Commons Outputs: Experiences & Learnings from the Clapton Circle.

Below is a summary of our experiences of enabling the Commons Outputs represented in our Commons ToC

Common Outputs

1. People Gift Time, Skills, and Resources to Teams and Circles

2. Commons Resource Circles with Volunteers

3. Commons Connects Circles to Local Resources and Community Networks

4. Circles Establish Partnerships with Local Community Hubs and Anchor Organizations

5. Local Circles Have Diverse and Representative Memberships

6. Service Evaluation Measures Cooperative Connections Between Teams, Circles, and Local Networks

---

What We Did:

We co-founded the "Clapton Care Circle" in collaboration with local community anchor organizations, such as St. Thomas Church, Compassionate Neighbors, and Clapton Commons. Our goal was to coordinate and enable community activities and support services while creating a volunteer network that could resource and strengthen community care initiatives.

To engage the community, we organized various activities including community meals, jumble sales, discos, and gatherings at Clapton Common. Through these events, we aimed to encourage community members to gift their time, skills, and resources. Early projects included a multi-sensory reminiscence activity at Lime Tree Court, where local residents and businesses loaned items representing key community landmarks.

We developed a volunteer recruitment strategy that offered a flexible pathway for volunteers. Depending on their interests, volunteers could choose from several roles: contributing to community events, gifting time and skills to the care circle, or joining a befriending team. We tailored induction processes based on the chosen role. About 25 people expressed interest in volunteering through this network in some capacity. We focused on developing partnerships with three volunteering organizations that were involved in setting up befriending relationships in the area and made referrals to these services on behalf of our team owners.

We connected our care circle to local resources and networks by collaborating with businesses, residents, organizations and local groups at community events. By hosting meetings and gatherings in a range of spaces, (on the common, street side pop up "care lounges", church, lunch clubs, local community events, the common room at Lime Tree Court and Old Hill School we sought to create a diverse and representative circle, engaging individuals from varied cultural backgrounds, including the Jewish community.

Throughhout the project we also organized community-building activities, such as gardening sessions, jumble sales, and theatre workshops, that utilized the local network of care. These activities were intended to strengthen personal connections and contribute to the care commons. Our 'huddles" were one example of our community organizing activities. Huddles brought together selected individuals and local organizations to collaborate on projects they couldn’t achieve alone. By pooling resources, skills, and time, participants co-produced initiatives addressing shared community needs, such as organizing communal meals and enhancing community gardens.

In addition to our core activities, we incorporated care mapping as a strategic tool to strengthen the connections between community members, organizations, and resources. The care mapping pilot aimed to reveal the “care wealth” within the local community, highlighting both paid and unpaid caregiving activities that often go unnoticed. Using Social Network Analysis, we mapped the relationships and support structures that exist around Clapton Common. This interactive map, built using the Kumu platform, helped visualize the care network’s complexity, including over 30 individuals and organizations involved in care-focused activities. We hoped this approach would not only promote greater awareness of the community’s caregiving resources but also encourage collective stewardship of care as a commons.

The care mapping activities, which involved the participation of Clapton Circle members and local knowledge holders, aimed to make visible the often invisible acts of care within the community. By representing these relationships, we demonstrated how care is a shared resource, maintained through reciprocal and interdependent relationships. This process was designed to foster a sense of pride, belonging, and motivation among community members to participate in the collective care commons.

To measure the impact of these activities and evaluate our work, we measured the strength of cooperative relationships between volunteers, teams, and local networks. Regular feedback and reflective circle meeting provided insights into the impact of our collaborations.

What We Learned:

Volunteer Engagement, Recruitment, and Induction: Many volunteers preferred spontaneous contributions of time and skills rather than committing to structured, long-term roles. The post-pandemic shift in work patterns made it difficult for people to maintain regular volunteer commitments, resulting in gaps within the volunteer network.

Volunteering for Teams: Making referrals to local volunteering or befriending services involved completing a referral form for each organization. The waiting lists were often long, sometimes taking several months before a connection or match could be made.

Volunteering for the Circle: Inducting new volunteers into the circle continuously slowed progress, as repeated onboarding disrupted the work. We recognized the need for phased induction intervals to prevent such interruptions.

Challenges with Community Partnerships:

Some organizations, like Clapton Commons and St. Thomas Church, lacked the strong community engagement and networks needed to support the circle effectively. These organizations focused more on managing physical spaces rather than directing resources toward building community networks. Service-oriented organizations struggled to adapt to our flexible, co-productive approach, which limited the potential for deeper collaboration. Smaller, less well-resourced groups and local residents were more collaborative but often less accountable in achieving our shared goals and ambitions.

Gifting Time, Skills, and Resources:

Throughout the project, a wide range of resources were generously shared and gifted by community members, volunteers, and local organizations, significantly contributing to the success of various initiatives. While we secured opportunities for individuals to benefit from free food, drinks, and massages from local groups, it became evident that community members valued face-to-face group experiences most. Spaces where people could simply spend time together and the support needed to access these spaces were the most valued gifts.

Importance of Strong Relationships and Being Together:

Building genuine relationships was critical to the success of partnerships. Formal collaborations without a foundation of trust and deep community engagement proved to be less sustainable and impactful. At times, we lost sight of the importance of regular face-to-face gatherings, which are vital in sustaining relationships and maintaining the high levels of trust and affection that lead to successful collaborations and commoning.

