CLICK THE SPONSORS' LOGOS FOR THE LATEST SPECIALS !TIME CREDITS TO DELIVER SOCIAL POLICIES Home Index Introduction Where TBg started TBg on the Ground TBg achieves TBg What More ? References Acknowledgements Glossary Disclaimer Copyright TIME CREDITS TO DELIVER SOCIAL POLICIES Report — June 2009
Written by: Lee GREGORY.
Time in Service Design: exploring the use of time credits to deliver social policies
Lee Gregory
Cardiff School of Social Sciences
A Abstract
B Introduction
C Time Banks – the basics
D Time Bank – developing the idea
E Co-production
F Time Banking – in practice
G Developing the Time Bank
H Co-Production Relationships
I Benefits for Service Design
J Conclusion
R References
A Abstract
The recent economic recession has created a number of problems for social policy now
and in the future.
One key area concerns the delivery of public services during a time when public
expenditure cuts are inevitable.
Over the last ten years the time banking movement has been developing across the UK.
Imported from America time banking is a community currency movement based on time
which seeks radically to change the way in which service users not only engage
with the services they use but dramatically to change the dynamic between user
and provider.
This paper will outline the time bank movement and its development in the UK and
how it has been associated with the notion of co-production.
It then moves on to discuss practical aspects of policy implementation where time
banking has played a key role, illustrating this with examples of policy in
practice explored in previous and continuing research by the author.
The paper concludes by arguing that time bank based co-production offers a tool
for social policy to help deliver welfare services at a time of austerity, with
potential to help reengage and empower users of the welfare state.
Stream: Service design, delivery and use
B Introduction
As with previous recessions the current economic crisis has opened up debate
around the nature and purpose of social policy.
The oil crises of the 1970s sparked debate around public spending which has
also become the focus of the current government.
The proposed cuts question some key assumptions in welfare, such as the
provision of universal policies like child benefit, with suggestions that
policies be targeted at certain income thresholds.
Yet guiding the hand of these cuts remains the neo-liberal arm of
governments that has developed since the late 1970s.
This paper considers the potential of time banking for welfare services
looking to meet increasing demand with fewer resources.
Time banking is a form of community currency designed to promote
reciprocal relationships within communities to enhance service outcomes.
The idea of time banking will be considered with the underpinning
commitment to co-production, the belief that providers and service users,
combined, produce more effective services.
From this contextual discussion some practical applications will
be explored before giving consideration to how co-production/time banking
relates to citizens empowerment within public services.
In conclusion the paper seeks to present time banking as an additional
avenue of practice and resources from which welfare services can draw
upon to provide services during the current “age of austerity”.
C Time Banks – the basics
Time banking, developed in the 1980s, is both a community currency
and an approach to service reform devised by American activist and
civil rights lawyer Edgar Cahn (2000).
The basic idea of time banking is a form of exchange based on time.
Each hour of voluntary work a person contributes within their local
community, equals one time credit.
These credits can then be used to access services from other
volunteers in the local community, in an approach similar to skill
exchange initiatives.
This approach differs from mainstream national currency, and many
other community currencies, in that value is not attributed to the
type of task conducted or the skill required, but the length of time
within which the activity is conducted.
The same applies to the use of credits: so that a one hour credit
entitles the bearer to one hour of service.
As Cahn developed this idea, it also became possible for time
credits to be exchanged for goods: for example students who help
young peers improve their literacy and numeracy skills earn a time
credit for each hour they volunteer.
These can then be collected over the course of the term/year and
exchanged for refurbished computers to assist in their own studies
(Cahn, 2000: 128-31).
The way in which these exchanges occur have some similarities and
differences to other community currencies.
The main difference from other currencies, such as Local Exchange
Trading Systems (LETs), is that time banking relies on a
“time broker”.
The time broker is a key figure in time bank development, not least
because s/he is responsible for overseeing and monitoring the time
bank but also, for our present concern, with connecting people.
For example, if Tim takes part in a litter pick with his local youth
group one Saturday, earning two time credits, the time broker will
also introduce Tim to Enid: who earns time credits by giving piano
lessons.
The credits that Enid earns are then exchanged with Grant who is
contacted by the time broker because Enid needs help with her garden
and Grant offers gardening services to earn credits.
Thus the time broker maintains interactions by being a point of
contact for people looking to earn and spend credits, because s/he
will have collected information on what services people are willing
to offer.
Building on this we can see another key difference from market
based exchanges.
As Alford (2002) explains, market exchanges are based on restricted
exchanges, defined as taking place between two people.
