(ORIGINAL PAGE) Community Network Map
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Last updated
Was this helpful?
To view the map in a different window click here
The Clapton Care Circle sits at the heart of a vibrant and multifaceted landscape of care and support in the Clapton Common area. This network encompasses a wide array of actors, from individuals and families to community groups, organizations, and local businesses, all united by a shared commitment to "taking care of," "caring for," or "caring about" the well-being of local residents. The care wealth embedded in this community represents both formal and informal caregiving activities, flowing through connections that bind together individuals, groups, and teams. Despite the richness of care wealth, much of it remains unrealized, with latent potential still to be unlocked through collaborative efforts and stronger formal ties.
The care ecosystem within Clapton is both broad and diverse, representing a rich tapestry of actors from various sectors. These include:
Statutory Service Providers are not currently mapped. These service providers are public services mandated by law to provide essential care, health, and welfare services. These providers typically operate under government regulations and include services that are funded through national bodies. E.g. Social Care, Mental Health or other NHS Services. The lack of these services within the map, is partly due to the Clapton Care Circle's orientation to engaging informal community networks rather than their absence in the neighborhood. However, it also a result of the difficulties in developing cooperative connections or ongoing collaborations with members of these agencies present in the neighborhood such as local Social Prescribers, Community Nurses, Care Coordinators and social and health care workers from other agencies.
Each entity, whether a grassroots group, a local business, or a state-funded service, contributes uniquely to the overall care ecosystem. These actors, whether they are individuals, groups, organizations, or businesses, each play a significant role in sustaining the care wealth of the network mapped. While care wealth—comprising both paid and unpaid caregiving—is deeply embedded in the Clapton community, much of the formal care and support happening in the neighbourhood remains invisible and a great deal of informal care that is visible in the map remains underutilized.
Fragmentation in Formal and Informal care networks.
The Clapton Care Circle's map reveals a landscape rich in informal caregiving but highlights the absence of significant collaboration between formal care providers and community-based support networks. This reality underscores both the strength of grassroots caregiving and the fragmentation between formal and informal care structures.
Informal Care as the Dominant Force.
Most of the care wealth mapped focuses on informal caregiving practices: peer support, emotional and mental health assistance, community meals, and mutual aid. These informal networks are accessible, flexible, and deeply embedded in the local community. Clapton Care Circle’s focus on these informal networks reflects their value in addressing emotional, social, and practical needs, filling gaps where formal services may not reach.
Invisibility of Formal Care Networks.
Formal care services (e.g., Social Prescribers, Community Nurses, Care Coordinators, and social care workers) are largely underrepresented in the mapping process. Their absence highlights a disconnect between the formal care systems operating in Clapton and the community-based networks. This disconnect reflects both a lack of cooperation and the difficulty in integrating formal care subject to rigid structures, procedures and regulations with the highly adaptable, relational, trust-based informal networks.
Missed Opportunities for Collaboration.
The lack of formal care representation signals missed opportunities for integration between professional services and community networks. By fostering partnerships between formal care providers and informal caregivers, the community could potentially enhance its care capacity. Social prescribers, for instance, could leverage existing community relationships to make referrals more seamless and trusted. Community nurses could engage with informal networks to ensure a continuity of care that extends beyond formal appointments or interventions. Care Coordinators focused on early intervention, health promotion, and addressing social determinants of ill-health before they escalate into more complex medical or social issues could benefit from working within the informal networks that are best placed to either detect early signs of poor health or provide the most accesible opportunities for social interaction or meaningful occupation. Integrating formal care with informal caregiving networks often faces structural challenges, such as:
Regulatory boundaries limiting formal care providers from engaging in informal caregiving practices.
Cultural differences between professionalized care and community-driven mutual aid, where trust and personal relationships are central.
Time constraints on formal care workers, who may lack the resources or incentives to participate in these broader networks.
