25 minutes to complete and was administered by the researcher and fieldworkers. However, the survey took slightly longer to complete (i.e. 40 minutes) for some participants, which may have been due to literacy and/or language difficulties.

4.6 Fieldwork Given the sensitive nature of the survey, fieldworkers were carefully selected on the basis that they had received intensive training either from the researcher or as part of their own postgraduate research studies on issues around informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity. Fieldworkers were also Garda vetted and paid a gratuity for implementing the survey.

4.7 Data analysis for the Household and Youth Surveys A simple descriptive analysis was undertaken for both the household and youth surveys in order to identify patterns and trends in the data. The analysis addressed the following main questions: ■ What are the current needs of children, young people and families in Tallaght West? ■

Have there been any changes in the pattern of needs as reported by adults at baseline?

■

How do findings from each survey compare to normative samples?

Both surveys contained a combination of closed and open-ended questions which generated quantitative and qualitative data. The following basic statistical analysis procedures were carried out on the data: ■ Description of the sample population, sample and relevant demographic information; ■

Basic frequencies for demographic data and response rates;

■

Basic frequencies and descriptives for standardised measures;

■

Basic content analysis (based on Guerin & Hennessy, 2002) for qualitative data;

■

Comparisons between (a) 2004 and 2010 samples (acknowledging that these cohorts are different) and (b) 2010 and norm samples;

■

Cross tabulations (or patterns) (e.g. age, gender).

Qualitative data was coded and quotes were then selected on the basis that they provided an accurate representation of the overall findings for a code or category. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated as much as possible in this report to address the following questions: ■ To what extent are patterns of key findings replicated across the adult and youth survey? ■

To what extent are patterns replicated across key quantitative indicators (e.g. sense of safety, sense of community, etc.).

■

To what extent are patterns replicated across qualitative and quantitative data?

The management of these types of data is described in more detail in Appendix 6.

5. KEY FINDINGS FOR THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 5.1 Demographics Individuals were sampled from across five estates in Tallaght West with the largest group living in Jobstown (43%, n=61).13 The remaining responses were as follows Brookfield 12% (n=17), Fettercairn 23% (n=32), Killinarden 13% (n=19), and McUilliam 2% (n=3), [Non-response 6%]. In over half of the cases (57%, n=80) the family was headed by a couple, while just over 40% (n=57) were single parents [Non-response 0%]. This is similar to the findings of HAOK14, which reported that 37% of respondents were single parents. In addition, 60% of respondents in the present survey (n=84) reported that they were married or living as married, while one-third (n=47) reported they had never been married [Non-response 1%]. While the number of respondents indicating they are parenting as a couple is lower than the number indicating they are married, or living as married this may be the result of partners/spouses not currently living in the home, or not being identified as a parent. The average age of the respondents was just under 33 years (SD = 8.5, Range 19-73). In addition, 92% (n=130) of respondents were Irish compared to 95% in HAOK, with very small numbers identifying as Irish Travellers (3%, n=5), members of an Other White ethic group (3%, n=4), African and Other Black ethnic group individuals (both <1%, n=1) [Non-response 0%]. The average number of children per family was two (SD = 1.3, Range 1-6) [Non-response 0%]. Within each family 68% (n=98) of children selected as the ‘index’15 child were aged less than nine years [Non-response 1%]. Figure 2 presents a comparison of the age distribution between the current study and HAOK, indicating that the present survey has a higher proportion of children less than nine years of age than HAOK, and conversely a lower proportion of children over ten years of age. Figure 2

Age distribution of children

45%

41%

40% 34%

35% 30% 25%

27% 24%

23%

22%

19%

20%

Household survey HAOK

15% 9%

10% 5% 0% 0–4 years

5–9 years

10–14 years

15–17 years

Overall participants reported that there was between one and eight other people (children and adults) in their household, with an average of three people (SD = 1.4) per household. Eightyfive per cent (n=120) reported that there were four or fewer other people in the house [Nonresponse 0%]. 13 14 15

All percentages in this report are rounded off to the nearest decimal unless otherwise stated. HAOK = How Are Our Kids? (2004). Where there was more than one child in the house aged less than 18 years, respondents were asked to randomly select one child (referred to as the ‘index’ child in this report).

5.2 Residence In terms of the family residence 90% (n=127) lived in a house or bungalow, while the remaining participants (9%, n=13) lived in a flat or apartment [Non-response <1%]. Two thirds of respondents (67%, n=95) were currently renting the property from the Council compared to 65% in HAOK, with 17% (n=24) owning or buying their home and the remaining renting or sharing privately (16%, n=22) [Non-response 0%]. A similar study in Clondalkin (Balgaddy) found that nearly 78% (n=108) of residents live in local authority housing (Archways, 2011). Most properties (87%, n=122) had three or four rooms (not including kitchens or bathrooms), with a range of 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 rooms reported overall [Non-response 0%]. Similarly 85% (n=120) reported that they had the use of a garden or outside space nearby where their children could be safely left on their own for a short while [Not applicable 6%, Non-response 0%]. Respondents reported the following problems with their accommodation (Figure 3, multiple responses were possible) which are compared to those reported in HAOK. Shortage of space, and Infestation problems had not been reported on in HAOK, however in other categories reported frequency was lower in the present survey than in HAOK. Figure 3

70% 63% 54% 45% 30%

26% 18%

30%

28% 14%

13%

Household survey

iss ue s

39% 31%

HAOK

N o

43%

Sh or ta ge U ns of a Fi fe sp xt ac w ur i e nd es /f ow itt s/ in do gs or ne s ed in g re pa ir D am In fe pn st es at s io n pr ob H le ea m s tin g pr ob le m La s ck of pr iv ac y

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Problems with Accommodation

Overall 80% (n=113) reported they had lived in the same home for two years or more [Nonresponse <1%], with 93% (n=131) reporting that they have lived in the same neighbourhood for a similar length of time ([Non-response 0%]. Interestingly nearly 60% (59%, n=83) reported that they had lived in the neighbourhood for ten years or more compared to 67% in HAOK. Respondents were asked to report what they enjoyed most about their home [Non-response 0%]. Table 2 reports the most frequently reported enjoyments, along with indicative quotes.

Table 2

What do you enjoy most about your home?

Category of Response

%/n

Sample quote

Generally positive

81% (n=116) “The fact that it’s mine”.

Separate from world/private

15% (n=22)

“The peace when I am alone and all the family are out”.

Safe

10% (n=14)

“Feels very safe and comfortable [at] home”.

Ownership (‘it’s mine’)

13% (n=19)

“That it’s ours”.

Investment in house (e.g. work done) Sense of home (e.g. homely, cosy) Sense of history/connection

4% (n=5)

“I like that our landlord has allowed us to put our own stamp on the apartment. Painting, art work...”.

11% (n=15)

“It’s clean, to my taste, cosy and homely. It’s a roof over our heads”.

3% (n=4)

“[Have] lived here all my life”. “My mother and father live beside me”.

Associates with family

20% (n=28)

Associates with friends

1% (n=2)

“Close to parents and family and friends”.

Associated with neighbours

4% (n=6)

“The people that live around make it special”.

Aspects of nature (e.g. garden)

11% (n=16)

“My garden. The view of the mountains”.

Elements (e.g. particular rooms)

17% (n=24)

“Kitchen”.

Sense of space

4% (n=6)

“It’s homely [and has] loads of space”.

Location

4% (n=6)

“Handy for everything...”

Generally negative

6% (n=9)

“Hard to say. [It’s] not the best in the world but not the worst”.

Other

1% (n=2)

“Unsure”.

5.3 Sense of Community and Safety Two-thirds of respondents (67%, n=95) reported that they felt a sense of community16 with other people in their area [Non-response 10%]. In explaining the reasons for their answer to this question [Non-response 47%] a number of themes were identified and these are presented in Table 3. Findings from CDI’s Safety Survey which was carried out in 2008 indicate that 14% (n=91) believed that sense of community was very strong while 46% (n=305) reported a moderate sense of community. Interestingly 93% (n=131) reported that they knew at least one/two of their neighbours personally – that is, knowing their names and stopping to talk to them at least every once in a while [Non-response 0%].

This question was not asked in HAOK? (2004).

Table 3

Sense of Community in Tallaght West

Category of Response

%/n

Sample quote

General negative

12% (n=17)

“Don’t really know anyone to feel it, say hi to people but that’s it”.

Negative about neighbours

9% (n=13)

“I don’t know any of my neighbours”.

Negative about community

1% (n=2)

“I feel that there is not much of a community spirit in the area. There are a lot of lovely people but that’s it”.

Negative: Anti-social behaviour

2% (n=3)

“[Experienced] a lot of anti-social behaviour because [the respondent’s] ex-husband was black. Both children [were] called names”.

General positive

10% (n=14)

“[Respondent is] new to the area so only getting to know people”.

Positive about neighbours

16% (n=23)

“Most of my neighbours are very friendly”.

Positive about community

1% (n=2)

Connection to place/community Area has improved or is improving

13% (n=18) 3% (n=4)

“I love living here. I know everyone around and most of my good friends live here”. “[I have] lived in Tallaght for over 30 years”. “Starting to feel it now, C1 is playing out this year. Before that we didn’t really know many people”.

In comparison to reports of personal sense of community, nearly 90% (88%, n=124) reported that their child/children feel a sense of community with other children in the area [Non-response 1%]. Three quarters of the sample (76%, n=107) reported that they would allow their child to play outside [Not applicable/Non-response 11%] and a similar number (77%, n=108) reported that their child/children did in fact play outside [Non-response 11%]. Looking to reports of feelings of safety, almost two thirds (65%, n=92) of respondents reported feeling moderately/very or extremely safe in their neighbourhood/community compared to two years ago, while the remaining third (35%, n=49) reported they felt slightly or not at all safe [Non-response 0%]. This is in line with findings from the Balgaddy area of Clondalkin which found that 31% of residents felt either a bit unsafe or very unsafe during the daytime and 64% had similar feelings during night time (Archways, 2011). Respondents were asked to report on some of the problems in the neighbourhood, indicating both whether it was a problem and if it had affected them or others in their household. The following patterns were identified: ❖

87% (n=123) - Crime is a problem [Non-response <1%];

❖

38% (n=53) - Crime has had an impact [Non-response 9%];

❖

79% (n=111) - Antisocial behaviour is a problem [Non-response <1%];

❖

44% (n=62) - Anti-social behaviour has had an impact [Non-response >18%];

❖

77% (n=109) - Local environment (e.g. rubbish) is a problem [Non-response 0%];

❖

50% (n=71) - Local environment has had an impact [Non-response 21%].

The findings from the present survey are compared to HAOK in Figure 4. The patterns observed suggest that the reporting of problems, as perceived by respondents, is higher in the present survey, however the extent to which the problems impact on their own households is more comparable.

Figure 4

Problems in the Neighbourhood

Environmental issues in the area

34% 34% 77% 79%

Environmental issues have had an impact

44% 44% 50% 50%

ASB issues in the area

31% 31% 79% 79%

ASB have had an impact

Household survey

41% 41% 44% 44% 34% 34%

Issues with crime in the area

87% 87%

Crime has had an impact 0%

HAOK

50% 50% 38% 38%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

In comparison, 31% of residents in the Balgaddy area (Archways, 2011) reported being directly affected by crime within the last six months which is lower than found in the current study. Respondents were asked to indicate the ways in which these problems had affected them and a number of themes were identified in their responses (see Table 4 below). In some cases, respondents reported problems that affected others such as neighbours, friends or family. It should also be noted that multiple responses were possible. [Crime: non-responses 60%, n=85; ASB: non-responses 49%, n=69; Environmental issues: non-responses 44%, n=62). Table 4

Experiences of crime, anti-social behaviour (ASB) and environmental issues

Themes – Crime

%/n

Sample quote

Robbery/ burglary/ mugging

22% (n=32)

“House was broken into while on holidays two years ago, house was destroyed and jewellery was taken, very upset deceased child’s things were taken”.

Drugs/ drug dealing

9% (n=13)

“Seeing drug dealing going on”.

Generally feeling unsafe

8% (n=12)

“I’ve been robbed, my mum has been and I am afraid for her”.

Damage to property

4% (n=5)

“Car windows [were] broken”.

Presence of gangs of young people

3% (n=4)

“Lives near open space [there are] always gangs, drinking, [being] anti-social”.

Physical assault

2% (n=3)

“Ex-partner was beaten up”.

Intimidation/ harassment/ bullying

<1% (n=1)

“Drugs, stolen cars, people on steps, feels intimidated”.

Serious crime (e.g. petrol bomb, shooting)

1% (n=2)

“House fires, petrol bombs, affected our friend”.

Other

4% (n=5)

“Hasn’t affected us directly but we keep ourselves to ourselves”.

Table 4

Continued...

Themes – ASB

%/n

Sample quote

Robbery/ burglary/ mugging

3% (n=4)

“Robbed cars...”

Drugs/ drug dealing

<1% (n=1)

“Kids hanging around front of shop, drinking and dealing drugs”.

Physical assault

2% (n=3)

“Member of the family attacked with bottle...”

Damage to property

4% (n=6)

“Have experienced harassment, graffiti, [and] broken windows”.

Intimidation, harassment, bullying

10% (n=14)

“I can’t have trampoline in the back garden because teenagers came in and play there, urinated there, were harassing [us] verbally”.

Presence of gangs of young people (e.g. hanging around, drinking)

24% (n=34)

“Teenagers passing round the area causing trouble”

Generally feeling unsafe

14% (n=20)

“She is nervous for the kids. She drives them to and from their clubs in the evenings, wouldn’t let them walk home”.

Themes – Environment

%/n

Sample quote

Litter/ rubbish/ dumping/ dirty

30% (n=42)

“Rubbish thrown into the garden”.

Graffiti

16% (n=23)

“Graffiti wrote on my wall, drives me mad, constantly painting it”.

Consequences (e.g. feeling embarrassed, 13% (n=18) children unable to play outside)

“Embarrassed bringing visitors”.

Fouling by animals/birds

“...large dogs fouling in the garden, I have had to clean it before allowing the children out”.

12% (n=17)

Lack of bins/bins uncollected

3% (n=4)

“The bins should be taken away every week not two weeks it’s going to cause a lot of hassle”.

Traffic/traffic pollution

3% (n=4)

“The pollution of the air and the noise from the traffic”.

Dogs/feral cats roaming

1% (n=2)

“Wild cats in the garden danger of infection to toddler”.

Unoccupied houses

1% (n=2)

“Empty houses...”

Insufficient parking

1% (n=2)

“Not enough parking, have to park far away in the rain if somebody else in my parking place”.

Other

9% (n=14)

“...burnt out cars”.

Respondents were asked to report what they enjoyed most about living in Tallaght West and the most frequently reported themes are reported in Table 5 below [Non-response 0%]. Table 5

What do you enjoy most about living in Tallaght West?

Category of Response

%/n

Sample quote

Generally positive

83% (n=119) “It has everything she needs and the kids love their school”.

Location (e.g. convenient)

39% (n=56)

“Swimming pool, shopping and everything nearby”.

Amenities/facilities

32% (n=46)

“There are good services as in football teams, Citywise, and other clubs for kids”.

Associates with family

25% (n=35)

“Being close to my family, mother, [and] sister”.

Associates with neighbours/ community

16% (n=23)

“A good sense of community but people are afraid. Most people want the same thing”.

Associates with friends

11% (n=15)

“I grew up in West Tallaght so all my friends and family are here”.

Sense of history/connection

9% (n=13)

“All my family live in Tallaght I never lived anywhere else”.

Sense of home

3% (n=4)

“I'm originally from Tallaght, feel like it’s my home”.

Aspects of nature (e.g. mountains)

3% (n=4)

“Nice view of the mountains.”

Nothing/Generally negative

11% (n=16)

“Not much, [respondent is originally] from the country [side] and misses it”.

Overall 38% (n=54) of respondents rated their neighbourhood as a ‘fairly’ or ‘very good ’place to bring up a family. Whilst 31% (n=44) rated it as ‘neither good nor poor’. However 30% (n=42) rated it as ‘fairly’ or ‘very bad’ [Non-response <1%]. Interestingly, 53% (n=76) reported that they would like to move to another area and another 11% reported that they did not know or that it would depend on other factors. The remaining third of respondents (35%, n=50) reported that they were happy to stay in the area [Nonresponse 0%]. Respondents were asked “If you could change one thing about this neighbourhood to make it a better place to bring up children, what would it be?” and Table 6 reports the themes emerged from their responses.

Table 6

Making Tallaght West a safer place to bring up children

Category of Response

%/n

Sample quote

Tackle antisocial behaviour

14% (n=20)

“Get rid of anti-social behaviour... more for kids to do at night”.