Here person “A” has something that person “B” wants and will hand
it over to person “B” in exchange for an amount of money set by market
price: thus the interaction is limited to two actors.
Time banking however operates on the idea of generalized exchanges,
where exchange takes place between three or more actors who do not
benefit from exchange directly, but indirectly.
Thus whilst person A has something person B wants, person B is
unable to offer something to person A in exchange.
However person A will still exchange with person B, knowing
that s/he will receive something in return “further down the line”:
for example when person C who received something from person B is
able to offer a service to person A.
D Time Bank – developing the idea
Time banking was adopted in the UK in the late 1990s, (drawing on
the experience of the American model) and has gradually expanded to
various locations across the country since: today around 108 time
banks are in operation (NEF, 2008).
They have been set up in a wide range of welfare fields from
community development and health care to youth work and prison
services.
Whilst the UK largely adopted Cahn's approach there are some
key differences which need to be highlighted.
Firstly, whilst in America time credits can be used in the acquisition
of goods (such as refurbished computers in the example above),
Seyfang (2006) reflects on the ruling by the Department of Work and
Pensions (DWP) that prevents similar practice in the UK.
This is due to the view that such “purchases” would count as earned
income. Seyfang argues that this dissuades potential participants
with clear economic needs from accessing a wider range of services.
Secondly, again relating to DWP guidelines, participation in time
banking by some benefit claimants is seen to indicate an ability
to work which will impact on the level of benefit entitlement:
subsequently deflecting these potential participants away from
time bank practice.
Finally, whilst Cahn's initial approach to time banking focused
on person-to-person exchanges this has been developed, initially
in the South Wales Valleys, towards person-to-agency exchanges:
this will be illustrated further below.
Yet the question remains as to why time banking is necessary.
According to Cahn there exist two economies within society: the
core and market economies.
The core economy contains family, democracy and community,
whilst the market economy contains everything else.
Tensions exist between these two economies for, on the one
hand, the market economy values scarcity and that which produces
further money; whilst on the other hand, the core economy values
the common – those activities/goods that do not generate money.
In Cahn's view the social problems experienced in the core
economy are being exacerbated by policy solutions that rely on
the values of the market economy.
These solutions are doomed to fail because they rely on values
of competition, conquest, aggression and acquisition
(Cahn, 2000: 59).
It is Cahn's argument that the implementation of market
values within the sphere of the core economy generates solutions
which draw on values and beliefs which are actually detrimental
to the target of intervention: consequently generating greater
problems in the long-term.
Thus policy makers are delivering “solutions” which remove
community members from their community and from solutions:
counter to effective practice.
Cahn argues that successful outcomes in public services
relies not only on the input and effort of service providers but
also the activities and involvement of service users.
Without the latter, optimal outcomes can never be achieved.
Whilst professionals are able to offer advice, exercises and
services to tackle to stresses and disorders of contemporary
life from obesity and smoking cessation to welfare aims such
as high educational standards, these outcomes cannot be achieved
without effort/input from the service “user”.
Thus time banking offers a means whereby both the production input
of service providers is engaged in service delivery, but is also
encouraged: through the notion of co-production.
E Co-production
Co-production as a term was first used by Ostrom and colleagues
(Percy et al 1980; Parks et al 1981) to describe a specific form
of user involvement in public services.
This engagement was based on service users playing a key role in
delivering services.
For Ostrom (1997) this could take two forms: either through
direct engagement with service providers or as additional work
outside the remit of services: policing illustrates this difference.
Whilst the police, as a public service, are responsible for producing
public safety this safety can be co-produced with local people.
As Parks et al explain, on the one hand, and without police
involvement, local people can fit locks to their front doors thus
increasing their own safety; whilst on the other hand, police patrols
of the area also enhance community safety.
In this way both the providers and beneficiaries of community safety
are involved in its production: although not by working together.
For Parks et al (1981) the potential of co-production rests upon
its ability to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local
government.
Here the vital relationship between the client and service provider
was defined as one that jointly produces the service outcomes.
It is within this approach that the initial ideas around the
consumer/client as a central aspect of the production process are
discussed to highlight the need for consumer/client production in
ensuring that service production is successful.
Consequently this work claims that successful production relies upon
resources, motivations and skills of consumers and there is a need
to pay attention to this in the production process.
Recent developments in the theory of co-production have been linked
to the development of time banks: taking as its starting point the
work of Cahn (2000).
His argument is that co-production is an important aspect of social
programme delivery: where the success or failure of programmes depends
heavily on “consumer labour”.