The Clapton Care Circle map highlights the strength of informal caregiving in the community but also reveals a lack of collaboration with formal care services like Social Prescribers, Community Nurses, and Care Coordinators. While informal networks provide flexible, relationship-based care, that can meet a range of quality of life needs, formal services offer specialized, regulated support that better address complex care needs.
Bridging the divide between formal and informal care is essential to ensuring a comprehensive care ecosystem in Clapton. This would require more active collaboration between members of formal care providers, such to social prescribers, Care Coordinators and Community and Mental Health Nurses e.g. joint workshops, planning sessions, or liaison roles to connect the networks. Social prescribing can play a pivotal role in this process by linking individuals to community resources and informal care networks, fostering greater cooperation between formal healthcare services and grassroots support. Preventative care, in particular, presents another opportunity for both networks to work together in addressing health issues before they escalate.
An abundance of care and support is available within the network. Out of 46 elements mapped there are 20 different types of informal or gifted care available. This care and support ranges from Wellness, Emotional & Mental Health, Support to Recreational & Leisure Activities, Care of Culture & Heritage, Child Care, and Gardening & Nature-based Activities, to more practical supports like Gifting or Loaning of Goods/Equipment, Technology and Digital Support, and Transportation Support. This variety reflects the diverse ways communities contribute to caregiving, both formally and informally. See full table of type and theri decrioptions listed here. The most frequnetly measures types of care and support include
Wellness, Emotional & Mental Health Support – mentioned 30 times
Social Connection & Engagement – mentioned 24 times
Recreational & Leisure Activities – mentioned 10 times
Education, Training & Skills Development – mentioned 10 times
Advocacy – mentioned 5 times
Wellness, Emotional & Mental Health Support and Social Connection & Engagement often require fewer resources because they are grounded in the quality of the interaction or relationship itself, rather than relying on services that demand specialized skills, assets, or extensive resources.
Out of the 42 elements listed as offering informal or gifted care and support in the map, approximately 76.19% of the elements listed were able to provide some form of gifted or informal care and support. 10 elements did not provide any form of support directly to The Clapton Circle, one of it's 5 teams throughout the project. Among the types of care predominantly provided, the most common types include:
Wellness, Emotional & Mental Health Support – 27 occurrences
Social Connection & Engagement – 26 occurrences
Recreational & Leisure Activities – 15 occurrences
Advocacy – 14 occurrences
Coordination and Logistics – 12 occurrences
See full table of types and their descriptions listed here.
This demonstrates the Clapton Care Circle's and the wider networks capacity to generate and distribute the wealth of informal care and support embedded within it. Sustaining the flow of this care and support proved challenging. Out of the connections mapped only 42% are listed as generative i.e. active and generating or facilitating the flow of care and support at the time of evaluation. See below:
Inactive: 31.33%
Engaged: 26.51%
Generative: 42.17%
Among the connections that have at some point facilitated/gernatived some form of informal or gifted care and support provided:
17 are identified as Engaged in Column E.
16 are identified as Generative in Column E.
10 are identified as Inactive in Column E.
This suggest that approximately 37.21% have proved sustainable at the time of the evaluation.
This analysis highlights the underutilization of the abundant informal care wealth present within the Clapton Care Circle and its broader network. Despite the diverse range of caregiving types and support available, the network's ability to sustain and activate these connections remains a challenge. With only 42% of the connections classified as generative, it is clear that while there is a substantial capacity for caregiving within the community, much of this care wealth is either latent or underleveraged. This gap underscores the need for more effective strategies to activate and sustain the flow of care and support, ensuring that the community can fully benefit from the wealth of informal care embedded within its networks. Enhanced coordination, better relationship-building efforts, and more consistent engagement with these elements could help unlock the full potential of the Clapton Care Circle’s network. The Clapton Care Circle acts as a central facilitator, ensuring that the care wealth within the community—whether paid or unpaid—flows effectively, connecting individuals, teams, and organizations to create a resilient and supportive network. The analysis suggests that The Clapton Care Circle could have created more sustainable connections if it had adopted a more focused approach, identifying relationships and cooperative connections which could generate ongoing value and deepen engagement. By prioritizing key partnerships and nurturing core relationships, rather than attempting to maintain a broad range of connections, the Circle could have strengthened the flow of care and support, ensuring that resources are directed toward building lasting, generative networks. This strategic focus would likely result in more sustainable caregiving relationships, amplifying the impact of both formal and informal care efforts across the community.
