Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship in social work is vital to finding innovative, creative, and long-term solutions to complex and persistent social problems. Among all social workers, community social workers are the ones who are most expected to be innovative and entrepreneurial. This study explored the motivations for engaging in social entrepreneurship, as well as the action strategies adopted by community social workers who successfully implemented social innovations within the social services where they work. Research findings revealed five action strategies that have the potential to promote successful social ventures; a combination of individual and organizational characteristics motivates entrepreneurial behavior in social work.

Keywords

Community social workers innovation social entrepreneurship social work welfare services

Introduction

For over a century, community social workers have played a powerful role in addressing individual and group crises (Itzhaky and York, 2002; Rothman, 2007). They identify individual and community needs; strengthen participation in community activities; connect individuals to systems that provide resources, services, and opportunities; and work to improve community quality of life (Boehm and Cnaan, 2012; Brueggemann, 2014; Gilboa and Weiss-Gal, 2022; Sawyer and Brady, 2020).

In Israel, community social workers are employed in public service agencies in local authorities throughout the country. They are subject to policies set by the Community Social Work Services, a governmental unit under the Ministry of Welfare and Social Services. As part of these policies, social workers are required to provide effective responses to the complex challenges faced by disadvantaged and vulnerable populations in society. They are also expected to create sustainable change within communities (Itzhaky and Bustin, 2018). Despite the importance of these expectations, social work researchers around the world have been less actively involved in researching methods of social entrepreneurship (Berzin, 2012; Nandan et al., 2015). Thus, in practice, there is lack of knowledge about innovative and entrepreneurial community social workers, and it is therefore necessary to gain an understanding of innovative ways to create interventions that can potentially improve community quality of life.

The present study examines the motivations for engaging in social entrepreneurship as well as the action strategies adopted by community social workers who have successfully implemented social innovations within the social service in which they are employed. The objective is to demonstrate and draw conclusions on how social workers can create innovative entrepreneurial interventions to deal with social challenges in Israel and the rest of the world.

The role of community work in social entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship, sometimes referred to in the literature as social innovation, is an integral part of social work, with much research encouraging social workers to initiate new entrepreneurial interventions (Bent-Goodley, 2002; Chandra and Shang, 2021; Kajiita and Kang’ethe, 2021; Nandan et al., 2015). Across social work fields globally, social entrepreneurship is rooted in professional codes of ethics (e.g. British Association of Social Workers [BASW], 2021; Israel Association of Social Workers [ISASW], 2018; National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2017), curriculum policy statements (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2015), and broader disciplinary values of service, social justice, and competence (Neal, 2015).

Social entrepreneurship refers to actions taken by social workers who observe that a sub-population could be better served through specific and separate interventional care. These social workers devise groundbreaking, innovative models of care and promote implementation either within or beyond the social service agencies where they work (Cnaan and Vinokur-Kaplan, 2014; Nouman and Cnaan, 2021). These and similar definitions (Bent-Goodley, 2002; Nandan and Scott, 2013) refer to social entrepreneurship as a practice among social workers that is carried out as an integral part of their professional activity, in all areas of practice, to address social issues through innovative solutions and transformative interventions toward social change.

Extant literature on social entrepreneurship emphasizes the central role of community social workers as social entrepreneurs, working through community collaborations to create empowering environments for residents (Nandan et al., 2015). Nandan et al. (2014) argued that macro-level interventions, which include community organizing, community planning, community development, and policy practice, may be considered social entrepreneurship, provided that social workers adopt innovative social change strategies.

The precedence of these models and programs distinguishes social entrepreneurship from other macro social activities, as these new initiatives are aimed at improving services to known clients or offering help to unknown populations in need. Entrepreneurship can take many forms, but it requires a creative approach to implementing the solution, such as changing organizational structure, innovative ways of pooling resources, or implementing action strategies in innovative ways (Nouman and Cnaan, 2021). This article focuses on social workers who developed such innovative services within the social services in which they were employed.

Researchers emphasize that social workers are well-positioned to advance social entrepreneurship due to their proactivity and flexibility, their proclivity for risk-taking, and their ability to create sustainable community change within the evolving demands of a given context (Dominelli, 2004). In addition, social workers are able to balance the personal and community needs of the various stakeholders involved in social enterprises (Germak and Singh, 2010).

