LogoLogo
  • Introduction
    • πŸ₯³Welcome to the playbook
    • πŸ“’Project background
    • What is co-operative care?
    • πŸ› οΈHow to use the playbook
    • A word from...
      • Equal Care
      • Clapton Care Commons
  • Start and Grow
    • 🚠Overview
    • 🌍Foundation
      • Founders
      • Find the others
      • Feasibility
      • Formation
    • Have a go
    • Find (more) money
    • Share the power
    • πŸŽ‹Grow
      • Recruit workers
      • Start teams
    • Sustain
  • Technology
    • Equal Care's Platform
    • Equal Care's technology journey
    • Choosing technologies
      • Social Care Platform Vendors
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising options
    • Community Share Offers
      • Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
    • Commons Contribution
    • Restrictions on investment
  • Equal Care's Model
    • Our Purpose
    • How we work
    • Sociocracy
    • Circles
      • Long term decisions
      • Everyday decisions
      • Circle records
      • Consent
      • Proposals
    • Teams
      • Why we use the Teams model
      • Who's in?
      • Team Starting
        • The role of a Team Starter
        • 1. Starting a Team: The First Contact
        • 2. Beginning the Relationship
        • 3. Finding the Right Match
        • 4. Supportive Conversation & Trust Assessment
          • 4a. Example of a Supportive Conversation
          • 4b. Example of a Trust Assessment
        • 5. Profiles and promises
          • 5a. The Getting Support Promise
          • 5b. The Getting Support Profile
          • 5c. Worker and team member profiles
        • 6. Building a team
          • 6a. Finding and welcoming new members
          • 6b. Trialling new team members
        • 7. Getting Organised: Roles and Hats
        • 8. Stepping Back: Team Independence
      • Dealing with conflict and change
        • Conflict support
        • How to leave a team well
    • Hats
      • Team Hats
      • Circle Hats - Process
      • Circle Hats - Operational
        • Care Commons Organiser
        • Peer supervisor
    • Platform
    • Co-production
      • Implementing co-production
      • Context of co-production in social care
      • Governance for co-production
      • Ownership for co-production
    • Care Commons
    • Radical Candour
  • Evaluation framework
    • Introduction
    • Commons-based Care: the Context
    • Scope
      • Three Domains of Care Outcomes: Process, Change, and Maintenance.
      • Three Domains of Outcomes in Equal Care
      • Mapping Equal Care Outputs to Outcomes Domains
      • Social Climate as a Key Evaluative Lens
    • Evaluation Challenges
    • Methods
      • Social Climate Survey
      • Community Mapping
      • Interviews and workshops
      • Group activities
      • Community needs assessment
        • Locality analysis
    • Data Analysis
      • Interviews Outcome Domains
        • Growth Outcomes
        • Well-being, Relationships & Belonging Outcomes
        • Systems Maintenaince & Co-production Outcomes
      • Community Network Map: Analysis & Overview
        • Who’s in the Network?
        • Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Care
        • Mapping Care Wealth
        • What We Learned from the Teams
        • The Role of Teams in the Community Care Network
        • Reflections and Future Directions
      • Reflections from the Ground: Insights from Key Circle Leads
        • Circle Outputs: Experiences & Learnings from the Clapton Circle.
        • Teams Outputs: Experiences & Learnings from the Clapton Circle.
        • Platform Outputs: Experiences & Learnings from the Clapton Circle.
        • Commons Outputs: Experiences & Learnings from the Clapton Circle.
          • Care Commons Organiser Role Description
    • The Toolbox
      • Theory of Change
        • What is a Theory of Change?
          • Using a Theory of Change
        • Co-producing our Theory of Change
        • Observations about ToC Outcomes
        • How to use our interactive ToC
          • Orientation to ToC Tool: The Kumu Platform
            • Using the focus function in Kumu
            • Using Basic Control Functions
            • Toggling Between views
          • 1. Outputs Dimensions and Outcome Domains
          • 2. Coop Output Dimensions - a deeper dive.
          • 3. Coop Outcomes Domains. A deeper dive.
        • Using ToC tool to understand our model of care: Key Outputs.
        • Using ToC tool to understand our model of care: Key Outcomes
        • Using ToC tool to see how we measure outcomes
        • Using ToC tool to understand the impact of specific features of the coop
          • Circle ToC
          • Platform ToC
          • Teams ToC
          • Commons ToC
        • Using this tool for Strategy and Planning
      • Equal Care Coop's Social Climate Survey
        • About Equal Care's Social Climate
          • Why Measure Social Climate?
        • Interpreting Growth Measures
          • Low Score Interpretation
          • Medium Score Interpretation
          • High Score Interpretation
        • Interpreting Systems Maintenance and Co-production Measures
          • Low Score Interpretation
          • Medium Score Interpretation
          • High Score Interpretation
        • Interpreting Well-being, Relationships & Belonging Measures
          • Low Score Interpretation
          • Medium Score Interpretation
          • High Score Interpretation
        • Using the Social Climate Survey: Resources and Challenges.
        • List of Survey Items for all Stake Holders
      • Community Care Mapping Tool
      • Interview Templates
      • Atlas Care Maps
      • Co-Production Capacity Assessment Tool
        • 10 capacities for co-production
        • Using the tool
  • Service Specification
    • Care as a common pool resource
    • Service Spec
    • Service Map
  • Cost Model
    • Introduction
    • Resources
    • Fair wages
    • Cost Models in Social Care
  • Resources
    • Co-op operations
      • Communications
        • Roles
        • Tone of Voice
        • Digital Inclusion
        • Social Media
      • Learning
        • What you need to know
        • Peer to peer learning
    • Documentation
    • Care and Support Rates
    • Co-op rules & bylaws
    • Care Mapping with Atlas of Care
      • Care Mapping for Relationship-Centred Care
      • Care Mapping for new Teams
      • Care Mapping for Evaluation
    • Glossary
Powered by GitBook

