Official Statistics

Neighbourhood and Community - 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 paper survey for adults not digitally engaged) of adults aged 16+ in England. This chapter summarises results related to the respondent’s neighbourhood and community from the 2020/21 survey, which ran from April 2020 to March 2021.

Differences between groups are only reported on in this publication 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. Neighbourhood

The proportion of respondents who either said they ‘definitely agree’ or ‘tend to agree’ that they borrow things and exchange favours with their neighbours in 2020/21 was similar to 2019/20, following a gradual decline since 2013/2014. In 2020/21, 37% agreed compared with 42% in 2013/14 (approximately 17 million adults compared to approximately 19 million adults in England).

Figure 3.1 - Percentage of adults (16+) who chat to their neighbours at least once a month (more than just to say hello), and the percentage who agree they borrow things and exchange favours with their neighbours, 2013/14 - 2020/21

In 2020/21, 74% of respondents (approximately 33 million people in England) said they chat to their neighbours at least once a month (more than just to say hello); the highest proportion since 2015/16 (75%).

• Respondents aged 16-24 were less likely to chat to their neighbours than older age groups, with 52% doing so once a month or more, compared to 85% of those aged over 65 years old.

Figure 3.2 - Percentage of respondents who chat to neighbours at least once a month by age group, 2020/21

• Respondents from a White ethnic group (76%) were more likely to chat to their neighbours than respondents from other ethnic groups (ranging from 62% to 66%).

• Respondents in London (65%) reported chatting to neighbours more than once a month less than other regions (73-78%).

• Those living in rural areas were more likely to chat to neighbours than those in urban areas (82% compared with 72% respectively).

• Respondents in the least deprived areas were more likely to chat with neighbours than those in the most deprived areas (80% compared with 66% respectively).

• No variability was seen between respondents of different genders or between those with a disability or not.

2. Community Cohesion

The percentage of respondents agreeing that their area is a place where people from different backgrounds get along well together has remained fairly consistent over the last seven years, with 83% agreeing in 2020/21.

In addition, in 2020/21, 65% agreed that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood. This is higher than in 2019/20 (59%) and the highest agreement recorded since the CLS began in 2013/14.

Figure 3.3 - Percentage of adults (16+) who agree their neighbourhood is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, and the percentage who agree people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the local area, 2013/14-2020/21

There was some variability amongst different demographic groups on the degree to which respondents agreed that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together.

• Those aged 75 and over (89%) were more likely to agree that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well with each other than most of the younger age groups - 16-24 years olds, 25-34 year olds, 35-49 year olds, and 50-64 year olds (79-85%).

• Respondents without a limiting long-term disability or illness were more likely to agree than those with (85% compared with 79%).

• Some regional variability was seen, with those in London (85%) and the East of England (85%) both more likely to agree than those in Yorkshire and the Humber (79%).

• Respondents living in the least deprived areas were more likely to agree than those living in the most deprived areas (90% compared with 75%).

• No variability was seen between respondents of different gender, ethnic groups or urban/rural status

Figure 3.4 - Percentage agreeing that their neighbourhood is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together by Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile, 2020/21

The percentage of respondents who agree that many of the people can be trusted in their local neighbourhood has steadily declined from 2013/14 (48%) to 2019/20 (40%), with the value in 2020/21 remaining consistent (41%) with 2019/20. The percentage of respondents who said ‘none of the people can be trusted’ in their neighbourhood was 3% in 2020/21, similar to 2019/20 and 2013/14.

Figure 3.5 - Responses to ‘thinking about the people who live in this neighbourhood, to what extent do you believe they can be trusted’, 2013/14-2020/21

3. Neighbourhood satisfaction

Overall, 79% were either very or fairly satisfied with their local area as a place to live, an increase from 76% in 2019/20. This is made up of 34% of respondents who said they were ‘very satisfied’ with their local area as a place to live, and 45% who were ‘fairly satisfied’. However, the percentage who were ‘very satisfied’ is the highest recorded since 2013/14, when the data collection began (36%).

