TORONTO’S
VITALSIGNS
An Initiative of
TORONTO
S OCIAL
CAPITAL
STUDY
2O 22
TORONTO’S
VITALSIGNS
An Initiative of
CAPITAL
STUDY
S CIAL
2 22
TORONT 

WHAT’S INSIDE
3 Acknowledgements
4 Executive Summary
8 Introduction
11 About the Survey
13 About This Report
TORONTO SOCIAL 
CAPITAL STUDY
TORONTO’S
VITALSIGNS
An Initiative of
RESULTS
SOCIAL 
NET
14
WORKS
CIVIC 
ENG
24
AGEMENT
SOCIAL 
40
TRUST
NEIGHBOURHOOD 
SU
56
PPORT WE
62
LLBEING
73 Conclusion and Recommendations
80 Partner Insights
82 Appendix: Neighbourhood Map 

Acknowledgements
This project took place on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the 
Anishinabek Nation, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Mississaugas 
of the Credit First Nation. While Indigenous communities in Toronto remain 
strong, vibrant and resilient, they need consistent, active and long-term support 
to address and overcome the impact of colonialism and systemic inequalities. 
Furthering Indigenous reconciliation and sovereignty are integral to achieving 
a more fair and just society where everyone can thrive.
The development of this report 
was itself an exercise in social 
capital, bringing together 
partners from across the private, 
public and charitable sectors. 
Research like this cannot be 
done in isolation, and Toronto 
Foundation is indebted to the 
partnership group and the 
dozens of individuals who 
helped shape this report. We 
are particularly grateful to 
the returning partners who 
contributed to the original 2018 
Social Capital Study, along with 
the many new organizations who 
have come on board. They each 
brought unique insights and 
expertise, and, most importantly, 
hope to make effective use of the 
findings to further advance their 
respective missions. 
LEAD RESEARCHERS 
AND CO-AUTHORS
Andrew Parkin 
Steven Ayer
COPY EDITOR AND 
PROOFREADER
Jennifer D. Foster
EXECUTIVE EDITOR 
AND PRODUCER
Toronto Foundation staff
DESIGN
Gravity Inc.
LEAD PARTNERS
Toronto Foundation
Environics Institute for Survey 
Research
Metcalf Foundation
MLSE Foundation
Northcrest Developments
Ontario Trillium Foundation
TAS
United Way Greater Toronto
Wellesley Institute
YMCA of Greater Toronto
COLLABORATING PARTNERS
Atkinson Foundation
Centre for Addiction and 
Mental Health
CivicAction
Counselling Foundation 
of Canada
Crosswalk Communities
Laidlaw Foundation
Toronto Zoo Wildlife 
Conservancy
NATIONAL SURVEY PARTNER
Community Foundations 
of Canada
ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS 
CONSULTED
Amra Munawar, Rexdale 
Community Hub
Anthony Morgan, City of Toronto
Joanne McKiernan, Volunteer 
Toronto
Mat Krepicz, City of Toronto
Natasha Francis, Waterfront 
Neighbourhood Centre
Rabia Khedr, Disability 
Without Poverty
Sahar Vermezyari, East 
Scarborough Storefront
Seher Shafiq, North York 
Community House
Shaneeza Nazseer Ally, 
For Youth Initiative
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 3 

Executive Summary
The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic put communities around the 
world under tremendous stress. In the city of Toronto, the pandemic created 
widespread economic hardship, while limiting opportunities for residents to 
connect with family, friends, neighbours and organizations. This disruption 
was layered over pre-existing fault lines in the city, relating to economic 
inequality, racial discrimination and the marginalization of other groups, 
such as those with disabilities or who identify as LGBTQ2S+.
The concept of social capital is an 
invaluable tool used to explore how 
the city and its residents have fared in 
the wake of these events. Social capital 
refers to the vibrancy of social networks 
and the extent to which individuals and 
communities trust and rely upon one 
another. It is a key ingredient in making 
communities productive, healthy, 
inclusive and safe. Social capital can be 
seen as a resource that communities 
can draw upon to respond to crises 
(through collaboration and mutual 
support); at the same time, it is a 
resource that can be depleted, leaving 
communities less well-positioned to 
face what comes next.
Conducted more than two years after 
the start of the pandemic, the 2022 
Toronto Social Capital Study assesses 
whether the crisis brought the city’s 
residents closer together or pushed 
them further apart. Its measures of 
social capital bring into focus the ways 
in which Torontonians connect with 
one another, the trust they have in one 
another and their shared institutions 
and the extent to which they feel 
supported by their neighbours and 
neighbourhoods. 
The 2022 study of more than 4,000 
Torontonians compares the situation in 
the city today with that of 2018, when 
the first such study was conducted.
Notwithstanding the challenges 
associated with the pandemic, the 
2022 Toronto Social Capital Study 
offers some reassurance. The vast 
majority of Torontonians have people 
in their lives with whom they feel at 
ease, can talk to or call on for help. 
The majority of Toronto residents 
also find their city to be safe and 
their neighbours to be helpful. Most 
Torontonians are members of at least 
one organization in their community 
and make donations to charity. 
And more than two years into the 
pandemic, levels of confidence in most 
local institutions—including the school 
system, city hall, local businesses 
and neighbourhood centres—remain 
unchanged.
At the same time, the 2022 Toronto 
Social Capital Study clearly illustrates 
the toll the pandemic has taken. In the 
face of more limited opportunities to 
interact, Torontonians today report 
having fewer close family members 
and friends than in 2018 and are 
seeing their companions in person 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 4 

less often. As a result, the proportion 
who are satisfied with how frequently 
they communicate with their close 
friends and relatives has also declined 
(especially among seniors). 
Moreover, about one in 12 Torontonians 
now reports having no close family 
members they can call for help or 
talk to about what’s on their mind, 
and a similar proportion say they 
have no close friends. In each case, 
this represents more than 200,000 
people in the city who lack this form 
of social support. Those who are less 
connected in these ways include those 
who have lower incomes, those who 
are unemployed, those who have a 
disability and those who report poor 
mental health.
More striking changes have 
occurred in the area of community 
engagement. Torontonians in 2022 
are less likely than in 2018 to be 
members of organizations, such as 
sports and recreation organizations, 
cultural organizations, and union and 
professional associations. This decline 
is most likely a result of the COVID-19 
pandemic, as many groups suspended 
their activities, while many members 
did not feel safe participating, even 
when activities resumed. What is not 
yet clear is whether and how quickly 
these forms of engagement will 
rebound.
Toronto residents are also less likely to 
have volunteered or donated money 
or goods to an organization or charity 
in 2022. The proportion of people 
who volunteered for any organization 
in the past 12 months declined by 12 
percentage points between 2018 and 
2022 (from 37 % to 25%). Similarly, 
while 63% donated in the past 12 
months, this represents a 12-point 
decline from 2018, when 75% reported 
making donations. This drop in the 
donation rate may be linked to the 
decline in in-person activities, as many 
individuals donate to organizations 
in whose activities they participate. 
Donation rates dropped more 
significantly between 2018 and 2022 
among those who are less active in 
groups, but hardly changed for those 
who are most active. 
These changes pose a serious 
challenge to the local nonprofit sector. 
A 12-point drop in donations represents 
about 300,000 fewer donors in 
Toronto, and a potential loss of more 
than $180 million in donations in the 
city over the past year. The drop in 
volunteerism represents a potential loss 
of 36 million volunteer hours, or the 
equivalent of approximately 20,000 
full-time equivalent positions. Again, 
it is not clear whether volunteering 
and donations rates will rebound as 
the pandemic recedes, or whether the 
change will prove longer lasting.
While local community organizations 
contend with these changes, the needs 
of the city’s residents have grown more 
acute. The study finds that wellbeing in 
Toronto declined significantly between 
2018 and 2022: Torontonians are less 
likely to report high life satisfaction, or 
good physical or mental health. Fewer 
Torontonians today than in 2018 say 
they always have something to look 
forward to in life, while the proportion 
who say they only sometimes, or 
rarely or never, have something to look 
forward to in life has increased. These 
declines generally were experienced 
by residents from all backgrounds. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 5 

Wellbeing, however, continues to 
vary significantly across the city. 
For instance, wellbeing improves 
noticeably as both income and age 
increase. The life satisfaction, overall 
wellbeing and mental health of younger 
adults in Toronto (and particularly 
younger women) remain much lower 
than average. 
Meanwhile, one in four residents of the 
city says their income is not enough 
for them (either that they are stretched 
or that they are having a hard time), a 
higher proportion than in 2018. About 
one in five people in Toronto also 
reports that, at some point in the past 
12 months, they had eaten less than 
they felt they should because there 
wasn’t enough money to buy food. 
Single parents, Black Torontonians, 
those with a disability and those who 
identify as LGBTQ2S+ are all more 
likely to experience each of these forms 
of insecurity.
Changes with respect to social trust 
in the city are less consistent. On the 
one hand, there has been a significant 
drop in the proportion saying that most 
people can be trusted. In general, this 
drop is somewhat more pronounced 
among groups that were previously 
more trusting, including those with 
higher incomes, those with a university 
degree and those who identify as white. 
The proportion saying that people 
working together can make a big 
difference in solving problems facing 
the community has also declined. On 
the other hand, there has been less 
change in the trust of specific groups 
of people, including both similar types 
of people (such as family) and those 
who are different (in terms of language, 
ethnic background or political views). 
Most Torontonians continue to express 
at least a medium level of trust in each 
of these groups, while only a minority 
have low trust.
These levels of trust or confidence 
continue to vary by age and socio￾economic status, with younger and 
lower-income residents expressing 
much lower levels of trust and 
confidence. Black Torontonians also 
consistently express lower levels 
of social trust. Levels of trust and 
confidence are also often lower among 
those who identity as LGBTQ2S+ and 
those who are between the ages of 25 
and 40 who live alone. 
While trust and confidence in most 
specific groups and institutions in 
the city have changed little, if at all, 
there is one important exception: 
the police. The public’s confidence 
in the police in Toronto has declined 
since 2018, and fewer residents think 
it is very likely that a police officer 
would return a lost wallet or purse 
containing $200. Notably, this change 
is more pronounced among those 
who identify as white, than among 
Black Torontonians or other racialized 
groups. Confidence in the police 
remains lower among Black residents 
of the city, but the differences between 
views of white and Black Torontonians 
have narrowed.
This narrowing of the gap between 
white and Black Torontonians’ 
impressions of the police is not the 
only encouraging sign of Torontonians 
bridging potential divides in the city. 
Known for its diversity, it is notable 
that Toronto is a city in which both 
non-immigrants and those who identify 
as white are more likely than average 
to express trust in people of different 
ethnic background, or who speak 
different languages. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 6 

More generally, one important finding 
of the 2022 Toronto Social Capital 
Study is that the pandemic crisis did 
not pull the city’s residents in opposite 
directions, at least in terms of the 
dimensions of social capital. Declines in 
social capital, measured by combining 
responses to several questions relating 
to social networks, civic engagement 
and social trust, tended to occur 
in every neighbourhood in the city 
and among Torontonians from all 
backgrounds (including young and old, 
men and women, high and low income, 
white and racialized, and immigrant 
and Canadian-born). This does not 
mean that in other ways, such as loss of 
employment or income, the pandemic 
did not affect some residents more 
than others. But the pandemic’s 
disruptive impact on connections 
with friends, family, neighbours and 
organizations was felt more evenly.
In almost all cases, however, the 
inequalities in social capital that pre￾existed the pandemic remain. The 
study shows that a number of groups 
in the city are particularly vulnerable: 
they have greater needs, but have less 
access to support from family and 
friends, are less likely to be connected 
to supportive organizations and have 
less access to services. Torontonians 
with lower incomes or who are 
unemployed are among those who 
stand out most consistently in this 
regard. Black residents of Toronto 
express lower than average levels of 
social trust, have experienced some 
of the largest declines in participation 
in community groups and are among 
those most likely to face income or 
food insecurity. Torontonians with 
a disability face greater economic 
insecurity than average, but also have 
access to less support from friends 
and family. Those in the city who 
identify as LGBTQ2S+ are more 
likely than average to face economic 
insecurity, but have lower social trust 
and are less confident that local 
institutions will be there to support 
them. And the situation of youth, and 
particularly of female youth, regarding 
health and wellbeing—while not new—
remains concerning. 
The Toronto Social Capital Study is 
the product of the combined efforts 
of 17 of the city’s leading community 
organizations. These organizations 
share an interest in understanding how 
the patterns of social connection, trust, 
engagement and support that hold 
the city together are changing. But 
each is also committed to using the 
study’s findings to shape the services 
and programs they deliver to respond 
to the evolving needs of the city’s 
residents. To that end, the conclusion 
of the report highlights a series of 
actions that can be taken in response 
to the findings, to guide the city as it 
moves forward. 
The pandemic’s impact is undoubtable, 
but, overall, social capital in Toronto 
continues to constitute a tremendous 
resource that can be tapped to help 
the city emerge stronger, healthier and 
more vibrant than ever. But such an 
outcome cannot be taken for granted. 
There are hundreds of thousands of 
more vulnerable citizens who currently 
cannot access the resources they need, 
not only in terms of financial resources 
or specific services, but also in terms of 
the resources of social connectedness, 
trust and support covered in this 
report. Whether they will participate 
fully in the city’s recovery will depend 
on the actions that the city’s individuals 
and organizations take next.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 7 

Introduction
BACKGROUND
This report presents the key findings of 
the 2022 Toronto Social Capital Study. 
This study is the second comprehensive 
look at the wellbeing of Toronto 
residents viewed in terms of social 
networks, social trust, civic engagement 
and neighbourhood support. 
There are a wide range of traditional 
indicators available to track the 
wellbeing of a community. Examples 
include economic measures of 
employment and unemployment, and 
of wealth, poverty and inequality. 
Education indicators cover graduation 
rates, as well as proficiency in key 
subjects such as reading, math and 
science. There are also statistics 
reporting on incidences of crime, 
homelessness or disease. 
Increasingly, however, there is interest 
in widening the lens to include 
measures that assess whether people 
feel included in, connected to and 
supported by the communities in 
which they live. These dimensions of 
wellbeing are covered by the concept 
of social capital. Social capital is the 
term used to describe the vibrancy 
of social networks and the extent to 
which trust and reciprocity exist within 
a community and among individuals. It 
is the essential “lubricant” that makes 
it possible for societies to function and 
for people to get along peacefully, even 
when they may have little in common. 
There is ample empirical evidence 
showing that high levels of such 
reciprocity, trust and connection are 
key to making communities productive, 
healthy and safe.
In 2018, the first Toronto Social 
Capital Study broke new ground by 
exploring social trust, social networks, 
civic connection and neighbourhood 
support within the city. The study 
addressed questions such as: “To 
what extent do Torontonians feel 
connected to, and actively engage 
with, their neighbours and community 
organizations? How well do they trust 
others in their communities—those 
who are like themselves and those 
who are different?” 
The 2018 findings were generally 
reassuring, while drawing attention to 
areas of concern. Overall, social capital 
in Toronto in most respects appeared 
solid. The majority of people surveyed 
trust other people (including those 
different from themselves), have a 
sense of belonging to their community, 
have family and friends they can rely 
on, give back to the community and 
are interested in politics. But the study 
also documented how the strength 
of social capital varies within the 
city by such characteristics as age, 
household income, race or culture 
and neighbourhood. In so doing, it 
helped identify new areas of focus for 
addressing challenges and supporting 
positive change. 
The 2018 study was intended to 
establish benchmarks against which 
progress (or setbacks) could be 
measured over time. This means that 
the organizations that led the study 
always intended to revisit the issue 
in several years’ time. The need to 
reassess social capital in Toronto, 
however, was made all the more 
pressing by the onset of the COVID-19 
pandemic in March 2020. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 8 

The pandemic constituted an 
unanticipated test of the strength of 
Toronto’s social capital. The closure of 
businesses, schools and public venues 
not only led to losses of employment 
and income, but also impeded social 
connections. The disease itself, as well 
as its impact on income and on social 
interaction, increased demand for 
support from public institutions. The 
effectiveness of public health measures 
to contain the spread of COVID-19 was 
dependent in part on the public’s trust, 
not just in governments, but also in 
friends and neighbours. 
What remains unknown, more than two 
years later, is whether the experience 
of the pandemic brought the city’s 
residents closer together or pulled 
them further apart. This question is 
especially important given the extent 
to which both the direct health risks 
posed by the virus, and the economic 
impacts of the measures to counter 
it, were unequally shared across 
population groups.
Despite the pandemic’s overwhelming 
importance, it is not the only 
development since 2018 that has tested 
city residents. Many young families 
have faced affordability challenges 
stemming from rising housing costs, 
as well as high costs for services such 
as childcare. In 2020, the issue of anti￾Black racism gained new prominence 
in the wake of the global public 
outcry when a white police officer 
murdered George Floyd, an African￾American, with three other Minneapolis 
police officers facing charges for 
aiding and abetting the murder. 
This event mobilized thousands 
of Toronto residents in solidarity, 
while drawing further attention to 
the extent of discrimination and 
violence experienced by racialized 
Torontonians. Other issues continue 
to defy the efforts of governments to 
address them, such as improving public 
transit infrastructure, alleviating the 
opioid addiction crisis and addressing 
homelessness. These and other 
developments may have affected the 
extent to which city residents feel 
connected to or supported by their 
community.
THE 2022 TORONTO SOCIAL 
CAPITAL STUDY
Building on the foundation of the 
initial 2018 survey, a new Toronto 
Social Capital Study was conducted 
in the summer of 2022 to explore how 
things have evolved over time and to 
provide new details on the experiences 
of specific population groups. The 
2022 survey repeated many of the 
questions asked in 2018, while adding 
several new ones to complete the 
picture of the state of social capital in 
the city. The original purpose of the 
research remains unchanged, but the 
new survey also serves as a means of 
broadening our understanding of how 
the COVID-19 pandemic has affected 
Toronto residents.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 9 