Β© Equal Care Co-op Ltd 2025

On this page
  • 🟒 B Team
  • 🟒 D Team
  • 🟒 G Team
  • 🟒 H Team
  • 🟑 M Team
  • 🧭 Summary of Insights

Was this helpful?

Export as PDF
  1. Evaluation framework
  2. Data Analysis
  3. Community Network Map: Analysis & Overview

What We Learned from the Teams

PreviousMapping Care WealthNextThe Role of Teams in the Community Care Network

Last updated 23 days ago

Was this helpful?

Each of the five care teams involved in the Clapton Care Circle pilot engaged with the local care ecosystem in unique ways. The analysis of their connections - both formal and informal - reveals how care wealth flowed through the network, what challenges emerged, and where further potential lies.

We’ve summarised the findings for each team below, showing their key partnerships, the kinds of care exchanged, and the strength of those relationships. This helps us understand how care was distributed, where support was sustainable, and where links remain underused.


🟒 B Team

Key Connections:

  • Compassionate Neighbours (generative)

  • Sunday Care Therapy (generative)

  • Chizuk (generative)

  • The Clapton Care Circle (generative)

  • Z (individual care worker – generative)

  • Springfield Neighbourhood Forum (engaged)

  • F (individual care worker – inactive)

Care Types Flowing:

  • Emotional and mental health support

  • Practical caregiving

  • Paid care (e.g., advocacy, education and training)

Observations: B Team had a strong foundation of active partnerships, especially with organisations offering mental health and emotional support. However, some relationships (e.g., with F and Springfield Neighbourhood Forum) were either inactive or not yet generating care flows. Strengthening these weaker links could help extend the team’s reach and caregiving capacity.


🟒 D Team

Key Connections:

  • Warm Welcome (generative)

  • Re-think (generative)

  • The Clapton Care Circle (engaged)

  • Sunday Care Therapy (inactive)

  • M Team (inactive)

  • Individual care workers (mixed activity levels)

Care Types Flowing:

  • Mental health and emotional support

  • Social connection and peer-led engagement

Observations: D Team played an active role in promoting wellness and peer support, but had a large number of inactive or unclassified links. Their collaborations with groups like Re-think were a strength, but other potentially valuable relationships remained dormant, highlighting missed opportunities for integration and broader support.


🟒 G Team

Key Connections:

  • Sunday Care Therapy (generative)

  • The Clapton Care Circle (generative)

  • S (generative)

  • Residents Meal Club @ Lime Tree Court (engaged)

  • My Hope Foodbank / Oldhill School (engaged)

  • Immediate Theatre (engaged)

  • Carib Eats, George's Art Jam, M Team (inactive)

Care Types Flowing:

  • Emotional and practical support

  • Community-based activities

Observations: G Team was well embedded in the network, with a balance of active and potential partnerships. While several community-based organisations were connected, many were not yet generating care flows. Revitalising these inactive links could help build a more resilient and responsive team network.


🟒 H Team

Key Connections:

  • Made in Hackney (generative)

  • Compassionate Neighbours (generative)

  • St Thomas Church (generative)

  • The Clapton Care Circle (generative)

  • Sunday Care Therapy (generative)

  • Zoya (engaged)

  • Warm Welcome (engaged)

  • Hackney Carers, S (unclassified)

Care Types Flowing:

  • Emotional support

  • Social activities

  • Food, culture, and wellbeing-oriented care

Observations: H Team had some of the most robust generative connections, especially with food and wellness organisations. Their ability to foster strong collaborations allowed for a well-rounded care experience. There’s still room to clarify or activate a few lesser-known links (like Hackney Carers), but the team serves as a strong model for network integration.


🟑 M Team

Key Connections:

  • Warm Welcome (generative)

  • Re-think (generative)

  • The Clapton Care Circle (generative)

  • Multiple connections unlisted or inactive

Care Types Flowing:

  • Emotional and mental health support

  • Community building

Observations: M Team had fewer recorded generative relationships compared to other teams, suggesting limited network engagement during the pilot. Their partnerships with Warm Welcome and Re-think are notable strengths, but other connections remained underdeveloped. The team would benefit from more focused relationship-building and clearer pathways to tap into existing community care wealth.


🧭 Summary of Insights

Across all teams:

  • Emotional and mental health support was the most common form of care flowing through generative relationships.

  • Formal actors like The Clapton Care Circle were often key hubs, but many links to other services remained dormant.

  • Inactive connections were widespread, suggesting untapped potential in the network.

  • Teams with more generative partnerships were better able to offer holistic, personalised care:supporting not just basic needs, but also social connection and wellbeing.