Search

The main point of the article is that child poverty is a big issue and in order to address it effectively, the former Child Poverty Act of 2010 will be revised and replaced with a new act that will focus better on the real causes of poverty.

The policy is to have stronger land use and environmental rules on a local level. It aims to mitigate use of pollutants, and give careful attention to low-income, minority citizens as to not pollute their communities.

In the article, the authors used data from the 2011-2015 American Community 5-Year Estimates by the U.S. Census, 2010 U.S Census, and George C. Galster, “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.”. They looked at data follwing children under 18,  and followed poverty trends such as census tracts for concentrated areas of high poverty. They used the number of children in Essex County Cities and compared it to the the amount of children in poverty in those cities, for the years of 2000 and 2015. Henceforth, they created an arguement stating that Child Poverty rates have risen within those 15 years, and even by 50% in some areas. The only issue I have with some of this data is that in some cities, we see a decrease in child population - and while there is an increase in child poverty in those areas, I feel like the reduced number of children in that area plays a big part in the so called "Increased Child Poverty Rates".

This article from 2009 focuses on the controversy of a garbage incenerator in the Ironbound that has sparked civil engagements to make the facility practice clean emmisions. Despite their reports of emmision reductions in 2005, the community argued that the garbage incenereator looked over many occassions where they violated those regulations, and how it still effects those communities. Here we see how the governments and people's interest don't line up.