Improve activities for children/ young people

13% (n=19)

“More things for teenagers to do. Maybe a track for scramblers and more youth clubs”.

Improve facilities/services

11% (n=12)

“Some more playgrounds”.

Improve safety

8% (n=12)

“Roads blocked at certain times to make it safer for children”.

Tackle traffic/joyriding

7% (n=10)

“Stop the cars; get rid of joyrides”.

Clean up rubbish

6% (n=9)

“Get all kids involved in activities so that the place is cleaner. A lot of people don’t look after their gardens and homes so would like that to happen more”.

Improve green spaces/bigger gardens

4% (n=6)

“Parks and green spaces where children can go with dogs without lots of glass”.

Tackle drugs

4% (n=6)

“No drugs and safe to let kids out like we did years ago”.

Improve sense of community

4% (n=5)

“Get neighbourhood (family) days going to bring people closer. Paying mortgage for 30 years may as well get to know each other”.

More Gardaí

2% (n=3)

“More police activity”.

Everything.

1% (n=2)

“Too much to say”.

Other

14% (n= 20) “Get rid of trouble, need security-cameras”.

5.4 Parenting Two thirds of the sample (66%, n=93) reported that they were primarily responsible for looking after their children, with an additional 29% (n=41) reporting that this was shared jointly with their partner. Only 3% (n=4) reported that this was mainly the partner’s responsibility [Nonresponse 0%]. In addition, just over one in five (22%, n= 31) have caring responsibilities other than their child [Non-response 3%] and just under half of these (n=14) reported that these responsibilities affected the time and energy they had for their child. Common themes that emerged from responses regarding why this was the case included illness and other challenges in other family members that were stressful. Slightly more parents (n=18) reported that these responsibilities affected them personally and when asked how common themes included increased stress and fatigue. A number of questions explored issues specific to the index child17. In one third of the responses (31%, n=44) the index child had contact with their mother, 13% (n=19) had contact with their father and in only two cases with both parents [Non-response 54%]. For HAOK, 80% of children had contact with one or both parents.

These questions were asked where the index child was not in contact with his/her biological mother/father.

Respondents who identified themselves as a single parent were asked if they had always parented alone. Of the 42 respondents who answered this question, half (n=21) reported that they have always been a single parent [Non-response 70%]. However, the inconsistency in the number answering this question and the number of respondents identified as lone parents earlier (n = 57) is noted. In an additional question respondents were asked how long they had been a lone parent and 50 participants reported they had been a single parent for more than two years, which is more in line with the original figure of 57 lone parents. Parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; were asked about their expectations for their child, and were presented with a number of options. Overall, 45% (n=63) reported that they wanted their child to go to college or to have a good education, 8% (n=12) wanted their child to get a good job and 16% (n=23) reported they wanted their child to be happy [Other 15%, non-response 14%]. In an additional question 81% (n=114) reported that they believe their child had a happy future ahead of them (all or most of the time) [Non-response 1%]. In the national longitudinal study, Growing Up In Ireland (2011), parents of children aged 9 years reported that their primary goal was for their children to be happy and healthy followed by reaching their full potential, developing positive characteristic traits, and reaching their potential in school/ career. Parents were also asked a number of questions regarding their relationship with the index child and the responses (along with a comparison to the findings from HAOK where data is available) are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Parent-child relationship

Say/ do things to hunt the child and later regret it (rarely or never) [non-response < 1%]

75%

Find it difficult to comfort or console the child (rarely or never) [non-response < 1%]

72%

Can’t cope with the child (rarely or never feel) [non-response < 1%]

64%

Focus on the child’s strengths and abilities rather than the areas they struggle with (all or most of the time) [non-response 2%]

HAOK 68%

Household survey

Can help child to solve problems (all or most of the time) [non-response 2%]

66%

Really enjoy being child’s parent (all or most of the time) [non-response < 1%]

88%

Positive relationship with child (all or most of the time) [non-response < 1%]

86%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Just under 82% of the respondents (n = 115) reported that the index child went to bed and had meals at similar times each day [Non-response 1%]. In addition, just over three quarters of participants (76%, n=107) reported that the child was very or quite easy to manage, while 5% (n=7) described the child as quite or very difficult to manage, and a further 18% (n=26) reported that this varied [Non-response <1%]. In two open ended questions respondents were asked to report on the index child’s strengths [Non-response 2%] and what they enjoy most about the index child [Nonresponse 3%]. The themes identified in each question are outlined in Table 7 (multiple responses are possible). 36

Table 7

Child strengths and personal attributes

Response: Child’s Strengths

%/n

Sample quote

Personality characteristics

50% (n=71)

“Very happy baby [who] gives me lots of joy”. “Determined; sets herself goals”. “Very clever...”

General abilities (incl. talking)

47% (n=67)

“He is a very good artist, poet and musician”. “She can count at this age, she can wash herself, [and] she’s great at remembering songs”.

Social characteristics

26% (n=37)

“[I] like the way he communicates with people”. “She used to be shy but now she has come out of herself and is good at making friends”.

Fun/Funny

13% (n=19)

“Very funny, makes me laugh...”

Affectionate/loving/ caring

11% (n=16)

“She is a loving child...” “Very sensitive to people’s feelings [and] caring”.

Helpful to parents

7% (n=10)

“[Is a] great help around the house”.

Appearance

2% (n=3)

“Cute, lovable, pretty”.

Generally negative

<1% (n=1)

“Hard to say he is so moody these days and hardly takes part in anything”.

Other

20% (n=28)

“Everything”.

Response: What do you enjoy most about the child?

%/n

Sample quote

Impact on parents’ feelings/ experiences

36% (n=51)

“His little personality. [I] could not imagine life without him”. “She makes me happy being herself”. ““Watching her achieve”. “I get the feeling that I'm a child again when I play with him, we have fun together”.

Fun/Funny

27% (n=38)

“He makes me laugh; he keeps me busy”. “We have girly shopping days once a month and have fashion in common. [We have] great fun together”.

Personality characteristics

20% (n=29)

“He is considerate and helps out”. “She is very straight forward and knows what she wants. She is rarely afraid to try new things and is extremely funny”.

Affectionate/loving

12% (n=17)

“She always wakes her up with a huge smile and hug”. “The way he cares for other people”. “It is very hard being a mother to an autistic child but she is so affectionate that makes up for it”.

General abilities (incl. talking)

11% (n=15)

“Cleans own room”. “She’s a great talker”.

Helpful to parents

6% (n=9)

“Good kid, easy to play with, great with new baby”. “He is a kind child always helping me and kids around this area”.

Social characteristics

3% (n=4)

“Outgoing [and] confident”. “How caring she is towards her family and people that are around her”.

Everything

3% (n=4)

“Nearly everything except 5:30am early morning rises”. “Everything; [child is] a gift”.

Appearance

2% (n=3)

“His smile”.

Other

20% (n=29)

“She’s very special”. “We have a lot of pamper nights”.

Respondents reported on the good things that happened to the family recently [Non-response 5%] and a number of themes emerged (Table 8). Table 8

Good things that happened to the respondent and/or their family

Response

%/n

Sample quote

Family activity/holiday

27% (n=39)

“Went on holidays to [name of place] for a week”. “Family holiday and family activities”.

New baby

13% (n=18)

“[My son’s] girlfriend had a baby. [It’s] not ideal but [I] love my grandson”. “Had another baby girl after 10 years”.

Family celebration (wedding, christening)

10% (n=14)

“We all got together for Dads 50th birthday and had a great night”. “Had a christening”.

New home/ home improvements

8% (n=11)

“I got my new wardrobes in my bedroom”.

Nothing

8% (n=11)

“Nothing good has happened to us recently”.

Child reached milestone

6% (n=9)

“She started junior infants; we are so proud”. “C1 did the leaving cert”.

Family member achievement

5% (n=7)

“[Child] won an All-Ireland dancing championship”. “Both my children did really well in school reports and my eldest scored extremely high on national reading tests”.

Employment/ education

4% (n=5)

“I did well in college exams”. “Partner got extra hours at work”.

New pet

3% (n=4)

“[The] kids got a snake”.

Financial return/windfall

2% (n=3)

“I won a hundred euro in a lottery”. “Got some tax back”.

Removal of a family stressor

1% (n=2)

“House [is] alcohol free”. “Abusive partner left family home”.

Other

6% (n=9)

“Got a better car”. “Got a few things for myself in the sale”.

Don’t know

4% (n=5)

“Can’t think of anything at the moment”.

Respondents were also asked about their access to a range of forms of support (Figure 6). Figure 6 80%

Access to Informal and Formal Support 67% 60%

70% 60% 50%

75%

74%

62% 55%

51%

67% 63%

65%

39%

40% 30%

24%

20% 10% 0% s t t ll re se fi en i o p u e tm ch in h en n om t o i e h h w iv n w pp at re lp rg to e ta d e r l o n i H lk Ca ta nt ch ta or d Le o p t in im M ne o o t e ft m Li So ey on m

t gh i n er ov

Have you accessed this? Could you access this if needed?

Nearly two thirds of respondents (63%, n=89) stated that they could talk to someone when upset. Of these, 41% (n= 59) indicated that they had turned/could turn to their family/ spouse/ or partner while one third (33%, n= 47) had/ could access this support from their friends. Unsurprisingly, families (including spouses/ partners) followed by friends were a central source of support for the majority of respondents (see Table 9 for a more detailed picture). It is also important to note that 51% of respondents in the current study had been lent or given money. Table 9

Informal and formal support

Type of Support

Have you accessed this?

Could you accessed it if needed?

Who provided/could provide it?

Lent or given money

Yes 51% (n=72) Yes 74% (n=104) Family/ spouse/ partner = 64% (n=91) [Non-response <1%] [Non-response 22%] Friends = 11% (n=16) Neighbour = 1% (n=2) Other = 8% (n=12) [Non-response 14%]

Mind children overnight

Yes 60% (n=85) Yes 67% (n=95) Family/ spouse/ partner = 71% (n=100) [Non-response 3%] [Non-response 26%] Friends = 3% (n=5) Other = 8% (n=12) [Non-response 23%]

Lift to important appointment

Yes 39% (n=55) Yes 75% (n=102) Family/ spouse/ partner = 58% (n=82) [Non-response 1%] [Non-response 16%] Friends = 13% (n=18) Other = 3% (n=5) [Non-response 25%]

Help with chores

Yes 55% (n=77) Yes 62% (n=87) Family/ spouse/ partner = 87% (n=95) [Non-response <1%] [Non-response 28%] Friends = 3% (n=5) Other = 5% (n=7) [Non-response 24%]

Someone to talk to when upset

Yes 63% (n=89) Yes 67% (n=94) Family/ spouse/ partner = 41% (n=59) [Non-response <1%] [Non-response 30%] Friends = 33% (n=47) Neighbour = <1% (n=1) Other = 9% (n=13) [Non-response 15%]

Care at home if ill

Family/ spouse/ partner = 59% (n=84) Yes 24% (n=34) Yes 65% (n=91) [Non-response 1%] [Non-response 23%] Friends = 3% (n=4) Other = 4% (n=6) [Non-response 33%]

Finally, 47 respondents include other comments about being a parent and a number of themes emerged (Table 10). Table 10

Being a parent/carer

Response

%/n

Sample quote

11% (n=16)

“Very hard when you're a lone parent”. “I enjoy being a parent but I have postnatal depression also, so [it] can sometimes be hard”.

Rewarding/fulfilling/enjoyable

6% (n=9)

“It’s harder than I thought it would ever be but I still love it”. “Just love being with children”.

Reference to support of others (has it, would like it, support is important)

4% (n=5)

“I am glad that I live with my Ma. She helps me a lot”. “More support needed [e.g.] help lines”. “I don’t have contact with any family. Her dad left when I told him I was pregnant”.

Isolated/lonely

1% (n=2)

“I feel isolated when I need a help when I'm sick”. “Sometimes very lonely, feels that she has failed. [Respondent has] suffered with bad postnatal depression”.

Other

5% (n=7)

“... [Respondent] wishes [she] had waited longer before starting a family”.

Hard work/stressful

5.5 Physical Health in the Family Overall, 75% of participants in this study believed that their own health in the last 12 months was ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’ (n = 105), 13% (n=18) of respondents described their health as neither good nor poor and 6% (n=9) described their health as very poor [Unclear/Non-response = 6%]. Census figures reported by the Department of Health (2008) indicate that 92% of females aged 25-44 years perceived their health status to be ‘very good’ or ‘fairly good’ while 8% perceived their health to be ‘fair’/’bad’/’very bad’. In addition, one in five people (20%, n = 28) reported that they have an illness, health problem or disability on a long term basis [Nonresponse 5%]. This compared to one in four (26%) in HAOK. In terms of experience of a range of physical difficulties, the reported frequency for the respondent and their partner is presented below. The table highlights that for each area of difficulty the largest groups of participants reported that they had no problems in these areas. However difficulties (ranging from some to extreme) were reported by some and the most commonly reported physical difficulty was pain. Similarly the majority of those who had a partner reported that they had no problems with mobility, self-care or performing usual activities. However again reports were higher for pain. Table 11

Quality of Life (Respondent): Physical Difficulties Self

Partner

Mobility

8%, n = 12 [Non-response 6%]

3%, n = 5 [Non-response 47%]

Self-care

<1%, n = 1 [Non-response 6%]

3%, n = 4 [Non-response 47%]

Performing usual activities

13%, n = 18 [Non-response 6%]

6%, n = 9 [Non-response 47%]

Pain

25%, n = 36 [Non-response 6%]

12%, n = 17 [Non-response 47%]

Difficulty

13% (n=18) of respondents reported that someone in the house was in receipt of disability benefit [Non-response = 6%]. This was similar to the 11% of respondents in HAOK who reported either an adult or a child being registered as disabled in the home. In the present study 76% (n=107) reported that someone in their house has a medical card. Participants reported the frequency of a range of specific difficulties among index children. The reports indicated that there were a range of difficulties evident among a small proportion of the index children including: ❖ Mobility 2% (n = 3, Non-response = 25%) compared to 4% in HAOK; ❖

Self-care 6% (n = 9, Non-response = 25%) compared to 7% in HAOK;

❖

Performing usual activities 7% (n = 10, Non-response = 25%) compared to 16% in HAOK;

❖

Pain or discomfort 6% (n = 8, Non-response = 25%) compared to 10% in HAOK.