Visit torontofoundation.ca 
to find additional information: 
related research, including 
national survey findings; 
highlights from interviews 
with community leaders; 
disaggregated data; fact 
sheets; and more. 
The Toronto Social Capital Study 
is a partnership of leading civic 
organizations across the city. The 
research was conducted by the 
Environics Institute for Survey 
Research, in partnership with Toronto 
Foundation, as well as Metcalf 
Foundation, MLSE Foundation, 
Northcrest Developments, Ontario 
Trillium Foundation, TAS, United 
Way Greater Toronto, the Wellesley 
Institute and YMCA of Greater Toronto. 
An additional group of collaborating 
partners helped support the launch 
of the report, including Atkinson 
Foundation, Centre for Addiction and 
Mental Health, CivicAction, Counselling 
Foundation of Canada, Crosswalk 
Communities, Laidlaw Foundation and 
Toronto Zoo Wildlife Conservancy. 
The Toronto study was complemented 
by a national online survey of 2,001 
Canadian adults commissioned by 
Community Foundations of Canada, 
using the same questions and measures 
of social capital.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 10 

The 2022 Toronto Social Capital Study 
is based on a survey of 4,163 people 
in Toronto, aged 18 years and older, 
conducted during the summer of 2022. 
The survey was conducted in two 
parts. A core sample of 3,215 adults 
were surveyed between May 27 and 
August 3. An additional 948 residents 
in three specific regions of the city 
(the Greater Golden Mile, Rexdale and 
the Downsview area) were surveyed 
between August 5 and September 10.
The survey was conducted using a 
mix of methods, including accessing 
respondents from online survey 
panels and reaching respondents by 
telephone (landline and cellphone) or 
text message (through random dialing). 
Some respondents were identified 
as eligible through an interactive 
voice recording telephone pre-survey 
and then completed the survey by 
telephone with a live interviewer; 
a small number of respondents 
were identified by this pre-survey 
and chose to complete the survey 
online. The majority (75%) of the 
respondents completed the survey on 
a computer, tablet or smartphone, and 
the remainder (25%) spoke to a live 
interviewer over the phone.
The survey sample was selected to 
meet a number of specifications, 
including sample quotas by age, 
gender, educational attainment, racial 
identity and neighbourhood within 
Toronto. Details of the sample are 
on page 12. 
The survey samples for each of the 
city’s three largest racialized groups—
those identifying as South Asian, 
Chinese or Black—are large enough to 
allow results to be reported for each 
of these groups separately. Future 
research, led by or in partnership with 
Indigenous Peoples, and based on 
an appropriate sample of Indigenous 
respondents, should be conducted 
to explore the perspectives and 
experiences of Indigenous residents 
of the city. 
The survey data is weighted by age, 
gender, educational attainment, 
immigration background (generation 
in Canada), racial identity and 
neighbourhood within Toronto, 
to ensure that survey results are 
representative of the actual population 
of the city. Because the data is 
weighted by neighbourhood within 
Toronto, and by these other criteria, 
the inclusion of the 948 additional 
respondents from the second part of 
the survey does not affect the survey’s 
representativeness.
The survey was modelled on the 
2018 study of 3,207 Torontonians, 
with the intention to ensure that the 
results of the two surveys are directly 
comparable. The 2018 survey also 
combined both online and telephone 
methods, but a greater proportion of 
respondents in 2018 completed the 
survey by telephone. 
About the Survey
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 11 

As was the case in 2018, the results 
for many of the 2022 survey 
questions have been combined to 
create several indexes covering 
the major dimensions of social 
capital. Each index is scored from 
“0” (lowest possible score) to “10” 
(highest possible score). The index 
scores provide a concise measure 
that can show how social capital is 
similar and different across a range 
of groups within the population. 
They are also useful for making 
comparisons over time, showing 
how social capital in the city has 
evolved since 2018.1
Two additional indexes, using 
established measures, were 
added in 2022. One combines 
seven separate questions about 
life satisfaction into an overall 
index of wellbeing, again scoring 
from “0” (lowest possible 
score) to “10” (highest possible 
score). The seven individual 
items cover: standard of living; 
health; achievement in life; 
personal relationships; safety; 
feeling part of the community; 
and future security. The 
second covers experiences of 
discrimination and is based on 
how often each of 10 separate 
types of microaggressions are 
experienced. In this index, scores 
range from “0” (none of the 10 
items are ever experienced) 
to a maximum of “10” (each is 
experienced almost every day).2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 
The survey fieldwork in Toronto was conducted by the 
Environics Research Group. The study’s partners would like 
to thank John Otoo for leading the fieldwork, and Rohit Shah 
and Phil Straforelli for contributing to the preparation of the 
data files. We also thank Doug Norris of Environics Analytics 
for help with updating the demographic portrait of the city, 
and Keith Neuman of the Environics Institute for additional 
advice. Finally, thank you to the thousands of Torontonians 
and other Canadians who took the time to complete the 
surveys and share their perspectives and experiences. 
1 As the selection and wording of survey questions differ in some cases between the 2018 and 2022 questions, the indexes originally 
reported in 2018 are not always directly comparable to those reported here. For this reason, revised index scores were computed 
from the 2018 data using the same questions and formulas as in 2022. As a result, the 2018 index scores noted in this report may 
differ from those published in 2018.
2 The wellbeing index uses the Personal Wellbeing Index available from the Australian Centre on Quality of Life (see https://www.
acqol.com.au/index). The discrimination index uses the Williams Everyday Discrimination scale developed by David R. Williams 
(see https://scholar.harvard.edu/davidrwilliams/node/32397). 
*Categories may not add up to 100% due to non-responses or multiple responses.
** Based on 2016 and 2021 census data or projections.
*** The category of “white” includes those who selected this response only. Other 
identity categories may include multiple responses.
Sample
2022 survey sample* Census 
(%)** # Unweighted 
%
Weighted 
%
Total 4,163 100 100 100
Male 1,784 43 47 47
Female 2,363 57 52 52
Age 18–34 979 24 32 31
Age 35–54 1,326 32 35 33
Age 55+ 1,858 45 33 36
South Asian 463 11 14 14
Chinese 359 9 11 11
Black 523 13 10 10
Other racialized 576 14 17 19
White*** 2,174 52 46 46
High school 
or less 1,343 32 38 39
Trades/college 844 20 24 24
University 1,957 47 38 38
TORONTO SOCIAL CAPITAL STUDY 2022 
SURVEY SAMPLE 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 12 

This report provides an overview of the key survey results 
(additional results will be explored in future publications). 
It explores how the primary dimensions of social capital 
(social trust, social networks, civic engagement and 
neighbourhood support) have evolved since 2018 and provides 
further details on the experiences of particular population 
groups. It also reports on how the wellbeing of Torontonians 
has changed between 2018 and 2022. 
About This Report
Additional analyses of particular topics of interest will be published in the 
coming months and made available at torontofoundation.ca.
Additional information about the study, detailed survey results and 
further information about the social capital indexes are available online at 
www.environicsinstitute.org/projects/ and torontofoundation.ca. 
O
O
O
O
O
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 13 

SOCIAL 
NETWORKS
While most Torontonians can 
count on a network of friends 
and family, the extent of these 
networks has changed since 
2018: Torontonians are coming 
out of the pandemic connected 
to smaller groups of family and 
friends than they were going 
into it. They are also now seeing 
their companions in person 
less often. The frequency of 
in-person communication fell 
most for seniors; seniors also 
experienced the largest drop in 
satisfaction in how often they 
communicate with their close 
friends and relatives.
About one in 12 Torontonians 
reports having no close family 
members they can call for help 
or talk to about what’s on their 
mind, and a similar proportion say 
they have no close friends. In each 
case, this represents more than 
200,000 people in the city who 
lack this form of social support. 
Those who are less connected 
in these ways include those who 
have lower incomes, those who 
are unemployed, those who have 
a disability and those who report 
poor mental health.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 14 

Key Findings
A greater proportion of city residents 
today than in 2018 have between zero and 
five close relatives or close friends, and a 
smaller proportion have six or more (and 
the same is true in the case of the number 
of other friends). 
The proportion of Torontonians having 
in-person contact with close friends or 
relatives at least once a week fell between 
2018 and 2022.
Tools such as messaging apps or video 
calls provide ways of staying in touch with 
close friends and family members that 
are additional to, and not an alternative 
to, in-person meetings. Those who report 
regular in-person contact with their close 
friends and family are also more likely 
to communicate with them regularly by 
telephone or online.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 15 

O
One essential dimension of social capital is the presence and quality 
of personal connections that individuals have with others through 
their social networks, including both family and friends. 
FRIENDS AND FAMILY: THE 
EXTENT OF SOCIAL NETWORKS
The vast majority of Torontonians have 
people in their lives with whom they 
feel at ease, can talk to or call on for 
help. Nine in 10 (91%) have at least one 
close relative, and the same proportion 
(91%) have at least one close friend. 
In addition to these close relatives or 
friends, eight in 10 (82%) have at least 
one other friend.
In most cases, these close family 
members and friends live in the 
Toronto area. Seven in 10 Toronto 
residents have a close family member 
living in the same city; in the case of 
close friends, the proportion is eight in 
10. One in two Toronto residents has 
a close friend who lives in the same 
neighbourhood as they do.
About one in 12 Torontonians (8%) 
reports having no close family members 
they can call for help or talk to about 
what’s on their mind, and a similar 
proportion say they have no close 
friends. In each case, this represents 
more than 200,000 people in the city 
who lack this form of social support. 
The proportion of Torontonians 
reporting having no close relatives, 
no close friends or no other friends is 
higher than average among certain 
groups, including those who have a 
disability that always or often limits 
their daily activity, those who have 
very low incomes, those who are 
unemployed and those who report 
poor mental health.
While most Torontonians can count 
on a network of friends and family, the 
extent of these networks has changed 
since 2018: Torontonians are coming 
out of the pandemic connected to 
smaller groups of family and friends 
than they were going into it. A greater 
proportion of city residents have 
between zero and five close relatives or 
close friends, and a smaller proportion 
have six or more (and the same is true 
in the case of the number of other 
friends). 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 16 

Between 2018 and 2022:
• the proportion with six or more close
relatives fell from 42% to 32%, while
the proportion with between zero and
five increased from 56% to 66%;
• the proportion with six or more close
friends fell from 37% to 28%, while the
proportion with between zero and five
increased from 60% to 71%;
• the proportion with six or more other
friends fell from 65% to 52%, while the
proportion with between zero and five
increased from 31% to 44%.
These changes affected all age groups. 
In the case of the number of close 
relatives or friends, however, the changes 
are less pronounced among both younger 
and older Torontonians and more 
pronounced among those between the 
ages of 40 and 64. 
The experience of the pandemic, and 
the difficulties it created for socializing 
with friends and family, offers the most 
likely explanation for this tightening of 
the size of social networks. For more 
than two years, social interaction has 
been impeded by periodic restrictions 
on the size of social gatherings and by 
the limiting of occasions to meet existing 
friends, and to make new ones, at work 
or through leisure activities. People’s 
own cautionary behaviours to limit their 
possible exposure to the virus, especially 
as new waves of the COVID-19 pandemic 
took hold, also may have led them to 
minimize direct social contacts.
NUMBER OF CLOSE FRIENDS (%)
NUMBER OF OTHER FRIENDS (%)
6 8
54
63
23 20
14
7
More
than 11
Between
6 and 10
Between
1 and 5
None
2018 2022
10
14
21
30
22 21
43
30
14
7
More
than 11
Between
6 and 10
Between
1 and 5
None
2018 2022
Q16. “How many close friends do you have (that is, people who 
are not your relatives but who you can feel at ease with, can talk 
to about what is on your mind or call on for help)?”
Q14. “How many relatives do you have who you feel close to
(that is, who you feel at ease with, can talk to about what is on
your mind or call on for help)?”
Q19. “Not counting your close friends or relatives, how many 
other friends do you have?”
NUMBER OF CLOSE RELATIVES (%)
6 8
50
59
24 21 18
11
More
than 11
Between
6 and 10
Between
1 and 5
None
2018 2022
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 17 

CONTACTS WITH FRIENDS
AND FAMILY
Not only do Torontonians today report 
having fewer close family members and 
friends than in 2018, but they are also 
seeing these companions in person 
less often. 
In 2018, 31% of Toronto residents said 
that, in the past month, they had seen 
close friends or relatives in person 
at least a few times a week. In 2022, 
the proportion is lower, at 25%.3 The 
proportion having in-person contact 
with close friends or relatives at least 
once a week fell from 52% to 44%. 
Conversely, the proportion who hadn’t 
seen their close friends or relatives in 
person at all during the past month 
nearly doubled, from 9% to 17%.
Every day/a few times 
31
25
Once a week
21 19
2 or 3 times a month
23 22
Once a month
13 15
Not in the past month
9
17
2018 2022
a week
While the proportion of Torontonians 
seeing any close friends or relatives in 
person at least a few times a week in the 
past month declined by six points on 
average (from 31% to 25%), it fell by more 
than this among seniors (by 14 points, from 
37% to 23%) and among those who identify 
as LGBTQ2S+ (by 12 points).
FREQUENCY OF IN-PERSON CONTACT WITH CLOSE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES (%)
Q22A. “And in the past month, how often did you see or communicate with any of your close friends and 
relatives in terms of seeing them in person?”
3 This does not include family or friends living in the same household.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 18 

HAVING PEOPLE TO DEPEND ON
Most Torontonians say they always or 
often feel they have people they can 
depend on to help them when they 
really need it. But the proportion with 
this reassurance has also declined. 
In 2018, 70% of city residents felt 
they always or often had someone to 
depend on, but this figure fell to 59% 
in 2022. Conversely, the proportion 
who feel they only sometimes, or 
rarely or never, have someone to 
depend on increased by 12 points, 
from 27% to 39%. 
In 2022, men and women are equally 
likely to say they have someone to 
depend on. But differences emerge 
when we compare this to 2018. The 
percentage who say they always 
have someone to rely on declined by 
17 points for women, to 32% in 2022, 
and eight points for men, to 29%. 
These beliefs shifted for each age 
category by similar amounts. But the 
starting points were lower among 
those who were young. Only about 
one in two (53%) of those under the 
age of 40 say they always or often 
have someone they can depend on, 
compared to 64% for those aged 40 
and older. 
HAVE PEOPLE YOU CAN DEPEND ON TO (%)
HELP WHEN YOU REALLY NEED IT?
Always Often Sometimes Rarely/Never Cannot say
43
30 27 29
19
27
8
12
2 2
2018 2022
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
69
56
63
51
67
52
68
57
74
61
82
74
2018 2022
Q39D. “Thinking about your life in general, how often would you 
say you have people you can depend on to help you when you 
really need it?”
BY AGE
People who answered always or often (%)
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 19 

Communication by telephone or 
computer was already more frequent 
than in-person meetings in 2018, and 
this remains the case today. In 2022, 
59% of Torontonians exchanged 
messages online with close friends or 
family either every day or a few times a 
week in the past month (through texts, 
emails or messaging apps), and 37% 
talked to them every day or a few times 
a week by telephone (this compares to 
25% who are in contact this frequently 
in person). The respective numbers 
for online and telephone contact in 
2018 were 57%, and 37%, indicating 
little change.4 In addition, in 2022, 
FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATION WITH CLOSE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, BY AGE GROUP (%)
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
46
39
32 29 28 25 25
20
29
22
37
23
2018 2022
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
75
69
64
70
63 66
58 58
53 53
43 46
2018 2022
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
41
40
27
38
29
35 34
40
33
51
39 37
25 25
20
29
22
37
23
2018 2022
31
26 22 19
13 12
2022
2018: not asked
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
31
26 22 19
13 12
2022
2018: not asked
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
Q22. “And in the past month, how often did you see or communicate with any of your close friends and relatives in terms of…”
* In 2018: “Communicating with them online, such as by text, email or apps such as Whatsapp?” 
SEEING THEM IN PERSON 
(EVERY DAY OR A FEW TIMES PER WEEK)
EXCHANGING MESSAGES ONLINE, SUCH AS BY TEXT, 
EMAIL OR APPS SUCH AS WHATSAPP*
(EVERY DAY OR A FEW TIMES PER WEEK)
TALKING WITH THEM BY TELEPHONE 
(EVERY DAY OR A FEW TIMES PER WEEK)
COMMUNICATING WITH THEM ONLINE BY VIDEO 
CALL (EVERY DAY OR A FEW TIMES PER WEEK)
19% of Torontonians communicated 
with friends or relatives by video call 
every day or a few times a week.
While there was no change overall in 
the frequency of telephone or online 
communication, the pattern varies 
by age group. As is the case with in￾person communication, the proportion 
of seniors talking with friends or 
relatives by telephone at least a few 
times a week fell (from 51% to 39%). 
Notably, the proportion of seniors 
communicating this regularly through 
online messages increased only slightly 
(from 43% to 46%).
4 The wording of the question about online communication changed slightly between the two surveys. In 2018, the question 
mentioned “communicating with them online, such as by text, email or apps such as Whatsapp?” In 2022, this was changed to 
“exchanging messages online, such as by text, email or apps such as Whatsapp.” In 2022, communication by video calls was 
mentioned specifically in a separate question.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 20 

