














































2019-CSWR_NewOrder.indd


16 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE: A ROUTE TO SYSTEMS 
CHANGE FOR WOMEN FORMERLY INCARCERATED

KATHERINE SEIBEL

INTRODUCTION 
Women who were formerly incarcerated face a number of interrelated 

inequities and challenges on community reentry, which leads to poor social-
emotional outcomes and increases risk of recidivism. These problems, which 
are compounded for women of color who have been formerly incarcerated 
and which are ultimately deleterious to individuals, communities, and the 
economy, are inadequately addressed by micro-level direct-service delivery 
and traditional solutions like governmental initiatives and nonprofit 
organizations. Because governmental initiatives and nonprofit organizations 
have become inefficient and ineffective in providing solutions to complex 
social problems, it has become imperative for social work professionals to 
investigate alternatives to achieve transformational change for individuals 
and communities. This paper contends that social enterprise is an emerging 
alternative best positioned to address complex challenges faced by women 
who have been formerly incarcerated, especially in mitigating barriers to 
employment and economic mobility. 

Currently, the rate of women incarcerated in the U.S. is at an historic 
high, with the rate of women incarcerated calculated to be 133 per 100,000 
residents (Kajstura, 2018). This rate is likely lower than the true rate of 
women who are incarcerated due to imprecise data collection, as criminal 
justice data collection does not always differentiate among individuals based 
on gender or include categories beyond the male/female binary (Kajstura, 
2018). Further, collecting data on individuals who have been formerly 
incarcerated can be challenging due to situational and environmental 
obstacles such as housing insecurity, recidivism, or mental health challenges 
(Western, 2018). A “catch-22” situation emerges after incarceration, as 
economic resources are necessary for formerly incarcerated people to 
move forward, and yet safe, adequate employment is often out of reach. 
While employment is critical to economic wellbeing and stability in our 
society, people who have been incarcerated often find it is difficult to find 
employment with a criminal record, particularly in the first year following 
release, and they also face other structural and complex social, emotional, 
and environmental difficulties (Western, 2018). In a 2015 survey, 75% of 
participants who had formerly been incarcerated reported that finding 
employment was “very difficult” or “near impossible” with a criminal record 
(Ajunwa & Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). Indeed, the Prison Policy Initiative 
estimated that the unemployment rate of formerly incarcerated individuals 
is over 27%, greater than unemployment during the Great Depression 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X | 17 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

(Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Moreover, available employment opportunities 
may be inconsistent or provide income inadequate for supporting oneself 
or a household without governmental assistance (Western, 2018). Western 
(2018) found that within the first year after release, an individual’s median 
income was nearly half of the federal poverty line amount for single adults, 
at $6,428. 

When women who have been formerly incarcerated obtain 
employment, the work is often highly supervised as a condition of release, 
which is inextricably entangled with negative societal perceptions about 
the individual’s moral character (Gurusami, 2017). When individuals who 
have been formerly incarcerated are employed, they may be vulnerable to 
exploitation in the labor market (Gurusami, 2017; Zatz et al., 2016). It has 
been shown that the majority of individuals released after incarceration 
are motivated to find work and that in cases where an individual finds 
opportunity for skilled and sustainable employment, economic stability 
is possible and positive social and emotional outcomes often result 
(Western, 2018). Individuals who have a criminal record have a lower rate 
of job turnover, which could be cost-saving for employers (American Civil 
Liberties Union, 2017). Yet many public programs do not specifically target 
services to adults who were formerly incarcerated, which makes the reentry 
process all the more challenging (Western, 2018).

Some of the biggest obstacles to economic security are the constraints 
in obtaining employment that result from having a criminal record, 
including disclosure and professional qualification requirements common 
in both the public and private sectors (Ajunwa & Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). 
The lack of employment opportunities has negative spillover effects, 
including increased difficulty obtaining social welfare benefits (Seccombe 
et al., 1998). Formerly incarcerated individuals who have been recently 
released are also 10 times more likely to experience homelessness. Women 
are, on average, more likely to experience greater rates of homelessness 
than men (Couloute, 2018). Individuals who have been incarcerated would 
benefit from multisystem supports, including housing, physical health, and 
mental health services (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Given that the majority of 
individuals recently released from incarceration are motivated to find work 
(Western, 2018), providing wraparound services and improving access to 
employment opportunities can meet demand and ultimately help expand 
economic growth. More support and accessible opportunity must be created 
in order to help improve reentry process and outcomes.