To encourage this production Cahn suggests the use of time credits as
a means of ensuring that this labour is forthcoming.
However this conception of co-production rests on four core values:
1 treating people as assets;
2 a redefinition of work;
3 reciprocity; and
4 social capital.
Treating people as assets makes it unacceptable to define people by
what they need, and focuses upon what they can contribute and their
capabilities.
Cahn’s redefinition of work allows contributions by women, families
and the community to be considered, not just work as defined by
the market, consequently ending the exploitation of these contributions
by the market economy with time credits awarded in recognition.
This is vital to Cahn’s division between the market and non-market
economies in society and the need to remove the application of market
values in non-market settings.
The reciprocal nature of the time bank system ensures that along with
rewards participants can have control over shaping and delivering their
services.
Finally through co-production and its engagement of local people in
community settings, social capital is generated by the interaction,
thus reinvesting trust, reciprocity and involvement in communities.
It is necessary to point out that terminology used here has been
treated uncritically as the scope of the paper does not provide
space for engaging with critical discussions of explicit, core
notions of co-production, such as reciprocity (see Fitzpatrick,
2005; Land and Rose, 1985); social capital (Jordan, 2010;
Mackian, 2002); or even implicit views on community (Fremeaux,
2005; Mowbray, 2005) or even the possible impact of participation
within community empowerment (Cornwall, 2008; Dinham, 2005, 2006).
The New Economics Foundation, have built upon the conception of
co-production developed by Cahn and explain co-production as a
practice ‘to engage and involve the beneficiaries of a service
in the delivery of the service itself’ (NEF 2004a: 5).
They have also played a key role in the development and
promotion of time banking within the UK.
Whilst others (for example Needham, 2007; Parker, 2007a; 2007b) have explored
the potential role of co-production in developing effective citizen engagement
with public services these have not drawn upon the core concepts set out by
Cahn, preferring to relate to participation in its own right.
Yet recent research by Bovaird (2007) develops a useful typology for analysing
forms of co-production.
Drawing on a range of case studies Bovaird’s typology highlights various forms
of co-production based upon the roles adopted by professional service providers,
service users and their communities in relation to service planning, design and
delivery.
Bovaird (2007: p.6) identifies seven coproduction relationships, each
developing from different backgrounds and motivations.
This typology is based around three connected approaches to service planning:
1 professionals as sole service planners;
2 professionals and users/community as co-planners; and
3 service planning with no professional input into service planning at all.
Each of these approaches to planning interacts with a parallel set of three
delivery forms:
1 Professionals as sole service deliverer;
2 professionals and users/community as co-deliverers; and
3 service delivery with no input from professionals at all.
Taken together, these two dimensions produce nine different variations of
provider/user relationship.
Two of these do not form a co-productive relationship, being professional-only
and community/ user only patterns of planning and supply.
The remaining seven forms are all co-productive, to different extents,
involving relationships formed by professionals, service users and
communities: with one “pure” form of co-production at the centre
where professionals, service users and communities play equal
roles in the design and delivery of services.
F Time Banking – in practice
Whilst at the theoretical level time banking has now been considered, an
exploration of time bank implementation at the practical level not only
illustrates areas in which the mechanism has been used, but also uncovers
some of the ways in which time bank systems are set up (Gregory, 2009a).
It will not be possible to discuss all the various applications of time
banking, as noted above these include community development, health care
(time4health, developed by Timebanking Wales), social care (Time Together
Network, in development by Timebanking Wales), youth work and work within
the prison service (see Drakeford and Gregory, forthcoming; Gregory,
forthcoming); thus the focus here will be on community development and used
to illustrate issues pertinent to service delivery.
The role of time banking within the community setting has been clearly
established.
Research into this aspect of time banking is reasonably developed
(Seyfang and Smith,2002; James, 2005; Gregory, 2009a, 2009b) and
considers a wide range of issues from the development of reciprocity
and altruism to citizenship, community ownership and local economic
development.
In previous research the use of time banking by a Development Trust
in the South Wales Valleys has been explored with the specific aim
of uncovering the organisational development of time banking
(Gregory, 2009a).
Here, the Development Trust aimed to use time banking to
engage local people in a range of activities which in turn
help redevelop a community still recovering from the 1980s
pit closures.
There is a key difference here from time banking theory, in
that the reason for utilising time banking was to encourage
and promote active citizenship, not necessarily to develop
coproduction:although as will be illustrated below this doesn’t
negate the development of co-production.