More generally, the survey finds that 
tools such as messaging apps or 
video calls provide ways of staying in 
touch with close friends and family 
members that are additional to, 
and not an alternative to, in-person 
meetings. Those who report regular 
in-person contact with their close 
friends and family are also more likely 
to communicate with them regularly by 
telephone or online.5 Conversely, those 
who see friends and family in person 
less often than average generally do 
not compensate for this by phoning or 
emailing more often than average. 
Finally, the drop in the number 
of friends and family members 
Torontonians are in touch with has 
not meant that social networks have 
become more homogenous. There has 
been no change since 2018 in the extent 
to which city residents socialize with 
friends from the same age group or 
of the sex as their own. And there has 
been a small increase in the proportion 
who say that about half or more of 
the friends with whom they have had 
contact in the past month belong to 
an ethnic group that is visibly different 
from their own (from 42% in 2018, to 
47% in 2022). This increase is more 
pronounced among those who are 
third-generation or more in Canada (a 
nine-point increase, from 33% to 42%).6
5 This pattern holds for Torontonians in all age groups, including seniors.
6 In this report, “first-generation immigrant” refers to those born outside of Canada, “second- generation immigrant” refers to those 
born in Canada, but with at least one parent born outside of Canada, and “third-generation plus” refers to those born in Canada to 
Canada-born parents.
SATISFACTION WITH
THE FREQUENCY OF 
COMMUNICATION
Along with the changes to the size 
of social networks and the frequency 
of in-person contact with friends 
and relatives, there was a decline 
in the extent to which Torontonians 
are satisfied with how often they 
communicate with their close friends 
and relatives. However, this decline is 
fairly modest. The proportion that says 
they are very satisfied with how often 
they communicate with their close 
friends and relatives fell from 29% in 
2018 to 24% in 2022. The proportion 
that says they are either very or 
somewhat satisfied was virtually 
unchanged (73% in 2018, compared 
to 72% in 2022).
While remaining more satisfied than 
average, seniors experienced the 
largest decline in satisfaction between 
2018 and 2022. The proportion of 
seniors who are very satisfied with 
how often they communicate with 
their close friends and relatives fell 
by 12 points, from 40% to 28%. In the 
case of seniors living alone, the drop 
was even larger (18 points, from 43% 
to 25%).
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 21 

THE SOCIAL NETWORK INDEX
The survey results relating to connections 
with family and friends (including the 
number and proximity of friends and 
relatives, and the frequency of contact) 
were combined to form a single index of 
social networks that provides the basis 
for identifying how this form of social 
capital varies across Toronto and how 
it has changed since 2018. 
In 2022, the city-wide social networks 
index score is 5.48 (out of 10), which is 
lower than in 2018, when the score was 
5.85, reflecting the changes in the number 
and frequency of connections to friends 
and family detailed in this section. 
Social network index scores vary widely 
within the city, particularly by income. 
In 2022:
• index scores are higher for those who 
are better off, including those with 
annual household incomes of at least 
$100,000 (5.81), who describe their 
income as “good enough” (5.80), who 
own their homes (5.61) or who are 
employed (5.57). They are lower for 
those with annual household incomes 
of $30,000 or below (5.04), who 
describe their income as “not enough” 
(5.10), who rent their homes (5.36) or 
who are unemployed (4.75);7
• index scores are also higher than 
average for those who identify as South 
Asian (5.72), for immigrants who have 
lived in Canada for 10 years or fewer 
(5.74), for seniors (5.72) and for those 
with a university degree (5.61); 
• scores are also somewhat higher for 
women (5.55), compared to men (5.42), 
and for those with no disability (5.56), 
compared to those with a disability that 
always or often limits their daily activity 
(5.16).
Compared to 2018, social network index 
scores are lower across all areas of the city 
and among groups from all backgrounds. 
While index scores have fallen for all 
age groups, the decline is somewhat 
more pronounced for those aged 55 to 
64 and for seniors living alone. Despite 
this change, the social network score for 
seniors living alone in the city of Toronto in 
2022 is not significantly lower than average 
and is similar to that for residents in their 
late 20s and early 30s.
7 The description of income is based on the following question: “Which of the following best describes your total household income 
at the present time? Would you say it is: good enough for you and you can save from it; just enough for you, so that you do not have 
major problems; not enough for you and you are stretched; or not enough for you and you are having a hard time?”
SOCIAL NETWORKS INDEX: MEAN SCORES, BY AGE GROUP
2018 2022
18–24
5.82 5.55
25–29
5.43 5.45
30–39
5.74 5.44
40–54
5.75 5.33
55–64
6.25
5.47
65+
6.25
5.72
65+ living alone
6.15
5.41
Mean scores (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 22 

THE IMPORTANCE OF 
SOCIAL NETWORKS
Not everyone seeks the same amount 
of social connections; some people are 
more gregarious or extroverted than 
others. But the Toronto Social Capital 
Study demonstrates that, on the whole, 
there is a very strong relationship 
between the extent of social networks 
and other indicators of wellbeing.
For instance, Torontonians with higher 
social network index scores report 
significantly better life satisfaction, 
mental health and overall wellbeing 
than those with lower scores. They are 
also more likely to say they feel they 
usually can bounce back quickly after 
hard times or have something to look 
forward to in life.
The survey does not show that stronger 
social connections cause these better 
outcomes. In fact, the reverse could 
be true: it could be that having better 
health or a more optimistic outlook also 
makes it easier to connect with family 
and friends. But the strength of the 
relationship between social networks 
and wellbeing nonetheless serves to 
underline the importance of measuring 
how social networks in the city are 
changing over time—particularly in the 
context of the effort to understand the 
full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL CONNECTIONS (%)
AND OTHER INDICATORS OF WELLBEING
Always or often have 
people to depend on 
when you really need it
Always or often are 
confident in your 
abilities, even when 
faced with challenges
Always or often have 
something to look 
forward to in life
Always or often are 
able to bounce back 
quickly after hard times
Mental health is 
excellent or very good
 21
 53
 73
 89
 33
 54
 74
 84
 24
 49
 70
 80
 28
 54
 70
 80
 18
 38
 49
 64
Zero to 3Index scores:
Just above 6 to 8 Just above 8 to 10
Just above 3 to 6
Index of wellbeing 
(mean score)
Life satisfaction 
(mean score)
Zero to 3
Just above 6 to 8
 4.09
 6.17
 7.14
 7.79
 4.35
 6.32
 7.26
 8.00
Just above 8 to 10
Index scores: Just above 3 to 6
INDEXES OF WELLBEING, BASED ON SOCIAL 
NETWORKS INDEX SCORES:
INDICATORS OF WELLBEING, BASED ON SOCIAL 
NETWORKS INDEX SCORES:
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Networks 23 

CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT
No dimension of social capital has 
been as significantly affected by the 
pandemic as civic engagement. 
Torontonians today are 
participating in or are members 
of far fewer groups than they 
were in 2018. Volunteering and 
donation rates also have dropped 
significantly, adding strain to a 
nonprofit sector that has been 
already struggling to keep up with 
demand during the pandemic. 
These declines in civic engagement 
span age, income, racial identity 
and geography, with nearly all 
groups across the city reporting 
declines in civic engagement. Still, 
inequities persist, with the lowest 
income and least educated residents 
the least likely to be engaged. And 
many of the declines are linked, with 
the largest declines in donations and 
volunteering occurring among those 
who participated in the least number 
of groups and memberships. 
The key question going forward is, 
how quickly these measures of civic 
engagement will bounce back. Two 
and a half years into the pandemic, 
the declines are still dramatic. Many 
of the organizations that enable civic 
engagement are often stretched and 
not able to operate at full capacity, 
potentially making it harder for 
people to return to activities, even as 
interest returns to normal. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 24 

Key Findings
Participation in groups has decreased, 
with the average person participating in 
1.0 groups in 2022, down from 1.6 in 2018. 
Participation declined most significantly 
in sports and recreation organizations, 
cultural organizations, and union and 
professional associations. 
Older Torontonians show the most 
substantial declines in group participation; 
group participation also declined twice as 
much for women as for men. 
The percentage of Torontonians donating 
to charities dropped by 12 percentage 
points, translating to a potential loss of 
more than 300,000 donors in Toronto. 
Declining participation is linked to the 
decline in donations, with donation rates 
dropping significantly among those 
with the lowest participation and barely 
at all among those with the highest 
participation. 
The rate of volunteering decreased to 
25%, a 12-point drop from 2018. 
With the average person who volunteers 
contributing more than 100 hours per year, 
this may have resulted in about 36 million 
hours of lost volunteering, substantially 
contributing to service shortages for 
nonprofits around the city.
Interest in politics decreased slightly 
among nearly every group in the city.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 25 

MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION 
IN GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS
O
A second primary dimension of social capital encompasses the concept of 
community, or collective, social vitality—the extent to which people engage 
with others in groups and organizations, above and beyond their family and 
friendship networks. Civic engagement includes behaviours like donating and 
volunteering with charities and nonprofit organizations, engagement in political 
life and participating in organizations and groups like sports and recreation, 
religious, cultural, seniors’ or youth groups or unions.
Most Torontonians (70%) have been 
a member of or have participated 
in some type of organization in the 
past 12 months. Toronto residents are 
most likely to have participated in 
sports or recreational organizations 
(18%); religious-affiliated groups 
(18%); cultural, educational or hobby 
organizations (17%); and unions or 
professional associations (16%). 
Younger residents, men, those with 
children at home, those in larger 
households, those with more education 
and those with higher incomes all 
participated at higher rates than 
others. Those who were unemployed 
had strikingly lower participation.
Those who identify as having a 
disability that occasionally limits their 
ability to participate in day-to-day 
activities are more likely to participate 
in groups than either those with no 
disabilities or those with a disability 
that always or often limits their day￾to-day activities, driven by higher 
participation in cultural, education or 
hobby groups; youth organizations; 
political parties and groups; and 
seniors’ groups. 
Participation in organizations declined 
significantly between 2018 and 2022:
• In 2022, Toronto residents are 
participating in an average of 1.0 
groups each, down from 1.6 groups 
each in 2018.
• This decline was entirely driven 
by the decrease in the number of 
people participating in more than 
one group, which declined from 
42% in 2018 to 18% in 2022. 
• The percentage of people 
participating in no groups declined 
slightly (from 35% to 30%), 
indicating that some people who 
were not participating before the 
pandemic are participating now.8
8 A new series of questions on access to community facilities was added before this question in the 2022 survey, and this may also have 
reminded people about cultural or sports activities in which they had recently participated. This could partly explain the change. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 26 

2018 2022
MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF GROUP (%)
NUMBER OF GROUPS INVOLVED IN AS MEMBER 
OR PARTICIPANT
(%)
The decline in participation in 
groups and associations is most 
likely a result of the COVID-19 
pandemic: either groups suspended 
their activities, or people did not 
feel safe participating. Even as 
many in-person meetings and 
events resumed over the course 
of 2022, some Torontonians may 
continue to feel wary, or they may 
simply have fallen out of the habit 
of participating.9
Participation in sports and 
recreation organizations; cultural, 
education and hobby organizations; 
and unions or professional 
associations all saw declines of at 
least eight percentage points.
9 Note that overall participation in groups did not appear to be declining prior to the pandemic, with some exceptions for specific 
types of participation. National studies by Statistics Canada in 2003, 2008 and 2013 found that participation was higher in 2013 than 
2003 (Turcotte, 2015). The 2018 Toronto Social Capital Study found that, when compared to Statistics Canada’s results from 2013, 
participation in certain groups had declined, but overall there was no major shift in overall participation rates. 
Turcotte, Martin. 2015. “Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General Social Survey Civic Engagement and Political Participation 
in Canada.” Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General Social Survey. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-652-x/89-
652-x2015006-eng.pdf?st=tBK-cRR1.
A religious–aliated group 
(such as a church group or choir, but 
not a church, synagogue, mosque etc.)
A sports or recreational 
organization
A cultural, educational or 
hobby organization
A union or professional 
association
A seniors’ group
A youth organization
A political party 
or group
An immigrant or ethnic 
association or club
A service club 
(such as Rotary or the Legion)
 20
 18
 26
 18
 28
 17
 27
 16
 10
 7
 7
 6
 10
 6
 8
 3
 6
 6
 54
 24
2018 2022
Q25. “In the past 12 months, were you a member or participant in . . .?”
In 2022, Toronto residents 
are participating in an 
average of 1.0 groups each, 
down from 1.6 groups 
each in 2018.
0
Number of types of groups participated in
1 2 3 to 5 6 or more
35
30
23
51
17
11
22
7
3 1
2018 2022
0
Number of types of groups participated in
1 2 3 to 5 6 or more
35
30
23
51
17
11
22
7
3 1
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 27 

In the case of sports and recreation 
organizations, participation fell by eight 
percentage points between 2018 and 
2022 (from 26% to 18%). This follows an 
earlier decline from 33% in 2013 to 26% 
in 2018.10 Participation in service clubs 
has also decreased substantially, from 
8% of Toronto residents in 2018 to 3% 
in 2022. In the case of political parties 
or groups, participation dropped from 
10% to 6%.
Participation in religious-affiliated 
groups, however, did not decline by 
as much (falling only two percentage 
points, from 20% in 2018 to 18% in 
2022). This contrasts with the sharp 
decline in attendance at religious 
services. In 2018, 41% of respondents 
indicated they attended religious 
services at least once a month, but 
this fell to 23% in 2022.11 It is possible 
that participation in religious-affiliated 
groups provided a substitute for 
religious services for those who were 
not able to attend such services due to 
the pandemic. 
Immigrant or ethnic associations 
or clubs also showed no overall 
decline in participation (6% in both 
2018 and 2022). And participation 
in these groups actually increased 
among new residents to the country. 
Among immigrants who have been 
in Canada for fewer than 10 years, 
15% participated in one of these 
associations in 2022, up from 9% in 
2018. This increase in participation, 
despite the challenges of the 
pandemic, highlights how important 
these groups are to newcomers, 
particularly when other opportunities 
to connect with new friends and 
neighbours may not have been available. 
Looking at different groups in the city, 
there were differences in how group 
participation changed across age, 
gender, racial identity, immigration 
status and religious participation. 
Among age groups, the biggest declines 
in group participation were among those 
aged 55 and older, many of whom may 
have had more health concerns about 
participating in in-person meetings 
during the pandemic. Those 65 and 
older are participating in almost half the 
number of groups that they were before 
the pandemic (an average of 2.1 groups 
in 2018 to 1.1 groups in 2022), while 
those aged 55 to 64 saw substantial 
declines as well (from an average of 1.7 
groups in 2018 to 0.9 groups in 2022). 
Among those 55 and older, participation 
in sports or recreation organizations 
dropped by more than half (falling from 
27% to 13% for those aged 55 to 64, and 
from 27% to 13% for those aged 65 and 
older).
In contrast, participation rates were 
relatively unchanged among those 
between the ages of 30 and 39. In fact, 
while this age group had the lowest 
levels of group involvement in 2018, 
they have average participation in 2022 
(as participation rates for all other age 
groups declined more significantly). For 
this age group, people are participating 
in 1.0 groups in 2022 and participated in 
1.2 in 2018. 
10 Participation in sports and recreation organizations declined between 2013 and 2018 in Toronto, even as overall participation 
remained constant. Toronto Foundation and The Environics Institute for Survey Research. 2018. Toronto Social Capital Study 2018. 
Toronto. https://torontofoundation.ca/publications.
11 This is the case, even though the 2022 survey question asked about both in-person and online attendance.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 28 