Most regulated domicillary care and support providers are invisible to the community. Care workers providing care to residents in their homes do so with minimal interaction or collaboaration with other local residents, groups or services. Putting the Equal Care Teams and Care and Support Workers on the map situates them alongside other community assets and services; valuing and recognising their contribution to the local community as much as any other valued member of the local landscape of care and support.
Increased Visibility and Integration.
By situating domiciliary care teams alongside other community assets, these teams are no longer isolated actors, but visible contributors within the broader landscape of care. This increased visibility helps to emphasize the importance of their role in the community, fostering a sense of belonging and integration for both care workers and those they support.
Recognition and Value.
Mapping domiciliary care alongside other services implicitly elevates its status, recognizing it as an essential part of community well-being. It reframes care work as not just a private or commercial service but as a social good that is as valuable as more traditional community services like schools, health clinics, or voluntary organizations. This can enhance public perception of care work and highlight its vital role in maintaining community health and cohesion.
Facilitation of Collaboration.
By being visible on the same map as other local services, domiciliary care teams might have more opportunities for collaboration and interaction with other community members and organizations. This could lead to partnerships that enrich both the care experience for recipients and the working environment for care workers, for instance, by linking them to local groups that can offer supplementary support.
Community Ownership and Engagement.
Situating domiciliary care teams on the map could foster a sense of community ownership over care provision, as these teams become seen as integral parts of the local social fabric. It may encourage local residents to feel more engaged in supporting or even co-producing care solutions with these teams, breaking down barriers between formal care providers and informal community networks.
Humanization of Care Work.
In many contexts, domiciliary care workers are often seen as faceless or peripheral to the community. By mapping them alongside other local assets, it reinforces the idea that they are valuable, contributing individuals with skills, knowledge, and relationships that benefit the community.
Challenging Stereotypes of Care Work.
By showing domiciliary care as part of a network of vital community services, it could help to challenge the often negative or undervalued perceptions of care work. This may lead to greater appreciation for the skills and emotional labor involved in caregiving and support a broader societal shift towards respecting and investing in care work.
Making Social care workers more visible within community networks could foster a greater sense of shared responsibility for care within the community, bridging the gap between formal and informal care sectors. It positions Equal Care Teams as core to the community's well-being and aligns their work with community development efforts.
Most domiciliary care provision offers a limited form of care that primarily focuses on addressing the basic physical and medical needs of recipients. This type of care typically includes tasks such as personal hygiene, medication administration, eating, and assistance with mobility, often leaving out the emotional, social, and holistic aspects of well-being that are crucial to someone’s quality of life. The Clapton Care Circle sought to enrich the experience of care receivers (Team Owners) participating in the pilot by creating collaborations that could leverage the care wealth of the community, allowing a wider range of care—including emotional support, social connection, and meaningful occuption—to flow within its teams. This approach aimed to provide a more holistic and person-centered model of care that goes beyond just meeting basic needs, fostering a deeper sense of community and well-being for all involved.
B Team
B Team is connected to several entities in the Clapton care network, reflecting both formal and informal caregiving relationships. Connections include links to Springfield Neighbourhood Forum, Chizuk, and The Clapton Care Circle, Compassionate Neighbours and Sunday Care Therapy, as well as individual care workers (F and Z).
The quality of these connections varies. Five are generative, indicating active flows of care and support, particularly through relationships with Compassionate Neighbours, Z, Chizuk, Sunday Care Therapy, and The Clapton Care Circle. One connection, with Springfield Neighbourhood Forum, is engaged but not yet generating care flows, while the link to F is inactive.
