Official Statistics

Community and Engagement Survey 2025/26 - support networks: report

Updated 14 August 2026

Applies to England

This report summarises the key findings for Support Networks 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. 

The 2025/26 Survey included three measures to gauge respondents’ access to support networks:

1. Agreement with the statement that ‘If I needed help, there are people who would be there for me’  
2. Agreement with the statement that ‘If I wanted company or to socialise, there are people I can call on’. 
3. Agreement that ‘there is at least one person I can really count on to listen if I needed to talk (Yes/No)’ 

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 

96% of people aged 16+ “definitely agreed” or “tended to agree” that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them, a 2 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (94%).

By ITL2 area, there was a 4 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them, from 93% in West Midlands to 98% in Cumbria.

93% of people aged 16+ “definitely agreed” or “tended to agree” that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call, a 1 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (92%).

By ITL2 area, there was a 4 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, from 95% in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to 91% in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

96% of people aged 16+ had at least one person they could really count on to listen when they needed to talk, a 1 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (95%).

By ITL2 area, there was a 3 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk, from 95% in Outer London - East and North East to 98% in Cumbria.

2. Support networks: Agreement that people would be there for you if you needed help.

2.1 Timeseries

As shown in Figure 1.1, in 2025/26, 96% of people aged 16+ “definitely agreed” or “tended to agree” that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them, a 2 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (94%). This follows a fairly stable trend since 2017/18 when data was first published.

Figure 1.1: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them by age: England: 2017/18 to 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

2.2 Demographics: Agreement that people would be there for you if you needed help

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

Age

As shown in Figure 1.2, people aged 65 to 74 (97%) and 75 and over (98%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them compared with the average for people in England (96%). People aged 35 to 49 (95%) were less likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them compared with the average for people in England (96%). 

Figure 1.2: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by age, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Disability status

As shown in Figure 1.3, non-disabled people (97%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them than disabled people (94%). 

Figure 1.3: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by disability status, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Sex^{[footnote 3]} 

As shown in Figure 1.4, females (97%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them than males (95%). 

Figure 1.4: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by sex, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Gender identity^{[footnote 4]} 

As shown in Figure 1.5, people whose gender identity was the same as their registered sex at birth (96%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help there would be people who would be there for them, than people whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (91%). 

Figure 1.5: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by gender identity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Sexual orientation^{[footnote 5]} 

As shown in Figure 1.6, heterosexual or straight people (96%), gay or lesbian people (95%), and bisexual people (95%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them than people from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (89%). 

Figure 1.6: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by sexual orientation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Religion

As shown in Figure 1.7, Christian people (97%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them compared with the average for people in England (96%). Muslim people (94%), Hindu people (94%), Buddhist people (92%), and people from the Any other religion classification (92%) were less likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them compared with the average for people in England (96%). 

Figure 1.7: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by religion, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Ethnicity

As shown in Figure 1.8, people from the white British^{[footnote 6]} (97%) ethnic group were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them compared with the average for people in England (96%). People from the Indian (94%), Black African (93%), White and Black African (92%), White and Black Caribbean (92%), Any other mixed or multiple ethnic background (92%), Arab (92%), and Black Caribbean (91%) ethnic groups were less likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them compared with the average for people in England (96%). 

Figure 1.8: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by ethnicity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Socio-economic classification^{[footnote 7]} 

As shown in Figure 1.9, people from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (97%) and the intermediate occupations classification (97%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them than people from the routine and manual occupations classification (95%) and the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (90%). 

Figure 1.9: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by socio-economic classification, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 8]} 

As shown in Figure 1.10, people living in the least deprived areas (10th decile, 97%) were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them than people living in the most deprived areas (1st decile, 93%). 

Figure 1.10: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them, by Index of Multiple Deprivation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Agreement that people would be there for you if you needed help by ITL1 and ITL2 area

2.3 Regional differences^{[footnote 9]}

As shown in Figure 1.11, compared with the average for people in England (96%), people living in the South East (97%) ITL1 area were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them. People living in London (95%) and the West Midlands (94%) ITL1 areas were less likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them than the average for people in England (96%). 