The decline in group participation is 
almost twice as large for women as 
men (women participated in an average 
of 0.9 groups in 2022, a decline of 0.8, 
while men participated in 1.1 groups in 
2022, a decline of 0.4). In the case of 
sports and recreation organizations, 
men’s participation changed very little 
between 2018 and 2022 (from 26% 
to 22%), while women’s participation 
declined from 25% to 14%. Women also 
had significant declines in participation 
in religious groups (from 24% to 18%), 
compared to no significant change 
for men (from 16% to 18%). Women 
also had bigger declines than men 
for participation in political groups, 
seniors’ groups, service groups, and 
unions and professional associations. 
Racial identity was also connected to 
changing patterns of participation. 
Chinese residents of Toronto, who had 
the lowest rates of participation in 
2018, saw little change in participation 
and are now participating at similar 
levels to others. 
On the other hand, those who identify 
as white or Black saw substantial 
decreases in participation, participating 
in an average of 0.7 fewer groups in 
2022 than 2018.12
12 In this report, the category of “white” refers to those identifying with this group only; other categories include all those who identify 
with that group, including those who may also identify with others.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF GROUPS INVOLVED IN AS MEMBER OR PARTICIPANT, BY AGE
2018 2022
18–24
1.6
1.2
25–29
1.4
1.0
30–39
1.2 1.0
40–54
1.4
0.9
55–64
1.7
0.9
65+
2.1
1.1
For Black, South Asian and white 
residents, participation in sports and 
recreation organizations was a significant 
part of the decline (from 25% to 15% for 
Black residents, from 22% to 16% for 
South Asian residents and from 28% to 
19% for white residents). 
Participation in unions and professional 
associations declined more sharply 
among Black residents. In 2018, 31% of 
Black Torontonians reported participation 
in these associations, down to 15% in 
2022, a drop of 16 percentage points 
(compared to an average decline of 
11 percentage points). 
One other notable finding was that 
newcomers to Canada saw no significant 
change in their rates of participation in 
groups, while participation rates declined 
substantially for all established immigrants 
and for those who are second- or third￾generation-plus in Canada. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 29 

These declines in group participation 
are concerning, because group 
participation is associated with many 
other positive outcomes.13 People who 
participate in groups have higher life 
satisfaction, more trust in society and 
others, have more people they can rely 
on and have broader social networks. 
A central question going forward is, 
whether and how quickly participation 
in these groups will recover. Many 
of these programs are operated by 
charitable and nonprofit organizations. 
But many nonprofits are currently 
operating at reduced capacity, limiting 
their programs (for a variety of 
reasons, including rising labour costs, 
declining revenues and a decline in 
volunteering). If nonprofit groups do 
not have the capacity to reopen or 
resume full operations, it may limit 
opportunities for Toronto residents to 
participate, even as concerns about 
the spread of COVID-19 subside. 
CHARITABLE DONATIONS
AVERAGE NUMBER OF GROUPS INVOLVED IN AS MEMBER 
OR PARTICIPANT
1.5
1.1
1.7
0.9
WomenMen
2018 2022
1.5
1.1
1.7
0.9
WomenMen
1.5
1.1
1.7
0.9
WomenMen
2018 2022
White South Asian Chinese Black Other 
Racialized
1.7
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.9 0.9
1.8
1.1
1.6
1.1
2018 2022
2018 2022
A majority of Toronto residents 
(63%) donated money or goods to 
an organization or charity in the past 
12 months. But this represents a 12 
percentage point decline from 2018, 
when 75% reported making donations. 
In 2018, the majority of Torontonians 
across all demographic groups and 
neighbourhoods donated to charity. 
In 2022, this was no longer the case. 
Among those under the age of 29, 
those aged 25 to 40 living alone and 
those who describe their income as not 
enough and that they were having a 
hard time, fewer than one in two made 
a donation in the past 12 months.
13 This does not necessary mean that group participation causes these outcomes; it could be that higher life satisfaction or wider social 
networks prompt people to participate in more groups.
MEN AND WOMEN
BY RACIAL IDENTITY
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 30 

MADE CHARITABLE DONATIONS IN PAST YEAR (%)
2018 2022
Less than 
$30k 
$30–$60k $60k–$100k $100k plus
59
50
72
61
77
66
86
73
In the past 12 months, 
63% of Toronto residents 
donated money or goods to 
an organization or charity, 
down from 75% in 2018.
Donation rates rise with income: They 
are much higher among those with 
annual household incomes of $100,000 
or more (73%) than among those 
with incomes below $30,000 (50%). 
However, the decline in donation rates 
occurred across all income categories 
(it fell by 13 percentage points among 
those in the highest income group, 
and by nine points among those in 
the lowest income group). Similarly, 
donation rates dropped by a similar 
extent among both those who describe 
their incomes as “good enough” and 
those who said their incomes were 
”not enough.” 
This substantial decline in donations 
among people with high incomes is of 
particular note, as it suggests that the 
overall decline cannot be attributed 
solely to increased financial strain 
among those in the community with 
lower incomes. 
O
Q31. “In the past 12 months, did you donate money or goods to any 
organization or charity?”
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
54
46
70
49
69
55
79
64
82
67
87
82
2018 2022
63
52
73
62
85
78
89 87
3 or more groups2 groups1 group0 groups
2018 2022
BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
BY AGE
BY NUMBER OF GROUPS MEMBER OF OR PARTICIPANT IN
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 31 

When looking at changing donation 
patterns by age, donations remained 
consistently high among those aged 
65 and older (87% in 2018 and 82% 
in 2022), while the decline was most 
significant among those aged 25 to 29 
(a drop of 21 points) and those aged 
55 to 64 (a drop of 15 points). The 
decline in donations from younger 
Torontonians is concerning, as 
previous donation behaviour is one 
of the strongest predictors of future 
donations, suggesting a short-term 
decline in donations risks turning into 
a longer-term issue.14
The drop in the donation rate may be 
linked to the decline in participation 
in organizations (which are typically 
nonprofits and charities), as many 
individuals donate to organizations 
they are involved with. Donation rates 
dropped more significantly between 
2018 and 2022 among those who 
are less active in groups. It fell by 11 
points for those who participated in 
no groups; by 11 points for those who 
participated in one group, but seven 
points for those who participated in 
two groups; and by only two points 
for those who participated in three or 
more groups. 
People who are actively religious 
(with a religious affiliation and 
attending services at least monthly) 
saw their donation rate drop by only 
five percentage points, while for those 
who are not religious, the donation 
rate dropped by 16 percentage points. 
This may mean that charities without a 
religious affiliation are experiencing the 
sharpest declines in donations. 
VOLUNTEERING
The percentage of people who report 
they volunteered for any organization 
in the past 12 months declined 
by 12 percentage points between 
2018 and 2022, from 37% to 25%.15
Many volunteer opportunities were 
suspended during the pandemic, while 
many Torontonians did not feel safe 
participating in activities for which they 
formerly volunteered. 
Volunteer hours (among those who 
volunteer) similarly declined: the 
proportion who volunteered 15 hours 
a month or more dropped by eight 
percentage points. Accordingly, the 
proportion who volunteered between 
one and four hours per month 
increased by 10 points.
Volunteering is higher among 
newcomers, with 31% of immigrants 
who have lived in Canada for fewer 
than 10 years reporting that they 
volunteered, compared to 25% of those 
in the general population. People with 
disabilities also have particularly high 
rates of volunteering, especially those 
who reported that their disability 
occasionally limits their activities 
(33%), compared to 23% of those who 
said they had no activity limitations and 
26% of those who said their disability 
always or often limits their activities. 
14 Lee, Lichang, Jane Allyn Piliavin, and Vaughn R.A. Call. 1999. “Giving Time, Money, and Blood: Similarities and Differences.” 
Social Psychology Quarterly 62 (3): 276–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695864.
15 This is similar to the 38% decline in volunteer hours reported by charities in the 2021 Toronto Nonprofit Survey, as reported in 
Toronto’s Vital Signs Report 2021.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 32 

Volunteering is also higher among 
those with university degrees or with 
higher incomes. Volunteering is much 
lower among those with lower incomes 
or less education and among the 
unemployed (17%). Volunteer rates are 
almost identical for men and women 
(25% versus 26%, respectively), but 
higher among those who identity as 
LGBTQ2S+ (33%). 
Volunteering rates differ across the 
city, with the highest rates in the 
downtown area (30%) and in the North 
and South Humber areas (31% and 28%, 
respectively). Volunteering rates were 
relatively low in the Weston-Jane-York 
areas (21%), in Scarborough-Agincourt 
(22%) and Scarborough-Ionview (20%). 
The decline in volunteer rates occurred 
among Torontonians from all income 
groups, racial identities, age groups 
and genders. But the decline was 
particularly large among those aged 55 
to 64, who volunteer at about half the 
rate in 2022 as in 2018 (22% versus 41%).
In both 2018 and 2022, those under the 
age of 29 volunteered the most, though 
the gap has widened in 2022. 
As is the case with donations, Toronto 
residents who are actively religious 
are less likely to report declining 
volunteering rates. Those who are 
actively religious saw volunteering 
rates decrease by eight percentage 
points (to 43%), while those who were 
not religious saw volunteering rates 
drop by 15 percentage points (to 20%).
NUMBER OF HOURS VOLUNTEERED IN PAST YEAR (%)
VOLUNTEERED IN PAST YEAR, BY AGE (%)
2018 2022
Less than 
1 hour 
per month
Between 1 and 
4 hours 
per month
Between 5 and 
14 hours 
per month
15 hours 
or more 
per month
18 17
30
40
30 29
21
13
Subsample: Those who volunteered in past 12 months
2018 2022
45
36
42
32 33
25
35
22
41
22
34
23
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
Q30. “On average, about how many hours per month did you volunteer?” 
(If you volunteered for fewer than 12 months in past year, answer for 
months you have volunteered.)
Q29. “In the past 12 months did you do unpaid volunteer work for 
any organization?”
The percentage of people who 
report they volunteered for any 
organization in the past 12 months 
declined by 12 percentage points 
between 2018 and 2022, from 
37% to 25%.
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 33 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF DECLINING DONATIONS 
AND VOLUNTEERING
The drop in the proportion of 
Toronto residents making donations 
is hitting charitable organizations 
harder, because the need for services 
and the cost of operating are in fact 
increasing, sometimes dramatically.
In 2022, 73% of Toronto nonprofits 
reported increased demand for their 
services, while 80% have seen an 
increase in costs, according to the 
2022 Ontario Nonprofit Network’s 
survey of nonprofits.16
From the perspectives of nonprofits, 
the value and scale of the decline in 
donations for charities and nonprofit 
organizations have the potential to 
be staggering. 
Both volunteering and giving 
decreased by 12 percentage 
points between 2018 and 2022, 
representing about 300,000 
fewer donors and 300,000 fewer 
volunteers in Toronto, a city with 
about 2.5 million people over the 
age of 18, as of the 2021 Census.17
O
If the lost donors give at average 
levels for Ontarians,18 this represents a 
potential loss of more than $180 million 
in donations in Toronto in the previous 
12 months. 
If the lost volunteers are volunteering 
at average levels for Ontarians, at 
122 hours per year,19 this represents 
a potential loss of about 36 million 
volunteer hours or approximately 
20,000 full-time equivalent positions.20
These levels of decline are a significant 
shortfall made only more challenging 
because of the rise in operating costs 
and increasing need for services. 
From 2018 to 2022
Toronto has lost 
the equivalent of
16 
 
Ontario Nonprofit Network (ONN). 2022. “State of the Ontario Nonprofit Survey Datasheet.” 2022. https://theonn.ca/
topics/policy-priorities/covid-19-resources/covid19-pandemic-surveys/
17 Statistics Canada. 2022. (table). Census Profile. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-
X2021001. Ottawa. Released September 21, 2022. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/
index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed October 6, 2022).
18 In Ontario, the average annual donation was $611 in 2018, while the median donation was $170. (see Statistics Canada. 
Table 45-10-0031-01 Donor rate and average annual donations, by age group.)
19 In Ontario, the average volunteer contributed 122 hours of formal volunteering in 2018. (see Statistics Canada. 
Table 45-10-0040-01 Volunteer rate and average annual volunteer hours, by definition of volunteering and gender.)
20 Assuming the typical full-time position means about 1,800 hours worked per year.
300K
DONORS
300K
VOLUNTEERS
$180M
IN DONATIONS
36M
VOLUNTEER HOURS
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 34 

National Rates of Volunteering and Donations
The 2022 figures for Toronto regarding charitable giving and donations are similar to those 
for Canada as a whole. The Canada-wide social capital survey conducted at the same time 
as the Toronto study finds that 24% of Canadians did volunteer work in the past 12 months, 
while 56% donated to an organization or charity. Volunteering is slightly more common 
in the Prairie provinces than in rest of the country; the likelihood of making donations, 
however, does not vary significantly by region. Overall, younger Canadians are more likely 
than their older counterparts to volunteer, but seniors are the most likely age group to 
make donations.
NATIONAL FINDINGS
Results from the Ontario Nonprofit 
Network’s 2022 survey of nonprofits 
show similar findings.
In their study, 63% of nonprofits in 
Toronto report challenges due to a 
loss of volunteers, 56% have difficulty 
recruiting new volunteers, and 
35% struggle to convince previous 
volunteers to return. 
This and other challenges like declining 
donations and increasing costs have 
resulted in almost half of organizations 
(45%) scaling back programs or 
services, or increasing their wait lists 
(20% of nonprofits).
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 35 

POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT
Most Torontonians express a general 
interest in politics, but as with the 
other measures relating to civic 
engagement, interest in politics has 
declined since 2018.
In 2022, 64% of Toronto residents said 
they are very or somewhat interested 
in politics, down seven percentage 
points from 2018. All of the decline was 
reported based on those who said they 
are very interested in politics (22% in 
2022, down eight percentage points). 
Interest in politics is strongly related to 
income, with 29% of those with annual 
household incomes of $100,000 or 
more reporting they are very interested 
in politics, compared to 16% of those 
with incomes of below $30,000. 
Those reporting disabilities also 
expressed higher interest in politics: 
65% of those who said their disabilities 
always limited their daily activities, 
and 72% of those who said their 
disabilities sometimes limited their 
daily activities, are very or somewhat 
interested, compared to 61% of those 
with no limitations. 
Interest in politics also varies by 
geography, with those in Scarborough, 
Weston-Jane-York and Newtonbrook￾Willowdale the least likely to report 
being very interested in politics (16% 
to 18%), and those living downtown, in 
Yorkdale and the Annex, the Danforth￾Beach and North Toronto-Don Mills 
reporting the highest interest in 
politics (26% to 28%).
GENERAL INTEREST IN POLITICS (%)
Very Interested Somewhat Interested
2018 2022
71
64
41
41
30 22
2018 2022
71
64
41
41
30 22
Very Interested Somewhat Interested
Q33. “Generally speaking, how interested are you in politics 
(e.g., international, national, provincial or municipal)?”
White
68
41
27
South 
Asian
18
62
44
Chinese
11
41
52
Black
18
41
59
Other
Racialized
23
41
64
Very Interested Somewhat Interested
BY RACIAL IDENTITY
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 36 

Racial identity is also related to interest 
in politics, with 27% of those who 
identify as white saying they have a 
strong interest in politics, compared to 
18% of those who identify as racialized, 
including 18% of those who identify 
as Black, 18% of those who identify as 
South Asian, 11% of those who identify as 
Chinese and 23% of those who identify 
as another racialized group.
Those who have an interest in 
politics also show more confidence 
in government: 
• 51% of those who are very interested 
in politics are at least somewhat 
confident that a government agency 
would help them if they fell on hard 
times, compared to 34% of those not 
at all interested; and
• 42% of those who are very interested 
in politics have a high degree of 
confidence (a “4” or “5” on a five￾point scale) in city hall, compared 
to 30% of those who are not at all 
interested.
Interest in politics generally decreased 
relatively equally among all demographic 
groups and neighbourhoods between 
2018 and 2022.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 
> Civic Engagement 37 

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT INDEX
The survey results related to civic 
engagement (group participation, 
donations, volunteering and political 
interest) were combined to form 
an index that provides the basis for 
identifying how this form of social 
capital varies across Toronto and how 
it has changed since 2018. 
In 2022, the city-wide civic 
engagement index score is 4.11 (out of 
10), which is considerably lower than 
in 2018, when the score was 4.86, 
reflecting the reductions in donations, 
volunteering, group participation and 
political interest. 
Civic engagement index scores vary 
widely within the city. In 2022:
• the highest index scores are for 
those who attended religious 
services regularly (5.13) and lower 
among those who were not 
religious (3.74);
• income was strongly associated with 
civic engagement scores, with those 
with annual household incomes of 
more than $100,000 reporting high 
scores (4.63) and lower for those 
with less than $30,000 in annual 
household income (3.46);
• scores increased continually with 
age, with the lowest scores for those 
between 18 and 24 years of age 
(3.88) and the highest with those 
aged 65+ (4.64); 
• those with disabilities that 
sometimes limited their day-to-day 
activities had particularly high civic 
engagement (4.75), while those 
with no disabilities had lower than 
average scores (3.92) and those 
with disabilities that always or often 
limited their day-to-day activities 
had scores very close to the 
average (4.09); 
• scores are also higher for men 
than women (4.29, versus 3.94 for 
women), for those who identify as 
LGBTQ2S+ (4.35) and those with 
university degrees (4.61). Scores 
are lower for those aged 25 to 40 
living alone (3.74), those who were 
unemployed (3.13) and those who 
identified as Chinese (3.55);
• compared to other indexes, 
there is more variation between 
neighbourhoods, with the highest 
scores in Humber North (4.38), 
North Toronto-Don Mills (4.40) and 
downtown (4.37), and lower scores 
in Weston-Jane-York (3.66) and 
Scarborough-Ionview (3.67).21
Compared to 2018, civic engagement 
scores decreased across age 
groups, but declined most for older 
Torontonians. Women also saw their 
civic engagement index decrease 
considerably more than men (a 1.0 
decrease to 3.94, versus a 0.55 
decrease for men to 4.29). Women had 
higher civic engagement in 2018 and 
lower civic engagement in 2022. 
21 For details on the neighbourhoods referred to in this report, see the Appendix.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 38 