The scheme started out as a learning network where local people
were able to earn time credits by attending education courses
which had benefit to the wider community (such as First Aid)
and were able to then use those credits on a range of social
activities offered by the centre (i.e. Bingo evenings and
cabaret shows).
This soon expanded encompassing wider groups of people and
larger numbers of activities.
Here the importance of the time broker is key.
It was this individual who led efforts to promote the time
bank (see Gregory, 2009a) by engaging, firstly, with pre-existing
community groups and encouraging their participation in time
banking; and then by contacting others in the local community
through word of mouth.
Whilst the time broker is key to expanding membership, s/he
is vital to expanding the means of earning and using time
credits.
Today, within the Development Trust, it is possible to earn
credits in a wide variety of ways: helping to clean up the
local environment; volunteering at the local child care
service; becoming a Street Ambassador to work with local
councillors or volunteering at a local café.
Many of these initiatives have been developed by the time
broker, which at first may not seem to fit an approach which
aims to engage providers and users in the joint production
of a service.
However whilst the time broker may develop new ideas and
schemes this, in part draws from three sources.
Firstly the time broker’s own ideas over what can be
implemented.
This may come from the time broker (during the research the
time broker was seeking funding for a caravan to be used as
a holiday site for time bank members) or from the wider
organisation (in this case the Development Trust, where a
successful bids had been made to develop a community orchard,
planted and maintained by local people for time credits).
Secondly from the time broker’s knowledge of what individuals/
groups can provide.
In joining a time bank each person indicates what they are interested
in and what they can provide, the time broker is then able to make
connections between interests and offered skills which would
otherwise go unseen.
For example whilst conducting the research the time broker explained
how he knew he had people interested in learning archery but didn’t
have someone able to offer lessons, until a member joined who actually
had the training and experience to offer the service.
Here the time broker creates connections between people as discussed
above.
Finally the time broker plays a key role in developing service user
ideas.
Two examples best illustrate this.
On the one hand, there are group led initiatives – such as the small
group of local people who were interested in setting up a local history
group.
By working with the time broker they were able to set up their group,
find a place in which to hold meetings and store their archives and
earn time credits for their efforts.
On the other hand, individuals themselves can approach the time broker
with ideas.
This occurred just prior to the research when an individual wished to
offer cooking classes and in working with the time broker was able to
use a kitchen and contact potential participants.
Here the person offering the lessons earns credits whilst participants
access the course with time credits.
As the ways to earn credits increase, so too must the ways of spending
credits.
Some of the services available contain individual benefits such as
education courses (i.e. computer training); whereas others have social
networking outcomes (such as performances, the knitting club or clay
sculpting class).
These tie in with the aims of the Development Trust which seeks to
re-develop the community by increasing the skills and capabilities
of local residents but also reinvigorate the community spirit that many
feel has been loss since the closure of the mines.
For example the yearly carnival was re-started by the Development Trust,
allowing local people the opportunity to earn time credits by spending
time working with the rest of the community to create costumes for the
parade.
Participants are then able to use their credits to access goods and
events at the carnival.
Additionally, the Trust was also involved in developing a local park
and used the skills of local people to help create clay sculptures to
take centre stage in the park – something that was so successful it
was repeated by creating pit markers to reflect local history at the
site of closed mines in the valley.
Finally time credits have been used to invest in local business and
re-develop the local high street.
The local café run by the Trust was set up to replace a privately
run café that closed down.
Through a combination of payment by time credits and cash the café
has now become self-sustaining and maintains two full time jobs as
well as provides a means of volunteering for local people.
Time credits have also been used to connect with other local
businesses (see Gregory, 2009b for more details).
The centrality of the time broker to time bank practice is
also shown through the time auditing activity.
Here the time broker keeps a record of the number of credits
each individual earns and the number of credits that are
returned.
Because credits are given out in the form of a voucher there
is no need for the time bank to keep a record of who is spending
what (as would be the case in a person-to-person model).
With the person-to-agency model it is important to monitor flows
of credits into and out of the centre rather than peoples individual
transactions.
The reason for this is not so that the time bank can monitor what
people are doing (although they admit that by recording these
activities they are capable of showing the impact their services
have when bidding for funding), rather to ensure that the credits
retain value.
If more credits are being earned than are being used then there
exists the danger that the time banking practice will fail:
because if people cannot find a use for their credits they
may stop earning them.
Thus, by ensuring that demand for credits remains high the time bank
is able to ensure that people will continue to earn credits.
It is important to note however that in interviews whilst this time
auditing was considered important to ensure the system works, it was
important for that reason alone.
