This is a CTP of initiative: Hour Exchange Portland (USA)
This CTP concerns the emergence of time exchange at Grace Hill in the 1970s, its integration into the Members Organised Resource Exchange (MORE) program (1981), and its formalisation as the MORE Service Credit Exchange (MSCE). MORE and the MSCE can be considered as the first formalised time exchange program in the USA. The time-based resource exchange connected people within membership networks and represented an approach to changing interpersonal relations. This became formalised in the concept of timebanking.
The emergence of MORE and MSCE was grounded in a history dating back almost 150 years that provided a special facilitating context within which innovations in social service delivery were able to emerge, embed, and inspire replication. Studies of MORE (e.g. Wright, 1997; Silverstein and Rak, 1999) emphasise the importance of its underlying philosophy and theory of change to the emergence and success of the program.
A group of women residents of Grace Hill had developed a self-organised informal system for addressing the challenges they faced. Having little money, they organised service exchanges among members of their group and developed a system for accounting for the giving and receiving of services among group members based on time as unit of account and measure of value. They developed a set of principles to underpin their service exchange, which recognised that everyone is precious and has something to offer. Their values-led, time-based, exchange mechanism, which stressed inclusiveness and equality, was already in place in the early to mid-1970s as an informal self-organised bottom-up response to meeting needs. It ran alongside other, formal programs that existed under the US ‘War on Poverty’ during the 1960s and 1970s.
Under the US ‘War on Poverty’, Grace Hill Settlement had received some federal-level funding for poverty relief efforts. By the end of the 1970s, in the run up to Presidential elections, future continuity of Federal support came under question. From 1979-81, leaders of the formal relief programs at Grace Hill sought to offset the impact of severely declining government support for low-income communities. They adopted and integrated the informal service exchange approach already present in the community into an emergent (but then still un-named) program that was aimed at maintaining social services in the face of public expenditure cuts. It was intended to achieve this by re-orienting the approach to social service delivery. The concept of service exchange using time as unit of account was the centre-piece of the overall approach. The approach underpinned an emerging program of activities, which gradually expanded in reach (people covered) and scope (services supported). By 1983 it was recognised by its leaders to warrant formalising as a potentially replicable model. It was formalised in 1983 under the name and acronym of Member Organised Resource Exchange (MORE) and was studied subsequently under this name as: ‘the MORE program’.
Edgar Cahn became interested and involved in the MORE program. Its centre-piece, principles-led time exchange mechanism became the inspiration and model for his Time Dollars program and Time Dollar Institute. Cahn went on to write important and influential books that conceptualised and theorised the time exchange approach to mutual help using time rather than money as a medium of exchange and unit of account. Edgar Cahn asked permission of the Grace Hill administration to change the name of Grace Hill’s service exchange program to a time dollar program. The guiding principles of equality and reciprocity and redefining work that the women pioneers of time exchange had developed were also re-named as ‘core values’. The changes of name have led to some clouding and confusion over the lines of influence, but time-based service exchange had been ongoing at Grace Hill already for many years before the development of the Time Dollars program.
Nevertheless, by writing in English about time-based service exchange and by advocating for demonstration projects to explore the potential of timebanking, Cahn is credited with forging a fundable social movement in the US around time exchange. He established his Time Dollar Institute and referred to time credits as ‘Time Dollars’. In 1990 the terminology of ‘time dollars’ was adopted at Grace Hill for ‘reasons of terminological consistency’ (Wright, 1997). Thus, in a 2008 report, the Annie E. Casey Foundation refers to “Time Dollar Exchange” (not the MORE Service Credit Exchange) as the “centrepiece of the MORE system”.
This partly explains why the origins of timebanking in the US are cloudy, since the adoption of Time Dollar terminology at Grace Hill created ambiguity over the lines and directions of influence. However, the original informal time exchange mechanism developed by the residents of Grace Hill had been in operation during the 1970s. For this reason, the hOurworld website pays tribute to the “women who originally founded timebanking in the United States”. This refers to the women founders of the original service exchange mechanism that was taken up in the MORE program and extended into new areas of delivery prior to its being renamed. The hOurworld Cooperative also reinstated the guiding principle of “we are all precious” to honour the women of Grace Hill and the language that they had originally used.
MORE has been widely studied and analysed from the perspective of replication. Financial resources for learning and replication were provided over a 10 year period by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. In the view of one analyst (Wright, 1997), replication depends on appreciating the significance of MORE as a “system” involving at least three elements. These include training (community skilling) and linking (community governance) as well as provision through service exchange (timebanking).