Social entrepreneurship is a collaborative process that engages community members with a shared interest in creation and management of the new social enterprise (Haugh, 2007). Community member involvement supports a more tailored and community-driven response, builds community capabilities, and generates social capital among community members. Social workers who adopt social entrepreneurship in community practice increase social awareness and strengthen community participation in creating and implementing solutions that improve community quality of life (Sadan, 2012). In fact, as social entrepreneurs, community social workers are expected to constantly engage in innovation in order to create sustainable change within communities (Nandan et al., 2014). However, this expectation is rarely fulfilled.

Despite the important role of community work in social entrepreneurship, some argue that employment of community social workers in government institutions (i.e. public welfare services in local authorities) or in nonprofit organizations actually inhibits social entrepreneurship (Schram, 2015). Indeed, initiatives for institutional community activities are often directed ‘from above’, with the goals of promoting social order, political stability, consensus building, and conflict resolution (Korazim-Körösy, 2000). It is further argued that social entrepreneurship within public services may be limited by structural conditions and institutional factors beyond the control of community social workers. For example, the reluctance of governments to cede power inhibits social entrepreneurship in local welfare (Sinclair et al., 2018). Furthermore, most high-ranking civil servants prefer path dependence and minimal conflict with elected officials, and consequently diminish social entrepreneurship in their departments.

However, insights from institutional theory challenge this point of view. Institutional theory emphasizes the influence of organizational norms, values, and beliefs on individual behavior (Bruton et al., 2010; Meyer and Rowan, 1977), suggesting that public service members acquire values and insights through a cognitive process (Hoffman, 1999). Actors within a given institutional environment may adopt alternative ways of behaving in order to survive (Thoenig, 2012). The role of social workers as change agents has become essential (Lombard and Wairire, 2010) because of their ability to instigate change (Battilana et al., 2009) and challenge institutions to improve processes and solutions through entrepreneurship (De Corte et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important that social workers employed within an institutional environment adopt an entrepreneurial approach and create innovative solutions to challenging social problems.

Study context: Community social workers within social services

In Israel, community social workers employed in public social services in the local authorities throughout the country are required to develop new and creative programs to provide an adequate response to the complex social problems faced by individuals, families, groups, and communities (Boehm and Cohen, 2012; Itzhaky and Bustin, 2018). This situation may encourage social workers to act as social entrepreneurs in accordance with national policy. However, the heavy burden placed on social services, in light of economic, cultural, ideological, and political transformations, motivates many social workers to focus on responding to urgent situations that require immediate attention and partial coverage of the needs of some of the populations in need (Katan, 2012).

The complexity of engaging in intra-institutional social entrepreneurship, along with the understanding that social entrepreneurship in social work is a necessity in the current era, in which it is required to provide innovative, creative, and long-term solutions to complex and ongoing social problems, was a starting point for the present study. The study emphasizes the need to strengthen the engagement of community social workers in social entrepreneurship by understanding the motivations for engaging in entrepreneurship and the action strategies adopted by social workers in welfare services to promote social enterprises. This body of knowledge, as noted, is very limited, and the issues at the center of this research have not been empirically examined to the best of our knowledge. The insights gained from this study will likely stimulate discussions about the need for paradigm shifts in social work in Israel and other countries around the world.

Method

Empirical context and data collection

A qualitative paradigm based on constructivist theory was chosen for this research, emphasizing a holistic understanding of phenomena and the importance of context in interpretation (Charmaz, 2014). The aim of the study is to describe, as objectively as possible, the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship through the experiences and views of community social workers in Israel who were engaged in forming innovative successful social services to assist needy populations. These social workers were not randomly selected but were selected based on their active involvement in social entrepreneurship.

Purposive and snowball sampling were combined in this study to identify potential participants. The inclusion criterion for the sample was community social workers in government welfare services who have devised, developed, and implemented groundbreaking models for dealing with complex social problems presently unaddressed by state institutions. Potential interviewees were identified by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services, who provided contact details for social workers who established social enterprises. The Recanati-Kop-Rashi Award Association (2018) online database was also used to search for entrepreneurial social workers.

The sample was based on interviews with 28 community social workers, 78 percent of whom were women between the ages of 27 and 58, with seniority in social work ranging from 5 to 35 years. Two-thirds were Jews (N = 18) and one-third were Arabs (N = 10). Participants were employed in social services departments diverse in size, geographical location, and socio-economic ranking.

