The study forms part of the CONNECT research programme, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, which investigates how social networks and social capital promote or hinder community thriving among minoritised groups. The research was grounded in a Participatory Action Research framework, with eight peer researchers recruited from the local community. These peer researchers, all from racially and ethnically minoritised backgrounds and living in the study area, co-produced recruitment materials, conducted or jointly conducted interviews, and contributed to the interpretation of findings. The authors argue that this involvement was fundamental to the cultural validity of the work, providing a continuous check against academic assumptions that might otherwise have gone unexamined. Community consultations had already identified community safety and violence against women and girls as priority areas, directly shaping the research questions.

The demographic context matters. Southwark and Lambeth rank among the twenty most ethnically diverse local authorities in England, with high levels of deprivation and above-average crime rates. Local evidence from the South East London Community Health study shows the mental health burden starkly: 7.4 percent of residents had witnessed violence in the previous twelve months, and Black African participants were significantly more likely to have witnessed violence than White participants, at 11.0 percent versus 6.4 percent. Among those who had witnessed violence, nearly a third met criteria for common mental disorders and one in ten screened positive for post-traumatic stress, rising sharply among those with cumulative exposure to multiple forms of violence. Nationally, racially motivated hate crimes remain the predominant form of recorded hate crime in England and Wales, and minoritised communities are more likely to live in under-resourced neighbourhoods with reduced access to services.

Participants in the new study consistently defined safety not as the mere absence of crime but as a sense of reassurance and belonging sustained through mutual recognition and everyday care. One participant, Maria, contrasted her experiences across two London boroughs, describing how in Lambeth people look out for each other, so that even among people who do not look the same, talk the same or pray the same, there is a feeling of being in it together, whereas elsewhere she was made to feel she was not from the community. Another, Nadine, described feeling safe because her neighbours were always watching out for her. The researchers interpret this relational awareness as a genuine psychological buffer: knowing that others are invested in one’s safety reduced underlying anxiety and strengthened participants’ ability to cope with potential risks.

Yet the accounts also revealed the fragility of these protections when structural conditions undermine them. One participant described his sister’s distress at poor street lighting and the absence of an intercom system in her building, noting that community support is less proactive and more reactive, responding after harm occurs rather than preventing it. The authors conclude that neighbourhood cohesion can buffer anxiety but cannot, on its own, offset the psychological burden generated by inadequate physical infrastructure. This finding reinforces public health arguments that community protective capacity must be supported by sustained urban investment, and that neighbourhood infrastructure, from lighting to accessible community spaces, should be treated as a mental health issue in its own right.

The study’s second major theme concerns the gendered distribution of safety work. Women described elaborate daily strategies to manage the threat of harassment, stalking and violence: avoiding dark and quiet roads, carrying keys between their fingers, walking with companions, or keeping a parent on the phone while walking home. One young participant, Sofia, noted that she and her female friends would run home when out late, but felt no need for precautions when accompanied by her boyfriend, illustrating how male proximity was experienced as a form of security not otherwise available in public space. The researchers frame this continuous cognitive and relational effort as a form of largely invisible emotional labour, concentrated on women and their immediate networks rather than on formal institutions or male community members, amounting to what they describe as a structural violence that erodes neighbourhood safety directly.

Digital platforms emerged as a striking extension of this informal safety infrastructure. Participants described TikTok advice exchanges and women-only Facebook group chats in which members alert each other about dangerous individuals or incidents in the local area. Others emphasised social media’s educational function, helping women recognise abuse they might not otherwise have identified as such and pointing them towards resources for help. The authors situate these practices within a literature on digital feminist solidarity, arguing that online networks offer immediacy and validated shared experience that formal services rarely match, while also serving as compensatory spaces where women’s experiences are recognised in ways statutory systems often fail to provide.

The third theme examined barriers to formal support, and here the picture was one of layered exclusion. Participants described fear of unfamiliar bureaucratic processes, limited awareness that services even existed, cultural stigma around family and sexual violence, and the anticipation of not being understood. One participant explained that in some cultural contexts family problems are expected to stay within the family, while another described a taboo around discussing sexual violence compounded by the assumption that language and cultural barriers would prevent any service from understanding. Migration-related vulnerabilities intensified these barriers, with unfamiliarity about how systems run leaving some women uncertain whether seeking help might expose them to further harm. Critically, the researchers found that access to formal services often depended on intermediaries from informal networks, meaning that people with weaker social ties risked falling through institutional gaps entirely.

Institutional mistrust, particularly towards policing, ran through many accounts. One Black woman participant captured a painful dilemma: she would like to see more police, but questions what that would mean for young Black boys who are disproportionately targeted, concluding that only community groups can help. Another said she would call her mother before calling the police, describing a general aura of distrust and a preference for the empathy and practical knowledge her mother would provide. Participants also described grassroots responses, from community patrols modelled on Nigerian vigilante traditions to local organisations that intervene directly when racial abuse occurs. The authors, drawing on scholarship on mutual aid, interpret these initiatives as both a practical necessity for communities denied adequate formal protection and a form of collective resistance to structural abandonment, while noting that operating outside formal governance raises questions of consistency and accountability.

The study’s implications are pointed. The authors call for neighbourhood infrastructure investment to be treated as preventative mental health care; for responses to violence against women and girls that build on existing informal networks without further concentrating safety labour on women; for visible institutional accountability, including transparent review of stop and search practices; for mental health services redesigned with an intersectional understanding of minoritised communities’ needs; and for formal recognition and sustainable funding of community-led initiatives, developed collaboratively so as to preserve the autonomy and cultural responsiveness that make them effective. Crucially, the researchers argue it is misleading to frame communities’ reliance on informal systems as a deficit. What their evidence reveals is localised resourcefulness in the face of structural neglect, and a credible policy response must combine respect for community-led strengths with targeted investment in accessible, culturally informed public services, easing the burdens that communities currently carry alone.

Subject of Research: The role of informal support networks in community safety and mental well-being among racially and ethnically minoritised groups in South East London

Article Title: Informal support networks and their role in community safety and mental well-being among racially and ethnically minoritised groups in London: a qualitative study

Article References: Benjamin, L., Williams, D., Asif, Z., Campbell, S., Mousicos, D., Rhead, R., Stanley, N., Kienzler, H., & Hatch, S. (2026). Informal support networks and their role in community safety and mental well-being among racially and ethnically minoritised groups in London: a qualitative study. SSM – Mental Health, 10, Article 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2026.100709

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2026.100709

Keywords: community safety, mental health, informal support networks, structural racism, violence against women and girls, institutional mistrust, South East London, qualitative research, social capital, peer researchers, intersectionality, mutual aid