Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Deployment of Partnerships by the Voluntary Sector to Address Service Needs in Rural and Small Town Canada

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Service restructuring trends since the 1980s have resulted in the downsizing or closure of many services in rural and small town Canada. In response, voluntary groups have been filling some of the emerging service gaps. Services, however, often are directed at complex problems that demand information, support, or assistance from a range of sources and institutions. For voluntary groups, this underscores a need to partner with other groups, organizations, or service providers. At the same time, voluntary organizations are increasingly encouraged to develop partnerships with public or private partners in order to qualify for government funding. This study tracks 29 voluntary organizations in four rural and small town places across Canada to explore the development and maintenance of partnerships (both local and non-local), as well as the types of networks, resources, and expertise for which partnerships were used. The findings indicate that while voluntary organizations feel that local partnerships are more important, partnerships with groups outside of these places are equally developed. Partnerships were used to expand networks, obtain expertise, and access a range of resources to assist in daily operations and delivery of services. The increase in partnerships with groups outside of these communities, particularly with non-local service providers, will have important implications for voluntary organizations and policy makers.

Zusammenfassung

Der seit den achtziger Jahren zu beobachtende Trend zu Umstrukturierungen des Dienstleistungsbereichs hat in Kanada zu einem Rückgang oder gar zu Schließungen vieler Dienstleistungseinrichtungen in ländlichen Regionen und kleinen Gemeinden geführt. Daraufhin haben gemeinnützige Gruppen einige der sich abzeichnenden Lücken im Dienstleistungsbereich geschlossen. Allerdings erstrecken sich die Dienstleistungen oftmals auf komplexe Problembereiche, die Informationen und die Unterstützung und Hilfe einer Reihe von Bezugsquellen und Institutionen erfordern. Für gemeinnützige Gruppen ist es daher wichtig, dass sie sich mit anderen Gruppen, Organisationen oder Dienstleistungsanbietern zusammenschließen. Gleichzeitig werden gemeinnützige Organisationen zunehmend aufgefordert, Partnerschaften mit öffentlichen oder privaten Partnern einzugehen, um sich für finanzielle Unterstützung vonseiten der Regierung zu qualifizieren. Zur Untersuchung der Entwicklung und dem Erhalt von Partnerschaften (sowohl lokaler als auch ortsfremder) analysiert die vorliegende Studie 29 gemeinnützige Organisationen in vier ländlichen Regionen bzw. kleinen Gemeinden in Kanada sowie die Netzwerke, Ressourcen und Expertise, die aufgrund der Partnerschaften zugänglich wurden. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die gemeinnützigen Organisationen den lokalen Partnerschaften zwar eine größere Bedeutung beimessen, sie dennoch gleichermaßen Partnerschaften mit ortsfremden Gruppen bilden. Die Partnerschaften wurden genutzt, um Netzwerke auszuweiten, auf Expertise zurückgreifen zu können und Zugang zu einer Reihe von Ressourcen zu haben, um so den täglichen Betrieb und die Bereitstellung der Dienstleistungen zu unterstützen. Der Anstieg in der Zahl der Partnerschaften mit Gruppen außerhalb dieser Gemeinden, insbesondere mit ortsfremden Dienstleistungsanbietern, wird sich in Zukunft wesentlich auf die gemeinnützigen Organisationen und die politischen Entscheidungsträger auswirken.

Résumé

Les tendances à la restructuration de service depuis les années 1980 ont conduit à la diminution en taille ou à la fermeture de beaucoup de services dans les petites villes rurales du Canada. En réponse, des groupes de bénévoles ont assuré certaines des lacunes de services émergeantes. Les services, cependant, sont souvent confrontés à des problèmes complexes qui exigent de l’information, de l’aide, ou l’assistance de nombreuses sources ou institutions. Pour les groupes de bénévoles, cela met en évidence un besoin d’association avec d’autres groupes, organisations, ou fournisseurs de services. En même temps, les organisations de bénévoles sont de plus en plus encouragées à développer une association avec des partenaires publics ou privés de manière à obtenir des fonds gouvernementaux. Cette étude suit 29 organisations bénévoles dans quatre petites villes rurales du Canada pour explorer le développement et le maintien du partenariat (à la fois local et non local), ainsi que les types de réseaux, ressources, et compétences pour lesquels les associations ont été utilisées. Les conclusions indiquent que tandis que les organisations de bénévoles pensent que les associations locales sont les plus importantes, les partenariats avec des groupes extérieurs à ces villes se développent de la même manière. Les associations ont été utilisées pour développer des réseaux, obtenir de la compétence, accéder à de nombreuses ressources pour assistance dans les opérations journalières de fourniture de service. La croissance du partenariat avec des groupes extérieurs à ces communautés, en particulier avec les fournisseurs de services non locaux, aura des implications importantes pour les organisations de bénévoles et les stratèges.