5.6 Psychological Health in the Family As part of an earlier question 27% of participants self-reported difficulties with anxiety or depression (n = 38, Non-response 6%), while 16% (n = 22, Non-response 47%) reported anxiety and depression in their partners. Participants were asked to reflect in more detail on their psychological wellbeing over the week previous to completing the survey. The majority of findings are positive (see Figure 718) such as the largest group reporting no or little experience of negative feelings (e.g. being bothered, low appetite, feeling blue) and frequent (most of time/occasionally) experience of positive feelings such as feeling as good as others, feeling hopeful and enjoying life. Looking at the items that reflect interactions with others, few participants reported that people were frequently unfriendly or that they felt people disliked them. However higher levels of non-response were noted in the final questions in this section such as I enjoyed life, I had crying spells, I felt people disliked me etc. This might suggest some level of fatigue towards the end of this section. Figure 7

Psychological Wellbeing of Respondent 31% 31%

I enjoyed life

19% 19%

5% 5%

I felt lonely

14% 14%

40% 40%

I was happy

21% 21%

15% 15% 14% 14%

My sleep was restless 8% 8%

I felt fearful

13% 13%

33% 33%

I felt hopeful for the future 9% 9%

I felt depressed

Occasionally 12% 12%

I had trouble keeping my mind on things

6% 6% 15% 15%

48% 48%

I felt I was as good as others

17% 7%

4% 4%

I was bothered by things

10% 10%

Most/All of the time

19% 19%

10%

See a more detailed table in Appendix 7.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Participants were asked to report on the extent to which the index child had difficulties with emotions, concentration, behaviour or being able to get on with other people. Overall 35% (n=49) of parents reported that their child had difficulties in these areas to some extent. Of the respondents that report these difficulties, most (37/49) reported that the difficulties were minor but that they had lasted for more than a year (39/49). Respondents were also asked to report on the extent to which the index childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s difficulties interfered with aspects of their or the family and their responses are summarised in Table 12: Table 12

Difficulties with Child Not at all

Only a little

A Lot/Great Deal

Non-Resp

Upset/distress child

11% (n=16)

13% (n=18)

11% (n=15)

65% (n=92)

Interfere w/ home life

9% (n=13)

17% (n=24)

8% (n=12)

65% (n=92)

Interfere w/ friendships

13% (n=19)

16% (n=22)

6% (n=8)

65% (n=92)

Interfere w/ learning

11% (n=15)

11% (n=16)

13% (n=18)

65% (n=92)

Interfere w/ leisure

20% (n=28)

5% (n=7)

10% (n=14)

65% (n=92)

Burden on family

12% (n=17)

13% (n=18)

10% (n=14)

65% (n=92)

In a separate question respondents were asked if the index child had difficulties feeling worried or sad and 22% (n=31) indicated that they did. However the majority of these children (29/31) were described as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a bit worried/sad/unhappyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, while only 1% (n = 2) were described as very much so. In comparison, HAOK found that 14% of children were reported by their parents to be moderately or extremely anxious or depressed. In the national longitudinal study (GUI, 2011), 19% of nine year olds were reported to have mental and behavioural conditions. Furthermore, the GUI study found that boys were twice as likely to have a mental or behavioural condition as reported by their parents as girls. Finally, respondents were asked to report on the occurrence of a number of potentially problematic behaviours for the index child. The behaviours and the reported frequency are presented in the table below. The findings in the table suggest that temper tantrums and eating difficulties are the most commonly reported issues, but where problem behaviours are present respondents are more likely to report that these behaviours occur occasionally than often. Table 13

Behavioural Difficulties

Behaviour

Never

Occasionally (less than once per week)

Often (at least once per week)

Non-Resp

Wets pants during day

72% (n=102)

7% (n=10)

8% (n=12)

12% (n=17)

Wets the bed at night

66% (n=93)

9% (n=13)

13% (n=18)

12% (n=17)

Soils or loses bowel control

77% (n=108)

6% (n=9)

5% (n=7)

12% (n=17)

Tears/refusal arriving at school

70% (n=99)

12% (n=17)

3% (n=4)

15% (n=21)

Temper tantrums

45% (n=64)

30% (n=43)

12% (n=17)

Nightmares

65% (n=92)

21% (n=29)

1% (n=2)

13% (n=18)

Sleeping difficulties

65% (n=92)

21% (n=29)

2% (n=3)

12% (n=17)

Eating difficulties

52% (n=73)

24% (n=34)

11% (n=16)

13% (n=18)

5.7 Parental Employment Participants were asked to report on the employment of adults in the course. Figure 8 below presents the reported figures for the respondent and the second adult in the house (typically the partner/spouse) [Respondent Non-response = 2%, Non-response re second adult = 35%]. The most frequent response for the participant was fulltime carer, followed by more than a quarter reporting that they were in full or part time work. Among the second adults the most frequent responses were fulltime paid employment or unemployment/signing on. For both groups the levels in full time education were very low. Figure 8

Employment Status of Respondent and Second Adult in Household 10% 10%

FT Paid work PT Paid work FT Education

FT Carer Retired Other 0%

18% 18%

7% 7%

1% 1% 2% 2%

Government 0% programme 0% Unemployed/ Signing on Sick/disabled

23% 23%

5% 5% 12% 12%

Respondent 21% 21%

Second Adult

3% 3% 2% 2% 43% 43%

3% 3%

5% 5%

2% 2% 1% 1%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

In examining the nature of employment in the households 23% of respondents (n=32, Nonresponse = 70%) reported they were in a permanent position, and 24% reported that the second adult’s position was also permanent (n=34, Non-response = 71%). 16% (n=22) of participants reported they have been in paid employment in the previous two years [Non-response = 64%]. 43% (n=60) indicated that state benefits are the household’s only source of income [Nonresponse 33%], compared to 41% in HAOK. Following this question a small number of respondents described the benefits they received and these included lone parent’s allowance, children’s allowance and carers’ allowance. 5.8 Educational Experience A number of questions explored the schooling of the index child. Given the range in age of the index child the responses to this question were very varied [Non-response = 3%]. Overall, 12% of the index children (n=17) were not yet of school going age, 12% (n=15) were in preschool/nursery etc, nearly 60% of children attended primary school (59%, n=83), 10% were in secondary school (n=14) and one child was in a special school. In addition 3% (n=4) were working/on a training scheme or out of work. The survey explored a number of aspects travelling to school. The most common form of transport was walking (45%, n=64) followed by car (26%, n=37), with small numbers reporting that they used public transport, bicycles or other forms of transport (8%, n=12, Non-response = 20%). Participants reported that the trip to preschool/school took between 1 minute and 60 minutes, with the majority reporting that the trip took 20 minutes or less (n = 85, Non-response = 23%). 44

Looking at the respondents’ perception of the index child’s experience of school 67% (n=94) believed their child was doing about average or better than average in nursery/school [Nonresponse=21%], while 72% (n=102) believed their child enjoyed nursery/school [Non-response = 18%). In addition 62% of participants (n=87) believed their child was achieving their potential at nursery/school [Non-response = 21%] which is lower than for respondents in HAOK (77%). When asked why they believed the child was doing well in school, respondents offered the following responses: Table 14

Achieving Potential in School

Response Categories

%/n

Sample quote

Good school/ education setting

6% (n=9)

“Good school”.

Good at school

2% (n=3)

“[Child] is Well able to do his homework on his own”.

Presence of a developmental disability

5% (n=7)

“Attending school since 7 yet still can’t read or write because of ADHD one to one needed and not available”.

Issues with concentration

5% (n=7)

“He gets easily distracted by things going on around”.

Issues with appropriate education

6% (n=9)

“Large classes”.

Other

10% (n=14)

“I think the child is doing what he should be doing in school”. “Teachers told me can do better”.

Participants were asked if the index child’s key worker or teacher had identified any problems or difficulties in school, however only 11% reported that this had happened [Non-response = 69%] and common difficulties included ADHD or attention problems or other learning difficulties. Figure 9

Absenteeism rates as reported by respondents

50% 40%

33%

39%

36% 32%

30% 20%

20% 11%

10%

Household survey HAOK

0% No school missed

Less than 5 days

5–20 days

More than 20 days

Non-responses

Participants also reported rates of absenteeism and these were compared to the findings from HAOK (see Figure 6 above). The figure suggests broadly similar rates between the two studies and in the present study almost one third had reported being absent for 5-20 days. Respondents were asked the reasons for the index child’s absence and the most common response was illness (55%, n=78), with fewer participants reporting the reason as appointments (16%, n=22), holidays (11%, n=15), truancy (3%, n=5) or temporary exclusion (1%, n=2). The survey also explored the index child’s experience of bullying and 29% (n=41) reported the child had been bullied in school [Non-response = 19%], compared to 39% in HAOK. Examining the frequency of the bullying this was most commonly defined as infrequent (‘sometimes’), with only eight participants (6% overall) reporting that the index child had been bullied once a week or more often. 45

5.9 Out-of-School Activities In addition to examining educational experience the survey also examined the index child’s out of school activities. Just over half (52%, n=72) of children were involved in afterschool activities [Non-response <1%], which was similar to the figure of 50% reported in HAOK. These activities included: ❖ Music, drama, dance (30%, n=42) compared to 11% in HAOK; ❖

A sports team (26%, n=37) which is similar to HAOK;

❖

Swimming (20%, n=28), which was not explored in HAOK;

❖

Afterschool Club (14%, n=20) which is slightly higher than HAOK (13%);

❖

Library (11%, n=15), which was not explored in HAOK;

❖

Uniformed organisation (2%, n=3) which is similar to HAOK.

❖

Other (6%, n=9)

❖

Non-response for each of the categories reflected those not taking part in out of school activities.

Respondents were also asked about the activities that the index child had done with other children his or her own age within the previous week and Table 15 reports the themes emerged from their responses (multiple responses were possible): Table 15

Other types of activities

Category of Response

%/n

Sample quote

Playing/playing outside

51% (n=73)

“Just played in garden with me or played with me friends kid when in her house”. “Playing in park and visiting friends. Also myself and my friends with children organise day trips or play dates”.

Participation in sports/ physical activities

34% (n=49)

“Played football and x-Box with friends. He has a lot of friends”.

Playing/using the computer

20% (n=28)

“Swimming, friend’s house, computer for 1/2 hrs a day”.

Trips/holidays/ visiting friend’s house/sleepovers

18% (n=25)

“Goes to friend’s house”.

Reading/library

9% (n=13)

“... reads [a] book with me every night [and] goes to [a] friend’s house”.

Music, dance, drama

6% (n=9)

“She has been to her dance classes...”

Attend events (e.g. parties)

4% (n=5)

“Birthday party and camping”.

Other

25% (n=35)

“Carnival”.

5.10 Financial Issues Participants reported not being able to afford the specific items/ commodities such as heating, basic toys and sports gear, and a family holiday (see Figure 10): Figure 10

Unable to afford within the past 6 months

70%

62%

60% 50% 40% 32%

30% 17%

20% 10%

Household survey 2%

HAOK

0% ) ) ) e e r it t) lt) ly cl ld ld in ul ea al ic hi hi ed hi du d g u c c e e d a a ( v e n ts l( s( l( nn M or es te ea (a he ea ou p a h t y s t m m iv o r o ay cl Pr cl ed s& ve ed lid y k m n k o m o o h to ar he ar Co ic Co W w ily W s a g m B Fa tin ea H

Participants were asked if they were seriously behind in terms of paying the following bills, with figures from HAOK presented where available: ❖ TV licence (31%); ❖ Other loans (19%); ❖ Electricity (18%) compared to 15% in HAOK; ❖ Rent (17%) compared to 26% in HAOK; ❖ Gas (11%) compared to 3% in HAOK; ❖ Road tax (11%); ❖ Goods on hire purchase (9%); ❖ Phone (8%) compared to 16% in HAOK. 43% of respondents reported they were not seriously behind in paying for any of these bills, which is higher than that reported in HAOK (37%). Respondents were asked if their water, gas or electricity had been disconnected in the previous 12 months, and 4% (n=6) of them indicated that their electricity had been disconnected. Overall, 90% (n=128) reported that none of these had been disconnected. The survey explored whether respondents had ever borrowed money from various sources during the past 12 months. One in three respondents reporting that they had borrowed money from family. However information was not gathered on the amount of money borrowed: ❖ Pawnbroker (4%, n=6); ❖ Moneylender (16%, n=23); ❖ Friend (17%, n=24); ❖ Family (33%, n=47). 47

Respondents reported how they and their family were managing financially these days and if they had experienced financial worries over the previous 6 months. The responses are presented in Figure 11 and Figure 12 respectively. Figure 11

Financial Management

50%

46%

40% 30% 21%

20% 13% 8%

10%

7% 2%

We are in deep financial trouble

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

0% We manage very well

Figure 12

We manage fairly well

We get by alright

We do not manage very well

We have some financial difficulties

Financial worries over the previous 6 months 33%

35%

29%

30%

26%

25% 20% 15%

11%

10% 5% 0% e th f o ll ta s o lm A

e tim

e th f lo al t o tn u ,b en t f O

e tim y nl O

es im t e m so

ey dl ar H

er ev n / er v e

5.11 Current Problems When asked about other challenges they might be facing, 56% of participants reported they were experiencing some problems but were coping while another 5% of participants reported they were not coping. Finally, 16% of participants stated that they did not really have any problems at the time of this study. Respondents were also asked about their current problems. These are identified in Figure 13 below, and the most frequently reported problems were difficulties associated with relationships. These included issues with former partners, regular fights with a partner and emotional abuse. Figure 13

Current problems

Child has experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse in the last 2 years

Child feels unsafe in the house as reported by respondent

Respondent has issues with former partners

21%

Respondent has regular fights with partner

HAOK

16%

Partner is physically abusive

Household survey

Partner is emotionally abusive

15%

Respondent feels unsafe in the home

16%

Partner has a problem with alcohol or drugs

11%

Respondent has a problem with or drugs

10%

15%

20%

25%

Respondents were asked to report what recent events might have happened to them or another family member [Non-response 0%]. The top three most frequently reported events by participants were experiencing difficulties with their children, the death of a close friend or relative, and difficulties with close relationships/ friends. The findings are summarised in Table 16 on next page.

Table 16

Things that have happened to the respondent/others living in the house

Category

%/n

Who in the house did this affect?*

Difficulties with children

22% (n=31)

Index child (12/16)

Death of a close relative/ friend

21% (n=30)

Respondent (11/25)

Difficulties with close relationships/ friends

18% (n=25)

Respondent (14/21)

Reduced employment

18% (n=25)

Respondent (12/23)

Victim of a crime

18% (n=25)

Respondent (14/25)

Moved house

15% (n=22)

More than one household member (14/17)

Birth of a baby

15% (n=21)

Respondent (8/18)

Sudden health problem

13% (n=18)

Respondent (9/17)

Loss of money

13% (n=18)

Respondent (8/15)

Difficulties with neighbours

12% (n=17)

Respondent (9/16)

Break-up of a relationship

11% (n=15)

Respondent (7/11)

Problems at work

8% (n=11)

Other adult in the house (5/10)

Redundancy

7% (n=10)

Respondent (4/9)

Child changing school

7% (n=10)

Index child (8/9)

Trouble with the Gardai

6% (n=9)

Respondent (3/9); another adult in the house (3/9)

Accident/ injury

6% (n=9)

Index child (3/9)

Moved country

2% (n=3)

————

Homelessness

1% (n=2)

Index child (1/2); More than one household member (1/2)

Change of job

1% (n=2)

Respondent (1/2); More than one household member (1/2)

Respondents were invited to provide more detail on the most recently occurring events that happened to them [Non-response 5%] and a number of themes emerged (Table 17). Table 17

Events that occurred most recently for respondents

Response Categories

%/n

Sample quotes

New baby

8% (n=11)

“Baby being born has changed [our] lives forever”.

Death of someone close

6% (n=9)

“Death of a friend”.

Changes in living circumstances

<6% (n=8)

“Got the house. This was a good thing”.

Illness, health problem, special need

<6% (n=8)

“Health concerns, medication linked to memory loss. Loss of motivation and depression”.

Personal/family safety

<6% (n=8)

“Break-up with abusive partner; both positive and negative”.

Changes in employment circumstances

5% (n=7)

“Redundancy”.

Damage to/stolen property

5% (n=7)

“Mothers home broken into; whole family upset, mum lives on same road”.

Relationship difficulties

4% (n=6)

“I broke up with partner of 5 years but better for both us and [name of child]”.

Celebration (e.g. wedding)

4% (n=5)

“Communions, confirmations”.

Financial difficulties

2% (n=1)

“We both lost jobs and [are] in deep financial problems”.

Difficulties with neighbours

3% (n=4)

“Difficulties with one neighbour but now sorted with [the Gardaí]”.

Other

8% (n=12)

“Children’s mother is a heroin addict; she turns up to see the kids sometimes. [It] really upsets the kids seeing her”.

A further exploration of how these events might have affected respondents revealed the following themes: Table 18

How the event affected respondents

Response Categories

%/n

Sample quotes

Emotionally upsetting

36% (n=52)

“Well it’s worrying; he'd be devastated if he lost his job”. “It was disturbing and distressing as I do not wish to have any conflict between us as parents for the sake of our children”.

Financially

9% (n=13)

“We were all very sad. Funerals are expensive for a family. Costs, days off work/school”. “Can’t afford to buy things and behind on all the bills”.

Happy/ relieved

8% (n=11)

“Uplifting; [a] great weekend”. “We were happy [because] I had a baby”.

Materially

6% (n=9)

“Car window smashed; was costly to repair”. “They took away the car”.

Physical/ mental health

5% (n=7)

“Suffered very bad [post natal depression]”. “Sudden death-caused respondent to develop depression, panic attacks, fear of dying leaving her baby behind”.

Generally difficult

5% (n=7)

“Very difficult all round”.

No/little affect

6% (n=9)

“I handled it quite well”.

Other

10% (n=14)

“Son had to get wounds treated but [it] wasn’t all that bad”.

Respondents were also asked to indicate how the event might have affected children in their household and a number of themes emerged: Table 19 How the event affected children in the household Response Categories

%/n

Sample quotes

Emotionally upsetting

20% (n=29)

“[The child] worried because [their] mother crying so much”. “Hard for youngest because she had to give up her room”.

No/little affect

15% (n=21)

“Didn’t really affect children”.

Happy/relieved

9% (n=13)

“[Child was] delighted with the new baby”. “He is happier because I'm home more now”.

Materially

4% (n=6)

“They had their X-Box and TVs taken. Index child slept in parents’ bed for a few weeks after”.

Feeling unsafe

4% (n=6)

“[Child] was afraid to play outside anymore, so now I don’t allow him out”. “The kids were very scared and would not leave my side after this, they also were afraid to go out in their neighbourhood”.

Generally difficult

3% (n=4)

“A lot, but doing ok now”.

Physical health

1% (n=2)

“Physically, they were both badly hurt; they both seem ok now”.