Research ethics

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the first author’s university. Throughout all stages of research, meticulous adherence to ethical obligations was maintained. Participation was voluntary and included signing an informed consent form. To protect participant identity and data, identifying information was separated from the interview content. In the presentation of findings below, participant names and identifying information were changed to ensure anonymity. In addition, any identifying information on social enterprise characteristics or local authorities was removed. The social initiatives were diverse, including solutions for children, youth, and people with disabilities; technological initiatives for service accessibility; initiatives for underprivileged populations; and initiatives to make services available and accessible in various cultural contexts.

Research tools and data analysis

An integrative interview guide was developed based on existing knowledge in the literature and in consultation with three community social workers engaged in social entrepreneurship. Interviews included the following questions: Can you describe the social enterprises you have developed as part of your role in the social services? What are the goals of the social enterprise? What is the target population of the social enterprise? What are factors that motivated you to promote the social enterprise? What action strategies did you use to promote and implement the social enterprise? Interviews were conducted from June 2019 to April 2020. In accordance with the participants’ preference, half of the interviews were conducted face-to-face, and half were conducted via Zoom video meetings. Each interview lasted between 1 and 2 hours. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Interview transcriptions were analyzed according to content analysis principles based on constructive grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). This process included several stages. First, all interviews were read from beginning to end, and open coding was performed for the units that emerged from each interview. Second, concepts and categories extracted from each interview were examined, while consolidating several categories into a theme. This was followed by axial coding to compare and connect categories and identify themes across interviews. The analysis continued until no new themes emerged (Green and Thorogood, 2009).

Findings

Figure 1 presents the motivations and strategies for social entrepreneurship in community social work.

Figure 1.

The motivations and strategies for social entrepreneurship in community social work.

Motives for establishing social enterprises

Professional ideology for social change

The most prominent motive for initiation of social enterprises, as reported by the participants, was a professional ideology for social change. In almost all interviews, community social workers criticized local governments or state institutions for failing to meet the needs of vulnerable populations or for implementing responses that were not tailored to the needs of the population. This perspective led social workers to promote alternative programs aimed at addressing social problems in innovative and creative ways. As noted by Adi, who established a municipal social enterprise for stateless refugees as part of her work in the local welfare services:

The city has a new community of Eritreans with over 500 inhabitants. The decision-makers in the city ignore this population, even though it has a lot of problems. My role as a community social worker is to establish a center that will provide appropriate services for this population through medical students, student nurses, or groups of young people and volunteers who do not belong to state-based registered bodies. If it were not for entrepreneurship, this population would remain constantly marginalized, excluded, and untreated. (Interview 5)

As evidenced by the interviews, social entrepreneurship is an integral part of the work of community social workers and an essential way to provide an accessible, available, and tailored service to the needs and characteristics of the clients. As Dalia reported,

The thought is always how I, as a community worker, come and go beyond working with the individual or the community, but rather create a new reality within the framework of my service that will address the needs of the community in a more tailored way. (Interview 11)

Many participants also emphasized social justice as a motivation for promoting social enterprises that reduce social disparities. For example, David, a social worker who promoted a community project in his city for ultra-Orthodox Jews who have left Orthodoxy, emphasized the following perceptions:

My venture started after I heard and saw many cases of parents who cut all contact with the person who left Orthodoxy and threw him out of the house. He wants to move on but has no way to do so and nowhere to go, and he doesn’t know where to start. We’ve built an enterprise that explains the employment market even before they decide to leave the Orthodox community, so they know what their rights are and how to look for work. It is part of my job to reduce social disparities. To act as an entrepreneur, you need to perceive injustices and from there act for social change. (Interview 18)

Self-efficacy in influencing social change processes

Confidence in one’s ability to influence social change processes also served as a motivator for social entrepreneurship. Interviewees reported that their perception of self-efficacy stemmed from personal resources such as the knowledge and skills required to advance social enterprises. For example, interviewees noted knowledge and skills about community practice (i.e. ways to build and organize communities, ways to strengthen communities and improve their coping ability); knowledge of how to plan social initiatives (i.e. what to do at various stages); and knowledge of social policy (i.e. how to strive for change within the organization and identify forces that promote and inhibit the process). For example, Shadi described how self-efficacy motivated social entrepreneurship for young people from Arab society:

You need to have the resources, knowledge, and skills to change the paradigm and thinking required to promote a social enterprise. I took many courses in community work, and I also participated in meetings and discussions about policy and social entrepreneurship. I wanted to use this knowledge to do something different – something innovative that would change the reality of the young population here in the city. (Interview 7)

A number of participants emphasized that their self-efficacy stemmed from their leadership skills and the ability to deal with barriers and objections impeding the implementation of social entrepreneurship. Dalia described an initiative to promote the employment of uneducated women:

Social entrepreneurship leads to change, and therefore it requires the ability to push people away and deal with objections. The more I experienced opposition to the idea of the initiative, the more it strengthened my perception of my ability to cope and the desire to succeed in advancing the enterprise and not give up. (Interview 20)

Previous experience in social entrepreneurship in professional and personal contexts was revealed in the interviews as promoting the perception of self-efficacy and motivating social entrepreneurship. Ruth related this to messages received at home, including basic assumptions, social values, and norms of behavior:

The message at home is that you constantly need to work, be strong, and prove yourself. No one will do it for you; you need to promote change and prove yourself. So, I had to bring those life lessons and what I wanted to act for change and create innovative initiatives. By the time I got to social work, I already had life experience and a sense that I could and wanted to take action to promote new programs. (Interview 8)

An organizational environment that encourages entrepreneurship

Another major motivator for social entrepreneurship revealed in the interviews was an organizational environment that encourages entrepreneurship. Interviewees indicated that they initiated and implemented more innovative ideas in welfare services where managers were committed to entrepreneurship, encouraged it, and saw it as a legitimate way to respond to new challenges. Maayan, who started a new project to promote employment in the city, explained:

My affiliation with the social services department was open because the head of the department was very open and ready for any of my ideas. They really encouraged me to go where I wanted to go. There was nothing I wanted to promote that was restricted. There is no doubt that the backing I received all these years within the system is what motivated me and enabled me to take initiative. (Interview 15)

According to the participants, an organizational environment that encourages entrepreneurship may include formal policies or mechanisms that express a commitment to social entrepreneurship, such as goal setting, task forces, rewards, and formal training for entrepreneurship in the organization. It may include informal policies expressed in the interpersonal support from managers and/or colleagues, and in encouraging critical thinking, creativity, and learning from the successes that drive social entrepreneurship. This was the case with Shira, a social entrepreneur who established a service for single women from the ultra-Orthodox community in the city where she is employed:

In team meetings, my manager raised the importance of social entrepreneurship and forming task forces, and she encouraged me to think creatively and out of the box as a community worker. She and other employees in the service gave me the legitimacy to promote change in a different way than they had done in the past. I created a language of community work with the ultra-Orthodox society, a different language, and promoted innovative solutions tailored to this population. (Interview 9)

Action strategies for promoting and implementing social enterprises

Resident participation

Interviewees identified resident participation as a key action strategy in promoting and implementing social entrepreneurship. This strategy included group participation from the communities in which social workers operate – participation from local leaders, stakeholders, and service customers – to influence the planning and ensure effective implementation of the social program. In her remarks, Ronza, a community social worker, illustrated these aspects:

It is impossible to promote change without the residents. It is important to hear their point of view, their experiences, their familiarity with social problems, and their acquaintance with other residents. One needs to think about how to make it effective through clear goals and actions. (Interview 16)

Interview findings indicate that a partnership with residents was required at various stages of the initiative, including defining the problem to be addressed by the social enterprise. Lior, a community social worker who promoted an initiative for the disabled population, described the involvement of residents through action teams that mobilized resources and implemented social initiatives:

In the first stage, we had small consultations with different groups of residents. We wanted to hear what everyone thought of the venture, and what everyone would like to include in it. Then we decided to hold our first conference, which was attended by almost 200 residents who later took part in various stages to promote the enterprise. (Interview 22)

As reflected in the interviews, residents also took part in operating and participating in social initiatives – a situation in which trial and error could be used to improve the knowledge base of community social workers about the services provided through these enterprises.