In terms of care types, B Team participates in both informal (e.g., emotional and mental health support) and paid (e.g., advocacy, education, and training) caregiving. These connections reflect B Team’s integration into a broader care network that includes both formal services and grassroots support. However, there remains potential to strengthen and re-engage certain inactive links to enhance the overall flow of care resources.
D Team View
D Team is embedded in a diverse care network, connected to both formal organizations and informal community-based initiatives. Some relationships, such as those with Warm Welcome and Re-think, actively generate care, particularly in areas of mental health and emotional support. These generative connections show D Team’s role in facilitating engagement activities and wellness support, helping meet community needs.
However, a significant number of connections remain inactive, including links with Sunday Care Therapy, M Team, and individual care workers. These inactive relationships suggest untapped potential for expanding the types of care flowing into and out of D Team’s network, such as personal care or practical support, which are not currently being utilized. The engaged connection with The Clapton Care Circle hints at the possibility of more structured collaboration, though care flows remain limited for now.
The mix of active and dormant connections reflects both the current strengths and the potential for deeper collaboration. While D Team contributes to mental health and informal support services, there remains considerable room to enhance caregiving by reactivating inactive connections and fostering stronger ties within the community.
G Team View
G Team is connected to a variety of entities within the care network, reflecting both community-based initiatives and individual care workers. Key connections include Sunday Care Therapy, The Clapton Care Circle, and S, which represent active, generative relationships that facilitate the flow of care. Other connections, such as those with Residents Meal Club @ Lime Tree Court, My Hope Foodbank (Oldhill School), and Immediate Theatre, are engaged but not actively generating significant care flows at the moment.
A number of links, including Carib Eats, George's Art Jam, and M Team, are inactive, suggesting that these connections are not currently contributing to the care network but have the potential to do so if re-engaged.
In terms of care types, G Team benefits from both informal caregiving and community support services. The generative connections reflect G Team’s active role in fostering social and emotional support, while the inactive links highlight opportunities to expand its caregiving activities by reactivating dormant relationships.
H Team View
H Team is connected to several entities in the care network, reflecting both formal and community-based caregiving relationships. Key connections include Made in Hackney, The Clapton Care Circle, Compassionate Neighbours, St Thomas Church, and Sunday Care Therapy, all of which represent active, generative relationships facilitating a strong flow of care and support. These connections highlight H Team’s integration into community services, focusing on social and emotional care.
The connections with Zoya and Warm Welcome are engaged but not currently generating significant care flows, suggesting potential for future collaboration. Meanwhile, the links with Hackney Carers and S are unclassified, leaving their role in the network unclear.
H Team is primarily involved in informal and community-based caregiving, offering support across emotional and practical domains. While the generative connections reflect the team’s active role in the care network, there is room to enhance and activate the engaged and unclassified links to further expand caregiving capacity.
M Team
The analysis of the various teams in the Clapton Care Circle reveals a dynamic yet uneven landscape of caregiving relationships, involving both formal and informal actors. Each team—B, D, G, H, and M—participates in a network of care, but with varying levels of engagement and effectiveness. The following sections provide a detailed assessment of the insights generated from the ethnographies and team networks:
Across all teams, the care network comprises a mixture of community-based organizations, individual care workers, and formal entities. Informal caregiving, especially in the form of emotional and mental health support, plays a crucial role, with grassroots initiatives like Compassionate Neighbours, Sunday Care Therapy, and Re-think providing key resources. Formal actors, such as The Clapton Care Circle and structured services like Chizuk and St Thomas Church, contribute to more structured, regulated caregiving, focusing on advocacy, skills training, and care coordination. However, informal networks, driven by personal relationships and trust, remain the dominant force across many teams.