Other

16% (n=22)

“She was used to getting what she wants when she wants”.

Respondents were asked to report how they coped with an event. Table 20 below reports the most frequently reported coping strategies, along with indicative quotes. Table 20

How did respondents cope with an event?

Response Categories

%/n

Sample quotes

We managed/ just got on with it

20% (n=28)

“Just had to get on with it”.

Looked for informal support

15% (n=22)

“Help from family and friends”.

Looked for formal support

12% (n=17)

“Social welfare helped out with an emergency payment. [The] Gardaí came out”.

Spoke to children

4% (n=6)

“Tried to be positive to reassure children”.

Change in routine

4% (n=6)

“Found it hard to adapt but starting to get better”.

Reduced household expenditure

3% (n=4)

“Had to tighten up on spending and also downgrade on luxuries e.g. sky digital, DVD rental, day trips to the cinema, activity centres, zoo...”

Tried to resolve the issue ourselves

1% (n=4)

“Try to talk to them, got abuse. Ignore them now”.

Other

9% (n=14)

“Had a party”.

Overall, 28% (n=40) of respondents reported that they/ other household member coped well while 30% (n=43) coped OK. 8% (n=12) felt that they/ other member did not cope well with the event. [Non-response = 34%]. 5.12 Service Utilisation In terms of accessing formal support, the most frequently reported services accessed by respondents in this study were the GP/doctor (81%, n=112), school staff (34%, n=47), and the St. Vincent de Paul (33%, n=46). Previous research by Nolan (2008) found a positive relationship between the frequency of visits to the GP among adults and eligibility for the medical card. 52

Table 21

Access to Sources of Formal Support

Service/Agency Type

Yes contact, yes service*19

No contact, no service

GP/ Doctor

81% (n=112)

18% (n=25)

Resp**:42% (n=41) Children: 7% (n=7) More than***: 45% (n=44)

Teacher/ School Principal

34% (n=47)

64% (n=89)

Resp: 17% (n=7) Children: 61% (n=25)

St. Vincent de Paul

33% (n=46)

64% (n=90)

Resp: 83% (n=29) More than: 14% (n=5)

Credit Union

29% (n=41)

70% (n=98)

Resp: 69% (n=22) More than: 22% (n=7)

Public Health Nurse

26% (n=36)

70% (n=98)

Children: 76% (n=23) More than: 13% (n=4)

Other health care professional

21% (n=30)

71% (n=100)

Resp: 16% (n=5) Children: 59% (n=19)

Local Authority

17% (n=24)

74% (n=103)

Resp: 85% (n=22)

After-schools clubs

16% (n=22)

84% (n=117)

Children: 75% (n=12) More than: 19% (n=3)

Gardaí

13% (n=18)

84% (n=117)

Resp: 55% (n=11) More than: 35% (n=7)

Free legal aid/ solicitor

<10% (n=12)

95% (n=133)

Resp: 71% (n=4)

Any other social services professional (e.g. counsellor)

<9% (n=13)

89% (n=125)

Resp: 33% (n=4) Children: 33% (n=4)

Home School Liaison Officer

7% (n=9)

93% (n=131)

Resp:17% (n=1) Children: 67% (n=4)

Psychiatrist

7% (n=10)

90% (n=126)

Resp: 50% (n=5) Children: 30% (n=3)

MABS

7% (n=9)

94% (n=131)

Resp: 67% (n=4) More than: 33% (n=2)

Citizens Advice Bureau

6% (n=9)

92% (n=129)

Resp: 80% (n=8)

Play group, parent & toddler group

6% (n=8)

94% (n=131)

Children: 50% (n=2)

Specific parenting/ parent support group

5% (n=7)

94% (n=132)

Resp: 80% (n=4)

Youth service

4% (n=5)

96% (n=134)

Children: 50% (n=2)

Educational Psychologist

4% (n=5)

95% (n=133)

Resp: 17% (n=1) Children: 67% (n=4)

Social worker

3% (n=4)

95% (n=133)

Resp: 50% (n=2) Children: 50% (n=2)

Education Welfare Officer

1% (n=2)

99% (n=138)

Children: 100% (n=3)

Support group for victims of domestic violence

1% (n=2)

99% (n=138)

Resp: 100% (n=1)

Who received the service in the household?

In HAOK, a different type of question was asked in relation to accessing support services i.e. respondents were asked about their use of services for their children whereas in the current study, they were asked about when s/he or anyone in the household had contact services. * Combination of the following responses: “Person approached agency for help and received some help”; “the agency approached person offering help, and person accepted”; and “used service”. ** Respondent. ***More than one household member.

6. KEY FINDINGS FOR THE YOUTH SURVEY 6.1 Demographic Details 208 children and young people participated in the study. An overall response rate of 83% was achieved which is higher than the response rate for KIDSCREEN (47.5%) and in line with the response rate for the HBSC (83%). Just over 50%20 (n=105) of the sample were male [nonresponse=1%]21; In terms of age, the majority of participants were aged 12-13 years (65%, n=135) with the average age being 13 years (SD = 1.3): Figure 14

Age of respondents in youth survey

80% 65%

60% 40%

28%

20%

0% 12–13 years

14–15 years

16–17 years

Nearly 9% of participants attended an out-of-school setting. Across both those in school and those in other settings information on the class year or equivalent was gathered (for both settings): ❖ 43% (n=89) of participants were in 1st year; ❖

30% (n=61) were in 2nd year;

❖

6% (n=12) were in 3rd year22;

❖

21% (n=43) were in 5th year;

❖

Less than 1% (1) was in 6th year;

❖

Non-responses [NR=1%].

A slightly greater number of respondents (11%, n = 23) in this study reported having a long term disability, illness or condition compared to respondents (10%) in KIDSCREEN (2005). Of those, asthma was the most frequently cited condition which is similar to findings reported in KIDSCREEN (Table 22) [non-response=2%]. The proportion of children/young people who were reported by caregivers as having a long term disability in the How Are Our Kids? Study (2004) was 15%.

20 21 22

All percentages in this report are rounded off to the nearest decimal unless otherwise stated. Non-responses will be abbreviated to ‘NR’ from now on. Although the study targeted students in 1st, 2nd and 5th year, some students from other years may have been sitting in on these classes for specific subjects (and therefore ended up completing the survey having obtained caregiver consent).

Table 22

Type of Disability, Illness or Condition Never

KIDSCREEN Survey23 (KS-52)

HAOK?

CSO24 (2006)

Presence of a longer-term disability/ illness/ condition25

11% (n = 23)

10% (n = 126)

15%

19% (n=396)26

Asthma

7% (n = 15)

5.3% (n = 67)

——

Dyslexia

1% (n = 2)

0.6% ( n = 7)

——

Eczema

0.5% (n = 1)

0.4% ( n = 5)

——

Diabetes

——

0.6% (n = 7)

——

Epilepsy

1% (n = 2)

——

Other (not specified)

3% (n=6)

——

The majority of young people who participated in this study lived [non-response=6%] and attended school in Jobstown followed by Killinarden and Brookfield [non-response=1%]: Table 23

Living and Going to School in Tallaght West Live*

Attend School**

Jobstown

43% (n=90 )

47% (n=97)

Killinarden

28% (n= 59)

Brookfield

17% (n= 36)

24% (n= 50)

Fettercairn

3% (n= 7)

——

Springfield

1% (n= 3)

——

82% (n=170) of respondents were born in Ireland while 8% were born in the UK (Table 7). Nearly 5% of respondents were born in Africa and 3% were born in other European countries [non-response=2%]: Table 24

Ethnicity YS

HAOK?

Irish

82%

95%

United Kingdom

Africa

Europe

23 24 25 26

}

Total number of participants aged between 12-17 years = 910 adolescents. Central Statistics Office. Responses for this question are ‘yes’; ‘no’. Thirty-one percent (7,295) of the total population in TW are aged 0-14 years. Of these, 19% are reported to have a disability (disability not defined).

6.2 Physical Health and Activity Overall, 67% (n=139) of participants in this study believed that their health was ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ which is similar to that reported in KIDSCREEN (67%) and only slightly higher to that reported in the HBSC survey (64%) [Non-response=0%]; Figure 15 General health 50% 43%

46%

40% 30%

26%

28% 24%

21%

20%

KS-57

10%

6% 1%

Youth Survey

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Table 25 indicates that 61% (n=128) of participants felt ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ fit compared to 57% of their peers nationally. 70% (n=145) reported being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ active, for example, running, climbing and cycling, which is higher than that reported in KIDSCREEN (60%). Examining this further indicates that a greater proportion of males (77%, n=80) report being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ physically active compared to females (63%, n=64) which is in line with findings from KIDSCREEN, which found that 75% of males are more physically active compared to 58% of females. Table 25

Physical wellbeing of all participants YS

KS-52

HBSC27

Poor28

1% (n=2)

Fair

6% (n=12)

Good

26% (n=55)

28%

Very good

43% (n=89)

46%

Excellent

24% (n=50

21%

64%

Not at all

1% (n=2)

——

Slightly

7% (n=15)

10%

——

Moderately

30% (n=62)

31%

——

Very

40% (n=84)

42%

——

Extremely

21% (n=44)

15%

——

In general, how would you say your health is? (NR=0%)

Have you felt fit and well? (NR=1%)

continued...

HBSC survey asked participants aged 10-17 years: ‘Would you say your health is…excellent, good, fair or poor’? 64% of children and young people aged 12-17 years reported that their health is excellent. A larger proportion of younger children were more likely to report feeling healthier. Not at all healthy, etc.

Table 25

Physical wellbeing of all participants continued... YS

KS-52

HBSC27

Not at all

2% (n=5)

——

Slightly

8% (n=17)

10%

——

Moderately

19% (n=40)

26%

——

Very

37% (n=76)

32%

——

Extremely

33% (n=69)

28%

——

Not at all

2% (n=4)

——

Slightly

5% (n=11)

——

Moderately

16% (n=34)

28%

——

Very

41% (n=86)

39%

——

Extremely

34% (n=70)

20%

——

Never

2% (n=4)

——

Seldom

7% (n=15)

14%

——

Quite often

14% (n=30)

36%

——

Often

39% (n=82)

34%

——

Always

37% (n=76)

14%

——

Have you been physically active? (NR=1%)

Have you been able to run well? (NR=1%)

Have you felt full of energy? (NR=1%)

A greater proportion of participants (75%, n=156) in this study reported being able to run ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ well compared to 59% in KIDSCREEN. 76% (n=158) of participants were ‘often’ or ‘always’ full of energy, compared to 48% of participants in KIDSCREEN. Participants were asked how often they took part in extra-curricular activities (multiple responses were possible). Nearly half (45%, n=93) reported being ‘often’ or ‘always’ a member of a sports team which is higher than that reported for children and young people by parents in HAOK29 (26%)30. Figure 16 illustrates the proportion of respondents who reported ‘always’ participating in specific out-of-school activities.

29 30

Note: 32% (n=60) of the sample in HAOK was aged 10-14 years while 19% were aged over 14 years. Just over half (52%, n=72) of children were reported in the household survey to be involved in afterschool activities [Non-response <1%], which was similar to the figure of 50% reported in HAOK.

Figure 16 Type and frequency of participation in out-of-school activities

Always

Sports team After schools club Swimming pool Library Music, dance, drama Homework club or language class

35% (n=74) of participants ‘often’ or ‘always’ attended an after-schools club compared to 13% in HAOK while one in three (n=62) reported ‘often’ or ‘always’ going swimming. More than 59% (n= 122) stated that they ‘never’ or ‘seldom’ visited the library (approximately 20% (n=42) indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ attend a library outside of school hours). Just over one in three participants (32%, n=67) stated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ were a member of a music, drama or dance group which is higher than that found in HAOK (11%). Several participants responded to an open-ended question which invited them to identify other types of activities or groups that they might be involved in. These findings are presented as a separate set of responses and may overlap with some of the findings reported in the previous paragraph. Table 26 provides a further breakdown of children and young people’s participation in various types of after-school activities.

Table 26

Participation in after-school activities YS

HAOK

Over a typical week, how often are you involved in activities that take place outside of school hours?

A sports team (NR=8%)

An after schools club (NR=8%)

Swimming pool (NR=8%)

Library (NR=8%)

Scouts, brigade, army cadets (NR=13%)

Music, dance, drama (NR=12%)

Homework club or language class (NR=12%)

Never

24% (n=49)

Seldom

14% (n=29)

Quite often

10% (n=21)

Very often

20% (n=42)

Always

25% (n=51)

Never

27% (n=56)

Seldom

18% (n=37)

Quite often

12% (n=24)

Very often

16% (n=34)

Always

19% (n=40)

Never

13% (n=26)

——

Seldom

28% (n=59)

——

Quite often

22% (n=45)

——

Very often

19% (n=40)

——

Always

11% (n=22)

——

Never

29% (n=60)

——

Seldom

30% (n=62)

——

Quite often

14% (n=28)

——

Very often

12% (n=25)

——

Always

8% (n=17)

——

Never

72%(n=150)

Seldom

7% (n=14)

Quite often

5% (n=10)

Very often

2% (n=4)

Always

1% (n=3)

Never

34% (n=71)

Seldom

12% (n=24)

Quite often

11% (n=23)

Very often

10% (n=21)

Always

22% (n=46)

Never

47% (n=97)

Seldom

8% (n=17)

Quite often

12% (n=24)

Very often

8% (n= 17)

Always

14% (n=28)

}

26%

}

13%

}

11%

}

13%

Participants were asked about their involvement in sedentary activities such as watching television, using or playing on a computer and reading (Table 27). The current study found that children and young people watched a similar amount of TV (i.e. between two and nine hours) during weekdays and weekends (70%, n=145). 28% (n=58) of responses for weekdays and weekends were categorised as ‘other’ where participants indicated the actual day of the week (e.g. ‘Wednesday and Saturday”) or “a lot”. Two thirds (65%, n=137) of participants reported using or playing on a computer between two and nine hours on weekdays while this decreased slightly to 63% (n=139) over weekends. Over one third (n=73) reported participating in reading activities from two to nine hours during weekdays though this fell to 27% (n=56) at the weekends. Interestingly, less than 20% (n=38) and 23% (n=47) of participants indicated that they ‘never’ read during weekdays and weekends respectively. Table 27

Participation in sedentary activities during weekdays and weekends Weekdays

Weekends

Never

1% (n=2)

3% (n=6)

< 1 hour

7% (n=14)

5% (n=11)

< 5 hours

58% (n=121)

51% (n=106)

< 10 hours

12% (n=24)

18% (n=38)

> 10 hours

8% (n=16)

6% (n=12)

Other

14% (n=28)

14% (n=30)

NR=1%

NR=2%

Never

6% (n=12)

5% (n=11)

< 1 hour

11% (n=23)

8% (n=17)

< 5 hours

55% (n=114)

52% (n=109)

< 10 hours

10% (n=20)

11% (n=22)

> 10 hours

5% (n=10)

5% (n=11)

Other

13% (n=27)

14% (n=30)

NR=1%

NR=4%

Never

18% (n=38)

23% (n=47)

< 1 hour

29% (n=61)

35% (n=73)

< 5 hours

34% (n=70)

26% (n=53)

< 10 hours

1% (n=3)

> 10 hours

2% (n=4)

1% (n=3)

12% (n=25)

11% (n=23)

NR=2%

NR=3%

About how many hours a day do you usually.....in your spare time? 31

Watch TV (including videos/DVDs)

Use a

Read

computer32

Other

Nearly half (n= 99) of young people who participated in this survey reported ‘never’ reading or reading for ‘less than 1 hour’ during weekdays. This is important within the context of the national literacy and numeracy strategy.

Though participants were asked to focus on these activities during their spare time, it is likely that some participants (e.g. those who indicated watching TV more than 10 hours per day) calculated the number of hours over several days. For playing games, emailing, using Twitter, MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, chatting or surfing the Internet.