Establishment and operation of coalitions

Another action strategy adopted by participants was the establishment and operation of coalitions through which they conducted campaigns to promote social enterprises. Many interviewees described this strategy as recruiting a group of activists with an interest in the enterprise, including activists from the third sector or the business sector, who agreed to collaborate to promote social change through the innovative service. In the case of a municipal enterprise for people with disabilities, Yael, a community social worker, emphasized the significant role played by the coalition she established in promoting the social initiative:

I was assisted by bodies and associations that identified with my vision and helped me lead the change. The coalition played a significant role in promoting the venture. Today, the coalition has a number of organizations and continues to promote important issues for children with disabilities within the framework of the venture. (Interview 3)

In other cases, community social workers strove to include municipal factors in the coalitions, in order to receive authorization from prominent policy actors to promote social enterprises in the city. As described by Yossi, a community social worker:

I would not have been able to continue promoting the venture without the involvement of municipal political figures. The mayor himself wanted to be involved in the venture to make sure that it was professional, and only then did he give me his blessing to continue. (Interview 1)

A number of participants emphasized the benefit of collaborative coalitions in promoting the enterprise and developing ties with people outside the coalition who may be able to assist in promoting the social enterprise. In the case of a social enterprise for immigrant families from Ethiopia, Roni, a community social worker, described the importance of forming coalitions for the long-term success of the social enterprise:

Ultimately, we’re talking about one crazy person who builds a group around him/her to promote the venture. In my case, people suggested different ideas to promote the venture, and they recruited others in the process. You can’t do it alone. If you try to do so, you will fail very quickly. (Interview 25)

Utilizing available resources

Community social workers utilized various available resources to promote and implement social initiatives. These included human resources – recruiting and activating community volunteers to assist in running the venture. Volunteers were not paid for their services and did not have professional training; therefore, participants promoted training programs to mentor volunteers on how to carry out initiatives. For example, Hiba, a community social worker at a local social service department in an Arab community in the north of the country, emphasized that by utilizing available resources, she was able to operate the social enterprise, prove its necessity, and obtain the necessary municipal resources to establish and continue operating the social enterprise:

When we started the project, we did not have municipal resources or budgets, so we had to recruit and train volunteers from the community, believing that when we saw results and the project was successful, we would get resources from the municipality or the Ministry of Welfare. When we did prove that we were successful and that the program provided a solution for the population in an innovative way, we received resources to establish the social enterprise in the city. (Interview 17)

According to participants, they also raised material resources like funds and physical structures required to advance their ventures. Community social workers mapped out the required resources and located relevant funds, businesses, and private donors to promote the projects, as described by one of the participants:

I had to examine what material resources were needed to run the program and look for budgets and resources that would make it viable. (Interview 6)

Media use

Media use was highlighted by participants as an important action strategy for promoting social enterprises. Such strategies included the use of broadcast media and social networks to expose the social problems to residents, point out deficiencies in current services and policies, and offer alternatives through social enterprises. One participant described the role of communication in social entrepreneurship for young people from the Arab community:

To promote the initiative for young people in the city we worked on several levels through social media – Facebook, Twitter, and diverse local networks. The communication through those channels is stronger than anywhere else. Facebook has a strong influence on the residents and the decision-makers here. (Interview 7)

In general, interviewees described the use of media as an intensive, ongoing, and essential means of increasing community awareness and strengthening the participation of local community members to create solutions and implement them. Oren, a community social worker, remarked that to make appropriate use of the media, it is important to know the community in depth, including the commonly used social media:

In order to promote the social entrepreneur in the media, it is important to learn about the community, power relations, how the community is run, who its leaders are, who makes the decisions, what the community lacks, and which channels of communication it is exposed to. (Interview 23)

Active involvement in political arenas

Active involvement in political arenas was identified as another key action strategy adopted by community social workers. Social workers’ efforts to influence policy makers, especially at the local level, were prominent in the interviews. This includes participation of community social workers in committee meetings and municipal forums in which they presented the social problems and the innovative ways of dealing with them through the social enterprises. As demonstrated by Shani, a community social worker:

I regularly take part in meetings or forums attended by decision-makers in the city. explain what it means to be a woman affected by domestic violence who comes out of a shelter for battered women without a family support network to guide and support her in the early stages of her process, which is critical to her ability to assimilate into the community and to her emotional wellbeing. There is no solution in the community for this accompaniment and support as an alternative to the absence of family support, and it is therefore important to advance initiatives that provide a solution to this problem. (Interview 2)

Moreover, in order to exert pressure on decision-makers and effect change through the social enterprise, entrepreneurs did not act alone, often encouraging the participation of residents who are suffering from the problem. As Miri pointed out in her interview, this participation led the city’s decision-makers to believe in and support the importance of the social enterprise. Their support was significant in promoting change:

It means going to the city committees with these women and fighting for the things you believe in. You talk about reality. You don’t talk about something that is disconnected. There is no doubt that once you see the women and hear their stories, it affects the decision making. (Interview 19)

It is worth noting in conclusion that many study participants reported that they adopted several action strategies simultaneously and in an integrated way to promote social enterprises.