Timebanking in the US appears to have developed independently of any influence from Japan where timebanking (under the name Volunteer Labour Bank) had already been conceptualised, theorised and written about by Teruko Mizushima since the 1950s. Her first time bank was established in 1973 and an entire nationwide time banking network – the Volunteer Labour Bank/Network – was in place in Japan by the end of the 1970s. Mizushima also brought her time bank to California in 1982, establishing a time bank in Gardena among the Japanese-American community there. This made Mizushima’s program the first international timebanking program. By that time, the MORE program (albeit not yet called by that name) was underway, apparently independently.
Grace Hill Settlement was therefore the starting point for US timebanking and the significance of MCSE lies in its being the first formalised US time bank and in its influence on the development of US timebanking more generally. This includes, in the present context, influence on the establishment of Hour Exchange Portland (HEP).
Dr Richard Rockefeller founded HEP having heard Edgar Cahn speak about timebanking. Richard Rockefeller also co-founded TBUSA with Edgar Cahn and was its first Board President. This is the direct link between HEP and TBUSA. In the early years, a single person held the post of part time Director at HEP and simultaneously the part time post of Director of TBUSA. In the context of this link, HEP became a flagship time bank for the US timebanking movement and an important innovator and incubator of programs.
A few years later, however, tensions over TBUSA governance led several TBUSA Board Members to resign. Linda Hogan, who was a consultant for TBUSA and later succeeded Auta Main as director of HEP, joined with two other HEP members to establish the hOurworld cooperative, building on their positive experiences at HEP to develop and provide immersion training programs, timebanking software and social architecture to existing and emerging time banks. Effectively, the hOurworld cooperative emerged as an alternative provider of support to US time banks. HEP became the first US time bank to use the hOurworld software, TnT.
The MORE program has been studied intensively for its replicability potential. The most significant study is that by Wright (1997). This study – entitled Member Organised Resource Exchange: A Guide to Replication – sets out the history of MORE, the elements of the MORE program that make it a “system” and not just a service delivery mechanism, and the relation of MORE with the Time Dollar and timebanking movements in the US.
The MORE program was a self-help program of neighbourhood services and neighbourhood participation embedded in the community context of Grace Hill House. It had roots in an innovative “neighbour-helping-neighbour” scheme set up by a group of five women to organise self-help in the context of predominantly-black urban poverty in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It took the form of a resource (time and service) exchange among neighbours. Some accounts suggest it may have been operational as early as the late 1960s.
“A small group of female residents co-created their ‘resource exchange’. They organised trade in services for points, hour by hour, which they recorded on paper. They created a set of guiding principles for the exchanges and those involved in their initiative: equality, reciprocity, belief that each person had valuable skills to offer and everyone is precious”. Although developed independently from the Japanese time banks, these principles mirror closely the principles on which Teruko Mizushima had based her volunteer labour bank in 1973 and which she had written about since 1950. They are taken up also by Hour Exchange Portland.
Wright’s account of the history of MORE emphasises the role of members in co-producing the program. She describes “how thousands of St Louis neighbours made the vision of a self-help system a reality” through the MORE program, which they co-produced. She shows also that the development of the MORE system was “just the latest period in the long history of the search for quality of life for neighbours of Grace Hill”.
The informal ‘resource exchange’ was taken up and integrated into a wider program at Grace Hill Settlement. Around that time, Edgar Cahn, a civil rights lawyer, became interested and involved in the emerging program that, in 1983 would be formalised as the Member Organised Resource Exchange. In his writings, Cahn adopted and adapted the basic ideas of a resource exchange, time as a unit of value and account, and the principles that underpinned the exchanges. He theorised, conceptualised and formalised the ideas using different terminology, most notably the concept of ‘Time Dollars’. In 1990, the points system pioneered and used until that time at MORE to record hours of service given or received was replaced with Cahn’s terminology of time dollars “for reasons of terminological consistency” (Wright, 1997).
In the belief that the Grace Hill innovations could have wider societal significance as a new model of social welfare production others also sought to use it as a role model. The Annie E. Casey Foundation provided financial support to make MORE a demonstration program. The endorsement of the Foundation had a leveraging impact, helping the MORE program to secure other grants and contracts; for example, Grace Hill was funded as a Head Start provider (one of only two in St. Louis) with responsibility for over 1,500 children and their families.