6.3 Health Behaviour Table 28 below reports responses for participants’ experience of smoking and drug use. Overall, 30% (n=62) of participants reported having ever smoked, which is lower than that found in the HBSC33 survey (36%). The rate of smoking in the HBSC study differed significantly between age groups, with a higher proportion of older young people stating that they had ever smoked. A similar pattern of findings was also found in the youth survey where young people aged between 15 – 17 years (70%, n=37) were more likely to have ever smoked than young people aged 12 – 14 years (16%, n=24)34. Gender differences demonstrated that boys (36%, n=37) were more likely to have ever smoked than girls (25%, n=25). Participants were also asked to indicate whether they are currently smoking. 16% (n=32) of participants were smokers at the time of this study. Overall, 10% (n=21) of participants reported using cannabis during their lifetime compared to 16% reported in the HBSC study. Of those, half (5%, n=10) reported using cannabis at least 40 or more times. 7% (n=16) of participants used cannabis within the last 12 months with a greater proportion of these aged 15 – 17 years. This is in line with findings from the HBSC survey which found that 12% of participants aged 15 – 17 years had taken cannabis within the last 12 months of the study. More boys stated using cannabis during their lifetime and within the previous 12 months of the study (12%, n=12; 9%, n=9) compared to girls (9%, n=9; 7%, n=7). Table 28

Participants’ experience of smoking and drug use

Have you ever smoked tobacco? (NR=1%) How often do you smoke at present? (NR=2%)

Have you ever taken cannabis in your life (NR=4%)

Have you ever taken cannabis in the last 12 months? (NR=6%)

33 34 35 36 37

HBSC

Yes

30% (n=62)

36%

70% (n=143)

I do not smoke

83% (n=172)

Less than one a week

2% (n=4)

At least once a week, but not everyday

2% (n=4)

Everyday

12% (n=24)

Never

86% (n=178)

Once or twice

3% (n=7)

3 to 5 times

1% (n=3)

20 to 39 times

.5% (n=1)

40 times or more

5% (n=10)

Never

15%35

16%36

87% (n=180)

Once or twice

2% (n=5)

3 to 5 times

1% (n=2)

20 to 39 times

1% (n=2)

40 times or more

3% (n=7)

12%37

Note: Older participants (i.e. aged 15 years and over) completed this section in the HSBC. Therefore, comparisons drawn between YS and HBSC must be interpreted with this in mind. 24 out of 151 (16%) participants aged 12 – 14 years responding to this question indicated that they have ever smoked while 37 out of 53 (70%) participants aged 15 – 17 years responded positively to the same question. Participants smoking at the time of the study. Participants reporting using cannabis during their lifetime. Participants who used cannabis within the last 12 months of the study.

Overall, a higher proportion (56%, n=116) of participants in this study reported that they had never taken an alcoholic drink compared to that reported in the HBSC study (47%). Rates of young people aged 12-14 years reporting that they had never taken alcohol are higher (92%, n=111) than for participants aged 15-17 years (8%, n=10). Furthermore, more boys report not having an alcoholic drink (54%, n=65) compared to girls (46%, n=56). When participants were asked what type of alcohol they consumed38, 10% (n=21) of participants reported drinking beer every week followed by spirits or liquor (8%, n=17), ‘alco-pops’ (4%, n=9) and wine (2%, n=4) (Figure 17). Figure 17 Type and frequency of alcohol consumed by participants 90% 80% 70%

90% 74% 68% 67%

60% 50%

Beer

40%

Spirits or Liquor

30% Wine

20% 17% 12% 11%

20% 10%

10% 8% 2% 4%

Every month

Every week

0% Never

Rarely

Alco-pops

Participants were also asked if they had ever had so much alcohol that they were drunk (Table 29). Nearly one third (n=57) stated having been drunk which is lower than that reported in the HBSC survey (36%). A greater proportion of participants aged 15 – 17 years (74%, n=39) reported being drunk one or more times compared to younger participants (14%, n=21). Little variation was found by gender in relation to being drunk more than once. Table 29

Percentage of participants who reported having been “really drunk” YS

Have you ever had so much alcohol that you were really drunk (NR=1%)

Multiple responses possible.

No, never

70% (n=146)

Yes, once

7% (n=14)

Yes, 2-3 times

7% (n=15)

Yes, 4-10 times

8% (n=15)

Yes, more than 10 times

6% (n=13)

HBSC

}

36%

6.4 Psychological Health In general, 74% of participants in this study were ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ satisfied with life compared to 71% in KIDSCREEN (Figure 18). Figure 18 Satisfaction with life 50%

46%

45% 40%

37%

35% 30%

34%

28%

25%

21%

20%

10% 5%

KS-57

15%

15% 7% 3%

0% Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Participants were asked to reflect on their psychological wellbeing over the week previous to completing the survey (Table 30). A greater proportion of participants (76%, n=159) reported having a ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ enjoyable life compared to 72% in KIDSCREEN. Of the 207 valid responses to the question ‘Have you felt pleased you are alive?’, a welcome 83% (n=174) of participants felt ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ pleased to be alive which is line with their peers nationally (83%).

74% (n=154) of participants stated feeling ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ satisfied with their lives compared to 71% in KIDSCREEN. On being in a good mood, a similar proportion of participants in this study (65%, n=134) and KIDSCREEN (63%) felt ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ in a good mood. When asked ‘have you felt cheerful’, 71% (n=148) reported feeling ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ cheerful compared to 63% of their peers in KIDSCREEN. Finally, on having fun, 84% reported having fun during the previous week which is 10% higher that reported in KIDSCREEN. Table 30

Psychological wellbeing of all participants

Has your life been enjoyable (NR=1%)

Have you felt pleased you are alive? (NR=1%)

Have you felt satisfied with your life? (NR=1%)

Have you been in a good mood? (NR=1%)

Have you felt cheerful? (NR=1%)

Have you had fun? (NR=1%)

KS-52

HBSC39

Not at all

2% (n=5)

Slightly

8% (n=16)

Moderately

13% (n=27)

20%

41%

Very

36% (n=75)

42%

50%

Extremely

40% (n=84)

30%

Not at all

2% (n=4)

——

Slightly

6% (n=12)

——

Moderately

8% (n=17)

10%

——

Very

26% (n=55)

29%

——

Extremely

57% (n=119)

54%

——

Not at all

3% (n=6)

——

Slightly

7% (n=15)

——

Moderately

15% (n=31)

21%

——

Very

28% (n=59)

37%

——

Extremely

46% (n=95)

34%

——

Not at all

5% (n=10)

——

Slightly

7% (n=15)

——

Moderately

23% (n=48)

27%

——

Very

40% (n=83)

46%

——

Extremely

25% (n=51)

17%

——

Not at all

4% (n=9)

——

Slightly

5% (n=11)

——

Moderately

19% (n=39)

27%

——

Very

39% (n=82)

46%

——

Extremely

32% (n=66)

17%

——

Not at all

1% (n=3)

——

Slightly

4% (n=9)

——

Moderately

10% (n=21)

19%

——

Very

27% (n=56)

43%

——

Extremely

57% (n=118)

31%

——

Responses to ‘feelings about life at present’: ‘Not very/ not at all’ (9%); ‘Quite happy’ (41%); ‘Happy’ (50%).

6.5 Moods and Emotions Overall, participants in this study reported experiencing more negative feelings than their peers in KIDSCREEN (Table 31). Over 70% of participants (72%, n=149) in this study stated that they had ‘seldom/ rarely’ or ‘never’ felt that they do everything badly, which is lower than that reported in the KIDSCREEN study (79%). By gender, female participants (23%, n=23) were more likely to ‘very often’ or ‘always’ experience negative feelings compared to males (11%, n=11). Figures 19 and 20 illustrate where these differences are significant. Similar patterns are observed for the other items within this dimension (i.e. a higher proportion of females ‘very often’ or ‘always’ reported having more negative feelings compared to males). These patterns by gender are also observed for KIDSCREEN. Figure 19 Gender differences for ‘have you felt that you do everything badly?’ 60% 50%

50% 40%

40% 32%

30%

Female

23%

21%

20%

Male

15%

10%

6% 2%

0% Never

Seldom

Quite often

Very often

Always

A greater proportion (17%, n=37) of participants reported feeling ‘very often’ or ‘always’ sad compared to 7% of their peers as stated in KIDSCREEN. When asked if they had felt so bad that they didn’t want to do anything, 19% (n=39) reported that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ felt so bad compared to 4% in KIDSCREEN. 11% (n=24) stated feeling that everything in their life went ‘often’ or ‘always’ wrong which is higher than the 7% reported in KIDSCREEN. 18% (n=37) stated Figure 20 Gender differences for “have you felt that everything in your life goes wrong?” that they had ‘very often’ or ‘always’ felt 70% fed up compared to 62% 11% of participants 6-% in Kidscreen. 15% (n=31) of participants 50% felt ‘very often’ or ‘always’ lonely com- 40% 37% pared to 7% in Male Kidscreen. Finally, a 30% 27% Female 26% similar proportion of participants in the 20% 19% youth survey and 9% KIDSCREEN reported 10% 8% 7% feeling ‘very often’ or 3% 3% ‘always’ under 0% pressure (20%, n=40) Never Seldom Quite often Often Always and 20% respectively). Interestingly, 14% of children and young people in HAOK were reported by their caregivers as being moderately or extremely anxious or depressed. 65

Table 31

Moods and emotions of participants

Have you felt that you do everything badly? (NR=1%)

Have you felt sad? (NR=4%)

Have you felt so bad that you didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to do anything? (NR=1%)

Have you felt that everything in your life goes wrong? (NR=1%)

Have you felt fed up? (NR=2%)

Have you felt lonely? (NR=1%)

Have you felt under pressure? (NR=1%)

KS-52

Never

27% (n=56)

21%

Seldom/ rarely

45% (n=93)

58%

Quite often

11% (n=23)

14%

Very often

13% (n=27)

Always

3% (n=7)

Never

19% (n=40)

16%

Seldom/ rarely

48% (n=100)

61%

Quite often

11% (n=23)

15%

Very often

15% (n=32)

Always

2% (n=5)

Never

43% (n=89)

53%

Seldom/ rarely

26% (n=54)

33%

Quite often

12% (n=24)

Very often

14% (n=28)

Always

5% (n=11)

Never

50% (n=103)

46%

Seldom/ rarely

26% (n=54)

38%

Quite often

13% (n=26)

10%

Very often

6% (n=13)

Always

5% (n=11)

Never

22% (n=46)

17%

Seldom/ rarely

38% (n=78)

53%

Quite often

20% (n=42)

20%

Very often

11% (n=23)

Always

7% (n=14)

Never

64% (n=132)

50%

Seldom/ rarely

17% (n=35)

32%

Quite often

3% (n=7)

11%

Very often

8% (n=16)

Always

7% (n=15)

Never

37% (n=76)

24%

Seldom/ rarely

27% (n=57)

35%

Quite often

16% (n=34)

22%

Very often

9% (n=18)

13%

Always

11% (n=22)

6.6 Self-Perception40 An exploration of self-perceptions revealed that 75% (n=156) of young people in this study felt very often or always happy with the way they are which is higher than that reported by their peers nationally (60%) (Table 32). Over 80% (n=171) reported very often or always being happy with the clothes they have compared to nearly 70% nationally while 28% of participants very often or always worried about the way they looked which is in line with national findings. When asked whether they had been jealous of the way other girls and boys looked, 16% (n=34) of participants in this study reported being very often or always jealous whereas the majority of participants (78%, n=162) reported being seldom or never jealous of their peers. Overall, 25% (n=53) of participants reported that they would very often or always like to change something about their body which is lower than reported for their peers nationally (35%). Table 32

Self-perception

Have you felt happy with the way you are? (NR=2%)

Have you been happy with your clothes? (NR=3%)

Have you been worried by the way you look? (NR=3%)

Have you been jealous of the way other girls and boys look? (NR=1%)

Would you like to change something about your body? (NR=2%)

KS-52

Never

3% (n=6)

Seldom/ rarely

9% (n=19)

12%

Quite often

11% (n=22)

26%

Very often

27% (n=57)

34%

Always

48% (n=99)

26%

Never

1% (n=2)

Seldom/ rarely

7% (n=15)

10%

Quite often

7% (n=14)

20%

Very often

26% (n=54)

34%

Always

56% (n=117)

34%

Never

33% (n=68)

17%

Seldom/ rarely

20% (n=42)

33%

Quite often

16% (n=33)

20%

Very often

14% (n=29)

16%

Always

14% (n=30)

13%

Never

55% (n=115)

32%

Seldom/ rarely

23% (n=47)

31%

Quite often

4% (n=9)

15%

Very often

11% (n=23)

14%

Always

5% (n=11)

Never

45% (n=94)

28%

Seldom/ rarely

18% (n=19)

25%

Quite often

9% (n=19)

14%

Very often

7% (n=15)

12%

Always

18% (n=38)

21%

Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Alpha for this dimension was lower (Îą=0.26) than for other dimensions which were above .7.

Figure 21 illustrates the gender differences for the same item with nearly 40% (n=41) of female respondents indicating that they would very often or always like to change something compared to 13% (n=14) of their male counterparts. Figure 21 Gender differences for ‘would you like to change anything about your body?’ 60% 53%

50% 40%

39% 30%

30%

Female

24%

Male

20% 13%

10%

9% 10%

9% 5%

0% Never

Seldom

Quite often

Very often

Always

6.7 Autonomy Overall, children and young people in this study reported having a greater sense of independence compared to their peers in KIDSCREEN (Table 33). 64% (n=133) of participants in this study reported that they have ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough time for themselves compared to 54% in the KIDSCREEN survey. 71% (n=148) stated that they ‘often’ or ‘always’ had been able to do the things that they had wanted to do in their free time while only half indicated the same in KIDSCREEN. In response to the question ‘have you had enough opportunity to be outside’, 81% (n=171) of participants indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had an opportunity to be outside which is greater than reported in KIDSCREEN (64%). By gender, a similar proportion of boys (83%, n=86) and girls (83%, n=84) reported ‘often’ or ‘always’ having an opportunity to be outside. Nearly 80% (n=164) of the participants in the youth survey reported that they have ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough time to meet friends compared to 57% in KIDSCREEN. 78% (n=159) of participants reported that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had been able to decide what they did in their free time compared to 62% of participants in KIDSCREEN.

Table 33

Level of autonomy reported by participants

Have you had enough time for yourself? (NR=1%)

Have you been able to do things that you want to do in your free time? (NR=1%)

Have you had the opportunity to be outside? (NR=1%)

Have you had enough time to meet friends? (NR=1%)

Would you been able to choose what to do in your free time? (NR=1%)

KS-52

Never

6% (n=12)

Seldom/ rarely

12% (n=25)

15%

Quite often

17% (n=36)

28%

Very often

28% (n=58)

29%

Always

36% (n=75)

25%

Never

6% (n=12)

Seldom/ rarely

12% (n=25)

18%

Quite often

10% (n=20)

29%

Very often

32% (n=67)

29%

Always

39% (n=81)

21%

Never

2% (n=5)

Seldom/ rarely

6% (n=13)

13%

Quite often

8% (n=17)

19%

Very often

22% (n=45)

28%

Always

61% (n=126)

36%

Never

3% (n=6)

Seldom/ rarely

6% (n=12)

17%

Quite often

12% (n=24)

23%

Very often

19% (n=40)

29%

Always

60% (n=124)

28%

Never

3% (n=7)

Seldom/ rarely

9% (n=19)

12%

Quite often

10% (n=20)

24%

Very often

25% (n=51)

31%

Always

52% (n=108)

31%

6.8 Parent Relations and Home Life Nearly 40% (n=80) of children and young people in this study reported living with one to three people in their home while half (n=103) indicated living with four to six people (Table 34). Over half of the participants (56%, n=116) in this study reported living in a household that was headed by a couple whereas 37% (n=77) were living in a lone parent household41. These findings are in line with those reported in HAOK (2004) and the CSO (2006). In terms of the number of brothers and sisters, the majority of participants had one to three brothers (66%, n=136) and sisters (67%, n=138). In HAOK, 70% of children were reported by their caregivers to live n a family where their lack of privacy was a problem. Table 34

Living situation of participants YS

HAOK

CSO42

1 to3

39% (n=80)

——

4 to 6

50% (n=103)

——

8% (n=17)

——

Living at home with one parent

37% (n=77)

36%

39%

Living at home with two parents

56% (n=116)

58%

Living at home with parent and step parent43

4% (n=9)

n/a

Living at home with other relative or caregiver

3% (n=7)

——

Number of people (excluding participant) living in main home

Number of brothers (and/or step brothers) None (NR=1%) 1 to 3

66% (n=136)

4 to 6

14% (n=30)

7+ Number of sisters (and/or step sisters) (NR=1%)

16% (n=34)

3% (n=5)

None

20% (n=42)

1 to 3

67% (n=138)

4 to 6

12% (n=24)

1% (n=1)

In general, participants in this study reported having a more positive relationship with their parents (or primary caregivers) compared to participants in KIDSCREEN (Table 35). 68% (n=142) of children and young people felt that their parents ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ understood them compared to 58% in KIDSCREEN. A similar proportion of participants felt ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ loved by their parents in the youth survey (82%, n=171) as found for their peers in KIDSCREEN (82%). When asked if they were happy at home, the majority of participants (78%, n=163) reported feeling ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ happy which is greater than that reported in KIDSCREEN (70%). At the same time, 75% (n=156) of participants reported that their parents ‘very’ or ‘always’ had enough time for them which is slightly greater than that in KIDSCREEN (71%). 79% (n=165) participants felt that their parents had ‘very often’ or ‘always’ treated them fairly compared to their peers nationally (71%) while nearly 80% (n=163) reported ‘very often’ or ‘always’ being able to talk to their parents compared to 64% in KIDSCREEN.