THE IMPORTANCE OF 
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Those who identify as white saw 
substantial decreases in their civic 
engagement index (down 1.43 to 
4.25), as did those who identify as 
Black (down 1.24 to 4.02). Those who 
identify as Chinese saw their scores 
decline less (down 0.38 to 3.55), 
though, they still have the lowest civic 
engagement index score by racial 
identity. Other racialized residents also 
saw their scores decline (down 1.05 
to 4.06), as did those who identify as 
South Asian (down 0.72 to 4.25). 
While not everyone has the same 
interest and capacity to participate 
in a wide array of activities in 
society, the Social Capital Study 
shows that Torontonians with higher 
civic engagement report higher life 
satisfaction, broader social networks 
of friends and neighbours, more 
frequent social interaction and 
broadly a deeper and more satisfied 
connection with their community. 
The survey cannot say the degree to 
which it is stronger civic engagement 
itself that causes some of these 
outcomes, but these differences 
outline why the sharp declines in civic 
engagement are of particular concern 
for wellbeing. 
Across neighbourhoods, generally 
the neighbourhoods with the highest 
civic engagement index in 2018 saw 
the biggest declines, compressing the 
differences between neighbourhoods. 
For example, Yorkdale and the Annex 
had the highest score in 2018, and 
their civic engagement index declined 
by 1.88 (to 4.08), while Scarborough￾Ionview had the lowest score in 2018, 
and the civic engagement index 
declined by 0.99 (to 3.67). 
Beyond this, those who are civically 
engaged help contribute to the 
backbone of a strong society: they 
donate, they volunteer, they vote and 
they participate in groups and activities 
ranging from sports and recreation to 
cultural organizations, to professional 
associations, religious institutions and 
political groups. 
Understanding how the pandemic 
has undermined civic engagement is 
critical to understanding the full impact 
of the crisis. It also provides an early 
warning as to the possible longer￾term implications of the pandemic, 
especially if some of these attitudes 
and behaviours do not shift back to 
where they were before the pandemic. 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Civic Engagement 39 

SOCIAL
TRUST
Most Torontonians express at 
least some trust or confidence in 
different groups of people and 
different types of institutions. But 
levels of trust or confidence vary 
by age and socio-economic status, 
with younger and lower-income 
residents expressing much lower 
levels of trust and confidence. Black 
Torontonians also consistently 
express lower levels of social trust. 
Levels of trust and confidence are 
also often lower among those who 
identity as LGBTQ2S+ and those 
who are between the ages of 25 and 
40 who live alone. 
While levels of confidence in most 
local institutions are unchanged since 
2018, the survey finds that levels of 
trust in others have fallen. Generally, 
those who were previously the 
most trusting experienced the most 
change, which means there is now 
less difference in the levels of social 
trust expressed by Torontonians from 
different backgrounds.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 40 

Key Findings
There has been a significant drop in 
the proportion saying that most people 
can be trusted. In general, this drop 
is somewhat more pronounced among 
groups that were previously more 
trusting, including those with higher 
incomes, those with a university degree 
and those who identify as white.
In Toronto, trust in people of different 
ethnic backgrounds, or who speak 
different languages, is higher than 
average among both non-immigrants 
and those who identify as white.
Engagement in politics is associated 
with more, rather than less, acceptance 
of those with different political views.
Torontonians are just as likely to have a 
high degree of confidence in institutions 
such as neighbourhood centres, city hall, 
the school system and local businesses 
today as they were prior to the pandemic.
The proportion of city residents 
expressing a high degree of confidence 
in the police has declined. Confidence 
in the police remains lower among Black 
residents of the city, but the differences 
between views of white and Black 
Torontonians have narrowed. 
In the wake of the pandemic, the 
proportion of Torontonians with a 
strong sense of belonging to their local 
community has declined. Those who 
previously had the strongest sense of 
belonging, such as those who are more 
active in their communities, experienced 
a sharper decline.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 41 

GENERAL TRUST
O
Another central dimension of social capital is social trust, defined as the extent 
to which individuals trust (or distrust) others whom they interact with or know. 
This section of the report focuses on questions relating to trust in other people 
(both in general and in terms of specific groups) and in institutions.
General trust is the extent to which 
individuals trust other people overall. 
The most commonly used question 
to measure general trust asks people 
which of two opposing statements 
is closest to their own view. In 2022, 
two in five Toronto residents (42%) 
agree that “overall, most people can 
be trusted.” But somewhat more (53%) 
agree instead that “you cannot be 
too careful in dealing with people” 
(the remaining 5% choose neither 
statement).
The proportion saying that most people 
can be trusted increases with both age 
and socio-economic status: it is higher 
than average for seniors, for those who 
own their homes, for those with higher 
incomes and for those with a university 
education. It is especially high among 
seniors living alone (53%). This 
proportion is much lower than average 
among second-generation immigrants 
(36%) and those who are unemployed 
(33%). The proportion saying that most 
people can be trusted also varies by 
racial identity: it is higher than average 
among those who identify as Chinese 
(48%) or as white (46%) and lower 
among those identifying as Black (27%).
CAN MOST PEOPLE BE TRUSTED? (%)
Q10. “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you cannot be too 
careful in dealing with people?”
Most people can be trusted You cannot be too careful in dealing with people Cannot say
2018 55 40 6
2022 42 53 5
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 42 

There has been a significant drop 
in the proportion saying that most 
people can be trusted, from 55% in 
2018 to 42% in 2022. In general, this 
drop occurred among Torontonians 
of all backgrounds. In some cases, 
however, the drop is somewhat more 
pronounced among groups that were 
previously more trusting, including 
those with higher incomes and those 
who identify as white. As a result, there 
has been somewhat of a levelling out 
of the distribution of trust, as the gaps 
between those with more and less trust 
have narrowed.
CAN MOST PEOPLE BE TRUSTED? BY AGE GROUP (%)
Q10. “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you cannot be too 
careful in dealing with people?”
There is one notable exception to 
this pattern. While seniors are more 
likely than average to express general 
trust in other people, their likelihood 
of agreeing that most people can be 
trusted fell by only eight percentage 
points (from 58% to 50%). This 
compares to a much larger drop of 16 
points among those between the ages 
of 41 and 64. Perhaps remarkably, there 
was little change in trust among seniors 
living alone (a slight drop from 56% in 
2018 to 53% in 2022). This contrasts 
with an 18-point drop from (from 57% 
to 39%) among those between the ages 
of 25 and 40, and who are living alone.
58
50
65+
57
41
41–64
54
39
25–40
49
39
18–24
2018 2022
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 43 

A second question asks whether 
Toronto residents agree or disagree 
that “people in this neighbourhood can 
be trusted.” Overall, a slight majority 
agrees (55%), while one in three (32%) 
neither agrees nor disagrees, and 9% 
disagree (and an additional 4% do not 
offer an answer). Once again, trust 
increases with both age and socio￾economic status: agreement is higher 
than average among those who own 
their homes, among those with higher 
incomes and among those with a 
university degree. Agreement is lower 
than average among those with lower 
socio-economic status, among those 
who identify as LGBTQ2S+ (48%) and 
among those between the ages of 25 
and 40 who live alone (45%). And as 
with general trust, agreement that 
people in this neighbourhood can be 
trusted varies by racial identity: in this 
case, it is higher than average for those 
who identify as South Asian (60%) and 
lower among Black Torontonians (47%). 
Trust in people in one’s neighbourhood 
also varies across the city: it is higher 
than average in Humber-North (63%) 
and the Danforth-Beach (62%) area 
and lower than average in Weston￾Jane-York (48%) and in the downtown 
area (46%).
Compared to 2018, agreement is 
down slightly (by four points, from 
59%), while more neither agree nor 
disagree (up by eight points, from 
24%). Disagreement is more or less 
unchanged (9% in 2022, compared to 
11% in 2018). The level of agreement 
has declined more sharply among 
some groups with higher levels of 
trust, including those aged 55 and over 
(down 12 points) and those who identify 
as white (down eight points, compared 
to a small increase of two points among 
those who are racialized).
CAN PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD BE TRUSTED? (%)
Q7C. “Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about the 
people who live in your neighbourhood: people in this neighbourhood can be trusted.”
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree Cannot Say
2018 15 24 8 3 6
12 32 6
44
2022 43 3 4
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 44 

The survey also measures general trust 
by asking about people’s confidence 
in recovering a lost wallet or purse 
containing $200 from each of several 
types of individuals: a police officer, 
a neighbour and a stranger. Among 
the three scenarios, Toronto residents 
are most likely to expect they would 
recover a lost wallet or purse if found 
by a police officer (45% say this is 
very likely, and 81% say it is very or 
somewhat likely). By comparison, 24% 
of Torontonians say it is very likely 
that a lost wallet or purse would be 
returned by someone who lives close 
by (though a majority (70%) say it is 
very or somewhat likely), and only 5% 
say a return from a stranger is very 
likely (38% say it would be very or 
somewhat likely).
Confidence in recovery has declined 
since 2018 in all these cases. The 
proportion saying it would be very 
likely that their lost wallet or purse 
would be returned fell:
• by 11 points in the case of a police 
officer (from 56% in 2018 to 45% 
in 2022)
• by five points in the case of 
someone who lives close by 
(from 29% in 2018 to 24% in 2022)
• by two points in the case of a 
stranger (from 7% in 2018 to 5% 
in 2022, and the proportion saying 
this would be very or somewhat 
likely fell from 47% to 38%).
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT A LOST WALLET OR (%)
PURSE WOULD BE RETURNED?
BY A POLICE OFFICER
BY SOMEONE WHO LIVES CLOSE BY?
BY A STRANGER
20222018
29
8
7
36
12
7
56
45
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not at all likely
Cannot say
20222018
46
18
7
47
22
8
29 24
20222018
40
43
10
32
51
11
7 5
20222018
20222018
29
8
7
36
12
7
56
45
20222018
46
18
7
47
22
8
29 24
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not at all likely
Cannot say
20222018
46
18
7
47
22
8
29 24
20222018
40
43
10
32
51
11
7 5
20222018
20222018
29
8
7
36
12
7
56
45
20222018
46
18
7
47
22
8
29 24
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not at all likely
Cannot say
20222018
40
43
10
32
51
11
7 5
20222018
40
43
10
32
51
11
7 5
20222018
29
8
7
36
12
7
56
45
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not at all likely
Cannot say
20222018
40
43
10
32
51
11
7 5
20222018
20222018
29
8
7
36
12
7
56
45
20222018
46
18
7
47
22
8
29 24
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not at all likely
Cannot say
Q11. “If you lost a wallet or purse that contained $200, how 
likely is it to be returned with the money in it if it was found…”
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 45 

Once again, levels of trust have fallen 
more among some groups that were 
previously more trusting, such as older 
Torontonians and those who identify 
as white. As a result, gaps between 
higher and lower levels of trust have 
narrowed. For instance, in 2018, there 
was a 22-point difference between 
the proportion of seniors and the 
proportion of those aged 18 to 24 who 
said it was very likely that their lost 
wallet or purse would be returned by 
someone who lives close by; in 2022, 
there is only a two-point difference. 
Similarly, in 2018, there was a striking 
25-point gap between the proportion 
of white and Black Torontonians who 
said it was very likely that their lost 
wallet or purse would be returned by 
a police officer; in 2022, this gap has 
been reduced to seven points.
The survey also assessed trust in different 
groups of people, including both similar 
types of people (such as family) and those 
who are different (in terms of language, 
ethnic background or political views): 
• More than eight in 10 (84%) Toronto 
residents say they have a high level of 
trust in family members (measured as a 
“4” or “5” on a five-point scale). 
• Roughly six in 10 have a similarly strong 
level of trust in people they work with or 
go to school with (62%). 
• Just under one in two has a high level of 
trust in people whose ethnic background 
is very different from theirs (47%) and 
people who speak a different language 
than they do (44%). In each case, 
about one in three expresses a medium 
amount of trust (“3” on the scale), and 
only 9% and 10% respectively express 
low trust (“1” or “2” on the scale).
• Fewer express this high level of trust 
in people whose political views are 
different from theirs (35%) or in 
strangers (18%).
In these last two cases, however, most 
Torontonians express at least a medium 
level of trust (a score of “3” or higher on 
the scale), while only a minority have low 
trust. Seven in 10 have at least a medium 
level of trust in people with different 
political views, and only 16% have low trust. 
In the case of strangers, 56% have at least 
a medium level of trust, compared to 35% 
who have low trust.
TRUST IN 
OTHER PEOPLE
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 46 

HOW MUCH DO YOU TRUST EACH OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPS OF PEOPLE? (%)
Q12. “Using a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 means “cannot be trusted at all” and 5 means “can be trusted a lot”), 
how much do you trust each of the following groups of people?”
In general, levels of trust in these 
specific groups of people tend to 
increase as both age and income 
increase. One important finding, in the 
context of Toronto’s diversity, is that 
residents who are not immigrants, as 
well as those who identify as white, 
are more likely than the city average 
to express trust in people of different 
ethnic backgrounds, or who speak 
different languages
Levels of trust in others have declined 
since 2018, though, in each case 
the change is very small (a drop of 
between one and four points in the 
proportion expressing a high level of 
trust). For example, the proportion 
with a high level of trust in the people 
they work or go to school with fell by 
four points (from 66% to 62%), as did 
the proportion with a high level of trust 
in people whose political views are 
different from their own (from 39% 
to 35%). 
People in 
your family
2018 2022
87 84
66
62
People you work
with or go to 
school with
48 47
People whose 
ethnic background
is very dierent
from yours 
48
44
People who
speak a dierent
language
than you
39
35
People whose 
political views are 
dierent from yours
Strangers
22
18
High trust [4 or 5 on the scale]
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 47 

DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL VIEWS
In recent years, the question has arisen 
as to whether Western democracies 
are becoming increasingly polarized 
along political lines, with greater 
distance between partisan groups and 
less willingness to compromise.
On the whole, however, Toronto 
residents are not particularly 
distrustful of people whose political 
views differ from their own. Only 
35% express high trust in those with 
different political views, but a majority 
(71%) have at least some trust, and 
only 16% have low trust. High trust has 
declined since 2018, but only slightly 
(by four percentage points). 
O
Trust in people with different political 
views increases with both age and 
income. Younger Torontonians (aged 18 
to 24) are almost three times more likely 
than seniors to have low trust in those 
whose political views are different from 
their own (27%, compared to 10%). In 
fact, younger Torontonians are the only 
group in the city who are just as likely to 
express low trust as high trust in people 
with different political views.
A more encouraging finding is that, 
compared to those with less interest, 
Torontonians who are more interested in 
politics are much more likely to express 
high trust in those whose political views 
differ from their own. Those who are 
members of a political party or group 
are also more likely to express high 
trust than non-members. Engagement 
in politics, therefore, is associated with 
more, rather than less, acceptance of 
those with different political views.
A majority have at least some trust in people whose political views 
differ from their own—and this is true for Canada as whole, and not 
just Toronto, according to the national social capital survey that was 
conducted at the same time as the Toronto study. Canada-wide, only 14% 
have low trust in people whose political views differ from their own.
NATIONAL FINDINGS
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 48 

The survey also examined social trust 
by asking about confidence in nine 
institutions that serve and support 
local communities: 
• Torontonians are most likely to 
express a high level of confidence 
(ratings of “4” or “5” on a five-point 
scale) in neighbourhood centres 
(59%), the police (56%) and local 
merchants and business people 
(56%). 
• About one in two residents also 
has a high degree of confidence 
in charities or not-for-profit 
organizations (53%), the school 
system (50%) and the justice system 
and courts (46%).22
• Political institutions (either local 
city councillors (39%) or city hall 
(39%)) and the local media (37%) 
are less likely to elicit this degree of 
confidence.
Most Torontonians have at least a 
modest degree of confidence in 
each of these institutions, and only a 
minority have low confidence (“1” or 
“2” on the scale). About one in four 
has low confidence in the local media 
(25%), city hall (24%), the justice 
system and courts (23%) and local city 
councillors (23%). 
CONFIDENCE IN LOCAL 
INSTITUTIONS
HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE DO YOU HAVE IN THE 
FOLLOWING INSTITUTIONS?
(%)
22 Note that high confidence in the school system is higher among those with children living in their household aged 18 or younger 
(57%) than it is among those with no children in their household (46%).
Q13. “Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means “no confidence at all” and 
5 means “a great deal of confidence”, how much confidence do you 
have in…”
 59
 59
 56
 56
 50
 50
 39
 39
 38
 39
 41
 37
 48
 46
 53
 65
 56
Neighbourhood 
centres serving your 
local community
Charities or not-for-profit 
organizations serving 
your local community
The police
Local merchants 
and business people
The school system
The justice system 
and courts
Your local city 
councillor
City hall
Local media
2018 2022
2018 2022
 59
 59
 56
 56
 50
 50
 39
 39
 38
 39
 41
 37
 48
 46
 53
 65
 56
Neighbourhood 
centres serving your 
local community
Charities or not-for-profit 
organizations serving 
your local community
The police
Local merchants 
and business people
The school system
The justice system 
and courts
Your local city 
councillor
City hall
Local media
High confidence [4 or 5 on the scale]
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 49 

