Negotiating Neoliberal Environments in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada: Restructuring of State – Voluntary Sector Relations and Disability Organizations' Struggles to Survive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the social programmes of the postwar welfare state have been dramatically cut back and transformed, many have looked to the voluntary nonprofit sector as the ‘beacon of hope’ in terms of delivering support and services to citizens in need of assistance. But at the same time as these organizations have been under mounting pressure to deliver support and services, they have also been subject to forces of change which limit their capacities to play this vital social role. In this paper, we examine how disability organizations in two Canadian provinces have been faring in increasingly harsh neoliberal environments. We look, in particular, at the ways in which these organizations are struggling to negotiate the pressures of diminished and inadequate funding, rising demand for their services, and changing regulatory relations with the state. Drawing on mail surveys of sixty-two disability organizations in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, we discuss the impacts that organizational survival strategies are having on clients, staff, volunteers and volunteerism, and on the operation and structure of such organizations. We show how disability organizations are experiencing significant pressures to change how they deliver services and supports to disabled people in need. These include pressures to diminish levels of service provision to clients, particularly those in greatest need, to reduce staffing levels and institute survival strategies that negatively impact working conditions, to rely even more heavily upon volunteer labour, and to modify their operations and organizations in a struggle to cope with harsh neoliberal conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".