41 42 43

NR=8. Calculated as a percentage of all family units. In this case, participants indicated ‘stepfather’, ‘stepmother’ or ‘father’s girlfriend’, ‘mother’s boyfriend’.

Table 35

Quality of relationship with parents (or primary caregiver)

Have your parent(s) understood you? (NR=2%)

Have you felt loved by your parents? (NR=2%)

Have you been happy at home? (NR=3%)

Have your parent(s) had enough time for you? (NR=2%)

Have your parent(s) treated your fairly? (NR=2%)

Have you been able to talk to your parent(s) when you wanted to? (NR=1%)

KS-52

Not at all

7% (n=14)

Slightly

9% (n=18)

12%

Moderately

14% (n=30)

26%

Very

36% (n=75)

37%

Extremely

32% (n=67)

21%

Not at all

2% (n=4)

Slightly

3% (n=6)

Moderately

11% (n=23)

12%

Very

21% (n=44)

29%

Extremely

61% (n=127)

53%

2% n=4)

Seldom/ rarely

9% (n=19)

Quite often

9% (n=19)

22%

Very often

27% (n=57)

33%

Always

51% (n=106)

37%

Never

4% (n=9)

Seldom/ rarely

12% (n=25)

Quite often

7% (n=14)

19%

Very often

23% (n=47)

26%

Always

52% (n=109)

45%

Never

5% (n=10)

Seldom/ rarely

4% (n=9)

Quite often

10% (n=20)

18%

Very often

23% (n=48)

30%

Always

56% (n=117)

41%

Never

7% (n=15)

Seldom/ rarely

6% (n=13)

11%

Quite often

7% (n=14)

20%

Very often

14% (n=29)

24%

Always

64% (n=134)

40%

Never

6.9 School Participants were asked to indicate how they travel to their school or youth organisation (Table 3644). Interestingly, the majority of participants reported walking to school (83%, n=173) while 28% (n=58) reported being taken to school by car. By gender, a greater proportion of males (17%, n=18) reported cycling to school compared to females (1%, n=1). Participants in this study were least likely to use public transport in order to travel to their school or youth organisation. Table 36

Participants’ mode of transport to school or youth organisation Total

Male

Female

Walk

83% (n=173)

79% (n=81)

90% (n=91)

Cycle

9% (n=9%)

17% (n=18)

1% (n=1)

Car

28% (n=58)

28% (n=29)

29% (n=29)

4% (n=9)

5% (n=5)

4% (n=4)

Public transport

Table 37 indicates that for all items children and young people in this study felt happier and more satisfied in school or in youth organisations compared to their peers nationally. Nearly 60% (n=122) reported that they have been ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ happy at school which is higher than that reported in KIDSCREEN (48%). 75% (n=153) felt that they ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ got on well at school which is higher than the 59% reported in KIDSCREEN. 51% (n=106) stated they were ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ satisfied with their teachers compared to 39% in KIDSCREEN. When asked if they had been able to pay attention, nearly 60% (n=122) of participants felt they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ were able to pay attention compared to 47% of participants in KIDSCREEN. 55% (n=115) ‘very often’ or ‘always’ enjoyed going to school which is higher than the 38% reported by their peers in KIDSCREEN. A similar trend is observed when participants were asked if they got along well with their teachers, that is, the majority of children and young people in this study stated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ got along with their teachers (66%, n=137) compared to 50% in KIDSCREEN.

Multiple responses were possible.

Table 37

School environment of children and young people

Have you been happy at school? (NR=2%)

Have you got on well at school? (NR=1%)

Have you been satisfied with your teachers? (NR=1%)

Have you been able to pay attention? (NR=3%)

Have you enjoyed going to school? (NR=3%)

Have you got along well with your teachers? (NR=1%)

KS-52

Not at all

6% (n=12)

Slightly

12% (n=24)

12%

Moderately/ sometimes

22% (n=46)

32%

Very

37% (n=76)

34%

Extremely

22% (n=46)

14%

Not at all

3% (n=7)

Slightly

7% (n=15)

Moderately/ sometimes

14% (n=30)

29%

Very

35% (n=72)

40%

Extremely

39% (n=81)

19%

Not at all

7% (n=14)

11%

Slightly

15% (n=30)

16%

Moderately/ sometimes

27% (n=55)

34%

Very

29% (n=59)

28%

Extremely

23% (n=47)

11%

Never

6% (n=12)

Seldom/ rarely

11% (n=23)

14%

Quite often

22% (n=45)

36%

Very often

36% (n=74)

36%

Always

23% (n=48)

11%

Never

13% (n=26)

10%

Seldom/ rarely

15% (n=31)

22%

Quite often

14% (n=29)

30%

Very often

29% (n=61)

26%

Always

26% (n=54)

12%

Never

5% (n=11)

Seldom/ rarely

8% (n=17)

15%

Quite often

19% (n=40)

31%

Very often

36% (n=75)

35%

Always

30% (n=62)

15%

6.10 Social Support and Peers In general, the majority of children and young people in this study reported having a wide circle of close male and female friends (Table 38). The number of reported friends ranged from 0 to 362 and 0 to 200 for close male and female friends respectively. On average, participants reported having 12 (SD=31) close male friends and 13 (SD=27.9) close female friends. Table 38

Mean and standard deviation for close male and female friends At present, how many close male friends do you have?(NR=29)

At present, how many close female friends do you have?(NR=29)

Mean

12.01

13.46

31.06

27.85

Range

(0-362)

(0-200)

On examining the quality of participants’ relationship with their peers, 85%45 (n=176) participants reported ‘very often’ or ‘always’ having time to spend with their friends which is greater than that reported for their peers nationally (78%) (Table 39). In terms of doing things with other girls and boys, 71% (n=148) indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ are doing things with girls and boys which is slightly higher than that reported in KIDSCREEN (68%). An overwhelming 90% (n=187) of participants reported ‘very often’ or ‘always’ having fun with their friends compared to 85% in KIDSCREEN. When asked whether participants and their friends were a source of support to each other, 86% (n=179) stated that they and their friends ‘very often’ or ‘always’ helped each other compared to 67% in KIDSCREEN. Just under 80% (77%, n=160) felt they could ‘very often’ or ‘always’ talk about everything with friends compared to 61% in KIDSCREEN. Finally 78% (n=162) reported ‘very often’ or ‘always’ being able to rely on friends compared to 71% in KIDSCREEN.

This is higher than that reported under the Autonomy section of the youth survey which found that 79% (n=164) participants ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough time to spend with their friends. This will be explored further.

Table 39

Quality of peer relationships

Have you spent time with your friends? (NR=2%)

Have you done things with other girls and boys? (NR=3%)

Have you had fun with your friends? (NR=2%)

Have you and your friends helped each other? (NR=5)

Have you been able to talk about everything to your friends? (NR=2%)

Have you been able to rely on your friends? (NR=4%)

KS-52

Never

1% (n=2)

Seldom/ rarely

5% (n=11)

Quite often

7% (n=15)

17%

Very often

22% (n=46)

40%

Always

63% (n=130)

38%

Never

5% (n=11)

Seldom/ rarely

10% (n=20)

Quite often

11% (n=22)

21%

Very often

28% (n=59)

35%

Always

43% (n=89)

33%

Never

1% (n=1)

Seldom/ rarely

3% (n=7)

Quite often

4% (n=9)

12%

Very often

17% (n=35)

31%

Always

73% (n=152)

54%

Never

1% (n=2)

Seldom/ rarely

4% (n=9)

Quite often

6% (n=13)

25%

Very often

19% (n=40)

32%

Always

67% (n=139)

35%

Never

4% (n=9)

Seldom/ rarely

7% (n=15)

14%

Quite often

10% (n=20)

22%

Very often

21% (n=43)

26%

Always

56% (n=117)

35%

Never

1% (n=3)

Seldom/ rarely

4% (n=9)

Quite often

12% (n=25)

20%

Very often

23% (n=48)

31%

Always

55% (n=114)

40%

6.11 Sense of Community and Safety Approximately one in two participants (50%, n=104) in this study indicated having acquired an injury that required medical attention once or more within the previous 12 months (Table 40). This is greater than the 43% reported for participants aged 10-17 years in the HBSC survey. In terms of being involved in a physical argument, just over 51% (n=103) reported not being in a physical argument while 1% (n=2) indicated that they participated in a sport that involved physical contact (e.g. martial arts, boxing, kick boxing). Table 40

Number of times participants’ were injured or in a physical fight YS

I was not injured in the last 12 months (NR=2%)

48% (n=99)

1 time

18% (n=38)

2 times

14% (n=30)

3 times

7% (n=14)

4 or more times

11% (n=22)

I have not been in a physical fight in the last 12 months (NR=3%)

50% (n=103)

1 time

15% (n=31)

2 times

15% (n=32)

3 times

6% (n=13)

4 or more times

10% (n=21)

‘Fight for sport’

1% (n=2)

HBSC

}

43%

Table 41 indicates that a very high proportion of children and young people in this study nearly (87%, n=182) felt ‘often’ or ‘always’ safe in their home while 72% (n=150) reported feeling ‘often’ or ‘always’ safe in their community. Table 41

Safety in the home and wider community YS

Feel safe in the home (NR=2%)

Feel safe in the community (NR=2%)

Never

2% (n=4)

Seldom/ rarely

4% (n=9)

Quite often

4% (n=8)

Often

10% (n=21)

Always

77% (n=161)

Never

6% (n=12)

Seldom/ rarely

9% (n=18)

Quite often

12% (n=24)

Often

30% (n=63)

Always

42% (n=87)

Comparing findings from the youth and household surveys for sense of community and safety reveals that the majority of participants in both surveys felt safe in the home compared to in the wider community (Figure 22). Interestingly, 60% of young people were happy to stay in Tallaght West and not move compared to 35% of adult participants. Figure 22 Sense of community and safety

87% 79%

Safe in the home

72% 65%

Safe in the community Happy to stay in TW and not move

60% 35% 75% 65%

Sense of community 0%

50%

Youth survey Household survey

100%

Participants were also asked to indicate if there were problems in their neighbourhood in relation to crime, anti-social behaviour or the physical environment (Table 42). Nearly half (49%, n=101) participants in this study stated that crime was an issue in their neighbourhood with an additional 10% (n=21) reporting that they were affected by it. This is lower than that reported by adults in HAOK where half of the children were living with families who had been directly affected by crime. Similarly, 38% of households with children in the recent CDI Community Survey were reported to be directly affected by crime. In terms of the incidence of anti-social behaviour, half (n=102) of the participants in this study indicated that this was a problem in their neighbourhood with a further 13% (n=26) indicating that they were affected by it (compared to more than 40% of children in HAOK and 44% in the Household Survey). Similarly, nearly half (49%, n=100) reported environmental issues (e.g. presence of graffiti, rubbish or traffic pollution) in their neighbourhood with an additional 14% (n= 28) stating that it directly affected them (compared to 44% in HAOK and 50% in the Household Survey). While participants in the current study were acutely aware of the presence of crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues in their neighbourhood, the majority of participants stated that these issues did not have a direct impact on their lives. This may reflect the role of parents, and schools in mediating the effects of such negative issues on the lives of children and young people.

Table 42

Safety issues: crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues YS

Is there a problem in your neighbourhood with crime? (NR=1%)

Is there a problem in your neighbourhood with anti-social behaviour? (NR=1%)

Is there a problem in your neighbourhood with the local environment? (NR=2%)

No problem

39% (n=81)

Yes a problem but I am not affected by it

49% (n=101)

Yes a problem and I am affected by it

10% (n=21)

Don’t know

1% (n=2)

No problem

37% (n=76)

Yes a problem but I am not affected by it

49% (n=102)

Yes a problem and I am affected by it

13% (n=26)

Don’t know

.5% (n=1)

No problem

37% (n=75)

Yes a problem but I am not affected by it

48% (n=100)

Yes a problem and I am affected by it

14% (n=28) ——

Don’t know

Participants were asked to report what they enjoyed most about living in Tallaght [Non-response 0%]. Table 43 below reports the most frequently reported enjoyments, along with indicative quotes. Table 43

Enjoys most about living in Tallaght West as reported by young people

Response Categories

%/n

Sample quotes

Associates with friends

54% (n=113) “That the friends you make care about you”. “My mates, me fella, my football. I absolutely love it so much”.

Amenities/ facilities

30% (n=63)

“There's always something to do because there's lots of facilities to go to. Also a lot of my friends living around here- boys and girls like”.

Associates with family

20% (n=41)

“That all my friends and family live there and no one can hurt me because I have all of my family around me to support me”. “It's where most of my family live”.

Associates with the community/ other people/ neighbours

13% (n=26)

“I like the community that is here. We have good neighbours where I live”. “I get along well with the people and living here makes you want to work hard and be somebody”.

Schools/ youth organisations are good/ close by

11% (n=23)

“… my school is near to me”. “I enjoy the school I go to”.

It’s fun

5% (n=10)

“That it is fun to be in and everyone is there and there's nice looking fellas [sic]”.

Everything

4% (n=8)

“I like everything about living in Tallaght West”.

Safety/ feeling safe

2% (n=4)

“It's safe and it's a nice place to live in”.

In terms of experiencing fear of others, the majority of participants (90%, n=166) stated that they were ‘never’ or ’seldom/rarely’ afraid of other boys and girls which is in line with findings reported in KIDSCREEN (91%) (Table 44). 75% (n=156) reported that other peers ‘never’ or ‘seldom/rarely’ made fun of them compared to 85% in KIDSCREEN. When asked if other boys and girls had bullied them, 81% (169) participants reported ‘never’ or ‘seldom/rarely’ being bullied which is lower than that reported in KIDSCREEN (92%). Alternatively, over one third (34%, n=72) have been bullied at least once or more which is higher that found in the HBSC survey (24%) and slightly lower than that reported by caregivers in HAOK (39%).

Table 44

Social acceptance by peers

Have you been afraid of other girls and boys? (NR=2%)

Have other girls and boys made fun of you? (NR=2%)

Have other boys and girls bullied you? (NR=2%)

KS-52

Never

51% (n=106)

64%

Seldom/ rarely

29% (n=60)

27%

Quite often

7% (n=15)

Very often

8% (n=17)

Always

3% (n=6)

Never

45% (n=93)

48%

Seldom/ rarely

30% (n=63)

37%

Quite often

10% (n=20)

Very often

9% (n=19)

Always

4% (n=8)

Never

63% (n=131)

73%

Seldom/ rarely

18% (n=38)

19%

Quite often

6% (n=13)

Very often

6% (n=12)

Always

4% (n=9)

6.12 Financial Resources and Personal Belongings This section covers the financial circumstances of children and young people in terms of their access to money. It explores whether they have enough money to engage in similar activities with their peers. It also identifies the range of personal items that are common amongst children and young people including personal computers, games machines, personal TVs and mobile phones. A greater proportion (71%, n=148) of participants in this study reported ‘very often’ or ‘always’ having enough money to do the same things as their friends compared to KIDSCREEN (69%) (Table 45). 74% (n=153) stated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough money for expenses compared to 69% in KIDSCREEN. In terms of having enough money to do things with their friends, just under 70% (n=144) indicated ‘very often or ‘always’ having enough money which is slightly lower than that reported in KIDSCREEN (72%). Findings from HAOK indicate that at the time of that study, 41% of children lived in families that were dependent on state benefits while 63% lived in households where at some time could not afford to pay their bills. Table 45

Financial resources

Have you had enough money to do the same things as your friends? (NR=2%)

Have you had enough money for your expenses? (NR=3%)

Do you have enough money to do things with your friends? (NR=2%)

KS-52

Never

6% (n=13)

Seldom/ rarely

8% (n=17)

10%

Quite often

13% (n=26)

18%

Very often

27% (n=57)

27%

Always

44% (n=91)

42%

Never

4% (n=7)

Seldom/ rarely

9% (n=19)

Quite often

11% (n=23)

20%

Very often

30% (n=62)

26%

Always

44% (n=91)

43%

Not at all

5% (n=10)

Slightly

8% (n=16)

Moderately/sometimes

16% (n=34)

20%

Very

33% (n=69)

35%

Extremely

36% (n=75)

37%

The average number of items owned by children and young people in this study ranged from none to eleven (M=7; SD=2.2). A list of items identified by participants is presented in Table 46. The most frequently reported items include TVs (89%, n=186), DVD players (86%, n=179), mobile phones (89%, n=186), laptops (78%, n=162) and bicycles (68%, n=141). Table 46

Range of personal belongings as reported by participants

Do you own any of the following items? TV/DVD player

Phone

Game consoles

TV (in bedroom/bathroom)

89% (n=186)

DVD

86% (n=179)

iPhone

14% (n=29)

Other mobile phone

89% (n=186)

X Box

42% (n=87)

Nintendo46

6% (n=13)

Play station

53% (n=111)

Wii

66% (n=137)

iPad47 Computer

1% (n=1)

Desktop

45% (n=94)

Laptop

78% (n=162)

Music IT

iPod/MP3/ walkman

59% (n=123)

Transport

Bicycle

68% (n=141)

Miscellaneous48

46 47 48

10% (n=8)

Response to open-ended question. Response to open-ended question. Participants were asked to list any other items they owned. Not all participants responded to this open-ended question.