ITL2 area differences

By ITL2 area, there was a 4 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them, from 93% in West Midlands to 98% in Cumbria.

The proportion of people who were more likely to agree that if they needed help, there are people who would be there for them, was in line with the England average in 29 ITL2 areas (81%), higher than the England average in 4 ITL2 areas (11%), and lower than the England average in 3 ITL2 areas (8%).

Figure 1.11: Agreement that if people needed help there are others who would be there for them by ITL1 and ITL2 area: England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3. Support networks: Agreement that if you needed company or to socialise, there are people you can call on.

3.1 Timeseries

As shown in Figure 2.1, in 2025/26, 93% of people aged 16+ “definitely agreed” or “tended to agree” that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call, a 1 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (92%). This follows a fairly stable trend since 2017/18.

Figure 2.1: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on by age: England: 2017/18 to 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

3.2 Demographics: Agreement that if you needed company or to socialise, there are people you can call on

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

Age

As shown in Figure 2.2, people aged 65 to 74 (95%) and 75 and over (95%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, compared with the average for people in England (93%). People aged 35 to 49 (92%) were less likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on compared with the average for people in England (93%). 

Figure 2.2: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by age, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Disability status

As shown in Figure 2.3, non-disabled people (96%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, than disabled people (89%). 

Figure 2.3: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by disability status, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Sex^{[footnote 3]} 

As shown in Figure 2.4, females (94%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, than males (92%). 

Figure 2.4: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by sex, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Gender identity^{[footnote 4]} 

As shown in Figure 2.5, there were no statistically significant differences between the proportion of people whose gender identity was the same as their sex registered at birth and people whose gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth in agreement that if they wanted company or to socialise there are people they could call on.

Figure 2.5: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by gender identity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Sexual orientation^{[footnote 5]} 

As shown in Figure 2.6, heterosexual or straight people (94%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, than bisexual people (90%) and people from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (83%). 

Figure 2.6: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by sexual orientation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Religion

As shown in Figure 2.7, Christian people (95%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, compared with the average for people in England (93%). Muslim people (90%), Buddhist people (88%), and people from the Any other religion classification (88%) were less likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on compared with the average for people in England (93%).

Figure 2.7: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by religion, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Ethnicity

As shown in Figure 2.8, people from the White British^{[footnote 6]} (94%) ethnic group were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, compared to the average for people in England (93%). People from the Black African (91%), Black Caribbean (89%), Arab (88%), and White and Black African (86%) ethnic groups were less likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, compared to the average for people in England (93%).  

Figure 2.8: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by ethnicity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Socio-economic classification^{[footnote 7]} 

As shown in Figure 2.9, people from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (95%) and the intermediate occupations classification (94%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, than people from the routine and manual occupations classification (91%), and the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (86%). 

Figure 2.9: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by socio-economic classification, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 8]} 

As shown in Figure 2.10, people living in the least deprived areas (10th decile, 95%) were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, than people living in the most deprived areas (1st decile, 90%). 

Figure 2.10: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on, by Index of Multiple Deprivation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

People who felt if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they can call on by ITL1 and ITL2 area

3.3 Regional differences^{[footnote 9]}

As shown in Figure 2.11, compared with the average for people in England (93%), people living in the South East (94%) ITL1 area were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on. 

ITL2 area differences

By ITL2 area, there was a 4 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, from 95% in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to 91% in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

The proportion of people who were more likely to agree that if they wanted company or to socialise, there are people they could call on, was in line with the England average in 33 ITL2 areas (92%), higher than the England average in 2 ITL2 areas (6%), and lower than the England average in 1 ITL2 area (2%).

