Circle Outputs: Experiences & Learnings from the Clapton Circle.

Outputs

• Multi-stakeholder service evaluation measures the social climate, individual well-being and quality of life of Circle members.

• Circle recruit locally to support locally.

• Key roles for circles to start and support teams are shared amongst circle members as " Circle Hats".

• Circles resource teams with local volunteers.

• Circles resource teams with local volunteers.

• Circles connect teams to local resources and community networks that can enrich the quality of lives of team members.

• Circles connect teams to local resources and community networks that can enrich the quality of lives of team members.

• Teams are started, supported and ended through local circles.

• Teams are started, supported and ended through local circles.

• Circles operate semi-autonomously from the wider coop with distributed decision-making authority.

• Key roles or "Circle Hats" are nominated by circle members sociocratically

---

What We Did

We engaged in a multi-stakeholder approach to evaluate the social climate, individual well-being, and quality of life of Circle members. This included gathering input from care workers, team members, volunteers, and local community partners through feedback, observations, and reflective discussions. In terms of recruitment, we focused on local efforts, reaching out to schools, churches, and neighborhood forums, with specific recruitment events at St. Thomas Church and Old Hill School. Additionally, Circle members were assigned various roles or “Circle Hats” to manage and support teams, distributing leadership and responsibility amongst the Circle members. These roles included facilitator, secretary, and commons coordinator, and were aimed at fostering shared accountability.

Volunteers played an integral role in supporting the teams, either through befriending or providing occasional help or specific skills. We worked closely with external volunteer programs such as Compassionate Neighbors to find suitable matches for the care recipients. We also attempted to integrate Circle members with local community networks and resources that could enrich their lives, including access to social clubs, events, and neighborhood forums. Teams were started, supported, and eventually concluded through the Circle structure, ensuring consistent involvement from Circle members in managing these processes. Moreover, we aimed to distribute decision-making authority semi-autonomously, with the Circle having some level of control while larger decisions were made by the wider cooperative.

Our intention was to ensure that roles within the Circle, such as Circle Hats, were nominated sociocratically, allowing members to participate in a collaborative and inclusive process. However, in practice, some roles were assigned without following this sociocratic model, which impacted the overall sense of shared decision-making.

What We Learned:

The Importance of a Holistic Evaluation Approach: From our efforts to engage multiple stakeholders in evaluating Circle members’ well-being and social climate, we learned that a holistic, inclusive approach is necessary. Gathering feedback from various participants was beneficial, but the inconsistency in collecting data and input across different groups made it challenging to create a cohesive understanding of the impact of our services. Whilst we were able to co-design our social climate framework to address this challenge, we were not able to test this framework through comprehensive implementation within the time frame of the pilot due to limited capacity within the team.

Recruitment Challenges: In terms of recruitment, we found that local outreach efforts effectively generated interest and inquiries. However, the lack of sufficient work hours and the inability to scale recruitment quickly led to many people withdrawing their interest, demonstrating the need for early and well-planned recruitment strategies.

Inconsistency in Volunteer Roles: In assigning Circle Hats, we discovered that nominating roles sociocratically was a positive experience that fostered greater participation and empowerment. Yet, we also learned that volunteer-based roles created inconsistency. Circle members who took on these roles, particularly those juggling multiple jobs or working freelance, struggled to meet the demands of their positions. This highlighted the need for more secure employment structures within the Circle to ensure commitment and stability.

Isolation and Mental Health: Prolonged periods of isolation, particularly following the pandemic, reduced individuals’ confidence in engaging with community activities. Many people felt safer saying “no” to opportunities, using avoidance as a coping mechanism .

Volunteer Matching and Support: Our collaboration with volunteer services presented its own challenges, particularly in terms of matching volunteers with care recipients. We found that working with external volunteer organizations often led to long delays, and without proper training and support, volunteers risked burnout or disengagement. Similarly, while efforts to connect teams with local resources and community networks were valuable, information about opportunities often got lost or forgotten without consistent reminders.

Centralisation of power: We learned that starting and supporting teams without the necessary infrastructure or budget in place led to complications and confusion, particularly when trying to end teams smoothly. Moreover, we experienced issues with decision-making authority when power and control shifted away from the local Circle to the wider cooperative. This centralization of decision-making, especially regarding financial management, caused trust issues and disengagement among Circle members.

Impact of Financial Transparency and Sociocratic Nomination: The lack of transparency regarding budget decisions further exacerbated these issues. Lastly, while we intended for roles within the Circle to be nominated sociocratically, this process was not always followed. The failure to adhere to this model undermined the participatory nature of the Circle, leaving some members feeling disempowered and disengaged.

Recommendations:

Evaluation Processes: To effectively evaluate the well-being and social climate of Circle members, it is crucial to allocate sufficient time and resources to design AND implement comprehensive evaluation frameworks. Ensure the team has the capacity to carry out consistent data collection and analysis across all stakeholder groups. The Social Climate Survey needs to employed in a piloted throughout the cooperative to identify potential challenges and make necessary adjustments. This pilot needs to establish mechanisms for ongoing feedback and reflection. Regularly review evaluation data to inform practice and make iterative improvements to services.

Recruitment Strategies: For recruitment, it is essential to recruit early and secure funding that allows for the employment of care workers from the outset. This provides stability and the ability to scale as needed, avoiding the loss of interest that occurs when work hours are too few or inconsistent. Recruitment efforts should also focus on targeting individuals with more flexibility in their schedules, such as students or retirees, who may be able to offer more consistent participation.

Circle Hat role should be paid and elected: This would result in a more sustainable structure and avoid burnout. Currently there is inconsistency in relation to circle hat roles being fulfilled because people are unable to commit to these responsibilities in a voluntary capacity while juggling multiple other paid commitments. To ensure that care workers are active participants in the circle and don’t feel like outsiders, they should be involved right from the start. These roles should also be democratically elected to prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of the same individuals and create opportunities for participants to build confidence and leadership.

Enhancing Volunteer Engagement and Support: For volunteer engagement, we recommend investing in volunteer training and support structures including DBS checks and training. In the absence of having sufficient resources for volunteer onboarding and induction, it is better to partner with an official volunteer service that can perform these functions independently. Additionally, appointing a dedicated “Community Connector Hat” can help facilitate stronger links between Circle members and local resources, and digital tools like Rocket Chat should be used to send consistent updates and reminders.

More transparent and accountable decision-making: Finally, decision-making power should be decentralized as much as possible, keeping it within the local Circles. Financial transparency is key to building trust, and a participatory budgeting process could be implemented to allow Circle members to have a say in how resources are allocated. Using the principle of subsidiarity, decisions should be made as close to the Circle’s work as possible, and budgets delegated to individual Circles using a platform like Open Collective.