7. DISCUSSION The purpose of “How Are Our Families?” was to update our understanding and information on families in the community of Tallaght West. The preceding chapters document the rich and complex findings that emerged from the process, and we are conscious that different patterns will have meaning for different readers. While it is not possible to discuss all of the findings in detail, the aim of this chapter is to discuss key findings, as well as reflecting on the process of gathering these insights. 7.1 Summary of Key Findings Overall, 141 families with 313 children participated in the follow-up study, as well as 208 young people aged 12-17 years (average age 13 years) attending local secondary schools and youth organisations (almost 9% of the youth sample were attending out of school programmes. Adult participants with an average of 33 years were sampled from across five estates in Tallaght West with the largest group living in Jobstown, while the majority of young people also lived in Jobstown. In terms of family structure over half of the families were headed by a couple, which was supported by the findings in the youth survey and is in line with those previously reported in HAOK (2004) and the CSO (2006). There was an average of two children per family and the majority of families reporting that there were four or fewer people living in the household. In general, young people in this study reported having a more positive relationship with their parents (or primary caregivers) compared to participants in KIDSCREEN. Looking to families’ living arrangements, the proportion of people renting their home from the Council has remained relatively stable in the six years since HAOK. A large majority of the sample had lived in the same home for two years or more, with a similar number reporting that they were generally positive about their home. One topic that had been added to the survey was participants’ sense of community, and two-thirds of adult respondents reported that they felt a sense of community with other people in their area. This is slightly higher than the findings of the Community Safety Survey in 2008, where almost 60% reported a moderate or strong sense of community. The sense of community was slightly higher among young people in “How Are Our Families?” with three-quarters reporting a sense of community. Almost all of the adult participants reported that they knew at least one/two of their neighbours personally and over 80% were generally positive about living in Tallaght West. The fact that well over half of young people reported enjoying living in Tallaght West and not wanting to move may be related to a variety of peer, familial, and community factors. However, a number of challenges and difficulties were highlighted. There was a high reporting of crime, anti-social behaviour, and environmental issues in the area (between 77 and 87%). Interestingly young people reported these issues less frequently, with around half of the sample indicating that these issues were problematic in their neighbourhood. One key pattern relates to the fact that, for both groups’, reports of the extent to which the problems impact on respondents’ own households or families was lower. This might suggest that families’ own personal resources or support systems are mediating the potential negative effects of crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental problems.

A number of insights emerged in relation to the financial strains that families were exposed to. Just over 40% of adults indicated that state benefits are the household’s only source of income [Non-response 33%] and just under half of respondents indicated that they were ‘getting by’ financially. However, one third reported that they have financial worries ‘almost all of the time’ in the preceding six months. While 90% reported that they had not had water, gas or electricity disconnected due to unpaid bills, almost one in three were behind in paying their TV licence, almost one in five were behind in paying their electricity bill, and one in 20 were behind in other loans. The most frequently reported item/commodity that participants reported not being able to afford was a family holiday (two in three) followed by a private vehicle (one in three). Interestingly among young people 70% reported that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ had enough money to do the same things as their friends, which was similar to figures reported by KIDSCREEN. Therefore, while parents are experiencing financial issues, these may not be directly affecting young people, suggesting that parents may be working to protect their children from these difficulties. In relation to participants’ physical health, three quarters of adults believed that their own health in the last 12 months was ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’. Among young people two-thirds believed that their health was ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’, which is similar to that reported in KIDSCREEN and only slightly higher to that reported in the HBSC survey. However, approximately one in two young people indicated having acquired an injury that required medical attention once or more within the previous 12 months. In addition to physical health, notable proportions of the adult sample reported difficulties with depression or anxiety. Among young people, participants were slightly more satisfied with life and had noticeably more positive self-perceptions compared to their peers nationally, however they reported experiencing more negative moods and feelings compared to those in KIDSCREEN. While the findings above generally suggest that the majority of participants are not reporting psychological and physical difficulties, this does not take away from the findings that a significant minority are experiencing significant challenges. These included adults reporting difficulties with current or former partners, difficulties with drugs or alcohol, parents reporting they or their children felt unsafe, and one in three young people reporting they had been bullied at least once or more. Recognising the challenges that these communities face, the final topic considered was the role and experience of supports and services. Among the adult participants, nearly two thirds stated that they could talk to someone when upset. The most common sources of support were their family/ spouse/partner or friends. Friends and family were an extremely important source of support for young people in terms of understanding, listening, and being available to them. The majority of children and young people in this study reported having a wide circle of close male and female friends. In terms of accessing formal support, the most frequently reported services accessed by respondents were the GP/doctor, school staff and the St. Vincent de Paul. 7.2 Feedback from Consultation Process As part of this study, a consultation process was undertaken with key stakeholders in the latter half of 2011 to aid with the interpretation of findings. At the time of writing the comments gathered in relation to the household survey are still being compiled. However, the following is a summary of stakeholders’ comments in relation to the youth survey.

There were a general perception that reports of smoking, drinking, and using cannabis was under-reported by young people in this study. While the majority of young people were aged 12-13 years with older age groups being less represented, stakeholder groups from schools and youth organisations experienced larger numbers of young people being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in their service. For example, one individual reported that some young people arrive into school on Monday mornings with hangovers. Another individual reported that in their experience, younger children pretend to be older in order to get drink from older young people. While it was felt by some stakeholder groups that the frequency of smoking, drinking, and/ or using cannabis was under reported, it must be remembered that the majority of young people who participated in this study were aged 12-13 years and in first or second year. Older participants may have reported a higher use of all three substances. In terms of physical health, it has been noted that young people in this study reported feeling generally healthy compared to their parents nationally. However, one school representative reported six to seven young people leaving school each day due to sickness. Two school representatives also reported that in their opinions, there were noticeable differences in physical stature on the playing ground between pupils from their schools and more middle-class schools with the former being smaller in stature. It was also commented by one individual that only a small number of children bring home-made sandwiches to school with many of them seeking free lunch vouchers from the head office. Another individual reported that in her opinion there is a noticeable increase in obesity levels in female students who participate less in physical activities compared to their male counterparts. A number of stakeholder groups (i.e. schools/ youth organisations) also commented on the impact of the current economic environment on pupils’ habits. For example, one school reported their being an increase in the number of children receiving breakfast in school (e.g. one individual observed an increase from 17 pupils pre-recession to 60-70 pupils since the recession began). Reflecting on the finding that participants were more satisfied with life compared to their peers nationally while also reporting more negative moods and feelings compared to those in KIDSCREEN, representatives from the schools and youth organisations reported that they observed low self-esteem and self-confidence in the young people they engaged with. For example, one school indicated that their teachers try to focus on building pupils’ self-esteem in the classroom every day. It was also noted by another school that some students find their solace in school particularly where there are difficulties at home. One school representative also reported there being an issue with interracial bullying in their school between ethnic minority groups. A small number of young people (n=10) who participated in the youth survey had an opportunity to interpret and identify any gaps in the findings49. This group of young people were particularly forthcoming in terms of the gaps present in the survey and the following are areas that they felt should have been explored in the youth survey: ❖ Sexual behaviour (e.g. use of internet pornography);

❖

Peer pressure;

❖

Teenage pregnancy (e.g. telling your parents that your girlfriend is pregnant);

❖

Use of lethal weapons (e.g. carrying knives into school);

The consultation process began during the summer of 2011 and it was more difficult to access young people out of school.

❖

Relationships (e.g. who do you get along with most in terms of your parents? Who do you get along with most in terms of siblings? Are your parents speaking to each other? Is there trouble at home that ‘brings’ you into it? What things did you do that affected your parents?);

❖

Affected by suicide (e.g. have you been affected by the suicide of a family member, friend or someone else?). During the consultation process, representatives from the local authority, the local Garda station, and from the National Educational Welfare Board (NEWB), also had an opportunity to respond to some of the most salient findings in relation to their services. In terms of issues with accommodation, the local authority began repairing and replacing damaged windows in its housing during the summer of 2010 which occurred in tandem with the period of this survey when 31% of participants reported their houses having unsafe windows or doors. In terms of the prevalence of safety issues and the reported high incidence of perceived crime, a representative from An Garda Siochana noted that these findings are in line with national trends which have seen a significant increase in robbery/ burglary/ muggings. Finally, it was reported by the representative from the NEWB that absenteeism rates are in line with national figures particularly for younger children (the majority of children whose parents participated in the household survey were aged 5-9 years). 7.3 Reflections on Methodology When conducting any research it is important to reflect on the extent to which the initial aim of the work was achieved and importantly to consider the way in which the methods selected may have influenced the process. To begin, the aim of this study was to build on the findings of HAOK (2004). The first step in this process was to ensure that the views of a wide range of groups were represented. This was ensured through a process of stratified sampling, which targeted different types of households including the number of children in the household, the age of the youngest child and the type of households. The quotas for these subgroups were informed by information including census data. In addition, this study built on HAOK to gather the views of young people themselves. The inclusion of the youth survey is a considerable strength as it provides a voice for young people, and also a source of validation by comparing the views of adults and young people on key issues that affect their community. Reflecting on the sample, we recognise that as a proportion of the community living in Tallaght West, it represents a very small group. However we are confident that the combination of the household and youth surveys and the use of a stratified quota sampling framework has ensured that we have captured a broadly representative view of the community. The involvement of trained community field workers in the research is a considerable strength in that it avoided the possibility that the researchers would be seen as outsiders. However it is possible that participants may have felt uncomfortable revealing personal information to other community members. Though this might also have been the case if the researchers were seen as outsiders imposing on the community. In relation to the youth survey during the consultation process it was noted that data collection with this group took place within the classroom environment where, in most cases, the teacher/ youth worker was present. It is possible that this influenced participants’ responses.

Both the Household and the Youth Surveys were detailed documents and gathered a broad range of information from participants. The field workers reported that, having agreed to take part, participants engaged in the process well. However it was noted that the length of the survey may have impacted on the quality of the data, with higher rates of non-response in the later sections of the surveys suggesting possible fatigue or boredom. In developing the survey tools the research team were conscious of the need to ensure that all materials were accessible and meaningful to the community. This was central to the design of all of the documentation. In addition, conducting the household survey as a doorstep survey meant that fieldworkers could assist where literacy issues were present. However, it is not possible to say that this was completely achieved and indeed this might explain non-response in participant areas of the surveys. As part of the consultation process, young people who had taken part in the survey did not the complexity of some of the questions and suggested that it might have been easier for young people to respond to more direct questions in the survey. For example, “what puts you under the most pressure?” rather than “how often to you feel under pressure?” A further example is “what makes you happy” rather than “how often do you feel happy?” Despite these concerns regarding the methods, the researchers are confident that this piece of work has addressed the aim of the study and has provided a further insight into the families in the community of Tallaght West. 7.4 Conclusion As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, How are Our Families provides a detailed report on the lives of a group of families living in Tallaght West in 2010. Overall, findings from this study suggest that families are coping well in relation to health, parenting, and general wellbeing. For example, there is a positive sense of community and family support appears to be forthcoming for the majority of respondents. There is also less school absenteeism and bullying for children and young people as reported by respondents. Also, nearly half of respondents in the household survey and just under half in the youth survey reported they/ their child participated in out-of-school activities However, the findings also highlight the struggles that some families have particularly in relation to paying bills including gas and electricity. This is also reflected in the types of formal services accessed by respondents. The findings of How are Our Families will be of interest to those living and working in Tallaght West and can provide the basis for understanding and indeed meeting the needs of these families in a more comprehensive way. Different stakeholders will take different lessons from this report, but decisions taken in response to this information will be evidence-based. It would be difficult to identify a set of recommendations that come from this report, and instead we have attempted to highlight key findings, which may have meaning to stakeholders. Nevertheless, we would argue that central to the learning from this report is the clear theme that while these families face many challenges on a day to day basis, and indeed a significant minority experience multiple and major challenges, there is strong evidence of resilience and coping within the community. Members of the community report positive experiences, a sense of community, and developed social networks. They also provide examples of coping with challenges, drawing on and providing supports both through friends and family and formal services. Perhaps the main conclusion is that supporting the development and wellbeing of children and families in Tallaght West relies on understanding the challenges the community faces, recognizing the resources that are clearly evident within the community and identifying the gaps between these as areas for future development.

REFERENCES Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Archways (2011). Presentation on Community Safety in a suburb of South West Dublin. Axford, N., Little, M., Duffy, L., Haran, N. & Zappone, K. (2004) How Are Our Kids? Children and Families in West Tallaght, Co. Dublin. Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative & Dartington Social Research Unit. Bierman, K., Greenberg, M. T., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1996). Social skills in the FAST Track Program. In. R. DeV. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Prevention and early intervention: Childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 65–89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brooks, A-M., Hanafin, S., Cahill, H., Nic Gabhainn, S. & Molcho, M. (2010). State of the Nations Children 2010. Dublin: Department of Health and Children; Brooks-Gunn, J., and Duncan, G. J. (1997), The effects of poverty on children, Future of Children, 7, 55-71. Brooks-Gunn, A. S. Fuligni, & L. J. Berlin (Eds.), Early child development in the 21st Century: Profiles of current research initiatives (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Cahill, J., Murphy, T., Guerin, S (2008) Community Safety Initiative: Consultation Report. Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative. Children First National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children (2009). Department of Health and Children. Currie C, Nic Gabhainn S, Godeau E, Roberts C, Smith R, Currie D, Pickett W, Richter M, Morgan A & Barnekow V (eds.) (2006) Health behaviour in school-aged Children: a WHO CrossNational Study (HBSC), Research Protocol for the 2005/06 Survey. Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit (CAHRU), The University of Edinburgh. DiLiberti, J.H. (2000). The relationship between social stratification and all-cause mortality among children in the United States: 1968–1992. Paediatrics, 105(1). Edwards VJ, Holden GW, Anda RF, Felitti VJ. Relationship between multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community respondents: results from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Psychiatry 2003; 160(8):1453–60. EuroQol Group (1990). EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy,16: 199-208 Ghate D. & Hazel, N. (2002). Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. Guerin, S. & Hennessy, E. (2002) Pupils definitions of bullying. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17 :249-262. Haran, N. (2005) Audit of Services. Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative.

Kaufman, J., & Charney, D. (2001). Effects of early stress on brain structure and function: Implications for understanding the relationship between child maltreatment and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 13(3), 451-471. The KIDSCREEN Group Europe. (2006). The KIDSCREEN Questionnaires - Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Handbook. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Marmot, M. & Wilkinson, R. (2001) Psychosocial and material pathways in relation between income and health: a response to Lynch et al. British Medical Journal, 322 (p.1233-1236). Masten, A.S., Best, K.M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425444. Mitchell, S.K., Magyary, D.L., Barnard, K.E., Summer, G.A. & Booth, C.L. 1998 Nolan, A. (2008) â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Evaluating the Impact of Eligibility for Free Care on the Use of General Practitioner (GP) Services: A Difference-in-Difference Matching Approach, Social Science and Medicine, 67(7):1164â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1172 Nolan, B., Layte, R., Whelan, C.T. & Maitre, B. (2006). Day In, Day Out: Understanding the Dynamics of Child Poverty in Ireland. Dublin: Institute for Public Administration /Combat Poverty Agency. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Erhart, M., Bruil, J., Duer, W., Auquier, P., Power, M., Abel, T., Czemy, L., Mazur, J., Czimbalmos, A., Tountas, Y., Hagquist, C., Kilroe, J. and the European KIDSCREEN Group. (2005). KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 5 (3), 353-364. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611. Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative. (2005) A Place for Children Tallaght West: Full strategy. Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High-risk children from birth to adulthood. New York: Cornell University Press. Williams, J., Greene, S., Doyle, E., Harris, E., Layte, R., McCoy, S. et al. (2009). Growing up in Ireland: national longitudinal study. The lives of 9-year-olds, child cohort. Report 1. Stationery Office, Dublin. Young, J.F., Berenson, K., Cohen, P. & Garcia, J. (2005). The role of parent and peer support in predicting adolescent depression: A longitudinal community study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(4), 407-423.