Resumen

Desde la década de los ochenta existe una tendencia a reestructurar servicios que ha provocado recortes de plantilla o cierres de muchos servicios en las zonas rurales y en los pueblos de Canadá. Como reacción a esto, grupos de voluntarios intentan llenar algunos de los vacíos que han surgido en el sector servicios. Sin embargo, a menudo se vislumbran problemas complejos en este sector que requieren información, apoyo o asistencia de una serie de fuentes e instituciones. Para los grupos de voluntarios, este hecho demuestra la necesidad de establecer asociaciones con otros grupos, organizaciones o proveedores de servicio. Al mismo tiempo, se insta cada vez más a las organizaciones voluntarias a establecer asociaciones con entidades públicas o privadas para poder solicitar ayudas del gobierno. Este estudio realiza un seguimiento de 29 organizaciones voluntarias de cuatro zonas rurales de Canadá para analizar el desarrollo y el mantenimiento de las sociedades (tanto locales como nacionales), así como las clases de redes, recursos y conocimientos que se emplean en cada asociación. De las conclusiones alcanzadas se desprende que, si bien las organizaciones voluntarias otorgan mayor importancia a las asociaciones locales, también se establecen vínculos con grupos de otras regiones. Estas asociaciones sirvieron para expandir redes, adquirir conocimientos y acceder a una serie de recursos necesarios para ayudar en las actividades diarias y en la prestación de servicios. La proliferación de asociaciones con grupos de otras comunidades, sobre todo con proveedores de servicios externos, tendrá importantes consecuencias en las organizaciones voluntarias y en las decisiones políticas.

摘要

自1980年代以来的服务重组趋势已经造成了加拿大许多乡村和小城市的服务场所缩减或者关闭。作为回应,志愿组织已经填补了部分这些空白。然而所谓的服务,通常是针对复杂的问题,需要来自多种渠道或者机构的信息、支持或者援助。对于志愿组织而言,这就必然强调他们和别的团队、组织或者服务提供者之间的合作。与此同时,志愿组织日益受到鼓励去开展合作,以获得政府资助的资格。本文回顾了遍布加拿大四个乡村和小城镇的29个志愿组织, 探讨了关于伙伴关系以及用于合作的网络种类、资源和专家意见等的发展和维护(无论本地和非本地的)。研究显示在于在人们觉得发展本地的伙伴关系更重要的同时,和别的地方的组织的伙伴关系也同样获得了发展。伙伴关系被利用来扩大网络、获取专家观点和获得在日常工作和提供服务的过程中利用资源的途径。与其他组织的日益紧密的合作,特别是非本地组织的合作,将对志愿组织和政策制订者产生重要影响。

ملخص

خلاصة : أدت إعادة هيكلة اتجاهات الخدمة منذ الثمانينات إلى تقليص أو إغلاق الكثير من الخدمات في الأرياف والمدن الصغيرة في كندا. ورداً على ذلك قامت الجماعات التطوعية بسد بعض الثغرات في تقديم الخدمة الناشئة عن إعادة الهيكلة. ولكن الخدمات كثيراً ما تستهدف المشاكل المعقدة التي تتطلب المعلومات والدعم أو المساعدة من مجموعة من المصادر والمؤسسات. وبالنسبة للجماعات التطوعية، فإن هذا يؤكد الحاجة إلى شراكة مع المجموعات الأخرى، والمنظمات، أو مقدمي الخدمات. وفي الوقت نفسه، يتزايد تشجيع المنظمات التطوعية على إقامة شراكات مع القطاع العام أو الخاص حتى تكون مؤهلة للحصول على التمويل الحكومي.