Women who have been formerly incarcerated face prejudice, 
discrimination, and barriers to obtaining employment and resources 
in our society, and these are compounded at the intersection of race and 
gender (Couloute & Kopf, 2018; Gurusami, 2017). Of individuals formerly 
incarcerated, Black women have faced the highest unemployment rate 
compared with men and White women (Couloute & Kopf, 2017). In one 



18 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X 

study that examined the influences of race, gender, and criminal record on 
the hiring process, race and criminal record appeared to negatively impact 
the responses that women applicants received to online job applications, 
whereas there were no significant findings for men in this stage of the hiring 
process (Decker et al., 2014). 

CURRENT BARRIERS TO FUNDING  
SYSTEMIC SOCIAL CHANGE 

Criminal justice reform is necessary; however, achieving and 
implementing broad reformation in law and policy is a long, complex, and 
uncertain process. As we work towards larger-scale reform, something 
must be done in the interim to address the needs of women who have been 
formerly incarcerated. Examining the historical trajectory of responsibility 
for direct-service allocation can provide insight into current barriers 
to systemic change. Some economists contend that the U.S. runs on the 
economic principle that when markets in the private sector fail, the 
government has the ability or duty to intervene to provide resources that 
maintain or improve economic stability and societal wellbeing (Krugman & 
Wells, 2018). With the implementation of the New Deal, the U.S. government 
provided services to improve the wellbeing of society after the Great 
Depression devastated individuals, families, and communities nationwide 
(Gilmore, 2017). However, over time, the government slowly withdrew from 
providing direct services as this approach fell out of favor as a means of 
addressing large-scale social problems (Gilmore, 2017; Kivel, 2017).  

In response to this change, nonprofit organizations emerged to take 
on the responsibility of providing direct human services (Gilmore, 2017). 
The shift in responsibility for direct-service provision and the emergence 
of nonprofit organizations allowed the government to step into a regulatory 
role that oversees the nonprofit sector’s provision of services (Kivel, 
2017). The structural shift towards state regulation of nonprofit entities 
created formalized standards for the nonprofit sector (Gilmore, 2017). 
The formalized relationship between public and nonprofit sectors means 
that nonprofits must abide by the rules that govern the allocation of public 
funds (Gilmore, 2017). Public funds, influenced by politics and legislative 
cycles, limit and moderate the change that nonprofits can achieve, because 
restrictions tied to financial support are set by the government and those 
in power (Gilmore, 2017).

In the United States, there are currently more than two million 
nonprofit organizations, which are now commonly considered a leading way 
to address societal problems and improve access to resources for people who 
have been marginalized (Gilmore, 2017; Reilly, 2016). It is estimated that 
government support makes up one third of a typical nonprofit organization’s 
revenue (Saunji, 2015). Moreover, many nonprofit organizations rely 
on government funding for their free or low-cost services, which is 
unsustainable (Reilly, 2016). Traditional nonprofit funding, such as reliance 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X | 19 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

on foundation grants and government resources, can present limitations to 
macro-level social change due to funding biases, funding requirements, and 
a tendency to focus on shorter-term, specific projects (Kivel, 2017). These 
restrictions help perpetuate the Nonprofit Industrial Complex, a paradoxical 
structure that unfortunately and unintentionally upholds the very systems 
that these organizations set out to change (Kivel, 2017). This happens 
when organizations must rely on funding sources that may support those 
specific projects but that are opposed to creating systemic social change. As 
available government support is limited, nonprofit organizations need to 
find innovative strategies to obtain funding for their services (Defourny & 
Nyssens, 2010). Kivel (2017) notes that funding regulations limit nonprofit 
groups to providing direct services without providing resources to achieve 
transformational, systemic social change. In the same vein, the obstacle 
of securing funding is often challenging and primarily project-based, with 
time-consuming and restrictive requirements, which make it less feasible 
for nonprofit organizations to take action on larger system changes (Kivel, 
2017). 

Another factor that can inhibit social change work is reliance on funding 
from private grants and donors (Kivel, 2017). Individuals with higher 
amounts of wealth make up only 20% of the population, yet they control 
91% of the nation’s wealth (Kivel, 2017). Typically, individuals in the U.S. 
with a great amount of financial wealth are able to make larger, and therefore 
more impactful, financial donations. The professional and owner classes in 
our society choose where, if at all, to donate their money, impacting which 
organizations receive funding, how funding is allocated, and what the 
recipients must do to maintain the funding (Kivel, 2017). Thus, relying on 
wealthy donors to provide funding for the common good maintains power 
disparities.

