No, but it would substantially reduce the negative impact of these environments on kids at a rather low cost. It is like malaria drugs - surely they do not eliminate unhealthy environment, but they substantially reduce the risk of getting sick and are quite cheap.
So if the choice is between a radical but expensive (=difficut to implement) or a provisional but cheap (=easy to implement) solution - my answer is "the latter." "Better" is often the worst enemy of "good" - as history documented time and again.
wojtek