Discussion

The present study sheds light on avenues for promoting and implementing social entrepreneurship in community practice. It reveals individual and organizational motivations for engaging in social entrepreneurship as well the methods employed by those engaging in social entrepreneurship. The results of this study can serve as a foundation for developing training modules for social work students and for continuing education.

Community social workers in the present study recognized that they must act in different and varied ways to promote and assimilate their entrepreneurial ideas. This includes soliciting participation among community members at various stages of the planning and implementation processes. It includes building coalitions with activists in the third sector, business, and municipal sectors to promote the entrepreneurial thinking that leads to innovative change required in social enterprise. Finally, it includes utilizing available resources such as recruiting volunteers and material resources to run the venture, using media and social networks to raise awareness, as well as active involvement in political arenas to persuade policymakers to adopt and promote the social initiative.

The adoption of these strategies suggests that some community social workers have the knowledge and skills to promote social entrepreneurship ‘from below’, within the government welfare services in which they are employed, and to successfully address institutional challenges and barriers. In fact, the findings indicate that there are social workers who do not necessarily strive to sustain social order, political stability, and the search for consensus; rather, they work to challenge social order and the status quo to create sustainable impact through assimilation of an entrepreneurial idea.

Existing literature has highlighted the role of community social workers in social entrepreneurship, creating partnerships between organizations and active involvement in political arenas to address the root of social problems and promote transformative change (Dentato et al., 2010; Nandan et al., 2015). The present study identifies additional action strategies such as utilizing available resources, forming diverse coalitions with both residents and organizations, and media use. To the best of our knowledge, these aspects have not been identified in the context of social workers in general and community practice in particular, but they echo the notion that social entrepreneurship in community practice involves the participation of community members to promote innovative solutions that improve their quality of life (Haugh, 2007; Korsgaard, 2011).

Together with these courses of action, the findings of the present study indicate that three main factors motivate social entrepreneurship in community social work: professional ideology for social change; self-efficacy regarding the ability to influence social change; and an organizational environment that encourages entrepreneurship. In addition, these findings demonstrate the deep commitment of community social workers to the goals of the profession and the principles of community work, with an emphasis on promoting social change to reduce social inequalities and facilitate equal access to social resources. Indeed, these aspects have been emphasized in previous literature in the context of the role of community workers (e.g. Rubin and Rubin, 2001); the present study reiterates these concepts in the context of social entrepreneurship. As social entrepreneurs committed to change, community social workers are working to implement social enterprises. Their activities undermine the status quo to promote the required social change.

The commitment of community social workers to facilitate social change is reinforced by another key finding of the current study, which points to the absence of any differences between Jewish and Arab community social workers in the ways of working to promote ventures and in their motivations to act as social entrepreneurs. Previous literature dealing with ethnic minorities demonstrates that ethnic identity may influence the pursuit of social entrepreneurship, especially when it comes to minorities in the country who face inequality, hostility, and exclusion. Inequality and exclusion may be linked to a low self-efficacy perception, fear of authorities, and a lack of willingness to take risks, thus reducing engagement in social entrepreneurship (Dheer, 2018).

However, the findings of the present study clarify that community social workers employed by public social service agencies in the local authorities in Israel, which are subject to policies set by the Community Social Work Services as a governmental unit that promotes training and guidance for the development of community projects, are committed to social change through the promotion and implementation of social projects. These findings point to personal self-efficacy of community social workers, regardless of their ethnic identity. Creating an environment that enables and encourages social entrepreneurship has been presented in previous research as a necessary requirement for the advancement thereof (Chan et al., 2019).

All participants in the present study stressed the importance of promoting formal support mechanisms in public welfare services, such as setting goals in the service, forming task forces, and formal training for entrepreneurship in the organization. Success was also enhanced by informal support mechanisms such as encouraging critical thinking, creativity, and learning from successes. These findings highlight the central role of managers in the public welfare services in which community social workers are employed, to provide social entrepreneurship training and support in the entrepreneurship process. This is likely to increase the social workers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and their involvement in social entrepreneurship.