The first instance of using the service exchange (time banking) mechanism in the context of anticipated and actual cutbacks of federal and state funding was to try to maintain services for the elderly when funding for professional service delivery was closed off over the period 1979-1982. This engaged the active elderly in caring for the weaker elderly in return for time credits (time points), which they would use to secure care for themselves in their later life. The time exchange concept was quickly extended to other areas of social service provision within an emerging and evolving program. The various elements of this program would eventually and retrospectively be termed MORE (1983).
Exchanges were initially limited to services, but in 1993 community members saw the need for exchanging time for basic goods as well, which enabled those volunteering time to earn needed goods ‘as of right’ rather than through relief. This led to the establishment of the first exchange store enabling residents to use time credits to obtain basic goods (cleaning products, provisions for babies, basic foods, etc.).
Other notable innovations include development and expansion of the training element of the program. The program developed its own Neighbourhood College to raise general competency levels and to fill skills gaps among participants. The Neighbourhood College offered a curriculum based on residents interests and recommendations, including financial literacy, business development, parenting and wellness. Many courses were taught by residents. Those taking courses earned time credits, providing ‘income’ but also encouraging participation in the exchange program. The Neighbourhood College also provided pathways into more formal education and into employment.
Computerisation was introduced from 1985. The MORE program became fully computerised from 1991. Computer stations – with information on Time Bank accounts, neighbour-to-neighbour services, and other resources were established in community locations, such as churches. The system ultimately became internet based.
The historical roots of MORE are traceable to 1844 when Grace Church (a religious organisation) was established providing spiritual and social services to parishioners in what was then an exclusive suburb of St. Louis. The character of the parish gradually changed, largely through outbound migration of the rich and inward migration of the poor, with the changing demographic profile rendering the parish rapidly less solvent. By 1910 parish income failed to cover the increasing cost of meeting poorer parishioners’ needs. As the church was no longer financially viable it consolidated with Holy Cross House, a mission and social service organisation of the Episcopal Church serving the underprivileged. The two entities merged into the Holy Cross Corporation in 1914. Nevertheless, the merged entity continued to be known popularly as Grace Hill House. It provided social services, operating as a settlement house.
Two changes in subsequent years are also significant for creating conditions conducive for the MORE program to emerge. In 1924, funding difficulties obliged Grace Hill House to join the Community Fund (later known as United Charities, Community Chest and United Way), which required member agencies to address medical, recreational and relief needs without proselytising. This first change saw separation of spiritual from social service agency functions. The second major change involved a shift in the governance model of Grace Hill. In 1938, a new administration led the (now) social service agency from voluntarism toward professionalization. However, to maintain strong community ties, the organisation moved concurrently to broaden the base of community participation in agency governance. Seats on an empowered and restructured decision making council were given over to members of the community. This strong link with the community and the community empowerment it entails have been recognised to be important for the subsequent emergence of the MORE program which, Wright (1997) argues, might otherwise never have been developed.
This history provides the background for the specific context within which service exchange and the MORE program emerged.
Notwithstanding the significance of this history, the MORE program itself has a fairly distinct beginning point. Over the period 1960-1980 the US had re-embraced Community Development through its Great Society (War on Poverty) programs. Grace Hill, with a philosophy highly compatible with the Great Society agenda was well positioned to receive funding from the Model Cities program and the Office of Economic Opportunity. These supplemented base-level funding sources, such as United Way. But federal and state funding came to an abrupt end in 1980-81 as national (federal) government and state supports for social programs were cut under President Reagan. The cuts were pre-empted in the run up to the presidential elections in the late 1970s.
Contestation at the political level over social programs and the role of government and professionals in supporting and delivering these culminated, on the election of President Reagan, in the end of the War on Poverty. Whereas most other poorer communities lost their social programs, Grace Hill was able to respond creatively by organising self-help at the community level, establishing a successful resource/time exchange program inspired by what was happening in the local community already through the earlier initiatives of local residents. The earlier time exchange initiatives of the women of Grace Hill inspired what became the MORE program. In turn, the MORE program formed the inspiration and model for the development of timebanking in the USA.
Pre-empting the likelihood of funding cuts, the approach to taking reciprocal service exchange more widely was tried first within a project called System To Assure Elderly Services (STAES). This was started already in 1979 with federal funding and professional staff. It was expanded in 1980. But in 1981 the new Reagan Administration moved toward eliminating its funding entirely. In 1981 STAES was provided with only $25,000, which was earmarked to wind down and phase out the project. Grace Hill continued the project nevertheless by using the last grant funding to support a staff person to coordinate volunteers and prepare a training curriculum for community team leaders.