Diversity and Inclusion:

Creating a diverse and representative circle required intentional outreach and significant resources. For instance, engaging elders in circle meetings was often difficult due to challenges like inadequate care, mobility issues, cognitive impairment, and poor mental health. Additionally, the complexity of some residents' circumstances—housing, financial struggles, or mental health issues—meant their immediate needs took precedence over their involvement in strategic conversations. Many residents had internalized a perception of themselves as passive recipients of services rather than active co-producers. Shifting this dynamic required considerable time and creative methods for inclusion. The project’s shift toward task-oriented meetings, especially nearing deadlines and milestones, further limited opportunities for relational and open-ended discussions. These deadlines sometimes weakened the relational culture necessary for deeper resident engagement.

Care Mapping:

Care mapping revealed the richness of local caregiving relationships, highlighting the “care wealth” generated through networks of unpaid and paid care activities. However, the process faced several challenges. Community engagement was inconsistent, with many participants finding the technology unfamiliar or failing to recognize the map's benefits. Maintaining and updating the map was resource-intensive, requiring regular revisions to reflect the dynamic nature of caregiving relationships. Additionally, the mapping process reflected the perspectives and biases of the mappers rather than fully capturing the broader community’s viewpoint. Building meaningful care commons requires intentional, cross-sector collaboration and ongoing community engagement. These cooperative networks demand significant effort, particularly when resources are limited. While valuable, the care mapping process underscored the need for robust digital skills and a substantial time investment from community members.

Spreading Resources Too Thin:

In our efforts to build a broad network, we spread our resources too thin by trying to engage too many partners and offer a wide range of services. This limited our ability to properly nurture the relationships most crucial for achieving specific outcomes, such as improving food provision within teams. By aiming for broad involvement, we compromised the depth of collaboration needed to make certain partnerships truly effective. The lack of dedicated resources for maintaining and developing these relationships meant critical partnerships were under-supported, reducing the overall impact of our network. Key strategic relationships, like those focused on food provision, require ongoing attention, resources, and care. Without these, we missed opportunities for long-term, tangible benefits.

Recommendations:

Volunteer Engagement, Recruitment, and Induction:

Define a clear volunteer pathway that offers flexible options for contributing time, skills, or resources in a way that suits each individual best. These pathways include Circle work, Team member befriending, and participation in community events. Introduce scheduled intervals for volunteer and staff induction to avoid constant interruptions and ensure that new members are effectively brought up to speed. During recruitment, prioritize matching volunteers to roles based on their existing skills and interests rather than simply filling predefined positions. This approach fosters stronger and more meaningful engagements. Secure long-term partnerships with local befriending or volunteering services, making referrals early due to potentially long waiting periods. Streamline the referral process by working with local services to reduce delays and create a shared referral system. Invest in volunteers through quality training and peer learning opportunities, or leverage the training resources of volunteer or befriending services if the circle lacks capacity.

Community Networks and Partnerships:

Focus on partnering with organizations deeply embedded in the community that have a proven track record in engaging residents, mobilizing volunteers, and providing accessible spaces. Establish clear criteria for selecting partners based on shared values, mission alignment, and their capacity to collaborate within a community-organizing model. Avoid partnerships with service-focused organizations that struggle with co-production, and regularly evaluate relationships to ensure they remain aligned with the circle's goals. Smaller groups may have fewer resources but often bring a more collaborative approach. Nurture these partnerships with mutual goals and ensure accountability. To avoid spreading resources too thin, prioritize a smaller number of high-impact partnerships that align with core goals, such as improving food provision or care networks, dedicating sufficient resources to foster deeper collaboration and long-term outcomes.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Circle:

To ensure diversity and inclusion within the circle, allocate at least 30% of the budget for accessibility needs, allowing full participation from underrepresented groups such as elderly residents or those with mobility and cognitive challenges. Shifting the perception of elderly residents from passive recipients to active co-producers requires creative, time-intensive methods, including relational activities and peer-led discussions. Balance task-oriented meetings with relational spaces to avoid allowing deadlines and deliverables to overshadow relationship-building. Establish separate spaces for strategy meetings and open community gatherings to maintain both confidentiality and community-building.

Leverage Care Mapping for Greater Engagement:

Make care mapping a participatory, ongoing process by offering training and support to help community members engage confidently with digital tools. Regularly update the map through scheduled check-ins to reflect the evolving nature of care relationships. Promote care mapping as a tool to visualize the “care wealth” of the community and foster collective stewardship of these resources. Care mapping requires significant time and resources, so partner with local anchor organizations to support ongoing engagement and data updates. Complement digital mapping with in-person events like gardening sessions, workshops, and community meals to build relationships and strengthen care networks. Establish a clear strategy for maintaining the map, involving collective check-ins or rotating responsibilities to keep it relevant and reflective of current relationships.

Privilege face-to-face informal gatherings:

Above all else never underestimate the value of regularly bringing one or two care workers, local residents, team owners/members together. Arranging these events takes time and resources that are sometimes caught up in the activities above. Put this first before anything else, otherwise, you risk losing sight of what it is all about!

---