The analysis reveals a network with a combination of active (generative) and inactive connections. Teams like H Team, B Team, and M Team have a relatively high proportion of generative relationships that actively facilitate care and support. For example, B Team has strong connections with Compassionate Neighbours, Sunday Care Therapy, and The Clapton Care Circle, creating a sustainable flow of caregiving resources. Similarly, H Team has multiple generative links with Made in Hackney and St Thomas Church.
However, there are also many inactive connections across teams, particularly in D Team and M Team. These inactive relationships, such as those with F (a care worker) or My Hope Foodbank, represent unrealized potential. Without activation, these dormant links limit the sustainability and reach of the care network, leaving untapped caregiving capacity within the community. The overall sustainability of the care network depends on re-engaging these inactive links and maintaining a balance between informal and formal care.
The Clapton Care Circle plays a pivotal role in enriching and connecting various teams across the network. It serves as a central actor, fostering collaboration between formal and informal care providers, as evidenced by its generative connections with B Team, H Team, and M Team. This entity bridges the gap between grassroots, relational caregiving and more structured, regulated care services. However, while The Clapton Care Circle acts as an enabler for many teams, its capacity to support and mobilize care is limited by inactive or weak connections in some areas of the network, such as D Team and M Team.
The concept of care wealth—the collective caregiving resources embedded within the community—highlights the importance of active collaboration to unlock these resources. Teams with multiple generative connections (e.g., B Team, H Team) demonstrate how active, sustained relationships can maximize the flow of care resources, benefiting both the recipients and the broader network. For instance, M Team’s collaboration with Warm Welcome and Re-think contributes to a strong caregiving infrastructure, while H Team benefits from partnerships with St Thomas Church and Compassionate Neighbours.
However, the analysis suggests that the care network’s unused capacity remains significant, particularly where inactive connections are prevalent. Formalizing and activating these connections could substantially increase the network’s impact, allowing for better coordination of paid and unpaid care resources. By building stronger partnerships and formalized collaborations, the network could enhance its ability to respond to the community’s diverse needs.
One of the key challenges facing the care network is the conversion of latent, engaged connections into fully active, formalized collaborations. Teams like D Team and M Team struggle with a significant number of inactive links, reducing the effectiveness of the network. This is particularly important in areas where formal care providers are less engaged, limiting the ability to integrate more specialized or regulated support into the community.
The network’s potential is hindered by the underutilization of both paid and unpaid care resources available within it, which could be better leveraged to meet the community’s needs. Strengthening connections with more formal actors could increase access to specialized services, while re-engaging dormant links with community-based organizations could unlock additional informal support that meet more quality of life needs.
These are local residents who voluntarily offer their time, skills, and care to support their neighbours and community. They may not belong to any formal group or organization, but their contributions are essential in building the fabric of community care. These individuals are often motivated by a sense of civic duty, mutual aid, or personal relationships, providing informal support in various ways.
These are informal, volunteer-led groups that operate without a formal legal structure. Their work focuses on mutual aid, peer support, and community-building efforts, relying heavily on local knowledge, trust, and social networks to provide care and support.
These are registered charities or community interest companies (CICs) that deliver care and support to specific populations or causes. They often work in collaboration with statutory services and local authorities, filling gaps in public service provision. These organisations may have a mix of paid staff and volunteers and typically offer a more formalised structure of care.
Social enterprises are businesses that trade to tackle social problems, improve communities, and provide access to employment. These organizations operate within the market but prioritize social impact over profit. Ethical businesses may also be included here, especially those that play a supportive role within the care ecosystem by offering services or products that indirectly contribute to community wellbeing.
These organisations are often more formally integrated into local service delivery but still maintain a strong connection with the community. They may act as hubs for multiple services, including health, education, and welfare support. Voluntary organisations in this category often collaborate closely with statutory services, local authorities, and other formal institutions.
Statutory Service Providers
These are public or privately owned services mandated by law and/or commissioned local authorities or government agencies to provide essential care, health, and welfare services. These providers typically operate under government regulations and include services that are funded through national bodies.
The Clapton Circle of Equal Care Cooperative and Sunday Care Therapy as represent such services.