Wright argues this transition was possible (only) because of the existing neighbourhood strengths upon which it could build. In the newly-converted program, volunteer residents (originally all aged over 60) were trained to support the more frail elderly in their community. The program recognised the service needs of the frail elderly, but also the potential contribution of the still active elderly. In return for their services, service providers received assurances of future service when they, themselves, needed similar in-home care. This new way of organising care offered an alternative to both state support and the loss of state support; i.e. self-help.
The reach (in terms of people) and the set of services and activities organised around time exchange and time points were expanded, with these collectively constituting an interconnected program. The approach became more systematic. A Resource Bank was established in 1981 to try to engage as many residents as possible in exchange activities by registering resources and needs. In 1984 SHAIR (Self Help Among Involved Residents) was established with support from a United Way special grant. SHAIR marked an extension of the services offered to include transport, personal care, infant care, home making, hospital visits, etc. Program expansion was helped by a 1987 grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This supported experimentation and learning.
Recognising that a new model of service delivery was emerging and concerned by continuing cuts in welfare, the Grace Hill staff, volunteers and others were motivated to formalise what they were learning. With support from a local business, they embarked on a project to formally define their new model of service delivery. In 1983 the Grace House Board of Directors formally adopted the new model, defined ‘modified barter’ as an integral part of their program, petitioned the Internal Revenue Service for exemption from taxing provisions applicable to barter clubs, and gave their new model its name: ‘Member Organised Resource Exchange’ (MORE).
Wright (1997) points out that MORE received national attention thereafter and “interested people from across the nation have visited the program with an eye toward replication”. Her report provides a systematic overview of MORE and is grounded in the historical developments surrounding Grace Hill House, which contributed to the emergence of the program within the framework of a specific philosophy.
MORE is described by its developers and by Wright as a “system” because, unlike the model of most service delivery programs, which focus on provision of direct services to an identified population, service provision is only one component of MORE. The other components are training and linkage. The relationships between these three elements are distinguishing features of MORE.
The MORE system evolved continuously. Transactions were initially recorded on paper, with a centralised register of index cards. Computerisation and timebanking software were then introduced. Software upgrades followed, but it was also necessary to provide training in the use of computers. This was achieved through the Neighbourhood College. By 1997 (when Wright wrote her guide to replication) the Neighbourhood College offered over 40 courses, including computer literacy. Computerisation facilitated an expansion of the neighbourhoods served by the MORE Service Credit Exchange and in the range of services.
As the MORE program was expanding, other resource exchanges were initiated across the USA, many using the Time Dollar terminology of Edgar Cahn. By agreement with the Grace Hill administration, the MORE Service Credit Exchange (MSCE) adopted the same terminology in 1990 to become the MORE Time Dollar Exchange (MTDE).
Believing that MORE could inform and inspire others, the Annie E. Casey Foundation provided funding with repeated small grants over a 10 year period for Grace Hill to serve as a demonstration site and a source of technical assistance to others wanting to replicate the initiative. With support from the Foundation, a Resident Ambassador program was established, with ‘Ambassadors’ (i.e. community members) hosting visits from parties interested to learn from the MORE program. Some 260 visits were recorded under this funding program from across the US and from other countries (including Germany, France and Japan). A video and a ‘how-to’ manual were developed by Grace Hill to support those wanting to replicate the program. The program was also the subject of several studies and analyses of the replication potential.
After a decade of the Annie E. Casey Foundation providing small, but regular, grants for MORE dissemination and replication efforts, the influence and impact of MORE were studied as part of the Foundation’s interest in exploring the social return on its investment. From 1991 to 2008, 670,000 hours of exchange had been recorded. If valued at the rate of the minimum wage, this was calculated as the equivalent of US $3.5 million. About 1000 residents were found to take Neighbourhood College courses each year. The number of outsider visits (260) and visitors (650) were taken as indicators of replication impact potential. A Guide to Replication was developed, which was distributed to civil society organisations and community building organisations at international conferences organised by TBUSA.
At the time of writing her report on Grace Hill and the MORE program (1997) Wright commented that the history also has a surprisingly contemporary ring. “As we struggle to understand Grace Hill of today, we will revisit some of the themes that were historically important: the interdependency of funding and program; the division of governance and decision making between central authority and the community; the influence of leadership on the changing character of the program; and issues pertaining to volunteer or resident staffing and professionalization.” These themes are equally relevant today, almost 20 years after Wright’s report and more than 50 years since the incipient resource exchange was begun by the pioneering women of Grace Hill community.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