As with many qualitative studies, the main limitation is the ‘screenshot’ representation of a successful innovative service at a given time, following the completion of an entrepreneurial activity. Therefore, a full picture of all action strategies that may have contributed to the success of the enterprises was unavailable. The study was also based on a small sample of social workers. In order to evaluate motives and action strategies in social entrepreneurship, we recommend that additional studies be conducted among broad populations. Nevertheless, by focusing on this group of community social workers who succeeded in implementing social enterprises, we were able to gather rich information on the topic. This information allows for an in-depth understanding and identification of factors that promote successful social entrepreneurship in social work in the current era. We recommend that future studies examine the broad evidence of social entrepreneurship in community contexts at different points in time, in diverse public and privatized welfare services, and that different methodologies be used.

Conclusion and recommendations

It can be concluded that the practice of social entrepreneurship in community social work is not sufficiently assimilated into the professional field. Although the study examined social entrepreneurship among community social workers in Israel and focused on motives and strategies for social entrepreneurship, it also showed that social entrepreneurship and innovation are not a routine practice in social services but that they are unique to the organizations that enable community social workers to do so. Therefore, identifying motivational factors for social entrepreneurship and ways to promote it within public welfare services presents interesting and important insights for the development of social entrepreneurship skills. The findings of the present study highlight the ability of social workers to act as social entrepreneurs and to succeed in their endeavors. In particular, the findings point to the importance of encouraging entrepreneurship in public social welfare services and to the importance of acquiring knowledge and skills for entrepreneurship that increase the perception of self-efficacy for change.

A clear conclusion concerns the need to expand theoretical and empirical understandings regarding social entrepreneurship in social work in general and from a perspective of community work in community welfare services in particular, while developing models and operative approaches to promote training in the field. The findings of the present study may encourage and teach community social workers and students in Israel and other countries around the world how to succeed in social entrepreneurship. In these training frameworks, emphasis should be placed on developing the necessary skills to promote innovative solutions to complex social problems.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hani Nouman

Author biographies

Hani Nouman is a senior lecturer and Head of the MA program and the Pre-Master’s program at the School of Social Work,University of Haifa,Israel. Her research examines the interface between multicultural social work and social policy;specifically,policy practice with emphasis on minority groups,social entrepreneurship in social work,and community interventions with minority groups.

Ram A Cnaan is a Professor and Director of the Program for Religion and Social Policy Research at the University of Pennsylvania,School of Social Policy & Practice. Professor Cnaan has published numerous articles in scientific journals on a variety of social issues (mainly faith-based organizations,volunteerism,criminal justice,social policy,social innovation,and social development). He serves as an eminent international scholar at Kyung Hee University.

References

Battilana

Leca

Boxenbaum

(2009) How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 65–107.

Bent-Goodley

(2002) Defining and conceptualizing social work entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Work Education 38(2): 291–302.

Berzin

(2012) Where is social work in the social entrepreneurship movement? Social Work 57(2): 185–188.

Boehm

Cnaan

(2012) Towards a practice-based model for community practice: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 39(1): 141–168.

Boehm

Cohen

(2012) Development of a community enterprise. In: Hovav

Lawental

Katan

(eds) Social Work in Israel (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, pp. 238–257.

British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (2021) Code of ethics. Available at: https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics (accessed 10 September 2022).

Brueggemann

(2014) The Practice of Macro Social Work. Salt Lake City, UT: Brooks Cole.

Bruton

Ahlstrom

(2010) Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34(3): 421–440.

Chan

Chui

CHK

Chan

KST

, et al. (2019) The role of the social innovation and entrepreneurship development fund in fostering social entrepreneurship in Hong Kong: A study on public policy innovation. Social Policy and Administration 53(6): 903–919.

10.

Chandra

Shang

(2021) Social entrepreneurship interventions in the HIV/AIDS sector: A social entrepreneurship–social work perspective. International Social Work 64(1): 5–23.

11.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. London: SAGE.

12.

Cnaan

Vinokur-Kaplan

(2014) Cases in Innovative Nonprofits: Organizations That Make a Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2015) Directory of accredited programs. Available at: https://www.cswe.org/ (accessed 12 September 2022).

14.