There was little concern that people would stop volunteering, rather
they would lose the benefit of accessing services and events with
time credits.
G Developing the Time Bank
From the above we can see the importance of the time broker in the
development and implementation of time bank practice: thus developing
time banking within public services would require a time broker.
But what the research into the use of time banks by the Development
Trust also shows is how time banking practice expands across the
organisation.
Initially time banking is established within a pre-existing organisation
structure.
Within the Development Trust, time banking started as a pilot project
which, when proven to be successful, led the Trust to increase the size
and activities of the time bank.
However the time bank was maintained as just one project delivered to
the community and so was kept separate from the other health and
environment projects (see figure one).
Figure One: Project Delivery Structure From: Gregory (2008: 55)
However as the popularity of time banks increased leading the time broker
to expand activities and services to the other projects delivered by the
trust: as a means of increasing citizen engagement.
Therefore the popularity and success of the time centre caused a change
in the overall structure of the organisation, through time credit
involvement with the activities of the development trust (see
figure two).
Figure Two: Embedded Time Credit Structure From Gregory (2008: 55)
The development of time banking within this Development Trust
shows that the narrow use of the currency as a means of operating
one project soon develops a “critical mass” whereby it expands
across the structure of the organisation as a whole entering
in to all its relationships with participants.
Time credits which start as a means of rewarding community based
activity to alter how the Development Trust interacts with local
residents in all its activities.
Yet a number of challenges have been raised in relation to the
implementation of time banking within services.
Boyle (ND) presents a number of these, claiming that agencies
may have difficulty in understanding the idea of co-production
and have concerns with regards handing responsibility over to
service users.
It is important to note however that the difficulty in understanding
concepts can go both ways, as the time banking idea and exchanges
based on time require service users to consider new and different
ways of engaging with services and each other (Gregory, 2009a).
This can be difficult and daunting to grasp at first because time
credits use a completely different value system as the basis of
exchange: consequently this may generate reluctance to actually
get involved.
Here the view of James (2005) is key: it takes time and care to
establish time banking to ensure that people understand what they
are designed to achieve.
Although James’ concern is with people understanding that time
bank practices requires both earning and using credits, the
sentiment is relevant here.
Within the Development Trust an approach was adopted which sought
active groups in the community, to encourage credit earning through
activities people were already familiar with.
Gradually this was built upon to attract a wider range of people and
a broader range of activities.
Boyle (ND) outlines some further challenges around staff objections
to the possibility of complying to peculiar working hours to fit in
with service user designs (working to “community time” rather than
“office time”); also a fear that staff jobs would become vulnerable
to cuts because greater responsibility is being handed over to
service users themselves.
Additionally tensions may rise with regards official targets which,
Boyle claims, do not fit neatly with co-production outputs possibly
making funding difficult to achieve.
However the Development Trust reported in this research found time
credits a useful measure of illustrating their ability to engage
people in their services, which proved to be beneficial for funding
applications.
Finally, for Boyle, the rigid hierarchical nature of services prevents
the full benefits of co-production being realised.
Yet it is possible to see from the example discussed here, that the
Development Trust not only adapted their structure to apply time banking
more widely, but started to develop new forms of engagement with the
community and their decision making processes.
However at the time of the research it would not be possible to claim
anything more than these processes were being developed; their effectiveness
would need to be evaluated at a later date.
Whilst this is tied closely to the work of the time broker, there is a need
to comment upon the whether this develops co-productive relationships,
especially as active citizenship was the initial focus on the Development
Trust.
H Co-Production Relationships
The form of co-production developed within this case study has been
discussed previously (Gregory, 2009a), in relation to Bovaird’s
(2006) typology.
It can clearly been seen that the ‘user co-delivery of professionally
designed services’ co-production relationship was central to the
relationship between the Development Trust and the community: for
the Trust planned service deliverey with the beneficiaries; for
example the park redevelopment, orchard management and carnival
projects.
Each was planned by the Trust, with the time broker determining
how local people could be involved.
Thus time credits are used to deliver the projects aims.
However this can be complemented by Bovaird’s ‘user/community
co-delivery of services with professionals without formal
planning or design’ relationship.
Here responsibility for activities is taken up by the community
with professional service expertise accessed when necessary.
Community interests determine service development the level of professional
service provision required, for example, the cooking class established by
local people and the local heritage group.
Consequently it is possible to see multiple co-production relationships
between the time bank staff and local residents.: relationships are not
limited to one form and can change and adapt over time.