وتتناول هذه الدراسة مسارات 29 من المنظمات التطوعية في أربعة مواقع ريفية ومدن صغيرة  في  أنحاء متفرقة من كندا لاستكشاف وتطوير الشراكات والحفاظ عليها (على الصعيدين المحلي وغير المحلي)، فضلا عن أنواع الشبكات والموارد والخبرة التي استخدمت هذه الشراكات من أجلها. وتشير النتائج إلى أنه بينما ترى  المنظمات التطوعية أن الشراكات المحلية أكثر أهمية، إلا أن الشراكات مع المجموعات خارج هذه الأماكن يجري تطويرها على حد سواء. لقد استخدمت الشراكات لتوسيع الشبكات، والحصول على الخبرة، والوصول إلى طائفة من الموارد للمساعدة في العمليات اليومية وتقديم الخدمات. إن زيادة الشراكات مع المجموعات خارج هذه المجتمعات، وخاصة مع مقدمي الخدمات غير المحليين، ستكون له تأثيرات هامة على المنظمات التطوعية وصانعي السياسات.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term universality refers to the ability of any resident to access services, regardless of financial or other barriers (Department of Justice 2007).

  2. The “Building Rural Capacity in the New Economy” project, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s (SSHRC) Initiative on the New Economy program, is organized by the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation (CRRF) and carried out by members of its New Rural Economy (NRE) team (http://www.nre.concordia.ca).

  3. The interview methodology and survey were approved by the respective Research Ethics Boards at the University of Northern British Columbia, the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Guelph, and Mount Allison University. In a cover letter accompanying the interviewer, respondents were notified of the ethics review and confidentiality guidelines.

References

  • Apedaile, P. (2004). The new rural economy. In G. Halseth & R. Halseth (Eds.), Building for success: Explorations of rural community and rural development (pp. 111–136). Brandon, Manitoba: Rural Development Institute and Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.

  • Asthana, S., Richardson, S., & Halliday, J. (2002). Partnership working in public policy provision: A framework for evaluation. Social Policy and Administration, 36(7), 780–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attridge, C., Budgen, C., Hilton, A., McDavid, J., Molzahn, A., & Purkis, M. (1997). The Comox Valley Nursing Centre. The Canadian Nurse, February, 34–38.

  • Barnes, T., & Hayter, R. (1992). The little town that could: Flexible accumulation and community change in Chemanius. Regional Studies, 26, 647–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, C., McKeown, L., Davidman, K., McIver, D., & Lasby, D. (2004). The Rural Charitable Sector Research Initiative: A portrait of the non-profit and voluntary sector in rural Ontario. Prepared for the Foundation for Rural Living. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

  • Berman, E., & West, J. (1995). Public-private leadership and the role of non-profit organizations in local government: The case of social services. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1982). The deindustrialization of America: Plant closings, community abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen, W. (2000). Developing partnerships to meet clients’ needs in changing government organizations: A consultative process. Journal of Employment Counselling, 37, 128–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, N. (2003). Public-private partnership? Shifting paradigms of economic governance in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(5), 1005–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D. (2001). The role of small businesses and cooperative businesses in community economic development. Montreal, QC: Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D., & Halseth, G. (2001). The long run role of institutions in fostering community economic development: A comparison of leading and lagging rural communities. Montreal, QC: Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D., Jordan, P., & Halseth, G. (1999). The role of voluntary organizations in rural Canada: Impacts of changing availability of operational, program funding. In B. Reimer (Ed.), Voluntary organizations in rural Canada: Final Report (pp. 2.1–2.52). Montreal, QC: Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnley, C., Matthews, C., & McKenzie, S. (2005). Devolution of services to children and families: The experience of NPOs in Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. Voluntas, 16(1), 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, H. (1990). Urban and rural settlements. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloke, P. (1994). Rural. In R. Johnston, D. Gregory, & D. Smith (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (3rd edition) (pp. 536–537). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, N. (2004). Aspects of partnership in England. The Nonprofit Review, 4(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice Canada (2007). Canada Health Act. Ottawa: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Souza, A. (1990). A geography of world economy. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doloreaux, D. (2002). What we should know about regional systems of innovation. Technology and Society, 24, 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis, V., Beshiri, R., Bollman, R., & Clemenson, H. (2004). Definitions of rural. In G. Halseth & R. Halseth (Eds.), Building for success: Exploration of rural community and rural development (pp. 51–79). Brandon, Manitoba: Rural Development Institute and the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.

