Understanding Houston

Social Connectedness

Social Connectedness in Houston

Levels of social connectedness and trust in the Houston area must be strengthened for a more cohesive, well-functioning, and civically engaged society

Why social connectedness matters to civic engagement in Houston

Social connectedness is the feeling of belonging — not only in the quality and quantity of our personal relationships, but also in our professional ones, our broader social network, our neighborhood, and beyond (e.g., I’m from the Fifth Ward, I’m a Houstonian, I’m a Texan, I’m an American, I am a citizen of the world). It’s about having an identity, social support system, and community — however that is defined — by the number of close friends we have, our familial relationships, our race or ethnicity, religion, alma mater, or even favorite sports team. It’s the sense of belonging and well-being we feel when we are members of a community, we trust society in general and our government, and we have people we can turn to for help.

Why is social connectedness important? People with high levels of social connectedness have strong social support networks;1, 2 have better physical and mental health;3 are less likely to be derailed by negative or stressful events like job loss,4 death,5 or impacts from disasters;6, 7 and are less likely to die prematurely.8, 9 Social connectedness builds social trust — the feeling when you have faith that most people can be trusted — and is correlated with higher volunteer rates and charitable giving levels.10 At the society and economic level, macroeconomists have shown that as trust improves, economic prosperity grows.11 Ideally, we would all have high levels of trust for others in our community and in our government, but the degree to which we feel socially connected and trustful is affected by historical and present circumstances. Historically marginalized groups that have faced discrimination and systemic barriers tend to have lower feelings of connectedness and trust.12, 13 This makes fostering collaboration and effecting positive change all the more difficult.

The more we understand the strengths and links among social networks across Houston’s three-county area, the more we can do to bridge gaps and foster the connections necessary to improve our region’s collective well-being and level of civic engagement.

The data

Access to civic and social organizations in Houston is lower compared to the state and nation

Membership in civic and social organizations (civic, political, religious, sports, and professional organizations) in our region is one of the best measures of social connectedness.14 Social connectivity is enhanced when people belong to volunteer groups or civic clubs and organizations because people who belong to such groups tend to trust others who belong to the same group.15

Houston’s three-county region has fewer civic and social organizations relative to the population than in Texas and the U.S. overall, despite access steadily declining at the state and national level. In 2023, the latest available data, there were 4.8 civic and social organization per 10,000 residents in Fort Bend County; 5.5 in Harris and Montgomery counties, 7.3 for Texas overall, and 9.1 nationally. 

Despite a recent decline, Montgomery County consistently has historically had the highest rate of civic and social organizations compared to Harris and Fort Bend counties. In both Fort Bend and Harris counties, the rate of membership organizations has ticked up just slightly over the last decade, while it declined at the state and national level. 

Houstonians have lower access to membership organizations compared to the average Texan and American.

Access to these organizations is critical, but whether we participate in them is a different, and harder to measure, aspect of social connectedness. Belonging to groups is one sign of a connected community, but it does not tell us everything.

Social cohesion describes how tight-knit a community is. It reflects whether people trust one another, feel a sense of belonging, and are willing to help their neighbors. One measure of social cohesion, clustering, looks at how often a person’s friends are also friends with each other. In a community with high clustering, social circles tend to overlap, and most people know many of the same people. In a community with low clustering, friends are less likely to know one another, and networks are more spread-out.

This data comes from the Social Capital Atlas, a national study by Opportunity Insights that used privacy-protected data from billions of friendships to map social ties across the country.

The clustering measure is shown as a percentage. A higher clustering value points to a more tight-knit community, where relationships tend to reinforce one another; and large metropolitan areas tend to have lower clustering than more rural counties. Clustering rates for all counties in the U.S. range from 7% to 22%, with 11% being the national median. Houston’s three-county region exhibits low clustering, ranging from 7.9% in Harris County to 8.8% in Fort Bend County, indicating that friendships here tend to be more loosely connected than tightly overlapping.