As such it can be argued that whilst co-production may not be the reason
behind developing time banking practice initially, there is something
about the practice which ensures its development.
For example, the development of Street Ambassadors to involve local people
in decision making processes of the Development Trust, opens up space for
new co-production relationships.
However at the time of the research it was unclear exactly how effective
these would be or what form they would take.
What remains apparent, however, is that time banking need not develop one
form of co-productive relationship; it can be a source of multiple forms
of co-production.
The relationships between the different stakeholders depends on how time
credits are used and the location of service providers and users with
regards the activity: ranging from service led, user led and joint
endeavours.
Whilst the focus on community development initiatives allows for an exploration
of the structure and development of time banking, it only gives partial insight
into the benefits of time banking for welfare provision.
Consideration must now be given to two key aspects for the design and delivery
of welfare services with regards time banking.
I Benefits for Service Design
Time banking and the associated concept of co-production offer two key potential
benefits for service design and delivery: user empowerment and additional resources.
It may seem that co-production shares a resemblance with the notion of
personalisation and debates around user participation.
Where personalisation is concerned Carr (2008) explains that the starting point
explores the strengths and preferences of the individual person and considers the
networks and resources they are already connected to.
It is based on the idea that the individual is best placed to know what their needs
are and how they can be best met, before investing the individual with the power to
make decisions regarding their care once all the relevant information and support has
been provided.
In practice personalisation requires that collaborative, local partnerships develop to
offer clients a range of services to meet their needs; tailors support to people’s individual
needs; supports the role of carers; ensuring universal services are open to all and promote
early intervention and prevention.
From here we can distinguish some differences between personalisation and coproduction.
Whilst personalisation focuses on the intention to meet individual needs, coproduction
focuses upon the role services users can actually play in delivering services.
In co-productive terms a service user isn’t a passive recipient or a “care manager”
determining what services best suit their needs; rather they are a producer.
They are involved in developing, designing and even delivering the services on offer
to the community and are able to access those services that they feel would best benefit
them.
They may even be involved in delivering services they themselves do not use, but others
in their community do: this centres around the idea that people are “assets”, that they
have skills and capabilities which allow them to be active creators rather than passive
recipients of welfare.
It moves beyond the notions of choice to incorporate a more positive view of service
users based on capabilities.
However it is important to bear in mind that personalisation has been associated with
the wider social policy reform of the previous New Labour Government.
And whilst it is possible to link the core values of human dignity and worth;
social justice; service to humanity; integrity and competence (BASW, 2002;
cited in Carr, 2008: 8) to co-production the term, as outlined above, also brings its
own core values to the table and so has in mind a more specific form of practice.
Expanding the idea of user participation in welfare, Beresford and Croft
(Beresford, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Beresford and Croft, 1994, 2004) argue that a
distinction exists between participation as defined by the New Right and the Third Way
(a consumerist approach) against the definition presented by welfare service user
movements (a democratic approach).
So on the one hand, Beresford (2002b) argues, consumerist approaches to participation
search for service user input into service provision whilst holding preconceived ideas
over the outcome of this input: thus resulting in no change in the control and distribution
of power.
On the other hand, the democratic approach ensures ‘that welfare service users and other
citizens have the direct capacity and opportunity to make change’ (Beresford, 2002b: 278),
making outcomes less certain.
This model is associated with libertarian and transformative ideas and argues that direct
payments are one means by which the disability movement views a shift in the distribution
of power.
Although it is possible to question how effective and suitable direct payment schemes are
(Hunter, 2009).
The role of time banking in developing a different form of participation based on
coproduction can now be made clear.
A link can be established with the democratic, bottom-up, idea of changing power relations
presented by Beresford.
This is possible because time banking draws upon the capabilities of local people to give
them an active role in service design and delivery and thus altering the power relationship
between service user and provider.
Service users can be given greater say and ability to determine what services are on offer
and when they are made available.
However this will depend heavily upon the form of co-production that is adopted.
Bovaird’s typology offers a range of different potential relationships each providing varying
amounts of power and control to service users and providers.
Thus whilst in some systems, service providers may remain the most powerful actors in co-produced
systems, in others the power can be completely in the hands of service users.
In Cahn’s model there is no clear cut distinction between the power relations, as Cahn gives
little explicit attention to the balance of power in service relationships.
Thus through time bank practice power may still very much rest in the hands of service
providers in others circumstances the reverse is true.
More often than not there exists attempts to share power by service providers, but this
may be something that develops overtime.
For example the community development project started off by using time banking techniques to
engage the community but in accordance with the service provider’s agenda.