Confidence in local institutions varies 
considerably among population 
groups within the city. Most strikingly, 
confidence rises significantly with age. 
Younger Torontonians are particularly 
less likely to have a high degree of 
confidence in city hall, their local 
councillor, the police, the justice system 
and local business people. Confidence 
also rises with household income and 
educational attainment. 
Confidence varies by immigrant 
background and racial identity, but the 
differences are not generally between 
non-immigrant or white Torontonians 
and all other groups. For instance, 
second-generation immigrants are less 
likely to have confidence in each of the 
local institutions mentioned than are 
either first-generation immigrants or 
those born in Canada to Canada-born 
parents. Confidence in the school 
system is higher among Torontonians 
who identify as either South Asian 
(57%) or Chinese (54%) and lower 
among those who identify as white 
(48%) or Black (45%). Confidence in 
the justice system is also higher than 
average among South Asian or Chinese 
Torontonians.
It is also notable that people with a 
disability that always or often limits 
their daily activity have somewhat 
lower confidence in institutions that 
might otherwise be expected to have 
a focus on accessibility, including local 
charities (eight points lower, compared 
to those with no disability), the school 
system (eight points lower), the justice 
system and courts (eight points lower) 
and neighbourhood centres (seven 
points lower).
Generally speaking, confidence in local 
institutions (including in the police and 
city hall) does not differ greatly across 
the city’s neighbourhoods. 
With one exception, confidence 
in local institutions is more or less 
unchanged from 2018. This means 
that Torontonians are just as likely to 
have a high degree of confidence in 
institutions such as neighbourhood 
centres, city hall, the school system 
and local businesses today as they had 
prior to the pandemic. 
The one exception is the police: the 
proportion with high confidence in the 
police fell by nine points (from 65% 
to 56%), while the proportion with 
low confidence increased by seven 
points (from 11% to 18%) (though the 
police remain one of the most trusted 
institutions in the city). 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 50 

TORONTONIANS AND THE POLICE
The COVID-19 pandemic is not the only 
development that has shaken the city 
since 2018. In 2020, the issue of anti￾Black racism gained new prominence 
in the wake of the global public outcry 
when a white police officer murdered 
George Floyd, an African-American, 
with three other Minneapolis police 
officers facing charges for aiding and 
abetting the murder. This sparked 
anti-racism protests across the 
United States and around the world, 
including in Toronto. It also informed 
a wider public discussion of anti-Black 
racism and systemic racism, including 
recurring instances of police brutality 
against racial minorities. 
In the wake of these events, the public’s 
view of the police in Toronto has 
shifted. The proportion of city residents 
who think it is very likely that a police 
officer would return a lost wallet or 
purse containing $200 fell from 56% in 
2018, to 45% in 2022. The proportion 
expressing a high degree of confidence 
in the police fell from 65% to 56%.
What is most notable is that this 
change is more pronounced among 
those who identify as white than among 
Black Torontonians or other racialized 
groups. Among the city’s white 
residents, the expectation that a police 
officer would return a lost wallet or 
purse containing $200 fell by 15 points, 
and high confidence in the police fell 
by 13 points. Confidence in the police 
remains lower among Black residents 
of the city. At the same time, the 
differences between views of white and 
Black Torontonians on these questions 
have narrowed. 
O
VIEWS OF THE POLICE, BY RACIAL IDENTITY (%)
Q13A. “Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means “no confidence 
at all” and 5 means “a great deal of confidence,” how much 
confidence do you have in: the police?”
Q11B. “If you lost a wallet or purse that contained $200, 
how likely is it to be returned with the money in it if it was found: 
By a police officer?”
HIGH CONFIDENCE [4 OR 5 ON THE SCALE] 
The anti-Black racism movement, therefore, 
appears to have generated greater 
awareness among white Torontonians of the 
issue of discriminatory police practices.
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
72
59
45 43
64 61 59 59 60
52
2018 2022
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
63
48
38 41
60
51 48
38
54
40
2018 2022
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
72
59
45 43
64 61 59 59 60
52
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
63
48
38 41
60
51 48
38
54
40
2018 2022
2018 2022
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
72
59
45 43
64 61 59 59 60
52
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
63
48
38 41
60
51 48
38
54
40
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
72
59
45 43
64 61 59 59 60
52
White Black South Asian Chinese Other 
Racialized
63
48
38 41
60
51 48
38
54
40
VERY LIKELY WALLET RETURNED
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 51 

An additional dimension of social trust 
is the extent to which people feel they 
belong in the community in which 
they live. Most Torontonians express 
such a sense, with seven in 10 saying 
they either have a very strong (21%) 
or a somewhat strong (48%) sense of 
belonging to their local community. 
As with other questions related to 
social trust, the sense of belonging 
varies significantly by age and income. 
Those aged 30 to 39 (63%) report the 
lowest sense of belonging, while those 
aged 65 and older (79%) report the 
highest. Sense of belonging is also 
higher among those who describe their 
income as “good enough” (78%) and 
is lower among those who say their 
income is “not enough” (59%).
Those who are actively religious have a 
higher sense of belonging (80%) than 
those who are not religious (63%).23
It is lower than average among those 
with a disability that always or often 
limits their daily activities (66%), those 
who identify as LGBTQ2S+ (61%) and 
those who are unemployed (56%). The 
sense of belonging is also lower than 
average for adults aged 25 to 40 who 
live alone (58%). 
SENSE OF BELONGING
Sense of belonging does not vary 
substantially across the city, though 
it is a bit lower among those living 
downtown (65%) and higher among 
residents of the Danforth-Beach area 
of the city (76%). 
Sense of belonging has declined 
somewhat since 2018. The proportion 
with a very strong sense of belonging 
decreased by seven points, from 28% 
to 21%. The proportion with either a 
very or somewhat strong sense of 
belonging, however, declined by only 
two points (from 72% to 70%), as 
more people reported a somewhat 
strong sense of belonging to their local 
community. 
The decline is more pronounced 
among some groups that were more 
likely to express a very strong sense of 
belonging to their local community in 
2018. This includes seniors (especially 
seniors living alone), those who know 
most or many of their neighbours 
and those with the highest civic 
engagement index scores. The effect of 
the pandemic, then, has been to narrow 
some of the differences between 
different population groups in the city, 
though, unfortunately, by eroding the 
stronger sense of belonging among 
some, such as those who are more 
active in their communities. 
23 In this report, the term “actively religious” refers to those who have a religious affiliation and attend religious services at least once a 
month; “not religious” refers to those who do not have a religious affiliation.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 52 

As is the case with social networks, 
the results for the questions relating to 
social trust are combined into a single 
index that helps to demonstrate where 
social trust overall is most and least 
present within the city, and how social 
trust has changed since 2018. 
The city-wide social trust index score 
is 4.61 (out of a possible 10), and this 
varies noticeably across some groups. 
It is much higher than average among 
seniors (including seniors living alone). 
It is also higher among men than 
women, and among those who are 
heterosexual than among those who 
identify as LGBTQ2S+. Social trust also 
varies according to socio-economic 
status: it is higher for those who own 
their homes, compared to those who 
rent, and rises as household income and 
educational attainment rise. It is higher 
for immigrants and third-generation￾plus Torontonians, compared to those 
who are second-generation immigrants. 
Among the main racial groups in 
the city, social trust index cores are 
highest for those who identify as South 
Asian (4.84) and lowest for those who 
identify as Black (4.25).
As was the case in 2018, social trust is 
also strongly related to knowing one’s 
neighbours (the social trust index score 
is 5.55 among those who know most or 
many of their neighbours, versus 4.23 
for those who know few or none).
THE SOCIAL TRUST INDEX
Finally, there are very strong 
relationships between social trust 
and the other indexes available from 
the survey covering social networks, 
civic engagement, wellbeing and 
discrimination. For instance, those 
reporting better wellbeing (scoring 
above eight on a wellbeing scale 
running from zero to 10) have a social 
trust index score of 6.15, compared 
to a score of 2.84 for those reporting 
worse wellbeing (scoring three or 
lower). Similarly, those reporting 
no discrimination (a score of zero 
on the discrimination scale) have 
an above average social trust index 
score of 5.53; this social trust index 
score then falls steadily as the scores 
on the index of discrimination rise 
(indicating more frequent experiences 
of discrimination). This is true for all 
forms of discrimination taken together, 
as well as for discrimination based on 
different grounds, such as race, gender 
and age.
Looking across all these differences, 
what stands out is that seniors, those 
who describe their incomes as being 
“good enough” and those who know 
most of their neighbours have some of 
the highest social trust index scores. 
Those who are unemployed, those 
who describe their incomes as being 
“not enough” and those who know 
none of their neighbours have some 
of the lowest scores. And social trust 
index scores are also comparatively 
low for those with lower measures 
of wellbeing and more frequent 
experiences of discrimination.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 53 

The social trust index score in 2022 
(4.61) is lower than in 2018 (5.02), 
reflecting the decline in general 
trust and in trust in certain groups, 
notably the police. Compared to 2018, 
social trust is generally lower for 
Torontonians of all backgrounds. 
But there are some exceptions: 
• The social trust index score was 
unchanged for those age 18 to 
29, while it fell among those over 
the age of 30. As a result, the gap 
between the scores of younger and 
older Torontonians has narrowed. 
• Social trust index scores fell 
among Torontonians from all racial 
backgrounds, except among those 
who identify as Chinese, for whom 
it rose slightly. In 2018, Chinese 
Torontonians had significantly lower 
scores than average, but in 2022 this 
is no longer the case.24
• The social trust index score did not 
change among those who know 
most of their neighbours, but fell 
significantly for those who know 
none of their neighbours.
• Finally, social trust fell in most parts 
of the city, but by less than average 
in Scarborough. In the Scarborough￾Ionview neighbourhood in particular, 
the social trust score increased (the 
only neighbourhood where that is 
the case). In 2018, Torontonians living 
in Scarborough had significantly 
lower scores than average, but in 
2022 this is no longer the case.
The overall decline in social trust 
notwithstanding, the finding that social 
trust fell among most groups in the 
city, and not just among some groups 
(and, in particular, not just among 
the most disadvantaged groups), is 
reassuring. To the extent that these 
changes are related to the experience 
of the COVID-19 pandemic, they 
suggest that its outcome has not been 
a widening in the “trust gap” between 
more and less well-off Torontonians 
(even though these gaps still exist). 
SOCIAL TRUST INDEX: MEAN SCORES, BY AGE GROUP
24 The index score in 2022 for Chinese Torontonians remains below average, but the difference is no longer statistically significant.
5.02
4.61
Total
2018 2022
4.52 4.38
18–24
4.15 4.29
25–29
4.81
4.40
30–39
4.98
4.51
40–54
5.54
4.68
55–64
5.74
5.22
65+
Mean scores (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 54 

SOCIAL TRUST IN CANADA
Scores on the index of social trust, 
which combines answers to several 
questions in the survey, are remarkably 
similar in the city of Toronto (4.61 on a 
scale of zero to 10) and in Canada as a 
whole (4.58), drawing the Canada result 
from the national social capital survey 
that was conducted in parallel to the 
Toronto study.
Social trust does vary somewhat across 
the country: generally speaking, it 
declines from east to west, from a high 
of 4.89 in Atlantic Canada, to a low of 
4.33 in the West. Interestingly, this is 
roughly the range of variation across 
neighbourhoods within the city of 
Toronto (between Humber South (4.84) 
and Weston-Jane-York (4.35)). This 
suggests that there is as much variation 
within regions (including within the city 
of Toronto) as between regions.
O
In both Toronto and for Canada as a 
whole, however, other factors are more 
strongly related to social trust than 
geography. Both nationally and in the 
city, social trust increases with age 
(nationally, the scores for those aged 
18 to 29 is 4.35, compared to 5.02 for 
seniors; the figures for Toronto are 4.33 
and 5.22, respectively). And —again both 
nationally and in the city—the differences 
between those with more and less income 
insecurity are even more stark (varying 
nationally from 3.83 for those whose 
incomes are “not enough” to 5.31 for 
those whose incomes are “good enough,” 
with a similar range in Toronto between 
the two groups from 3.97 to 5.18). Both 
Canada-wide and in the city of Toronto, 
social trust index scores are especially low 
for those who are unemployed.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Social Trust 55 

NEIGHBOURHOOD
SUPPORT
Most Torontonians find their neighbourhoods to be 
safe and their neighbours to be helpful. But this sense 
of support is stronger among those who are better 
off. At the same time, fewer than one in two residents 
of the city are confident they would get help from a 
government agency or charitable organization in their 
community in the event that they fell on hard times. 
The expectation of help in hard times is stronger 
among those with more economic security, better 
wellbeing and strong social capital. Conversely, those 
in the city who are most vulnerable are the least certain 
that they will receive support when they need it.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Neighbourhood Support 56 

NEIGHBOURHOOD
SUPPORT
Key Findings
Most Torontonians disagree that the crime 
in their neighbourhood makes it unsafe to 
go on walks at night. Seniors, including 
seniors living alone, are no more likely 
than average to feel their neighbourhoods 
are unsafe.
The proportion saying that people 
working together can make a big 
difference in solving problems facing the 
community declined between 2018 and 
2022. This decline occurred in every part 
of the city and among Torontonians from 
all backgrounds.
Several groups stand out as having less 
confidence than average in receiving help 
from a government agency or a charitable 
organization in their community in the 
event they fell on hard times, including: 
those who describe their incomes as being 
“not enough” for them; those who are 
unemployed; those who are between the 
ages of 25 and 40 who live alone; and 
those who identify as LGBTQ2S+.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Neighbourhood Support 57 

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
O
The Toronto Social Capital Study includes a fourth dimension of 
social capital that encompasses how supportive residents view their 
own neighbourhoods. The survey addresses this question by asking 
Torontonians the extent to which they see their neighbourhood (and 
their neighbours) as having supportive characteristics. 
The survey asks whether Toronto residents 
agree or disagree with each of several 
statements about their neighbourhoods 
and the people who live there. The results 
show that most people in the city find 
their neighbourhoods to be safe and their 
neighbours to be helpful:
• A large majority (76%) agree that 
“this neighbourhood has safe places 
for children to play,” and very few (8%) 
disagree (the remainder neither agree 
nor disagree, or do not provide 
a response).
• Most Torontonians (61%) agree that 
“people around here are willing to help 
their neighbours.” Only 10% disagree.
• Fewer (37%) agree that “this is a 
close-knit community.” About as many 
(36%) neither agree nor disagree, and 
23% disagree.
• One in five (21%) agrees that “the 
crime in my neighbourhood makes it 
unsafe to go on walks at night,” while 
a majority (58%) disagrees.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEIGHBOURHOODS AND NEIGHBOURS (%)
Q7. “Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about the people who live 
in your neighbourhood.” 
This neighbourhood has safe
places for children to play
This is a close-knit community
The crime in my
 neighbourhood makes it
 unsafe to go on walks at night
People around here are willing
to help their neighbours
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree Cannot Say
25 51 14 5 2 3
15 47 25 7 3 4
8 29 36 18 6 4
6 14 19 33 25 2
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Neighbourhood Support 58 

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
Answers to these questions vary 
by neighbourhood: residents of the 
Danforth-Beach area and of Etobicoke 
(Humber North and Humber South) 
generally are more likely than average 
to see their neighbours as helpful, their 
communities as close-knit and their 
neighbourhoods as safe; residents of 
the downtown area are less likely to do 
so. Residents of the Weston-Jane-York 
area (35%) are the most likely to agree 
that crime in their neighbourhood 
makes it unsafe to go on walks at night.
But the scale of these differences 
is modest: in every part of the city, 
a majority agrees that “people 
around here are willing to help their 
neighbours,” while no more than about 
one in three agrees that “the crime in 
my neighbourhood makes it unsafe to 
go on walks at night.”
Opinions also vary in other ways. For 
instance, those with higher incomes, or 
who own their homes, generally find 
their neighbourhoods more supportive 
and safe than those with lower incomes 
or who rent. Torontonians who identify 
as South Asian are more likely than 
others to feel they live in a close-knit 
community and that people there are 
willing to help their neighbours.
At the same time, in some cases it is 
the absence of differences that stands 
out. Views on these questions, for 
instance, do not differ significantly 
between immigrants and non￾immigrants or between men and 
women. Seniors, including seniors 
living alone, are no more likely than 
average to feel their neighbourhoods 
are unsafe at night.
Views on these questions have changed 
little since 2018. The proportion agreeing 
that “people around here are willing to 
help their neighbours” fell slightly from 
64% to 61%, and levels of agreement with 
the other three questions have changed 
even less.
LOCAL AGENCY
Another important aspect of 
neighbourhood support is a sense of 
local agency, in terms of confidence that 
people in the community can effectively 
address the issues that affect them. Two 
in five (41%) Toronto residents believe 
that people working together as a group 
can make a big difference in solving local 
problems. About as many (43%) say that 
people working together can make some 
difference, while far fewer (12%) feel that 
they can make little or no difference.
There is a broad similarity of views on 
this question among residents in different 
neighbourhoods and from different socio￾economic backgrounds (though, younger 
Torontonians are slightly more likely than 
seniors to think that people working 
together can make a big difference).
There is one exception, however: the 
belief that people working together can 
make a big difference in solving problems 
facing the community varies considerably 
by racial identity. The proportion holding 
this view is below average among those 
who identify as Chinese (30%), about 
average among those who identify as 
white (38%) and above average among 
those who identify as South Asian (49%) 
or as Black (55%).
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Neighbourhood Support 59 