Finally, it is pertinent to ask: When funding is received, who controls it? 
Government or donor-provided funding is intended to aid those individuals 
or groups that a nonprofit serves, but it is usually the case that the people 
intended to receive the benefit of the funding have no control over it 
(Kivel, 2017). The intended recipients’ lack of opportunities to influence 
funding decisions is a perpetuation of oppression against groups already 
marginalized in society. Social enterprises focused on work support would 
have the ability to transfer equity to a more diverse range of recipients and 
to better empower the individuals they aim to support.

If organizations involved in the private sector prioritize making a 
positive social impact, they have the opportunity to leverage resources to 
support self-sustaining entities that can make change for the individual and 
to macro-level systems. Still, at its core, capitalism creates marginalization 
because it often fails to include or prioritize socially conscious 
considerations or decision-making in the interest of making a short-
term profit (Mullaly & Dupré, 2018). Gurusami (2017) calls attention to 



20 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

intersectional capitalism, the intersection of race and gender identities with 
the marginalizing forces of capitalism, in regard to formerly incarcerated 
women of color. Through intersectional capitalism, the state uses race 
and gender to exploit capital from women of color who were previously 
incarcerated by restricting employment opportunities to low-paid, grueling 
work that inhibits upward mobility, and then the state attributes individuals’ 
economic failings to character flaws (Gurusami, 2017). In this process, 
the labor of women of color is molded to fit the state’s desire for low-cost 
labor, as well as to meet the status quo expectations of race and gender 
roles (Gurusami, 2017). Cementing this system’s power is the surveillance 
over these individuals that threatens reincarceration if conditional-release 
employment requirements are not met (Gurusami, 2017; Zatz et al., 2016).

SYSTEMIC CHANGE IS CRUCIAL AND TIMELY 
Strong economic arguments can be made for expanding support 

and employment opportunities for individuals who have been formerly 
incarcerated, including a recent report that suggests that a majority of 
consumers want products that are socially conscious and that also suggests 
that among millennial consumers, how a company makes its profits has 
become increasingly important (Asmus, 2018; Nielsen Company, 2015). 
Given these trends and the devastating economic and social impact of 
mass incarceration, this is a critical time for implementing sustainable 
structures, informed by social consciousness, in  private-sector activities 
in order to advance social justice action and increase access to resources 
for marginalized populations. Increased inclusion of formerly incarcerated 
individuals in the workforce could increase the U.S. gross national product 
by an estimated $78 billion to $85 billion (ACLU, 2017). 

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE 
Social enterprise initiatives can effectively address challenges faced by 

formerly incarcerated women through the creation of safe and supportive 
employment opportunities (Ajunwa & Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). The goal 
of social enterprise implementation is to create a sustainable source of 
revenue, often through commercial market activity, that is used to provide 
direct services, employment support, or reinvestment in a community or 
social change goal (Kerlin, 2018). Developing social enterprises that employ 
women who have been formerly incarcerated is one way to disrupt systems 
that limit change to the status quo. Social enterprises that offer employment 
opportunities to women who are formerly incarcerated, alongside holistic 
wraparound multilevel supports, create sustained opportunity for economic 
mobility in a way that the government and nonprofit organizations are 
simply not positioned to do. Given that social enterprises move in the 
for-profit sphere, they are better positioned to take quick, bold action in 
hiring practices, for example, and to develop supportive services that can 
be sustainably funded with generated revenue. This approach could create 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X | 21 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

immediate and lasting social change that advances economic opportunities 
for those who are marginalized by capitalism and who face challenges in 
accessing economic mobility.