  • Eisenhardt, K. (1995). Building theories from case study research. In G. Huber & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organizational change (pp. 65–90). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Fitchen, J. (1991). Endangered spaces, enduring places: Change, identity, and survival in rural America. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furuseth, O. (1998). Service provision and social deprivation. In B. Ilbery (Ed.), The geography of rural change (pp. 233–256). Essex: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, A., & Smith, G. (1985). Residents’ evaluative structures of northern Manitoba mining communities. The Canadian Geographer, 29(1), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Googins, B., & Rochlin, S. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halseth, G. (1999). “We came for the work:” Situating employment migration in B.C.’s small resource-based, communities. The Canadian Geographer, 43(4), 363–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halseth, G., & Ryser, L. (2004). Service provision in rural and small town Canada: A cross-Canada summary report. Montreal, QC: Initiative on the New Economy, project of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halseth, G., & Ryser, L. (2006). Service provision in rural and small town Canada: A cross-Canada summary report. Montreal, QC: Initiative on the New Economy, project of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halseth, G., & Sullivan, L. (1999). Report on the new rural economy: Government funding of community based organizations, Mackenzie and Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. In B. Reimer (Ed.), Voluntary organizations in rural Canada: Final report (pp. 4.37–4.61). Montreal, QC: Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halseth, G., Sullivan, L., & Ryser, L. (2003). Service provision as part of resource town transition planning: A case from Northern British Columbia. In D. Bruce, & G. Lister (Eds.), Opportunities and actions in the new rural economy (pp. 19–46). Sackville, New Brunswick: Rural and Small Town Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halseth, G., & Williams, A. (1999). Guthrie House: A rural community organizing for wellness. Health & Place, 5, 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon, N., & Halseth, G. (2005). The greying of resource communities in Northern British Columbia: Implications for health care delivery in already-underserviced communities. The Canadian Geographer, 49(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (1996). Working together: Key themes in the management of relationships between public and non-profit organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(7), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., & Rasker, R. (1995). The role of economic and quality of life values in rural business location. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(4), 405–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Mandell, M., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konkin, J., Howe, D., & Soles, T. (2004). SRPC policy paper on regionalization, spring 2004. Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, 9(4), 257–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsching, P., El-Ghamrini, S., & Peter, G. (2001). Rural telephone companies: Offering technology innovations to enhance the economic development of communities. Technology and Society, 23, 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroetsch, R. (1993). Alberta. Edmonton: NeWest Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, L., Harlan, S., Bolin, B., Hackett, E., Hope, D., Kirby, A., Nelson, A., Rex, T., & Wolf, S. (2004). Bonding and bridging: Understanding the relationship between social capital and civic action. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leroy, A. (1997). Les activités de service: une chance pour les économies rurales? Vers de nouvelles logiques de développement rural. Collection alternatives rurales. L’Harmattan.

  • Lesky, S., O’Sullivan, E., & Goodman, B. (2001). Local public-non-profit partnerships: Getting better results. Policy & Practice, September, 28–32.

  • Liu, L., Hader, J., Brossart, B., White, R., & Lewis, S. (2001). Impact of rural hospital closures in Saskatchewan, Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 1793–1804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V. (2004). Getting on or getting by? Women, social capital and political participation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, R. (1995). Non-profit organizations and public policy. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddock, S., & Morgan, G. (1998). Barriers to transformation: Beyond bureaucracy and the market conditions for collaboration in health and social care. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(4), 234–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malamud, G. (1984). Boomtown communities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. (1999). Voluntary activity and the state: Commentary and review of the literature relating to the role and impact of government involvement in rural communities in Canada. In B. Reimer (Ed.), Voluntary organizations in rural Canada: Final report (pp. 1.1–1.36). Montreal, QC: Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavrinac, J. (1992). Kirkland Lake. In M. Bray & A. Thomson (Eds.), At the end of the shift: Mines and single-industry towns in Northern Ontario (pp. 149–154). Toronto: Dundurn Press.

