Official Statistics

Community and Engagement Survey 2025/26 - loneliness: report

Updated 14 August 2026

Applies to England

This report summarises the key findings for loneliness, including both direct and indirect measures of loneliness in the Community and Engagement Survey (CES) for 2025/26.^{[footnote 1]} Reports for other sections within the CES are available on the annual web page. 

GSS harmonised questions on different aspects of loneliness were included in the 2025/26 survey.

1. How often do you feel lonely? (direct measure)
2. How often do you feel that you lack companionship? (indirect measure)
3. How often do you feel left out? (indirect measure)
4. How often do you feel isolated from others? (indirect measure)

For further information, see Measuring loneliness: guidance for use of the national indicators on surveys - Recommended measures for people.

The CES is representative of people aged 16 and over in England. For simplicity, we will sometimes refer just to “people” in our reporting.

For information on how to use and interpret these statistics see the note available on the supplementary documents page.^{[footnote 2]}

1. Key findings

1.1 Headline 

7% of people aged 16+ reported that they felt lonely often or always, no significant change from 2024/25 (7%).

By local authority, there was a 11 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who reported feeling lonely often or always, from 13% in Oldham to 2% in the City of London.

20% of people aged 16+ reported that they never felt lonely, a 1 percentage point decrease from 2024/25 (21%).

9% of people aged 16+ reported high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9), no significant change from 2024/25 (9%).

By local authority, there was a 14 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who reported high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9), from 16% in the City of Kingston upon Hull to 2% in the City of London. If the City of Kingston upon Hull is excluded, there is a 12 percentage point difference, from 14% in Southampton to 2% in the City of London.

56% of people aged 16+ reported low levels of indirect loneliness (a score of 3 or 4 out of 9), a 2 percentage point decrease from 2024/25 (58%).

2. Loneliness (direct measure)

2.1 Timeseries

As shown in Figure 1.1, levels of loneliness were broadly stable from 2017/18, up to 2021/22 (5 to 6%). Levels in 2025/26 (7%) were higher than in the years 2013/14 to 2017/18 (5 to 6%) although at a similar level since 2018/19, including to the previous year (2024/25 - 7%). 

Note: There are considerable changes in the confidence intervals between each year due to the sample size of the survey. Where the sample has been boosted, the confidence intervals will narrow to reflect higher confidence in the estimates.

Figure 1.1: Percentage of people reporting that they feel lonely often or always: England: 2017/18 to 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3. Demographics: Who was more likely to experience loneliness?

Demographic questions in the survey are voluntary and self-reported by the respondent.

3.1 Age

As shown in Figure 1.2, compared with the average for people in England (7%), people aged 16 to 24 (9%), 25 to 34 (8%) and 35 to 49 (7%) were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always. People aged 50 to 64 (6%), 65 to 74 (4%) and 75 and over (5%) were less likely to report feeling lonely often or always than the average for people in England (7%).

Figure 1.2: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by age, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.2 Disability status

As shown in Figure 1.3, disabled people (14%) were more likely to report that they feel lonely often or always than non-disabled people (3%).

Figure 1.3: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by disability status, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.3 Sex^{[footnote 3]} 

As shown in Figure 1.4, females (7%) were more likely to report that they feel lonely often or always than males (6%).

Figure 1.4: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by sex, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.4 Gender identity^{[footnote 4]} 

As shown in Figure 1.5, people whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (18%) were more likely to report that they feel lonely often or always than people whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (7%).

Figure 1.5: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by gender identity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.5 Sexual orientation^{[footnote 5]} 

As shown in Figure 1.6, people from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (14%), bisexual people (14%), and gay or lesbian people (11%) were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always than heterosexual or straight people (6%).

Figure 1.6: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by sexual orientation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.6 Religion

As shown in Figure 1.7, compared with the average for people in England (7%), people from the Any other religion classification (14%), Muslim people (9%) and people who reported having no religion (7%) were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always. Christian people (5%) were less likely to report feeling lonely often or always compared to the average for people in England (7%).

Figure 1.7: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by religion, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.7 Ethnicity

As shown in Figure 1.8, compared with the average for people in England (7%), people from the White Gypsy or Irish Traveller (16%), Any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background (12%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (11%), Arab (10%), Mixed White and Black African (9%), Pakistani (9%), and Black Caribbean (9%) ethnic groups were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always. People from the White British^{[footnote 6]} ethnic group (6%) and Chinese ethnic group (5%) were less likely to report feeling lonely often or always than the average for people in England (7%).

Figure 1.8: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by ethnicity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.8 Socio-economic classification^{[footnote 7]} 

As shown in Figure 1.9, people from the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (14%) were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always than people from the routine and manual occupations classification (8%) and intermediate occupations classification (6%). People from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (5%) were less likely to report feeling lonely often or always than all other socio-economic classifications.