One-third of Houstonians report feelings of loneliness

The benefits of having meaningful social connections are far reaching. The diversity, quality, and depth of our various social connections can protect us from feelings of isolation and loneliness. Our risk for loneliness is increased by lack of participation in social groups, among other behaviors.16 Loneliness is linked not only to mental health issues like depression and anxiety, but also to negative physical health impacts.17 People with high rates of loneliness are more likely to experience heart disease and stroke,18 compromised immune systems,19, 20 and even premature death.21

In 2022, about one-third of adults in the Houston region reported they always, usually, or sometimes feel lonely. These levels are on par with the state and nation.

Compared to loneliness levels, a smaller percentage of adults report that they sometimes, rarely, or never get the social and emotional support they need.

In 2022 (the latest available data), the percentage of adults who lack social and emotional support was 29% in Fort Bend, 30% in Harris, and 27% in Montgomery counties. These levels in Houston’s three-county region are on par with the state overall (29%) but are higher than the national average (24%).

About 3 in 10 Houstonians don’t get the level of social and emotional support they need.

Historical Trust Levels

Social trust is generally about having faith that most people in society play by the rules, the rules are fair and the same for everyone, and everyone has a fair shot to pursue the life they want. Established research has found that corruption,24 segregation,25 and economic inequality26 are the factors most closely linked to distrust, meaning as levels of corruption, segregation, and inequality fall, social trust will increase. More recently, research is emerging that suggests social trust is increasingly influenced by the degree of political polarization within a community.27

Countries that have high levels of social and government trust tend to have stronger democracies,28 richer economies,29 and better health.30 Neighborhoods that have high levels of social trust are more likely to work together on important projects to improve their community.31 However, the percentage of residents in the greater Houston area who report working with their neighbors to improve something in the neighborhood in 2018 (latest available) was 2.5 percentage points below the national average.32

Countries that have high levels of social and government trust tend to have stronger democracies, richer economies, and better health.

For several years, the Kinder Houston Area Survey asked Houston-area residents whether they believe most people can be trusted or whether you can’t be too careful with people. According to the latest available data from 2020 (the last time the question was asked), 46% believed they can trust most of their neighbors. 

While 2020 data for Fort Bend and Montgomery counties aren’t available, historical data shows that levels of trust were on the rise after a dip in 2015. Between 2015 and 2018, residents’ level of trust increased from 32% to 43% across the three-county area. Levels of trust in the U.S. overall appear to be higher than levels in our region. For same-year comparison, the Pew Research Center reported that 52% of Americans in 2018 believe that most people can be trusted — nine percentage points higher than in the Houston area. Levels of trust in 2018 were highest in Fort Bend County, which is also among the most racially/ethnically diverse in the nation.

For a more consistent and complete picture of trust at the national level, the General Social Survey (GSS), a nationally representative survey of adults, has tracked trust levels since 1972. In 2024, only 25% of Americans said that most people can be trusted—a 50-year low and significant decline from the peak of 49% in 1984.

Social capital has been shown to influence the extent to which residents trust their government.33 When residents trust their governments to do the right thing and work in the best interest of our communities, they are more likely to comply with rules and policies, particularly during natural disasters or other crises.34

When asked whether their local government can be trusted to do what’s best for the community, Harris County residents responded mostly positively (56%) in 2019 (the latest available data), a marginal increase since 2014. Historical data on the three-county region shows that the majority of residents in Harris and Fort Bend counties believed in 2014 that local government can be trusted to do what’s best. Montgomery County reported less trust with only 49% of residents responding they believe in local government to do what is best for the community.

Though more recent local data is not available, a 2025 national survey found that half of Americans trusted their state and local governments to act in the best interest of society a lot or some of the time—higher than their level of trust in federal government (31%).

At the national level, public trust in the federal government has been in steady decline over the last 25 years and remains low with only 17% of Americans in 2025 who said they trust the government in Washington to do what is right most or all of the time, according to data from Pew Research Center.