Yet gradually this has changed as increasing numbers of local people have joined the time bank
scheme leading to an expansion of the services offered, many of which have been suggested,
designed and led by the local members.
Finally some consideration must also be given over to the role played by the time credits
as a resource.
As North (2006) explains, focus on “time money” has drawn attention to the benefits for
the socially excluded in providing them with additional resources.
This has been considered in relation to local economic development, drawing on the research
discussed here on community development (Gregory, 2009b).
The focus here moves consideration from the benefit of time credits to individual resources
to consider potential benefits for local business.
It is perhaps, therefore, possible to take this a step further to reflect on how time
credits offer public services additional resources.
Through a person-to-agency model it becomes possible not only for the service to be a
source of credits but also a recipient: these credits could be used in a number of ways.
Service providers could of course continue to use credits to engage with local people in
developing services and improving outcomes.
But it is also possible for agencies to exchange credits with each other (NEF, 2008).
Here the aim is for agencies to develop collaborative working, to share learning and to share
resources and assets.
It is believed that through this model it will be possible to deliver better services through
a more efficient use of resources; to develop greater efficiency in terms of the use of
agency assets and to move towards a more sustainable future.
The claim is that this approach is best suited to developing holistic, joined-up services
within social care, mental health and children’s services and contains benefits for devolved
area-based budgeting (NEF, 2008: 17).
However there is a need for further research into this developing model of time bank practice
before anything more than these speculative benefits can be drawn out.
J Conclusion
This paper has proposed time banking as a tool with potential to help maintain service provision
at a time when cuts are being planned to public expenditure.
The mechanism and underpinning theory of time banking have been discussed, making explicit links
between time banking and the concept of co-production.
Where co-production is concerned NEF have argued that ‘welfare and public services work most
effectively when they are jointly produced by both the professionals and service deliverers and
service recipients’ (NEF, 2004b: 3) and this is a sentiment that can easily be heard from
practitioners and academics concerned with user empowerment in welfare services.
The argument here has been that time banking offers a potential approach to welfare provision
which can be utilised within a broader array of tools to continue to provide services at a time
of public spending cuts.
There are a number of challenges to developing this approach for service users, which were
outlined above.
Yet the research with the Development Trust shows that over time some of these challenges
may be countered.
Furthermore, whilst co-production may not be an initial intention of those who
use time banking, the way in which the community currency operates does lend itself to
the development of co-productive relationships.
Additionally there is developing opportunity to consider how services as organisations
can exchange credits with each other to make efficient use of resources, providing new
“purchasing” power to welfare providers.
However this claim is in need of more rigorous evaluation.
This research has focused on the use of time banking in the third sector; efforts must
now be made to develop practice within public service delivery.
Such an approach will allow for the consideration of time banking within public services
to become more explicit and move beyond the theoretical debate.
Whilst time bank practice has started to develop through the work of the time bank movement,
this has as yet to be examined in detail.
Such research will make it possible to test and explore both the core arguments of time
bank advocates but also some of the propositions set out in this paper.
One way in which this work is being done is through the author’s current research into
the use of time banking in primary care, where the research will involve setting up a
time bank in partnership with a local health board in Wales.
Through such work it will be possible to consider in full the potential of time banking
as a tool for public services design and delivery.
R REFERENCES - Bibliography
Alford, J. (2002) Defining the Client in the Public Sector: A Social-Exchange Perspective;
Public Administration Review May/June 62 (3) pp.337 - 346
Beresford, P. (2001) Service users, social policy & the future of welfare; Critical Social
Policy. pp. 498 - 512
Beresford, P. (2002a) “Thinking about ‘mental health”: Towards a social model; Journal of
Mental Health 11(6) pp. 581-584
Beresford, P. (2002b) Participation and social policy: transformation, liberation or regulation?’;
in Sykes, R., Bochel, C. and Ellison, N. (eds) Social Policy Review 14: Developments and debates:
2001-2002.
Beresford, P. and Croft, S. (1994) A Participatory Approach to Social Work; in Hanvey C, and Philpot,
T (eds) (1994) Practising Social Work. London: Routledge. Pp. 49-66
Beresford, P. and Croft, S. (2004) Service Users and Practitioners Reunited: The Key
Component for Social Work Reform; in British Journal of Social Work 34 (1) pp. 53- 68
Bovaird, T. (2007) Beyond Engagement and Participation - User and Community Coproduction of services.