De Corte

Roose

Bradt

, et al. (2018) Service users with experience of poverty as institutional entrepreneurs in public services in Belgium: An institutional theory perspective on policy implementation. Social Policy and Administration 52(1): 197–215.

15.

Dentato

Craig

Smith

(2010) The vital role of social workers in community partnerships: The alliance for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 27(5): 323–334.

16.

Dheer

RJS

(2018) Entrepreneurship by immigrants: A review of existing literature and directions for future research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14(3): 555–614.

17.

Dominelli

(2004) Social Work: Theory and Practice for a Changing Profession. Cambridge: Polity Press.

18.

Germak

Singh

(2010) Social entrepreneurship: Changing the way social workers do business. Administration in Social Work 34(1): 79–95.

19.

Gilboa

Weiss-Gal

(2022) Change from within: Community social workers as local policy actors. The British Journal of Social Work 52: 3540–3558.

20.

Green

Thorogood

(2009) Qualitative Methods for Health Research. London: SAGE.

21.

Haugh

(2007) Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(2): 161–182.

22.

Hoffman

(1999) Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42(4): 351–371.

23.

Israel Association of Social Workers (ISASW) (2018) Code of ethics. Available at: https://socialwork.org.il/prdFiles/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93%20%D7%94%D7%90%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94%20%D7%94%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%202018.pdf (accessed 10 September 2022).

24.

Itzhaky

Bustin

(2018) Community practice and community organization: A conceptual understanding. In: Cnaan

Milofsy

(eds) Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations in the 21st Century. Cham: Springer, pp. 245–263.

25.

Itzhaky

York

(2002) Showing results in community organization. Social Work 47(2): 125–131.

26.

Kajiita

Kang’ethe

(2021) Creating alternative interventions in social work to promote socio-economic development in South Africa: Lessons from selected social enterprises. International Social Work. Epub ahead of print 29 April. DOI: 10.1177/0020872820972463.

27.

Katan

(2012) The welfare services – main roles, components and characteristics. In: Hovav

Lawental

Katan

(eds) Social Work in Israel (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, pp. 419–443.

28.

Korazim-Körösy

(2000) Toward a new balance between governmental and non-governmental community work: The case of Israel. Community Development Journal 35(3): 276–289.

29.

Korsgaard

(2011) Opportunity formation in social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 5(4): 265–285.

30.

Lombard

Wairire

(2010) Developmental social work in South Africa and Kenya: Some lessons for Africa. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher 22: 98–111.

31.

Meyer

Rowan

(1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.

32.

Nandan

Scott

(2013) Social entrepreneurship and social work: The need for a transdisciplinary educational model. Administration in Social Work 37(3): 257–271.

33.

Nandan

London

Bent-Goodle

(2015) Social workers as social change agents: Social innovation, social intrapreneurship, and social entrepreneurship. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance 39(1): 38–56.

34.

Nandan

London

Blum

(2014) Community practice social entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary approach to graduate education. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3(1): 51–70.

35.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2017) Code of ethics. Available at: https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics (accessed 12 September 2022).

36.

Neal

(2015) The intersection of social work and social enterprise. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 12(2): 1–9.

37.

Nouman

Cnaan

(2021) Toolbox recommendations for social workers to promote successful social entrepreneurship. Social Work 66(4): 317–328.

38.

Recanati-Kop-Rashi Award Association (2018) Recanati-Kop-Rashi award for the entrepreneur teacher and social worker. Available at: https://www.rcr.org.il (accessed 12 September 2022).

39.

Rothman

(2007) Multi modes of intervention at the macro level. Journal of Community Practice 15(4): 11–40.

40.

Rubin

(2001) Community Organizing and Development. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

41.

Sadan

(2012) Community Work: Methods for Social Change (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: United Kibbutz Publishing House.

42.

Sawyer

Brady

(2020) A framework for analyzing, developing, and applying community practice interventions. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 47: 113–141.

43.

Schram

(2015) The Return of Ordinary Capitalism: Neoliberalism, Precarity, Occupy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Sinclair

Mazzei

Baglioni

, et al. (2018) Social innovation, social enterprise, and local public services: Undertaking transformation? Social Policy and Administration 52(7): 1317–1331.

45.

Thoenig

(2012) Institutional theories and public institutions: Traditions and appropriateness. In: Peters

Pierre

(eds) Handbook of Public Administration. London: SAGE, pp. 169–179.