Figure 1.9: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by socio-economic classification, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.9 Index of Multiple Deprivation^{[footnote 8]} 

As shown in Figure 1.10, people living in the most deprived areas (1st decile, 11%) were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always compared to people living in the least deprived areas (10th decile, 4%).

Figure 1.10: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always, by Index of Multiple Deprivation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

4. Loneliness by ITL1 and Local Authority area

4.1 Regional differences^{[footnote 9]}

As shown in Figure 1.11, compared with the average for people in England (7%), people living in Yorkshire and The Humber (8%), North West (7%), and West Midlands (7%) ITL1 areas were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always. People living in the South East (6%) and East of England (6%) ITL1 areas were less likely to report feeling lonely often or always compared with the average for people in England (7%). 

4.2 Local authority differences^{[footnote 10]}

By local authority, there was a 11 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who reported feeling lonely often or always, from 13% in Oldham to 2% in the City of London.

The proportion of people who reported feeling lonely often or always was in line with the England average in 259 (88%) local authorities. A total of 16 (5%) local authorities reported loneliness rates higher than the England average and 20 (7%) reported loneliness rates lower than the England average (7%).

Figure 1.11: People reporting that they feel lonely often or always by ITL1 and LA area: England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

5. Indirect measures of loneliness

To address variation in how people understand the term “loneliness” and potential reluctance to report any feelings of loneliness, the Community and Engagement Survey also asks three questions relating to, but not explicitly asking about, loneliness. Responses to these questions were combined to produce a composite loneliness score running from 3 (indicating less frequent loneliness) to 9 (indicating more frequent loneliness).

The three indirect questions asked respondents:

1. How often do you feel that you lack companionship?
2. How often do you feel left out?
3. How often do you feel isolated from others?

For further information, see Measuring loneliness: guidance for use of the national indicators on surveys - Recommended measures for people.

5.1 Timeseries

As shown in Figure 2.1, rates of indirect loneliness in 2025/26 (9%) were in line with levels recorded in 2020/21 (9%) when this measure was introduced into the survey. 

Note: There are considerable changes in the confidence intervals between each year due to the sample size of the survey. Where the sample has been boosted, the confidence intervals will narrow to reflect higher confidence in the estimates.

**Figure 2.1: People reporting low (indirect loneliness score 3 or 4), medium (indirect loneliness score of 5,6 or 7) and high (indirect loneliness score 8 or 9) levels of indirect loneliness, by ITL1 and LA area, England: 2020/21 to 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over) **

6. Demographics: Who was more likely to experience high levels of indirect loneliness

Demographic questions in the survey are voluntary and self-reported by the respondent.

6.1 Age

As shown in Figure 2.2, compared with the average for people in England (9%), people aged 16 to 24 (11%), 25 to 34 (10%) and 35 to 49 (10%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9). People aged 50 to 64 (8%), 65 to 74 (6%) and 75 and over (7%) were less likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) compared with the average for people in England (9%).

Figure 2.2: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by age, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.2 Disability status

As shown in Figure 2.3, disabled people (17%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) than non-disabled people (5%).

Figure 2.3: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by disability status, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.3 Sex^{[footnote 3]} 

As shown in Figure 2.4, females (10%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) than males (8%).

Figure 2.4: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by sex, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.4 Gender identity^{[footnote 4]} 

As shown in Figure 2.5, people whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) (24%) than people whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth (9%).

Figure 2.5: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by gender identity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.5 Sexual orientation^{[footnote 5]} 

As shown in Figure 2.6, people from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (18%) and bisexual people (17%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) than gay or lesbian people (14%) and heterosexual or straight people (8%). 

Figure 2.6: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by sexual orientation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.6 Religion

As shown in Figure 2.7, compared with the average for people in England (9%), people from the Any other religion classification (16%), Muslim people (11%), Buddhist people (11%) and people who reported having no religion (10%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9). Christian people (7%) were less likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness than the average for people in England (9%).

Figure 2.7: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by religion, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.7 Ethnicity

As shown in Figure 2.8, compared with the average for people in England (9%), people from the White Gypsy or Irish Traveller (24%), Any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background (15%), Arab (14%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (12%), Pakistani (11%) and Any other White background (10%) ethnic groups were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9). People from the White British^{[footnote 6]} (8%) and Chinese (6%) ethnic groups were less likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) compared with the average for people in England (9%).

Figure 2.8: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by ethnicity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.8 Socio-economic classification^{[footnote 7]} 

As shown in Figure 2.9, people from the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (17%) were most likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9), followed by people from the routine and manual occupations classification (11%), and the intermediate occupations classification (9%). People from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification were the least likely socio-economic classification to report high levels of loneliness (7%). 