Public Administration Review 67 (5) pp. 846-860
Boyle, D. (No Date) The Co-Production Principle and Time Dollars at http://www.timebanks.org/documents
/Co-ProductionPrinciple.pdf retrieved 1/10/09
Cahn, E. (2000) No More Throw-Away People: The Co-production Imperative. Washington
Carr, S. with Dittrich, R. (2008) Personalisation: a rough guide at http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/
reports/report20.pdf retrieved 12/1/10
Cornwall, A. (2008) Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices;Community Development
Journal 43 (3) pp. 269 - 283
Dinham, A. (2005) Empowered or over-powered? The real experiences of local participation in the UK’s
New Deal for Communities; Community Development Journal 40 (3) pp.301-312
Dinham, A. (2006) Raising expectations or dashing hopes?: Well-being and participation in disadvantaged
areas; Community Development Journal 41 (2) pp.181-193
Drakeford, M. and Gregory, L (Forthcoming) Transforming Time: A New Tool for Youth Justice; Fitzpatrick,
T. (2005) New Theories of Welfare, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Fremeaux, I. (2005) New Labour’s appropriation of the concept of community: a critique; Community
Development Journal 40 (3) pp. 265-274
Gregory, L. (2008) Time for change: Exploring the rationale and organisation of time banks in the
Welsh Valleys. Unpublished Masters Dissertation: Cardiff University
Gregory, L. (2009a) Change Takes Time: Exploring the Structural and Development Issues of Time Banking;
International Journal of Community Currencies 13 pp.19-36
Gregory, L. (2009b) Spending Time Locally: The Benefits of Time Banks for Local Economies; Local Economy
24 (4) pp. 323 – 333
Gregory, L (Forthcoming) Time and Punishment: a comparison of UK and US time bank use in criminal justice
systems; Journal of Comparative Social Welfare
Hunter, D. (2009) The case against choice and competition; Health Economics, Policy andLaw. 4 pp. 489-501
James, S. (2005) The Impact of Co-Production on People Outside of Paid Work Rhondda: Wales Institute for
Community Currency
Jordan, B. (2010) What’s Wrong with Social Policy and How to Fix It. Cambridge: Polity Press Land, H. and
Rose, H. (1985) ‘Compulsory altruism for some or an altruistic society for all; in Bean, P., Ferris, J.,
and Whynes, D. In Defence of Welfare. Routledge, pp. 74 -96
Mackian, S. (2002) Complex cultures: rereading the story about health and social capital; in Critical Social
Policy 22 (2) pp. 203 - 225
Mowbray, M. (2005) Community capacity building or state opportunism?; Community Development Journal 40 (3) pp. 255-264
New Economics Foundation (2004a) Co-production works! The win:win of involving local people in public services.
New Economics Foundation (2004b) Exploring Co-production: An Overview of Past, Present and Future
New Economics Foundation (2008) The New Wealth of Time How timebanking helps people build better public services.
at http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/u4o0dteqqt15du0gzphnuf0111120 08183530.pdf retrieved 30/11/08
Needham, C. (2007) Realising the Potential of Co-Production: Negotiating Improvements in Public Services;
Social Policy and Society 7 (2) pp. 221-231
North, P. (2006) Alternative currencies as a challenge to globalisation? A case study of Manchester 's
local currency networks. London: Ashgate.
Ostrom, E. (1997) Crossing the great divide: co-production synergy and development; in
P. Evans (ed) State Society Synergy: government and social capital in development at
http://repositories.cdlib.org/ uciaspubs/research/94/ retrieved 28/5/09
Parker, S. (2007a) The Co-production Paradox’; in Parker S. and Gallagher N. (eds)
The Collaborative State retrieved 26/5/09
Parker, S. (2007b) Participation: a new operating system for public services?; in Creasy, S.(ed)
Participation Nation: reconnecting citizens to the public realm. Involve Pp. 103-112 at
http://www.involve.org.uk/assets/Uploads/Participation-Nation.pdf retrieved 27/5/09
Percy, S. L., Kiser, L. and Parks R., B. (1980) Citizen Coproduction: a neglected
dimension of public service delivery. Bloomington, IN, Indiana University at
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000950/ retrieved 5/3/09
Seyfang, G. (2006) Harnessing the potential of the social economy? Time banks
and UK public policy; International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26
(9/10) pp. 430-443
Seyfang, G. and K. Smith (2002) Using Time Banking for Neighbourhood Renewal and
Community Capacity Building. London: New Economics Foundation
Home Index Introduction Where TBg started TBg on the Ground TBg achieves TBg What More ? References Acknowledgements Glossary Disclaimer Copyright
Flag Counter 
