Child Poverty in Kent & Medway rises across most districts over last nine years

The Local Child Poverty Statistics for all councils in Kent & Medway, focus on longer-term trends to understand how poverty has changed in these districts over a period of nine financial years 2014/15 to 2022/23 (latest data avaliable) rather than year-on-year changes which are prone to fluctuations.

The data shows that nine districts saw a rise in Child Poverty rates after housing costs were stripped out, while three districts saw a slight reduction over the time frame set out above.

The data clearly shows Dover has seen the largest increase in Child Poverty of any district in Kent at 4.4% over the nine financial years. Then in joint second place comes Folkestone & Hythe and Thanet at 3.6%, with Canterbury taking third place at 3.0%.

Only Tonbridge & Malling, Sevenoaks & Dartford have seen an absolute reduction in Child Poverty

‘After Housing Costs’ shows the income available to a household once rent, water rates, mortgage interest payments, buildings insurance payments, ground rent and service charges are paid.

This enables a more accurate comparison of what households have available to spend on food, utilities, clothing and leisure, than looking at income alone, given the disparity of rents in different parts of the Kent.

By contrast, a ‘Before Housing Costs’ model takes no account of the fact that, comparing incomes for households in different parts of the county where housing costs vary, does not produce a like-for-like comparison of disposable incomes. As a result, Before Housing Costs figures greatly understate the impact of low income in areas with high housing costs, such as Maidstone or Canterbury.

A ‘family’ is defined as a single person or couple plus any dependent children.

This is not the same as a ‘household’, which also includes people living together and sharing some costs and/or living space, who are not in the same family.

Out-of-work families can cover less than half their costs (39 per cent for a couple family, 44 per cent for a lone-parent family). In-work families can cover more of their costs, but even they struggle to meet the cost of the minimum acceptable standard of living. A couple working full time on the minimum wage can cover 82 per cent of their costs, while a lone parent working full time on the minimum wage can only cover 69 per cent. A lone parent working full time on the median wage can only cover 80 per cent of their family costs, while even a couple both working full time on the median wage can only cover 99 per cent of their family costs.

Many will say out-of-work families are the problem and they are in part cause of their own misery and their child/children. However, to that we would say it is not the children in out of work families who are the problem, but rather the richer amongst us who aren’t spending enough.

The video below is another view on that idea. It’s a few years old now, but the sentiment is, in many ways, quite right. People spending their income is what the economy needs and out of work families spend more of their income than wealthier families, and by doing so help those out of work families help the economy of Kent.

Those with a dislike of swearing may not like this. For everyone else the message is clear: wealthy families who save really do not help the children in poverty in Kent, or its economy.

The Shepway Vox Team

Not owned by Hedgefunds or Barons