Initially, it may seem counterintuitive to invite the private sector to 
address economic and social disparities that the private sector has helped to 
create. However, social enterprises are legally protected to focus on a social 
impact goal rather than to prioritize profit or economic returns for their 
shareholders alone (Reilly, 2016). In the U.S., 33 states have already passed 
social enterprise legislation, predominantly through Benefit Corporation (B 
Corp) statutes (Mirzanian, 2015). Social Purpose Corporations (SPC) and 
Low-Profit Limited Liability Corporations (L3C) also exist and differ in the 
extents to which they define their public benefit goals, are held accountable 
for social impact, are eligible for tax relief, and are evaluated by a third party 
(Mirzanian, 2015). Social enterprise frameworks vary across states, which 
yields pros and cons; implementation and regulation are not uniform, but 
variation in state economies and culture can promote innovative social 
enterprise strategies that flourish in different environments. The practical 
development in each locality and region is best based upon local cultural, 
economic, and historical factors (Kerlin, 2013). By using a multidisciplinary, 
institutional framework (Kerlin, 2013), we can understand how to best use 
social enterprises in a particular social climate in order to create system 
change.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISE 
Social enterprise initiatives can effectively address challenges faced by 

formerly incarcerated women through the creation of safe and supportive 
employment opportunities (Ajunwa & Onwuachi-Willig, 2018). The goal 
of social enterprise implementation is to create a sustainable source of 
revenue, often through commercial market activity, that is used to provide 
direct services, employment support, or reinvestment in a community or 
social change goal (Kerlin, 2018). Developing social enterprises that employ 
women who have been formerly incarcerated is one way to disrupt systems 
that limit change to the status quo. Social enterprises that offer employment 
opportunities to women who are formerly incarcerated, alongside holistic 
wraparound multilevel supports, create sustained opportunity for economic 
mobility in a way that the government and nonprofit organizations are 
simply not positioned to do.

One must take care to understand oppressive hiring and employment 
systems when implementing social enterprise initiatives, in order to 
avoid recreating and perpetuating these dynamics. Social enterprises that 
focus on employment support and economic mobility must be voluntary 
to prevent coercion, and must have internal policies informed by a 
person-centered, trauma-informed, and strengths-based approach, with 
employment opportunities and support at every level of the organization. 
Social enterprises that create employment for formerly incarcerated women 



22 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

should actively work against exploitative intersectional capitalism dynamics 
and should strategically plan viable, sustainable, stable economic growth for 
the women employed in a market that has traditionally served to marginalize 
them in multiple compounding ways.

Due to the fact that the job opportunities accessible to people with a 
criminal record can be limited and low paying (Gurusami, 2017; Ajunwa 
& Onwuachi-Willig, 2018), it will be important to set a higher standard for 
compensation in order to actively work against what have been exploitative 
environments. In the same vein, social enterprises have great potential 
to positively impact the job market for formerly incarcerated women. 
Rather than waiting for legislation to create and implement fair and just 
employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated women, social 
enterprises can more expediently change hiring policies and implement 
supportive employment practices within their own entities. Because the risk 
of unemployment is highest shortly after release (Couloute & Kopf, 2018; 
Western, 2018), integrating proactive outreach, nondiscriminatory hiring 
policies, and long-term job supports within the social enterprise will be key.

Another consideration is to institute subsidies meant for wages at social 
enterprises, similar to the social enterprise models commonly used in Spain 
(Fisac & Moreno-Romero, 2015), that support the social enterprise’s growth, 
social impact, and ability to fairly compensate employees. As a part of the 
long-term job support, revenue generated by the social enterprises can fund 
self-sustaining, quality services that could be used to provide therapeutic, 
case management, and child care services. Such services would be exempt 
from outside limitations in funding and would help to fill gaps in access to 
needed social support while making employment more accessible. Finally, 
an internal policy must be in place that provides an opportunity for role and 
wage development should employees desire growth.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND LIKE  
MODELS IN PRACTICE

There are currently more opportunities than ever to harness social 
enterprise and like models that center the people who receive services, 
in order to create true systems change. Unlocked Futures, an accelerator 
program, invests in criminal-justice-related for-profit and nonprofit 
organizations that are led by individuals with lived experience in the 
criminal justice system (Klintworth, 2017). Unlocked Futures has invested 
in Clean Decisions, founded by Will Avila, with its sister nonprofit, Changing 
Perceptions, which offers economic opportunity to individuals in the 
reentry process through employment in a supportive setting with access 
to free mental health and community supports (Klintworth, 2017; Clean 
Decisions, n.d.). Chrysalis, a social enterprise organization in California, is 
another exemplary organization that offers tangible and holistic support to 
people who face barriers to employment. As an organization, Chrysalis offers 
programs for job preparedness, tangible resources necessary for partaking in 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X | 23 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

the job search, mental health services, and women’s empowerment programs, 
to name a few (Chrysalis, 2019). Chrysalis Enterprises is a transitional job 
program under the Chrysalis organization that provides employment and 
professional development support as individuals who previously faced 
barriers to work enter the workforce (Chrysalis, 2019). In its most recent  
annual report available, for the year 2017, Chrysalis reported that it had 
helped 2,800 people to secure employment and that over 70% of Chrysalis 
participants retained employment six months after hire (Chrysalis, 2019). 
Outside the U.S., East Van Roasters in British Columbia, Canada, is a coffee 
and chocolate business that supportively employs women who are in a 
residential addiction recovery program (East Van Roasters, 2019).