Figure 2.9: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by socio-economic classification, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

6.9 Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 8]} 

As shown in Figure 2.10, people living in the most deprived areas (1st decile, 14%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) compared with people living in the least deprived areas (10th decile, 5%).

Figure 2.10: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness, by Index of Multiple Deprivation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Indirect loneliness by ITL1 and LA area

6.10 Regional differences^{[footnote 9]}

As shown in Figure 2.11, compared with the average for people in England (9%), people living in the South East ITL1 area (8%) were less likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9). People living in the Yorkshire and The Humber ITL1 area (10%) were more likely to report high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) compared with the average for people in England (9%).

6.11 Local authority differences^{[footnote 10]}

By local authority, there was a 14 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who reported high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9), from 16% in the City of Kingston upon Hull to 2% in the City of London.

If the City of Kingston upon Hull is excluded,^{[footnote 11]} there is a 12 percentage point difference, from 14% in Southampton to 2% in the City of London.

The proportion of people who reported high levels of indirect loneliness (a composite score of 8 or 9) was lower than the England average in 17 (6%) local authorities. A total of 258 (87%) local authorities were in line with the England average, while 20 (7%) local authorities reported higher than the England average (9%).

Figure 2.11: People reporting high levels of indirect loneliness by ITL1 and LA area: England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

1. Questions within the Community pathway of the Community and Engagement Survey were asked to respondents from October 2025 to March 2026 only. ↩

2. The majority of estimates in this report are rounded to the nearest whole number. As data are rounded, some changes may appear bigger or smaller than they are. The unrounded numbers are available in the corresponding data tables.  ↩

3. This data is based on the respondent’s sex. The Community and Engagement Survey respondents were asked the question “What is your sex?”. The response options were ‘Male’, ‘Female’ and ‘Prefer not to Say’. This closely follows the ONS Census 2021 question for sex, where the target concept was certificated sex meaning a person’s sex at birth or as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), but has been slightly amended to include a ‘Prefer not to Say’ option as we do for all demographic questions in the Community and Engagement Survey. ↩ ↩²

4. This data is based on the respondent’s gender identity. The Community and Engagement Survey respondents were asked the question ‘Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?. The response options were ‘Yes’, ‘No, type in gender identity’ or ‘Prefer not to say’. This closely follows the ONS Census 2021 question for England and Wales, but has been slightly amended to include a ‘Prefer not to Say’ option as we do for all demographic questions in the Community and Engagement Survey. It should be noted that in the Census 2021 data for England and Wales, patterns were identified that suggest that some respondents may not have interpreted the question as intended, notably those with lower levels of English language proficiency. Analysis of Scotland’s Census 2022, where the gender identity question was different, has added weight to this observation. More information can be found in the ONS sexual orientation and gender identity quality information report and the additional guidance and quality information for users of gender identity estimates from Census 2021 in England and Wales. Similar respondent error may have occurred during the data collection for these statistics so comparisons between subnational and other smaller group breakdowns should be considered with caution. ↩ ↩²

5. Sexual orientation is an umbrella term covering sexual identity, attraction, and behaviour. For an individual respondent, these may not be the same. For example, someone in an opposite-sex relationship may also experience same-sex attraction, and vice versa. This means the statistics should be interpreted purely as showing how people responded to the question, rather than being about whom they are attracted to or their actual relationships. ↩ ↩²

6. The White British ethnic group includes adults from an English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British ethnic group. ↩ ↩²

7. This is a form of socio-economic classification based on the employment status and occupation of the respondent. ↩ ↩²

8. The Index of Multiple Deprivation is a geographical measure which classifies the relative deprivation of an area. It combines seven indices to produce one overall measure for the area (rather than the individual). It takes into account income, employment, education, skills and training, health and disability, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment. For this commentary, the most and least deprived deciles have been compared. There may be some other significant differences between deciles in between which have not been commented on here. The analysis of the Index of Multiple Deprivation was conducted using the 2025 Index of Multiple Deprivation. ↩ ↩²

9. This data is also available by combined authority level and ITL2 area level in the corresponding data tables.  ↩ ↩²

10. The 2025/26 Community and Engagement Survey includes over 175,000 responses, so confidence intervals are generally very narrow. Whilst this reflects a strength of the data, when highlighting differences, some local authorities may be shown to be above/below the England average, but are only a percentage point more or less than the average. There will be other local authorities who are much higher or lower than the England average, but will both be shown in the same shading within the map. ↩ ↩²

11. We have noted these where removing one single local authority makes a substantial difference to the reported range. ↩