Helpful Articles by Understanding Houston:

Resources

References:

  1. Jose, P. E., Ryan, N., & Pryor, J. (2012). Does social connectedness promote a greater sense of well‐being in adolescence over time?. Journal of research on adolescence, 22(2), 235-251.
  2. Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. The gerontologist, 37(4), 433-440.
  3. Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce P. Kennedy, and Roberta Glass. “Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: A Contextual Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health 89, no. 8 (1999): 1187-1193.
  4. Gush, K., Scott, J., & Laurie, H. (2015). Job loss and social capital: The role of family, friends and wider support networks (No. 2015-07). ISER Working Paper Series.
  5. Norris, F. H., & Murrell, S. A. (1990). Social support, life events, and stress as modifiers of adjustment to bereavement by older adults. Psychology and aging, 5(3), 429.
  6. Kaniasty, K. Z. (1991). Social support as a mediator of stress following natural disaster: A test of a social support deterioration model using measures of kin support, nonkin support, and social embeddedness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville).
  7. Nitschke, J. P., Forbes, P. A., Ali, N., Cutler, J., Apps, M. A., Lockwood, P. L., & Lamm, C. (2021). Resilience during uncertainty? Greater social connectedness during COVID‐19 lockdown is associated with reduced distress and fatigue. British Journal of Health Psychology, 26(2), 553-569.
  8. Seeman, T. E., Kaplan, G. A., Knudsen, L., Cohen, R., & Guralnik, J. (1987). Social network ties and mortality among tile elderly in the Alameda County Study. American journal of epidemiology, 126(4), 714-723.
  9. Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(2), 186-204.
  10. Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23.
  11. Conal Smith, “Trust and total factor productivity: What do we know about effect size and causal pathways? ,” Victoria University of Wellington, 2020.
  12. Rothstein, Bo, and Eric M. Uslaner. “All For All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust.” World Politics 58, no. 1 (2005): 41-72.
  13. Uslaner, Eric M. “The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  14. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2001
  15. Rupasingha, Anil, Stephan J. Goetz, and David Freshwater. “The Production of Social Capital in US Counties.” The Journal of Socio-Economics 35, no. 1 (2006): 83-101.
  16. Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, The Potential Public Health Relevance of Social Isolation and Loneliness: Prevalence, Epidemiology, and Risk Factors, Public Policy & Aging Report, Volume 27, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 127–130, https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prx030
  17. Yanguas, J., Pinazo-Henandis, S., & Tarazona-Santabalbina, F. J. (2018). The complexity of loneliness. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 89(2), 302.
  18. Valtorta, N. K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S., Ronzi, S., & Hanratty, B. (2016). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart, 102(13), 1009-1016.
  19. LeRoy, A. S., Murdock, K. W., Jaremka, L. M., Loya, A., & Fagundes, C. P. (2017). Loneliness predicts self-reported cold symptoms after a viral challenge. Health Psychology, 36(5), 512.
  20. Kroenke, C. H., Michael, Y. L., Poole, E. M., Kwan, M. L., Nechuta, S., Leas, E., … & Chen, W. Y. (2017). Postdiagnosis social networks and breast cancer mortality in the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project. Cancer, 123(7), 1228-1237.
  21. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7(7), e1000316.
  22. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(3), 472.
  23. Bruce, L. D., Wu, J. S., Lustig, S. L., Russell, D. W., & Nemecek, D. A. (2019). Loneliness in the United States: A 2018 national panel survey of demographic, structural, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics. American Journal of Health Promotion, 33(8), 1123-1133.
  24. Richey, S. (2010). The impact of corruption on social trust. American Politics Research, 38(4), 676-690.
  25. Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. In Trust (pp. 69-97). Brill.
  26. Rothstein, Bo, and Eric M. Uslaner (2005).
  27. Vallier, K. (2020). Trust in a polarized age. Oxford University Press.
  28. Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social Trust and Attitudes toward Democracy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(4), 706–724. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25167660
  29. Beugelsdijk, S., De Groot, H. L., & Van Schaik, A. B. (2004). Trust and economic growth: a robustness analysis. Oxford economic papers, 56(1), 118-134.
  30. Subramanian, S. V., Kim, D. J., & Kawachi, I. (2002). Social trust and self-rated health in US communities: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Urban Health, 79(1), S21-S34.
  31. Uslaner, E. M. (2002).
  32. Lappie, John, Jeff Coates, and Lisa Matthews. “2018 Houston Civic Health Index.” (2018).
  33. Keele, L. (2007). Social capital and the dynamics of trust in government. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 241-254.
  34. OECD, O. (2013). Trust in government, policy effectiveness and the governance agenda. Government at a Glance, 2013.