The project‐funding regime: Complications for community organizations and their staff
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Various levels of government contract‐out the provision of public services such as health and education to community organizations, which have traditionally received core funding for these services. In recent years, however, with the adoption of neoliberal policies and New Public Management ideals, Canadian federal and provincial governments have increasingly off‐loaded the provision of social services to community organizations through a project‐funding regime. Community organizations and their workers now find themselves facing new challenges created by this new funding regime. This article explores the ways in which the daily lives of these workers have been organized and influenced by project‐funding regime procedures and rules, which benefit the state but create hardships for workers. This analysis draws on staff interviews and focus group data collected from three community organizations in three provinces across Canada. The qualitative analytic approach includes both a thematic analysis and the identification of practices that benefit the institution but complicate worker activities, as identified by the Psycho‐Social Ethnography of the Common‐Place method, which borrows from Institutional Ethnography. Through the analysis of procedures of increased accountability, short‐term funding, hiring on contract, use of information and communication technologies, and forced partnerships, the authors delineate the ways in which a neoliberalized ruling system benefits and manages staff activities while complicating the lives of the workers. Recommendations and responses to this situation are discussed. Sommaire: Differents paliers de gouvernements donnent la prestation des services publics comme la santé et l'education en soustraitance B des organismes communautaires, qui recevaient traditionnellement leur financement de base pour la prestation de ces services. Ces dernières années, cependant, avec l'adoption des politiques néolibérales et les idéaux de la nouvelle administration publique, le gouvernement fédéral et les gouvemements provinciaux canadiens se sont de plus en plus déchargés de la prestation des services sociaux sur les organismes communautaires, grâce à un régime de financement de projets. Les organismes communautaires et leurs employés se trouvent maintenant confrontés à de nouveaux défis Créés par ce nouveau régime de financement. Le présent article explore la manière dont la vie quotidienne de ces employés a été organisée et influencée par les procédures et les règles du régime de financement de projets, qui profitent à l'État mais créent des complications pour les organismes communautaires. Cette analyse est basée sur des interviews des membres du personnel et sur des données de groupes de discussion recueillies auprès de trois organismes communautaires dans trois provinces du Canada. L'approche analytique qualitative comprend à la fois une analyse thématique et l'identification de pratiques qui profitent aux institutions mais qui compliquent les activités des employés, comme l'a démontré la méthode Psycho‐Social Ethnography of the Common‐place , qui emprunte à l'ethnographie institutionnelle. Par le biais de l'analyse de procédures d'imputabilité accrue, de financement à court terme, d'embauche par contrat, de l'utilisation de technologies de l'information et de la communication, et de partenariats forcés, les auteurs délimitent la manière dont le système néolibéral actuel profite des activités du personnel qu'il gére tout en lui compliquant la vie. Des recommandations et des solutions sont offertes pour faire face à cette situation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it