The FareStart and Clubhouse models are not legally defined as social 
enterprises but can be incorporated into an effective social initiative to serve 
formerly incarcerated women. FareStart is a Seattle-based restaurant and 
job training organization that facilitates job training and placement in the 
restaurant industry for individuals who are experiencing homelessness or 
have been incarcerated. All revenue from the restaurant goes directly back 
to the programs serving the participants (FareStart, 2018). David Lee, the 
founder of FareStart, reports that consumers expect that businesses will take 
the lead on creating change and also asserts that this environment enables 
social enterprises to be a sustainable source of positive change (Lee, 2017).   

Another avenue for social change affecting the individual on both a 
micro and macro level is the Clubhouse Model. Certified Clubhouses are 
spaces for individuals with behavioral health conditions to get involved 
with community, social, emotional, and vocational opportunities. Clubhouse 
programs have empirically demonstrated their ability to help participants 
avoid hospitalization or incarceration and to help them achieve their social, 
financial, educational, and employment goals (Clubhouse International, 
2018). Because FareStart and the Clubhouse models have a focus on 
economic opportunity and mobility as well as supportive employment that 
leads to positive social-emotional outcomes, these models can be platforms 
for further consideration of how to increase the effectiveness of social 
enterprise operations.

 



24 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

CONCLUSION
Social enterprises, if held accountable for their goals of social impact, 

can increase the flow of resources to people who have been marginalized 
by capitalism. When revenue is generated by the social enterprise, the 
organization can fund its own quality supportive services for its employee-
participants in addition to providing employee-participants the benefit 
of having access to a stable, livable income. Self-funded services would 
give employee-participants an economic stake and influence over the 
service conception and delivery. Engaging in social change through 
social enterprises will enable populations that continue to experience 
marginalization and oppression to drive the care they receive and to access 
tangible benefits with opportunities for economic growth. In sum, we have 
hope and also have a responsibility to change the status quo for women who 
are formerly incarcerated, and in social enterprise, we have an actionable 
path forward to achieving this change. 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X | 25 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

REFERENCES
Ajunwa, I., & Onwuachi-Willig, A. (2018). Combating discrimination against the 

formerly incarcerated in the labor market. Northwestern University Law 
Review, 112, 1385–1415. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.
northwestern.edu/nulr/vol112/iss6/6/

American Civil Liberties Union. (2017). Back to business: How hiring formerly 
incarcerated job seekers benefits your company (Report from the Trone Private 
Sector and Education Advisory Council). Retrieved from https://www.aclu.
org/sites/default/files/field_document/060917-trone-reportweb_0.pdf

Asmus, K. (2018). Finding the Benefit in a New Administration: A Uniform B 
Corporation Legislation. The Journal of Corporate Law, 43(2), 375. Retrieved 
from https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jcorl43&i=401

Chrysalis. (2019). Our Program. Retrieved from https://changelives.org/our-
program/

Clean Decisions (n.d.). Clean Decisions LLC. Retrieved from https://www.
cleandecisions.com/ 

Clubhouse International. (2018). International standards for clubhouse programs. 
Retrieved from http://clubhouse-intl.org/resources/quality-standards/

Couloute, L. (2018). Nowhere to go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people. 
Retrieved from Prison Policy Initiative website: https://www.prisonpolicy.
org/reports/housing.html

Couloute, L. & Kopf, D. (2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among 
formerly incarcerated people. Retrieved from Prison Policy Initiative website: 
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html

Decker, S., Spohn, C., Ortiz, N., & Hedberg, E. (2014). Criminal stigma, race, 
gender, and employment: An expanded assessment of the consequences of 
imprisonment for employment (Final Report to the National Institute 
of Justice 2010-MU-MU-0004). Retrieved from the National Criminal 
Justice Reference Service website: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
grants/244756.pdf