SUPPORT IN HARD TIMES
To further explore the concept of 
neighbourhood support, the 2022 
survey included a new question about 
who might provide help in the event of 
hard times. Most Torontonians (83%) 
are either very or somewhat confident 
that they would get help from their 
family or close friends, in the event 
they fell on hard times. Just under one 
in two expect they would get help 
from a charitable organization in their 
community (48%) or a government 
agency (46%), and somewhat fewer 
than that expect a religious institution 
would help them (42%).26
On this question, there has been 
significant change since 2018. The 
proportion saying that people working 
together can make a big difference in 
solving problems facing the community 
has declined by 14 points, from 55% 
to 41%. Compared to 2018, more 
Torontonians say that people working 
together can make some difference; 
the proportion saying that people 
working together can make little or no 
difference has increased slightly from 
8% to 12%. 
The drop in the proportion believing 
that people working together can 
make a big difference has occurred 
in every part of the city and among 
Torontonians from all backgrounds.25
HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE CAN PEOPLE 
WORKING TOGETHER MAKE?
(%)
Q4. “Thinking about problems in your community, how much of a 
difference do you believe people working together as a group can 
make in solving problems that you see?”
25 This means that the difference in perspective among racial groups in the city noted previously remains, as each group experienced 
a decline.
26 Though this proportion is much higher (73%) among those who are actively religious.
The degree of confidence in receiving 
help from each of these institutions 
varies considerably across the city’s 
population, however. Several groups 
stand out as having less confidence 
than average of receiving help in 
most or all four examples: those who 
describe their incomes as being “not 
enough” for them; those who are 
unemployed; those who are between 
the ages of 25 and 40 who live alone; 
and those who identify as LGBTQ2S+.
A big dierence Some dierence
Little or no dierence Cannot say
2022 41 43 12 4
2018 55 33 8 4
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Neighbourhood Support 60 

WHO WOULD HELP YOU IF YOU FELL ON HARD TIMES? (%) Additionally, second-generation 
immigrants are less likely than 
first-generation immigrants or non￾immigrants (third generation in 
Canada or more) to expect help from 
a government agency (40% of second￾generation immigrants are very or 
somewhat confident they would get 
help from such an agency if they fell 
on hard times, compared to 50% of 
first-generation immigrants and 45% of 
third-generation-plus Canadians).
Expectations of support do not differ 
significantly between racialized and 
non-racialized Torontonians, except 
in the case of support from a religious 
institution: 34% of those who identify 
as white would expect help from a local 
church, temple or mosque if they fell on 
hard times, compared to 49% of those 
who are racialized and 57% specifically 
among those who are Black (reflecting 
different degrees of religiosity among 
these groups).
Finally, the expectation of support 
is strongly related to the other 
dimensions of wellbeing and social 
capital. For instance, those reporting 
poorer mental health or food insecurity 
are all less confident they would be 
helped by a government agency (or, 
to a slightly lesser extent, by a local 
charity) if they fell on hard times. 
The same is true of those with lower 
social capital index scores (covering 
social networks, civic engagement and 
social trust). These relationships may 
not be surprising, but they are worth 
emphasizing as a reminder that those 
in the city who are most vulnerable are 
the least certain that they will receive 
support when they need it.
Q76. “If you were to fall on hard times, how much confidence do you have 
that the following people or agencies would be able to provide you the 
help you needed?”
Q76. “If you were to fall on hard times, how much confidence do you have 
that the following people or agencies would be able to provide you the 
help you needed?”
EXPECTATIONS OF SUPPORT (% very or somewhat confident)
A religious 
institution, like 
a local church, 
temple or 
mosque
A charitable 
organization 
in your 
community
Your family 
or close 
friends
A 
government 
agency
Total 83 48 46 42
Income is 
“not enough” 72 40 31 35
Aged 25 and 40 
who live alone 81 40 34 30
LGBTQ2S+ 76 48 36 30
Unemployed 71 45 38 38
83
48
46
42
Your family or close friends
A charitable organization
 in your community
A government agency
A religious institution
Very or somewhat confident 
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Neighbourhood Support 61 

WELLBEING
Wellbeing in Toronto declined 
significantly between 2018 and 
2022. This decline generally was 
experienced among residents 
from all backgrounds. Wellbeing, 
however, continues to vary 
significantly across the city. For 
instance, wellbeing improves as 
both age and socio-economic 
status increase. The wellbeing of 
younger adults in Toronto (and 
particularly younger women) 
remains much lower than average.
Roughly one in four Torontonians 
reports that their income is not 
enough for them (either they are 
stretched, or are having a hard time), 
and one in five reports that, at some 
point in the past 12 months, they had 
eaten less than they felt they should 
because there wasn’t enough money 
to buy food. Single parents, Black 
Torontonians, those with a disability 
and those who identify as LGBTQ2S+ 
are all more likely to experience each 
of these forms of insecurity.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 62 

Key Findings
Between 2018 and 2022, there was a 
considerable drop in Torontonians’ overall 
life satisfaction.
Torontonians are also less likely to report 
good physical or mental health in 2022 
than they were in 2018.
Fewer Torontonians in 2022, compared 
to 2018, say they always have something 
to look forward to in life. Conversely, the 
proportion who say they only sometimes, 
or rarely or never, have something to look 
forward to in life has increased.
Torontonians who experience the most 
frequent discrimination have lower life 
satisfaction, poorer mental health and 
greater economic insecurity than those 
who experience less frequent or no 
discrimination.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 63 

LIFE SATISFACTION
O
The Toronto Social Capital Study includes a number of measures of 
wellbeing, touching on issues such as life satisfaction, physical and 
mental health and outlook on the future. In the report from the 2018 
survey, many of these were addressed in terms of their relationship to 
social capital (for instance, it was noted that higher social trust is linked 
with better heath and life satisfaction). In the context of the COVID-19 
pandemic, however, it is important to document how these measures 
have changed since the original survey, quite apart from any relationship 
each may have to social capital. Doing so provides valuable information 
about how the city’s residents have been affected by the crisis.
Between 2018 and 2022, there was 
a considerable drop in Torontonians’ 
overall life satisfaction (measured on 
an 11-point scale, from zero to 10):27
• The percentage of people with very 
high life satisfaction (“9” or “10” the 
scale) decreased by seven points 
between the two time periods, from 
27% to 20%. 
• The percentage of people who 
reported low life satisfaction (“6” or 
lower on the scale) increased from 
27% to 39%.
Q35. “Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means ‘Very dissatisfied’ and 10 means ‘Very satisfied,’ 
how satisfied are you with your life as a whole right now?”
27 In 2018, the scale started at one instead of zero. This does not significantly affect the comparison to 2022, as very few people place 
themselves at the lowest end of the scale.
Life satisfaction varies considerably 
across the population. Most notably, 
it increases as both age and socio￾economic status increase. It is 
lower among those who identify as 
LGBTQ2S+, compared to those who 
are heterosexual; among those with a 
disability (that always or often limits 
daily activity), compared to those 
without; and among those born in 
Canada compared to immigrants. 
Between 2018 and 2022, however, 
life satisfaction (measured in terms of 
the mean score on the scale) fell for 
Torontonians from all backgrounds.
SATISFACTION WITH LIFE AS A WHOLE RIGHT NOW (%)
27
20
9 or 10 (most)
43 40
7 or 8
17
22
5 or 6
10
17
0 to 4 (least)
2018 2022
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 64 

PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
Torontonians are also less likely to 
report good physical or mental health 
in 2022 than they were in 2018:
• The proportion of residents who 
say their physical health is excellent 
or very good declined from one in 
two (50%) to just over one in three 
(36%), a drop of 14 points. The 
proportion saying their physical 
health is fair or poor increased by 
10 points, from 17% to 27%.28
• The proportion of residents who 
say their mental health is excellent 
or very good declined by 15 
points, from 57% to 42%, while the 
proportion who report fair or poor 
mental health almost doubled, from 
14% to 26%.
Once again, these changes affected 
Torontonians from all backgrounds. 
The decline in the proportion who 
say their mental health is excellent or 
very good, however, was greater than 
average among those who identify as 
LGBTQ2S+ (down 21 points), women 
(down 20 points) and people between 
the ages of 25 and 40 who live alone 
(down 18 points).
28 In 2018, the survey question referred to “health” and not “physical health.”
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH (%)
Q36. “In general, would you say your physical health is 
excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?” (2018: “your health”)
Q37. “In general, would you say your mental health is 
excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?”
2022
2018 14
9
36
27
31
36
13
20
5
7
2
1
2022
2018 23
15
33
27
28
32
11
17
3
8
2
1
Excellent Very good Good
Fair Poor Cannot say
PHYSICAL HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 65 

A FOCUS ON YOUTH
How well are younger adults faring in the city of Toronto?
Older people can sometimes look on their younger 
counterparts with envy. Younger adults can be assumed 
to face fewer family or professional responsibilities and 
to have more opportunities to socialize and participate in 
recreational activities. 
The reality, however, is that younger adults in Toronto 
(and in Canada as a whole) consistently score lower on a 
variety of measures of wellbeing. Life satisfaction is lower 
among Torontonians aged 18 to 24 and rises steadily with 
age. Younger adults in Toronto are also much more likely to 
report poorer mental health and are less likely to feel they 
have something to look forward to in life.
O
INDEX OF WELLBEING, BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER (%)
Index calculated by combining responses to seven questions. Index range is zero to 10.
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
Above 6 to 10 Mean
5.91 5.92
6.12 6.15
6.51
7.30
51
57 56 56
63
78
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
Above 6 to 10 Mean
6.32
6.60
6.30 6.38 6.53
7.09 56
69
59
66 65
76
INDEX OF WELLBEING: MEN INDEX OF WELLBEING: WOMEN
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 66 

In many cases, the situation is 
particularly alarming in the case of 
younger women. Women between 
the ages of 18 and 24 in Toronto have 
lower scores on the indexes of life 
satisfaction and wellbeing. And more 
than two in five women in this age 
group (42%) say their mental health 
is fair or poor. 
Importantly, these patterns are 
not the result of the COVID-19 
pandemic; they were evident in 
the 2018 Toronto Social Capital 
Study as well. Between 2018 and 
2022, life satisfaction, wellbeing 
and mental health deteriorated for 
Torontonians of all age groups and 
for both men and women. But both 
prior to and following the pandemic, 
the wellbeing of younger adults in 
Toronto (and particularly younger 
women) was lower than average.
These patterns also are not Toronto￾specific, as the companion national survey 
on social capital shows they hold for Canada 
as a whole. Canada-wide, the proportion 
of younger women reporting their mental 
health is fair or poor is the same as in 
Toronto as a whole, at roughly two in five.
NATIONAL FINDINGS
MENTAL HEALTH, BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER (%)
Q37. “In general, would you say your mental health is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor?”
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
Excellent or very good Fair or poor
34
41 39
47 50
63
32
28 30
23
18
9
Excellent or very good Fair or poor
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
21 25 28
35
50
59
42 43
31 29
18
12
MENTAL HEALTH: MEN MENTAL HEALTH: WOMEN
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 67 

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND DISABILITIES
The dimensions of social capital and 
measures of wellbeing covered in this 
report vary significantly according 
to a person’s disability status, that is, 
whether they: have a disability that limits 
the amount or the kind of activity that 
they can do on a typical day; whether 
this disability limits them often or only 
occasionally; and whether this disability 
is a physical or a mental condition.29
Both life satisfaction and wellbeing are 
lower for Torontonians with disabilities 
than for those reporting no disability, 
particularly for those whose disability 
often or always limits their daily activity. 
Notably, however, these measures are 
lowest for those with a mental health 
condition: mean life satisfaction and 
wellbeing scores for this group are lower 
than for those with a physical disability 
that always limits their daily activity. 
The relationship between disability 
and the dimensions of social capital 
is more complex. As expected, mean 
social network index scores are lower 
for those with a disability than for those 
without (particularly in the case of those 
with a physical disability that always 
limits their daily activity, and those with 
a mental health disability), reflecting 
greater difficulty in establishing and 
maintaining connections with family and 
friends. Social trust index scores differ 
less between those with and without a 
disability, with the exception that they are 
lower for those whose disability is related 
to a mental health condition. Mean civic 
O
engagement scores, however, are higher 
for those with a disability than for those 
without, likely reflecting the fact that 
those with a disability are more likely to 
participate in organizations that offer 
connections, support or advocacy.
Finally, Torontonians with a disability 
are more likely than those without to 
face discrimination, as reflected in their 
higher mean scores on the survey’s 
index of discrimination (indicating more 
frequent experiences of discrimination). 
Once again, it is those whose disability 
is related to a mental health condition 
that stand out, as they report the highest 
mean score on this index. Discrimination 
index scores are even higher for younger 
Torontonians with a disability and for 
racialized Torontonians with a disability.
These findings serve to highlight the 
greater vulnerability of Torontonians with 
disabilities (as they face, for instance, 
more discrimination while having fewer 
social connections), but they also serve 
to highlight the considerable variability of 
experiences among those with disabilities. 
Experiences vary significantly by type of 
disability, for instance. Type of disability, 
in turn, is linked to other factors such as 
age (with older Torontonians more likely 
to face a physical health condition, but 
younger Torontonians more likely to face 
a mental health condition). Subsequent 
reports from the 2022 Toronto Social 
Capital Study will explore these findings 
in greater detail. 
29 Because the 2018 survey did not include questions about disabilities, it is not possible to report on how social capital and 
wellbeing for Torontonians with disabilities have changed over the past four years.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 68 

INCOME ADEQUACY
The Toronto Social Capital Study 
includes a measure of the perceived 
adequacy of income. One in four 
residents of the city (26%) says that 
their income is not enough for them 
(either that they are stretched or that 
they are having a hard time). This is a 
higher proportion than in 2018, when 
the proportion was 21%.
Naturally, the view that one’s income 
is not enough is more common 
among those with annual household 
incomes of below $30,000 (46%). The 
proportion holding this view is also 
particularly high among those who are 
unemployed (51%), those who have a 
disability that always or often limits 
their daily activity (41%), among single 
parents (40%), those who rent their 
homes (37%), those who identify as 
Black (37%) and those who identify 
as LGBTQ2S+ (34%).
The increase in the proportion saying 
their income is “not enough” was higher 
than average among those who rent 
their homes: in 2022, 37% of renters 
felt this way about their incomes, up 
six percentage points from 2018. 
Other noticeable increases occurred 
among those who are unemployed 
(up 12 points, from 39% to 51%), and 
those who identify as LGBTQ2S+ 
(up 13 points, from 21% to 34%).
ADEQUACY OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (%)
6 8 6 4
15
18
37 38 36
32
2018 2022
Good enough for 
you and you can 
save from it
Just enough for you, 
so that you do not 
have major problems
Not enough for 
you and you are 
stretched
Not enough for 
you and you are 
having a hard time
Cannot say
Q59. “Which of the following best describes your total household income at the present time? 
Would you say it is…”
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 69 

FOOD SECURITY
About one in five people in Toronto 
(22%) reports that, at some point in 
the past 12 months, they had eaten 
less than they felt they should 
because there wasn’t enough money 
to buy food.30
Almost half of those who said their 
income was “not enough” said that 
they had not been able to afford food 
at some point in the past year (49%). 
Food insecurity is also more common 
among a number of groups, including:
• youth, particularly those aged 25 to 
29. Four in 10 respondents (40%) 
between the ages of 25 and 29 
report they were food insecure, 
double the rate across other age 
categories (20%); 
• those with disabilities, including 
31% of those who reported their 
disabilities always or often limited 
their activities and 36% of those 
who said their disability occasionally 
limited their activities. This compares 
to only 16% of those who reported 
no activity limitations; 
• racialized residents (25%), including 
34% of those who identify as Black. 
This compares to 18% of those who 
identify as white; 
• single parents (37%), who were also 
more likely than average to report 
food insecurity; 
• those who identify as LGBTQ2S+ 
(31%), compared to those who are 
heterosexual (21%).
30 This is almost identical to what Food Banks Canada found asking the same question nationally in spring 2022 (see https://www.
mainstreetresearch.ca/poll/food-insecurity-june-2022/ and https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-food-banks-canada￾research-shows-7-million-canadians-report-going-hungry-833281882.html). The question on food insecurity was not asked in 2018.
FOOD INSECURITY IN PAST YEAR BY AGE (%)
Q75. “In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t 
enough money to buy food?”
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–54 55–64 65+
40
29 28
21
17
7
Percentage who say they ate less than they should 
because of financial constraints in the last 12 months
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 70 