  • McDonald, C., & Warburton, J. (2003). Stability and change in nonprofit organizations: The volunteer contribution. Voluntas, 14(4), 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, L. (2002). Information and communication technologies in rural Canada. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, 3(5), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinhard, A., & Foster, M. (2003). Differences in the response of women’s voluntary organizations to shifts in Canadian public policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(3), 366–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milbourne, L., Macrae, S., & Maguire, M. (2003). Collaborative solutions or new policy problems: Exploring multi-agency partnerships in education and health work. Journal of Education Policy, 18(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milewa, T., Dowswell, G., & Harrison, S. (2002). Partnerships, power and the “new” politics of community participation in British health care. Social Policy & Administration, 36(7), 796–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miraftab, F. (2004). Public-private partnerships: The Trojan Horse of neo-liberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S. (2000). Defining the nonprofit sector: Some lessons from history. Voluntas, 11(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, C. (2005). Promising practices in community partnerships: Lessons learned from the Canadian Rural Partnership. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northern and Rural Health Task Force (1995). Report of the Northern and Rural Health Task Force. Victoria, British Columbia: Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

  • Nyland, J. (1995). Issue networks and non-profit organizations. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., & Flynn, N. (1997). Managing the innovative capacity of voluntary and non-profit organizations in the provision of public services. Public Money & Management, October–December, 31–39.

  • Osborne, S., & Murray, V. (2000). Collaboration between non-profit organizations in the provision of social services in Canada: Working together or falling apart? The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, K., & Burdess, N. (2004). New community governance in small rural towns: The Australian experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pongsiri, N. (2002). Regulation and public-private partnerships. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(6/7), 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potapchuk, W., Crocker, J., & Schechter, W. (1997). Building community with social capital: Chits and chums or chats with change. National Civic Review, 86(2), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, B., & Romzek, B. (1996). Accountability expectations in an intergovernmental arena: The National Rural Development Partnership. Publius, 26, 59–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, B. (2002). A sample frame for rural Canada: Design and evaluation. Regional Studies, 36(8), 845–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (1990). Conflict and change in the countryside. New York: Belhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1989). Concepts and themes in the regional geography of Canada. Revised edition. Vancouver: Talonbooks.

  • Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: The role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (1997). Partnerships, community building, and local government. National Civic Review, 86(2), 167–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2001). Available online: http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/define.html

  • Sullivan, L., & Halseth, G. (2004). Responses of volunteer groups in rural Canada to changing funding, service needs: Mackenzie and Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. In G. Halseth & R. Halseth (Eds.), Building for success: Explorations of rural community and rural development (pp. 337–362). Brandon, Manitoba: Rural Development Institute and Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.

  • Swanson, L. (1990). Rethinking assumptions about farm and community. In A. Luloff & L. Swanson (Eds.), American rural communities (pp. 19–33). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

  • Troughton, M. (1999). Redefining “rural” for the twenty-first century. In W. Rampy, J. Kulig, I. Townshend, & V. McGowans (Eds.), Health in rural setting: Contexts for action (pp. 21–38). Lethbridge, Alberta: University of Lethbridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Voort, J., & Meijs, L. (2004). Partnerships in perspective: About sustainable relationships between companies and voluntary organizations. The Nonprofit Review, 4(1), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, E., & Gordon, T. (1999). Voluntary organizations in rural Canada: An education strategy. In B. Reimer (Ed.), Voluntary organizations in rural Canada: Final report (pp. 3.1–3.30). Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation, Concordia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, A. (1998). Social capital and community building: Part two. National Civic Review, 87(4), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windley, P. (1983). Community services in small rural towns: Patterns of use by older residents. The Gerontologist, 23(2), 180–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yegedis, B., Weinbach, R., & Morrison-Rodriguez, B. (1999). Research methods for social workers. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahner, S. (2005). Local public health system partnerships. Public Health Reports, 120, 76–83.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Marie Ryser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Halseth, G., Ryser, L.M. The Deployment of Partnerships by the Voluntary Sector to Address Service Needs in Rural and Small Town Canada. Voluntas 18, 241–265 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-007-9042-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-007-9042-8

Keywords

Navigation