Figure 2.11: Agreement that if people wanted company or to socialise there are others they could call on by ITL1 and ITL2 area: England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

4. Support networks: Agreement that you have people to listen when you need to talk

4.1 Timeseries

As shown in Figure 3.1, in 2025/26, 96% of people aged 16 and over had at least one person they could really count on to listen when they needed to talk, a 1 percentage point increase from 2024/25 (95%). This follows a fairly stable trend since 2017/18.

Figure 3.1: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk by age: England: 2017/18 to 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

4.2 Demographics: Agreement that you have people to listen when you need to talk

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

Age

As shown in Figure 3.2, people aged 75 and over (98%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk compared to the average for people in England (96%). People aged 35 to 49 (95%) were less likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk compared to the average for people in England (96%). 

Figure 3.2: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by age, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Disability status

As shown in Figure 3.3, non-disabled people (98%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk than disabled people (94%). 

Figure 3.3: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by disability status, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Sex^{[footnote 3]} 

As shown in Figure 3.4, females (97%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk than males (96%). 

Figure 3.4 : Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by sex, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Gender identity^{[footnote 4]} 

As shown in Figure 3.5, people whose gender identity was the same as their registered sex at birth (96%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk than people whose gender identity was different from their registered sex at birth (93%). 

Figure 3.5: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by gender identity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Sexual orientation^{[footnote 5]} 

As shown in Figure 3.6, heterosexual or straight people (97%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk than gay or lesbian people (95%), bisexual people (95%), and people from the “Other sexual orientation” classification (89%). 

Figure 3.6: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by sexual orientation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Religion

As shown in Figure 3.7, Christian people (97%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk compared with the average for people in England (96%). Muslim people (94%) and people from the Any other religion classification (92%) were less likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk compared with the average for people in England (96%). 

Figure 3.7: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by religion, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Ethnicity

As shown in Figure 3.8, people from the White British^{[footnote 6]} (97%) ethnic group were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk compared with the average for people in England (96%). People from the Indian (95%), White Irish (93%), White and Black African (92%), and White Gypsy or Irish Traveller (87%) ethnic groups were less likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk compared with the average for people in England (96%). 

Figure 3.8: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by ethnicity, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Socio-economic classification^{[footnote 7]} 

As shown in Figure 3.9, people from the higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations classification (97%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk than people from the routine and manual occupations classification (96%) and the never worked and long-term unemployed classification (92%). 

Figure 3.9: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by socio-economic classification, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

Index of multiple deprivation^{[footnote 8]} 

As shown in Figure 3.10, people living in the least deprived areas (10th decile, 97%) were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk than people living in the most deprived areas (1st decile, 94%). 

Figure 3.10: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk, by Index of Multiple Deprivation, England: 2025/26 (Base: All people aged 16 and over)

4.3 Agreement that you have people to listen when you need to talk by ITL1 and ITL2 area

4.4 Regional differences^{[footnote 9]}

As shown in Figure 3.11, compared with the average for people in England (96%), people living in the South East (97%) ITL1 area were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk. 

ITL2 area differences

By ITL2 area, there was a 3 percentage point difference in the proportion of people who were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk, from 95% in Outer London - East and North East to 98% in Cumbria.

The proportion of people who were more likely to agree that they had at least one person they could count on to really listen when they needed to talk, was in line with the England average in 33 ITL2 areas (92%), higher than the England average in 3 ITL2 areas (8%), and lower than the England average in no ITL2 areas (0%).

Figure 3.11: Agreement that people have at least one other person they can really count on to listen if they needed to talk by ITL1 and ITL2 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 ↩³

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 ↩³

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 ↩³

6. The White British ethnic group includes people from an English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British ethnic group ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. This is a form of socio-economic classification based on the employment status and occupation of the respondent. ↩ ↩² ↩³

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 ↩³

9. The questions on support networks were not asked to all respondents. This means that data are not available at LA level. Data are however available by ITL2 area level (summary commentary provided in this report) and by combined authority level in the corresponding data tables. ↩ ↩² ↩³