Official Statistics

Identity and Social Networks - Community Life Survey 2020/21

Published 29 July 2021

Applies to England

The Community Life Survey is a household self-completion survey (online survey with a paper survey for those not digitally enabled) of adults aged 16+ in England. This chapter summarises results related to identity and social networks from the 2020/21 survey, which ran from April 2020 to March 2021.

Differences between groups are reported on in this publication only where they are statistically significant i.e. where we can be confident that the differences seen in our sampled respondents reflect the population^{[footnote 1]}.

1. Social interactions

Respondents were asked how often they communicated with family members and friends via a range of methods. When looking at those who used different methods once a week or more:

• 86% exchanged texts or instant messages.

• 85% spoke on the phone/video call.

• 66% met up in person.

• 37% emailed or wrote.

The percentage of respondents who exchange text or instant messages has increased since 2019/20 from 84% to 86%, following a steady increase since 2013/14 (76%). Communicating with friends/family through speaking on the phone/video call and meeting up in person have both remained broadly consistent from 2013/14 to 2019/20. However in 2020/21 speaking on the phone/video calls with friends/family increased from the previous year to 85%, the highest the CLS has measured. The percentage of respondents emailing/writing has remained at a similar level since 2015/16 (37% in 2020/21).

Figure 1.1 - Methods of communicating with family or friends at least once a week, 2019/20 - 2020/21

• Women were more likely than men to communicate with friends/family by meeting up in person, speaking on the phone/video call or exchanging text or instant messages. The most notable difference was for meeting up in person, with 70% of women doing so at least once a week compared with 63% of men. No difference was seen between men and women for emailing and writing.

Figure 1.2 - Methods of communicating with family or friends once a week or more by gender^{[footnote 2]}, 2020/21

• Those in the age group 75+ were more likely to meet up in person with friends or family (73%) than respondents aged 35-49 and 50-64 (62% and 65% respectively). Those in age groups 16-24, 25-34 and 35-49 were more likely to exchange texts or instant messages with friends or family (92-95%) than those aged 50-64, 65-74 and 75+ (55-86%).

Figure 1.3 - Methods of communicating with family or friends once a week or more by age, 2020/21

When looking at ethnic groups:

• Respondents from a White ethnic group were more likely to meet up with friends and family in person (68%) at least once a week than respondents from an Asian ethnic group or Mixed/Multiple ethnic group (60% and 59% respectively).
• Respondents from a Black ethnic group were less likely to meet up in person with family members or friends at least once a week (47%) than respondents from a White ethnic group (68%) or Asian ethnic group (60%).
• Respondents from a Black ethnic group were less likely to speak on the phone or video call family or friends at least once a week than respondents from an Asian ethnic group or White ethnic group(78% vs 85% and 88% respectively).
• Respondents from a Mixed/Multiple ethnic group were less likely than respondents from a White ethnic group to email or write to family members or friends at least once a week (30% vs 37%).

• There were no differences observed between respondents of different ethnic groups for exchanging texts with family members or friends at least once a week.

• Those without a limiting long term illness or disability were more likely to meet up with friends/family (67% vs 62%) and to exchange texts/instant messages (89% vs 82%) at least once a week than those with a long term limiting illness or disability.

• Some regional variability was seen, with those in London less likely to meet up in person (62%) at least once a week than those in the North West (71%), North East (71%), Yorkshire and The Humber (69%) and the East Midlands (69%). However respondents in London were more likely to email or write to their family (43%) at least once a week than those in the North East (29%), North West (32%), Yorkshire and the Humber (34%), East Midlands (32%) and the West Midlands (35%). Little variation was seen in those exchanging texts with family or friends at least once a week by region.

• Those living in rural areas were more likely to write letters/email at least once a week than those living in urban areas (41% vs 36%). Across urban and rural areas, methods of communication were broadly similar.

• Respondents living in the least deprived areas, as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation^{[footnote 3]} were more likely to meet up in person with family or friends at least once a week compared to those from the most deprived areas (69% vs 63%). Respondents living in the most deprived areas were less likely to email or write to family or friends at least once a week (31%-37%) versus respondents from the least deprived area (43%). Other forms of communication were broadly similar across deprivation quintiles.

2. Support Networks

Overall, most respondents said there were people available if they needed support:

• 96% agreed that there is at least one person they can really count on to listen when they need to talk (asked only to online respondents).

• 95% either definitely agreed or tended to agree that if they needed help there are people who would be there for them.

• 93% either definitely agreed or tended to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise there are people they could call.

These estimates remain broadly similar to those in 2019/20 and have remained consistent since 2013/14.

• 25-34 year olds agreed more that they could call on people for company or to socialise (95%) than those aged 35-49 and 50-64 (both 92%).

• Respondents of a Black ethnic group or Mixed/Multiple ethnic group had lower agreement that if they needed help there were people who would be there for them (92% and 91% respectively) versus respondents from a White ethnic group (96%). Respondents from a Mixed/Multiple ethnic group had lower agreement that if they wanted company or to socialise they had people to call upon (87%) versus respondents from a White ethnic group (93%). There was broadly similar agreement among respondents of all ethnic groups that there is one person or more they could count on to listen to them when they needed to talk.

• Those from the least deprived areas reported higher levels of agreement (i.e. people available if they needed support) across all statements than those from the most deprived areas. The largest variation between the least deprived (96%) and the most deprived (88%) was whether they agreed that if they wanted company or to socialise there were people they could call on.

• Those with a long term limiting illness reported lower levels of agreement across all statements than those without, suggesting possibly less access to support networks. The largest difference in response was seen for the statement ‘I agree that if I wanted company or to socialise, there are people I can call on’, where 87% of those with a long term limiting illness or disability agreed, compared to 95% of those without.

• There was no variability across regions, gender and those living in an urban or rural area.

Figure 1.4 - Percentage of respondents with support networks available by limiting long-term illness/disability (LLTI/Disability), 2020/21

3. Diversity of friendship groups

In 2020/21, the majority of respondents had diverse friendship groups in terms of ethnic group, religion, age and education, similar to in 2019/20. Just over a third (39%) of respondents said that all of their friends are the same ethnic group as themselves, 28% said all were from the same religious group, 18% were all the same age group and 20% said all their friends had a similar level of education.

Figure 1.5 - Similarity of friends to respondent in terms of ethnic group, religion, education and age group, 2020/21

The proportion who said all their friends were the same religious group, age group and education has gradually increased since 2013/14 (from 25%, 14% and 18% respectively), but the proportion saying all their friends are the same ethnic group has decreased from 42% to 39% over the same time period.

1. The 95% confidence intervals are indicated by error bars on the charts. They show the range that we are 95% confident the true value for the population falls between. When there is no overlap between the error bars for two or more groups, we can be more confident that the differences between groups represent true differences between these groups in the population. ↩

2. Respondents who reported their gender as ‘other’ have not been included in this chart due to the number of respondents being small and therefore potentially disclosive. ↩

3. The Index of Multiple Deprivation, commonly known as the IMD, is the official measure of relative deprivation for small areas in England. It is calculated using several measures such as income deprivation, crime and living environment deprivation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks every small area in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area). In this publication, we have clustered these areas into ‘IMD Quintiles’ with 1 being the most deprived areas and 5 being the least deprived areas. ↩