FOOD INSECURITY IN PAST YEAR, SELECT GROUPS (%)
Q75. “In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough 
money to buy food?”
OUTLOOK ON LIFE
One of the most striking findings from 
the 2022 Toronto Social Capital Study 
is the decline in overall optimism 
among Toronto residents. In 2018, 40% 
of people in the city said they always 
have something to look forward to 
in life, and 71% said they felt this way 
always or often. Four years later, only 
25% always feel they have something 
Q39B. “Thinking about your life in general, how often would you say you: Have something to look 
forward to in life?”
HOW OFTEN DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO IN LIFE? (%)
to look forward to in life, and 56% say 
they feel this way always or often. 
Conversely, the proportion who say 
they only sometimes, or rarely or never, 
have something to look forward to in 
life has increased from 27% to 42%. 
This change in outlook occurred among 
Torontonians from all backgrounds.
Average 
White
Racial identity Racialized 
Black
Disability that often limits activity
Disability status Disability that sometimes limits activity
No disability
Less than $30K household income
Describe income as not enough Select other 
demographics
Single parents
22
18
25
34
31
36
16
43
49
37
Always Often Sometimes Rarely/never Cannot say
2018 40 21 6 3
25 29 13
31
31 2
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 71
2022 

WELLBEING AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
As expected, these indicators of 
wellbeing and of income security 
are related to each of the major 
dimensions of social capital covered 
in this report. Scores on the indexes of 
social networks, social trust and civic 
engagement all increase as wellbeing 
or income security improve. 
The relationship with social trust, 
however, is particularly noticeable: 
those with better wellbeing or more 
economic security have much higher 
social trust. This suggests a link 
between the declines in wellbeing and 
security between 2018 and 2022, and 
the decline in social trust that occurred 
over the same period.
INDEX OF SOCIAL TRUST (MEAN SCORES), BY CONDITION OF WELLBEING 
AND INCOME SECURITY
(%)
WELLBEING, ECONOMIC
SECURITY AND DISCRIMINATION
One additional relationship worth 
noting is that between wellbeing and 
economic security, on the one hand, 
and discrimination, on the other. The 
measures of wellbeing and of economic 
security reported in this section are 
most positive for Torontonians who 
do not experience discrimination (with 
a score of zero on the discrimination 
scale) and become more negative 
as the scores on the discrimination 
scale rise (indicating more frequent 
experiences of discrimination). In other 
words, Torontonians who experience 
the most frequent discrimination have 
lower life satisfaction, poorer mental 
health and less economic security than 
those who experience less frequent 
or no discrimination. This is true for all 
forms of discrimination taken together, 
as well as for discrimination based on 
different grounds, such as race, gender 
and age.
Income 
good 
enough
Income 
just 
enough
Income 
not 
enough
Experienced 
food 
insecurity
Did not 
experience 
food 
insecurity
Low 
wellbeing 
index score
Medium-low 
wellbeing 
index score
Medium-high 
wellbeing 
index score
High 
wellbeing 
index score
6.15
5.18
4.75 4.75 4.61
4.20 3.97 3.75
2.84
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 > Wellbeing 72 

CONCLUSION AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 73 

Conclusion
The pandemic has curtailed 
social connection, civic 
engagement and wellbeing
Torontonians are coming out of the 
pandemic connected to fewer groups 
of family and friends than they were 
going into it. They are also less active in 
the city in terms of group membership, 
volunteering and charitable giving. 
At the same time, the wellbeing 
of many of the city’s residents has 
declined. Torontonians in 2022 are 
almost twice as likely as they were in 
2018 to say their mental health is fair 
or poor; they are also more likely to 
report low satisfaction with their lives 
in general and less likely to say they 
always feel like they have something to 
look forward to. One in five says their 
incomes are not enough (either that 
they are stretched or having a hard 
time) and more than one in five say that 
at some point in the past 12 months 
they had difficulty affording food, one 
of the most basic necessities of life. 
The 2022 Toronto Social Capital Study provides an in-depth 
look at social networks, civic engagement, social trust and 
neighbourhood support within the city.
The most vulnerable 
Torontonians have less 
access to support
The declines in social capital since 2018 
have affected Torontonians from all 
backgrounds. This should not deflect 
attention from the fact that a number 
of groups in the city remain particularly 
vulnerable: they have greater needs, 
but less access to services, support 
from family and friends, and are less 
likely to be connected to supportive 
organizations. Torontonians with lower 
incomes or who are unemployed are 
among those who stand out most 
consistently in this regard. Both 
social capital and wellbeing generally 
increase not only with income, but also 
with age. The situation of youth in the 
city, and particularly of young women, 
is therefore also a growing concern. 
O
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 74 

Declining civic 
engagement adds to the 
challenge of recovery
No dimension of social capital has 
been as significantly affected by 
the pandemic as civic engagement. 
Declining participation in community 
organizations affects volunteering and 
charitable giving, as people are more 
likely to give time and money to the 
organizations in which they participate. 
And declines in volunteering and 
charitable giving in turn add to 
the pressures facing nonprofit 
organizations attempting to meet 
growing demand with fewer resources. 
The most vulnerable in the community 
are the most likely to feel the impact of 
these declines.
Social capital in Toronto 
is a resource that can help 
drive recovery
While the pandemic has taken its toll, 
there are many encouraging signs. 
The vast majority of Torontonians 
have people in their lives with whom 
they feel at ease, can talk to or call 
on for help. The majority of Toronto 
residents also find their city to be safe 
and their neighbours to be helpful. 
Most Torontonians are members of 
at least one organization in their 
community and continue to make 
donations to charity. And more than 
two years into the pandemic, levels of 
confidence in most local institutions 
remain unchanged.
Moreover, in terms of social capital at 
least, the pandemic has not pushed 
the different groups in the city further 
apart. Declines in social trust, for 
instance, occurred across the city, but 
were somewhat more pronounced 
among those who were previously the 
most trusting. Ideally, gaps in trust 
and other dimensions of social capital 
should be narrowed by improving those 
with the least positive outlook. But the 
fact the weight of the changes did not 
fall mainly on the most vulnerable is 
nonetheless a positive outcome. This 
development creates an opportunity 
to rebuild together, strengthening the 
situation for all residents in the city 
rather than just waiting for those who 
are better off to rebound on their own.
O
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 75 

Recommendations 
for the Future
For more than two years, residents 
and governments have been called 
upon to “build back better,” rather 
than accepting a mere return to 
“normal.”
The 2022 Toronto Social Capital 
Study serves to direct attention 
beyond slogans, to what this might 
mean in practice. The partners 
to our study have collectively 
identified a range of priorities 
that can be adopted by various 
stakeholders in our city. What 
each of the actions has in common 
is that they address, in their 
own ways, the twin challenges 
of building connectedness and 
inclusivity within the city. In this 
regard, Toronto has considerable 
resources of social capital to draw 
upon. The engagement and trust 
people have with one another 
and their communities is the 
foundation upon which we can 
collectively develop a city that 
works better for everyone.
• Reinvest in community and social 
service organizations that are 
addressing heightened needs with 
fewer resources. The likelihood of 
donating to charities fell among 
Torontonians from all income 
brackets. Those with income 
security can lead the way with 
increased supports.
• Support a combination of hyper￾local organizations and networked 
organizations engaging across 
sectors to find collaborative solutions. 
Change happens at both levels.
• Focus philanthropic resources 
toward those organizations most in 
need of support and most attuned 
to local needs, particularly smaller, 
grassroots groups led by the 
communities they serve.
• Provide unrestricted, multi￾year operating support, so that 
organizations can determine for 
themselves how best to deploy 
resources and with the confidence 
to plan long-term. 
• Make transformational gifts to 
support systems-change efforts. 
The work is critical yet often 
underfunded in comparison to 
more direct services.
1
PRIORITIES FOR 
DONORS AND FUNDERS:
OO
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 76 

2
PRIORITIES FOR 
ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES:
• Recognize the broader role you 
play in creating and strengthening 
social networks, particularly for 
those most isolated. For some, the 
convening opportunities you provide 
may be at the centre of their social 
connections.
• Become an Ontario Living Wage 
employer to provide equitable 
employment.
• Identify and reduce barriers to 
online participation in programs and 
services. Without deliberate steps 
to overcome existing technology 
gaps, online communication tends 
to benefit those who are already the 
most connected in the community, 
not the most isolated.
• Invest in capital improvements to 
ensure safer working environments 
for those who want or need to be 
in-person.
• Build links through deliberate and 
consistent outreach to those most 
at risk of isolation, such as those 
who are unemployed and those 
with poor mental health.
• Prioritize improving youth 
mental health through increased 
awareness and expansion of 
programs, including preventative 
programs and services. Greater 
focus should also be placed on 
system developments, such as 
better coordination of services 
and supports, improved access 
and more culturally appropriate 
approaches.
• Reconnect Torontonians with 
local charitable organizations. 
Employers can encourage 
volunteering during work hours 
and matching employee donations.
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 77 

• Acknowledge and dismantle systemic 
racism within the police services 
that lead to low levels of trust in the 
institution. Such reforms must be 
informed by community advocates 
and particularly Black Torontonians, 
who hold the lowest trust.
• Develop strategies to enhance 
the low levels of public trust in 
local political institutions through 
consultations with groups that hold 
the lowest confidence, particularly 
younger residents.
• Invest in community infrastructure 
beyond the traditional physical 
assets to expand to spaces that 
bring people together: safe 
and accessible outdoor spaces 
and culturally appropriate and 
responsive neighbourhood and 
youth centres.
• Engage residents, especially 
lower-income residents, more 
meaningfully in neighbourhood 
planning processes, so they can 
influence decisions and benefit from 
the social, health and economic 
impacts of change processes.
• Target public transportation policies 
toward the needs of specific 
populations in the city who face 
greater barriers to mobility and 
connection. This means more 
frequent, flexible and affordable 
services for those who need them, 
particularly those with a disability, 
and for those with lower incomes 
and those who are unemployed. 
Public transportation policy should 
look beyond the need to get people 
to and from work or school, to 
building pathways to connect with 
community activities, including 
volunteering opportunities, and arts 
and cultural programs.
3
PRIORITIES FOR 
GOVERNMENTS AND POLICYMAKERS:
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 78 

• Join a group outside your typical 
social circle. Get involved in the 
wider community and strengthen 
the foundations of social capital. 
• Attend local arts and sporting 
events. Those organizations are 
among the hardest hit by the 
pandemic and can often draw in 
a diverse cross-section of society.
• Donate as much as you can. 
Connect to a cause that is related 
to these findings. For example, 
organizations serving young people, 
especially women; LGBTQ2s+ and 
Black residents, as well as those 
supporting those who are under￾and unemployed; and those living 
with disabilities.
• Support young adults as they seek 
to establish careers and families in 
an ever more challenging world.
• Learn about systemic forms of 
discrimination and consider your 
capacity to help generate more 
social capital for those historically 
with barriers to access. Experiences 
of discrimination affect the whole 
community, not just individuals, by 
sapping shared reserves of social 
capital. Working to eliminate all 
forms of discrimination is the sine 
qua non of building back better. 4
PRIORITIES FOR 
ENGAGED TORONTONIANS:
OOOO
O
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 79 

Partner Insights
Metcalf Foundation
“This latest Toronto Social Capital 
Study gives us a sense of a city both 
resilient and vulnerable. One particularly 
troubling finding is the diminished 
state of our nonprofit sector. These 
organizations contribute so much to 
the durability of our social capital, and, 
yet, their funding and support have 
decreased markedly over the last four 
years. How do we bolster these essential 
elements of our social fabric and ensure 
their continuing contributions to the 
success of our city?”
Ontario Trillium Foundation
The decline in social capital measures 
shows us how not being able to 
connect with one another throughout 
the pandemic impacted communities 
across the board. Together with the 
decline in social trust, this really tells 
us how important it will be to invest in 
restoring our connections and trust within 
communities in the coming years.”
MLSE Foundation
Salient to MLSE Foundation is the 
finding that young people are much 
more likely to report having fewer 
friends or no friends, compared to 
2018. This reflects data from our 2022 
Change the Game Research Study, 
revealing that the top barrier to youth 
engagement in sport or physical 
activity today is having no one to 
play with. Youth are alone, isolated 
and in need of highly engaging, 
evidence-based interventions like 
Sport for Development to build social 
competency and capital.”
Sandy Houston
President & CEO
Gillian White
Director, Measurement, 
Evaluation and Business 
Intelligence
Marika Warner
Director, Research 
and Evaluation
“
“
“
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 80 

TAS
A third of Torontonians believe they 
are worse off than the prior generation, 
an increase of eight points in just four 
years. Together, we need to act now to 
forge a future in which Torontonians 
thrive. The TAS Impact Framework 
outlines how TAS is working to improve 
quality of life in our communities. We 
know we can’t do it alone and look 
forward to collaborating with partners 
to help lead this urgent work.”
Wellesley Institute
We are less likely to thrive in a society 
where we see fewer people, trust fewer 
people and have less faith that working 
collectively can make a difference. Our 
society and our physical and mental 
health feed on social capital. If we want 
Toronto and Torontonians to flourish, 
we have to do more to rebuild the 
social capital that seems to have been 
lost to COVID-19.”
YMCA of Greater Toronto
In reading the report, I was taken 
aback by the low levels of social 
connectivity and civic engagement. 
While people seem to have faith in their 
institutions, there is a sense that they 
are increasingly being asked to make 
it ‘on their own.’ At the YMCA GTA, 
we will double down on our efforts to 
help people and let them know that 
they are not alone. The two pillars of 
our strategic plan, boosting wellbeing 
and promoting equity, have never been 
more important to our community.”
United Way Greater Toronto
While it’s encouraging to see that social 
capital is still relatively strong, we’ve 
lost ground, and this has the greatest 
consequences for people impacted by 
systemic inequities. Strengthening a 
network of local support that can cut 
across those gaps and provide a bridge 
to social capital is central to United Way’s 
mission. And that’s why we’re working to 
address fault lines, and encourage and 
support local engagement. The changes 
we need, for you, for me, for all of us 
across this region, to reach our collective 
potential, start with trust. And that’s why 
social capital matters.”
Mazyar Mortazavi
President & CEO
Dr. Kwame McKenzie 
CEO
Jamison Steeve
Chief Strategy Officer
Daniele Zanotti
President & CEO
“
“
“
“
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 81 

Appendix: 
Neighbourhood 
Map
Copyright @2018 Environics Analytics. Environics 
Analytics acquires and distributes Statistics Canada 
files in accordance with the Government of Canada’s 
Open Data Policy.
No information on any individual or household was 
made available to Environics Analytics by Statistics 
Canada. PRIZM and selected PRIZM5 nicknames 
are registered trademarks of The Nielsen Company 
(U.S.) and are used with permission.
This map shows the names and 
boundaries of the 11 neighbourhood 
areas referred to in the report and 
the accompanying data tables. Each 
area is composed of a combination 
of the 140 city neighbourhoods, as 
defined by the City of Toronto. The 
11 areas were formed by grouping 
neighbourhoods that are close to 
one another and demographically 
similar to one another; note that 
two areas include neighbourhoods 
that are not contiguous (identified 
by the letters A and B).
Gardiner Expy
Hwy 427
Eglinton Ave
Hwy 404
Don Valley Pky
Allen Rd
Hwy 401
Hwy 400
Hwy 407
Danforth-Beach
Downtown
Humber North
Humber South
Newtonbrook-Willowdale
North Toronto-Don Mills
Scarborough-Agincourt
Scarborough-Ionview
Scarborough￾Thorncliffe
Weston/Jane/York
Yorkdale￾Annex
0
5 10
Kilometres
Toronto Neighbourhood Clusters
Highways
A
A
B
AB
Danforth-Beach
Humber North
Lake Ontario
Toronto Social Capital Study 2022 82 

Gardiner Expy
Hwy 427
Eglinton Ave
Hwy 404
Don Valley Pky
Allen Rd
Hwy 401
Hwy 400
Hwy 407
Danforth-Beach
Downtown
Humber North
Humber South
Newtonbrook-Willowdale
North Toronto-Don Mills
Scarborough-Agincourt
Scarborough-Ionview
Scarborough￾Thorncliffe
Weston/Jane/York
Yorkdale￾Annex
0 5 10
Kilometres
Toronto Neighbourhood Clusters
Highways
A
A
B
A
B
Danforth-Beach
Humber North
Lake Ontario 

Toronto Foundation 
33 Bloor Street East, Suite 1603
Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3H1
torontofoundation.ca
info@torontofoundation.ca
Environics Institute 
for Survey Research
33 Bloor Street East, Suite 900
Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3H1
environicsinstitute.org
info@environicsinstitute.org
@Environics_Inst
PROJECT PARTNERS
LEAD PARTNERS
COLLABORATING PARTNERS NATIONAL SURVEY PARTNER
An agency of the Government of Ontario
Un organisme du gouvernement de l’Ontario 