Figure 3.6 - Responses to ‘Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?’, 2013/14-2020/21

Overall there were some differences between demographics groups:

• Those aged 65-74 and 75+ showed higher satisfaction in their local area (85% for both) than younger age groups (72-80%). There was an increase in satisfaction in the local area for 16-24 year olds from 64% in 2019/20 to 72% in 2020/21. No other age group reported a difference from 2019/20.

• In 2020/21, respondents from all non-White ethnic groups were less likely to be satisfied with their local area (70-74%) than respondents from a White ethnic group (80%). Respondents from a White ethnic group in 2020/21 were more likely to be satisfied with their local area than in 2019/20 (80% compared to 77%). No other differences between different ethnic groups were observed.

• Respondents with a long term limiting illness or disability (73%) were less satisfied in their local area than those without (81%).

• Some regional variability was seen, with those from the East of England (82%), the South West (85%) and the South East (82%) more likely to agree that they were satisfied with their local area than those in the West Midlands (74%).

• More respondents living in rural areas (89%) agreed that they were satisfied with their local area than those in urban areas (77%). Respondents in urban areas saw an increase in satisfaction with their local area compared to 2019/20 (74%).

• A higher proportion of those from the least deprived areas (90%) reported satisfaction with their local area than those from the most deprived areas (62%).

• No variability was seen between genders.

Figure 3.7 - Percentage satisfied with local area by age group, 2019/20-2020/21

Figure 3.8 - Percentage satisfied with local area by IMD quintile^{[footnote 2]}. 2019/20-2020/21

16% of respondents reported that over the last two years their area had got better to live in. The percentage who felt their area had got worse to live in has decreased from 26% in 2018/19 and 2019/20 to 22% in 2020/21.The majority of respondents said that it had not changed much (63%).

Figure 3.9 - Percentage of respondents who felt their area has got either better, worse to live in or has not changed much in the last two years, 2013/14 – 2020/21

4. Feeling of belonging to neighbourhood

Respondents were asked how strongly they felt they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood.

In 2020/21, the proportion of respondents who feel they ‘very strongly’ or ‘fairly strongly’ belong to their immediate neighbourhood was 65% (approximately 30 million people in England), similar to 2019/20 (63%). This follows an ongoing upward trend at the proportion of respondents who felt ‘very strongly’ or ‘fairly strongly’ that they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood, from 58% in 2013/14.

Figure 3.10 - Percentage of adults (16+) who said they feel they very strongly or fairly strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood, 2013/14 – 2020/21

• Women were more likely to feel they belonged to their neighbourhood than men (66% vs 63% respectively). The number of respondents who reported their gender as ‘other’ was too small and so no analysis has been conducted here to avoid being disclosive.

• Younger age groups (16-24 and 25-34) were less likely to feel strongly (56%) that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood than the 65-74 and 75+ age groups (72-75%). The 35-49 and 50-64 age groups (65-67%) were more likely to feel they strongly belonged to their neighbourhood than younger age groups, but less likely to feel they strongly belonged than older age groups.

Figure 3.11 - Feeling of belonging to neighbourhood by age group, 2020/21

• Respondents from a Black ethnic group were less likely to report they strongly or fairly strongly belonged to their neighbourhood (57%) than respondents from an Asian ethnic group and respondents from a White ethnic group (66% and 65% respectively). There was no change in response figures from 2019/20 to 2020/21 for each ethnic group.

• Those without a long term limiting illness or disability were more likely to agree that they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood than those with (66% vs 62%). These figures were consistent with 2019/20.

• Some regional variability was seen, with those in London (59%) less likely to agree than those in the North East, the North West, the East Midlands, the South West and Yorkshire and the Humber (66-71%). There was no change from 2019/20 to 2020/21 for respondents in each region.

• Respondents living in a rural area (71%) were more likely to feel strongly that they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood than those living in urban areas (63%).

• People from the least deprived areas (72%) were more likely to agree that they felt strongly that they belonged to their neighbourhood than those from the most deprived areas (57%).

Figure 3.12 - Feeling of belonging to neighbourhood by IMD quintile, 2020/21

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. 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. ↩