Negotiating A Neoliberal Funding Regime: \nFeminist Service Organizations and State Funding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT \n\tThis dissertation examines shifts in state funding for feminist service organizations in Canada. Specifically, it focuses on the implications of a neoliberal funding regime for these organizations. I argue that feminist service organizations should be understood as both social movement and nonprofit organizations. Examining their connections to both the nonprofit sector and the feminist movement provides deeper insight into the ways feminist service organizations’ are impacted by changes to funding. I contend that because of their dual positioning, feminist service organizations experience a neoliberal funding regime in multiple and complex ways. Under neoliberalism, nonprofit organizations have experienced cuts to core funding, an increase in short-term project based funding and a strict accountability regime. The democratic function of the nonprofit sector is no longer recognized as legitimate. This has been especially significant for feminist service organizations because their role as advocates for women was historically acknowledged by provincial and federal governments in Canada. However, this work has become increasingly stigmatized. \n\tI undertook a comparative analysis of two feminist service organizations in Ontario, Elizabeth Fry Toronto and Interval House Hamilton, to explore how these organizations experience a neoliberal funding regime. In particular, I considered how the funding relationship affects daily organizational work, advocacy and anti-racist, anti-oppressive (ARAO) practice. I also examined how feminist service organizations respond to the challenges posed by their political and funding climate. In addition to my research with these organizations, I examined policy documents produced by Status of Women Canada (SWC) and the Ontario Women’s Directorate (OWD), as well as the provincial and federal Public Accounts. This allowed me to analyse shifts in approaches to the nonprofit sector and government priorities. \n\tMy research indicates that there is a shrinking space for social justice work. In particular, it is increasingly difficult for organizations to advocate, build community and engage in the more radical aspects of an ARAO framework. Despite this, my findings indicate that feminist service organizations can find ways to negotiate the challenges in their environments.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".