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Information Sheet for Household Survey CDI (Childhood Development Initiative) began in 2003 with the aim of improving the lives of children and families living in the area. The Community Survey is part of a larger project which is designed to improve child, youth and family services in Tallaght West.

Why I am being asked to answer these questions? ■ We are doing this survey to explore every part of children’s lives and how parents’ needs may impact on children’s development. ■ Lots of people will be asked to answer these questions and your views are important to us. ■ We hope information from the survey gives us a better understanding of how children, young people and their families are doing within the community of Tallaght West. The survey is being carried out by a team of people who live in Tallaght West under the supervision of CDI and the School of Psychology in University College Dublin. What happens if I take part? ■ Members of the Survey Team are calling to houses in Tallaght West during May 2010. ■ If you are happy to take part, we would be grateful if you could take some time to answer questions about how you and your children are doing. ■ The survey is confidential, and the only person who will know your answers is the member of the Survey Team. No one else will know that you completed the survey, or what you said. ■ The survey will take a while. ■ Parts of the survey may ask some sensitive questions about your thoughts, feelings or things that might have happened to you over the last week or year (e.g. health and general wellbeing, relationships with family members, and income and living standards). The reason why we are asking these questions is so we can get an accurate picture of what it is like for a family living in Tallaght West. ■ Please note that once the survey is completed and returned, it cannot be withdrawn as it is anonymous. ■ You will receive a voucher for use of the Leisureplex in Tallaght as a thank you from CDI for taking part in the survey. 89

Are there any risks? ■ There is no significant risk involved if you take part in this survey. ■ There is possible inconvenience due to the time involved. ■ You may find some of the questions sensitive in which case, you may prefer not to answer which is fine. ■ There is a potential for information concerning a child being at risk being provided during the survey interview. This information will be handled in line with the Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children, which means that the members of the survey team are required to report any concerns regarding risk to children. How will my answers be protected? ■ The survey does not ask for any names or addresses. ■ Only members of the Survey Team will see individual information, but other people will see reports about what we find in the surveys. ■ The information collected will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in CDI and on a password protected computer. ■ Once the reports are printed, the information collected from the survey will be stored carefully in an archive so that other researchers (with CDI’s permission) can use it in years to come. What will happen to the information? ■ This information will be used to describe the lives of children, young people and their families living in Tallaght West. ■ It will also identify how issues may influence children’s development. ■ The study’s results will be made available to people living and working in the community as well as others through reports, magazines and meetings. But no individual person will be identified.

Researcher’s contact details: If you have any questions or concerns in relation to the survey; require further information or a copy of the findings upon completion of the project, please contact Tara Murphy on 014940030 or at tara@twcdi.ie

Appendix 2: Content of Training Programme for Community Fieldworkers

DAY 1

TASK

(3 hours)

Introductions (**collect Garda vetting forms and ask fieldworkers to bring in a passport photo for ID badges**): ❖ Name ❖ Where s/he lives ❖ Why s/he is interested in being a fieldworker ❖ Icebreaker ❖ Overview of training (aims, objectives, potential outcomes) ❖ Confirm payment for training and surveys. Fieldworkers will be paid at the end of data collection. Background of Community Survey:

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

Aims & purpose Previous study – How Are Our Kids? (2004) Geographical area Sample size Anonymity, confidentiality, and voluntary participation

TEA/COFFEE BREAK WITH LUNCH Introduce the household survey: ❖ Go through survey and clarify each question ❖ Address any immediate queries ❖ Asking sensitive questions

BREAK Ask fieldworkers to pair-off and role play (i.e. one person is the fieldworker and the other is the resident) after demonstrating the role-play: ❖ Any initial thoughts, questions, clarifications? ❖ Fieldworkers to ask two people (e.g. family members, neighbours, and friends) to complete the survey and note any comments or observations made. To provide feedback at next training session.

FINISH

Appendix 2: Content of Training Programme for Community Fieldworkers contd...

DAY 2

TASK

(3 hours)

Feedback on the survey from fieldworkers: ❖ Initial thoughts (e.g. experiences of implementing the survey) ❖ Specific comments (e.g. wording, layout, instructions) ❖ Potential problems/ barriers (e.g. length, language, asking sensitive questions) ❖ Recommendations

TEA/COFFEE BREAK Overview of Random Sampling: ❖ What it means ❖ How it works ❖ Quota Sampling Breakdown of areas in TW: ❖ How estates/ streets will be allocated ❖ Recording house number and street name (% response rate)

BREAK Case studies of anticipated problems and suggested solutions (ask fieldworkers to break into pairs and discuss one case study or ‘problem’): ❖ Problem 1 ❖ Problem 2 ❖ Problem 3 Present challenges and potential solutions Finish by asking fieldworkers to practice the survey with two people (e.g. family members, neighbours, and friends) and note any comments or observations made. To provide feedback at next training session.

FINISH

Appendix 2: Content of Training Programme for Community Fieldworkers contd...

DAY 3

TASK

(3 hours)

Follow-up from previous training session ❖ Questions, queries, clarifications ❖ Interview script ❖ Summary Sheet (reflective) Safety:

❖ ❖ ❖

Working in pairs Incident Log Sheet Child Protection issues and Duty of Care

TEA/COFFEE BREAK Ask fieldworkers to pair-off and role play (i.e. one person is the fieldworker and the other is the resident) using the interview script Final thoughts, questions, clarifications Allocation of areas (circulate table/ diagram of areas): ❖ Identify and record pairs ❖ ID badges ❖ Timeline for data collection ❖ Documenting costs (training hours & no. of completed surveys)

BREAK Distribute Survey Packs to include: ❖ Information Sheets for Participants ❖ Surveys ❖ Incident Log Sheets ❖ Cost sheets ❖ Contact details for CDI ❖ Pens

FINISH Fieldworkers also participate in booster training which revisited the content outlined above.

Appendix 3: Reliability findings for KIDSCREEN-52 Table 47 presents the scale properties of KIDSCREEN-52 by dimension. The alpha coefficients for nine out of ten dimensions were above the threshold of 0.7. The only dimension to fall below the threshold was ‘self-perception’ (0.27) which may mean that the underlying construct was not suitable for the sample in this study. If one was to exclude the alpha coefficient for selfperception, then Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .76 for physical well-being to .97 for financial resources. Table 47

KIDSCREEN-52 by dimension: dimension properties

Physical well-being Psychological well-being Moods and emotions Social Support and peers Parent relations and home life Self-perception Autonomy School Environment Social Acceptance/ bullying Financial resources

Youth survey

National survey

(12-17 years; sum score 0-100)

Alpha

Mean

Appendix 4: Information Sheet for the Youth Survey CDI (Childhood Development Initiative) started in 2003, and hopes to support a better life for children and young people in Tallaght West by looking at exploring how they are and what they might need.

Why am I being asked to answer questions? We are doing this survey to find out what it is like for a young person living in Tallaght West today. Lots of young people in secondary schools and youth organisations are being asked to answer these questions and your thoughts are important to us. All the young people who take part in the survey will receive a voucher for the Leisureplex. The survey is being conducted by a team made up of people from CDI and the School of Psychology in University College Dublin and trained surveyors.

What happens if I take part? Members of our Survey Team are calling to Schools and youth organisations in Tallaght West during October 2010 to find out what it is like as a young person living, playing, hanging out and going to school or a youth group. If parents and young people are happy to take part, we would be grateful if young people could take some time to answer questions about their lives. The survey is anonymous, and no one will know your answers. The survey takes about 20 minutes of your time. Parts of the survey may ask some sensitive questions about your thoughts, feelings or things that might have happened to you over the last week or year. The reason why we are asking these questions is so we can gather a true picture of young people living in Tallaght West. These questions will be asked in a very safe and caring way and young people who take part in the survey will be checked in with before and after the survey. Only young people with the permission of a parent or guardian can take part. 95

How will young people’s answers be protected? The survey does not ask for any names or addresses. Only members of the Survey Team will see individual information, but other people will see reports about what we find in the surveys. The information collected will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in CDI and on a password protected computer. Once the reports are printed, the information collected from the survey will be stored carefully in an archive so that other researchers (with CDI’s permission) can use it in years to come. What will happen to the information? This information will be used to identify and explore what it is like to be a young person living in Tallaght West. A report will be written and made available to other people in CDI and in the community, but no individual person will be identified. The study’s results will also be made available to other people working with young people in the community through reports, magazines and meetings.

Some important information! It is up to parents and young people to decide together about taking part. All young people must have permission from a parent to take part and there is a consent form that both of you must sign. However young people can decide not to take part, even if their parent has signed the form. Parents and young people can change their mind about taking part anytime up until the member of the Survey Team collects the surveys. However, if after this you decide not to take part it will not be possible to remove your information, as none of the surveys can be identified.

Thank you very much for reading this information sheet and supporting CDI to help young people in Tallaght West. Please keep this information in case you have any questions.

If you have any questions about CDI or the survey please contact: Tara Murphy, Childhood Development Initiative, St. Mark’s Youth & Community Centre, Fettercairn Road, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ph: 01-4940030.

Appendix 5: Parental and Youth Consent Form

Parent Consent I have read the information flyer on the CDI Youth Survey. I have talked about the survey with my son/daughter and we understand what is involved in taking part. I give my permission for my son/daughter to participate in this study. I understand that either my son/daughter or I can change our mind about consent at any time before the survey is returned to the CDI team. I understand that once the reports are printed, the information collected from the survey will be stored carefully in an archive so that other researchers may use it. Young personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name: (Print) Parentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name: (Print) Signed:

Date:

Young Person Consent I have read the information flyer on the CDI Youth Survey. I have talked about the survey with my parent/ guardian and we understand what is involved in taking part. I would like to participate in this study. I understand that I or my parent/ guardian can change our mind about consent at any time before the survey is returned to the CDI team. I understand that once the reports are printed, the information collected from the survey will be stored carefully in an archive so that other researchers may use it.

Young personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name: (Print)

Signed:

Date:

Appendix 6: Data Management Plan 1.

Management of Data 1.1. ❖ ❖ ❖

Procedures for data cleaning and verification: 10% of the sample is randomly checked for data entry errors; Any errors are corrected and all items for the selected sample are checked for accuracy; Where errors are detected and corrected, a further 10% of the sample is checked for errors until there are no additional errors detected.

1.2. Treatment of missing data: ❖ Those surveys containing > 95% of missing data are excluded from the main analysis; ❖ Any missing data are treated as non-responses. Rates of non-responses are recorded. 1.3. Procedures for checking validity and reliability: ❖ All instruments are assessed for validity and reliability. 1.4. ❖ ❖ ❖ 2.

Procedures for maintaining anonymity and confidentiality: This was an anonymous survey; No identifiable information will be included in any written report or other publication; Any references to actual individual’s responses to open ended questions will be replaced with square brackets to denote that these have been anonymised.

Main Analysis 2.1. ❖ ❖ ❖

Main questions to be addressed: What are the current needs of children, young people and families in Tallaght West? Have there been any changes in the pattern of needs as reported by adults at baseline? How do findings from each survey compare to normative samples?

2.2. Method of Analysis: 2.2.1 Description of data to be analysed: ❖ Quantitative and qualitative data arising from standardised measures and open-ended questions respectively; ❖ Quantitative norm data from comparative studies; ❖ Additional qualitative data related to the interpretation of findings by key stakeholders including community members; ❖ Data drawn from other sources including the census (CSO, 2006). 2.2.2 Plans for analysing data: ❖ Description of the sample population, sample, and relevant demographic information. Basic frequencies for demographic data and response rates will be presented. ❖ Basic frequencies and descriptives for standardised measures; ❖ Basic content analysis (based on Guerin & Hennessy, 2002) for qualitative data; ❖ Comparisons between (a) 2004 and 2010 samples (acknowledging that these cohorts are different) and (b) 2010 and norm samples; 98

❖ ❖ ❖ ❖

Cross tabulations (or patterns) (e.g. age, gender). Chi-squares will be calculated to compare frequencies or proportions at two points in time (i.e. 2004 & 2010); Independent t tests will be used to compare means on standardised measures for specific groups; One-sample t-tests will be used to compare scores with norms or other published means.

2.3. Use of quotations: 2.3.1 Selection of quotes; ❖ Quotes will be selected on the basis that they provide an accurate representation of the overall findings for a code or category. 2.3.2 Procedure(s) for cleaning/ tidying up quotes and parameters of this; ❖ Written quotes will be presented as they are; ❖ Any spelling or grammatical errors will be noted by the term [sic]. 2.3.3 Weighing of evidence or balancing of opinion in terms of participants’ perceptions / responses: ❖ Given that content analysis will be used to analyse qualitative responses, data will be weighted according to how often it occurred in the data groups. 2.3.4 Procedures for maintaining anonymity and confidentiality. ❖ This was an anonymous survey; ❖ No identifiable information will be included in any written report or other publication; ❖ Any references to actual individuals will be replaced with square brackets to denote that these have been anonymised. 3.

Integrating Data 3.1. Questions to be addressed: ❖ To what extent are patterns of key findings replicated across the adult and youth survey? ❖ To what extent are patterns replicated across key quantitative indicators (e.g. sense of safety, sense of community, etc.). ❖ To what extent are patterns replicated across qualitative and quantitative data? 3.2. Procedures for integrating: ❖ Integration will be conducted by highlighting the key patterns in each data set and using visual and mapping techniques to explore areas of convergence and divergence (e.g. high levels of sense of community across questions echoed in themes identified in qualitative data). ❖ Diagrams will be used to highlight areas of similarity and difference. 3.3. Dealing with inconsistencies in the data: ❖ Areas of divergence will be identified and examined to consider the implications. Some differences will be due to basic differences in perspectives, others will be considered from methodological and practical issues (e.g. differences in working of question, response sets etc). 99

Appendix 7: Additional Information on Psychological Wellbeing of Participants

Table 48

Psychological wellbeing of all participants Rarely/None Some/Little Occasionally

Most/All

I was bothered by things

52% (n = 72) 28% (n = 39)

10% (n = 14)

4% (n = 6)

I did not feel like eating

57% (n = 51) 22% (n = 31)

8% (n = 11)

6% (n = 9)

I could not shake off the blues

61% (n = 86) 20% (n = 28)

9% (n = 13)

5% (n = 7)

I felt I was as good as others

14% (n = 20) 20% (n = 28)

17% (n = 24) 48% (n = 63)

I had trouble keeping my mind on things 42% (n = 59) 29% (n = 41)

100

15% (n = 21)

6% (n = 9)

I felt depressed

46% (n = 65) 28% (n = 40)

12% (n = 17) 9% (n = 12)

I felt everything was an effort

46% (n = 65) 30% (n = 42)

10% (n = 14) 9% (n = 12)

I felt hopeful about the future

16% (n = 22) 25% (n = 35)

19% (n = 27) 33% (n = 47)

I thought my life was a failure

69% (n = 97) 14% (n = 20)

7% (n = 10)

2% (n = 3)

I felt fearful

53% (n = 74) 20% (n = 28)

13% (n = 18)

6% (n = 8)

My sleep was restless

42% (n = 59) 25% (n = 35) 14% (N = 19) 15% (n = 21)

I was happy

14% (n = 20) 19% (n = 27)

21% (n = 30) 40% (n = 57)

I talked less than usual

60% (n = 84) 21% (n = 30)

11% (n = 16)

2% (n = 3)

I felt lonely

53% (n = 74) 23% (n = 33)

14% (n = 20)

5% (n = 7)

People were unfriendly

68% (n = 96) 19% (n = 27)

6% (n = 9)

0.7% (n = 1)

I enjoyed life

15% (n = 21)

19% (n = 27) 31% (n = 43)

26%

I had crying spells

29% (n = 41) 29% (n = 41)

11% (n = 16)

3% (n = 4)

28%

I felt sad

34% (n = 48) 26% (n = 37)

10% (n = 14)

2% (n = 3)

28%

I felt people disliked me

60% (n = 84)

7% (n = 10)

5% (n = 7)

1% (n = 2)

27%

I could not get going

40% (n = 56) 19% (n = 27)

9% (n = 12)

6% (n = 8)

27%

9% (n = 13)

CONTACT US: The Childhood Development Initiative St. Markâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Youth & Family Centre Cookstown Lane Fettercairn Tallaght Dublin 24 Tel: 01-494 0030 Fax: 01-462 7329 Email: info@twcdi.ie www.twcdi.ie Registered Charity No. CHY17557