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2019). Conceptions of social enterprise in Europe: A 
comparative perspective with the United States. In B. Gidron, & Y. Hasenfeld  
(Eds.), Social Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective (pp. 71-99). 
London, Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137035301

East Van Roasters. (2019). East Van Roasters - Artisan Chocolate & Coffee. Retrieved 
from https://www.phs.ca/project/east-van-roasters/

FareStart. (2018). FareStart About. Retrieved from https://www.farestart.org/about
Fisac, R., & Moreno-Romero, A. (2015). Understanding social enterprise country 

models: Spain. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(2), 156–177. doi:10.1108/SEJ-
02-2014-0012



26 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

Gilmore, R. (2017). In the shadow of the shadow state. In INCITE! (Ed.), The 
revolution will not be funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex (pp. 
47–52). Durham, NC: Duke University. 

Gurusami, S. (2017). Working for redemption: Formerly incarcerated Black women 
and punishment in the labor market. Gender and Society, 31, 433–456. 
doi:10.1177/0891243217716114

Kajstura, A. (2018). States of women’s incarceration: The global context 2018. 
Retrieved from Prison Policy Initiative website: https://www.prisonpolicy.
org/global/women/2018.html

Kerlin, J. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual 
framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector 
Quarterly, 42(1), 84–108. 

Kerlin, J. (2018). Social Enterprise: What the U.S. and European experience can 
teach us - And where to now? Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from https://
nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/07/12/social-enterprise-what-the-u-s-and-
european-experience-can-teach-us-and-where-to-now/ 

Kivel, P. (2017). Social service or social change. In INCITE! (Ed.) The revolution 
will not be funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex (pp. 129–149). 
Durham, NC: Duke University.

Klintworth, J. (2017). New Profit, John Legend’s Free America, and Bank of America 
announce First Unlocked Futures Entrepreneurs [blog entry]. Amplify Blog: 
Insights and Ideas from New Profit. Retrieved from http://blog.newprofit.org/
amplify/first-group-of-unlocked-futures-entrepreneurs-announced

Krugman, P., & Wells, R. (2018).  Economics (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers, 
Macmillan Learning.

Lee, D. (2017, December 11). Washington state’s social purpose corporations making 
impact on the world and businesses. Puget Sound Business Journal. Retrieved 
from https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/12/11/washington-
state-s-social-purpose-corporations.html

Mirzanian, S. (2015). Washington’s social purpose corporation: Creating 
accountability for corporations or simply providing a halo to undeserving 
corporations? Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, 5(1), 256–278. 
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjel/vol5/iss1/10/

Mullaly, B., & Dupré, M. (2018). The social work vision: A progressive view. The New 
Structural Social Work Ideology, Theory and Practice (pp. 29-76). Don Mills, 
Ontario, Canada: Oxford University.

Nielsen Company. (2015). The Sustainability Imperative. Retrieved from https://
www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/the-sustaina bility-
imperative.html



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. X | 27 

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE
Reilly, T. (2016). Are social enterprises viable models for funding nonprofits? Human 

Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40, 297–301. 
doi:10.1080/23303131.2016.1165047

Saunji, F. (2015). Nonprofit-government contracts and grants: The state agency 
perspective. Retrieved from the Urban Institute website: https://www.urban.
org/research/publication/nonprofit-government-contracts-and-grants-
state-agency-perspective

Seccombe, K., Delores, J., & Walters, K. (1998). “They think you ain’t much of 
nothing”: The social construction of the welfare mother. Journal of Marriage 
and the Family, 60(4), 849–865. doi:10.2307/353629

Western, B. (2018). Homeward: Life in the year after prison. New York: 
Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/10.7758/9781610448710

Zatz, N., Koonse, T., Zhen, T., Herrera, L., Lu, H., Shafer, S., & Valenta, B. (2016). Get to 
work or go to jail: Workplace rights under threat (UCLA School of Law Public 
Law Research Paper No. 16-24). Los Angeles: UCLA Institute for Research on 
Labor and Employment, UCLA Labor Center, & A New Way of Life Reentry 
Project. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=2774528

KATHERINE SEIBEL is a second year, online policy student in the field of 
child and family services. At her current practicum, she does policy analysis 
of mental health legislation, tracks bills, and conducts research reviews.


